This chapter examines the aftermath of the land reorganization laws instituted in the Southwest following Mexican independence. Under the 1824 General Colonization Law the federal government decreed that all heads of households in the Southwest who were citizens of or immigrants to Mexico were eligible to claim land (cited in Laws of Texas, Vol. 1, pp. 97–98; Engstrand 1978:329). This legislation differed from previous Spanish decrees, as people were to be given patent to the land they claimed and not solely occupancy rights. Moreover, no racial group was to be favored in the amount of land received.
The aim of the Law of 1824 was to undo the effects of the Spanish land grant system, which had overwhelmingly favored Whites and military officers. Though many commoners obtained property deeds and many Indian villages evolved into Mexican towns, the federal government’s color-blind legislation did not work as expected. People struggled for land, and some individuals were better equipped to validate their claims. In New Mexico the Pueblo Indians had to launch several legal battles to defend their tribal lands because the territorial government alleged that the size of their population did not merit the amount of land Spain had reserved for them. In Arizona and California military chiefs and the governor’s kinfolk took possession of the best lands. And in Texas the federal government had not envisioned that its color-blind property legislation would lead to the overwhelming concentration of land in the hands of Anglo-American immigrants. Even worse events unfolded, as the United States government was also prepared to launch a war against Mexico as a means of expanding its southern border.
When the racial casta system was dismantled in New Mexico after independence, people in theory were no longer to be privileged or disadvantaged on the basis of race. This threatened the Pueblo land reserves, as Spain’s property agreements were nullified and the Pueblo Indians were to be treated in the same manner as other Mexican citizens. Prior to independence, the Pueblo Indians had a unique legal agreement: they could retain ownership of their tribal lands as long as they were at peace with Spain. The church did not hold title to their lands, as it did to the lands of other Christian Indians of the Southwest. When Spaniards came to New Mexico, the Pueblo Indians already lived in congregated villages; the church did not have to relocate them and create artificial communities as in other parts of the Southwest. Rather, the missionaries moved into their villages and established missions on the edges. The missions basically functioned as parishes with resident priests. David Weber (1982:57) summarizes this unique relationship and land tenure system:
In New Mexico, Franciscans never had to entice Indians from scattered villages into artificial mission communities, or congregaciones as they did in California, Arizona, and Texas. The Pueblos already lived in tightly organized towns surrounded by communal lands. The Franciscans established missions on the edge of those communities but never controlled the fields and pastures, which continued to be worked by Pueblos who gave up only modest amounts of land and labor to support a resident priest …. Thus, in New Mexico the growing population of land-hungry pobladores had little to gain from secularizing the missions.
Because race could no longer be used as the basis of privilege or discrimination after independence, the unique Pueblo jural position was threatened. They possessed excess acreage that was deemed to be vacant by territorial authorities and was eligible for redistribution under Mexican law. This indeed was a problem, as the colonists and genizaros desperately needed land because Spain had failed to grant them land in proportion to their population growth. The colonists and genizaros welcomed the land reforms, whereas the Pueblo Indians saw them as a mockery of their newfound status as Mexican citizens.
At the time of independence there were about twenty Pueblo communities in New Mexico (Carroll and Haggard 1942:87; cf. Hall and Weber 1984:5), including Tesuque, Pecos, Cochité, Santo Domingo, Jemez, Zia, Santa Ana, Sandía, San Felipe, Ysleta, Laguna, Acoma, Zuñi, Santa Clara, San Ildefonso, Pojoaque, Nambé, San Juan, Taos, and Pecuris.1 Land was owned communally, and tribal membership was necessary to retain property rights. Though each family had the right to a plot, land was not privatized; nor could it be sold without consent of the corporate group. The acreage of each pueblo differed and was based upon the borders delineated upon its conquest. Within each pueblo space was reserved for civic and ceremonial buildings, family houses, and family farming plots; communal lands were reserved for grazing, recreational activities, and future community growth.
Immediately upon the passage of the Law of 1824 many people applied for uncultivated Pueblo lands. The petitioners were not solely colonists: genizaros and detribalized Pueblo Indians also applied (Hall 1989; Tyler 1991). To institute the Law of 1824 a seven-member elected assembly was organized. The governor of New Mexico presided over the land assembly, which was called the diputación. The diputación reviewed all petitions and settled land disputes, which were then forwarded to the governor for final approval. In the first years of operation the assembly approved several petitions authorizing the redistribution of unused Pueblo lands (Hall 1989; Hall and Weber 1984). In response to the seizures Pueblo tribal councils presented a series of counterpetitions and lawsuits to the diputación.
The Pueblo Indians finally prevailed when the Pecos leaders protested and took their case to the federal government (Hall and Weber 1984:19–21). It was obviously futile for Pueblo groups to complain to New Mexican authorities. It was necessary to seek federal intervention and attempt to reach a neutral party. The Pecos complaint reached the federal Supreme Court in Mexico City and centered on the relationship between property and the rights of citizens. On 4 May 1829 Mariano Rodríguez, the Pecos spokesman, argued in front of the court that under the new republic the property of citizens was sacred and therefore Pueblo property should be treated in the same way (ibid., 20). He posited that since Indians possessed the same legal rights as the rest of the citizenry they had the right to own property and determine how it should be used. Rodríguez pointed out a contradiction in the enforcement of federal law: if the federal government had declared Indians citizens, why were they being treated as dependent wards and not allowed to participate in the enforcement of federal law?
Upon hearing the complaint, the federal Supreme Court judges asked New Mexico’s diputación to rehear the case and reconsider similar cases that already had been reviewed. The following year the diputación reheard the Pecos case and reversed its former decisions against the Pueblo Indians. The land board decreed that “since time immemorial the land in question was the property of the naturales” (ibid., 20). In 1836 the diputación continued to review cases but had to deliver its recommendations to federal officers for final approval (Mattison 1946:287). Throughout the Southwest the federal government began to oversee the governors’ land-grant confirmation recommendations more closely. Though governors and land committees continued to exert considerable power in determining whose claims were validated, the federal government was now part of the process and could reverse decisions.
Unlike the Pueblo Indians, the majority of the colonists, irrespective of their race, did not own farmland. Based on a 1796 census sample of 1,051 household heads in New Mexico, 40 percent (N = 420) did not own land (Gutiérrez 1991:321). In Santa Fe and Río Abajo, where the landed elite resided, this problem had led many landless peasants to enter a debt peonage contract, as parents could not afford to feed all of their children. Many parents had to place their sons and daughters in the homes of those who were financially stable. In return for food and shelter paupers worked without receiving wages. Thus, the land reforms after independence were welcomed by many and had positive effects upon the colonists and genizaros. The peonage system quickly declined after land was distributed.
During the Mexican period, land grants were awarded to many people and the number of settlements grew. The government released thousands of acres previously owned by the crown as well as reissuing property that had not been developed. It is uncertain, however, how many private and communal land grants were issued after independence, as a master registry was never kept (Leonard 1943:74). During the Spanish period, it is estimated that approximately one hundred grants were issued, and close to half were awarded to individuals of financial means (Engstrand 1978:330; Gutiérrez 1991:325). Only sixty-one were communal land grants (Engstrand 1978:330; Leonard 1943:74).
Thus, after independence, to remedy the land shortage problems quickly, the diputación issued approximately thirty communal land grants and an undetermined number of private land grants (Engstrand 1978:330; Leonard 1943:74). The rationale for awarding communal grants was that the land could be quickly distributed at the village or town level by the local judge or by a town assembly in communities of over 2,000.2 A land grant was to be subdivided among the families of each community, and part of the land was to be reserved for future community growth. Most community land grants included farming plots, house lots, and communal property for recreation, farming, dumping, and pasturing. The colonists and genizaros were dispersed throughout approximately nine million acres (Engstrand 1978:330; Morrow 1923:25).3 A census report by Governor Manuel Armijo in 1840 illustrates the growth and dispersal of the settlements of New Mexico after the reforms were instituted. Whereas in 1827 people were concentrated in around twenty Indian pueblos and eleven colonial communities (cities, towns, and villages), Armijo found that by 1840 people had dispersed themselves into fifty-nine additional settlements (Carroll and Haggard 1942:88, 91–93). The community sizes ranged from settlements called lugares (places), generally composed of a nucleus of families living in ranches adjacent to one another, to larger settlements that had begun as family ranching zones and evolved into villages. Examples include Arroyo Hondo, which split from Taos when forty-three families separated and established a village (Tyler 1991), and San Miguel del Vado, which splintered into ten villages (Leonard 1943:83).
In Arizona the implementation of the land reforms failed because the federal government was more concerned with the survival of the colonies than with distributing land. If the Apaches in Arizona could not be pacified, there was no point in issuing deeds to ranches that could not be occupied. Because most Arizona ranches were sporadically attacked, leading to their ongoing abandonment, a pattern of retreat and reconquest created a lifestyle where land was temporarily occupied, abandoned, and reclaimed by others. When the colonists were able to reconquer their homes, the ranches were often repopulated by new families. As a result of this problem, few people petitioned to receive deeds and the government failed to secularize and distribute property among the Indians. It was mainly the elite who filed land patents, as they could hold on to their property by funding military auxiliaries to protect their ranches.
Throughout the Mexican period Presidio Tucson and its adjacent Indian pueblo, Tjkshon, remained well fortified and became military retreat zones for colonists and Christian Indians when under attack. The mission community at San Xavier del Bac was also highly fortified. The first major Apache attack during the Mexican period occurred in 1823, forcing most ranches in Arizona to be abandoned temporarily (see Kessell 1976:261–264). People were forced to retreat to the fortified zones. Presidio Tubac was nearly destroyed at this time. After a series of battles, the Apaches retreated and people returned to their ranches. Peaceful relations ensued until the early 1830s (Kessell 1976:263; Officer 1987:146–147). Once again the Apaches launched a series of attacks and forced the settlers to retreat. This time the anger of the Apaches was centered on the Christian ranchería settlements. The visitas at Aribaca and Sópori were destroyed and most of the Indians murdered. The survivors were forced to seek refuge in the fortified zones (Mattison 1946). Two of the mission pueblos were also devastated. Calabazas was destroyed and thereafter permanently abandoned (Kessell 1976:280). Guevavi’s inhabitants were also nearly annihilated; many Christian Indian families held on, however, and continued fighting the Apaches. They suffered devastating losses, and Guevavi was left without a community hub. The pueblo changed into a scattered ranching zone. Though Presidio Tubac and Pueblo Tumacácori were also attacked, many Christian Indians hung on and launched counterattacks (ibid., 280, 283). During this period, both settlements lost the vast majority of their population to Tucson.
In the mid-1830s the Apache raids ceased; a period of tranquillity followed, allowing some individuals to rebuild (Officer 1987:130–137). In particular, many residents returned to Tumacácori and Tubac. Presidio Tubac once again had enough residents to form a town and in 1838 was officially reorganized into a township (Mattison 1946:283). Most of its inhabitants were Mexicans of Pima and Apache descent (Officer 1987:17, 171, 193, 215). Although the Apaches left the colonial settlements alone and only launched sporadic attacks throughout the 1840s, the Christian pueblos ceased to grow; most settlers remained near the fortified sites at Tucson, Tubac, and Mission San Xavier del Bac (Officer 1987). The failure of the colonists to spread throughout southern Arizona was largely due to their military vulnerability. Like other parts of the Southwest, Arizona had its troops radically reduced after independence, and the colonists were mandated to organize civilian militia units (Weber 1982). The army at Tucson was inadequate and had to rely on civilian armies organized by regional political chiefs. Wealthy men who had the influence to organize and fund military detachments were issued military titles. The best-known political chiefs were part of the Elías González family, which was dispersed throughout Sonora and Arizona and was part of the landed elite. Rafael, Ignacio, and Simón Elías González were the most influential political chiefs in Arizona and Sonora (Kessell 1976; Officer 1987). They were given the authority to command presidial soldiers in the regions under attack. Their military influence, however, came from being able to fund the equipment needed by the troops. In Arizona they were able to launch effective counterattacks against the Apaches and give the colonies stability.
The military achievements of the Elías González family were recognized by the federal government and were handsomely rewarded. During the Mexican period, the federal government only approved twelve grants, and six of these were issued to the Elías González family. Between 1828 and 1843 they were given land grants in Babocómari, San Rafael, Los Boquillos, San Pedro, Agua Prieta, and Los Nogales (Mattison 1946:309, 313–322). The land grants were massive. Babocómari was the largest land grant, consisting of 128,000 acres, and Los Nogales the smallest, only about 38,000 acres (ibid., 310, 314). Lieutenant Ignacio Pérez, another influential political chief and relative of the Elías González family, was also rewarded by the federal government and issued a land grant (Dobyns 1976). Pérez established Rancho San Bernardo. The rest of the grants issued to Arizona residents were awarded to five citizens from Tubac and Tucson (Engstrand 1992). In turn, these people partitioned their land grants into smaller ranches and house lots for the use of their extended families. Overall, within the twelve Mexican land grants approximately ninety-eight ranches were established by the extended families of the grantees (see Mattison 1946).4 Since the race of the families was not recorded, it is uncertain if these citizens were White, afromestizo, Indian, or mestizo. We only know that the Elías González and Pérez families were identified as criollos in Spanish censuses (Engstrand 1992).
Irrespective of race, most inhabitants in Arizona did not file land patents. Moreover, in the 1840s many residents were unable to file land claims because the small communities that grew outside of the fortified zones in Babocómari, San Pedro,5 Ciénega de Heredia, Rancho Cuitaca, and the mines of Candelaria (Kessell 1976:311) were on property owned by the political chiefs (see Mattison 1946).
We also know that the secularization of the Indians and parceling of mission lands did not take place. Outside of the Spanish land grant issued to the Tumacácori Indians, deeds were not issued to other Christian Indians (see Chapter 4). Instead the church became discouraged with the lack of support from the federal government, and in 1842 the last missionaries left Arizona (Kessell 1976:297). No one was left to secularize and parcel out mission land. Mission San Xavier del Bac was later converted into a parish, while Mission Tumacácori gradually fell into disrepair. A few Indian families remained within the mission compounds at San Xavier del Bac but were not officially granted land. By the late 1840s Arizona had ceased to grow. Without financial support from the federal government, the existing infrastructure deteriorated and the inhabitants were left on their own means. In the end the land reforms had little effect in stabilizing the colony or hastening the acculturation of the Indians. A few became landed elites, while the majority continued their struggle to survive. The safety zones were inhabited by colonists and acculturated Indians.
After Mexican independence, most of the residents of Texas were in dire need of land reforms. In the late 1700s the Spanish crown had ceased to allocate new parcels of land in San Antonio and La Bahía (Poyo 1991b:89). People were not issued land grants, and families were seldom allowed to occupy additional land to accommodate the growth of their families. Altogether only around forty-six Spanish grants were issued in San Antonio and La Bahía (Jackson 1986:239, 407); most grantees were peninsulares (Poyo 1991b). Although new land grants were not issued there, people who moved to the northeast were given land or at least given occupancy rights to as much land as they needed. During the late 1700s, some fifty-two land grants were awarded to residents of Nacogdoches and surrounding settlements (Jackson 1986:441; Texas General Land Office, file “Guide to Spanish and Mexican Titles in Texas”; hereafter cited as TGLO-SMTT). These families had their grants confirmed under a royal proclamation issued in 1792 (Jackson 1986:441). Occupancy rights were also issued to afromestizos from Nacogdoches after they founded ranches in Liberty and Orange counties (Block 1976:12).6
Excluding the northeastern area, where settlers were needed, most people in Texas suffered the devastating consequences of a land system that privileged peninsulares. Thus, after the first Mexican constitution was passed and general procedures were established to allocate land in the Southwest, the state government of Coahuila and Texas quickly moved to interpret federal law. Under the State of Coahuila and Texas Law of Colonization of 1825 each head of a household was eligible to receive a private grant (cited in Laws of Texas, Vol. 1, pp. 99–106). A color-blind process was instituted, and no racial preferences were extended. Land was to be distributed to all who were eligible, deeds were to be issued to those who already occupied land, and stipulations to allot land to immigrants were also included. The Law of 1825 did not apply to South Texas and El Paso Valley, which at that time were under the jurisdiction of the states of Chihuahua and Tamaulipas.
Though the state legislators of Coahuila and Texas carefully drafted a plan, their color-blind policies had unintended results. Within a few years of Mexico’s independence Anglo Americans immigrated to Texas in large numbers and soon constituted the majority population. Since by law they had the right to receive the same amount of land as Mexican citizens, they were issued most of the land grants. They spread throughout Texas, populated regions outside of the boundaries of the former Spanish colonies, and began separatist movements as they saw themselves outnumbering Mexicans. In 1836 Anglo-American settlers favored secession, and their actions culminated in the Texas War of Independence (Weber 1982:251).
Under federal and state law Mexican citizens and immigrants in Texas were eligible to file land claims. Indians were included as part of the eligible population (1825 State of Coahuila and Texas Law of Colonization, Article 19, cited in Laws of Texas, Vol. 1, p. 102). The Law of 1825 specifically delineated the appropriate land distribution procedures to be followed in Texas. Under Article 11 of the Law of 1825 a person who did not possess property was eligible to lay claim to one square league of irrigable land (4,438 acres). Soldiers were given first choice, followed by citizens and immigrants (ibid., Article 10, p. 100). Only empresarios and individuals with large families were exempt from the one-league limit. Federal law prohibited laying claim to land that was already inhabited, unless deemed necessary by state officials (General Law of Colonization 1824, Articles 2 and 9, cited in Laws of Texas, Vol. 1, pp. 97–98). If such action was taken, the state had to compensate the occupants. People already in possession of property became the legal owners as long as they had not fought against Mexico during the war of independence (Jackson 1986:540).
The state government instituted additional stipulations to give people land if the general allotment was insufficient and drafted a plan to make land available as the population of Texas increased in numbers. Based on Article 11 of the Law of 1825, if a family was large and could not sustain itself on the one-square-league allotment the acreage could be increased by recommendation of the town council (1825 State of Coahuila and Texas Law of Colonization, Articles 11 and 17, cited in Laws of Texas, Vol. 1, p. 101). Furthermore, under Article 14 a family that owned cattle was to receive one additional league for grazing (ibid., Article 14, p. 101). State officials also made provisions for the future growth of communities. Under Articles 15 and 16 a bachelor who married and a bachelor living independently could obtain one league (ibid., Article 16, p. 101).7
Immigrants were subject to the same policies as citizens, the only difference being that a petition could not be approved if a citizen filed an overlapping claim (ibid., Article 10, p. 100). The Law of 1825 also stipulated under Article 19 that Indians who had migrated to Texas after Mexican independence and were not native to Texas would be treated as immigrants and bound by the property laws applied to immigrants. In order to receive the property rights of immigrants, however, Indians had to lead a sedentary lifestyle. Article 19 stipulated:
The Indians of all the tribes on the confines of the States, as also those of the wandering tribes in it … if thus induced by kindness and confidence any of them should be desirous … to establish themselves in any of the settlements which may be formed, they shall be admitted, and obtain the same quantity of land as the settlers mentioned in Articles 14 and 15, the natives being always preferred to the Indians coming from a foreign country. (1825 Law of Colonization of the State of Coahuila and Texas, Article 19, cited in Laws of Texas, Vol. 1, p. 102)
Indians who were immigrants were also entitled to receive additional land to establish a township.
Once the Law of 1825 was drafted, thousands of people recertified their Spanish grants and others obtained new land claims. Not everyone followed this procedure, and many people failed to file a petition.
Based on Spanish and Mexican land grant records in the Texas General Land Office, it is clear that thousands of people certified their claims. These records only reflect the size of the population that was eligible to present a petition during U.S. occupation (after 1836), however, and not the number of people who owned land in Texas after Mexican independence. After Texas seceded from Mexico, new property laws were passed by the Republic of Texas, and many people were not eligible to recertify their claims (see Chapter 8). Indians and Blacks were part of the population whose deeds were nullified (see Constitution of the Republic of Texas, 1836, Article 6, Sec. 10, cited in the Laws of Texas, Vol. 2, pp. 1079–1080). Thus, the description here is based only on the land grant petitions that were reviewed and archived by the Texas General Land Office. To supplement this incomplete history, however, two case studies of the mission Indians serve as an example of the numerous property deeds that were nullified and excluded from the land grant registry.
The Texas General Land Office identifies a total of 779 land petitions filed by Mexican citizens (TGLO-SMTT). This figure does not include claims submitted by Anglo Americans. The petitions were for property in San Antonio, Nacogdoches, and La Bahía. In addition to these records, the land office has a few deeds issued by the Mexican government to groups of secularized Indians. These deeds were turned over by the Mexican government but were never used to validate a claim. In one case in 1824, José Antonio de Saucedo, the provincial political chief, obtained approval from the governor of Coahuila and Texas to award fourteen Mexican families land grants from San Antonio’s Mission Espada (Texas General Land Office, archives, File 121:45, “Espada Mission Land Records”). These petitioners were Christian Indians who already held title to secularized mission property but were asking for additional acreage. Saucedo issued the families deeds and registered their surveys. He also obtained the signatures of over twenty-eight witnesses who testified that the petitions did not overlap with any person’s property.8 Many of the witnesses were neighbors of the claimants.
We also know that on 4 April 1830 Ramón Músquiz, the political chief of the department of Béxar (San Antonio), who was in charge of distributing secularized lands, wrote a letter to José María Viesca, governor of Coahuila and Texas, acknowledging receipt of the governor’s order to issue deeds to the Indians of Missions Espirítu Santo and Refugio (Texas General Land Office, file “Guide to Department of Bexar/Texas Records,” p. 27). That year both missions had been secularized (Weber 1982:56). On 18 May 1830 José Miguel Aldrete, mayor of La Bahía, wrote to Ramón Músquiz that the land had been parceled as ordered (Texas General Land Office, file “Guide to Department of Bexar/Texas Records,” p. 27).
The most comprehensive land records retained by the Texas General Land Office are based on the Mexican land grants awarded to immigrants and naturalized Mexican citizens. Approximately 3,420 land grant applications were submitted by immigrants and naturalized citizens (TGLOSMTT). Most of these petitioners were Anglo Americans. The first group of immigrants arrived under the empresario contract issued to Stephen Austin in 1822 (Weber 1982:164). The 300 colonists settled near the Brazos River, approximately sixty miles west of present Houston, and then dispersed. They covered an immense territory ranging from the Gulf of Mexico in the south to near Dallas in the north. Austin subsequently brought three other colonies, totaling 900 families. He was rewarded quite well for his efforts. The Mexican government gave Austin a total of 239,628.38 acres (TGLO-SMTT:7–9). In return for the government’s generosity, Austin became a political broker and a close friend of many Mexican officials. He proved his loyalty by becoming a naturalized citizen and encouraging others to follow his example. Twenty-three other empresarios also brought immigrants. None of them, however, were so generously rewarded. Only one of these empresarios brought Mexican citizens; the rest of the settlers came from the United States.
In 1825 the Mexican government continued to award land grants to Anglo-American settlers, yet it became concerned with empresario Hayden Edwards’s attitude toward Mexicans in Nacogdoches (Castañeda 1950:206). Edwards and his brothers posted notices warning Mexicans that they had to present their property deeds to Edwards or their land would be subject to redistribution. Failure to comply would result in the loss of their land. The parcels would be confiscated and granted or sold to the first bidder. Edwards believed he had the right to issue such an order because he had been given a contract by the Mexican government to bring 800 families to Nacogdoches and process their land applications. Mexican authorities immediately informed him that he was mistaken and ordered him to stop. After a series of confrontations with Mexican authorities, Edwards felt betrayed and believed himself a victim of personal hatred. On 16 December 1826 Edwards, his brothers, and approximately thirty settlers issued a proclamation of independence and declared they had founded the Republic of Fredonia (ibid., 210). Stephen Austin, upon hearing of the disturbance, dispatched a militia of 250 men to Nacogdoches to end the revolt and support the Mexican troops. Green DeWitt, another empresario, and many other Anglo Americans supported the Mexican authorities and sent letters to the governor of Coahuila and Texas disassociating themselves from Edwards.
Without support, Edwards fled from Mexico, and the revolt ended. This event, however, became a clear message to the Mexican government that storms were brewing in Texas. Afterward the federal government continued to receive complaints from state authorities on the worsening conditions of race relations in the area. It became necessary for the federal government to dispatch General Manuel Mier y Terán to investigate the outcome of the Law of 1825 and to issue recommendations on immigration. In 1829 Mier y Terán drafted an alarming report (Meyer and Sherman 1995:320). He concluded that Anglo Americans preferred to isolate themselves from Mexicans and that most refused to be naturalized. Furthermore, the slave reforms passed by the State of Coahuila and Texas were ignored (Bugbee 1898; Schwartz 1975). Ironically, to the distress of the immigrants, the general’s report was published the same year that Mexico’s first afromestizo president, Vicente Guerrero, issued the nation’s emancipation proclamation and abolished slavery (Appiah and Gates 1999; Meyer and Sherman 1995:320). For Texan slave owners, this certainly was a perilous time, as they were about to lose their labor force.
Photograph 34. Adolphus Sterne House, Nacogdoches, Texas: Meeting Place for Texas Independence Revolutionaries. Courtesy of the Texas Historical Commission. Photograph taken by author.
A few months later, on 6 April 1830, the administration of the newly appointed president Anastasio Bustamante issued a series of reforms ordering Texas to comply with the emancipation proclamation as well as other orders perceived by the immigrants to be unfair punishments (Castañeda 1950:243–244, 252; Meyer and Sherman 1995:337). First, the Mexican government rescinded its property tax law, which had exempted recent immigrants from paying taxes (i.e., immigrants residing in Texas for less than ten years).9 It also increased the tariffs on all goods entering Mexico from the United States, which ultimately resulted in higher prices. Finally, it prohibited further immigration to Texas from the United States. Anglo Americans were allowed to immigrate to other parts of Mexico, but not to Texas. Instead of coercing immigrants into compliance, the reforms angered them, and a spirit of revolt spread like wildfire throughout the Anglo-American colonies (see Photograph 34).
The Mexican government became increasingly alarmed when United States citizens did not cease immigrating to Texas. Mexican officials could not do anything to stop the flow of illegal immigrants, as people were pouring in by the thousands. By 1834 the Anglo-American population had increased to over 30,000, far surpassing the Mexican population (Weber 1982:177). Soon Mexicans found themselves surrounded by hostile colonists who viewed them as foreigners and intruders.
Stephen Austin and other colonists loyal to the Mexican government were unable to avert revolution. Austin at first attempted to dissuade his compatriots from revolting by pushing the agenda to make Texas a state independent from Coahuila. This was considered a partial solution because the Anglo-American majority, through the electoral process, would be able to dominate state government and in this way legislate laws favorable to themselves. Austin’s attempt failed, however, when federal authorities rejected his proposal and had him arrested. To the immigrants this was the last straw. On 7 November 1835 Anglo Americans who favored independence convinced the majority of their compatriots to join them and declared war against Mexico (Weber 1982:242). After a series of battles, the Anglo-American majority defeated the Mexican army. The war ended on 21 April 1836, and Texas became a separate Republic with the right to nullify Mexico’s property laws (Metz 1994:24).
After Mexican independence, El Paso Valley and present South Texas came under federal land reforms. At this time these regions were culturally linked to Texas’s cultural infrastructure, yet remained juridically separated. El Paso Valley was separated from New Mexico’s political jurisdiction and joined to the state of Chihuahua. And South Texas, the territory south of the Nueces River to the Rio Grande, was united with Nuevo Santander and other territories in the state of Tamaulipas. In El Paso Valley the 1825 Chihuahua Colonization Law was passed to stipulate the procedures to distribute land (Bowden 1971:1), whereas in Tamaulipas, including South Texas, the state government passed the Tamaulipas Colonization Law of 1826 (Texas General Land Office 1988:1).
In the case of South Texas, by the time of independence most land had been granted and a ranching economy had been established (Alonzo 1998; Jackson 1986). During the Spanish period, approximately 227 private land grants were issued in South Texas (Texas General Land Office 1988). People were issued private rather than communal land grants as a result of a political struggle that occurred in 1766 between José de Escandón and the founding colonists of Nuevo Santander (Alonzo 1998:36). José de Escandón, the empresario of Nuevo Santander, instituted a communal land grant system to distribute land. The colonists protested, perceiving this to be a ploy to benefit those settlers arriving after Nuevo Santander was stabilized. As was the common practice throughout the Southwest, criollos and peninsular families generally arrived after a colony was fortified and Indian insurrections were under control. In 1766 the colonists, supported by the Catholic Church, sent a complaint to Mexico City, accusing Escandón of unfair land practices (ibid., 36). The crown responded by sending a royal commissioner, who supported the colonists and ordered that they be awarded private grants. This set a pattern wherein the residents of Nuevo Santander were issued private land grants.10 During the Mexican period, under Tamaulipas’s colonization law, an additional 137 private land grants were issued in what today is South Texas (Texas General Land Office 1988). A large number of them were awarded to the descendants of the founders of Laredo. Altogether during the Spanish and Mexican periods approximately 364 land grants were issued in South Texas.
During the Spanish period, a large amount of land in El Paso Valley was also issued to the first group of colonists who settled the region. The allocation of land in El Paso Valley began in 1751, when the royal government awarded the mission Indians of Ysleta, Socorro, and Senecú three communal grants to erect towns and ranches (Bowden 1971:129, 140–151). The Senecú grant was located on the border between the cities of El Paso and Ciudad Juárez.11 In 1790 a fourth communal grant was issued to the settlers from the presidial town of San Elizario (ibid., 156). Hundreds of settlers moved from Chihuahua to San Elizario after irrigable land was made available near Socorro and Ysleta. In addition to the communal grants, one private land grant was issued during the Spanish period. In 1692 Fray Joaquín de Hinojosa received a grant consisting of three parcels (ibid., 165) in Ysleta, Socorro, and Senecú (U.S. side). He obtained the grant from Governor Diego de Vargas after demanding that the Indians be given private land grants. Father Hinojosa believed that if Indians were to be converted into tax-paying subjects they must own their ranches, make their own decisions, and enjoy the profits of their labor. He thought that only the church profited from collective farming. The governor refused to comply, but to pacify Father Hinojosa instead gave him a grant where he could launch three experiments.
During the Mexican period, the communities in El Paso Valley continued to prosper and all Spanish land grants were recertified. At this time the valley consisted of Ysleta, Socorro, San Elizario, part of Senecú, and the north side of El Paso del Norte (north of the Rio Grande), which was situated where the city of El Paso is today. Because El Paso del Norte covered a large region and was sparsely populated, the Mexican government attempted to increase its population by awarding land to new settlers (Bowden 1971). Once land became available, El Paso del Norte grew tremendously; by 1824 it had over 2,000 residents (Hendricks and Timmons 1998:49). Though thousands of new settlers moved to El Paso del Norte, few settled north of the Rio Grande. Between 1823 to 1847 only nine grants were allocated north of the Rio Grande (Bowden 1971). Seven private grants were issued to residents of El Paso and one communal grant to thirty families who settled north of El Paso and founded what later became the town of Canutillo, Texas (ibid., 94). In addition to these grants the Mexican government awarded a communal grant to several families from Ysleta (ibid., 140).
In California the 1824 General Colonization Law was not well received by many of the colonial families. Their complaints centered on the advantages indigenous peoples were given and the policies delineating the rights of new settlers (Haas 1995; Hutchinson 1969). Political leaders, including Guadalupe Mariano Vallejo and Pío Pico, argued that Mexican pioneers should be given the same rights to mission lands that the indigenous people had. Under the Law of 1824 people who were in possession of land became its legal owners, which automatically made the Indians who resided in and near the missions the owners of the highly coveted mission lands. The colonists claimed that as descendants of the founders of California they should be privileged in the allocation of land because their parents and grandparents had colonized and stabilized California, whereas recently Christianized Indians, immigrants, and incoming Mexican colonists had not contributed anything to the colony. The colonists also disputed the large allotments all newcomers were eligible to receive.
To interpret federal law a colonization law was finally passed in California in 1833 (Hutchinson 1969:244). In the meantime the governors held full authority to interpret federal land reforms, recertify grants, issue deeds to occupied land, and award new grants. During the term of Governor José Figueroa, California’s Colonization Law of 1833 went into effect (ibid.).12 It was based on the recommendations of previous committees on colonization but was substantially revised by the governor, who chose to protect the Indians’ mission land rights. To the displeasure of the colonists, Figueroa followed federal mandates: all heads of household were eligible to obtain equal proportions of land, as dictated by federal policy (see Chapter 6). Families who already held deeds or were in possession of property were eligible to retain that property. If such people occupied a parcel smaller than the federal allocation, they could petition for more land. Setting claim to new parcels, however, was dependent upon a priority system. The allocation of mission and vacant land was to be assigned: first, to Indian families in those territories; second, to military officers residing in California; third, to residents of the territories who did not own land or owned less land than federal law allotted; fourth, to recently arrived Mexican families; fifth, to foreign families who migrated on their own; sixth, to the families brought by empresarios; and seventh, to former convicts wishing to reside in California (ibid., 166–171, 239).
On 9 August 1834 Figueroa issued a direct order to commence the land distribution process as mandated by the Law of 1833 (see Hutchinson 1969:255–259).13 He ordered ten of the missions to be immediately secularized and converted into towns. Each town was to be given land to erect the community’s civic buildings (ibid., 255–259). He also stipulated that mission Indians who were heads of households and all mission Indians over the age of twenty-one were to receive a town lot. This grant was in addition to the farmland they had received. Secularized mission communities were also to be given half of the livestock belonging to the local mission. When this stage in the land reforms was completed, others could petition for mission land.
Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo became one of the most outspoken critics. He argued that all Mexicans associated with the missions and not just Indians should have first priority in filing a mission claim. Vallejo suggested that the Law of 1833 be amended.14 He argued that an ejido system should be established and that all of the families associated with the missions should be allowed to file a claim for mission property (Hutchinson 1969). Those eligible would include mission Indians, their relatives, and Mexican colonists associated with the missions. To maintain mission lands in the hands of the original grantee families, people would be prohibited from selling mission property and would have to pass the patent to family members. His logic rested on the premise that only those people who built the missions should be able to profit from them and that Indians who lived near the missions but were recent converts should not receive mission lands merely because they were Indian. Ironically, though by law Indians who lived in the vicinity of a mission had a greater claim to land, in practice Vallejo’s views were shared by many, and his vision eventually became a reality. A loophole in federal law allowed the colonists to circumvent Figueroa’s reforms, because the governor and Congress had the right to modify cases (Constitutive Acts of the Mexican Federation 1824, Article 49, Secs. 17 and 24, reprinted in Laws of Texas, Vol. 1, p. 79; Mattison 1946).
In California most people did not file land claims; consequently the information we have on the Mexican land reforms is incomplete. The available data are based upon those who filed claims, such as the immigrants and the new settlers who had to file claims to obtain land, Spanish grantees with massive grants who needed to recertify their claims to obtain exemptions from the federal limit, elites who received special grants from the governors, grantees who occupied land where it was scarce and obtained patent to avoid overlapping claims, and Indians who completed the certification process. Information is also available from mission records and from the registry compiled by Manuel Jimeno Casarin, the official commissioned by the federal government to compile a registry of all deeds (Menchaca 1995:6). His commission, however, was interrupted in 1846, when war erupted between Mexico and the United States. He did not complete a master list because he did not retrieve many of the documents left in the possession of the former governors’ families or in the archives of the Catholic Church (Ross 1974). Likewise, he did not visit all of the secularized missions and did not note how many towns had been established by the Indians. Fortunately, missionaries retained copies of deeds and wrote local histories of some of the Indian towns that did not survive past the mid-nineteenth century.
In the case of the ranches established by the Christian Indians, most families failed to file patents. Indians obtained patents in forty-one identifiable cases, however, and twenty-nine of these were carved out of mission lands (Cowan 1977:35, 37; Engstrand 1991:42; Garrison 1935:142–146; Haas 1995:39, 54; Jackson 1903:140–145; Robinson 1948:42, 61, 71, 72; Rush 1965:29–31, 90, 93–98). The ranches founded on mission lands included Guajome, San Felipe, San Vicente y Barona, Escorpión, Moserate, El Encino, Encino, Temacula, Coches, and twenty ranches established in the common land grant of San Jacinto near Mission San Luis Rey (Byrne v. Alas et al., 1888; see Cowan 1977:34, 89, 184; Engstrand 1991:42; Garrison 1935:146; Robinson 1948:71; Rush 1965:58, 59). Only Coches was located in northern California; the rest were spread from San Diego to San Luis Obispo.
Ranches with patents located outside of the mission lands ranged from Santa Bárbara (in central California) to Suisún (in northern California). The ranches in Santa Bárbara and San Luis Obispo included Huerta de Cuatí, Jamacha, Buena Vista, Chorro, Zaca, and Alamo Pintado (Cowan 1977:14, 20, 27, 31, 69; Engstrand 1991:42; Robinson 1948:71; Rush 1965: 10). Those spread throughout northern California included Cañada de Huerra, Yokaya, Olompalí, Nicasio, Ulistac, and Suisún (Cowan 1977:28, 39, 52, 103, 106; Engstrand 1991:42; Garrison 1935:141–149; Jackson 1903: 122, 140–145; Robinson 1948:71; United States v. Ritchie, 1854).15
Besides owning ranches, Christian Indians also established at least twenty-three villages and towns. In most of these cases, however, the communities did not obtain township charters; nor did the town councils obtain a civic grant. These communities were founded by mission and ranchería Indians throughout California. The five communities located in northern California were Sonoma Pueblo, Cosumnes, San Juan Bautista, San Juan de Castro, and Carmelo (Robinson 1948:42, 72). Only Cosumnes and San Juan de Castro held patents. In San Luis Obispo County in central California four thriving Indian towns with patents were built upon the secularized lands of missions San Luis Obispo and San Miguel: San Luis Obispo, Nacimiento, Estrella, and Gallina (Cowan 1977:35, 37, 50). The mission fathers followed the appropriate secularization procedures and wisely counseled their Indian parishioners to file township incorporation patents. In Santa Barbara County in central California the Indians of Santa Inés established the Pueblo of Zanja Cota. It did not receive a township patent, however (Engelhardt 1986). Thirteen Indian towns were established in southern California: San Pascual, Las Flores, San Dieguito, Janal, Los Tularitos, Sabobá, Pueblo San Jacinto, Peñasquitos, Tecate, San Juan Capistrano, San Juan de Argüello, Santa Ysabel, and San Jacinto. Of these only San Juan Capistrano, San Pascual, Santa Ysabel, and Las Flores obtained patents (Haas 1995:39, 54, 60; Jackson 1903:122; Robinson 1948:72). Las Flores, however, lost its patent within a few years; in 1841 Governor Juan Bautista Alvarado regranted it to his brother-in-law Pío Pico and Andrés Pico (Rush 1965:94).
The question as to why most Christian Indians failed to file land patents cannot be answered with certainty, because the reasons vary. Two cases of Christian Indian communities shed light on this problem, however. The case of Chief Francisco Solano’s ranchería offers a glimpse as to why some Indians obtained a patent, while the case of the mission Indians of Santa Inés is a contrasting example of the obstacles faced by Indians in completing this procedure. In 1834 Chief Solano, from present Sonoma County, obtained patent for the land inhabited by his tribe, the Suisún people (Robinson 1948:64). He was given patent to 18,000 acres and assured by Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo that no one would be issued an overlapping claim (United States v. Ritchie, 1854:535, 536). Vallejo was commanding general of northern California’s military detachments and civilian militia. He advised Chief Solano, who was a military ally, to file a patent. Because Solano petitioned for a private land grant rather than a communal grant, he became the sole owner of the land occupied by his tribe. Solano remained an important military ally of Vallejo throughout the Mexican period, as his warriors helped to patrol the colonies established by Anglo-American immigrants near the mission at San Rafael and at Sutter’s Fort in present Sacramento (Hutchinson 1969).
Unlike Solano, the Indians from Mission Santa Inés did not receive any assistance from the government. On the contrary, government officials made life miserable for the missionaries and Indians. Mission Santa Inés included Chumash Indians from the present cities of Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Santa Inés. The mission was founded in 1804 and was exempt from federal secularization orders because these Chumash people were not considered to be prepared for secular life (Engelhardt 1986:11). In 1836 the state government ordered an inventory of mission property (ibid., 42). It was valued at $50,962.62, and this impressive figure immediately came to the attention of the governor. Indeed Santa Inés was one of the territorial government’s most valuable assets (ibid., 42). After the review Governor Mariano Chico ordered the mission Indians to be secularized, the mission converted to a parish, and its belongings placed under the control of a civilian board. Within a few months of the order, mission furnishings began to disappear. After a series of administrative battles between the fathers and the civilian board, the mission’s belongings were no longer stolen, and life at the mission proceeded as usual. Many Indians continued living in the mission, and Zanja Cota, the mission pueblo, was left undisturbed. A small pueblo had grown outside of the mission compounds to accommodate the families who preferred to live outside of the mission yet remain in close proximity to their relatives.
In 1842 the next governor, José Manuel Micheltorena, received many complaints from the president of the missions of California, asking him to visit Santa Inés and review the civil board’s policies, because the colonists were obstructing the fathers’ acculturation projects and many Indians were leaving Santa Inés (Engelhardt 1986:49). After his visit Micheltorena disbanded the board and returned the administration of the mission to the church. Furthermore, after reviewing the assets of the mission and evaluating the fathers’ plans for the future growth of Santa Inés, he approved the construction of a seminary college and a private school. Santa Inés was an ideal location to found a center of higher learning. Indians were to be educated for free, while others were to be charged a hefty fee of 350 pesos. To ensure the fathers that the college would never come under the administration of the local government, Micheltorena gave the Catholic Church the land where the schools were to be built. In this way the schools would remain private and independent. He also gave the fathers a personal stipend and promised an annual donation of 500 pesos (ibid., 54). Oddly, while the governor issued a land grant to the church, he did not issue land grants to the local Indians; nor did the fathers request such an action.
A few years later, Pío Pico was appointed governor of California. In 1845 he sent his brother Andrés to assess the financial stability of Mission Santa Inés (ibid., 60). While Andrés Pico was at Santa Inés, most of the mission’s cattle and stock were stolen. Taking this loss into consideration, he concluded that without this asset the mission was financially unsound. He did not make any decision on the schools, but the fathers knew that without the mission’s cattle and stock the schools would not survive. Pico believed that the many people who lived in the mission would be unable to remain there unless mission property was sold. He therefore recommended that the mission’s orchards and dormitories be leased in order to raise money to maintain the grounds and pay stipends to the fathers. Funds were also needed if the fathers wanted to feed the Indians who were dependent on the mission. Pío Pico followed his brother’s recommendation, and this time the fathers had no legal recourse because under the Law of 1837 the federal government gave governors the right to sell mission property when funds were needed by the state (Kessell 1976:302).
Pío Pico clearly abused federal law, however, because governors only had the power to sell or lease mission property valued under 500 pesos. Without holding an auction or soliciting a bid, he leased the mission lands to his nephew José Covarrúbias and to his close friend Joaquín Carrillo. Within a year Pío Pico sold most of the mission land to the lessees for 7,000 pesos (Engelhardt 1986:66). Only the mission pueblo and its surrounding gardens were left unsold. Pico failed to issue the Indians a patent for their pueblo. Sadly, a close examination of these two case studies indicates that the enforcement of Mexican property law pertaining to Indians was highly subjective and dependent upon the Indian groups’ political power. Chief Solano’s people served an extremely important military function, while the Indians of Santa Inés were an impediment to the economic prosperity of the governor’s nephew and friend.
As in the case of the Christian Indians, it is uncertain how many parcels were occupied by Mexican colonists, because many people did not file land claims. Archival records of the California Land Commission indicate that at least 813 claimants owned land (Bowman 1958:105; Engstrand 1991:44). About 30 of these grants were issued during the Spanish period and the rest awarded by the Mexican government.16 These land commission records, though extremely informative, are incomplete because they only reflect the number of people who filed land petitions after California became part of the United States and not the number of people who obtained patents during the Mexican period. Clearly, the size of the population in California indicates that few families submitted petitions during U.S. occupation. In 1846 there were over 7,000 gente de razón, 1,300 immigrants, and over 64,000 Christian Indians (Cook 1976:42; Lagum 1987:23).
Though California Land Commission archives are incomplete, they are very useful in identifying the size of the land grants. The grants certified by the Mexican government ranged from modest parcels measuring 0.25 acre to massive land grants of over 100,000 acres (Ayers 1886). The average grant was 22,190 acres or less (Cowan 1977:5). The smallest land grants, called solares (house lots), were usually located in mission communities where land was scarce. The largest land grant was Rancho Santa Margarita y Las Flores (San Diego County), with 133,440.78 acres (Ayers 1886:2). The original patent was issued to Pío Pico. Though the grants varied in size, only four exceeded the federal limit of 48,818 acres (Ayers 1886; see Chapter 6). These grants were issued to Guadalupe Mariano Vallejo, Andrés Castillero, Pío Pico, and one partitioned between José Antonio Aguirre and Ignacio del Valle (Cowan 1977:60, 92, 93, 101). All of these men held high-level positions in the Mexican government, serving as governor, military general, and state secretary of administration.
There were many other large land grants, although they did not exceed the federal limit. These grants were also issued to influential people associated with the government, including both Mexicans and immigrants. For example, of the twenty-two grants reaching the federal limit, nineteen were awarded to government officials and to the governors’ friends, relatives, and colleagues.17
Because of massive corruption, federal law limited the power of governors to issue patents after 1836 (Mattison 1946:287), but they retained control of the recommendation and petition certification process (Engelhardt 1986). They also had the power to sell vacant mission land when the state needed funds. Both of these powers allowed governors to allocate land at will. Thus, during Governor Juan Bautista Alvarado’s tenure (1836–1842) he issued grants to his close friends Carlos Carrillo, José Antonio Castro, José de la Guerra, and Francisco Rico (Bancroft 1964:A-E 743, 751, F-G 768, R-Z 695; Cowan 1977:140–141).18 Alvarado also recommended to federal officials that his uncle Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo and his brother-in-law Pío Pico receive grants similar in size (Rush 1965).19
During Governor Manuel Micheltorena’s tenure (1842–1845), a similar pattern is apparent; however, he chose to favor his administrators, rather than family members. Rafael Sánchez was his personal secretary, Antonio María Osío his accountant, and Andrés Castillero was in charge of his administrative affairs (Bancroft 1964:I-Q 711, 761, A-E 749; Cowan 1977:140–141).20 Micheltorena also rewarded his close friend Joseph Limantour, a French immigrant who transacted many business deals with Mexican elites (Bancroft 1964:I-Q 714; Cowan 1977: 119). During Pío Pico’s second term in office (1845–1846), he obtained approval for grants to his relatives, including his brothers Andrés and José J. Pico and his brother-in-law John Forster. He also obtained approval for the grants given to his friends such as Antonio María Suñol and his wife, María Dolores Bernal (Bancroft 1964:I-Q 776, R-Z 777, 738; Cowan 1977:141), and to William Workman, an Englishman who was a close political ally and established a bank in Los Angeles (Bancroft 1964:R-Z 744, 781; Cowan 1977:51, 77).
Most immigrants, like most Mexicans, did not receive large grants. On the contrary, most of their grants were issued in Indian country, outside of the coastal area. Only immigrants who were business associates or relatives of Pío Pico were issued grants in southern and northern California, where property was of higher value (Cowan 1977:140–141). Immigrants were welcomed in California as long as they settled in uncolonized areas. Most immigrants came from the United States and were used to expand the frontier of California toward the north into present Shasta, Tehama, Folsom, Glen, and Tehama counties and toward the northeast into Butte, Yuba, Sutter, Sacramento, and San Joaquín. Sixty-eight of the eighty-nine grants issued to immigrants (76 percent) were in northern California (ibid., 115–123). In southern and central California, where land was in high demand, only twenty-one grants were issued to immigrants. Ten of these grants were located in San Luis Obispo and Santa Bárbara (central), and eleven others in Los Angeles and San Diego (south).
Nearly half of the grants in southern and central California were issued between 1845 and 1846, when international relations between Mexico and the United States were tense and war was inevitable. At this time, Governor Pío Pico began awarding grants and selling mission property to business associates, friends, and relatives without following federal procedures (Haas 1995; Rush 1965).
Political corruption began in the gubernatorial tenure of Pío Pico between 1831 and 1833, when he granted large parcels of land to his family and relatives (Cowan 1977:143). At this time Pico was acting governor.21 Corruption did not cease at that point, because in 1834 Pío Pico married Doña María Ignacia Alvarado, sister of Juan Bautista Alvarado, governor of California from 1836 to 1842 (ibid., 143; Garrison 1935:36). The collusion between these two men continued, and grants were overwhelmingly awarded to their relatives and friends. Most disastrous, however, were the land speculation deals of 1845–1846, when Pico, once again governor, sold thousands of acres of mission lands. In several cases he sold entire mission communities. Eight of the total of twenty-one missions were sold during Pico’s tenure. In three other cases Pico gave the mission property to friends (Cowan 1977:141; Garrison 1935:34).
Pico began selling mission land without federal authority when international boundary disputes erupted between the United States and Mexico in 1845 and the Mexican government prepared itself for an invasion (Weber 1982:67, 274). After the United States government annexed Texas, boundary disputes began. The U.S. Congress claimed that the border lay below South Texas on the Rio Grande, while Mexico charged that the Nueces River, a few miles south of San Antonio, was the boundary.
In the meantime, Pío Pico began to liquidate state assets by selling mission property, including land, buildings, livestock, and furnishings. He validated this action under the Law of 1837, which gave governors the power to sell mission property if the state was in financial distress (Engelhardt 1986:73; Kessell 1976:302). He did not follow legal procedures, however, and sold property assessed at over 500 pesos as well as failing to hold a public auction or investigate if a claim was pending. Worst of all, Indians were not given the opportunity to file a claim or place a bid as required by law. For example, over 35,000 acres of mission land in Santa Bárbara were sold to Richard Den for 7,500 pesos (Cowan 1977:84,91). In Ventura José Arnaz, a Spanish immigrant, was sold over 60,000 acres of Mission San Buenaventura for 12,000 pesos (ibid., 74). All the mission lands of La Purísima in present Lompoc were sold to banker John Temple for only 1,100 pesos (ibid., 65). Pico’s brother-in-law John Forster, who by 1846 owned most of the San Juan Capistrano region, bought the remaining mission lands for 710 pesos (ibid., 82, 98). Eugelio Celís purchased 57,694 acres of San Fernando Rey mission land inhabited by Indians for 14,000 pesos (ibid., 76). Josefa and Feliciano Soberares purchased 8,900 acres of land belonging to Mission Soledad for only 800 pesos (ibid., 99). Andrés Pico and former governor Alvarado bought all of the mission land in San José for 12,000 pesos (ibid., 80). Antonio María Pico and Antonio María Suñol together bought most of the land belonging to the mission of San Rafael, in northern California (ibid., 87). And in Santa Inés the mission property was sold to José María Covarrúbias and Joaquín Carrillo (Engelhardt 1986:66). Covarrúbias, however, never paid Pico any money.
In assessing Pío Pico’s actions Hubert Howe Bancroft argues that he has been unjustly villainized by historians (Bancroft 1964:I-Q 778). Bancroft knew Pico and obtained his life history in interviews conducted in 1878 (ibid.). Excluding the land grant for Rancho Jamul (San Diego County), his actions in California’s land reforms purportedly have been exaggerated since he did have the authority to favor people. Bancroft adds that Pico’s motives are much more complicated than generally considered. Unfortunately, he does not elaborate upon this point and instead comments that historians have chosen to ignore Pico’s role as a statesman and influential architect of modern civic government in California. Bancroft is probably referring to Pico’s popularity as governor and as a critic of federal reforms which discriminated against the common person. From 1836 to 1846 an addendum to the constitution stated that a citizen must have an annual income of 100 pesos to vote and hold public office (Weber 1982:34). Though this restriction was later deleted and generally ignored, Pico gained popularity by opposing it.
Nonetheless, Pico’s actions cannot be justified; he and Andrés rustled herds of cattle belonging to secularized Indians not once but three times. The Indians from Las Flores, Santa Inés, and the mission community of San Luis Rey lost their entire herds (Engelhardt 1986:59). In San Luis Rey alone, the stock amounted to over 10,000 cattle, 15,000 sheep, and 2,000 horses (Garrison 1935:34; Rush 1965:94). Furthermore, when Pico and his brother obtained title to Rancho Jamul and Santa Margarita y Las Flores they evicted the Indians who protested and converted the ones who remained behind into ranch hands.
Robert Cowan (1977) to some degree concurs with Bancroft in his classic study on California’s Spanish and Mexican land grants. Cowan argues that Pico’s behavior may be explained in part by his very large extended family, with over 400 family members and relatives (Bancroft 1964:I-Q 776–779). Pico had 15 legitimate sons and daughters, 116 grandchildren, and 97 great-grandchildren (Cowan 1977:9, 10). All of these people were eligible to obtain land grants under Mexican law. Cowan’s argument can be strengthened if we interject race and remember that Pico and part of his extended kin were afromestizos who were not awarded land by Spain.
Pío Pico was the grandson of Santiago Pico, a mestizo or criollo who was married to María Eustaquia López, a mulatta (Forbes 1966:244–245). Santiago and his family arrived in California around 1790 and initially settled in Los Angeles (Bancroft 1964:778). Santiago had children with more than one woman; only José María, Pío Pico’s father, was registered as his legitimate son.22 José María was one-fourth Black, and his half-brothers were White and mestizo (Bancroft 1964; Forbes 1966; cf. Garrison 1935). Though Santiago’s illegitimate sons obtained land grants in 1795, José María did not and was unable to leave an inheritance to Pico and his brothers and sisters.23 Why Pío Pico’s father did not obtain a land grant and his uncles did is unclear. This practice was consistent with Spain’s racially discriminatory land policies, however, and may partly explain Pico’s land-grabbing behavior.
Though it is difficult to justify Pío Pico’s actions by any means, we might ask who actually profited from his transactions. Property laws changed after the United States government won the Mexican American War of 1846 to 1848. Within days of the war’s end, the U.S. government nullified most of Pico’s transactions and awarded these lands to Anglo-American homesteaders. Furthermore, the outcome of Pico’s actions becomes more complicated if we consider the role of race in the land grant process, since in the aftermath of the Mexican American War property law was altered and became highly dependent on racial policy. Mexicans holding property deeds in most cases, unless they were mestizo or White, did not have a very good chance of retaining their ranches and remaining in their homes. Worst of all, under United States law, as during the Spanish period, race once again determined whether a person enjoyed basic civil rights.