secularization in california: pío pico at mission san luis rey

Secularization in California: Pío Pico at Mission San Luis ReyAuthor(s): Carlos SalomonSource: Southern California Quarterly, Vol. 89, No. 4 (Winter 2007-2008), pp. 349-371Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Historical Society of SouthernCaliforniaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41172390 .

Accessed: 10/09/2014 13:49

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

University of California Press and Historical Society of Southern California are collaborating with JSTOR todigitize, preserve and extend access to Southern California Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 134.154.192.184 on Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:49:54 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucal

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hssc

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=hssc

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41172390?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Secularization in California

Pío Pico at Mission San Luis Rey By Carlos Salomon

the many reforms that swept through Latin America in the nine- teenth century secularization is one of the least understood. It was in Latin America's periphery, its frontier, that the process of secu-

larization had the most profound effects. Frontier regions often served as testing grounds for partisan politics, because they were not fully integrated into the nation after independence. They were frequently regions where Native Americans outnumbered Hispanics, so policies toward the Indians were often experimental. In Mexico, secularization, and the fight to prevent it, presaged the nation's future; secularization was, in fact, a nation- building process. The case of California serves as a model to demonstrate the ties and dislocations between the federal and territorial governments in administering the secularization policy. The secularization movement in California mirrors the history of land tenure in Mexico, where church land destined for Indian families landed in the hands of liberal elites. This article uses the example of Mission San Luis Rey and its secular administrator Pío Pico, 1835-40, to examine frontier politics in the early years after Mexican independence.1 Although secularization had separate outcomes in different regions of Latin America, in California the process actually led to Native American recalcitrance and a heightened sense of territorial autonomy, revealing the failure and hypocrisy of this liberal project.2

Secularization was a national project with direct consequences for California's mission system.3 Like other areas of Latin America, the mis-

349



350 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA QUARTERLY

sions of Alta California held the region's most valuable real estate at the expense of California's impoverished settlers- Although most of them were committed Catholics, settlers resented the missionaries- After Mex- ican independence in 182 1, the children of California's first Spanish settlers ascended into positions of authority and influence from which they almost immediately went on the offensive against the church. Although California's territorial assembly had argued for secularization due to "Indian bondage," the priests understood that mission land was the real motive.4 In its most basic terms, secularization was intended to redistrib- ute mission land to Indian neophytes, turning the buildings into parish churches. The state would free Indians from the control of the missionaries; grant them plots of the former missions' land to form pueblos and with their new-found freedom, the Indians would gain the same rights as Mexican citizens. It was this notion of liberty that gave California Indi- ans the ammunition to resist.

While secularization had its most profound effect on the indigenous population, it also provoked a political battle among Mexicans. Secular- ization challenged many entrenched conservative beliefs, such as the right of ecclesiastical land management, resulting in the loss of privileges for Mexico's predominantly Spanish-born missionaries.5 In California, the situation was no different. Politicians issued a series of secularization decrees from Mexico City and from the territorial capital in Monterey, California, entrusting to government-appointed administrators the control of the missions' land and their indigenous populations.6 The positions were highly sought after because of the enormous land base the administrator would oversee. Men like Pío Pico scrambled to secure such appointments.

Mexican independence intensified the deeply held resentment previously directed against Spanish colonialism. The Mexican government saw Spaniards as a security threat and set out to dismantle certain colonial laws that had privileged them. In 1824 and 1829, respectively, the Mexican government abolished the colonial systems of castas and African slavery.7 In California, similar decrees emancipated Indians from missionary control on March 20, 1829.8 Unfortunately for Native Ameri- cans, California missionaries remained influential. Although some neophytes did take advantage of the decree of emancipation, few qualified, because they lacked self-sufficiency.9 A major effort to secularize California's missions finally came in 1830 when Governor José María de



SECULARIZATION IN CALIFORNIA 351

Mission San Luis Rey was known as the "King of the Missions" because of its vast acreage that served as home for various Indian pueblos.

This drawing, which depicts the flourishing mission at its peak, was done sometime in the early- to-mid 1800s- Courtesy of The Bancroft Library,

University of California, Berkeley.

Echeandia issued his Plan para convertir en pueblos las misiones de la alta California (Plan to Convert the Missions of Alta California to Towns)-10 Liberal politicians argued that missionaries held the indigenous population captive, failing to advance assimilation- They championed Native Americans as the prime example of conservative and religious exploitation.11 The missionaries, of course, believed that Californio politicians simply wanted to take the land for themselves. Pío Pico, who took control of Mission San Luis Rey in 1835, was especially singled out as a man who only wanted to profit from mission land. Pico was seen as "the arch- enemy of the missions, and, doubtless, the chief and most unscrupulous among the plotters for the possession of the mission lands. . "n Never-




theless, Echeandia's plan required the confiscation of mission land and its distribution to ex-neophytes for the creation of Indian pueblos- Ex-neophytes could effectively establish Indian pueblos in the form of communal property. The plan allowed one square league for the use of Indian pueblos, along with the distribution of mission cattle and various other movable properties of the missions- Echeandia's Plan was a blueprint for secularization that included an innovative provision: it specified that an official be named to each mission to inventory and administer the remaining property.13 The Plan outlined the management of surplus land and cattle, with the expectation of providing for a local schoolmaster, hospital, and other public institutions out of the gains. Pico fully supported secularization and was poised to become one of the most ardent opponents of the mission system.14

Mexico's political system was increasingly chaotic during these years. From 182 1 to 1833 the presidency changed hands five times. As a result, Echeandia was never able to put his plan into action. A conservative- controlled government in Mexico City promptly replaced him as gover- nor. With the arrival of Brigadier General Manuel Victoria in 1830, Echeandia's plan fell to the wayside. There was little he could do. Not only would the Mexican Congress refuse to support the liberal plan, but Victoria's military and political authority allowed him to control both the California government and its military. Almost immediately, the fac- tionalism that corrupted the federal government exploded in California.

Although powerless to take legal action, Echeandia began to work with Pío Pico, who had initiated a rebellion against the pro-mission Vic- toria. As tension between liberal California politicians and the conservative Governor Victoria erupted into violence, several versions of Echeandia's plan were hastily drawn without bringing secularization closer to reality.15 Pico's rebellion eventually succeeded, greatly increasing his influence in California. He deposed Victoria and briefly claimed the governorship of California from January to February 1832. The Cali- fornios were now poised to secularize the missions.

Victoria's replacement, Brigadier General José Figueroa, was a highly decorated veteran of the war for Mexican independence when he arrived as governor and jefe militar to California in 1833. The new governor immediately began to investigate the condition of the missions and neophytes. Figueroa received orders to revoke Echeandia's secularization




plans and to proceed with caution*16 Soon, Figueroa, perhaps under the influence of the missionaries, took note of the miserable condition of the neophytes and decided to oppose full-scale secularization. In a dispatch to the federal government, Figueroa stated that secularization would bring about irreparable damage to the California economy.17 Because the missions produced a great deal of trade, Figueroa reasoned, secularization might cause financial collapse. Echoing the missionaries' long-held view, Figueroa viewed the neophytes as children incapable of functioning in Hispanic society. According to Figueroa, their incapacity to live as "civ- ilized" Mexicans would bring about the failure of secularization. His letter clearly outlines the belief among many Mexican officials that Indians were childish and in need of a good dose of western civilization. The Indi- ans were "only recently domesticated," Figueroa wrote, and must be "led by the hand towards civilization."18 At San Luis Rey, Figueroa spoke to the neophytes on the benefits of emancipation, including the granting of land, cattle, and other provisions. When asked who would like to take advantage of such an offer, Figueroa was surprised that only four families in one hundred were inclined to accept.19 In light of such interaction, Figueroa issued a provisional law that gave a partial emancipation to neophytes who had practiced Christianity for twelve years.20 It is unclear if the friars had influenced Figueroa. A possible clue is that Figueroa's law contained a provision that ordered recalcitrant Indians returned to the missions, under the care of the priests.21

Before Figueroa could implement his plan, however, events in Mex- ico City once again caused drastic change in California. President Anto- nio de Santa Anna chose as his vice president Gómez Farias, a prominent and radical liberal. When the unpredictable Santa Anna tired of the mundane job of running the government, he handed the presidency to Farias.22 Farias immediately began to issue liberal reforms that focused on diminishing the power of the church and the military. The state separated education from church control and, for California, a new secularization law followed.23 The 1833 secularization law concerned the missions of upper and lower California alone and simply required the transformation of missions into parishes.24 The policy also called for the creation of a vicar-general in California to oversee the newly created parishes. The arti- cles omitted a discussion of land distribution to neophytes and the creation of administrators to oversee it. Predictably, the new secularization decree created anxiety in California, especially for Figueroa, whose plan




Pío Pico, his wife María Ignacia Alvarado Pico, and nieces. Courtesy of the Seaver Center for Western History Research,

The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

to gradually secularize the missions was immediately invalidated- The padres wasted little time informing Figueroa about the dangers of secularization- Fray Francisco Garcia, prelate of the missions, flatly asked Figueroa to resist secularization.25 Garcia argued that neophytes were childish, drunkards, and prone to abortion-26 In his opinion, in other words, they were too backward for emancipation and would not survive without the help of the padres-27




In 1834, Governor Figueroa finally complied with the Mexican secularization law, although in a way that heavily favored the Californios. The political situation required Figueroa to create a regional secularization bill that satisfied all and took into account local realities. Figueroa's Reglamento Provisional para la secularización de las Misiones immediately secularized ten missions and made plans to secularize those remaining.28 The reglamento issued one hundred to four hundred varas of land to ex- neophytes and at the same time created communal plots for indigenous pueblos.29 The pueblos would hold their own jurisdiction and form of government with their own elected officials.30 Naturally, the padres lost administration of the temporalities to the government represented by an official appointed for each mission who was to administer the transition. As in other secularization decrees, little is said concerning the duties of the administrator, except for property management. Figueroa's Reglamento simply ordered that the administrator, or comisionado, once appointed, carry out the regulations of secularization. The comisionado was expected to take control from the padres, explain the Reglamento to the neophytes (who would then be "emancipated"), take inventory of the missions, pay mission debts with approval of the governor, and distribute property, including livestock and tools, to the Indians.31 After the distribution of land, a far greater amount of surplus land would remain, giving the administrator the potential to profit from his post.32 The main idea was, however, that this leftover land should be used for the benefit of the California economy. Nevertheless, the lack of thorough administrative regulations along with Indian labor requirements allowed the administrator to take advantage of his position. The situation is well exemplified by the case at Mission San Luis Rey, where Pío Pico became the comisionado in 1835.

The appointment could not have come at a more opportune time for Pico. The year before, he had married Maria Ignacia Alvarado in the plaza church in Los Angeles. By this time, Pico was already one of the most successful politicians in California. Many territorial elites attended the wedding, which was legendary as one of the grandest in early Cali- fornia history. In fact, Governor José Figueroa, Pfo's compadre, was the best man. The two men had forged a strong friendship, which explains why Pico received the appointment as comisionado to California's largest mission. Figueroa's untimely passing in 1835 did little to dislodge Pico from the powerful position he had carved for himself. As comisionado of




San Luis Rey, he was in a prime position to become one of California's wealthiest citizens-

Mission San Luis Rey is situated just north of San Diego and at the time had enormous economic potential Pico clearly understood the advantage of such an enormous land base- The secularization policy required the participation of the ex-neophytes during their transition from subjects to free citizens- The local indigenous population, called the Luiseños because of their association with the mission, had very little trust in the new policies- In fact, very few indigenous populations in Southern California had faith in promises of "emancipation-" The new laws, the change in authority, and the pronouncements of liberty awakened a new wave of resentment in the native population- From 1835 until 1840, Pío Pico and the inhabitants of Southern California experienced a violent Native American reaction to Mexican control- New political liberties contained in the policies of secularization actually persuaded the Luiseños to organize against the California government-

Life had not been easy for the neophytes under missionary control- Religious conversion, fatigue, disease, and general maltreatment con- tributed to depopulation-33 Under the care of the missionaries, Indian converts could not practice the religion of their ancestors or leave of their own free will, and they were forced to work as part of their discipline- Mis- sions were always protected by an escolta, or mission guard, because of the constant threat of revolt- During the period of secularization, this arrangement began to deteriorate- Under the laws of secularization, Indi- ans received "freedom" from mission control- Nevertheless, they were placed under the care of the government. Indians received land but were required to provide free labor on the mission acreage remaining under the administrators' control. This inconsistency generated resistance, and at San Luis Rey the stakes were high-

San Luis Rey was known as the "King of the Missions" because of its vast acreage including various Indian pueblos situated within its domain- At the largest Indian villages the mission stored grain, grew crops, kept horses, and grazed cattle-34 In the mid- 1820s, San Luis Rey had a total of 22,610 cattle; 27,412 sheep; 1,120 goats; 1,501 horses; and 235 mules-35 Shortly after secularization, however, Mission San Luis Rey faced financial collapse- By late 1834, the outgoing administrator, Pablo de la Por- tilla, could not entice the Luiseños to work-36 Pressing the rights given to




them under the decree of emancipation, on November 4, 1835, a large group of Luiseños rode into San Diego to compel the alcalde, José María Osuna, to intercede on their behalf-37 They complained that Portilla held them against their will despite promises of emancipation. Out of fear of a massive revolt, Osuna was impelled to address Luiseño demands-38

Thus, despite Pico's dreams of prosperity, the Luiseños had already begun to resist political and religious control as a result of secularization-39 Figueroa's secularization decree became the impetus for Indians to organize for legal action against Mexican citizens. It also allowed for the elec- tion of an Indian alcalde who became a political leader of his people and a conduit for interaction with Mexican officials-40 Despite scant evi- dence, it is certain that new pueblos were established under Figueroa's secularization decree- In the case of Mission San Luis Rey, Las Flores, which served as an outpost to the former mission, was created as an Indian pueblo after secularization became law. In May 1835, Governor Figueroa wrote to the "Alcalde of the Pueblo of Las Flores" that the buildings were to be distributed to the inhabitants-41 At Pala, a former rancho of San Luis Rey, an Indian pueblo was also created with its own Indian alcalde-42 Therefore, although the ability to organize was not expressly condoned by Mexican law, the Luiseño population was organizing itself politically-

Mission San Luis Rey was an ideal place for a rancher to manage his business operations- Pico had deep cultural and economic ties to San Diego- His family lived in San Diego, and he had major landholdings there, including Rancho Jamul-43 His brother Andrés Pico was born in San Diego, and Pío himself grew up and was educated in San Diego-44 It was in San Diego where Pico began his political career, which made him one of California's most influential individuals-45 Therefore, his status as comisionado would bring him prestige and allow him to capitalize on his already burgeoning cattle business-

Secularization laws in California put into place a new bureaucracy. Figueroa's secularization law reaffirmed the practice of appointing an administrator for each mission.46 Aside from managing the assets of the mission, the law required Pico to gather Indians to provide labor. This was not an easy task since the laws had "emancipated" the Indians from the care of the friars and had given them property. How did the administrator manage to order emancipated Indians to work for an establishment that they had been liberated from? One answer can be found in the ere-




ation of an office entitled encargado de justicia. This official administered justice in the areas surrounding the missions near San Diego-47 The law allowed the encargado de justicia to work with military officials to punish individuals who committed petty crimes. The law was extremely vague as to what constituted a crime. Article eight stated that for offenses committed at the mission, criminals would receive imprisonment in chains for a period of sixty hours to eight days, with the possibility of an eight-day period of forced labor-48 Aside from drunkenness, "public scan- dal" was also considered a crime. The vagueness of regulations could have easily allowed the official to jail an Indian for refusing to work for the administrator. For Pico, this law was his ticket to success at San Luis Rey. In an unbelievable twist of fate for the Luiseños, Pico was also appointed encargado de justicia in 1836.49

The laws establishing the encargado de justicia completely under- mined the Indian alcaldes' ability to function as persons of authority. This was potentially detrimental to Indians who wanted to establish independent Indian pueblos. The encargado de justicia could override their authority without the necessity for justification. Pico himself recounts an episode when he had a Luiseño alcalde shackled and given fifty lashes for attacking a Mexican mayordomo; apparently Governor Figueroa was at the establishment at the time and did not object.50 This law is one of many instances that reveal the contradictory nature of Indian emancipation during the era of secularization in California.

To Pico, secularization represented a new economic threshold for California. He was under the belief that the priests had kidnapped the economy and had prospered at the expense of the Indians and Mexican pobladores. Unfortunately, his enthusiasm may have masked the reality of the situation. Pico believed that he had successfully reconciled Indian complaints against the government. In an 1836 letter to his friend Mari- ano Guadalupe Vallejo, Pico declared that the Luiseños had accepted their new role at San Luis Rey. He also suggested that he had resolved the concerns of the missionaries, who were happily producing a surplus of goods for sale. "Very soon," he wrote, "instead of being worthy of sorrow, we will be the envy of all of the inhabitants that form the confederation of the Republic of Mexico."51 Pico felt that he had finally managed to bring order out of chaos. He was working with Indians and missionaries alike to bring profit to the mission.52 The letter to Vallejo reveals that




Pico saw himself as capable of propelling California into a new era of prosperity. According to Pico, through the efforts of various government officials, California was on the verge of taking a dominant position in the Mexican economy-

It is difficult to determine, however, if Pico's actions were any different than other administrators. Although Pico worked toward the future of California's economy and attempted to entice the Indian community to work, few documents show him administering other duties as stipulated in Figueroa's secularization decree.53 Although we know about the formation of two Indian pueblos at San Luis Rey, the establishment of a school or other public buildings is uncertain. However, Pico was meticulous about determining the value of the mission. In 1835, Pico's inventory, conducted with the assistance of Fray Buenaventura Fortuni, listed San Luis Rey with debts of $9,300.87 and credits of $49,6 19.75. 54 The final estimated value of the buildings was at $48,000; the furniture and accessories at $24,193.75; the church at $30,000; the sacred instruments at $11,485.50; the ranchos at $40,43 7. 50.55 In total, Mission San Luis Rey was valued at $194,436.50. By comparison, the value of San Luis Rey dwarfed that of other missions. For example, Mission Santa Inez was valued with assets of only $5o,9Ó2.62.56 Shortly after the estimation of the mission's value, Pico set out to make the former mission yield a profit. By 1836, he was producing a large quantity of cattle hides for trade from San Luis Rey.57

Pico had the luxury of studying his predecessor's failures. Pablo de la Portillo had left San Luis Rey in a state of dilapidation with an indigenous community constantly on the verge of rebellion. Pico believed the only resolution was to take control of the situation by force. He believed discipline alone produced results, as the padres had proven during the productive heyday of the missions. Years later, when he recorded his narrative, a boastful Pico recalled that he "imposed the condition on Jefe Politico Figueroa that [he] be allowed to govern the Indians the same as they had been governed before by the padres."58 He was not alone in believing that the Indians were children incapable of governing themselves. Quite soon, the Indian population came to despise him. The Luiseño neophyte, Julio César, in one of the few testimonies taken from a native California Indian during this period, recalled that Pico made them hold their hats in hand when he passed by.59 Julio César stated that, of all the despotic administrators, Pico was the very worst.60




The conflict that came to characterize Pico's administration was a result of his notion of progress. He was running an enterprise more than insuring the transition of ex-neophytes into Mexican society. Various complaints surfaced that Pico had allowed his cattle to pasture in Temec- ula and Las Flores, two areas he would eventually attempt to acquire.61 Furthermore, Pico himself recalled that he attempted to maintain order in a paternalistic manner. For example, he maintained the moral stan- dards of the padres by keeping young, unwed women in the convent, while young Indian men lived in the departamento de varones (men's quarters).62 The Luiseños argued that Pico was strict compared to the padres and that he demanded work without compromise.63 Pico knew that the mission had great potential as an economic source. The mission itself contained thirteen large, populated Indian ranches, including San Mateo, Las Flores, Santa Margarita, San Juan, Pala, Temecula, San Jac- into, San Marcos, Pamuza, Pauma, Potrero, Agua Hedionda, and Buena Vista.64 These ranches produced a great variety of goods. Even so, success required Pico to force Indians to work, a lesson he learned from Portilla's failure to do the same. The end result was that the denial of promised liberties, the encroachment on the mission's Rancho Temecula, and stern treatment became reasons to protest and eventually rebel.

Organized Luiseño protest against Mexican officials like Pío Pico and Pablo de la Portilla indicates that change was sought from within the legal system. Throughout Latin America, Native Americans utilized legal means to redress their concerns and to seek justice. In California, however, this type of action was an anomaly. There were instances of legal action against soldiers and citizens for perpetuating crimes against Cali- fornia Indians, but it was usually ecclesiastics who made these charges. However, by the 1830s there are many examples of native communities appealing to Mexican authorities for redress of their grievances. With great frequency, the Luiseños began to file legal complaints after secularization. However, as encargado de justicia, Pío Pico's ability to punish with seemingly little regard for justice hindered organized petitions among the Luiseños and other Indians of the San Diego area.

Within six months of his arrival, complaints against Pico began to mount. Aside from grazing his cattle in Temecula and his harsh treatment, he was also accused of squandering mission funds.65 Despite Pico's authority, the Luiseños did not give in to his demands. In fact, they




attempted to foil his administration and drive him from the area. By 1836, a coalition of Luiseños formed and selected Pablo Apis from the pueblo of Temecula to act as their representative- Apis was educated and possessed the leadership qualities the Luiseños needed. The Luiseños were ready to use force if negotiations did not work, and, knowing Pico's angry tern- perament, they probably counted on violence. They petitioned the alcalde of San Diego in June 1836, citing wrongful treatment and misap- propriation of mission property.66 When Pico learned of the protest, he informed the San Diego Presidio and asked for military assistance. Comandante Nicolás Gutiérrez set out with four soldiers to inquire about the confrontation. He soon located Apis who told him that he had permission to travel to San Diego to address the new alcalde, Santiago Arguello.67 When Pico found out about Apis' intentions, he ordered his arrest and accused him of being the ringleader of the Luiseño protest. Apis and the Luiseños had simply utilized their legal rights to protest against abuse. As encargado de justicia, however, Pico could arrest Apis for many broadly defined reasons. In the end, it was Pico's word against Apis'.

It is difficult to understand the true nature of the incident, since Pico's version differs slightly from that found in the official military documents. The official report states that Sergeant Pablo Rodriguez incarcerated Apis upon Pico's orders.68 According to Pico, the event caused an enormous gathering of Luiseños who demanded the release of Apls. Pico recounted that nearly one thousand Luiseños, many armed, had gathered in front of his quarters.69 The Luiseños understood that their actions would provoke a military response from the territorial government. Nevertheless, a showdown lasted until the early morning hours, resulting in the uncon- ditional release of Apls. Pico eventually gave in to Luiseño demands because he feared for his life.70

Pico's response to the Apis situation was only a temporary remedy. Just days before the incident with Apis at San Luis Rey, Pico had secured the assistance of the San Juan Capistrano military guard.71 Although the guard had not arrived in time to prevent the Apis affair, Pico was deter- mined to prevent any further altercations. With the help of San Diego troops, Pico had Apis arrested and, to remove him as a threat, forcefully enlisted him into the military company at Monterey.72 He took many precautions to prevent further Indian uprisings. The military soon arrested more Indians to help secure Pico's control over San Luis Rey.73




Unfortunately for Pico, the general discontent among the California Indian population persisted- Nicolás Gutiérrez reported in June 1836 that Indian hostilities occurred in San Luis Rey, San Diego, and San Juan Capistrano.74 Even after the Apis event, the Luiseños continued to protest Pico's administration without fear of retaliation. Once again, less than a month after the Apis incident, an organized group of Luiseños petitioned the government to remove Pico as administrator,75 However, Pico was still an influential person, and Californio officials did not regard his method of maintaining the Indian workload as unorthodox. Gover- nor Mariano Chico himself refused to have Pico removed despite Indian complaints.76

Constant arrests alone could not solve the problem, however. In order to turn the situation to his favor, Pico tried to mediate various complaints. When Indians at the pueblo of Las Flores complained about their alcaldes, Pico went in person and appointed a new alcalde and regidor.11 In order to succeed, he had to make amends to secure support. In November 1836, he even took steps on behalf of the people of Agua Caliente to prevent Pablo de la Portilla from acquiring Luiseño property rights.78 Pico may have taken these precautions to win over the Luiseño population. But in the end he was unable to convince anyone of his sincerity. The fact that Pico acquired Luiseño property rights for himself might suggest that he simply tried to prevent Portilla from acquiring what he himself wanted.

As administrator of San Luis Rey, encargado de justicia, and a regidor of the San Diego ayuntamiento (town council), Pico faced many local issues from 1835 to 1840. While concentrating on his administrative duties, his regional political posts, and cattle operations, he found himself being pulled toward territorial issues. A major blow to his progress as administrator came in 1837 when he joined a Southern California rebellion against Governor Juan Bautista Alvarado of Monterey. Pico was cap- tured and arrested during the plot.79

It was during this period that Hispanic residents reported many attacks in Southern California.80 Pico's rancho was a perfect target for a surprise attack. Jamul was located about twenty-two miles east of San Diego. Few Mexicans lived this far from the coastal region, but Jamul was located within Kumeyaay territory. Interior Indians had never been subdued, and their attacks on Mexican settlements were common. An Indian servant warned Pico's mother, Doña Eustaquia, about the attack. The fact that the servant had such information may indicate that it was a local Kumeyaay




The Luiseños continued to exercise power collectively as they had during Pico's tenure as administrator. Here we see an Indian conference

at the Pala Mission Asistencia, also known as San Antonio de Pala, June 28, 1887. Courtesy of The Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley.

reprisal Nevertheless, the warning was critical because it saved lives. Doña Eustaquia gathered her daughters and urged Mayordomo Juan Leiva to follow-81 Leiva felt the threat was insignificant and decided to remain. In the attack, Leiva's employees died and his daughters were kidnapped and never heard from again. The news of the Indian attack at Rancho Jamul quickly circulated around the pueblos of California. Unfortunately for Pico, he could do nothing about it due to his incarceration.

Despite a public outcry, the Californios should not have been so surprised about the attack. In Southern California, violent reaction to Mex- ican rule was, as we have seen in the case of San Luis Rey, becoming uncontrollable. During the Alvarado affair, the Luiseños had continued their defiance and had begun to leave the missions in large groups. Pico immediately attempted to regain control upon his return to the mission



364 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA QUARTERLY in mid- 1838- It was a stroke of luck, or perhaps due to Pico's continued influence, when his older brother José Antonio Pico was promoted as comandante general of the troops at San Luis Rey in 1839- Pico and his family spent 1839 trying to put their once thriving cattle empire back in order. Andrés left the military to take control of the devastated JamuL82 Pío was attempting to rebuild and protect his interests. With Andrés taking care of financial matters, José Antonio commanding the military and looking out for Indian uprisings, and Pío administering and controlling the vast lands of San Luis Rey, everything seemed to be in place.

Nevertheless, various attacks in the southern region put José Anto- nio on the defensive. Andrés Pico wrote to the alcalde of San Diego, José Antonio Estudillo, that Indians had threatened Jamul once more and were still a serious threat to the pueblo of San Diego.83 In July 1839, José Antonio Pico wrote to General Vallejo begging him to use his influence with Governor Alvarado to apprehend and punish various bandits who put San Diego in danger. Pico explained that the malhechores (evildoers) had set ranchos ablaze and had killed gente de razón.8* According to José Antonio, many in Southern California, including residents of Los Ange- les, were terrified of Indian rebellion. José Antonio was in need of assistance and desperately appealed to Vallejo and the governor for help. Supplies were low at many of the large ranchos, including Jamul, and the missions had few extra provisions. The lack of money and resources made it extremely difficult to find new recruits, placing the military in a dire situation. José Antonio Pico wrote to General Vallejo that the soldiers had no food, uniforms, or ammunition.85 He feared that, without prompt assistance, Indians and enemies of the nation might devastate the pueblos of Southern California. Citizens did not sit idle and wait for the military to react. In a June 1839 petition, the leading citizens of San Diego and Los Angeles asked for substantial military assistance from the supreme government in Mexico City.86

The petition to Mexico City is important because it opens a number of possibilities for viewing the financial situation of California at the time. Why was the economy failing if secularization was meant to bring prosperity? Indian protest was on the rise, the number of troops had declined, and a state of panic existed among the inhabitants. In the records, the only answers to financial decline are corrupt administration of mission land, political turmoil within California, and the increasing relevance of Indian resistance.




While at San Luis Rey, Pico encountered financial problems of his own, causing him to take drastic actions. The Luiseños' refusal to work and their continuous objection to Pico's administration of the mission properties compounded his problems. By mid- 1839, Pico was struggling to stabilize the operations at San Luis Rey. He first had to sell his property in the pueblo of San Diego. In June, he moved his mother and sister Jacinta, who was ill, to San Luis Rey. Pío wrote to his brother José Anto- nio that he was going to sell the family home in San Diego.87 He asked his older brother to use his influence with the governor and General Vallejo to sell the building, conveniently located near the presidio, to the military. Pico also noted his petition for the lands of Temecula. After he had petitioned for ownership, the Luiseños felt betrayed, especially since the Californios had issued statements concerning the new liberties of Indians. Nevertheless, Governor Alvarado gave Pico temporary custody of Temecula.

Shortly after he moved his mother to San Luis Rey, Pico wrote to the Inspector General of the Mission, the Englishman turned Mexican citi- zen, William Hartneil. His duty was to take inventory of the missions, lis- ten to the complaints of the Indians, and to deal with unmanageable administrators, a sure sign of the failure of the current system. Pico asked Hartneil for help with the return of fugitive Indians. The mission was falling into ruin. Pico threatened to resign if Hartneil would not order their return.88 However, in an interview with the Luiseños, Hartnell found out about their objections to Pico as administrator. Numerous complaints came in against Pico, including that he exploited the wealth of the mission, leaving the Luiseños without even basic items such as clothing.89 After Hartnell reviewed the situation and visited the mission, he made a recommendation to Governor Alvarado, who later discharged Pico. In fact, Alvarado had issued a new order for the management of California's missions. Qualified mayordomos replaced the administrators at less cost. The friars were also given a greater role in mission management.90

Even after he left San Luis Rey, Pico continued his attempt to secure Temecula. He is said to have passed out provisions to the Luiseños of Temecula just as he informed them that the government had given him provisional custody of the land. The inhabitants of the pueblo had fought Pico for years over this issue and were not about to give up. Pico had his cattle grazing in many parts of the mission lands, which was customary among the administrators, and in the process gained the disdain of the




residents- In November 1840, the Indians at Temecula armed themselves and warned of a massive uprising if Pico did not remove his cattle,91 The Luiseños eventually got their wish with the arrival of the new mayordomo, Pico's godson and alcalde of San Diego, José Antonio Estudillo. Unfortunately for the Luiseño residents of Temecula, Estudillo also had the goal of securing Temecula for himself Pico finally left the great mission in 1840, fighting the whole time to prevent his dismissal In fact, Hartnell threatened to force him out of his post. Although many say he was the worst exploiter of the missions, he seems to have done no worse and no better than the other administrators- Hartnell recorded that in August 1840 Pico satisfied his debt to the mission of $i7o.92 Yet for the Luiseños the debt could never be repaid.

The proponents of secularization believed that liberty, private ownership of land, and the "gift" of entering Mexican society would transform the Indian population. Yet, in many instances, the Indians simply wanted to be left to themselves. Secularization from the "liberal" standpoint was an absolute failure. Few Indians acquired land and proclamations of "emancipation" left much to be desired. Pico was typical of the administrators who, on one hand, called for Indian "emancipation" from the friars but who still wanted to profit from ex-mission land and free labor.93 In the end, the recalcitrant Luiseños managed to help depose Pico as they had the previous administrator. And as the records show, Luiseño resistance hurt the San Diego economy. Pablo Apis, along with his Luiseño followers, had the courage and means to resist exploitation. Similarly, the strong resistance at Temecula led Pico to reconsider his desire to acquire it. Pico petitioned once more for Temecula in late 1840 but agreed to relinquish his claim as a condition to receiving the enormous 131,400- acre Rancho Santa Margarita grant.94 Pico continued to excel as one of California's most influential politicians. Not too long after his removal from San Luis Rey, he became the first voting member of the California assembly, and in 1845, Pico, as governor of Alta California, granted Pablito, the son of his old foe Pablo Apis, a claim of 2,233 acres *n Temec- ula.95 In February 1845, Pico had assumed the position as governor, again by way of rebellion, this time against Governor Manuel Micheltorena.96 As governor, Pico issued the final secularization decree for the missions, which placed the remaining lands in the hands of private citizens.97




Notes 1 Pío Pico became governor of California in 1845 and was forced to flee with the arrival of U.S. forces in 1846. 2 Three recent studies reveal that secularization indeed brought about a revitalized sense of autonomy among

the California neophyte population. See Steven W. Hackel, Children of Coyote: Indian Spanish Relations in Colonial California, 1 769-1 850 (Chapell Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2005), 377-80; James A. Sandoz, Converting California: Indians and Franciscans in the Missions (New Haven, CT: Yale Univer- sity Press, 2004), 108-10; Richard Steven Street, Beasts of the Field: A Narrative History of California Farm- workers, 1769-1913 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2004), 81-85.

3 The laws for secularization had a troubled past. The liberal Spanish courts made a first attempt to fully secularize the missions in 18 13. Conservative politicians briefly suspended secularization, but liberals re-established it in 182 1 after Mexican independence and finally passed legislation in 1833. See "Decreto del Congreso Mejicano secularizando las Misiones, 17 de Agosto, de 1833" in José María Lozano and Manuel Dublan, eds. Legislación mexicana; o, colección completa de las disposiciones legislativas expedidas desde la inde-

pendencia de la republica, 5 vols. (Mexico: Imprenta del Comercio, 1876), 2: 548-49; Robert H. Jackson and Edward Castillo, Indians, Franciscans, and Spanish Colonization: The Impact of the Mission System on

California Indians (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1995), 88-89. 4 The diputación was a territorial legislature that functioned within the federal republic of Mexico. However,

because they were territories and not states, New Mexico and Alta California had no official autonomy. The members of the diputación, or vocales, were elected officials, yet the federal government appointed California's governor. This led many in the two territories to fight for greater autonomy within the republic.

5 Missionaries had control over mission temporalities; that is, civil and political control over mission lands and neophytes. Secularization in California took this control away and placed it in the hands of the government, while at the same time beginning the process aimed at distributing mission property to Indians.

6 Three major pieces of legislation are, José María de Echeandía, Plan para convenir en pueblos las misiones de la alta California, Julio y Agosto de 1830, Huntington Library, Guerra Family Collection, box 6, Folder 256; Decreto del Congreso Mejicano secularizando las Misiones, 17 de Agosto de 1833 in José María Lozano and Manuel Dublan, eds. Legislación mexicana; José Figueroa, Reglamento provisional para la secularización de las Misiones de la Alta California, 9 de Agosto de 1834, Bancroft Library, Archives of California, Missions and Colonization, CA-53, Tomo 2:166-74.

7 The casta system was a hierarchy of races with Africans on the bottom and Spaniards on top. Those castas

higher up on the scale had more privileges. Indians were just above African slaves. 8 José María de Echeandía, Decreto de emancipación á favor de neófitos, 25 July 1826, Hubert Howe Bancroft,

History of California, 7 vols. (San Francisco, CA: The History Co., 1886), 103. Secularization was seen as one of the necessary steps to be taken to comply with Mexican colonization laws or the Ley General de 18 de Agosto, 1824. See Agustín Zamorano, Reglamento para la colonización de los territorios de la Repúplica, 19 de Noviembre, 1829, Bancroft Library, Archives of California, Missions and Colonization, Tomo 2 (CA- 53>:a-6.

9 Steven Hackel forcefully argues that some ex-neophytes indeed prospered from land grants after secularization. A select few were even able to increase their land holdings above what was reserved to them from secularization. However, he makes it clear that the cases he covers were the exception, not the rule. See Hackel, Children of Coyote, 388-405.

ю Echeandía's decree was issued under turbulent circumstances. The new conservative government of Mex- ico, led by Anastácio Bustamante, came to power through a military coup that took the life of the national hero of independence, Vicente Guerrero. This was a heavy blow to liberals all over Mexico, including Cal- ifornia. Before the overthrow of Guerrero, a liberal candidate, Antonio Garcia, was named to replace Echeandía as governor of California; but the appointment was revoked with the rise of the conservatives. See Bancroft, History of California, 3:181-82.

11 The Conservative/Liberal debate often erupted into violence, leaving Mexico highly unstable. See, for example, Torcuato S. Di Telia, National Popular Politics in Early Independent Mexico, 1820-1847 (Albu- querque: The University of New Mexico Press, 1996), 133-54.



368 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA QUARTERLY 12 Zephyrin Englehardt, O.F.M., The Missions and Missionaries of California, 4 vols. (San Francisco, CA: The

James H. Barry Co., 19 13), 4:337. The characterization of Pico as a malevolent and greedy administrator remains. In his study of California field hands, Richard Steven Street calls Pico a "cruel and rapacious administrator." See Street, Beasts of the Field, 92.

13 The size of mission property was so great that even after the distribution, it was necessary for the government to manage the excess land. The government could then profit from the land by continuing some of the missions' economic productivity, such as ranching. The resulting income would pay military, educa- tional, and other undefined costs.

14 In 1830 Governor Echeandia issued his secularization plan, which the California assembly approved. Pico was a vocal (member) of the assembly and by 183 1 its senior member.

15 José María de Echeandia, Ley sobre administración de misiones, 6 January 183 1, Bancroft Library, Archives of California, Departmental Records, vol. 2 (CA-49), 66-78; José María de Echeandia, Reglamento de secu- larización de las misiones, 18 de Noviembre, 1832, Archives of California, State Papers: Missions and Colo- nization, Tomo 2 (CA-53), 50-69. These decrees reinforced or clarified the plan of 1830. Meanwhile, California's representative to the Mexican national Congress, Carlos Carrillo, was a staunch supporter of the missionaries. He warned Congress of the devastating effects secularization would have in California. See Bancroft, History of California, 3:311.

16 Lucas Alamán to Figueroa, 17 May 1832, State Archives of California, Missions and Colonization, Tomo 2:34-36. See also, José Figueroa, The Manifesto to the Mexican Republic (Oakland, CA: Biobooks, 1952), 2-3. Figueroa's manifesto was the first book printed in California.

17 José Figueroa, Informe en que se opone al proyecto de secularización, 5 de Octubre de 1833, Bancroft Library, Archives of California, State Papers, Missions and Colonization, Tomo 2 (CA-53), 72.

18 Ibid. This view of the Indians is well illustrated in the Preguntas y Respuestas submitted by the padres of each mission to the Spanish government between 18 13 and 18 15. See, for example: Maynard Geiger, O.F.M., trans, and ed., "Mission San Gabriel in 18 14," Southern California Quarterly 4 я (September 107 1 ): 244-40.

19 Ibid.; Richard Street argues that because of their position in society, "liberation was a frightening and con- fusing idea" leading many to remain skeptical of government promises. Street, Beasts of the Fields, 84.

20 José Figueroa, Prevenciones provisionales para la emancipación de Indios reducidos, 15 de Julio, 1833, in Ban- croft, The History of California, 3:328-29.

21 Ibid. 22 Michael С Meyer and William L. Sherman, The Course of Mexican History, 5th ed. (New York and Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 1995), 326. 23 Ibid.; Figueroa, The Manifesto to the Mexican Republic, 3. For the translated version of the Mexican Secular-

ization law, see, Decreto del Congreso Mejicano secularizando las Misiones, 17 de Agosto de 1833, in Bancroft, History of Calif ornia, 3:336. Bancroft uses the Spanish title, vet he gives an English translation.

24 Ibid. 25 Fray Francisco Garcia to José Figueroa, 24 September 1833, State Papers, Missions and Colonization, Tomo

2 (CA-53), 83. 26 Ibid. 27 Ibid.; Hackel, Children of Coyote, 375-76; Sandoz, Converting California, 108. Sandoz argues that in some

cases, the priests were right. According to Sandoz, many were recently baptized with little or no knowl- edge of the Spanish language or culture.

28 José Figueroa, Reglamento Provisional para la secularización de las Misiones. 29 The reglamento issued 100 to 400 varas squared. One square vara is 7.52 square feet. Therefore, according

to this reglamento, all heads of household and all adults over the age of twenty should have received at least 100 by 100 varas of land. It should be noted that 400 varas squared amounts to 160,000 square varas or 27.62 acres. See Kenneth Pauley, "Weights and Measurements in California's Mission Period: Part II - Area Measurements, in Archaeological Cultural and Historical Perspectives on Alta California," Pro* ceedings of the 20th Annual Conference of the California Mission Studies Association (Santa Cruz, California, 2003), 114-25. According to the archives, San Luis Rey had a population of only 2,844 in 1834. See Robert H. Jackson, Indian Population Decline: The Missions of Northwestern New Spain, 1 687-1 840 (Albuquerque, NM: 1994), appendix 4, 175.

30 Ibid. 31 Ibid.



SECULARIZATION IN CALIFORNIA 369 32 For example, San Luis Rey spanned from just south of San Juan Capistrano, where Santa Margarita was sit-

uated, to San Marcos. This is an area of roughly thirty miles across. Despite the fact that Indian pueblos were created, and over a thousand individuals were to be distributed at least ioo varas, vast acreage remained. See note 28 for more details on land distribution.

33 See Jackson, Indian Population Decline, 6-7; Douglas Monroy, Thrown Among Strangers: The Making of Mex- ican Culture in Frontier California (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1990), 86-87.

34 Zephyrin Englehardt, San Luis Rey Mission (San Francisco: The James H. Barry Company, 192 1), 52-53. 35 Ibid. 36 Alan Hutchinson, Frontier Settlement in Mexican California: the Hfjar-Padrés Colony and its Origins,

1769-1835 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1969), 277-78. 37 José María Osuna to "Jefe Superior," 5 November 1835, Bancroft Library: MS Benjamin Hayes Collection,

Missions, vol. 1:229. 38 Ibid. By this time Pico had already been appointed comisionado. It is uncertain what Portilla's position was

or what he was doing there still. 39 A previous study focused on how California natives were partially responsible for the decline of the mis-

sions. See George Harwood Phillips, "Indians and the Breakdown of the Spanish Mission System in Cal- ifornia," Ethnohistory 21:4 (Fall 1974). Phillips argues that secularization caused passive resistance causing neophytes to flee, leading to the financial collapse of California's missions. He doesn't address other forms of resistance, however.

40 José Figueroa, Reglamento provisional. 41 José Figueroa al Alcalde del Pueblo de Las Flores, 8 May 1835, Bancroft Library, Archives of California,

State Papers, Missions, vol. 7 (CA-51), 95. 42 Joaquín de los Rios y Ruiz to unknown, 15 November 1840, Archives of California, State Papers, Missions,

vol. 10 (CA-5 1 ), 262. Rios y Ruiz mentions news from the "Alcalde of Pala," who was simply named Nepo- muceno.

43 Cecil С Mover, Historic Ranchos of San Diego (San Diego, CA: Union-Tribune Publishing Co., 1969), 4. Pico later acquired Rancho Santa Margarita, also in the San Diego jurisdiction.

44 Martin Cole and Henry Welcome, eds. Don Pio Pico's Historical Narrative (Glendale, CA: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1973), 21 (n.6), 22.

45 For Pico's early political career in San Diego see Resultados de elecciones de San Diego, 6 de Octubre, 1828, Bancroft Library, bound manuscript, "Cuaderno de Actas de Elecciones de Diputados al Congresso Gen- eral y á la Diputación Territorial," Archives of California, Miscellany, (CA-62), 330. Pico became a vocal of the Diputación with three of six votes from appointed electors.

46 José María de Echeandía, Plan para convenir en pueblos las misiones de la alta California. 47 José María de Echeandía, Reglamento para fos encargados de justicia y dela policia de las misiones del Departa-

mento de San Diego, 29 January 1833, Archives of California, State Papers, Missions and Colonization, Tomo 2:112-15. This law was passed after Echeandia's secularization plans.

48 Ibid. 49 Pío Pico to Santiago Arguello, 24 January 1836, Benjamin Hayes, Materials Concerning the Missions of Alta

California, Bancroft library, vol. 1:293. In this note Pico accepts the appointment as encargado. 50 Cole and Welcome, Don Pío Pico* s Historical Narrative, 91. Pico was talking about an Indian alcalde since

he had no authority to order such a punishment against the so-called gente de razón (Hispanic Christians) .

Although Pico had not yet been elected as encargado de justicia, the laws were in place, giving the comisionado of missions a hand in justice.

51 Pío Pico to Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo, 16 April 1836. Documentos para la historia de California, 3:192. Ban- croft Library, UC Berkeley. Pico and Vallejo were related through marriage.

52 The administrator was required to entice the Indians to work on the property that remained after distribution. The money was to be used for various bureaucratic costs. It was this labor that most "liberated" Indi- ans objected to.

53 However, Ignacio del Valle wrote that Pico sent from San Luis Rey $1,359, reales, viveres y esquilmos (coins, provisions, and agricultural goods) for the support of the troops. Ignacio del Valle to unknown, 3 August 1836, Archives of California, State Papers, Missions, vol. 7:119. Other than occasional financial support of the troops, little is mentioned in the records.

54 Inventario, Mission San Luis Rey, 22 August de 1835, Archives of California, Missions (CA-51), 11-12.



370 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA QUARTERLY 55 Ibid. 56 Inventario, Mission Santa Ines, i August 1836, Archives of California, Missions (CA-51), 27. 57 Receipt signed by Pío Pico, 9 September 1836, San Luis Rey, Benjamin Hayes, Missions of Alta California,

vol. 1. Bancroft Library, MS. Unfortunately, it is impossible to tell what happened to this revenue. 58 Cole and Welcome, Don Pío Pico's Historical Narrative, 89. 59 Julio Cesar, Cosas de Indios, MS Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley, 1-2. 60 Ibid. 61 See for example the complaint from the pueblo of Las Flores that Pico's cattle were occupying the entire

pueblo, eating crops, and destroying their subsistence. Guillermo Hartnell to unknown, 26 August 1840, Archives of California (CA-51 ), 287-90.

62 Cole and Welcome, Don Pío Pico's Historical Narrative, 98-99. 63 Julio Cesar, Cosas de Indios. 64 Ibid. 65 Santiago Arg_ello to Jefe Politico, 9 June 1836, California Archives, Prefecturas y Juzgados, MS, Bancroft

Library, UC Berkeley. 66 Cole and Welcome, Don Pío Pico's Historical Narrative, 91; Bancroft, History of California, 3:624, n. 17. As

previously mentioned, in November 1835 a similar delegation had been formed to protest the actions of administrator Pablo de la Portilla.

67 Santiago Arg_ello to Jefe Politico. Although it is unclear who gave Apis permission, the Arguello letter reveals that "emancipated" Indians were still required to obtain official permission in order to travel, even within San Diego.

68 Ibid. 69 Cole and Welcome, Don Pío Pico's Historical Narrative, 91-93. 70 Ibid. 71 Nicolas Gutiérrez to Alcalde Constitutional de San Diego, 7 June 1836, Hayes Documents, Missions of Alta

California, vol. 1, UC Berkeley, Bancroft Library. 72 Pablo Apis to José Castro, 7 November 1836, Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo, Documentos para la historia de

California, 3:236, MS Bancroft Library, UC Berkeley. In this letter, Apis petitioned Castro to return to his home in order to take care of his family and aging parents. Castro granted his request on 8 November, 1836. Apis served nearly five months.

73 Nicolas Gutiérrez to Comandante General, 9 July 1836, Hayes, Missions. Pico had the Comandante Militar of San Diego, Nicolas Gutiérrez, arrest the emancipated neophyte José Manuel for undisclosed crimes.

74 Mariano Chico to Alcalde Constitutional de San Diego, 20 June 1836, Hayes Documents, Missions. Unfor- tunately, the document does not describe the attacks.

75 Nicolas Gutiérrez to Alcalde Constitutional de San Diego, 11 July 1836, Hayes Documents, Missions. 76 Mariano Chico to Nicolas Gutiérrez, 11 July 1836, Hayes, Missions. 77 Pío Pico to Santiago Arguello, 16 September 1836, Hayes, Missions. Pico had his eye on Las Flores and would

acquire title to it a decade later. A regidor was a town councilor. 78 Pío Pico to Santiago Arguello, 6 November 1836, Hayes Documents, Missions, 315. It is unknown if Pico

had any ulterior motive. 79 David Weber, The Mexican Frontier, 182 1-1846: The American Southwest Under Mexico (Albuquerque: The

University of New Mexico Press, 1982), 255-56. 80 Douglas Monroy, "The Creation and Re-creation of Californio Society," in Ramon Gutierrez and Richard

J. Orsi, eds. Contested Eden: California Before the Gold Rush (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of Cal- ifornia Press, 1998), 191.

81 See Rosaura Sánchez, Telling Identities: the Californio testimonios (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995), 143-44. There is a discrepancy in dates. Pico recalls the attack came during his imprisonment in May 1838 while Bancroft writes the date of May 1837, which seems to be supported by documents that Bancroft calls "contradictory." See Bancroft, History of California, 4: 68, n. 50.

82 Andrés Pico to Mariano Guadalupe Vallejo, 7 February 1839. Vallejo, Documentos, UC Berkeley (C-B 6), 188.

83 Andrés Pico to José Antonio Estudillo, 19 May 1839. Hayes, Missions. 84 José Antonio Pico to M. G. Vallejo, 21 July 1839, Vallejo, Documentos, UC Berkeley, Bancroft Library (C-




В 7), 393- Although Pico did not say if the malhechores were Indian, he does indicate that the people they killed were gente de razón (Christians). Given this distinction, the perpetrators were most likely Indians (sin razón).

85 José Antonio Pico to M. G. Vallejo, 6 July 1839, Vallejo, Documentos, UC Berkeley, Bancroft Library (C- B7),3i4-

^Tiburcio Tapia to Supremo Gobierno, Mav 1840. Haves Documents, Missions. 87 Pío Pico to José Antonio Pico, 7 June 1839, Vallejo, Documentos, UC Berkeley, Bancroft Library (C-B 7),

188. 88 Pico to Guillermo Hartnell, 12 June 1839, Vallejo, Documentos, UC Berkeley, Bancroft Library (C-B 7),

206. Susanna Bryant Dakin, The Lives of William Hartnell (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1949), 222, 266.

89Ibid.,Hartn6Ü,23o. 90 Bancroft, History of California, 4:58. The reglamento came 1 March 1840. 91 Joaquín de los Rios y Ruiz to unknown, 15 November 1840, Archives of California, State Papers, Missions,

vol. io (CA-51), 262. 92 Certification - William E. Hartnell, Visitador General de Misiones, August 16 1840, Pío Pico Papers, Addi-

tions, Folder 3, UC Berkeley, Bancroft Library. 93 William Hartnell, Visitador General of the missions, recorded many instances of inappropriate activities of

the mission administrators in his inspection from 1839-40. For instance, Hartnell wrote in his notebook that the neophytes at San Juan Capistrano requested the removal of comisionado Santiago Arguello for various abuses. When Hartnell refused to remove him, the Indians became angry and warned that they would only work under the care of the padre. Similarly, the neophytes at San Gabriel accused comisionado Juan Bandini of stealing the mission's finest horses and other such abuses. They demanded his removal and Hartnell complied. At Santa Barbara Hartnell had to reprimand comisionado Manuel Cota for attempting to alter the mission inventory of cattle in his favor. Hartnell then received word from Padre Narciso that Cota "had become possessed of the Devil." Cota, in a fit of rage, dragged an Indian along the ground by the hair." Ultimately Hartnell suspended Cota from his duties for refusing to obey orders. See Glenn J. Farris, ed. The Diary and Copybook of William E. P. Hartnell: visitador General of the Missions of Alta California in 1839 and 1840 (Santa Clara: The California Mission Studies Association, 2004), 33, 54-55, 123.

94 "Petition of Señores Pico for Santa Margarita," 12 March 184 1, 1:351-52, Los Angeles County Records, Huntington Library. See also, Bancroft, History of California, 4:621. Rancho Santa Margarita is now Camp Pendleton military base. This was the largest Mexican land grant approved by the U.S. government after the U.S.-Mexico War.

95 Pío and Andrés Pico to Sub Prefecto y Alvarado, Petition for Rancho Temecula, 2 December 1840, Pico, Additions, Folder 5. For the grant to Apis, see, Robert C. Cowan, Ranchos of California: a List of Spanish Concessions, 1775-1822 and Mexican Grants, 1822-1846 (Fresno, CA: Academy Library Guild, 1956).

96 The Federal Government of Mexico officially recognized Pico as governor on 13 September 1845. 97 Pico, Reglamento para la enagenación y arriendo de las Misiones, 28 October 1845, Agustín Olvera, Documen-

tos para la historia de California, Bancroft Library, C-B 87. The decree is translated and printed in full in Englehardt, 4:445-50.

