¹ Historians generally include the Chumash in the Southern Culture Area of California, which stretched north from the border between Alta and Baja California, and included along the coast, the Diegueiio, Luiseño, and Gabrielino people in addition to the Chumash. See Rawls, James J., Indians of California: The Changing Image (Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1984), p. 8.Google Scholar

² Pablo de la Portilla had come to Alta California in 1819 and was stationed at San Diego from then until the 1830s. He was made commander of the garrison in 1831. After becoming involved in backing the losing sides in the political struggles of 1836 and after, he left Alta California in 1838. See Bancroft, Hubert Howe, History of California, 1 vols. (San Francisco: the History Company, 1884–1890), 4:782.Google Scholar

³ Vicente Francisco de Sarría was bom in Vizcaya, Spain in 1767. After teaching philosophy in Bilbao, he went to America in 1804 and was sent to California in 1809. He served at Carmel and was chosen Prefect of the Missions in 1812. He served in that office until 1818 and again from 1824 until 1830. He was transferred to Soledad in 1828 and he served there until his death in 1835. Geiger, Maynard O.F.M., Franciscan Missionaries in Hispanic California, 1769–1848: A Biographical Dictionary (San Marino: the Huntington Library, 1969), pp. 228–235.Google Scholar

⁴ Osio, Antonio María, The History of Alta California: A Memoir of Mexican California, trans, and ed. Beebe, Rose Marie and Senkewicz, Robert M. (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1996), pp. 68–69;Google Scholar Hittell, Theodore H., History of California, 4 vols. (San Francisco: Pacific Press Publishing House and Occidental Publishing Company, 1885), 2:64.Google Scholar

⁵ The letter is in the Archivo General de la Nación in Mexico City. It is contained in Justicia Eclesiástica 31, pp. 54–56. It is not dated, but it was received by Bishop Martínez before December 3, 1824, when he attached it to a report he was compiling. Since Sarría refers to a speech he made to the Diputación on September 14, the letter was probably written soon after that date. See Schwaller, Robert F., “The Episcopal Succession in Spanish America, 1800–1850,” The Americas, 24:3 (1968), 215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶ Johnson, John R., “The Chumash and the Missions,” in Columbian Consequences: Archeological and Historical Perspectives on the Spanish Borderlands, West, Thomas, David Hurst, ed. (Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989), pp. 365–66;Google Scholar Larson, Daniel O., Johnson, John R., and Michaelson, Joel C., “Missionization among the Coastal Chumash of Central California: A Study of Risk Minimization Strategies,” American Anthropologist 96:2 (1994), 263–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ James A. Sandos, “Levantamiento!: The 1824 Chumash Uprising Reconsidered,” Southern California Quarterly, (1985), 109–133. A more popular version of the same material is in Sandos, “Levantamiento!: The 1824 Chumash Uprising,” The Californians, (Jan.-Feb. 1987), 9–20. See also Sandos, “Christianization Among the Chumash: An Ethnohistoric Perspective,” American Indian Quarterly, 15 (Winter, 1991), 65–89. In his writings, Sandos presents the most compelling interpretation of the revolt.

⁸ Hageman, Fred C., An Archeological and Restorative Study of Mission La Purísima (Santa Barbara: Santa Barbara Trust for Historic Preservation; Glendale, California: distributed by A.H. Clark Co., 1980), p. 257.Google Scholar

⁹ Blackburn, Thomas, “The Chumash Revolt of 1824: A Native Account,” The Journal of California Anthropology, 2 (Winter 1975) 223–24.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Osio, The History of Alta California, p. 57; José de la Guerra y Noriega was born in Spain in 1779. He came to Mexico in the 1790s to work in his uncle’s store and soon after that he entered the military. He arrived in Alta California in 1801 where he served until 1806 in Monterey. In that year he was made lieutenant at Santa Barbara and soon after moved to San Diego, where he remained until 1809. By acting as his uncle’s commercial agent in Alta California he was greatly able to improve his financial condition. He was promoted to commander of the Santa Bárbara presidio in 1815, in which position he basically remained until 1842 when he retired from the military. He died in 1858. See Thompson, Joseph A., El gran capitán: José de la Guerra (Los Angeles: Franciscan Fathers of California, 1961).Google Scholar

¹¹ Geiger, Maynard O.F.M., ed. and trans., “Fray Antonio Ripoll’s Description of the Chumash Revolt at Santa Bárbara in 1824,” Southern California Quarterly, 52 (December 1970), 355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Osio quipped, “It was the general opinion that Captain Don José de la Guerra y Noriega possessed, professionally, no more than his second last name.” Osio, The History of Alta California, p. 63.

¹³ Some fifty Chumash took canoes to Santa Cruz island, off the coast, where they waited out the course of the revolt. See Hudson, Dee Travis, “Chumash Canoes of Mission Santa Bárbara: the Revolt of 1824,” Journal of California Archeology, 3 (Winter 1976), 5–15.Google Scholar

¹⁴ José Mariano Estrada was born in Loreto, Baja California in 1784. He came to Alta California in the late 1790s and served in various positions in the Presidio at Monterey until he retired in 1829. He was close to the Arguello family and was the executor of Luis Argiiello’s will in 1830. Bancroft, Hubert Howe, History of California, 1 vols. (San Francisco: The History Co., 1884–1890), 2:792–93.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Bancroft, California, 2:534. Narciso Fabregat was born in Spain. He arrived in California in 1819 with the Mázatlán troops who had been sent to reinforce the province after the Bouchard raid the year before. He served mainly at Santa Bárbara until he retired from the military in 1833. He then became a trader around Santa Bárbara and died in the late 1840s.

¹⁶ Bancroft, California, 2:535. Portilla’s diary is in Cook, S.F., Expeditions to the Interior of California: Central Valley, 1820–1840, in Anthropological Records Vol. 20, No. 5 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1962) pp. 154–56.Google Scholar Portilla had come to Alta California in 1819 and was stationed at San Diego from then until the 1830s. He was made Commander of the garrison in 1831. After becoming involved in backing the wrong sides in the troubles of 1836 and after, he left Alta California in 1838. Bancroft, California, 4:782. Antonio del Valle arrived in California from San Bias in 1819 and served at San Francisco for a few years. By 1824 he was Commander of the Infantry force at Monterey. He died in 1841. Bancroft, California, 5:755.

¹⁷ This is the Ripoll letter edited by Geiger, cited in note 11 above. Sarría is correct in his characterization of the letter, for Ripoll blamed the military for precipitating the revolt and for not listening to the entreaties of the priests on behalf of the Chumash. “Who gave the power to Corporal Cota to render such a despotic punishment?” cried Father Ripoll. “Why are the complaints of these unfortunate people made by the fathers in their behalf not heard?” Geiger, “Fray Antonio Ripoll’s Description of the Chumash Revolt of 1824,” p. 355.

¹⁸ The Governor was Luis Argüello. His father, José Darío Argüello, a native of Querétaro in Mexico, joined the army at around the age of 20 and arrived in California in 1781. He served as Commander in both San Francisco and Monterey in the 1790s and early 1800s. He became Acting Governor of Alta California upon the death of Governor Arrillaga in 1814. When Pablo Vicente de Soá was appointed Governor of Alta California in 1815, Argüello was named to the same office in Baja California. Luis Argüello entered the military at an early age and, no doubt aided by his father’s eminence, quickly rose through the ranks. A cadet in 1799, he became a Lieutenant in 1806 and eventually became Captain of the garrison at San Francisco. He was named Governor in 1822 and served until 1825. He died in 1830. Bancroft, California 3:9-13.

¹⁹ Ripoll had originally not wanted to go on the expedition, fearing that the soldiers would butcher the runaways and not wanting to be associated with that in any way. Geiger, “Ripoll’s Description of the Chumash Revolt of 1824,” p. 363. Sarría convinced him to go only after Sarría had seen Governor Argüello.

²⁰ In his diary Portilla tends to underplay the role of Sarría. He acknowledges the presence of the clergy but presents the negotiations as carried on only by himself: “Having observed that they [the fugitives] hoisted a white flag (which according to previous arrangement was the signal that they would receive me peacefully), I halted the troop at a gun-shot and went toward them in the company of the Reverend Fathers [Sarría and Ripoll]. Seeing my intention, some of them came to greet me, among them one named Jaime who had some authority among the Indians. I delivered to him the pardon which I had brought from the Governor.” Cook, Expeditions, p. 155. But one of his soldiers, Rafael González, believed that the priests had more effect on the fugitives than his commander did: “Father Sarría and Father Ripoll conquered the Indians with well chosen words.” Whitehead, Richard, ed. and Jackson, Jarrell C., trans., A Spanish Soldier in the Royal Presidio: Experiences of a California Soldier (Santa Barbara: Bellerophon Books, 1987), p. 21.Google Scholar

²¹ Jaime was mentioned by Portilla as one of the Chumash leaders in the negotiations. Portillo said that “he had some authority among the Indians.” (Cook, Expeditions, 155). Jaime also appears in another oral tradition collected by Harrington. Luisa Ygnacio, a Chumash born a few years after the revolt, called Jaime a “doctor, singer, and teacher.” He was clearly a leader in the community. Travis Hudson, “The Chumash Revolt of 1824: Another Native Account from the Notes of John P. Harrington,” Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology, 2 (Summer 1980), 124.

²² The priest at Santa Inés was Francisco Xavier de la Concepción Uria. He was born near Pamplona, Spain in 1770. He arrived in Mexico in 1795 and was sent to Alta California at the end of the following year. He worked at Missions Santa Bárbara, La Purísima, and San Fernando until he returned to the Colegio de San Fernando in 1805. He came back to Alta California in 1808 and after a short stint at Mission Santa Cruz worked for many years among the Chumash at Mission Santa Inés. After the 1824 revolt he worked at Santa Bárbara, Soledad, and San Buenaventura. He died at Santa Bárbara in 1834. Geiger, Franciscan Missionaries, pp. 257–59.

²³ The priest was Father Antonio Jayme, a native of Mallorca who had been serving in California since 1795. He had arrived in Santa Bárbara in 1821 in poor physical condition. (Geiger, Franciscan Missionaries, pp. 126–27). According to Ripoll, the Chumash entered his room and took some clothes and money when they abandoned Santa Bárbara, but left much else undisturbed,

²⁴ Sarría here is following the basic Franciscan interpretation of the revolt: that it was simply caused by the military’s oppression and manipulation of the Chumash. They consistently tended to interpret the revolt as an uprising against the cruelties of the soldiers in spite of their own attempts to restrain such acts. We have already seen this interpretation in the Ripoll letter to Sarría. In the same vein the Guardian of the Apostolic College of San Fernando argued, “The revolt was not against the missionaries; on the contrary, the revolting Indians wanted to have the fathers go along with them, and told them that they would care for them.” Weber, Francis J., Mission of the Passes: A Documentary History of Santa Inés (Hong Kong: Libra Press, 1981), p. 23.Google Scholar The California Franciscans, like many missionaries of this and other periods, were generally—and genuinely—unable to understand that they themselves were part of the colonial system which they so vigorously denounced. The best studies of both missionary attitudes toward the indigenous peoples and of the tensions between the missionaries and the military are the works of Father Guest. See Guest, Florian F. O.F.M., “The Indian Policy under Fermín Francisco de Lasuén, California’s Second Father President,” California Historical Society Quarterly 45:3 (1966), 195–219;Google Scholar Guest, Francis F., “Junípero Serra and His Approach to the Indians,” Southern California Quarterly 67:3 (1985), 223–261;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Guest, Francis F. O.F. M., “Pedro Fages’ Five Complaints Against Junípero Serra,” The Californians 8:2 (July/August 1990), 39–48.Google Scholar

The interpretation of the californios, while overly melodramatic at times, was more expansive. Osio put the matter simply: “The ultimate goal was to kill the gente de razón, those who did not belong to the Indian race.” Osio, The History of Alta California, p. 55. In a report to the general government, Governor Argüello stated virtually the same thing: “Their plan … was no other than to rid themselves of all of us, that is, the gente de razón, and remain in their old gentile liberty.” Thompson, El Gran Capitán, p. 81. This interpretation persisted in Mexican California. In the 1870s, Juan Bautista Alvarado stated, for instance, “The object of the uprising was the extermination of all the white people resident at the missions, cities, towns, estates, and ranchos of Alta California.” Alvarado, History of California, MSS., Bancroft Library, 5 vols., 2:43.

²⁵ This law, entitled, “That the Indians be reduced to populated areas,” stemmed from the reforms embodied in the New Laws of 1546. Dated 1551, it stated, “Attempts have always been very carefully made and particular attention has been paid to introducing the most beneficial means of instructing the Indians in the Holy Catholic faith and Evangelical law so that they will forget the errors of their old rituals and ceremonies and live in peace and harmony. And in order for this to be accomplished with the best possible results, under mandate from the Emperor Charles V, of glorious memory, the Council of the Indies, various clerics, and the Prelate of New Spain assembled several times during the year 1546. Desirous to succeed in the service of God and country, they resolved that the Indians be reduced to the pueblos and not live divided and separated by mountains and forests, without the aid of our ministers, thus depriving themselves of all spiritual and temporal benefits, as well as the assistance which men should give to one another with basic human needs. Because the benefit of this resolution was recognized by different orders from the Kings who were our predecessors, the law was enacted and sent to the Viceroys, Presidents and Governors. They were to enforce the reduction, settlement, and teaching of the Indians, with much temperance, moderation, great compassion, and gentleness. By not causing any problems, those Indians whom they had not been able to settle, seeing the good treatment and protection that those who had already been reduced were receiving, would come later and submit willingly. And, it was ordered that only the taxes that had been mandated be paid. And because the aforesaid was enforced throughout most of the Indies: We order and decree that in the rest of the Indies, the law be complied with and that the agents who receive and execute the law do so in the manner in which the laws of this article have been stated.” Recopilación de Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias (Madrid: Consejo de la Hispanidad, 1943), 2:207-208.

²⁶ This law, entitled “That the Viceroys, Presidents, and Governors grant a courteous audience to the Protectors,” dates from 1622, and states, “We entrust and order the Viceroys, Presidents and Governors to grant a courteous audience to the Protectors and Defenders of the Indians. And, whenever they appear to report on their affairs or difficulties and request that the laws be complied with and documents be provided to that effect, that they be heard with great attention and in such a manner that because they were courteously received and heard, they will be inspired to defend and protect the Indians even more.” Recopilación de Leyes, 2:244.

²⁷ The mission priests had been upset since Mexican independence that the government had been taking some land claimed by the missions and distributing it to private individuals, especially former soldiers. In a letter to the missionaries at San Gabriel on August 31,1823, Governor Argüello had argued that his own responsibility extended to all inhabitants of California, not only to the missionaries, and served notice that the missions could not expect to remain sole owners of so much land in California. Bancroft, California, 2:487-488.

²⁸ Sarría is here referring to the fall session of the Diputación, He argued on September 14 that some settlers had received too much land, and that a portion of it ought to be taken away from them and distributed to the Indians. As Sarría states in this letter, the body referred the entire matter to the central government. Bancroft, California, 2:513.

²⁹ Sarría had made the same point in a letter to Argüello on March 22, 1824. The Governor had written Sarría and complained that he had heard that some of the priests were criticizing the civil government for the tax rate it had imposed on the missions. Sarría responded that the complaints went deeper than Argüello realized. He wrote, “I have to say in return that those mentioned in your letter are not the only ones who have expressed themselves in such bitter terms … There are others who ask permission to retire, and who want to renounce a service which they cannot exercise without subjecting the neophytes to hard slavery.” Engelhardt, Missions, and Missionaries, 2:187-188.

³⁰ An allusion to Luke 10:2, in which Jesus tells his disciples, “The harvest is plentiful, but the laborers are few. Pray therefore the Lord of the harvest to send outlaborers into his harvest.”