About the Author

 Jose Montero y Vidal, a prolific Spanish historian

documented the event and highlighted it as an attempt of the
Indios to overthrow the Spanish government in the
Philippines

 Gov. Gen. Rafael Izquierdo’s official report magnified the

event and made use of it to implicate the native clergy, which
was then active in the call for secularization.
Both Montero and Izquierdo scored out that the abolition of
privileges enjoyed by the workers of Cavite arsenal such as non-
payment of tributes and exemption from force labor were the main
reasons of the “revolution” as how they called it,

Izquierdo reported to the King of Spain that the “rebels” wanted to

overthrow the Spanish government to install a new “hari” in the likes
of Fathers Burgos and Zamora.

 The general even added that the native clergy enticed other
participants by giving them charismatic assurance that their fight will
not fail because God is with them coupled with handsome promises
of rewards such as employment, wealth, and ranks in the army.
 The two Spaniards deemed that the event of 1872 was planned earlier
and was thought of it as a big conspiracy among educated leaders,
mestizos, abogadillos or native lawyers, residents of Manila and Cavite
and the native clergy. They insinuated that the conspirators of Manila
and Cavite planned to liquidate high-ranking Spanish officers to be
followed by the massacre of the friars.
 Accordingly, on 20th day of January 1872, the district of Sampaloc
celebrated the feast of the Virgin of Loreto, unfortunately participants
to the feast celebrated the occasion with the usual fireworks displays.
Allegedly, those in Cavite mistook the fireworks as the sign for the
attack, and just like what was agreed upon, the 200-men contingent
headed by Sergeant Lamadrid launched an attack targeting Spanish
officers at sight and seized the arsenal.
When the news reached the iron-fisted Gov. Izquierdo, he readily
ordered the reinforcement of the Spanish forces in Cavite to quell the
revolt. The “revolution” was easily crushed when the expected
reinforcement from Manila did not come ashore. Major instigators
including Sergeant Lamadrid were killed in the skirmish, while the
GOMBURZA were tried by a court-martial and were sentenced to die
by strangulation.

 On 17th day of February 1872, the GOMBURZA were executed

to instill fear among the Filipinos so that they may never commit
such daring act again.
 The Cavite Mutiny: An Essay On The Published Sources
John N. Schumacher
Philippine Studies vol. 20, no. 4 (1972): 603–632
 He cited in his book that, “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.
According to Schumacher, he stated about Tavera’s version that:
 In spite of the antecedent probability that Pardo might have had
detailed knowledge of the events of 1872 from his uncle, the
account shows little evidence of this. Besides the incorrect
interpretation of the attitude of De la Torre, there are several
errors of detail as to the identity of the men who were executed
or exiled as a result of the mutiny, and one can only conclude that
Pardo de Tavera either had no detailed knowledge of the facts, or
did not find place to publish them in this brief account. Hence he
simply gave a general picture of events in a sense perhaps
unnecessarily unfavorable to the friars.
According to Schumacher, he stated in his conclusion: