The document summarizes different accounts of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 in the Philippines. The Spanish account by Rafael Izquierdo portrayed the mutiny as a premeditated revolution organized by native clergy and Filipino lawyers to overthrow Spanish rule. However, Trinidad Pardo de Tavera's Filipino account described it as a mutiny by dissatisfied soldiers that was exaggerated by the Spanish to maintain control. Both accounts agree that the mutiny was crushed and leaders like Fathers Burgos, Gomez, and Zamora (Gom-Bur-Za) were executed, sparking nationalist sentiment.
The document summarizes different accounts of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 in the Philippines. The Spanish account by Rafael Izquierdo portrayed the mutiny as a premeditated revolution organized by native clergy and Filipino lawyers to overthrow Spanish rule. However, Trinidad Pardo de Tavera's Filipino account described it as a mutiny by dissatisfied soldiers that was exaggerated by the Spanish to maintain control. Both accounts agree that the mutiny was crushed and leaders like Fathers Burgos, Gomez, and Zamora (Gom-Bur-Za) were executed, sparking nationalist sentiment.
The document summarizes different accounts of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 in the Philippines. The Spanish account by Rafael Izquierdo portrayed the mutiny as a premeditated revolution organized by native clergy and Filipino lawyers to overthrow Spanish rule. However, Trinidad Pardo de Tavera's Filipino account described it as a mutiny by dissatisfied soldiers that was exaggerated by the Spanish to maintain control. Both accounts agree that the mutiny was crushed and leaders like Fathers Burgos, Gomez, and Zamora (Gom-Bur-Za) were executed, sparking nationalist sentiment.
The document summarizes different accounts of the Cavite Mutiny of 1872 in the Philippines. The Spanish account by Rafael Izquierdo portrayed the mutiny as a premeditated revolution organized by native clergy and Filipino lawyers to overthrow Spanish rule. However, Trinidad Pardo de Tavera's Filipino account described it as a mutiny by dissatisfied soldiers that was exaggerated by the Spanish to maintain control. Both accounts agree that the mutiny was crushed and leaders like Fathers Burgos, Gomez, and Zamora (Gom-Bur-Za) were executed, sparking nationalist sentiment.
Source: Rafael Izquierdo, “Official Report on the Cavite Mutiny.” In Gregorio Zaide and Sonia Zaide, Documentary Sources of Philippine History, Volume 7. It seems definite that the insurrection was motivated and prepared by the native clergy, by the mestizos and native lawyers, and by those known here as abogadillos. The instigators, to carry out their criminal project, protested against the injustice of the government in not paying the provinces for their tobacco crop, and against the usury that some practice in documents that the Finance department gives crop owners who have to sell them at a loss. They encouraged the rebellion by protesting what they called the injustice of having obliged the workers in the Cavite arsenal to pay tribute starting January 1 and to render personal service from which they were formerly exempted. Up to now it has not been clearly determined if they planned to established a monarchy or republic, because the Indios have no word in their language to describe this different from of government, whose head in Filipino would be called hari; but it turns out that they would place at the head of the government a priest that the head selected would be D. Jose Burgos or D. Jacinto Zamora. Such is the plan of the rebels those who guided them, and the means they counted upon for its realization. It is apparent that the accounts underscore the reason for the “revolution” the abolition of privileges enjoyed by the workers of the Cavite arsenal such as exemption from payment of tribute and being employed in seemingly made the issue a lot more serious, which included the presence of the native clergy who, out of spite against the Spanish friars, “ conspired and supported” the rebels. Izquierdo, in an obviously biased report, highlighted that the attempt to overthrow the Spanish government in the Philippines to instll a new “hari” in the persons of Fathers Burgos and Zamora. According to him, native clergy attracted supporters by giving them charismatic assurance that their fight would not fail because they had God’s support, aside from promises of lofty rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army. In the Spaniards accounts, the event of 1872 was premeditated and was part of a big conspiracy among the educated leaders, mestizos, lawyers, and residents of Manila and Cavite. They allegedly plan to liquidate high ranking Spanish officers, then kill the friars. The signal they identified among these conspirators of Manila and Cavite was the rockets fired from Intramuros. The accounts detail that on January 20, 1872, the district of Sampaloc celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto and came with it were some fireworks display. The Cavitenos allegedly mistook this as the signal to commence with the attack. The 200-men contingent led by Sergeant Lamadrid attacked Spanish officers at sight and seized the arsenal. Izquierdo, learning of the attack, ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed, when the Manilenos who were expected to aid the Cavitenos did not arrive. Leaders of the plot were killed in the resulting skirmish, while Fathers Gomez, Burgos and Zamora were tried by a court-martial and sentenced to be executed. Others who were implicated such as Joaquin Pardo de Tavera, Antonio Ma. Regidor, Jose and Pio Basa and other Filipino lawyers were suspended from the practice of law, arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment at the Marianas Island. Izquierdo dissolved the native regiments of artillery and ordered the creation of an artillery force composed exclusively by Peninsulares. On 17th of February 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed to serve as a threat to Filipinos never to attempt to fight the Spaniards again. Differing Accounts of the events of 1872 Excerpts from Pardo de Tavera’s Account of the Cavite Mutiny Source: Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, “Filipino Version of the Cavite Mutiny” in Gregorio ZAide and Sonia Zaide, (Documentary sources of Philippine History, Volume 7. This uprising among the soldiers in Cavite was used as a powerful level by the Spanish residents and by the friars, the Central Government in Madrid had announced its intention to deprive the friars in these islands of powers of intervention in matters of civil government and of the direction and management of the university. It was due to these facts and promises that the Filipino had great hopes of an improvement in the affairs of their country, while the friars, on the other hand feared that their power in the colony would soon be complete a thing of the past. Up to that time there had been no intention of secession from Spain, and the only aspiration of the people was to secure the material and education advancement of the country. According to this account, the incident was merely a mutiny by Filipino soldiers and laborers of the Cavite arsenal to the dissatisfaction arising from the draconian policies of Izquierdo, such as the abolition of privileges and the prohibition of the founding of the school of Arts and Trades for Filipinos, which the General saw as smokescreen to creating a political club. Tavera is of the opinion that Spanish friars and Izquierdo used the Cavite Mutiny as a way to address other issues by blowing out of proportion the mutiny attempt. During this time, the Central Government in Madrid was planning to deprive the friars of all the powers of intervention in matters of civil government and direction and management of educational institutions. The friars needed something to justify their continuing dominance in the country, and the mutiny provided such opportunity. However, the Central Spanish Government introduced an educational decree fusing secretarian schools run by the friars into a school called the Philippine Institute. The decree aimed to improve the standard of education in the Philippines by requiring teaching positions in these schools to be filled by competitive examinations, an improvement welcomed by most Filipinos. Martyrdom of Gom-Bur-Za In 1870, a new government came to power in Spain and returned dictatorship to the Philippines. The new governor general, Rafael De Izquierdo, as a tyrant. He stopped all the reforms of the previous governor, took away the rights and liberty of the Filipinos, and oppressed them. On the night of February 20, 1872, some Filipino soldiers and workers at the Cavite arsenal mutinied. They killed the Spanish officers and captured the fort. But on the following day, they lost in a bloody fight with government troops. Many mutineers were killed. Other patriotic Filipinos were also arrested and tried in military courts. Three of the most famous victims of the Cavity Mutiny trials were Fathers Jose Burgos, Mariano Gomez and Jacinto Zamora. Because of their surenames, they are called “Gom-Bur-Za”. They were Filipino Priest who had fought for reforms. Now they were accused of treason to Spain and tried in an unfair trial. Although they were priests, they were strangled to death at the garrote in Luneta, Their execution was a big scandal in the Philippines at the time. But their martyrdom inspired Filipinos to fight harder for reforms. References: John Lee P. Candelaria and Veronica C. Alporha, Readings in Philippine History, (Rex Book Store, C.M Recto, Davao City, 2018), P56-62.
Gregorio F. Zaide and Sonia M. Zaide, Philippine History and Government, (Davao City Library), All Nations Publishing Co. Inc., Quezon City Philippines, P109
https://filipiknow.net/historical-controversies-philippines/ (Kasaysayan, The Story of
The Exiles of Florida
or, The crimes committed by our government against the
Maroons, who fled from South Carolina and other slave
states, seeking protection under Spanish laws.
The Exiles of Florida
or, The crimes committed by our government against the
Maroons, who fled from South Carolina and other slave
states, seeking protection under Spanish laws.
