It was not the policy or intention of the Government of Spain to
found Missions in the New World solely for the benefit of the
natives. Philanthropic motives doubtless influenced the rulers to a
certain degree; but to civilize barbarous peoples and convert them
to the Catholic faith meant not only the rescue of savages from
future perdition, but the enlargement of the borders of the Church,
the preparation for future colonization, and, consequently, the
extension of Spanish power and territory.
At the very inception of the Missions this was the complex end
in view; but the padres who were commissioned to initiate these
enterprises were, almost without exception, consecrated to one work
only,—the salvation of souls.
In the course of time this inevitably led to differences of
opinion between the missionaries and the secular authorities in
regard to the wisest methods of procedure. In spite of the
arguments of the padres, these conflicts resulted in the
secularization of some of the Missions prior to the founding of
those in California; but the condition of the Indians on the
Pacific Coast led the padres to believe that secularization was a
result possible only in a remote future. They fully understood that
the Missions were not intended to become permanent institutions,
yet faced the problem of converting a savage race into
christianized self-supporting civilians loyal to the Spanish
Crown,—a problem which presented perplexities and difficulties
neither understood nor appreciated at the time by the government
authorities in Spain or Mexico, nor by the mass of critics of the
padres in our own day.
Whatever may have been the mental capacity, ability, and moral
status of the Indians from one point of view, it is certain that
the padres regarded them as ignorant, vile, incapable, and totally
lost without the restraining and educating influences of the
Church. As year after year opened up the complexities of the
situation, the padres became more and more convinced that it would
require an indefinite period of time to develop these untamed
children into law-abiding citizens, according to the standard of
the white aggressors upon their territory.
On the other hand, aside from envy, jealousy, and greed, there
were reasons why some of the men in authority honestly believed a
change in the Mission system of administration would be
advantageous to the natives, the Church, and the State.
There is a good as well as an evil side to the great subject of
“secularization.” In England the word used is “disestablishment.”
In the United States, to-day, for our own government, the general
sentiment of most of its inhabitants is in favor of what is meant
by “secularization,” though of course in many particulars the cases
are quite different. In other words, it means the freedom of the
Church from the control or help of the State. In such an important
matter there is bound to be great diversity of opinion. Naturally,
the church that is “disestablished” will be a most bitter opponent
of the plan, as was the Church in Ireland, in Scotland, and in
Wales. In England the “dissenters”—as all the members of the
nonconformist churches are entitled—are practically unanimous for
the disestablishment of the State or Episcopal Church, while the
Episcopalians believe that such an act would “provoke the wrath of
God upon the country wicked enough to perpetrate it.” The same
conflict—in a slightly different field—is that being waged in the
United States to-day against giving aid to any church in its work
of educating either white children or Indians in its own sectarian
institutions. All the leading churches of the country have, I
believe, at some time or other in their history, been willing to
receive, and actually have received, government aid in the caring
for and education of Indians. To-day it is a generally accepted
policy that no such help shall be given. But the question at issue
is: Was the secularization of the Missions by Mexico a wise, just,
and humane measure at the time of its adoption? Let the following
history tell.
From the founding of the San Diego Mission in 1769, until about
sixty years later, the padres were practically in undisturbed
possession, administering affairs in accordance with the
instructions issued by the viceroys and the mother house of
Mexico.
In 1787 Inspector Sola claimed that the Indians were then ready
for secularization; and if there be any honor connected with the
plan eventually followed, it practically belongs to him. For,
though none of his recommendations were accepted, he suggested the
overthrow of the old methods for others which were somewhat of the
same character as those carried out many years later.
In 1793 Viceroy Gigedo referred to the secularization of certain
Missions which had taken place in Mexico, and expressed his
dissatisfaction with the results. Three years later, Governor
Borica, writing on the same subject, expressed his opinion with
force and emphasis, as to the length of time it would take to
prepare the California Indians for citizenship. He said: “Those of
New California, at the rate they are advancing, will not reach the
goal in ten centuries; the reason God knows, and men know something
about it.”
In 1813 came the first direct attack upon the Mission system
from the Cortes in Spain. Prior to this time a bishop had been
appointed to have charge over church affairs in California, but
there were too few parish churches, and he had too few clergy to
send to such a far-away field to think of disturbing the present
system for the Indians. But on September 13, 1813, the Cortes
passed a decree that all the Missions in America that had been
founded ten years should at once be given up to the bishop “without
excuse or pretext whatever, in accordance with the laws.” The
Mission Fathers in charge might be appointed as temporary curates,
but, of course, under the control of the bishop instead of the
Mission president as hitherto. This decree, for some reason, was
not officially published or known in California for seven or eight
years; but when, on January 20, 1821, Viceroy Venadito did publish
the royal confirmation of the decree, the guardian of the college
in Mexico ordered the president of the California Missions to
comply at once with its requirements. He was to surrender all
property, but to exact a full inventoried receipt, and he was to
notify the bishop that the missionaries were ready to surrender
their charges to their successors. In accordance with this order,
President Payeras notified Governor Sola of his readiness to give
up the Missions, and rejoiced in the opportunity it afforded his
co-workers to engage in new spiritual conquests among the heathen.
But this was a false alarm. The bishop responded that the decree
had not been enforced elsewhere, and as for him the California
padres might remain at their posts. Governor Sola said he had
received no official news of so important a change, but that when
he did he “would act with the circumspection and prudence which so
delicate a subject demands.”
With Iturbide’s imperial regency came a new trouble to
California, largely provoked by thoughts of the great wealth of the
Missions. The imperial decree creating the regency was not
announced until the end of 1821, and practically all California
acquiesced in it. But in the meantime Agustin Fernandez de San
Vicente had been sent as a special commissioner to “learn the
feelings of the Californians, to foment a spirit of independence,
to obtain an oath of allegiance, to raise the new national flag,”
and in general to superintend the change of government. He arrived
in Monterey September 26, but found nothing to alarm him, as nobody
seemed to care much which way things went. Then followed the
“election” of a new governor, and the wire-pullers announced that
Luis Argüello was the “choice of the convention.”
In 1825 the Mexican republic may be said to have become fairly
well established. Iturbide was out of the way, and the politicians
were beginning to rule. A new “political chief” was now sent to
California in the person of José Maria Echeandía, who
arrived in San Diego late in October, 1825. While he and his
superiors in Mexico were desirous of bringing about secularization,
the difficulties in the way seemed insurmountable. The Missions
were practically the backbone of the country; without them all
would crumble to pieces, and the most fanatical opponent of the
system could not fail to see that without the padres it would
immediately fall. As Clinch well puts it: “The converts raised
seven eighths of the farm produce;—the Missions had gathered two
hundred thousand bushels in a single harvest. All manufacturing in
the province—weaving, tanning, leather-work, flour-mills,
soap-making—was carried on exclusively by the pupils of the
Franciscans. It was more than doubtful whether they could be got to
work under any other management, and a sudden cessation of labor
might ruin the whole territory.”
Something must be done, so, after consultation with some of the
more advanced of the padres, the governor issued a proclamation
July 25, 1826, announcing to the Indians that those who desired to
leave the Missions might do so, provided they had been Christians
from childhood, or for fifteen years, were married, or at least not
minors, and had some means of gaining a livelihood. The Indians
must apply to the commandant at the presidio, who, after obtaining
from the padre a report, was to issue a written permit entitling
the neophyte and his family to go where they chose, their names
being erased from the Mission register. The result of this might
readily be foreseen. Few could take advantage of it, and those that
did soon came in contact with vultures of the “superior race,” who
proceeded to devour them and their substance.
Between July 29 and August 3, 1830, Echeandía had the
California diputacion discuss his fuller plans, which they
finally approved. These provided for the gradual transformation of
the Missions into pueblos, beginning with those nearest the
presidios and pueblos, of which one or two were to be secularized
within a year, and the rest as rapidly as experience proved
practicable. Each neophyte was to have a share in the Mission lands
and other property. The padres might remain as curates, or
establish a new line of Missions among the hitherto unreached
Indians as they should choose. Though this plan was passed, it was
not intended that it should be carried out until approved by the
general government of Mexico.
All this seems singular to us now, reading three quarters of a
century later, for, March 8, 1830, Manuel Victoria was appointed
political chief in Echeandía’s stead; but as he did not
reach San Diego until November or December, and in the meantime a
new element had been introduced into the secularization question in
the person of José María Padrés,
Echeandía resolved upon a bold stroke. He delayed meeting
Victoria, lured him up to Santa Barbara, and kept him there under
various pretexts until he had had time to prepare and issue a
decree. This was dated January 6, 1831. It was a political trick,
“wholly illegal, uncalled for, and unwise.” He decreed immediate
secularization of all the Missions, and the turning into towns of
Carmel and San Gabriel. The ayuntamiento of Monterey, in accordance
with the decree, chose a commissioner for each of the seven
Missions of the district. These were Juan B. Alvarado for San Luis
Obispo, José Castro for San Miguel, Antonio Castro for San
Antonio, Tiburcio Castro for Soledad, Juan Higuera for San Juan
Bautista, Sebastian Rodriguez for Santa Cruz, and Manuel Crespo for
San Carlos. Castro and Alvarado were sent to San Miguel and San
Luis Obispo respectively, where they read the decree and made
speeches to the Indians; at San Miguel, Alvarado made a
spread-eagle speech from a cart and used all his eloquence to
persuade the Indians to adopt the plan of freemen. “Henceforth
their trials were to be over. No tyrannical priest could compel
them to work. They were to be citizens in a free and glorious
republic, with none to molest or make them afraid.” Then he called
for those who wished to enjoy these blessings of freedom to come to
the right, while those who were content to remain under the hideous
bondage of the Missions could go to the left. Imagine his surprise
and the chill his oratory received when all but a small handful
quickly went to the left, and those who at first went to the right
speedily joined the majority. At San Luis and San Antonio the
Indians also preferred “slavery.”
By this time Victoria began to see that he was being played
with, so he hurried to Monterey and demanded the immediate
surrender of the office to which he was entitled. One of his first
acts was to nullify Echeandía’s decree, and to write to
Mexico and explain fully that it was undoubtedly owing to the
influence of Padrés, whom he well knew. But before the end
of the year Echeandía and his friends rose in rebellion,
deposed, and exiled Victoria. Owing to the struggles then going on
in Mexico, which culminated in Santa Anna’s dictatorship, the
revolt of Echeandía was overlooked and Figueroa appointed
governor in his stead.
For a time Figueroa held back the tide of secularization, while
Carlos Carrillo, the Californian delegate to the Mexican Congress,
was doing all he could to keep the Missions and the Pious Fund
intact. Figueroa then issued a series of provisional regulations on
gradual emancipation, hoping to be relieved from further
responsibility by the Mexican government.
This only came in the passage of an Act, August 17, 1833,
decreeing full secularization. The Act also provided for the
colonization of both the Californias, the expenses of this latter
move to be borne by the proceeds gained from the distribution of
the Mission property. A shrewd politician named Hijars was to be
made governor of Upper California for the purpose of carrying this
law into effect.
But now Figueroa seemed to regret his first action. Perhaps it
was jealousy that Hijars should have been appointed to his stead.
He bitterly opposed Hijars, refused to give up the governorship,
and after considerable “pulling and hauling,” issued secularization
orders of his own, greatly at variance with those promulgated by
the Mexican Cortes, and proceeded to set them in operation.
Ten Missions were fully secularized in 1834, and six others in
the following year. And now came the general scramble for Mission
property. Each succeeding governor, freed from too close
supervision by the general government in Mexico, which was passing
through trials and tribulations of its own, helped himself to as
much as he could get. Alvarado, from 1836 to 1842, plundered on
every hand, and Pio Pico was not much better. When he became
governor, there were few funds with which to carry on the affairs
of the country, and he prevailed upon the assembly to pass a decree
authorizing the renting or the sale of the Mission property,
reserving only the church, a curate’s house, and a building for a
court-house. From the proceeds the expenses of conducting the
services of the church were to be provided, but there was no
disposition made as to what should be done to secure the funds for
that purpose. Under this decree the final acts of spoliation were
consummated.
The padres took the matter in accordance with their individual
temperaments. Some were hopefully cheerful, and did the best they
could for their Indian charges; others were sulky and sullen, and
retired to the chambers allotted to them, coming forth only when
necessary duty called; still others were belligerent, and fought
everything and everybody, and, it must be confessed, generally with
just cause.
As for the Indians, the effect was exactly as all thoughtful men
had foreseen. Those who received property seldom made good use of
it, and soon lost it. Cattle were neglected, tools unused, for
there were none to compel their care or use. Consequently it was
easy to convert them into money, which was soon gambled or drunk
away. Rapidly they sank from worse to worse, until now only a few
scattered settlements remain of the once vast number, thirty
thousand or more, that were reasonably happy and prosperous under
the rule of the padres.
