BIO. "Hijos de" means "sons of", plural, more than one son. We merely have only one readable?

His stone is in Spanish, parents called "Agustin" Alviso for father and "Antonio" Pacheco for mother. Elsewhere, "Augustin" Alviso and "Maria Josefa Antonio" Pacheco were seen. She rarely used Maria Josefa, instead used Antonio, sometimes re-vised to "Antonia".

His month of birth is not very readable on his stone? "May" is a guess? If correct for him, he would have already turned 5 when listed with his mother and six Alviso siblings in their California State Census of 1852, their count completed on Sept. 27. There was indeed a five-year old present.

In a day without baby pictures for keepsakes, parents could make a later child a namesake for an earlier one who'd died. For example, Augustin and Antonio seem to have had three daughters called Maria de los Angeles Alviso, the last an infant in the 1852 Census. Unlike the other children, the 1852 gave her full name.

Middle names were used for most in 1852. Given there were multiple sons with first name Jose, only one could be called just that, mother's choice, the second-to-the youngest allowed that in 1852. Plus, multiple daughters had Maria as a first name. Only infant Maria de los Angeles allowed to use it, by the mother's decision, as the adult present.

His mother was listed at page top as married, not widowed, called Antonio Pacheco, allowed to use her maiden name. However, father Agustin was not at home. Was her spouse Agustin absentee, as maybe moving herds? Or, down supervising property still held inside Mexico, maybe Mexico City?

Was Lorenzo away somewhere with Agustin, herding cows, off to Mexico? Or, was Lorenzo another name for the 5 year-old listed with his mother, not as Lorenzo, but as Guadalupe? Maybe his full name was something like Lorenzo Guadalupe? (Thus far, mid-2023, no grave is found for a Guadalupe, only for Lorenzo.)

The Census-taker, a Mr. John Youst, wrote M for male, F for female. Guadalupe could be an F in other families. Their Guadalupe was an M, as was Jose Maria, named for the Alcade relative important in early San Jose, southward. Mr. Youst marked the Alvisos, all of them, not merely as born in California, residence Santa Clara County, thus, none was a Mexican cousin visiting short-term.

Limited to those still at home on Sept. 27, with F for daughters and M for sons, the children present were:

"Margarita" 15 (or 16?) F, "Salvio" 14 M,
"Valentin" 13 M, "Jesus Maria" 9 M,
"Guadalupe" 5 M, "Jose" 2 M, and
"Maria de los Angeles" 1 F.

Again, relationships were not stated, so somebody listed as an Alviso and a resident of Santa Clara could have been a locally-born cousin. It was customary to list the adult heads, first, then children by age, then boarders or employees. There were none of the latter in the same house, to see if any were Alvisos or Pachecos. (They could have been in other dwellings on the Alviso-Pacheco ranch?)

The census image is archived at FamilySearch.org. That site also has a tree with many baptismal names kept in old parish church records elsewhere, such as Mexico City. The ages of her and the children were true as of the Census day in Sept., 1852. The writing is now faded, so the ages are hard to read.

BIG CHANGES. His family had been part of Alta California, Mexico, true until 1848. In Sept of 1852, their county was still Santa Clara. In March of 1853, the new state's legislature quickly passed an act, to change the county boundaries.

Santa Clara County was made smaller. These Alvisos were taken out, an address change done without moving.

Other Alvisos were left inside. Left inside with them was the larger place of San Jose, where a José María de Jesus Alviso and a few Pachecos had taken turns with others as the city-region's "Alcalde" (a position in the Mexican system seeming to combine mayor-like work with judge-like duties). As a reward for siding with Mexico not Spain, that Alviso had been granted land outside the city called Rancho Milpitas. The area became Alviso Township in the 1860 US Census, with Pachecos and Alviso remaining in Santa Clara County to be counted in the town of Milpitas and/or San Jose by the 1870 Census.

Mexico had also granted over 10,000 acres of land to Agustin Alviso and a Pacheco in-law, again, as a reward for their military-involved families siding with Mexico in its bid for independence from the Spanish. They were allowed to keep that acreage later, as part of the negotiations in 1848 with "Los Estados Unidos", after the United States succeeded in its military takeover under General Fremont.

That meant the US govt. kept records.

The Alviso-Pacheco land was noted at BLM.gov as having the "geographic name" Potrero De Los Cerri. "Potrero" means paddock, a place to keep cattle and horses. Cerri maybe was a nickname or accepted abbreviation, with "Cerritos" having to do with hills (foothills to the neighboring mountains?).

Maps of township bounds show the largest chunk of the Alviso-Pacheco land in a township that overlapped with the San Fran. Bay and its bordering marshes. Much of their land was thus not settleable, north of Alameda Creek. Their best land was a smaller acreage southward.

The mix of ranch and orchard land was not stated. A surveyors' land map at BLM.gov is incomplete, but shows portions of the Alviso-Pacheco property ran up to Alameda Creek, convenient for watering cattle. The creek was old Santa Clara County's north boundary, pre-April 1853, and the source of the name for the new county.

The original re-granting of land was authorized "March 3, 1851: Grant-Spanish/Mexican (9 Stat. 631)", details at BLM.gov. The Alviso-Pacheco paperwork was not completed until 1866. They could have filed it earlier than 1868, but did not? Did not need to, really, until wanting to sell it or pass it along to heirs?

17 years had passed. The date chosen, in 1866, was post Civil-War, also just ahead of the rail boom coming to California. Rail building had started decades earlier, out east. For example, trains had reached the Miss. River, passed through Illinois, into Dubuque, Iowa, by Iowa's statehood, circa 1853. Trains were used to move supplies in the Civil War, in places where available.

Son Valentin would say, later, that his father then lost the land, maybe due to speculative investments, he thought. It may also have been impossible to profit on marsh land and land under Bay water, hard for railroads to cross?

If his father Agustin dabbled in the railroads trying to come through, 1868 onward, he easily would have made money at first. However, the Financial Panic of 1873 was then too quickly a big bust for most rail investors.

Alameda Creek flowed into the Bay at Union City. Checking later maps of old ranches, one map of 1913, done three decades after Agustin's death, showed railroads "just about everywhere". The map gave the valuable part of what had been Agustin's land a masculine spelling, "Portrero de los Cerritos".

The ranch lay with Union City and the Bay at its northwest corner, with Newark at its opposite corner, the southeast one, Coyote Slough below that, so more marshland. An old trail crossed "Portrero de los Cerritos", going from Newark to the Union City, maybe some old cow-to-market trail. Any long-ago excess not sold locally then was shippable via schooners northwar, up the Bay? By the year the map was made, a rail line went directly alongside the trail, across the ranch, following the cow-to-market trail into town. Now, with rail, cattle or tanned hides could be sent anywhere?

The "Alviso school" was open, called that not as they were in Alviso Twp., but as it had served the Alviso children and their neighbors. There was Newark School, it and the town of Newark on land labelled "Ex-Mission San Jose", streets laid out, unlike the empty appearing ranches. Roads leading way from the two schools, Alviso and Newark, crossed at a midway point, town called Centerville, as did a road from a school at nearby Niles (named for a rail town in Michigan?), plus one from a school at Irvington named Washington. The set-up looked planned, with Centerville then the only one having a then still advanced idea called a "high school". "Portrero de los Cerritos" was south of Alameda Creek, northward by 1913 was "Rancho Arroyo de la Almeda" suggesting a dangerously flood-prone gully or canyon. The towns of Decoto and Mt. Eden with the Mt. Eden rail station, each had a school. Decoto disappeared, as did Alvarado, each voting to join Union City, not formally incorporated until the late 1950s. Mt Eden' center was swallowed by freeways, its edges became part of Hayward.

Checking Decoto's Wiki article finds a line confirming rail timing. "In 1867, Ezra Decoto, a local landowner sold land to the railroad."

Augustin would likely have kept his land to the southside of Alameda Creek, careful to not use it as collateral to back his investments. He maybe instead lost the much larger chunks northward, which developers then turned into towns?

The 1915 map shows the last of the Portrero land by the Coyote Hills, at their base, many, many short creeks would have been heavy with rainwater each spring. The map shows Newark, near a land point with the Bay VERY narrow there, a bridge crossing there by 1913, so travelers could avoid Coyote Slough. The bridge crossed to what's labelled as Dumbarton Point, the place of Redwood just beyond, then Palo Alto and Menlo Park, with a university.

SOURCE: "Map of Contra Costa & Alameda counties, Cal", 1913, by C. F Weber & Co.
Archived by the state historical society. As of 2023, online image here: DigitalLibrary.CaliforniaHistoricalSociety.org/islandora/object/islandora:1489

Thus, settlers came to the old "ex-Mission San Jose" land eastish of Augustin/Agustin and spread-out from there. Augustin's son Valentin Alviso stayed in Alameda County, served in the legislature for a bit, was wealthy in his own right, with his own land around Livermore, plus any inheritances from his perhaps well-off wives.

There were stories of Valentin's connection to Leland Stanford, of the so-called "robber baron" era. Valentin would be sued by some younger brothers for not distributing what was left of their father's estate. The suit was lost? Perhaps due to the statute of limitations, lawyers "ran out the clock", by casting doubt on evidence gathered to show Mexico had in fact, though late, repaid a very large debt owed to their father, into the estate. Where did the money go, the other heirs asked? Who would pay him for all the detective work done, to find the Mexican papers proving the money had been paid? asked a third party.

Valentin's ranch was said to be at or near the site of future Livermore Labs? Earthquakes came to Alvarado, so the Alameda courthouse was moved away from there. Old marsh areas shook like gelatin, some would say. One of the five heirs to survive Augustin's death was institutionalized. He had been at a place that would be destroyed after his death, burial records kept there then gone.

It was a miracle this old stone survived?

Of the parts remaining inside Santa Clara County after Apr. 1853, the ranch of ex-alcalde Jose Maria Alviso, by the 1860 Census, would turn into Alviso Township. By the 1870 Census, the town of Milpitas was carved out of that. Jose Maria's descendants who remained in Santa Clara County stayed longer, while Agustin's in Alameda County moved outward.

Only five out of the many more born to Agustin and wife Antonio were said still to be alive when Agustin died. (He died Feb., 1880, in Fremont, living with his son Valentin, according to the obit for him. It said his ranch had been called "Rancho Los Cerritas", so, of the Hills, some child writing the obit no longer remembering enough Spanish, so mixed masculine Los with feminine Cerritas. Rancho was similar to, but not matching the Padrone seen in the federal land records.)

The five living in 1880 had a US Census possible that year, done well after his Feb. death. Two seen in 1852, Salvio and Maria de los Angeles, did not survive, names not seen in census records in 1880 or later.

The five still living definitely included daughter Margarita, eldest in the 1852 Census, Valentin, the third eldest, plus the younger brother put in an institution on grounds of insanity (suicide attempt? anger? psychosis? or? reason not easily found). That third's estate was later named as a beneficiary in the suit brought against Valentin, so he'd died by then? There were two more younger brothers, as heirs, not all necessarily listed in 1852.

The other two are ambiguous, even the one institutionalized as of mid-2023. They are a messy puzzle for varied reasons-- Too many brothers had Jose as a first name, with only one at a time permitted to use it. When one previously called Jose died, another might decide to use it. Finally, there were namings connected to this child, buried here. This Lorenzo's stone says he or another "hijo" was born May, 1847. Was his fll nme soemthing like Jose Lorenzo Guadalupe?. If born May, his fifth birthday was reached by Sept. 1852, when the Census in Sept. of 1852 listed a Guadalupe (male), not a Lorenzo, as age 5. Finally, a child not born in Sept 1852, could be one of the two remaining heirs.

Looking at old newspapers kept by Univ. of Calif., someone called Jose Guadalupe seemed to authorize an advertisement seeking the whereabouts of Valentin Alviso, dated ahead of doing the lawsuit. Later, as the lawsuit closed down, someone called Jose Maria was said, while still living, to be the last of the heirs?

Again, the count is known as five, due to old newspaper articles regarding the lawsuit.

The 1852 showed Antonio Pacheco as 40-something, maybe 43, F, biologically with time to have one or two more. Family trees with baptismal data naming parents have many children total for her. A sadness of that era, despite many children, censuses later show very, very few grandchildren for her. In a similar situation, his sister Margarita, expressed her romantic choice, dispppointed her father, eventually saw her father relent, all makin ga gossip item in the news. She married the "vaquero" she loved, leaving Alameda after an earthquake, to live in a different county, San Luis Obispo. With her spouse still living for their 1900 US Census, she would tell their interviewer that she had had TEN children total. However, only two had survived. TWO! Her funeral notice not long after named the two as daughters. One was already married. Once both were widowed, they would live together (down in LA, where railroads had taken them?) Only one child was with them, the daughter of that daughter later to marry.

The older generation might have had "luck of the draw", lived long. That was not as true later. Children died, such as this Lorenzo. Children's spouses died, before many grandchildren could be born.

BEST FAMILY SOURCE: "California State Census, 1852"
Handwritten, Film # 004640623, 228th slide of 831,
Antonia on line numbered as 1, children. on 2 through 9.

As of 2023, the image is archived here--
FamilySearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:939N-XQ3T-2?i=227

ADDED LAND SORCE: Survey maps, land descriptions:
US govt., Bureau of Land Management, online at blm.gov

BLM records show land of 10539.39 acres granted officially, to Agustin Alviso and "Thomas" Pacheco, on Feb. 1 of 1866. It's not clear why their date was so late, unless rail offers prompted a need to prove omeone had a right to sell, maybe of land held by others in receivership.

The land was not a simple square. It was much larger than what was shown in the 1913 map.
Gann Regional Park was north of the northmost edge. Their acreage was in three townships, the majority surveyed as in 4S,1W, covering the Niles and Centerville area, with Alviso and Pacheco granted maybe 30 of the 36 square sections inside. A smaller but dryer amount was in 4S, 2W, with a tiny amount further south, 5S, 1W, It was also dryer as the east edge of the bay was further away once on the Santa Clara side of Alameda Creek, some abutting the creek, old mission lands mapped to the east.)

If the maps at BLM.gov are correct, the surveying may have been tricky for the majority acreage described as 4S, 1W. This not only extended into the San Fran. Bay, but would have had marshes alongside the Bay. That acreage appeared to include most of what is now "Eden Landing Ecological Reserve" and all of "Coyote Hills Regional Park".

The southeast quarter of the majority township is now crossed by modern I-80, as it leaves Union City. It then heads southwest, across the Bay, for East Palo Alto. When novelist John Steinbeck wrote his book "East of Eden", he had their locales in mind?

In contrast, neighbor Jose Vallejo had his paperwork completed earlier, Jan 1, 1858. His land, spread across the same ranges, was instead considerably in township 3 South (3S, 1W), so not as far south, closer to Oakland. He also had much in 4S, 1W, the section numbering showing his sections northward of the few granted in 4S, 1W to Agustin and Thomas.

Researched by FindaGrave member 48697180