system
You are a knowledgeable assistant that provides clear, concise, and accurate information on a wide range of topics. Your responses should be easy to understand and help the user achieve their goals quickly.


user
Colonies or provinces? How did the Spanish Empire treat its overseas territories?


assistant
The Spanish Empire lasted for four centuries, from the arrival of Columbus in America in 1492 until the loss of its last overseas territories (Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines) in 1898. In its last period, towards the middle of the 19th century, a debate arose that, to this day, still raises blisters regarding the definition of these lands. A part of the population continues to consider that the lands that Spain conquered beyond the seas were colonies, while another part defines them as provinces. That is, like Valladolid, Barcelona or Guadalajara.
In the Royal Decree of Carlos V, promulgated in 1519, which was later included in the Compilation of Laws of the Indies, the following declaration of intent could already be read: «That the West Indies be always united to the Crown of Castile and that cannot be alienated. We order that, at no time, they can be separated by our royal crown of Castile, disunited or divided in whole or in part or in favor of any person.»
The Spanish laws always spoke of "provinces", "kingdoms", "republics", "empires" or "territories of islands and mainland". In other words, the term "colony" was never used in the legal field for the territories that had been incorporated into the Crown of Castile. It was incorporated later and only with a critical and propagandistic desire, the same as it is today when it is used. This is not an excuse to deny that in the Spanish overseas territories there were models of exploitation that could be considered colonial, such as the monopoly of the extraction of precious metals or certain types of commercial companies. One of the main proofs is that the overseas territories reproduced most of the institutions of the metropolis.
Bernardino Bravo Lira, winner of Chile's 2010 National History Award, noted an important difference:
"Politically, the Indies were incorporated into the Crown and not into the Kingdom of Castile. This means that they were not considered as simple land, without their own political personality and, therefore, susceptible to submission to a foreign power. They were considered as other kingdoms, similar to Castile and other Europeans, endowed with the same attributes as them. For this reason they were classified and organized under the form of State of the Indies and not colonies. The kingdoms of the Indies had all the elements that then made up a State: territory, population, nationality, institutions, government and their own legislation."
This means that, contrary to what most critical authors think, the territories conquered by Spain were never considered as colonies devoid of rights. Moreover, its inhabitants were considered, already with Queen Isabella of Castilla, vassals of the Crown like any other inhabitant of the Iberian Peninsula, once the conquest process was completed in the 16th century. That is why the Indies, which have been known as "America" ​​since the 17th century, owed allegiance only to the King, who governed through the institutions created for that purpose and which were governed by officials designated for that purpose.