During the late seventeenth century, Spain initiated its next colonization phase, identifying Texas and Arizona as the preferred sites (Polzer 1976:36–37; Weber 1992:154). The entradas were launched by the military and the church. Franciscan fathers were in charge of the missions in Texas, while the Jesuits founded the missions in Arizona (Engelhardt 1929:14; Polzer 1976:34; Weber 1992:95).1 Before colonies could be established, however, Indian alliances had to be forged and places for future colonies identified.
The colonization of Texas began in 1690 when two missions were established in the northeast (Chipman 1992:88; Morfí 1935). Approximately twenty-nine missions were erected throughout the Spanish period (Chipman 1992:108–109, 148–149; cf. Weber 1992:150). Some lasted a few months, while others continue to serve a congregation today, such as Mission San José and Mission San Juan de Capistrano (see Photographs 5 to 8). The settlement of Texas was prompted by the threat of a French invasion (Bannon 1970:94). France’s monarch, Louis XIV, disregarded Spain’s claim to North America and failed to honor the 1493 papal bull giving Spain legal right over most of the New World (Hoffman 1973). By the seventeenth century most European countries disagreed with the papal bull and proposed that land in the New World belonged to the country that had military possession of it. To establish an official claim to East Texas and Louisiana, Louis XIV commissioned René Robert Cavelier de La Salle to establish colonies. In 1685 La Salle founded Fort Saint-Louis near Matagorda Bay, in East Texas (Chipman 1992:87). Although the colony failed after most settlers met their deaths at the hands of Indians, France continued its crusade, concentrating its energies in northeastern Texas.
Photograph 5. Mission San José. Courtesy of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. Photograph taken by author.
Photograph 6. Mission San Juan de Capistrano and Aztec Dancers, 1996. Courtesy of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. Photograph taken by author.
Photograph 7. Mission San Juan de Capistrano and My Sons at the Soldiers’ Quarters, 1996. Courtesy of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. Photograph taken by author.
Photograph 8. Mission San Juan de Capistrano: Altar. Courtesy of the San Antonio Missions National Historical Park. Photograph taken by author.
To avert a French invasion, the Spanish crown commissioned Captain Alonso de León to take a party of soldiers and missionaries into the northeast border area of Louisiana and Texas (Pertulla 1992). They were to establish two mission settlements among the Hasini Indians, a subdivision of the Caddo. Franciscan father Damién Mazanet was in charge of the colonies and was assisted by four friars (Newcomb 1986). On 20 March 1690 León departed from Monclavo, Coahuila, and led his party toward the northeast (Bannon 1970:102). His troops were ordered to remain there until the fathers were safely situated but to leave as soon as possible, to assure the Indians that the fathers came in peace. The fathers set camp in a Hasini village called Nabedaches and soon established two missions nearby. After a year the crown sent a troop of soldiers to replenish supplies, because giving gifts to the Indians was an effective way of befriending them (Weber 1992). Apparently the first two years were successful, and a large number of Indians came to visit the fathers. Relations began to deteriorate, however, when the military stopped coming to replenish supplies. As supplies dwindled, so did the interest of the Hasini converts. Compounding the fathers’ problems was their inability to grow crops in arid soil (Newcomb 1986). They gradually became more dependent on the Indians and were unable to prove the worth of their farming technology. In New Mexico the entradas had been partially successful because the Spaniards had demonstrated to the Pueblo Indians the advantages of having allies with advanced agricultural technology (Engelhardt 1930). This process was not replicated in the northeast, and in 1694 the Hasini forced the missionaries to leave (New-comb 1986:287).
Although the first entrada failed, neither the crown nor the Catholic Church abandoned the efforts to colonize Texas. New plans were drafted after the royal government learned that France had ceased its attempts to colonize the northeast. Now the colonization of Texas could proceed in an area closer to the northern colonies already founded in the present states of Coahuila and San Luis Potosí (Alessio Robles 1934; Frye 1996). Establishing colonies in close proximity to one another was better strategically. If a colony was under attack, troops could quickly be mobilized and a large counterattack could be mounted. In 1700 and 1703 three missions were established along the current Texas-Mexico border, near present-day Monclova (Newcomb 1986:36). Although these missions were part of the Texas-Coahuila mission program, the buildings were erected on what is today the Mexican side of the border. Fortunately for the fathers, the missions flourished and attracted a large neophyte population (Campbell 1977). Alliances were also established with a large number of Tejas and Coahuiltecan Indians living in rancherías located near the missions (Chipman 1992; Weber 1982).2
Throughout Texas and other parts of the Southwest many Indians lived in villages politically led by a chief or headman, in contrast to the theocratic government commonly practiced among the Pueblo Indians of New Mexico. These communities were called rancherías. In most cases ranchería Indians refused to move when they were invited to live in the missions, so their chiefs were asked to relocate their villages near the missions. Fathers expected the ranchería Indians to become Christians and to adopt Spanish customs in terms of dress style, to register their villages as ally settlements in a garrison or presidio, and to send members of the rancherías to the missions (Ezzell 1974; Polzer 1976). Because ranchería Indians were not economically dependent upon the Spanish and were not under daily surveillance as were the mission Indians, the fathers knew that their interethnic relations were fragile and that the Indians’ way of life had to be respected. During periods of war, ranchería allies were also expected to form military auxiliaries and to assist the Spanish in fighting mutual enemies (Kessell 1989).
In turn the Christianized ranchería Indians expected a reciprocal relationship, with the soldiers protecting them from common enemies and the fathers giving them supplies (Engelhardt 1930). Through this relationship many rancherías officially became part of Spanish municipalities and legal subjects of the crown (see Byrne v. Alas et al., 1888:525, 526; Weber 1982).
In 1716 the first civilian colony was established in Texas (Castañeda 1936: 47–49). Once again plans were prompted by renewed French threats in the northeast (Weber 1992).3 A successful French colony had been established in Natchitoches, along the present northeast Texas-Louisiana border. Making matters worse for Spain, France granted entrepreneurs willing to fund colonies permission to establish camps in the northern region of Texas (Castañeda 1936:22–24). This gave investors title to the land they controlled.
Spain determined that Texas must be settled to avert any further French entradas. It became necessary to start populating several regions with soldiers, civilians, Indians, and mission fathers. In preparation for the arrival of the colonists Spanish soldiers and missionaries were commissioned to explore Texas and to select sites for settlement. At this time most of these soldiers came from Coahuila, and a large number of them were from the Tlaxcalan towns of Saltillo and San Esteban (Hernández Xochitiotzin 1991; Meade de Angulo n.d.).
In mid-February 1716 Captain Domingo Ramón took approximately seventy-eight colonists into the northeast (Bannon 1970:112; Castañeda 1936:47). These settlers included nine priests, three lay brothers, dozens of colonists, and twenty-five soldiers. Many of the soldiers also brought their families. Among the colonists were criollos, mestizos, and peninsu-lares. Only seven of the colonists were Indian, and one was Black (Castañeda 1936:45–47). As the colonists migrated north, they stopped many times along their route to rest and to greet friendly Tejas Indians. The settlers finally arrived in the northeast on 26 June 1716 (Bannon 1970:114). They established a presidio five miles west of the Neches River and erected five missions nearby among various ethnic subdivisions of the Caddo Indians.4 Although their initial journey succeeded, they soon experienced severe hardships when their gifts dwindled and they were no longer welcomed. Within two years the Caddo Indians became increasingly hostile and repeatedly attacked the settlers.
When the royal government in Mexico City received news of the problems, it became necessary to reassess the colonization project; if military assistance was not made available, it was only a matter of time before the Indians destroyed the settlements. Clearly, if the colonists needed help it was unrealistic to expect the military from Coahuila to dispatch a cavalry unit in a timely manner. It therefore became necessary to establish a second colony midway between the northeast and Coahuila. A temporary militia could be assembled there and dispatched while a larger cavalry group came from Coahuila (Bannon 1970). Upon hearing the news that a second colony was to be established, Father Antonio de San Buenaventura de Olivares, the head missionary of the Coahuila missions, took immediate action and petitioned the crown for the colony to be established in San Antonio and for all religious matters to be in his charge. In 1690 Father Olivares had sent Agustín de la Cruz, a Tlaxcalan neophyte, to explore present San Antonio and the current Texas-Coahuila border (Baga 1690:96). Upon his return, De la Cruz reported that the region was inhabited by peaceful village-dwelling Indians. Nearly two decades later Father Olivares visited the area and reported to the royal government that the Indians of San Marcos and San Antonio were well suited for mission life.
In 1718 Father Olivares’s petition was approved by the royal crown. His plans were to erect a mission and a civilian settlement populated by Indians and governed by peninsulares (Weber 1992:163). These plans came to a temporary halt when Martín de Alarcón, the governor of Coahuila and Tejas, was appointed to recruit the settlers and establish a civilian colony. Although Father Olivares was commissioned to found the first mission in San Antonio, it was Alarcón who was appointed to control all secular matters in the colony. Their views on who should settle San Antonio clashed.
Alarcón, like Olivares, preferred to select Spaniards to settle San Antonio. This became an unrealistic goal, however, because Alarcón was only able to recruit a handful of Spaniards. Most of the people willing to take the journey into the frontier were people of color (Castañeda 1936:87). According to Alarcón, only mulattos, lobos, coyotes, and mestizos from Coahuila were prepared to risk their lives in exchange for land. Nonetheless, Olivares distrusted these colonists because he considered them half-breed savages and feared that if war broke out they would betray the Spanish. He believed that the colonists of color were not the best agents of Spanish acculturation since they still practiced Indian dances and traditions and could easily revert to their parents’ lifestyle. Father Olivares several times attempted to delay the departure of the colony until a larger number of peninsulares could be recruited. Alarcón, unable and unwilling to fulfill the father’s request, began the trek toward San Antonio after agreeing to return and recruit more peninsulares.
The colonists were divided into two companies. The first company departed from Mission San José, located along the current Texas-Coahuila border. It was composed of Father Olivares, two missionaries, twenty-five soldiers, and about five Indians raised by Olivares since childhood (Castañeda 1936:35). The second company, stationed in Saltillo, Coahuila, was composed of Alarcón and seventy-two settlers (Chipman 1992:117).5 The settlers included many of the soldiers’ families as well as a large number of artisans (de la Teja 1991). The two companies departed in early April and arrived in San Antonio several days apart. Father Olivares took a direct route to San Antonio and arrived on 1 May 1718 (Bannon 1970:117). On that day Father Olivares founded Mission San Antonio de Valero—the chapel that later became the Alamo. Alarcón arrived five days later, as he took a scouting route to explore the coast before proceeding to San Antonio.6 Presidio de Béjar was formally founded upon his arrival, and the settlers clustered inside it. They were the first members of what later was destined to become the largest civilian settlement in Texas—Villa of San Fernando de Béjar,7 later renamed San Antonio. At this time the settlers remained under military governance and could not establish a town council because people of color did not have the right to govern themselves (de la Teja 1991). The crown did not give them this privilege until a decade later, after a large colony of peninsulares arrived in San Antonio. Furthermore, these settlers were not awarded land grants and were only issued occupancy land rights (de la Teja 1991).
After the colonists settled in San Antonio, Father Olivares charged that the colonists of color were unacculturated and untrustworthy and therefore asked Alarcón to return immediately to recruit peninsulares. Alarcón ridiculed the father’s request, responding that unlike Olivares, who had access to Spanish missionaries from the apostolic colleges, he could recruit no such Spaniards. In a letter dated 22 June 1718, Olivares derogatorily characterized the colonists of color as savage half-breeds who were less civilized than the Indians and asked the viceroy, the marqués de Valero, to force Alarcón to recruit other people:
Such people are bad people, unfit to settle among gentiles, because their customs are depraved, and worse than those of the gentiles themselves. It is they who sow discontent and unrest among them and come to control the Indians to such an extent, that by means of insignificant gifts they make them do what they please. When it is to their interest, they help the Indians in their thefts and evil doings, and they attend their dances and mitotes just to get deer and buffalo skins from them …. It is with this sort of people, Your Excellency, that he wishes to settle the new site on the San Antonio and the Province of Tejas. (Father San Buenaventura de Olivares, in Castañeda 1936:87)
Although Father Olivares’s request went unheeded, the crown did give him permission to send for additional Christian Indians from Tlaxcala and from the northern missions. They were to be used as models and beneficiaries of a Christian lifestyle (Bolton 1960:15; Castañeda 1936:73). Father Olivares also requested that Tlaxcalan masons and sculptors be transferred to San Antonio, as they were specialists in constructing mission buildings and designing iconographic religious art. Sculptors and masons from the Tlaxcalan town of San Esteban, Coahuila, were brought for the specific purpose of sculpting religious images on the mission buildings (Castañeda 1936:80). By 1720 San Antonio had a colonial population of 300 and several hundred mission Indians (Weber 1992:193).
While Olivares and Alarcón disputed over San Antonio, news arrived that the colonists of the northeast could no longer survive among the Indians and were prepared to abandon their post. Alarcón immediately departed for Presidio Nuestra Señora de los Dolores and later visited the missions, where he observed a pattern of disorder and despair. Most colonists were sick, their supplies depleted, their houses in disrepair, their fields destroyed by the Indians, and most of the missions empty, as the neophytes were better off on their own. Apparently, the local Indians and the French from Natchitoches had conspired to drive the colonists out. Alarcón assessed the damage and determined that it was necessary to retreat temporarily. He had to receive permission to do so, however. Matters got worse, and the colonists could no longer wait. While the viceroy assessed the petition, French soldiers attacked Mission San Miguel de los Adaes and forced everyone to flee. News of the attack reached the other northeast settlements. The settlers were warned that unless they abandoned their homes a French battalion of 100 soldiers was prepared to kill them. Father Antonio Margil, the head missionary of the northeastern missions, attempted to calm the settlers and temporarily convinced them to stay. He suggested that they congregate in Mission Concepción until the Spanish cavalry arrived. When the settlers arrived at Concepción, a sense of despair and panic prevailed. Many of the settlers, unwilling to wait for military aid, opted to withdraw immediately to San Antonio. Unable to assure the colonists of their safety, the fathers allowed them to leave. After accompanying the refugees to San Antonio, Fathers Margil and Espinosa returned to the northeast.
Although the crown allowed the settlers to leave, the recolonization of the northeast resumed in 1721 (Chipman 1992:121). The crown appointed José Azlor de Vera to launch a counterattack. Don José was officially known as the marqués de Aguayo. Two years earlier he had been appointed governor and captain-general of Texas and Coahuila. To fulfill his commission, Aguayo raised a force of 85 soldiers and 500 recruits to repopulate northeastern Texas (Castañeda 1936:122; Chipman 1992:120). It is uncertain what percentage of the colonists were people of color; Aguayo’s reports did not provide a demographic description, indicating only that a large number of them were Indian, mestizo, and Black (Castañeda 1936:130). Although a census was not taken by Aguayo, Spanish census enumerators in 1777 reported that over 50 percent of the 130 families living in the northeast were people of color: 62 were classified as Spanish, 49 as partially Black, 13 as Indian, 5 as Black, and 1 as mestizo (Tjarks 1974:324–325).
Aguayo’s forces departed from Monclavo, Coahuila, and arrived on the Neches River around mid-July 1721 (Bannon 1970:121). They were greeted by Father Espinosa and by the former mission Indians of the dismantled missions. Aguayo left a number of soldiers to reconstitute the Presidio of San Francisco (Weber 1992). After resting, he proceeded to the site where Mission San Miguel had previously stood, approximately twelve miles from Natchitoches. There he received a delegation of French soldiers who diplomatically asked him to place his colony somewhere else. Aguayo ignored the request and proceeded to establish Presidio de Nuestra Señora del Pilar de Los Adaes. He also assisted Father Margil to reconstitute Mission San Miguel, which was located near the presidio and renamed San Miguel de Los Adaes. To protect the settlements and to ward off further French attacks, Aguayo reinforced the presidio with a hundred soldiers and left artillery and six cannons behind. Twenty-eight of the soldiers were joined by their families, helping to populate and set claim to the northeast (Castañeda 1936:144). This region came to be known as Los Adaes. Before leaving the northeast, Aguayo reestablished six of the mission settlements and left two well-fortified presidios (Chipman 1992:123, 126).
Aguayo then moved south to fight further French intrusion and to solidify Spain’s claim along the coast of Texas. After resting for the winter in San Antonio, he reassembled his troops and marched toward Matagorda Bay, where the French had built a fort. In 1722 his troops seized the fort and in its place founded Presidio Nuestra Señora de Loreto (Bannon 1970:121). Mission del Espíritu Santo de Zúñiga was also established nearby. Approximately ninety soldiers were left to protect these two settlements. After four years the settlements were moved inland near the Guadalupe River (Chipman 1992:127). The new location proved to be beneficial because it was accessible to a larger number of Christian ranchería Indians. The presidio was renamed Presidio Nuestra Señora de la Bahía del Espíritu Santo. The settlements remained small yet stable, and two decades later Mission Rosario was founded nearby. This region came to be known as La Bahía.8
The friars were able to develop a successful tutelage relation with hundreds of ranchería allies and establish a thriving cattle economy. In 1758 Mission Espíritu Santo alone owned 3,200 head of cattle, 1,600 hundred sheep, and 20 saddle horses (Castañeda 1939:23). Moreover, many Indians came to visit their relatives in the missions and were allowed to live there temporarily. In 1763 the missions had a total neophyte population of 312 and a colonial population of fifty families (Castañeda 1939:23, 25).9 The colonists consisted of fifty soldiers, their nuclear families, and extended kin. Fourteen of the soldiers guarded the missions and lived on the grounds, while the rest of the colonial population lived in the presidio. Furthermore, 1777 census records indicate that the settlement in La Bahía was multiracial (Tjarks 1974:324). Approximately 53 percent of the settlers were registered as Spanish (N = 370), 27 percent as Indian (N = 185), 3 percent as mestizo (N = 24), and 17 percent as of partially Black descent (N = 117) (ibid.). As time passed, La Bahía’s strategic location became increasingly important, and a third mission was built at present Refugio.10 The Christian Indian population, however, continued to prefer to live in their villages rather than in the missions.
Between 1747 and 1773 Spain expanded its colonization of its northeastern frontier (Beers 1979:97). Many missions and presidios were built in Texas and in a newly established territory called Nuevo Santander (Castañeda 1938). In 1749 Nuevo Santander was founded along the current border between southeastern Texas and the Mexican state of Tamaulipas.11 Six thousand people were recruited to move there (Weber 1992:194), including seven hundred Tlaxcalan families (Bolton 1960:15; Simmons 1964:105). Although most of the colonists established their ranches in Tamaulipas, the purpose of the Nuevo Santander colony was to populate the far northern frontier and to create an infrastructure to help protect colonial settlements in Texas.
Over twenty-three towns were established in Nuevo Santander. Laredo was founded in 1755 on what is today Texas soil and soon became a stable community (Alonzo 1998:34; Castañeda 1938). The Indians near Laredo were friendly and allowed missionaries to visit them. One of the rancherías became a mission visita called Visita San Agustín de Laredo, with about 500 Christian Indians (Castañeda 1938:161). A settlement called Dolores was established near Laredo by twenty-three families. Dolores remained a ranching community throughout its existence and did not grow into a town (Alonzo 1998:80). By the turn of the nineteenth century Laredo had over 718 residents, according to the census, including 321 Spaniards, 155 mulattos, 121 mestizos, and 111 Indians (Hinojosa 1983:124). The Visita of San Agustín had over 1,500 Indians (Alonzo 1998:54). Altogether, by that time Nuevo Santander had grown to over 20,000 settlers, with a sizable population residing on what is today the Texas side of the border (Weber 1992:195).
Unlike the flourishing communities in Nuevo Santander, the newly established settlements in West Texas failed. Spain began its colonization project in 1747 (Castañeda 1938:226). Spanish soldiers tried to enact treaties with the Lipan Apache, who controlled the region. The Lipan Apache first appeared in West Texas during the late 1600s, and by the mid-1700s hundreds more had arrived (Alonso 1995; Swanton 1984:323). If Spanish colonies were to be established in West Texas, it was necessary to befriend the Apache. Thus, the first Spanish entrada began with the founding of Mission Cíbola on the border between Texas and Chihuahua, at the conjunction of the Rio Grande and the Concho River near present-day Presidio, Texas (Castañeda 1938:226).12 The mission was specifically founded for the Lipan Apache. The entrada failed; within a year the settlement was destroyed and the mission fathers and neophytes were killed.13 The Spaniards once again attempted to colonize West Texas by establishing Presidio San Luis de Las Amarillas in 1757 and Mission Santa Cruz de San Sabá a year later, both located near the San Sabá River and present Menard (Beers 1979:96). The furnishings and supplies used for the San Sabá settlements came from the failed missions of San Marcos and Georgetown.14 Both Texas missions had been built for the Apache.
Learning from the experience at Mission Cíbola, the Spanish had a new strategy: to populate West Texas solely with Indians. The plan was to place Indians in Apache territory on the theory that the Apache would not kill other Indians. In the northern states of Coahuila and San Luis Potosí, where similar entradas had been launched into hostile territory, sending Indian pioneers had apparently deflected the anger of the local Indians. Nine Tlaxcalan families and several fathers were sent to populate the mission at San Sabá (Castañeda 1938:394, 407). Although at first the settlements in San Sabá attracted many Lipan Apache families, and the presidio became a popular trading post, the life span of the mission was short. The Comanche and Lipan Apache did not want the colonial settlements and were angered that some Apache groups had befriended their enemies. The Comanche, like the Apache, saw the Spanish as intruders. Although most Comanches lived in North Texas, a few rancherías had moved to West Texas and more were advancing west (Chalfant 1991:5). Thus, when the San Sabá settlements were established hostile Indians raided the mission’s livestock and in general made life miserable for the colonial residents (Chipman 1992; Corbin 1989). Within a year the mission was burned, and the survivors were forced to flee to San Antonio. Only the presidio was left standing.
The destruction of the mission led the royal government to reconsider its plans and temporarily cease the missionization of the Lipan Apache. In 1762, however, several Lipan Apache groups agreed to resume alliances and to be missionized (Castañeda 1939:42, 169). Two missions were established north of the Nueces River and forty leagues from present San Sabá in an area called El Cañón. The missions immediately attracted a neophyte population of over 700 Indians. In addition Chief Tacú and Chief El Chico, who controlled over 3,000 ranchería Indians, became allies of the Spanish (Castañeda 1938:398, 1939:108). Although these chiefs did not move their villages into the mission compounds, they actively became engaged in mission life. Once again, however, hard times befell the fathers as enemy Indian groups attacked El Cañón settlements and the presidio at San Sabá (Swanton 1984). This time the presidio was also destroyed. In 1767 all settlements in West Texas were destroyed (Bannon 1970:139).
In spite of the ongoing defeats the royal government ordered the colonization of West Texas to resume. It was painfully clear, however, that no settlements could be established near San Sabá and that another site had to be selected. In 1773 a new site south of San Sabá near the location of the failed mission of Cíbola was selected (Castañeda 1938:223–232). This region was called La Junta. Presidio del Norte at La Junta was built approximately three miles south of the city of Presidio and north of the Rio Grande (Beers 1979:97).15 Finally, a permanent settlement had been established in Apache territory. Throughout its duration it remained a small and popular trading post.
In 1731 fifty-five peninsular families came to San Antonio from the Canary Islands, enlarging the size of the White population. A few of these people later dispersed throughout Texas (Poyo 1991a:41). They were brought for the explicit purpose of governing the non-White population, as Spanish law prohibited non-Whites from holding positions on the town council. In Texas the royal government appointed the town council, called a cabildo (Haring 1963; Menchaca 1993; Poyo 1991b).
Canary Islanders were given special privileges because they were peninsulares. Besides being eligible for the cabildo, they qualified for the most prestigious occupations within the military and were accorded the title hidalgo (see Poyo 1991b; Recopilación de leyes de los reynos de las Indias 1774: Book 3, Title 10, Law 12). For example, ten Canary Islanders were given life appointments as councilmen, sheriff, notary, land commissioner, city attorney, and two magistrates who ruled on the legalities of community life (Poyo 1991a:42). Likewise, the Texas census of 1793 indicates that in San Antonio nearly 100 percent of the Canary Islanders were employed as professionals and farmers, while nearly 40 percent of the nonmission Indians and racially mixed peoples were employed as laborers and servants (Poyo 1991b:88, 93).
As hidalgos, the Canary Islanders were also eligible to receive land grants twice the size of those of other subjects and temporarily be exempt from paying taxes (see Castañeda 1936:296–301, 1938:90; Graham 1994). This land distribution policy adversely affected many mestizos who arrived to San Antonio after the Canary Islanders. Since the best land in San Antonio was owned by the missions, and the Canary Islanders were given most of the remaining irrigable land, the new immigrants received land without water and therefore were unable to become farmers (Poyo 1991b:89). Many worked as servants or field hands as a means of supporting themselves. The non-White settlers who arrived before the Canary Islanders were much better off, however, because they had obtained fertile land. They were not issued patents, but they did receive occupancy rights.
Although the racial caste system was transported to Texas, it was less rigid than in the interior. In Texas commoners of color could move out of their legal racial categories if they performed heroic acts for the state (Forbes 1966:245; Recopilación de leyes de los reynos de las Indias 1774: Book 7, Title 5, Laws 10 and 11). In the interior of Mexico such permission was uncommon and generally only accorded to wealthy individuals (see McAlister 1963; Seed 1988). The best known case of racial mobility in Texas is that of Antonio Gil Y’Barbo, a well-respected mulatto (Tjarks 1974:326). He was one of the settlers of Los Adaes and had established a successful ranch called El Lobanillo. In 1772, after a series of Indian attacks, the colonists from northeastern Texas were forced to flee to San Antonio (Poyo 1991b:97). While in San Antonio, Los Adaesanos elected Y’Barbo as their spokesperson (Castañeda 1939). After a year, Los Adaesanos became restless and asked to leave because they had been given farmland that was impossible to cultivate. Without land they were limited to selling their labor. After repeated petitions to leave San Antonio, Y’Barbo was given permission to establish a new colony and immediately began traveling throughout the northeast and the Gulf Coast. In 1774 he found several suitable places along the northeast coast near the villages of Caddo and Orcoquisac Indians (Poyo 1991b:97). The settlers spread along the coast and inland and founded the town of Bucareli (Block 1976, 1979; Castañeda 1936). The royal government rewarded Y’Barbo by appointing him captain and chief justice of the colonists. In spite of his racial lineage, Y’Barbo was later promoted to lieutenant governor and captain of the northeast (Tjarks 1974).
Historian Gerald Poyo (1991a) found in a study of the casta system in San Antonio that Y’Barbo’s case was not unique: non-Whites could change their racial status and obtain the classification of criollos if they held a special skill. For example, census enumerators allowed individuals to change their racial classification. Poyo found it was common for mestizo and afromestizo craftsmen who were cobblers, blacksmiths, tanners, carpenters, or sculptors to move up in social standing. Many craftsmen who were identified in the 1770 census as mestizos or afromestizos (i.e., coyotes, mulattos, and lobos) were classified as criollos by the 1790s (Poyo 1991b:94, 95).
Poyo contends that the flexibility of Texas’s racial order benefited the White population, since a large number of the people of color were financially secure ranchers. After the arrival of the Canary Islanders, the royal government was prepared to bring in more peninsular families. Plans were aborted, however, because local authorities reported that the Canary Islanders were dependent upon the other settlers (de la Teja 1991). Instead local authorities recommended that frontierspeople from towns in Coahuila, Zacatecas, Querétaro, Guanajuato, San Luis Potosí, Tula, and Jalpa be recruited (Tjarks 1974) because they were better suited to frontier life. This context led to improved interracial relations in San Antonio, because the Canary Islanders found life difficult and had to rely on their neighbors. Scholars attribute the prosperity of a larger number of the non-White settlers to the type of subsistence activities they engaged in (see Poyo and Hinojosa 1991). Many non-White settlers in San Antonio who established ranches which emphasized stock raising rather than farming were able to make handsome profits by selling hides and meat.
The Canary Islanders’ inability to exploit the mission Indians also contributed to the racial leveling of the inhabitants of San Antonio. The fathers held tight control over the mission Indians and prohibited colonists from employing them. Without a free labor force the large land grants the peninsulares received were useless because they had insufficient numbers of employees to work their fields. Furthermore, since enslaving Blacks in Texas was also uncommon, most Canary Islanders did not have access to slave labor. The Spanish censuses in Texas indicate that between 1782 to 1821 the number of slaves never exceeded 37, the majority of them women (Residents of Texas 1782–1836). These labor conditions placed the Canary Islanders and other peninsulares at a disadvantage and generated the social ambiance for a flexible racial order, where non-White neighbors had to be treated diplomatically. Such flexible race relations were manifested in interracial marriages. In 1793 church records indicate that approximately 18 percent of the White population married non-Whites in San Antonio (N = 47 out of 257) and 28 percent (N = 26 out of 92) in the northeast (Tjarks 1974:331).
In San Antonio, La Bahía, and northeastern Texas there were thirteen active missions in 1763 with a neophyte population of over 2,354; each mission was also associated with one to three Christian ranchería villages (Castañeda 1939:14, 23, 40). The missions in San Antonio were the most successful. By 1768 there were over twenty-three Indian tribes affiliated with the five San Antonio missions (Castañeda 1939:6, 8). The Coahuiltecans were the most numerous, followed by the Jumanos and the Lipan Apaches (ibid., 6–14). Over 5,115 Christian ranchería Indians had been baptized in the San Antonio missions, and 1,246 were resident neophytes (ibid., 6, 8, 9, 14). Many of the ranchería Indians were second-generation Christians and had adopted some of the Spaniards’ ways. They lived a sedentary life and had established farms and ranches (Castañeda 1936; John 1991; Morfí 1780; Weber 1982). Moreover, in the missions the Indians had adopted the town council form of government (Castañeda 1938:17).
The missions at La Bahía were also able to attract local Indians. Several Karankawa ethnic subdivisions were represented at the missions, including Cocos, Tamiques, and Xarananes (Castañeda 1938:187, 1939:40–44). Unlike the San Antonio missions, however, the missions at La Bahía never exceeded a membership of over 300 per mission and in the 1800s dwindled to a few families. La Bahía missions were poorly stocked, and when supplies dwindled people left. Many Indians would return only to visit the fathers or when goods were restocked. The fathers attributed the high attrition rate to the local terrain, which made agriculture difficult. They claimed that the main problem, however, was the royal government’s failure to invest in this region because the Indians were peaceful and did not pose a threat.
A similar situation occurred in Laredo. The church petitioned the royal government for assistance to missionize the local ranchería Indians and asked for funds to establish a mission in Laredo, as several chiefs had agreed to relocate their villages there (Castañeda 1938:150, 172). The petition was rejected on the basis that there was plenty of room for neophytes at La Bahía and it was not necessary to give supplies to Indians who were peaceful. Although missions were not established, the Indians continued to attend church services at Laredo and to trade with the colonists (Castañeda 1938; Hinojosa 1983). Tejones and various ethnic subdivisions of the Coahuiltecan Indians, including the Nazos, Comecrudos, Pintos, and Narices visited Laredo.
The missions in the northeast were only able to attract a few families and basically failed. In 1765 King Charles III of Spain directly commissioned the marqués de Rubí, a royal inspector, to write a status report on the northern frontier colonies, including Texas (Hendricks and Timmons 1998:3). Rubí recommended that the northeast be abandoned because the Indians were unwilling to be missionized.
In 1768 Cayetano María Pignatelli Rubí Corbera y San Climent, commonly known as the marqués de Rubí, submitted a report entitled Dictamen on the status of the northern frontier and recommended that the northeast settlements in Texas be abandoned because the French no longer posed a military threat in that region (Hendricks and Timmons 1998:3). It was also wise to retreat temporarily from the northeast, which had become a battle zone. By the time of Rubí’s visit thousands of Apaches and Comanches lived in Texas, competing for land inhabited by local Caddo groups and colonial settlers. Warfare between the colonists and the Apaches and Comanches often erupted in the west and north. Although the colonists had some Indian allies, they were outnumbered. Rubí recommended that the northeast missions be abandoned and the territory be left to the Comanches. The settlers and Indian allies would be relocated to San Antonio or La Bahía, where they could assist in the fortification of these stable communities. Through nuclear fortification a gradual expansion from the center into the periphery would be possible. A similar plan had succeeded two centuries earlier in the Gran Chichimeca when the colonists concentrated their energies on the fortification of Zacatecas and then gradually moved outward.
Rubí further recommended that, instead of colonizing the north, funds be spent in southwestern Texas near Presidio del Norte at La Junta to create another heavily fortified zone such as San Antonio. This area would serve as a resting place for settlers traveling from San Antonio to El Paso or Santa Fe. The idea was to create a line of missions from La Bahía to other parts of the Southwest (Castañeda 1939:253). A single cordon of presidios situated forty leagues (a hundred miles) apart could halt any invasion (Hendricks and Timmons 1998). Rubí proposed as part of the presidial plan that Laredo be further developed and converted into a military center. If the crown invested in this large peaceful Indian population, it could be converted to a powerful military force to use against hostile Indians.
Rubí also offered a very unpopular opinion that was heatedly rejected by the missionaries. He recommended that Spain terminate all Lipan Apache alliances (Castañeda 1939:256–258). Rubí charged that the Lipan Apache allies were treacherous and unreliable, a liability rather than an asset. He also proposed ending all alliances for strategic reasons; he envisioned that the Comanche would massacre the Apache if the Spanish did not intervene. If this occurred the number of troublesome Indians would decline, and the colonists could concentrate their energies on subduing the Comanche. The Catholic Church disagreed, as many Apaches had joined the San Antonio missions and lived in peace. Likewise, Presidio del Norte at La Junta had a large Lipan Apache ally population (Castañeda 1938:223–232). To the Catholic Church Rubí’s plan to abandon the Lipan Apaches was a disgrace and an insult to the advances the fathers had made.
The royal government chose to implement only part of Rubí’s recommendations regarding Texas. It continued its alliance with Apache groups, but agreed to evacuate the northeast. In 1772, after several Indian raids, the southward exodus began (Poyo 1991b:97).16 Rubí’s recommendations were only temporarily implemented, however. As previously mentioned, within a year of moving to San Antonio, Los Adaesanos found life unbearable and returned to the northeast. Antonio Gil Y’Barbo led 347 Los Adaesanos to the northeast and left nineteen afromestizo families behind (Castañeda 1939:317; Tjarks 1974:320, 323). Within a few years Los Adaesanos were attacked by Comanches and forced to move once again. Though this was a tragic event, their new homeland was much safer, because the local Indians left them alone. In 1779 they finally established a permanent colony and called it Nacogdoches (Chipman 1992:206; see Photograph 9).17 It became Mexico’s northeasternmost frontier settlement.
By the late eighteenth century the settlers of Texas were concentrated in four regions: Nacogdoches, San Antonio, La Bahía, and Nuevo Santander. Censuses taken between 1780 to 1798 indicate that the nonmission settlements in these regions were multiracial (Poyo 1991b; Tjarks 1974). The majority of the settlers were classified as Spaniards and afromestizos, while Indians and mestizos constituted the smallest percentages. For example, in San Antonio (excluding the mission communities) 61 percent of the residents in 1780 were registered as Spaniards (N = 885), 25 percent as afromestizos (mulattos, lobos, or coyotes) (N = 361), 6 percent as Indians (N = 85), and 3.5 percent as mestizos (N = 51) (Tjarks 1974:324–325).18 Furthermore, though the largest number of residents were registered as Spaniards, the majority of the heads of household were afromestizo. About eighty-six of the families reported that the male head of household was an afromestizo (ibid., 328). That same year in La Bahía the census reported a similar demographic composition. In the nonmission settlements 63 percent (N = 340) reported that they were Spaniards, 34 percent afromestizos (mulattos, lobos, or coyotes)(N = 183), and 4 percent mestizo (N = 21) (ibid., 324–325). Furthermore, the census identified 52 percent of the heads of households as afromestizos (ibid., 328). A similar pattern emerged in Laredo. The 1789 census reported that 45 percent were Spanish (N = 321), 22 percent afromestizo (N = 155), 17 percent mestizo (N = 121), and 16 percent Indian (N = 111) (Hinojosa 1983:124). In 1793 in Nacogdoches 24 percent were Spaniards (N = 109), 28 percent afromestizo (mulatto, lobo, or coyote) (N = 130) 2 percent Black (N = 10), 26 percent mestizo (N = 117), and 6 percent Indian (N = 29) (Tjarks 1974:324–325).19
Photograph 9. Spanish Plaza, Nacogdoches, Built in 1779. Courtesy of the Texas State Historical Commission. Photograph taken by author.
The interior of Texas failed to attract a large number of settlers and only grew to a colonial population of 4,000 by 1803 (Weber 1992:299). Most people who moved to the far northern frontier chose to settle in Nuevo Santander, which later became the Mexican side of the border. Historians David Weber (1992:195) and Donald Chipman (1992:163) attribute Texas’s failure to attract a large colonial population to two main factors. First, the ongoing Apache and Comanche raids in the west and northeast made Texas an undesirable place to live. Second, when new settlers arrived in San Antonio and La Bahía the best land was reserved for the Christian Indians and what was left over was parceled out to peninsulares (Jackson 1986). Exacerbating this land tenure practice was the refusal of the royal crown to issue titles to newcomers and to allocate land to the children of the settlers. Most newcomers had to enter the labor market because they could not become farmers or ranchers.
Though most people did not want to settle in what today is the interior of Texas, other parts of the area continued to grow. El Paso Valley, which was part of the territory of New Mexico during the Spanish period, attracted a large colonial and mission Indian population and by 1790 had over 3,140 colonists (Weber 1992:195) and 2,000 Christian Indians (Metz 1994:17). By 1819 Laredo had grown to 1,418 (Hinojosa 1983:123). The interior of Texas was part of the colonial and cultural infrastructure of the northern frontier and was closely linked to Nuevo Santander, which had grown to 56,937 by 1810 (Alonzo 1998:40). In these areas the royal crown continued to grant people title to land and to accommodate the growth of the native population (see Chapter 7 for a discussion of the land tenure system in the Southwest). In addition to the colonists, there was a sizable Christian Indian population that was part of colonial society.
Arizona’s colonization is radically different from the pattern in the rest of the southwestern territories settled by Spain. Arizona’s desert regions, its extremely hot climate, and the danger posed by the Apache were deterrents to building large colonial settlements. In other territories the first colonists were brought by a person commissioned by the viceroy, but in Arizona the migratory movements were composed of extended family units who generally followed kinsmen stationed as soldiers or officers in the frontier (Engstrand 1992). Arizona was the least populated of the Spanish territories in the Southwest. Its colonial population primarily grew through the conversion of local people into Christian Indians. During the Spanish period, the Indians living in the missions or presidios became acculturated, and their children followed a similar cultural path. Many of the colonists were second-generation acculturated Indians, rather than Spanish or mestizo immigrants.
Arizona’s colonization history is intertwined with the founding of northern Sonora, Mexico, which was colonized under the same seventeenth-century program (Spicer 1981). This entire region was known as Pimería Alta. In 1692 the first mission buildings were erected in northern Sonora, rather than in Arizona (Spicer 1981:123). Overall, approximately twenty-four missions were founded by the Jesuits in Arizona and northern Sonora (Kessell 1976:7, 10; Polzer 1976:36–37). Most of the missions only lasted a few years.
During the first years of the conquest of northern Sonora, missions were built near Indian rancherías that did not pose a threat to the missionaries. Meanwhile, in Arizona friars visited Indian villages near present Tucson, but did not erect any buildings (Polzer 1976:37).20 Though the visits were infrequent, these early entradas into Arizona were planned and supervised by the Sonoran Rectorate of Nuestra Señora de Los Dolores. At this time Spanish-Indian relations were peaceful in both regions (Bolton 1960; Spicer 1981).
In the early 1720s, however, when colonists arrived in large numbers and settled near the missions of northern Sonora, relations turned hostile. Conflicts arose over land disputes, as the Christian ranchería Indians inhabited the best land along the rivers and the Sonoran settlers were unwilling to abide by preestablished territorial boundaries. Upon seeing the mission fathers’ inability to convince the settlers to respect their land, the Indians turned on them and refused to be their allies. The Christian Indians burned several missions, ousted the colonists, and for over a decade suspended most communication with the church.
Relations resumed in Pimería Alta when missionaries regained the trust of some Opata and Upper Pima groups in 1732 (Kessell 1976:2). These initial alliances were prompted by the fear that many Indians had of the Apache (Smith 1962b). At that time hundreds of Apaches descended into Arizona and Sonora and began to occupy territory already claimed by other Indians. The Opata and Pima, to protect their land, resumed their alliances in return for military assistance. Spaniards took advantage of the intertribal conflict and used this as an opportunity to recolonize Pimería Alta. This time, however, the church and royal government shifted the colonization project to southern Arizona.
Map 4. Arizona. Sources: Engstrand 1992; Kessell 1976; Spicer 1981.
The mission system in Arizona finally gained a foothold in 1732 (Kessell 1976:2; Spicer 1981:122), when the missions of San Xavier del Bac and San Miguel de Guevavi and the mission visita of Tumacácori were established (see Map 4). Parish buildings were erected in San Xavier and Guevavi.21 Although a parish was not built in Tumacácori at this time, it received regular visits from the fathers, masses were offered, and new converts were baptized. From these mission settlements the fathers were able to reach more Indians living in nearby communities. Eventually about ten mission visitas were founded in the Santa Cruz and San Pedro valleys of southern Arizona (Kessell 1976:7).22 The Upper Pima became the largest Indian group to be missionized.23
While the first missions were being erected in Arizona, a series of Indian revolts once again erupted in northern Sonora. Hundreds of Christian Indians rebelled against the illegal kidnapping of their kinfolk. The mission fathers tried to intervene, but were unable to stop the kidnappings. The revolts led to the temporary collapse of the northern Sonora missions, leaving only the missions in Arizona standing. Unlike the Indian conflicts of northern Sonora, relations between the Christian Indians and the Spanish in Arizona remained peaceful and generated the ambiance to permit a modest expansion of the mission system.
The first colonists to settle in Arizona arrived in groups of extended families following kinsmen stationed as soldiers or officers on the frontier. The northward move began in the 1720s, when the Indian rebellions in northern Sonora forced people to find new homes (Mattison 1946:276). They settled on the current Sonora-Arizona border and established farms above Guevavi, where a large Christian ranchería was located. Some years later silver mines were discovered in southern Arizona, prompting more Sonoran settlers to move north. Several mining camps were established near the newly built missions at Guevavi and San Xavier del Bac. To protect the families from Apache attacks, a presidio was established southeast of Mission Guevavi, on the Mexican side of the present Arizona border in 1741 (Engstrand 1992:121). Eight families moved to the presidio that year, and later a number of them moved further north. They dispersed themselves throughout Arizona’s Santa Cruz and San Pedro valleys and began establishing mining camps and ranches. A few years later more settlers moved to Arizona and settled in Mission Guevavi and in the Santa Cruz Valley, where the visitas of Aribaca and Sópori had been established (Mattison 1946:277). In 1753 Presidio Tubac was founded to protect the growing population (Engstrand 1992:134; Kessell 1976:2). Its superior fortification attracted many frontier families as well as several Christian Indian families.24 Within a few years Presidio Tubac became a lively community with over 500 colonists in residence and the social focal point of the ranching families (Mattison 1946:283). Captain Juan Bautista de Anza was the commander of the presidio and was put in charge of 120 soldiers and their families (Dobyns 1962:10).
By 1762 Tubac had become the main colonial center, and its inhabitants constituted one-third of the 1,500 colonists in Arizona (Mattison 1946:277). When the royal crown sent the marqués de Rubí to inspect the status of the Spanish settlements, however, he observed that Tubac could easily be destroyed by a large-scale Apache raid and advised that its population be moved near Tjkshon, the largest allied ranchería. Tjkshon was inhabited by over 400 Upper Pima Indians and was surrounded by numerous Christian rancherías (Dobyns 1962:11). It was impossible for hostile Indians to penetrate this zone. Tjkshon was well fortified and had a massive wall surrounding its church and adobe buildings (Dobyns 1962).25
Rubí’s recommendations were implemented a few years later after Captain Hugo O’Conor arrived to supervise the move and determine the future of Tubac. In 1775 he resettled the colonists across the river from Tjkshon and founded Presidio Tucson (Dobyns 1976:58). Tjkshon and the presidio became the foundation of present-day Tucson and the center of the colonial population. By 1797 Presidio Tucson had over 297 colonists in residence (Dobyns 1962:28). Although a new presidio was established, Tubac was not abandoned. Several Indian soldiers and their families remained behind, forming a small community of acculturated Indians.
In the presidios most colonists were given small plots of land to build houses and grow gardens. Those colonists who moved to the missions were also given small plots of land adjacent to the Indians’ fields (see Engstrand 1992). Although settlers were given land to subsist on, only elites such as officers, their families, or affluent subjects were issued property deeds. To obtain a deed people had to prove that they had funds to make structural improvements (construct a house, cultivate the land, or build stables or other types of buildings) and that the land grant would be permanently inhabited. A petitioner had to present a claim outlining how the grant would be subdivided into several parcels and submit a map indicating where houses, ranches, farms, or mining camps would be constructed.
During the Spanish period, only four land grants were issued (see Mattison 1946).26 Three of the grants were awarded to colonists and one allocated to a community of acculturated Indians from Tumacácori. The land grants were enormous and were inhabited by the extended kin of the petitioners. The first land grant was awarded to the Otero family in 1789 (ibid., 282). The Otero land grant was subdivided into four farming lots (suertes), each consisting of approximately three leagues (total 13,314 acres); in addition approximately one-eighth of a league (800 acres) was reserved to build the main family ranch and house (ibid.; Engstrand 1992:243).27 The second land grant was issued in 1807 to a community of Tumacácori Indians. They were awarded over 52,000 acres (Mattison 1946:291–294; see Mattison 1967). The third land grant, called La Canoa, was issued to the Ortiz brothers in 1821 (Mattison 1946:294–297). This land grant was situated five leagues from Tubac and was subdivided into four cattle ranching lots (sitios), totaling 46,696 acres. The fourth land grant, called San José de Sonoita, was issued to the Herrera brothers that same year (ibid., 298–299). This land grant was the original site of the abandoned mission visita of Sonoita. It consisted of nearly two square leagues totaling approximately 8,874 acres, subdivided into two lots (sitios) to establish cattle ranches. Although only four land grants were issued, many families were permitted to establish permanent ranches in southern Arizona, in Aribaca, Santa Cruz, Sonoita, San Rafael de la Sanja, San Bernardino, and several other places in the San Pedro Valley (ibid., 286).28
In Arizona the officers’ families formed the upper class, while the soldiers’ families were the commoners (Dobyns 1976; Engstrand 1992). The officers and their families claimed to be White, while the commoners were clearly people of color. Although the officers most likely were White, there were few peninsulares among them. Iris Engstrand’s study Arizona hispánica (1992) illustrates this point. According to Engstrand, presidial records indicate that most officers were criollos and were part of second- or third-generation military families from Sonora, Sinaloa, or Coahuila. Engstrand also found that most of the peninsulares in Arizona were missionaries. Although she identified documents indicating that the officers were criollo, she found few records to verify the race of their relatives. This vagueness is partly due to the scarcity of racial data in Arizona’s colonial censuses and marriage records.29 Racial terms were usually used only in military and mission roll documents. Missionaries and military officers, who were often responsible for preparing the census reports on the civilian population, preferred to use cultural rather than racial terms. The label “gente de razón” was often used in reference to non-Indians (Collins 1970; Dobyns 1976:65, 137–139).
Moreover, Engstrand found that baptismal records frequently did not include the entire family racial history in an effort to hide the true racial identity of a child. For example, when a child’s father was a Spaniard, the race of the mother was omitted and the child was classified as criollo (Engstrand 1992:160). In most census records, except for the mission Indians, missionaries preferred to classify their parishioners as vecinos or peones in order to avoid indicating their actual racial identity (ibid., 254–255). Vecino was a social class and not a racial category, referring to the landed elite, whereas peón denoted a foot soldier and his family (see Gutiérrez 1991:82). Ramon Gutiérrez also concludes that missionaries preferred to emphasize common cultural attributes rather than distinguishing people by race, since the categories of mestizo and Indian carried a social stigma. The only racial categories that are certain are those used to classify the military personnel and the mission Indians. Officers were classified as Spaniard, while soldiers were counted as Indian, mestizo, and afromestizo (Dobyns 1962:23–27, 1976:153, 171–173).
The families of the officers claimed that they were of pure Spanish descent and primarily intermarried among themselves (Dobyns 1976). For example, elite marriage networks included the de Anza, Elías González, Vildosola, Díaz del Carpio, Otero, Robles, Carrillo, and Aro y Aguirre families (Engstrand 1992:160, 274–276). Moreover, these families lived in relative luxury. Their homes were well furnished, their children were schooled by tutors, and they imported clothes from Europe or from the interior of Mexico. Unlike the elites, soldiers and Christian Indian families lived in modest adobe homes, with beds, stools, and tables serving as their sole furniture. They also dressed modestly (ibid., 159–161). Although social class differences distinguished the colonists, they remained a closely knit community and socialized during weddings, birthdays, funerals, and most everyday life events.
Among the commoners, intermarriage between soldiers and Indian women was an accepted practice and was encouraged by the royal crown. The Royal Order of 1790 gave soldiers incentives to marry local indigenous women (Mattison 1946:281–282). A soldier who married an Indian woman was given four square leagues of land, which was a tremendous amount of land for a commoner.30 The order was designed to attract males to Arizona and encourage them to become permanent residents. In this way, Arizona’s population would increase and the culture of the soldiers would be diffused to their wives and kin.
Throughout Arizona’s Spanish period eleven colonial villas were founded (Kessell 1976:138, 311). Because of Apache attacks, however, most villas were abandoned after a few months and the colonists forced to move to the presidios, missions, or visitas (Smith 1962a). By the end of the Spanish period the colonial population was concentrated in Tucson, Tubac, and the missions of Tumacácori and San Xavier del Bac, as well as dispersed on the ranches. During the early nineteenth century, the colonial population ranged from 1,800 to 2,291 (Dobyns 1962:29; Kessell 1976:246). This estimate included the colonists who were not mission neophytes or residents of Christian rancherías.
In the late eighteenth century the size of the Christian Indian population grew, and so did the demand for missions (Kessell 1976: Chapter 3). Although many ranchería Indians were willing to become neophytes, the royal government was reluctant to establish new missions because of the threat that the Apaches posed outside the fortified zones.31 Establishing new missions would be a financial disaster if they came under attack. As the size of the Christian Indian population expanded, some visitas were structurally improved to accommodate new converts and took on the character of mission pueblos: adobe homes were built, and some pueblos even had modest parishes. A priest was not in residence but visited the Indians regularly. The fathers selected a spokesperson to govern the mission pueblos. If the pueblo was composed of one ranchería, the chief became the spokesperson; if it was composed of more than one ranchería, one of the chiefs was selected. The spokesperson was officially granted the title of gobernador and acted in the capacity of a mayor. The fathers also encouraged the gobernadores to reorganize their tribal governments into town councils (Ezzell 1974:121–127). The gobernadores were encouraged to select two assistants, called alcaldes.
Five of the visitas became mission pueblos, including Tjkshon, Sonoita, Calabazas, La Purísima, and Tumacácori (Engstrand 1992:177; Kessell 1976:311).32 Most were located within a short distance of the missions or presidios. It was common for secularized Indians or ranchería allies to reside in the mission pueblos, while space in the missions was reserved for recent converts (Kessell 1976:788–789). The missions and mission pueblos were inhabited throughout the Spanish period and only temporarily abandoned during Apache attacks, except for the mission at Guevavi, which was dismantled after a series of sustained Apache attacks during the late 1760s (Engstrand 1992:122; Kessell 1976:57). Soon Tumacácori was elevated to a mission and took its place.
Mission settlements were usually inhabited only by Indians. The church preferred to separate the neophytes as a means of avoiding the problems that had arisen in Sonora, where the colonists enslaved Indians and generated the conditions for revolts. Only when colonial settlements were under attack were colonists allowed to seek temporary refuge in the mission settlements. By 1774 the mission communities contained 168 colonists and 2,018 Christian Indians (Kessell 1976:88).
The largest number of missionized Indians were Opatas, Upper Pimas, and Papagos (Dobyns 1962; Ezzell 1974; Spicer 1981). Many of these Indians assimilated into Spanish society by moving into the mission pueblos and adopting some of the ways of the colonists. In one case several Indian groups chose to replicate the Spanish township pattern. After having lived in the missions, several secularized Opata and Upper Pima families established a town that was independent of the colonists and the church. In 1807 they received a land grant from the royal crown and called their community Tumacácori (Mattison 1967:72). They established ranches and farms on 52,000 acres (Mattison 1946:291–294), while reserving 6,770 acres to establish civic buildings (see Kessell 1976:207–212; Mattison 1967:72).33
Indians also chose to become part of Spanish society by relocating their rancherías near the missions or presidios (Collins 1970; Doyle 1989; Kessell 1976; Polzer 1976). Often they did so because of their fear of the Apache, as in the case of hundreds of ranchería Indians who moved near Presidio Tucson (Dobyns 1962). A census taken in 1825 by Lieutenant Mariano de Urrea indicates that approximately 9,200 Indian allies were dispersed in ten rancherías near Tucson and scattered nearby in the Santa Cruz Valley (Kessell 1976:264). Other Indians chose not to move, yet became allies of the Spanish. Many Pima, Papago, and Yuma Indians who lived west of the Santa Cruz Valley and along the present border of Sonora and Arizona formed military alliances of convenience (Ezzell 1974). They were farmers and sought the aid of their colonial neighbors during harvest season. Likewise, throughout the Spanish period the colonists sought the military assistance of their Indian allies. For example, the early 1760s, the mid-1770s, and 1781 were periods of intense Spanish-Apache conflict (Dobyns 1962:20, 40, 82; Engstrand 1992:197–198, 228). Because the Apaches were so successful in their raiding, the colonial settlements were confined to the San Pedro and Santa Cruz valleys.
Although the fathers were able to Christianize many Indians, the Navajo and most Apaches resisted.34 The Navajo distanced themselves in the far north, while most Apaches remained feared enemies.
