California and the Indian Wars

The California Militia and “Expeditions Against the Indians”, 1850 - 1859

Extracted from Early California Laws and Policies Related to California Indians
By Kimberly Johnston-Dodds, California Research Bureau, California State Library, September 2002

That a war of extermination will continue to be waged between the races, until the Indian race becomes extinct, must be expected. While we cannot anticipate this result but with painful regret, the inevitable destiny of the race is beyond the power or wisdom of man to avert.

Governor Peter H. Burnett, January 7, 1851 [1]

The Governors and the Militia

Article VII of the first California Constitution gave the Governor the power “to call for the militia, to execute the laws of the State, to suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” [2] In his annual address to the California Legislature on January 7, 1851, Governor Burnett highlighted significant events that transpired during 1850, including “repeated calls…upon the Executive for the aid of the militia to resist and punish the attacks of the Indians upon the frontier.” [3] During 1850, Governor Burnett called out the militia two times. The first order was prompted by incidents at the confluence of the Gila and Colorado rivers on April 23, 1850; in response, the Governor ordered the sheriffs of San Diego and Los Angeles to organize a total of 100 men to “pursue such energetic measures to punish the Indians, bring them to terms, and protect the emigrants on their way to California.” [4] The second instance occurred in October 1850, when Governor Burnett ordered the sheriff of El Dorado County to muster 200 men. The commanders were instructed to “proceed to punish the Indians engaged in the late attacks in the vicinity of Ringgold, and along the emigrant trail leading from Salt Lake to California.”[5]

Governor Burnett explained calling out the militia as follows:

In these cases the [Indian] attacks were far more formidable, and made at point where the two great emigrant trails enter the State…occurred at a period when the emigrants were arriving across the plains with their jaded and broken down animals, and them destitute of provisions. Under these circumstances, I deemed it due to humanity, and to our brethren arriving among us in a condition so helpless, to afford them all the protection within the power of the State…

Had it been once known to our fellow citizens east of the Rocky Mountains, that the Indians were most hostile and formidable on the latter and more difficult portion of the route…and that the State of California would render no assistance to parties so destitute, the emigration of families to the State across the plains would have been greatly interrupted and retarded. [6]

From 1997 to 1999, the Sacramento Genealogical Society researched and compiled an extensive index of the State Militia Muster Rolls located in the California State Archives. [7] The California State Archives contain Muster Rolls or organizational documents for 303 units located in most California counties. Seventy-one of the militias were located in San Francisco.[8] After exhaustive review and crosschecking of 70,000 registered names, the researchers determined that approximately 35,000 men were listed on the Muster Rolls (attendance records). [9] Muster Rolls may exist in other county or local archival repositories. The California State Archives does not have Muster Rolls for Colusa, Fresno, Glenn, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Lake, Madera, Mendocino, Merced, Modoc, Riverside, San Benito, and Ventura counties for the period 1851 to 1866.

 

From the state archival record, it is impossible to determine exactly the total number of units and men engaged in attacks against the California Indians. However, during the period of 1850 to 1859, the official record does verify that the governors of California called out the militia on “Expeditions against the Indians” on a number of occasions, and at considerable expense, as Tables 1 and 2 indicate.

Table 1: “General Recapitulation of the Expenditures incurred by the State of California For the Subsistence and Pay of the Troops, composing of the different Military Expeditions, ordered out by the Governor, during the Years 1850, 1851 and 1852, For the Protection of the Lives and Property of her Citizens, and for the Suppression of Indian Hostilities within her Borders.”

 

Expeditions Against the Indians	Amount
Mariposa and Monterey	$259, 372.31
First El Dorado	101,861.65
Second El Dorado	199,784.59
Los Angeles and Utah	96,184.60
Trinity, Klamath and Clear Lake	34,320.08
San Diego “Fitzgerald Volunteers”	22,581.00
Siskiyou “Volunteer Rangers”	14, 987.00
Gila “Colorado Volunteers”	113,482.25
Amount paid in War Bonds by Paymasters	1,000.00
Total Amount	$843,573.48

Source: Comptroller of the State of California, Expenditures for Military Expeditions Against Indians, 1851-1859, (Sacramento: The Comptroller), Secretary of State, California State Archives, Located at “Roster” Comptroller No. 574, Vault, Bin 393.

The California Legislature and the Militia

In April 1850, the California Legislature enacted two laws: An Act concerning Volunteer or Independent Companies, [10] and An Act concerning the organization of the Militia. [11]
The Volunteer Act provided that citizens of any one county could:

• organize into a volunteer or independent company;
• arm and equip themselves in the same manner as the army of the United States;
• prepare muster rolls (attendance records) twice a year; and
• render prompt assistance and full obedience when summoned or commanded under the law.[12]

The lengthy Militia Act established in great detail the organization, ranks, rules, duties and commutation fees (fees in lieu of service) that governed state military service. All “free, white, able-bodied male citizens, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, residing in [the] State” were subject to state-mandated military duty.[13] Important
provisions relating to the delegation of authority to command and call out troops provided that:

• · the Governor was the commander in chief of all the forces in the state;
• · the Legislature elected four Major Generals, eight Brigadier Generals, one Adjutant General and Quarter Master General (with Brigadier General rank);
• · the Governor commissioned all of the officers under the Act, who then took the oath of office prescribed by the California Constitution;
• · the State Treasurer initially was the ex officio Pay Master; and
• · upon the Governor’s orders, the Sheriffs of each county were responsible to call the enrolled militia. [14]

In 1851, two laws set the rates of pay for the troops. [15] As shown in Table 2, Federal authorities considered the rates exorbitant in comparison to compensation to federal troops. [16]

Table 2 details the State’s expenditures for expeditions from 1854 to 1859.

Table 2: Expeditions Named in the Act of Appropriations by Congress made March 2, 1861

Expedition	Year	Amount Allowed by California*	Amount Allowed by United States**	Amount Disallowed by United States
Shasta Expedition	1854	4,068.64	1,261.38	2,807.26
Siskiyou Expedition	1855	14, 036.36	6,146.60	7,889.76
Klamath & Humboldt Expedition	1855	99,096.65	61,537.48	37,559.17
San Bernardino Expedition	1855	817.03	419.99	397.04
Klamath Expedition	1856	6,190.07	2953.77	3,237.30
Modoc Expedition	1856	188,324.22	80,436.72	107,887.50
Tulare Expedition	1856	12,732.23	3,647.25	9,084.98
Klamath & Humboldt Expedition	1858 & 1859	52,184.45	31,823.94	20,360.51
Pitt River Expedition	1859	72,156.09	41,761.54	30,394.55
Total		$449,605.74	$229,987.67	$219,618.07

Source: Comptroller of the State of California, Expenditures for Military Expeditions Against Indians, 1851-1859, (Sacramento: The Comptroller), Secretary of State, California State Archives, Located at “Roster” Comptroller No. 574, Vault, Bin 393.
*Amount submitted to the United States for reimbursement.
**Amount actually paid by the United States.

 

Table 3 sets forth the twenty-seven California laws that the State Comptroller relied upon in determining the total expenditures recapitulated in the official report. The total amount
of claims submitted to State of California Comptroller for Expeditions against the Indians was $1,293,179.20.

Table 3: Laws and Joint Resolutions Passed Relative to the Indian Wars in the State of California 1851-1859

Legislation	Date	Page	Description of Act or Joint Resolution
Statute	1851	489	Creating William Foster & William Rogers Pay Masters
Statute	1851	402	Creating James Burney Pay Master to pay Troops
Statute	1851	520	To negotiate a loan for the War Fund $500,000
Joint Resolution	1851	530	To Establish Forts on our Borders
Joint Resolution	1851	532	Directing Adjutant General to enter names on Muster Roll
Joint Resolution	1851	534	Reference to the payment of claims and informal transfers in writing
Joint Resolution	1851	535	Reference to the payment of certain claims in the Gila Expedition
Joint Resolution	1851	538	Authorizing the Pay Master of the Gila Expedition to pay claims
Joint Resolution	1851	539	For the Benefit of the Citizens of Los Angeles County
Statute	1852	59	Authorizing the Treasurer to issue Bonds for $600,000
Statute	1852	61	Authorizing and requiring Board of Examiners to settle with William Rogers
Statute	1852	250	For the relief of James S. Bolen
Statute	1852	261	For the relief of Jacob C. Kore
Statute	1852	262	For the relief of John G. Warrin
Statute	1853	79	For the relief of Thomas A. Wilton, M.D.
Statute	1853	95	To pay troops under Captain Wright S. McDermott $23,000
Statute	1853	97	For the relief of Beverly C. Sanders
Statute	1853	130	For the relief of John C. Johnson
Statute	1853	134	Additional War Fund $23,000
Statute	1853	154	For the relief of A.D. Blanchard and Samuel Stephens
Statute	1853	177	Secretary of State constituted one of the Board of Examiners
Statute	1853	177	Providing for the pay and compensation of Major James Burney
Statute	1853	200	For the relief of John Brown $1,150
Statute	1853	225	Payment of the Fitzgerald Volunteers
Statute	1853	268	For the relief of John W. Jackson
Joint Resolution	1853	310	General Statement of War Debt to be made out
Statute	1854	171	For the relief of Powell Weaver

Source: Comptroller of the State of California, Expenditures for Military Expeditions Against Indians, 1851-1859, (Sacramento: The Comptroller), Secretary of State, California State Archives, Located at “Roster” Comptroller No. 574, Vault, Bin 393.

 

 

The Legislature's Majority and Minority Reports on the Mendocino War (1860)

In 1860, the California Legislature created a Joint Special Committee on the Mendocino Indian War to investigate incidents of Indian stealing and killing of settlers’ stock, and
alleged atrocities committed by whites against the Indians.[17]

The Joint Special Committee traveled throughout Mendocino County and adjacent locations taking depositions and testimony of prominent settlers in the region. This testimony is part of the official public record, along with the committee’s majority and minority reports about the events.

The Majority Report of the Joint Special Committee

O’Farrell, Dickinson, Maxon and Phelps were authors of the Majority Report. The following are excerpts of the majority’s findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

In Mendocino County…the Indians have committed extensive depredations on the stock of the settlers…The result has been that the citizens, for the purpose of protection to their property, have pursued the tribes supposed to be guilty to their mountain retreats, and in most cases have punished them severely. Repeated stealing and killing of stock, and an occasional murder of a white man, has caused a repetition of the attacks upon the offenders with the same results. The conflict still exists; Indians continue to kill cattle as a means of subsistence, and the settlers in retaliation punish with death. Many of the most respectable citizens of Mendocino County have testified before your committee that they kill Indians, found in what they consider the hostile districts, whenever they lose cattle or horses; nor do they attempt to conceal or deny this fact. Those citizens do not admit, nor does it appear by the evidence, that it is or has been their practice or intention to kill women or children, although some have fallen in the indiscriminate attacks of the Indian rancherias. The testimony shows that in the recent authorized expedition against the Indians in said county, the women and children were taken to the reservations, and also establishes the fact that in the private expeditions this rule was not observed, but that in one instance, an expedition was marked by the most horrid atrocity; but in justice to the citizens of Mendocino County, your committee say that the mass of the settlers look upon such act with the utmost abhorrence…

Accounts are daily coming in from the counties on the Coast Range, of sickening atrocities and wholesale slaughters of great numbers of defenseless Indians in that region of country. Within the last four months, more Indians have been killed by our people than during the century of Spanish and Mexican domination. For an evil of this magnitude, some one is responsible. Either our government, or our citizens, or both, are to blame…

The pre-existing laws and policy of Mexico, as to the status of the Indian, need not have interfered with the views to be taken by our government. Mexico protected the Indian, in her own way, much more effectually than we have done. The very land upon which the aborigines of this State have dwelt, as far back as traditions reach, has been allowed by our government to be occupied by settlers, who thus have the authority of law for a forced occupation of the Indian country. A natural, humane, and proper policy would have protected the Indian in his undeniable rights to the hunting grounds of his forefathers, and would have prevented our border men from entering into a conflict which has cost both lives and property…

 

Your committee do [sic] not think that the wrongs committed upon the Indians of California are chargeable alone to the Federal Government. The evidence appended to this report, disclose facts, from the contemplation of which the mind of peaceful citizens recoil with horror, and prompts the inquiry, if such outrages upon the defenseless are permitted by the proper authorities to go unpunished?

No provocation has been shown, if any could be, to justify such acts. We must admit that the wrong has been the portion of the Indian - the blame with his white brother.

The question resolves itself to this: Shall the Indians be exterminated, or shall they be protected? If the latter, that protection must come from the Federal Government, in the form of adequate appropriations of money and land; and secondly, from this State, by strictly enforcing penal statutes for any infringement upon the rights of Indians. In relation to the recent difficulty between the whites and Indians in Mendocino County, your committee desire to say that no war, or a necessity for a war, has existed, or at the present time does exist. We are unwilling to attempt to dignify, by the term “war” as slaughter of beings, who at least possess human form, and who make no resistance, and make no attacks, either on the person or residence of the citizen. [18]

The authors of the Majority Report recommended that the California Legislature pass “a law for the better protection of the Indians of California.” [19]

The Minority Report of the Special Joint Committee

Lamar authored the Minority Report and dissented fundamentally from the majority’s view of the events, and their recommendations. Lamar stated, “the testimony will disclose the guilty parties, and from the just indignation of outraged humanity I have no desire to screen them; but for the mass of citizens engaged in this Indian warfare, I claim that they have acted from the strongest motives that govern human action, the defense of life and property.” [20]

Lamar further stated that certain tribes living outside of reservations in the region were “domesticated Indians,” a great number of whom were employed by settlers, receiving “liberal compensation for their labor.” [21] Lamar proposed the following general Indian policy that the State should pursue.

The General Government should first cede to the State of California the entire jurisdiction over Indians and Indian affairs within our borders, and make such donations of land and other property and appropriations of money as would be adequate to make proper provision for the necessities of a proper management.

The State should, then, adopt a general system of peonage or apprenticeship, for the proper disposition and distribution of the Indians by families among responsible citizens. General laws should be passed regulating the relations between the master and servant, and providing for the punishment of any meddlesome interference on the part of third parties. In this manner the whites might be provided with profitable and convenient servants, and the Indians with the best protection and all the necessaries of life in permanent and comfortable homes. [22]

The Mendocino War Reports and the 1860 Amendment to “An Act for the Government and Protection of Indians”

On January 19, 1860, the first version of Assembly Bill No. 65, entitled “An Act amendatory of an Act for the Government and Protection of Indians” was introduced in the California Legislature. [23] Assembly Bill No. 65 proposed broader apprenticeship laws than those contained in the 1850 Act. Various amendments and substitute versions of the bill found in the California State Archives Original Bill File appear to reflect the degree of debate surrounding Indian prisoners of war from expeditions, Lamar’s proposed Indian policies, and more expansive Indian apprenticeship laws. Transcriptions of the proposed versions of of the bill, and the original enrolled version are contained in the Appendix.

 

Appendix. Original Bill Material Pertaining to California Statutes 1860, Chapter 231

This Appendix contains a verbatim transcription of the Original Bill Materials, located in the California State Archives, that are related to the 1860 amendment of the Act for the
Government and Protection of Indians passed April 22, 1850. The first document is the initial Assembly Bill No. 65 introduced for consideration on January 19, 1860. The second document is a “substitute” Assembly Bill No. 65, introduced for consideration on February 17, 1860. The third document is the engrossed bill that was enrolled on April 6, 1860.

The first page of each transcribed document in this Appendix contains the legislative history of the bill. This information is handwritten and originally signed by each legislative officer on the front page of the original documents. The language originally contained in the proposed bills, but subsequently deleted from the text during the course of the legislative process is noted in brackets.

 

Assembly Bill No. 65 An act amendatory of an act entitled an act for the Government and Protection of Indians passed April 22, 1850 In Assembly January 19, 1860 Read first & second time Referred to Com. on Indian Affairs Weston Asst Clerk February 11, 1860, Reported with amendt & passage Recommended as amended Weston Asst Clk Feb. 13, 1860 Taken from file & referred to Jud[iciary] Com[mittee] Weston Asst Clk Feb 17, 1860, Substitute reported & recommended Weston Asst Clk Feb 27, 1860: Substituted adopted & ordered printed Weston Ass’t Clk An Act amendatory of an act entitled An Act for the Government and Protection of Indians passed April 22, 1850 The People of the State of California represented in Senate and Assembly do enact as follows: Section 1st , Section third of said Act is hereby amended so as to read as follows Section 3d Any person having or hereafter obtaining any Indian child or children male or female from the parents or relations of such child or children [stricken from text: with their] and wishing to domesticate said child or children and any person desiring to obtain any Indian or Indians either children or grown persons that may have been taken prisoner or prisoners [stricken from text: and wishing to domesticate either children or grown persons in any expedit] of war [stricken from text: in any] and wishing to domesticate said Indians, such person shall go before a Justice of the Peace of the County in which such Indians may [stricken from text: be] reside at the time and if the Justice of the Peace becomes satisfied that no compulsory means have been used to obtain the said child or children from its parents or friends or that the said child or children or other Indian or indians of either sex have been taken and are held as a prisoner or prisoners of war, he shall enter on record, in a book kept for that purpose the sex and probable age of the child or children or other indians, and shall give to such person a certificate authorizing him or her to have the care custody control and earnings of such child or children or other Indians, for and during the following term of years, such children as are under twelve years of age, until they attain the age of twenty five years, such children as are over twelve and under eighteen years of age until they attain the age of thirty years, and such indians as may be over the age of eighteen years, for and during the term of ten years then next following the date of said certificate, any person or persons [stricken: being] having any indian or indians in his or their possession as such prisoners shall have the preference to domesticate as many of such indians as he or they may desire for their own use, every indian either male or female in the possession or under the control of any person under the provisions of this act shall be taken and deemed to be a minor Indian, [stricken from text: for such] Sec. 2nd Section seventh of said act is hereby amended so as to read as follows,   Sec 7. If any person shall forcibly convey any Indian from any place without this State to any place within this State, or from his or her home within this State, or compel him, or her, to work or perform any services against his or her will, Except as provided in this act, he or they may be upon conviction fined in any sum not less than fifty dollars, nor more than five hundred dollars, at the discretion of the Court

Substitute for Assembly Bill No. 65 An act amendatory of an act entitled An Act for the Government & Protection of Indians passed April 22, 1850 Feb 17, 1860. Reported as substitute for Assembly Bill No. 65 & passage recommended Weston Ass’t Clk Feb. 27, 1860, adopted & ordered printed. Weston Ass’t Clk Mch 10, 1860, amended, ___ suspended, considered engrossed read third time and passed Weston Asst Clk Judiciary Committee An Act amendatory of An Act Entitled “An Act for the Government and Protection of Indians passed April 22 1850 The People of the State of California represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1st Section third of said Act is hereby amended so as to read as follows: Section 3: County and District Judges in the respective counties of this State shall by virtue of this Act have full power and authority, at the instance and request of any person having or hereafter obtaining any Indian child or children male or female under the age of fifteen years from the parents or person or persons having the care or charge of such child or children with the consent of such parents or person or persons having the care or charge of any such child or children, or at the instance and request of any person desirous of obtaining any indian or Indians whether children or grown persons that may be held as prisoners of war, or at the instance and request of any person desirous of obtaining any vagrant Indian or Indians as have no settled habitation or means of livelihood and have not placed themselves under the protection of any white person, to bind and put out such Indians as apprentices to trades --- husbandry or other employments as shall to them appear proper, and for this purpose shall execute duplicate Articles of Indenture of Apprenticeship on behalf of such Indians, which Indentures shall also be executed by the person to whom such Indian or Indians are to be indentured: one copy of which shall be filed by the County Judge [stricken from text: with the] in the Recorders Office of the County and one copy retained by the person to whom such Indian or Indians may be indentured; such Indenture shall authorise [sic] such person to have the care custody control and earnings of such Indian or Indians and shall require such person to clothe and suitably provide the necessaries of life, for such Indian or Indians for and during the term for which such Indian or Indians shall be apprenticed, and shall contain the sex name and probable age of such Indian or Indians, Such Indentures may be for the following terms of years, such children as are under fourteen years of age, if males until they attain the age of twenty five years; if females until they attain the age of twenty one years; such as are over fourteen and under twenty years of age if males until they attain the age of thirty years; if females until they attain the age of twenty five years; and such Indians as may be over the age of twenty years for and during the term of ten years then next following the date of such Indenture at the discretion of such Judge. Such Indians as may be indentured under the provisions of this section shall be deemed within such provisions of this act as are applicable to minor Indians Section 2d Section seventh of said act is hereby amended so as to read as follows, Section 7 If any person shall forcibly convey any Indian from any place without this State to any place within this State or from his or her home within this State, or compel him or her to work or perform any service against his or her will except as provided in this Act he or they shall upon conviction thereof be fined in any sum not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars before any court having jurisdiction at the discretion of the Court, and the collection of such fine shall be enforced as provided by law in other criminal cases, one half to be paid to the prosecutor and one have [sic] to the County in which such conviction is had

Substitute for Assembly Bill No. 65 An act amendatory of an act entitled an act for the government & protection of Indians passed April 22, 1850 Feb 17, 1860 reported as substitute for assembly Bill No. 65 & passage recommended Weston Asst Clk Feb 27, 1860, adopted and ordered printed Weston Asst. Clk March 10, 1860 Amended rules suspended, considered Engrossed read third time and passed Weston Asst Clk E.W. Casey Engrossing Clerk 231 [in pencil] Judiciary Committee March 13th 1860 Read first and second times and refd to the Committee on Federal Relations Williamson Asst Secty March 23rd 1860 Reported back and passage recommended & placed on file April 6th Taken up read a third time & passed Enrolled April 6th 1860 H.C. Kibbe Enrolling Clerk Chap 231 [in pencil] An Act amendatory of an act Entitled “An Act for the Government and Protection of Indians passed April 22d 1850. The People of the State of California represented in Senate and Assembly do enact as follows. Section 1. Section third of said Act, is hereby amended so as to read as follows; Section 3d. County and District Judges in the respective Counties of the State shall by virtue of this act have full power and authority, at the instance and request of any person having or hereafter obtaining any Indian child or children male or female under the age of fifteen years, from the parents or person or persons having the care or charge of such child or children with the consent of such parents or person or persons having the care or charge of any such child or children, or at the instance and request of any person desirous of obtaining any Indian or Indians, whether children or grown persons that may be held as prisoners of war, or at the instance and request of any person desirous of obtaining any vagrant Indian or Indians as have no settled habitation or means of livelihood, and have not placed themselves under the protection of any white person, to bind and put out such Indians as apprentices to trades husbandry or other employments as shall to them appear proper, and for this purpose shall execute duplicate Articles of Indenture of Apprenticeship on behalf of such Indians, which Indentures shall also be executed by the person to whom such Indian or Indians are to be Indentured; one copy of which shall be filed by the County Judge, in the Recorders office of the County, and one copy retained by the person to whom such Indian or Indians may be Indentured, such Indentures shall authorize such person to have the care custody control and earnings of such Indian or Indians and shall require such person to clothe and suitably provide the necessaries of life for such Indian or Indians, for and during the term for which such Indian or Indians shall be apprenticed, and shall contain the sex name and probable age of such Indian or Indians, such indentures may be for the following terms of years; such children as are under fourteen years of age, if males until they attain the age of twenty five years; if females until they attain the age of twenty one years; such as are over fourteen and under twenty years of age, if males until they attain the age of thirty years; if females until they attain the age of twenty five years, and such Indians as may be over the age of twenty years for and during the term of ten years thru next following the date of such indenture at the discretion of such Judge, such Indians as may be indentured under the provisions of this Section, shall be deemed within such provisions of this Act, as are applicable to minor Indians Section 2. Section Seventh of said act is hereby amended so as to read as follows: Section 7. If any person shall forcibly convey any Indian from any place without this State, to any place within this State, or from his or her home within this State, or compel him or her to work or perform any service against his or her will except as provided in this act, he or they shall upon conviction thereof, be fined in any sum, not less than one hundred dollars nor more than five hundred dollars, before any Court having jurisdiction at the discretion of the Court, and the collection of such fine shall be enforced as provided by law in other criminal cases, on half to be paid to the prosecutor, and one half to the County in which such conviction is had.

 

Footnotes

 

[1] Peter H. Burnett, “Governor’s Annual Message to the Legislature, January 7, 1851,” in Journals of the Senate and Assembly of the State of California, at the Second Session of the Legislature, 1851-1852, (San Francisco: G.K. Fitch & Co., and V.E. Geiger & Co., State Printers, 1852), 15.

[2] California Constitution of 1850, Art. VII, § 3.

[3] Peter H. Burnett, “Governor’s Annual Message to the Legislature, January 7, 1851,” in Journals of the Senate and Assembly of the State of California, at the Second Session of the Legislature, 1851-1852, (San Francisco: G.K. Fitch & Co., and V.E. Geiger & Co., State Printers, 1852), 13.

[4] Ibid., 16-17.

[5] Ibid., 18.

[6] Ibid.

[7] ROOT CELLAR, Sacramento Geneaological Society, California State Militia: Index to the Muster Rolls of 1851 to 1866 (Sacramento: The Society, 1999), ii, 1396-1465.

[8] Ibid., 1432-1446.

[9] Ibid., ii.

[10] 1850 Cal. Stat. ch. 54.

[11] 1850 Cal. Stat. ch. 76.

[12] 1850 Cal. Stat. ch. 54, §§ 1, 7, 17, 20.

[13]1850 Cal. Stat. ch. 76, § 1.

[14] 1850 Cal. Stat. ch. 76, §§ 6, 8, 10, 45, 56, 57.

 

[15] 1851 Cal. Stat. ch. 91; 1851 Cal. Stat. ch. 125.

 

[16] The 1850 Volunteer Act and Militia Act were repealed and replaced in 1855, and amended in 1856 and 1857. The National Guard replaced the California Militia in 1866. 1855 Cal. Stat. ch. 115; 1856 Cal. Stat. ch. 87; 1857 Cal. Stat. 344; 1866 Cal. Stat. ch. 541; Sacramento Geneaological Society, California State Militia, ii.

 

[17] The Joint Special Committee was comprised of Jasper O’Farrell (Sonoma, Marin, Mendocino), and W.B. Dickinson (El Dorado), as the Senate Committee. Joseph B. Lamar (Mendocino, Sonoma), William B. Maxon (San Mateo) and Abner Phelps (San Francisco) comprised the House Committee. Don A. Allen, Legislative Sourcebook: The California Legislature and Reapportionment, 1849-1965, (Sacramento: Assembly of the State of California, 1965), 364, 374, 450, 456.

 

[18] “Majority Report of the Special Joint Committee on the Mendocino War,” in Appendix to Journals of the Senate, of the Eleventh Session of the Legislature of the State of California, (Sacramento: C.T. Botts, State Printer, 1860), 4-6.

 

[19] Ibid., 7.

[20] “Minority Report of the Special Joint Committee on the Mendocino War,” in Appendix to Journals of the Senate, of the Eleventh Session of the Legislature of the State of California, (Sacramento: C.T. Botts, State Printer, 1860), 10.

 

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Journal of the House of Assembly

 

 

 

Search our Site!

Search the Web Search California Military History Online

 

Questions and comments concerning this site should be directed to the Webmaster

 

Updated 8 February 2016