Comparative Analysis

Controversies and Conflicts about the Cavite Mutiny, according to the views of Trinidad Pardo De
Tavera, Jose Montero Y Vidal and Rafael Izquierdo

The aftermath of the 1872 Cavite Mutiny is believed to be the spark that ignited the desire of
Filipinos to claim freedom from the rule of the Spaniards after more than three hundred years. This brief
uprising led to the persecution of several mutineers and the public execution of three priests namely:
Mariano Gomez, Jose Burgos, and Jacinto Zamora, collectively known as “Gomburza”. However, many
people are unaware that there are varying accounts of the brief revolt. There are standpoints given by Dr.
Trinidad Pardo de Tavera, Spanish historian Jose Montero y Vidal, and Governor General Rafael
Izquierdo.

m
Dr. Trinidad de Tavera’s version recalls what Filipino soldiers and laborers of Cavite felt

er as
regarding their privileges. Gov. Izquierdo’s policies involved removing rights of the workers and of the

co
native army members, which displeased them. They also forbid the establishment of institutions for

eH w
Filipinos to learn the arts and trades, which the general believed to be a place to form an underground

o.
political group. The soldiers and laborers’ discontentment with the abolition of not having to pay for
rs e
tributes and being exempted from force labor led to an uprising which occurred on January 20, 1872 in
ou urc
which Spanish officers were killed in sight during a celebration of a feast. The higher ups in Manila heard
of the news and the governor immediately ordered support and back up for the Spanish soldiers in Cavite.
The uprising was quelled after two days.
o

Tavera thought that this event was utilized by the governor and the Spanish friars to claim it as a
aC s
vi y re

scheme by the native army and clergy and the residents of Cavite and Manila to disestablish the Spanish
government in the Philippines. This was a desperate act of friars to keep control of the country. The
government of Madrid believed their claims without examining the true cause and purpose of the
uprising. As a result, educated people who were involved were sentenced to life imprisonment while
ed d

native clergy members led by the “Gomburza” were publicly executed by garrote. This execution
ar stu

awakened the hearts of Filipinos and paved the way for the 1896 Philippine Revolution.

Jose Montero y Vidal’s documentation of the event emphasized that the mutiny was a failed effort
of native Filipinos to remove the Spaniards from power. The official account of Governor Izquierdo
is

magnified the incident and used is as a justification to clamp down on Filipinos who had been advocating
Th

for the reform of government policies. The report included details of how the Indios were influenced by
unrestrained press, democratic and liberal books and by the native clergy.

The two Spaniards considered the event to be a huge conspiracy among educated members and
sh

residents of Cavite and Manila and the native clergy. They recalled that it happened during a feast
celebration which included the usual fireworks display. Supposedly, people in Cavite mistook the
fireworks as signs of an attack and the group headed by Sergeant Lamadrid began to slaughter the
Spanish officers present. Izquierdo heard of the news and immediately called for reinforcements and the
mutiny was subdued quickly.

This study source was downloaded by 100000837646958 from CourseHero.com on 11-27-2021 00:31:45 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/54168780/Comparative-Analysisdocx/
 The repercussions involved native lawyers to be suspended from the practice of law and being
sent to the Marianas Island to be imprisoned for life and more importantly after a brief trial, sentencing
‘Gomburza” to public execution to induce fear among Filipinos so that they may never do an audacious
act again. Ironically, the harsh reaction of the Spanish authorities served eventually to encourage the
Philippine nationalist movement.

Based on the perspectives, the version of Governor Izquierdo can be considered as a primary
source since he had active participation in stopping the mutiny and he has submitted an official report
while Dr. Trinidad de Tavera’s version is a secondary source because he had not participated in the event
and he only compiled the statements of those who witnessed it. It also must be considered that Dr. de
Tavera’s adoptive Father, Joaquin was one of the alleged mutineers arrested by Izquierdo and was
imprisoned in Fort Santiago after the mutiny so there might be some truth to his claims of the Filipino’s
discontentment with the policies of the governor as the only true reason for revolting. Nevertheless, it is
important that we still consider both sides since the government of Madrid had blindly agreed with the
governor’s theory without setting up a thorough investigation to find out the truth. Therefore, it can be
assumed that Izquierdo included his own biases and opinions regarding the reason of the uprising through

m
er as
exaggeration and using Spain’s fear of losing power to his advantage.

co
eH w
For me, the better source was those of Dr. Trinidad de Tavera even if his is only a secondary
source, a compilation of statements from witnesses and possibly from people who were part of the

o.
mutiny. At that time, Spanish was in total control of Philippines and it can be said that they vastly
rs e
outnumber the country’s collection in terms of manpower, weapons and intellectuals. Filipinos had no
ou urc
chance of overthrowing the government without the unity of all Filipinos and the Spaniards had done
actions to prevent the union of Filipinos through their strict rules and policies. Dr. de Tavera’s point of
view reflected what the native workers probably felt during that time when they were doing their work
o

properly and submitting to the Spanish authorities but still having their few privileges removed,
aC s

eliminating the only benefit they could gain from their toil. In other words, the mutiny is their response to
vi y re

what they deemed as injustices.

Truly, even a single event in history can have more than two sides and more often in general, be
subjective. The 1872 Cavite Mutiny did indeed happen and both opposing sides suffered casualties with
ed d

the aftermath possibly becoming the alarm that slowly awakened the nationalistic hearts of Filipinos. The
ar stu

article may not have the full account of what transpired since the medium of communication at that time
can have many discrepancies and inconsistencies with details being left out or added due to biases and
fear of the Spanish government. Nevertheless, the reader must still consider the general character of both
is

groups to get a sense of the differences of their experiences and rank. This just shows the extent of the
government and its officials’ power and control they had over the country and their ability to change the
Th

course of history of Filipinos according to their whims.

sh

This study source was downloaded by 100000837646958 from CourseHero.com on 11-27-2021 00:31:45 GMT -06:00

https://www.coursehero.com/file/54168780/Comparative-Analysisdocx/
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)