Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • The Cavite Mutinity

    Uploaded by

    RINOA KEISHA CORTEZ
    10 views14 pages

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    10 views14 pages

    The Cavite Mutinity

    Uploaded by

    RINOA KEISHA CORTEZ

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 14
    JOHN N, SCHUMACHER, S.J. 2. Ml Ghdee | 7 6a (1): sg.) . *y The Cavite Mutiny Yoward a Sefinitive Nistory « ~ ‘Textbook accounts of the 1872 revol Cavite generally see it as a mutiny of Filipina soldiers and arsenal workers over local grievances, often portraying it as instigated by the friars with the intention of eliminating the priests and lawyers agitating for reforms. This article, basing itself principally on the extensive account sent by Governor Izquierdo to the Overseas Minister, accepts his characterization of the revolt as a frustrated separatist revolution, white rejecting his conctusions es to the instigators of the revolt, Rather, it points to the real authors who escaped execution because of their Masonic ties to Izquierdo. KEYWORDS: SEPARATIST REVOLT « SPANISH COLONIALISM + JOSE BURGOS - MASONRY + HISTORIOGRAPHY PHILUPPINE STUOTES 59, NO. 1 (2003) 65-81 © Ateneo de Maria University tree can at ytbe no complete closure onthe Cav tha oceared in January 1872, since the secs ol pave at yet been fume. Ahongh the Spanish gov has declared thea lx, and researc have not Located any the Philippine National Archives (PNA), nos of 1, but nating snface from te ie were once ut least some records 1d in what would become the PNA ‘he suing atcha mite Aefiitve histor of the mutiny “Tantoak testments ae based on a few often contadictory seeaunts forthe most pa, and the only sexious book pofesedly onthe subject, Low though using some valuable docurmestaryseurees, only pai, and contine spurious and contaditory materia, Taquierdo’ comprehensive account—accompanied by 2 reper oder of the Navy, detailing its part (Carballo 1872)—is ach a itis a confidential letter to a super ing the military events ofthe anutiny. Presupposing h account ofthese events, we wil ter Ne pyrigeome sTunns £8.40 the forces that Tequierde would send under the command of the deputy plain General (General Segundo Cabs, Pps Gon Espna te put down the tevotin Cate This involve would bbe couSnned ater by Octo the frewors rom the Sempalac Besta forthe agreed 5 Vida 1895, }573,"but aany case, they wet Yo arms Between 800 and instead of waiting for the 1m Manila. The plan ‘wast set fies in Tondo s0 that, while the extinguishing them, theaters regi i Id take possesion of Fo Santiago andl signal io thse of Cavite by means of caneon shot {conkary to what he bad said shove about the by 390 men. chief, Casimiro Camerino, who weve wail 55). ‘These seinforcements were prevented from sted to them by lanterns ining Bacoor to News of the message brough lane having been killed, apparently by men of summoned the forces toarns, and by BAM they et ved ‘The latter eae and reviewed the toe Rote of Anonymous Reports Iaytiedo had ne need of sch a story to put him on the alet for on 19 January he had already eceived an ancnymous leer, as had the acting commander of ‘Tmake knowin te you that, a5 E was inforrnad this very night. i the market here [Cavite} and in the watts [Intramuros] on Fridey or ‘Saturday ofthis week they wit ire @ canoe shot inthe fort of Manila, the sign of revolt against the Spanierds. They are taking tis occasion since the squadan isnot here, Theone wlo%s acting the head ofthe evo is the Very Reverand Father Burgos in Manila, and in Cavite the artilory sergeants and the corporats of the native marines, (BNM, ms 13,228; in Torro Sanz 1977, 70) rmatines and artileryn Ahem, theic conmmander xa to drive the rebels barracks and send them back inta Fort San Felipe, They would be the Loyal the rebels dieaugh laquierdo 1872b, 413; Car equi (1872b, 20-21) alo mentions ns that “ho ofc who were tne aiestin the fort were found, the one dead and the oer sriouly wounded Although he didnot identify Une a sy why they wer the Spanish ‘were named Moxquesho and José Mo Fiat Rufén they hed commanded the re loyal troops teok the fort, M eae ofthe ches, wile Merquech pu gun to time ater (Vergara 1896, Vicente Lépen Morgnecho bah ofcers of regiment no. 7 (Torme 1978, the rebel, who had no officer higher oft sumably Morguecho} was not wotivation will be disused the lve chacacer ofthe uptsing. iced the cause ofthe upssing in n ofthe anenat wotkes from the Fibute and wotkers to have taken part Contrary to these accounts fog [Regi describes the revolt as purely mititary—exc the arsenal workers, mach more the £0 afler the suppresion of the mm based on ~ poniroane stuns a 6 £1203) it woutd develop that the erew of the figate Berengiela indeed had been {Octavo] 1872, 165; Izquierdo 18724), but appaccutly, Preparation of the Mutiny mth inergatn oe Cont Ost te sf asearly as Novernber tached by the marine ame toa list on a Manenson told Francisco Zaldia. had come fiom the CaiteRo Although Octavo Lanyard of the iid. 155 the sagas corpora and olden of regiment a. Vand 2 thas in Mauls) wer sho ‘po peninsular fas would have ill al male Spaniards, inchuding he ofthe country (Laquierdo of Region, he has seized on fair names ier 1991, 76 . te Montesines and Morqvecho, itis impos out of resenbment at their to give gh the teva isa strong ay tion that the revolt was not a mere contemporary acconts of the mutiny Plauchot (teroming in larger part fom Regidor {Schumacher 1981, 7-74) to was alc tnetances, ied up hy the fins fortheit own puspescs Fo asalleged authon ofa seperatit revoltaganst Spain that thexe m epaced tothe Maranst. Atgas and mos subsequent wit this depoton ofthe ceva as being in nosy spats. The evidence Eom Inquierdo's aecount and that of Octavo indicates the contrary. Arrests In Manila and Cavite were ntasd Municipal for 24 1872), Fi. Mariano Gsm? ™ . ethane SUDHES a. 0 | 1) (Gomer 1922, 117), and was not becouse the soldiers had sil o get to Bacoor to arest ifeanee for delerinining wheth those punished were Tetter to the Overseas ial process had begun, nar had he prisoners in Cavite, He says reports that T have had atout those persens for sorte time, are all motives for me of inner conviction thet they alone are the authors can happen, given the circumstances of those who were deceived and saduced, the abovementioned persons should not turd out to be guilty Tem. ‘alse ready to edopt with them a strong measure, their eile to the Marianas, (zquierdo 1872a} sone CAVE MUTINY Burgos came to visit him, and was arrested there. Presumably notat this time, though Artigas does not make it clear, the house was searched, and a note was found summoning Zamora to a “big reunion .. - the friends will come well supplied with bullets and powder.” On the basis of this Zamora was arrested, though the contents of the note were only a gambler’s expression for coming well supplied with money. Zamora was an inveterate gambler (ibid, 141-42). Artigas also relates another anecdote to show that Zamora ‘was not aware of the Cavite revolt until the next morning (ibid., 148-49). Tt appears, then, that his house was searched and he was arrested later, but before 31 January, when l2quierdo (1872b, 53) names him or Burgos as head ofthe revolutionary government, Laza mmusthave been arrested ‘with Zamora, or shortly after, if Artigas’s first anecdote is partially correct. Certainly he appeats on 3 February with Fr, Justo Goson {Guazon] and Fr. Vicente del Rosario as additions to those under arsest (Izquierdo 1872c)- Besides the priests, the following Jawyers oF businessmen had been arrested, in addition to those mentioned earlier: Gervacio Sanchez, Pedro Carrillo, Méximo Inecencio, Balbino Mauricio, and Grisanto de los Reyes {ibid}. Fre, Pedro Dandan and Anacleto Desiderio would be arrested together Nath Ramon Maurente and Méximo Paterno on 20 February (PNA 1872). ‘At an unknown date, José Basa y Enrfquez, who was 10 receive the highest sentence of banishment to the Marianas, ten years, as added, completing thelist of those who would be exiled (SHM 1872)¢ {nquierdo’s Views on the instigators of the Mutiny Iti evident from Izquierdo's wars letters that he changed his judgment an who were the teal authors of the revolt, though hee was resolved to rid the country even of hose not found grilty In his fitter (laquierdo 1872a) he Tents hirnselt those noted above. [n that of 31 January, when investigations had progressed, the name of Feliciano Gémez had disappeared, but others ad been added, However, he isisted that “among the prisoners, Press and jaymen, are found the principal authors and instigators of the insurrection we soo as the proofs eceive complete justification, they will serve a basis that there be applied to them a merited and exernplary punishenent, a severe as the erime committed demands” (Izquierdo 1872b, 49). ve head of the revolutionary government would be “with great probability, anos certainly, Fr, Jos Burgos oF. Jacinto Zamors, priests of the pais of San Pedro of Manila” (bia, 53). He aso, without narning 207 PHILIPPINE STUDIES $9,802 2010) “Pris content downloaded Krom 130.133.8114 o8 Wed, 04 Jan 2017 12:88:27 UTE Rise subject to hap/aboutjstororgfeims t names, mentioned the junta, which hadbeen in existence “since 1869, taking, vantage of elements from the revolt planned ia 1863," whose meetings he Mer Loca of through anonymous sources and publie umnot, Dot haul not an able to surprise. Nonetheless being confident that be would be able 10 eect any aetion on their part, he had contimcd to wateh over the situation (bid,, 57-59). a his letter of 3 Webriary, whem all buta few hud beer arrested, Manuel oeessa, the prosecutor inthe sitary tabu requested of Izquierdo the a ofthe cleven priests and eleven laymen on tia (PNA 1672). in ceply. Iaquierdo answered that all the priests were ‘considered since 1869 to be ploting against Spain, and expecially Burbs Zamora, Guevara, Mendoza, Pemiaee Comer, Mariano Sevilla and Miguel de Lava, ‘ali being members of the Filipino club. As for the other laymnen ramed, they have the same cords of plating, but especially Bnrique Perso, ‘whom “public opinion reece te be one ofthe principal instigators, autos and directors of the ‘Cavite revolt, in elose union and of lke purposes with the priests,” BUrEOS Zamora, Gucvara, Mendoza, and Mariano ‘Gémez (Iequierdo 1872e)7 What acions is that Paraiso is especially accused for Being the ardent propagator ‘of the “amti-Spanish” newspaper, "cI Reo Filipino, which indeed he was fTormo 1973, 99) But to have been such in connection with the priests Jecms notto be true. For the clergy were in fact supporting the newspaper, El Comeo de Expata (ibid, 113-14, £33). In all the ‘correspondence Izquierdo screed, there is 0 mention ofthe accused clay Raving anything to do sah BI Bo Filipino." Indeed, 28 that corespondence shows the principal correspondent and distributor ofthat newspaper was the brother-in-law of Soopon José Ma, Basa (Torno 1973, %-100, 102), who does not receive ane tion foxn lzquierdo hee, I seems cleat fom thisTetter that Lzquierdo Je especally focused on the priests, and though he was ready tocxile all the ae aerjers ofthe junta to the Marianas, who were all “conspiring against the tater County.” the five press he considered to be directly implicated in the revolt, together with Paraiso. Tr ernains to be seen why this was so. It is most clear in the case of Burgos, Evidence against Father Burgos Atigas (191), 126-30) assembled ight declarations given during interrogations, which he declared he had before his eyes, though they SCHUMACHER THE CAVITE MUTINY os Tis eoet downloaded ay 190.1388 aed on 1301338114 om Web 8 Jan 2017 12382 it hbo ed by SeugeantLamodeid at ontured, yet tested that “on appeating, Segeant La Ma ith blood, ideas te her that he was only an The was moved Montero y ied to the dying Lamadcid naming hin (cf. n. 9) unsupported. Although the exact mesnbership of the junt Father Burgos, rector of Sau Pedi, forthe goo ofthe service” Schumacher determine with cetainly, Zamora spparenty had & part 1999, 256). Clearly Burgos was singled out fora fut hae his huaving been a mvenhes ofthe supected jute, any case, by 31 January Fquierd hi sos the leadeship of th Key Rote of Francisco Zaldia that is source i the dectaration of. Burgos (whom he had revolt, and includes Pacdo, and Sera, B becomes clear th

    You might also like