The Scene Of The Crime
the morning of September 19th, 2009, users of Monterey's shoreline
recreation trail were dismayed to find that a twenty foot redwood
which stood on Del Monte Dunes near the Monterey Beach Resort, had been
down by vandals during the night. What began as a simple crime quickly
became a constitutional crisis that has sharply divided the community.
Click photo to enlarge
When the story broke, it also came to light that the American Civil
Liberties Union was in the process of challenging the legality of the
cross because it was on city property. A heated debate
followed. While everyone agreed that
vandalism should not be tolerated, there remained the question of what
to do next. Should the cross be repaired, moved to private property, or
left to rot somewhere out of public view?
October 7th the Monterey City Council voted to replace the cross, with
the stipulation that a legal defense fund of $50,000 be established
with private donations before proceeding. Many
were outraged by this decision, and as many people praised it. Some
were of the opinion that the city had no business
promoting a religious symbol on public property, citing constitutional
principles of separating church and state. Others felt the ACLU's
was petty, and that a cross was a beautiful symbol
Virtually lost in the shouting was the true meaning of this particular
cross. Though many people on both sides recognized its local historic
significance, most of these folks got the story
wrong. This only added to the confusion over whether this was
a secular or religious monument. The most popular misconception
is that it marked the location
where the Portola-Crespi expedition "landed" on the shores of Monterey
Bay (hard to do, since it was a land expedition), and the cross was
erected as part of their quest to spread Christianity.
What follows is the true story.
The quest to find Monterey Bay
In 1602, the Spanish explorer Sebastian Viscaino sailed from Mexico up
the coast of what was then known as Alta California. He brought back
reports of a large bay with a natural harbor at its southern end. He
felt that it's
relative seclusion, and proximity to sources of timber made the site
suitable for future colonization. Viscaino was not the first to sail
here, for Juan Cabrillo had reported on this bay 60 years earlier. But
Viscaino provided more detailed and glowing (some say, exaggerated)
reports. He named the place after the viceroy who approved his
expedition, the Count of Monte Rey.
Yet another century and
a half passed before the Spanish got serious about colonizing
California. It wasn't until 1768 that another expedition from Mexico
It had two goals. First, to establish a presidio (a fortified
settlement) at San Diego, and
second, to locate Monterey Bay and establish another presidio by the
harbor described by Viscaino.
The San Diego settlement was
established in the late Spring of 1769. Shortly thereafter a
expedition, a large group consisting of soldiers, natives, and pack
mules, was assembled there. Led by Captain Don Gaspar de Portola and
Crespi, they began their march northward on July 14th. A supply
ship from Mexico, the San Jose, was supposed to
rendezvous with them when
they reached Monterey Bay. Little did they know, the ship had already
been lost at sea before they set out.
The expedition worked its way up the coast then turned
inland near Morro Bay. They struggled
over coastal mountains until they came upon what is now known as the
Salinas River. However, they mistook it for the Rio del Carmelo (Carmel
River) described by Viscaino. That was their first
navigational mistake which caused confusion for the rest of their
accurately described the Carmel River as
being south of Monterey Bay. So when the Portola-Crespi expedition
arrived at the mouth of the Salinas River on October 1, 1769, they
believed they were still south of their destination.
days they continued north until they reached San Francisco Bay. By
11th, realizing they had overshot their destination, they turned back
By now they were acutely aware that the
navigational information left by Viscaino was woefully inadequate. Even
worse, their provisions were running low and the San Jose
was nowhere to be found.
November 28th, the party stood on the southern shores of Monterey Bay,
completely unaware that they had arrived at their destination. To their
eyes it looked nothing like the bay described by Viscaino. In one last
attempt, they marched a bit farther south, and camped for several days
near San Jose Creek, unaware that they were just south of the actual
Carmel River. Suffering
from malnutrition and illness, the decision was finally made to return
to San Diego.
December 9th or 10th (Mr. Toy's history books disagree on the exact
date) the group erected a
large wooden cross on the shore near the campsite to signal passing
ships, the San Jose
particular. A cross was chosen because it was easily constructed from
materials and would be readily identified by the ship's lookouts.
the wood were instructions to dig at the base where a
message was placed in a container. The message explained their
and stated that they were returning to San Diego. A second cross
on the shore near the southeast side of Monterey Bay before heading
to their San Diego base.
Success at last
1770 Portola and Crespi set out once again, this time with an
understanding of their earlier navigational errors. They located
Monterey on May 24th. They soon discovered that the second cross they
had erected was still
standing. Crespi reported in his journal that natives had placed
of mussels at the base, which was also surrounded by arrows stuck in
ground. Hanging from the cross was a string of "half fresh" sardines.
Meanwhile, Father Junipero Serra
set sail aboard the
supply ship San Antonio, arriving at Monterey on
May 31st. The first Spanish settlers were in Monterey to stay.
The Portola cross replica overlooking Carmel Bay
1944 Harry Downie, who was in charge of the Carmel Mission restoration,
raised a hand-made replica of Portola's first cross on a small hill
overlooking the Carmel River lagoon, in honor of the expedition that
camped nearby 175 years earlier. The site, which at the time was
privately owned, became part of Carmel River State Beach in 1953.
Downie's cross fell during a fierce storm in November 1983, and was
promptly replaced by a group of local volunteers. A plaque at the base
of the hill's south side explains the history behind the cross.
also made second replica to commemorate the bicentennial of
Monterey's founding. It was raised and dedicated at a public ceremony
on December 9, 1969, exactly 200 years after Portola's men erected
their second cross on the same shore. Hand made from locally
grown redwood, it was anticipated that this cross would be durable
enough to stand until the
city's 300th birthday. A small explanatory plaque with the
following inscription was mounted on a rock near it's base:
the winter of 1769, the Spanish expedition in search of Monterey Bay,
under the command of Don Gaspar De Portola and Father Juan Crespi,
erected a cross on or near this site and left the following message:
"The land expedition is returning to San Diego for lack of provisions
today, December 9, 1769."
years later this cross lay flat on the dune after a criminal's power
saw ripped through the wood at its base.
This monument was dedicated December 9, 1969 by the citizens
of Monterey to honor our 200th birthday.
does not appear that the cross will ever return to its proper,
historically accurate location. Only about $5,000 was raised for the
legal defense fund. After an initial surge of support, donations
stopped coming in (probably because the fund was not promoted beyond
the initial announcement). On February 26, 2010 it was decided that the
fund would be abandoned and the donations would be returned to the
contributors. The cross itself would be placed in a new home
San Carlos cemetery across Pearl Street from Dennis the Menace
A Historic Dilemma
There are many legal and moral questions in this case that need clear
- Since a cross was the only significant artifact
left by the explorers, can any sort of monument, other than a bland,
uninspiring plaque, be erected on the beach site to accurately
represent the historic event without displaying a cross of some sort?
- While the religious symbolism of the cross was
apparent, it also
had a well-defined secular purpose in recreating a documented
historical act. The ACLU argued that a "reasonable person" viewing the
cross on a
public beach would assume that the city was endorsing religion. But
would a reasonable person's thought process be so shallow as to ignore
other possibilities? Would a truly reasonable person jump to a
conclusion based on a casual observation? Would they not seek further
information to find
out for sure? Does
a casual misperception of it's meaning take priority
over the actual intent of the monument in determining its
- Do the US and state constitutions really
require that all religious references be banished from public property,
or are they flexible enough to accommodate historical monuments with
religious connotations? Is the government prohibited from acknowledging
the role religion played in local history?
the ACLU's threat of litigation was successful in preventing the city
from repairing the
cross does that mean the ACLU took advantage of a
crime for its own purposes? Has the ACLU set a bad precedent,
showing that the crime of vandalism is an effective means
a First Amendment dispute?
- How will other
monuments and activities with religious significance on local public
lands be affected by this case? These
- The other Portola-Crespi cross replica
near the Carmel
- The Santa Rosalia statue - the patron saint
of fishermen - next to
- Two statues of Father Junipero Serra in
- The "El Camino Real" mission bells along
public roads and highways marking the original route that connected the
- Monterey's famous hand-painted Christmas angels hung on light
poles every December.
memorial cross erected on Fort Ord land marking the site where the body
of 13 year old kidnap and murder victim Cristina Williams was
- The Carmel High School "Padres" mascot, an
early California priest.
- Temporary religious activities on public
such as Easter sunrise services and wedding ceremonies at Lovers Point
city park, or the Native American
ceremonial dances in front of Monterey City Hall on First Night?
In the absence of a proper judicial review of this case, these
important questions remain unresolved.
- One might also ask why the ACLU has not gone
after these other
items. Why has the ACLU singled out the Monterey beach