19The Origins and Formation of Race at the Foundingof California: An Analysis of the Assignment ofMeaning to White Racial Identity in the 1849California Constitutional Convention Debates

by Jim Ace

from September 1 to October 13, 1849, forty-eight men gathered inMonterey, California, to develop the constitution for what a year laterwould become the thirty-first state in the Union. The delegates debated thebasis for law and authority in the primordial state, constructing aconstitution and legal system in California that assigned relative amountsof power to differently racialized ethnic groups. Ultimately, they directedthe new legislature, and by extension the judiciary, legally to protect andprivilege those socially designated as “white.” In doing so, the forty-eightdelegates codified and affirmed a white racial identity in the law thatshaped the economic, social, and political realities of European Americansand non-European Americans for decades.1 These men shaped not onlythe political and economic future of the state, but also a social order thatdefined social relations among people of European, Mexican, AmericanIndian, African, and Asian descent. Officially recorded by ConventionSecretary J. Ross Browne, their debates on slavery, suffrage, andcitizenship institutionalized race in California law.2 This paper examinesthe historical origins, meaning and fluidity of race and white racialidentity in pre-statehood California based on an analysis of the rhetoricaround the issue of suffrage in the 1849 California ConstitutionalConvention.

for over a century, social critics, historians, and other scholars havewritten extensively on race, racism, and white supremacy. Social criticschallenged the validity of race and ultimately undermined its legitimacy asscientific category.3 Social scientists carried that theme by imagining raceas a fluid social construction and a process of racialization.4 Historians

George Lipsitz, The Possessive Investment in Whiteness. How White People Profit fromIdentity Politics (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998), 229-232.2 Maiy Jo Ignoffo, Gold Rush Politics: Cal(fornia ‘s First Legislature (Sacramento: CaliforniaState Senate, 1999), 25.W.E.B. DuBois, “The Souls of White folk,” Monthly Review 55 (2003): 44-58, originallypublished in Darkwaler: Voices from within the Veil (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Howe,1920); Shannon Sullivan, “Remembering the Gift: WEB. DuBois on the Unconscious andEconomic Operations of Racism,” Transactions of the Chorles S. Peirce Society 39 (2003):205-225; Prince Brown, Jr., “Biology and the Social Construction of the ‘Race’ Concept,” inThe Social Construction of Race and Ethnicity in the United States, eds. Joan Ferrante andPrince Brown, Jr. (New York: Longman, 1998), 136.Michael Omi and Howard Winant, Racial Formation in the United States: From the 1960s tothe 1980s (New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987), 61-62; Philip C. Wander, Judith N.

20 • ExPostfactoXVlcontributed by analyzing the historical roots of race and racism in Europe,its New World colonies, and the dynamics of African slavery andEuropean indentured servitude.5 Theorists synthesizing these variousapproaches have continued to peel back layers of the racial onion,exposing conflicting speculations about race. Examples of continuingcontroversies include the characterization of race as primarily a legal orsocial construction, race as a fixed or fluid social dynamic, thepredominance of race versus class as the primary determinant of socialadvantage, the emergence of race in the context of class conflict andcompetition, and the merging of the Anglo-Saxon and Spanish coloniallegacies.6 Much of the literature emphasizes the social formation andimplications of whiteness, giving only cursory attention to the legalformation of whiteness. However, one such area that scholars have failedto examine critically is the connection between race and the 1849California Constitutional Convention.7

Several historians have framed the political and social processesinvolved in the formation of race as either legal-structural or social-ideological. These scholars attempted to discern whether law or socialdynamics acted more prominently in the creation of race.8 Ian Haney-

Martin, and Thomas K. Nakayama, “Whiteness and Beyond: Sociohistorical Foundations ofWhiteness and Contemporary Challenges,’ in Whiteness: The Communication of Socialtdentily, eds. Thomas K. Nakayama and Judith N. Martin (London: Sage Publications, 1999),21 Joan ferrante and Prince Brown, Jr., The Social Construction ofRace and Ethnicity in theUnited States (New York: Longman, 1998), 146.Theodore Allen, The Invention of the White Race, Volume 1: Racial Oppression and Control(London: Verso, 1994), 13; Lerone Bennett, The Shaping of Black America (New York:Penguin Books, 1993), 17.6 Gerald Home, “Race for the Globe: U.S. Foreign Policy and Racial Interests,” in Impacts ofRacism on White Americans, 2d ed., eds. Benjamin P. Bowser and Raymond G. Hunt (London:Sage Publications, 1996), 91.Hansen’s Search for Authority in CA idealizes the deliberations. He mistakenly frames the

“system of authority” developed by the forty-eight delegates as rooted in the attitudes andactivities “of its population,” rather than those of the delegates themselves and the relativelynarrow interests of the wealthy and powerful class of “white” miners, merchants and rancherosthey represented. Hansen also seems to disregard or neglect the unequal distribution of wealth,power, opportunity, and influence inherent to the Constitutional Convention. Woodrow JamesHansen, The Search for Authority in Cat(fornia (Oakland, CA: Bioboob, 1960), 177; WilliamHenry Ellison, A Self-Governing Dominion: Cal(fornia, 1849-1860 (Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1950), 29, 30.Derrick Bell, Race, Racism and Amen can Law, 2d ed., (Boston: Little, Brown and Company,1980), 29-30, 37-39; Jill Norgren and Serena Nanda, eda., American Cultural Pluralism andLaw, 2nd ed. (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1996); F. James Davis, Who Is Black? One Nation’sDefinition (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991), 35; Kermit L. Hall,ed., Race Relations and the Law in American History: Major Historical Interpretations (NewYork: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1987); J. A. C. Grant, “Testimonial Exclusion Because of Race:A Chapter in the History of Intolerance in California,” in Chinese Immigrants and AmericanLau’, ed. Charles McClsin (New York: Garland, 1994). 82-92; Alexander Ssxton, The Rise andFall of the White Republic: Class Politics and Mass Culture in Nineteenth-Century America(New York: Verso, 1990), 2, 385, 391; Christine Clark and James O’Donnell, Becoming andUnbecoming White: Owning and Disowning a Racial Identity (Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey,

Jim Ace

2$ • Ex Post facto XVIassigned representation in California’s Senate and Assembly “according tothe number of white inhabitants.”28 Together, these two sectionsdetermined the economic, social, and political future of all peopleperceived as white and non-white.

from the judicial perspective, the legal principle of legislative intentprovides another significant impact. Not only did the convention shape theconstitution and direct the legislature, but also future jurists looked to theconvention debates to extract the motivations and intentions of thedelegates in their attempts to interpret the law. The ConstitutionalConvention in effect shaped future legislative debate and judicialdecisions.

Race and white racial identity were constructed both socially andlegally in California.The socially based ideologies contained in the attitudes, beliefs, andbehaviors of Anglo-American and Spanish-Mexican cultures informed thedelegates who performed the legal construction of white racial identity. Itsframers wrote white supremacy into the state’s first constitution, in orderto benefit Mexican elites and Anglo-Americans the most. Byinstitutionalizing and privileging white racial identity in the 1849California Constitution, these forty-eight delegates shaped the nature andfuture of racial identity, politics, economics, and social relations inCalifornia.29 Their debates reflect a fluid, dynamic, and malleableconception of race, as wetl as a white racial identity that was bothexpandable and contractible. This conception of race was based on theperceived individual and collective needs of Convention delegates, needsthat informed both the competing ideologies and interests of thoseconstructing it, and the competitive social and legal context in which itwas formed.3°

Browne, Report, 90-94; Hansen, Searchfor AuthorIty, 124.2S Lipsitz, Possessive Investment, 229-232.° Browne, Report, 61-76, 305-307, 323, 340, 341.

Jim Ace

Ex Post facto XVI • 27The Anglo-American model of race and racism that was developed in

Britain’s seventeenth-century Virginia and Maryland colonies wasimported to California—both during and after Mexican control—byEuropean-American explorers, merchants, settlers, and fortune seekers.These immigrants brought class and gender-based assumptions overlaidby generally negative, racialized beliefs and prejudicial attitudes aboutpeople of African and American Indian descent. Conversely, they heldgenerally positive assumptions about people of European and Spanish-Mexican descent. Yet the subsequent assignment of meaning to racialidentity as reflected in its institutionalization in law during the conventionwent beyond Anglo-American racial beliefs and attitudes.

Although some delegates floundered on the qualities andcharacteristics of “white,” they were lucid about their political interests.To gain the maximum advantage over competing interests, overt whitesupremacist delegates employed an imagined white identity both explicitlyand implicitly. Establishing racial identity came easily to AngloAmericans who were already racialized and self-identified as “white.”These Anglo Americans effectively merged their imported concept of“white” with the existing class hierarchy of Spanish-speaking Mexicanrancheros to form a shaky strategic alliance. But these “white men” stillhad difficulty justifying and rationally articulating what made anindividual white and why whites should enjoy more privilege in the faceof competing arguments and interests. Anglo-American men found itdifficult and challenging to provide rational legal reasoning for labelingone person white and another not.

The final version of the 1849 constitution reflected little of theconvention’s acrid debates on race by limiting both the use of the word“white” and explicit references to non-whites. “White” appears just threetimes in the entire document: twice in Article II, Section 1 (i.e., suffrage),and once in Article IV, Section 29 (i.e., representation). Reference to“Indians” appears twice in Article II, Section 1, in a clause added as anafterthought. Delegates referred to Mexico or Mexicans twice: once inArticle II, Section 1, and once in Article VII (i.e., state boundaries).Africans and African Americans, whose admission to the state wasintensely debated, received no overt mention. However, while Article I,Section 18, banned slavery in the state, the use of “slavery” as a substitutefor Africans and African Americans had significant consequences withinthe legal system for non-whites.27

Article II, Section 1, and Article TV, Section 29, combined toseverely limit the opportunities of non-whites in California in the yearsfollowing the creation of the new state. Article II, Section 1, guaranteedthe right of suffrage to “{e]veiy white male citizen of the United States,and every white male citizen of Mexico” while Article IV, Section 29,

27 Constitution of the State of California, 1849.

The Origins and Formation ofRaceat the Founding ofCalifornia

26 • Ex Post facto XVIpolitical power, accumulating wealth, and protecting their chances bylimiting competition. The Mexican elites, alternately, were also interestedin protecting their privileged status, enormous wealth, and respectedpositions, while maintaining social stability and relationships for theirlarge, extended, mixed-blood families. So whether arguing for states’rights, ratification by Congress, or the best interests of their constituents,delegates were always calculating a range of interests.

Ideologies were another source of pressure, including those ofManifest Destiny, as well as the more general racial attitudes andprejudices imported from the eastern United States. The assumption that“free white men” should make decisions and enjoy all the rights andprivileges of citizenship, is an indication of such racist ideology. Somedelegates even invoked the concept of natural law, a “doctrine of theperfectibility of mankind and reasonableness of the Creator.”26 Liberalideologies included the moral conviction against slavery and a paternalistview towards California Indians.

Delegates to the convention seemed to perceive racial discourseduring the suffrage debate as a high stakes debate, in which thecontestants competed over what considerations to prioritize. Mostdelegates knew what they wanted, but not always how to achieve it inlight of competing factors and considerations. Accordingly, the argumentsbecame part of a process of inclusion and exclusion. Participants usedpolitical capital, social position, and personal charisma to advance theirinterests. Political interests both motivated the rhetoric and informed theconcepts of racial identity at the convention.

Dozens of often-conflicting factors drove the delegates’ conservativewhite supremacist, moderate, and progressive liberal rhetoric at theconvention. Delegates negotiated white and non-white racial identitywithin the context of competing ideological and material interests.Conservative Mexican elites formed an alliance along class lines withidealistic liberals when they argued for a fluid conception of race.Conservative interests concerned with social mobility argued for a fixedconception of race. However, moderates’ arguments provided ballast forthe rocking ship and won the day in many cases.

The origins of race and white racial identity in California are alsorooted in the history of the early British and Spanish colonies. Britishcolonists developed their concept of race in the Virginia and Marylandcolonies in the seventeenth century. Alternately, Spanish colonistsdeveloped and extended their own unique concept of a racial gradient withthe migration of Catholic missionaries along the Pacific coast during theeighteenth century. The western migration of Anglo-Saxons (i.e., ManifestDestiny) signaled the inevitable collision of the Anglo-American andSpanish gradient model.

26 Browne, Report, 50.

Jim Ace

Ex Post facto XVI • 25The meaning assigned to “white” emphasized its fluidity and

association with class and sociaL status.25 The debates had identified acollective confusion over the meaning of “white,” as indicating eithereconomic wealth, or political power, or the color of a person’s skin. Eventhe most conservative members of the convention seemed willing toinclude male citizens of Mexico as “white,” which in their minds includedthe wealthy elites and excluded “Indians.” Mexican law grantedcitizenship and suffrage to propertied Indians, privileges that were onlygranted to European Americans in the eastern United States. In the easternUnited States social context, white was a contra-distinction to black; whitewas a skin color. In the west, however, the meaning of the word “white”remained vague. Nevertheless, the Anglo-American delegates understoodthat by inserting the word “white” before “male citizens of Mexico,” theyexpanded the meaning of “white.”

A range of pressures and considerations originating both within andoutside of California affected the intentions, motivations, strategies, andbehaviors of the delegates. External pressures included the fear of notbeing admitted to the Union. Delegates saw the need to honor theconditions of the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, as well as legal precedentsset by Mexican law, the United States Constitution, and various stateconstitutions (i.e., Illinois’ suffrage policy). Delegates also faced theencroachment of Southern United States plantation owners from Kentuckyand Texas, who wanted to use their slaves in the California gold mines.

One of the primary internal pressures originated in the economicmotivations of Anglo-American immigrants in California. They arrived tothe state with significant political and economic ambitions. Their interestswere in maintaining social order and creating conditions for profitablebusiness ventures. Delegates with gold miners as constituents pushed toban slavery, not just to insure acceptance into the union but also to limitthe competition posed by imported African-American slaves. ManyAnglo-American immigrants believed that the importation of slaves fromthe American South created a significant source of threatening socialdisorder. Accordingly, delegates from north and east of Sacramentoclaimed to want to protect white labor from the degradation of workingalongside slaves. But prohibiting slaves was not enough. They also wanteda ban on all free and indentured blacks. Although this proposal ultimatelyfailed because of fears of federal rejection, the prohibition on anyone ofAfrican descent had majority support. Delegates also wanted to protect theinterests of and their relationships with the powerful rancheros, thebiggest landowners and wealthiest elites of 1849 Alta California.Upsetting the existing social and economic structure of rancheros was notin the delegates’ best interests. The Anglo-American delegates also hadpersonal economic motivations and interests in obtaining land, gaining

Browne, Report, 61-73, 297-307, 330-341.

The Origins and Formation ofRaceat the Founding ofCaflfornia

24 • ExPostfactoXVlMexico” clause. Both clauses excluded all Indians from suffrage. Beforethe measure passed, liberal delegate Winfield Scott Sherwood argued that

an Indian is more than half white, he is white.” This first attempt todecide the suffrage question granted white men and Mexican men theright to vote in California, and excluded all Indians and AfricanAmericans from the franchise.21

On friday, September 28, the Constitutional Convention delegatesrevisited the question of American Indian suffrage and again, they deniedit. Liberal delegates catalyzed a debate that gave California native Pablode Ia Guerra an opportunity to push for the granting of suffrage to Indianstaxed as owners of real estate. He sought a way to include Mexicans,including mixed-race men with some Indian blood (mestizos), whileexcluding full-blooded Indians and African Americans. The initiativefailed in a twenty-two to twenty-one vote.22

finally, on Tuesday, October 3, delegates resolved the question ofsuffrage by taking several swift steps. first, they reinserted for the thirdtime the word “white” before “male of Mexico” and struck out the words“Indians, Africans, and descendants of Africans.”23 In doing so, thedelegates passed the job of defining “white” on to the courts. Second, theconvention voted to instruct the legislature that nothing in the constitutionshould be construed as preventing the Legislature from providing the voteto California Indians.24 The convention ultimately ended updisenfranchising all full- and mixed-blood California Indians and AfricanAmericans, including those that owned taxable property. Most delegatesexpressed a deep commitment to excluding African Americans andIndians. Alternately, the convention accommodated Mexican elites bydesignating them as “white males.”

Throughout the debate, the delegates based their definition andmeaning of “white” on a variety of factors. At some points they relied onphenotypic indicators such as skin color. When considering the inclusionof California rancheros, economic wealth, political power, and socialposition became more important to a definition of “whiteness.” Many ofthe more conservative and self-interested delegates, especially those ofAnglo descent, based their definition of “white” on their own desire foreconomic wealth, political power, and social position. Others stillemployed the Spanish gradient system, which seemed to combine bothclass and hereditary considerations. The Spanish system granted fullcitizenship privileges, including suffrage, to mixed-blood mestizos whoowned land and paid taxed.

21 Browne, Report, 61-7322 Browne, Report, 297-307; Hansen, SearchforAuthority, 149.Browrie, Report, 341.

24 Browne, Report, 341; Hansen, SearchforAuthority, 154.

Jim Ace

Ex Post Facto XVI • 23ended the Mexican-American War two years before. Although someethnic and political diversity existed, the delegates shared a relativelyhomogenous mix of personalities, backgrounds, interests, beliefs,attitudes, political ideologies, and social identities. Most sought to protect,maintain, or create opportunities to accumulate wealth and politicalpower.

The debate to assign suffrage to specific classes of people illuminatedthe complexity and fluidity of the meaning of “white” to the conventiondelegates. The debate on suffrage began almost two weeks into theconvention, with the introduction of a committee report on Wednesday,September 12. The Committee initially proposed extending suffrage to“white male citizens of the US” without debate or discussion, indicatingthat many of the convention’s delegates took voting rights for granted.’6The fact that the rights of white men went unchallenged in the debateoffers insight into the meaning of “white” identity to conventiondelegates, who both took white identity for granted in the case of AngloSaxons, and who intentionally extended it to mixed-blood, Mexican-eliteland owners. After delegate Edward Gilbert pointed out the condition ofthe Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo requiring the extension of rights toMexican citizens living in California, a proposal was offered to provide“every male citizen of Mexico who shall have elected to become a citizenof the United States” with the vote, in order to make up for their obviousoversight.’7 A conservative delegate then inserted the word “white” before“male citizen of Mexico,” setting off a debate on the meaning anddifficulty of defining “white.” After conservatives balked at including theword “white,” prominent and wealthy Mexican ranch owner Mr. Noriegoexpressed his desire to have suffrage extended to those like himself, andthe convention moved quickly to accommodate him.’8 Delegate Pablo deIa Guerra pleaded that “[i]t would be very unjust to deprive them of theprivilege of citizens merely because nature had not made them white. Butif, by the word ‘white,’ it was intended to exclude the African race, then itwas correct and satisfactory.”9 To include creatively the wealthyrancheros and mixed-blood, land-owning American Indians, theconvention considered adopting “[f]ree male persons with the exception ofIndians not taxed, Africans, and descendents of Africans” as the criterionfor eligibility to vote in California.20 Conservatives quickly countered bydropping the “not taxed” clause, which would have excluded all Indians.Two close votes were taken, adopting first the “every white male citizenof Mexico excluding Indians” clause, and then the “every male citizen of

6 Browne, J. Ross. Report of the Debates in the Convention of Ca4fomia, on the Formation ofthe State Constitution, in September and October, 1849 (Washington: John T. Towers, 1850), 61.‘ Browne, Report, 6 1-62.18 Browne, Report, 63.‘ Browne, Report, 63.20 Browne, Report, 64-65.

The Origins andFormation ofRaceat the Founding ofCalifornia

22 • ExPostfactoXVIbrought up issues of class-based competition, the struggle for politicalhegemony, and the merging of Anglo-Saxon and Spanish conceptions ofrace, issues all exposed during the 1849 California ConstitutionalConvention. Accordingly, white racial identity emerged in the context ofcompeting structural interests as a fluid ideological and legal construction,informed by both class interests and the merging of Anglo-Saxon andSpanish concepts and ideologies of race. As such, the origin of andpurpose for the use of racialized rhetoric that inaugurated whitesupremacy in the 1849 California Constitution ultimately lay in individual,group, and collective self-interest, expressed through political, economic,and social goals and priorities.

For six weeks, the 1849 California Constitutional Conventiondelegates hammered out the framework for a new state. Forty-eight ofseventy-three elected delegates actually attended the convention, while theremainder preferring to stay in the Sacramento gold fields pursuing theirfortunes. Ten of the delegates present had arrived in California within thelast year, and a great majority within the last three years. Among thisgroup were fourteen lawyers, eleven farmers, four military officers, and afew merchants and ranchers. Sixteen hailed from Southern slaveholdingstates and twenty-one from the Abolitionist North. Five were born inEurope and just six were native to California. Among these forty-eightelected delegates were one Spaniard, one Frenchman, and six MexicanCalifornians who represented Hispanic interests at the convention.14 AfterGovernor General Bennet Riley hurriedly called for a meeting to draft aconstitution on May 28, 1849, elections took place on August 1 of thesame year. Despite a few exceptions made in the first days of theconvention to accommodate the exploding Gold Rush population, all ofthe delegates were elected out of ten polling places located in urbancenters, including San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, San LuisObispo, Monterey, San Jose, San Francisco, Sonoma, Sacramento, andSan Joaquin)5 No single ideological framework captures the range of themen’s political opinions and motivations. The most liberally mindeddelegates generally supported the ban on slavery; the admission of freeand indentured African Americans and Indians as citizens; and the right ofsuffrage for all Mexican citizens, including Indians. Conservativedelegates also pushed to ban slavery, but wanted to withhold citizenshipand suffrage from African Americans and Indians, and were willing toreach a compromise to include wealthy rancheros. Moderates of theconvention seemed constantly to remind the others about precedent,ratification, and compliance with the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, which

“ Rockwell Dennis Hunt, The Genesis of Caflfornia s First Constitution (1846-49) (Baltimore,MD: Johns Hopkins Press, 1895), 37. Cardinal Goodwin, The Establishment of StaleGovernment in Cal(fornia: 1846-1850 (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1914). Hansen,Searchfor Authority, 97-98.° Ignoffo, Gold Rush Politics, 19-23, 25.

Jim Ace

Ex Post Facto XVI • 21Lopez, in White by Law, examined whiteness as a legal constructionrooted in the judicial interpretation of state and federal constitutions andstatutes. Haney-Lopez looked at “the central role law plays as both acoercive and ideological force in the construction of race.”9 C. VanWoodward, in his landmark text The Strange Career of Jim Crow,diminished the fluidity of race during Reconstruction, and asserted thatcustomary social practices led to and informed the legal creation of JimCrow segregation.’° Tomas Almaguer argued that racial ideologies andmaterial interests simultaneously shaped and structured the new whitesupremacist, Anglo-American dominated society inAlmaguer also examined the origins of white supremacy and white racialidentity in California as the merger of the Anglo-Saxon and Spanish-Mexican colonial raciatizing legacies.

The concept of race as dynamic and fluid contributes to a host ofarguments framed by apparent contradictions that result from humancompetition for scarce resources. Scholars have argued for decades aboutthe predominance of race versus class. Arguments about race as a strategyto achieve social hierarchies, social stability, and political control byundermining alliances between European indentured servants and AfricanAmerican slaves represent a legitimate and necessary body of class-basedanalysis, though such arguments often serve attempts to deflectresponsibility away from whites who are uncomfortable withacknowledging the privilege gamed through white supremacy.’2 ReginaldHorsman’s Race and Manifest Destiny: The Origins of American RacialAnglo-Saxonism argues that the 1849 California ConstitutionalConvention reflected the determination Anglo Americans felt to reservetheir political systems for Anglo-Saxons. Horsman found that delegatesjustified their desire to control politics without the threat of competitionby invoking the call to exclude “the inferior races of mankind.”3 Still, fewscholars have explored race and whiteness in the 1849 CaliforniaConstitutional Convention both directly and critically.

White racial identity at the founding of California emerged from acomplex matrix of considerations. Certainly, racist social ideologiesinformed and preceded the legal construction and codification of whiteracial identity in the 1849 California Constitution. The fluidity of race

1999), 28-29; Edmund Morgan, American Freedom, American Slavery: The Ordeal of ColonialVirginia (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1975), 154-155.Ian F. Haney-Lopez, White by Law: The Legal Construction ofRace (New York: New YorkUniversity Press, 1996), 202.‘° Michael J. Pfeifer, “Review of C. Vans Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow: ACommemorative Edition, H-Net Reviews, May 2003 [websitej; available from http://www.hnet.rnsu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=2441 01057184600; Internet; accessed January 14, 2008.Tomas Almaguer, Racial Fault Lines: The Historical Origins of White Supremacy in

Caflfornia (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 3.2 Allen, Invention ofthe White Race, 13.° Reginald Horsman, Race and Man(fest Destiny: The Origins of American Racial AngloSaxonism (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1981).

The Origins andFormation ofRaceat the Founding ofCalifornia