Land Disputes and Independence Movements

California’s politics, always fractious, were extremely so in the 1850s. Litigation and uncertainty over land titles led to prolonged strife. Controversy also arose from southern Californians’ bona fide objections to paying a disproportionate share of taxes, compared to northern residents, while being underrepresented in the state legislature. Then, too, the growing North-South divide in national politics fueled sentiment among some Californians to dodge the crisis of the Union by somehow transforming the new state into an independent Pacific republic.

No issue in the new state was more complex and contentious than that of dealing with land claims in the aftermath of the American takeover of California. Most of the contested land lay in coastal valleys located as far north as the Russian River. Large tracts also existed in the Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys. The Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo promised that Mexican “property of every kind” in the ceded territory would be “inviolably respected” by U. S. laws and officials. Such property, the bulk of which was in the form of huge land grants, was claimed by a relatively small number of Californios. American settlers rejected the idea that some 13 million acres of undeveloped grazing land should be held by several hundred rancheros, the majority of whom had received their tracts within the five years prior to the U. S. takeover. For example, the Pico family claimed 532,000 acres of land. Moreover, purported Mexican deeds often referenced vague boundaries, as indicated in the frequently used expression poco mas o menos (“a little more or less”). Maps, when they existed, offered little help as they lacked the precision of a survey. Mexican record-keeping, by American standards, was slipshod, and there were no archives housing documents that could prove the legitimacy of Hispanic deeds. For all of these reasons, Mexican claimants faced major hurdles in securing land titles.

Mindful of the uncertainties involved, Governor Richard B. Mason commissioned Captain Henry Halleck to investigate the Mexican land claims in order to determine their legitimacy. His report, submitted in 1849, concluded that most of the claims had not been supported by documentation, and that many were fraudulent. News of these findings emboldened American settlers who had been occupying some of the contested lands. These so-called “squatters” rioted in Sacramento in 1850, insisting on their right to acquire parcels from unproven Mexican claims. Manifest Destiny, that is, the belief that God had given North America’s landmass to the United States’ white citizens, pervaded the thinking of Anglo settlers.

Armed with Heaven’s sanction, it is little wonder that American squatters did not back a second land inquiry, this one authorized by the secretary of the interior and conducted by attorney William Carey Jones. Jones’s report, issued in March 1850, held that most of the Mexican claims constituted “perfect titles,” meaning they were complete regarding documentation.

Ultimately, U. S. settlement of the resulting disputes rested on a law introduced in Congress by California Senator William M. Gwin. As passed, the Gwin Act provided for the president’s appointment of a board consisting of three commissioners. They would determine the validity of all land claims proffered by the Mexican grantees. Rejected claims would become the property of the federal government. Both grantees and the United States had the right to appeal a decision to the federal district court, and even to the U. S. Supreme Court.

The board deliberated in San Francisco and Los Angeles from January 1852 to March 1856. Of the approximately 800 cases it reviewed, 604 claims (involving some 9 million acres) were upheld, while 209 claims (involving nearly 4 million acres) were denied. On average, cases took 17 years to resolve. The 4 square leagues pueblo grant on which the City of San Francisco was situated was not confirmed until 1866. Land claim proceedings left nearly all parties, except the attorneys, poorer than they had expected to be. One historian estimates that lawyers extracted fees amounting to between 25 and 40 percent of the value of the land. Many of the grantees whose claims were upheld found that after such a lengthy litigation period squatters had settled on the disputed tracts and had to be removed by private police. Grantees who lost their cases often became embittered if not impoverished. Ranchera Apolinaria Lorenzano, a dispossessed one-time owner of three tracts, lamented: “I find myself in the greatest poverty, living by the favor of God and from handouts.”

Successful land claimants faced a new system of state taxation and representation not to their liking. Under this regimen, the revenue burden fell more heavily on the so-called cow counties in the Southland than on the mining counties to the north. This was because a state law exempted from taxation mines located on federal property, leaving cattle ranchers in the south with large tax liabilities based on their extensive holdings of land and livestock. Yet, the same under-taxed mining counties had more legislators in the state capital than did the high-taxed cow counties.

This unfair situation sparked movements in southern California for separation. In 1859 the state legislature approved a measure supported by a majority of voters in the southern counties calling for the division of California into two sections, the southern part incorporating the counties from San Luis Obispo south and eastward into the Territory of Colorado. The measure reflected the wishes of Hispanic rancheros to shape their own society without undue influence from northern California Anglos. Preoccupied with the growing threat of civil war, Congress took no action on the separation measure, which some of its members wrongly saw as an attempt to extend slavery.

Others in the new state wanted to take matters even further. The idea of forming an independent Pacific republic can be traced at least as far back as the Bear Flag Revolt. Throughout the 1850s, whenever Californians felt a strong need for better mail service, protection from Indians, and more ports of entry, some voices called for creating a separate nation. California Governor John Weller, for example, supported the creation of “a mighty republic” on the Pacific, “which may in the end prove the greatest of all” as a way to escape choosing between the Northern and the Southern states in the growing national divide. California’s commercial ties with the northern tier of states, however, helped ensure that the state remained intact and pro-Union.