Department of History, National University of Singapore

The Place of Local History in Philippine Historiography

Author(s): John A. Larkin
Source: Journal of Southeast Asian History, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Sep., 1967), pp. 306-317
Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of Department of History, National
University of Singapore
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/20067634
Accessed: 25-01-2019 01:11 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Cambridge University Press, Department of History, National University of Singapore

are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Southeast
Asian History

This content downloaded from 112.208.234.100 on Fri, 25 Jan 2019 01:11:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE PLACE OF LOCAL HISTORY IN PHILIPPINE
HISTORIOGRAPHY
John A. Larkin

One of the major problems in the writing of Philippine history

stems from inadequate knowledge of historical conditions in the
rural Philippines. The problem is further complicated by a ten
dency to treat societv as a monolithic structure susceptible to outside
influence and change at a uniform rate. Consequently, it has proved
difficult to judge accurately the impact on Philippine society of such
phenomena as colonialism, the Revolution of 1896 and national
politics in the twentieth century.
To solve this dilemma and come to a better understanding of
historical forces at work in the Philippines, it will be necessary to
undertake more regional histories which, when viewed col
lectively, will reveal something of the unity and diversity of
Philippine society. Regions can be interpreted as cultural or reli
gious areas (e.g. Mountain Province or the Christian Visayas),
linguistic areas (the Bicol, llocos), crop areas (the sugar region of
Negros), provinces or even, conceivably, municipalities. Most local
histories to date have been rather unsophisticated works by untrain
ed scholars, occasionally rich in raw data but rather sparing in good
methodology;1 however, Keesing's study of Northern Luzon and
Saleeby's of Sulu serve as good models of regional study2 Never
theless, both books cover mainly minority groups and no good
history exists of any lowland Christian group, the bulk of the popu
lation of the Islands.

In general, historians have concentrated their attention on the

highest levels of national government and politics, on foreign rela
tions, on the biography of prominent figures, on the colonial admi
nistrations, and on the broadest aspects of the Philippine R?volu

1. See, for example, Mariano A. Henson, The Province of Pampanga and Its Towns,
(3rd ed. rev.) Angeles, Pampanga 1963, and Francisco S. Tantuico, Jr, Leyte.
The Historic Islands, Tacloban City, Leyte 1964.
2. Felix M. Keesing, The Ethnohistory of Northern Luzon, Stanford, California 1962;
Najeeb M. Saleeby, The History of Sulu, Manila 1963.

306

This content downloaded from 112.208.234.100 on Fri, 25 Jan 2019 01:11:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILIPPINE HISTORIOGRAPHY

tion.3 The singular concern with Manila and its environs and the
highest echelons of society tends to distort the history of the Philip
pines as a whole. Local history, for the most part, has been neglect
ed, even though Philippine society has remained overwhelmingly
rural throughout its entire existence.4
Focusing on the Manila area, the seat of Spanish and American
authority, reveals only the "Western" face of Philippine society. As
a result, the Philippines has at times seemed a pale imitation of
Occidental society, not quite capable of sustained independent
development. The bonds which historically link the Philippines
to the rest of Southeast Asia are found mainly in the rural areas ?
in the traditional agricultural life of the peasant, in the more super
ficial acceptance of outside influence, including religion, and in the
strong emphasis on family and village loyalty.5
3. The best modern historical scholarship has dealt primarily with national and
supra-regional matters. Theodore Friend's Between Two Empires, The Ordeal
of the Philippines, 1929-1946, New Haven and London 1965, examines American
Philippine relations within the context of the larger issues of Asian diplomacy
while Josefa Saniel similarly treats Philippine-Japanese relations for an earlier
period in Japan and the Philippines, 1868-J898, Quezon City 1962. Two out
standing works record the historical development of Philippine governmental
structure: Onofre D. Corpuz traces the growth of a national bureaucracy from
Spanish times down to the post World War II era in his The Bureaucracy in the
Philippines Manila 1957; Charles Cunningham's The Audiencia in the Spanish
Colonies, Berkeley 1919, is a classic in the field. Three Filipino scholars provide
the most significant new work on the Philippine Revolution in their biographies
of well-known patriots: Leon Ma. Guerrero's The First Filipino, A Biography
of Jose Rizal, Manila 1963, and Cesar Majul's Apolinario Mabini, Revolutionary,
Manila 1964, both present moving and sympathetic pictures of two major Fili
pino intellectuals of the period, while Teodoro Agoncillo in his The Revolt of
the Masses, Quezon City 1956, recounts the story of Andres Bonifacio, chief in
stigator of the armed conflict against Spain.
Even the more specialized studies have approached specific topics across local
boundaries. Horacio de la Costa's The Jesuits in the Philippines, 1581
1768, Cambridge, Mass. 1961, and Edgar Wickberg's The Chinese in Philippine
Life, 1850-1898, New Haven and London 1965, both examine the Archipelago
wide activities of their respective groups. In a study of Filipino adaptation to
the first century of Spanish rule, John Leddy Phelan provides an excellent over
view The Hispanization of the Philippines, Madison Wisconsin 1959, which,
nevertheless, needs clarification through local studies.
4. The Philippine census of 1960 reveals that even at present rural population
heavily predominates over urban, although the pattern has been slowly chang
ing in the present century. [Robert Huke, Shadows on the Land, An Economic
Geography of the Philippines, Makati Rizal 1963, pp. 153-155].
5. A large body of scholarship on contemporary Philippine rural communities al
ready exists. The work reflects the efforts of a solid group of anthropologists,
sociologists and political scientists. The Community Development Research
Council at the University of the Philippines alone has been sponsoring around
forty major research projects on local problems; one of the most useful of those
already completed is Mary Hollnsteiner, The Dynamics of Power in a Philippine
Municipality, Quezon City 1963. Other recent and notable studies that discuss
local loyalties include: Frank Lynch, S. J., Social Class in a Bicol Town, Chicago
1959; Charles Kaut, "Contingency in a Tagalog Society," Asian Studies, 111
(April 1965), pp. 1-15; Ethel Nurge, Life in a Leyte Village, Seattle 1965; Jean
Grossholtz, Politics in the Philippines, Boston and Toronto 1964; Carl H. Lande,
Leaders, Factions, and Parties, The Structure of Philippine Politics, New Haven
1965.

307

This content downloaded from 112.208.234.100 on Fri, 25 Jan 2019 01:11:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILIPPINE HISTORIOGRAPHY

Another problem connected with the emphasis upon study of

the national-urban environment is that questions important on this
level may often have little significance in the rural area. For
example, Filipino politicians in the 1920's and 1930's were
chiefly concerned with achieving independence from the United
States. Their activities resulted in the Tydings-McDuffie Act
of 1935 establishing the Philippine Commonwealth.6 On the
other hand, the tenant farmers and labourers of the sugar provinces
of Central Luzon were bothered by other matters. They had to
adjust to new economic conditions created by the rise of the sugar
centrals and the breakdown of the traditional tenant-landlord
relationships. An important consequence of their unresolved
problem was the rise of agrarian unrest leading to the Hukbalahap
crises of the post-war years, well after independence was obtained.7
Poor communication and transportation, as well as linguistic
and cultural diversity, have made the connection tenuous between
the political capital and the outlaying provinces. The Philippines
has been and is still a series of independent and self-contained units
shaped more by internal socio-economic factors than by external
currents emanating from Manila. The more remote the region,
the more independent the society, the more the government depends
on local acquiescence for the success of its policies and aims. No
history dealing with so-called national issues has been more than a
study of one of the many units. Historians for the most part have
been labouring under a notion derived from training in Western
history that metropolitan events shape the history of the country
side. Such is not often the case in the Philippines. Until we have
a more complete understanding of the many units of the Philippine
complex, we will be unable to discern the broader turns and evolu
tion of the whole society.
Contrary to common opinion, sources for local history abound.
6. Questions related to the one issue of Philippine independence have attracted
more attention from twentieth century Filipinists than any other topic. One
of the most important early scholars to focus on the subject was James A. LeRoy
in his two works, Philippine Life in Town and Country, New York and London
1905, and The Americans in the Philippines, (2 vols.), Boston 1914. Around the
time of the establishment of the Commonwealth, Grayson V. Kirk's Philippine
Independence, New York 1936, and Harry B. Hawes' Philippine Uncertainty,
New York and London 1932, put the independence issue in the context of thirty,
five years of Philippine-American relations. More recent reinterpretations include
Theodore Friend, op. cit., and the somewhat less adequate Garel A. Gr?nder
and William E. Livezey, The Philippines and the United States, Norman Okla.
1951. The latter is particularly lacking in important foreign sources.
7. Little scholarly work has so far been done on the economic origins of the Huk
balahap movement. Some useful information can be found in Luis Taruc, Born
qf the People, New York 1953; Anon., "The Peasant War in the Philippines," Phil
ippine Social Sciences and Humanities Review, XXIII (June-December, 1958),
pp. 373-436; Victor Lieberman, "Why the Hukbalahap Movement Failed,"
Solidarity, I (October-December 1966), pp. 22-30.

308

This content downloaded from 112.208.234.100 on Fri, 25 Jan 2019 01:11:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILIPPINE HISTORIOGRAPHY

Aside from the well-known document collection in the National

Archives at Washington and Seville, the Philippines itself maintains
an archives with documents numbering in the millions and related
to both the Spanish and the American periods. The National Libra
ry in Manila and the library of the University of the Philippines at
Quezon City both contain sources and paper collections unavailable
elsewhere.8 Recently the Newberry Library and the National Lib
rary of the Philippines have obtained microfilms of Philippine
materials from the Mexican Archives. Though all the archives
possess papers dealing with a wide variety of governmental activities,
they yield large quantities of data on regional affairs as well. The
Philippine Archives are particularly rich in documents on local
matters. Edgar Wickberg's recent and extremely valuable book on
the Chinese and Chinese mestizo communities in the nineteenth
century Philippines relied heavily on research in the Manila papers.9
He is the only scholar in the last half century to make extensive use
of the Philippine Archives.
II

In this article, I propose to analyse Pampanga's participat

the Philippine Revolution of 1896 to 1901 as an illustration o
case for local history.
Pampanga Province is situated in the Central Luzon Plain
sixty kilometers north of Manila. Roughly 841 square m
size, the province serves as the home for the Pampangans, a lo
Christian group engaged in sedentary sugar and wet rice agric
In 1900 they numbered about 220,000 people. Cultural
physically, the Pampangans are inseparable from most oth
landers of the Philippines, except for their language, Capampa
a very distinct Malayo-Polynesian dialect not readily underst
others in the Islands.10 The Pampangans have maintained a st
sense of group identity and regard with pride such diverse pr
mates as Rufino Cardinal Santos, former President Dio
8. Currently the University of the Philippines is undertaking a project to mi
substantial blocks of material from the Philippine Archives. Indexes of
films can be examined at the Institute of Asian Studies, University of the
pines, Diliman, Rizal.
9. Wickberg, op. cit. See also his article "The Chinese Mestizo in Ph
History," Journal of Southeast Asian History, V (March 1964), pp. 62-100.
10. Robert Fox, Willis Sibley, and Fred Eggan, "A Preliminary Glottochr
for Northern Luzon," Asian Studies, III (April 1965), pp. 103-113. Works
Capampangan dialect have been neither numerous nor particularly usef
of the earliest works were undertaken by an Augustinian friar, Diego B
Arte de la lengua pampanga, (Manila 1729); and Vocabulario de la l
pampanga, en romance, (2nd ed.) Manila 1860. Books by Fernandez and P
both qualify as cheap pocket grammars: P. E. Fernandez, Nuevo vocabu
? manual de conves?cio?es en espa?ol, tagalo y pampango, (4th ed.)
1896; Luther Parker, An English-Spanish-Pampango Dictionary, Manila 1

309

This content downloaded from 112.208.234.100 on Fri, 25 Jan 2019 01:11:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILIPPINE HISTORIOGRAPHY

Macapagal, Luis Taruc and Pedro Abad Santos (the latter two being
important leaders in the Communist movement in the Philippines).11

The political boundaries of the province more or less define the

population centre of the majority of the Capampangan-speaking
people. At the time of the Philippine Revolution, society in the
province was divided into two classes. The upper class, representing
15% of the population, consisted largely of Chinese mestizos, heavily
hispanized in culture and deriving their position primarily from
landowning. Many among the upper class had received a college
?ducation through the Spanish school system in Manila. Besides
landowners, the class contained many professionals including
doctors, lawyers and priests. The lower class of the province,
representing 85% of the population, served mainly as tenant farmers
for the landowners. Few of the peasants had more than a year of
schooling or any command of the Spanish language. The peasants
supplied the manual labour needed by the landlords, and the latter
offered in return leadership, social security and a buffer between the
peasantry and the Spanish government. Pampanga was a well
functioning social unit dependent mainly on its own resources, and
with little connection, except among some members of the upper
class, with non-Pampangans.12
The Revolution was an important event in Southeast Asian
history for it represented the first full-scale nationalist uprising
in the area against a colonial power. The Philippines, unique
among the nations of Southeast Asia, possessed a well-en
trenched indigenous elite, rurally based, who posed a potential
threat to the leadership of the Manila-centred colonial
government. Parts of that elite committed themselves, in varying
degrees, to programmes of reform and ultimately to independence.
The extent to which the whole nation involved itself in the Revolu
tion has never been clearly established. As a result, the meaning
of early nationalism in the Philippines has remained a puzzle.
There are essentially two conflicting historical theories about
Pampanga's place in the Philippine Revolution. The first theory,
espoused by such Filipino historians as Teodoro Agoncillo, Teodoro
Kalaw and Onofre D. Corpuz, maintains that Pampanga played an
important part in the national revolution, joining with the Tagalogs

11. Sol Hilario Gwekoh, Diosdado Macapagal: Triumph Over Poverty, Manila 1962,
pp. 1-8.
12. The information on Pampangan society prior to 1898 comes from John A. Larkin,
"The Evolution of Pampangan Society: A Case Study of Social and Economic
Change in the Rural Philippines" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department
of History, New York University), pp. 90-136.

310

This content downloaded from 112.208.234.100 on Fri, 25 Jan 2019 01:11:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILIPPINE HISTORIOGRAPHY

in the struggle for independence.13 The other theory, argued by

pre-war American scholars beginning with James LeRoy, contends
that the rebellion was predominantly a Tagalog uprising involving
no other groups.14
The difference between the two points of view raises some serious
questions in Philippine historiography and is not merely a matter
of quibbling over minor points of analysis. The difference goes to
the very core of the debate over the meaning of Philippine nation
hood. The Philippines, like the other countries of Southeast Asia,
has been beset by problems of national unity and identity. Filipino
historians, aware of the problems of disunity, have tried to find in
the past, examples of national solidarity. The impulse to broaden
the base of participation in the Revolution was only natural. In
reverse, American historians, particularly those writing during the
colonial era, used the very issue of disunity to justify US interven
tion in the affairs of a foreign people. They tried, therefore, to
treat the Revolution as a local uprising, stressing the divergent
interests of Philippine society. Neither Americans nor Filipinos
were interested enough to look closely at Pampangan history in order
to test the validity of their positions.
It is necessary first to outline the major events of the Revolution
as a whole before discussing Pampanga's specific place in it. The
Philippine Revolution breaks down roughly into three periods or
phases.15 The first phase, from 1882 to 1896, was characterized by
intellectual protest and demand for reform from the faltering
Spanish colonial regime. The movement was headed by a non
militant group, resident and emigr?, of writers and artists who were
called Propagandists. Loosely under the leadership of Jos? Rizal
and Marcelo H. del Pilar, most members complained of clerical
abuses and an oversized, parasitical colonial bureaucracy. Few,
however, committed themselves to complete independence. The
intellectual phase ended in December 1896 with the execution of
Rizal in Manila.
The second phase of the Revolution began in August 1896. The
Filipino forces led by Andres Bonifacio launched an armed attack
against the Spanish. Members of the lower classes from Manila and
13. Teodoro A. Agoncillo, Mat?los, The Crisis of the Republic, Quezon City 1960,
p. 286; Teodoro M. Kalaw, The Philippine Revolution, Manila 1925, p. 103;
Onofre D. Corpuz, The Philippines, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 1965, p. 63.
14. James A. LeRoy, The Americans..., I, pp. 83, 85, 93; D. R. Williams, The
United States and the Philippines, Garden City, New York 1926, pp. 70, 94;
George E. Taylor, The Philippines and the United States, New York and London
1964, pp. 42-43.
15. Numerous authors relate the narrative of the Philippine Revolution. One of
the most useful accounts is Gregorio F. Zaide's The Philippine Revolution,
Manila 1954.

311

This content downloaded from 112.208.234.100 on Fri, 25 Jan 2019 01:11:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILIPPINE HISTORIOGRAPHY

the surrounding Tagalog provinces had, through Bonifacio's

clandestine Katipunan organization, instigated this movement aimed
at ultimate independence. By March 1897, leadership passed into
the hands of the Tagalog landed class, and their representative,
Emilio Aguinaldo, took over command from Bonifacio.
The rebellion against Spain dragged on through 1897, changing
from open field warfare to guerrilla warfare after December 1897
and the treaty of Biak-na-Bato, which sent Aguinaldo into exile at
Hong Kong. The Filipino army suffered a series of setbacks until
1898 when Dewey's fleet entered Manila Bay. From May 1898 until
February 1899, the Filipinos replaced the Spanish army in most
lowland areas of the Philippines, establishing their own Republic
under the leadership of the returned Aguinaldo and gaining
administrative control of most of the Archipelago except the city
of Manila. Highlights of the period were the Declaration of
Independence of 12 June 1898, and proclamation of the Mololos
Constitution on 21 January 1899.
The third phase of the Revolution began in February 1899. The
first Philippine Republic under President Aguinaldo fought a losing
struggle against invading American forces braced by the clauses of
the Treaty of Paris bequeathing the Philippines to the United
States. The war lasted roughly to the middle of 1901, although
isolated cases of severe fighting continued until 1902.
The above background makes it easier to understand the Revolu
tion in Pampanga itself. During the first phase of the Revolution
from 1882 to 1896, some members of Pampanga's upper class sup
ported the aims of the Propagandists for reform of the Spanish
colonial regime. One Pampangan, Jos? Alejandrino of Arayat,
Pampanga, was prominent among the emigr? leaders of the reform
movement.16 When Jos? Rizal, recently returned from Europe,
toured Pampanga in 1892 soliciting support, he was well received by
the local elite.17 Certainly some of them committed themselves to
his cause, for when Rizal was arrested by the Spaniards a short time
later, the recriminations reached all the way to Pampanga. Several
local leaders were removed from their political offices and others
exiled from the province.18
After Rizal's imprisonment in 1892, the nationalist movement in
the Archipelago began to take on a lower class flavour with the rise
of the Katipunan, a secret organization in the Tagalog areas to the
16. los? Alejandrino, The Price of Freedom, (trans. Jos? M. Alejandrino), Manila
1949, pp. 2-8.
17. Zaide, op. cit., p. 41.
18. Kalaw, op. cit., p. 5; Teodoro M. Kalaw, Philippine Masonry, (trans. Frederic
H. Stevens and Antonio Amechazurra), Manila 1956, p. 111.

312

This content downloaded from 112.208.234.100 on Fri, 25 Jan 2019 01:11:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILIPPINE HISTORIOGRAPHY

south. The intellectuals remained abroad and the Pampangans left

no record of any interest in the independence movement. Some
clandestine activities may have flourished in Pampanga, for when the
armed rebellion against Spain began in August 1896, Pampanga was
one of eight provinces placed immediately under martial law by
the Spanish governor-general.19 On 4 September 1896, several men
in Pampanga were shot or imprisoned for their participation in the
Revolution.20 In October, a contingent of Pampangans joined in
an engagement in neighbouring Bataan.21
After the battle in Bataan, Pampanga withdrew for the time being,
from the Revolution, although fighting continued unabated in the
Tagalog provinces for more than one year longer. During the
entire field campaign against the Filipinos from August 1896 to
November 1897, Spain suffered only eleven casualties in Pampanga
compared with 2,650 elsewhere.22 The Pampangans evidently had
little interest in the war against Spain.
The great problems facing the Tagalogs were not particularly
pressing in Pampanga. The Church maintained no large estates, and
the Pampangans themselves owned most of the tillable land.23
Pampanga was far enough away from Manila to avoid the inunda
tion of Spanish opportunity-seekers that plagued the capital area in

19. Teodoro A. Agoncillo and Oscar M. Alfonso, A Short History of the Filipino
People, Quezon City 1960, p. 212.
20. Kalaw, The Philippine Revolution, p. 26.
21. Ibid., p. 43.
22. "Report of Spanish Casualties in Pampanga, August 23, 1896 to November 10,
1897," trans. J. R. M. Taylor, in John R. M. Taylor (Ed.), The Philippine In
surrection Against the United States, Washington 1906, [galley proof only], I,
17 LY.
23. At the time of the Philippine Revolution, the twenty or so parishes in the
province of Pampanga probably had at their disposal one or two thousand
hectares of land for the support of church activities. This estimate is based on
incomplete information from the Philippine Archives.
The following lands were confiscated by the Philippine Revolutionary
Government from Church establishments during 1898 and 1899. By all
appearances, they represent total inventories.
Name of Parish or Organization Size of Holding
Lubao 17 hectares
San Fernando 62.7
Bacolor 115.3
Confraternity of the Holy
Angeles? 93.7
[Philippine National Archives,
32, 36, 38, 44].
[Mariano A. Henson, A Brief H
Pampanga 1948, pp. 3, 7]. The C
devoted to good works. Its lan
of Angeles, although it was ma
The Church, then, controlled
105,677 hectares of land cultivat
Census of the Philippine Island
Commission in the Year 1903,

313

This content downloaded from 112.208.234.100 on Fri, 25 Jan 2019 01:11:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILIPPINE HISTORIOGRAPHY

the latter half of the nineteenth century. The Pampangan elite,

many of whom were Spanish-speaking and educated, deeply religious
and without the hatreds of their neighbours to the south, saw little
reason for separating from the "mother country." It was one thing
to associate with a man of their own class like Rizal in a genteel
reformist movement, and quite another to join a militant ana
partially lower class group of Tagalogs in open rebellion. Certainly
a few Pampangans did support the Revolution, and at least two of
them joined Aguinaldo in exile at Hong Kong in December 1897,2*
but, in general, Pampanga stayed uncommitted during the second
phase of the Revolution.
Beginning in January 1898, the revolutionaries who did not follow
Aguinaldo into exile commenced guerrilla operations in Central
Luzon.25 After May 1898, and Dewey's victory, their elforts were
crowned with success and, by the time Aguinaldo returned in late
May, large areas of the great Plain, including parts of Pampanga,
were already in rebel hands.26
From the middle of June 1898 until May 1899 Pampanga and
the other provinces of Luzon came under the administration of
Aguinaldo's government. The provincial leaders responded enthu
siastically to the new regime. All the town councils of the province
endorsed the Filipino documents of independence in August 1898
and signed in January 1899 a resolution protesting American
annexation of the Philippines.27 Prominent Pampangans served m
the Constitutional Convention at Malolos, Bulacan, in late 1898 and
at the meeting of the Philippine Congress convened at Tarlac in
June 1899.28 Local Pampangan military units, organized under the
Republic guerrillas, helped drive out the last Spanish troops and
prepared to fight the American forces.29
Cooperation between the Republican government and the Pam
pangans remained firm until May 1899 when the American army,
pushing northward through Central Luzon, captured San Fernando
and six other towns in southern Pampanga. The townspeople
24. Alejandrino, op. cit., p. 30; Kalaw, The Philippine Revolution, p. 73.
25. "Draft of a sketch of his career by F. Macabulos y Soliman, Insurgent General,"
July 10, 1898, quoted in Taylor, op. cit., I, 68 LY.
26. Kalaw, The Philippine Revolution, pp. 104-105.
27. Ibid., p. 112; Agoncillo, Malolos..., p. 372.
28. Ibid., pp. 283-285; Kalaw, The Philippine Revolution, pp. 193-194.
29. [?] Lugay, "History of Bacolor, 1746-1909," (trans. Milagrosa M. Martinez),
Luther Parker Collection, Library of the University of the Philippines, p. 19;
[?] Punu, "History of Bacolor, 1746-1908," (trans. Milagrosa M. Martinez), Luther
Parker Collection; Apolinario Serrano, "History of Betis," (trans. Milagroso M.
Martinez), Luther Parker Collection, p. 21. [The above three items are all
unpublished manuscripts by Pampangan chroniclers of the Revolutionary period.]
Henson, Angeles..., p. 22; Kalaw, The Philippine Revolution, pp. 104-105.

314

This content downloaded from 112.208.234.100 on Fri, 25 Jan 2019 01:11:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILIPPINE HISTORIOGRAPHY

responded warmly to the Americans after their initial fears of the

conqueror subsided.30
The American campaign had moved rapidly until late May and
the beginning of the rainy season. The weather and the recall of
US volunteer units that had finished their tour of duty bogged down
the American advance in the middle of Pampanga. For the next
five months the struggle between the armies teetered back and forth
causing great destruction to life, crops and buildings. American
forces, refurbished with regular troops, did not finally drive the
Filipino field army out of Pampanga until the end of the rainy
season in November.31

Pampanga was not yet finished with war, for on 13 November,

Aguinaldo called for a return to guerrilla warfare and Republican
units filtered back into the province. Then began a pattern all
too familiar in modern warfare in Southeast Asia. Guerrilla troops,
living off the land, attacked isolated American stations and letreated
before superior force. The Americans controlled the towns of
Pampanga, but the guerrillas kept the countryside. Pampanga's
civilian leaders declared loyalty to the American regime and supplied
the rebels with food and money; the leaders were threatened, fined,
and punished for collaboration by both sides.32 Not until 30 April
1901 with the surrender of guerrilla commander Jos? Alejandrino,
did the hostilities end. Most of Pampanga's leaders accepted the
American peace and took office in the new civil government
established on 13 February 1901.33 Only a few diehards remained
loyal to the cause of the Philippine Republic. Jos? Alejandrino
eventually accepted a position with the insular government.34 but
the other prominent Pampangan officer, General Maximino Hizon,
died in exile on the island of Guam.35 The Revolution was over.

30. Charles B. Elliott, The Philippines to the End of the Military Regime, Indiana
polis 1916, p. 466; Taylor, op. cit., II, 4 HS.
31. Taylor, op. cit., II, 94-95 AJ, 8-9 HS; Philippine Islands, Military Governor,
Report of Major General E. S. Otis, United States Army, Commanding Division
of the ?Philippines, Military Governor, September 1, 1899 to May 5, 1900,
Washington 1901, pp. 11, 13; LeRoy, The Americans..., II, pp. 41-42; ?alaw,
The Philippine Revolution, p. 216. The Manila Times during August 1899
carried almost daily accounts of engagements between Filipino and American
troops in Pampanga.
32. The information for the guerrilla phase of the Revolution in Pampanga is taken
from the Philippine Insurgent Records, formerly housed in the National Archives
in Washington, D.C., but now kept in the National Library of the Philippines
in Manila. A microfilm copy of the Insurgent Records still remains in Wash
ington. Most of the references used here come from Items 289 and 562 on
rolls 22 and 33 of the microfilm.
33. US War Department, US Philippine Commission, Annual Reports of the War
Department for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1901. Report of the Philippine
Commission in Two Parts, Washington 1901, pp. 11-17.
34. Manila Times, 29 August 1901, p. 1
35. Zaide, op. cit., p. 352, n. 108.

315

This content downloaded from 112.208.234.100 on Fri, 25 Jan 2019 01:11:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILIPPINE HISTORIOGRAPHY

The Pampangans reacted to each phase of the Revolution accord

ing to their own self-interest. At times that interest coincided with
the aims of a broader Filipino nationalism and at times not.
Pampanga's leaders, though in favour of moderate reform of the
Spanish colonial regime, backed down on the issue of complete
independence. Yet once the Spaniards were eliminated from
contention, a native government loomed as the best alternative.
Finally, when Aguinaldo's government failed to hold the country,
Pampanga accepted the stability offered by the Americans.
Some might cynically point out that the Pampangans only backed
the winner, no matter who it was; but this judgment is unfair. The
landlords belonged to a conservative tradition that looked to stable
government for the preservation of their property. Politically they
were committed to no ideology, and none of the three powers in
the struggle threatened the sanctity of private property. The
Pampangans willingly cooperated with the government that promised
them the most peace and order. The choice was not always an easy
one, and many were killed for their commitment. Hizon may have
died in exile for supporting Aguinaldo, but other Pampangans
perished at the hands of the guerrillas for backing the Americans.
Their situation was similar to that faced by prominent Americans
during the Revolution of 1776. Carl Becker pointed out the
dilemma of propertied colonists who had to decide between the
Tories and Patriots. Their choice was frequently made for the
most pragmatic of reasons.36
Pampanga supplies merely one example of non-Tagalog response
to the events of 1896 to 1902. Certainly its role was more complex
than either the American or Filipino historians have previously
pictured it. So it must be in other regions as well.37 Many ques
tions connected with the Revolution and nationalism remain
unsolved, and only regional studies can supply many of the answers.
The body of Philippine historical writing has so far given us only
isolated glimpses of the history of the Archipelago. No writer can
yet present a meaningful overview of the progress of all the Filipino
people through more than four hundred years of recorded history.
The problem is one of approach. Scholars have not treated Philip
pine society as it has always been, a collection of integrated societies
developing at different rates and subject to diverse stimuli. Until
36. Carl Lotus Becker, The History of Political Parties in the Province of New York,
1760-1776, Madison, Wisconsin 1960.
37. David Sturtevants recent and excellent article, "Guardia de Honor: Revitaliza
tion within the Revolution," Asian Studies, IV (August 1966), pp. 342-352,
suggests that the situation in Pangasinan differed markedly from that in either
Pampanga or the Tagalog provinces.

316

This content downloaded from 112.208.234.100 on Fri, 25 Jan 2019 01:11:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PHILIPPINE HISTORIOGRAPHY

each unit is studied as a unique entity and then compared with

other regions, Philippine history will remain incomplete. Local
histories will supply the necessary building blocks that will someday
help in the construction of a substantial edifice for Philippine
historiography.

317

This content downloaded from 112.208.234.100 on Fri, 25 Jan 2019 01:11:28 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms