New daily posts appear below. Steve is on an extended DVNP expedition, so the DVJ is currently unattended. No personal replies will be forthcoming for a couple of months, except for those contributed by other readers. If Steve’s safari proceeds as planned, he will be speaking at Stovepipe Wells on November 6 at the Author’s Breakfast. If you attend, please let him know you’re there! Periodic updates of his progress appear HERE.
______________________________________
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
LeRoy’s article continues from yesterday:
THE OLD SPANISH TRAIL
In winter 1829-1830, Antonio Armijo and his accompanying packers took a string of mules from New Mexico to Alta California. His pack animals were laden with woolen trade goods destined for unknown markets. This sojourn through terra incognita was not a foolish undertaking; he had conferred with people who had been over parts of the route, and one of the members of his party had traversed part of the trail. Armijo also engaged local Indians to help guide him during the early portion of his venture. He also sent scouts ahead to find feasible routes. Assuredly these scouts followed Indian trails knowing they would lead from water to water.
The Old Spanish Trail is primarily thought of as a packers’ trail. However, a small number of wagons traversed it to bring settlers from New Mexico to Alta California. Apparently the first wagons over the trail were those of the 1837 Slover-Pope party. Mountain man and guide, Antoine Leroux, sent a letter to Missouri Senator Thomas Hart Benton in 1853, in which he described part of the Old Spanish Trail saying: “Wagons can now travel this route to California, and have done it. In the year 1837, two families named Sloover [Slover] and Pope, with their wagons and two Mexicans, went from Taos that way.”
Bancroft tells us William Pope traveled the trail sometime “before ’40, perhaps in ’36…with 8 members of his family and a company of 12 men” (Bancroft 1886:782). Isaac Slover and his family were also members of the train (Hafen & Hafen 1954:181 & 198-199; Robinson 1997:36 and Robinson 2005:177). Sadly, there is no known diary documenting their passage or the route they took, and I do not know if the wagon train traversed the Sperry Hills.
History records only one wagon rolled from west to east prior to 1849, and it went from the Pueblo de Los Angeles to Salt Lake City (Thompson 1929:13). This wagon left Southern California on March 21, 1848, (Hafen & Hafen 1954:26; Bigler & Bagley 2000:396-399). There is no known diary documenting this journey (Bigler & Bagley 2000:397), but it is reasonable to assume the party followed the Old Spanish Trail as closely as possible from California to today’s Parowan, near Little Salt Lake, Utah. From here, they continued northward to Salt Lake City.
The guide for this party was Orrin Porter Rockwell (Schindler 1983:173) who, with Jefferson Hunt, had traversed the Southern Route from Salt Lake City to the Pueblo de Los Angles in November 1847. The wagon tracks laid down by Rockwell’s party in April 1848 evolved into the Southern Route.
Harold Steiner points out in his The Old Spanish Trail Across the Mojave Desert that “minor deviations from the mule trail had to be made to accommodate the wagons” (1999:87). He describes an excellent example where the Old Spanish (packer) Trail and the Southern (wagon) Route took different routes as they approached and crossed Emigrant Pass (from east to west), five and a half miles east of Resting Spring (Steiner 1999:165-166).
Although the wagon road had to occasionally diverge from the packer trail, the traces soon merged.[1] Most of these departures were minor, but, as I will show, the difference between the packer trail and the wagon road through the Sperry Hills is separated by about two crow-miles. The trail and the road traversed different canyons through the northern part of the hills.
[1] An excellent example of where the wagon road could not follow the packer trail is found in southwestern Utah east of today’s Enterprise. The Jefferson Hunt monument stands at the point where Hunt turned southward and followed the wagon tracks of the wagon train that was ahead of his now reduced train after most of the emigrants had turned west on a proposed “short-cut” to California. The Old Spanish (packer) Trail went up Holt Canyon and the road and trail merged above the narrows. The wagon route went over rising terrain of rolling hills until it passed the narrows in Holt Canyon. The wagon road then descended to Holt Creek and continued southward to Mountain Meadows (cf. Gilon 2002:25-30).
——————————————————
Part Three (Literature Overview) tomorrow
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
The next seven posts are from a research article by noted regional historian LeRoy Johnson. In the text, you will discover some revealing information concerning Fremont’s 1844 route up the Amargosa River. There are six parts to this article: Introduction, The Old Spanish Trail, Literature Overview, Jargon: Historian’s Nemisis, Discussion & Analysis, and the Conclusion. Each part will post to a new day. The complete bibliographical listing will post to a separate page after the conclusion of the research article.
The Old Spanish Trail & The Southern Route
by LeRoy C. Johnson
Shoshone Museum
March 3, 2009
Before discussing the Old Spanish Trail within the context of its route between Salt Spring and Resting Spring, I need to define some terms.
It is misleading to describe the Old Spanish Trail with the singular noun: “trail” (see map. p. 2). There are several alternative traces, but they have the same starting and ending points—Santa Fé and Pueblo de Los Angeles. The Southern Route merged with the Old Spanish Trail near Parowan, Utah. From there to the Pueblo the packer trail and wagon road would occasionally split, but before long they would merge again. Going north from Salt Spring to Resting Spring, the “old” packer trail (pre-1848) and the “new” wagon road (post-1848) bifurcated in the Amargosa Canyon at the confluence of Willow Creek and the Amargosa River.
I’ll present data supporting my contention that:
The Old Spanish Trail is about 1,200 miles long, and I’m only discussing about twenty miles of it. However, the traces of the packer trail and that of the wagon road through the Sperry Hills are an important segment of the Old Spanish Trail because the Bureau of Land Management is now in the final stage of preparing a management plan for the Amargosa River Canyon.
* * * * * * *
I know of only three pre-1849 accounts that describe passage through the Sperry Hills: (1) Antonio Armijo wrote the first in 1830 after he traveled the hills from north to south; (2) Lieutenant John Charles Frémont, in April 1844, traveled through the hills from south to north; and (3) Jefferson Hunt gave a summary of a trip to Alta California that he took from Salt Lake City to Pueblo de Los Angeles in November 1847 over what became known as the Southern Route.
————————
Part Two tomorrow
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
Here is the conclusion of LeRoy and Jean regarding their research article:
Conclusion
In Olesen’s opening paragraph he asks this question:
“What was the name of the site in 1850 when the ’49ers found civilization that saved their lives?”
We have shown Olesen unsuccessfully answered this question. In his convoluted quest to convince the reader that ex-neophytes operated a mythical rancho called San Francisquito, Olesen often leads readers astray by quoting passages out of context from books in his bibliography.
Out of necessity, in our point–counterpoint analysis, we have provided a lot of data, and we went to great length to track down, read, and carefully analyze all of the literature we cite.
We are not attempting to say the name Rancho San Francisquito was never used as a synonym for Rancho San Francisco. We think we have tracked down the origin of the Rancho San Francisquito name-myth: Eugene Duflot de Mofras was probably the first person who used this name in print, and Lewis Manly spread the myth with his popular book Death Valley in ’49. We do contend, however, that using the San Francisquito diminutive is demeaning to a rancho that encompasses such an important linear exposure to California history. The rancho has an honorable name, and use of that name is not only correct, but grants the respect the rancho deserves.
We hope we have provided sufficient data to make clear that the rancho where the Death Valley ’49ers found succor was correctly, commonly, and legally called San Francisco, and that the ownership of the rancho has a well documented provenance.
As an outgrowth of this discussion, we are resurrecting a project we started thirty years ago and are writing yet another book on the fascinating history of the Rancho San Francisco and its relationship to the daring Death Valley 49ers. Toward this end, we hope you will take the time to write and alert us of literature you think will be helpful.
We extend our sincere appreciation to The Huntington and The Bancroft Libraries for their able assistance and extensive collections, and to Genne Nelson, who is carefully transcribing the Jayhawker Collection from The Huntington Library so it will be available to researchers in the future.
Bibliography
Some of this literature is available as facsimile editions. Occasionally editors of these editions add a preface, an introduction, an errata, or an addendum. When we used an original edition, we use its date; otherwise, we used the date of the facsimile edition.
Bancroft, Hubert Howe. 1884. The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft. Vol. 18. History of California. Vol. 1. 1542-1800. San Francisco: A.L. Bancroft & Company, Publishers.
———. 1885. The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft. Vol. 20. History of California. Vol. 3. 1825-1840. San Francisco: A.L. Bancroft & Company, Publishers.
———. 1886. The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft. Vol. 21. History of California. Vol. 4. 1840-1845. San Francisco: The History Company, Publishers.
Bancroft Library, The. N.d. Diseno del Rancho de Sn FRANCO. [This map has a paste-on label that says: “NO. 303 S. D., Page 101. Jacoba Feliz, Clmt. ‘San Francisco’ Santa Barbara & Los Angeles Counties.” The label was added to the map by the U.S. District Court; it is not part of the original map. The Bancroft Library call number: B-1349. Also available on the Internet at: http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb9j49p232/.
Barrows, H.D. 1901. “Mexican Governors of California.” pp. 25-30. Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern California and Pioneer Register, Los Angeles, 1900. [Reprint of a paper read before the Historical Society, October 1, 1900.]
Bartholomew, E.F. Jan. 10, 1888. Letter to: Hon. Alonzo C. Clay. Jayhawker Collection, JA23. The Huntington Library. San Marino, California.
Beck, Warren A. and Ynez D. Hasse. 1974. Historical Atlas of California. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
Belden, L. Burr. 1956. Goodbye Death Valley!: The 1849 Jayhawker Escape. Palm Desert, CA: Death Valley ’49ers Inc.
———. 1967, rev. ed. Goodbye Death Valley!: The Tragic 1849 Jayhawker Trek. San Bernardino, CA: Death Valley ’49ers Inc.
Blake, William P. 1857. “Geological Report, by William P. Blake, Geologist and Mineralogist of the Expedition.” In: Reports of Exploration and Surveys to Ascertain the Most Practicable and Economical Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Coast Made Under the Direction of the Secretary of War, 1853-4. Vol. 5. 1856. Serial 795. Washington, D.C.: A.O.P. Nicholson, Printers.
Board of Land Commissioners. See: Commissioners, Board of Land
Bolton, Herbert Eugene 1959. Original Narratives of Early American History: Spanish Exploration in the Southwest, 1542–1706. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc.
Bowman, J.N. 1949. “The First Authentic Placer Mine in California.” The Historical Society of Southern California, Quarterly. 31(Sept.)3:225-230. [Prior to this article, there had been several articles trying to clarify the year of discovery. Bowman clarified the question in this article—the year was 1842.]
———. 1958. “Index of the Spanish-Mexican Private Land Grant Records and Cases of California.” California State Archives, Sacramento, Calif. Microfilm: MF 2:9 (31), Index of Land Grant Cases. [ca. 600 pages, microfilm of a typescript from The Bancroft Library, U.C. Berkeley]
Brier, J.W. December 21, 1886. “Death Valley: Its Ghastly Story as Told by an Aged Survivor: Rev. J.W. Brier, Who Preached the First Protestant Sermon in Los Angeles, Tells of that Awful Journey.” Los Angeles Times.
Brier, Juliet. December 25, 1898. “Our Christmas Amid the Terrors of Death Valley.” San Francisco Call.
Bunje, Emil T.H. and James C. Kean. 1983. Pre-Marshall Gold in California. Vol. 2. Discoveries and Near-Discoveries, 1840-1848. Sacramento, CA: Historic California Press. [This is a printing of a 1938 volume two (of two) of a Works Progress Administration project that was sponsored by the University of California, Berkeley. The typescripts are in The Bancroft Library.]
California State Archives. Various documents pertaining to the granting of Rancho San Francisco to Antonio del Valle. “San Francisco, Unclassified Expediente 194.” pp. 57-60 and pp. 194-195. Sacramento, California. [These are transcriptions of the original documents that are housed in the National Archives, Washington, D.C. We worked with both the Spanish and transulated documents.]
Carter, Harvey L. 1969. “William H. Ashley.” In: The Mountain Men and Fur Trade of the Far West. Vol. 7:23-34. Edited by LeRoy R. Hafen. Glendale, CA: The Arthur H. Clark Co.
Colton, John B. March 21, 1894. Letter to: T.S. Palmer. Palmer Collection. The Huntington Library. San Marino, California.
Costansó, Miguel. 1992. The Discovery of San Francisco Bay: The Portolá Expedition of 1769-1770. Edited by Peter Browning. Lafayette, CA: Great West Books.
Commissioners, Board of Land. N.d. “[Part] E. San Francisco. Opinion of the Board of Land Commissioners.” Jacoba Felis [sic] et al. v.s. The United States. “For the place called San Francisco in Los Angeles County, containing about four square leagues of Land.” [Microfilm in National Archives and Records Administration–Pacific Region, San Francisco. T–910, California Private Land Claim Cases, Roll 23: Dockets 310–322 [See: Docket 316]. This microfilm is also in The Bancroft Library, which has a clearer film.]
Cowan, Robert G. 1977. Ranchos of California: A List of Spanish Concessions, 1775-1822 and Mexican Grants, 1822-1846. Los Angeles: Historical Society of Southern California.
Coy, Owen C. 1973. California County Boundaries: A Study of the Division of the State into Counties and the Subsequent Changes in the Boundaries. Rev. ed. Berkeley, CA: California Historical Survey Commission.
Crespí, Juan. 2001. A Description of Distant Roads: Original Journals of the First Expedition into California, 1769-1770. Edited and Translated by Alan K. Brown. San Diego, CA: San Diego State University Press.
Day, Clinton, publisher. 1869. “Map of Private Grants and Public Lands Adjacent to Los Angeles and San Diego, in the Southern Part of California.” [The San Francisco rancho is clearly delineated and on the list of private land grants San Francisco is listed as being confirmed to Jacoba Feliz et al.]
Donley, Michael W., Stuart Allan, Patricia Caro, and Clyde P. Patton. 1979. Atlas of California. Culver City, CA: Pacific Book Center.
Duflot de Mofras, Eugene 1844a. Exploration Du Territoire de l’Orégon, des Californies et de la mer Vermeille, Executée Pendant les Années 1840, 1841 Et 1842. Par M. Duflot De Mofras, Attache a la Légation de France a Mexico. Ouvrage Publie Par Ordre Du Roi, Sous les Auspices de M. Le Marechal Soult, Duc De Dalmatie, President du Conseil, et de M. Le Ministre Des Affaires Étrangeres. Tome Premier [and] Tome Second. Paris, Arthus Bertrand, Éditeur, Libraire De La Société De Géographie, Rue Hautefeuille, No. 23. [The Huntington Library’s copy of these two tomes are bound in four booklets.]
———. 1844b. Exploration Du Territoire de l’Orégon, des Californies et de la mer Vermeille, Executée Pendant les Années 1840, 1841 Et 1842. Par M. Duflot De Mofras, Attache a la Légation de France a Mexico. Ouvrage Publie Par Ordre Du Roi, Sous les Auspices de M. Le Marechal Soult, Duc De Dalmatie, President du Conseil, et de M. Le Ministre Des Affaires Étrangeres. Atlas. Paris, Arthus Bertrand, Éditeur, Libraire De La Société De Géographie, Rue Hautefeuille, No. 23. [This separate atlas has twenty-six maps and illustrations. The first map (Carte générale du Voyage.) is the map with San Francisquito shown on it and is shown in Wheat 1958: facing p. 180 and is described on pages 185-186 & 261.)
———. 2004. Travels on the Pacific Coast: A Report from California, Oregon, and Alaska in 1841. Edited by Marguerite Eyer Wilbur. Santa Barbara, CA. The Narrative Press. [This is a reproduction of the rare 1937 edition.]
Durrenburger, Robert W. 1968. Patterns of the Land: Geological, Historical and Political Maps of California. Palo Alto, CA: National Press Books.
Eldredge, Zoeth S. 1909. The March of Portolá and the Discovery of the Bay of San Francisco. San Francisco: The California Promotion Committee.
———, ed. [1915]. History of California. Vol. 3 (of 5). New York: The Century History Co.
Ellenbecker, John G. 1938. The Jayhawkers of Death Valley. Marysville, KA: Privately printed.
———. [1942]. Supplement to The Jayhawkers of Death Valley. N.p.: Privately printed.
Engelhardt, Fr. Zephyrin. 1915. The Missions and Missionaries of California. Vol. 4 (Part 3, General History). Upper California. San Francisco, CA: The James H. Barry Co.
———. 1927. San Gabriel Mission and the Beginning of Los Angeles. Chicago, IL: Franciscan Herald Press.
———. 1930. 2nd rev. ed. The Missions and Missionaries of California. Vol. 2. Santa Barbara, CA. Mission Santa Barbara.
———. 1973. San Fernando Rey: The Mission of the Valley. Ramona, CA: Ballena Press. [Facsimile edition of the original 1927 edition.]
Fages, Pedro. 1937. A Historical, Political, and Natural Description of California by Pedro Fages, Soldier of Spain. Translated by Herbert Ingram Priestley. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Free Press, Ventura, Calif. May 2, 1890. “The Place They Came To.”
Goddard, George Henry. See: Shumate, 1969.
Gudde, Edwin G. 1974. California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Guinn, J.M. 1906. “The Old Highways of Los Angeles.” pp. 253-257. Annual Publication of the Historical Society of Southern California: Published by the Society 1905. [The date of printing was 1906.]
Hancock, Henry. 1858. “Plat of the Rancho San Francisco finally confirmed to Jacoba Feliz et al. Surveyed under instruction from U.S. Surveyor General by Henry Hancock, Dep. Sur., December 1858. Containing 48,813 58/100 Acres, Scale 80 Cha[ins] to 1 inch.” [Bureau of Land Management, Folsom, California. Docket 316, Roll 23. Copy in author’s files.]
Hanna, Phil Townsend. 1927. “When Death Valley Took Its First Toll.” Touring Topics. 19 (Dec.):14-17, 40-42.
———, comp. 1946. The Dictionary of California Land Names. Los Angeles, CA: The Automobile Club of Southern California.
———, comp. 1951. The Dictionary of California Land Names, rev. & enl. Los Angeles, CA: The Automobile Club of Southern California.
Hartnell, William I. P. 2004. The Diary and Copybook of William E.P. Hartnell, Vistador General of the Missions of Alta California in 1839 and 1840. Translated by Starr Pait Gurcke, Edited by Glenn J. Farris. Santa Clara, CA: California Mission Studies Assoc.: Arthur H. Clark Co.
Hittell, Theodore H. 1897. History of California. Vol. 2 (of 4). San Francisco: N.J. Stone & Co.
Hoffman, Ogden. 1862. Reports of Land Cases Determined in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. June Term, 1853 to June Term, 1858, Inclusive. Vo 1. San Francisco: Numa Hubert, Publisher. [Facsimile reprinted by Yosemite Collections. 1975.]
Hoover, Vincent A. 1849-1850. Diary. [Hoover’s original diaries are housed in The Huntington Library, San Marino, Calif. The Bancroft Library has a typescript of the diary prepared by Dale Morgan. See Mattes 1988:171 for details.]
Huntington Library Map. See: Plan del paraje conocido bajo el nombre de [Rancho] Sn Francisco.
Huntington Library, The. The Jayhawker Collection is an assemblage of letters written among sundry members of the pioneers who blundered into Death Valley in winter 1849-1850. John B. Colton organized these pioneers into an organization called the Jayhawkers. Also in the collection are letters to Colton from people like ‘Buffalo Bill.’ and he kept newspaper clippings in two scrapbooks of articles that covered the Jayhawker’s reunion meetings that were held on February 4, the date the main body of the Jayhawkers arrived at the Rancho San Francisco.
JA Numbers. See Huntington Library, The
Jackson, Sheldon G. 1987. A British Ranchero in Old California: The Life and Times of Henry Dalton and the Rancho Azusa. Glendale, CA: Arthur H. Clark Co.
Johnson, LeRoy and Jean Johnson, eds. 1987. Escape from Death Valley: As Told By William Lewis Manly and Other ’49ers. Reno, NV: Univ. of Nevada Press.
Jones, William Carey. 1850. “Report on the Subject of Land Titles in California.” In: “Report of the Secretary of the Interior (Made in Pursuance of Instructions from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the Interior).” 31st Congress, 1st Session. Senate Executive Document No. 18, pp. 1-136.
Latta, Frank. 1979. Death Valley ’49ers. Santa Cruz, CA: Bear State Books. [Facsimile reissued 2003 by Bear State Books, Exeter, CA.]
López, Pedro. April 12, 1854. “Before me. G. Tompson Burril[l], Commissioner duly qualified for the taking of Testimony to be used before the Board of Commissioners, to ascertain and settle the Private Land claims in the State of California, Personally appeared. Pedro Lopez – a witness in behalf of Jacoba Felis – and others, claimants, for the Land named San Francisco, numbered on the Docket of the said Board with No. 318, who upon oath declareth and saith as follows.” [Microfilm in National Archives and Records Administration–Pacific Region, San Francisco. T–910, California Private Land Claim Cases, Roll 23: Dockets 310–322 [See: Docket 316]. This microfilm is also in The Bancroft Library, which has a clearer film.]
Lugo, Antonio Maria. April 17, 1854. “Before me. G. Tompson Burril[l], Commissioner duly qualified for the taking of Testimony to be used before the Board of Commissioners, to ascertain and settle the Private Land claims in the State of California, Personally appeared. Pedro Lopez – a witness in behalf of Jacoba Felis – and others, claimants, for the Land named San Francisco, numbered on the Docket of the said Board with No. 318, who upon oath declareth and saith as follows.” [Microfilm in National Archives and Records Administration–Pacific Region, San Francisco. T–910, California Private Land Claim Cases, Roll 23: Dockets 310–322 [See: Docket 316]. This microfilm is also in The Bancroft Library, which has a clearer film.]
Lummis, Charles F. 1897. “Death Valley in ’49.” Land of Sunshine, A Southwest Magazine. 6(Feb.):116. [This is a review of Manly’s book.]
Manly, William Lewis. 1877. See: Pioneer, The.
Manly, William Lewis. 1894. Death Valley in ’49. San Jose, CA: Pacific Tree and Vine Co. [Original editions of this book are rare but it is available in several facsimile editions.]
———. 1987. Escape from Death Valley: As Told By William Lewis Manly and Other ’49ers. Edited by LeRoy Johnson and Jean Johnson. Reno, NV: Univ. of Nevada Press.
———. 2001. Death Valley in ’49. Edited by LeRoy & Jean Johnson. Berkeley, CA: Heyday Books.
Mattes, Merrill J. 1988. Platte River Road Narratives: A Descriptive Bibliography of Travel Over the Great Central Overland Route to Oregon, California, Utah, Colorado, Montana, and Other Western States and Territories, 1812-1866. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Melendy, Brett H. and Benjamin F. Gilbert. 1965. The Governors of California. Georgetown, CA: The Talisman Press.
Mofras. See: Duflot de Mofras.
Morgan, Dale L., ed. 1964. The West of William H. Ashley. Denver, CO: The old West Publishing Co.
Newhall, Ruth Waldo. 1958. The Newhall Ranch: The Story of the Newhall Land and Farming Company. San Marino, CA: The Huntington Library.
———. 1992, A California Legend: The Newhall Land and Farming Company. Valencia, CA: Newhall Land and Farming Company.
Newmark, Maurice H. and Marco R. Newmark. 1929. Census of the City and County of Los Angeles, California for the Year 1850. Los Angeles, CA: Times-Mirror Press. [The enumerations for this census were made in spring 1851.]
Northrop, Marie E. 1984. Spanish-Mexican Families of Early California: 1769-1850. Vol. 2, 2nd ed. Burbank, CA: Southern California Genealogical Society.
———. 1987. Spanish-Mexican Families of Early California: 1769-1850. Vol. 1. 2nd ed. Burbank, CA: Southern California Genealogical Society.
———. 2004. Spanish-Mexican Families of Early California. Vol. 3: Los Pobladores de la Reina de Los Angeles. Burbank, CA: Southern California Genealogical Society, Inc.
Olesen, B.G. 2005. Rancho San Francisquito and the Death Valley ’49ers. Santa Ana, CA: Phytophysics. [Privately Published]
Parke-Custer Map. See: Wheat 1960.
Patent. United States of America. February 12, 1875. “Patent.” Patent for Rancho San Francisco issued to Jacoba Felis [sic], Ygnacio del Valle, Maria del Valle, Magdelina del Valle, José Antonio del Valle, José Ygnacio del Valle, and Concepcion del Valle. [Filed March 18, 1875, in Book 1 of Patents, Page 514, in the office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, California. Typescript copy in authors’ file.]
Pauley, Kenneth E. and Carol M. Pauley. 2005. San Fernando Rey de España: An Illustrated History. Spokane, WA: The Arthur H. Clark Company.
Perkins, Arthur B. 1957. “Rancho San Francisco: A Study of a California Land Grant.” The Historical Society of Southern California, Quarterly. 39(June):99-126.
Pioneer, The, San Jose, California. 1877, March 21 & 28. “Biographical Sketches: W.L. MANLY—How He Crossed the Plains—Description of an Adventurous Journey—Death Valley Experience.”
Plan del paraje conocido bajo el nombre de [Rancho] Sn Francisco. [ca. 1840]. In The Huntington Library, San Marino, CA. Call No. HM 43973. 17” x 10 ½”. [Translation of the title: “Plan of the place well known by the name San Francisco.]
Prudhomme, Charles J. 1922. “Gold Discovery in California: Who Was the First Real Discoverer of Gold in this State?” Annual Publications, Historical Society of Southern California. Part 2, 12:19-25.
Robinson, John W. 2005. Gateways to Southern California: Indian Footpaths, Horse Trails, Wagon Roads, Railroads, and Highways. City of Industry, CA: Big Santa Anita Historical Society.
Robinson, W.W. 1939. Ranchos Become Cities. Pasadena, CA: San Pasqual Press. [He lists Rancho San Francisco as belonging to Jacoba Feliz and her children and the Rancho San Francisquito as belonging to Henry Dalton (p. 224).]
Rolle, Andrew. 1991. Henry Mao Newhall and His Times: A California Legacy. San Marino, CA: Huntington Library Press.
Rowan, V.J. 1888. “Official Map of Los Angeles County, California. Compiled under instructions [of] and by order of Los Angeles County.” [The name “Rancho San Francisco is prominently displayed with the name “Newhall Land and Farming Co.” below it. The property boundary is delineated. Rowan was the county surveyor.]
Shumate, Albert. 1969. The Life of George Henry Goddard: Artist, Architect, Surveyor, and Map Maker. Keepsake 17. Berkeley, CA: The Friends of The Bancroft Library, University of California. [The Friends reproduced Goddard’s 1855 and it is in an end pocket.]
Shumway, Burgess McK. 1988. California Ranchos; Patented Private Land Grants Listed by County. San Bernardino, CA: The Borgo Press. [Shumway lists the rancho Governor Alvarado granted to Antonio del Valle as San Francisco.]
Smith, Wallace E. 1977. This Land Was Ours: The del Valles and Camulos. Ventura, CA: Ventura County Historical Society.
Southworth, John. 1978. Death Valley in 1849: The Luck of the Gold Rush Emigrants. Burbank, CA: Pegleg Books.
Star, Los Angeles. October 6, 1860. “Arrivals at the Bella Union Hotel, for the Week ending October 6, 1860. [W.L. Manley [sic] is listed as a guest at the hotel.]
———. November 24 1860. “Arrivals at the Bella Union Hotel, for the Week ending November 23, 1860. [W.L. Manly is listed as a guest at the hotel.]
Stephens, Lorenzo D. March 16, 1884. Letter to: Sir [J.B. Colton]. Jayhawker Collection, JA898. The Huntington Library. San Marino, California.
———. 1916. Life Sketches of a Jayhawker of ‘49. San José, CA: Nolta Bros.
Stevenson, H.J. 1880. “Map of the County of Los Angeles California by H.J. Stevenson. U.S. Dept. Surveyor.” C.L. Smith & Co. Lith. Oakland, Cal. [A copy of this map is on the Internet <http://ark.cdlib.org/ark:/13030/hb1t1nb1km/>, accessed June 10, 2006, and in The Bancroft Library.]
Stratton, James T. U.S. Surveyor General for California. See Patent.
Stuart, James F. 1872. Frauds in Surveys of Mexican Grants, Lying in California, Defeated. The Means Resorted To, To Carry Them Out. Washington [D.C.] City: M’gill & Witherow, Printers and Stenotypers.
Sugranes, Rev. Eugene. N.d. “Reminiscences—The First Discovery of Gold in California.” In: Spalding, William A., comp. 1931. History and Reminiscences: Los Angeles City and County, California. Vol. 1 (of 3). Los Angeles, CA: J.R. Finnell & Sons Publishing Company.
Supreme Court, United States.
U.S. Supreme Court U.S. v. Moreno. 68 U.S. 400 (1863). 68 U.S. 400 (Wall.). December Term, 1863.
U.S. Supreme Court Rodrigues v. U.S. 68 U.S. 582 (1863). 68 U.S. 582 (Wall.). December Term, 1863.
Thompson, G.H. 1865. “Plat of the Rancho San Francisco finally confirmed to Jacoba Feliz, Surveyed under instructions from the U.S. Surveyor General.” [Copy from National Archives microfilm. A casual glance at this survey plat shows it is a fraudulent survey. Thompson gerrymandered the property boundary to include potentially rich oil land. His total acreage was 102,025.95 acres. Cf. Hancock, above (48,813.58 acres).]
———. 1874. “Plat of the Rancho San Francisco finally confirmed to Jacoba Feliz et al. Surveyed under instructions from the U.S. Surveyor General. By G.H. Thompson, dep. sur. June 1874.” [Bureau of Land Management, Folsom, California. Docket 399, F1 & F2, map in two parts. He came up with 48,611.88 acres. Copy in authors’ files. Cf. Hancock, above (48,813.58 acres).]
Tyler, Daniel. 2000. A Concise History of the Mormon Battalion in the Mexican War: 1846-1847. Heber City, UT: Archive Publishers. [This is a facsimile of the original 1881 book.]
Ventura, Calif., Free Press. See: Free Press.
War Department. 1860. “Territory and Military Department of Utah, compiled in the Bureau of Topograph[ical] Eng[ineers] of the War Depart[ment].” [Available online at “Nevada History in Maps.”
Wheat, Carl I. 1995. The Maps of the California Gold Region, 1848-1857. San Francisco, CA: The Grabhorn Press. [Facsimile of the 1942 original edition with an introduction and addenda added by Maurizio Martino Publisher, Storrs-Mansfield, CT.]
———. 1958. Mapping the Transmississippi West. Vol. 2. From the Pacific Surveys to the Onset of the Civil War, 1804-1845. San Francisco, CA: The Institute of Historical Cartography.
———. 1959. Mapping the Transmississippi West. Vol. 3. From the Mexican War to the Boundary Surveys, 1846-1854. San Francisco, CA: The Institute of Historical Cartography.
———. 1960. Mapping the Transmississippi West. Vol. 4. From the Pacific Railroad Surveys to the Onset of the Civil War, 1855-1860. San Francisco, CA: The Institute of Historical Cartography. [Wheat refers to Olesen’s “Parke-Custer” map as: 1855 Parke, 2 map (852). The text describing the map is on pages 80 & 81 and the map is facing page 82. Details concerning the publication of the map are found on pages 205 & 206.]
Wheeler, George M. 1889. Report Upon United States Geographical Surveys West of the One Hundredth Meridian. Vol. 1. Geographical Report. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Whitney, J.D. 1865. Geology. Vol. 1. Report of Progress and Synopsis of the Field Work, From 1860 to 1864. Philadelphia, PA: Caxton Press of Sherman & Co.
Wildy, J.H. and A.J. Stahlberg. 1877. “Map of the County of Los Angeles, California. Compiled from U.S. Land Surveys Records of Private Surveys and from other Reliable Sources.” Adopted by the Board of Supervisors Aug. 7, 1877. [This map delineates the “Rancho San Francisco/48611.88 Acres” boundary and shows Camulos as “Ranch House” and within the rancho’s boundary.]
Williamson, R.S. 1856. Explorations and Surveys for a Railroad Route from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean. War Department. Report of Explorations in California for Railroad Routes, to Connect with the Routes Near the 35th and 32d Parallels of North Latitude, 1853. In: Reports of Explorations and Surveys, to Ascertain the Most Practicable and Economical Route for a Railroad from the Mississippi River to the Pacific Ocean Made under the Direction of the Secretary of War, in 1853-4, According to Acts of Congress of March 3, 1853, May 31, 1854, and August 5, 1854. Volume 5. Serial 795. Washington, D.C.: A.O.P. Nicholson, Printers.
Wyld, James. 1849. “Map of the Gold Regions of California.” London: James Wyld. [This map is pictured in Wheat 1995: facing p. 70. It is also on the Library of Congress’ web site at <http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query>, accessed May 12, 2006. The URL for this map is too long to use here; use the site’s Find option to locate the map. This site allows you to enlarge the appropriate section of the map so the “Rancho de S. Francisquito” is distinct.]
Young, Sheldon. 1849. “Sheldon Youngs Log, 1849, Joliet Illinois to Rancho San Francisquito, California.” Typescript in Jayhawker Collection, JA555. The Huntington Library. San Marino, California. [Part of this typescript is available in both editions of Margaret Long’s The Shadow of the Arrow (1941 & 1950).]
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
LeRoy and Jean Johnson’s research article continues:
In January 1855, Alpheus Felch, chairman of the Board of Land Commis-sioners, handed down the board’s decision that reads in part:
The grant is of the place known by the name San Francisco and the petition and the accompanying diseno are referred to as the only further designation or description of the premises. (Opinion of the Board of Land Commissioners [1855])
30:1 “Regardless of legal technicalities, based upon what Manly wrote, those occupying the Rancho San Francisquito building were neophytes in actual possession of the land and it was commonly known by that name.”
If Olesen’s major reason for accepting the name San Francisquito as legitimate is Manly’s use of the name, Olesen’s reasoning is built on a minuscule foundation.
The compelling “legal technicalities” are these: The original 1839 grant application, the original 1839 grant approval document, and all of the legal proceedings dealing with the patent consistently use the name Rancho San Francisco. These documents are not “legal technicalities” that can be ignored as Olesen has done.
30:1 “The United States Government did not recognize the existence of Rancho San Francisco…[in the 1850s] as evidenced by the Park-Custer Map published in the 1855 United States Pacific Railroad Survey report.”
In the 1850s the Topographical Engineers, War Department, conducted a railroad survey that is commonly called the Williamson Survey. One of the maps accompanying the report has “Rcho S. Francisquito” at the mouth of San Francisquito Canyon, and William P. Blake, Geologist and Mineralogist of the expedition, uses the name San Francisquito Rancho in the text of his report (1857:58, 60 & 73; see also 11:2 and 40:3 & 4).
It was typical in the mid-1800s for engineers and scientists to do a thorough literature search before embarking on a project. It was common practice that newly published books and maps were deposited in major libraries throughout the world, such as the Library of Congress. It is conceivable—in fact highly probable—Blake went to the library and read Duflot de Mofras’ report and carefully examined his map. This map was seemingly detailed and was considered, in the mid-1800s, one of the most detailed and authoritative maps of the Pacific Coast of North America.
Blake did not list what works he reviewed to prepare his report. However, we know a copy of Duflot de Mofras’ report was still available in the late 1800s because Captain George M. Wheeler cites it as one of his references in Report Upon United States Geographical Surveys West of the One Hundredth Meridian (Wheeler 1889:596, note).
The state of California did recognize the existence of Rancho San Francisco in the 1850s as evidenced by the Goddard map.
George Henry Goddard, a civil engineer, was renowned for his surveying and mapping abilities. Carl I. Wheat lauded Goddard’s 1857 “Map of the State of California” saying: “It was not only remarkably well constructed from the technical standpoint, but it was by far the most accurate and complete map of California…which had as yet been published…. Nothing cartographically comparable to this map had hitherto appeared” Wheat 1995:xli).
Prior to compiling the map, Goddard reviewed data “from the U.S. Land & Coast Surveys, the several Military, Scientific & Rail Road Explorations, the State & County Boundary Surveys” (Goddard 1857 and in Wheat, Vol. 4, 1960: facing p. 60), which included the “Railroad Explorations of Williamson” (Marlette in Wheat 1995:xl). Goddard gave no credence to Lieutenant John G. Parke’s 1855 map and William P. Blake’s report to the War Department (part of the Williamson railroad survey). Goddard used the correct name—“San Francisco”—to identify the rancho’s location along the Santa Clara River (see also 11:2 and 40:3 & 4).
In 1880, the U.S. Deputy Surveyor, H.J. Stevenson, prepared and released the “Map of the County of Los Angeles California” that showed the correct boundary of the rancho, and it is labeled: “Rc San Francisco.” All subsequent Federal maps we consulted use the name Rancho San Francisco (e.g., Santa Susana, Calif. 1903. 15 min. quad.).
30:1 “[Because the name Rancho San Francisquito appeared on a Federal map this]…constitutes official federal recognition of that location.”
If this were the case—which it is not—the Federal government soon found its error and corrected it. But, before they did, the War Department published at least one other map with the Duflot de Mofras “virus” (see 11:2).
In 1860 the War Department printed “Territory and Military Department of Utah” showing “S. Francisquito.” Apparently the War Department was oblivious of the fact that other departments in the Federal government were using the correct name for the rancho as evidenced by the questions and answers given before the Land Commission hearings.
It is apparent the county of Los Angeles paid no heed to the War Department’s maps because in 1877, J.H. Wildy, Deputy Los Angeles County Surveyor and A.J Stahlberg, Civil Engineer, published the official Map of the County of Los Angeles, California, and on it they show the property boundary of “Rancho San Francisco.” The map was approved by the county Board of Supervisors on August 7, 1877.
31: Figure 1 “Segment of the Parke-Custer 1855 Map.”
This segment of the so-called Parke-Custer map, from a U.S. railroad survey, shows the “Rcho S Francisquito” at the mouth of San Francisquito Canyon and north of the Santa Clara River (neither the canyon nor the river are labeled on this map).
Edwin G. Gudde (1974:285) points out in his California Place Names that “Rancho San Francisquito and San Francisquito Pass are shown on the Parke-Custer map of 1855 and are repeatedly mentioned in the Pacific Railroad Reports.” However, Gudde (listed in Olesen’s bibliography) gives no credence to the name Rancho San Francisquito because on this same page he tells us San Francisquito Canyon “is on the San Francisco land grant.”
Olesen’s “Parke-Custer Map” is the map Carl I. Wheat described in volume 4 as the Parke-2 map in his Mapping the Transmissippi West (1960:80-81, 205-206 & map facing p. 82).
32:4 “In 1850, court proceedings to establish who owned what and were…had not even been initiated.”
Court proceedings had not been initiated because they were not needed. Rancho San Francisco was a well known rancho, and the local residents knew who owned it and where it was. For Antonio del Valle’s widow, it was just a matter of jumping through the hoops the U.S. government created to guard against fraudulent land grants.
34:1 “The del Valle family had not previously lived on the Rancho San Francisco land grant because of the animosity of the neophytes who operated Rancho San Francisquito.”
Again, Olesen makes an unfounded assertion. As we pointed out above (20:3 & 21:1, 24:1), in January 1855, Alpheus Felch, chairman of the Board of Land Commissioners, said: “It is proved that the grantee [Antonio del Valle] went onto the premises the same year that the grant was made and moved his family there, that he made it his residence [and lived there] the remainder of his life.” Historical records are clear that Antonio del Valle died June 1, 1841, in his casa on the Rancho San Francisco surrounded by his family.
34:1 “…the del Valle family could not prove clear title sufficiently to have anyone, squatters or Native Americans living thereabouts, legally evicted prior to 1868.”
There was no need to evict the ex-neophytes; their 1839 rebellion was soon quashed. The only evidence of squatters on the rancho property mentions gold miners, who didn’t stay long. There is no evidence ex-neophytes operated the mythical Rancho San Francisquito.
36:2 “Two of the best historical works concerning Rancho San Francisco are peculiarly similar because they…ignore the existence of Rancho San Francisquito.”
Both Perkins and Newhall ignore Rancho San Francisquito because it did not exist. There are other scholarly works that deal with the early history of the rancho: Wallace E. Smith’s 1977 book This Land Was Ours, Andrew Rolle 1991 book Henry Mao Newhall and His Times: A California Legacy, John W. Robinson’s Gateways to Southern California, and Kenneth E. Pauley & Carol M. Pauley’s San Fernando Rey de España. These authors also ignore the mythical Rancho San Francisquito.
38:1 “[Olesen, citing Ellenbecker, says a milkhouse] located just under the hill below the site of the building…was the location where the ranch occupants fed the Jayhawkers during their two week recovery near a willow tree.”
Olesen said on page 22 that the Jayhawkers were “imprisoned in a corral.” Now he says they were fed under a willow tree below the rancho.
40:3 & 40:4 “[The Parke-Custer map] constitutes official federal recognition that ownership of the Rancho San Francisco was not yet established by the [Federal] land commission or by survey at that time regardless of anything else.”
If, as Olesen purports, the Parke-Custer map of 1855 constituted “official federal recognition” of the name Rancho San Francisquito, why did the Federal government use the name Rancho San Francisco on January 2, 1855, in its “Opinion of The Board of Land Commissioners” which reads:
For the place called San Francisco…the grant is of the place known by the name San Francisco and the petition and accompanying diseño are referred to as the only further designation or description of the premises. (Opinion of the Board of Land Commissioners [1855])
The use of a name on a Federal map does not constitute “official federal recognition…regardless of anything else.” Remember, Olesen implied the legal documents granting the rancho to Antonio del Valle were technicalities that should be ignored. These documents were legally executed by a head of state (an Alta California Governor) and they were, under international law, accepted by the United States. As pointed out earlier, William Casey Jones said, “I am bound to say, [grants in California] are mostly perfect titles; that is, the holders possess their property by titles that, under the law which created them, are equivalent to patents from our government” (Jones 1850:34, italics his).
The del Valle family had title to the land under Mexican laws, and it was the responsibility of the Federal Land Commission to look at the provenance of all Spanish and Mexican land grants to determine if these grants were legally executed. The Rancho San Francisco land grant stood up under intense legal scrutiny (see 30:1).
41:2 “Perkins read between the lines of what Engelhardt said about Fray Lausen visiting San Francisco Valley [in September 1795].”
Engelhardt does not mention “San Francisco Valley,” and Friar Lausén did not go on an expedition into today’s Santa Clarita Valley. Lausén directed Friar Vicente de Santa Maria to lead an expedition to locate possible sites for a mission that would help fill the gap between Mission San Gabriel and Mission San Buenaventura. Friar De Santa Maria’s journal was “interesting enough to be reproduced” so Engelhardt quoted, possibly in toto, the journal dated September 3, 1795 (Engelhardt 1973:3-9: see also Pauley & Pauley 2005:45-50).
The name San Francisco Valley is not in the journal; however, Maria does mention Rio de Santa Clara—today’s Santa Clara River (Maria in Engelhardt 1973:8). Perkins was correct when he wrote: “In 1795, therefore, Fr. Lasuen ordered Fr. Vicente de Santa Maria to examine and report on possible Mission sites” between Missions San Gabriel and San Buenaventura (Perkins 1957:101). Based on Maria’s report, Lasuen (who succeeded Fray Junipero Serra) founded Mission San Fernando on September 8, 1797 (Engelhardt 1973:10 & Appendix B, p. 137).
42:1 “The author [Olesen] has been unable to locate any credible corroborative evidence to support Pedro Lopez’s testimony that Ignacio del
Valle occupied Rancho San Francisco in 1839 except for unsubstantiated statements to that effect made by recent
writers.”
There is no such evidence. Pedro López did not testify that Ygnacio occupied the rancho in 1839. He did testify that Antonio del Valle, Ygnacio’s father, occupied the ranch in late 1839 and lived there until he died June 1, 1841.
43:2 “Rancho San Francisquito existed…as a functioning rancho from the time it was created under the mission San Fernando system of land management until after the Death Valley ’49ers arrived at the location.”
There are no data supporting Olesen’s contention. Earlier we quoted from two letters written in 1821 by Friar Ibarra, who administered Mission San Fernando: “[I] just came from the Rancho de San Francisco.” Then four days later he said: “[I will send you] fifteen pack mules… [laden with corn that will] leave the Rancho de San Francisco [soon]” (see also 16:2).
43:3 “If legal technicalities are considered, the land grant Rancho San Francisco was issued in 1839, but not finalized by patent until 1872.”
The moment Alta California Governor Alvarado signed Antonio del Valle’s grant petition on January 22, 1839, the Rancho San Francisco became private property—that is, it was “finalized.” It was so when the Death Valley ’49ers arrived there in early 1850. The Federal government’s rationale for carefully scrutinizing all Spanish and Mexican land grants was to ferret out fraudulent grants.
43:3 “Technically Rancho San Francisco did not exist in 1850.”
As we have shown, the rancho came into being in the early 1800s when the Mission San Fernando padres claimed the land as a disjunct rancho. In 1839 Alta California Governor Alvarado granted Rancho San Francisco to Antonio del Valle and his family. The moment the Governor signed the grant, Rancho San Francisco existed as a private property. After Antonio died, the rancho became the property of his widow and his legitimate children. Numerous documents recognize the rancho’s legitimate ownership by the heirs of Antonio del Valle.
——————————–
The conclusion tomorrow
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
LeRoy and Jean Johnson’s research article continues:
Part of the rules for obtaining a Mexican land grant were to live on the property (this implies a casa), to cultivate part of the land, to not subdivide the property, and not to subdivide the property. When Antonio petitioned for the rancho, the mission-built estancia was still there, and the surrounding land had been cultivated since the early 1800s. Thus, Antonio needed only to improve what was already there.
Another undated diseño is housed in The Bancroft Library: “Diseno del Rancho de Sn FRANCO” was used in a hearing that cleared the way to a U.S. Patent of the Rancho San Francisco that granted the rancho to Antonio del Valle’s widow and his legitimate children. It is conceivable this diseño is the original 1839 diseño that Antonio submitted with his original grant petition.
23:2 “If the 1843 date on this diseño [The Huntington Library diseño] is
the date of origination, it was very late because it was supposed to define the rancho at the time of the land grant. It is a primitive diseño at best as most of them were. So, between 1839 and 1843 (also much later), what did Rancho San Francisco consist of and where was it actually located?”
There is no 1843 date on “this diseño,” in The Huntington Library (map on page 30). The “c 1843” probably comes from Ygnacio’s papers dealing with his court battles to keep Camulos as part of the Rancho San Francisco. During this time, the original diseño was “misplaced” or removed from the legal files, and not until 1843 did Ygnacio recover it; thus, the approximate 1843 date. Pablo de la Guerra testified under oath he drew the original map for Antonio del Valle’s petition to Governor Alvarado in 1839 (in Smith 1977:94). The metes and bounds description of the rancho is preserved in a section of a decision titled “Survey of Rancho San Francisco, in Santa Barbara [and Los Angeles] county, confirmed to Jacoba Feliz” (Stuart 1872:9).
On January 2, 1855, “the [U.S.] land commission awarded the Rancho San Francisco to the Del Valles” (Newhall 1992:57). However, the Federal government routinely appealed land-grant decisions to the U.S. Supreme Court. It took another twenty years before the final patent was issued (this case never made it to the Supreme Court). It was during this prolonged period of the above mentioned proceeding that claims of fraudulent surveys were quieted (Stuart 1872), and this paved the way for the final patent.
Judge Ogden Hoffman Jr. (Northern District of California) summarized the legal history of the rancho thusly (1862:44):
3181 305, S. D., 71. Jacoba Feliz, claimant for San Francisco, in Santa Barbara and Los
Angeles counties, granted January 22d, 1839, by Juan B. Alvarado to Antonio del Valle; claim
filed September 2d, 1852, confirmed by the Commission January 2d, 1855, and appeal dismissed June 8th, 1857; containing 48,813.58
acres.
24:1 “It is remotely possible that this diseño [in The Bancroft Library] represents one of the other Rancho San Franciscos, but the information shown appears to be the same as on the 1843 diseño.”
There is zero probability it depicts one of the “other” ranchos with the name San Francisco. These other ranchos are located in Santa Clara, San Francisco, Monterey, and Sonoma Counties (Cowan 1977:76-77)—all far to the north of the Rancho San Francisco depicted on this diseño, and none of the northern ranchos have a Rio de Santa Clara running through them nor a “Piro Arroyo” on the west. This diseño (page 29) is also undated.
Santa Barbara County is not an error. Later, in 1872, the California State Legislature carved Ventura County out of the eastern edge of Santa Barbara County (Coy 1973:291-294), but this case was settled prior to creation of Ventura County. The diseño depicts a fairly accurate rendering of the property boundary of the rancho. Labeling it as evidence submitted by “Jacoba Feliz” eradicates any doubt the map depicts Rancho San Francisco in today’s Santa Clarita Valley.
25:1 “Rancho San Francisco was totally undefined and therefore legally nonexistent [from 1839] until 1868.”
This is not a true statement as the following data proves:
The property boundary of Rancho San Francisco was sufficiently well described and understood in Mexican documents and maps that the California legislature used these boundaries as legal descriptors to delineate parts of two county boundaries only a few months after the ’49ers entered the rancho in 1850. The Los Angeles boundary was described, in part, as follows:
Beginning on the coast of the Pacific…and running thence along the summit of the ridge of hills called Santa Susana to the northwestern boundary of the farm called San Francisco; thence along the northern and northeastern boundary of said farm of San Francisco to the farm called Piro. (in Coy 1973:140).
Ruth Newhall gives the metes and bounds property description in both of her books (1958:37-38 & 1992:52). Metes and bounds (meters or measurement and boundary description) was once the prevailing method of describing property lines. According to the Department of Interior, it is a method of describing the boundary of property as, for example, going down the center of a stream, along a ridge top, or from a rock pile to an oak tree. Michael Burgess points out that the “original Spanish and Mexican land grants were issued under a loose metes and bounds system that used contemporary physical landmarks to establish the boundaries of each grant” (Burgess in Shumway 1988:6).
In 1919 the boundary of Ventura County was changed, and its new boundary was described in part:
[The boundary line runs from] Rancho Simi to corner number eleven of the Rancho Simi, being in the southerly boundary line of the Rancho San Francisco; thence westerly along the southerly boundary line of the Rancho San Francisco to a point…[and continues to a] corner being in the northerly boundary line of the Rancho San Francisco; thence westerly along the northerly line of the Rancho San Francisco to the range line (in Coy 1973:153).
Stuart’s decision paper concerning the “Survey of Rancho San Francisco, in Santa Barbara County, Confirmed to Jacoba Feliz” (1872:9) has virtually the same property description as documented by Newhall. (The minor variations in the two descriptions were probably the result of different translators.) This description also appears in the Patent, which President Grant approved, and it was recorded by the County Recorder of Los Angeles County on March 18, 1875. In the Patent the sentence preceding the property description says: “The lands of which confirmation is hereby made, is that known by the name San Francisco…and is the same granted to and formerly occupied by said Antonio del Valle.”
Even the United States Supreme Court became involved with the legality of describing vast tracts of land via a crude diseño and a metes and bounds description. In an 1863 decision the Court decided that:
A right of any validity before the cession [in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo] was equally valid afterwards, and while it is the duty of the court in the cases which may come before it to guard carefully against claims originating in fraud, it is equally their duty to see that no rightful claim is rejected….
The act of March 3d, 1851, was passed to assure to the inhabitants of the ceded territory the benefit of the rights of property thus secured to them (U.S. v. Moreno).
In Rodrigues v. United States (1863) the court spoke directly to the property description standards used by the Mexican government:
When the grant was made, no surveyor sighted a compass or stretched a chain. Indeed, these instruments were probably not to be had in that region [Alta California]. A sketch, called a diseño, which was rather a map than a plat of the land, was prepared by the applicant. It gave, in a rude and imperfect manner, the shape and general outline of the land desired, with some of the more prominent natural objects noted on it, and a reference to the adjoining tracts owned by individuals, if there were any, or to such other objects as were supposed to constitute the boundaries.… Yet they are now often the most satisfactory, and sometimes the only evidence by which to locate these claims.
25:3 “When asked if he [Pedro Lopez] had any interest in the land he replied ‘no’ (no interest in his own daughter’s land?).”
One of the questions Pedro López answered during his testimony was: “Are you interested in the result of this claim” and he answered “I am not.” Olesen apparently misunderstood the context of the use of “any interest in the land.” Within the context of legal testimony, the word “interest” means monetary (investment) or legal (deeded) interest. “In its application to lands, or things real, it is frequently used in connection with the terms ‘estate,’ ‘right,’ and ‘title.’” (Black’s Law Dictionary: Revised Forth Edition). In other words, the question asked was: Do you, Pedro López, have a monetary or legal interest in the land? Hence his answer—he did not. During the hearing, Pedro’s attorney was at his side, and he undoubtedly coached Pedro through the legal ramifications of the questions.
Pedro López was not Jacoba’s father; he was Jacoba’s maternal uncle (Smith 1977:19 & Northrop 1987:200; see also 20:1). This is another example of how Olesen became “ensnared” and “ended up befuddled by apparently valid statements.” He took this information from a respected researcher, but he did not check that information with the genealogical records.
Antonio Maria Lugo (age eighty-one) also testified before the Commissioner, and he too was asked: “Have you any interest in the results of this claim?” He responded “I have not.” The next question he answered was: “Are you acquainted with the tract of land called San Francisco and if so how long have you known it?” Here is his answer: “I am acquainted with the tract of land called San Francisco, I passed through there in the year 1825, the Rancho was established by the Mission of San Fernando, it was then and had been called for some time ‘San Francisco.’” (Note commas are used in place of periods.)
26:1 “When asked, ‘when did Don Antonio del Valle receive his grant for San Francisco, and when and how did he occupy it’, Lopez replied: ‘I think Don Antonio del Valle received his grant in the year 1839. I am not certain he occupied the land as soon as he received the grant and immediately stocked the Rancho with cattle and horses…”
Again, in his attempt to discredit Pedro López, (Olesen said “López’s testimony is not reliable”), Olesen leaves out an all-important comma clearly found in the original transcript: “I think Don Antonio del Valle received his grant in the year 1839, I am not certain, he occupied the land as soon as he received the grant.”
By leaving out the comma (used as a period) following “certain,” Olesen completely changes the meaning of the sentence. He tries to imply that Pedro was not certain Antonio occupied the land as soon as he received the grant. What Pedro really said was he was not certain of the year, but was certain Antonio “occupied the land as soon as he received the grant.”
26:2 “Pedro Lopez and his brother Francisco Lopez are also listed as living in Los Angeles in 1850.”
The census lists Francisco, his wife Marie A[ntonia], two Mexican laborers, and seven Indians associated with the dwelling-house 283 in Los Angeles County (Newmark & Newmark 1929:69). The census does not list the names of the ranchos, but we infer dwelling-house 283 is the casa at the Rancho San Francisco. Francisco López and his wife were not enumerated as living within the city of Los Angeles, nor can we find his brother, Pedro López, listed in the county census. He is not listed as living in the same household with his brother, Francisco.
26:2 & 27:1 “…it is unlikely Antonio del Valle and/or his
heirs had actual residential possession of Rancho San Francisco until Ignacio began to improve Camulos and finally moved to that location from Los Angeles sometime between 1854 and 1864.”
“Antonio [del Valle] died at age 53 at the Castaic ranch house on the first day of June 1841” (Smith 1977:29). This certainly implies “residential possession.” Smith uses the name “Castaic ranch house” as a synonym for the casa on the Rancho San Francisco. Jacoba, Antonio’s widow, married José Salazar in June 1844 (Smith 1877:54; Northrop 1984:307; Northrop 1987:145). Newhall said Jacoba and her new husband moved into the casa at the Rancho San Francisco (Newhall 1958:39; Newhall 1992:53). Ygnacio and his family moved to Camulos in spring 1861 (Smith 1977:116).
26:2 “Lopez’s testimony conflicts with Engelhardt’s writing, which stated that Antonio did not live at the rancho because he feared for his life.”
Engelhardt did not say Antonio feared for his life on the rancho. Engelhardt was paraphrasing William Hartnell’s 1839 diary (Engelhardt 1973;59). Here is what Hartnell (2004:45-46) recorded in his diary (see also in section 20:3 & 21:1): “The same Sr. Valle is afraid to go with his family to live at San Francisco…[but he will] repair and secure his house in San Francisco.”
In June 1839, Indians “raided the ranch and seized as many livestock as they could lay hands on. Antonio was forced to appeal to Governor Alvarado for soldiers to punish the raiders and help him protect his herds…. [The Indians] made off with 117 of Antonio’s cattle and a dozen horses… [and Antonio accused] fry Francisco González de Ybarra of stirring up the Indians in retaliation for what he considered Antonio’s theft of mission lands” (Smith 1977:19-20).
Initially, because of disgruntled Indians, Antonio did not move his family to the rancho. He and his hired hands repaired the estancia and converted it to a casa, and they moved cattle and horses to the rancho. By the end of 1839 Jacoba Feliz del Valle and their children joined Antonio at the rancho (Smith 1977:24).
Antonio del Valle and Pedro López brought cattle and horses from San Pedro to stock the rancho. Antonio and Pedro then went to Mission Santa Ynez to purchase 1,000 cattle and 400 horses to further stock the rancho. This shattered any final hopes of the ex-neophytes—their homeland had been given to Antonio del Valle.
As was the case with all Indian uprisings in Alta California, the Indians (in this case ex-neophytes) were soon suppressed or placated. The Mexicans had the strategic advantage—they had pistols, rifles, and cannons. The ruthless seizing of Indian homelands in Alta California was replicated numerous times.
27:1 “If Ignacio had continuously occupied the building used as the headquarters for Rancho San Francisquito as stated by Pedro Lopez, why would he have abandoned that location to improve Camulos and move there in 1854?”
Pedro López did not testify that Ygnacio had continuously occupied any building at Rancho San Francisquito nor at Rancho San Francisco. Pedro testified Antonio (Ygnacio’s father) and his family lived on the Rancho San Francisco until Antonio died in 1841.
Pedro was asked this question: “When did Don Antonio Valle receive his grant for San Francisco, and when and how did he occupy it?” and here is his answer:
I think Don Antonio del Valle received his grant in the year 1839. I am not certain, he occupied the land as soon as he received the grant and immediately stocked the Rancho with cattle and horses, which I assisted in bringing from the Rancho of San Pedro, the cattle placed there the first year consisted of six hundred head, and a quantity of Mares and horses which I do not recollect the number of, and this same year Don Antonio del Valle went with all of his family to reside there, and there was a house there in which they lived, and the same year he planted Wheat, below the house where there is a cienaga or Swamp, the whole of which he fenced in, up to the River. Don Antonio continued living on the Rancho, until he died, his family consisted of his Wife, three Sons, and a daughter, all of whom lived on the Rancho.
27:2 “The author believes Pedro Lopez’s testimony at the 1854 land commission hearing to be prejudiced. Lopez’s testimony is contradictory and vague.”
We have a copy of the original handwritten 1854 transcript and find Pedro’s testimony to be straightforward and clear. Discrediting Pedro López is central to Olesen’s thesis that Rancho San Francisco did not exist in 1850 and that Olesen’s mythical Rancho San Francisquito stood in its place.
27:3 & 28:1 “According to Newhall, it’s clear that Ignacio del Valle wanted Rancho San Francisco. He bought his sister’s
(Magdalena) one-sixth portion in 1852 and in 1854 he obtained rights from other family members to build and own a home on the rancho (Newhall: 1992: 57). Why did Ignacio do this if he already had a home there, located at the Rancho San Francisquito building? It is apparent that Ignacio didn’t have a home on Rancho San Francisco.”
Ygnacio never lived on the rancho lands until he moved to Camulos in 1861. Yes, there was a “home” (casa) on the Rancho San Francisco where Antonio’s family lived and where Jacoba’s aunt and uncle lived after that, but there never was a home “located at the Rancho San Francisquito” because that rancho did not exist as we have shown over and over again.
Ygnacio’s interest in the rancho was sharply focused on the extreme western portion of the rancho—a place known as Camulos. Ygnacio worked hard to engineer the purchase of Camulos from his relatives. The history of this rancho is carefully detailed in Wallace E. Smith’s 1977 book This Land Was Ours: The Del Valles & Camulos.
28:1 “In 1854 according to
Newhall, Ignacio del Valle moved his family into Camulos,
which was farther west along the Santa Clara River from
the Rancho San Francisquito building. Whitley says this
move was made in 1864 (Whitley: 1994: 15).”
Here is what Newhall said about Ygnacio’s move to Camulos: “The twenty-room house…was finished in 1861…. Ignacio had lived at Camulos for two years when the great drought of 1863-1864 withered the trees and killed the cattle” (Newhall 1958:45-46; 1992:58-59). Thus, as Newhall implies, they moved to Camulos in 1861. As for Whitley, he did not say Ygnacio and his family moved to Camulos in 1864. Whitley does say: “In fact, it appears that the principal del Valle residence was in Los Angeles until they moved the ranch headquarters, and the family, to the Camulos Adobe in the 1860s” (Whitley 1994:27). Of interest, Whitley mentions Rancho San Francisco fifteen times in his report, but he never mentions Olesen’s mythical Rancho San Francisquito. Smith gives us the information that Ygnacio del Valle and his family moved to Camulos from Los Angeles in late April and early May 1861 (1977:116).
29:2 “Two land surveys were conducted. The first was made in 1858 by Hancock, but was disallowed as a result of a protest over legally correct publishing criteria. The second was made in 1865 by Thompson (essentially a repeat of the Hancock survey) and
accepted.”
James F. Stuart, in his 1872 Frauds in Surveys of Mexican Grants, Lying in California says Henry Hancock, Deputy United States Surveyor, surveyed Rancho San Francisco in 1858 and the owners of the rancho “were satisfied with the survey, and no one attempted to interfere with it until about seven years after…when valuable oil lands” were discovered near the rancho. Stuart continues: “Then the noted [surveyor] George H. Thompson…. [made a] fraudulent survey” of the rancho in April 1865 (Stuart 1872:6). On March 14, 1866, Thomas A. Scott appealed to J.L. Edmonds, Commissioner Land Office to approve the Thompson survey but “before this letter reached the Commissioner he had rejected this fraudulent survey and replied to Mr. Scott’s letter by sending him a copy of his decision” (Stuart 1872:7). The Thompson fraudulent survey came up with 102,025 acres (Smith 1877:134); whereas, the Hancock survey came up with 48,819 acres. Thompson’s fraudulent survey was to the liking of his client, Mr. Scott, as it encompassed possibly rich oil land (Smith 1977:140).
Later Thompson resurveyed the rancho and came up with 48,611 acres; this survey was approved by James T. Stratton, U.S. Surveyor General for California. This second Thompson survey (and map) was used by the Federal government to define the boundary of the Rancho San Francisco. On February 12, 1875, President Ulysses S. Grant’s agent signed the Patent. The Rancho San Francisco was then, under the laws of the United States, unclouded private property that belonged to Jacoba del Valle and Antonio’s legitimate children.
29:3 “At that time [when Manly and Rogers visited the site in 1850] Rancho San Francisco’s exact boundaries and location had not been legally defined.… in technical legal terms Rancho San Francisco was not actually in existence except in the form of a land grant or as a deed.”
This assertion is wrong. When Antonio del Valle applied for the land grant, his grant application and the accompanying diseño adequately described the boundary of the property in accordance with Mexican law and common practice. As to the rancho’s location, this was common knowledge among virtually everyone in Southern California during the 1800s.
Olesen’s operative word is “exact.” We have already explained the rancho was legally described via metes and bounds, a method of delineating property not considered “exact” by today’s standards, but it was the legally accepted method for describing a parcel of land during Spanish and Mexican rule of Alta California.
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
Here is the next installment of LeRoy and Jean Johnson’s research article:
Antonio was afraid to bring his wife and children to the rancho. However, he and some hired hands went to the rancho to repair the “house” so he and his family could move into it in late 1839 (Smith 1977:22-24). This is also clear from Pedro López’s testimony. A response to the question, “How much Wheat was sown in the year 1839?” elicited evidence the del Valle family occupied Rancho San Francisco in 1839. Pedro responded:
I do not know the number of fanagas that were sown, the crop was quite large, and the harvest was excellent…. the cattle placed there the first year consisted of six hundred head, and a quantity of Mares and horses which I do not recollect the number of, and this same year Don Antonio del Valle went with all of his family to reside there, and there was a house there in which they lived, and the same year he planted Wheat.
The Federal government acknowledged the fact that Antonio del Valle and his family moved onto the Rancho San Francisco in 1839. In January 1855, Alpheus Felch, chairman of the Board of Land Commissioners, handed down the board’s decision that reads in part:
For the place called San Francisco in Los Angeles County, containing about four square leagues of land. The claimants in this case are the widow and children of Antonio del Valle…. A grant made to said deceased by Governor Juan B. Alvarado, dated January 22d 1839, is given in evidence, the execution there of being abundantly proved by witnesses who were present when it was signed and delivered. It is proved that the grantee went onto the premises the same year that the grant was made [in 1839] and moved his family there, that he made it his residence, cultivated portions of the land and left his stock there during the remainder of his life and that the occupation and cultivation have since been continued by the present claimants. (Opinion of the Board of Land Commissioners [1855])
21:1 “[There is] evidence to support the conclusion that Antonio del Valle, his heirs, or the Salazar family did not live at Rancho San Francisco until sometime after 1853.”
Again, Olesen provides no data or references supporting his supposition. The evidence indicates, however, the del Valle family moved into the casa on the Rancho San Francisco in late 1839. Antonio died there on June 1, 1841 (Smith 1977:29). Antonio was buried at the Mission San Fernando on June 3, 1841 (Northrop 1984:307). How much time Jacoba (Antonio’s widow) or her new husband, Jose Salazar (after 1844), spent at the rancho before 1853 is unclear, but Jacoba’s aunt and uncle (Antonia and Francisco López) were in residence during those years. Antonia was the lady who graciously hosted Manly and Rogers in January 1850, and she and her husband, Francisco, were the “Spaniards” who kindly treated the Jayhawkers and the Brier, Bennett, and Arcan families.
In October 1841, while still at the rancho, Jacoba gave birth to Maria Concepcion Antonia, and when her daughter was well enough to travel, Jacoba went to Mission Santa Barbara to have Concepcion baptized on December 9, 1841. Ygnacio, Antonio’s son by his first marriage, served as Concepcion’s godfather (Smith 1977:29).
Ruth Newhall said the following concerning the occupancy of the casa: “The Del Valles moved to the rancho with cattle and sheep and built an adobe house at the foot of the hills…where they could look across the river and up Castaic Canyon. They named their domain El Rancho San Francisco” (Newhall 1958:38). The house they built was in addition to the converted estancia.
After Antonio’s death, Jacoba’s uncle Francisco López and his wife Antonia moved into the casa to help manage the rancho (although Jacoba may not have been in residence all the time), and Francisco brought some of his own cattle to the rancho.
Ten months after Antonio’s death in 1841, Francisco discovered gold on the rancho, and he was still in residence in 1847 when part of the Mormon Battalion crossed the rancho. Daniel Tyler says in A Concise History of the Mormon Battalion that in July 1847 he and fellow veterans traveled “over a rugged, steep and high mountain [via San Fernando Pass before reaching] … Francisco’s rancho.” Here they waited a few days for other veterans to arrive “at Francisco’s rancho” (2000:306). Two and a half years later, in February 1850, some the Death Valley party also referred to the rancho as “Francisco’s rancho.” Although this implies Francisco López owned the property, he was the resident manager for his niece Jacoba del Valle Salazar and Antonio’s heirs.
Jacoba married José Salazar in July 1844, and according to Ruth Newhall, “moved into the ranch house” at that time (1958:39; see also Newhall 1992:52). But by 1850, Jacoba and José were living in Los Angeles while her uncle Francisco and his wife Antonia were still managing the Rancho San Francisco (Newmark & Newmark 1929:29-30 & 69).
21:1 “…the United States Census of Los Angeles for the year 1850 shows that…Ignacio del Valle[’s]…family [was] living in Los Angeles at that time.”
The census shows “Ignacio del Valle” living in household 152 headed by Judge Augustin Oliverez (Newmark & Newmark 1929:50). Ygnacio was single at the time. His first wife Maria de los Angeles Carrillo died in childbirth in 1847, and he was single until December 1851 when he married Ysabel Varela.
21:1 “…residents of the building told Manly and others the name of the location was Rancho San Francisquito, not San Francisco….”
There are no data supporting Olesen’s contention that the “residents of the building told Manly and others” the rancho’s name was San Francisquito. Manly uses the name San Francisquito in his book (1894:264, 361 & 372) and in his letters (JA612, JA613 & JA617). The ending comment in Sheldon Young’s diary is the only known contemporary source that shows the ’49ers knew the name of the rancho was San Francisco in 1850 (see 5:2).
William Lewis Manly was in the Los Angeles area during October-November 1860 after Jacoba Feliz del Valle Salazar and her husband mortgaged her controlling interest in the Rancho San Francisco—six leagues of the rancho’s eleven leagues. This document, recorded May 11, 1858, called the mortgaged property “Rancho San Francisco” (Mortgages, Book 3, page 469). However, two years later, in a second mortgage, the property was called “Rancho San Francisquito” (October 30, 1860, Mortgages, Book 3, page 752). That name then appeared in six subsequent documents, all dealing with mortgages of this fraction of the rancho.
It appears the legal community used the diminutive name to differentiate the mortgaged six leagues from the whole rancho. The last time we found Rancho San Francisquito in the county records was a deed recorded April 29, 1865 (Deeds, Book 7, page 180). After 1865, only the name Rancho San Francisco appears in the fourteen additional records of which we have copies.
Manly roomed at the Bella Union Hotel during his stay in Los Angeles (Star 1860), and it is conceivable he read about or heard talk of the mortgaged “Rancho San Francisquito.” This limited use of the diminutive name plus the name of San Francisquito Canyon could have contributed to Manly’s incorrect assumption the Rancho where he and John Rogers bought supplies for those remaining in Death Valley was called San Francisquito. With the volume of data we have provided, it is clear Manly was not correct in his use of the diminutive spelling.
21:1 “…the neophytes referred to the area as Rancho San Francisquito because they would admit to nothing else.”
Olesen gives no explanation and no documentation supporting his contention the neophytes “would admit to nothing else.” We give documentation to the contrary from Hartnell’s diary (see 20:3 & 21:1). The neophytes had been part of the Rancho San Francisco for almost 50 years. Why would they change its name?
21:1 “Complete ownership of Rancho San Francisco, as proven by occupancy of Rancho San Francisco (the Rancho San Francisquito building) by the del Valle or Salazar families must not have occurred until sometimes after the arrival of the ’49ers in 1850.”
We have shown that the Antonio del Valle family or members of Jacoba’s family occupied the rancho since late 1839. If one accepts Olesen’s contention, it is hard to explain how Antonio del Valle died at the Rancho San Francisco in 1841.
22:2 “It would have been an unlikely site for family life…”
Indian families lived and thrived at this site for hundreds of years, and Friar Crespí’ thought it a viable site for a mission. Antonio had already planted wheat, built fences and corrals for milking the cows, and started an orchard before the end of 1839. Remember, Antonio was granted a fully operational farm and ranch that had been in existence for over thirty years. It had a large adobe building, cleared farmland, and a small section of the property was fenced.
Wallace E. Smith, in his well researched book, This Land Was Ours, relates that it “was nearing the end of 1839 when Antonio felt safe enough at Rancho San Francisco to risk Jacoba’s life at the Castaic adobe” (Smith 1977:24).
22:3 & 23:1 “One other description of their arrival by other ’49ers was that they were initially imprisoned in a corral in that same river valley for a short time. This corral would have been one of the Native American villages located along the Santa Clara River. According to Newhall and Perkins, the Tataviam Indians lived in villages surrounded by rough fences that gave the appearance of corrals, where they lived without additional shelter (Perkins: The Signal).”
The men were not “imprisoned”; the oxen were held in the corral near the house. Many of the men went down to camp among the trees along the Santa Clara River.
Olesen does not indicate whence he gleaned the “imprisoned” information, but possibly it came from the following U.P. Davison’s letter: “42 years since that day that we was correled and plased under guard at St sanbarnedo [at Mission Buenaventura, not at Rancho San Francisco] &c How John Colton and My self got away with an over dose of suit [suet] at the ranch or re [rancheria?] which made our Bowells pay the penalty” (JA357). Later Davison tells us: “[We came]…into the Spanish settlements in the valley of the Pacific coast whare we ware met By some Spaniards and escorted to the St. Sanfrancisco Ranch and ware placed in a Big corral whare we ware treated Most Hospitable” (JA358).
The Mexicans at the rancho were kind and generous people who had already received Manly and Rogers with compassion. Several ’49er letters speak of this kind treatment—not imprisonment—and the Bennett, Arcan, and Brier families were invited into the casa.
Here are some quotes that confirm the Death Valley ’49ers were well treated by Francisco and Antonia López when they arrived at the Rancho San Francisco:
However, some of the Jayhawkers were hauled before a magistrate and “imprisoned” for a short time when they reached Mission San Buenaventura, west of the rancho. Manly clarifies the episode in his book:
They [the Jayhawkers] followed down the course of the river that flowed through the valley, the Santa Clara River, and knew that it would take them to the sea at last. Before they reached the mission of San Buena Ventura, near the sea, they ran out of meat again, for they had failed to find game as they had expected, and Capt. Asa Haines took the chances of killing a Spanish cow that looked nice and fat. They camped around the carcass and ate, and smoked the meat that was left. While thus engaged two horsemen approached, and after taking a good look at the proceedings, galloped off again. When the party arrived at the Mission they were arrested and taken before the alcalde to give an account of their misdeeds. They realized that they were now in a bad fix, and either horn of the dilemma was bad enough. They could not talk Spanish; they had no money; they had killed somebody’s cow; they were very hungry; they might be willing to pay, but had no way of doing it; they did not want to languish in jail, and how to get out of it they could not understand. Luck came to them, however, in the shape of a man who could speak both English and Spanish, to whom they told their story and who repeated it to the alcalde, telling him of their misfortunes and unfortunate condition, and when that officer found out all the circumstances he promptly released them as he did not consider them as criminals. The cow was probably worth no more than ten dollars (Manly 1894:362-363).
After reading the above quotes from the Jayhawker letters and Brier accounts, there should be no doubt that a Mexican (they called him a Spaniard) named Francisco managed the rancho. This is in addition to the census records that show Francisco and Maria A(ntonia) López, two Mexican laborers (vaqueros), and seven Indians (ex-neophytes) lived on a rancho that can be none other than Rancho San Francisco (Newmark & Newmark 1929:24 note 2 & 69).
23:2 “Apparently, an original diseño did not accompany the Rancho San Francisco land grant petition or land grant [in 1839].”
A document in the California State Archives makes clear a diseño (map) did accompany the grant application:
“Juan B. Alvarado, Governor ad interium of the Department of Califinias [sic]: Whereas, the Citizen, Antonio del Valle has petitioned for his personal benefit, and that of his family, the land known by the name of San Francisco, within the boundaries, as shown upon the map, accompanying the petition…I have determined to grant him the said tract of land…. on the twenty second day of January, one thousand eight hundred and thirty nine” (pp. 58-59).
23:2 “An early diseño of that area is dated 1843, but that document (or one other) was not accepted as legally representative until 1868 (Land Commission Case # 318).”
The map Olesen cites is not dated. It is pictured on the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society’s Web site with a comment below it stating “Rancho San Francisco, c. 1843.” Newhall also pictures this map, but she comments that the date is “about 1840” (Newhall 1958: facing p. 40).
The undated original of this map is in The Huntington Library (HM43973). On the map is depicted a single ranch house: “A. Casa del rancho” where the original estancia was built—Antonio del Valle converted the estancia to the casa in 1839.
The building is depicted as having a peaked roof, and the artist drew lines up and down the roof indicating it was covered with mission-style roof tiles.
——————————
Part Four tomorrow
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
Continuing with LeRoy and Jean Johnson’s research:
9:2 “The Brier Party also arrived at Rancho San Francisquito, as reported in the San Francisco Call on December 25, 1898 that Mrs. Brier said: ‘So we went on and on until the morning we arrived at San Francisquito ranch.’”
This article came out four years after Manly’s book popularized the San Francisquito mis-spelling. We know Reverend James Brier read the book (JA73 in Johnson & Johnson 1987:185-187), and his wife probably also read it. Again we see Manly’s influence. It is also conceivable the San Francisco Call reporter, who interviewed Mrs. Brier, had read Manly’s book and changed the rancho’s name to conform with Manly’s rendition since there are examples of the Briers using the correct spelling for the rancho—San Francisco.
Reverend Brier said in a letter of January 15, 1894, (prior to publication of Manly’s book): “[Manly] has spent several years out there in prospecting for gold. You remember that he & John Rodgers from Bennets team passed us & went on to San Francisco Ranch for relief” (JA72). On January 16, 1898 (two years after Rev. Brier read Manly’s book), Rev. Brier wrote: “Forty and six years have passed since we reached the San Francisco Ranch” (JA76 in Johnson & Johnson 1987:181-184). These two letters are in Brier’s hand; therefore, we conclude he knew the correct name of the rancho. In a letter to the annual Jayhawker meeting, Juliet Brier wrote in January 1905: “A little farther on and what a scene opened to our view—foreboding peace and plenty. This was San Francisco ranch and there we were kindly provided with food in abundance” (JA106). These letters give credence to our supposition the San Francisco Call reporter gratuitously changed the rancho’s name.
11:2 “Rancho San Francisquito…was quite well known, but was not…formally designated by the Spanish or Mexican governors.”
On page 15 Olesen points out that “no official land recording or deed was made for the Rancho San Francisquito.” His contention is true: Governments do not formally designate something that does not exist.
Again Olesen tries to sway the reader’s opinion with repetition, but he gives no proof this name was “quite well known.” However, we have provided proof that the correct name of the rancho “was quite well known.”
11:2 “…where did the name of Rancho San Francisquito originate? It is an obtuse, but actually straightforward naming of a rancho.”
Describing something as being “obtuse, but actually straightforward” is an oxymoron. However, Olesen asks a compelling question, and we think we found the answers as to where the San Francisquito name originated.
In 1841 and 1842 France sent Eugene Duflot de Mofras, an attaché, to Mexico and Alta California to explore the possibility of expanding France’s political and financial interests in the western part of the New World (Bancroft 1886:248-255). When he returned to France he published his observations.
In addition to his two-volume report, he included a map folio. The map is magnificent, covering the far western part of the Pacific Coast and Mexico (in Wheat, Vol. 2, 1958: facing p. 180). This map is probably the first one depicting the name “Sn Francisquito.” His seemingly masterful work was initially proclaimed the most complete and reliable description of the Pacific Coast section of the New World (see 30:1 & 40:3 & 4).
Once this 1844 map was before the public, other map makers began adding the San Francisquito name to their maps. As far as we can determine, Duflot de Mofras published the first map with the name San Francisquito, and his report may have been the first time this illegitimate name was applied in print to the Rancho San Francisco (Duflot de Mofras 2004:218, 251 & 256). If this is so, Duflot de Mofras originated the myth of the Rancho San Francisquito name.
As time passed, American historians and scholars began to scrutinize Duflot de Mofras’ work. In 1884, Hubert Howe Bancroft described Mofras’ as being “pretentious” and “not the most valuable” of early works describing Alta California (Bancroft 1884:40). Then in 1886, Bancroft characterized him as “a man of talent, but somewhat wild, bent on amusing himself, fonder of personal comforts than of study; not disposed to go far out of his way for historical information…. Had he been a harder student and more diligent investigator, he might have avoided many petty errors” (Bancroft 1886:253-255). Engelhardt said of Mofras, he “in good faith swallowed the extravagant stories [of the missions] and published them to the world which stood gasping in amazement at the immense wealth of the missionaries” (1927:197). Engelhardt tells us Mofras “was very credulous [easily convinced] when he had to depend upon the statements of others, who frequently took advantage of his simplicity” (1927:356).
An example of Engelhardt’s condemnation is Duflot de Mofras’ acceptance, at face value, of information he received from fellow countryman Charles Baric. According to Mofras, Baric claimed he had “been exploiting a mine of virgin gold ore which he discovered at Rancho San Francisquito” (Duflot de Mofras 2004:216). This claim is patently false; Francisco Lopez discovered the gold (see 19:3). By tracking Mofras’ journey, it appears he received this information in a letter from Baric after Duflot de Mofras returned to France.
In today’s computer parlance, we would characterize the Rancho San Francisquito name on Duflot de Mofras’ map as a “virus.” Once this illegitimate name appeared on a prominent map, other map makers were infected by this virus. For example, James Wyld, the geographer to the Queen of England included “Rancho de S. Francisquito” on his 1849 “Map of the Gold Regions of California” (in Wheat 1995: facing p. 70). Also in 1849, Carl Friedrich Alexander Hartmann, a German mineralogist, published a map with the same “virus.” Carl I. Wheat says the Hartmann map is “largely taken from the 1844 map of Duflot de Mofras” (Wheat Vol. 3, 1959:80 & 279-280, map facing p. 84).
In 1855, Lieutenant John G. Parke used the mythological name on his railroad survey map, which Olesen refers to as the Parke-Custer map.
It is likely members of the railroad survey team gleaned the incorrect name (the “virus”) from reading Duflot de Mofras’ book and reviewing one or all three of the above maps by Duflot de Mofras, Wyld, and Hartmann (additional details, see 30:1).
11:3 “The derivation of the name Rancho San Francisquito begins with the Portola Expedition.”
No member of the Portolá expedition mentions San Francisquito or San Francisco within the confines of today’s Santa Clarita Valley. Olesen then purports the expedition named “San Francisco Valley” (i.e., today’s Santa Clarita Valley) and concludes the expedition “named them one and all” (Olesen 2995:12).
The Portolá Expedition did name a canyon Cañada de San Francisco Solano (Costansó 1992:13, n13; 187; Crespí 2001:309, 667 & Fages 1937:7 & n12). However, this canyon is 75 crow-miles southeast of the Santa Clarita Valley, near El Toro, California.
11:3 “…the Portola Expedition which traveled north from San Diego in search of the bay of San Francisco.”
Portolá was not searching for San Francisco Bay; he was searching for Monterey Bay. When his expedition reached Monterey Bay, they did not recognize their goal, and they continued north to inadvertently discover San Francisco Bay. Some in the expedition felt God blinded their recognition of Monterey Bay so they would continue north and discover one of the greatest bays on Earth.
The Discovery of San Francisco Bay: The Portolá Expedition of 1769-1770, the diary of Miguel Costansó, an engineer with the Portolá Expedition, gives a detailed day-by-day account of the expedition’s attempt to find Monterey Bay. The expedition left present-day San Diego in July 1769, and “set out for Monterey Bay” (Browning, ed. in Costansó 1992:xix).
Additional information concerning the expedition is found in Zoeth S. Eldredge’s book The March of Portolá and the Discovery of the Bay of San Francisco. “On the 14th of July [1769], Portolá began his march to Monterey” (1909:29). He then gives details of the Portolá Expedition’s inadvertent discovery of San Francisco Bay.
12:1 & 2 “Water sources were scant…[when the Portolá Expedition arrived] in the San Francisco Valley in August 1769…. It is unlikely that water was plentiful in the Santa Clara River at that time.”
Diarists on the Portolá Expedition documented an abundance of water in what is now called Santa Clarita Valley.
Friar Crespí’s journal (A Description of Distant Roads: Original Journal of the First Expedition into California, 1769-1770) tells us that on August 8, 1769, the expedition camped at a spot where “there are two large streams of running water.… A grand spot—well provided with very good soil and streams for irrigating it, and with five large villages of heathens and a great deal of timber—for a very large plenteous mission” (Crespí 2001:365).
In Miguel Costansó’s diary, The Discovery of San Francisco Bay: The Portolá Expedition of 1769-1770, he said: On August 8, 1769, the expedition camped along “a stream, containing much water, that flowed in a moderately wide canyon” (Costansó 1992:27 and n15). He also records that they were in the “Cañada de Santa Clara”—today’s Santa Clarita Valley. On the 10th, 11th, and 12th he says they had “a considerable amount of water,” and that all of it was in Cañada de Santa Clara.
Lieutenant Pedro Fages was second in command of the Portolá Expedition. In 1775 he wrote a report of his travails with the expedition. He tells us: “There is a copious supply of water in a stream of moderate width running amid numerous willows and poplars” (Fages 1937:17). The next day he describes a stream that “has a moderate flow during the night and early morning, soon dried up from the heat of the sun—a peculiarity observed of some other streams from this point on. The soil of this long canyon or river bed is all spongy and slippery, and the animals sink in it or slip at every step. It was called Cañada de Santa Clara.”
12:1 “…they [the Portolá Expedition] named them [the valleys, streams, rivers], one and all…. They probably named the San Francisco Valley also (Constanso: 1769: 29).”
Earlier (p. 11) Olesen said the name Rancho San Francisquito began with Portolá Expedition and here we are told the expedition probably named “San Francisco Valley also.” Olesen cites page 29 of Costansó’s diary as his authority. There is nothing on that or any other page of his diary that supports Olesen’s claim.
12:2 “They [the Portolá Expedition] likely named it [an arroyo with a small stream of water] San Francisquito.”
We know from the expedition’s diaries that neither the name San Francisco nor San Francisquito is mentioned in connection with today’s Santa Clarita Valley.
13:3 “The name of Rancho San Francisquito appears in San Fernando Rey, by Zephyrin Engelhardt where it is listed as one of four ranchos created by the Mission San Fernando.”
This pronouncement implies Engelhardt acknowledged the existence of Rancho San Francisquito, but such is not the case. Engelhardt was quoting Duflot de Mofras (in Engelhardt 1973:63). Pauley & Pauley, in San Fernando Rey de España, also imply Engelhardt sanctioned the Rancho San Francisquito name: “The outpost became San Francisquito, one of Mission San Fernando’s four ranch sites” (2005:199). Throughout Engelhardt’s book, San Fernando Rey: The Mission of the Valley, he uses the name San Francisquito only when he is quoting someone else. However, when he speaks in his own voice, he consistently uses the correct name for the rancho: Rancho San Francisco (see 16.2).
Appendix D in Engelhardt’s book mentions San Francisquito. This appendix records hearsay information concerning the location where Francisco López discovered gold. Engelhardt’s informant was Reverend Eugene Sugranes who gleaned his information from Catalina López, Francisco López’s niece. Engelhardt dutifully recorded what Sugranes heard, which was: “On March 9, 1842,… Francisco López, then in charge of San Francisquito Rancho” discovered placer gold while digging wild onions (Sugranes in Engelhardt 1973:143, see also 19.3). This hearsay information may be what Olesen is referring to when he says “definitive answers are hidden away in obtuse comments” (2005:2).
Absent from Olesen’s booklet are the times Engelhardt correctly uses the name Rancho San Francisco (pp. 40, 47, 52, 59, and 63, see 16:2).
14:1 “The neophytes still occupying Rancho San Francisquito in 1850 were accustomed to the name and continued to refer to the location as Rancho San Francisquito long after secularization of Mission San Fernando.”
Olesen gives no evidence the ex-neophytes who purportedly “occupied” the rancho ever uttered the words Rancho San Francisquito. There is evidence, however, the ex-neophytes referred to Rancho San Francisco:
The only complaint made by the Indian community here [at Mission San Fernando] was that the place of San Francisco had been taken from them and given to Don Antonio del Valle…. They say they are afraid of being very hungry from now on if their beloved San Francisco is not returned to them (Hartnell 2004:45-46).
14:2 “The other and much more confusing use of the name of Rancho San Francisquito is that it is mistakenly
applied to the Rancho Azuza…[that] was given to Henry Dalton in 1845.”
Olesen argues that Henry Dalton’s Rancho San Francisquito in the Los Angeles Basin is a “technically incorrect” name. He says it should be “Rancho San Francisco de Azuza [sic]”.
The rancho was not given to Dalton in 1845. Sheldon G. Jackson carefully documents, in his definitive book A British Ranchero in Old California: The Life and Times of Henry Dalton and Rancho Azusa, how Dalton purchased Azusa Rancho from Luís Arenas on December 24, 1844 (Jackson 1987:70-71). After Dalton purchased Rancho Azusa, he convinced Pio Pico, the Mexican governor of Alta California at that time, to grant him another tract of land immediately adjacent to Rancho Azusa. This land had previously been linked with the Mission San Gabriel, but after secularization, the land reverted to Mexican public domain. Dalton received the grant, and he named it Rancho San Francisquito (Jackson 1987:75-77). Dalton’s Rancho Azusa is about five miles northeast of his Rancho San Francisquito (Beck & Hasse 1974:37, Mexican Land Grants; Durrenburger 1969:36).
14:2 “…several highly reliable reference books (Cowan) and even some court proceedings record this land grant as “Rancho San Francisquito de Azuza.”
Cowan does not list the Rancho San Francisquito (owned by Henry Dalton) as “Rancho San Francisquito de Azuza [sic]”; he lists it as “San Francisquito” (1977:77, rancho 448).
15:1 “…no official land recording or deed was made for the Rancho San Francisquito located in what is now the Santa Clara (Santa Clarita) River Valley.”
There was no official documentation of a Rancho San Francisquito in the Santa Clarita Valley because no rancho by that name existed there.
16:2 “From 1837 on through 1868 there was literal chaos regarding ownership of what was formerly known as Rancho San Francisquito under the mission system.”
There is clear evidence the San Fernando Mission padres referred to the land in question as Rancho de San Francisco Javier or Rancho San Francisco when they administered it. Engelhardt, the noted Catholic historian, uses the correct name for the rancho, and he quotes from letters and a report that clearly contradict Olesen’s contention that the rancho “was formerly known as Rancho San Francisquito under the mission system.” Here are some examples from Engelhardt’s Mission San Fernando:
Olesen mis-represents Engelhardt’s book as a source for justifying the Rancho San Francisquito name. Clearly, Engelhardt knew—and he told his readers—the name of the rancho was San Francisco.
At the end of the Mexican War, the U.S. government sent William Carey Jones as a “confidential agent of the government to proceed to Mexico and California for the purpose of procuring information as to the condition of land titles in California” (in Jones 1850:2). Jones made a thorough search of all Spanish and Mexican documents pertaining to land grants in California. He lists rancho “San Francisco” as being granted to Antonio del Valle (Jones 1850:112). Jones interviewed Friar Ybarra (Ibarra) at Mission San Fernando and learned the mission’s holdings once stretched eastward from Camulos and San Francisco Xavier (Jones 1850:121-122).
After carefully looking at all the records in the Mexican Alta California Archives (housed at Monterey, California) he concludes the “grants in California, I am bound to say, are mostly perfect titles; that is, the holders possess their property by titles that, under the law which created them, are equivalent to patents from our government” (Jones 1850:34, italics his). In his report, he gives no indication there was “chaos” associated with the Rancho San Francisco land grant.
17:3 “Antonio del Valle was placed in charge of the Mission San Fernando…in 1834 by Governor Pico.”
Pio Pico was not the governor in 1834; José Figueroa was governor (Barrows 1901:29; Melendy & Gilbert 1965:17-18), and Pico did not appoint Antonio del Valle mayordomo of the mission and its vast holdings, which included Rancho San Francisco. According to Engelhardt, “Lieutenant Antonio de[l] Valle, in October, 1834, was commissioned to ‘secularize’ the establishment” (1973:50), and Governor José Figueroa appointed Antonio to this position.
18:1 “…a single building was erected in 1804 at Chaguayabit of about 105 X 17 feet according to Engelhardt…. [It was at] the same location as the Rancho San Francisquito building that Manly-Rogers visited in 1850.”
Olesen again cites Engelhardt as his authority. Here is what Engelhardt said: “At the Rancho de San Francisco Javier or Chaguayabit, a building was erected 38 by 6 varas (about 105 by 17 feet) in size” (1973:16). Engelhardt puts the building at Rancho San Francisco and does not mention a Rancho San Francisquito.
18:1 “Apparently Camulos was not considered to be a part of Rancho San Francisquito but the del Valle family did eventually include Camulos as a part of Rancho San Francisco.”
Camulos was not part of Rancho San Francisquito because the latter did not exist. However, Camulos had been part of Rancho San Francisco, granted to Antonio del Valle in 1839, until 1865 when Ygnacio made legal and complicated arrangements to separate Camulos from the remainder of Rancho San Francisco (Newhall 1958:46-47). Camulos, the western portion of the rancho, was the part Ygnacio chose as his share of his inheritance. Several early maps (diseños) of the rancho make this clear.
18:2 & 19:1 “…neophytes and a mayordomo who had been operating the Rancho San
Francisquito for the mission were living in the Rancho San Francisquito building at the time of the 1839 land grant. This is evident by the fact that Manly-Rogers saw a single
rancho building and met the neophytes still living there in
1850.”
We’ve made clear the mission called these lands Rancho de San Francisco Xavier (or Javier). There is no evidence ex-neophytes were in possession of the building, but there are numerous primary sources documenting that when the Death Valley ’49ers arrived in 1850, a “Spaniard” (actually a Mexican) lived in the estancia erected in 1804 that Antonio del Valle converted to a casa in 1839.
19:2 “Probably Antonio del Valle applied for the land grant under the name of San Francisco because the early explorers named the entire valley San Francisco and they wished to obtain the entire valley rather than just the portion of the valley that had been identified as Rancho San Francisquito.”
There are no data indicating early explorers named the valley San Francisco. Antonio del Valle wished to obtain as much land in the Santa Clara Valley as was permitted in the land grant system. There was no “smaller portion of the valley” identified as Olesen’s mythical Rancho San Francisquito. Why did Antonio apply for the Rancho San Francisco by that name? That was the name of the rancho the Mission San Fernando padres created in the early 1800s that encompassed the Santa Clara Valley (see 16:2).
19:3 “Gold was discovered in San Francisquito Canyon on March 9, 1842 by Francisco Lopez (Engelhardt: 1927: 143).”
Engelhardt says nothing about gold in “San Francisquito Canyon.” His Appendix D (pages 143 & 144) conveys information he gleaned from Reverend Eugene Sugranes (see also Bunje & Kean 1983:17). Here is what Engelhardt recorded in his appendix concerning the gold discovery: “The discovery [of gold]…according to the Rev. Eugene Sugranes, C.M.F., who had the facts from the niece of the discoverer, Catalina López [that her uncle discovered the gold when he was]…in charge of San Francisquito Rancho” (Sugranes in Engelhardt 1973:143). Engelhardt, the consummate scholar, recorded what was relayed to him from a fellow priest; he was apparently loath to correct Sugranes. Engelhardt, when speaking in his own voice, does not waver from the fact that Rancho San Francisco is the rancho’s correct name (see 16:2).
The gold discovery site is now part of the Placerita Canyon Nature Center, Los Angeles County Park, which is five miles east of Newhall and ten crow-miles southeast of San Francisquito Canyon.
This gold discovery site is well documented: Hubert Bancroft tells us that in 1842 “gold was found in placeres on the San Francisco rancho, formerly belonging to San Fernando mission, but at the time the property of the [del] Valle family” (Bancroft 1886:297). Charles J. Prudhomme, in his well researched article documenting the discovery, tells us Francisco López discovered the gold in “Placerito” Canyon (1922:18-25). The gold nuggets were found in an ancient riverbed, and because of this discovery, the canyon was given the name Placerita Canyon.
Some noted California historians erroneously tell us Francisco Lopez’s 1842 gold discovery was at a place called San Francisquito. Here are three examples:
(1) Theodore H. Hittell relates that “a ranchero, named Francisco Lopez, who was living on Piru creek…[discovered the gold at] the exact location of which was a place called San Francisquito [Canyon?]” (1897:312-313). Lopez did not live on Piru Creek at the time (although he later had mining rights in the canyon).
(2) In 1915 Zoeth Skinner Eldredge tells us “in 1842 two herdsmen, while watering their horses in San Francisquito Creek, not far from San Fernando Mission, pulled up some wild onions…and in the earth about their roots found some particles of gold” (1915:170). This, too, is incorrect.
(3) In the History and Reminiscences: Los Angeles City and County California compiled by William A. Spalding, a reminiscence by Rev. Eugene Sugranes is quoted: “The famous San Francisquito placer…was discovered on the ninth day of March, in the year of Our Lord, 1842…. Don Francisco Lopez was the Mayordomo of the San Francisquito Ranch…. [And the discovery was] not far from the ranch house, [where] Don Francisco had a bed of tender onions, radishes, lettuce and other green vegetables” (Sugranes, again, in Spalding 1931:105).
J.N. Bowman notes in his article “The First Authentic Placer Mine in California” that Francisco López discovered the gold “on Rancho San Francisco… granted by Alvarado to Antonio del Valle on January 22, 1839” (1949:227). He places the discovery site in Placerita Canyon, not San Francisquito Canyon, and gives the discovery date as March 9, 1842 (1949:229).
20:1 “He [Victor] was Antonio’s son by his first marriage.”
Ygnacio Ramon de Jesus Eleodoro, born July 1, 1808, was Antonio’s only son by his first marriage. Antonio’s first wife, Maria Josefa de la Pena died during Ygnacio’s birth, and his only full-sibling was Maria Conne, a sister two years older (Smith 1977:5). Victor was the son of Antonio’s third wife, Jacoba Feliz del Valle (Northrop 2004:114).
20:1 “In 1853 José Antonio del Valle died, the son of Antonio and Jacoba Feliz Lopez del Valle.”
Jacoba Feliz López del Valle is an acceptable presentation of Jacoba’s name as long as one understands that it was common practice for Spanish children to be given both their father’s and their mother’s surnames. This double surname was an Arabic influence stemming from their conquest of Spain and Portugal, a practice later carried to Mexico. Jacoba’s father was Josef Tomas Feliz who married Maria de Jesus López in 1815. Their forth child, Maria Jacoba, was baptized July, 25, 1820 (Northrop 1987:145 & 2004:114). Thus Jacoba’s maiden name could be Jacoba Feliz López, Jacoba Feliz y [and] López, or just Jacoba Feliz (dropping her mother’s maiden surname), and when she married Antonio del Valle, she could be referred to as Jacoba Feliz López del Valle, Jacoba Feliz del Valle, or just Jacoba del Valle.
20:3 “Contrary to Pedro Lopez’s court testimony, Antonio del Valle did not make his home at Rancho San Francisco in 1839 nor did any of the heirs to Rancho San Francisco move onto the property immediately.”
Olesen gives no data and cites no reference to disprove Pedro López’s testimony. Pedro’s testimony, and the reporting of serious researchers like Smith (1977:24 & 94), make clear the del Valles did make their home at the rancho by late 1839. Pedro López’s testimony was sworn before “Thompson Burrell, Commissioner…to ascertain and settle the Private Land Claims…for the Land named San Francisco” (Board of Commissioners, April 12, 1854). Here is a translated excerpt from Pedro’s oral testimony:
Question: When did Don Antonio Valle receive his grant for San Francisco and when and how did he occupy it.
Answer: I think Don Antonio del Valle received his grant in the year 1839. I am not certain, he occupied the land as soon as he received the grant and immediately stocked the Rancho with cattle and horses, which I assisted in bringing from the Rancho of San Pedro…and this same year Don Antonio del Valle went with all of his family to reside there, and there was a house there in which they lived, and the same year he planted wheat…. Don Antonio continued living on the Rancho, until he died, his family consisted of his Wife, three Sons, and a daughter, all of whom lived on the Rancho.
Note: The transcriber used a comma after “certain” where today we would use a period. This use of commas in place of periods is found throughout the transcript. Olesen, however, chose to leave out the comma after “certain,” which changed the meaning of the sentence to reflect his contention the del Valles did not move onto the rancho.
20:3 & 21:1 “’Their [the ex-neophytes’] anger was so violent that del Valle feared to trust himself and family on the ranch.’ (Engelhardt: 1927:59).”
Engelhardt was paraphrasing William Hartnell. Engelhardt predicated this comment on Hartnell’s observations, made on June 23, 1839, after the ex-neophytes learned their ancestral land, the Rancho San Francisco, had been granted to Antonio del Valle.
Here is what Hartnell recorded in his diary:
The only complaint made by the Indian community here [at Mission San Fernando] was that the place of San Francisco had been taken from them and given to Don Antonio del Valle…. They say they are afraid of being very hungry from now on if their beloved San Francisco is not returned to them…. I am convinced that if they are not heeded in this their most just request, they will be extremely disgusted and the very least they will do, many of them, will be to flee from the mission…. The same Sr. [Antonio del] Valle is afraid to go with this [his?] family to live at San Francisco for he himself charged me to request of the Governor permission for him to come with his family to this mission [San Fernando]…until he can repair and secure his house in [Rancho] San Francisco” (Hartnell 2004:45-46).
—————————
Part Three tomorrow
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
Editor’s Note: The next several days will feature the thoughts of LeRoy and Jean Johnson, Death Valley historians and authors. This text is quite extensive, well researched, and fascinating reading for those of us who hunger for the details of bygone eras. Today’s post is Part One:
Burning Buffalo Chips
A Discussion
of
B. G. Olesen’s
Rancho San Francisquito
and the Death Valley ’49ers
by
LeRoy and Jean Johnson
BUFFALO CHIPS
We use “Buffalo Chips” in our title as a metaphor for the “San Francisquito” myth. Part of the mystique of Death Valley and its literature is the shroud of myths and tall tales—both old and newly created—that surround the history of Death Valley. Woven into this colorful shroud is the mythical name of the rancho where the Death Valley ’49ers found civilization and succor in winter of 1849–1850. Recently, “fresh buffalo chips” were woven into this colorful shroud of myths. In the following pages we have unraveled several of these “buffalo chips” and burned them to ashes.
© LeRoy & Jean Johnson
4915 Westridge Road
Bishop, CA 93514
2008
Introduction
The Rancho San Francisco, in today’s Santa Clarita Valley, played a prominent role in the history of Southern California and particularly in the history of the Death Valley ’49ers. It witnessed the passing pages of California history: centuries-old Indian occupation, Spanish entrada, mission expansion, Mexican rule, United States–Mexican War, and finally the development of statehood. Its lands saw the first California gold rush and early oil development. In short, the Rancho was a microcosm of California’s history.
In B.G. Olesen’s booklet Rancho San Francisquito and the Death Valley ’49ers, he revives the myth that the rancho’s name was San Francisquito. He follows the lead of Death Valley researchers from the 1930s through the 1970s, who used William Lewis Manly’s classic book Death Valley in ’49 as their main reference. Manly referred to the rancho as San Francisquito. However, in the 1960s and 1970s, more work was done on the Death Valley ’49ers, and additional material and deeper research made clear that the Rancho San Francisquito name was not correct.
Years ago, the Death Valley ’49ers, Inc. rejected the San Francisquito name in their publications. L. Burr Belden, a past president of the ’49ers and a scholarly historian, thought he reduced to ashes the San Francisquito myth in his revised, 1967 edition of Goodbye Death Valley!: The Tragic 1849 Jayhawker Trek. But since 2005, a small group of ’49ers have made an about-face and now embrace the myth. They have done so based on Mr. Olesen’s work.
The main thesis of Olesen’s booklet spins around his hypothesis that there were two ranchos in today’s Santa Clarita Valley: Rancho San Francisquito and Rancho San Francisco. He contends these two ranchos were superimposed, with the former being the smaller. He also contends that when Manly and Rogers and other Death Valley ’49ers arrived at the rancho in early 1850 the ex-neophytes (ex-Mission Indians) “continued to operate Rancho San Francisquito just as they had [always] done.”
Persons who put their work into print must expect it to be reviewed by people knowledgeable in that field; therefore, our comments will not be a surprise. Our analysis of Mr. Olesen’s work provides the necessary information and references to clarify the rancho’s correct name and to validate its indivisible occupation of today’s Santa Clarita Valley through the 1860s. It is incumbent upon us, as serious researchers, to set the record straight by presenting what is in the literature—the archives, official records and reports, and original letters and diaries—and to make clear where Mr. Olesen went astray through incomplete research and blind allegiance to the spellings in William Lewis Manly’s book.
Manly correctly used the name for San Francisquito Canyon, which empties into the rancho lands, as the canyon he and John Rogers followed to return to Death Valley on their rescue mission of the people they left there. It was a forgivable mistake for Manly to use the same name for the rancho as the name of the canyon, a place-name that was connected to that life-saving episode. However, it is not forgivable today to ignore the vast and readily available data from the early 1800s, through the Death Valley ’49ers, and in the official records that make clear the correct name, location, and history of this important rancho.
We were astounded Olesen did not consult, or at least did not cite, any of the legal documents dealing with the rancho housed in the California State Archives. These records make clear the rancho had already been named Rancho San Francisco by 1839, but Olesen obliquely refers to these important documents as “legal technicalities.” The rancho’s name was originally Estancia de San Francisco Xavier, bestowed by the Mission San Fernando padres in the early 1800s.
Olesen’s bibliography is peppered with scholarly treatises, but he apparently did not read (or at least carefully read) these books. For example, he uses information from Father Zephyrin Engelhardt’s book San Fernando Rey: The Mission of the Valley claiming Engelhardt listed Rancho San Francisquito as one of the four ranchos created by the padres at Mission San Fernando. As you will see later (page 16), this claim is patently false.
To aid the reader, we use quotes from Olesen’s booklet followed by our comments and references so you can compare both sides of various points. Olesen’s quotes are preceded by his page numbers, and we added paragraph numbers, as well. (In his quotes, we correct his use of the incorrect single-quote mark to the appropriate apostrophe in ‘49ers.)
Some of the evidence we cite are letters in the Jayhawker Collection, Huntington Library, San Marino, California. Each item in the collection (consisting mostly of letters) is given a “JA” number. Not all the “JA” citations are listed in our Literature Cited because the “JA” numbers in the text provide enough information to find the item in the Jayhawker Collection.
For historical accuracy, we spell Ygnacio del Valle’s first name with a “Y.” This is the way he signed letters and documents, and he used a stylized “Y” as his brand. We left the “I” (Ignacio) spelling in quoted material. We kept the colorful spelling in the original Jayhawker letters, not in any way to disparage the authors but to add insight to their mode of speaking.
We use the Spanish word estancia to identify the adobe building the padres built in 1804. Estancia has a broad definition: it can mean a farm or cattle ranch, but it can also mean a residence or dwelling; we use it to designate the adobe “dwelling” prior to 1839. For clarity, after Antonio del Valle converted the estancia to his residence into which he, his wife, and children moved during late 1839, we call the building a casa. Although the San Fernando Mission padres initially named their farm and cattle ranch Estancia de San Francisco Xavier, they commonly referred to this outpost as Rancho San Francisco. Unless otherwise indicated, italics in our comments and the quotes we use are ours.
Burning Buffalo Chips
2:1 “The place where Manly-Rogers found the civilization…has been referred to by at least four names throughout written history. First it was known as San Francisco Valley, second as Rancho San Francisquito, third as Rancho San Francisco, and fourth as the Santa Clara Valley.”
Other than the Indians’ name for the valley, the valley was first named “Cañada de Santa Clara” in 1767 by Friar Crespí (2001:365); second, it was called Estancia de San Francisco Xavier in the early 1800s. By the mid-1800s, a canyon that drained into the Santa Clara Valley was named San Francisquito Canyon. Pedro López, in his testimony before the Board of Commissioners mentioned “the River San Francisco, which is called, Santa Clara” (1854:2), and Ruth Newhall tells us “the domain of the San Fernando mission extended over the hill into the Santa Clara Valley, which the mission fathers named the Valley of San Francisco” (1992:45).
Friar Zephyrin Engelhardt, O.F.M., quotes a passage from Friar Crespí’s journal (August 9, 1769) that documents the naming of the valley: “Keeping the course to the north [from today’s Mission San Fernando], we climbed up a ridge leading to a high pass [San Fernando Pass]. The ascent to it and descent from it was hard work; on account of the steepness we had to go down on foot…. I gave the name of Santa Clara to this delightful cañada” (Crespí in Engelhardt 1930:57-58). This place name survived until the mid-1940s when it morphed into Santa Clarita Valley to differentiate it from Santa Clara Valley near San José (Newhall 1992:155, note). The name Santa Clara River, which flows down Santa Clarita Valley, is testimony to Crespí’s passing.
2:1 “For many years Rancho San Francisquito was the accepted name of the location that Manly and the other ’49ers wrote about.”
Olesen offers no proof this name was accepted many years. In fact, about the only evidence he presents is found in William Lewis Manly’s book Death Valley in ’49 (and the folks who have relied predominantly on Manly as their source material), and a name on a single U.S. railroad survey map that was prepared by the War Department.
There is abundant data that provides proof the rancho was called San Francisco from the early 1800s. These data start with hand written mission letters in the 1820s through official Mexican and American documents into the 1870s. In other words, Rancho San Francisco was the accepted and well documented name of the location Manly and the other Death Valley ’49ers wrote about. (We provide supporting data in the below comments.)
We are not arguing Rancho San Francisquito was not used sporadically. We found it in some newspaper articles, a few Jayhawker letters, and on a very few maps. An early example is in The Free Press, Ventura, California (May 2, 1890). The newspaper asked Frank Thompson to investigate “who was the Spaniard referred to [by the Death Valley ’49ers] and where was the ranch located?” We assume the newspaper editor had read Manly’s serialized account that appeared in The Santa Clara Valley between 1887 and 1890.
Thompson reported that “without doubt the location [of the ranch house] was a few miles this side [west] of Newhall at the upper ranch house. On the side of the hill the remains of the old adobe may still be seen. The ‘Jayhawkers’ mistook the name of the ranch for the name of the Spaniard then living there [in 1850], and called him Señor Francisco. The name of the ranch is San Francisquito, and at that time contained about eleven leagues of land. The Spaniard who cared for the party was José Salazar. His wife had been the widow of Antonio Del Valle.”
Historians today have more data than that available to Thompson, and we have been able to prove him wrong on almost all counts.
It appears Thompson’s “upper ranch house” is in contrast to Camulos located farther down the river. Thus, he was referring to the Antonio del Valle casa (and rancho headquarters) that was destroyed by an earthquake in 1857 (Pauley & Pauley 2005:202). These remains are “without a doubt” rubble of the adobe building the Death Valley ’49ers mention in their memoirs. The 1850 Los Angeles County census shows that Antonio del Valle’s widow, Jacoba, and her second husband José Salazar were living in the city of Los Angeles in 1850. The county census also shows Jacoba’s uncle, Francisco López and his wife Maria A (Antonia) resided at dwelling-house 283 (Rancho San Francisco) in 1850 (Newmark & Newmark 1929:29 & 69). Jacoba and José Salazar (along with Antonio del Valle’s children) owned the rancho, but Francisco and Antonia López resided in the rancho’s casa in 1850. Mr. Thompson was also incorrect about the rancho’s correct name. Reporters in the 1800s rivaled some reporters of today in their ability to garble a story.
2:1 “…what was the name of the site in 1850 when the ’49ers found civilization that saved their lives? That question has been answered with two place names, one being Rancho San Francisquito as the ’49ers wrote and the other Rancho San Francisco in a recent book.”
There are many cases where the ’49ers used the correct Rancho San Francisco name. John Colton was the self-appointed and very valuable secretary of the Jayhawker reunions. He used both appellations. On January 9, 1890, before he read Manly’s book, he wrote (original spelling): “I cordialy invite you to my house to the annual reunion of ‘The Jayhawkers of ’49’ on the 4th day of Feby next, that being the day 40 years ago, when our lost party came out of the Desert at San Francisco Ranche” (JA299). He sent this invitation to all the Death Valley ’49ers he knew. Other Jayhawkers also used the correct name of the rancho.
The implication that Rancho San Francisco was used only “in a recent book” is specious. For instance, John Southworth, Olesen’s mentor and hiking companion, has Manly and Rogers ending their trek at Rancho San Francisco in his book Death Valley in 1849 (1978:73 and subsequent editions).
We conclude most uses of the illegitimate name—Rancho San Francisquito—resulted from others reading Manly’s 1894 book or The Free Press article. By our count of original letters in the Jayhawker Collection, and in newspaper articles, the ’49ers used the name Rancho San Francisco more often than they used San Francisquito, and most of this latter usage was after Manly’s book was printed.
2:1: “The definitive answers [to the correct name of the rancho] are hidden away in obtuse comments recorded in unrelated and rarely examined documents.… Researchers have become ensnared by erroneous records and ended up befuddled by apparently valid statements.”
The “definitive answers” to the rancho’s name are readily found in federal, state, and county legal documents as well as contemporary letters and diaries. The answers are also found in the works of paramount California historians. One does not need to resort to “obtuse comments” hidden away “in unrelated and rarely examined documents.”
The legal records concerning the granting of Rancho San Francisco to Antonio del Valle are in the California State Archives where are found microfilms of the Spanish and the English translations of the original 1839 documents dealing with the granting of Rancho San Francisco (originals of these documents are in the National Archives). As shown below, these legal documents clearly and unequivocally document the rancho’s name as San Francisco.
Here are two excerpts from some of these documents that record the transfer of the rancho from the Mexican government to Antonio del Valle:
(1) “Juan B. Alvarado, Governor ad interium of the Californias. Whereas, the citizen Antonio del Valle, has petitioned for his personal benefit, and that of his family, the land known by the name of San Francisco…[that is] in the name of the Mexican Nation, I have determined to grant him the said lands…. Given in Santa Barbara, on the 22d day of January 1839” (p. 60).
(2) “Proceedings: In relation to the place named ‘San Francisco,’ petitioned for, by Antonio del Valle…. I [del Valle] solicited the Departmental Government for the place called San Francisco, which was granted to me…. Santa Barbara, April 5th 1839” (pp. 57-58).
Scholars agree these documents show the rancho was legally conveyed to Antonio del Valle and the rancho’s name was San Francisco, not San Francisquito. One needs not resort to “obtuse comments recorded in unrelated and rarely examined documents.”
The following legal document also confirms Rancho San Francisco is the rancho’s correct and legal name. The Patent issued by the United States is dated February 12, 1875, and reads in part:
[The claim of ownership was first] founded on a Mexican Grant to Antonio del Valle, made the 22nd day of January, A.D. 1839, by Juan B. Alvarado, then Governor ad interim of the Department of the Californias…. In this case in hearing the proofs and allegations, it is judged by the Commission that the claim of said petitioner is valid…. [and] the lands of which confirmation is hereby made, is that known by the name San Francisco” (Patent 1875).
Appended to the Patent is a document signed by James T. Stratton, U.S. Surveyor General for California that says: “a survey having been made of Rancho San Francisco…[is] finally confirmed.” He then references the 1874 G.H. Thompson, U.S. Deputy Surveyor’s map that was used to delineate the Rancho San Francisco. These documents, which include the original 1839 grant documents, are not “legal technicalities” that can be ignored, nor are they “erroneous records” as Olesen contends.
On May 19, 1851, the Los Angeles Court of Sessions passed a decree ordering “the following are declared to be public highways…[the existing road] from San Fernando [Mission] to the Rancho of San Francisco” (in Guinn 1906:255).
In Hubert Howe Bancroft’s list of “Ranchos of the Los Angeles district 1831-40” he records this: “San Francisco, granted in 1839 to Antonio del Valle, much against the wishes of the [Mission] S[an] Fernando Ind[ians]” (1885:633, n3). Bancroft’s California volumes are listed in Olesen’s bibliography, but he apparently ignored them because Bancroft consistently calls the rancho San Francisco.
3:1 “After intensely studying both Manly’s book and serial story…”
Olesen used a facsimile copy of Manly’s book Death Valley in ’49 and coyly refers to Manly’s serialized account, but he fails to give a hint where to find this extremely rare account. Original copies are in The Bancroft Library, and the only republication is in our book Escape from Death Valley (Johnson & Johnson, eds. 1987).
3:1 “Where there is a conflict between his [Manly’s] accounts and other evidence, the author [Olesen] accepts Manly’s words as accurate.”
Olesen’s edict sets a dangerous course:
In a July 1894 letter to John Colton referring to his book, Manly said he is “not an infaliable man & may make some mistakes” (JA625). Many of the “mistakes” in his book are type setting errors over which Manly had little or no control. For example, in Manly’s original edition of Death Valley in ’49 there is this typesetting error: “Coll’s” rifle that is obviously a Colt’s rifle (1894:199).
Manly relates that he saw William H. Ashley’s name and year on a rock along the shore of the Green River when Manly and Rogers traversed its upper reaches in 1849: “Ashley, 1824” (Manly 1894:80). Ashley and his men floated down the Green River in 1825 (Morgan, ed. 1964:104 & Carter 1969:28-29). The date Manly published in his book should not be accepted as accurate because it is not; this is another type-setting error (see also Manly 2001:48 & 340 n3).
On the first page of Manly’s book he gives his birth date as April 6, 1820, and on the last page he has his date of birth as April 20, 1820. The former date is correct. We doubt Manly had an opportunity to read the galley proofs of his book—assuredly he would have caught the different birth dates.
Manly consistently spells the Arcan family name “Arcane,” yet the Arcan tombstones, census records, marriage and birth records use Arcan; again, a mistake made by Manly or his editor. Manly also makes the mistake of calling the Rancho San Francisco, Rancho San Francisquito. San Francisquito is the canyon he and Rogers used when they returned to Death Valley to rescue the Bennett and Arcan families. Manly (or his editor) also refers to the casa as having a flat roof, but there is written and pictorial evidence to the contrary. See sections 6:1 and 23:2 about descriptions and illustrations of the red-roofed casa.
3:2 “Rancho San Francisquito and Rancho San Francisco were made up of essentially the same land area, but they existed in different time frames and operated from different rancho headquarters building locations.”
Olesen superimposes his mythical Rancho San Francisquito over the same territory occupied, mapped, and legally described as Rancho San Francisco and known by that name since at least 1804. However, when the rancho was sold, the name eventually changed. “On January 15, 1875, Henry Mayo Newhall acquired for $90,000 the entire Rancho San Francisco” (Newhall 1992:60; also see Rolle 1991:70). Then in 1883 The Newhall Land and Farming Company was incorporated (Newhall 1958:59) and the corporate name replaced Rancho San Francisco (Recorded July 5, 1883, Los Angeles Co. Recorder’s records: Deeds, Book 106, Page 274).
4:1 “…the most recent edition [of Manly’s book] being significantly ‘corrected’, and [is] thus not reliable.”
We assume he is referring to the 2001 Heyday Press edition of Manly’s book that we edited and to which we added 400 endnotes. We silently corrected the type-setting errors. For example, an n would become a u and vice versa, but we added endnotes alerting the reader to other type-setting mistakes.
Charles Lummis characterized the original edition of Death Valley in ’49 as being “Printed by ‘blacksmiths’ who have disfigured its every page with misspellings and letters upside down” (Lummis 1897:116). Lummis ended his review thusly: “Pity it is that a narrative of so much worth historically should have fallen to the tough mercies of (let us hope) the most incompetent printers in California. It deserved judicious editing and issue by a standard [publishing] house” (1897:116). We judiciously edited the typesetting mistakes in Death Valley in ’49 and Heyday Press—“a standard house”—published it. Olesen’s claim that this made the book “not reliable” is pure twaddle.
4:2 “During the early portion of their [the ’49ers] trip Mr. Fish would play his fiddle.”
Manly tells us Mr. Isham, not Mr. Fish, “was a cheerful, pleasant man, and during the forepart of the journey used his fiddle at the evening camps to increase the merriment of his jolly companions” (1894:224). Isham and Fish traveled together as far as the Slate Range west of Panamint Valley. Olesen claims to accept Manly “as accurate,” yet here he does not accept Manly, just as he does not accept Manly’s “Arcane” spelling for the Arcan family (Olesen p. 4).
5:1 “…[Manly and Rogers] left Great Salt Lake City.”
Olesen, after “intensely studying” Manly’s book (see 3:1), overlooked the fact that Manly and Rogers did not go to Salt Lake City. Over one hundred miles before reaching that city they decided to float down the Green River to California (Manly 1894:73-96). Part way down the river they aborted this foolish venture, traveled overland, and joined a wagon train at Hobble Creek about 60 miles south of Salt Lake City.
5:2 “…other Death Valley ’49ers used the same name for the rancho [San Francisquito] at the time they arrived in 1850.”
Sheldon Young is the only known Death Valley ’49er who recorded the name of the rancho in 1850. The typist who transcribed the diary from the original wrote the following at the end of her transcription: “This closes Young’s ‘Log.’ On a fly-leaf in the last part of the book, he has the addition of the miles traveled per day, added up amount to 777 miles from Little Salt Lake on the Spanish Trail to the Rancho, San Francisco” (JA555). This notation of Sheldon Young’s is the only known documentation of the rancho name recorded by any of the Death Valley ’49ers at the time of their arrival in 1850.
The handwritten title page of the typescript log (diary) states, “The Jayhawkers of ’49,/ Headquarters, Kansas City, Mo./ Sheldon Youngs/—Log—/1849/Joliet, Illinois/ To/ Rancho San Francisquito/California” (JA555). But the title page on the typescript is in John Colton’s hand written after Colton was given the typescript of Young’s log. The typescript is undated, but Colton gained possession in or after 1897, three years after Manly’s book rolled off the press.
Vincent Hoover, age 24, was part of the Independent Pioneer Company wagon train that left Hobble Creek, Utah shortly before Hunt’s train. After arriving in Los Angeles, Hoover headed for the gold fields along the “inland” route—over San Fernando Pass, up San Francisquito Canyon to Elizabeth Lake, then to “Frenchs ranche” at Tejon, and thence northward to the gold fields. He also referred to the San Francisco rancho. The following is from the typescript of his journal housed in The Bancroft Library: “Wednesday, April 17, 1850. To day [we crossed the San] Fernando mountain, which is very steep & crooked…. Friday, April 19, 1850. [We arrived at] San Franciscos Ranche. The valley is very fine almost filled with wild cattle… This valley is well timbered & has plenty of water.”
5:2 “[John] Colton also referred to that location by that name [Rancho San Francisquito] many times in his correspondence.”
Of the 194 letters written by Colton that are preserved in the Jayhawker Collection, at least three use “San Francisco” (JA160, JA256 & JA299) and at least seven use “San Francisquito” (JA227, JA234, JA292, JA321, JA322, JA323 & JA324) for the name of the rancho. Colton consistently used San Francisco prior to reading Manly’s book in 1894; Colton’s post-1894 letters use San Francisquito, thus indicating Manly’s influence.
6:1 “There was just one building at this location at the time [when the Death Valley ’49ers ended their arduous trek at the Rancho San Francisco (see also Olesen pp. 18 & 19)].”
Olesen presents no supporting evidence for this claim other than a passage from Manly’s book Death Valley in ’49 in which Manly says he and John Rogers approached “A house on higher ground” (1894:176). Manly makes no mention of other buildings; therefore, Olesen concludes there was only one building on the rancho in January 1850. There is an adage scientists use that is apropos to this one-building assertion: The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Historical and archeological evidence tells us there were at least three buildings at the site: (1) The original building built in 1804 (Engelhardt 1973:16). (2) The second building that Perkins briefly describes, which he located during an archeological “dig” (Perkins 1957:123, n10). And (3) the “old adobe milk house” (Perkins 1957: facing p. 113). We have no data telling us when or who built the second building (the one mentioned in Perkins’ note 10). The peaked roof on the milk house shown in Perkins’ article is without the classic Spanish roof tiles, which were probably removed and recycled on another building.
All we can say for certain is: (1) The Mission San Fernando padres had neophytes build an adobe building at the site in late 1804, (2) the milk house was built sometime between 1804 and 1850, and (3) a second adobe building was built near the original adobe building sometime after 1804. Most likely it was built after Antonio del Valle and his family moved to the rancho in late 1839.
6:1 “There was just one building at this location at the time, and it had a flat roof according to Manly’s description.”
Here is how Manly described the casa in his book: “A house on higher ground soon appeared in sight. It was low, of one story with a flat roof, gray in color, and of a different style of architecture from any we had ever seen before” (1894:176). However, Manly does not mention a flat roof in his earlier 1888 account: “we came in sight of a low house on an elevation overlooking the whole valley (in Johnson & Johnson: 1987:92).
Manly’s book is a case where his recollection (or the addition by his young editor) is wrong. The roof was covered with tile as confirmed from other primary sources. For example, in Pedro López’s testimony before the U.S. Lands Commission, he was asked: “What sort of a house was there in 1839, by whom was it built, and what were the dimensions?” López answered: “The house was built of adobe and covered with tile, it was built by the mission don’t recollect the dimensions.”
A red roof was also reported in the article “Jayhawkers at Dinner Once More,” San Francisco Call February 9, 1913: “On the morning of February 4, 1850, Colonel Colton and Tom Shannon, who had been in the Mexican war and knew the appearance of the Mexican haciendas, saw a red tile roof in the distance, and a little while later they met with vaqueros, who at first showed much fear.”
There are no known photographs of the casa before an earthquake destroyed the building. However, there are at least two extant sketches showing the building had a peaked roof covered with mission roof-tile. The first sketch is on an undated diseño (map) in The Huntington Library: Plan del paraje conocido bajo el nombre de [Rancho] Sn Francisco (Plan of the place well known by the name San Francisco). The building is depicted as having a peaked roof, and the artist drew lines up and down the roof; thus, indicating it was covered with the classical roof tile.
A second sketch of the building is on a diseño in The Bancroft Library titled: Diseño del Rancho de Sn FRANCO. The library records show the approximate date as “[184-?].” This building is also depicted with a peaked (or shed) roof tinted red; thus indicating a tiled roof. Olesen cites both these maps, but does not mention the sketches depicting tiled roofs.
The Pauleys’ show a photograph of the collapsed casa in San Fernando, Rey de España: An Illustrated History (2005:198). They label their illustration: “Adobe ruins of Estancia San Francisco de Xavier.” We know of two other photographs depicting the ruins—one in John Ellenbecker’s The Jayhawkers of Death Valley (1938:57) and the other in Frank Latta’s book Death Valley ’49ers (1979:167) taken during an annual meeting of the Jayhawker descendants. We deduce they were shot February 1928 (Ellenbecker 1938:113).
7:1 “…when San Francisco was mentioned they pointed north. If they [the local residents] had known the site as Rancho San Francisco, they would have pointed to the ground.”
Here is what Manly said in his book: “We tried to inquire where we were or where [we] ought to go, but could get no satisfactory answer from the man, although when we spoke San Francisco he pointed to the north” (1894:177). In Manly’s serialized account he says: “We spoke to him but he only seemed to understand two words, Los Angeles and San Francisco” (Johnson & Johnson, eds. 1987:93). If the man understood they were inquiring as to the location of the city of San Francisco, it makes sense that he “pointed north.”
7:2 “To Manly these people appeared to be Indians. The author [Olesen] believes that had Manly encountered individuals of purely Spanish descent he would have recognized and differentiated them from Native Americans and then probably written of it.”
Manly did differentiate between the Indians and Spaniards (Mexicans). In his “Biographical Sketches” article in The Pioneer on April 28, 1877, Manly relates that at the rancho, “they saw the first Spaniards they had ever met.… [A man] introduced them to the Spaniards. After this introduction the Spaniards treated them in a very friendly manner.” And Manly described one of the Mexicans in his serial account: “we saw…a man with a broad brimmed hat on and a woman by his side, dressed in regular Spanish fashion…. We had always heard the Spaniards were a race of pirates and robbers…. We felt that any moment we might be set upon and killed” (Johnson & Johnson, eds. 1987:92). Manly and Rogers weren’t afraid of Indians at this point; they were afraid of the Spaniards (Mexicans).
A large volume of information from the Death Valley ’49ers makes clear a “Spaniard,” not Indians, was running the ranch in 1850 and supports the 1850 census that the Spaniard’s name was “Francisco” (the ’49ers did not differentiate between Spaniards and Mexicans). Reverend J.W. Brier told about his family’s encounter with the people living in the casa in an article that appeared in the Los Angeles Times on December 21, 1886: “An old Spaniard came out with his Indian servants armed; but, on seeing who we were, and how nearly dead, welcomed us with kindness.” The “old Spaniard” was Francisco López, a Mexican of Spanish descent, not an Indian.
John Rogers, Manly’s companion, commented: “The old Spanish lady took the two families [Arcans and Bennetts] in the house and kept them there two days.” (Merced Star, April 26, 1894. In: Johnson and Johnson 1987:154.)
Here are other examples of ’49ers recognizing they were welcomed by “Spaniards,” not Indians (original spelling used):
When Manly and Rogers approached the Mission San Fernando, Manly said, “we saw only one man and a few Indians” (1894:268). Manly clearly differentiates between the Indians and “one man” who was probably a Mexican.
A man asked Manly “about the road we had come over, how far it was, and how bad the Indians were” (1894:266). Would an Indian likely ask how bad the Indians were? Far more likely this man was a “Spaniard.”
Francisco López did not own the rancho; it belonged to Antonio del Valle’s widow, Jacoba, and Antonio’s legitimate children, although Francisco, Jacoba’s uncle, may have implied he owned the rancho. He did run his own stock on the rancho and lived in the casa.
7:2 “Manly described the way the residents obtained milk from them [the cows]. His words were: ‘The Indians then milked the cows ————.’ (Manly 1894:264).”
Olesen uses this out-of-context quote to try to convince the reader the rancho was being run by ex-neophytes. What Olesen fails to point out is the clear differentiation Manly makes between the “Spaniards” and the Indians: “In the morning the two horsemen and two Indians went to the corral” where the horsemen lassoed a cow and hitched her to a post so the Indians could milk her (Manly 1894:263). Manly does not specifically say the men on horses were Mexicans (or Spaniards), but on page 261 he describes their clothing: “These men were finely mounted, wore long leggins made of hide, dressed with the hair on, which reached to their hips, stiff hats with a broad rim, and great spurs at their heels. Each had a coil of braided rawhide rope on the pommel of the saddle, and all these arrangements together made a very dashing outfit.” This is a classic description of a Spanish or Mexican vaquero.
Antonio del Valle and Francisco López hired Indians, the ex-neophytes who had first worked on the mission-controlled Rancho de San Francisco Javier (also spelled Xavier) before secularization. Seven Indians are included in the 1850 U.S. Census for Los Angeles County as living with the Mexicans Francisco and Maria A[ntonia] López. Francisco is listed as head of household, and the census lists him as a “Grazier” (rancher) indicating he is in control of the rancho (Newmark & Newmark 1929:69). Although the census enumeration did not name the ranchos the census taker went to, Maurice and Marco Newmark reconstructed his route through the ranchos north of Los Angeles and determined he went to today’s Newhall on January 27, 1851. We concluded from this work that the Rancho San Francisco casa was dwelling number 283 (Newmark & Newmark 1929:24 note 2). The census also shows “Juan Annisetto” and “Incarnacion,” two Mexican laborers, were part of Francisco López’s household (Newmark & Newmark 1929:69). These laborers were likely the vaqueros Manly so beautifully described. Of note: The 1850 census in Los Angeles County was taken in early 1851, but directions were given to ask who lived at the residence in mid-1850.
————————
Part Two tomorrow
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
The conclusion of Bob’s story:
Charlie Manson and Me
by Bob Nathanson
Acknowledgments
‘Thanks’ to the guy who drew the map for me as partial ‘payment’ for trying to rip me off by selling me, the dumb Easterner from Bawstin, some land up on the Kern River which was actually Bureau of Land Management property (BLM), and when I showed up at his office and the crew from the store he was not paying for his rented furniture was emptying out his office, and I confronted him *ahem* with my Great Dane/Labradore Retriever named ‘Chopper’, …
…insisting on recompense and gratification for his foul deed, and he ‘allowed’ me to take his leather couch, chair and ottoman (he proved it was his by showing me the ‘Paid’ receipt),…
…and gave me back my $200.00 deposit (in cash), and tried smoothing things out by giving me that map to the ghost town, so I took it! *whew*
Story Acknowledgements:
Steve Greene – The Old Trailmaster – moderator of The Death Valley Journal, a terrific blog (DVJ)
Hallett Newman – castle19 – the current claim-holder of the Newman Mine, and owner of Newman Cabin – DVJ member
David A. Wright – davidawright – 4wdtrips.net – DVJ member
Tom, from Scottsdale, AZ – a ‘Jayhawker’ at DeathValley.net forum
Image Acknowledgements:
Hal Newman
David A. Wright
Numerous unknown photographers of the entire area who put their images online without tagging them. If anyone recognizes their own image, please contact me, and I will be happy to give you an acknowledgement.
—————————
Editor’s Note: To view all the images of this story, please visit Bob’s website. You will likely enjoy seeing the old photographs after having read this story. Bob has posted a lot of photos of this story, which will add to your impressions. Except for the old 70s clothing and vehicles, things in the Death Valley territory look pretty much the same now as they did then.
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
Comin’ down the home stretch of Bob’s story:
Charlie Manson and Me
by Bob Nathanson
…so what else could we do? We parked and had some lunch! I remember we had cold chicken and some chips and a Pepsi, with some kind of fruit for desert. (…again… S-C-U-R-V-Y !)
October on the floor of Death Valley can be breezy! I remember it was warm, but not hot!
Once we finished our mid-day feast, we headed out for the long trail homeward. We travelled about 8.5 mi. in Southeasterly direction, and when we came upon a left-hand fork, we crossed over to Badwater Rd., Rte. 178.
For some unknown reason we went to the left, Westward, on Badwater Rd., and drove for a couple of miles before doubting our decision. While happily cruising along on an actual real paved road, I spotted a small lump on the road ahead. As I aimed the van to straddle this ‘lump’, I realized what it was and hit the brakes pretty hard. I checked the mirrors for traffic (yah, sure!) and backed up several feet to see this amazing thing!
It was a HUGE tarantula, bigger than my hand!
I grabbed my Olympus OM-1 SLR camera with the Tri-X B/W film, and jumped out of the van to get some shots of this huge spider. At that time I had only the standard 50mm lens, so there were no long-distance shots to be had. For close-ups I had to get up close!
I had actually laid down on the pavement, and while staring through the viewfinder I slowly crawled toward this monster while focusing, adjusting shutter-speed and aperture and taking pictures! …no auto-anything used. I was studying photography and this was my first SLR (Single Lens Reflex) camera and it was set to full-manual mode.
It only occurred to me later, that I think I had seen somewhere that tarantulas sometimes jump pretty far to get their prey. Again, ‘…children and fools’! LOL
Soooo, after calming down from this terrific encounter, and looking at the roadmap and discussing what to do, we decided to turn around and head back in the other direction to find our way out of Death Valley.
We drove Southeast through Ashford Junction, and then followed Rte. 178 onto Jubilee Pass Rd., continuing to enjoy the ease of driving on a paved road while touring through spectacular Death Valley and surrounding mountains. I don’t think we saw more than 3 vehicles on this entire stretch of road!
After a long and enjoyable drive on Jubilee Pass Rd., it ended at the junction of Rtes. 127 and 178, which continued on to the right, so we went right. In the town of Shoshone, Rte. 178 went Northward, and we continued on Rte. 127 to the East.
(Travellers note: at no time did we realize how close we were to Las Vegas)
Eventually Rte. 127 turned Southward and became Death Valley Rd. We cruised through Dumont and then Renoville, eventually coming to Baker, where Rte. 127 connects to Rte. 15. We turned West on this 4-lane highway, got the van up to cruisin’ speed at around 70 mph, probably blasting ‘Chicago’ on the Cadillac stereo AM/FM/8-track system I had stuffed into the dash, and headed for home on the Barstow Fwy.!
We went through Dunn, Manix, Harvard, (so, technically, we ‘went to Harvard’, huh?) then Yermo and through Barstow. We rolled through Victorville next, and then before we got to San Bernadino we swung onto the Ontario Fwy., heading Southwest. That ran into Rte. 210, the Foothills Fwy., going West. We stayed on that into Pasadena where we picked up Rte. 134, the Ventura Fwy. and jumped on Rte 5, the Golden State Hwy.
Just past Sun Valley, we got off the freeway and headed South on Lankershim Blvd. down to Cohasset St., and East to our snug little home at the corner of Farmdale Ave. and Cohasset St.
…exhausted, happy, overwhelmed, exhausted, excited, hungry, exhausted, thrilled to be home! *WOW!*
…and I do mean * freakin- W O W ! *
————————–
Part Nine tomorrow
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
Part Seven of Bob’s long story:
Charlie Manson and Me
by Bob Nathanson
We drove slowly by Striped Butte, heading Northward through the valley, looking for the trail to bear to the right somewhere past the middle of this valley we were in. We didn’t even know the name of this Valley! As we were told, the trail would eventually take us down into Death Valley..
There ahead, the trail started curving around a mountain, heading in the direction we wanted to go, so we went! The driving wasn’t too bad, just some washboard and some small rocks. No biggie! No regular grader passed through there back then, just a trail.
Then we headed in a more Easterly direction and the trail turned into pretty nasty fields of bowling-ball sized rocks. I had to very slowly bounce over each obstacle, quietly praying that our high-mileage van would survive. The sturdy I-beam front end was in very good shape, the shocks were fairly new, the tires were fine, and I had rebuilt the steering box about 6 months earlier. I had also added a hydraulic steering stabilizer to help with the manual steering. So if I just took ‘er easy, we SHOULD make it jes’ fine, I hope, I hope!
For what seemed like 80 or 1,000 agonizing miles, we bounced and toiled over those rocks, searching for smooth spots to ease the pressure on the van. I recall that my hands were sore from their death grip on the steering wheel. I didn’t want to hook a finger around the wheel, as a sudden bump could have easily broken it! All the while we were heading East and downhill, so at least we were getting somewhere, whatever THAT means! LOL
Eventually we passed a borax mine that looked like it was being worked, and then a while later we passed another. We didn’t stop to look around, as we were more concerned with surviving this leg of the trip into Death Valley than trespassing on someone’s mining claim. We didn’t see any signs of life other than wild mules, or we would have stopped to make sure we were going in the right direction.
The road surface smoothed out a lot once we went by those mines, as they were heavily compacted by the regular traffic to and from the mines.
I have been looking for pictures of this stretch of our trip, but I haven’t found any but a few of the Warm Springs Mine. I don’t recall seeing anyplace that invited our exploration, so we kept forging onward and downward toward our next ‘hurdle’, that aforementioned quicksand trap laying across the trail, keeping us from entering Death Valley proper.
Well, as luck would have it, and we obviously were being watched over that weekend, as we approached the top of the alluvial fan near the East end of Butte Valley Rd., we were much relieved to spot a big Caterpillar Grade-All! (Don’t remember if it was yellow or khaki brown.)
It was making its way to the East along the end of Butte Valley Rd. where it meets up with West Side Hwy., so our way was safe and clear. We drove over the freshly graded trail, eyeing the 2 feet of wet sand moved aside by that wonderful grader! We most likely would have fallen prey to that sand trap if we hadn’t been so kindly advised by that stranger back at the Barker Ranch.
It was nearing noontime, and rarely ever missing a meal, I drove Southeast a bit on West Side Hwy., and found an inviting spot to pull off the ‘beaten path’ and stop for lunch. (You can call me anything you like, but don’t call me late for lunch! LOL)
We had been driving about 1/4-mile behind that Army Engineer Corps. grader, and I recall that when it finally disappeared in the distance and we were once again alone, it did hit us that we were actually sitting here in Death Valley! I mean, look around us! There is NOBODY HERE in sight, and we are ALONE IN DEATH VALLEY!!
* W O W ! *
————————–
Part Eight tomorrow
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
Bob’s story continues:
Charlie Manson and Me
by Bob Nathanson
Well, we drove on with great hope of what we might see around the next bend. This was the BEST thing about what we were doing and where we were! …A D V E N T U R E !
We drove along, still on Coyote Canyon Rd., for about 3.5 mi. before coming to our next great hurdle. The trail was fairly smooth and sandy with only a few tracks visible; dirt-bike and horse tracks, no other 4-wheeled vehicles, as I mentioned earlier.
It was a beautiful morning and we were soaking in this unbelievable scenery as we made our way towards the cairn that our ‘mysterious guide’ told us about. Honestly, I wasn’t even sure what a ‘cairn’ was! I knew it was some sort of marker, but I didn’t know it was a burial marker.
So, (singing) ‘Merrily, we roll along, roll along, roll a-loooong…’
…and then, out of nowhere, a sign of civilization??
WOW! Were WE surprised to see this sign out here! Not that the words “D E A T H V A L L E Y” didn’t give us a scare! We knew we were close to it from looking at our roadmap, but who’da thunk WE would ever be entering Death Valley from a remote side-entrance like THIS!! WOW!
So once we drove up the long and kinda steep approach to Carl Mengel’s cairn, we stopped to pay respects, and take a couple of shots from this beautiful elevation.
Of course, we didn’t have a clue who Carl Mengel was, or why he was buried here.
Years later, I read that his ashes are here, and also his wooden leg. I don’t know if there is a meaning to the steel ring, possibly a wheel rim. Based on more recent pictures, people have taken to placing coins on the stone plaque.
Also, there is now a ‘parking area’ to leave your vehicle and walk over to the cairn. There is also a trail that goes to the top of a high rise nearby, but I don’t think that was there when we were there, although it may have been just too steep and high for us to even consider attempting.
So, now our attention turns Eastward again, looking toward Striped Butte Valley, mentioned earlier by our tour guide at the Barker Ranch.
We bid a fond farewell to Mr. Mengel and continued our Eastward trek. Just beyond the cairn the trail dropped away into Striped Butte Valley. I slowly edged the van down over the top of the very steep and rocky decline. Mostly, gravity urged us along, with the occasional help of the engine to climb over a boulder.
About three slow and very bumpy minutes down the grade I stopped to cool and rest the brakes (4-wheel drums, no discs here!), and my nerves, and upon looking back up to where we had just started, I concluded that there was absolutely and positively (or was that NEGATIVELY?) no way in or out of HELL that this old van could EVER get back up to the top, short of establishing a camp down below, and with the aid of my trusty shovel and prybar, construct an earthen ramp starting at the base of this incline and finishing at the top, that would end up being about 1/4-mile long, and would take about 10 years to complete!
(How’s THAT for a run-on sentence? LOL)
I refrained from mentioning this new-found information to Barbara, as it would certainly add to her concerns for our safety, and also add to her questions about what we would be doing Monday morning; getting ready to go to work and school, or hunting for desert rats and snakes for breakfast stew!
Again, *smack-my-head* no pics of my own (…’cause I was busy hanging on to the steering wheel and fighting to keep us from getting hung up on those big rocks and doing irreparable damage to the van!), but TONS of off-roading folks remark that this is a VERY rough stretch of bad road, mostly with excitement, as they can test their rock crawlers, dune buggys, tricked-out off-roaders and shiny new Hummers!
Here is an AMAZING video of a VW Vanagon astonishing the other dune-buggy drivers with its abilities!! It may have had a bigger engine than the stock size, but I am not sure. Regardless, it IS impressive!
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkZGs7Y2oVA
Once we got down into the Valley, and the trail leveled out, the drive was much more comfortable. The view of this magnificent Butte kept us looking at it for quite a long while.
Of course, I was quietly looking around with the thought of what a nice new home this valley will be when we settle here while I build that ramp to get back up to Mengel Pass if there wasn’t a way out of here! LOL
· Peak Type: Summit
· Latitude: 35.948563
· Longitude: -117.071996
· Peak Elevation: 4,744 feet
· Base to peak: I think I saw that it is about 800 feet. Not sure.
We saw several mules, assuming them to be descendants of the 20-mule-team era.
I have found a lot of images of Striped Butte and its valley, each of which looks different from the other. And each one shows a beautiful rendition of Nature’s work.
We drove Eastward beside the Butte, passing the Geologist’s Cabin and at least one other dwelling.
We didn’t stop there, and of course didn’t take any pictures. We finally left Coyote Canyon Rd., which turned into Butte Valley Rd. We did come across this important bit of guidance:
The upper sign says ‘Goler Wash – 5 mi.’
It’s nice to be sitting here at my computer, looking at all these places we went through way back then, using nothing more than a push of an index finger to travel along the route we drove in 1976. But the excitement and wonder and yes, fear, of what lay around the next bend that could halt our homeward progress is missing, except in our memories. I actually recall looking around at these tall mountains surrounding us in Butte Valley and thinking, “Yup! I could enjoy living here for a while, looking at this gorgeous scenery! Of course, the shrieking and hollering (sorry, Barb) would be a constant disturbance, but yeah, I could enjoy the scenery! Of course, walking out would be the most sensible thing if we could not go any farther. After all, it’s only about 53 TRILLION miles to civilization! LOL “WOW! Lookit those mountains, Honey!”
“Yep, sure is purdy!”.
—————————
Part Seven tomorrow
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
Bob’s story continues:
Charlie Manson and Me
by Bob Nathanson
We went to the right, heading toward what we would later find out was the Carl Mengel cairn.
Memories have faded over the 33 years since then, but I do remember 2 spots that took a bit of nerve and a lot of luck to drive past. They were both what I now know are called dry waterfalls, sometimes referred to as dry falls. They might be the places named Hubcap Falls and Oilpan Falls, but I am not sure about that.
The first challenge would be Hubcap Falls, where it was very rocky and the rise may have been about 4′ high. Again, no pics, and faded memory. I just proceeded slowly and managed to climb it after moving a couple of rocks.
A while later we encountered what remains in my mind as a HUGE smooth boulder that filled the entire Wash from wall to wall. It was maybe 10 feet high (…or 20 feet, or even 30 feet) and I couldn’t see what was on the other side, so I got out and climbed to the top, (it took maybe 2 minutes to climb up there *not really!*) discovering a fairly smooth, sandy stretch beyond with an easy trail running through it. This next pic might be the spot I am writing about, and when I recently discussed this particular hurdle with Barbara, she recalls that it was ‘only’ about 3 feet high! Wellll, SHE wasn’t driving! LOL
I know… it’s not smooth, and it certainly isn’t 30 feet high, which is exactly why I don’t believe this is the Dryfall I am talking about. The rock (boulder, fall, whateverrrr…) that I recall was definitelysmooth, with no loose stuff around it, and sitting in the van you absolutely could NOT see what was on the other side! Barbara does agree on that! And the boulder was at LEAST twice the length of the van from the bottom to the top! So, to continue…
I slowly put the front wheels up on the dark gray boulder and as the van raised up, Barbara expressed her fear that the van would tip over backwards if we went any farther.
The rear wheels started spinning a bit as they reached the bottom of the boulder, so I backed down a short way to make a run at it. For peace of mind, and safety’s sake, (…more like for quiet-sake-so-I-could-pay-attention-to-driving-sake) Barbara and Danny got out of the van to watch.
I hit the boulder at certainly under 5 mph, and climbed up and over with barely any wheel-spin. *woo-HOOO!*
I still haven’t found a picture that even closely resembles what I remember of that second big hurdle that we drove over. I will continue ‘Googling’ and ‘Binging’ for images of Goler Wash, etc. to try and find one. I am convinced, however, that due to time, weather, and what I have now learned about the actual NPS or BLM or Forest Service or State or County maintenance of the trail going through Goler Wash, that, coupled with people actually moving rocks and shoveling sand and gravel, etc., has changed the look of the place that we remember. There might have even been some BLASTING done to make the way easier! *…again, slapping my forhead for not taking more pictures back then!*
Once I crested that mountainous boulder, I got out to stretch my legs a bit and settle my nerves from the climb, and give the ol’ van’s engine and tranny a short break. We looked around a while, soaking in the amazing experience of being where we were, and then Barbara, Danny and I got back into the van to forge ahead to who-knows-what?
I seem to recall that the area right above the big boulder we had just climbed spread out into a small valley with low brush and a sandy trail. There were a couple of dirt-bike prints, and some horseshoe prints, but we were leaving the only 4-wheel vehicle prints to be seen! The sides of this valley sloped skyward with jagged tops, but the path was slowly angling upward as well, so they weren’t as high as when we were in the deep wash. The feeling was as if we were on a different planet!
———————————–
Part Six tomorrow
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
Continuation of Bob’s story:
Charlie Manson and Me
by Bob Nathanson
When I got to the high barb-wire gate at the wooden arch (clearly visible in the photo above) I shouted, “Hello, the house!” Several dogs ran to the gate, and were barking and wagging, but I kept back a bit anyway. Finally a long-bearded guy came out and down to the gate to talk to me. He was absolutely friendly.
I asked him about the road ahead, and he said it went nowhere. He told me the best way to go would be to go back to Coyote Canyon Rd., then turn right (North-East) and go on that way. We would come to a cairn at the top of a rise. We should go down the other side, past the Striped Butte, and then when the trail got to the center of that valley, to go to the right (East on Butte Valley Rd.), and follow that past the borax mines and down into Death Valley.
He then added this caution; he said that last night it had rained down below, and there would be sand and maybe some water covering the trail where it hits the Death Valley floor. He cautioned me to NOT cross this, as it would be like quicksand, but we should wait overnight, if necessary, and the Army Corps. of Engineers would be sending a grader to clear the way for the borax mine trucks early on Monday morning.
I shook his hand and thanked him for his advice and help, and headed back to the van. I remember him smiling and waving to Barbara and Danny in the van.
Who was he? …ABSOLUTELY no idea! But many years later, when I was idly looking at my ‘new’ program, Google Earth, and eventually deciding to have a look at where we went on that trip…
…THAT’S when I learned about the Manson Hideaway! WOW!*slapping my forehead*
Okay, so Manson and Family were arrested on August 16, 1969 at the Barker Ranch.
Arrested August 16, 1969 at The Barker Ranch
…and then there was me…
…NEVER arrested!
Here’s a wikipedia.com description of the hideout: In the first days of November 1968, Manson established the Family at alternative headquarters in Death Valley’s environs, where they occupied two unused or little-used ranches, Myers and Barker. The former, to which the group had initially headed, was owned by the grandmother of a new woman in the Family. The latter was owned by an elderly, local woman to whom Manson presented himself and a male Family member as musicians in need of a place congenial to their work. When the woman agreed to let them stay there if they’d fix up things, Manson honored her with one of the Beach Boys’ gold records, several of which he’d been given by Dennis Wilson.
Here is a video I just found of a trip up through Goler Wash, going to Manson’s hideout. It is pretty well done for an amateur video. I think it was shot around March, 2006.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qvYIOUq71Q&p=2589C7100879B55F&index=6
Here is a description of this video: **Featuring actual Charles Manson recordings & his music, including the song “Arkansas” as well as recordings of the “Manson Girls”.
Hidden in a remote gold mining canyon, high above Death Valley, in the desolate Panamint Mountains of California, is the last hideout of infamous cult killer Charles Manson & his young followers known as the Manson Girls. Barker Ranch still stands today, abandoned & left to the elements, only a few hardy & prepared travelers can make the arduous journey through the uninhabited Panamint Valley and into Goler Canyon where Charles Manson and his “family” of young killers hid out after the brutal murders of actress Sharon Tate, the LaBianca family, and other unfortunate people who the “Manson Family” encountered during the summer of 1969. For several months after the Los Angeles area murders Charles Manson and his followers roamed the hills and valleys around Death Valley & dropped acid in the grungy confines of Barker Ranch. By December of 1969 the Inyo County police tracked the “Manson Family” down and found Charles Manson cowering under the bathroom sink of Barker Ranch. We followed the “Manson Family’s” steps from the San Fernando Valley to Trona Pinnacles & Goler Canyon high above Death Valley. It was easy to sense what these young killers must have felt as they struggled to get their old school bus up rugged Goler Canyon …just as we struggled to get my stock Jeep Cherokee 4×4 up the same canyon. Wandering through the still furnished rooms of Barker Ranch and imagining the Manson girls singing hippy folk songs left us with a very creepy feeling. We found the old bathroom where Manson hid from the police and recorded the entire premises around Barker Ranch. I managed to get actual audio recordings of Charles Manson, including songs from his 1968 LP ‘LIE’, which I’ve included in this short film of our journey in search of Manson’s last hideout. If you are a fan of the macabre or crime history you will be fascinated. This is our story about Finding Goler! Also featuring the music of Tricky, The Goodlookins’, Johnny Cash, Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix & Jim Morrison, Portis Head, the Mason Family Girls, etc.
We turned the van around and went back to where we turned off Coyote Canyon Rd. in Goler Wash.
————————-
Part Five tomorrow
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
Part Three of Bob’s story:
Charlie Manson and Me
by Bob Nathanson
In places the canyon walls went almost straight up into the sky, leaving us in cool shadows. I recall spots where the trail was so narrow that I had to pull in the side mirrors for clearance. Remember, we were in a full sized extended-length van, not a short wheel-base off-road vehicle! There were absolutely no turn-around points once we got into the deep part of the Wash!
We rounded a bend on the trail and finally spotted the Newman Cabin. It is up on a rise on the South side of the wash, and we drove up and parked and finally got out and stretched our legs! That was a long drive from Ballarat.
(Yes, that’s right! During my research for this story I actually connected with the son of the man who held the mining claim there!! How amazing is THAT! Hal Newman and his brother still hold the claim for this mine! The cabin is the Headquarters of the operation, as proclaimed by the sign over the door.)
The interior was very sparse, with a barrel stove and a metal bedspring with a torn-up mattress, so we opted to sleep in the van.
Well, we had a nice supper (Barbara is an EXCELLENT cook!), and we sat at the campfire (Kingsford Charcoal Briquettes and maybe some dead branches for effect). I’m sure Danny and I cranked out at least a thousand b-b’s, plinking at the rocks up on the slopes.
Then we settled in for the night inside the snug and secure van.
Then, (…as prearranged with Barbara, and keeping in mind it was Halloween) I ‘excused myself’ and stepped out of the van into the pitch black of a deep canyon night. I went around to the back of the van to (…errrr, use your imagination), then went around to the side and…
Those are straw mats we used as shades on the windows. The van is facing West, so the morning sunlight would pour in if they weren’t covered. That, and IF Daddy ever actually slept past 4:00 am! LOL
Sunday morning, after a GREAT nights’ sleep, we awoke to another beautiful day. After breakfasting (probably on bacon, eggs, toast, juice, etc.), we packed up all our stuff, leaving nothing but footprints behind, as was our usual plan.
But first Danny and I did a bit of exploring. We went across Goler Wash and climbed a bit of the North wall. I think there was a mine up there, but we never made it up that high.
Once we got back to the cabin, I went inside to leave a business card on the wall where many others were stuck, as a comment that ‘we were there’. I think there was a ‘cabin log’ as well, which I would have signed, but I am not 100% sure about that.
Then we discussed what our plans for the day would be; head back West and go home? Or go farther East up the Goler Wash on Coyote Canyon Rd. ‘to see what we could see’ (…to the tune of ’The Bear Went Over The Mountain’)? We all agreed that ’seeing’ was much more fun than ‘going home’, so I checked all the fluids and fired up the ol’ van once again, and bid a fond farewell to the Newman Cabin, unless we would see it again after we turned around.
The path was similar to the previous days’ journey in the Wash, with varying space between the mirrors and the steep walls of the canyon. There were a couple of times when I had to pull in the wing mirror on one side or the other because the trail hugged the wall with a deep drop-off or rough passage on the other side.
At around 2 mi. East of the Newman Cabin, for some forgotten reason, we took a right turn onto an inviting trail. There were no signposts with directions (as there seems to be now)…
…so on a whim (…interestingly, also known as ‘a vertical horse-powered drum used as a hoist in a mine’.) we drove up this trail towards who-knows-what!
Some of you readers might actually know where we were heading, but please remember (again) that we had absolutely no clue where we were, where we were heading, what the terrain was like, what the roadway was like, no map, no GPS, no cell phone, no knowledgeable travelling mates — N O T H I N G !
I’ve seen the pictures all over the Web with convoys of well-equipped, heavy-duty, 4-wheel drive on/off-road vehicles, giant rock-crawling tires, with license plates such as “DV GHOST”(Death Valley Ghost), “DV RUBCN” (Death Valley [Jeep] Rubicon), with winches, tow-hitch points, problem-spotters and helpers, and probably a big tow truck and a medi-vac helicopter hovering somewhere close, ‘in case’!
So, we turned off Coyote Canyon Rd. and drove for another mile or so, when we came upon a house surrounded with a barb-wire fence, with an old school bus, Dodge Power Wagon, a few old house trailers and a couple of flatbed trailers, several dogs and some farm animals we could hear from a pen on the side.
I stopped on the pathway in front of the gate, instructing Barbara and Danny to be watchful and quiet while I approached and shouted to the house. Not worried, just cautious. We didn’t know AT ALL that it was the notorious Barker Ranch, aka ‘Charles Manson Family hideaway’! (hence, the name of this story!)
————————-
Part Four tomorrow
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
Part Two of Bob’s story:
Charlie Manson and Me
by Bob Nathanson
We drove about 3.5 mi. over an easy graded road, arriving at Ballarat Ghost Town. No signs that I can remember, no commercial buildings, nothing but some bumps in the sand. Remember, this was 1976! As we got closer it was apparent that this was the ghost town as described on my map.
It was cause for excitement just being off the paved road and driving toward the Panamint Mountains in the distance!
The ghost town consisted of a group of maybe a dozen wind-worn and sand-covered foundations just barely visible, and there were 2 or 3 structures where you could see the bottom rows of stone foundations. There was one spot that had part of a wall still standing, maybe 6 feet of it, but not much else. There were a couple of wind and weather-torn cabins.
Back then, I had very recently become involved in photography and actually had a 35mm camera with me, using only Tri-X b/w film which I developed and printed myself. However, on this trip, due to the tremendous amount of attention to driving, safety, the enormous amount of interesting and beautiful scenery and some SCAREY roads, plus being very stupid about it, I did not take many pictures. I just found the few color slides that we took and I have had them scanned for this story. I also just found those b/w negatives and I will scan them and post them into this saga where they actually fit, like the b/w pic of our van . I will also mark them in Google Earth and post them there as well.)
O-KAAAAY… so we looked around at these decrepit structures, saw that we wouldn’t be camping in the ghost town, and decided to move on.
We checked the map and the lay of the land, looking for the trail to take us to Goler Wash, which was supposed to be marked by a huge boulder. We went South on Wingate Rd. which runs along the base of the Panamint Mountains. This would eventually lead us to Goler Wash on about 14 miles of graded road, meaning lots of washboard, holes and some rocks to dodge.
As we approached the alluvial fan of Goler Wash we could see a bunch of vehicles parked in a group. There might have been 10 or more trucks, some of them with trailers attached for hauling horses or dirt bikes or 4-wheelers. There were small groups of people with these horses or vehicles going to and from the trail that headed into the mountains that loomed right beside us.
(Alluvial fan: Sediment deposited by flowing water, as in a riverbed, flood plain, or delta.)
[I have to pause here to relate this moment in time to you. Remember, it was way back in 1976 that we were there. There have been more than a lot of miles traveled since then, so memories are a bit faded, and I don't have many photos to reinforce the memories. *knocking myself on the head for being so stupid* I am, however, collecting images from around the internet to help illustrate what we were seeing.
On the GE maps there are numerous trails apparently carved out by groups of 4-wheelers, etc. Back when we went there, there were mostly dirt bike tracks and horse tracks, with only a few 4-wheel-drive vehicles going there. And keep in mind, our van was 2-wheel drive!
...and lemme tell ya, I just went over the 'escape route' to get out to a paved road on the other side, and I am amazed that I'm sitting here telling you about it! WE WERE OUT THERE!! *whew*]
We were on Wingate Rd. and then headed East on Coyote Canyon Rd. into the mouth of Goler Wash, and I’m sure we got some people talking about us, due to the vehicle we were driving, but the trail heading in seemed completely passable, so I drove on.
I’m jes’ funnin’ here, Folks. NOW I know how lucky we were back then! Yes, God watches over children and fools! We were basically prepared, but didn’t have a CLUE about the lay of the land or how to survive in it! …or what lay ahead! But boy-oh-boy was it fun and exciting! It STILL is!
At this point I will apologize to those who actually know and love this area. These pictures might not be in their exact order of progression throughout this trip, as we didn’t keep a log or a chronology of our movenemts. I will call it ‘poetic license’ to get around this matter, but if someone does spot a glaring error where I have inserted a photo of a trail in Idaho or somewhere, please let me know so I can make it right(er). Remember, I collected these pics from the Web, and they were labled as ‘Goler Wash’ and that’s all.
I recall the sound of the dual exhaust pipes bouncing off the steep walls of the wash as we drove in.
I think I read somewhere that the walls run from about 300′ to over 600′ high! As we slowly drove forward, trying to take in all this absolutely amazing scenery, while I was managing to stay on the trail and avoid most of the rocks, it was like being in a dreamworld!
Once in a while I would have to stop to let a rider on horseback or a dirt bike pass, mostly heading West as it was already past noon. We, of course, were planning on staying at the Newman cabin which was about 3 mi. up the Wash, so we weren’t pressed for time. I did worry that we might have needed an advance reservation to stay there, but we were self-contained, so what-the-heck!
————————————
Part Three tomorrow
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
Editor’s Note: The following story was written and submitted by Bob Nathanson about a life-altering experience he had once many years ago in the Death Valley territory. It will be featured here on the DVJ over the course of several days. At the conclusion of the posts, a link will be provided to view Bob’s photographs of this trip. Here then, is Part One of the odyssey:
* * * * * * *
Charlie Manson and Me
by Bob Nathanson
“One hour of life, crowded to the full with glorious action, and filled with noble risks, is worth whole years of those mean observances of paltry decorum.”
Sir Walter Scott (1771-1832)
This is a long story about an exciting adventure trip to a ghost town, haunted mountains, gold mines, borax mines, Death Valley, 20-mule teams, tarantulas, sand and much more excitement than most folks would ever consider attempting!
Our historic tale began back around June, 1976. We were living in North Hollywood, California. An acquaintance of mine, in partial payment of a small business deal that had gone awry, drew a map for me, showing the way to a cabin in the Panamint Mountains, by way of a ghost town. The cabin was owned by a Captain of the Riverside, CA Fire Department, who didn’t mind folks using it for an overnight camp. (more about this later…)
I convinced my wife, Barbara, that we will have a GREAT time going there with our son Danny, who was 5 years old. We planned to go for the weekend of Halloween to make visiting a ‘ghost town’ more exciting. We planned to camp there if we could.
The Explorers in 1976 were: Bob (32), Barbara (29), Danny (5)
We packed up the old ‘70 Ford E-300 van (1 ton, 2-wheel drive, auto trans, manual steering, manual brakes, ‘2-20′ air conditioning [open 2 windows, go 20 mph]. I know, too much information, but this will become important later in the story)…
…with all the goodies we wanted or thought we needed, plus a mattress in the back for sleeping, an extra 5-gal. can of gas, extra oil, oil filter, spare spark plugs, points, rotor, condenser, cap, wires, tools, 2 spare tires, etc. I was a mechanic, y’see, and would ‘be prepared’ for just about ANYTHING!
I also packed my S&W .38 revolver (for protection from who knows what), my trusty ol’ Red Ryder b-b rifle (for plinking fun), CB radio (it was WAY-before cell phones were commonly available), 5-gals. of water, food, drinks, fresh fruit (gotta fend off scurvy, ya know!), munchies, and some other stuff, too!
It was dark green, no hubcaps, with stock 8-lug wheels and 10-ply tires. …but mechanically it was in GREAT shape! I bought it with 150,000 very rough miles on it from a newspaper-delivery company back in 1973 – with that front bumper! I liked the ’sneer’ so much that I never replaced that bumper. I actually drove in New York City during a grid-lock in 1980, and City cabs would stop to let me pass by!! LOL
So, on Saturday morning, quite early I’m sure, we headed off to the wilds of East-Central California, with the hand-drawn map and an old road map of the area. No GPS, no cell phone, just good ol’ ’seat-of-the-pants’ driving fun, and a great sense of adventure!
Me, shouting… “Is Danny heeeeere?”
Danny, shouting… “Yeeees!”
Me, yelling louder… “Is Mommy heeeeeeere?”
Danny and Barbara yelling… “Yeeeeeeeesss!”
Finally, all three of us screaming… “Is Daddy heeeeeeeeeeeere?”
All three of us, screaming ’til our throats hurt…”Yeeeeeeeeeeesssssss!”
This was how we always set off on our trips, with a roll-call. Louder and longer shouts. Then lots of giggles.
We headed up Rte. 14, The Antelope Valley Freeway … past Palmdale, then Lancaster, through Mojave, still on Rte. 14, but now named Sierra Hwy. Then East on the Mojave-Barstow Hwy., meeting up with Rte. 58, through Boron, then North on Rte. 395 at Kramer Junction. This turned into the 3 Flags Hwy.
…Atolia, then Red Mountain. Then we picked up Trona Rd. between Red Mountain and Johannesburg. Trona Rd. later meets up with Rte. 178, and we turned NE, continuing on Trona Rd.
Eventually we went through Westend, then South Trona, Borosolvay, Argus, then Trona. For quite some time Searle’s Lake (dry) was on our right, to the East. We were looking for a sign somewhere along between Pioneer Point and Trona (I think)marking the dry lake.
Next we were looking for Ballarat Rd. We were still travelling North on Trona Wildrose Rd., Rte. 178. About 15 mi. farther we finally spotted Ballarat Rd. heading East from a sweeping left curve, so we left the pavement and turned onto a packed sand road.
———————–
Part Two tomorrow
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
Sounds improbable. More HERE for any doubting Thomas types.
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
If you like potato chips, Death Valley, and helping others, now is your chance to bring it all together. Kettle Foods of Salem, Oregon makes the Death Valley Chipotle potato chip, and is matching funds from contributors to fund the Death Valley ROCKS program. This program was initiated by former Death Valley National Park Superintendent JT Reynolds to assist children from inner city schools with learning about Death Valley.
Click HERE to learn more.
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
DVNHA Gives Death Valley National Park $10,000 For All Taxa Biological Inventory
The Death Valley Natural History provided $10,000 to Death Valley National Park to be utilized in the initial stages of the All Taxa Biological Inventory. This gift was matched by the Centennial Challenge Grant – a federal fund set up to match private funds for the development of programs and infrastructure within the National Park System.
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
Continuing from yesterday’s post (in case you missed it), here is the text from the Living Death Valley website about the new and captivating Death Valley documentary, commissioned by the Death Valley Natural History Association (DVNHA):
In Living Death Valley one of America’s most enchanting landscapes is unveiled in this non-narrative, visually and musically arresting exploration of a land as foreboding as its name implies.
The Film takes us on a year’s journey through remote areas of Death Valley National Park where we gain an intimate perspective of the land and its many moods. Through variations in time lapse photography, high definition video set to a poignant original music score, the viewer experiences the unfolding of an ecosystem in magnificent detail as it moves through the rhythms of day and season. The film enters the secret lives of wild creatures as they interact with their environment. It explores the artifacts left by previous generations who forged a living in this desolate land. Through the terrestrial and celestial interplay of light and movement it catches a glimpse of the forces that have shaped the land throughout the millennia.
Living Death Valley is the non-verbal story of a desert; a realm where extremes collide in a fury, yet where life, delicate and precarious, can survive and even thrive.
___________________
Living Death Valley was commissioned by the Death Valley Natural History Association, a non-profit dedicated to supporting the educational, interpretive, and scientific activities of Death Valley National Park. All sales of the DVD benefit the Park.
——————————-
View the documentary trailer HERE.
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
You will most assuredly want to see this!!
A new documentary has hit the planet, one about our beloved Death Valley territory. By clicking on the link below, you’ll be able to view the video trailer for the film, made by a company called Bristlecone Media. Just scroll down a little once you arrive at the site. Here is there link:
http://www.bristleconemedia.com/store
There is also a website devoted entirely to this movie, which also has the video trailer on it, yet I found the Bristlecone Media trailer to play better on the computer. Here is the link to the Living Death Valley website:
http://www.livingdeathvalley.com/
You will want to visit both websites, and after doing so, you will likely be ordering the documentary before your head hits the pillow tonight!
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
Do you spend a lot of time in the Death Valley outback? Do you enjoy taking all your electronic doo-dads with you? Things like cell phones, laptops, GPS locators, voice recorders, digital cameras, mp3 players, satellite phones, or whatever the American materialistic machine churns out next? Then you have probably noticed that there is a distinct lack of electricity to be found in this 3.4 million acres of secluded and remote territory, which means that your latest and greatest electronic gizmo will soon be a worthless piece of metal and plastic after a few hours of use. What is the answer for those of us who just can’t leave the modern world behind? Well, this is your lucky day friends, because just by clicking on the link that follows, all your problems will be solved once and for all!
Click HERE, and worry no more.
This is what they have to say on the website:
Solar Style™, Inc., based out of Miami Beach, FL, offers a range of PV solar chargers with sizes and powering capabilities for a wide range of consumer electronic products, including mobile phones, GPS units, digital cameras, mp3 players and gaming systems.
The company sees the global demand for powering devices continuing to grow, as is the portable consumer electronics market. With the consistently growing presence of mobile computers and other small handheld devices, the need for portable power/charging is soaring. Solar Style™ fully intends to secure and maintain its leading market position in this new exciting industry.
Their motto is: “Own the sun.“
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
Slow news day in Rhyolite? Send out ace reporter “Phil Space”, he’ll get the scoop!
___________________________
Rhyolite Herald, June 30, 1905
“DEATH VALLEY ITEMS”
Single Blanket Zeke, or the Death Valley sleuth, has discovered the lost Breyfogle mine but is unable to take his friends to take his friends [doubled phrase] to the spot. The other night, after being away for a week, he came in staggering, weak from the loss of blood, with a deep gash in his head and with the wild look of a maniac. In his disheveled hair, mingled with dirt and blood, were flakes of gold. Zeke is still out of his head and the boys haven’t been able to get a line on the location of the find, but they think it is the lost mine, sure, this time, as all Zeke can say to Mr. Fitz Folgle, proprietor of the thirst Dispensary is, “Dry Fogle, Dry Folgle.”
Funeral range is having a revival in the mining line. It has been pretty dead around here for some years, and this sudden resurrection will be welcomed, you bet.
Sandy Boosom had the misfortune to fall off from Coffin Cliff night before last. It laid him out.
There is some talk of establishing a sanitarium at Brimstone Springs. The water is hot and will boil an egg in a jiffy. Some folks think it would be like gettin’ at touch of the hereafter to take a plunge in one of those bubbling broilers. Might be a good place to start a reformation.
For the benefit of travelers who may desire to visit this section without a guide we will say that the best way to get into Death valley from the east is via Devil’s Gap. This is a narrow saddle between two prominent hills of solid rock, known as Pitchfork Peak and Mount Eternity. The road or path is known as Tarantula Trail. The prominent rock on the left, about a mile up the gap, is called Judgment Rock, for it is a fable that whoever passed this point left hope behind, and hundreds of weary travelers who hit this trail some years ago left their bones to bleach upon the desert not far beyond. The Imps’ Cave, where thousands of years ago dwelt the dwarfs, is an interesting stopping place. There is a fable that these people were cursed by their Creator and that they retrograted [sic] instead of advancing, until in these latter days they have degenerated into Gila monsters. There are thousands of them. Then you pass over the Bridge of Sighs in crossing Furnace Creek, which is a steaming, seething stream, but once you dip the water from the channel it instantly becomes cool and refreshing. Fish caught from this creek are cooked and ready for lunch. This is one reason why so many visitors – those who have been here before – bring no meat with them. Along this stream are fine fielda grasses, and many who come here find it a good place to harvest their wild oats which they have sown in days gone by. Repentance ranch is a favorite road house. The mounrer’s bench is always in commission.
The air in Death valley is actually embalming.
PHIL SPACE.
———————–
Editor’s Note: This rare newspaper text has been contributed by David A. Wright, regional historian. Click HERE for further knowledge.
Posted in Contributor Posts | Leave a Comment »
LEE & LEE ANNEX, CALFORNIA
by David A. Wright
At first, auto and horse-drawn stages ran to the camp from Rhyolite, later to run six miles to and from Leeland Station on the Tonopah and Tidewater Railroad in the valley below. These stages connected with the two trains each day. Inyo County recognized the swelling population and appointed a justice of the peace, who also served as the tax collector. None of the towns in the Lee region had their own water. That had to be hauled in by Adolph Nevares from Rose Well at $5 a barrel. That price prompted most to travel to Rhyolite for their baths.
The financial panic of 1907 caused dull times in 1908, leading to the eventual death of all the Lees. Lee, California hung on the longest. At the beginning of the year, the Hayseed shipped its first load of paydirt, 18 tons worth, brining in an income of $1,314. However, that load was also its last. Nothing less than $50 per ton ore could pay costs, even though the railroad was literally at the foot of Lee. Such ore was found only in small pockets that already had been exhausted, and so the superintendent closed down the Hayseed that summer. The Lee Herald suspended publication in February. By summer, there was only one saloon left. Not everyone left Lee. Enough miners and hangers on stuck around for a few more years, and William H. Lillard kept a store open until 1912. The post office kept its door open until April 1.
Today, at Lee one can find an abundance of stone ruins scattered around a townsite about a third of a mile square, along with a nearly solid ground covering of cans and broken glass. There are countless stone cairns littering the region on both sides of the state line, empty mine tunnels and shafts are found on the floor of the canyon and on the hillsides. The largest tailings pile belong to Hayseed. In the site of Lee Annex, on the California side can be found a few stone foundations, the remains of a stone corral, glass and cans. The state line is marked on the main road to Lee and also the dim and seldom used road to Lee, Nevada. Stone cairns are found seemingly everywhere on both sides of the state line.
—————————-
Editor’s Note: Click HERE for further information.
Posted in History, Facts, and Lore | Leave a Comment »
