Napa has the dubious distinction of being the site of the last public hanging in the state.

It happened back in 1897 for a murder that so enraged the Napa community that instead of sending the criminal to San Quentin Prison, the judge turned the responsibility over to the sheriff so the hanging could occur in the Napa County Jail yard.

On Feb. 9, 1891, William Roe and Carl Schmidt went to the Napa Valley farm of J.Q. Greenwood. The two had heard that the farmer had sold a choice piece of property for $5,000, and they assumed he brought the coin back to his farm.

The two asked Greenwood for something to eat. He told them his wife, Lucinda, was on an errand, and when she returned she would fix them a meal. Roe and Schmidt then pulled out their revolvers, forced Greenwood to swallow a vial of chloroform, and then gagged and tied him up.

When Lucinda arrived, they pushed her off the porch. She fell, and the two stomped on her. They also forced her to take liquid chloroform, gagged and dragged her to her bed.

Roe and Schmidt searched the house and found nothing of value except $4.50 in cash. They left only to return later to do more searching. Greenwood by then had recovered consciousness. He found his wife had died and was with her body when the two criminals came back into the house. They then took turns shooting Greenwood in the head, but not fatally.

The two then took Lucinda’s buggy and went to Napa to do some drinking before leaving the area. Greenwood managed to crawl out of his house to the road, where he was found by neighbors, who called the sheriff.

A year later, Schmidt was arrested in a Denver saloon after bragging about the Napa murder. He was brought back to Napa for trial. He implicated Roe and was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment at San Quentin.

Roe escaped capture until 1896, when he fell to the same temptation as Schmidt. After drinking quite a few whiskeys in a San Fernando saloon, Roe boasted how he had killed a woman in Napa. He was arrested and found guilty.

In preparing for the hanging, the sheriff hired carpenters to build a corrugated iron fence enclosure in the county jail’s yard. It was 40 feet long and 34 feet wide. He also ordered a platform for visitors to view the hanging.

On January 15, 1897, Roe was led from the jail to the wooden gallows. A photographer was present to take the official photo. Roe is just a big white fuzzy spot in the middle of the picture because the photographer got the shot the moment the floor opened up under Roe.

One of the doctors who attended Roe’s autopsy managed to get hold of the body and took the bones to a roof in downtown Napa to bleach them. He then put the skeleton back together. It reportedly was used to teach high school students taking biology courses. Eventually it disappeared, and its whereabouts are unknown today.
 

Josefa Loazia, also more commonly known as "Juanita", was a Mexican-American woman who was executed by hanging in Downieville, California on July 5, 1851. She was found guilty of murdering a man, Frederick Cannon, who attempted to assault her. She is known to be the first and only woman to be hanged in California. Many discrepancies exist regarding the circumstances of her death. Josefa’s death has many connections and relevancy to the larger history of Latina/os in the United States because it shows how her racial status affected perception of her and how devalued the life of a Mexican American woman was. Josefa’s death highlights the discrimination and violence against Latinos in the latter half of the nineteenth century. Upon the end of the Mexican-American War, the discovery of gold in California, and the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, life for Mexicans in what had become the United States was changed completely. They lost their property, political power, and their culture was deemed worthless  They became segregated and did not have opportunities for advancement. This discrimination affected and applied to both rich and poor Mexicans. In Anglo journals and other media, Mexican women were depicted as flashy and morally deviant “sirens”. This is apparent in how Josefa’s story was presented in Anglo media. She was known as “Juanita” when stories came out about her death in complete disregard of who she was so much as to give her a stereotypical name for a Mexican woman rather than using her real name.

Early life and controversy about her name

Not much is known about the early life of Josefa Loaiza. The date of her birth is unknown. Josefa Segovia’s true name has been a topic of great debate among historians and scholars. Before the Chicano Civil Rights Movement, most male scholars contended that Josefa had no recorded last name. For example, in Gordon Young’s Days of 49, he says that her name was “Juanita”. Bancroft also uses the name Juanita, although his use of it suggests that it is not the correct name. Throughout his account of the events at Downieville he refers to Segovia as either “The Mexican” or “the little woman” only assigning her a name during his description of her trial. This lack of any name for her for much of the account suggests that the name Juanita was simply chosen as a generic name for a Mexican woman. Historian Rodolpho F. Acuna claimed her name was Juana Loaiza citing an 1877 Schedule of Mexican Claims Against the United States that listed one Jose Maria Loiza as claiming damages for the lynching of his wife. Doubt is cast upon this name however, as it does not show up in the 1850 census, suggesting that the claim may have been fraudulent. It wasn’t until Martha Cotera, an influential activist of both the Chicano Movement and Chicana Feminist Movement, informed Chicano scholars in 1976 that her last name was Segovia.

Adult life
Family

Irene I. Blea’s book U.S. Chicanas and Latinas in a Historical Context claims that Josefa was a Sonoran and of good character. She was about 26 years old at the time of her death. Kerry Segrave recounts Josefa Segovia's life in Downieville, California, also known as "The Forks" for its location at the north fork of the Yuba River. She lived with a Mexican gambler, José, in a small house on the main street of town. It is not completely clear if they were married or not.

Reputation in Downieville

Josefa was probably not married to José, but she did live with him. Therefore, she received a bad reputation. According to one account, Juanita (read Josefa) was slender and barely five feet (1.5 m) tall. The same account states that Josefa was beautiful, vivacious and intelligent. Some say that she was not at all disliked in the mining camp in Downieville.

Downie relates the story in the following fashion. Juanita had accompanied her partner to Downieville from Mexico and both lived in an adobe house. Downie states, "Whether she was his wife or not makes no difference in this story." He further describes her figure as "richly developed and in strict proportions." Only her temper was "not well balanced." Celebrating the Fourth of July, Cannon and companions were returning from the dram shop at a late hour, with Cannon staggering from the influence of liquor. Along the way, he stumbled through the door of the adobe hut. His friends quickly pulled him back outside and they proceeded home. Mortified the next morning of his embarrassing blunder, he proceeded to the hut to offer an apology in Spanish. This did not go well with the Mexican couple, and Juanita grew angry. In a rage, she drew a knife and stabbed Cannon. Soon a "mob of infuriated men" gathered, ready to invoke the "miner's law" of a "Life for Life". Only a Mr. Thayer came to her defense, but to no avail as she was quickly tried and found guilty. A scaffold was erected and the "howling blood-thirsty mob...cried for vengeance" according to Downie. Downie states Juanita retold the story of the "unfortunate incident", how she had been "provoked" and if done so again would "repeat her act." She then took the rope, placed the noose around her neck, said "Adios Senors!" and "leaped from the scaffold into eternity." Downie concludes by stating "it was one of those blots that stained the early history of California." 

Social and racial environment for Latina/os in California

In 1835, Andrew Jackson tried to buy California for $3.5 million, but Mexico refused the offer. Ten years later, James K. Polk suggested annexing Texas, but also put California as a high priority on his list of territory to acquire. The US and Mexico went to war on May 13, 1846. Two years later on February 2, 1848, the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed. What neither the U.S. or Mexico realized was that 9 days earlier, gold had been found in the foothills of the Sierra Nevada. It is estimated that between 1848 and 1852, as many as 25,000 Mexicans migrated to California to mine. In the fall of 1848, as many as 3,000 Mexicans migrated to the mining regions. Often, they traveled as entire families. After hearing of the gold, thousands of American men borrowed money, mortgaged their homes, or spent their life savings to travel to California and take advantage of the opportunity to find gold. Because society at the time was based on a waged labor, the idea that a person could obtain wealth by finding gold became irresistible. By 1849, the population of non-native Californians grew to over 100,000. Two-thirds of this non-native population were Americans. Despite the fact that the work of mining was the hardest kind of labor, the promise of gold drew miners west every year.

In 1848, when the California Gold Rush began, the population of the state was a Mexican majority. However, this Mexican population fell to 15% by 1850 and to 4% by 1870. Northern California, where Downieville is located, received the majority of the Anglo migration during the beginning of the Gold Rush. The Mexican majority in 1848 allowed for many successes for early racial relations. For example, all state laws and regulations were to be translated into Spanish. This continued until the rapid establishment of a statewide Anglo majority, which left the Mexican-Americans politically powerless. The last major political event where Mexicans had any influence in California was the 1849 state constitutional convention because they were soon greatly outnumbered. Political influence first declined in the north where the gold mining areas attracted Anglo pioneers. By 1851, legislation contrary to the interests of Mexican-Americans began to be enacted. For example, property taxes in the six southern counties where most Mexicans resided were five times higher than the average.

Racial prejudice and violence

The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed by the United States and Mexico to end the war, did not explicitly define the rights of Mexicans in the newly acquired territories of the U.S. However, it guaranteed them the same rights as U.S. citizens, but this guarantee was not upheld. Lynching in the United States of Mexicans and Mexican-Americans was common in the second half of the nineteenth century. In California, Mexicans only constituted a small portion of the population at this time which was not more than 15%. However, Latinos make up over one third of lynch mob victims between 1850 and 1895. Lynching was common since Mexicans were constantly accused of stealing gold or horses, and of killing or raping Anglo women. The last recorded instance of lynching in California is the 1892 murder of Francisco Torres, but lynching continued in Texas 

This is a small example of how Mexicans were viewed because the town of Downieville would not have seen any reason to have any more Mexicans in their community or their state.

The Gold Rush

During the 1840s, many Americans started moving west into Texas, Oregon, and California. The Americans thought California was a great place for opportunity. Mexicans were considered lazy because they failed to take advantage of the natural resources of the Southwest. Members of the elite class of Mexicans in the newly acquired U.S. territories separated themselves from the markedly mestizo, or mixed race, Mexican lower classes. For the most part, Mexicans were considered a distinct and inferior racial other who did not fit into the U.S. binary classification of race, and because of their impurity and status as a hybrid of Anglo, Indian, Spanish, and African blood, they were pushed to the margins of whiteness. Because of this racial prejudice and economic discrimination, Mexican-Americans became physically separated from Anglos as they were forced to live in specific neighborhoods which became prime areas for the manifestation of poverty, disease and crime. The boundaries between Anglos and Mexicans contributed to the misunderstanding and suspicion between the two groups which increased the frequency of the racial stereotyping experienced by Mexicans. However, racial stereotypes were not the only factor that lead to mob violence against and lynching of Mexicans. Gender was also a factor as nine Mexicans were lynched by Anglos for alleged transgressions of sexual norms. Anglos viewed Mexican men as having effeminate qualities and were denied the attributes of honor, honesty, and loyalty. Therefore, Anglos accused Mexicans of crimes such as cheating at cards or cowardly acts of murder. For Mexican women, they were often romanticized in literature as uncommonly beautiful, sophisticated, and graceful. Therefore, sometimes Mexican women could be viewed as able to be morally brought up by an Anglo man. However, the stereotype of many Mexican women of lower classes was that they were the opposite of the stereotypical Anglo woman. Whereas the Anglo woman was chaste and pious, Mexican women were viewed as depraved and sexually promiscuous. During the Gold Rush, the popular stereotype of the Mexican prostitute gained much power in popular culture as a way for Anglos to assert that Mexican women in the mines, like Josefa, turned to prostitution due to their innate moral degeneracy rather than because of their lack of economic opportunity 

Mining

Racism was an important factor in unleashing violence against Mexicans, but another determining factor was economic competition. In the industries of the Southwest United States, Mexicans were viewed by Anglos as a lazy people who had failed to capitalize on the rich resources of the Southwest. It was the “manifest destiny” of the white man, predicated on false assumptions of superiority, to develop this economic potential of the region. Therefore, any Mexican challenge to this was considered unacceptable due to the proprietary rights of the Anglo pioneers.

The Foreign Miners’ Tax was introduced in California in 1850 with the goal of eliminating foreign competition, mainly Mexican but also from Chinese migrants, in the mining industry. The tax was designed to discourage immigration to the United States by removing the prospect of economic prosperity. The law required that all persons who were not native born or who had not become American citizens under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, to pay twenty dollars for licenses allowing them to mine. The law provided an exception for California’s Native Americans. The law was successful in getting Mexican miners to leave many mines for fear of their safety, and the tax fueled ethnic violence because it sanctioned the expulsion of miners who could not or would not pay. The next foreign miner tax of 1852 would target Asian miners 

Lifestyle options in the mining industry were limited, especially for Latinos. For women, the options were wife or prostitute, which made them a “good woman” or a “bad woman”. Basically, a woman’s reputation was determined by whether her sexual activities were sanctioned or not, which is how the apparently unmarried Josefa might have been negatively perceived 

Assault
July 4, 1851

Joe Cannon, also possibly Frank or Frederick, was a successful American miner in Downieville in the summer of 1851. On the night of July 4, 1851, Josefa's "husband", José, was gambling as usual in the local gambling and drinking house. That night, Cannon and his companions tried to enter Josefa and José's home. Many accounts say that Cannon actually broke the front door to the house. However, they failed and left to gather more people. It is assumed by many that they were going to rape Josefa, who might have already been pregnant. The crowd returned and forced its way inside the house. Josefa stabbed Cannon and killed him in the early morning hours of July 5. It should be noted that some accounts say that after Joe’s return the argument between him and Josefa started in the street whereupon she invited him in to her house for more discussion with the stabbing then taking place inside. Another version of these events may be found in a book by William Lewis Manly. His account states that "Juanita" was married and that she and her husband "kept a monte game for the delectation of the miners...but beyond this fact absolutely nothing was said against her character." In Manly's version, Cannon "got drunk one night and about midnight went to the house occupied by the Spanish woman and her husband and kicked the door down. Early the following morning he told his comrades that he was going to apologize to the woman for what he had done. He went alone to the house, and, while talking with the husband and wife, the woman suddenly drew a knife and stabbed Cannon to the heart. What had been said that provoked the deed was never known, further than that Juanita claimed she had been grossly insulted."

Trial

The American mining population in Downieville was enraged by Cannon's death. Josefa was put on trial the next day, and the jury consisted of Cannon's friends and companions while the rest of Downieville waited for the results. Supposedly, a physician, Dr. Cyrus D. Aiken, testified that Josefa was not in a fit condition to be hanged  Protests immediately followed the doctor’s testimony and he was forced from the stand and from the town. Moments later, Josefa was found guilty of the murder of Cannon. Also, Mr. Thayer, a lawyer from Nevada attempted to testify against the execution of Juanita but was beaten off the stand. Reportedly, he asked for a fair trial for Juanita to see if a murder had really been committed.

Death: July 5, 1851

For the lynching, a scaffold was constructed on the bridge over the Yuba River. The town came to stand on the banks of the river and watch her execution. It was an important event to lessen the anger of the townspeople over Cannon’s death. Josefa was hanged immediately following the trial, and some accounts say that her last words before she was executed were "Adiós Señores". She is widely known to be the first woman to be executed by hanging in California  Mr. Manly wrote, "Juanita went calmly to her death. She wore a Panama hat, and after mounting the platform she removed it, tossed it to a friend in the crowd, whose nickname was 'Oregon,' with the remark, 'Adios, amigo.' Then she adjusted the noose to her own neck, raising her long, loose tresses carefully in order to fix the rope firmly in its place; and then, with a smile and wave of her hand to the bloodthirsty crowd present, she stepped calmly from the plank into eternity. Singularly enough, her body rests side by side, in the cemetery on the hill, with that of the man whose life she had taken." Mr. Manly's book is generally a first person account of his experiences migrating to California to mine for gold. Although he did mine for gold near Downieville in 1851, he, by his own account, was not in Downieville on the dates in question. He does not cite the source for his version of the events though it seems conceivable he heard eye-witness accounts.
Effects and the Mexican-American community during the Gold Rush

Media coverage of "Juanita"

There are many conflicting stories and sources regarding Josefa’s death. Eyewitnesses produce differing accounts of the assault, the trial, the hanging, and of Josefa herself. At the time, media referred to Josefa simply as “Juanita”. The public is largely unaware of the lynching of Mexicans because, despite the recent rise in academic literature on lynching, scholars frequently tend to overlook anti-Mexican violence and lynching. There is no actual accurate count of how many Mexicans were lynched in the United States, so estimates must be the basis for studies of Mexican lynching victims  Opinion on the incident from 19th century authors differs. In “The Downieville Tragedy” found in an 1887 compilation of his works, author, editor, and compiler of local histories Hubert Howe Bancroft comes down firmly on the side of the vigilantes arguing that it was unlikely Joe Cannon was on the attack that day and that he was instead murdered. He begins the piece with a description of frontier chivalry, with normally violent men in the early West would refuse to harm women, children, and the elderly, and uses this as evidence that Joe would not have entered Josefa’s house to do harm. He then paints a picture of a hot tempered woman hitting her breaking point and committing murder.

In “The Downieville Tragedy” there is evidence that even at the time Anglo-American opinion was split on who represented the guilty party in the assault. Bancroft introduces a dissenting opinion in the form of an excerpt from the Sacramento Times and Transcript:

    The act for which the victims suffered was entirely justifiable under the provocation. She had stabbed a man who had persisted in making
    a disturbance in her house and had greatly outraged her rights. The violent proceedings of an indignant and excited mob, led on by the 
    enemies of the unfortunate woman, were a blot upon the history of the state. Had she committed a crime of really heinous character, a real
   American would have revolted at such a course as was pursued toward this friendless and unprotected foreigner. We had hoped the story
   was fabricated. As it is, the perpetrators have shown themselves and their race.

This presents a view opposite to that of Bancroft’s being written not long before his by another Anglo publisher.

Statistics of Mexican-Americans lynched during the Gold Rush

The treatment of Mexican-Americans during the Gold Rush is a shameful part of U.S. history. Most of these lynchings occurred in Texas and parts of California, and were carried out by impromptu vigilance committees (i.e., Texas Rangers serving “justice” in Texas). Lynchings were frequent and most of them were of innocent Mexicans. Many lynchings were prompted by Mexicans falsely being accused of stealing gold or horses or of killing or raping Anglos.

In California, Mexicans represented over one third of the lynch mob victims between 1850 and 1895, when they were of less than 15 percent of the population. Between 1848 and 1928, at least 597 Mexicans were lynched in the United States.[10] Lynching was a way for Anglos to consolidate their colonial control over the recently conquered American West and exert sovereignty over the region. The mob violence only contributed to the displacement of Mexicans, as well as Native Americans, from their land, denial of access to natural resources, political disfranchisement, and economic dependency on the Anglo capitalist system 

Current debates about her death today

Today, we think about Josefa’s death in an opposite way from how it was viewed in 1851. By giving her the name “Juanita”, it devalued her existence and the horrible events that occurred in Downieville, California. During the time of the lynchings, many whites stood as bystanders or were part of the vigilance committee. At “Juanita’s” lynching, there was only one person that protested against her wrongful persecution. As a result of the Chicano Movement, the decades after the gold rush changed the way that Mexicans and Latinos were viewed in the United States.

Some witnesses recalled Juanita saying before she died: “‘I would do the same again if I was so provoked.’”. This is one of many characteristics pointed out by some who are of the opinion that she must have been an aggressive woman. This has been used to advance the idea that those who lynched her may have been right that she had murdered Joe the miner when he was not actually threatening her safety. Another fact brought up to support this idea is that the townsfolk noted that she was quick to anger. Due to conflicting witness statements and vague details some modern commentators still fall on the side of Joe Cannon. This shows that while most current thoughts about the incident take race and gender status as strong indicators that the story given by the vigilantes was most likely inaccurate some today still believe that their actions were justified.

Another interpretation of her death that recognized racial distinctions in the thoughts of her death was made by Preston Dillard, “So Miss Segovia MAY have been a saloon girl who was accused (but never convicted; important distinction) of a past crime, carried a knife and had a temper....these reasons sufficiently justify being lynched by a mob? If so, then half the women in Georgetown today would swing tomorrow. Miss Segovia deserved the fair trial she was deprived of never being able to not receive. (Think about that) Would you have left those comments justifying her murder if she had been a white woman?”.
 

The Gunfight at Hide Park, or Newton Massacre, was the name given to an Old West gunfight that occurred on August 19, 1871, in Newton, Kansas, United States. It was well publicised at the time, but since has received little historical attention, despite its producing a higher body count than the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral and the Four Dead in Five Seconds Gunfight of 1881.

Unlike most other well-known gunfights of the Old West, it involved no notable or well known gunfighters, nor did it propel any of its participants into any degree of fame. Its legend has grown, however, because one of the participants simply walked away from the scene, never to be seen again.

The gunfight

The incident began with an argument between two local lawmen, Billy Bailey and Mike McCluskie. The two men began arguing on August 11, 1871, over local politics on election day in the "Red Front Saloon", located in downtown Newton. The argument developed into a fist fight, with Bailey being knocked outside the saloon and into the street. McCluskie followed, drawing his pistol. He fired two shots at Bailey, hitting him with the second shot in the chest. Bailey died the next day, on August 12, 1871. McCluskie fled town to avoid arrest, but was only away for a few days before returning, after receiving information that the shooting would most likely be deemed self defense, despite the fact that Bailey never produced a weapon. McCluskie had claimed he feared for his life, having known that in three previous gunfights, Bailey had killed two men.

Bailey, a native of Texas, had several cowboy friends who were in town. Upon hearing of his death, they vowed revenge against McCluskie. On August 19, 1871, McCluskie entered Newton and went to gamble at "Tuttles Dance Hall", located in an area of town called Hide Park. He was accompanied by a friend, Jim Martin. As McCluskie settled into gambling, three cowboys entered the saloon. They were Billy Garrett, Henry Kearnes, and Jim Wilkerson, all friends to Bailey. Billy Garrett had been in at least two prior gunfights, killing two men.

Hugh Anderson, the son of a wealthy Bell County, Texas cattle rancher, also entered, and approached McCluskie, calling him a coward and threatening his life. Jim Martin jumped up and attempted to stop a fight from occurring.

Anderson shot McCluskie in the neck, knocking him to the floor. McCluskie attempted to shoot Anderson, but his pistol misfired. Anderson then stood over him and shot him several times in the back.

Kearns, Garrett, and Wilkerson also began firing, perhaps to keep the crowd back, and may have shot McCluskie in the leg. At that point a young man, believed to have been around 18 years of age at the time, named James Riley, opened fire on them.

Riley was dying from tuberculosis, and had been taken in by McCluskie shortly after arriving in Newton. Riley had never been involved in a gunfight before, but only Anderson still had a loaded pistol to return fire. Some accounts say Riley locked the saloon doors before shooting, but this seems unlikely. The room was filled with smoke from all the prior gunfire, and visibility was bad. Riley ended up hitting seven men.

Jim Martin, the would-be peacemaker, was shot in the neck and later died of his wound. Garrett, Kearns, and a bystander named Patrick Lee were also mortally wounded. Anderson, Wilkerson, and another bystander were wounded but survived.

With both guns empty and all his opponents down, Riley walked away and was never seen again. Legend has it he left the area and began a new life elsewhere. However, due to his ill physical state, it is more likely he died not long afterward under an assumed name. Either way, he disappeared.

A warrant was issued for Anderson for killing McCluskie. He left Kansas by train and settled in Texas to recover from his wounds.

On July 4, 1873, McCluskie's brother, Arthur McCluskie, located Anderson. A brutal fight ensued with both men shooting each other several times, then going after each other with knives. Neither survived.