The Politics of Inclusion/Exclusion in the Arizona-Sonora Borderlands during the Mexican Period

This chapter is an examination of Indigenous responses to changes in the administration of Indian affairs in the Arizona-Sonora Borderlands during the Mexican period. This period was characterized by steady erosion of the mission system, the rupturing of the colonial pact, and the eventual Jesuit Expulsion. While Hopis had minimal contacts with independent Mexico, Yaquis once again revolted in defence of political autonomy, this time under the complicated leadership of Juan Banderas. O’odhams endured chaotic decades of drought, frontier warfare, and administrative changes that resulted in significant mission depopulation and the decline of the town electoral model, although not its complete disappearance. This chapter demonstrates that these three Indigenous nations confronted the electoral-political upheavals of the Mexican period in distinct ways that ensured their survival as sovereign peoples.

Disparate Designs

This chapter illustrates how the United States pursued a variety of policies in its attempts to incorporate Indigenous peoples in Arizona during the territorial period. Hopis in northern Arizona appeared to be ideal candidates for citizenship. The federal government attempted allotment in severalty, boarding school education, opening business ventures in Hopi territory, and outright force, but Hopis proved resistant to all such efforts, never embracing citizenship and the franchise. After decades of genocidal policies by the governments of Sonora and Mexico, many Yaquis eventually sought refuge across the border in the United States, establishing communities such as Pascua and Guadalupe. As refugees in southern Arizona, Yaquis largely stayed out of the eyes of public officials while participating widely in the regional economy. They did not participate in Arizona electoral politics, nor did they fully transplant their Spanish-influenced systems of town government. Similar to Hopis, Tohono O’odhams were also subjected to allotment (on the San Xavier del Bac Reservation) and boarding schools, and viewed as promising potential citizens by U.S. officials. But similar to New Mexico Pueblos, Hopis, and Yaquis, Tohono O’odams preferred to stay outside of mainstream electoral politics in favor of protecting their own national sovereignty.

Hopis, Yaquis, and O’odhams in the Spanish Arizona-Sonora Borderlands

This chapter explores how three groups—Hopis, Yaquis, and O’odhams—incorporated the Indian-Spanish electoral system. Hopis elected officers during the seventeenth century, but effectively destroyed the Spanish electoral system in 1700 with the massacre at Awat’ovi, the village of the largest Spanish religious and political inroads. Yaquis incorporated the town electoral system to a high degree after missionization began in 1617. But Jesuit abuses and manipulation of Yaqui town electoral processes were among the main causes of the revolt of 1740, a violent uprising to reassert Yaqui autonomy. O’odham experiences with the town electoral system began with Father Kino’s missionary forays in the late seventeenth century. Over the course of the Spanish period, O’odhams in Pimería Alta endured an uneven process of missionization and political change, never fully controlling town elections, largely due to Jesuit interference.

Conclusion

The conclusion briefly highlights the cases of Miguel Trujillo (Isleta Pueblo) and Frank Harrison (Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation), whose 1948 legal challenges led to the overturning of Native American voter restrictions in New Mexico and Arizona, respectively. It argues that we must view such legal cases as part of a long history of Indigenous electorates, and not simply as the culmination or end point. From the Spanish colonial era through the U.S. territorial period in the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands, Indigenous peoples elected individuals who worked tirelessly and at great sacrifice to ensure tribal sovereignty. The conclusion ends with the author’s family gathering for a tribal election in fall 2016, which the author argues must be seen as a continuation of the elections most important to Indigenous communities; those that pertain to leadership in Indigenous nations and maintaining self-government.

Refusing Citizenship

This chapter examines the ways in which Pueblo Indians sought to define their own political status during the U.S. territorial period. According to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the U.S.-Mexico War, Pueblo Indians were U.S. citizens. As Pueblo Indian Agent John Calhoun (and later governor of New Mexico) reasoned, this meant the right to the franchise as well. But, problems arose over Pueblo voting rights, as some non-Indians concluded that if they voted, it would mean that the Pueblos gave up their status as distinct, sovereign Indigenous communities. For their part, the Pueblos continued to act as Indian republics, and their independent political status was seemingly confirmed by the gift of the so-called Lincoln Canes in 1863. A series of legal cases, culminating in U.S. v. Joseph (1876), ultimately defined the Pueblos as non-voting citizens. Throughout the territorial period, the Pueblos asserted that they did not desire U.S. citizenship, instead preferring to retain their mixed systems of town government, in place since the Spanish period, and their semisovereign status under the U.S. Office of Indian Affairs.

Repúblicas de Indios in Spanish New Mexico

This chapter traces the development of Repúblicas de Indios (Indian Republics) among the Pueblo Indians of Spanish New Mexico. It demonstrates how the Pueblos implemented Spanish directives mandating annual elections of officers, such as governors and lieutenant governors, to form an Indian town council, or ayuntamiento/cabildo. The Pueblos ultimately transformed those elections to bring them more in conformity with traditional Pueblo leadership selection practices. This chapter interrogates the importance of Pueblo officers, the governor system, and the annual elections that put them in office. These elected Pueblo officers represented their communities in dealings with the Spanish church and state. While there were abuses of office, Pueblo governors and other leaders overwhelmingly worked for the survival of their people and to retain their sacred homelands.

Pueblo Contestations of Power in the Mexican Period

During the brief period of Mexican independence in New Mexico (1821–1846), Pueblo Indians participated in electoral politics in unprecedented ways. In the waning days of the Spanish empire, and then the Mexican era, colonial directives sought to bring Indians into the body politic as citizens. This meant Pueblo villages were to become part of larger municipalities with elected councils, or constitutional ayuntamientos, that included both Indians and Nuevo Mexicanos. This chapter shows that Pueblo participation on these mixed council was almost negligible. Instead, Pueblo Indians took the lead in the Río Arriba Rebellion of 1837. In this rebellion, which killed and deposed the Mexican governor of New Mexico, Albino Pérez, Pueblo Indians, Genízaros, and their allies established their own short-lived state, known as the Cantón, with an Indian, José González, as governor.

Introduction

In the Introduction, the author relates how his own family’s experiences with Indigenous civil rights in Arizona inspired this study. Maurice Crandall, a citizen of the Yavapai-Apache Nation, became interested in Indian citizenship and voting after his own grandfather was unjustly incarcerated, without trial, as a juvenile in 1930s Arizona. By focusing on stories of Indigenous encounters with electoral politics, the author seeks to weave a narrative that challenges progressive stories of Indigenous civil rights and political participation, one that would have Indians finally and fully enfranchised thanks to the benevolence of the United States political system. Instead, this work shows how Indigenous peoples of the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands were enfranchised in a variety of ways during the Spanish, Mexican, and U.S. territorial periods, always while seeking to retain community sovereignty.