Our museums and archives are temporarily closed to support the effort to contain the spread of the COVID-19 virus.

The Journal of San Diego History
SAN DIEGO HISTORICAL SOCIETY QUARTERLY
Spring 1974, Volume 20, Number 2

Back to the images

Ray Allen Billington states in America’s Frontier Heritage that

if students of the American character can agree upon any one thing. it is that the compulsion to move about has created a nation of restless wanderers unlike any other in the world. The people are forever on the go. . . . When the fever strikes, the American goes. indifferent to the risks and scornful of that attachment to place that restrains the European.1

Billington was referring to citizens of the United States when he compared “Americans” to Europeans and America’s Frontier Heritage is a defense of the “frontier hypothesis” as one of several forces shaping the character of these “Americans.”

“If moving about was a national characteristic [in the nineteenth century], that trait appeared in exaggerated relief along the frontiers. There mobility was a way of life, expected of all energetic people, and as socially acceptable as stability in more mature societies.”2 Throughout his book Billington qualifies and elaborates on Frederick Jackson Turner’s thesis that the pioneering past was a basic force in investing “Americans” with some of their most distinctive traits.

The question arises as to whether only native born citizens of the United States are infected with these “American” traits. San Diegans, living only fifteen miles from Mexico, are conscious of the fact that although the majority of the people in the area are norte americanos, they are not the only Americans. The population mixture during the pioneer period, in fact, made this a logical area in which to make a comparison of mobility by nationality between early settlers, and in particular, to compare the behavior of Anglo-Americans with Mexican-Americans.

The individuals included in this study were all residents of San Diego County between February 20 and March 4 of 1851, and were enumerated in the official United States census taken during that period.3 For convenience, those people born in California and Mexico—except for indians—will be referred to as Californios; those born in the United States will be called Americans, Indians will be referred to as such, and all other persons will be classified as foreigners.

For simplicity’s sake, only men age sixteen and up were included in this study, and they are referred to as “the population.” If reference is made to all men, women and children, they are defined as “total popula- tion.” It was decided not to include any Indians or soldiers in the main study: the Indians because they often had no surname or else had the same given name and surname and are difficult to trace, and the soldiers because their mobility did not depend on their own initiative.

However, there are some interesting facts regarding these two groups. The first census taken by Americans in the San Diego area was done by the Mormon Battalion of the U.S. Army in 1847. It listed 483 “tame” Indians and 1550 “wild” Indians.4 In the 1851 census Indians were ignored unless they were living with whites or whites were living with them. There were twenty-two Indian men listed, age sixteen or older, and only five had two names. One of these was an important leader of the Temecula Indian village who died there before the end of the decade. Three had quite common names, and because there were several Indians in San Diego County in 1860 with those names it is possible that they remained here. A forty-five- year-old indian farmer with $1000 worth of real estate, does not appear on any later census, so perhaps moved.5

There were 157 soldiers or workmen attached to the U.S. Army stationed in San Diego County in 1851. According to the official California state census taken in 1852 there were then still twenty-three of them here, or nearly 15 percent. Nine of the 157 men were here for the 1860 census, including three who were not on the 1852 census. Eight of the last named group were Americans, and one was an Irishman. Four of the nine (including the Irishman) were living in the County in 1870, and remained until their deaths. One young Virginian could not make up his mind about living in San Diego County. He lived in San Diego in 1851 and 1852, moved to San Bernardino before 1860, came back from about 1865 until 1878, was away again from 1878 to 1888, and then settled in San Diego permanently. Perhaps the 1870 census takers were unsure of him, because they did not include him in their count for that year.6

Early census reports, in particular, are notorious for their inaccuracies. Misspelled names are more the rule than the exception. For example, a simple name like Rose was Rade on one census, Tebbetts was Tobbetts once, Filbetts once and given correctly once. The surnames of the Californios were also often incorrect, and as length of names increased so did errors. Ages were usually an approximation, and some people were reported as younger in 1860 than they had been in 1851, making identification difficult. Conventional wisdom notwithstanding, women were not the only ones involved in these errors, for one man lost two years during a decade while his wife gained eight during the same period.

Census takers were definitely not given handwriting tests before being hired, or many of them would never have been employed. Some names they have written are impossible to decipher. On other names the ink had faded so much before copies were made that the name cannot be discerned. And finally, although a very painstaking search was made, some names may have been missed, even though these would not have been sufficient to change the statistics significantly.

Biographical information was located for 40 percent of the men living in the County in 1851. Where this data differs from the census reports, the fact will be mentioned. Death records for the 1850s and 1860s are very limited and undoubtedly more residents died here than has been ascertained. Nevertheless, where there is no information as to death, and when persons cease to appear on the census record, it is assumed that they moved.7

The total population in San Diego County according to the 1851 census totaled 798. Of these, 262 were non-lndian free-acting men. There were twenty Californios and five Americans living with parents, but they ranged in age from sixteen to thirty-five and were capable of going off on their own. A thirteen-year-old from Tennessee was the youngest American boy in San Diego living without parents. The next youngest in this situation was a sixteen-year-old from Washington, D.C., which seems a more suitable age to consider as adult.

Forty-eight of these 262 men were foreigners (18 percent); 122 were Americans (47 percent); and ninety-two were Californios (35 percent). Of the Californios only the four Fitch sons had an Anglo surname. In spite of this they are counted as Californios because their American father had died and their mother, Josefa Carrillo de Fitch, a Californio was the head of their household.

Billington mentions that in the United States “in 1850 more than 23 percent of the population resided outside the state of birth….Europe witnessed no such mobility.”8 After deducting the thirty-three men born in Mexico from the ninety-two Californios, 78 percent of the men in San Diego County in 1851 were residing outside of the state or country of their birth. Nearly one-fourth of these were foreigners (not calling Mexicans foreigners) and 19 percent were European (thirty-nine men).

Before the California state census was taken in October, 1852, three Californios, three Americans, and an Irishman enumerated in the 1851 census had died. They are not included in the statistics relating to 1852. Of the 255 men remaining, the 1852 census reports only twenty-one Californios, twenty-five Americans and fourteen foreigners. This means that 77 percent of the 1851 adult male population had moved within one-and-a-half years. There are several ways to analyze this mobility:

(1) Out of the 1851 population 76 percent of the Californian moved. 79 percent of the Americans moved, and 70 percent of the foreigners moved ;

(2) Californios who moved constituted 27 percent of the 1851 population; Americans who moved constituted 37 percent of the 1851 population; foreigners who moved constituted 13 percent of the 1851 population; and those not moving made up 23 percent of the 1851 population;

(3) Of the 195 men who moved, 35 percent were Californios, 48 percent were Americans, and 17 percent were foreigners. This is almost exactly the same proportions as they were of the population.

Using other sources, it was found that twenty-eight men not listed on the 1851 census were living in the county after 1852. It is possible many of them moved away and then returned. It is also possible that all were living here and were not enumerated. Three of the men were foreigners, nine were Americans, and sixteen were Californios. Assuming they were all here in 1852 would mean that 65 percent of the 1851 population had moved instead of 77 percent. The truth probably lies somewhere between the two figures.9

The census figures reveal some other interesting patterns. Based upon the 1851 census, the enumeration of the 1852 census as proof of residence, and the personal information supplied by the 1851 census, it was found that only 26 percent of the population had any real estate. Twenty-eight percent of the Californios were married, 25 percent of the Americans, and 23 percent of the foreigners. Between March 1851 and October 1852, 65 percent of the married men moved and 80 percent of the unmarried ones moved. Seventy-four percent of the Californios who moved were unmarried, but 56 percent of the married Californios also moved. Seventy-one percent of the Americans who moved were unmarried, but 70 percent of the married Americans moved. Sixty-eight percent of the foreigners who moved were unmarried, but 73 percent of the married foreigners moved. If we accept the theory that wives usually are more attached to a permanent home and dislike moving, it would appear that the Californios’ wives influenced their husbands most.

Perhaps a more important influence on mobility than marriage was the question of real estate values. Since 82 percent of the 1851 population did not own any real estate it is no wonder that 89 percent of those who moved between 1851 and 1852 were landless. Only 45 percent of the men with real estate moved, whereas 65 percent of the men with wives moved.

Twelve percent of the Californios owned land. amounting to a total value of $103,000. Twenty-three percent of the Americans owned land, with a total value of $105,640. Nineteen percent of the foreigners owned real estate, with a total worth set at $442,700. One reason the latter figure is so high is because it includes the properties of William Heath Davis (born in the Hawaiian Islands), who owned $300,000 worth of real estate. Most of his holdings were in the San Francisco area, however. and he moved there before the 1852 census.10 Another reason for the high figure is because José Antonio Aguirre (a gentleman born in Spain) said he owned $100,000 worth of real estate, while from tax assessments, his statements to census reporters in 1860, and the assessed value of his estate after his death, it appears that $50,000 would have been a generous figure.11Adjusting the total to compensate for these factors would make the value of real estate held by foreigners approximately the same as the other two groups. However, the foreigners were only 18 percent of the 1851 population and they probably owned a little more than one-third of the real estate (by valuation, not by acreage).

Thirty-six percent of the land-owning Californios living in San Diego in 1851 moved by 1852, and 82 percent of those with no real estate moved. Forty-four percent of the land-owning Americans moved and 89 percent of those with no land moved. Fifty-six percent of the land-owning foreigners moved and 74 percent of those with no land moved. During this year and a half the Californios owning land were the least inclined to move, while owning real estate seemed to make less difference to the mobility of the foreigners. One factor which may be considered pertinent was that the Californios often owned two or more homes in the county, usually a rancho out in thy rural areas and a casa in Old Town. They moved back and forth depending on the season and perhaps this fulfilled their migrant urges.

Another economic factor in the question of mobility was occupation, and there were nationalistic trends here too. Forty-seven Californios gave their occupation as “laborer” in 1851 and all except eight of them moved by 1852. while nineteen Californios had no occupation and fifteen of them moved. There were nine farmers and only three moved; five graziers and three moved. The only other Californio remaining in San Diego was an “overseer”. Two “overseers”, three shoemakers, two traders, and a merchant also moved.

The Americans and foreigners had much more diversity in occupation than the Californios, but the largest number of movers were again the laborers and those with no occupation. Out of thirty-eight American laborers all except two moved within the one and a half years. Among the twenty-one not employed all except two moved. The largest group staying were six merchants. while three merchants moved. Only one American farmer stayed, while seven moved. Three traders and three lawyers stayed, but seven traders moved on, and one lawyer moved. Four carpenters moved and only one stayed, and all four of the American joiners moved. Only one American said he was a grazier, and he stayed. All other occupations were represented by only one person and are insignificant for the purpose of comparisons.

There were a dozen foreign laborers who appeared in the 1851 census and nine of them had moved by October 1852. All six of the unemployed foreigners and the three carpenters moved. Five merchants stayed and five moved. Two ship pilots stayed, as well as a butcher, a trader. a doctor, and the “gentleman” from Spain. The only other “gentleman” was the one from the Hawaiian Islands, and he moved.

It is not surprising that so many of the laborers and unemployed men moved. They probably believed they could improve their economic status in some other area where employment opportunities appeared greater. It was interesting to find that 93 percent of the Californios considered themselves either unemployed, laborers, or connected with the land as farmers, graziers or “overseers” (presumably of a rancho). Only six Californios were employed in other ways; three shoemakers, two traders, and a merchant.

The census figures reveal little correlation between age level and mobility. The average age of all the adult men was thirty-one, with movers being an average age of thirty and those not moving, averaging age thirty-four. Averages by nationality were also very similar, with the age of all the Californios averaging thirty-one, movers being thirty and those who stayed thirty-four; all American men averaged thirty-one, movers being thirty and those who stayed thirty-two; and for the foreigners it was somewhat higher, with all the men averaging thirty-three, the movers thirty-two and those who stayed thirty-five.

By 1860, six more Californios who had been residents in 1851 had died, as well as five more Americans and four more foreigners. The 1860 census report lists twenty-four of the 1851 Californios, whereas the 1852 census only named twenty-one of them. In 1860 there were fifteen of the 1851 Americans enumerated, ten men less than those remaining in October 1852. Only seven of the 1851 foreigners remained in San Diego County, or just half of the number of these foreigners here in 1852. Therefore, within ten years 74 percent of the 1851 population had moved, 18 percent remained and 8 percent had died. lf the census records are assumed to be correct there were twelve Californios, three Americans and three foreigners who moved before October 1852 and returned before June 1860. This would actually mean 81 percent of the 1851 population had moved out of the county before 1860 and 7 percent moved back again.

Of the two dozen Californios here in 1860, twelve had been listed in the 1852 census. Several of the twelve who were not listed in 1852 were probably living here, while others perhaps moved and then returned. Eight of the men were married in 1851, and three more became married during the decade. All the men who were laborers or unemployed became farmers, rancheros, or vaqueros (the only occupations of these twenty-four Californios. Eight of them owned real estate (33 percent) for a total value of $39,300. The 1860 census also listed the value of personal estates and fourteen of the men (58 percent) were worth $100 or more. The total personal estate value of the fourteen was $62,100.

Of the fifteen American residents still here in 1860, three had not been listed in the 1852 census. Four were married in 1851, and two more married before 1860. Three men unemployed in 1851 later became farmers, two formerly unemployed became carpenters, and one who had been unemployed became a monthly laborer. Six other men became farmers as well: two had formerly been traders, and the others had been a grocer, a cabinet maker, a tobacconist, and a blacksmith. In addition to those who were farmers, carpenters, and laborers, the Americans in 1860 were rancheros, merchants, and lawyers. Twelve of the fifteen men (80 percent) owned some real estate in 1860, amounting in total value to $23,500. Everyone except the monthly laborer had $200 or more in personal property, making a total of $37,200.

Of the seven foreigners still living in San Diego in 1860, only four had been enumerated in the 1852 census. The forty-eight foreigners in 1851 had consisted of nine Irishmen, eight Englishmen, seven Germans, six spaniards, three Hungarians, two Peruvians, two Frenchmen and one person each from eleven other countries. Ten years later there were two irishmen, two Englishmen, a Spaniard, a German, and a Hungarian. The Spanish “gentleman” was married in 1851, and an Irishman and Englishman were married during the decade. Three men (a lawyer, a farmer, and a merchant) remained in their earlier occupations, while two men who were traders in 1851 became a carpenter and a mason, and two men who had been laborers became a lighthouse keeper and a butcher. All the foreigners, except the lighthouse keeper, owned real estate (worth a total of $31,400) and had personal property worth more than $200 (totaling $28,700 in value).

By 1870 another five Californios had died, as well as three more Americans and three more foreigners. The 1870 census lists only nine Californios, eight Americans, and three foreigners who had been here twenty years earlier. This would mean that 80 percent of the 1851 population had moved, 12 percent had died and 8 percent were still living here.

Seventy-five percent of the Californios moved during these twenty years, 15 percent had died, and 10 percent were still living here. Only one of these nine men were on the 1852 census and only six were on the 1860 census. One was married in 1850, four had married since 1860, and four were still single. They were rancheros, farmers, or laborers. Six of them owned land worth $18,100, and five of them had some personal property, to a total value of $8,950.

Eighty-four percent of the Americans had moved between 1851 and 1870, nine percent had died here and 7 percent were still living here. Seven of these eight men were on the 1852 census and seven were on the 1860 census. Six of the Americans remained bachelors, and two had been married during the 1860s. There were two merchants, two farmers, a farm laborer, a lawyer, a carpenter, and a saloon keeper. Six of them owned real estate worth a total of $96,000 and five of them had personal property equaling $30,300 in total value.

Seventy-seven percent of the foreigners had moved in twenty years’ time, while 17 percent died here and 6 percent were still living here. One of the three men here in 1870 had not been included in the 1852 census, but all were on the 1860 census. One of them was married in the 1850s, and one in the 1860s, while one remained single. The Irishman was a carpenter, the Englishman a mason, and the German a merchant. The Irishman had $1,000 worth of land and $500 worth of personal property, while the German owned $40,000 worth of real estate and $4,000 worth of personal property. The Englishman had no real estate or personal property listed.

A few previous assumptions were destroyed by this research. First to go was the idea that if the soldiers stationed here were not counted there would be more Californios living in San Diego County in 1851 than Americans, when in fact, Americans made up 47 percent of the adult male population and Californios 35 percent.

A second erroneous idea was that the population here might be fairly stable. Since the gold discovery news had been circulating in California for over two and a half years by the time of the census of 1851, one might assume that those who were inclined to go to the gold fields would have departed by March of that year. In that type of situation a man would not want to dally around for a year while others were stripping the streams of their nuggets. Perhaps the men in the San Diego area moved for other reasons. Of the men who could be traced, most of the americans moved to San Francisco, a few to Los Angeles, and some back east; nearly all the Californios moved to Baja California, and of that group only the Fitch family moved north to Sonoma County.

Perhaps the opinion held by Juan L. B. Bandini was typical of that held by many Californios (although he was a foreigner, having been born in Peru). In 1847 he wrote his son-in-law

I see that now we are in a much worse state than before. There is no government, no order, no security and in place of these precious guarantees, we have instead a public demoralization that can hardly be endured. The administration of Justice, since there is no one to attend to it, has become a torch to fire the most blind of passions. Liberty . . . . has become licentiousness. . . . And I ask myself, will the new protecting government always be like this? . . . you can well imagine the state of my heart on seeing what is happening. Thus I make known to you the great desire l have of leaving this country, of selling what l possess, settling my affairs, and seeking other winds, which although less healthy for my body, may be more beneficial to my rest and peace of mind.12

Señor Bandini moved to Baja California before 1852, although he retained his residence in Old Town and used it often during the 1850s. In 1854 Bandini entertained William Kip, the first Episcopalian Bishop to California.

The Bishop was impressed by Bandini’s hospitality , wealth and standing. He felt, apparently, from talking with Bandini and from study, that America had robbed and seized the ranchos of California and driven the owners to the wall. His theories were somewhat substantiated when, shortly after Kip’s arrival at the Bandini home, old Juan’s son rushed in to report that Walker’s filibusters had killed many cattle, driven off the horses and completely stripped one of the Bandini ranches ninety miles away.13

Another previously held idea which proved to be wrong was that the Americans were a great deal more mobile than other nationalities. In the second year-and-a-half of statehood 70 percent of the foreigners moved, seventy-six percent of the Californios moved, and 79 percent of the Americans moved. Over twenty year span this changed to 77 percent of the foreigners having moved, 75 percent of the Californios moved, and 84 percent of the Americans moved.

If some of the Californios moved because of persecution from Americans, perhaps also some of the Californios, Americans and foreigners moved because of employment opportunities elsewhere. The times may not have been too prosperous in southern California during this particular year-and-a-half due to a drought, for the Alta California of October 28, 1851, quoted from the Los Angeles Star that “the scarcity of water and feed of the present season has not been equaled in the last twenty-two years. The cattle on many of the ranchos are suffering severely, though as yet few have died.”14 The census was taken in October 1852 and by then 76 percent of the Americans and foreigners living here in 1851 had moved. It is understandable that 92 percent of the unemployed and laborers would move, but less easy to comprehend why so many others moved.

By 1870 there were eleven Americans and foreigners in San Diego who had been here in 1851. According to the census reports three had been unemployed in 1851: Daniel Kurtz had become a carpenter by 1860 and continued in this in 1870; Asher Maxey became a farmer before 1860 and remained one; and Thomas Lush was a monthly laborer in 1860 and a saloon keeper in 1870.

Three men had been traders in 1851: Ephraim W. Morse gave his occupation as farmer in 1860 and as a retired merchant in 1870; George Lyons (born in Ireland) became a carpenter before 1860 and remained one; and William Evans (born in England) became a stone mason by 1860 and continued in this.

Three men stayed with their original occupations for the twenty year period: William B. Couts, a farmer; Charles Noell, a merchant; and Oliver S. Witherby, a lawyer.

John Mclntire was quite adaptable in his occupations; in 1851 he was a tobacconist. in 1860 a farmer, and in 1870 a farm laborer. The San Diego newspapers mention him as a justice of the peace, county assessor, and postmaster.15 The other jack-of-all-trades in early San Diego was Louis Rose from Germany. In 1851 he was a laborer, in 1860 a butcher, and in 1870 a merchant. At other times he operated a tannery, prospected for gold, silver, copper, and coal, manufactured mattresses from seaweed, sold lumber, had a ranch producing fruit, grapes, horses and cattle, operated a wharf at La Playa as well as a store and hotel in Old Town. and was postmaster in Old Town for ten years.16

Some of the occupations of men employed in San Diego in 1851 who moved within a year and a half include laborers, farmers, merchants, carpenters, joiners, traders, doctors, ship pilots, grocers, a barkeeper, a cook, a millwright, a dentist, an engineer, a judge, a lawyer, a cooper, a tanner, a butcher, and the sheriff. It would seem that most of these occupations would be necessary here, which means they were probably necessary elsewhere on the frontier as well. In general the Californios were mainly laborers or farmers and perhaps moved back to Baja California, while the Americans and foreigners had much more diversity in their occupational skills and could probably get work most anywhere in the West. InAmerica’s Frontier Heritage Billington elaborates on a multitude of reasons why Americans would move.

As Billington concludes his chapter on the frontier and the migratory compulsion:

Migration was a way of life . . . a never-ending quest for greater wealth and higher status. . . . those who have migrated are more apt to migrate again than those who have not, and they also infect their children and some nonmovers with the disease. . . . Americans will continue to be a nation of habitual migrants as long as they hope for a better life . . . .17

Those statements referring to the Americans could also be applied to the Californios and to the foreigners, at least in this corner of the frontier during the 1850’s. Although the sample available in San Diego is clearly too small to refute Billington’s thesis, this study does suggest the need for further research in comparing mobility among different nationalities residing in the United States.

 


 

NOTES

1. Ray Allen Billington. America’s Frontier Heritage. (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966), p. 181.

2. Ibid., p. 187.

3. San Diego County in 1850 included much of present-day Inyo, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial Counties. In 1851 the Inyo and San Bernardino portions were transferred to Los Angeles County because of their distance from San Diego. The census records of 1851 and 1852 do not specify districts or townships of the county, which makes it impossible to tell if any of the people listed in 1851 lived in the northern areas which were cut off by 1852.

4. Richard F. Pourade, The Silver Dons (San Diego: Union-Tribune Publishing Company, 1963), p. 132.

5. San Diego County, Census of 1850; San Diego County, Census Record 1860; San Diego County, Census 1870; California, Census of 1852. Vol. V, San Diego County. Copied under the direction of The Genealogical Records Committee. Daughters of the American Revolution of California, 1934, (microfilm); Alan P. Bowman, comp., Index to the 1850 Census of the State of California (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company, 1972), pp. 397-402; J. D. B. DeBow, Seventh Census, 1850, Statistical View, Compendium (Washington, D.C.: Senate Printer, 1854, pp. 200. 201, 394. Throughout this study reference will be made to these census reports and because of this frequency and also the combining of data from the several reports it was not feasible to continue citing these titles. These census reports list sex, age, place of birth, occupation, marital status by implication through who is living in the same dwelling, value of real estate owned, and, in later years, the value of personal property owned.

6. Taken from census records; statements by his son in the Biographical File of Benjamin F. Parsons. San Diego History Center, Serra Museum, San Diego and the San Diego Union, September 15, 1870, p. 3.

7. A complete search on each adult male was made in the Biographical Files, San Diego History Center and the index to the San Diego Herald and the San Diego Union in the California Room of the San Diego Public Library. Where possible specific information will be cited, but general reference to several people will not be. Deaths were most often recorded in either the above newspapers, the Biographical File, or Campo Santo: Burials, 1849-1880, translated and transcribed from Mission San Diego records by Ann Woodbury Guern and Winifred Davidson, 1933 (typescript). Occasionally a death was mentioned only in a general work on San Diego history. These other sources include R. W. Brackett, The History of San Diego County Ranchos (San Diego: Union Title Insurance Company, 1960); J. M. Guinn, A History of California (Los Angeles: Historical Record Company, 1907); Benjamin Hayes, Pioneer Notes from the Diaries of Judge Benjamin Hayes, 1849-1875 (Los Angeles: Privately printed, 1929); Carl H. Heilbron,History of San Diego County (San Diego: San Diego Press Club, 1936); James A. Jasper, Trail-breakers and History Makers of Julian, Ballena, Mesa Grande, Oak Grove, Warner Ranch, Banner, Cuycama in San Diego County, California. Vol. I and II. (typescript); Cecil C. Moyer, Historic Ranchos of San Diego (San Diego: Union-Tribune Publishing Company, 1969); Richard F. Pourade, The Silver Dons; and William E. Smythe, History of San Diego, 1542-1908. Vol. I. (San Diego: The History Company, 1908).

8. Billington, America’s Frontier Heritage, p. 185.

9. Other sources are those mentioned in footnote 7 above. Analyzing these figures in the same ways as before would mean: (a) Out of the 1851 population 58 percent of the Californios moved; 72 percent of the Americans moved; and 64 percent of the foreigners moved; (b) Californios who moved were 20 percent of the 1851 population; Americans who moved were 33 percent of the population; foreigners who moved were 12 percent of the population; and those not moving made up 35 percent of the population; (c) Of the 167 men who moved, 31 percent were Californios, 51 percent were Americans, and 18 percent were foreigners.

10. William Heath Davis, Seventy-five Years in California (San Francisco: Howell, 1929). p. 235.

11. San Diego County, 1850 Tax Assessment List, p. 1; San Diego Union, February 22, 1872, p. 3.

12. Katherine L. Wagner, “Native of Arica: Requiem for a Don,” The Journal of San Diego History, XVII (Spring 1971), No. 2, p. 5.

13. Lionel U. Ridout, “A Bishop’s First Glimpse of a Frontier Town” San Diego History Center Quarterly, III (January 1957), No. 1, p.,7.

14. Alta California. October 28, 1851, p. 2.

15. San Diego Herald, September 9, 1854, p. 2; San Diego Union, October 10, 1868. p. 2: and San Diego Union. March 18. 1938. p. 3.

16. Smythe. History of San Diego. p. 259; Pourade, The Silver Dons, pp. 170 and 206; San Diego Union, November 16, 1871, p. 2; San Diego Union. November 29, 1873, p. 2: and San Diego Union, June 7. 1874, p. 3.

17. Billington, America’s Frontier Heritage, pp. 196, 197.


Martha M. White, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Edgar Moss of Okanogan, Washington, attended Western Washington State College, Bellingham, before moving to San Diego. She received her B.A. degree with honors, with distinction in history. from San Diego State University in 1973 and a teaching credential in history and librarianship in January, 1974. She is currently doing graduate work at San Diego State University. Her husband. David, is a draftsman with the Community Development Department of the City of San Diego.