Historic Roseville slaying offers insights to ‘cursed’ family

 

Los Angeles Herald

26 Feb 1876

Do you believe that death and tragedy seem to follow certain people?

In the case of David Turley, they indeed seemed to follow him, leading him straight to the gallows. The question for modern history lovers is, why?  It was April 1, 1875, and a group of men were headed back to Roseville on horseback, returning from a race at a ranch several miles beyond the city limits. 

Among the group was William H. Shaw and David Turley. Several newspapers reported both men, who worked in Roseville as Sheepshearers, were intoxicated when they started to quarrel nearby the 12 Mile House, once located at South Cirby and Old Auburn Road. Other newspapers claimed the incident took place on Old Marysville Road, 12 miles from Roseville. Today, it is hard to be certain of the exact location.

What words were exchanged still remains a mystery. Some accounts even suggested that it was an April Fools’ joke gone wrong. Whatever was said, it prompted Turley to challenge Shaw to a duel — a threat designed to make the other take back whatever negative remark was said. Shaw refused to duel Turley and tried to get away from him. Turley pulled his pistol out and fired two shots in Shaw’s direction, hitting and killing him.  

The trial was held in Sacramento and became highly publicized, making headlines in papers all the way to Los Angeles. One of the witnesses, Creed Haymond, stated for the defense that Turley was too intoxicated to have known what he was doing, therefore he believed it wasn’t his fault. The other four witnesses together confirmed that Turley did in fact shoot Shaw as he was attempting to leave.

Turley insisted that his actions were caused by an inherited mental illness. He also claimed that this inherited psychosis contributed to many deaths in his family; however, Judge Ramage did not allow this information in the trial. When all was said and done the jury found Turley guilty of murdering Shaw. The defendant eventually took his appeal to the Supreme Court, alleging errors were made during his trial. The Supreme Court came back unanimously on November 16, 1875, deciding that the initial court ruling was correct, and that Turley’s conviction would remain the same.

So was the story Turley claimed about his family true, or just a desperate attempt to spare his own life?

Extensive research into the matter reveals that David Turley’s tragic family background was stranger than most would imagine. His father, Jesse Turley, was a wealthy and well respected farmer. According to Missouri historian Rhonda Chalfant, Jesse Turley was the first landowner in the Pettis County to free his slaves due to his support for the Union during the Civil War, prompting his own neighbors to engage in two attempts to murder him. Both times he was shot and survived. Sadly though, Jesse Turley’s life ended at his own hand, after his own gun discharged by accident while he was mounting his horse during a stint in the Missouri State Militia. He was hit in the abdomen and died shortly thereafter. 

David Turley’s mother, Lucy, was also killed by an accidental bullet — shot by one of her other sons, William, while he was sleepwalking with his gun. Like David Turley, William Turley was also in the state militia, and was never the same after killing their mother. William was later done in during a raid in the Civil War involving Confederate General Joseph Shelby. One of David Turley’s sisters had a stroke, rendering her brain damaged for life, while his other sister couldn’t handle the bizarre death of their mother, and literally went insane. She also died in a relatively short period. A third brother, John Turley, was killed in Kansas around 1875, while a fourth brother, Thomas, was shot in Texas the same year.

 David Turley had left Missouri to California in 1857 after getting into some sort of “trouble.” Following his father’s death, he inherited a large amount of money and so he moved back to Missouri. He opened a saloon in Georgetown and moved in with a well-known woman of ill-repute. David’s surviving brother, James, had tried to convince a doctor to have him committed to an asylum at Fulton due to erratic behavior. The Sedalia Bazoo Newspaper stated that besides being his own best customer at his saloon, David Turley was known to get into fights at the drop of a hat and quick to draw his blade or his gun — often times shooting at people for “imaginary offenses.”

It was after getting into too much trouble in Georgetown that David decided to head back to California. 

James Turley, a.k.a. “Sedalia Jim,”  was a former policeman who ultimately spent his entire savings, an estimated $2000, to help with David’s defense for killing Shaw. James tried to prove that his brother was mentally ill.  It was James who wrote Colonel John F. Phillips, asking him to help gather affidavits to prove David was insane, a danger to himself or others, and that he needed to be committed rather than executed.

Even after a petition was sent to California Governor William Irwin with numerous signatures begging for a reprieve, nothing was done to explore if David Turley suffered from mental illness. By 8 a.m. on Feb. 25, 1876, David Turley was given notice that Irwin was not going to grant him clemency.

The Daily Alta California newspaper chronicled the last hours of David Turley’s life in detail, including his request to meet with Father Patrick Scanlon to be baptized as a Christian and be read his last rites. It was noted that people were lined up outside the building in hopes of catching sight of the hanging. At 2 p.m. Turley was marched up to the scaffold, a large shroud was placed over his clothes and a hood over his head. After a short prayer, it was documented that Turley shouted, “Mother, mother I am coming!”  as the rope dropped.  Although his neck was broken instantly, his pulse continued for another fifteen minutes until the doctor pronounced him dead. 

In the end, although Turley was not given a chance to prove his mental state to the courts, we now know that he obviously suffered from something that made him very violent. Whether the Turley family as a whole suffered from inherited bad tempers, some sort of psychosis or chemical imbalances, they all seemed to have been affected by it. Most of David’s brothers were shot in the same way that Turley shot Shaw: Death didn’t just follow the Turley Family, it seems to have chased after them with a vengeance. Yet, by the lifestyles that they chose, the male members of the Turleys died the very way in which they lived. As the saying goes, “live by the sword, die by the sword,” so all men are responsible to face the consequences of their own actions, just as David Turley did on that day in 1876.

 By: J'aime Rubio --

Originally published on March 27, 2015 in the Roseville Press-Tribune.  Reposted with permissions Courtesy of Gold Country Media.

 

 

Dead Men Do Tell Tales -- How I Stumbled Upon The Last Hanging in Calaveras County

George Washington Cox

It all started with a book. Roland and I were at the Friends of the Library in Stockton, a frequent haunt of ours, when we found an older, historical book about the gold country titled, Motherlode Memories.  Roland purchased it and started going through the pages in the car. He pointed out to several places we are familiar with and a few we hadn't seen before. This past weekend he pulled out the book and said, "Let's go up to San Andreas, and see if we can find these two men's graves so I can put their photos on Find-a-grave."  

The two men he was speaking of were Sheriff Ben Thorn and Judge Gottschalk. They were the two men pictured on the pages in the historical book he was looking at. The page also showed a photo of the backside of the courthouse with a small blurb underneath that read "The courtyard in the rear of the restored 1868 San Andreas courthouse and jail was landscaped by the students of San Joaquin Delta College in Stockton. The last hanging from the gallows in this courtyard occurred in 1870." - (pg 102, Motherlode Memories). The page also had photographs of the Black Bart Inn and Ben Thorn's house as well. In the usual way that we do, we jumped in the car and headed up to San Andreas to do some history hunting.  

We searched for Pixley Lane and found ourselves going up a windy road up to an old cemetery on top of a hillside. 

People's Cemetery, San Andreas, CA

We wandered the grounds for a good hour or longer, before I stumbled upon Judge Gottschalk's grave, but we never did find Sheriff Thorn. As we were leaving the cemetery, we passed by a reddish marble stone that read George Washington Cox. I noticed the name right away, and Roland even spoke his name out loud as we passed by. It was apparent that we were meant to see or acknowledge that grave for some reason, but at the time we didn't know why.

So up to the Courthouse we drove, to take photos of the buildings on the main street. As I passed by the courthouse steps I noticed that they were open, so I walked right on in. I met up with a docent there and started talking to her about another story I have been planning to write about that took place in Valley Springs, and I wanted permission to use the Historical Society's photograph for my blog. We started talking and I gave her one of my business cards and Roland purchased our tickets to take a tour of the courthouse museum. 

The courthouse upstairs is beautiful, and preserved just as it was when Judge Gottschalk sentenced the infamous Black Bart to prison for his stage coach robberies throughout the motherlode. But it wasn't the courtroom that intrigued me, it was the jail that I wanted to see.  As I walked down the brick walkway down the side of the old courthouse and made my way around to the back yard of the property, I recognized the scene from the old black and white photo in Roland's book. This was the spot where the last hanging occurred. 

"I wish I knew who that person was", I told Roland, as I walked up to the back steps of the jail.

"Look, I am going to jail," I said, as I made a hand gesture as if I was handcuffed in front. I smiled and I walked into the jail.   

It was quiet and dark. Suddenly the motion censor lights came on. It startled me, I cannot deny that. Nothing paranormal about it though. I made my way to the back hallway where the cells were. I walked into one of the cells and tried to imagine how it must have felt to have been incarcerated there.  The etched names and initials carved into the walls were abundant. Who were these men? What stories did they have to tell? Were any of them among those who met their ending just steps away in the back yard? 

As I walked around, filming my experience there, Roland called out to me. 

"Hey, come over here," he said. "Remember that grave in the cemetery , George Washington Cox? He was the last guy they hanged here."

I walked into the small room off the main jail entry way, and there it was: a glass case with chain mail on display, a photograph of George, a small invitation to the ghastly affair (his execution) and at the bottom was a photocopy of a photograph of a man and woman (possibly George and his wife?) and a letter in his own hand, made out to one of his daughters, Medie Cox Damon, written just a month before he was hanged.

It seemed too coincidental to the both of us that we both noticed his grave at the cemetery earlier, and then like following invisible footsteps on a map, we happened to end up at the very spot in which George met his final ending. I sat down on the concrete floor and read his letter aloud. Roland had stepped outside to take more photos. No one was there, and I was all alone in the jail. You could hear a pin fall it was so quiet. 

The letter read:

"Saturday, July 6th, 1888

My Dear Daughter,    

Cox's Letter

I am very hopeful for a new consider in life but think it is with no effect. All you are doing for  me will prove worthless to me. I came home to see my children and by doing so, I walk in my grave. I am filling the position I was born to fill, and think no more about dying than going to sleep, everybody has got to pull over the same hill to meet in death valley, I am on the fence and can fall two different ways. I wish you all success in life hoping you and your husband may see many happy days. There is no change in my feelings, my constitution has been hardened to the capacity of steel by a band of dishonest men. I could write you a great many things, I don't fear death a bit, but I have been abused from my birth to the present day. Tell Mr. Damon to come down.

Yours Affectionately,

G.W. Cox"

I sat there at the jailhouse and started to cry. The letter seemed very sad, and the thought of a person's life ending and those were his last written words to a loved one really got to me. I wanted to know more. Why did he hang? What did he do? What happened?

There was a small paper in the glass cabinet that shed further light on the story.

"George Washington Cox goes down in Calaveras County history as the last man hanged in the jail yard. Soon after his hanging, the privilege of conducting hanging went to San Quentin.

Cox shot his son-in-law while having paranoid delusions of him having an affair with his wife. After he had shot and killed him, he put his armor on and gathered his knives and turned himself in to Ben Thorn, the county sheriff."

Well, it wouldn't be the first time a son-in-law was caught sleeping with his mother-in-law, trust me, I know of a few stories personally in the last few generations that this happened in different families. 

But, did George's wife and son-in-law actually do that? I needed to know more. 

We drove back up to the cemetery for the second time in the same day, and went right back to that grave we had passed by just a few hours earlier. I stopped and his grave and sat down, I took photos and I read out loud the letter he wrote to his daughter. I wondered, did his daughter ever read the letter? Or was she too distraught over the whole situation that she never accepted it, and thus it ended up back at the courthouse among items on display at the museum?

As soon as we left and returned home, I started searching the archived newspapers of the time to see if I could dig up anymore on this perplexing story. 

The first thing I wanted to see was if he had a memorial on Find-a-grave, and he did. 

So, I kept searching the archived newspapers of the time, to see what light I could shed on this story that literally found me.

The Amador Ledger, dated November 12, 1887 elaborated a bit more:

Cox's items on display at the Jail.

"On Thursday afternoon, Geo. Cox went to Sheep Ranch and gave himself up to the authorities, stating that he had killed his son-in-law H.G. Cook. Cox, when taken into custody had a Winchester rifle, a Winchester revolver, a dirk knife with a ten inch blade, and a coat of armor, the latter is made of steel wire, and weighs about 25 lbs. From the evidence of Mrs. Cox, before the coroner's inquest it appears that Cox, Cook and one of the children were eating dinner.  Cox got up from the table and went through a hall into a bedroom and taking his Winchester rifle, he stepped to the door leading from the hall to the dining room, and fired a shot at Cook, who was seated at the dinner table. The bullet struck Cook in the left breast and passed through his body. 

Cook stood up and then fell to the floor, Cox firing another shot as Cook fell, which struck the table in front of the little boy. Mrs. Cox and Mrs. Cook were in the room when the second shot was fired and before Cox had reloaded his rifle the third time, Mrs. Cook sprang across the room and caught hold of the gun and pushed Cox into the hall. During the struggle Cox kicked his daughter and struck her on the head with the rifle, which knocked her down, but she got up and pushed Cox out of the house and locked the door.

Cox went to a window and pointed his rifle at Mrs. Cook and swore he was prepared for any of them. In all probability Cox would have killed his wife and daughter had not the latter caught the assassin and put him out of the house by main strength. There appears to have been no cause whatever for committing the murder. There had not been an angry word spoken that day, or on any previous occasion by either of the men to one another. the coroner's jury charged Cox with having committed a cold-blooded murder. "

So by that point, it appears the rumor about his wife's infidelity hadn't gotten around in the community just yet. So when and where did this rumor start?

Digging into the archived newspapers little more, I found that a friend of Cox's, a Mr. Dave Reed, came to the authorities to tell them that just after Cox had killed Henry Cook, he came over to his Reed's cabin and asked him to help him gather his belongings from the house. He didn't tell Reed what had just transpired, so when Reed went into the house to get Cox's belongings he didn't know why everyone was crying. He gathered his things and left. Soon after, Mrs. Cox went to Reed's cabin and told him what happened and Reed went back to the house and went into the dining room and saw Mr. Cook dead on the floor. He claims this was the first he knew about it, when Mrs. Cox told him.

About fifteen years ago, a historian by the name of Walt Motloch shared more information to journalist Dana Nichols for a piece in the Stockton Record. Motloch uncovered even more regarding the story, which didn't necessarily settle the rumors, but instead created more confusion about the motive of the killing itself.

According to the news article dated in 2007, three different descendants of George Washington Cox have come to three different conclusions about what happened.  Joette Farrand, a great-great granddaughter of Cox, believed he was set up, and that there were people who wanted to get him "out of the way," so-to-speak. Now, this goes in line in a way with what Cox speaks in his letter about a "band of dishonest men."

Was he speaking about certain people plotting against him? Feeding him with false ideas? Knowing all too well he was like a ticking time bomb ready to go off at the next rumor that he heard? Or was the "band of dishonest men" simply the jury who convicted him?

The next descendant, Lee Rude, claimed that he had heard Cox had abandoned the family for 12 years, and only returned around the time of the murder. According to the Record's account, the Calaveras Prospect mentioned that Cox was a drifter who went from place to place, job to job and came back to seek revenge on the "injuries done" to him. 

But what were these great injuries done to him? And why his son-in-law, unless there actually was a reason for the killing?

Lastly, Jan Cook, another one of Cox's great grandchildren eludes to the idea that he was mentally unstable, not knowing where he was half the time, and being "weak mentally." So was he mentally incapacitated at the time of the murder? If so, why not send him to the Stockton Asylum? Why condemn him to the gallows? 

The more information being spread the more confusing it had became. 

Do I believe he specifically came to Calaveras to exact revenge on his son-in-law?  I am not sure. But where did he get this information that his wife was being unfaithful in the first place? It had to come from somewhere. Was he upset that he spent years of his life, working wherever he could to make a living (possibly sending the money to his family) only to find out his wife was sleeping around?

First and foremost, I am not accusing his wife of something that hasn't been said before. For the record, I don't know if she was faithful to him or not, just as I don't know whether Cox had any true merit to his accusations against her. But something was going on, whether it was reality or all in his mind. And if it was all in his mind, again, why did the jury not seek to send him to the Asylum in Stockton? 

By Cox's own admission during his trial, he believed his act was a defense to his family. Why would he say that if he didn't feel a real threat to himself or his family? 

The article in the Stockton Record from 2007, claims that Cox later admitted (after his trial) that the rumors he believed about his son-in-law were unfounded. 

But where is this documentation? (Not to say it wasn't said, but I would certainly like to see that for myself).

The Sacramento Daily Record Union, dated September 1, 1888, gives a little more insight into Cox's state of mind when he killed Cook when it reads, "The crime for which Cox suffered the death penalty was for the murder of his son-in-law, Henry Cook, near Sheep Ranch, in this county on November 3rd last. The murderer shot the young man while he was eating dinner, without any warning whatsoever. 

Cox claimed that his son-in-law had threatened to take his life, and had listened to evil stories concerning Cook and his (Cox') wife. The case was tried in January last and the death penalty affixed, and on appeal to the Supreme Court the judgement was affirmed."

When Cox was tried for the murder, in January of 1888, it was said that it only took the jury approximately one half of an hour to come to their verdict. Cox tried to appeal it, as the newspaper above mentions, and at one point, his execution was delayed.

According to the Los Angeles Herald, dated March 24, 1888, Cox's hanging was postponed, as it was originally scheduled for March 23, 1888. The final date was set for August 31, 1888, one final meeting at the gallows that Cox would not be able to avoid. 

It is apparent that Sheriff Thorn found the entire ordeal unpleasant, as he so did state at the execution and also by the way he had the invitations to the execution designed. 

The Sacramento Daily Union even mentioned it on August 24, 1888, that the invitation was printed on a card with a deep mourning border. This is telling.  If Thorn so believed that Cox was such a horrid, murderer, he would have had a simple card printed, but this one had meaning, symbolism for that time period. One of not just mourning, but "deep mourning," as the journalist had put it. 

The Jail Yard, where Cox was hanged on 8/31/1888

"Brave to the Last"

Execution of George W. Cox Yesterday at San Andreas

San Andreas, August 31st, George W. Cox was executed today in the jail yard at 10:30 a.m. by Sheriff Benjamin Thorne [SIC]. The death warrant was read to the condemned man shortly after 10 o'clock, in the presence of several officers and physicians. The Sheriff informed Cox that he had an  unpleasant duty to perform and Cox replied, "Go on, Mr. Sheriff, and do your duty."

The condemned man was laboring under some excitement, for his pulse was 140 immediately before being led on to the scaffold, but his manner and words were brave to the last. He walked to and on the scaffold without any hesitation, and assisted the Sheriff in adjusting the straps and the black cap. He made the remark that he was not sorry for anything he had ever done in his life, and as the black cap was slipped over his head he told the Sheriff not to smother him.

At 10:35 o'clock the drop fell and the neck of Cox was broken. He died without a struggle and no pulse was perceptible after the drop. About one hundred persons witnessed the execution." -- Sacramento Daily Record-Union, Sept, 1, 1888.

Spot where the gallows once stood.

Conclusion

George Washington Cox went to his grave with no regrets, or so he stated. But did he really? Were there any actions in his lifetime he may have regretted? It appeared that his emotional letter to his daughter revealed his weakness, his love of his children. Maybe in his mind, if he truly believed his son-in-law was sleeping with his wife, he felt it was a betrayal to his daughter as much as it was to himself. If this rumor had any truth to it at all, it would ruin both marriages, and disrupt the family forever. Maybe Cox just couldn't handle the idea of his daughter's heart being broken, or becoming hardened as his had.

Will we ever know if the stories he believed about his wife and his son-in-law had any merit at all?

Unfortunately, only the people involved in that event that took place back in 1887 know the truth to that story. We can sit and speculate all we want, but we may never know the truth. Cox could have been within his rights to believe his wife was being unfaithful, he may have been threatened by his son-in-law as he stated. Those rumors could have had truth to them. On the flip side, Cox could have been believing lies told to him by others, or perhaps even ideas that he came to on his own. 

Was Cox's mind troubled? Did he truly abandon his family for years on end? Or was he working on any job he could to send money to his family, in order to support them? How will we ever know for certain? Unless we have actual records to state either or, we will never know for sure but the story itself was one I couldn't pass up on sharing with all of you.

As many times in my history hunting, Roland and I come across stories that literally fall into our laps. We aren't necessarily looking for them, most times we are searching for something else and those other stories just happen to find us. I am then compelled to tell these stories of the forgotten, no matter whether they are: infamous, famous or unremembered, because I believe every grave has a story to tell, and as long as I am here, I will remain a voice to the voiceless so they will be forgotten no more.

Final Resting Place of G.W.Cox

(Copyright 2022 - J'aime Rubio www.jaimerubiowriter.com)

Photos: 
Grave of George W. Cox, Peoples Cemetery, San Andreas (Copyright, J'aime Rubio)

Photos inside and outside of San Andreas Courthouse/Jail/Jail
yard (Copyright, J'aime Rubio)

Sources:

Motherlode Memories, by Dr. R. Coke Wood & Leonard Covello, published by Valley Publishers, 1979. 

San Andreas Museum (photos)

Newspapers: Amador Ledger, 11/12/1887; Amador Dispatch, 11/19/1887; Sacramento Daily Record-Union, 8/24/1888; Amador Dispatch, 9/1/1888; Sacramento Daily Record Union, 11/05/1887,  Los Angeles Herald, 3/24/1888; Sacramento Daily Record Union, 9/1/1888; Stockton Record, 5/4/2007.

The History of Hangtown - Fact vs. Fiction

Archived Photo "Hangtown"- Placerville, Ca

So, lately there has been some commotion about the origins of the name "Hangtown," which was a nickname given to the town during the Gold Rush. There's even a sign in the heart of old Placerville that commemorates Placerville's earlier namesake, as well as an old dummy hanging from a noose in front of a local business in downtown Placerville where the historic hangman's tree once stood.

This push to remove the sign originated with someone named Camille Lloyd who started a petition on Change.org to asking (or demanding) that City Council remove the "Welcome to Placerville "Old Hangtown" sign because as she claims, "This moniker glorifies and celebrates a violent and racist history......The name "Hangtown" is outdated and offensive, and suggests that racial hate crimes are acceptable." Oh there's more. Then she has to mention George Floyd's recent death, which by the way, I didn't know he had anything to do with a gold rush town in Northern California, when his death took place in Minnesota, but hey, she just throws that one in there for good measure. The problem with Ms. Lloyd's petition is that none of her accusations are based on facts relating to Placerville history.

Well, I am here to set some things straight, since I am firm believer in FACTS. Just because you want something to be so, doesn't mean that it is. Just because you claim something is one way, unless you have cited sources and facts to back up your claim, then you might as well be trying to sell us a fairy tale. Do you still believe in Santa Claus, too Ms. Lloyd?

But this push to change, edit or downright erase history isn't new. In fact, I see it a lot these days. In my line of work, I have been seeing this happening for many years now. It's just that in the past 10 years or so, I have been seeing it at a more accelerated rate.

For one, if you do research in any area within California, you might notice every once in a while a person will pop up basically out of the blue claiming some event, person or landmark in that particular area was racist.  The person will try to push their "history" and even do so very adamantly, to the point that many people will actually believe it. They will demand something be changed, some money donated or some marker to be erected to force their side of history, but, when you actually look into their "research" you will see that they cite no sources, or refuse to cite them when you request to see their sources. That is a huge red flag. They push downright false stories that they have absolutely no records to back up their claims which are completely fabricated stories, and still they seem to get the media's attention to push it.

A good example, a woman a few years back was trying to change the state seal of California by claiming that California was named after a fictional black figure named Calafia. Well, I could really get into that debate on here, but I already wrote a blog about it years ago, so if you are interested in my in depth debunking of that tale, check that one out here: https://whatdoeshistorysay.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-origin-of-californias-name-setting.html

Another example was a gentleman who approached not just one news outlet, but several including the Stockton Record who all jumped on a story that a section in the Stockton Rural Cemetery was "segregated." I also proved that to be false. You can read about that here:
https://rememberingstocktonhistory.blogspot.com/2016/02/block-27-stockton-rural-cemetery.html

That very same gentleman went back to the Stockton Record again and reporter Michael Fitzgerald wrote a piece on one of the African-American pioneers buried at Stockton Rural Cemetery based on this persons "facts," taking them solely at face value, and not having him cite his sources. The story ran in the paper and was full of huge errors. Basically, there was only one or two things that were accurate in the entire piece, and the rest was completely fabricated.

When I approached Mr. Fitzgerald and asked him how he could publish false history, he admitted that he didn't ask for sources and took him at his word. After I provided him with facts to disprove his original article, he admitted that it was a mistake and would never use this person for historical content in anymore of his articles moving forward.   You can read about that, too, here: https://rememberingstocktonhistory.blogspot.com/2018/04/reverend-jeremiah-king-setting-facts.html

The point I am making here is that there is a movement to change our history going on right before our eyes. When someone isn't trying to rewrite it, they are trying to erase it all together.

Going back to Placerville:

Anyone who knows the history up here in the gold country, knows that Placerville did not lynch or hang people because of racism. Yes, once in a while you'll find a story of a Black, Hispanic or Chinese person being hanged, but you'll also find 10 times that amount of Whites hanged as well. Trust me, if you broke the law, murdered someone, stole a horse or committed a depredation among the community resulting in harm or destruction, you would be punished for it no matter the color of your skin. Sorry if that upsets some of your delicate sensibilities but we cannot erase history just to appease a few people who are offended by the past.

Dry Diggins (Placerville) earned it's nickname "Hangtown" because of one thing: Crime!
There was nothing racist about that. You broke the law, you paid the consequences for it, and sometimes that meant with your life. That's the wild west for you, take it or leave it. When I learned about this ridiculous petition, which was mentioned in a few articles in various local news outlets, it bothered me. For one, as a historical journalist and author, I believe that our history should be preserved, the good and bad. You cannot sugar coat the past. We have to take it all or none.

Now, without further adieu, let's revisit the history of Hangtown by way of actual documented accounts.

According to Sacramento Daily Union, dated April 21, 1880, it states:

"Early Days-How Placerville Came to be Known as Hangtown;."

"The soubriquet of Hangtown, by which this city was at one time only known, and which is now not unfrequently applied to it, had its origin in the hanging by a mob in October, 1850, of a desperado named Richard Crone, but known to the community by the nom de plume of Irish Dick.

The fellow was but a boy, hardly more than twenty-one years of age, and came across the plains from St. Louis, in one of the very first trains in the capacity of a cook. He was of small stature and more noticeable because of his outre attire, a wide and peculiar mouth, and large protruding teeth.  

He took to gambling as a profession, and showed, by his skill and pluck, that he was not unsuited for a business which, especially at the time, was a most hazardous calling. Like his fellows, he never went unarmed, and like them would not hesitate to use his weapons when he thought it would aid his cause to do so.

He soon made himself well known throughout the camps now included in El Dorado county, but the honored "Hangtown" most generally with  his presence. One night, while in the El Dorado saloon, where now stands the Cary House, he stabbed and almost instantly killed an emigrant just arrived, mistaking him, it is said, for someone else who he designed murdering for some fancied wrong. 

The murdered man had a brother in town, who resolved that "Irish Dick" should die. In this determination the town concurred. Dick was taken from the place where the officers of the law had stationed him, into the main street, and tried by a jury of citizens, in the presence of excited thousands, who had collected together from the surrounding country.

The verdict was "guilty," and so soon as it was pronounced the condemned was pushed from the platform whereon he and the Sheriff and the extemporized Court had sat, and hurried along with the crowd towards the plaza, where the preparations were made for his execution.

At this point the mob were told that a sick man was in a house nearby, and that the uproar seriously troubled him. The crowd at one returned down Main Street, and up to what is now Coloma Street, to a large oak, near where is now the Episcopal Church. Meanwhile, Sheriff "Bill" Rogers, and Alex. Hunter and John Clark, Constables of the town, fought desperately for the possession of the prisoner, but against the determined multitude, they were powerless. 

Throughout the terrible ordeal "Dick," with a  physical courage truly wonderful, conducted himself with the utmost coolness. When placed under the tree, with the rope around his neck, he begged the privilege of climbing upon the tree and leaping from the fatal branch. But this was denied him, and he was jerked up by strong and willing hands, and was soon a dangling corpse."--

Did you read that? In this account, not only did the Sheriff and both Constables try to save "Irish Dick's" life to try him for his crimes the right way, through the long arm of the law, but they fought to the bitter end to stop the crowd from enacting their own justice. Unfortunately, their efforts were unsuccessful.

Now, why on earth would Ms. Lloyd bring up George Floyd's death in her petition, as if it somehow fit in with this argument?  Especially when one of the earliest origins of Hangtown's nickname is clearly documented going back over 170 years ago stating that the law enforcement of the area actually did the opposite of what happened in Minnesota?

Look, throughout history, all over the United States and every country abroad has stories like these. Stories where criminals committed heinous acts and the townspeople took the law into their own hands. It has been going on since the beginning of time. Sometimes in the past it was necessary, and sometimes it wasn't, but it happened, and we cannot go back and erase that.

In all the years I have been researching and writing about our history, I have found more stories of white men (American or European immigrants) than any other race who were hanged here in California and within the country (in my research). Lynching was not something that was solely specific to people of color. The sooner people realize that, the better. In Placerville, it had nothing to do with race or culture. Period. It had to do with breaking the law.

Here's another "origins" claim was printed back in May of 1880, in the Sacramento Daily Union in response to the original article above. In this piece the following account comes from a man known as John Breen, one of the founding fathers of Placerville who was a survivor of the ill-fated Donner Party, and lived in California before the discovery of gold at Sutter's mill. His story claims that Hangtown got its name a little earlier than "Irish Dick's" death. Still, no blacks or "minorities" were mentioned in this story either, because if these men were, their nationality would have been mentioned, the newspapers always mentioned where you came from or if you were colored or ethnic.

"I read in your last issue an account of the Placerville came to be called Hangtown, which is a mistake. During the winter of 1848-49, I lived at the place now called Placerville, engaged in mining. Sometime in January, 1849, three men were charged with stealing a quantity of gold dust from a miner's house. They were arrested by a vigilance committee, tried and sentenced to be flogged on the bare back with a 'riata.' This punishment they received, but were not set at liberty. 

Shortly after they were retried and sentenced to be hanged, and the sentence was immediately executed by hanging two of them to the limb of an oak tree which stood near the center of the small valley where Placerville now stands.

The third man, for some reason, was to be hanged the next day, but during the night James Doyle and Patrick Friry, while on guard, turned the man loose and he made his escape. This I was told the next morning by Doyle and Friry as a secret, they being my companions in the cabin where we lived during the winter of '48-49.

Next morning but few miners collected, who, when told that the man had got away, said that it was all right. From the time those men were hanged, and for many years, the place was known as "Hangtown."--- John Breen, 1880.

Besides "Irish Dick" and the two unnamed men in John Breen's story,  there were others hanged on that tree over time. And each account they had committed a crime from theft to murder. I couldn't find any stories of any blacks being hanged out of racism in any case in Placerville's history.

 According to the "History of El Dorado County" by Paolo Sioli it states:

 "The record of crimes committed inside the borderlines of El Dorado county, commencing from the earliest times, has become quite a volume of history in itself. The enormous influx of adventurous men of different nationalities to this very spot of land, the New El Dorado, undoubtedly had brought a good many daring and desperate characters, who had come for gain, in the easiest and least troublesome manner, but for gain under all eventualities. There were others whose intention had been to make an honest living and they started it accordingly; but the weakness of mind and body, together with the bad examples they frequently saw, led them astray, to make fortune in an easier way than with pick and shovel. So, we find as early as 1848 and 1849 already organized bands of desperadoes, with signs, passwords and grips, with chiefs and lieutenants, who would lay in wait in and around the mining camps. The people endeavoring to put a stop to those crimes were often enough compelled to take the law into their own hands, as may be seen out of the case which originated the sobriquet of Hangtown for the village of Placerville." 

In conclusion, I have to disagree with Ms. Lloyd's petition about her idea of the history of Hangtown. She seems to think by retaining the nickname "Hangtown" all they are doing is promoting a negative tone for the town's history.  On the contrary, in order for us to properly honor and respect the town's history I believe we must hold on to the stories, both good and bad.

Besides its infamy for dealing with criminals the old fashioned way, it was also a place where people settled to live their lives. Some good, some bad. A place where so many moved there to start a life such as eager and desperate miners seeking to strike it rich and merchants risking it all to open a business and thrive in the Motherlode. It was also a place that drew in a more dangerous crowd at times: fugitives, thieves, murderers and desperadoes.

Hundreds of people lived there during the Gold Rush, and by 1854, it was the third largest city in California, just after San Francisco and Sacramento. It suffered great losses when a fire nearly destroyed the entire city on July 6, 1856, but being a place that was home to so many hard-working and resilient people, they rebuilt and made it better than it was before. It went from being a hub for gold mining to a place where agriculture, manufacturing and the lumber industry thrived. While many other mining towns disappeared forever, Placerville continued to survive.

There is absolutely no reason to remove a sign that commemorates part of Placerville's past. There have been groups in the past going back to 1914 and also in the 1930's who have tried to petition to either remove the Hangtown name all together or have the town's name switched back to Hangtown, neither of them got too far.

I hope that for the sake of Placerville's history that they do not allow some person who has absolutely no knowledge of El Dorado County history to come in and push her weight around to get City Council and other lawmakers in the county to kowtow to her demands. There is a saying that I live by as a historical journalist and I strongly suggest that the City of Placerville really think about this before they go changing anything, Marcus Tullius Cicero once stated, " “It is the first law of history that the writer should neither dare to advance what is false, nor suppress what is true.” 

Leave the sign as it is. It is a part of Placerville history. You cannot change it, and by removing it you are ignoring and omitting that part of history. It is a part of California history. Do not allow these history revisionists to get you to buckle under the pressure to change our history to appease them. They will continue to complain about something else and something else after that. You give them an inch and they will keep going. It will never be enough.

(Copyright 2020, J'aime Rubio, www.jaimerubiowriter.com)

First Recorded Hanging Of A Woman In California History

Yesterday I read an article online regarding a very atrocious event that took place recently in Brazil. From what I read, during a soccer game (or football as they call it) a fight between a referee and a player ensued after an argument. For whatever reasons, the referee pulled out a knife and stabbed the player. The player was removed from the field and taken to the hospital where he died in transport.

It gets worse! Meanwhile, as the player was being transported to the hospital, friends, family and spectators watching the game came down to the field, attacked the referee, stoned him to death, quartered his body, severed his head and placed it on a pole of some sort and stuck it in the middle of the field.

As I read this, my stomach began to feel ill. We are human beings with a brain and the capability to know right from wrong, and yet so many times when in a fit of rage people can so easily resort to being no different than wild animals. It sickens me to no end. Well, as I was doing some research on another story that I am working on, I stumbled upon the story of the very first recorded lynching and murder of a female in California history. The small mining town of Downieville, is the backdrop for this story I am about to tell you. First off, let me tell you a little bit about the history of the town before we begin.

Downieville, CA-

Downieville was established in 1849 during the Gold Rush days of California, but had been earlier known as "The Forks" due to its geographical location between the North Fork of the Yuba River and the "Downie" River as they named it. The town took on the name "Downieville" after Major William Downie, who led the expedition up to the town and became the first mayor there.  During it's peak (which was around 1851) Downieville had about 5,000 residents. At one point Downieville had even applied to be the State Capitol, although Benicia won that vote and later on Sacramento came to be the permanent Capitol of the State.

Downieville Map (http://www.fohbc.org)

The Lynching of Josefa (or Juanita)

So, I have been doing research on this story, and I am going to tell you the various versions of the story I have discovered. Then I am going to let you decide what you think really happened and if you think this lynching was a heinous act or quite possibly justified after all.

In the book "Days of 49" by Gordon Young, he mentions this incident and quotes Popular Tribunals, Volume I, page 557 and Royce's California, page 368, when he states that on July 5, 1851 the young Mexican girl, he calls "Juanita" was "put on a pavilion in the center of the town and twelve men responded eagerly to the call for a jury." It states that  she was put on trial for the murder of a man known as "Joe Cannon," a respected miner who, while drunk, broke into the her house and Josefa stabbed him.

It goes on to state that a "humane physician," Dr. Cyrus D. Aiken,  took the stand and testified that the girl was in no condition to be hanged. Of course he was booted out of town. Another witness, a Mr. Thayer of Nevada allegedly attempted to make a speech on her behalf and he was also kicked (literally) out of town. Some claimed she said "Adios Senores" just before they hung her. Before dying she did remark that if given the chance she would not hesitate to do it again.

I started looking around and finding other websites and  recent books by authors that offer their take on "Juanita's" story. I also searched as many archived newspaper articles and recorded documentation that would shed light on this story further.

As far as the majority of all stories goes, all claim that Cannon, (whose name is recorded as Joe and also as Frederick Alexander Augustus Cannon, aka "Jock"), was a miner in the town. Archived records show him as being either Scottish, English or some even mention him being Australian. He was over 6'4 and nearly 240 lbs.  The 1850 Census reports a J.H. Cannon of Ohio, living in Yuba County, (which Downieville was a part of at that time prior to becoming part of Sierra County in April of 1852). It is quite possible his name was actually Joe Cannon as the earlier recorded documents stated from the beginning. He was described as a "cheerful, easy-going giant" of a man.

The woman in the story who is often referred to as Juanita, is also written as being called Josefa. She was stated to stand at barely 5 feet tall with a petite frame. Many records state that people in the town didn't think too highly of her, although all records state her as being beautiful or pretty. Almost every account mentions her being hot-tempered and easily angered.

Some recent books mention Juanita (or Josefa) as being the wife of Jose, although no newspapers I have located as of yet, from that time show her as being his wife at all. Townspeople of Downieville claimed she only lived with a man named Jose. Both she and Jose worked at the Craycrofts Saloon in town.

I find it quite interesting that in so many recently written books, the authors portray Juanita (or Josefa) as this innocent woman who was just defending herself from a vicious miner who attacked her. That seems a bit one sided if you ask me. The townspeople regarded Juanita as a very hot-tempered and ill-mannered woman, who worked in the Saloon. Some spoke of her as a bar maid or dancer while other miner's accounts were that she was a prostitute. Some people try to claim Cannon was racist and hated Mexicans and Chinese, however his friends claimed he was a happy guy who was always singing and laughing. He even sang songs in Chinese and even prior to him being stabbed, the townsfolk heard him trying to speak Spanish to Jose. Someone who hates a certain race more than likely isn't going to be willing to speak (or sing) the language of the people he hates, now would he? Think about that for a second. I am sure he was not an angel and perhaps after being screamed at by Josefa it had got on his last nerve and maybe that was why he started saying disrespectful things to Josefa.

He Called Her a "Whore"

Now you have to stop and also think about this for a minute, to call a woman a whore back then was not the same as calling a woman a whore nowadays. Prostitution was a very popular profession back then, especially in areas like that.   Let's face it, back then a woman couldn't move out to a rowdy area, surrounded by rugged, tough men and expect that life was going to be romance and roses, especially if that same woman was employed in that mining town at the local Saloon.

The Gold Rush mining towns of that time period were not often a place for self respecting women. In fact, women were scarce in those types of places. Yes, occasionally a wife came out west but it was mostly the wives of store owners who came to work with their husbands to run a family business but that was rare. Most women of that time kept towards the bigger cities and communities and not so much in the "one-horse towns."  During that time period, most of the women in those towns were saloon girls or prostitutes. That is a fact.  It was a known fact Josefa worked in the local Saloon in town, Craycrofts Gambling Palace, not a place for a self respecting lady. Do you think the men of that mining town in 1851 even knew about or gave a damn what was "politically correct" back then? I truly doubt it.


Who Was Josefa?

Why don't we know Josefa's surname? One genealogy site I found said her name was Josefa Segovia, although the 1850 Census doesn't show her name in the database at all.  As far as her boyfriend, some stories say Jose was a gambler, while others specify that he was a professional Monte Card Dealer. Whatever the profession or hobby of gambling, he was Josefa's boyfriend.

Historian, Rodolfo F. Acuña claimed to have established her name to actually be Juana Loaiza, and that it was documented in the 1877 Schedule of Mexican Claims against the United States when Jose Maria Loaiza filed a suit against the U.S. requesting damages for “the lynching of his wife and the banishment of himself by a mob.” Jose Loaiza's claim for damages was denied.

What I find interesting is the fact that the 1850 Census does not show any listing for Jose or Josefa Loaiza, Juana Loaiza or Josefa Segovia in Yuba County or any part of California at all. Also, it is quite possible Jose claimed Josefa was his wife for legal purposes in order to file the lawsuit from Mexico. Perhaps they were married, but to date I have found no documented record establishing them as being man and wife while in California.

How It All Started

One of the many accounts I found claims that the beginning of the trouble between Josefa and Cannon started when Cannon allegedly disrespected Josefa at Jack Craycroft's Gambling Palace. That was when Cannon, being overly giddy from drinking attempted to touch Josefa's shoulder while she was in the saloon at a card table. According to reports, in anger Josefa lifted her skirt up to pull a knife from her garter belt and threatened Cannon, and that was the start of their animosity. Did this actually happen? Well, if it did, it certainly makes you think twice about Josefa's temper now doesn't it?

Another account states that Cannon had made sexual advances at Josefa in the past and she refused. That in anger for being turned down before, he came to her home in the night, broke in and in fear of her life she stabbed him, making his death justified. But that isn't how it happened.


What Really Happened vs What People Claim

According to reports, the story was that Cannon, Charley Getzler and another man named Lawson were enjoying the festivities of the first actual Fourth of July Celebration well into the early morning hours of July 5th. They were singing and laughing and walking down the streets making fools of themselves, in a drunken stupor. As newspaper reports stated the men were "drunk and jovial."

As they strolled (or stumbled) through town, they began knocking on various doors of homes on the street, obnoxiously loud and unruly, when they came upon Josefa's door. Cannon leaned on it and the leather hinges holding the door up broke. This caused Cannon and the door to literally fall down inside the house. Cannon found his drunk self on the ground laughing. His friends helped him get up, picked up the door and tried to put it back on and then continued on down the street with his friends. Other witness accounts confirm this story. Even by Josefa's own account, the men left and Cannon did not attack her.

Later that day Josefa forced Jose to confront Cannon to ask about being reimbursed for the broken door.  It was then that Josefa became involved in the conversation between Jose and Cannon.
Now, ask yourself this question, if Josefa was really being physically threatened or attacked by Cannon during this time as she later claimed, why didn't Jose defend her honor and stand up to Cannon? Probably because she wasn't being physically attacked at all. More than likely Cannon may have said rude things to her, maybe he even did call her a "whore" as many accounts claim, but did that mean he deserved being stabbed to death? I think not.

Yes, Cannon probably wasn't an angel by any means, but in no account do I find evidence of  him coming into the home to rape her, nor did I find any evidence of him physically assaulting her either. According to witness accounts, Jose approached Cannon to speak about the door that he had broken the night prior. Cannon had gone to purchase medicine, (more than likely for a hangover from partying the night before), from the doctor who lived literally next door to Jose and Josefa. That was when Jose confronted Cannon. Some accounts say Cannon offered an apology and even shook hands with Jose, while Josefa was still angry and literally got in between the two men to yell at Cannon herself.

Some other accounts claim Cannon apologized but offered no reimbursement for the door. One book I found claimed that he laughed at the absurdity of even being asked since the door would have fallen if anyone "coughed" near it (meaning their home was dilapidated to begin with). Other stories say that Cannon argued with Jose about the door and that he didn't have time to be bothered with their request and was actually leaving when Josefa got in his face, but never did he threaten or strike anyone in the household.

It was when Josefa began yelling and getting in Cannon's face that Cannon told Jose to basically get control of his woman, (some accounts say he said "bitch" or "whore") and it was then that Josefa went and retrieved the knife from either a table or under her pillow on her bed and stabbed Cannon in the chest. I read a few accounts that said it pierced his heart, another that says it sheered through his clavicle and into his lung.  (note: if she did stab him in that manner, either way, she had to have lunged at him with her arm in the air and stabbed him with her arm moving from above in a downwards motion. That is not the norm for an act of self defense.)

Now remember this, she was a small, petite woman. She probably weighed no more than 100-120 lbs the most. Then you take Cannon, who was 6'4 and about 240 lbs. Newspapers claimed that the bowie knife had been used with such force that it must have taken a strong fit of rage for someone her size to really pound the knife that deep in his well built chest in order to kill him.  After the murder, she ran off for awhile until the people of the town found her hiding in Craycroft's Saloon and ordered that she be tried for the murder of Cannon.


"There was a stoical, almost a cynical calm in the manner she faced the situation, that added a touch of horror to the grisly performance."-  (the event mentioned in a 1909 Newspaper Archive.)

Newspapers over time, reported that during the trial that Josefa was seen smiling at the Judge and Jury, unaffected by the event that had just taken place, while some books (recently written) claim she was distraught, crying and emotional. People who were present at the trial claimed that she didn't seem remorseful of the act, and we will never truly know if she felt any sense of guilt at all. Josefa was about to finally face the last consequences of her actions. The make-shift trial was arranged within hours of the incident and a Jury was formed by 12 men of the town. Judge Rose appointed William Spear as prosecutor, while for Josefa's defense, Attorney's Pickett and Brocklebank were called.

Two witnesses came forward in Josefa's defense besides Dr. Aiken who as I stated above, claimed Josefa was pregnant in order to stall her execution. (Although three other doctors were called to verify her pregnancy who upon examining Josefa, claimed there were no such signs of pregnancy).

Josefa claimed that because a boy had told her some "men" in the town wanted to break into her house and sleep with her, out of fear she defended herself from Cannon. That was her justification for stabbing Cannon in broad daylight in front of her boyfriend and Cannon's friend. By her own admission she stated that she stabbed him after telling him he had no right to call her bad names.

"I told the deceased that was no place to call me bad names, come in and call me so and as he was coming in I stabbed him."-

Another witness said they heard Cannon say a foul word in Spanish but they had no idea if it was meant for Jose or Josefa just before the stabbing. Mr. McMurray heard Cannon call Josefa a "whore," while other reports claim McMurray admitted to seeing Josefa attack Cannon with the bowie knife in a fit of rage.

No matter how you slice it, all accounts point to the fact that Josefa committed murder. Even if Cannon was going to step one foot in her door and call her a bad name doesn't mean he intended to hurt her physically. There is no way for us to know.  In nearly every account I have found it shows that Cannon was either already inside the house or in the doorway to begin with.  No matter what the case, Josefa had to have walked up to him because she walked away to get the knife and walked back up to Cannon in order to stab him in his chest.

I didn't see any evidence of Jose claiming that Cannon attempted to physically assault either him or Josefa. No matter what names or awful things Cannon may have said or not said to Josefa, she had no right whatsoever stabbing him to death, period.  Now if he had physically hit her or attempted to rape or assault her I would say that she would have had every right to defend herself. But, sorry folks, evidence is lacking in her favor here.

And remember, she wasn't alone there at the house. Her boyfriend Jose was there, and he was the one who initially started the conversation with Cannon. If Cannon was being so dangerous and abusive to Josefa then why didn't Jose step in and defend her? Why hadn't there been a physical altercation between the two men prior to the stabbing?

Most people aren't even aware that Josefa had reportedly stabbed and injured two men prior to this incident and that may have been the 'straw that broke the camels back' when it came to the town's view on her. Well, the story didn't end well. As you can imagine, Josefa was found guilty of murder and ordered to be hanged until dead. Jose was found innocent but ordered to leave town. From the many witnesses who watched the trial and her hanging, all said that she calmly and without trepidation, accepted her fate and willingly took her sentence when the time came.  All accounts state that Josefa admitted that if she had to do it over again, she would if provoked.

Let's analyze that statement shall we? The definition of the word "provoke" means to :

1. Stimulate or give rise to (a reaction or emotion, typically a strong or unwelcome one) in someone.
2. Stimulate or incite (someone) to do or feel something, esp. by arousing anger in them.

 Downieville Hanging (Milwaukee Sentinel 1939)

Now by her own admission, Cannon "provoked" her. When you are acting in self defense you aren't provoked, you are the victim who acts in "defense." The fact she said that Cannon provoked her, proves that he pissed her off to the point she acted out. To date there are no records of her saying he raped her, assaulted her, nothing. But almost all reports mention that he "insulted her."  Her ego was bruised because he may have used some foul language about her, calling her a "whore" or whatever words he may have used...but her bruised ego and fiery temper was what more than likely made her walk over and pick up that knife and stab him with such force into his chest.


The townspeople were quoted saying that "woman or no woman, someone is hanging" for what happened to Cannon.  Prior to her hanging, she objected to her arms being tied to her body but willingly put the cover over her eyes and adjusted the rope around her neck. She asked to be given a proper burial as a final request, and then she was hung on the Jersey Bridge.

The Blame Game

Many people have screamed "racism" because she was Hispanic, or the fact she was a woman, and that it wasn't fair what happened to her. You have to step back from all that for a minute and think about that logically.

• So does it mean it's okay for anyone non-white to commit a crime? 

No. A crime is a crime, whether you are Caucasian, African-American, Asian, Hispanic, Native-American, Middle Eastern, etc.  When you start looking at things by color things get messed up.

Let's pretend that Josefa wasn't a woman for a minute, let's pretend she wasn't even Hispanic either. Let's say she was a white male.

•  Do you think that in a different scenario the outcome would have been the same?

You can bet your bottom dollar that whoever it was would have been strung up for walking up to Cannon and stabbing him in the chest, too. I can tell you based on the research and stories I have written about history, that men have been strung up for less things than that, including the attempted stealing of another mans horse or even cattle.

When we get down to brass tacks here the fact of the matter is murder is murder. Stabbing a man during an argument when there haven't been any blows thrown by either side is not justified.  The fact she was a woman and Hispanic has no relevance. It has only wrongfully made Josefa as an innocent martyr based on the classic idea that all whites were racist and that she was only hanged for the color of her skin. No, that is not why, it was because she murdered someone. Let us not forget the crime committed.

• Do you really think Josefa had a right to stab a man who called her a whore but did not physically attack her? 

• Do you really think that her life was truly in danger, when even her own boyfriend did not get in a physical altercation with Cannon?

When looking into history, one should look at the story from all sides before making a judgment call. When I first looked into this story I believed that this was more than likely a story of an innocent woman being wrongfully hanged and it bothered me. I wanted to tell her story, but I wanted to tell the truth- no matter what "truth" it was that I found. The more I researched the more my gut started telling me that she was probably not the innocent woman that people have made her out to be.

You see, the job of a historian is not to tell history in order to fit into a certain agenda. When you start doing that you ruin history and re-write it. No one can ever say there have never been any women criminals in history. No one can sit here and say that there have never been any Hispanic murderers in history. Just like we cannot say that there has never been any White murderers in history or male criminals for that matter. It's just not possible. Josefa was hanged for a crime she committed, but so many want to blame it on racism or chauvinism when that is illogical thinking.  Just because Josefa was a woman who happened to be Hispanic didn't mean she didn't commit a crime. She did, and the evidence proves it.

Even years later the townspeople of Downieville still wrote the newspapers and tried to explain that her death was justified based on what she did to Cannon.  Yes, there have been many accounts of innocent people being killed or hanged based on their race and not by facts, I agree. But that doesn't mean everytime someone was strung up and killed that they were innocent either. Again, common sense has to come into play here. Why not look at the facts in this story too?

Just like that story I mentioned in the beginning about the man in Brazil who was stoned to death and his head severed and placed on a pole, I mentioned it to remind you that the world is brutal. History proves that it has always been brutal, from all races. Josefa stabbed a man over an argument. She killed him without a second thought. Now that is brutal, too. One may imagine the lynching of her as being inhumane, but remember back then anyone who was caught even stealing horses were hanged back then, no matter who you were. That was the "Wild West" and that was justice back then.

Just think, all these 162 years Cannon has been made out to be the "bad guy" while Josefa was put on the pedestal as the innocent lady hanged. What if he wasn't the bad guy at all? How do we know for a fact that Josefa was the innocent one?

If that is the case, that means Cannon's memory has been tarnished all these years because the story wasn't told correctly. And that my friends, is not okay.  Look at the evidence, look at the facts. You have to think about all of the information before making your judgment. There are always two sides to every story.


J'aime Rubio (Copyright 7/8/2013)
Republished on "Stories of the Forgotten" blog: 3/28/2018

The Rancheria Massacre- Part 4- Amador County

Photo: Huntington Library

After the death of Sheriff Phoenix, the men who were on the hunt after the bandits grew even more determined to catch every single one of them and make them pay for the damage they had caused. Marshall Wood, from Columbia, sent a telegraph to the posse telling them that they had detained several men that they suspected could be part of the gang. Now this is where some stories get confusing, I have read accounts that state the hanging of Rafael Escobar was before Sheriff Phoenix was shot dating it to be approximately around August 8^th, but in fact the man who was hanged in Jackson on the Hangman’s tree on the 8^th was an unidentified man, the 9^th was Manuel Castro (according to some reports it was Manuel Garcia) and then on the 15^th was the date that Rafael Escobar was hanged.

Being that the leader, Sheriff Phoenix, was dead and buried, now someone else had to step up to the plate and take charge. That person was George Durham. He knew who they were looking for, so he volunteered to take the lead. Once they arrived to where Marshall Wood had been detaining the men, George Durham was said to have recognized one of the men in the group.  He was a well educated man, who spoke English and formerly lived in Drytown.

 Hangman’s  Tree

Now this is where it also gets confusing, some papers and books claim his name was Rafael Escobar, while The History of Amador County by Jesse D. Mason claims his name to be Manuel Escobar. Now, let me also state that Rafael and Manuel were brothers (not to be confused with Manuel Castro (Garcia).

Other reports claim that on August 15^th Manuel was hanged in Sutter Creek after being caught, and Rafael Escobar was hanged in Jackson at the Hangman’s Tree. Let me also add, Rafael was the last person ever to be strung up on Hangman's tree in Jackson. Later the tree burnt down in the big fire the swept through Downtown Jackson in 1862.

Manuel Castro (Garcia), who had been caught and injured (later hung on August 9^th) had been the one who bragged to an Italian at Texas Bar that he had shot and killed the people at Rancheria, only to change his story and claimed he was merely standing outside while the robbery and murders were taking place. He also had given up the alleged names of his posse: Gregorio (a red-headed man) whom he supposedly met at Hornitos, Bonito, Waro (which I believe was misinterpreted and actually was “Huero”), Trinidad, Macemanio and Californio. Some other reports state: Bonito, Maciana, California and the two Manuel’s but no mention of a Rafael. There was even a mention of someone named Guadalupe Gumbo in a few other reports. I read one account where this Guadalupe character was mentioned as being the ring-leader. But then others claimed Gregorio made the group of bandits. It’s safe to say that over the years too much guessing has been done and very little facts remain as to who was actually in charge in this band of criminals. 

But, when it comes to the identity of Manuel and Rafael Escobar, which is it? Was Manuel Escobar and his brother Rafael in the same gang or not? Why is one or the other mentioned, but neither one at a given time was mentioned together in any of the newspapers? If not, then one of these brothers was more than likely implicated in the Rancheria killings just based on being related to each other. That would mean then that one of those men were hanged, unfairly.

As some of the records state, Durham questioned the detained man, who allegedly pretended that he couldn’t speak English. According to the newspapers, Durham told Rafael that Castro (some say Garcia) had “given him up” before dying, when the detained man then started spitting out vulgar language in perfect English. He then was taken to Jackson with Durham and some officers from Calaveras to be hung. Something else that should be noted is that Escobar never admitted guilt to Durham in Calaveras County or Amador County. Escobar pled that he was innocent the entire time. It was reported that Sheriff Clark of Calaveras claimed Escobar admitted guilt in his presence the night before, but there is no real evidence of this.

According to newspaper accounts, Rafael claimed that he was working at a house where the bandits stopped, and out of fear, he and the family “were compelled to feed them.” Remember, this is the same house Durham had visited the night they spoke to the lady and she motioned the curtain back to expose the bandits as they escaped out the back of the house. He claimed he had been there, and that Durham may have mistaken him for one of the bandits because he may have seen him that night at the house in Drytown. 

He also made the point that he stayed there at the house working without being arrested long after the men had run off and Durham had gone chasing after them. Newspaper accounts also state that Rafael said he had no prior knowledge that those men would attack Rancheria. He said that he passed through Jackson the next day and later was arrested in Columbia.  He attempted reasoning with the crowd, mentioning that when he was arrested in Columbia, that he was armed with 2 revolvers, and that he could have killed several people if he wanted to when he was being arrested, but knowing and feeling his own innocence he allowed himself to be taken without a struggle. He also attested to the fact that he knew several residents of Drytown and Sutter Creek who could testify on his behalf to prove his hard working and unblemished character.

 Hangman's Tree marker located on Main St
 in Downtown Jackson, CA.

The Sacramento Daily Union (8/17/1855) states that he knew he was “in the power of the Americans, and knew he had to die, and wished to have his face washed and hair combed, which favor was granted. He then said he would like to have a priest to confess himself; this being refused, he called for a “brandy punch,” which was given him. The crowd here became restless and impatient, and called for his hanging, which was immediately done.

The Mexican was “run up” and held there for a short time, then lowered, when great difficulty was encountered getting the rope loosed from his neck. It was finally cut loose; in the mean time he suffered excruciating pain, rolling his eyes about, throwing his head and body about at random, and making a loud gurgling noise with his throat. When the rope was taken from his neck he revived and asked for brandy and water, and said he would like to talk but it was of no use, as the people would believe nothing he said, and he wished they would kill him outright, or bring some of his friends. He said that if the Americans would arm themselves and take him with them he could point out every man that was connected with the Rancheria affair....……..the crowd, who could not hear half that was said, again became impatient and cried out “run him up,” which was immediately done, and he at this moment, twenty minutes after twelve o’clock, hangs suspended by the neck from the memorable limb of the old “hang tree.” His name was Rafael Escobar. This is the name of the man Garcia* said killed Mrs. Dimon** at Rancheria. We are in doubt whether this Mexican was really guilty. We do not wish to cast any reflection upon any of our citizens who had a hand in his hanging, but we do think they should have endeavored to obtain more evidence against him before proceeding so far. Hang all the guilty ones, but do not, for God’s sake, sacrifice the innocent!”

(footnote: * Garcia was actually Castro, and ** Mrs. Dimon was actually Mrs. Dynan)

The saddest part of this story is the fact that no one could really prove that Rafael was part of the gang. When he was arrested he didn’t resist as the other gang members did, why do you think? Because he knew he was innocent. What if you were arrested for something you didn’t do? And you knew that everything would turn out okay, because you figured since you knew you were innocent, that by explaining the truth that everything would work out okay right? Sadly, many times it doesn’t work out that way.

Rafael thought that if they would just listen to him, to get the witnesses who could testify on his behalf for his moral character that everything would be okay, but the crowd refused. They went on information that was vague and was a “deathbed confession” of a hardened criminal who had originally confessed that he had killed the people in Rancheria, but then pointed the blame on Rafael before his death. Would you have believed Manuel Castro? I wouldn’t have. Would I have believed Rafael? Perhaps. 

Besides, the Daily Alta California (8/11/1855)- Corroborates Rafael’s story by Manuel Castro’s own account. Rafael claimed he was working at the home that the bandits came to, and that by fear they were compelled to feed them. Well, by Manuel Castro’s own admission, he stated that he had been to that very house and had ate dinner there. 

I had to ask myself another question, why did the bandits go there? Well, it was said that Rafael and his brother Manuel Escobar were hanged on the same day, one in Sutter Creek, one in Jackson. So that means at least one of them was in the gang. Perhaps Rafael’s brother told his friends where they could go get food, and forced their company on the home where Rafael was working. It is also possible that when he had admitted he knew who the men where but was not involved, he was telling the truth. He was quite aware his brother was in the gang, but maybe he kept silent out of fear, knowing that if they knew he was related to one of the members of this band of criminals, it would only implicate him more.

I am still aggravated that the people in charge didn’t question the residents of Sutter Creek and Drytown who knew Rafael, who could have cleared his name, but instead they strung him up on that tree just like the rest of the criminals. Sadly, mob mentality in any race or country almost always has deadly outcomes.  I feel bad for this particular person Rafael, just like I feel bad for Puerto Vino, Jose and Trancolino who were hanged earlier in this story when the angry mob of residents believed James Johnson’s testimony that they had been involved in the Rancheria Massacre.  Some reports claim that up to 16 Mexicans were hung, the total is really unknown.

The Sacramento Daily Union (8/8/1855) stated:
 "How many Mexicans have been caught and hung it is impossible to say, seven to my knowledge have been hung, and how many have been killed by scouters, no one knows but themselves, and they won't tell."

Homes of Mexicans in Drytown, Rancheria and Sutter Creek  were burnt down. Even the church was torn apart and burnt to the ground. Soon after, Judge Hubbard adopted resolutions that sent the entire “Hispanic” communities heading out of the County. Those resolutions were:

·        The expelling all Mexicans and Chileans from the County unless there was satisfactory evidence of good moral character.

·        Mexicans could be arrested for ANY offense committed that they decided to charge them with.

·        No Mexican or Chilean were permitted to carry any deadly weapon.

In a previous story I wrote, “The ForgottenTown Of Contreras,” I speak of an old mining town in eastern Amador County, that became a literal ghost town between 1855-1860, after doing much research on the Rancheria murders, I have come to the conclusion that the people of Contreras may have decided to leave Amador County during this very hostile and dangerous time period. 

While Amador County was still in chaos, there was still some justice left to be served on one last real criminal in Jamestown. One day, a Mexican man from Algerine Camp came forward to the authorities that the person he believed had actually killed Sheriff Phoenix, and belonged to the group who were responsible for the Rancheria murders, was in hiding.

He claimed that the man came to him badly wounded and threatened to kill him if he didn’t dress his wounds and hide him.  He allegedly lowered the man down in a mining shaft where there was a tunnel with a rope and pulley.  The man was unaware that his whereabouts had been compromised so he was blindsided when the lawmen surrounded the shaft demanding him to surrender. They waited several minutes, with no response, so they finally gathered some brush together and set it on fire and threw it down the shaft to “smoke him out.” Minutes later they heard a gunshot. The last bandit had killed himself. 

In Conclusion

In this story we have heard the story of the six innocent people of Rancheria, (Mrs. Mary Dynan, Sam Wilson, Eugene Francis, Uriah Michener, An unidentified Native-American man and Daniel Hutchins) who were murdered and robbed. We have read about several heroes who stopped at nothing to bring peace to Amador County and a Sheriff who paid the ultimate price, laying down his life for justice.

I have also showed you the accounts of the wild shootouts where the “good guys” got the “bad guys”, where some of the criminals faced the consequences of their actions by “meeting their maker,” while others such as Puerto Vino, Trancalino, Jose and I believe Rafael Escobar were mistakenly judged and hanged unfairly. In the end, the bandits were caught and died, but how many others died in the process? Sadly, we may never know the extent of that.

Sheriff Robert Cosner
c/o Amador County Sheriff Dept.

The days of the "Wild West" are long gone, and with those days all that is left is the stories of cowboys and their tall tales.  In this story the hero, Sheriff Phoenix was shot down in the line of duty. He was the very first Sheriff of Amador County. According to the Amador County Sheriff’s website, the next in line as Sheriff was none other than George Durham in 1855 (and again later in 1867-1870). As interesting as it is, I recognized another name on that list of men, and that name would be Robert Cosner. He became Sheriff of Amador County from 1860-1862 and again from 1865-1866. If you recall in Part 1 of this story, Cosner was the volunteer who rode off into the night down Rattlesnake Gultch, attempting to reach Rancheria before the bandits had made their way there. Unfortunately, we know that he didn’t make it in time, and he was one of the first, if not the first one to discover the horrible aftermath that band of criminals left behind like a whirlwind of destruction. Perhaps, this event in Robert Cosner’s life inspired him to get involved in law enforcement, we may never truly know. Although, I would like to think so. 

I began researching this story a few years ago, and back in June of 2012, I spoke to Amador County Historian Larry Cenotto, before he passed away, and we exchanged emails about this very subject. I asked him his advice and his opinion about this story on how to sort all the accounts out to provide an accurate depiction of this story. I also mentioned what a dilemma I had faced trying to figure out if in fact Rafael Escobar was innocent and had been implicated in the crimes just for being related to a member of the gang.

Mr. Cenotto was very kind and told me, “It is clear that you have plumbed much deeper than I into this somber event.  I did the best I could then from newspaper reports and various letters which are in the county archives, which I founded.... I'm sure you have many readers of your blog, but I encourage you to write for an enduring audience in booklet or book form.  We should know more than we do. “-

I will cherish those words from Mr. Cenotto for as long as I live, because he gave me the encouragement to keep digging for answers. I am sad that I was unable to share with him this blog or the recently published book “Behind The Walls,” that I wrote about the infamous Preston School of Industry in Ione as I would have loved to have shown him. I dedicated my book to Mr. Cenotto posthumously because he was a great example for other historians to follow. History was certainly his passion, since he wrote so much about it and even founded the Archives in Amador County.  In the end Mr. Cenotto was right, he said we should know more than we do about our history. 

In the book The History of Amador County, the author Jesse D. Mason quotes Cicero when he says, “It is the first law of history that the writer should neither dare to advance what is false, nor suppress what is true”.  

Lucian (170 A.D.) quotes: "The Historian should be fearless and incorruptible; a man of independence, loving frankness and truth; one who, as the poet says, calls a fig a fig and a spade a spade. He should yield to neither hatred nor affection, but should be unsparing and unpitying. He should be neither shy nor deprecating, but an impartial judge, giving each side all it deserves but no more. He should know in his writings no country and no city; he should bow to no authority and acknowledge no king. He should never consider what this or that man will think, but should state the facts as they really are."

 

And finally, J.B.J. Delambre once stated, "The historian owes the dead nothing but the truth."

For me I write about history, search and dig for the truth to speak for those who can no longer speak for themselves. I do it to show my respect and honor for those long gone, and tell their story as best and as accurately as I can so that they will never be forgotten. I also do this so that future generations will have something accurate to look at in reference to when they want to learn about the past, just as writers like myself do when we go to the archives, microfilmed newspapers and libraries to investigate and research. We must keep that cycle of knowledge going in order for us to secure our posterity. We must keep searching and writing down our history. If it is not done by us, then who?

(Copyright 2013- J’aime Rubio- Dreaming Casually Publications)

Thank you to Sheriff Martin Ryan

and the Amador County Sheriff’s Office for allowing me to use Robert Cosner’s photo.

Some of my sources:

History of Amador County- Jesse D. Mason, 1881

Sacramento Daily Union:

8/8/1855, 8/9/1855

8/11/1855, 8/13/1855,

8/14/1855, 8/15/1855

8/17/1855

California Bad Men: Mean Men With Guns- William Secrest

San Joaquin Republican 9/1855

Amador Ledger 3/1/1901, 12/31/1909

Jackson Sentinel 8/15/1855

Daily Alta 8/9/1855, 8/11/1855