|
Two Land Grants: Ácoma
& Tierra
Amarilla Written: August, 2004 Ácoma The PeopleThe Land and Water The Spanish Arrival Ácoma and Spanish Land Grants 1598 - 1821 The Mexican Period 1821 - 1846 United State Rule 1846 – present Hispano/Pueblo Land Grants Hispano Spanish and Mexican Land Grants Tierra AmarillaThe People The Land and Water Tierra Amarilla Land Grant Chicanery and Loss Two Stories, Different Endings The land and the people in the Southwest have a long and often confusing history. The people who now inhabit north central New Mexico are the result of migrations and geographic changes occurring over thousands of years. The occupation of land and claims to it have resulted in ongoing conflicts since the arrival of the Spanish in 1598 by Juan de Oñate, who took possession of the lands in New Mexico for Spain. There may have been many conflicts prior to the arrival of the Spanish by Native peoples, but they remain undocumented. The concept of Land Grants came with the Spanish and their implementation was a reflection of Spanish law as practiced in Spain. There were several purposes of the grants: to reward soldiers of the Kingdom with land; to encourage people to settle on the land; and to protect the Spanish frontier from outside encroachments (Briggs & Van Ness, 1987). Unfortunately, the lands granted were, for the most part already occupied or used by the Native inhabitants, thus creating the beginnings of land conflict in the area. When the United States invaded Mexico in 1846, the occupying forces and the subsequent waves of newcomers from the East, had their own ideas about land, which conflicted with both the land grant occupants and the Native peoples, leading to another level of land conflict (Montoya, 2002). The resulting legal battles and armed conflicts were testimony to the clash of cultures, the power of greed and the perseverance of people who lived and relied on the land. The idea that a people who have occupied the land for hundreds, if not thousands, of years would give up any claim to right of occupation and use is the question. Given that the majority of Native and Hispano occupants were not physically expelled or killed, as had happened in other parts of the United States, suggests that the descendants of these people are still rooted to the land and will go to extraordinary means to protect their interest in the land. Another important factor in relation to the Native and Hispano peoples of the Southwest in 1848 is that the rights of the former Mexican citizens and their descendents, both Hispano and Native, were and are protected by international treaty as well as Native Americans in the United States who also are supposed to be protected by other treaty rights. The focus of this article is to look at two places, the
Ácoma Pueblo and Tierra Amarilla, where pre-United States
peoples still inhabit their traditional homelands. It will review their
histories, the basis of their land claims, the similarities and
dissimilarities between the two groups, and the challenges and
opportunities facing these two peoples. Ácoma The use of land by human beings has always been one of ebb and flow. Human migration patterns have always generated some conflict among those who are new, and those who were residents, except in situations were no one was resident. The estimated arrival period in the western hemisphere of the first humans varies considerably. The earliest estimate is an arrival of an Asian Mongoloid people over the frozen Beringia 40,000 years ago. Later estimates range from 25 to 12,000 years ago. There may also have been waves of migration from Asia during these periods (Thorton, 1987). The first documented record of human occupation in the Southwest is that of the Sandia Man, dating back 25,000 years. Other, better known, identifications of early man are that of the Folsom and Clovis man, dating between 10 and 25,000 years ago (Beck & Haase, 1969). Estimates of the Native population in North America, excluding Mexico, at the time of arrival by Europeans in 1492 range from 900,000 to 12.25 million, with a mid-range estimate at 7+ million (Thorton, 1987). An estimate of the Native population circa 1492 for the states of New Mexico and Arizona, based on percentage of the whole from previous studies (Ubelaker in Thorton, 1987) and applied to 7+ million, would be between 400,000 and 600,000 people. The Anasazi are estimated to have established their culture over 2,000 years ago in what is now the Four Corners region (Faux & Miller, 1997). Then around 1300 A.D. the Anasazis left their homeland and, many believe, established what is now the Indian Pueblos of New Mexico. The significance of this is that the people who today live in
the Pueblos in New Mexico, including Ácoma, are actually
descendents of people who have continuously lived in the region for
thousands of years, possibly up to 25,000 years. Considering the racial
and Indian policies of both the Spanish and the United States it is
amazing that these people are still battling for their rights in terms
of ownership and use of the land. The landform area of New Mexico in which Ácoma lies can be considered the North Plains of New Mexico, with intermittent mesas and rock outcroppings or tablelands. The Cebolleta mountains are to the north, with Mt. Taylor being the highest peak, and the Zuni mountains to the west. The Rio Grande valley is east of Ácoma and the Datil mountains to the south. The area is quite arid with annual precipitation between 12 and 14 inches per year (Beck & Haase, 1969). The scarcity of water, the rough terrain and the distance from any major water way would seem to make life in Ácoma difficult. But with perseverance and ingenuity, according the Ácoma Pueblo web site, the community of Ácoma has been occupied since 1150 A.D., making it the oldest continuously occupied community in the United States. Ward Minge (1991) relates that the first encounter with the Spanish in Ácoma was not a pleasant experience for either party. Juan de Oñate, the Spanish governor of New Mexico, met with the people of the pueblo in October of 1598 and thought he had obtained their allegiance to the Spanish Crown. Another trailing group of Spaniards led by Captain Juan de Zaldivar arrived on December 4th of the same year. The Captain and twelve others in his group were killed by the people of Ácoma for unknown reasons. In retaliation to the killing, Zaldivar’s brother, Vicente, along with 70 men arrived at Ácoma on January 21, 1599. They were not accepted by the people of Ácoma and subsequently attacked the community. The Spanish were successful in their assault and took 500 men, women and children as prisoners. The punishment for the Ácoma men over 25 years of age was that one foot be cut off and that they serve 20 years in servitude. The Spanish legal process of a residencia, the review of a
Governors term, resulted in Oñate being banished from New Mexico
and fined for the violence that was directed at the Ácoma
people. Vincente de Zaldivar was also banished from New Mexico for 8
years and also fined for his role in the attack and destruction of
Ácoma (Minge, 1991). Ácoma and Spanish Land Grants 1598 - 1821 The basis for the Spanish land grant to the Ácoma Pueblo was a grant made by Governor Petriz de Cruzate on September 20, 1689 (Minge, 1991) in accordance with the 1681 Recopilación de las Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias (Law of the Indies). This law provided a guideline for the protection of Native land rights and a means to issue land grants to the Pueblos. This conveyance occurred after the 1680 Pueblo Revolt and before the re-conquest of the Pueblos. Finally on July 6, 1699 Ácoma ceded to the Spanish under Governor Pedro Rodriquez Cubero who performed the "Act of Obedience," requiring Ácoma to submit to the Spanish Crown. Given the nature of the Recopilación, the Pueblo peoples were considered wards of the Crown as well as property owners and afforded additional protection in regard to their lands. Non-Indians were restricted from encroaching on Pueblo lands or from buying Indian land, at least in theory. Eventually, by the 1750’s, it became commonly understood that the Pueblos each owned four square leagues, a league being about 2.3 miles, or roughly 18,000 acre squares (Hall in Briggs & Van Ness, 1987). This became the basis for Pueblo lands under Spanish, Mexican and American rule. In the more populated areas along the Rio Grande there were many boundary disputes between newly arriving Hispano settlers and neighboring Pueblos in addition to boundary disputes among the Pueblos themselves. Ácoma was fortunate be in a somewhat remote area that did not attract a large number of Hispano settlers. It did, though, border the Laguna Pueblo which resulted in boundary disputes between the two Pueblos. The Mexican Period 1821 - 1846 After Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821 the laws affecting the Pueblo peoples changed dramatically. They were no longer considered wards of the Crown or state, but considered as equal citizens with all rights and responsibilities of other citizens. Additionally legislation was introduced to make the unused common lands of both Indians and non-Indians available to others who would use the land. This increased the pressures on the Pueblo land holdings, although there was debate in the Mexican government whether they could actually give the land away (Hall in Briggs & Van Ness, 1987). Perhaps fortunately for the Pueblos, or perhaps not, the
Mexican government was not able to implement all of the changes that
were legislated because of the Mexican American War and Mexico’s loss
of Pueblo lands in 1846. This Mexican legislation did introduce another
layer of confusion about the exact legal nature of Pueblo land grants
and did cause a loss of Pueblo lands to Hispano settlers. United State Rule 1846 – present When the United States forces reached Ácoma in 1846 they saw little influence of the Spanish culture, with few people at the Pueblo speaking Spanish (Minge, 1991). The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo on February 2, 1848, brought New Mexico and the Indian Pueblos under United States jurisdiction. It insured in Article VIII that, "In the said territories, property of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans, not established there, shall be inviolably respected" and in Article IX, "…; and in the mean time shall be maintained and protected in free enjoyment of their liberty and property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion without restriction" (Rivera, 1970). Since the Pueblo people were considered Mexican citizens at the time of conquest, they and their lands would conceivably be protected by the treaty. The ambiguity of their status both during the Spanish and Mexican periods makes this acquisition of responsibility more dubious. The status of Pueblo land grants was based on the actions of earlier Governors, of which documentation was not readily available. When documentation was provided it often proved to be a later, unauthorized version of what was understood to be common knowledge, such as the Cruzate grants of 1689. In 1851 the military government in New Mexico made the Indian Pueblos formal corporations, with the right to sue and be sued, so by 1851 Indian Pueblos were officially recognized as entities by the United State government. Additionally Congress established that the 1834 Trade and Intercourse Act applied to the "tribes" in the newly conquered areas, thus prohibiting non-Indian acquisition of Indian land except under very specific circumstances, which was overruled in 1869 by the territorial supreme court (Hall in Briggs & Van Ness, 1987). Congress confirmed a survey and other paperwork submitted by the Surveyor General’s office for Ácoma on December 22, 1858, but the General Land Office did not issue a patent for the grant. An ongoing boundary conflict with the Laguna Pueblo created a number of problems for Ácoma. In addition to this a number of new non-Indian settlers came into the area and started encroaching upon Indian lands. The government opened some of the Ácoma land for settlement. By misrepresentation, incorrect surveys and heightened conflict between the Ácoma and Laguna Pueblos the patent, issued in 1877 for Ácoma lands, resulted in significant losses (Minge, 1991). The problems of determining Pueblo land grant boundaries continued from 1850 to 1877 and even extended into the 1910’s and 1920’s. In a significant ruling in May 1877, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Joseph that the repeal of the 1834 Trade and Intercourse Act as it applied to Pueblos was correct, and that any past losses of land by the Pueblos was irreversible. The Pueblos only defense of their lands was through local law (Hall in Briggs & Van Ness, 1987). The tide started to change for the Pueblos in the 1890s with Congress appropriating money for defending the Pueblos against encroachments. This change of heart, in addition to exempting Pueblos from territorial taxation made the status of Pueblo land grants different from non-Indian lands of any kind (Hall in Briggs & Van Ness, 1987). The adoption by Congress of the 1891 Court of Private Land Claims favored the Pueblo lands much more than had been the case in the past. The understanding of land grant claims by the federal government was, at best, limited. When Laguna applied for a patent in the 1890s the government relied on the logic of the 1689 Cruzate Land Grants and ruled that the four square leagues were the determining factor for patenting Pueblo land grants. Additionally, a condition of New Mexico’s statehood in January, 1912, was that it give up jurisdiction over the Pueblo lands. This requirement, in October 1913, was sustained by the Supreme Court, making the Pueblos federal wards. A large part of this ruling was determined by the federal governments view of Indians in general, being wards of the federal government. The problems with Pueblo sovereignty and status continued up to the 1924 Pueblo Lands Act which recognized non-Indian claims to land within the Pueblo land grants if those claims had been made prior to 1889 or 1899, depending on the circumstances of the claims (Hall in Briggs & Van Ness, 1987). The results of this Act were, as could be imagined, continued court cases and claims and counter-claims by both the Pueblos and non-Indian settlers who were within Pueblo grant boundaries. Water ownership, or at least compensation, became another major issue which came to the forefront after the passage of this act. The 1924 Pueblo Lands Act established that non-Indians could not own land in Pueblo land grant areas, unless they were previously certified. The Act, though, did not prevent those non-Indian owners from subdividing the land they had, thus resulting in more non-Indians in Pueblo lands and more demand for the limited water resources. Ácoma became a reservation on May 23, 1928, with a holdings of over 55,000 acres. The land holdings of the Pueblo increased to over 153,000 acres in 1944 as a result of the United Pueblos Agency ruling. The total land used by Ácomas, including leases from the federal government was at over 255,000 acres (Minge, 1991). After 1972 (up to 1990), purchases more than doubled the size
of Ácoma lands and they are continuing to attempt to buy back
what was theirs at one time. As of December 1989 the Tribal Council
requested trust status for newly acquired land bringing the total
reservation size to over 378,000 acres plus an additional 78,000 acres
in leased land. The Ácoma are just beginning, they believe, to
recover the millions of acres of their original homeland (Minge, 1991). Spanish and Mexican land grants to Hispanos were somewhat different from the land grants to the Pueblo Indians in New Mexico. For one thing, there was no base from which Hispano grants emerged other than Spanish law and tradition applied to ever changing conditions. They were a result of expanding populations, or at least the desire to expand the population to previously unsettled areas (areas without Hispano settlements). The lands of the Pueblos, on the other hand, were already occupied and had some legal consideration from the Spanish Crown. In 1493 Queen Isabella of Spain directed, in her will, that the rights of indigenous land ownership be respected. This directive, though, was obviously distorted and sometimes ignored. The 1681 Recopilación provided further direction for the protection of indigenous lands (Hall in Briggs & Van Ness, 1987). Finally, the sweeping Cruzate grants of 1689, although not documented beyond doubt, did actually establish a physical definition to the Pueblo lands, roughly 18,000 acres (4 square leagues). These Cruzate grants have been used into the twentieth century as a basis for Pueblo land grant rights. The Indian Pueblos lands were subject to encroachment and loss, as were the Hispano land grants, the only difference being the long legacy of legal attempts to protect indigenous lands. Hispano land grants had no such legacy, in fact they often were involved in litigation between competing Hispano and Indian claimants. Hispano Spanish and Mexican Land Grants Spanish land grants were based on a system that evolved in Spain long before the Spanish arrived in the Western Hemisphere. The history of Spanish land law began in pre-Roman times, but evolved into a legal framework during the re-conquest of Spain from the Moors, starting in about 800 B.C. One of the first actions by the royalty of Spain was to reward the conquistadores with land for their service to the Crown during the conquest of the Moors. Another action was to award pueblos with lands surrounding the community in order to both establish colonies and outposts of the Crown’s rule in Spain. These same principles were applied to New Mexico after the re-conquest of New Mexico, with both private and community grants issued to various parties providing services to the Crown (Ebright, 1994). The Spanish land grant, therefore, could be given to both individuals or to a group of settlers. The significance of this difference was to impact land grant status well into the twentieth century. Common lands in the community grants were supposed to be available to all in the community. Private grants had no such stipulations, but the individual owner would often deed or lease portions of the grant to others, and agree to let them utilize other lands within the grant for the common good, but there was no legal right of use implied in the private grant to other owners or lessees, unless specifically stated. Another practice inherited from Spain was that of issuing encomiendas, the right of a private grant holder to use the labor from neighboring Pueblos as part of the grant. Although the encomienda was technically illegal according to Royal law, the practice continued in New Mexico until the Pueblo Revolt of 1680. As mentioned earlier, in 1681 the Recopilación de las Leyes de los Reynos de las Indias was instituted to deal with forming new settlements in Spain’s new territories in New Mexico and the rest of the western hemisphere. The community land grants issued by Spain usually included different classes of land, each with a particular use. The ejido was designated as common land for use by all residents of a community. It was primarily use as grazing land which all members had access. Other lands within the land grant usually included prime pasture (prados), land which could be leased by the community (propios), and small plots of lands to be used by the settlers as farming plots (suertes) (Tyler in Ebright, 1989). This type of land allocation was accepted as common practice
for the Spanish land grants of New Mexico. One point of contention did
arise, though, when one, poblador principal, or two people were listed
on the grant as the grantees along with so many unnamed partners. Those
unnamed partners were supposed to be represented by that one person to
represent all their interests and that person was to issue deeds,
hijuelas, to the other parties involved. This would imply that the
grant was a common grant, thus allowing the other parties free access
to the common lands in the grant (Ebright, 1993). When the first Spanish expedition came north to New Mexico, led by Juan de Oñate, his group consisted of soldiers who were Spanish, mestizos, coyotes and mulattoes along with Tlascalan Indians and other Mexican Indians. These soldiers and their auxiliaries often settled next to or in Indian Pueblos. This was actually the only way they could survive the severe conditions of a new, unfamiliar land (McWilliams, 1990). As time progressed the Spanish blood declined in relation to the mixed blood of northern New Mexican residents. The social structure of the New Mexico frontier society consisted of the few ricos, lighter skinned Spanish types, and the pobres, the lower classed mixed bloods (McWilliams, 1990). There was no tradition of education or self-government, since the Spanish Crown and the church would provide all direction for governance and spiritual guidance. The ricos, living in such places as the Martinez Hacienda in Taos, would have their haciendas built as a fort to protect against Indian raids, with the local pobres and Indians being the workers. The real Hispano settlers of northern New Mexico were the
villagers (McWilliams, 1990), settling places like Cordova, Truchas and
Tierra Amarilla. The villages were based on land grants provided by the
Spanish Crown or the Mexican Government to protect against Indian
incursions and populate the frontier areas. The settlers who came to
Tierra Amarilla were likely from older established settlements to the
south like Abiquiu. The settlers were, for the most part, natives of
New Mexico, with families well established in nearby communities. The allocation of land and water rights was essential to the success of a land grant. Since the purpose of the grant was to stimulate settlement, it was important that the land sustain the settlers. The distribution of lands inherited from Spain proved to be a successful way to sustain a community in a harsh environment, while still maintaining the integrity of the land. The practice was that villagers would tend to their own small plots for their immediate needs, graze their cattle on common lands available to all, gather wood from woodlands which were also available to all and when cultivated fields were not in use, graze their cattle on those fields. The land of Tierra Amarilla is located in the valley and hilly lands west of the San Juan Mountains and is located in a sub-range of the Jemez range (Briggs & Van Ness, 1987). The vegetation in this area consists of montane forest (ponderosa pine) and conifer woodland (piñon-juniper) with grasslands in the valley floors. The precipitation in this area ranges between 14 and 18 inches of rain per year. The Tierra Amarilla area was used by the Jicarilla Apache, Navaho and Utes for summer hunting grounds prior to the arrival of Hispano settlers. Attempts to settle in Tierra Amarilla made between 1832 and 1860 were generally unsuccessful. There were, though, a number of petitions for community grants in the Tierra Amarilla area. The first one was in 1814, another in 1820, and one in 1824. None of these petitions were granted. A Manuel Martinez, along with others, petitioned in 1832 for a grant to the Ayuntamiento, or town council, of Abiquiú which was then submitted to the Governor for final approval (Ebright, 1993). In approving the grant by the Territorial Deputation (apparently an office of the Governor) on July 20, 1832, it was noted that the grant was made as a community land grant and not a private grant as Martinez had wanted. The grant itself was not settled permanently until 1860 because of Ute and Apache raids in the area. There were temporary settlements and use of the land by Hispanos prior to that date, beginning in 1838 (Torrez in Ebright, 1993). By 1861-65 there were about 600 people living in the Tierra Amarilla land grant communities (Ebright, 1993). The settlement of the northern New Mexico land grant areas was done by individuals and families from nearby, established communities as mentioned above. Those in the northern New Mexico settlements had very close family ties, so that if land within a community land grant exchanged hands it was usually within the family or other land grant members. The men served as both farmers and militia, always ready to defend themselves and their families against Indian raids. Surprisingly enough, though, in communities such as Abiquiu trading often took place between the nomadic Indians and the Hispanos (Van Ness in Briggs & Van Ness, 1987). Another population group that is rarely mentioned in the
development of New Mexico land grants is the Genizaro. The Genizaro
were Indians who became Hispanicized and
Christianized. In fact, a
Genizaro pueblo was established on Abiquiu Mesa in May of 1754.
Initially the Genizaro, formerly nomadic hunters and gatherers,
constituted the majority in the Pueblo of Abiquiu (Poling-Kempes,
1997). In time, the Genizaro melted away into the larger Hispano
population, essentially becoming Hispano themselves (Quintana, 1991),
while still maintaining some Native traditions. Many families who
eventually settled Tierra Amarilla came from the Abiquiu area. Ebright (1993) provides an in-depth analysis of what has
happened to the Tierra Amarilla land grant since it was first settled
in 1860. The grant, submitted by Manuel Martinez, was originally
recognized as a community grant in 1832 as stated in the grant by
Territorial Deputation: When the confirmation of the grant, submitted by Francisco Martinez (Manuel’s son), came before the Surveyor General of the United States there were the affidavits of four witnesses who all had the same story, that the grant was a private grant issued to Manuel Martinez. Based on this limited evidence the Surveyor General recommended that the grant be confirmed. The grant was confirmed as a private grant by Congress in 1860. The petition for confirmation of the grant from Francisco Martinez was written in the same handwriting as all other crucial documents in the Surveyor General’s office, including the decision, the handwriting of translator/clerk David J. Miller. A critical mistranslation, apparently by Miller, affected the meaning of the grant, changing it from a community grant to a private grant. Miller later became a land speculator, as did other members of the Surveyor Generals office (Ebright, 1993). The adjudication system devised by Congress for New Mexico was a "one-sided administrative proceeding in which the Surveyor General acted as lawyer, judge and jury" (Ebright, 1993, p. 20). Since the Surveyor General did not determine whether there were other claims on the land, or even other residents, the probability of harmful decisions was great. Ebright (1993) recounts that the Supreme Court in Tameling v. U.S. Freehold and Emigration Co. concluded that an Act of Congress confirming a grant was the same thing as the United States conferring a new grant and "not reviewable by any court." The settlers who inhabited the Tierra Amarilla grant land received hijuelas, deeds, from Francisco Martinez in 1861, thus suggesting that the grant was indeed a community grant. This gave the settlers reason to believe they had a legal right to use common lands in the grant, as was customary in a community grant. As stated in the hijuela given to a Mauricio Serrano of Cañones by Francisco Martinez: "… The said varas of land retain the right of pastured, water, firewood, timber and roads, free and common, without prejudice to a third party nor to the owners, as in all settlements made and granted" (Ebright, 1993, p. 42). When this evidence was presented in court to confirm the rights of the settlers it was thrown out because of previous purchases by Thomas B. Catron, the largest landowner in the United States at the time. Catron apparently purchased land from the Martinez family and claimed that he purchased the whole grant, including any common lands, because it was confirmed as a private grant. Catron filed a quiet title suit in 1883 in which he names the heirs of Manuel Martinez as defendants, ignoring the 113 hijuelas that had been conveyed to others. These hijuelas were regarded by the County Recorder of Rio Arriba County as small, inconsequential, informal transfers of land. These settlers were not given any notice of the proceedings which challenged their ownership (Ebright, 1993). The courts, through the years, have rejected the validity of
the hijuelas and the settlers rights to lands that were thought to be
common lands based on deeds and rights conveyed by the original
grantee. The courts have refused to apply any laws other than
Anglo-American laws to review these cases. The result has been a great
injustice to those whose ancestors settled the land and who, for all
practical matters, felt that the community land grant protected their
rights to use common lands for the good of the community. Two Stories, Different Endings The Ácoma Pueblo is currently on an ambitious road to expansion and consolidation. They have, with the occasional protection of the Spanish and United States governments, been able to fend off many of the serious challenges they faced over the past 300+ years from foreign invaders. Their lands are significantly diminished in relation to their holding prior to the arrival of the Spanish, but they are expanding from the four square league base that was conveyed in 1689. The Ácoma people face many of the same challenges that other Native American groups face: loss of culture resulting from imposed, alien cultures; loss of an economic base resulting from military and speculative non-Indian expansion; and the challenge of living in a society that was imposed upon them. The core remains, though. The people of Ácoma are attaining economic independence, are expanding their land base, are reclaiming their heritage and learning to live in the world as it is, without forgetting the world as it was. Many of the problems of Ácoma are not just related to alien pressures, but relate to their Indian neighbor, the Laguna Pueblo. The Laguna’s were actually refugees from the Pueblos involved in the 1680 Pueblo Revolt who sought refuge at Ácoma after the re-conquest. They established their own Pueblo next door and have competed with the Ácoma ever since. The overall prognosis for the Ácoma Pueblo, as far as I can determine, is good. They are expanding both in lands and population. They may one day achieve their one million acre goal and have full control over their own destiny. As it stands now, the people of the Tierra Amarilla grant have very few places to look for justice. Acts of defiance have occurred over the years, with the best known being the courthouse raid in Tierra Amarilla on June 5, 1967. This was but one example of what could be called "Mexicano resistance" to the injustices suffered by descendents of the early land grant settlers. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo guaranteed the protection of "properties of every kind, now belonging to Mexicans...shall be inviolably respected." In the case of Tierra Amarilla, in addition to almost all Hispano Spanish and Mexican land grant lands, that promise has not been kept. The greatest loss of land by the land grants, including Tierra Amarilla, has been to the federal government. The concept of common lands was not readily accepted by the expansionist U.S. government. The desire to settle the West with Americans led to a very narrow interpretation of the laws of Spain and Mexico. Common lands in land grants, the courts thought, were owned by the Mexican government in 1846, instead of the Hispano settlers. As a result, the U.S. government felt that acquisition of common lands and placing them into federal land holdings was the proper thing to do. The people of Tierra Amarilla have themselves learned to adjust to the new realities. Many have moved to larger communities for work, those who stay have found ways to feed themselves and their families. The hope that the federal government will some day reverse its earlier decisions is remote, but is still in the back of the locals minds. The recent victory of land grant rights for the people of the Sangre de Cristo land grant in Colorado could stir more action and greater determination than ever to regain some of the lands and rights lost. Without tribal status or options to generate other income, casinos for example, the plight of the Hispanos that are land grant heirs is dire. Without a land base, the traditional ways of raising cattle or sheep cannot continue. Without adequate water fields can’t be farmed. Without political clout demands for justice will continue to go unheard. The prognosis for Hispano land grant heirs is questionable.
They have displayed great tenacity in being able to stay in their
traditional homelands and remain in the battle to regain their rightful
inheritance. To have survived in Northern New Mexico for hundreds of
years has made them an especially hardy people, so perhaps as time goes
on they will eventually emerge successful in their struggles. Beck, Warren A. & Haase, Ynez D. (1969). Historical Atlas of New Mexico. Norman. University of Oklahoma Press. Briggs, Charles L. & Van Ness, John R. (Eds.). (1987). Land, Water, and Culture: New Perspectives on Hispanic Land Grants. Albuquerque. University of New Mexico Press. Ebright, Malcolm. (1993). The Tierra Amarilla Grant: A History of Chicanery. Guadalupita, NM. Center for Land Grant Studies Press. Ebright, Malcolm. (1994). Land Grants & Lawsuits in Northern New Mexico. Albuquerque. University of New Mexico Press. Faux, Marian & Miller, Marilyn (Eds.). (1997). American History Desk Reference. New York. New York Public Library. McWilliams, Carey & Meier, Matt S. (1990). North from Mexico: The Spanish Speaking People of the United States. New York. Praeger. Minge, Ward Alan. (1991). Ácoma: Pueblo in the Sky. Albuquerque. University of New Mexico Press. Montoya, María E. (2002). Translating Property: The Maxwell Land Grant and the Conflict over Land in the American West, 1840-1900. Los Angeles. University of California Press. Poling-Kempes, Lesley. (1997). Valley of Shinning Stone: The Story of Abiquiu. Tucson. University of Arizona Press. Prucha, Francis Paul. (1990). Documents of United States Indian Policy. Lincoln. University of Nebraska Press. Quintana, Frances Leon. (1991). Pobladores: Hispanic Americans of the Ute Frontier. Aztec, NM. Frances Leon Quintana. Rivera, Feliciano. (1970). The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Mexican American Source Book. Menlo Park, CA. Educational Consulting Associates. Rosenbaum, Robert J. (1981). Mexicano Resistance in the Southwest: "The Sacred Right of Self-Preservation." Austin. University of Texas Press. Thorton, Russell. (1987). American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492. Norman. University of Oklahoma Press. Simmons, Mark. (1990). Spanish Government in New Mexico. Albuquerque. University of New Mexico Press. Tushar, Olibama Lopez. (1997). Appendix VI: La Sierra,
Chronology of the Sangre de Cristo Land Grant and the continuing
struggle for land rights. The People of El Valle: A History of the
Spanish Colonials in the San Luis Valley. Pueblo. El Escritorio. |