REVIEWER HISTORY

Spanish colonization both in the Americas and the Philippines has been characterized by a
fanatic zeal for the Christian faith and corresponding hatred for all other forms of belief led them
to regard the native writings and art as works of the devil—to be destroyed wherever found.
(Spanish want to obey they rule and regulation.)

During the   Spanish-American War , Filipino rebels led by Emilio Aguinaldo

proclaim the independence of the Philippines after 300 years of Spanish rule .

EMILIO AGUINALDO - Filipino leader and politician  who fought first against
Spain and later against the United States for the independence of the Philippines

 Emilio Aguinaldo, (born March 22/23, 1869, near Cavite, Luzon, Philippines

 died February 6, 1964, Quezon City),  

JUNE 12, 1898 - The Philippine Declaration of independence was proclaimed on.

Cavite II el Viejo (present-day Kawit, Cavite), Philippines.

IN 1896 - the Philippine Revolution began. Eventually, the Spanish signed an agreement with
the revolutionaries and Emilio Aguinaldo went into exile in Hong Kong.

At the outbreak of the Spanish-American War, Commander George Dewey sailed from Hong
Kong to Manila Bay leading a squadron of U.S. Navy ships.

General llanera - who was in Nueva Ecija, declared his support for Aguinaldo.

Expulsion of the friars and the return of the friar lands to the Filipinos.

Representation of the Philippines in the Spanish Cortes.

Freedom of the press and of religion.

Abolition of the government’s power to banish Filipinos.

Equality for all before the law.

When Emilio Aguinaldo declared Philippine independence on June 12, 1898, it lacked two essential
elements of statehood: territory and sovereignty.

The territory lacked legitimacy that comes from recognition by other states. And since the
Philippines was still under Spanish rule at that time, Aguinaldo’s government also lacked
sovereignty. 

1898 – (April 21) Start of Spanish-American War following the sinking, on February 15 in
Havana Harbor, of the battleship USS Maine.
1898 - (May 19) Aguinaldo returned to the Philippines and he immediately resumed
revolutionary activities against the Spaniards, now receiving verbal encouragement from
emissaries of the U. S. In a matter of months, revolutionary forces conquered nearly all of
Spanish-held territories, with the exception of Manila, which was completely surrounded.

The Filipinos now controlled the Philippines. Aguinaldo also turned over 15,000 Spanish
prisoners to the Americans, offering them valuable intelligence.

Tensions between the Philippine Revolutionary Government and the American government
existed because of the conflicting movements for independence and colonization, aggravated by
feelings of betrayal on the part of Aguinaldo.

1899 – (March 23) The insurgent First Philippine Republic formally established with the
proclamation of the Malolos Convention in Malolos, Bulacan.

June 2 – The Malolos Congress declared war on the United States, with Pedro Paterno, President
of Congress, issuing a Proclamation of War. The date marked the beginning of the Philippine-
American War, which ensued between 1899 and 1902. (3 years having war)

JULY 4, 1946 - The 4th of July used to be considered an important national holiday in the
Philippines. Not because it was the United States’ birthday, but because it was Philippine
Independence Day in 1946.

Independence was proclaimed on June 12, 1898 between four and five in the afternoon in Cavite
at the ancestral home of General Emilio Aguinaldo some 30 kilometers South of Manila.

The event saw the unfurling of the National Flag of the Philippines , made in Hong Kong by
Marcela Agoncillo, Lorenza Agoncillo, and Delfina Herboza,

Marcha Filipina Magdalo - as the national anthem, now known as Lupang Hinirang.

Lupang Hinirang, which was composed by Julián Felipe and played by the San Francisco de
Malabon marching band.

Why June 12 is the pinnacle of Philippine independence

 DIOSDADO MACAPAGAL said the recognition of the independence of a nation should

not be accorded by any other country but itself.

 "It is proper that what we should celebrate is not the day when other nations gave
recognition to our independence, but the day when we declared our desire to exercise our
inherent and inalienable right to freedom and independence," Macapagal said in a 1962
public address on Independence Day.
 Macapagal underscored that June 12, 1898 is the "true birthday of an independent Filipino
nation" for it was on this day that the country showcased to the world its resolve to
consider itself "absolved of allegiance to the Spanish crown".

Filipino Grievance Against Governor Wood

Leonard Wood Background

 October 9, 1860 – August 7, 1927

 was a United States Army major general, physician, and public official? He served as

the Chief of staff of the United States Army, Military Governor of Cuba, and Governor
General of the Philippines.

 Wood retired from the U.S. Army in 1921, after which he was chosen to serve as provost
of the University of Pennsylvania. The college granted him a leave of absence before he
assumed the position, enabling him to carry out a one-year appointment as Governor
General of the Philippines.  In 1922 he decided to remain in the Philippines, so he
resigned the provost's position.

The Administration of Leonard Wood (1921-1927)

 The choice of Leonard Wood as Governor General demonstrated that President Harding
accepted the Wood-Forbes Mission's recommendations as to Philippine policy and that he
looked to Wood to remedy the unfortunate conditions pointed out in the Mission's report.

Wood vs. the Filipino Politicos

On July 17, 1923, Manila's metro politican dailies headlined the resignation of all the Filipino
members of Governor Wood's Cabinet, thus precipitating the "Cabinet Crisis" which brought
the Philippines to the focus of the US government and public attention.

Wood's action in a police matter known as the Conley Case provided Quezon with an issue, and
he used it to bring on the Cabinet Crisis." By engineering this crisis Quezon succeeded in
electrifying an electorate which promptly supported the Quezon-Osmeña coalition.

Dr. Jose.Laurel obeyed and then resigned. because of the high-handed action of
governor wood which was believed to be curtailment of self-government, all the Filipino
members of the cabinet and the council of the state resigned on July 17, 1923.

The Governor's Veto Power

The veto power of Governor Wood, in the eyes of the Filipino leaders, was being excessively
exercised, "on the flimsiest motives."
Henry L. Stimson – successors of governor Wood who was inaugurated Governor General of
the Philippines on March 1, 1928. Fully cognizant of the controversies his predecessor had
gotten himself involved in.

Henry L. Stimson's successors Dwight F. Davis (1929 1932), Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. (1932-
1933) and Frank Murphy (1933-1935) all got along quite well with the Filipino politicians.

Alfred McCoy: On Political Caricatures of the American Era

Alfred McCoy

 born June 8, 1945, in Concord

 an American historian and educator

 currently the Fred Harvey Harrington Professor of History at the University of

Wisconsin–Madison

 Columbia University
University of California, Berkeley
Yale University

Political Caricatures

 Modern art form that turned away from classical art by exaggerating human features and
prodding fun at its subjects.

 It is also known as Editorial Cartoon that contain a commentary that express the artist
opinion toward certain issues.

 This art became part of the print media as a form of political and social commentary that
usually pin point the person’s power and authority. It is a unique way to present ideas and
capture the audience or readers’ imagination

 Philippine Cartoons
is a compilation of 377
editorial cartoons and
caricatures made by
various Filipino
 artists that tackle the
situation during the
American occupation
in the Philippines.
Dated from 1900 to
1941, each
 individual caricature
recorded national
attitudes toward the
coming of the
Americans as well as
the changing
 mores and times.
Some of the cartoons
presented the condition
of Filipino farmers on
the hands of American
 tenants who self-
owned the lands of the
laborers and imposed
unbearable and unjust
taxes on them. The
cartoons
 also compared the
job situation of a
Filipino and an
American by
portraying unequal
salaries despite having
the
 same nature of work,
which highlighted
racial discrimination in
terms of work
condition, wages, job
opportunities,
 and career positions.
Aside from that, the
caricatures also
depicted Americans as
controlling and
enslaving people
 by taking over the
insular civil service and
making Filipinos do
most of the work for
their own benefit,
paying
 off authorities for
their personal security,
and demanding highest
respects from the
Filipinos. From here,
growing
 corruption was
shown to be taking
over the political
processes in the
Philippines. Moreover,
they exemplified
 American
imperialism as the
primary reason for the
war between Muslim
and Christian Filipinos
in Mindanao
 and for other feuds
among Filipino people
who should have been
supporting one another
in fighting Americans
 to regain their
independence. McCoy
was able to provide a
comprehensive
background for each
caricature to give
 readers details of the
turbulent period the
Filipinos have
experienced under the
hands of the
Americans.
 Philippine Cartoons is a
compilation of 377 editorial
cartoons and caricatures
made by various Filipino
 artists that tackle the
situation during the American
occupation in the Philippines.
Dated from 1900 to 1941,
each
 individual caricature
recorded national attitudes
toward the coming of the
Americans as well as the
changing
 mores and times. Some of
the cartoons presented the
condition of Filipino farmers
on the hands of American
 tenants who self-owned the
lands of the laborers and
imposed unbearable and
unjust taxes on them. The
cartoons
 also compared the job
situation of a Filipino and an
American by portraying
unequal salaries despite
having the
 same nature of work,
which highlighted racial
discrimination in terms of
work condition, wages, job
opportunities,
 and career positions. Aside
from that, the caricatures also
depicted Americans as
controlling and enslaving
people
 by taking over the insular
civil service and making
Filipinos do most of the work
for their own benefit, paying
 off authorities for their
personal security, and
demanding highest respects
from the Filipinos. From
here, growing
 corruption was shown to
be taking over the political
processes in the Philippines.
Moreover, they exemplified
 American imperialism as
the primary reason for the
war between Muslim and
Christian Filipinos in
Mindanao
 and for other feuds among
Filipino people who should
have been supporting one
another in fighting
Americans
 to regain their
independence. McCoy was
able to provide a
comprehensive background
for each caricature to give
 readers details of the
turbulent period the Filipinos
have experienced under the
hands of the Americans.
Philippine Cartoons

is a compilation of 377 editorial cartoons and caricatures made by various Filipino artists that

tackle the situation during the American occupation in the Philippines?

Dated from 1900 to 1941, each individual caricature recorded national attitudes toward the

coming of the Americans as well as the changing mores and times.

Some of the cartoons presented the condition of:

Filipino farmers on the hands of American tenants who self-owned the lands of the laborers and
imposed unbearable and unjust taxes on them.

The cartoons also compared the job situation of a Filipino and an American by portraying
unequal salaries despite having the same nature of work, which highlighted racial discrimination
in terms of work condition, wages, job opportunities, and career positions.

Aside from that, the caricatures also depicted Americans as controlling and enslaving people by
taking over the insular civil service and making Filipinos do most of the work for their own
benefit, paying off authorities for their personal security, and demanding highest respects from
the Filipinos.

PHILIPPINE MAGAZINE - It was the first publication to be called a magazine in the

Philippines, and according to Maslog (1960), “the first periodical to carry miscellaneous
information.”

THE PHILIPPINES FREE PRESS - was originally founded in 1907 by Judge W.H. Kincaid,
as a bi-lingual English and Spanish newspaper.

So, in 1908 Robert McCulloch Dick, a former editor at the Manila Times, bought the paper for
a peso, and the used up his life savings of 8 000 as operating capital.

Editorial cartoon showing President Quezon’s support of the woman suffrage movement,

published on April 3, 1937 in the Philippines Free Press.

Christmas message from President Manuel Quezon to the Filipinos, published at December 1939

by the Philippines Free Press.

Success of Philippine Free Press

The rereleased Free Press was a success as much as its initial run wasn’t. By 1941 it had a

circulation of 80,000 copies a week. Feliciano (1967) said that “Always lively, critical, and

carefully edited, the Free Press is an example of a magazine that has drawn vitality from its staff

and its widely spread readers.” And indeed, it became the most influential English-language

weekly

LIWAYWAY - was the first Tagalog magazine and publication founded in 1923 by Ramon

Roces, son of Alejandro Roces Sr., which he co-edited with the novelist Severino Reyes.

PHOTO NEWS – the first name of the famous and Tagalog magazine before they name it

liwayway.

After a retreat to Mindanao, Roces returned to Manila to revive the magazine, this time in pure

Tagalog. He called it Liwayway as it meant “dawn” and therefore, a “new beginning.”

The revamped magazine was published weekly. It was sold at 12 centavos and had up to 40

pages each (Photo News had only 20 and cost more). The editors added more pictures and

illustrations. It contained local and foreign news and an expanded section of essays, short fiction,

and poetry.

Liwayway proved to be a critical success. Even though Liwayway was basically intended as a

magazine for the man on the street, its prose and poetry were considered the best Tagalog literary

output of the era. Severino Reyes’ own “Mga Kuwento ni Lola Basyang” appeared regularly in
the magazine much to the delight of many of its readers. Severino and Roces also recruited the

country’s leading literary giants at that time. It had as contributor’s poets Jose Corazon De

Jesus, Florentino Collantes, Julian Cruz Balmaseda, Cecilio Apostol and writers Lope K.

Santos, Rogelio Sicat, Inigo Ed Regalado, Romualdo Ramos, Francisco Laksamana and

Fausto Galaura. Some serialized stories were even published later on as novels. There was also

a commendable focus on design, art, and layout.

ANTONIO “TONY” VELASQUEZ – he is the first Filipino Visual Artist and he is also part of

the original Filipino cartoons began with the publication of local comic books.

ROMUALDO RAMOS - he is the first Filipino Writer Caricature and he is also part of the

original Filipino cartoons began with the publication of local comic books.

KENKOY - Filipino writer Romualdo Ramos and Filipino visual artist Antonio “Tony”

Velasquez created the cartoon character named it.

RAMON ROCES - Owner and founder of the first Tagalog publication magazine in the

Philippine.

SEVERINO REYES – He is the co-editor of the first Tagalog publication magazine in the

Philippine.

Cry of Pugad Lawin The Cry of Pugad Lawin

(Filipino: Sigaw ng Pugad Lawin)

alternately and originally referred to as the Cry of Balintawak (Filipino: Sigaw ng Balíntawak,

Spanish: Grito de Balíntawak), was the beginning of the Philippine Revolution against the

Spanish Empire. At the close of August 1896, members of the Katipunan secret society
(Katipuneros) led by Andrés Bonifacio rose up in revolt somewhere in an area referred to as

Caloocan, wider than the jurisdiction of present-day Caloocan City which may have overlapped

into present-day Quezon City. Originally the term "cry" referred to the first clash between the

Katipuneros and the Civil Guards (Guardia Civil).

The cry could also refer to the tearing up of community tax certificates (cédulas personales) in
defiance of their allegiance to Spain. This was literally accompanied by patriotic shouts.

Because of competing accounts and ambiguity of the place where this event took place, the exact
date and place of the Cry is in contention. From 1908 until 1963, the official stance was that the
cry occurred on August 26 in Balintawak. In 1963 the Philippine government declared a shift to
August 23 in Pugad Lawin, Quezon City.

Different dates and places Various accounts give differing dates and places for the Cry.

An officer of the Spanish guardia civil, Lt. Olegario Diaz, stated that the Cry took place in

Balintawak on August 25, 1896.

Historian Teodoro Kalaw in his 1925 book The Filipino Revolution wrote that the event took

place during the last week of August 1896 at Kangkong, Balintawak.

Santiago Alvarez, a Katipunero and son of Mariano Alvarez, the leader of the Mag diwang

faction in Cavite, stated in 1927 that the Cry took place in Bahay Toro, now in Quezon City on

August 24, 1896.

Pío Valenzuela, a close associate of Andrés Bonifacio, declared in 1948 that it happened in

Pugad Lawin on August 23, 1896.

Historian Gregorio Zaide stated in his books in 1954 that the "Cry" happened in Balintawak on

August 26, 1896.

Fellow historian Teodoro Agoncillo wrote in 1956 that it took place in Pugad Lawin on August

23, 1896, based on Pío Valenzuela's statement.

Accounts by historians Milagros Guerrero, Emmanuel Encarnacion and Ramon Villegas claim

the event to have taken place in Tandang Sora's barn in Gulod, Barangay Banlat, Quezon City.

Some of the apparent confusion is in part due to the double meanings of the terms "Balintawak"

and "Caloocan" at the turn of the century. Balintawak referred both to a specific place in modern

Caloocan City and a wider area which included parts of modern Quezon City. Similarly,

Caloocan referred to modern Caloocan City and also a wider area which included modern

Quezon City and part of modern Pasig. Pugad Lawin, Pasong Tamo, Kangkong and other

specific places were all in "greater Balintawak", which was in turn part of "greater Caloocan".

Definition of the Cry

The term "Cry" is translated from the Spanish el grito de rebelion (cry of rebellion) or el grito

for short. Thus the Grito de Balintawak is comparable to Mexico's Grito de Dolores (1810).

However, el grito de rebelion strictly refers to a decision or call to revolt. It does not necessarily

connote shouting, unlike the Filipino sigaw.

First skirmish Up to the late 1920s, the Cry was generally identified with Balintawak. It was

commemorated on August 29, considered the anniversary of the first hostile encounter between

the Katipuneros and the Guardia Civil. The "first shot" of the Revolution (el primer tiro) was

fired at Banlat, Pasong Tamo, then considered a part of Balintawak and now part of Quezon

City.
Tearing of cédulas Not all accounts relate the tearing of cédulas in the last days of August. Of

the accounts that do, older ones identify the place where this occurred as Kangkong in

Balintawak/Kalookan. Most also give the date of the cédula-tearing as August 26, in close

proximity to the first encounter. One Katipunero, Guillermo Masangkay, claimed cédulas were

torn more than once – on the 24th as well as the 26th. For his 1956 book The Revolt of the

Masses Teodoro Agoncillo defined "the Cry" as the tearing of cedulas, departing from precedent

which had then defined it as the first skirmish of the revolution. His version was based on the

later testimonies of Pío Valenzuela and others who claimed the cry took place in Pugad Lawin

instead of Balintawak. Valenzuela's version, through Agoncillo's influence, became the basis of

the current stance of the Philippine government. In 1963, President Diosdado Macapagal ordered

the official commemorations shifted to Pugad ng uwak, Quezon City on August 23.

Formation of an insurgent government an alternative definition of the Cry as the "birth of the

Filipino nation state" involves the setting up of a national insurgent government through the

Katipunan with Bonifacio as President in Banlat, Pasong Tamo on August 24, 1896 – after the

tearing of cedulas but before the first skirmish. This was called the Haring Bayang Katagalugan

(Sovereign Tagalog Nation).

Other Cries In 1895

Bonifacio, Masangkay, Emilio Jacinto and other Katipuneros spent Good Friday in the caves of

Mt. Pamitinan in Montalban (now part of Rizal province). They wrote "long live Philippine

independence" on the cave walls, which some Filipino historians consider the "first cry" (el

primer grito).

Commemoration
The Cry is commemorated as National Heroes' Day, a public holiday in the Philippines. The first

annual commemoration of the Cry occurred in Balintawak in 1908 after the American colonial

government repealed the Sedition Law. In 1911 a monument to the Cry (a lone Katipunero

popularly identified with Bonifacio) was erected at Balintawak; it was later transferred to

Vinzons Hall in the University of the Philippines-Diliman, Quezon City. In 1984, the National

Historical Institute of the Philippines installed a commemorative plaque in Pugad Lawin.

The Cry of Pugadlawin News

about the discovery of the Katipunan spread to Manila and nearby suburbs, and Andres

Bonifacio immediately called for a general meeting. Various wings of the Katipunan gathered at

the house of Juan Ramos in Pugadlawin on August 23, 1896. Ramos was the son of Melchora

Aquino, also known as “Tandang Sora” and was later acknowledged as the Mother of the

Katipunan." Bonifacio asked his men whether they were willing to fight to the bitter end.

Everyone shouted their approval, except for Teodoro Plata, who though that it was too soon for

a revolution. Heartened by his men’s response, Bonifacio then asked them to tear their cedulas

(residence certificates) to pieces, as a sign of their defiance and determination to rise against the

Spaniards. The men immediately tore up their cedulas, shouting, Mabuhay ang Pilipinas (long

live the Philippines) -known as the Cry of Pugadlawin.

Andres Bonifacio was recognized as the leader of the Katipunan by the Magdiwang faction. An

assembly was held in Imus, Cavite on December 31, 1897 to settle the leadership issue but was

not successful.

WELL OVER two decades ago, the late National Artist Nick Joaquin, in his INQUIRER column

“Small Beer,” argued repeatedly for a return to the traditional “Cry of Balintawak.”
Malabon is famous for manufacturing a long-bladed weapon called “SANGBARTOLOME.”

The Cry of Balintawak First Skirmishes In the midst of this dramatic scene, some Katipuneros

who had just arrived from Manila and Kalookan shouted "Dong Andres! The civil guards are

almost behind us, and will reconnoiter the mountains." Bonifacio at once ordered his men to get

ready for the expected attack of the Spaniards. Since they had inferior arms the rebels decided,

instead, to retreat.

Returning to Manila, the Spanish soldiers boasted that a great fight has taken place at Pasong

Tamo, and that they had driven the rebels to the interior. This was the origin of the so-called

"Cry of Balintawak", which neither happened on August 26 nor in Balintawak.

Meanwhile, the rebels, skirting the mountain trails day and night, finally arrived in Mariquina.

Later in the day, however, they abandoned it and proceeded to Hagdang Bato on August 27. The

following day, Bonifacio issued a manifesto inciting the people to take up the Filipino cause and

to get set for a concerted attack on the Spaniards on August 29.

The Cavite Mutiny

In a previous article in this journal, I have attempted to establish definitely the inauthenticity of
various manuscripts and published works concerning, or attributed to, Father Jose Burgos, but
actually written in the twentieth century.' Likewise in preparation for the centenary of the
martyrdom of Fathers Gomez, Burgos, and Zamora, various scholars have published
documentation concerning Father Burgos in particular, and in my recent book I have edited and
translated some genuine works of Burgos in part hitherto unknown. ~ The fact remains, however,
that we still possess no definitive account of the Cavite Mutiny, nor a satisfactory biography of
any of the three priests. Not only are primary source materials still lacking however, but there is
considerable confusion as to the worth of the various published accounts of the events of 1872
both as to primary and to secondary sources.

Mutiny - means battle of rebellion.

FIRST-HAND ACCOUNTS
There were several men who appear to have been living in Manila at the time of the events which
culminated in the Cavite Mutiny who wrote accounts of the events. The account of Josh Montero
y Vidal, a Spanish official in Manila at the time, is the fullest account of the mutiny itself It
embodies the official interpretation of the mutiny in Cavite as part of a general revolt directed by
the three priests and their lay and clerical colleagues in Manila and Cavite, having as its aim the
assassination of the Governor-General and a general massacre of all Spaniards. Published only in
1895, at the height of the Filipino nationalist campaign, Montero's account is strongly hostile to
Filipino reformist aspirations, has no doubt of the guilt of those executed or exiled, and places
much of the blame for the revolt of 1872 on the alleged tolerance of Governor General Carlos
Maria de la Torre in the period 1869-1871. In a lengthy appendix to his own account Montero
reproduces selections from that given by Edmond Plauchut, a Frenchman resident in Manila for
some years, indignantly or sarcastically denying various allegations of the latter. The narrative of
Plauchut is actually only a part of a series of articles on the Philippines published in the
internationally known French journal, Revue des Dem Mondes, in Paris in 1877.5 His account of
the events of 1872 has often been called "the Filipino version" of the events, having been
translated. (Edmond Plauchut - He is not authentic…

SCHUMACHER: CAVITE MUTINY

into Spanish and published in La Solidaridad in 1892 and afterwards republished more than once
from this ~version.~ The version of Plauchut presents several difficulties, even if we ignore the
xenophobic attacks of Montero y Vidal. On the one hand, for example, he implies the innocence
of the three priests as to any part in the mutiny. On the other, he asserts that "from several
accounts worthy of belief, the plot of the conspirators was known to many in the capital as well
as in the province." Similarly, he refers to the three priests on their way to execution as being
cheered by the Filipinos as & . . . those who were going to die for having dreamed of the
independence of their country. . .

SECOND-HAND ACCOUNTS

In this group may be included those who assert that they had received their information from
contemporaries of the events or who, because of their relationship to such men, may be
legitimately supposed to have done so.
In the first category fall two documents which, though they remain unpublished as a whole, seem
to have been circulated in copies to a considerable degree and thus to have entered into later
accounts. The two documents in question were written by Father Agapito Echegoyen, a
Recoleto, and Father Antonio Piernavieja, an Augustinian, both of whom were taken prisoners
by the revolutionary forces in Cavite in 1896.27 Both documents confess to and condemn
various crimes and abuses allegedly committed by the friars, beginning with the period just prior
to the Cavite Mutiny. Both accounts agree in attributing the execution of the three priests to friar
intrigues. Allegedly the four friar Provincials met to decide on how to eliminate their opponents,
and for this purpose, knowing that a revolt was in the offing in Cavite, sent a iriar similar in
appearance to Burgos, to stir up the prospective rebels under the name of the latter, and to
distribute money among them.

Apart from these accounts allegedly based on information received from contemporaries of the
events, there are those which, though not explicitly stating that they were such, have a reasonable
possibility of such an origin, since their authors were close relatives of participants. The two
principal ones are those by Trinidad H. Pardo de Tavera, nephew of Joaquin Pardo de Tavera,
and brought up in his household; and that of Pedro Paterno, son of Miiximo Paterno, another of
those exiled to the Marianas in 1872.

OTHER CONTEMPORARIES

Two other figures of approximately the same generation as those just treated but without known
direct contacts with contemporaries of the events were Father Salvador Pons and Apolinario
Mabini. Both spoke briefly about the events of 1872 in connection with their other writings.

CONCLUSIONS

The foregoing analysis of these early accounts of the Cavite Mutiny would seem to lead to the
following conclusions as to the reliability of these sources and the relationships existing among
them:

(1) There are only three certainly independent major versions of the events which deserve serious
considerationthose of Montero y Vidal, of Regidor, and of Pardo de Tavera. If it could be shown
that Plauchut was actually present in Manila in 1872, perhaps his account could be included for
the little it might contain independent of Regidor. But there is nothing to indicate that he actually
was in Manila in 1872, and everything solidly reliable in his account can be found in Regidor.

(2) Only Montero maintains fully the official thesis that the mutiny was part of a larger revolt
aimed at independence; the others deny it, though Regidor and Plauchut have certain apparent
contradictions in their explanations, as well as numerous highly improbable details and dialogue.

(3) The partial account reproduced in Pastells, and less clearly, that of Govantes, reject Montero's
full position without clearly giving complete support to the contention that nothing more than a
local mutiny was involved.

(4) The account of Pardo de Tavera, prescinding from the emotional anti-friar tone that pervades
it, gives evidence of being the most reliable, even though fairly general, account except for its
failure to recognize that De la Torre had also been suspicious of the Filipino reformists. That of
Montero, apart from its anti-Filipino tone and its supposition of a revolutionary conspiracy,
contains the most details and, to all appearances, most reliable account of the actual course of the
revolt itself, as well as of the execution of the three priests.

(5) The notion of a deliberate and concerted friar conspiracy to provoke a revolt which would
enable them to eliminate their enemies comes solely from Regidor, whose description contains
clearly false assertions. The story that such a provocation was carried out by means of a friar
impersonating Burgos is first found in the torture-extorted confessions of the friars executed at
the orders of Bonifacio in 1897. These latter "confessione" are clearly in contradiction with
Regidor at several points. The lack of a reliable basis for these allegations against the friars does
not, however. necessarily invalidate the more general assertion of Pardo de Tavera that a large
group of conservative Manila Spaniards, including many or most friars, were suspicious of the
Filipino priests and other liberal reformists from the time of De la Torre, and were quick to make
of the Cavite Mutiny a revolution aimed at independence, and even to favor the drastic
punishments meted out.

(6) Of all those existing, the account of Artigas combines the maximum of information,
documentation, and detail with at least a minimum of critical treatment of his sources. However,
depending as heavily as he does on Regidor, and having made use of such other unreliable
sources as the Piernavieja-Echegoyen accounts, it falls far short of providing a fully reliable
treatment of the events of 1872. Useful as it is in the absence of any satisfactory account, it can
only be employed with any surety by the historian who is aware of Artigas' own sources and
their value.

The evaluations and indications of this article are intended as aids to the use of these published
sources. But as is obvious, even after evaluating them, they must be used in conjunction with
documentary archival sources to arrive at any more complete and reliable historical picture. If
the failure to locate the records of the trials is a serious loss, still there remains a rather large
amount of documentary material which has either been published in recent times or the exisknce
of which is known or hinted at in various publications, which should make it possible to obtain a
more critical and satisfactory synthesis than has hitherto been made available.