No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Villa de Branciforte: Innovation and Adaptation on the Frontier
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 December 2015
Extract
Conceived in trepidation, plagued by ineptitude, and ultimately relegated to obscurity, the Villa de Branciforte marked the last Spanish colonial town to be founded in California, or for that matter, in the Americas. A hybrid of civilian and military enterprise, Branciforte was envisioned as California's grandest town only to become instead an early casualty of incompetence and Madrid's depleted exchequer. Yet, despite its misfortunes, the Villa was within a venerable and generally successful tradition of frontier endeavor. In certain instances, the resources of Spain's distinct urban institutions of settlement and pacification—the presidio, pueblo and mission—were joined in varying combinations to meet the demands of extraordinary circumstance. If the Villa de Branciforte failed in its assignment, it was primarily for want of sagacity.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Academy of American Franciscan History 1978
References
1 Powell, Philip Wayne, Soldiers, Indians and Silver: The Northward Advance of New Spain, 1550–1600 (Berkeley & Los Angeles, 1952), p. 149.Google Scholar
2 Ibid., p. 151.
3 This standard condition reappeared in California in Felipe de Neve’s Reglamento; see California Archives, Bancroft Library (CA), State Papers. Missions and Colonization, I, pp. 114–115. The Villa is a town of greater importance—real or imagined—than a pueblo.
4 Powell, pp. 152–153.
5 Austin, Mattie Alice, “The Municipal Government of San Fernando de Bexar, 1730–1800,” Texas State Historical Association Quarterly, 8 (April, 1905), pp. 287–301.Google Scholar The mission is the Alamo.
6 Priestley, Herbert I., José de Gálvez, Visitor-General of New Spain (1765–1771) (Berkeley, 1916), p. 255 Google Scholar; Bancroft, Hubert Howe, History of the North Mexican States (2 vols. San Francisco, 1884–1889), I, p. 692.Google Scholar
7 Gálvez, Loreto, April 29, 1769, Articles 4 and 5, CA, Provincial State Papers, I, pp. 54–59.
8 Ibid., Article 10.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., Articles 5–9.
11 Gálvez, Santa Anna, August 12, 1768, ibid., pp. 60–67. The unique circumstances underlying the founding of Loreto suggest interesting possibilities for further research, not only for the events of its early years, but also for the events resulting from the elevation of Monterey to capital of Alta California in 1774 and for its pre-eminence over the entire peninsula three years later. Thus, the projects at Loreto were never carried out on the scale that Gálvez had envisioned.
12 It should be pointed out that the quality of construction of a non-military settlement could alone enable it to function in a dual role. Some missions were effective bastions and were even better suited to that purpose than presidios. Mariano Vallejo wrote of the California missions:
The larger part of those edifices called missions were … true fortifications, capable of resisting an assault as well as the presidios, and to be truthful, some of the missions were more suited to offer resistance than were some of the presidios; because they were built with great care and in their construction it was never forgotten that they could be exposed to regular assaults.
( Vallejo, Mariano G., Recuerdos Históricos y Personales tocante á la Alta California [5 vols.; Bancroft Library MS. 1875], I, pp. 174–175).Google Scholar
13 Teodoro de Croix, “Report of 1781,” Item 531, quoted in Thomas, Alfred Barnaby, Teodoro de Croix and the Northern Frontier of New Spain, 1776–1783 (Norman, Okla., 1941), p. 221.Google Scholar
14 Palou, Francisco, Noticias de la Nueva California, ed. & trans. Bolton, Herbert E. (4 vols; New York, 1966), IV, p. 200.Google Scholar
15 Bancroft, Hubert Howe, History of California (7 vols: San Francisco, 1884–1890), I, p. 358.Google Scholar
16 Arrivicita, J.D., Crónica Seráfica y Apostólica (Mexico, 1792), cited in ibid.Google Scholar
17 Thomas, p. 59.
18 Branciforte was a protege of the “supreme mountebank,” Manual Godoy. The Viceroy possessed “an extraordinary gift for flattery” and was a “venal man, who came to the vice-royalty determined to feather his nest.” He was replaced immediately when Charles IV “was forced by universal indignation and the insistence of the French to part with Godoy.” ( Sierra, Justo, The Political Evolution of the Mexican People, trans. Ramsdell, Charles [Austin & London, 1969], pp. 140–141).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19 Branciforte to the Duque de la Alcudia, Mexico, August 29, 1794, quoted in Florian Guest, O.F.M., “The Establishment of the Villa de Branciforte,” California Historical Society Quarterly, 41 (March, 1962), p. 30.Google Scholar
20 Branciforte, , “Informe del Real Tribunal y Audiencia de la Contaduría de Cuentas sobre Fundación de un Pueblo que llamara Branciforte,” Mexico, November 18, 1795, CA, Provincial State Papers, 7, p. 400.Google Scholar
21 Ibid., p. 398.
22 Borica to Presidio Commandants, Monterey, January 9, 1795, CA, Provincial Records, II, pp. 402–403.
23 Branciforte, , “Informe …,” op cit., pp. 400–401.Google Scholar
24 Ibid.
25 Ibid.
26 Recopilación de leyes de los Reynos de las Indias, 4th ed. (3 vols; Madrid, 1791), VI:3:21-23, II, p. 212.
27 Spanish policy on this matter in California may be illustrated by an item from a series of instructions issued in 1786 by Viceroy Bernardo de Gálvez (a nephew of the former Visitor-General):
You will charge the governor, Don Pedro de Fages, with the care of maintaining their innocence the Indians of the Santa Barbara Channel, in tranquility those of the missions of San Diego, San Gabriel, and San Francisco, and in the most just order, subordination, and discipline the troops who only serve in the present system to inspire respect, give a good example to the Indians, punish with prudence the excesses which they commit, and prohibit them the use and handling of the horse.
( de Gálvez, Bernardo to Ugarte, Jacobo y Loyola, , Mexico, n.d., 1786, Instructions for Governing the Internal Provinces of New Spain, ed. & trans. Worcester, Donald E. [Berkeley, 1951], Article 116, p. 59).Google Scholar
28 Mörner, Magnus, Race Mixture in the History of Latin America (Boston, 1967), p. 48.Google Scholar
29 Engelhardt insisted that Pájaro site would have been the best for Branciforte even though the town would have been 15 miles inland. His understandable pro-missionary bias nevertheless ignored the basic defensive and maritime requirement stated by the Viceroy. ( Engelhardt, Zephyrin, O.F.M., The Missions and Missionaries of California [4 vols; San Francisco, 1908–1915], II, p. 520).Google Scholar Fr. José Señan claimed that about halfway between San Francisco and Santa Cruz there was an ideal site for the new town. It had ample fields and water, few Indians in the vicinity and a well-sheltered anchorage. Furthermore, both Monterey and San Francisco Bays were both visible from that point. However, a consensus of opinion agrees that there is no such location in the Bay Area. ( Señan, José, Letters, 1796–1823, trans. Nathan, Paul D., ed. Simpson, Lesley Byrd [San Francisco, 1962], p. 7.Google Scholar
30 Palou, III, p. 301.
31 Córdoba to Borica, San Francisco, July 2, 1796, quoted in Williams, E.L., Santa Cruz: A Peep into the Past (Bancroft Library MS), p. 55.Google Scholar
32 Branciforte to Borica, Mexico, January 25, 1797, CA, State Papers. Missions and Colonization, I, pp. 79–83.
33 Recopilación, IV:7:8, II, p. 21; 1:4:2, I, p. 25. The latter provided for a hospital and is the first mention of such an institution in California. However, it was never built, let alone given serious thought.
34 Branciforte to Borica, op. cit. Recopilación, II, pp. 19–25.
35 Branciforte to Borica, op. cit.
36 Recopilación, IV:7:8, II, p. 21.
37 See Planos de Ciudades Iberoaméricanas y Filipinas existentes en el Archivo de Indias (2 vols; Madrid, 1951), vol. I.
38 Today’s Hermosillo, Sonora.
39 Hittell, Theodore H., History of California (4 vols; San Francisco, 1897), 1, p. 578.Google Scholar Thus, “while the plan was principally intended for Pitie, its authors contemplated that it should also furnish a general plan for the founding of pueblos throughout the comandancia of the Internal Provinces of the West.” (Ibid., p. 579).
40 Gascot, Juan y Miralles, , “Instrucción aprobada por S.M. que se formo para el establecimiento de la nueva Villa de Pitie en la Provincia de Sonora, y mandada adaptar a las demas nuevas poblaciones proyectadas,” Chihuahua, November 14,1789, CA, Provincial State Papers, 5, pp. 54–77.Google Scholar The legislation also appears in CA, State Papers. Missions and Colonization, I, pp. 340–357. Therefore, it is quite likely that Borica provided a copy in his instructions pertaining to the founding of Branciforte.
41 Fermin Francisco de Lasuén to Fr. Pedro Callejas, Mission San Carlos, May 1, 1797, Lasuén, Writings, ed. & trans. Finbar Kenneally, O.F.M. (2 vols; Washington, D.C., 1965), II, p. 26.
42 Lasuén to Borica, Mission San Carlos, May 5, 1797, ibid, p. 27.
43 College of San Fernando to Viceroy Branciforte, Mexico, August 30, 1797, cited in Engelhardt, II, pp. 517–519.
44 Ibid.
45 Ibid.
46 Ibid.
47 Borica to Branciforte, Monterey, February 6, 1798, cited in Bancroft, , California, 1, p. 572.Google Scholar
48 Fiscal to Viceroy Félix Berenguer de Marquina, Mexico, December 11, 1800, cited in Guest, p. 43.
49 Borica to Córdoba, Monterey, May 15, 1797, CA, Provincial State Papers. Indices, pp. 258–261.
50 Guest attributes to Borica not only the departure from the usual practice for the construction of houses, but also the idea that minor criminals and landless vecinos from Los Angeles and San Jose be sent to the new town. (Guest, pp. 35–36). However, the former point was touched on by Viceroy Branciforte at an earlier date, i.e. November, 1795 vs. August, 1796. In light of the great personal interest in the matter assumed by the Viceroy, it is he who merits the distinction.
51 Branciforte, , “Informe …,” op. cit., p. 399.Google Scholar
52 Borica to Córdoba, op. cit.
53 Ibid. Accordingly, Borica instructed Lt. Gabriel Moraga:
In order that the [temporary] buildings progress rapidly, have the soldiers in your company assist, and have them build near them accommodations for 15 or 20 families, even if it is one dwelling. Thus, they may be sheltered from bad weather until more convenient dwellings are ready.… You are to carry out well the orders which have been decreed for the founding and promotion of the villa de Branciforte. The houses which have been mentioned in this order are such that should be used temporarily… . Those that are built on the plaza of the villa may also be used temporarily but are to be constructed for permanent use, one house for each settler.
(Borica to Moraga, Monterey, May 26, 1797, CA, Santa Cruz Archives, pp. 67–68).
54 Córdoba to Borica, Mission Santa Cruz, August 12, 1797, CA, Provincial State Papers, X, p. 150. It is odd that the adjacent river was not utilized for that purpose.
55 Bancroft, , California, 1, p. 570.Google Scholar
56 Marquina to Gov. José de Arrillaga, Mexico, June 3, 1801, cited in ibid., II, p. 155, Fiscal to Marquina, Mexico, December 9, 1802, cited in Guest, p. 44; Marquina to Arrillaga, Mexico, July 21, 1803, cited in Bancroft, , California, 2, p. 155.Google Scholar
57 Branciforte to Borica, Orizaba, November 28, 1797, CA, Provincial State Papers, VIII, p. 464.
58 Engelhardt, II, p. 519.
59 About 45 bushels.
60 Borica to Moraga, Monterey, January 27, 1798, CA, Santa Cruz Archives, p. 71.
61 Ibid.
62 Hermenegildo Sal to Moraga, Monterey, October 16, 1799, quoted in Williams, p. 23.
63 Raimundo Carrillo to Moraga, Monterey, April 9, 1801, CA, Santa Cruz Archives, pp. 18–19.
64 Guest, pp. 44–45.
65 José de la Guerra to Arrillaga, Monterey, June 3, 1803, cited in Guest, p. 45.
66 Same to same, quoted in Bancroft, , California, 2, p. 155.Google Scholar
67 Ignacio Vallejo, Branciforte, December 23, 1803, CA, Provincial State Papers, VIII, p. 90.
68 Conde del Valle de Orizaba, Mexico, December 20, 1805, ibid., XII, pp. 15–16.
69 Arrillaga to Viceroy José de Iturrigaray, Monterey, July 18, 1806, CA, Provincial Records, IV, pp. 340–341.
70 Sola to Branciforte comisionado, Monterey, May 23, 1816, CA, Santa Cruz Archives, pp. 59–61.
71 Ibid.
72 Sola to Viceroy Juan Ruiz de Apodaca, Monterey, April 3, 1818, CA, Provincial Records, IV, p. 439.
73 Echeandía, San Diego, December 4, 1826, CA, Departmental State Papers. Benicia. Military, I, p. 175.
74 Jose Canuto Boronada, Branciforte, n.d., 1828, CA, Departmental State Papers, I, pp. 247–248, 251–252.
75 Le Netrel, Edmond, “Voyage Autour du Monde pendant les Années 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829,” Nouvelles Annales des Voyages, 45 (January-March, 1830), p. 150.Google Scholar
76 CA, Departmental State Papers, II, pp. 130–131; State Papers. Missions, II, p. 8; Gov. José Castro to Branciforte alcalde, Monterey, December 28, 1835, CA, State Papers. Missions and Colonization, II, p. 285; Bancroft, , California, 3, pp. 696–697.Google Scholar
77 Ignacio del Valle to Gov. Jose Figueroa, Pueblo de Figueroa, January 25, 1834, CA, State Papers. Missions, I, p. 246.
78 William Buckle, an Englishman, was the nominal founder of this community, having jumped ship at Monterey in 1822 ( Burgess, Sherwood D., “Lumbering in Hispanic California,” California Historical Society Quarterly, 41 [September, 1962], p. 239).Google Scholar
79 Ibid., p. 240.
80 Ibid., p. 239; SirSimpson, George, Narrative of a Journey Round the World During the Years 1841 and 1842 (2 vols; London, 1847), I, p. 364.Google Scholar However, Duflot de Mofras was a better judge of men. Of the settlers, he wrote, “Some are occupied with commerce and agriculture; but the greatest number devote themselves to chopping wood or working in sawmills. These Americans are known to be fort turbulents.” ( de Mofras, Eugène Duflot, Exploration du Territoire de l’Oregon, des Californies et de la Mer Vermeille [2 vols; Paris, 1844], 1, p. 409).Google Scholar
81 Ibid., p. 410.
82 Bancroft, , California, 4, p. 664.Google Scholar
83 Revere, Joseph Warren, A Tour of Duty in California (New York & Boston, 1849).Google Scholar
84 Martin, Edward, History of Santa Cruz County, California (Los Angeles, 1911), p. 15.Google Scholar
85 Ibid. Martin’s citation of 1868 is in error. A survey of Branciforte had been conducted by Alexander McPherson in September, 1864.