In this chapter I examine the expansion of the Spanish Empire into California and identify the indigenous groups who were incorporated within the mission system. In unfolding this history, I illustrate the racial diversity of the colonial population and show that while the church and royal government were entrenching their imperial power in the Southwest, the masses and criollo elite in the interior of Mexico revolted against Spain’s racial order. The changing ideological stance on race culminated in the 1821 Mexican War of Independence and threatened the royal government’s projects in the Southwest (Weber 1992:30). Of utmost significance was the racial equality legislation passed by the new government, specifically designed to make Indians acculturated citizens.
Alta California was the last territory of the Southwest to be colonized by Spain. Its colonization was prompted by the fear of a foreign invasion by Russia and England (Weber 1992). England was pushing its westward expansion from Canada to the Pacific, and Russia was moving down the northwest coast from Alaska. If one of these countries took over Alta California, it could threaten the stability of New Mexico, because English or Russian colonies would lie closer to New Mexico than the well-fortified cities in the outskirts of Mexico City. It was only a matter of time before the threat was executed, as Alta California’s coast had not been colonized and several countries were aware of its value. Many areas along the coastline were inhabited by sea otters, and any country that colonized Alta California could easily develop a sea otter pelt industry. The pelts fetched high prices on the international market, particularly in China, where they were a valued commodity (Takaki 1990). When news arrived in 1768 that Russia had begun to establish colonies along Alta California’s coast, Charles III, the monarch of Spain, promptly initiated its colonization (Bannon 1970:153). The king awoke to the necessity of occupying Alta California or forfeiting control of it. José de Gálvez, a special emissary of the monarch, was ordered to take immediate action. Gálvez ordered the invasion to be launched from Baja California, the peninsula adjacent to Alta California. Nearly a century earlier, missions and presidios had been established in Baja California and many Indians Christianized. Beginning the colonization from the peninsula would facilitate the transfer of supplies and mission neophytes.1
Gálvez initiated his plan by personally traveling to the peninsula and soliciting the aid of Father Junípero Serra, the padre-presidente of the Baja California missions. Gálvez also enlisted the assistance of Gaspar de Portolá, the governor of Baja California, and Mexican-born Captain Fernando Rivera y Moncada, the commander of Presidio Loreto. Gálvez had two ships built in the port of San Blas during his visit and later had the ships loaded with supplies. In preparation for the expedition people were recruited and commissioned to form two land parties and three sea companies. To reach Alta California, Gálvez envisioned that the commanders of the expeditions were to be guided by the maps drafted by Sebastián Vizcáino. In 1602 Vizcáino sailed along Alta California’s coast and reached the Bay of Monterey in present northern California (Engelhardt 1929:53). He described it as a magnificent harbor where a large colony could easily sustain itself. Vizcáino also identified other possible colonial sites where the terrain was pleasant and inhabited by sedentary Indians. After studying Vizcáino’s maps and reports Gálvez selected the Bay of Monterey and present San Diego as the first regions to be colonized. Although Gálvez was confident that the maps were reliable and could safely guide the captains along various sea routes, he was uncertain about how the land parties would reach Alta California, since the lower peninsula had not been explored inland beyond the head of the Gulf of California (Bannon 1970). Gálvez knew that a dangerous journey awaited the land parties.
Nonetheless, plans were set. Gálvez ordered the ships to leave the port first, followed shortly afterward by the land parties. Once the ships arrived, the captains were to wait for the land parties at San Diego. After the colonists were reunited, the second phase of the journey would begin. Captain Portolá and a group of soldiers would continue on foot until they reached the Bay of Monterey, the proposed capital of Alta California. In Monterey a third ship, the San José, would be waiting for the men.
On 10 January 1769 Gálvez’s plans became a reality (Engelhardt 1929: 378) when the first ship, the San Carlos, cleared La Paz harbor. It was commanded by Vicente Vila and carried a total of sixty-two men (Chapman 1930:221). Twenty-eight of the men were Catalan soldiers under the supervision of Lieutenant Pedro Fages, a peninsular (Bancroft 1964:733). The racial background of the other men is uncertain. We know only that two of the other soldiers were blacksmiths and one a baker and that the ship also carried a chaplain and a physician (Bannon 1970:155). The second ship, the San Antonio, carried a crew of twenty-six men and two Franciscans. The ship was commanded by Juan Pérez; only the fathers and the captain are definitely known to have been peninsulares. The ship left La Paz harbor on 15 February 1769. The third ship, the San José, set sail on 16 June 1770, but was lost at sea; the men it carried never reached California (ibid.).
After fifty-four days at sea, the San Antonio finally arrived at San Diego on 11 April (Bannon 1970:155). The San Carlos reached the harbor at San Diego on 29 April, after 111 days at sea. Most of its men were deathly ill with scurvy. It had sailed through ocean storms and had been unexpectedly delayed. Worst of all, the ship had become lost at sea when its pilot misread Vizcáino’s map and passed San Diego.
Meanwhile the land expedition was divided into two companies. The first company was under the command of Captain Fernando Rivera y Moncada, with Fray Juan Crespi serving as chaplain and historian. It left on 24 March 1769 from camp Velicatá, thirty miles beyond Santa María, the northernmost of the Jesuit missions (Bannon 1970:155; Weber 1992:243). Twenty-five soldiers, three muleteers, and forty-two Christian Indians accompanied Captain Rivera y Moncada (Chapman 1930:222). In total there were about seventy-two colonists; the majority of them were Indians from the missions and Christian rancherías of Baja California (see Engelhardt 1929:381–383).2 The second party, commanded by Governor Gaspar de Portolá, started from Loreto on 15 May 1769, following the trail previously blazed by Jesuit missionaries to the mouth of the Gulf of California (Engelhardt 1929:401) and the path marks left behind by Captain Rivera y Moncada. Portolá’s party consisted of Father Serra, Sergeant José de Ortega, ten soldiers, two servants, and forty-four Indian colonists (Chapman 1930:222). A large number of the Indians were orphaned children from the Baja missions. Portolá’s company included a total of fifty-nine people, the majority of whom were Indian.
Captain Rivera y Moncada’s party arrived in San Diego on 14 May with only a small number of casualties (Bannon 1970:157). Several Indians had died on the road. Four hundred cattle also survived the journey (Chapman 1930:224). Upon arriving in San Diego, the captain found a disastrous situation. Twenty-four of the soldiers on board the San Carlos had died (Chapman 1930:221); eight soldiers on the San Antonio had met a similar fate, and most of the men were deathly ill with scurvy (Bannon 1970:157).3 Rivera y Moncada now faced the dual responsibility of tending to the ill and preparing a military defense against some Yuma Indians who were displeased with their arrival.4
Nearly a month and a half later, on 1 July, Portolá and Father Serra finally arrived at San Diego (Bannon 1970:157). They had been detained when many of the children fell deathly ill along the way. Several died, and the company dwindled from fifty-nine to twenty-seven (Chapman 1930:222). In spite of the problems faced by the second land party, on 3 July Father Serra raised a cross on what was later called Presidio Hill, formally establishing the mission system of Alta California (Bannon 1970: 157) (see Photograph 10). One hundred and fifty survivors were left to continue the colonization of California (Chapman 1930:224).
Within a few days of reaching San Diego, Portolá decided to move on and search for the Bay of Monterey. Leaving behind Serra and a group of others to take care of the sick, he took a company of men and proceeded north. He also dispatched Captain Juan Pérez on board the San Antonio to return to the lower peninsula to obtain supplies rather than following Portolá by sea. Portolá was unaware that the third ship, the San José, which was supposed to be waiting for them in Monterey, had been lost at sea. Continuing with Gálvez’s plan, Portolá moved up the coast and drafted maps of the terrain. He identified villages where friendly Indians lived and possible sites for future settlements. He noted that the friendliest ranchería peoples were from present San Juan Capistrano, Buenaventura, Gaviota, Carpinteria, Santa Bárbara, Santa María, Santa Cruz, Pájaro (Watsonville), and Las Pulgas (Engelhardt 1930). In these places the colonists were greeted by Indians and given food. Portolá also observed that from Buenaventura to Santa María the Chumash Indians were among the friendliest people he encountered.
In early October Portolá reached the Bay of Monterey but did not recognize it and continued to search for his destination point (Engelhardt 1930:54–60). Unable to find the bay and confronted by Indians unwilling to share their food, Portolá had to decide whether to continue without provisions or return without fulfilling his commission. He decided to march onward—until he realized he was lost. His party had reached Half Moon Bay, which was beyond Monterey according to Vizcáino’s map. Before Portolá ordered his men to return, he sent Father Crespi and a group of men under Sergeant Ortega’s command to scout the surrounding region. On this part of the journey Ortega’s company reached the Bay of San Francisco. They returned with news of their discovery and excitedly reported that a great harbor, a mission, and colony could easily be established there. Though Portolá knew his men had made an important discovery, he remained disappointed that he had failed to reach the Bay of Monterey. He ordered his men to march back to San Diego. On their way back they were attacked by Indians at San Bruno but managed to flee. They continued to move south; as they approached Santa Bárbara (in central California) the Indians helped them and gave them food to complete their journey.
Photograph 10. Reenactment of the Settlement at Presidio Hill, with Beds and Tents Used by the Colonists, 15 June 1996. San Diego, California. Photograph taken by author.
While Portolá was exploring northern California, the San Antonio reached San Lucas in Baja California. When the viceroy, Antonio María Bucareli y Ursúa, learned from the ship’s captain, Juan Pérez, about the critical situation in San Diego and was informed that Portolá’s men would be waiting for a ship at Monterey, he immediately ordered the San Antonio to be loaded with supplies. He directed Juan Pérez to sail directly to Monterey because he feared that Portolá’s men would die if supplies did not reach them immediately. The viceroy was aware that the San José was lost at sea and would never reach Monterey. The San Antonio was not to stop in San Diego, although supplies and medicine were needed by the colonists. On his way to Monterey Pérez was forced to land in the Santa Barbara Channels to refill his water supplies. While the San Antonio was anchored, a group of Chumash Indians greeted Pérez and informed him that Portolá’s party had already returned south (Engelhardt 1930:89–91). Pérez immediately raced back to San Diego, where he was greeted by a cheering and hungry crowd, who quickly unloaded the cargo of supplies and medicine. The colonists no longer had to rely on the local Yuma Indians, who were not pleased that strangers had set foot upon their land.
Once the health of the soldiers improved, Portolá organized a second expedition to find the Bay of Monterey. Father Crespi and a group of men accompanied Portolá by land. This time a sea company was to follow the path blazed on foot. Father Serra also joined the expedition and set sail on board the San Antonio, once again under the command of Captain Pérez. In late March 1770 Portolá finally reached the Bay of Monterey (Bannon 1970:158). He had previously misread the land marking left by Vizcáino and mistakenly called it the “Bay of Pines.” On May 31 the San Antonio, with Serra on board, anchored in the bay (ibid.). Two days later royal possession of northern California was formalized when mass was officiated and the region colonized in the name of Jesus Christ and King Charles III. A mission and the presidio of San Carlos Borroméo were subsequently erected there. After the colony was established at Monterey, Portolá’s commission was completed, and he departed to fulfill other exploratory journeys for the royal government.
After missions and presidios were built in San Diego and Monterey, Father Serra founded five additional missions by 1774 (Weber 1992:247). Two years later the colonial population (excluding the mission Indians) was estimated to have reached around 475 (Chapman 1930:274, 299, 303, 307). Viceroy Bucareli and subsequent viceroys sent adequate supplies to ensure the prosperity of the Alta California settlements. Tools, seeds, and livestock were sent to the missions in an effort to help the fathers develop a self-sustaining agricultural and ranching economy. By the early 1800s most of the missions produced sufficient livestock and crops to sell their surplus at market (see Mason 1986). During Bucareli’s term as viceroy, plans to increase the size of the colonial population were also executed. Bucareli commissioned Juan Bautista de Anza, the commanding officer of the Arizona colonies, to establish a land route from Sonora to Alta California, connecting California to the interior of Mexico. The proposed route would cross the coastal deserts of Sonora, pass through southwestern Arizona, and end in Alta California at the mission in San Gabriel. If Anza was successful, Vizcáino’s sea route could be avoided. It had become a dangerous route, forcing ships to sail against prevailing winds and often deviate from course, endangering the life and cargo of those on board. Besides avoiding the perils of maritime travel, it was also more expedient to establish an alternate land route; the supplies from the missions in Baja California were depleted, and they could no longer continue provisioning the colonies. It had become necessary to obtain supplies from the interior of Mexico, where they were plentiful. A direct land route had to be established, however, because at that time transporting products from the interior was an extremely arduous journey. Before supplies reached San Diego they generally had to be transported through the deserts of Sinaloa and Sonora, taken to the Sonoran coastline, and there loaded onto ships going to Baja California. From the peninsula the goods had to reach San Diego by sea or land.
Plans to establish a land route connecting the interior to Alta California were also motivated by a period of relative calm between the Spanish and Indians along the Arizona-Sonora border and by the political alliances between Juan Bautista de Anza and Chief Palma. Palma, a powerful Yuma chief, was in control of several rancherías along the border of southwestern Arizona, California, and Sonora. He controlled a large region near the Yuma Crossing, a long stretch of land inhabited by Yuma and Pima groups who did not want Spaniards near their territories. He was also influential in the political affairs of his neighbors. Anza and Palma’s relations had previously been solidified when the chief dressed in Spanish clothing and traveled to Mexico City to meet Viceroy Bucareli. In return for his loyalty Bucareli had promised to build missions for his people. Maintaining this alliance was important to the growth of the frontier settlements because Palma’s warriors could assure the colonists passage through the Yuma Crossing. Without Palma’s help it was nearly impossible to move supplies and children through the area (see Bolton 1966; Engstrand 1992).5
In addition, Anza was confident that he could fulfill Bucareli’s plans since Father Francisco Garcés had completed a trek on horseback alone from Mission San Xavier del Bac in Arizona, through the desert country of the Lower Colorado River, and into the outskirts of California (Engelhardt 1930:157; Weber 1992:251). Anza and Bucareli concluded that if Garcés could travel alone from Arizona into California a well-equipped military force could definitely blaze a similar trail.
On 4 January 1774 Anza and a company of soldiers departed from Tubac, where preparations for the journey had begun (Weber 1992:251). Anza was able to recruit Father Garcés and Sebastián Tarabal, an Indian who had traveled on foot from Mission San Gabriel to Altar, Sonora. Both Garcés and Tarabal acted as guides. Tarabal and his wife had previously traveled this route with a third companion. The three were runaway neophytes from Mission San Gabriel in Alta California (Hurtado 1988). Tarabal and his wife were part of the neophyte population that had left Mission San Gertrudis in Baja California and joined Serra and Portolá on their journey to San Diego. When Tarabal and his wife arrived in San Diego, Portolá chose them to march with him on to Monterey. After Portolá left California, they were placed in Mission San Gabriel. Sadness and possibly homesickness drove them to desertion. On the way to their old homes, Tarabal’s companions starved and perished on the road. Tarabal did not stop; he traveled past the Colorado River into Arizona then south into Sonora. While in Sonora he encountered a troop of soldiers and was taken to Presidio Tubac, where Anza was commander. Tarabal conveyed his account to the soldiers of Tubac. The hardships he had experienced evoked consternation in the ranks; yet though this account was frightening he had proven to the soldiers that a troop of well-provisioned soldiers need not fear crossing the desert since he had crossed it without provisions. Tarabal therefore was chosen by Anza to act as his second guide (Engelhardt 1930:158).
Besides Garcés and Tarabal, Father Juan Díaz, twenty male volunteers from Tubac, eight Indians, one Pima translator, and one soldier from Alta California accompanied Anza, some thirty-four people in all (Chapman 1930:299). The party was well supplied and prepared for a long journey, with 35 packs of provisions, 65 head of cattle for food, and 140 horses. Nearly two and a half months later the company arrived at Mission San Gabriel. Their trip proved that a land party could travel from Sonora to Alta California. A land route connecting Alta California to the interior of Mexico and to other parts of the Southwest had finally been established. Having fulfilled his commission, Anza traveled to Mexico City to await further orders from Bucareli.6 Meanwhile, the party in Alta California dispersed; some remained in California, while others returned to Tubac with news that the Yuma Crossing could be passed (Engelhardt 1930:159).
While Anza was in Mexico, Captain Fernando Rivera y Moncada was in Sinaloa recruiting civilians. Bucareli had commissioned the captain to take a land party to Alta California, following the same trail he had previously blazed. This colony would include the first group of non-Indian women and children. Rivera y Moncada recruited approximately six families and several single males (Chapman 1930:302). Seven women and their children preceded the land party by sea on board the Santiago, under the command of the well-known maritime captain Juan Pérez (Castañeda 1993:73–74; Weber 1992:248, 450). Rivera y Moncada personally took charge of the land division. He escorted several families from Sinaloa to the peninsula, where they rested in camp Velicatá. Because the party was exhausted and the supplies were nearly depleted, the captain marched ahead to Monterey to obtain supplies to complete the journey. During his absence, the party members became anxious and decided not to wait any further. They left Velicatá and continued their trek, arriving in San Diego on 26 September 1774 (Chapman 1930:303). At San Diego they were reunited with those who had traveled by sea.
Once this party composed primarily of women and children arrived, it was possible to produce a castizo population in Alta California. Though the women were not Spaniards, they were light complexioned; historians have considered them the first non-Indian women to arrive in Alta California (Castañeda 1993:73; Chapman 1930:303). Historian Charles Chapman comments that women who were nearly White were now available for a limited number of soldiers:
Thus did the first real settlers come to Alta California, since for the first time white women set foot in the province. Though their whiteness of skin was undoubtedly tinged with Indian red, they were suitable wives for a limited number of soldiery and by their children were able to contribute yet more to the permanence of the colony. (Chapman 1930:303)
David J. Weber also comments on the significance of these women, who gave the colony stability:
The arrival of Rivera y Moncada’s party in 1774 raised the non-Indian population of New California to about 183 and helped to make it more secure. Rivera y Moncada had traveled by way of Baja California with some 51 soldiers from Sinaloa, including some of the first Hispanic women and children to come to California. (Weber 1992:248)
After resting in San Diego, the colony members dispersed; some followed Captain Rivera y Moncada to Monterey, where they were anxiously awaited.
A month after Rivera y Moncada’s settlers arrived, disputes ensued between Father Serra and the captain over the future growth of Alta California. Rivera y Moncada had been promoted to comandante-general of Alta California and was given the authority to move forward with his vision of Alta California. In particular, his influence had increased after the arrival of the women. Rivera y Moncada disagreed with Serra’s proposal that the colonization of Alta California should focus on the Christianization of the Indians and the establishment of mission communities among peaceful Indians. Serra argued in favor of building missions among the Indians from San Fernando to San Luis Obispo. In particular, he wanted to Christianize the Chumash Indians, who were peaceful and demonstrated interest in being missionized (Engelhardt 1930:163). Rivera y Moncada, however, preferred to explore new sites to the north in the direction of San Francisco. Unlike Father Serra, he was not concerned at this time with building missions among Indians who were already peaceful. Instead he planned to fortify the surrounding regions near Monterey, where Indian groups were hostile and the land was fertile. His main concern was to solidify Spain’s claim over northern California. Although the two men disagreed, they compromised and agreed that a mission in San Juan Capistrano was a priority. To Serra’s displeasure the missions among the Chumash of the present counties of Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Santa Maria would have to wait (Hoover, Rensch, and Rensch 1966).
In 1775 Juan Bautista de Anza was once again commissioned to bring people to colonize northern California (Bannon 1970:162), following the same route previously blazed by Anza. Tarabal and Lieutenant José Joaquín Moraga were to assist Anza. Moraga had been one of the members of the Serra-Portolá expedition and the officer placed in charge of the colonists who planned to settle in San Francisco. Anza began the trek in Horcasitas, Sinaloa, where most of the colonists were recruited. They then stopped in Tubac, where they enlisted sixty-three settlers. In total 240 people were registered in the Anza expedition, accompanied by nearly 1,000 animals (Bannon 1970:162; Chapman 1930:304–308). The majority of the colonists were poor mestizos seeking to improve their standard of living (Chapman 1930:304; Engstrand 1992:192). Less than one-third were classified as Spaniards (Weber 1992:327). Historian Jack Forbes (1966:236) found that eight of the soldiers and their families were afromestizos. Twenty-nine of the people in the party were women, the majority of them being wives of the soldiers stationed in Alta California. Other members of the party included the soldiers’ relatives, three officers, one purveyor, three missionaries, thirty-eight soldiers, twenty muleteers, three herders, four servants, and three Indian interpreters (Chapman 1930:304–308).
On their way to Alta California several women gave birth. Though the colonists encountered hostile Indians in the Yuma Crossing, Chief Palma’s warriors protected them and secured their passage. The colony reached Mission San Gabriel in early January 1776 (Weber 1992:253).7 Many of the families decided to continue their trek and follow Anza and Moraga to Monterey. When they arrived in Monterey, a few moved on and helped to found Presidio San Francisco. Later some of these families once again dispersed and joined other families to found the first township in Alta California in 1777, the present city of San José (Weber 1992:258, 259). Indeed the Anza party was dispersed throughout California.
The next colonists arrived in Alta California in 1781 (Chapman 1930:337–338).8 This time Rivera y Moncada was commissioned to lead forty-odd families plus several soldiers. They were recruited to populate two new settlements in Los Angeles and Santa Bárbara. The families came from Sonora and Sinaloa, and a large number of them were afromestizo (Engelhardt 1930:704). Unfortunately, one of the divisions of the colony met a tragic fate when it was attacked at the Yuma Crossing (Weber 1992:259). At the time of the journey Rivera y Moncada was unaware that the Yuma Indians had destroyed two colonies on the southern border of Arizona and California. Mission Purísima Concepción and the mission pueblo of San Pedro y San Pablo (near present Yuma) had been attacked, leaving over one hundred dead colonists. Apparently, the Yuma revolts were spurred by interethnic conflict dating back a few years. The first major sign of conflict had begun in 1775, when the Indians of Mission San Diego de Alcalá destroyed the mission (Bolton 1966; Engelhardt 1930). They protested against the invasion of their lands and the forcible seizure of many of their women. Although the revolt was crushed by the military forces of Anza and Rivera y Moncada, and the mission rebuilt on top of a well-fortified hill, the Indians continued to harbor ill feelings (see Photograph 11).
The revolts at Mission Purísima Concepción and San Pedro y San Pablo erupted after a series of disputes over territorial boundaries. The Indians evidently resented the colonists’ constant demands for food and supplies and in particular the encroachment upon their farmland. The colonists were also bad neighbors, because they allowed their cattle to wander and graze on the Indians’ fields. When the Indians complained, their concerns were ignored. The Yuma thus chose to settle their differences in their own way and responded by killing their hostile neighbors. Similar ill feelings were harbored by other Yuma groups, and a widespread rebellion broke out as Rivera y Moncada was passing through the Yuma Crossing.
Exacerbating matters was the anger the royal government had aroused in Chief Palma. He decided to join the rebellion after the royal government failed to fulfill its promises and did not build his missions (Engstrand 1992). Palma felt betrayed and took revenge. Since he had agreed to protect the colonists, he was told of the dates when Rivera y Moncada’s group would pass through the Yuma Crossing. He was also told that the colonists would not be well protected, because Rivera y Moncada had divided the party into two divisions. Only one group would pass through the Yuma Crossing, while the second would avoid this route and walk along Baja California. Thus, Palma conspired to ambush them and told his tribal allies when the party was to pass through the Yuma Crossing (Chapman 1930:338). When the colonists entered the trap, most were massacred, including Rivera y Moncada. Only a few women and children survived, but were taken captive. Meanwhile, the second division blazed through the peninsula and reached their destination safely. Twelve of the original families in this division survived, the majority of whom were afromestizos (Engelhardt 1930:375, 704). Once in California the colonists dispersed. Most of the group settled in Los Angeles and became the founding families of the city, while others moved onward and helped to found Presidio Santa Bárbara as well as settling in other parts of California (Forbes 1966). Los Angeles was founded in 1781 and became California’s second township (Weber 1992:259). The founders of Los Angeles consisted of eleven families, including twenty-two adults and twenty-two children; twenty-six were afromestizo, eleven Indian, five mestizo, and two Spanish.9
Photograph 11. Mission San Diego de Alcalá, San Diego, California. Courtesy of Monsignor Thomas Prendergast. Photograph taken by author.
After Rivera y Moncada’s death, the Spanish military quickly suppressed the rebellion and rescued the captive women and children. Within a few months relations resumed with Yuma groups who pledged not to fight any longer. The royal government, however, distrusted the Yuma; the new viceroy, Martín de Mayora, declared all travel through the Yuma Crossing to be extremely dangerous. He temporarily discouraged travel from the interior of Mexico to Alta California and suspended all royally sponsored journeys. Under viceregal orders people who chose to come to Alta California were allowed to do so only at their own risk and were expected to fund their own journey.
Colonists and adventurers continued to migrate to California on their own means. By 1793 the non-Indian colonial population is estimated to have grown to around 1,066 (Aguirre Beltrán 1946:230).10 Of the colonists 435 were classified as criollos, 418 as castas of various racial mixtures, 183 as mulattos, and 30 as peninsulares (ibid.); 24 of the peninsulares were clergy. Although the colonial population was relatively small, the missions attracted Indians and the neophyte population grew; 7,428 Indians resided in the missions in 1790 (Bancroft, in Bowman 1958:148).11
Overall twenty-one missions were founded in California, and the mission system lasted until 1834 (Merriam 1955:188; Weber 1982:48). Mission records indicate that throughout the duration of the mission system nearly half a million Indians were baptized in California (Bowman 1958:145–148). These records, however, do not include the baptism registries of all the Christianized ranchería Indians, as it was a common practice for the friars to visit these settlements, baptize groups of Indians, and not register their names in mission documents (Cook 1976; Engelhardt 1930). The first Indian baptism in California took place on 22 July 1769, when Father Crespi baptized a dying Indian girl in northwest San Diego County (Bowman 1958:145), and the first Indian baptism in a mission was on 20 December 1769 in Monterey (Bowman 1958:146). The neophyte mission population was relatively small between 1769 to 1774, numbering under 800 (Bowman 1958:148).12 This was a period when the mission fathers were beginning to befriend the Indians.
Although San Diego was the site where the missionization of the Indians began, the friars at first found it difficult to convert them. Apparently, problems began when soldiers attacked a nearby ranchería, stole food, and raped Indian women. News of the tragedy spread among the local Indian rancherías and caused many to stay away from the colonists (Chapman 1930; Weber 1992). In spite of the setbacks, by 1777 the mission fathers had befriended hundreds of ranchería Indians and established eight missions with their assistance (Bowman 1958:146). Many Indians chose to live in the mission buildings once they were constructed, and the size of the neophyte population increased to 1,985 (ibid.). The neophyte population increased to over 6,189 within ten years and steadily continued to rise, reaching over 20,269 in 1817 (Bowman 1958:148). Between 1804 and 1829 the neophyte population remained stable at an annual residential rate of approximately 20,000 (Bowman 1958:148).
The mission fathers were also very successful in converting ranchería Indians. Sherburne F. Cook (1976) found in a demographic study of the Indians of California that mission records indicate that the entire coast of California was under colonial control by 1834. Outside of the missions, over 64,500 Christian Indians were dispersed among the settlers or resided in Christian rancherías (Cook 1976:42–43). The most successful missions flourished in southern and south-central California, from the present cities of San Diego to Lompoc (Costello and Hornbeck 1989; Engelhardt 1930; Weber 1982). These missions were inhabited by Chumash, Yumas, and a small number of Indians from four Shoshonean tribal subdivisions, including the Luiseño, Juaneño, Gabrieliño, and Fernandeño. Besides the neophyte population, the fathers of the southern California missions of San Fernando, San Gabriel, San Juan Capistrano, San Luis Rey, and San Diego were also able to Christianize 183 groups of ranchería Indians (Cook 1976:41; see Photographs 12 to 17). Christianized ranchería Indians chose to be allies of the mission fathers, but preferred to live in their villages.
The Chumash, who lived in an area from present-day Ventura to San Luis Obispo (south-central region), eventually became the most widely Christianized Indians of California (Castillo 1989; Menchaca 1995; Thompkins 1967; Triem 1985). They were the ethnic group most widely represented in the missions (Cook 1976:25–26), and over 200 Chumash rancherías established alliances with the Spanish (Merriam 1955:188–225).13 Of these rancherías, 38 had developed close relations with the mission fathers by 1771 and 107 were in constant contact (Cook 1976:35). Eighty-five percent of the Chumash had migrated to the missions by 1803 (Larson, Johnson, and Michaelsen 1994:264), and six missions were specifically built for them (Hoover, Rensch, and Rensch 1966; see Photographs 18 to 22).14
Photograph 12. Mission San Luis Rey. Courtesy of the Franciscan Friars of Mission San Luis Rey. Photograph taken by author.
Photograph 13. Mission San Luis Rey: Remains of the Soldiers’ Sleeping Quarters. Courtesy of the Franciscan Friars of Mission San Luis Rey. Photograph taken by author.
The tribal structure of the Chumash facilitated their conversion (Johnson 1989). From the outskirts of the cities of San Fernando (Los Angeles County) to San Luis Obispo, the Chumash practiced a triblet political system, where each local chief controlled at least three rancherías. When a chief was Christianized, the members of his rancherías were pressured to convert. An alternate explanation for the massive conversion rate of the Chumash has also been advanced. According to anthropologists Daniel Larson, John Johnson, and Joel Michaelsen (1994), between 1786 and 1803 climatic changes caused by the ocean storm El Niño devastated the region inhabited by the Chumash. They propose that El Niño struck California a few years before the Spanish invasion and subsequently created high climatic variability, several years of ongoing droughts, and significantly elevated sea surface temperatures. This was a difficult period of high subsistence risk for the Indians of central and southern California, especially for those who depended on a maritime lifestyle. It was also a difficult period for the inland Chumash because the roots and flora they depended on were practically destroyed. When the Spanish arrived, the Chumash welcomed the agricultural skills introduced by the missionaries (Engelhardt 1930). For the Indians a closer relationship with the church meant that they would obtain the agricultural technology they needed to improve their subsistence base.
Photograph 14. Mission San Luis Rey: Luiseño Women’s Weaving Room. Courtesy of the Franciscan Friars of Mission San Luis Rey. Photograph taken by author.
Photograph 15. Mission San Luis Rey: The Candle Manufacturing Room. Courtesy of the Franciscan Friars of Mission San Luis Rey. Photograph taken by author.
Photograph 16. Mission San Luis Rey: Luiseño Metates and Grinding Stones. Courtesy of the Franciscan Friars of Mission San Luis Rey. Photograph taken by author.
Photograph 17. Mission San Juan Capistrano: Courtyard. San Juan Capistrano, California. Courtesy of Mission San Juan Capistrano. Photograph taken by author.
The missions in northern California were not as successful in their conversion efforts. The northern missions were located from the present cities of San Luis Obispo to San Rafael and were inhabited by Costanoan, Salinan, and Miwok Indians (Swanton 1984).15 Though most missions in these areas were not filled to capacity and their success rates varied, Missions San José de Guadalupe (located in the present city of Frémont), San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, San Francisco de Asís, and Santa Clara de Asís became thriving communities (Cook 1976; Hutchinson 1969), filled to capacity. Mission fathers blamed the failure of many of the other northern California missions on the Indians’ work ethics. The friars alleged that unlike the civilized Indians of southern California, the Costanoans and Miwoks, who constituted the majority of the neophytes, were lazy and left clandestinely after obtaining what they wanted from the fathers (Hurtado 1988).
Photograph 18. San Buenaventura Mission. Courtesy of Pastor Patrick O’Brien. Photograph taken by author.
A second explanation for the failure of the missions stresses the roles played by the colonists and the church. Allegedly many Indians in northern California were coerced into moving to the missions. They often entered the missions in fear of being placed in servitude by the colonists and thus saw the missions as the lesser evil (Guest 1978; Sánchez 1986). At other times the Indians were forced to remain in the missions when they had only planned to stay there for a short while (Castillo 1989; Hoover 1989; Hornbeck 1989). It was common for Indians to move to the missions when they were sick. Once Indians entered the missions, however, mission rules required that they remain there until the fathers secularized them. They were not allowed to leave at will or without permission. Furthermore, many Indians also sought to leave the missions because they were discontent with the life they were pressured to assume. The fathers wanted the Indians to become farmers, a lifestyle many did not want. Indians often left because they preferred to hunt for food.
Photograph 19. Mission Santa Bárbara. Courtesy of Santa Bárbara Mission Archive-Library. Photograph taken by author.
Photograph 20. Mission Santa Bárbara: Courtyard. Courtesy of Santa Bárbara Mission Archive-Library. Photograph taken by author.
Photograph 21. Mission Santa Bárbara: Entry Corridor. Courtesy of Santa Bárbara Mission Archive-Library. Photograph taken by author.
Photograph 22. Mission Santa Bárbara: Main Kitchen. Courtesy of Santa Bárbara Mission Archive-Library. Photograph taken by author.
Although the Costanoans and Miwoks were not ideal mission converts, by 1805 thousands of Indians had been baptized in the northern California missions (Bowman 1958:148; Cook 1976:23–25). Thirty-nine rancherías converted and were associated with the northern California missions (Engelhardt 1930:643).
In 1777, as previously noted, the first Spanish town was founded in San José, California (Weber 1992:259). Two other towns and four presidial towns were then established along the coast. Officially only San José, Santa Cruz, and Los Angeles were founded as towns. When the colonists arrived, however, many preferred to live near the presidios, which thus took on a township structure (see Photograph 23).16 The presidios were located in San Diego, San Francisco, Santa Bárbara, and Monterey. This presidial township ambiance was created as the soldiers’ families, as well as other colonists, established ranches adjacent to the presidios.17 They became the focal social point for the colonists, as festivities were held in presidial compounds and Sunday services were officiated in the presidial chapels (see Photographs 24 to 27).
Photograph 23. Avila Adobe in Olvera Street, Los Angeles, California, Built in 1818. Courtesy El Pueblo de Los Angeles Historical Monument.
To keep the settlers in California the Spanish crown gave them ranch land. The grants, however, differed in size, and most settlers were not given property deeds. There were three types of land grants in California: mission, rancho del rey, and private property (see Garrison 1935; Rush 1965). The mission lands were used to raise the subsistence products needed by the neophytes as well as to establish for-profit cattle ranches (Engelhardt 1930). Cattle raised at the missions were sold at market, and the profits were reinvested in the missions. Once the Indians were Christianized and were acculturated in the lifestyle of the Spanish, they were secularized, and a plot of mission land was partitioned for their use. Indians were not issued property deeds (Guest 1978). Throughout the Spanish period disputes over mission property often erupted between the fathers and the colonists. The colonists felt it was unfair that the missions possessed the best land in California and that it was reserved for the Indians (Mason 1986).
Photograph 24. Santa Bárbara Presidio, Founded in 1782. Courtesy of the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation. Photograph taken by author.
Photograph 25. Santa Bárbara Presidio: Comandante’s Office. Courtesy of the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation. Photograph taken by author.
Photograph 26. Santa Bárbara Presidio: Oven. Courtesy of the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation. Photograph taken by author.
Photograph 27. Santa Bárbara Presidio: Chapel. Courtesy of the Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation. Photograph taken by author.
Over time, the governors in California attempted to convince the viceroy to reconfigure the boundaries of the missions and award part of the land to the colonists. The friars protested, saying that the colonists merely wanted the mission land because it had been improved. The colonists allegedly wanted to take possession of the land because structures, roads, orchards, farms, and irrigation systems had already been built. In three cases disputes over land arose when Governor Pedro Fages reduced the acreage of the missions and redistributed it among his military officers. In two of these cases the mission fathers of San Gabriel fought back when part of the mission land was redistricted and awarded to Don José María Verdugo and Don Manuel Nieto (Garrison 1935:9–11, 86). The dispute centered on Mission San Gabriel’s cattle-grazing property. Verdugo and Nieto insisted that the land was vacant and did not belong to the church. Nieto’s claim was immediately dismissed when the fathers were able to convince Governor Fages that the land indeed was being put to use. Verdugo’s claim was validated by the governor, but the fathers appealed directly to the royal government in Mexico City and forced Fages to rescind his decision. Verdugo’s claim was reduced in size. A similar incident occurred in Mission San Fernando. Francisco Reyes’s land grant was reduced when the fathers protested that his claim overlapped with mission property (Garrison 1935:12, 86).
The second type of land grant was called a rancho del rey, and its owner was the king of Spain. Its function was to set aside land to sustain the military in California. In this type of land grant soldiers raised cattle and some crops for personal use as well as to sell at market. The governors of California also had the authority to carve plots out of the ranchos del rey that could be awarded to the settlers and Indians. Though people were given property at the discretion of the governors, the king retained title to the land. The land grants ranged in size from small house plots with attached gardens to massive grants of thousands of acres. Under Spanish law each head of a household was eligible to receive four square leagues of arable land. The problem with this arrangement was that the land grantees did not own the land they occupied. During the Spanish period, only military officers were given legal title to the land that was carved out of the ranchos del rey. These private-property grants constituted the third type of land grants issued in California.
The individuals who received private land grants during the Spanish period were distinguished officers or were members of the founding families of Alta California (Garrison 1935:1–37). Officers, however, were only given land grants if they had performed heroic acts during battle or had explored important regions such as San Francisco Bay. All land grantees were obliged to make structural improvements, and if they wished to retain ownership their property had to be continuously inhabited. Of the Spanish land grantees, only two individuals were not soldiers or officers in the companies of Portolá or Rivera y Moncada. Don Luis Peralta and Don Ygnacio Alviso came to California as children during the Juan Bautista de Anza expedition. These two men were awarded large land grants for suppressing Indian revolts and acting as Indian brokers (cf. Bancroft 1964:I-Q 773, A-E 695; Garrison 1935:19, 49). Both men held various military appointments throughout their lifetimes and when they retired became active members of the local government assemblies.
The first three private land grants were located in southern California and covered enormous amounts of land. The first land grant was issued in 1784 to Corporal José María Verdugo (Garrison 1935:9). The grant was located near Los Angeles and covered 36,403 acres (Rush 1965:1). That same year Governor Fages issued two other land grants. The grant to Manuel Nieto covered a total of 45,000 acres (Garrison 1935:11; Rush 1965:1). It contained the land where the cities of Long Beach, Downy, and Riviera were later built. The other land grant was awarded to Don José Domínguez and covered 43,119 acres (Garrison 1935:11), from San Pedro to Los Angeles. Overall, some thirty-four ranchos were founded during the Spanish period, located from the present cities of Long Beach to San Francisco.18 In southern California the ranches were located in the Los Angeles District, Long Beach, San Fernando, Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Pedro, and Santa Ana (Garrison 1935). In northern California the ranches were primarily located in the Monterey District and a few other places, including two in San Francisco, one in Santa Clara, and two in the present cities of Redwood City, Belmont, and Menlo Park. Since many of these ranches consisted of thousands of acres and were owned by high-level military officers, it was common for the owners to hire poor colonists to farm their property and to raise sheep and cattle. Indians who were landless or village outcasts were also hired to do the same tasks (Mason 1986; Menchaca 1995; Sánchez 1986).
Moreover, some colonists chose to establish ranches on land inhabited by Indians (Menchaca 1995). In these cases, unscrupulous colonists knowingly took possession of land belonging to peaceful Indians under the rationale that only they could properly cultivate the land. This was a blatant disregard of the Fundo Legal property laws, which protected land inhabited by peaceful and Christian Indians (see Borah 1983:136). Under the Fundo Legal, Indians owned the land they inhabited unless the crown amended this right. The Indians were often unaware that their land had been granted to military officers, because they were not disturbed by the colonists, and therefore were unable to challenge the claims. In other cases, Spanish officers and land administrators stole the Indians’ land by blatantly breaking the law. For example, all of the northern California private land grants were founded on the original sites of peaceful Indian rancherías (Garrison 1935:17, 19, 145). In southern California overlapping land claims were not a serious problem during the Spanish period because the fathers were successful in protecting the land of their Indian allies. In one case, however, the mission fathers failed. In 1780 Spanish settlers in San Diego (present Old Town) turned on their Yuma allies and usurped a large part of their land (Carrico 1987; Hutchinson 1969; see Photographs 28 to 30). The rationale used by the ayuntamiento (town council) was that the Yumas needed to be placed on farms located near the colonists, allegedly to accelerate their acculturation. This was a highly suspect rationale, given that this land was coveted by the colonists.
Of course, not all Indians of California lost their land in this manner. During the Spanish period, the royal government enforced the Indian property laws because it was one of the best approaches to maintain peaceful Indian relations (Cutter 1986; see also Borah 1983). The Fundo Legal, which protected the land of Christian Indians, was successfully invoked by the fathers to protect mission and ranchería property. In areas where Spaniards held high-level military positions and their families resided in the Southwest, however, the governors ignored the royal orders (Spicer 1981). Small farmers also attempted to dispossess the Indians of their land by appealing to the governor or to the members of the ayuntamientos who could influence the governor. Such commoners were unsuccessful (Cutter 1986, 1995). It was more important to the governors of California to enforce the property laws as a means of maintaining peace with the Indians and the church than to side with the settlers who were poor people of color and politically powerless.
Photograph 28. Old Town, San Diego. Courtesy California State Parks. Photograph taken by author.
Photograph 29. Old Town, San Diego: Estudillo House. Courtesy California State Parks. Photograph taken by author.
Photograph 30. San Diego: Presidio Hill Cannon. Collection of the San Diego Historical Society. Photograph taken by author.
In the first decades following California’s settlement the racial order in Mexico underwent political shifts, largely in response to the growing political unrest among the non-White population. Scholars estimate that by the late 1700s over 77 percent of the population in Mexico was Indian or racially mixed (Aguirre Beltrán 1946:213, 221, 225, 237; Cope 1994:121; Meyer and Sherman 1995:218, cf. 271). Although in California as in other parts of the Southwest the racial order was flexible and non-Whites were allowed to enter most occupations, in the interior of Mexico it was not, and most people were dissatisfied with the legal and economic privileges enjoyed by peninsulares. Thus, when California was being settled non-Whites began to challenge Mexico’s racial order. Ironically, this adversely affected the growth of California and other colonies in the Southwest, because the funding of the towns, presidios, and missions was largely dependent on the personal funds of the royal family.
In the interior the privileges enjoyed by the peninsulares were in clear contrast to the opportunities open to criollos and the masses. For example, while peninsulares monopolized all high-level positions within the royal and ecclesiastical governments, criollos were only able to obtain the highest positions within the military or colleges. By the close of the eighteenth century 227 of a total of 361 officers in the regular regiments were criollos, and in the militia they held 338 commissions of 624 officer positions (Meyer and Sherman 1995:275). Likewise, in the universities and colleges most professors were criollos (Haring 1963:215). The Catholic Church also discriminated against its criollo parishioners. They were excluded from serving as bishops; by 1808 only one criollo had been granted such an honor (Haring 1963:195; Miller 1985:180). Furthermore, in the private sector the royal government placed pressure upon the commercial houses, which controlled the importation and exportation of commodities, to reserve high-level administrative positions solely for peninsulares (Haring 1963:196). This angered the criollos, because the commercial houses paid the best wages in Mexico and offered their administrators funding opportunities to establish firms (e.g., the tanning industry, textiles, dyes) and to trade their commodities through the commercial houses. The only types of industries open to criollos within the private sector were in mining and agriculture. Even in these domains, however, criollos were restricted: they were not allowed to trade freely and were subject to high taxes.
By 1774 the royal government was aware that most people in Mexico were dissatisfied with its racial order (Haring 1963:320). It nonetheless chose to retain the occupational restrictions and only attempted to placate part of its criollo elite by giving merchants special privileges. In 1774 the crown permitted merchants in Mexico to trade directly with merchants from other New World Spanish colonies, thus allowing Mexican criollos to get rid of peninsular administrators who acted as middlemen and retained a large percentage of the trading profits. This did not pacify criollo merchants, however, and the crown was forced to pass more radical reforms. In 1790 it abolished the Casa de Contratación, which for 287 years had tightly controlled shipping and commerce, giving only peninsulares the opportunity to accumulate great fortunes (Meyer and Sherman 1995:254). The crown also lowered some commerce taxes and revised its custom duties.
Overall, these royal reforms stimulated the economic prosperity of its criollo elite. A new class of merchants arose who had smaller sums of money to invest but were content with the profits they were making. Ironically, this eventually enabled the criollo elite to challenge the commercial monopolies. With increased profits to reinvest many criollos began to replace peninsulares in the domestic markets and established themselves as the most powerful merchants in the towns (Haring 1963: 322). Though the peninsulares controlled international trade, the criollos became economic rivals, who gradually accumulated massive fortunes and ousted peninsulares from many local markets. The commercial reforms invigorated the economy in Mexico, and more money remained in the domestic market. This changeover led to increased prosperity. For the masses, more wage labor was available; for the church, an improved commerce translated into higher tithes. Although the commercial reforms led to increased prosperity, they did not pacify the criollos or the masses. For criollos, the prosperity they experienced only led to increasing discontent. They considered their subjection to the crown more and more a liability rather than an asset, as peninsulares continued to monopolize power in Mexico and remained the crown’s privileged subjects.
The social and economic position of the mestizos of the interior had somewhat improved by the turn of the nineteenth century, partly due to labor shortages and the crown’s attempt to pacify them. In the late 1700s, when the crafts guild experienced a labor shortage, mestizos were gradually recruited to fill that void (Cope 1994:102; McAlister 1963:362). Only mestizos whose fathers were Spaniards were given such a privilege, however. Though many mestizos entered the crafts guilds, their occupational mobility was limited since they could only work as apprentices and were prohibited from becoming journeymen. To alleviate the tensions at the crafts guilds, the royal crown chose to lift some of its occupational restrictions and began to employ mestizos in low-level government positions (Haring 1963:253). This improved the opportunities available to the mestizos, but did not assure their loyalty to the crown.
To pacify the mestizos and afromestizos the royal crown allowed the children of some racially mixed marriages legally to obtain a criollo racial label. The children of peninsulares who were born in legitimate marriages were to be classified as criollo whether or not a parent was mestizo or afromestizo. The decree was called “Limpieza de Sangre” (cleansing of one’s blood) and was issued on 15 October 1805 (Aguirre Beltrán 1946:253). Aguirre Beltrán (1946:250) claims the passage of this decree was necessary because most people in Mexico were racially mixed and the church, without the consent of the government, had already institutionalized this practice. The government was aware of this and had to conform to the social norms of the period. Historian Patricia Seed (1988:209–220) adds that not only were racial boundaries becoming blurred among Mexico City’s elite, but by 1774 intermarriage between peninsulares and racially mixed people had also become acceptable. This form of intermarriage generally only occurred among peninsular families who were aristocratic but had lost their fortunes. To maintain their social status such families preferred their daughters to marry individuals who were wealthy and racially mixed, rather than peninsulares without fortunes.
In the case of free afromestizos, although life for the wealthy improved, the racial boundaries remained in place for the majority of the commoners who lived in the interior of Mexico. Afromestizos, like Indians, were not allowed to enter the crafts guilds. For afromestizos, the only economic opportunities available were occupations in the military. Between 1762 to 1810, when Spain perceived Great Britain as a threat to its hold over the colonies in North America, the crown authorized improvements in the training of its military and ordered a professional standing army to be recruited (Meyer and Sherman 1995:257). One-third of the army was to be made up of professional soldiers. The availability of jobs in the military allowed a large number of afromestizos to become year-round soldiers and improve their family’s economic standing (McAlister 1963:368).
In the case of the Indians of the interior, the only change in the racial order was the availability of wage labor. By the late 1700s Indians could enter most occupations except the crafts guilds (Meyer and Sherman 1995:274). Before then they were limited to working as farm hands and servants. Wages, however, were terribly low, providing only the barest necessities, and many were tied to a peonage system. Exacerbating matters, Indians still bore the obligation of paying tribute to the crown, unlike other subjects.19 The easiest way of fulfilling this obligation was to remain in the haciendas or Indian pueblos where labor was organized to raise the tribute taxes.20
Toward the latter part of the Spanish period the royal crown realized that the commercial reforms it had passed were insufficient and began to legislate more laws to improve the civil rights of the masses. Spain’s motives were not altruistic. In the early 1800s, as a result of international wars with France, the United States, and England, Spain experienced tremendous financial problems (Lafaye 1974; Meyer and Sherman 1995). France attempted to invade Spain; the United States encroached upon Louisiana; and England challenged Spain’s control of parts of South America (Hall 1989). Moreover, at this time Spain’s colonial subjects in Mexico began to protest against unfair taxation and discriminatory racial laws favoring peninsulares (Weber 1982). In essence, Spain’s hold over Mexico, including the Southwest, was in jeopardy.
In 1808 Spain’s control of Mexico was further threatened when Napoleon Bonaparte’s forces invaded Spain and kidnapped the country’s monarch (Miller 1985). In the absence of Spain’s legitimate monarch, power fell to the Cortes, the Spanish parliament. The Cortes was composed of liberal thinkers, including representatives from Mexico, who passed legislation reforming the autocratic government into a constitutional monarchy (Hall and Weber 1984). Several groundbreaking laws were specifically designed for the overseas colonies in efforts to avert revolutionary movements. Indians and mestizos were the target of the reforms, because they constituted the majority population. By 1810, out of a total population of a little over 6 million, close to 3,676,281 were Indian and 1,328,707 were castas (mestizos and afromestizos) of various racial mixtures (Aguirre Beltrán 1946:236; Meyer and Sherman 1995:271). Together these racial groups constituted 84 percent of Mexico’s population. The aim of the reforms was to make Indians and mestizos loyal subjects by accelerating the Indians’ assimilation and opening economic opportunities for both peoples. To implement these desired objectives, the Cortes abolished the “racial caste system” and gave Indians, mestizos, and free afromestizos many of the legal rights of Whites. Although the Cortes indeed passed liberal racial legislation, it chose not to free the 10,000 Black slaves residing in Mexico (Aguirre Beltrán 1946:236–237).
The first reforms were aimed at Indians. On 25 September 1810 Indians were released from paying tribute to the crown and to the local government (Borah 1983:395).21 They were to be taxed in the same manner as other subjects. On 9 February 1811 the royal crown decreed that Indians were permitted to raise any crop they chose, to enter any profession, and to transact business with whomever they wanted (Borah 1983:396; Hutchinson 1969:10). In sum, all economic and occupational restrictions were lifted. The 1811 decree also abolished racial restrictions in the craft guilds and was directed to all non-Whites, excluding Black slaves. Prior to that date, only peninsulares and criollos had been allowed to be master craftsmen, while mestizos were restricted to being journeymen or unskilled laborers (Chance and Taylor 1977; McAlister 1963). Indians and afromestizos, of course, had been barred from the craft guilds. Outside of the frontier zones, lifting the racial restrictions in the guilds was of utmost importance to non-Whites. For them, the guilds were the main method of advancing economically or improving their social standing (Cope 1994; Seed 1982).
Finally, to the utmost surprise of the masses, the Cortes abolished most racial restrictions when it passed the 1812 Law of Cádiz, proclaiming under the law that Indians, mixed-bloods, criollos, and peninsulares were equal (Barreiro 1832:271, 280–281; Hutchinson 1969:80; Menchaca 1993:586). Before then, non-Whites could only obtain the legal rights of White subjects if they performed heroic acts during time of war (Recopilación de leyes de los reynos de las Indias 1774: Book 7, Title 5, Laws 10 and 11) or if they bought cédulas giving them the legal status of Whites (since 1795; Forbes 1966:245; McAlister 1963:369). On 13 September 1813 the Spanish Cortes passed a landmark reform aimed at improving the economic and political status of the Indians (Hutchinson 1969:85). Missions more than ten years old were to be secularized and the land distributed among Christian Indians (Engelhardt 1929).
In the Southwest the reforms of the Cortes primarily served to improve the community social standing of the non-White population. They had minimal economic impact on individuals since many of the racial reforms were already in practice (Cutter 1995). On the southwestern frontier, by tradition, the racial restrictions had been less rigid than in the interior of Mexico. The Spanish crown had never enforced the craft-guild racial restrictions (Bancroft 1964; de la Teja 1991; Persons 1958; and Tjarks 1974). Non-Whites, including Indians, were able to enter any profession (e.g., tanner, blacksmith, carpenter, mason, printer, or artist). Although the reforms had little impact in the economic domain in the Southwest, in the political and social spheres the reforms allowed non-Whites to improve their standing. Prior to the reforms, non-Whites were prohibited from participating in the local government and were barred from positions as generals of garrisons or presidios (Haring 1963; Recopilación de leyes de los reynos de las Indias 1774: Book 3, Title 10, Law 12). After the reforms non-Whites could run for local offices and be eligible for high-level appointments within the government and the Catholic Church.
The church responded with caution to the reforms directed toward the missions, refusing to terminate its hold over its neophytes and to relinquish title to mission lands (Engelhardt 1929). Most likely this was a wise decision, for in 1814 the Spanish monarch returned to the throne and brought the reform movement to a halt. In 1820, however, the Spanish crown was forced to reinstitute the reforms to avert independence movements (Hall and Weber 1984:7). At this time the church was confronted with the probability of the secularization of the missions, as the liberal reformers of the period considered the mission system to be paternalistic and an obstruction to the Indians’ attainment of equality under the law (Hutchinson 1969).
In 1821 the Spanish crown was unable to prevent revolutionary action, and Mexico obtained its independence from Spain. The new Mexican republic immediately passed new reforms and instituted unprecedented legislation in the area of racial policy. The 1812 philosophy of the Law of Cádiz was reinstated (Hall and Weber 1984). Whites, Indians, mestizos, and free afromestizos were declared citizens of Mexico. The new Mexican republic went even further than the Cortes, introducing the legal infrastructure to dismantle slavery (Aguirre Beltrán 1946:236–237; Schwartz 1975:7–8). Furthermore, the difference between the new republic’s proclamation and Spain’s previous legislation was that the new racial policy was to be enforced with deliberate speed. This meant that Indians were to be assimilated and incorporated as practicing citizens, even if they refused. Thus, philosophical racial problems soon arose within the new republic. The main question was how the Indians would be dealt with if they refused to become part of the republic. In the Southwest this dilemma was very serious, for unlike the situation in the interior, where most indigenous tribes had been acculturated or had ceased warring against the state, on the northern frontier the Apache, Navajo, Comanche, and Shoshone controlled nearly one-third of the territory and considered themselves separate nations (Weber 1982).
