Template talk:Spanish Governors-General of the Philippines

I undid your edit on Template:Governor-General of the Philippines largely because of the following reasons:

1. First, is that your removal and addition has no historical basis. Dalrymple and Draper has never been governors of Manila, only Drake did. According to Zaide and other historical writers (I made an extensive research while I did that template), Dalrymple is only an army officer belonging to Draper's battalion. And he was a surveyor and geographer, not willing to be in politics. Though it can be said that he was elected governor as successor to Drake, Dalrymple was never proclaimed as governor because the British left Manila at the time his term supposed to be started. Drake was sent by the British East India Company, say Madras Council to facilitate the successful entering of Drake in Manila. Well, since the coming of the British, Drake has never been into picture. He only came in November 2, 1762 and he was sent in Manila because he had good records in governance in India. Notice that Draper was the one who deserves to be the governor, as he successfully conquered and defeated Spanish forces (remember that Legazpi became governor-general after successful conquering), and that was Draper thought of that time. Now, when Drake came into Manila, Draper started to throw bitter arguments with him, like he deserves to be the governor but the Council did not grant that right. Drake persisted to become governor, he has the talent, higher records that Draper and honor. So, ten days after Drake's arrival in Manila, in November 12, 1762, Draper left Manila and returned to England, where he got promotions and was sent to an expedition regarding increasing tension of American Revolution. So what is your basis to add Dalrymple and Draper? 2. Next, I made the template divided into the subsection "British occupation". You know, 1761 was the start of the British attacks, but the actual occupation started in 1762. No reason to call it from 1761.

3. Third, naming "British occupation" does not mean it is solely describing British governors. (I suggest reading a history book). Remember that during the British occupation, three governors took an oath at the same time: in 1761, long before the British attacks, Spanish governor-general Pedro de Arandia died. Manuel Rojo was the Manila archbishop that time. Because of some sort of Hispanic law regarding the union of the church and state, it is expected that the archbishop will replace the governor-general in case the latter died or was removed from office. So that was Rojo did. He himself recognized as the governor-general temporarily until the arrival of new chief executive. But then came the British. During Spanish resistance against the British, oidor of the Audiencia and lieutenant General Simon de Anda saw weaknesses with Rojo that they made quarreling with the war. When the British successfully conquered Manila, Rojo conceded with the British and as a token, Rojo himself was given the honor to become the ceremonial governor of the Philippines while Drake the real governor. Anda on the other hand, together with his men and several soldiers, traveled to Bacolor, Pampanga where they established provisionary government of the Philippines. Well, he then became governor of that government. Therefore, there are three governors that time, and that section on the template is not limited to the British only.

I am happy to hear from you.-- JL 09  q?c 15:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I wrote the following in British occupation of the Philippines and provided substantiating citations.

''Britain declared war against Spain on 4 January 1762. On 6 January 1762 the British Cabinet led by the Prime Minister, the Earl of Bute, agreed to attack Havana in the West Indies, and approved Colonel William Draper's 'Scheme for taking Manila with some Troops, which are already in the East Indies' in the East.[2] Draper was commanding officer of the 79th Regiment of Foot, which was currently stationed in Madras, India. On 18 January 1762, Spain issued their own declaration of war against Britain.[3] On 21 January 1762 King George III signed the instructions to Draper to implement his Scheme, emphasising that by taking advantage of the 'existing war with Spain' Britain might be able to assure her post-war mercantile expansion. There was also the expectation that the commerce of Spain would suffer a 'crippling blow'. On arrival in India, Draper's brevet rank became brigadier general.[4]''

On 24 September 1762 [5], the small but technically proficient force of British Army regulars and British East India Company soldiers, supported by the ships and men of the East Indies Squadron of the British Royal Navy, sailed into Manila Bay from Madras.[1]

The expedition, led by Brigadier General William Draper and Rear-Admiral Samuel Cornish, captured Manila, "the greatest Spanish fortress in the western Pacific", and attempted to establish free trade with China.[6]

''The Spanish defeat was not really surprising. The Royal Governor of the Philippines, Don Pedro Manuel de Arandia had died in 1759 and his replacement Brigadier Don Francisco de la Torre had not arrived because of the British attack on Havana in Cuba. Spanish policy was for the Archbishop of Manila to be Lieutenant Governor. In part, because the garrison was commanded by the Archbishop Don Manuel Antonio Rojo del Rio et Vieria, instead of by a military expert, many mistakes were made by the Spanish forces.[7]''

''Under Spanish rule, the Philippines never paid its own way, but survived on an annual subsidy paid by the Spanish Crown. As a cost saving measure, and because the Spanish authorities never really contemplated a serious expedition against Manila by a European power, the 200 year old fortifications at Manila had not been much improved since first built by the Spanish.[8]''

''On 5 October 1762 (4 October local calendar), the night before the fall of the walled city of Manila (now called Intramuros), the Spanish military persuaded Archbishop Rojo to summon a council of war. By very heavy battery fire that day, the British had successfully breached the walls of the bastion San Diego, dried up the ditch, dismounted the cannons of that bastion and the two adjoining bastions, San Andes and San Eugeno, set fire to parts of the town, and driven the Spaniards from the walls. The Spanish military recommended capitulation. The archbishop would not consent. The only positive action from the council of war was the dispatch of Oidor Don Simón de Anda y Salazar to the provincial town of Bulacan to organize continued resistance to the British once Manila fell[9]. At that war council, the Real Audencia appointed Anda Lieutenant Governor and Visitor-General.[10][11] That night Anda took a substantial portion of the treasury and official records with him, departing Fort Santigo through the postern of Our Lady of Solitude, to a boat on the Pasig River, and then to Bulacan. He moved headquarters from Bulacan to Bacolor in Pampanga province, which was more secure from the British, and quickly obtained the powerful support of the Augustinians. He raised an army which may eventually have amounted to 10,000 men, almost all ill-armed native Filipinos. On 8 October 1762 Anda wrote to Rojo informing him that Anda had assumed the position of Governor and Capitan-General under statutes of the Indies which allowed for the devolution of authority from the Governor to the Audencia, of which he was the only member not captive by the British. Anda demanded the royal seal, but Rojo declined to surrender it and refused to recognise Anda's self-proclamation as Governor and Capitan-General.[11]''

''Early success by the British in Manila did not enable them to expand their control over all parts of the Spanish Philippines. In reality they only continuously controlled Manila and Cavite. But Manila was the capital, and key, to the Spanish Philippines, and the British accepted the written surrender of the Spanish government in the Philippines from Archbishop Rojo and the Real Audiencia on 30 October 1762.[11]''

That was 1762. NOT 1761. Your preference for a British occupation in 1761 is UNHISTORICAL.

I also note that Zaide (both father and daughter) are flawed in a number of areas, as more rigorous scholarship has since uncovered. Since I had so obviously read the more scholarly articles I had cited in the specific wikipedia article British occupation of the Philippines, your suggestion to me about reading some history books seems somewhat misplaced. Perhaps you might return my edit of Template:Governor-General of the Philippines to the historically correct version, not the discredited version you rely on. Gubernatoria (talk) 01:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)