 |
 |
|
 |
 |
| BIBLIOGRAPHICA | ||
HISTORY OF CALIFORNIA.
1846-1848.
HUBERT HOWE BANCROFT.
CHAPTER I. OPERATIONS OF FREMONT AND GILLESPIE. January-May, 1846.
Explorers in the Tulares—Fremont at New Helvetia, Yerba Buena, and San
Jos£—Visit to Larkin and Castro at Monterey—Explanations to the
Prefect—Permission to Recruit his Men on the Frontier—The Walker-Talbot-Kem
Party—In Camp at Fisher’s Rancho—Fremont Breaks his Agreement—Insult to Alcalde
Pacheco—Over the Santa Cruz Mountains—In Camp at Alisal—Ordered to
Depart—Defiance— The Stars and Stripes on Gavilan Peak—Larkin’s
Efforts—Castro’s Military Preparations—Falsity of Current Versions—Fr&nont
Runs Away—His Blunder—Proclamations and Reports—In the Sacramento
Valley—Letter to Clyman—To the Oregon Border—A Night Attack by Indians—Back to
California—Gillespie’s Arrival and Instructions—Up the River by Boat—Sutter’s
Warning to Castro.__________________
CHAPTER II.
POLITICAL AND MILITARY. January-Juue,
1846.
A Fruitless Controversy—Alvarado as Congressman—Castanares and Tellez—Covarrubias
as Pico’s Agent—Mission of Castillero—Affairs in Mexico—Iniestra’s
Expedition—Tellez and Morales—Cambuston and Castro—Valle and Treasury
Troubles—Assembly—Guerra Sent to Monterey—Return of J. A. Carrillo—Pico as
Constitutional Governor—Military Junta at Monterey—Adhesion to President
Paredes —Measures fo” Defence—Pico’s Protests—Vallejo’s Position—Guerra Sent to
Angeles—Consejo General de Pueblos Unidos at Santa Barbara—Castro’s
Protests—Martial Law—The Assembly Deposes Castro—Pico and his Army March North
against Castro—Warlike Preparations for Defence of Angeles—Cooperation of
Foreigners—
Bandini and Castro—Affairs in the North
(vii)
FOREIGN
RELATIONS—UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND January-June, 1846.
* i
Larkin as U. S. Confidential Agent—His Instructions—Correspondence— Fears
of Invasion—Treatment of Foreigners—Fremont’s Operations in March—Larkin’s
Efforts and Hopes—Monterey Junta—Imaginary Speeches for England, France, and
the U. S.—Stearns, Leese, and Warner—Sutter’s Policy—Consejo General at Santa
Barbara, and its Bearing on Foreign Schemes—Views of Steams and Larkin—Pico’s
Intrigues—Exaggerations on English Interference—Testimony of Gillespie and
Minor—Position of Forbes and Spence—Stearns as Subagent of the U. S.—Condition
of Affairs in June—General Conclusions....................................
CAUSES OF THE
SETTLERS’ REVOI/T.
June, 1846.
An Unexpected Outbreak—Its Alleged Motives—Self-defence and Resistance
to Oppression—Mere Pretexts—Current Rumors—The Insurgents Classified—Adventurers—American
Enthusiasts—Ambitious Politicians—Real Motives of the Leaders—Fremont’s
Policy—Gillespie’s Mission—Ambition and Revenge—A Bold Resolution—Overmuch
Caution—Nature of Fremont’s Cooperation—Ide’s Theories and Statements—A Filibustering
Scheme—Needless, Unjustifiable, Productive of No Good—Not a Part of the
Conquest—Serious Responsibilities of the Insurgent Leaders—A Fortunate Ending
BEAR ELAG
REVOLT—TAKING OP SONOMA.
June, 1846.
Fremont’s Return from Oregon—Hensley’s Mission—A Summons to Revolt—-Fremont
Cautious—All Ready—Camp Moved to Bear River— Castro at Santa Clara—His Visit to
Sonoma—Arce’s Caballada— Merritt Sent by Fremont to Begin Hostilities—Seizure
of Horses on the Cosumnes—The Filibusters Reenforced in Napa Valley—Names
—Occupation of Sonoma—Vallejo a Prisoner of War—Negotiations —Written
Guaranties—Broken before the Ink was Dry—Incidents of the Morning—The
Insurgents Unmanageable—Aguardieute—A Controversy—John Grigsby Declines the
Command—William B. Ide Chosen—Journey of the Prisoners to Fremont’s Camp—Locked
up in Sutter’s Fort .................................
BEAR FLAG REVOLT,
CONTINUED—AFFAIRS AT SUTTER1 FORT AND SOUTH OF
THE BAT.
June-July, 184G.
PAGE
Sutter’s Position—The Prisoners—Their Treatment—Correspondence of the
Captives—Events at New Helvetia—South of the Bay—Kosa Sent by Vallejo to
Montgomery—Misroon’s Mission—Official and Private Correspondence—Castro’s
Proclamations—Military Preparations—Three Divisions to Betake Sonoma—Torre
Sent across the Bay—Manuel Castro’s Mission—Insurgents at San Francisco—
Weber’s Arrest—Montgomery’s Policy—Pico at Santa Barbara—
The Angelinos not Warlike—Foreigners Offended—The Assembly—
Pico and Larkin—Pico Marches North—Meets Castro—Embrace of Governor and
General .. 122
BEAR FLAG
REVOLT—AFFAIRS AT SONOMA.
June-July, 1846.
Ide in Command—Banner for the New Republic—Star and Grizzly— Raising of
the Bear Flag—The Flags as Relics—Ide’s Proclamation —Falsehood and
Bombast—Further Organization—Minor Happenings—Ide’s Version—Treaty with
Alcalde—Todd’s Mission to Montgomery—Misroon at Sonoma—Mormonism—A New
Proclamation— Killing of Cowie and Fowler by the Californians—Padilla and Carrillo—Sortie
by Ide—Other Captives—Gibson’s Expedition to Santa Rosa — Insurgents Reenforced—Land
Laws—Grigsby’s Return— Ford’s Campaign—Padilla Joined by Torre—A Surprise—Fight
at Olompali—Torre Defeated by the ‘Bears.’
145
BEAR FLAG
REVOLT—FREMONT’S CAMPAIGN'.
1846.
Complaints at Sonoma—Ford’s Letter—Fremont on the Sacramento— Forced to
Act—March to Sonoma—The San Rafael Campaign—Murder of Berreyesa and the Haro
Brothers—A Dastardly Act by Fremont and his Men—Torre’s Ruse—The Insurgents
Sent to Sonoma—
A False Alarm—Spiking the Guns of San Francisco—Capture of Robert
Ridley—Fourth of July at Sonoma—Military Reorganization —Change of
Administration—Fremont Assumes the Chief Commaud —Ide’s Version—The Battalion
Organized—Fremont’s Designs— News from Monterey—Bibliography of the Bear Flag
Revolt...................................... 169
PRELIMINARIES OF THE
CONQUEST.
PAG S
The War with Mexico—Beginning of Hostilities—Feeling in the United States
respecting California—Policy of President Polk’s Administration—Instructions
to Commodore Sloat in 1845 and 1846—Plans for Permanent Occupation—The Pacific Squadron
at Mazatlan—Rumors of War—Services of Dr Wood and John Parrott—The Portsmouth
and Oyane Sent to Monterey—News from the Bio Grande—Sloat’s Plans—His
‘Unwarranted Inactivity’—Changes his Mind—Starts for California in the
Savannah—English Designs—The Rival Fleets —A Eace in American Imagination—A
Protectorate—An Unfounded Conjecture—The McNamara Colonization Project—Ten
Thousand Irishmen for San Joaquin....................................
191
CONQUEST BY THE
UNITED STATES—SLOAT’S RULE.
July, 1846.
Arrival of Sloat in the Savannah—Events of a Week—More Hesitation—Fremont’s
Claim—Larkin’s Influence—Despatches from Montgomery—Resolution — Occupation of
Monterey—Sloat’s Proclamation—The Stars and Stripes at San
Francisco—Documentary Record —The Bear Flag Lowered at Sonoma—At Sutter’s
Fort—The Change at San Jos6—Fremont and his Battalion March Southward—Occupation
of San Juan—The Bears at Monterey—Fremont and Sloat—The Commodore’s
Disappointment—The Filibuster’s Dilemma—Comfort from a New Commodore—Stockton
Arrives in the Congress—And Assumes Command — The Battalion Mustered in — And
Sent to the South—Departure of Sloat
224
THE
CONQUEST—STOCKTON’S RULE—OCCUPATION OF THE SOUTH.
August, 1846.
Stockton’s Proclamation—A Pronunciamiento Filibustero — Castro Retreats
Southward—Pico’s Proclamation—Action of the Assembly— Vain Efforts of Governor
and General for Defence—No Enthusiasm or Resources—Castro at the Mesa—Fremont
at San Diego—Stockton at San Pedro—The Commodore Refuses to Negotiate for Fear
his
i Terms may be Accepted—His Weak
Excuses—Larkin’s Efforts—
| Castro and Pico Resolve to Quit California—Flight and Farewell
Addresses—Pico’s Land Grants—Stockton Enters Angeles—Submission of the
People—Proclamations and Orders—News from Washington—Election Ordered—Plans for
a Civil Government—Garrisons at the Southern Towns—Stockton and Fremont Return
to the North.. 25S
THE CONQUEST—AFFAIRS
IN THE NORTH—REVOLT OF FLORES IN THE SOUTH.
August-Octoher, 1846.
# FAGK
' At Monterey—Colton’s Diaries—The First Newspaper—Fauntleroy and Snyder
at San Juan—San Jos<5 under Hyde, Watmough, and Weber —San Francisco
Affairs—Reception to Stockton—Revere at Sonoma —Meeting of Bear Flag
Men—Release of Prisoners — The Walla Walla Invasion—Stockton’s Grand Plans—Juan
Flaco’s Ride—Preparations to Quell the Revolt—Gillespie at Angeles—Varela’s
Attack —Jos6 Maria Flores—Pronunciamiento—Fight at Chino Rancho— Gillespie’s
Capitulation—Talbot Driven from Santa Bdrbara—Merritt from San Diego—Mervine’s
Defeat—Meeting of the Assembly— Stockton at San Pedro—San Diego Reoccupied 28S
THE CONQUEST—THE
FLORES REVOLUTION—FIGHT AT SAN PASCUAL.
November-December, 1846.
Stockton at San Diego—Petty Hostilities—Preparations Interrupted—•
U. S. Troops Coming from the East—Affairs at Angeles—Orders and
Correspondence—Revolt against the Governor—Coronel’s Adventures—The Dalton
Financial Scheme—The Chino Prisoners— Flores Imprisoned and Released—Alarming
News—Kearny’s Instructions—His March from New Mexico—Meeting Kit Carson—Capture
of Horses and a Courier on the Colorado—Across the Desert to Warner’s and Santa
Maria—Reenforced hy Gillespie—Figlit at San Pascual—Defeat of Kearny by the
Californians under Pieo—Thirty- seven Men Killed and Wounded—In Camp at San
Bernardino—Reenforcements under Gray—March to San Diego — Stockton and Kearny
March on Angeles.......................
326
AFFAIRS IN THE
NORTH—NATIVIDAD AND SANTA CLARA.
Novemher, 1846-January, 1847.
Fremont’s California Battalion—Official Plunder of the Rancheros—Successful
Recruiting—Indian Allies—Organization and List of Officers —Manuel Castro and
Other Officers Break Paroles and Join Flores— From San Luis to the
Salinas—Burroughs and Thompson at San Juan—Capture of Larkin—Americans at Los
Verjeles—Approach of the Californians—Fight at Encinalito—Foster Killed—Battle
of Na- tividad—Death of Burroughs—Losses—Castro’s Retreat—March of Fremont’s
Battalion from San Juan to Santa Barbara—Condemnation and Pardon of Jesus
Pico—Disastrous Crossing of the Cuesta de Santa Into—More Forced Contributions—Sanchez’s
Revolt—Alarm at the Pueblo—Marston’s Expedition—Campaign of Santa Clara—
End of War in North—Loss of the Warren’s Launch—Wreck or Murder 357
THE
COUQUEST COMPLETED BY STOCKTON AND? r£mONT.
January, 1847.
PASS
Stockton’s Army—The Advance from San Bernardo to Los Coyotes—
Propositions from Flores—A Proclamation—Sand-storm—Forster’s Services—Change of
Route to Avoid Amhush—Preparations of the Californians—From La Jabonerla to
Paso de Bartolo—The Battle of the San Gabriel—Stockton’s Report—Defeat of the
Californians— Fight of the Mesa—Entry into Los Angeles—Fremont’s March from
Santa Biirhara to San Fernando—The Californians at Los Verdugos —Efforts of
Jesns Pico—Flores Transfers Command to Andres Pico— Armistice—Treaty of Cahuenga—The
War at an End—Fremont at Angeles—Flight of Flores and Manuel Castro to Sonora 385
STOCKTON’S
CONTROVERSY WITH KEARNY.
January-Febrnary, 1847.
Policy of Sloat and Stockton—A Rdsuing of the Conquest—Kearny’s Instructions
from Washington—Later Orders—State of Affairs on the General’s
Arrival—Discussion at San Diego—The Campaign—The Commodore as
Commander-in-chief—At Los Angeles—Kearny and Fremont—The Controversy Begun—The
General’s Authority not Recognized—He Goes to San Diego and Monterey—Arrival of
Commodore Shubrick—A Policy of Peace—Stockton’s Last Acts as Governor—General
Conclusions—Kearny in the Right—Stockton in the Wrong—Fremont’s Action
Justified—Rule of Fremont as Governor ■—Legislative Council—Proclamation—Financial Troubles....................
411
FREMONT'S CONTROVERSY
WITH KEARNY.
March-May, 1847.
New Instructions—Circular of Shuhrick and Kearny—The Latter Assumes the
Governorship—Proclamation and Report—Commodore Biddle— Orders to Fr&nont,
Gillespie, and Cooke—Turner in the Sonth— Fremont’s Disobedience, Excuses, and
his Famous Ride to Monterey —Quarrel with Kearny—Cooke at Los Angeles—Mason and
Fremont—A Challenge—Rumors of Mexican Invasion—Kearny in the South—Stevenson
Succeeds Cooke—Journey of Kearny, Fremont, and Cooke Overland to the
States—Stockton Goes East—Petition on the Governorship—Fremont’s Trial hy
Court-martial—Found Guilty and Pardoned—The Popular Verdict—Benton’s Tirade in
the Senate —The California Claims—Expenses of the Conquest........ 436
THE MORMON BATTALION.
1846-1848.
PAGE
Westward Migration of the Mormons by Sea and Land—Tbe Plan to Occupy
California—Elder Little Applies to the Government for Aid —Timely War—Polk’s
Promises—Kearny’s Instructions—Colonel Allen’s Call—Theory of the Saints—A Test
of Loyalty and a Sacrifice—Recruiting the Battalion—List of Officers'—Tyler’s
History and Bigler’s Diary—March to Santa F£—Death of Colonel Allen—Smith in
Command—Doctor Sanderson—Calomel and Arsenic—Cooke in Command—His Journal—March
across the Continent—Fight with Wild Cattle—Arrival at San Diego—In Garrison at
San Luis Rey and Los Angeles—Mustered out—Reenlistment of One Company— Homeward
March to Salt Lake in Several Detachments and by Different Routes—A Festival
of 1855—A Ram in the Thicket 469
NEW YORK VOLUNTEERS
AND ARTILLERY COMPANY.
1846-1848.
Congress Calls for Volunteers—Letter to Stevenson—Policy of the Government
Revealed—Recruiting in New York—In Camp at Governor’s Island — Clark’s History
and Murray’s Narrative — First or Seventh—List of Officers—Character of the
Men—Camp Life and Drill—Popular Ridieule—Discontent and Desertion—Habeas Corpus
—Instructions—Stevenson’s Troubles—Resisting Arrest—A Baffled Sheriff—Newspaper
Comment—Voyage of the Perkins, Loo Choo, and Drew—Later Vessels and
Reeruits—The Colonel’s Valor—At Rio—Arrival at San Francisco—Distribution of
the Companies— Garrison Life—Disbandment—Company F, 3d U. S. Artillery—In
Garrison at Monterey—Deserting for the Mines—Sherman’s Memoirs —Burton’s
Company—The Dragoons 499
PIONEERS—DONNER
PARTY—THE MORMONS,
1846-1848.
Statistics of Population—Pioneers of 1846—Classification—Discontented
Immigrants—The Oregon Company—Clyman and Hastings Bound for the States—Overland
Westward—Bryant and Thornton—Many Parties — Tedious, Uneventful Journeys —
Hastings’ Cut-off— The Donner Party—List of Names—A New Cut-off—Fatal Delay—Dissensions—Starvation
in the Sierra—Breen’s Diary—Record of Deaths —Authorities—The Forlorn Hope—The
Four Relief Parties—General Remarks—The Mormon Immigrants—Plans of the
Saints—List of Names—Brannan and his Contract—Voyage of the Brooklyn— Arrival
at Honolulu and Yerba Buena—An Industrious People— Dissensions—New Hope on the
San Joaquin—Change of Plans and a Disappointed Colony—Pioneers and Immigration
of 1S47-S 524
MISSIONS—INDIAN AFFAIRS—COMMERCE.
1846-1848.
PAGE
Sale of Mission Estates—Act of the Assembly in April—‘The Montes- deoca
Order—Pico’s Sales from May to July—Purchasers and Terms —The Tomel
Order—Evidences of Fraud—Action of Flores’ Government—Decision of the
Courts—Policy of Kearny and Mason, 1847-8 —Ecclesiastical Affairs—Bishop and
Friars—Vicars—Indian Affairs —Sutter, Vallejo, and Hunter as Sub-Indian
Agents—Local Items— Commerce and Maritime Affairs—Meagre, Data for
1846—Statistics ■—Mason’s Communications—Collectors—Removal of Burdens— Free-trade—New Tariff from Washington—War Contributions— Modifications by Mason and Shubrick—Gold-dust for Duties—U. S. Revenue Laws Introduced with the Treaty—The First Steamer in California Waters—List of Vessels, 1846-8......................... 558
THE RULE OF GOVERNOR
MASOX.
1847-1848.
Mason’s Proclamation and Reports—Fears of Revolt—Visits to the South and
North—Return of Jos6 Castro—The Canon Perdido at Santa Barbara—Return of Pio
Pico—His Claims for the Governorship— Imprisonment and Release—Treaty of
Guadalupe Hidalgo—Mason’s Proclamation—California in Congress, 1846-9—Causes
and Effects of the War—Slavery in the Territories—Opposition to the Acquisition
of California—Debates on Territorial Government—Final Unsuccessful
Efforts—Military Rule—Rights of Conquerors—Views of Congress and
Administration—Policy of Sloat, Stockton, Fr&nont, and Kearny—Mason’s
Theory and Practice—Items—Alcalde Nash at Sonoma—Trial of Armijo—Barrus and
Foxen—De Facto Government after the Treaty *
582
LOCAL ANNALS—SAN
DIEGO TO MONTEREY.
1846-1848.
San Diego Events—Fremont, Stockton, and Kearny—Massacre at Paumaf
—Mormons and New York Volunteers—Municipal Affairs—Ranchos —Revenue—San Diego
Mission—San Luis Rey—Padre Zalvidea—San Juan Capistrano—Los Angeles
District—Index of Occurrences—Subprefect and Alcaldes—Mormons, Dragoons, and
Volunteers—Ranchos —San Gabriel—Padre Est6nega—San Fernando Mission—Santa Barbara—Pueblo
Government—Laud Grants—Mission—Bishop Garcia Diego—President Duran—San
Buenaventura—Santa In£s—Purisima —Monterey District—Summary—Town Affairs—San
C&rlos—San Luis Obispo—San Miguel—Murder of Reed Family—San Antonio—
San Juan Bautista—Soledad—Santa Cruz and
Branciforte............ 616
LOCAL ANNALS OP THE
NORTH.
1846-1848.
PAGE
Population of California—San Francisco—Events—The Name Yerba
Buena—Descriptions and Statistics—Plan, and Notes on Buildings— Municipal
Official List—Controversies of Alcalde and Council—Town Lots—Survey, Streets,
and Improvements—School and Church— Newspapers—Military and Revenue—Ranchos and
Ex-mission— Annals of San Jos<5—Local Occurrences—Indian Troubles—Municipal
Affairs and Lands—The Contra Costa—Santa Clara—Mission San Jos6—Sonoma and the
Northern Frontier—San Rafael—Bodega —Napa—Benicia—Original Correspondence of
Semple and Larkin— Stockton and New Hope—New Helvetia in 1846-7—Plan of San
Francisco—Early Buildings 643
Pionekr
Register and Index. ‘R ’ to ‘Zurita’
687
OPERATIONS OP FREMONT AND GILLESPIE.
January-May,
1S46.
Explorers in the
Tulares—Fremont at New Helvetia, Yerba Buena, and San Jose—Visit to Larkin and
Castro at Monterey—Explanations to the Prefect—Permission to Recruit his Men
on the Frontier—The Walker-Talbot-Kern Party—In Camp at Fisher’s Rancho—Fremont
Breaks his Agreement—Insult to Alcalde Pacheco—Over ;the Santa Cruz
Mountains—In Camp at Alisal— Ordered to Depart—Defiance—The Stars and Stripes
on Gavilan Peak—Larkin’s Efforts—Castro’s Military Preparations—Falsity of
Current Versions—Fremont Runs Away—His Blunder—Proclamations and Reports—In
the Sacramento Valley—Letter to Clyman—To the Oregon Border—A Night Attack by
Indians— Back to California—Gillespie’s Arrival and Instructions—Up the River
by Boat—Sutter’s Warning to
Castro.
The present volume is devoted to the annals of 1846-7, including also
1848 in all matters not directly connected with the great event of that year,
the discovery of gold. The period is by far the most eventful in Californian
history. The volume may be termed a History of the Conquest. It includes,
however, besides developments pertaining to the change of flag and Mexican war,
the earlier operations of American filibusters constituting what is known as
the Bear Flag revolt, and the later interregnum of military rule. Here I record
the last petty quarrels under Mexican auspices of north and south, of the
military and civil authorities, of Castro and Pico. Here I
Vol.
V. 1
2 OPERATIONS OF FREMONT AND
GILLESPIE.
A
chronicle the foolish interference of Frdmont and his explorers, the
diplomatic efforts of Larkin and Stearns to secure a change of sovereignty by
pacific methods, the revolutionary blunders of Ide and his associate settlers,
and the raising of the stars and stripes by Sloat and Montgomery of the navy.
Next are presented the achievements of the California battalion, Stockton’s
rule, the commodore’s unwise policy and energetic struggles to put down the
resulting revolt, the final efforts of the Californians under Flores and
Andres Pico to shake off the foreign yoke, the coming of Kearny and his
dragoons across the continent, their disaster at San Pascual, and the closing
campaigns of the war ending in the occupation of Los Angeles and the treaty of
Cahuenga. Then follow politico-military controversies of Stockton, Kearny, and
Fremont under the new regime, reenforcements by land and sea for garrison
service, Cooke and his Mormon battalion, Tompkins, Sherman, Ord, and Halleck
with the artillery company, Stevenson and the New York volunteers, the peaceful
rule of Mason as military governor, and news of a national treaty making
California a permanent possession of the United States. In this volume are
given also institutional annals of 1846-8, a commercial and maritime record,
mission and ecclesiastical affairs under new conditions, the immigration of
three years, with the tragic experiences of the Donner party, and several
chapters of local annals. Finally, I here complete the alphabetical Pioneer Register
and Index of all who came to the country before 1849. All is brought down to
the dawn of a new era, that of gold and ‘flush times,’ to be treated in the
following volume.
At the beginning of 1846 Fremont’s exploring expedition was encamped in
the region now known as Fresno and Kern counties. Fremont with fifteen men had
entered California by the Truckee route, and had
hastened from Sutter’s Fort southward with fresh supplies for the relief
of his companions, whom he expected to find on Kings River. Meanwhile the main
body of about fifty, under Talbot, Kern, and Walker, had entered the country by
Owens River and Walker Pass, and were waiting for the captain on Kern River.
The double error in locating the rendezvous has been already explained.1
At this time the explorers had no intention of meddling with political or
military affairs; nor did the Californian authorities know anything of their
presence in the country, beyond the bare fact that the smaller party had
arrived at New Helvetia in December.
His supplies being nearly exhausted, and Walker’s men not making their
appearance, Fremont left his camp January 7th and returned to Sutter’s Fort,
where he arrived on the 15th, after having had, perhaps, some trouble with
Indians on the way.2 He was again warmly welcomed by Sutter, who
gave a grand dinner for his entertainment and that of Vice-consul Leidesdorff
and Captain Hinckley, who had lately come up the river; and after a stay of
four days, with eight of his own men Fremont sailed on Sutter’s launch for the
bay.3 From Yerba Buena he sailed with Hinckley on a visit to San
Jos£ and the newly discovered mine of Almaden;4 but he was back
again before January 24th, on which date he wrote to his wife of past hardships
and of the ‘good time coming,’ when his explorations would be completed and he
1 See Hist. Cat, vol. iv., chap. xxiv.,
this series. In a letter of Larkin— that of March 27th, to be noted later—a
‘second place of rendezvous’ is mentioned, but it was probably New Helvetia.
2 Fremont's Oeog. Mem., 19,
30; Jan. 20th, Larkin to Sutter. Would be glad to see Fremont at Monterey.
Larkin's Off Corresp., MS., i. 73. The Indian troubles rest on Carson’s
statement in Peters' Life of Kit Carson, 250-1, not a good authority.
3iVr.
Helvetia Diary, MS., 30-1; Sutter's Diary, 6-7.
4 Lancey's Cruise of the 1Dale
35-6. This author says that at S. Jos6 Fremont learned that Walker’s party
were encamped on the S. Joaquin, and sent Carson to guide theoi to S. Jos6; but
this, as we shall see, cannot have been so at this time, though he may have
sent a man to search for them. In Peters' Life of Carson, 251-2, Carson is said
to have gone out in search of the other party, whom he found and brought
back—which is not true.
might return.6 On the same day he set out with Leidesdorff by
land for San Jos<3 and Monterey, where they were received by Consul Larkin
on the 27th.6
It is fair to suppose that Fremont’s business with Larkin and Leidesdorff
was not only to make arrangements for obtaining fresh supplies, but to talk
over the political situation and prospects in their relation to the policy of
the United States; but while we know nothing of the conferences in this
respect, it is certain that no hostility or annoyance to the Californians was
proposed, because Larkin, as we shall see later, was engaged, in accordance
with instructions from Washington, and with much hope of success, in efforts
to conciliate the people and prepare the way for a peaceable annexation. At
any rate, the explorer became acquainted with the exact state of affairs. On
the 29th, Prefect Castro, as was his duty, addressed to Larkin a note, asking
to be informed respecting the purpose for which United States troops had
entered the department, and their leader had come to Monterey. Fremont’s
explanation, transmitted on the-.same day through the consul, was that he had
come by order of his government to survey a practicable route to the Pacific;
that he had left his company of fifty hired men, not soldiers, on the frontier
of the department to rest themselves and their animals;7 that he
had come to Monterey to obtain clothing, and funds for the purchase of animals
and provisions; and that when his men were recruited, he intended to continue
6 Jan. 24th, Fremont’s letter,
in Niles’ Reg., lxx. 161. He is now going to see some gentlemen on the coast—on
business; and then will complete his survey as soon as possible.
’6 Jan. 24th, Sub-prefect Guerrero to prefect.
Announces departure of Fremont and Leidesdorff. Castro, Doc., MS., i. 311.
Arrival on Jan. 27th. Doc. Hist. Cal., iii. 86. Lancey tells us that they spent
the three nights of the journey at the ranchos of Francisco Sanchez, Antonio M.
Suuol, and Joaquin Gomez. Wm F. Swasey says that Fremont’s men, Godey and
others, were left at Yerba Buena, and went with the writer a little later to S.
Jos6 by water. Swasey's Cal. in 1845-6, MS., 4.
7 As a matter of fact, Fremont
had at this time no knowledge of his company’s whereabouts; for all he knew,
they might have perished in'the mountains; but it was safe enough to say he
had left them ‘on the frontier.’
his journey to Oregon. This explanation—repeated at a personal interview
between the parties named, in presence of the alcalde, Colonel Alvarado, and
General Castro, and also duly forwarded to Governor Pico and the supreme
government—was satisfactory, at least to such an extent that no objection was
made; and Fremont was thus tacitly permitted to carry out his plans. Pico made
no objection, but directed that a close watch be kept on the explorer’s
movements, with a view to learn if he had any other design than that of
preparing for a trip to Oregon.8
It should be noted particularly here that the only license given to
Fremont at this time was a tacit, or implied, permission to recruit his men on
the frontiers, away from the settlements, after obtaining the necessary funds
at Monterey. That is, Castro did not order Fremont to quit the country at once,
thus indirectly authorizing him to remain. This rests not on the statements of
Castro, but of Larkin and Frd- mont.9 The current version given by
Tuthill, Lan-
8 In one instance Fremont,
Court-Martial, 372, claimed that his plan (and Castro’s license) was to explore
southward to the Gila; but there is no other evidence in this direction, and
the difference has no important bearing on what followed. Jan. 29th, prefect to
Larkin. The date in the original blotters being Jan. 28th, but changed to
29th; L. to prefect in reply. Originals in Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 86, 89;
Castro, Doc., MS., i. 316; official copies in Larkin's Off. Corresp., MS., i.
76; ii. 146; copies in Sawyer’s Doc., MS., I— 2; and printed in Niles’ Reg.,
lxxi. 188. Same date, prefect to gov. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 90, 121. Same
date, Id. to sup. govt. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vi. 107- Feb. 18th, Pico’s reply.
Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 15.
9 L. mentions the interview in
his letter of March 4th. Frimont’s Cal. Claims 18JS, in U. S. Govt Doc., 30th
cong. 1st sess., Sen. Repts, no. 75, p. 64; Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 188-9. Also in
the letter of March 9th, in which he says that F. ‘informed them of his
business; and there was no objection made.’ Frimont’s Gal. Claims, 65; Larkin’s
Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 44-5. To his office copy of the letter of Jan. 29th, he
appends this note: ‘The genera] was at his own request officially informed by
Capt. Fremont of his motives in coming here; which motives were acccpted by
Gen. Castro in not answering the letter.’ Id., i. 76. Benton, in his letter of
Nov. 9th, Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 173, and in his Thirty Years in IT. S. Senate, ii.
688, states that F. asked and received verbal permission to recruit his men ‘
in the valley of the San Joaquin,’ or ‘ in the uninhabited parts of the valley
of the S. Joaquin.’ This is also the version given by the sec. of war in his
report of Dec. 5th, 29th cong. 2d sess., H. Ex. Doc. 4, p. 50; and Cutts’ Conq.
of Cal., 1434. Frgmont himself, Court-Martial, 372, says: ‘I explained to Gen.
Castro th- cuject of my coming into Cal. and my desire to obtain permission to
winter in the valley of the S. Joaquin,... where there was plenty of game,...
and no inhabitants to be molested by our presence. Leave was granted,’ etc.
cey, Phelps, and others, that Castro gave his word of honor, and on being
urged to put his permission in writing indulged in some bluster about the ‘word
of a Mexican officer,’ is pure invention. All agree, however, that it was in
the San Joaquin Valley that the foreigners were to recuperate their strength.
Naturally anxious about the fate of his companions, Fremont left Monterey a
few days later. Larkin says it was “well known that he was to return when he
collected his men;”10 but it is doubtful that this was known to the
authorities, and certain that he was not expected to bring his men with him.
His route lay over the mountains to the Santa Clara Valley.11
Walker, Talbot, and Kern, with the main body of explorers, remained on
Kern River, waiting for Fremont, until January 18th, when they broke camp and
started northward. On the 26th they reached Kings River, mistaking it for the
San Joaquin; and in attempting a cut-off across a supposed‘big bend’ of this
stream, they floundered for a day or two in the tule marshes, but reached the
real San Joaquin on the 30th, and February 6th camped on the Calaveras. From
this point Walker with one companion started out in quest of tidings from
Fremont, and met 'Le Gros’ Fallon, the old mountaineer, who reported the
captain to be at San Josd. Thereupon Walker went to the pueblo, while the
company returned to the San Joaquin ford to await orders, hunting grizzly bears
with much success in the mean time. On the 11th they were joined by Carson and
Owens; and on the 15th, having met a party with fresh horses, they passed
through the town, and at noon rejoined their captain and companions at the
Laguna farm, or Alvirezs’ rancho, or Fisher’s—near the historic battle
10Letter of March 27th. Larkin's Off. Corresp., MS.,
ii. 45-6.
11 Feb.
5th he was in the mountains: and Feb. 13th in the valley, probably at Fisher’s
rancho. Fr&mont's Oeog. Mem,., 36.
field of Santa Teresa. The united force amounted to about sixty men.12
After remaining about a week in camp, Frdmont started with his whole
company across the valley and up into the Santa Cruz Mountains by way of Los
Gatos, that of the modern railroad—not the most direct route to Oregon, as it
seemed to the Californians. His trip across the mountains, past the big trees,
took four days; and then, on February 25th, he descended to the coast at a
point near Santa Cruz; was delayed for some days by the prevalent rains and fogs;
but finally resumed his march on March 1st, following the bay-coast southward,
thence turning inland up the Salinas Valley, and encamping on the 3d at
Hartnell’s rancho, or Alisal.13 By the very act of permitting his
men to enter the Santa Clara Valley, Frdmont had broken his agreement with the
authorities, and had forfeited every right conferred by Castro’s promise, even
if that promise had been as direct and definite as any one has ever claimed.
His march to the coast without receiving or even asking permission was, under
the circumstances, an insult and a menace to the Californian authorities, who,
in view of prevalent rumors and fears of war and foreign invasion, would have
been justified in manifesting a greater degree of alarm and anger than they
did at seeing an armed force of sixty men marching
12 Kern’s Journal, 484-6;
Frtmant's Oeog. Hem., 19, 30-1; Martin’s Narr., MS., 10-11. Feb. 15th, Marsh
writes from Alvirezs’ rancho, where he had come to see Fremont. Larkin's Doc.,
MS., iv. 39.
13 Fremont’s Geog. Mem., 36-7;
Larkin’s letter of March 27th. Id., Cal. Claims, 67. In his letter of March
4th, Id., 64, Larkin says of F.: ‘He is now in this vicinity surveying, and
will be again at this consular house during this month. He then proceeda for the
Oregon, returns here in May, and expects to be in Washington about September.’
It should be noted that F.’s movements were but slightly more consistent with a
plan of exploring southward to the Colorado and Gila,, as he claimed was his
plan in one document only—Fremont’s Court-Martial, 372—than with the trip to
Oregon; Yet he says, Id., ‘I commenced the march south, crossing into the
valley of the Salinas, ’ and was soon ordered to quit! In his Memoir, Fremont
gives considerable attention to the big trees—the largest seen by him being 14
feet in diameter. The big-tree grove is now a popular pleasure resort, and one
of its standard traditions is to the effect that Fremont spent a night in the
hollow tree still shown to every visitor—as indeed he may have done, though he
does not mention it.
through the country under the command of a United States officer.
Besides Fremont’s return to the coast, a step that •seemed utterly
inconsistent with his previously announced designs, there were two other
matters, not important in themselves, but which nevertheless tended to foment
the prevalent alarm and feeling against the strangers. While the explorers were
encamped in the San Jos6 Valley, Sebastian Peralta claimed some of their horses
as his own. Fremont refused to give them up, and ordered Peralta rather
unceremoniously out of camp. Complaint was made to Alcalde Pacheco of San
Jose, who sent Fremont an official communication on February 20th. The
captain’s reply of the next day is extant. In it he explained that all his
animals, with the exception of four obtained from the Tulares Indians, had been
purchased and paid for; and that the one claimed had been brought from the
states. “The insult of which he complains,” Fremont continues, “and which was
authorized by myself, consisted in his being ordered immediately to leave the
camp. After having been detected in endeavoring to obtain animals under false
pretences, he should have been well satisfied to escape without a severe horsewhipping
... Any further communications on this subject will not, therefore, receive
attention. You will readily understand that my duties will not permit me to
appear before the magistrates of your towns on the complaint of every
straggling vagabond who may chance to visit my camp. You inform me that unless
satisfaction be immediately made by the delivery of the animals in question,
the complaint will be forwarded to the governor. I would beg you at the same
time to enclose to his Excellency a copy of this note.”14 Alcalde
Pacheco simply forwarded the correspondence to the prefect, with a
recommendation of
” ’ •
14Feb. 21st, Fremont to Pacheco, from ‘camp near road to Sta Cruz,’ printed
from original then in possession of Manuel Castro, in S. Francisco Alta, June
15, 1866. Original Spanish translation by Hartnell, in Castro, Doc., MS., ii.
28. The letter has been frequently reprinted from the Alta.
INSULTS—ORDERS TO QUIT THE COUNTRY.
9
Peralta as an hombre de bien.15 Whatever may have been
the merit of Peralta’s claim, it is evident that Fremont’s refusal to obey the
summons of the legal authorities was altogether unjustifiable, and the tone of
his refusal most insolent.
From the southern camp in the early days of March three of Fremont’s men
visited the rancho of Angel Castro. One of the men under the influence of
liquor behaved rudely to Don Angel’s daughter, insisting on her drinking with
him, and was ordered out of the house by the angry father. He was ejected by
his companions, though making resistance and drawing a pistol. A fine of ten
dollars was paid for the offence. This is the version given by Larkin, and
there is no • reason to doubt its accuracy. The affair reflects no discredit
upon Fremont; but naturally exaggerated reports were circulated, by no means
favorable to the Americans.16
From his camp at Hartnell’s rancho, Fremont wrote to Larkin the 5th of
March, thanking him for news, declining his invitation to visit Monterey at
present, announcing his hope of passing the spring pleasantly among the
Californian flowers before proceeding northward, and stating that he would
that night move his camp to the banks of the Salinas River.17 Before
night, however, a Californian officer arrived with the following order from
General Castro: “This morning at seven, information reached this office that
you and your party have entered the settlements of this department; and this
being prohibited by our laws, I find myself obliged to notify you that on the
receipt
15Feb. 23d, Pacheco to prefect, in Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 120.
“Larkin’s letter of March 27th, in Larkin's Off Corresp., MS., ii. 46.
This part of the letter is omitted in Fr&mont's Cal. Claims, 68. Osio,
Hist. Cal., MS., 458-9, makes the insult offered a much more serious one,
presenting a vivid picture of the old man Castro defending his daughter from
outrage.
17 March
5th, F. to L., in Larkin's Doc., MS., iv. 61. Larkin’s letter, not extant, is
said to have awakened some memories which made Fremont’s occupations less
interestiug, but the allusion is not intelligible.
of this you must immediately retire beyond the limits of the department,
such being the orders of the supreme government, which the undersigned is
under the obligation of enforcing.” A similar order was issued by the prefect
in behalf of the civil authority. Both orders were communicated to the supreme
government, to Larkin, and by the latter to the government of the United
States.18 It was understood by Larkin at the time that Castro
claimed to have just received special orders from Mexico not to permit Fremont’s
entry; and certain Californians have confirmed this view of the matter; but it
is nearly certain that Castro neither received nor pretended to have received
any such instructions. General orders, with which the reader is familiar, were
more than sufficient to justify Castro’s measures in the eyes of the national
government; while Fremont’s actions afforded ample justification from a legal
and equitable point of view.19
Fremont not only did not obey the orders of the authorities, but he did
not even vouchsafe a written reply in explanation of his past action or present
determination. He merely sent back a verbal refusal to
18 March 5,1845, Joa^ Caatroto
Fr&nont; Prefect Caatroto Fremont, both transcribed to Larkin; L. to U. S.
sec. state, with copiea—all English translations not agreeing verbally with
each other—in Larkin’s Off. Oorresp., MS.,ii. 42-4, 147; Niles' Beg., lxxi.
189. Later correct translation hy Hittell of the prefect’s order in S. I?.
Alta, June 15, 1866, and from that source copied in Lancey’s Cruise, 38; Yolo
Co. Hist., 14; and varioua newapapers. Castro's original blotter I have in
Hittell, Papeles llistdricos de 1846, MS., no. 2. This is a collection of half
a dozen originals pertaining to the Fremont affair preaented to my Library by John
S. Hittell, a most important contribution. The order in question is as follows:
‘I have learned with much displeasure that you in disregard of the laws and
authorities of the Mex. repub. have entered the pueblos of this district under
my charge, with an armed force on a commission which the govt of your nation
must have given you to survey solely ita own territory. Therefore, this
prefecture ordera you aa soon as you receive this communication, without any
excuse, to retire with your men beyond the limits of this department; it being
understood that if you do not do it, this prefecture will adopt the necessary
measures to make you respect this determination. ’ Thia waa also Bent to
Larkin, with the following note on the same sheet: ‘On this date I say to Capt.
Fremont, etc. [as above]; and I have the honor to transcribe it to your honor
for your knowledge, and iu order that so far as it may pertain to you, you may
demand of Capt. Fremont compliance with what is ordered m the said note.’
Yours, etc.
19 In Lancey’s Cruise, 38; S.
Josi Pioneer, March 24,1877, a rumor is mentioned that a man named Green
warned Castro that F. was plotting to unite with the foreigners and take the
country; but this has no support.
A CHALLENGE TO THE CALIFOKNIANS. 11
obey, which was virtually a challenge. Then he moved his camp to the
summit of the Gavilan Peak, hastily erected fortifications, and raised over his
fort the flag of the United States. It was a hasty, foolish, and altogether
unjustifiable step.20 On March 6th, the same day that Fremont began
the construction of his log fort, General Castro stated the case very fairly in
a report to the minister of war, as follows: “This man presented himself at my
headquarters some days ago, with the object of asking permission to procure provisions
for his men, whom he had left in the mountains—which was given him. But two
days ago I was much surprised at being informed that he was only two days’
journey from this place. Consequently I at once sent him a communication,
ordering him, on the instant of its receipt, to put himself on the march and
leave the department. But I have received no answer, and in order to make him
obey in case of resistance, I sent a force to observe his operations, and
to-day I march in person to join it and to see that the object is attained.”21
On the same day Larkin wrote to the general and prefect, not criticising their
orders, but urging caution in selecting an officer to command the force to be
sent to Gavilan, so as to avoid a possibly needless conflict growing out of
false rumors and deceptive appearances. Evidently the consul did not
20 The only possible excuse for
the step—one never made, so far as I know, hy Fremont or any of his
friends—might be found in a statement of Alvarado, Hist. Oal., MS., v. 159,
etc., that Lieut Chavez, who was sent by Castro to the camp, did not deliver
the written order, hilt a verbal one instead, in very violent and insulting
terms. This statement is not, however, supported by any other testimony.
21 March 6th, Castro to mill, of
war. Translation in Lancey’s Cruise, 39; Yolo Co. Hist., 14-15. There are added
to what I have quoted the usual assurances of patriotic determination, etc., A
lo Mejieano. This communication is referred to in a later one of April 1st, in
Monitor Republicano, May 10, 1846; Niles’ Keg., lxxi. 187-8, in which Castro
says: ‘This officer, failing in the respect due to the laws of the republic and
the authorities of the country, introduced himself into the midst of the
population of the department, with a respectahle force, under the pretext of
coming with a scientific commission from his govt; and treating with contempt
the notice referred to, he took possession of the heights of the sierra, having
made only a verbal reply.. . that he would remain on that spot prepared to
resist any force that should attack them.’
quite comprehend Fremont’s movements, but thought either that Castro’s
orders had not been clearly understood, since he now sent copies and
translations of those orders, or that the captain had secret instructions from
his government.22
On the 7th there was no correspondence to be noted except an unimportant
note from the general to the prefect.23 Next day the prefect, in a
reply to Larkin, maintained that his orders to Fremont had not been founded on
‘false reports or appearances,’ as implied, but on the laws and oft-repeated
instructions from Mexico; complained that the consul, instead of ordering
Fremont to depart, had to a certain extent defended his entry; and urged him
to impress on the captain the necessity of submitting at once if he would avert
the consequences of his illegal entry—whether it had been from malice or error.24
Larkin enclosed this letter to Frdmont with one of his own in which he warned
that officer, without venturing to criticise his policy, that Castro would soon
have at least 200 men in arms against him. “It is not for me to point out to
you your line of conduct,” he wrote; “you have your instructions from the
government; my knowledge of your character obliges me to believe you will
follow them; you are of course taking every care and safeguard to protect your
men, but not knowing your actual situation and the people who surround you,
“March 6th, Larkin to the Castros. Castro, Doc., MS., i. 151; ii. 32-3;
Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS., i. 79; Hittell, Pap. Hist., MS., no. 4; Niles’
Peg., lxxi. 188; Sawyer’s Doe., MS., 4-5. Same date, L. to Fremont, with copies
of the orders. Id., 4.
23 Mar-. 7th, JosSto Manuel Castro from Tucho rancho. ‘Capt. Fremont came
down this morning with 40 men in search of La Torre’s party, advising some
raneheros not to join either side. It is a declaration. If you can move some
force, take the P&jaro road to S. Juan. If not, join Narvaez, to whom I
send an order to quarter all the men he can in the govt house, securing the
artillery.’ Yours, etc. Original in Hittell, Pap. Hist., MS., no. 3.
24Mar. 8th, C. to L. Doe. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 286; Larkin’s Off.
Corresp., MS., ii. 148; Hittell, Pap. Hist., MS.; 4; Sawyer’s Doe.,
MS., 5-7; Niles' Reg., lxxi. 188. On an original translation, Larkin notes that
Castro has misinterpreted his note. In Sawyer’s Doe., MS., 26, there is a copy
of a procl. by Gen. Castro on Mar. 8th. The first part is almost literally the
same as that of Mar. 13th, to be noted later, and with which Sawyer confounds
it. The last part is a call to arms with a view to ‘lance the ulcer,’ etc. Its
genuineness may be doubted.
your care may prove insufficient. . .Your encamping so near town has
caused much excitement. The natives are firm in the belief that they will
break you up, and that you can be entirely destroyed by their power. In all
probability they will attack you; the result either way may cause trouble
hereafter to resident Americans. . . Should it be impossible or inconvenient
for you to leave California at present, I think,, in a proper representation to
the general and prefecto, an arrangement could be made for your camp to be
continued,but at some greater distance; which arrangement I should advise if
you can offer it.”25 This letter was not forwarded till the 9th,
when one copy was intrusted to a Californian and another to an American
courier.26 On the same day Larkin wrote to John Parrott at Mazatlan,
enclosing with copies of past correspondence an explanation of the critical
situation of affairs, and a request that a man-of-war be sent to California
with the least possible delay. These despatches, with another to the secretary
of state, were sent to Santa Barbara to overtake the Hannah, which had a few
days before left Monterey for Mazatlan. The result was to hasten the coming of
the Portsmouth,. which arrived in April.27
Larkin’s communications to Frdmont, sent by an American whose name does
not appear, were inter
25 March 8th, L. to F. Larkin’s Off. Gorresp., MS., i. 80; Sawyer’s Doc.,.
MS., 8-11; Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 188. L. offers to visit the camp.
20L.’s letter of March 27th, in Fr&mont’s Gal. Claims, 67, and
elsewhere. March 8th, L.’s instructions to the couriers. They were to show
their despatches to any official who might demand to see them; but if forcibly
deprived of their papers, to note who took them and tell Fremont of what had
occurred, warning him also to beware of treachery or attack by night, and not to
expect regular warfare. The couriers were to start the next day (Monday).
Larkin’s Off. Gorresp.,IAS., i. 72; Sawyer’s Doc., MS., 7-8.
21 March
9th, L. to sec. state. Larkin’s Off. Gorresp., MS., ii. 44; Niles’ Reg., lxxi.
189; Frimont’s Gal. Claims, 65. In this despatch, L. complains: ‘Having had
over half of my hospital expenses of 1844 cut off, and know not why, and even
my bill for a flag, I do not feel disposed to hazard much for govt, though the
life of Capt. Fremont and party may need it. I hardly know howto act.’ March
9th, L. to the commander of any U. S. ship-of-war at Mazatlan or S. Bias.
Larkin's Off. Gorresp., MS., i. 82-3; Sawyer's Doc., MS., 13-16. March 9th, L.
to Parrott. Frimont’s Gal. Claims, 65; Lancey’s- Cruise, 39-40.
cepted by Castro, and a little later sent to Mexico.23
Prudencio Espinosa, however, succeeded in reaching the explorers’ camp with the
duplicates; and he came back at 8 p. m. on the 9th with a note in pencil from
Fremont—his only communication from the camp on the Cerro del Gavilan—which was
as follows: “I this moment received your letters, and without waiting to read
them, acknowledge the receipt, which the courier requires instantly. I am
making myself as strong as possible, in the intention that if we are unjustly
attacked we will fight to extremity and refuse quarter (!), trusting to our
country to avenge our death. No one has reached my camp, and from the heights
we are able to see troops—with the glass— mustering at St John’s and preparing
cannon. I thank you for your kindness and good wishes, and would write more at
length as to my intentions did I not fear that my letter would be intercepted.
We have in no wise dong wrong to the people, or the authorities of the
country, and if we are hemmed in and assaulted here, we will die, every man of
us, under the flag of our country. P. S.—I am encamped on the top of the
sierra, at the head waters of a stream which strikes the road to Monterey at
the house of Don Joaquin Gomez.”29
28 April 4th, Prefect Castro to
min. of rel., enclosing the captured letters. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 157.
He sends them as proof of bad faith on the part of both Larkin and Fremont.
29 March 9tli (the original
bears no date, and most of the printed copies are dated on the 10th, but on an
original translation in Hittell, Pap. Hist. MS., 6, Larkin certifies that the
note was received ‘last night at 8 o’clock ’ and that he has allowed a
translation to be made at request of Alcalde Diaz to prove that he, the consul,
had no improper correspondence with Fremont and also in hopes to ‘mitigar la
sensacion actual’), F. to L., in Larkin’s Off Corresp., MS., i. 62-3; Niles’
Her/., lxxi. 188; Fremont’s Cal. Claims, 65-0; Cutts’ Conq., 149-50; Sawyer’s
Doc., MS., 11-12; Lancet/’a Cruise, 40; Yolo Co. Hist., 15, etc. March 10th,
receipt of Espinosa for $27.50 for carrying the despatches. Monterey, Consulate
Arch., MS., ii. 14. March 10th, Alcalde Diaz to Manuel Castro. Espinosa was
told by us to present himself to you before carrying the despatches. All of us
think that by means of a conference all differences with Fremont might be
settled. Castro, Doc. Hist. Cal. MS., ii. 37. The phrase ‘refuse quarter’in
FriSmont’s note was translated by Hartnell ‘will not give quarter’ (sin dar
cnartel), and was naturally not pleasing to the Californians. March 19th,
Larkin asks Stearns to correct the alleged error in the governor’s copy, the
true meaning being ‘will not accept quarter.’ Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS., i.
90.
CASTRO’S HOSTILE PREPARATIONS.
15
Espinosa had carried the despatches under a passport from Alcalde Diaz,
and on his return, at the request of that official, Larkin furnished
translations of those despatches and of Fremont’s reply, taking occasion to
suggest to the authorities the importance of holding a conference with Fremont
before resorting to force.30 Meanwhile Castro had continued his military
preparations, about which we know little beyond the fact that he collected
about two hundred men at San Juan. I have statements from several Californians
who were with the army; but except some petty details and personal
incidents—more interesting than accurate as a rule—they add nothing to our
knowledge of the campaign. Most of them agree that Castro was less eager for
an attack than some of his subordinates, for which he was unfavorably criticised.31
As a matter of course, General Castro did
80 March 10th, Alcalde Diaz to Larkin, asking for a translation of
Fremont’s letter, hoping it may contribute to allay the present excitement.
Sawyer’s Col. Doc., 16. Same date Larkin to Diaz with the translation (already
referred to as in my possession), and suggesting an hour’s conversation
between Castro and Fremont. Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS., i. 86; Vallejo, Doc.,
MS., xii. 188; Sawyer's Doc., MS., 17-18; Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 190. L. says he
knows not if F. will approve his act in giving up the letter, and that he has
no authority over that officer, but is anxious to prevent a useless shedding
of blood. Same date (11th by error), Diaz to Castro, forwarding the note
obtained from Larkin. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 134. Also a private note from
Diaz to Castro, urging that a conference could do no harm, all at Monterey
thinking it might prevent hostilities. Hittell, Pap. Hist., MS., 5. -Same date,
L. to F., with information of what he had done. ‘My native courier said he was
well treated by you—that 2,000 men could not drive you. In all cases of
couriers, order your men to have no hints or words with them, as it is
magnified; this one said a man pointed to a tree and said, “There’s your life.”
He expected to be led to you blindfolded; says you have 62 men,’ etc. Larkin's
Off. Corresp., MS., i. 84; Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 190. According to Phelps, Fore
and Aft, 27980, Godey, one of Frfimont’s men, had come in to Monterey; and if
this was so, he doubtless was the messenger who took Larkin’s letter. Phelps
was there at the time, and says he also wrote to Fremont, offering any
assistance in his power, and telling him that if driven to any point on the
coast he would take him and his party on board his vessel. It is strange,
however, that Godey, if he was at Monterey on the 10th, had nothing to say
about Fremont’s
31 Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., v.
159-71; Rico, Mem., MS., 17-19; Torre, Remin., MS., 137—44; Castro, Rel., MS.,
165-72; Escobar, Camp., MS., p. 2-7; German, Sacesos, MS., 6-9, 17-18. Also
narratives by Californians not personally engaged in the campaign, in Vallejo,
Hist. Cal., MS., v. 97-106; Fernandez, Cosas, MS., 123-7; Carrillo, Narr.,
MS., 9-10; Osio, Hist. Cid., MS., 457-60; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 138-9;
Cfuerra, in Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iv.
1003-4; Pinto, Apunt., MS., 99-100; Botello, Anales, MS., 130-1; Larios,
Convulsiones, MS., 24; Ezquer, Mem., MS., 21; Gomez, Lo Que Sabe, MS.,
not wish to attack Frdmont. A much braver man than he would have
hesitated to lead his men up the steep sides of the Gavilan Peak against a
force of sixty expert riflemen, protected by a barricade of logs—especially
when there was no necessity for such a foolhardy movement. Castro had ordered
Fremont to quit the country, and he hoped that a show of military preparation,
together with Larkin’s influence, would induce him to obey. His cause was a
just one, his policy was prudent, his orders—up to this point at least—-were
moderate and dignified in style, and his plans were successful. He was not very
brave himself, nor were his men efficient soldiers; but it was their good
fortune not to have their valor and efficiency put to the test on this
occasion. Revere, Phelps, Tuthill, Lancey, and to greater or less extent most
others whose writings on the subject have appeared in print, have exhausted
their vocabulary of ridicule and abuse in picturing the treachery and cowardice
and braggadocio of Castro’s actions in this affair. Their versions are amusing
from a dime-novel standpoint; but Castro’s brilliant evolutions in the plain,
his boastful challenges to combat, his desperate charges up the hill just out
of rifle-range, like the patient waiting of Fremont’s gallant band day after
day in the vain hope of an attack by the foe—have no foundation more
substantial than the lively and patriotic imagination of the writers cited.32
Of the two, Fremont made by far the greater fool of himself.
276-80; Garnica, Recuerdos, MS., 10-11; Amador,
Mem,, MS., 165. Though the Californian
narratives add nothing to what we learn from contemporary corresp. on the
events of March 1846, yet many of them give a very fair and unprejudiced
version of those events.
Martin, one of Fremont’s men, Narrative, MS., 11-12, gives a very inaccurate
account of the operations around Gavilan. Wm F. Swasey, Cal. ’45-6, MS., 5-7,
tells us that from S. Jos6 John Daubenbiss was sent by Weber to the north for
aid, while the writer was sent to Fremont’s camp to tell him what was being
done for him. Swasey and Julius Martin were, however, captured by Castro near
S. Juan, and were unable to carry out their mission. He learned at Gomez rancho
that F. had left his camp. Mention of the Gavilan affair in Bidvxll’s Cal.
1841-8, MS., p. 155-6; Belden’s Hint. Statement, MS.. 45-6. Bidwell disapproves
Fremont’s actions.
32 Revere’s Tour, 46-8; Phelps’ Fore and
Aft, 277-84; Tuthill's Hist.
THE GAVILAN CAMP ABANDONED.
17
Early on the 10th, Prefect Castro sent out a summons to the people of
the north, calling upon them to join the force at San Juan, and aid in the work
of repelling invasion and vindicating the national honor.33 The
response did not come until the occasion for alarm was past, which was indeed
but a few hours later; for before noon of the same day, Castro learned through
his scouts that the camp on the Gavilan had
Gal.,
163-5; Lancey’s Cruise, 39-43. Of each of these works there is much to be said
in praise, as will be seen elsewhere; but in this matter they have given
themselves up entirely to patriotism, prejudice, and burlesque. Thomas H. Benton, in his letter of Nov. 9, 1846, Niles' Reg., lxxi. 173-4,
struck the key-note of the abuse showered upon Castro ever since. Benton,
however, made an absurd blunder, though excusable at the time, through his
ignorance of Californian geography. Castro, according to this writer, gave
Fremont permission to winter with his troops in the S. Joaquin Valley, but no
sooner had P. brought his men ‘ to that beautiful valley ’ than Castro prepared
to attack him on the pretext that he was exciting Americans to revolt! The sec.
of war in his report of Dec. 5th takes a similar view briefly. //. Ex. Doc. no.
4, p. 50, 29th cong. 2d sess.
Other printed accounts of Fremont’s operations—besides the documentary ones
so often cited in Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 188-90, and Frimont’s Cal. Claims,
1848—are found in Gutts’ Gonq., 142-52, with some documents; SouU’s Annals,
91; Bigelow's Memoirs of Frimont, 136; Upham’s Life of Frdmont, 211— 16; Sail’s
Hist. S. Josi, 142-3; Ripley’s War with Mex., i. 286-92; Mbll- hausen,
Tagebuch, 289-90; Walpole’s Four Years, ii. 206-7; Honolulu Friend,
iv. 153-4; Frignet, Gal., 68.
33 March 10th, prefect to sub-prefect of
Yerba Buena, and by him transcribed to the com. of the northern line. Vallejo,
Doe., MS., xii. 189; Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 39. March 10th, Alcalde Diaz to
prefect. All tranquil at Monterey. Citizens anxiously awaiting news. Id., ii.
37. March 11th, same to same. No signs of outbreak amoDg the foreigners. Id., ii. 47. March 11th, Andr6s Castillero at Sta
Clara to Vallejo. The writer will at once join Castro. Lancey’s Cruise, 40.
March 12th, Sub-prefect Guerrero at Yerba Buena to the receptor, asking for
funds to huy war material for the men who inarch to the defence of country and
laws, ‘ sufocados por una fuerza armada estrangera.’ Pinto, Doc., MS., ii. 227.
March 14th, a courier sent by Marsh announced Fremont’s position at Sutter’s
Fort. N. Helv. Diai-y, MS., 39; but 17th according to Suiter’s Diary,
7. March 14th, Guerrero from Sierra Mo- rena to prefect, narrating the
preparations under his orders. He had raised 52 men, including some naturalized
foreigners and Englishmen; Estudillo had raised 38 men (in Contra Costa?), and
they had marched to S. Jos£. Now that Fremont had retreated, the men would like
at least to go to the Alto del Gavilan to raise the Mexican flag. All were
ready in case of new alarms. Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 49. March 14th, Com.
Sanchez to corporal in command at S. Rafael. He must come with all his men to join the force at S. Juan. Vallejo,
Doc., MS., xii. 193. March 14th, 15th, Vallejo at Sonoma to authorities of S.
Rafael, and to the people of the north. A stirring appeal to rally for the
defence of Mexican sovereignty. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 185, 188-9, 195-6.
March 15th, Alcalde Pacheco of S. Jos6 to Castro, on the patriotism and
warlike spirit of the people of his town, who now have been permitted to
retire to their farms, etc. Hittell, Pap. Hist., MS., 7. March 17th-21st,
Clyman, Diary and Note-Book, encamped at the head of Napa Valley, heard of the
Fremont affair and of the call upon all citizens to assemble at Sonoma for
defence. On the 22d he heard of Fremont’s flight.
Hist. Cal., Vol. V. 2
been abandoned in the night—that of March 9th- 10th; and still later in
the day it was ascertained that Frdmont had moved off eastward and fortified
another camp. Next morning, John Gilroy is said to have been sent by Castro
with a message, but to have found the second camp also deserted, its occupants
having continued their retreat to the San Joaquin.34 Naturally the
Californian chiefs were jubilant at Frd- mont’s flight, which they, somewhat
pardonably under the circumstances, regarded as a great victory for themselves.
The citizen soldiers were dismissed to their homes, with instructions to hold
themselves in readiness for action should the attempted invasion be renewed;
and the leaders, in their proclamations to the people and reports to their
superiors announcing results, indulged rather freely in the gasconade deemed an
essential part of such documents. It is fair to state, however, that this
feature of the documents in question has been most grossly exaggerated, writers
having gone so far even as to print imaginary despatches—some of them “signed with
gunpowder on the field of battle.” The purport of the genuine documents—-of
which I translate in a note the one that
s< March 10th, Prefect Castro to
Alcalde Diaz, acknowledging receipt of letter of same date -with copy of
Fremont’s note, and announcing that the fort had been abandoned. Doc. Hist.
Gal., MS., iii. 132. Larkin in his report of March 27tli, Niles' Beg., lxxi.
189, etc., states that in a postscript to a letter written on the evening of
the 10th, Gen. Castro said ‘ that Capt. Fremont had crossed a small river, and
was then about three miles distant from them. ’ L. also mentioned Gilroy’s
mission. In later years a rumor has gained currency that Gilroy was sent to
suggest an arrangement by which the forces of Fremont and Castro were to unite,
declare Cal. independent, and march against Pico! It would require the
strongest of confirmatory proofs—and there exists not the slightest evidence—to
outweigh the inherent absurdity of this rumor though it has been advanced as a
fact by Lancey and others. Gilroy was sent to F., if at all, either in
accordance with Larkin’s recommendation in favor of a conference (see note 30),
or merely as a spy to learn F.’s position and intentions. Another current
rumor among the Californians, which seems to have but little foundation in fact
or probability, is to the effect that Capistrano Lopez, Castro’s scout,
revealed to F. the preparations that were hein" made against him,
receiving gold for the information. The exact locality°of F.’s second
camp—somewhere in the hills east of S. Juan—is not known to me. In his map,
with U. S. Govt Doc., 31st cong. 1st sess., H. Ex. Doc., 17, two crossings are
indicated, one by the Pacheco Pass, and another hy the S. Juan Pass farther
south. Pinto, Ajtwnt., MS., 99, says the route was by Tres Pinos and
Carrizalito; he adds that many foolish people have tried to find the a large
sum of money which Frfeiont by tradition had been forced to bury.
gave most offence—was that certain audacious adventurers, who had dared
to raise a foreign flag on Californian soil, had been induced to flee
ignominiously at the sight of two hundred patriots resolved to defend their
country, leaving behind a part of their camp equipage—for Fremont had abandoned
in one of his camps a few worn-out articles not worth removing.3'
35 March 12th, Gen. Castro to alcalde of S. Jos6. Fremont lias fled. Men to
be disbanded with thanks. S. Josi, Arch., Loose Papers, 35. Prefect Castro to
same effect. Id,., 25. March 14th, similar communication. Id., 36. March 13th, Gen.
Castro’s proclamation to the people (see below), in Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxxiv.
186. This was posted in the billiard-saloon, and Larkin tried without success
to get a copy of it. Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS., i. 87; Niles' Re;7., lxxi.
190; Sawyer's Doc., MS., 25-6. Sawyer copies a translation of an earlier
proclamation as the one posted in the billiard-room. March 14th, Prefect Castro
to Gov. Pico. A report of the whole affair, enclosing past corresp., etc. Doc.
Ilist. Cal., MS., iii. 150; Dept. St. Pitp., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS., ii.
88-90. March 14th, Sub-prefect
Guerrero to Vallejo, announcing Fremont’s flight ‘ en virtud de haber visto el
entusiasmo de los hijos del pais.’ Vallejo,
Doc., MS., xii. 194. March 19th, Leidesdorff to Larkin. The news is that F.
has run away, leaving a green cloak, 3 or 4 axes, some cash(!), and cooking
utensils. Larkin’s Doc., MS., iv. 72. No date, Rico to Castro. Rumor that F.
was coming hack to renew the struggle. He had told the rancheros to remain
neutral or the devil would carry them off. Castro, Doc., MS., i. 129.
Later communications, in which events of the Gavilan are narrated, and
which I have had occasion to quote already, are as follows; March 27th, Larkin
to sec. state, in Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 45-7; Miles’ Reg., lxxi.
189; Frimont’s Cal. Claims, 66-8; Cutts’ Conq., 145-6. The writer takes some
pains in this and other letters to show that F. moved away leisurely, and not
from fear of Castro. April 1st, Gen. Castro to min. of war, from Monitor Sepublicano,
May 10th, in Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 187-8, criticised by Benton in Id., lxxi.
Castro writes: ‘ Having organized a force of 150 men, I went to the vicinity of
the sierra where Fremont had intrenched himself under the American flag. I was
prepared to attack him in the night of the 10th, when he, taking advantage of
the darkness, abandoned the fortification, doubtless precipitately, as we found
there the next day some iron instruments and other things; and in trying to
find the trail to know what direction they took, it was impossible on account
of their having withdrawn in complete dispersion. This obliged me to stay for
some days, until by some persons from the Tulares I was informed that the
adventurers were taking the road by the river to the north.’ April 2d, Larkin
to sec. state. Similar in purport to that of March 27th. Thinks that F., who
had been in no real danger, has gone to Sta Barbara. Larkin’s Off. Corresp.,
MS., ii. 48-9; Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 189-90. April 4th, Prcfect Castro to min. of
rel. Doc. Ilist. Cal., MS., iii. 157. April 18th, L. to sec. state. Castro and
the rest state, and writer is inclined to believe, that the Californians had
no intention of attacking F., but acted solely for effect in Mexico! Larkin’s
Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 51.
Castro’s proclamation of March 13th, the original of which is in my possession,
may be literally translated as follows: ‘Fellow-citizens—a party of highwaymen
who, without respecting the laws or authorities of the department, boldly
entered the country under the leadership of Don J. C. Fr&nont, captain in
the U. S. army, have disobeyed the orders of this comandancia general and of
the prefecture of the 2d district, by which said leader was notified immediately
to march beyond the bounds of our territory; and without replying
Fremont’s act in defying the Californian authorities and raising the
stars and stripes over his Gavilan camp had been, as we have seen, a most
unwise and unjustifiable one. He had taken the step under a rash impulse of
the moment, strengthened by the advice of irresponsible followers. As a United
States officer, he had put himself in a false and compromising position—and
this even if it be admitted that he had been unfairly treated by Castro, which
was by no means true. A little reflection made clear to him the error he had
committed. Having once taken the step, nothing remained but to retreat, or to
raise the standard of revolt in favor of independence, and call on resident
foreigners to support him. What he saw with his field-glass at San Juan
indicated that he must decide promptly; and Larkin’s communication threw
additional light on the real state of affairs. Fremont was not yet prepared to
declare himself openly a filibuster; and though it was a severe blow to his
pride, he was obliged to run away. Larkin’s letter arrived late in the
afternoon of March 9th, and in the darkness of the same night the brave
explorers—for their bravery is unquestionable, despite their retreat and the
absurd fame of dime-novel heroes accorded them by many writers—left their
famous camp on the Gavilan.36 Frdmont’s method of excusing his
blunder was to say very little about it in detail, to allude to
to the said notes in writing, the said captain merely sent a verbal
message that on the Sierra del Gavilan he was prepared to resist the forces
which the authorities might send to attack him. The following measures of this
command and of the prefecture, putting in action all possible elements,
produced as a result that he at the sight of 200 patriots abandoned the camp
which he occupied, leaving in it some clothing and other war material, and
according to the scouts took the route to the Tulares. Compatriots, the act of
unfurling the American flag on the hills, the insults and threats offered to
the authorities, are worthy of exccration and hatred from Mexicans; prepare,
then, to defend our independence in order that united we may repel with a
strong hand the audacity of men who, receiving every mark of true hospitality
in our country, repay with such ingratitude the favors obtained from our cordiality
and benevolence. Headquarters at San Juan Bautista, March 13, 1846.’
36Martin, Narr., MS., 12, tells us that they left the fort on receipt of orders
from Larkin. This suggests the idea that Fr6mont may very likely have put the
matter in that light before his men, who were naturally not pleased ’vith the
retreat, and who knew little of a consul’s powers.
THE CAPTAIN’S DEFENCE.
21
Castro’s broken promise, and to imply rather than state direetly—the rest
being left to enthusiastic friends—that he acted iu self-defence, Castro having
raised the whole country in arms against him. The reader knows, however, not
only that Castro broke no promise, but that he made no threats of attack except
in case his order to quit the district should be disobeyed — an order which
Fremont could have obeyed quite as well on the 6th as on the 10th of March. In
a letter to Mrs Fremont, written a little later, the captain says: “About the
middle of next month, at latest, I will start for home. The Spaniards were
somewhat rude and inhospitable below, and ordered us out of the country after
having given me permission to winter there. My sense of duty did not permit me
to fight them, but we retired slowly and growlingly before a force of three or
four hundred men and three pieces of artillery. Without a shadow of a cause,
the governor suddenly raised the whole country against us, issuing a false and
scandalous proclamation. Of course I did not dare to compromise the United
States, against which appearances would have been strong; but though it was in
my power to increase my party by many Americans, I refrained from committing a
solitary act of hostility or impropriety. For my own part, I have become
disgusted with everything belonging to the Mexicans. Our government will not
require me to return by the southern route against the will of this government;
I shall therefore return by the heads of the Missouri.”37 To what
extent these statements are true or false, the reader can judge.
Descending into the great valley, perhaps by the Pacheco Pass, on March
11th, Frdmont crossed the San Joaquin in boats on the 13th, reached the Stan-
31 April 1st, F. on the Sacramento to Mrs F. Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 190.
Hittell, Hist. S. F., 99, etc., gives briefly a correct view of Fremont’s
operations. He seems to be the only prominent ■writer who has not been led astray in this matter.
Gilbert, in Yolo Co. Hist., also takes a correct view of the matter, as do a
few other writers in similar publications.
islaus the 16th, and arrived at New Helvetia the 21st, pitching his camp
just across the American River. Three clays later he moved on up the valley,
visiting Keyser’s rancho on Bear River, Cordua s on the Yuba, and Neal’s on
Butte Creek, and arriving at Lassen’s on Deer Creek the 30th of March. The
company remained here until April 5th; and after a week strip up the valley to
Cow Creek and back, they encamped again at Lassen’s on April 11th—14th.38
While in the Sacramento Valley, Fremont sent Talbot down the river to
obtain supplies at Yerba Buena.39, He also sent out men in various
directions to buy horses from the Indians, a transaction that appears not to
have given entire satisfaction to the former owners of the stolen animals.
Testimony on this subject is, however, not of the best.40 Carson and
Martin relate that while at Lassen’s, the explorers were called upon by the
settlers for aid against the Indians, who were threatening a general attack.
The reSult was a raid in which the Indians were defeated at their village, a
large number being slain in the battle.41
Yet another episode of the stay in this region was a
38 Friniont’s Geog. Mem., 20-7,
57; Sutter’s Diary, 7; Martin’s Narr., MS., ]2; Lancey’s Cruise, 43-5. One of
F.’s men arrived at Sutter’s on the 20th. N. Helv. Diary, MS., 39. Sutter,
Personal Remin., MS., 138, etc., describes Fremont’s actions at this time as
having been very mysterious and suspicious.
39 Phelps’ Fore and Aft, 283.
Talbot left Sutter’s on the launch on March 26th. N. Helv. Diary, MS. He returned
April 9th. Id.' April 16th, Leides-
dorff writes that he is daily expecting a draft from Fremont on account of
money and supplies furnished since he left S. Juan. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS.,
iii. 172.
40Martin, Narr., MS., 12-13, tells us that Godey and himself were sent to
the Tulares, and purchased 187 animalsvery cheap. Sutter, Person. Remin., MS.,
145-8, mentions the purchase of horses in the' valley, and says he wrote to F.
at Lassen’s, urging him to leave the stolen animals behind, a letter which was
not answered, and the writing of which F. never forgave. This story is probably
true, as Sutter made a similar statement, and enclosed a copy of his letter in
a communication to Castro of May 31st. 21 horses that had been stolen from
settlers had been taken away to Oregon. Castro, Doe., MS., ii. 41.
41 Peters’ Life of Kit Carson, 254; Martin’s Narr., MS., 13-14. Carson
tells us that the Ind. were preparing to attack the rancheros, ‘ probably at
the instigation of the Mexicans’! Martin says that more than 175 Ind. were
slain in less than three hours, they having been attacked while engaged in a
war- dance. Lancey, Cruise, 44, loeates the fight on Reading’s rancho.
grand fiesta, or barbecue, given by Fremont’s men to a party of
immigrants who were encamped in the valley, having come from Oregon the year
before, and being now engaged in preparations for a return trip, some to
Oregon, others to the States. The feasting and dancing—there were women in the
immigrant company, though border men could dance without female partners upon
occasion—lasted two days; and an Indian servant who was present carried south
the sensational report that the assemblage was one of two hundred armed
foreigners, whose purpose was to fall upon Monterey a,s soon as Indian
reenforcements could be obtained from Oregon !42 Clyman, one of the
immigrants who proposed to quit the country, though not apparently one of
those present at the barbecue, desired to unite his company to that of Frdmont
for the return trip—or, as he claims, for a movement against the Californians—but
his proposition was declined.43
Leaving Lassen’s on or about April 14th, Frdmont proceeded northward to
Oregon.44 On May 8th,
“May 6th, sub-prefect to prefect. Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 79; Dept. St.
Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS., ii. 85. May 31st, Sutter to Castro. Castro,
Doc., MS., ii. 41. See also Martin’s Narr., 14-15. The Indian was an exneophyte
of S. Jos6 named Antolino, who was at work for Francis Day.
43 Clijman's Note Boole, MS., 18, 2G-7. A letter from Fremont is copied
from the original in Clyman’s possession. In the copy it is dated, ‘Camp on
Feather River, Dec. 19. 1845,’ but this of coursc is all wrong. The letter, if
genuine, which there is no other reason to doubt, must have been written in
March or April 1846. Clyman and party started for the states at the end of
April from Johnson’s rancho. I quote the letter as showing, in connection with
that of April 1st to Mrs Fremont, the captain’s feelings and plans. ‘Your favor
of the 21st ult. has been received through the kindness of Mr Flint.. .1 am
placed in a peculiar position. Having carried out to the best of my ability my
instructions to explore the far west, I see myself on the eve of my departure
for home confronted by the most perplexing complications.
I have received information
to the effect that a declaration of war between our government and Mexico is
probable, but so far this news has not been confirmed. The Californian
authorities object to my presence here, and threaten to overwhelm me. If peace
is preserved, I have no right or business here; if war ensues, I shall be
outuumbered ten to one, and be compelled to make good my retreat, pressed by a
pursuing enemy. It seems that the only way open to me is to make my way back
eastward, and as a military man you must perceive at once that an increase of
my command would only encumber and not assist my retreat through a region where
wild game is the only thing procurable in the way of food. Under these
circumstances, I must make my way back alone, and gratefully decline your offer
of a company of hardy warriors.’
uFrimowt’s
Geog. Mem., 31-2, 57-8; Fremont’s map in U. S. Govt Doc.,
having passed up by the western shore of Klamath Lake, he encamped near
the north end of that body <;f water. Late that evening two horsemen, Samuel
Neal and William Sigler, rode into camp with the news that a United States
officer was two days behind with despatches, protected by a small escort and
probably in great danger. Next morning Frdmont took nine of his men, Carson,
Maxwell, Godey, Owens, Lajeunesse, and four Delawares, hastened back with Neal
and Sigler, and after a ride of some twenty-five miles—not sixty miles as was
claimed at the time and has been often repeated he met at nightfall Lieutenant
Archibald H. Gillespie. This officer, of whose arrival I shall have more to say
presently, had reached Sutter’s April 28th, and Lassen’s the 1st of May. From
that point, with only five companions, Lassen, Neal, Sigler, Stepp, and a negro
servant named Ben, he started May 2d on Fremont’s trail. On the 7th the two men
were sent in advance, and the others encamped at the outlet of Klamath Lake,
unable to ford the river, and having nothing to eat for forty hours. On the
morning of the 9th, a party of Indians made their appearance, who in great
apparent kindness gave the travellers a fresh salmon for food, and ferried them
over the water in canoes. After a day’s journey of some thirty miles, Gillespie
met Fremont at sunset, as related, at a stream named from the events of that
night Ambuscade Creek.45
31st cong. 1st sess., H. Ex. no. 17. The route is indicated by the
following stations: Deer Creek, April 14th; Mill Cr., Antelope Cr., Nozah Cr.
(opposite Cottonwood Cr.), April 25th; Brant’s Cr., 26th; Campbell’s Cr., 27th;
Upper Sacramento (Pit River) above Fall River, 29th; same, upper end of Round
Valley, 30th; Rhett Lake, eastern shore, May 1st; McCrady’s River, 4th; Denny’s
branch, 6th; Ambuscade Cr., 7th; north end of Klamath Lake, 8th, 3th—and
returning—Corral Cr., Torrey River, Wetowah Cr. (all running into the east side
of Klamath Lake), 11th, 12th, 14th; Russell’s branch, 19th; l’oinsett’s River,
20tli; Myers’ branch, 21st; and Deer Cr., or Lassen’s, May 24th.
45Fremont’s testimony in Frimont’s Cal. Claims, 12; Gillespie in Id,., 301;
Gillespie to Larkin from Lassen’s May 24th, in Larkin's Doc., MS., iv. 134; May
24th, Fremont to Benton. Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 190; Sutter’s Diary, 7; Yolo Co. Hist.,
15-16; 151-2; Lancey's Cruise, 45-8; Biduuell's Cal. 1841-8,
The sixteen tired travellers retired early after the two parties were
united on May 9th, and were soon sleeping soundly—Fremont sitting up later than
the rest to read his despatches and letters from home. The Indians were deemed
friendly, and no watch was kept. Just before midnight the camp was attacked by
savages. Basil Lajeunesse and a Delaware were killed as they slept, by blows
from axes. The sound of these blows aroused Carson and Owens, who gave the
alarm; when the Indians fled, after killing with their arrows a Delaware named
Crane, and leaving dead a chief of their number, who proved to be the very man
from whom Gillespie had that morning- been furnished with food and aid farther
south. Next morning they started northward to join the main body, burying the
bodies of their slain comrades on the way. The whole party started on the 11th
down the eastern side of the lake, wreaking terrible vengeance on the innocent
natives along the route, if we may credit the statement of Kit Carson, who
played a leading part in the butcheries. They reached Lassen’s rancho on their
return the 24th, and a few days later- moved their camp down to the Buttes.40
Gillespie’s arrival had little to do with the alleged motive of Fremont’s
return from the north, which motive was the
MS., 157-60. Sutter, in his Personal Bemin., MS., complains that
Gillespie borrowed his favorite $300 mule and brought it back wind-broken. In N. Helv.
Diary, MS., 46, G.’s arrival at Sutter’s is
recorded, and it is stated that Stepp and Downing went on with him next day.
46 See, besides most of the citations of the
preceding note, Peters’ Life of Kit Carson, 255-69; Abbott’s Kit Carson, 249-55. Carson goes very fully into details of Indian fights on the
return trip, noting the burning of one large village after many of its people
had been slain; also the gallant manner in which his (Carson’s) life was saved
on one occasion by Fr&nont. Several writers speak of a curious wooden coat-of-mail
worn by one of the Ind. warriors; and all speak of the bravery shown by these
natives. Accounts or mentions of the affair also in Martin’s Narr., 16-21; June 1st, Larkin to sec. state. Larkin’s
Off. Correap., MS., ii. 56: Smucker’s
Life Frimont, 23-6; Tut- hill’s Hist. Cal., 166-7; Honolulu Friend, iv. 154; Vallejo, Hist. Cal. MS.,
v. 109; Oxio,
Hist. Cal., MS., 461-3. Several mention the
absurd suspicion that the Klamaths were instigated to attack Fremont by
Castro’s agents ! Sutter, Diary, 7; also N. Helv. Diary, MS., 49-50, notes Neal’s arrival from the north on May 25th, and Gillespie’s
on May 30th. Capt. Phelps, Fore and Aft, 285-6, succeeds in condensing many
errors into a small space. See also Mnllhauter., Tagebuch, 288-9; Frignet.
Californie, 08-9.
difficulty of crossing the mountains into Oregon on account of the snow.
The captain had nearly determined—so he said—to change his route before he
heard of Gillespie’s approach; and he still announced, late in May, his
intention to return homeward by a southern route.47 I shall have
more to say on certain phases of this topic in another chapter.
A letter from Buchanan to Larkin dated October 17, 1845, has already been
quoted in this history, being a most important document, never before made
public.48 It contained a clear statement of the policy of the United
States respecting California; appointed Larkin a confidential agent of the
government to aid in carrying out that policy; and contained also the following
passage: “Lieutenant Archibald H. Gillespie of the marine corps will
immediately proceed to Monterey, and will probably reach you before this despatch.
He is a gentleman in whom the president reposes entire confidence. He has seen
these instructions, and will cooperate as a confidential agent with you in
carrying them into execution.” Gillespie left Washington early in November
1845. He carried
47 May 24th, F. to Benton. ‘ I
have but a faint hope that this note will reach you before I do.. .1 shall now
proceed directly homewards by the Colorado.’ Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 191. In his
letter of July 25th, he says: ‘Snow was falling steadily and heavily in the
mountains, which entirely surrounded and dominated the elevated valley region
into which we had penetrated. In the east and north and west, barriers
absolutely impassable barred our road; we had no provisions; our animals were
already feeble, and while any other way was open, I could not bring myself to
attempt such a doubtful enterprise as a passage of these unknown mountains in
the dead of winter. Every day the snow was falling; and in the face of the
depressing influence exercised on the people by the loss of our men, and the
unpromising appearance of things, I judged it inexpedient to pursue our journey
farther in this direction, and determined to retrace my steps and carry out
the views of the govt by reaching the frontier on the line of the Colorado
River.’ Id., lxxi. 191. Larkin wrote on June 1st, ‘Fremont now starts for the
States.1 Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS.,
ii. 56. May 24th, Gillespie wrote:
‘There was too much snow upon the mountains to cross. He now goes home from
here.’ Id., Doc., MS., iv. 134. In his testimony of 1848 Fremont says that ‘his
progress farther north was then barred by hostile Indians and impassable snowy
mountains, and he was meditating some change in his route when’ Gillespie came,
etc. Frimont’s (Jal. Claims, 12. It was the idea of Carson and others of the
men that it was Gillespie’s despatches which prompted the return.
48 Buchanan’s Instruc., MS. See
long quotation in chap. xxv. of vol. v.
with him a duplicate copy of the document just cited, which he destroyed
on the way, after having committed its contents to memory, in fear that it
might fall into the hands of the Mexicans.49 He carried also letters
of introduction from Buchanan to Larkin and to Frd- mont;50 and a
packet containing private correspondence from Senator Thomas H. Benton,
addressed to Fremont, his son-in-law.51 The exact purport of Benton’s
letters has never been made public; whether, as .supplemented by Gillespie’s
oral communications, they went further in their political significance than the
official written instructions, is a question that has always been wrapped in
mystery, and one that may be more intelligibly and profitably considered a
little later, when I come to narrate Fremont’s subsequent acts.
Gillespie went under his true name, but in the assumed character of an
invalid merchant travelling for his health. He was delayed for a time at the
city of Mexico in consequence of the Paredes revolution; but finally reached
Mazatlan and sailed on the U. S. man- of-war Cyane, Mervine commander, via
Honolulu for Monterey, where he arrived April 17th, a month later than he had
anticipated at his departure from the States. Entering at once into communication
with Larkin, he remained at Monterey two days, as did the Cyane also to take
back the consul’s despatches.52
<9 Gillespie’s testimony of 1848, in Fremont's Cal. Claims, 30. He states:
‘Early in Nov. 1845, I received orders from the president and secretary of the
navy, Mr Bancroft, to proceed to Cal. by way of Vera Cruz, and the shortest
route through Mexico to Mazatlan, with instructions to watch over the interest
of the U. S. in Cal., and to counteract the influence of any foreign or
European agents who might be in that country with objects prejudicial to the U.
S. ’ Gillespie’s written instructions, if they were put in writing, are not
extant, but of course they were substantially the same as those to Larkin.
80 Nov. 1, 1845. ‘ I take pleasure in introducing to you the bearer hereof,
Mr Archibald H. Gillespie, as a gentleman of respectability and worth. He is
about to visit the north-west coast of America on business, and should he stop
on his way at Monterey, allow me to bespeak for him your kind attention. You
will find him to be in every respect worthy of your regard. Yours very
respectfully, James Buchanan. To Thomas 0. Larkin, Esq.’ Original in Larhin’s
Doc., MS., iii. 362. This letter is not mentioned in Gillespie’s testimony.
That addressed to Fremont was doubtless of the same purport.
51 Gillespie’s testimony; also
Fremont’s deposition in Fremont’s Cal. Claims,
12.
52 April 17th, G. on hoard the
Cyane to L. ‘Confidential. Enclosed I send
Gillespie’s true character as an officer—if not as a confidential agent,
or ‘spy’ as the Mexicans would somewhat plausibly have termed him—was suspected
from the first by the Californians; but he was not hindered from starting on
the 19th for Yerba Buena on his way to find Frdmont, after having been
entertained at a grand ball given by Ex-governor Alvarado, or at least at his
house. It is stated, however, that the lieutenant had to depart secretly in the
night while the ball was in progress, so great was the suspicion of the
authorities, strengthened as some say by a warning which David Spenee had
received from Maza- tlan.68 He left San Franeisco April 25th in a
boat furnished by LeidesdorfF, to whom he seems to have announced the certainty
of war with Mexico, representing that to be the nature of his message to Fremont.61
you a letter of introduction, which I doubt not you will understand, and
as I have an important despatch for you, as also other sealed packages, I will
be obliged by your coming on board as early as possible.’ Larkin's Doc., MS.,
iv. 91. April 17th, L. to Mervine, requesting him to remain until the 19th for
despatches. Same date, Mervine consents. Id., iv. 92; Id., Off. Corresp., MS.,
i. 92.
b3 April 19th, Capt. Mervine and his officers cannot attend the dance. Larkin’s
Doc., MS., iv. 94. Same date, Larkin to LeidesdorfF, introducing Gillespie as a
friend in ill health, who ‘wishes to travel through your part of the country
to enjoy the climate,’ etc. ‘I helieve he has some persona] acquaintance with
Capt. Fremont, and may wish to see him if the trouble and expense is not too
much.’ Furnish all needed aid, etc. Id.. Off. Corresp., MS., i. 93. June 1st,
L. writes to sec. state, ‘Mr G. was at once known here as an officer, or fully
supposed to be so, and conld not pass for a merchant... In fact, so long as it
is not correctly known, I prefer that he should be supposed to be what he
actually is. ’ Id., ii. 50, 56.
Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., v. 106-9, says that Spenee received by the Cyane
a box of quinine, which under a false bottom contained a letter of warning
against Gillespie. The same letter or one of similar purport was addressed to
13 other men in the north.
Castro tried to make him drunk at the ball, but he kept his head, and left
about midnight with horses and guides furnished by Larkin. Vallejo was in
Monterey at the time, and was not in favor of allowing Gillespie to depart; hut
no proofs could be brought against him. Alvarado, Hist. Cat, MS., v. 172-8,
tells a similar story, but says Spence did not reveal his secret, except
perhaps that his wife, an old flame of the general, may have dropped a hint to
him. Alvarado says that Gillespie pretended to speak Spanish very badly, though
able to speak it fluently. See also Ord, Ocurreneias, MS., 140-1; Torres,
Pcripecias, MS., 46-8.
54April 25th, Leidesdorff to Larkin. Gillespie to
start in a few hours. ‘Glorious news for Fremont! I think I see him smile. By
your letters it appears that this news was not generally known; however, they
must have some news here, as the sub-prefeet is busily despatching couriers,’
etc. Larkin’a
Doc., MS., iv. 104. On April 23d, Larkin sent Gillespie a letter on arrival
Arriving at New Helvetia on the 28th, the confidential agent hurried on
up the valley, overtook Fremont, and returned with him, as I have already
related, at the end of May. Before I proceed with the record of the two
officers’ subsequent operations in June, there are other important matters to
be disposed of. I may note here, however, that Sutter warned Castro that,
despite Gillespie’s pretence of being an invalid with private letters for
Fremont, he was really, as Sutter suspected, an officer of the U. S. army and
the bearer of important despatches—indeed, he had admitted himself to be an
officer, though claiming to be on the retired list.65
of the Portsmouth, etc. It was not received until G. had returned from
the north. Lancey's Cruise, 41. April 30th, Thomas Cole gets $40 from Larkin
for carrying the said letter. Monterey, Consulate Arch., MS., ii. 14.
55May 31st, Sutter to Castro. . Original in Castro,
Doc., MS., ii. 41, 98. Of course it was Sutter’s duty as a Mexican official to
give this warning; but the act does not exactly accord with some of the
captain’s later pretensions of favor to the U. S. On Gillespie’s mission—including
his supposed secret instructions, to he noticed later—see also Frimont’s Cal.
Claims, Report, 817 (30th cong. 1st sess., H. Report); Cooke’s Conquest, 203-5;
Swasey's Cal., MS., 45-6; Jay’s Mex. War, 150-4; Cleeson’s Hist. Cath. Church,
ii. 159-60; Clark's Speech on Cal. Claims; U. S. Govt Doc., 36th cong. 1st
sess., H. Rept. Court of Claims, no. 229, vol. iv.; Price, in Cal. Ass.
Pioneers, 1875, p. 18-19; Tut- hill’s Hist. Cal., 166-8; Dunbar’s Romance,
31-2.
POLITICAL AND MILITARY.
January-June,
1846.
A Fruitless
Controversy—Alvarado as Congressman—CastaSares and Tellez—Covarrubias as Pico’s
Agent—Mission of Castillero— Affairs in Mexico—Iniestra’s Expedition—Tellez and
Morales— Cambuston and Castro—Valle and Treasury Troubles—Assembly —Guerra Sent
to Monterey—Return of J. A. Carrillo—Pico as Constitutional Governor—Military
Junta at Monterey—Adhesion to President Paredes—Measures for Defence—Pico’s
Protests —Vallejo’s Position—Guerra Sent to Angeles—Consejo General de Pueblos
Unidos at Santa Barbara—Castro’s Protests—Martial Law—The Assembly Deposes Castro—Pico and his Army March
North against Castro—Warlike Preparations for Defence of Angeles—Cooperation of
Foreioners—Bandini and Castro — Affairs in the North.
The topics that make up the political annals of 1846 are bound together
by two parallel or intertwined threads. One is the fear of foreign invasion;
the other, with the disentanglement of which I have chiefly to do in this
chapter, is the controversy between Castro and Pico; between the military and
civil authorities; between the north and south; between comandante general
with custom-house and treasury, at Monterey, and governor with the assembly,
at Los Angeles. The quarrel w'as continuous, undignified, and fruitless. All admitted
the deplorable condition of California, and attributed it largely to internal
dissensions, as well as to Mexican neglect. As a matter of fact, nothing that
was being done or left undone, had upon the future of the country any
other effect than the indirect one of so disgusting a part of the people
that they were ready to welcome any change. Yet each faction pretended to
believe that with the cooperation—that is, the entire submission—of the other
faction, the country might be saved. Pio Pico had little doubt that from the
patriotic wisdom of himself and the southern assemblymen, the true
representatives of the popular will, a plan might be evolved for
salvation—would General Castro but recognize that wisdom, let the revenues
alone, keep the Indians in check, and use his military force exclusively to
carry out measures dictated by the political authorities. Josd Castro, on the
other hand, maintained that the protection of the country was purely a military
duty, since the chief danger was that of invasion, and that until the danger
should be past, it behooved the governor and the assembly not to interfere with
the general's prerogatives, but humbly to furnish such aid as might be asked
for. Each entertained, personally, feelings of jealousy, distrust, and
hostility toward the other; and each exaggerated the other’s hostility. Each
thought at times of using force to overthrow the other, doubting not the other
was devoting his constant energies to similar ends. Each appealed sometimes to
the other to forget past dissensions for the country’s sake; mutual friends interfered
more or less injudiciously and unsuccessfully ; and the foolish quarrel dragged
its slow length along. I have to note the controversy in some of its petty
phases and results; but I have no historic lens so powerful, no balance so
nicely adjusted, as to assign to either side a preponderence of blame.
Alvarado, diputado-elect to congress for 1846-7, did not go to Mexico to
take his seat, because there were 110 funds for his expenses, much as Pico
desired his absence. Alvarado no longer had charge of the custom-house, but he
was regarded by the abajenos as being at the bottom of all Castro’s political
in
trigues.1 Though Don Juan Bautista did no go to Mexico,
California was still represented there by the brothers Castanares;2
and two other comisionados were sent early this year. The first was the governor’s
secretary, Jose Maria Covarrubias, who was despatched by Pico, and sailed from
San Pedro February 14th on the Juanita. His mission, fulfilled in Mexico in
April, was the old one of explaining California’s peril and absolute lack of
resources, and of suggesting methods of relief. Whether an attempt was made to
strike a blow at Castro is not known, as Covarrubias’ instructions are not extant.
Some of his special suggestions, such as the acquisition of Sutter’s Fort and
of Stephen Smith’s lands at Bodega, and the appointment of a diplomatic agent
at the Hawaiian Islands, were deferred for additional investigation; but Pico
was assured that the government had already taken steps to secure the safety of
the department, counting on the patriotic zeal of all Californians to aid in
the good cause.3 The second was Andres
'Feb. 18, 1846, Pico to Alvarado, urging him to start soon for Mexico.
Dept. St. Pap., MS., vi. 71. March 1st, A. to P. Is ready to start as soon as
means shall be supplied. Needs $4,000 at least. His health is not good. Thinks
this may be the last service he can render Cal. /f/., vii. 117. A strange
communication from A. appears in Icl., viii. 96-7, in which he announces his
return from Mexico after performing his duties as deputy, and asks payment of
his expenses!
2 They took part in the junta
of Jan. 3d, voting for a president ad. iut. Mexico, Mem. Rtlaciones, 1847, p.
86-8; Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal Diaz, i. 109. Aug. 8th, Col. Tellez wrote to
Castro: ‘Unfortunately there are among us some selfish people, who, being unworthy
of the trust reposed in them, only seek their own advantage; for example, the
Messrs Castanares, representatives of the Califomias. These two personages
have only endeavored to draw private advantages from the commission intrusted
to them; and perhaps they would have already gone to that department to
collect the fruits of their perfidious machinations, if I who know them and
feel an interest in that country had not prevented them as much as possible, as
I shall continue to do; and I assure you that if the revolution in which I find
myself plunged triumphs, the Californians can trust they will not have the
sorrow again to see on their shores those wicked men, or any others that may
resemble them.’ U. S. Govt Doc., 31st cong. lstsess., H. Ex. no. 70, p. 43, and
so in Col. Tellez California had another representative and protector! April
3d, Manuel Castanares to Vallejo. Has done his best to make congress
understand California’s needs and risks. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xi. 201.
3 Feb. 18th, March 2d, Pico
announces Covarrubias’ departure. Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 22; Olvera, Doc., MS., 15. Sailing recorded in Lancey’s Cruise, 37. Pico, Hist. Cal., MS., 135,
tells us that through C. he urged the govt to accept his resignation. April
23d, min. of rel. to Pico, in reply to the com-
Castillero, who sailed on the Don Quixote early in April, being sent by
Castro with a warning against the Americans, and not improbably with complaints
against Pico, in consequence of Fremont’s operations in March. Nothing appears
respecting the reception and labors of Don Andres in Mexico.4
The result of all appeals to Mexico in 1846 was that the national
government sent back a brief series of warnings, of exhortations, of ‘ample
faculties’ to defend the country, and even of promises to render material
aid—which, as in the past, never came.6 As to the Iniestra
expedition, the exact date when its failure became a certainty does not clearly
appear. The scheme seems to have been partially revived, even after the
confiscation of the stores and men provided at Acapulco by Alvarez, the
revolutionist; but Iniestra died early in the spring. In February or March a
force was sent to Mazatlan for California, apparently under the command of
Colonel Tellez; but this leader chose to engage in a revolution, and did not
proceed beyond Sinaloa. In August an expedition under General Morales is
mentioned as about to start. The record of all these projects is, however,
exceedingly vague and unsatisfactory.6
mission. Dept. St. Pap., Aug., MS., viii. 72-5; St. Pap., Miss, and
Cohn., MS., ii. 411-14. ,
1 Doc. Hist. Gal., MS., iii. 157; Larkin’s
Off. Corresp., MS., i. 91; Niles' Reg., lxxi. 188, 190;
Davis’ Glimpses, MS., 223, 336.
5 Jan. 14th, American families on the
frontier must not remain in the repub. while peaceful relations are
interrupted. Sup. Govt St. Pap., MS., xviii. 25. March 10th, war certain to
break out. The pres, orders a vigorous defence. Aid will be sent, and much
confidence is felt in Cal. patriotism. The gov. and com. gen. are given ample
powers. Pico, Doc., MS., ii. 171-2 (original); Hayes’ Mission Booh, i. 364,
etc. It is under this order that Pico’s sale of certain missions was supported
in later litigation; but the plea was not sustained by the U. S. courts.
Huffman’s Opinions, 12-13, etc. April 4th, decree of pres, that four armed
schooners be stationed on the coast, one of them at S. Diego. Pinart, Doc.
Hist. Mex., no. 788. April 7th, acknowledgment of receipt of despatch of Feb.
19th, announcing the irruption of immigrants. April 23d, preparations made for
occupation of Cal. Willey, in Sta Cruz Sentinel, June 3, 1876. July 4th, gov.
of Cal. authorized to raise resources for defence. Mexico, Mem. Relaciones,
1847, 9. Aug. 6th, election decree. The two Califomias to form one department
and have one diputado. Pinart, Doc. Hist. Mex., no. 810.
6May 11th, Mott and Talbot of Mazatlan to Larkin.
‘You need not fear any expedition from this coast to your quarter. Iniestra is
dead, and the Hist. Cal., Vol. V. 3
About the middle of January Henri Cambuston, a French teacher at
Monterey, on the occasion of a ball at the house of Dr Stokes, became involved
in a personal quarrel with Prefect Castro, and came to blows with Captain
Narvaez, a friend of Don Manuel. The Frenchman, on being ordered under arrest,
refused to recognize Castro’s authority, on the ground that he was not old
enough to be prefect legallybut he was put in prison, and a successor was
appointed to take charge of his school. The matter was investigated before the
alcalde, and submitted to the governor, who decided that both parties merited
a reprimand. Meanwhile the French consul, Gasquet, had interfered, and had
demanded from General Castro the prisoner’s release, with heavy damages for his
arrest. The general declined to interfere with the prerogatives of the
political authorities; but he seems to have disapproved Don Manuel’s conduct,
much to the latter’s displeasure. The prefect was also displeased at Pico’s
attitude in the matter. The quarrel had no other political significance, so far
as can be known; neither is its result definitely recorded; but I have
introduced the affair here because of the high position of the parties
involved, the interference of a foreign consul, the local excitement caused by
the quarrel, and the bulky correspondence to which it gave rise, as shown by
the archives.7
There is but little in the records of January and
ships engaged to take the troops have been paid the false freight aud discharged.’
Larhin’s Doc., MS., iv. 115. See also El Tiempo, Jan. 26, May 7, 1846. Feb.
9th, the expedition about to start, but delayed by Iniestra’s illness.
Bustamante, Mem. Hist. Mex., MS., iv. 54. March 5th, the exped. has started for
Mazatlan; but it is not believed it will reach its destination. Id., iv. 83.
Exped. under Morales. Id., v. 82. Guerra, Apuntes, 371, says that Tellez
reached Mazatlau in April with a force, but revolted against Paredes. We have
seen that Tellez wrote from Mazatlan in Aug., while engaged in a revolt.
’The quarrel occurred on Jan. 18th. Investigation in the alcalde’s court
Jan. 21st, etc.; resulting corresp. between the Castros, Cambuston, Gasquet,
Pico, and others, extending to March, inCastro, Doc., MS., i. 293-303; Dept.
St. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS., ii. 4-8; Doc. Hist. Gal., MS., iii. 57, 64,
66, 91; i. 497. March 9th, 10th, Pico to prefect and to Gasquet, trying to hush
up the matter, which he fears may lead to serious complications. Fernandez, Doc., MS., 61-3; Dept. St. Pap.,
MS., vii. 109, 111.
35
February to throw light on the condition of public affairs or on the
troubles of the rival chieftains;8 but I have to note another
unsuccessful attempt by the governor to gain control of the revenues. Failing
to remove the treasury to Los Angeles, he had sent Ignacio del Valle to take
possession of the office at the end of 1845; but General Castro had prevented
the transfer. Early in February Valle came again to Monterey, Pico having
agreed not to move the office, but declining to appoint a northern man in the
place of Abrego. Castro, however, still continued his opposition, on the
grounds that Pico had no authority to appoint a treasurer, and that any change
in such critical times was inexpedient. Abrego professed to be willing to
surrender the office, but received positive orders from Castro not to do so;
and Don Ignacio had to content himself with the management of that small
portion of the country’s revenues which found its way to the south.9
Subsequently Pico re-
8 Jan. 16th, several Sta Barbara officers
resign their military rank, including Valentin Cota, JosiS Carrillo, H.
Garcia, and Jos6Lugo. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Jitzg., MS., ii. 61. Jan.
24th, Feb. 27th, Rafael Sanchez to Pico. Complains that Mexicans arc insulted
constantly, that officers of the old battalion are not receiving the treatment
guaranteed by the treaty of Cahuenga, while Castro’s ‘ auxiliary and permanent
drunkards ’ receive pay while rendering no service. Alvarado and Castro should
be accused before the sup. govt, jDept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 102, 108-9. Jan.
26th, Pablo de la Guerra to his father. The time is passed when the laws ruled.
Now circumstances are the rulers, and it is necessary to yield in
nou-essentials. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS.,
iv. 1168. Jan. 29th, Pico to
Bandini. Will close the port of Monterey in 'case of expected infractions of
order. Bandini, Doc., MS., 65. Feb. 15th, Francisco Arce to Vallejo, on the
unfortuuate state of affairs. Begs V. to come to the country’s rescue by
joining the party of Castro against Pico, whose conduct is ruining all that is
good. He does nothing but build up Los Angeles and plunder the missions.
Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 184. Feb. 20th, Prefect Castro to Pico. Has toiled
hard, but foes are in league against him. His resignation not yet accepted. The
country in a deplorable state, all on account of dissensions between gov. and
gen., of which foreigners take advantage. Thinks Pico’s presence in the north
very desirable. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 116.
3 Jan. 1st, 15th, Abrego to Pico,
explaining his difficulties. He is blamed by Montereyans for his willingness to
give up the office. Advises that the funds be paid directly from the
custom-house to the general, and not to him; or that a northern man be
appointed as treasurer. He is tired of being denounced and insulted as a
‘Mexican.’ Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 96-9. Jan. 22d, Pico to Castro, with
Valle’s appointment. Valle, Doc., MS., 50-1. Jan. 24th, Rafael Sanchez and Juau
Bandini to Pico, complaining of scandalous irregularities in the distribution
of public funds, the real govt being kept in a state of beggary. Dept. St.
Pap., MS., vii. 102-3. Feb. 10th, 12th, Castro to
newed the financial controversy by trying to enforce a recent Mexican
law, which provided that the departments should receive two thirds uf all
revenues, tho national government—that is, the military branch so far as
California was concerned—retaining only one third. Pico ordered the
administrator of customs, therefore, to pay over the two thirds to the prefect,
as representative of the civil authority. General Castro would not submit to
any such reduction—from two thirds to one third—of the funds at his disposal.
He held that his orders from Mexico to defend the country conferred the right
to use the country’s revenues for that purpose; insisted that the distribution
must be continued on the former basis; and his orders were obeyed.10
At the beginning of March the assembly met at Los Angeles, and I append
in a note an abstract of legislative proceedings for the year, though some of the
matters treated will require to be noticed more fully elsewhere.11
The members—all abajenos, though
Valle, refusing his consent to the change; Feb. 11th, 16th, Valle to
Abrego and replies. Valle, Doc., MS., 50-3; Dept. St. Pap., MS., xiii. 18-22.
No date, Valle to Castro, accusing him of disturbing the public peace by
ignoring the gov. Id., vii. 4. March 1st, Castro to Pico. The change deferred
until an interview can be held. Id., vii. 41-2. March 18th, Valle's report to
Pico after his return. Will hold no further relations with general or
treasurer. Id., Ben., iii. 136-9, 85. See also mention in Valle, Lo Pasado, MS., 38-9; Botello, Anales, MS.,
125-6; Arce, in Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 184.
10 April 15th, Pico to
administrator and to prefect. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS.,
iii. 166; Dept. St. Pap., MS.,
vi. 79-80; Id., Ben., iii. 139. April 16th, 18th, All direct taxes, etc., must
also be paid to the dept. govt. Id., Angeles, ix. 57; Pico, Doc., MS., i. 26.
May 9th-15th, corresp. between gen., prefect, and admin. Unbound Doc., MS.,
206-10; Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 224. June 16th, admin, declares that payment
to the prefect would be illegal. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., iii. 86. May 28th,
Gen. Castro orders Receptor Diaz to pay over directly to a military officer the
duties collected from am English ship. Guerra, Doc., MS., v. 192. May 11th,
Castro authorizes Vallejo to raise a loan for defence. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii.
205.
11 Sessions of assembly March 2
to July 24, 1846, in Leg. Bee., MS., iv. 315-71. English translation in II. S.
vs Bolton, Appellant’s Brief, in U. S. Sup. Court, p. 221-53. March 2d, the new
members, Bandini and Argiiello, admitted. Gov.’s opening message read, and
committees appointed. (The message in full is found in Olvera, Doc., MS.,
13-19.) Bandini’s motion for a ‘consejo
general de pueblos unidos’ referred to a com. Ayunt. of Angeles wants funds for schools. March 4th, Abrego sends excuse
of sickness for his absence. (Pico to Abrego, in Dept. St. Pap., MS., viii.
120.) Sta B. producers ask for exemption from double taxation. Citizens ask for
a grant of S. Gabriel
THE ASSEMBLY IN SESSION.
37
for a town. Botello granted leave of absenec. Argiiello uot present.
March 6th, Angeles wants a police force supported by contributions from men of
means. March 9th, Guerra granted leave of absence to go as a commissioner to
Monterey. Land grants, March 13th, Alvarado desires instructions as to his
duties in congress, but gets none. American traders wish to be relieved of the
annual tax of $600 for each vessel. Isaac Williams proposes to build a fort in
the cajon if allowed to introduce $25,000 in goods free of duties. March 16th,
land grants. March 18th, lands. Sec. Olvera granted leave of absence. {Olvera
to Pico. Dept. St. Pap., MS., viii. 96.) March 23d, S. Gabriel cannot be
granted for a pueblo. Bandini’s prop, on sale of missions. Argiiello sec. pro
tem. March 30th, Bandini’s mission prop, adopted. April 8th, Abrego sends
certificates of illness, and is exempted, a suplente being summoned. April
15th, Pico’s appointment as constitutional governor received; also the
Montesdeoca doc. of Nov. 14th on mission sales; also other unimportant Mex.
decrees. Castro’s report of March 17th on the Fremont affair received. Bandini
denounces the general’s disregard of law. April 18th, special session. Pico
sworn in as gov. Olvera acting as suplente. (April 17th, assembly to Olvera.
Summons. Dept. St. Pap., MS., viii. 121; Olvera, Doc., MS., 20-1.) April 24th
(?), no record. April 29th, matter of the com. gen. to be discussed in secret
session. Figueroa’s act to repress Ind. hostilities passed. May 8th, more
certificates of illness from Abrego. 45 land grants submitted. (May 2d,
assemhly decrees that interrupted sessions shall continue? Dept. St. Pap., MS.,
viii. 127.) May 11th, report of Guerra on his mission to Mont. and Castro’s bad
faith. Pablo de la Guerra introduced as a commissioner from Castro. Speech of
Bandini against Castro. Pico desires permission to leave the capital should he
deem it necessary. May 13th, Mex. order on missions. Munic. matters. Bandini’s
proposition of March 2d for a consejo general passed. Guerra not allowed leave
of absence. May 15th, Sta B. taxes. Lands. June 3d, hide regulations. Lands.
Figueroa’s prop, to establish a fort in the cajon against Ind. Warning from
Castro of Fremont’s hostile intentions. The consejo general not to be held as
ordered on May 13th. The gov. to take steps to defend the country. June 10th,
land grants and hide regulations. June 15th, munic. affairs. Figueroa
presiding. Pico absent in the north. Botello present and acting as sec. pro
tem. July 1st, communications from Pico at Sta B., enclosing others from Castro
on startling events at Sonoma (details elsewhere). Assembly declines to go to
Sta B., as Pico desires; and refuses to hear any responsibility for consequences.
(Illness of members alleged by Botello as a reason for not going to Sta B.
Moreno, Doc., MS., 27-8.) July
2d, unimportant reference to business of the last session. A weekly courier to
be established. July 3d, vague reference to business of last sessions. July
6th, communication from Pico on the McNamara colonization scheme. July 7th,
com. report on McNamara grant approved. July 8th, land grants. Bandini says he
must go home on account of illness. Ar- gnello is going home because Bandini’s
departure will leave no quorum. Pico presiding. (Jnly 8th, Botello to Moreno.
Assembly dissolves, owing to Bandini’s illness. This is the last session.
Moreno, Doc., MS., 18.) July 24th, extra session. Pico submits Sloat’s
proclamation, etc. Members express ‘ patriotic fervor. ’ The people to be
called upon for services. An auxiliary military force to be organized. (Nothing
more in the Legislative Records.) Aug. 10th, session presided by Pico. Olvera, sec. Castro writes that he
cannot defend the country, and is going to Mexico. Pico sees no better way
than to go with Castro. The assembly to be dissolved, so that the invaders may
find no legal authorities. Blotter record in Olvera, Doe., MS.,
32-6. Oct. 26th, 27th, 30th, Dec. 5th, sessions under the administration of Gov. Flores.
Pico presiding and Olvera acting as secretary. Abre- go, the only
northern member elect, was absent on account of illness and perhaps his duties
as treasurer. Pico in his opening message indicated the question of foreign
relations—including that of immigration and the reported approach of 10,000
Mormons—as a most urgent one, that should receive exclusive attention until
fully disposed of. The department was represented as being from every point of
view in a most unfortunate condition. Education was utterly neglected; as was
the administration of justice, largely on account of the fact that justices of
the supreme court had declined to accept their appointments. The missions were
so burdened with debt that the governor had been able to sell or rent only a
few of them. The army was totally disorganized, soldiers enough for the
protection of Monterey only being kept under arms by the general, while the
rest of the department was left defenceless. Of financial matters, the writer
had been able to learn but little, but was sure that most of the revenues had
been wasted. Of course much was expected from the wisdom of the assembly,
though its president had no definite suggestions to offer.
Early in March Pico sent Francisco de la Guerra as a commissioner to
Castro, presumably to suggest some basis upon which the two chiefs might work
in harmony, and perhaps to urge a conference at Santa B&rbara; though the
exact nature of his instructions is not known.12 Neither does it
appear that his
Members present, Figueroa, Botello, Guerra, and suplentes Olvera and Joaquin
Carrillo. Details of measures against the Americans will be given later.
Fragmentary records in Id., 39-56; Carrillo (D.), Doc., MS., 44; Castro, Doc.,
MS., ii. 150; Janssens, Doc., MS., 32-3; Soberanes, Doc., MS., 326.
12 March 9th, Guerra sent with verbal
instructions. He was to use the good offices of influential persons. Guerra,
Doc., MS., vi. 14^15. Appointment, and license from assembly. Dept. St. Pap.,
MS., viii. 129; Leg. Bee., MS., iv. 320-1. March 16th, Padre Duran to Gen.
Castro, urging him to look favorably upon Pico’s propositions, it being of
great importance that the two should unite on some plan of internal policy.
Pico, Doc., MS., ii. 69-70. March 2d, Rafael Sanchez to Pico. Urges him to come
to Monterey and sustain his authority—else he will soon be gov. only of Los
Angeles. Complains that neither Pico nor Castro has shown good faith to the
Mexicans
efforts as a conciliator were successful. He made a report, however, of
what he had accomplished, or failed to accomplish, and gave the document to
Castro, to be forwarded to the governor; but the general, curious perhaps, as
we are, to know its contents, kept the report.13 About the same time
that Pico’s commissioner left Los Angeles, Castro sent to the capital his
report of the troubles with Fremont, coupled with the announcement of his
intention to defend the country—acting by virtue of his own authority and
instructions from Mexico, in case the governor would not come to Monterey as he
was urged to do. He also announced the return of Jose Antonio Carrillo from his
exile in Sinaloa, and requested Pico not to prosecute him further, as his
services were needed.14 These communications on being laid before
the assembly produced a commotion. The danger of invasion was lost sight of in
view of the fact that Castro had dared to issue a proclamation to the people,
the prefect’s share in the proceedings being ignored by the irate southerners.
The defence of the country was unimportant in comparison with the thought of undertaking
that defence without consulting, or rather without awaiting the cooperation of,
the political chief. Juan Bandini made a speech, denouncing Castro’s abuse of
his powers, and called upon Pico to “reply to him with decorum, and at the same
time with that firmness and energy which a proceeding so
under the treaty of
Cahuenga. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 106-8. March 2d, 4th, Prefect Castro to
Pico. Also urges him to come north and make up his differences with the
general. Id., vii. 110.
13 So Guerra reported to the assembly on May
11th. Leg. Sec., MS., iv. 337. April 14th, Castro to Pieo. Believes that he
'will be convinced of the rectitude of writer’s intentions and of the force of
the reasons that prevent him from acceding to his request. Dept. St. Pap., MS.,
vii. 52. May 5th, Guerra to Castro, a letter of reproaches for his conduct in
not forwarding the report. Id., vii. 55. May 8th, G. to P. The most Castro
would promise was to try to come to Sta B. after the meeting of a military
junta. Id., vii. 56.
14 March 17th, C. to P. Dept. St. Pap., MS.,
vii. 48-9. This communication as reported in the assembly was to the effect
that ‘as Pico had not come north, Castro would proceed, ’ etc.; but in the
original Castro still urges Pico to come. March 25th, Prefect Castro writes to
the min. of rel. on the needs of Cal. Doc. Hist. Gal., MS., iii. 142.
scandalous demanded.”15 And Pico did write what was probably
intended to be such a reply, but what was in reality an absurd exhibition of
petty suspicion and weakness.18
But Don Pio, thus insulted by Castro’s presumption and threats to defend
the country, was at the same time comforted by the receipt of his appointment
as constitutional governor of the Californias. This appointment was issued by
President Herrera September 3, 1845, in accordance with the assembly’s
recommendation of June 27th, and in consideration of “the patriotism and
commendable qualities which make you worthy of the confidence of the supreme
government.”17 The document was communicated to the assembly April
15th, and on the 18th, before that body and in presence of a large concourse of
citizens and officials, Pico took the oath of office, delivering an address,
and subsequently assisting with all the authorities at the usual religious te
deum.18 On the same day the governor’s speech was issued in
substance as a proclamation to the people. It contained the usual expressions
of patriotic zeal, lack of self-confidence, flattery for the people, and trust
in God; and
15Session of
April 15th. Leg. Hue., MS., iv. 330-1. April 14th, Castro to Pico. Has never
doubted the purity of his intentions. Cannot leave the north, but hopes P. will
come. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 115-16. April 17th, P. to Prefect Castro,
complaining that no full reports have come from him on the Fremont affair. Doc.
Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 174. April 24th, a friend to Bandini. The new plan of
reform, in preparation since Carrillo’s arrival, will cause a great
transformation. Mexicans are to be expelled. This alone will raise the devil.
Bandini, Doc., MS., 70.
16No date,
P. to C. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 289. By what right does the gen. venture to
issue proclamations, and to alarm the people with whom, not being soldiers, he
has nothing to do? He must have forgotten that there is a govt; or does he
desire to overturn all order? or does he flatter himself he has power over free
and enlightened citizens ? How would he like it if the gov. should usurp
military functions or alarm the soldiers? etc. Suspects that Castro’s orders
from Mexico, which nobody has seen, are ample enough to allow him to do as he
pleases, etc.
17 Sept. 3d, min. of rel. to Pico. Doc.
Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 165; Pico, Doc., MS., ii. 167; Dept. St. Pap., Aug., MS.,
xi. 171.
18 April 15th, 18th. Leg. Pec., MS., iv.
329-32; Pico to Abrego. Dept. St. Pap., MS., xiii. 15. May 4th, Larkin
congratulates Pico. Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS., i. 98. May 16th-17th,
publication of the appointment at Monterey. Dept. St. Pap., Mont., US., iii.
123. Pico, Hist. Cal., MS., 135, claims to have kept back the appointment for
several months after it was received, hoping to be relieved of so burdensome
and difficult a position!
concluded of course with a call upon all Californians to be united for
the common welfare. “With honor and law as our emblems, victory will be ours.”19
Besides reporting Fremont’s movements, inviting the governor to a
conference, despatching Castillero to Mexico for aid, and announcing his
determination to resist invasion, either with or without Pico’s cooperation—Castro
also convoked a junta of military men at Monterey to deliberate on the
condition of the country, and to advise him as to the best policy to be
pursued.20 The junta met at the end of March, and its first recorded
act was to declare on April 2d its adhesion to the ‘plan regenerador of San
Luis Potosi,’ and its recognition of Paredes as president ad interim of Mexico.21
This pronunciamiento was not made public for over a month, during which time
the number of signatures was increased from the six or eight of the junta
proper to twenty-nine. On May 7th it received the adhesion of the Monterey
ayunta- miento, and was officially communicated to the prefect, being also
indorsed next day by the officials of the custom-house, and a little later by
the local-authorities of San Josd, and probably by those of other northern
towns. Prefect Castro refused his approval of the act in all its phases,
suspecting that it was intended as an attack on the political authority represented
in the north by him. Not only did the Mon-
19 April 18th, Pico’s proclamation on
assuming the proprietary governorship. Original in Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii.
178, 181; Guerra, Doc., MS., i. 161-3.
20 March 16th, Castro to Vallejo, who is
summoned in the name of the country to come immediately to Monterey. Vallejo,
Doc., MS., xii. 197.
21 April 2d, pronunciamiento in favor of
Paredes, signed by the following officers: Gen. Jos6 Castro, Col. J. B.
Alvarado, ComtB J. A. Carrillo, Capt. Mariano Silva, Capt. Joaquin
de la Torre, Lieut Fran. Arce, Alf. Bautista
Castro, Col. M. G. Vallejo, Lieut-Col Victor Prudon, Treasurer Jos6 Abrego,
Capt. Pedro Narvaez, Lieut Macedonio Padilla, Sub-lieut Ign. Servin, Manuel R.
Castro, Jos6 Ma Soberanes, Lieut A. M. Somoza, Rafael Sanchez, Capt.
Juan Castaneda, Capt. Jose; M. Flores, Lieut Fran. Limon, Lieut Valentin Gajiola, Sub-lieut Juan Soberanes, Capt. Eug.
Montenegro, Mariano Villa, Lieut Man. Marquez, Lieut Fran. Eguren, Sub-lieut
Man. Garfias, Capt. Gabriel de la Torre, Alf. Guad. Soberanes.
Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 153; Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxxiv. 193.
terey officers approve the new plan, and recognize the new president, but
they protested against the acts of the late administration; and as one of these
acts had been the confirmation of Pico as governor, it was feared that this was
the objective point of the whole movement. Respecting the reception of this act
of the junta by Pico and the assembly early in June, I shall have something to
say later.22 _
After having performed its supposed duties toward the nation, the junta
of Monterey turned its attention to affairs at home, and the decision reached
on April 11th was as follows: 1st, that Castro’s presence was indispensable in
the northern towns, which must be fortified and defended; 2d, that Pico should
be invited to come to Monterey and take part in the salvation of the
department; 3d, that if, as was improbable, Pico should not accept the
invitation, the general might act as seemed best, and establish his
headquarters at Santa Clara; 4th, that this arrangement should last until the
coming of the orders and resources solicited from Mexico through Cas- tillero.23
The governor’s reply to this act was a violent protest against it, as “an
assumption of patriotism for the purpose of paralyzing the administration and
disturbing the peace.” He also expressed great displeasure at the part taken by
the prefect in this scandalous subversion of order and law.2* He continued
his protests in a private letter to Vallejo,
22May 7th,
action of Monterey ayunt. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 201-2. May 7th, Gen.
Castro to prefect. Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 81, 84. May 8th, action of
custom-house officers. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 204. May 8th, 9th, prefect to
Gen. Castro. Id., iii. 203, 205; May 9th, prefect to juez of S. Jos£. S. Jose,
Arch., Loose Pap., MS., 58. May 12th, 13th, prefect vs general. Doc. Hist.
Cal., MS., iii. 209; Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 94. May 13th, Gen. Castro to Pico,
urging him to accept the plan. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 52-3. May 16th, 17th,
juez of S. Jos£ to prefect. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 219, 225. See also
Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., v. 130-2; Castro, Rel., MS., 175-6.
23 April
11th, acta of junta demilitares in Monterey. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii, 50-1. Signed by Castro, Vallejo, Alvarado, Prudon, Carrillo, and Manuel Castro.
21 April
30th, Pico to the Castros. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 190. He begs Gen. CC to
desist from his project, and to unite with him in the country’s defence.
insisting that the junta had merely called upon the people to join Castro
in a struggle against the legitimate authorities, and had ignored not only the
governor, but the assembly, and even the whole south. He regretted deeply that
so true a patriot as Vallejo should have been induced to take part in a measure
so ruinous to his country; and he even carried his flattery so far as to say
that the junta ought to have made Vallejo general in the place of Castro, and
to hint at rewards for the colonel’s favor in the final distribution of mission
property.25 Vallejo’s reply was to point out in a long and friendly
letter the groundless nature of Pico’s suspicions. He maintained that the
danger of foreign invasion in the north was real and imminent; that the junta
had acted in good faith and with no partisan views whatever; that neither the
council of officers nor Castro in this instance had in any respect exceeded
their legitimate powers; and that it would be an absurdity to require a
comandante general to consult a governor two hundred leagues away in a case of
emergency. Vallejo made it very clear, in language forcible but friendly, that
Pico at this stage of the quarrel had allowed his prejudice to get the better
of his reason, and had assumed a position utterly untenable.28
At the end of April, apparently before receiving Pico’s protests, Castro
addressed to the governor a letter in support of the measures decided upon,
urging that only by working in accord was there any hope of averting calamity,
and that the time had now come when all personal and local differences should
be put aside. Pablo de la Guerra was sent as commissioner to Los Angeles to
explain the situation,27 and to obtain at the least an interview
between the two chiefs at San Luis Obispo.28 Guerra was introduced,
and Cas-
55May 2d, P.
to V. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxxiv. 196; xii. 204.
26June 1st,
V. to P., in Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 219.
27 April 27th, 28th, C. to P. Doc. Hist.
Cal., MS., iv. 1178-80; Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 53.
28 May 10th, 11th, letters from both Jos£
and Manuel Castro to Pico, urg-
tro’s communication was read, to the assembly at the session of May 11th;
but the only result—when Guerra had explained his business, and Juan Bandini
had made a speech bitterly denunciatory of Castro’s acts in general, and of his
present assurance in venturing to instruct the governor and assembly on the
true condition of the department—was that Pico was granted permission, should
he deem the matter of sufficient importance, to leave the capital.29
It was probably the holding of a junta at Monterey, as just recorded,
that prompted the southern politicians to organize a somewhat similar meeting
of their own. Early in March, Juan Bandini had proposed a ‘consejo general de
pueblos unidos de la Alta California;’ but the scheme, after some discussion
in April, had not met with much favor, and had been, perhaps, practically
abandoned.30 It was revived, however, on the arrival of Pablo de la
Guerra, and, as the latter claimed, at his instigation, in accordance with the
ideas of Castro and his friends in the north; but it seems certain, from
preceding and subsequent circumstances, that such could not have been the
origin of the plan.31 Everything points to it as a phase of the
quarrel between governor and general, designed as a southern measure to
counterbalance the junta of Monterey.
ing him to consent to
a conference at San Luis, to lay aside personal resentments, and not to add
the danger of civil war to that of foreign invasion. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii.
206; Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS., ii. 86-8. May 25th, alcalde of S.
Jos£ to prefect, on military preparations. People here have as yet taken no
part with Gen. Castro. He seems to hint that there is some concealed plan in
connection with the preparations. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 233.
29 May 11th. Leg. Rec., MS., iv. 337-41. It
was at the same session that Castro’s treatment of Francisco de la Guerra was
reported, a fact that $id not put the abajenos in a very frieudly mood.
30 March 2d, April 22d, 29th. Leg. Rec.,
MS., iv. 317-18: Dept. St. Pap., MS., viii. 96, 99-104, 122-5.
31 Pablo de la Guerra, in an original
blotter letter without date—but probably written in his own defence in later
years—says that he suggested to Castro the idea of independence, which was
favored also by Vallejo and Alvarado; and he was sent south to advance the
scheme, and succeeded in obtaining the call for a consejo—but on his return
found that Castro had changed his mind. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 1299-1300. As
Guerra’s mission to Angeles is otherwise clearly accounted for, and his cool
reception by the assembly recorded,
I cannot place much
reliance on this version of the matter.
On May 13th the assembly took up and approved the committee report of
April 22d, on Bandini’s proposition of March 2d; and on the same day it was
published in a bando by Pico. In a preamble the condition and prospects of
California were presented in the darkest colors; and two important questions
were suggested respecting emergencies likely to arise: 1st, what are the means
of defence if a foreign invasion precedes the coming of aid from Mexico ? and
2d, should troops come from Mexico without provision for their support, what
would be the consequences to Californians? The decree provided that a consejo
general, composed of eighteen delegates to be elected on May 30th—four each
from Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and Monterey; two each from San Diego and San
Josd; and one each from Sonoma and San Francisco— together with the six vocales
of the assembly as speaking and voting members, and with such ecclesiastical
and military representatives, not exceeding five each, as the respective
authorities might deem proper to admit—should meet at Santa Barbara June 15th,
under the presidency of the governor—twelve elected delegates to constitute a
quorum—with the object of “determining all that may be deemed best to avoid
the fatal events impending at home and abroad.”32
Elections were held as ordered in the north, though most of the delegates
chosen declined to serve, either on account of one or another disability, or
because they did not approve the objects of the council.33 Doubtless
elections were also held in the south,
32 Consejo
General de Pueblos Unidos de CaliforniaBando de 13 de Mayo, MS. Details of
the 10 articles, on elections and petty matters of organization and routine,
etc., are omitted as of no importance. May 13th, Pico to both Jos£ and Manuel
Castro, urging the importance of the proposed consejo. Dept, St. Pap., MS.,
vii. 2-3; Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 89-90.
33 The delegates chosen were, for Monterey,
Manuel Castro, Rafael Gonzalez, Francisco Eico, and Rafael Sanchez; for S.
Jos£, Antonio Sunol and Jesus Vallejo; for Yerha Buena, Benito Diaz; and for
Sonoma, Victor Prudon. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 229, 238-47; Castro, Doc.,
MS., ii. 73, 100; Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 210,216; xxxiv. 197,201;
Fernandez, Doc., MS., 13. Rico, Vallejo, Sunol, and Prudon declined—the latter
declaring it would be treason to accept; while Gonzalez and Sanchez referred
the matter to Gen. Castro, which was equivalent to declining.
though I find 110 records. The missionary prelate was invited to name the
ecclesiastical delegates, but declined for want of padres, and because he
questioned the propriety of their taking part in politics.34 Castro
refused to appoint the military delegates, or to have anything whatever to do
with a project which he denounced, in terms even more violent than those applied
by Pico to the action of the Monterey junta, as ruinous, treasonable, illegal,
preposterous, and ‘liber- tycidalM He protested, in the name of God, the country,
and his armed force, against the holding of the consejo and all acts that might
emanate from such a body. He besought the governor to retrace his steps Avhile
there was yet time, announced his purpose to defend the country at all hazards,
and finally declared the department in a state of siege and under martial law.35
He did not condescend to give any definite reasons' for his opposition; but in
reality he opposed the consejo mainly because he and his friends could not
control it, the south having a majority of the elective delegates, besides the
members of the assembly, who were all abajenos. Vallejo in a letter to Pico
based his opposition openly on that ground, declaring the whole scheme a very
transparent trick against the north, and pointing out the injustice of giving
San Diego two delegates, while San Rafael, Sonoma, and New Helvetia combined
were to have but one.36
_ liArch.
Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. 68-9. P. Duran was applied to, but he was ill, and. P.
Gonzalez replied instead.
35May 28th,
Castro’s protest. Original in Soberanes, Doc., MS., 316-20. June 8th, more to
same effect. Bandini, Doc., MS., 73; Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 21-4. ‘I see with
astonishment the libel aborted in the govt house at Angeles on May 13th, under
the title of decree. Never could the insane hydra of discord have ejected a
more destructive flame than that of this abominable paper. Are its authors
Mexicans?’
S6 June 1st,
V. to P. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 219. Osio, IMst. Cal., MS., 456, thinks
Castillero’s influence prevented the meeting, that officer fearing that it
might result in areconciliation between Castro and Pico. Vallejo, Hist. Cal.,
MS., v. 92-3, is of opinion that had the junta been held Pico would have tried
through its ageucy to raise troops and funds for an attack on Castro. May 30th,
Manuel Castro urges Jose Castro to appoint military delegates to the junta, and
to have an interview with Pico. Soberanes, Doc., MS., 322-5. May 30th, 31st,
Gonzalez and Sanchez, delegates elect, ask advice of Castro, and express
suspicion as to the purpose of the junta. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii.’
The purposes of Pico and his friends in convoking the council of Santa
B&rbara were doubtless somewhat vague, the only definite phase of the
matter being a determination that whatever was done for the salvation of the
country must be done under southern control. It was believed, however, that an
influence would be brought to bear in favor of independence from Mexico; and it
was also suspected that certain men would go so far as to urge an English or
French protectorate. This suspicion, not altogether without foundation, will be
noticed more fully in the next chapter. Whatever may have been its object, the
con- sejo never met, the decree of May 13th having been suspended by the
assembly the 3d of June.37 No definite reason was assigned for this
action; but at the same session was announced the declaration of the Monterey
junta in favor of Paredes;33 and a communication from Castro was
also read, in which he announced the imminence of an attack by Fremont, and
urged the governor to come north. Moreover, the refusal of the northerners to
take part in the consejo rendered it impossible to obtain a quorum according to
the terms of the call.
Pico and his advisers regarded the acts of the Monterey junta in favor
of Paredes and against Herrera, in connection with the refusal of the arribehos
to assist in the consejo, as virtually a declaration of war against the south,
and especially against the civil authorities; and they gave little or no
credence to the rumors of impending invasion by Fremont, regarding
87Leg. Rec.,
MS., iv. 352-3; Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 20. Doc. in Pico, Acont., MS., 83-4;
Ooronel, Doc., MS., 243-5. The southern delegates were ordered not to go to Sta
Barbara.
38 June
12th, Abel Stearns writes to Larkin: ‘ The asamblea by act have deferred the
junta that was to take place at Sta B. on the 15th. The cause of this was the
act passed by the said-to-he junta de guerra held at Monterey, in which they
declare the decrees and acts of the govt of Sr Herrera relative to Cal. to be
null; thus indirectly declaring against the gov. of this dept, and other acts
or decrees of the general govt favorable to the civil list, which probably
does not very well coincide with the iuterest of the military gentlemen your
way.’ Larhin’s Doc., MS., iv. 151.
them, and also the efforts to secure the governor’s presence in the
north, as mere pretexts on the part of Castro, whose plan was to depose Pico by
the aid of the force raised ostensibly to resist Fremont. These fears, greatly
exaggerated if not altogether without foundation, were doubtless real on the
part of the abajeno chiefs. They at once resolved to assume the offensive
instead of awaiting an attack, using both force and stratagem. Pico was to
adopt Castro’s own devices; to raise a military force with which ostensibly to
resist foreign invasion; to march northward in pretended compliance with the
general’s invitation; but eventually to forcibly remove that officer from the
command. In the session of June 3d, besides deferring the meeting of the Santa
Barbara council, the assembly authorized the governor to take such steps as
might be necessary to “save the country.” This in open session; but in secret
session that body passed a decree formally suspending General Castro until public
tranquillity should be restored.39
In pursuance of the scheme just noted, Pico took steps to raise funds by
methods closely resembling forced loans. He called on Sonoran and New Mexican
visitors to unite with Californians in support of so holy a cause, and wrote to
Juan Bandini, soliciting his presence and cooperation at Angeles. The 16th of
June he left the capital with a military force. Three days later he was at San
Buenaventura with eighty men, expecting to be joined by thirty more at Santa
Barbara, where he arrived on or before June 21st, and where two days later he
was destined to receive some startling news from Sonoma. Pico’s letters of
these times describe himself and his men as enthusiastic and confident of
succcss. They are filled with denunciations of Castro’s treachery and lack of
patriotism, and announce as certain Castro’s intention
S3This action
is not recorded in the Leg. i?ec., as now extant; but is mentioned in an
original letter of Pico to Baudini on the same day, June 3d, Bandini, Doc.y
MS., 72; and it is indirectly confirmed, as will be seen, in subsequent
records.
to invade the south at the head of an army, urging upon citizens and
legislators the necessity of active measures, military and political, for
sectional, departmental, and national defence.40
Pico had left the capital in charge of the ayuntami- ento, the duties of
which body were not very arduous
,0 May 26th,
Pico to Bandini, urging his presence as member of the as- semby. He declares
that Garfias, Eguren, and other officers in the south were summoned north, not,
as pretended, to serve against Frgmont, but to sign the acta of the
junta. Banclhii, Doc., MS., 71. May 30th, sub-prefect of Sta B. refuses
to recognize Capt. Cota’s fuero militar, in spite of Castro’s orders. Cota, Doc.,
MS., 19-20. May 30th, assembly (or ayunt.?) decrees, that traders in the
capital shall furnish $3,000 within 5 days. Dept. St. Pap., MS., viii.
135. Gov. wants a loan from Figueroa, Temple, and Vignes. Id., vii. 25. No
date, assembly not being in session, the snb-prefect with Pres. Figueroa takes
measures for protection of the capital, in view of Castro’s communications.
Id., viii. 141. June 3d, Pico calls upon Sonorans to aid against Americans.
Id., viii. 135. June 3d, Pico to Bandini. Will start on the 12th; hopes to meet
him before that date. Bandini, Doc., MS., 7'-- June 3d, Wilson to
Bandini. All recognize him (B.) as the only man who can save the country from a
foreign yoke. Id., 81. June 12th, comandante principal at Angeles to Capt.
Andres Pico, transmitting gov.’s official note of same date. JDept in danger
from quasi invasion by U. S. Asks that all army officers he placed at his
disposal, to command the troops about to march to the north. Pico, Doc., MS.,
97-100. June 12th, Pico to 1st judge of S. Luis Obispo. Will start at once for
the north to restore order and defend the country. Asks for cooperation of all
good citizens. S. Luis Obispo, Arch., MS., 12. June 13th, Comandante
Eguren to Capt. Andres Pico. Orders him to proceed to Mont. under the gov.’s
orders. Pico, Doc., MS., ii. 81. June 13th, Eguren to Pico, announcing his
orders to Andr6s. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 58. June 13th, Wilson, from
Jnrupa, to gov. Sends 10 New Mexicans, all he can find. Id., Ben. Pref. y
Juzg., ii. 46. June 16th, Pico sold city lands for $200 to raise money for
his expedition. Los Angeles, Ayunt. Bee., MS., 16. June 16th, Anast.
Carrillo advises Pico not to go north. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 119. June
16th, Pico to start to-day. Id., Angdes, xi. 175; Los Angeles, Arth., MS., v.
349. Juno 16th, ayunt. regrets his departure. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref. y
Juzg., MS., iv. 54. June 19th, Pico from S. Buenaventura to Bandini. Has
just received a despatch from Castro, whose conduct he pronounces as
‘insulting, profane, and outrageous.’ He must be denounced and punished. Come
to Angeles at once to aid in the good work, and bring Arguello with you.
Bandini, Doc., MS., 76. June 19th, Pico to the assembly, transmitting Castro’s
despatch of June 8th—his protest against the consejo, and threat to declare the
dept in a state of siege and under martial law—protesting and urging the
assembly to protest against such arbitrary and outrageous proceedings, to which
he proposes to put a stop immediately. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 25-6,
with Castro’s despatch. Id., vii. 21-4. June 21st, Pico’s sec. to sub-prefect.
The gov. doubts not Castro’s seditious intentions, nor that he is now on his
march to invade Angeles; but will crush the hydra. Id., vii. 27. Some general
accounts and remarks on the controversy between Pico and Castro, adding
nothing to the contemporary corresp. Nearly all agree that down to the last
each was resolved to overthrow the other. Castro, Bel., MS., 173-5, 181-4; Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., v. 129,
150-6; Pico, Ilist. Cal., MS., 139-48; Botello, Anales, MS.,
134—8; Coronel, Cosas, MS., 122; Bidwell’s Cal. 1841-8, MS., 147-9; Tuthill’s
Hist. Cal., 151.
Hist. Cal., Vol. V. i
for the first few days;41 but on June 20th there came a report
through Juan Gallardo that Castro was coming to attack the town within three
days at furthest; and formidable preparations for defence were at once made—011 paper. The alarm was abated next day, when it
was learned that Castro was at least much farther away than had been reported;42
but it was renewed with all its terrors on.the 22d, when Pico’s letter was
received, with Castro’s protest and declaration of martial law, and a report,
brought by an English vessel, that Castro had been in Monterey on the 14th
with seventy men, but had disappeared the next morning, presumably on his way
to Angeles. The sub-prefect, Abel Stearns, at the invitation of President
Figueroa of the assembly, convoked a junta of the citizens, native and foreign,
at his house; and a committee of that junta proceeded to prepare a series of
resolutions strongly condemnatory of Castro’s arbitrary attempts “to erect an
absolute dictatorship to the prejudice of all guaranties,” expressive of a preference
“to perish under the ruins of the patria rather than let it become the sport of
evil-disposed persons;” and, what was more to the point, declaratory of their
purpose to resist by force Castro’s entry into the city.43 The
resolutions were approved by about eighty citizens, of whom twenty-five were
foreigners; and the methods of defence were left to the ayuntamiento. This body
on the 23d issued regulations organizing the citizens into three companies, one
of artillery under Miguel Pryor, another of riflemen under Benito
41 June
l(it) session of the ayunt. A list of respectable citizens to be formed, and
other measures to be adopted for the preservation of order. Los Angeles, Arch., MS., v. 349-50.
42Los Angeles, Arch., MS., v. 353;
Dept. St.
Pap., MS., vii. 4-6; Id., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., ii. 161.
43 June 22d,
Stearns to foreigners. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 6. Report of the committee, consisting
of Requena, Figueroa, Botello, Temple, and Workman, with a long list of
signers, in Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 62-5; Id., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., ii. 163-5;
Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iii. 31-6. Steams to Pico, with the resolutions. Dept.
St. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS., ii. 162-3. Id. to ayunt. Los Angeles, Arch.,
MS.. iii. 16-17; Dept. St. Pap., Ang., MS., xi. 175-8.
Wilson, and a third of cavalry under Jorge Palomares. Next day Julian
Workman was chosen comandante principal of all the forces.44
Juan Bandini, despite his illness, came up to the capital from San Diego
to join his voice to the current denunciations of Castro, as “a man who under
pretence of saving California seeks to tyrannically subdue and trample on her.”45
He also seems to have devoted his energies to the preparation of an elaborate
address to the people, intended to be published by the assembly at the proper
time as a defence of its action in deposing Castro. This document—never issued
so far as I know, but the original blotter of which in Don Juan’s handwriting
exists in my collection—was a long, fierce, and declamatory denunciation of all
that the general had done. It was filled with the most bitter abuse of Castro
in respect not only of his public acts, but of his private character. The
conclusion reached was that the assembly could no longer recognize the
authority of so vicious and ignorant and incapable and tyrannical a monster,
trusting that all patriotic citizens would approve that determination. The
violence of this effusion was as absurd as that of Castro’s protest against the
consejo—which is saying a good deal.46
Of Castro’s operations in June little can be definitely known, beyond
the fact that he was at Santa Clara and San Juan, visiting also Monterey and Sonoma,
engaged in not very successful efforts to raise men for the alleged purpose of
resisting foreign invasion, and greatly annoyed by Pico’s refusal to cooper-
li June 23d-24th, regulations by ayunt.,
and Workman’s election. 50 men are also to be sent to reenforce Pico. Dept, St.
Pap., MS., vii. 7-8; Los Angeles, Arch,., MS., v. 354. June 26th, S. Diego
sends approval of the action against Castro. Dept. St. Pap,, MS., vii. 85, with
a similar approval from the sub-prefect of Sta B., dated June 27th.
15 June 23d, B. to Pico. Bandini, Doc., MS.,
80.
46No date.
Bandini, Doc., MS., 58. In Id., 101, is an undated decree of the assembly,
ignoring Castro’s authority, and authorizing the use of force against him and
his men if they would not lay down their arms. This may be the decree already
referred to, or it may be a supplementary one proposed by Bandini.
ate with him. The records are meagre, and do not show either the number
or organization of the forces under his command; neither do they throw much
light on his real plans. In his despatch of June 8th, after an absurdly violent
protest against the proposed consejo, the general proceeded to urge upon the
governor the importance of coming north to aid in the work of defence, and
concluded as follows: “I have notified you over and over again of the risk
which the country runs, and of the necessity of taking steps for its defence;
but, with regret that I cannot count on your cooperation for that sacred
object, and as the integrity of this part of the republic is exclusively
intrusted to me, I shall be absolutely compelled to declare the department in a
state of siege, and the martial law in full force—a legal resource employed in
such circumstances by all the peoples of the universe.”47 All this
was reasonable enough on its face, and afforded no cause for the ridiculous
ravings of Pico and Bandini; yet these gentlemen believed that Castro was devoting
his whole attention, with the aid of Alvarado and others, to plots against the
civil government, regarding his preparations against foreign aggression as a
mere pretence. It is difficult to determine what were Castro’s plans at this
time. He was not a man in whose favor much could be said at any stage of his
career, or in whose good faith much reliance could be placed. If in the latest
phases of the controversv he showed to better advantage than his rival, it was
due more to circumstances and to Pico’s folly than to any merit of his own. It
is certain that he hated Pico, and would not have scrupled to use force against
him. Had Pico come north in response to his invitation, Castro would probably
have arrested and deposed, if he could not control him. Yet it would have been
difficult to obtain men for a successful attack on the governor or the capital,
and I do not think the general thought of such an expedition in June, if he
had
47 June
8th, C. to P. from Sta Clara. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 24.
before. Moreover, his fears of foreign invasion were by no means a
pretence at this time, after Fremont’s operations in March, and his return from
Oregon at the end of May.48
I have thus brought the political annals of 1846, that is, the
controversy of Pico versus Castro, down to the dates on which the capture of
Sonoma by the Americans was made known to the different factions: to the
citizens of Angeles on June 24th, when they were valiantly arming to resist an
attack from a foe hundreds of miles away, with no intention so far as can be
known of coming nearer; to Pico at Santa Barbara on June 23d, when he was
nearly ready to march northward with his army against the general; and to
Castro at Santa Clara on June 15th, when he was preparing to resist whatever
foes might present themselves, native or foreign. The effect of the startling
news on the actions of the hostile chieftains must be told in later chapters.
48 There were suspicions of some hidden
purpose on Castro’s part, even in the north, as appears from Dolores Pacheco s
communications to the prefect, in Doe. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 251-2. Com.
Carrillo writes of pasquinades posted at Sta Clara against Castro and other
leaders. S. Jos6, Arch., Loose Pap., MS., 4. June 8th, Castro sends some
miltary orders to Angeles, and asks Pico’s cooperation. Dept. St. Pap., MS.,
vii. 57-8.
CHAPTER III.
FOREIGN
RELATION'S—UNITED STATES AND ENGLAND.
January-Jcne,
1846.
Larkin as U. S.
Confidential Agent—His Instructions—Correspondence—Fears of Invasion—Treatment
of Foreigners—Fremont’s Operations in March—Larkin’s Efforts and Hopes—Monterey
Junta—Imaginary Speeches for England, France, and the U. S.— Stearns, Leese,
and Warner—Sutter’s Policy—Consejo General at Santa Barbara, and its Bearing on
Foreign Schemes —Views of Stearns and Larkin—Pico’s Intrigues—Exaggerations on
English Interference—Testimony of Gillespie and Minor—Position of Forbes and Spence—Stearns
as Sub-agent of the U. S.—Condition of Aefairs in June—General Conclusions.
Yet once again have I to go over the early months of 1846 before
describing the revolt which in June served as a prelude to the downfall of
Mexican rule. It will be my purpose in this chapter, largely by extracts from
correspondence of the time, to show what was done and said, what was feared and
hoped, in California respecting an anticipated change of flag; and I shall also
notice as an important phase of the same general subject the feeling and policy
of native citizens and authorities toward foreign residents and immigrants.
Thomas O. Larkin was a very prominent man in connection with the matters
to which I have just referred, being constantly engaged in active efforts to
secure California for the United States and to defeat the schemes, real or
imaginary, of European nations supposed to be intriguing for the same prize. In
October 1845 Larkin had been appointed a confi-
(64)
dential agent of bis government for the critical period believed to be
approaching. His instructions, prefaced by a definite statement of the
administration’s policy, were, in brief, to report fully and often on the
country, its resources and condition, the character and influence and
political disposition of its leading citizens, and on the general progress of
events; to warn the people against the evils of European interference, which
would be disastrous to their true interests, and would not be permitted by the
United States; to impress upon the Californians the advantages of liberty as
enjoyed under the stars and stripes, assuring them that, could they but assert
and maintain their independence from Mexico, they would be welcomed as a sister
republic or as a component part of the great union; and finally, to do all this
with such prudence and skill as not to awaken suspicion or the jealousy of the
men who represented other powers.1 Whatever view may be taken of
President Polk’s general policy respecting California, it must be admitted
that this peculiar appointment conferred upon a foreign consul, when regarded
from the highest standpoint of international honor, reflected no credit upon
the government at Washington; and it is not surprising that the act has never
been made known to the public.
Larkin did not receive or know of his appointment until April; but he
acted much as he would have done had he received it earlier. On the 1st of
January he transferred his mercantile business to Talbot H. Green;2
and thereafter devoted much of his time to
1
Buchanan’s Instructions of the Secretary of State to Thomas 0. Larhin as
Confidential Agent of the United States Government, Oct. 17, 1845. Original MS.
‘In addition to your consular functions, the president has thought proper to
appoint you a confidential agent in Cal.; and you may consider the present
despatch as your authority for acting in this character. The confidence which
he reposes in your patriotism and discretion is evinced hy conferring upon you
this delicate and important trust. You will take care not to awaken the
jealousy of the French and English agents there by assuming any other than your
consular character.’ Larkin’s compensation was to be $6 per day; and Gillespie
was to cooperate with him. See quotations from this document in chap. xxv. of
vol. iv., and chap. i. of this vol.
J Jan. 1,
1846, contract between L. and G. The latter was to take charge
liis consular duties, and in a quiet way to the work of conciliating
Californian sentiment and of watching the other consuls, there existing
naturally no definite record of his earliest efforts in this direction. Nor
were there any important developments or even rumors connected with foreign
relations in January and February; though I may notice a warning sent to the
supreme government by Prefect Castro respecting the dangerous increase, of
immigration; some complaints of local authorities about the freedom with which
some of last year’s immigrants moved about the country under passes from
Sutter; a few vague items that may relate to intrigues for English intervention;
and a letter of a prominent Californian, in which he alludes to Hastings’ book,
and says: “The idea of those gentlemen is that God made the world and them
also; therefore, what there is in the world belongs to them as sons of God”!3
of store, warehouses,
etc., and $10,000 worth of goods; and to conduct the business for three years,
receiving one third of the profits. Larkin’s Doc.,
MS., iv. 1.
3Jan. 24th,
Sub-prefect Guerrero to prefect. Has tried to get the book— in which the
Californians are said to be abnsed—but has not succeeded, though offering $20.
Castro, Doc., MS., i. 311. In Feb., however, he got a copy and sent it to
Castro. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 95. Jan. 2d, G. to Larkin, asking him to
cause his countrymen who have entered illegally to retire, if he has
jurisdiction in such matters. Larkin's Doc., MS., iv. 5. Jan. 8th, Gov. Pico
calls upon the prefect for a report on the immigrants of the past year. Doc.
Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 21. Jan. 22d, Guerrero to prefect. What shall he do with
the strangers coming from the Sacramento? Thirty arrived yesterday. Can Sutter
issue passports? Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 77. More arrivals. Castro, Doc.,
MS., ii. 12. Jan. 29th, 30th, prefect to sup. govt, and to gov. Speaks of the 200
armed foreigners who had entered illegally, and of the much larger numher
expected this year; has no doubt the iutention is to take possession of the
country, the intrusion being probably instigated by the U. S.; speaks of the
general’s permission to the immigrants to remain through the winter; sends some
statistics and names; and urges the necessity of protective measures. Dor.
Ilist. Cal., MS., iii. 90, 121; Dept. St. Pap., MS., vi. 105-6. Feb. 18th, Pico
in reply agrees with the prefect’s views, and recommends a strict watch.
Understands that Castro’s promise was only conditional, and will ‘ order ’ that
officer to cooperate. It is important to satisfy the national govt, that we
are doing all we can. Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 15. Feb. 15th, Francisco Arce
writes to Vallejo that the continual irruption of foreign adventurers will end,
if no check can be put to the abuse, in the country falling into the hands of
those audacious people who, not content with the generous hospitality extended
to them, ‘advance more and more in their design to destroy our political system
and deprive us of our native country.’ Vallejo, Dec., MS., xii. 184. In
Guerrero’s letters of Jan.-Feb. to Manuel Castro, he alludes in a somewhat
mysterious way to Consul Forbes in connection with the departure of Pico’s
comisionado, Covarrubias, for Mex-
The Californian authorities were naturally alarmed at the presence of so
many armed Americans in the north at a time when war was regarded as imminent;
and they felt impelled as Mexican officials to exhibit more alarm than they
really felt. Moreover, the governor and prefect were disposed to criticise the
permission accorded to the immigrants of 1845, simply because it was Castro
that granted it. But it is noticeable that no practical steps were taken, and
no real disposition was shown, either to oppress foreign residents, or even to
enforce the going of the newcomers who had promised to depart in the spring if
required to do so. In the records of these two months we have nothing but the
old hackneyed official expressions of the evils likely to arise from the
increase of American immigration-; and in the following months no change in
this respect was observable.4
ioo, seeming to
indicate, though there is nothing clear, an understanding with Forbes
respecting a scheme of some importance in connection with Co-
varrubias’mission. Castro, Doc., MS., i. 262, 313; ii. 12. This may possibly
have a bearing on the traditionary English schemes of this year, in connection
with Pio Pico’s statement, Hisl. Cal., MS., 136-7, that Covarrubias was instructed
to apply to the commander of some English vessel for protection if he could get
no aid from Mexico. Pico claims also that he made many efforts to secure a
conference with Castro, with a view to declare the country’s independence, a
step that was prevented hy the general’s jealous fears!
‘March 2, 1846, Pieo
to the assembly. Complains that through the ‘tolerance or dissimulation ’ of
certain parties—that is, Castro and the military authorities—Mexican orders and
his own instructions to prevent the illegal entry of overland immigrants have
not been carried oat. Olvera, Doc., MS., 13-14. March 4th, Justice Bolcof of
Sta Cruz laments the injury done by foreign lumbermen, who refuse to pay taxes.
April 5th, Justice Pacheco at S. Jos6 complains at great length of the
foreigners who, just because they have married and obtained naturalization, put
themselves on a level with and even above the natives. See the Sainsevain mill
affair in the local annals of S. Jos6. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 158.
Complaint that the true faith has been insulted by Sutter and Forbes. Dept. St.
Pap., MS., viii. 127. April 17th, Sub-prefect Guerrero again wants to know what
to do with the foreigners who swarm at Yerba Buena. Their number is
continually increased by deserters, who do not mind the penalty of public
works, eating more than they earn. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 176. April 17th,
order to sub-prefects, etc., that foreigners not naturalized cannot hold lands,
no matter how acquired, that alcaldes must enforce this, and make the
foreigners understand it, and also that they are liable to be expelled from the
country whenever the govt may see fit to require it. Id., iii. 175. Same sent
to Larkin by sub-prefect on April 30th. Larkin’s Doc., MS., iv. 109. Same to
Leidesdorff April 30th. Sawyer's Doc., MS., 36-7. This is the nearest
approximation to the order, mentioned by many Bear Flag men, expelling all
Americans from the country, and causing them to rise in self-defence! May 25th,
Vallejo to Castro. Learns that in July 3,000 American families will arrive.
Something
Fremont’s operations in March, as detailed in a former chapter, had no
other effect than to stir up ill feeling between the Californians andAmericans;
the former being surprised and offended by so grievous an outrage coming from
an officer of a government in whose paternal solicitude for their welfare and
earnest desire for their favor they were being urged by Larkin and others to
trust; while the latter, in certain sections, by distorted and false versions
of the affair, were made to believe, or obtained a pretext for asserting, that
Castro and his men were determined to drive Americans from the country. This
was a serious obstacle to Larkin’s plans. He could but disapprove Frdmont’s
policy, yet as consul, not knowing under what instructions that officer was
acting, he afforded him all possible aid, and prepared for possible
contingencies by sending down the coast for a man-of-war; but after Frdmont had
been brought to his senses by reflection and the consul’s advice and Castro’s
military preparations, Larkin did not yet despair of success and hastened to
assure his government that there was no real hostility on the part of the
Californians, who were in their turn asked to believe that all had been an
error, which should cause no interruption of friendly feelings. To the
secretary of state he wrote that Castro’s acts against Fremont had been
intended chiefly for effect in Mexico, and that for the same purpose a commissioner
was to be sent with the unfounded reports that Fremont’s men were joining the
Indians for an attack on the farms, that the settlers were about to take
possession of a northern town, and that Hastings was laying out a town for the
Mormons at New Helvetia. Yet notwithstanding the excitement growing out of the
Fremont affair, “the undersigned believes that the flag, if respectfully
planted, will receive the goodwill of much of the wealth and respectability of
the
should be done to
prevent it. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 57. June 11th, Diaz
to Castro. Belden has
arrived and reports no new arrivals of estrangeros at the Sacramento. Doc.
Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 133.
country. Those who live by office and by the absence of law, and some few
others, would faintly struggle against a change. Many natives and foreigners of
wealth are already calculating on the apparent coming change.”5
The action of the military junta at Monterey in April has been fully
noticed. Its avowed purpose was to devise means of defence against foreign
aggression ; and there is nothing in the contemporary records of its acts and
discussions to indicate any ulterior motive or sentiment of disloyalty to
Mexico on the part of its members. There is a tradition, however, somewhat
widely published, that the junta took into consideration, not only a scheme of
independence from Mexico, but also of a foreign protectorate or annexation,
the failure of the scheme being due chiefly to the inability of members to
agree whether California should be intrusted to the protection of the United
States, England, or France.
Lieutenant Revere, who arrived at Monterey while the junta was in
session, was “favored by an intelligent member” with what purported to be the
substance of two speeches delivered by Pio Pico and M. G. Vallejo, the former
in favor of annexation to France or England, and the latter an eloquent plea in
behalf of the United States. Revere published these speeches in his book in
1849, with the explanation that “the arguments of Vallejo failed to carry
conviction to the majority, but the stand taken by him caused a sudden sine die
adjournment of the junta, without arriving at any definite conclusion upon the
weighty matter concerning which they had met to deliberate.” Va
5 April 3d,
18th, L. to sec. state. Larkin's Off. Gorresp., MS., ii. 49-51. To the U. S.
min. in Mexico he expressed his confidence that there was no danger of invasion
by Americans. Id., i. 71. Yet L. had just received a letter from Hastings, in
which that gentleman predicted great things for Cal. from the immense
immigration; and announced that a business firm—really under a confidential
arrangement with the govt, made for reasons that L. will readily understand—was
to despatch two ships each year, hringing immigrants free of charge! Larkin's
Doc., MS., iv. 55.
llejo, after writing to Pio Pico a letter embodying his views, left
Monterey for Sonoma to await the issue. Pevere’s account, founded on
information obtained, not at the time—when he knew nothing “except the
notorious facts that two parties existed, and that General Vallejo was
supposed to be the leader of the American party, while Castro was at the head
of the European movement”—but subsequently, and doubtless after the conquest,
has been repeated by Lancey and others, with the additional information that
the junta met at San Juan I Of course, as the reader knows, Pico took no part
in the meeting, being at Los Angeles at the time; nor is Revere’s explanation—
that J. A. Carrillo “reflected the views of Pico, officiated as his especial
mouth-piece,” and might even have made the speech attributed to Don Pio—calculated
to throw much light on the subject, as Carrillo was politically a bitter foe of
the governor.6
Colonel Vallejo was perhaps the source of Revere’s information, and at
any rate, he has become chief sponsor for the events as described in later
years. In 18G6, John W. Dwinelle, after a consultation with Vallejo, reproduced
the speeches, which he stated to have been put in writing at the time of
delivery by Larkin.7 Finally, Vallejo himself, in his manuscript
6Revere’s Tour, 24^32; Lancey’s Cruise, 51-4; Marin Co.
Hist.,
62-5; Mendocino Co. Hist., 62-8. Revere adds that in a private conversation
Castro asked a few weeks later ‘ whether the govt of the U. S. would give him a
brigadier general’s commission in case he decided to pronounce for the establishment
of their authority.’ ‘ He spoke apparently in jest, but I could
perceive that the promise of such an appointment would have had its effect. ’
C. E. Pickett, in Shuck's Repres. Men, 229-30, gives a very muddled account of
this junta in connection with that convoked at Sta Barbara.
7 Dwinelle’s Address, 1866, p. 21-7. He
describes the meeting as an informal one, held at the house of Castro at
Monterey; does not name Pico as author of the first speech, since he is ‘now a
loyal citizen of Cal.;’ and he speaks of the action of this meeting as having
made useless the holding of that at Sta Barbara, though as a matter of fact
the latter was not called until May, long after the former was held. In
memorandum for Dwinelle’s use, Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxxiv. 197, says Pico’s
speech was made at Los Angeles; and names consuls Larkin and Gasquet as having
been present at the Monterey meeting. Swasey, who was at Monterey at the time,
says, Cal. ’45-6, MS., 8-9, and in conversation, that such a meeting was held,
at which Vallejo prevented the success of a plan to put the country under
English protection; but he does not claim to have known anything of the matter
beyond a current report of the time.
history, gives a detailed account of the whole matter, which is more or
less fully confirmed by Alvarado.8 His version is that Castro
convoked the junta ostensibly to devise means of defence, but really to gain
the support of leading citizens against Pico, whom he proposed to overthrow in
favor of some man who would take part in his own schemes for a French protectorate.
Vallejo was summoned to attend the junta, and was joined on his way dy Sanchez
and Alvires at Santa Clara. The meeting was held on the 27th of March, at the
house of Larkin, and was presided by Castro, who in an opening speech, that
accredited by Revere to Pico, made an argument in favor of annexation to
France.9 Castro’s proposition caused some surprise, as he had been
supposed to favor absolute independence. David Spence then urged the
advantages of England as a strong nation, which, though protestant, afforded
equal protection to her catholic citizens. Rafael Gonzalez made a speech in
favor of “California, libre, soberana, y independiente”! and was followed
byPrudon and Sanchez in behalf of the United States, by Pablo de la Guerra 10
and Juan Alvires for independence, by Hartnell for England, and by Cambuston
for France. Finally, Vallejo made his famous speech in favor of annexation to
the United States;11 and Prudon immediately called for a vote on
Vallejo’s proposition. Castro objected, with satirical allusion to the
“gentlemen of the frontier” who were present only by condescension of the south
and centre,, representing the wealth and intelligence of the coun
8 Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., v. 61-92;
Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., v. 133-46.
9 The speech is given in full. Vallejo
tells us that to Castro’s final clause, ‘ I propose annexation to France, ’
Hartnell, the official reporter (?), an Englishman, added: ‘or England,’
etc.—words really spoken by Spence, though Castro favored France decidedly, on
account of her religion, as he said.
10 Except by this author Guerra is supposed
with much reason to have been a partisan of England. Alvarado says that he
should have favored independence.
J1The speech
in substance as given by Revere. Vallejo says that many delegates were present
from the south, all in favor of England except Bandini and A. M. Pico, who
favored the U. S. Bandini certainly was not there, and probably no southern
delegate was even invited to come.
try, and insisted that a vote must be taken on his own proposition.
Prudon replied, but the feeling of the assembly was manifestly against him, and
Vallejo barely succeeded in having a vote postponed until after a recess.
During this recess, realizing that his party was outnumbered by the opposition,
which would doubtless unite in favor of England, Vallejo and his friends
decided to quit Monterey and to return to their homes, which they did, leaving
the junta without a quorum, and thus defeating temporarily all schemes of
European intervention!12
A desire to be strictly accurate, the leading motive of all my
historical researches, compels me to state that I believe all that has been
said of this meeting, including the eloquent speeches so literally quoted, to
be purely imaginary. No such meeting was ever held, and no such speeches were
ever made. My belief in this respect is founded on the absence of any contemporary
corroborative evidence, under circumstances which would certainly have
produced allusions to such extraordinary schemes and discussions; especially
on the silence of Larkin, who assuredly would have known and written about a
matter so particularly interesting and important to himself; and on the many
inherent discrepancies and errors that have been pointed out in the testimony
extant. There is no reason to doubt that Vallejo was disposed in 1846 to favor
annexation to the United States, or that others looked with more favor on
European nations for protection; and it is not unlikely that some of the -
leaders may have expressed their preferences to one —another and guardedly to
foreigners; but in thus recording a formal meeting, with deliberate discussion
of propositions to deliver their country to a foreign power,
12 It is to be noted that Vallejo makes the
date of the junta March 27th, while its action of April 11th, abundantly
recorded, is not mentioned at all by him. He speaks of Pico’s letter
disapproving of his speech, and of the junta’s action, though moat of the
members had assembled by Pico’s order, with instructions to vote for England!
but Pico’s letter and Vallejo’s reply are extant, as already noted, and they
contain no reference to foreign relations.
I am very sure that General Vallejo’s memory has been greatly aided by
his imagination.
On April 17th, the day of Gillespie’s arrival with news of Larkin’s
appointment as confidential agent, Larkin wrote letters to Abel Stearns,, Jacob
P. Leese, and John Warner, to whom he communicated news brought from Mazatlan
by the Portsmouth, to the effect that war was believed to have been declared,
or at least that it would not long be delayed. In the ovent of war, he writes,
“I believe the stars would shine over California before the Fourth of July!
blessing those who see them and their posterity after them.” This, he
believes, would be most advantageous to the people, though probably not to
himself and other merchants. “As a trader, I prefer everything as it is; the
times and the country are good enough for me.” After painting in bright colors
the benefits of annexation to the United States, the writer urges the gentlemen
addressed to disseminate his views with diligence and secrecy, reporting promptly
all that they could learn of the popular feeling in their respective sections.
Especially were the people to be warned against the evils of European
interference. In their distress, “some look to England, some to the United
States, and a few to France as a dernier ressort. Those who look to Europe know
nothing of a European colonist’s life, or of the heavy tax and imposition he
suffers. The idea of independence is from his mother’s breast implanted in
every native of the American continent. Then where should he look for assistance
but to the United States of America? He will there find a fellow-feeling with
those who can participate in all his ideas, and hail him as a republican and
citizen of the land of freedom. Be all this as it may, from the time of Mr
Monroe, the United States have said that no European government should plant
colonies in North America. Mr Polk reiterates this position, and his
government will make it good; and the
day that European colonist by purchase, or European soldier by war,
places his foot on Californian soil, that day shall we see the hardy sons of
the west come to the rescue.”13
At or about the same time Larkin prepared another letter, expressing
views similar to those just noted, but in language almost identical with that
used by Buchanan in his instructions. This document without signature was
translated into Spanish, and was intended to be shown to different
Californians, but only as embodying Larkin’s private opinions.14 To
the secretary of state the consul wrote, that while the leaders would prefer to
rule the country under Mexico, and were inclined to vacillate in their ideas of
foreign protection, yet he believed they would not oppose annexation to the
United States if their offices and salaries could be secured to them.15
To Gillespie Larkin wrote: “I have said, as my opinion, to Castro, Carrillo,
and Vallejo, that our flag may fly here in thirty days. The former says for his
own plans war is preferable to peace, as affairs will at once be brought to a
crisis, and each one know his doom. I answered that without war he could secure
to himself and his friends fame, honor, and permanent employ and pay. He and
others know not what to do or say but wait advices from Mexico... I have had
many of the lead
13 April 17, 1846, L. to Steams, Leese, and
Warner. Larkin's Off. Corresp., MS., i. 77-9. This letter might be shown to
Californians, but neither original nor a copy must be allowed to fall into
their hands.
14Nodate,
Larkin’s circular letter. Copy in Sawyer’s Doc., MS., 18-24, with a note by L.
explaining the circumstances under which it was written— in Feb. he says, but
this must be an error, perhaps of the copyist. I have not found the original,
but Sawyer saw it among L. ’s papers before they came into my possession. In
this document the Californians are clearly informed that the U. S. will not
permit European intervention, but will welcome Cal. as a sister republic or as
a part of the American union.
I5April 17,
1816, L. to sec. state. Larhin’s Off. Gorresp., MS., ii. 52-4. He says Castro
talks of going to the Sacramento in July to prevent the entry of expected
immigrants.^ He is probably not in earnest, but if he does go it will only
hasten the crisis. Larkin thinks Castro will soon overthrow Pico; represents
Forbes and Gasquet as men not very influential or likely to meddle much in
politics; and he thanks the president for his appointment as agent, promising
to do his best to give satisfaction.
ers at my house to inquire into the news, and I believe they are fast
preparing for the coming event.”11*
Respecting the policy of Sutter in these days, so far as foreign
relations are concerned, little is known. He was not in 1846, as he had been to
some extent before, one of those to whom Larkin confided his political plans.
In a communication to Castro, written, in April or May—the same in which he
warned that officer against Gillespie as an agent of the United States with
important despatches for Fremont, whom he perhaps intended to recall from the
northern frontier—Sutter wrote: “I recommend you to station a respectable
garrison at this point before the arrival of immigrants from the United States,
which will be about the middle of September. According to reports, they may
number some thousands, though not ten thousand, as has been said. Believing
that the government will buy my establishment, I shall put every thing in the
best order. I am putting a new story on the large new building which you have
seen, and will make it ready as soon as possible, containing quarters for two
or three hundred soldiers, with sufficient parade-ground within the fort for
the troops. I have also written to Prudon about this matter.”17 The
only comment to be made on Sutter’s warning against Gillespie, and on his
recommendation to garrison New Helvetia against American immigrants, is that
these acts were much more consistent with his duty as a Mexican citizen and
officer than with his later pretensions of American partisanship.
On May 13th was issued the call for a ‘consejo general de pueblos
unidos,’ to deliberate on the future destiny of California. I have already
noticed this con-
16 April 23, 1846, L. to G. Larkin's Off.
Corresp., MS., i. 73-5.
17 No date (about 3 weeks after Fremont’s
visit), Sutter to Castro in Spanish. Castro, Doc., MS., 98, 41. For the letter
to Prudon, see chap. xxv., this vol. Sutter’s preparations were soon to be
utilized, as will be seen, but not by* a Mexican garrison, as he had intended.
Hist.
Cal., Vol. V. 5
sejo as a phase of the controversy between Pico and Castro, and explained
that the opposition of the latter and his friends prevented its success. It has
been believed from that time to this, that the promoters of this council
intended in it to urge the scheme of independence from Mexico, involving
probably an appeal to some other nation for protection. The wording of the
call,18 together with the correspondence of such men as Stearns and
Larkin, indicates that the belief was well founded; though little contemporary
evidence exists from Californian sources.19 I have no doubt that
the consejo would have discussed the questions to which I have alluded; that
among the members would have appeared advocates of loyalty to Mexico, of
absolute independence, of annexation to the United States, and of an English or
French protectorate; and that on a vote the parties would have stood
numerically in the order j ust indicated. Friends of the United States might
very likely have united with the advocates of independence, since, in the event
of no war with Mexico, independence would have been less embarrassing to the
government at Washington than annexation, though practically and eventually
amounting to the same thing. But all the other factions would have united in
behalf of Mexico, and California would almost certainly have maintained its
former status, so far as the consejo could affect it.
Larkin was not alarmed at the rumors that the consejo was to be
controlled by advocates of European interference. He proposed to visit Santa
Barbara in person; and he had no doubt of his ability, with the aid of Vallejo,
Bandini, and Stearns, all of whom he urged to attend as members, to prevent any
triumph of foes to the United States, though he did not expect a positive
decision in favor of his own plans.
18 See chap. ii. of this vol.
19 May 30, 1846, Manuel Castro to JosS
Castro. Mentions the rumor that the southern delegates will favor independence;
at which the writer is indignant, and urges the gen. to take part in the
consejo, with a view to prevent the success of such a scheme. 8oberanr.i,
Doc., MS., 322-5.
Stearns thought the proposed meeting would consider foreign relations
only as a secondary question, the quarrel between Pico and Castro being of
primary importance; but he believed that the United States had more friends in
the south than any European nation, and that a majority would favor annexation,
could they be assured of immediate protection against Mexico.20
The importance of the proposed consejo, as a scheme designed to put the
country under the protection of England, has been grossly exaggerated, as
indeed has all that pertains in any way to English interference. It has been
asserted that Pico and other promoters of the council had so arranged its
membership as to insure a decision in favor of Great Britain. Many native
Californians have taken this view of the mat-
20 May 14, 1846, Stearns to Larkin,
announcing the convocation of the consejo. He says: ‘ The idea among the
Californians for independence has for a long time been cherished here at the south;
more so than at the north. Such a measure I have always been opposed to, and
think it a wild scheme. Other plans have been spoken of hy some—such as to ask
protection of England or the U. S. The desire for some kind of a change is
almost universal, as it is certain that no protection can be-expected from
Mexico in her present revolutionary state.’ Larkin's DocMS., iv. 119. May 21st,
L. to S. Id., Off. Gorresp.f MS., i. 80. May ‘24th, L. to Leese. Asks him to
urge Vallejo to attend the consejo. Id., i. 81. June 1st, Steams to L.,
explaining his ideas as to the object of the meeting. Id., Doc., MS., iv. 151.
‘I often hear the most respectable people say, “ Ojal& que tome esta los
Americanos53! They appear to be inclined to any kind of a change
that will free them from Mexico. The govt men are of the same opinion
generally.5 June 1st, L. to Gillespie. Does not believe the junta
will have a quorum. ‘I have no reason to suppose that this junta is more than
to do something for the benefit of Cal.; what that may be the members
themselves do not exactly know.. .1 as a private person told Forbes, Castro,
Vallejo, and Prndon that if they were confident that Mexico would do nothing
for Cal., to make one more effort and present from a large junta a respectable (sic)
memorial representing the state of Cal.; and if Mexico cannot afford
protection, let them humbly offer their advice of selling the country. Forbes
told me he could not mention such a thing. I told him I would, and my govt
could displace me if they saw proper; as I had no pay (!), there would be no
risk or loss; that as a private man and land speculator I would agitate
questions for my private ends, benefit, and account. To do this he wished me
to be there5—at Sta Barbara. Id., Off. Gorresp., MS., i. 87-9. June
1st, L. to sec. state, announcing the proposed holding of the consejo by the
gov. and assembly, ‘from a dread of something, they hardly know what.5
Id., ii. 56. June 18th, L. to Mott and Talbot, Mazatlan. Thinks the scheme
will fail. Id., Doc., MS., iv. 165. Castro, Helacion, MS., 177-80, says that
Pico’s motive in convoking the consejo was to forestall Gen. Castro in his
supposed scheme of a foreign protectorate—a most ridiculous enterprise. The
gen. had really sent Guerra (so G. claimed also) to urge Pico to join him in
such a scheme.
ter, especially certain arribenos, who have thus accounted for their
opposition to the scheme, with a view to magnify their services in behalf of
the United States.21 Another fruitful source of exaggeration was the
congressional investigation of a few years later respecting California claims
on the treasury, on which occasion it became important for certain interests to
magnify the importance of services rendered by revolutionists to the United
States. Many witnesses were brought forward to prove that California had been
on the point of being surrendered to England by the authorities, the transfer
being prevented—-as was Pico’s- prodigal distribution of lands among his
English friends —by the prompt action of American settlers on the northern
frontier. The absurdity of this claim will be shown later; and I introduce the
matter here only to show the origin of a popular idea, that California was in
imminent danger of being handed over to England. The testimony cited was that
of those who merely repeated the rumors current among a class who had the least
opportunities of knowing the facts; and they paid but little attention to the
chronology of such rumors, confounding those that followed with those that
preceded the raising of the American flag in July.22
21 Vallejo, Hist. Cal.,
MS., v. 41, 93; Id., Doc., MS., xxxiv. 192, is positive in his statements to
this effect, declaring also that Forbes was active in promoting the scheme.
Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., v. 109-10, 146-50, expresses the same opinion, so
far as Pico’s designs are concerned; but he thinks the governor’s following
was not numerically strong, and he names David Spence as the most prominent
English agent. Osio, Hist. Cat., MS., 457, confirms the statement that Pico
was intriguing with Forbes and other agents of England. Rafael Pinto, A'punt.
+ MS., 106, claims to have started for the south with Pablo de la Guerrra, who
was sent by Castro and Alvarado to confer with Pico, and urge a scheme for an
English protectorate. Mauuel Torres, Periperias, MS., 72-4, tells us that Dr
Stokes was one of the most active partisans of the English cause; but that
Forbes and Richardson held aloof. See also, on Pico’s schemes, Juarez, Narr.,
MS.; Carrillo, Narr., MS., 6-10; Sanchez, Notas, MS., 22. John Bid well, Cal.
in 184-1-8, MS., 141-2, says it was generally understood that Pico and other
prominent men were agitating the question of English protection, and he thinks
there was some foundation for the idea. Juan Forster, Pioneer Data, MS., 28-9,
also thinks there was an understanding between English agents and the
Californian authorities. See also Lancey's Cruise, 54. Hepworth Dixon, White
Conquest, i. 40, names Vallejo as an advocate of English schemes! See also
HalVsHist. S. Jos6, 143, and many newspaper articles.
22Frtmont1
s Cal. Claims (30th cong. 1st sess., Sen. Repts no. 75); Dix’s
The truth of the matter is simply that Pico and half a dozen other
somewhat prominent men, including Pablo de la Guerra and Juan B. Alvarado,
were inclined, through various motives of personal ambitions, dislikes, and
friendships, to favor European intervention as a means of keeping their country
from the United States. Popular sentiment was not strong in their favor, and
they could not have controlled the consejo in behalf of England, even had they
acted together, as they were not likely to do. The theory that Pico had so
planned the meeting as to control it absolutely in this respect, or in any
other respect except that of opposition to Castro and the northern clique, was
one developed in later years from the imagination of Vallejo and his friends.
Larkin and Stearns, the men best qualified to judge in the matter, had no fear
of results so far as the action of Californians was concerned, their only
apprehensions, much less troublesome than in former years, being founded on
what England might accomplish in Mexico. Had England sent a force to take
California, together with guaranties of office or emolument to Pico and Castro,
then the attitude of those officials would have assumed an importance that it
did not possess under any other circumstances. What were the plans of the
English government it is no part of my present duty to consider.
It is not easy to determine what steps were taken by Forbes and David
Spence to encourage Pico and his friends in their purpose of appealing to
England. The correspondence of the time naturally touches this
Speeches,
i. 27S-80; Hartmann's Brief, 61-75. Lieutenants Gillespie and Minor were the
witnesses that spoke most positively about the Sta Barbara junta, the former
getting his information from Leese chiefly,-and the latter— who represented the
junta as having actually decided in favor of England— from Pedro C. Carrillo.
15 or 20 other witnesses testified to the general belief that Pico was granting
the public lands as fast as possible to Englishmen. The chief absurdity to
which I have alluded in my text was in the claim that the action of the
northern revolutionists, in the middle of June, had any effect to check Pico’s
grants. Most of the witnesses mention the McNamara grant, which will be fully
noticed later, and of which nothing was known in northern California before the
end of June.
topic but vaguely.23 Forbes always denied having been
concerned in any intrigues whatever in behalf of his government. In
conversation with Larkin in 1846, he gave him to understand that he had once
been reprimanded by his government for having introduced the subject of
California politics in some of his communications; that he believed the rumors
of English negotiations with the authorities to be false, though England would
not regard with satisfaction the interference of any other nation; that his
individual preference was in favor of the United States, though his official
position did not permit an open expression of this preference; and finally,
that his policy would be to say nothing, not to meddle in politics, and to
acquire some lands in anticipation of the coming change.21 It is not
by any means necessary to place implicit confidence in the literal accuracy
23March
17th, Forhes writes to Bandini: ‘You being in my opinion a man whose
intelligence penetrates the designs of California’s foes, and not being able at
present to enter into particulars, I have authorized Henry Dalton to propose to
you a certain method of frustrating those designs in a manner honorable and
beneficial to this country. Please write to me if you find it necessary in
order to forward lihe desired object.’ Bandini, Doc., MS., 68. Don Juan’s reply,
Id., 69, was dated April 21st. It was long—Bandini never wrote a short
communication—and somewhat vague and mysterious. The danger was no secret to
him, he said, and he seems to approve the plan proposed; but ‘ unfortunately
we are in a conntry where everything cannot be told, and where a- good result
cannot be expected if the few men capable of treating so serious a subject do
not dedicate themselves exclusively to it.’ It is necessary to use great
caution, to dissemble, and to await an opportunity, carefully avoiding
premature action, etc. He also alludes vaguely to commercial topics. This
corresp. may or may not have a political significance. Forbes seems to have
addressed Pico, asking an explanation respecting Fremont's motives; for Pico,
on April 22d, replied that he did not know what those motives were, but
assuring Forbes that the govt does not admit the protection of any foreign
power. Dept. St. Pap., MS., viii. 128.
21 May 21, 1846, L. to Stearns. Larkin’s
Off. Corresp., MS., i. 80-1. May 24th, same to same. Id., i. 81-3; Id., Doc.,
MS., iv. 133. May 26th, same to same. Id., Off. Corresp., MS., i. 83. ‘It is
possible that the gov. may obtain sufficient from Mr Forbes to give up any idea
of looking to England.] June 1st, L. to Gillespie. Id., i. 87-9. June 1st, L.
to sec. state. Id., ii. 56-8. The same idea is clearly expressed in all these
letters. Steams had written on the 14th of May that he knew positively that
English agents were at work; and L. had been somewhat alarmed at the news until
he had talked^ with Forbes and Spence. McKay, Recollections, MS., 4, arriving
at S. F. in March, says he found the air thick with rumors on account of Fremont’s
operations. The Englishmen there seemed to take sides with the Americans,
though they blamed the English govt for not taking prompt action to secure the
couutry for the British crown.
of these statements of Forbes and Spence; but it is well to note that
evidence against them is exceedingly slight, and that Larkin, the man best
qualified and most interested to learn the truth, as well as the one who had in
former years been most suspicious of English interference, was inclined to
credit those statements.
In May Larkin appointed Abel Stearns his confidential agent for Los
Angeles and southern California; implying, though not stating
clearly, the nature of his own relations to the administration at Washington.25
. At the end of the month he wrote to Frdmont, and said in- answer to the
latter’s offers to be of service to him at Washington: “I have neither demands
nor favors to ask of our government, nor ‘odds,’ to use a western expression.
What time may require, time must bring to light. You are aware that great
changes are about to take place in a country we are both acquainted with; to
aid this I am giving up business, holding myself in readiness for the times to
come, and the results; thus drawing myself into the political vortex. This in
time may bring my name too prominently forward, so that I may be assailed.
Should this ever happen, you may render me service.”26 The same
sentiments respecting the country’s prospects are expressed to Buchanan in a
letter of June 1st, in which Larkin suggests that he would be will. 25 May 23,
1846, L. to S. Larkin’s Off. Gorresp., MS., i. 84. The following paragraph
illustrates one trait of the writer’s character: ‘You are aware I have been for
some time in public employ without any pecuniary remuneration, and therefore
cannot offer you any. I can only say the offer cannot be of much trouble or
expense to an active and energetic man like yourself, who would find a pleasure
in what others would call laborious business. I cannot even promise you that my
offer holds out any future inducement to you or your interests, but I believe
that both may be advanced at some future day not far distant. Therefore the end
may justify the means, at least in the result. You must only look for
recompense at present in an extended knowledge of affairs.1
Nothing of Larkin’s $6 per day! L. also wrote in these times letters for the N.
Y. Herald and Sun, as appears from corresp. with Bennett and Beach in Larkin’s
Doc,, MS., iv. 124, 129. These editors valued the letters highly, and offered
pay, but L. would accept nothing, unless possibly protection in case of future
slanders.
26May 31,
1840, L. to F., in Larkin's Off. Corresp., MS., i. 86.
ing to undertake a secret diplomatic mission to Mexico on the pretext of
collecting sums due him personally; and also suggests that he has at Washington
a relative, Eben L. Childs, who might be utilized as special messenger to
California, or who might be employed to write secret despatches without
signature, as his handwriting was known to Larkin.27 This idea
arose from the delay of the important despatch of October 17, 1845, of which
Larkin had as yet received only a .copy written from memory of the duplicate
intrusted to Gillespie. The original arrived, however, before the 15th, on
which date Larkin renewed his thanks for the honor, describing his zealous
efforts in the past, urging the necessity of an increased salary, and forwarding
carefully prepared sketches of California, its condition, institutions, and
people.23 About this time he obtained from General Castro, in an
interview, a general assent to his political scheme, in the form of a written
plan of a movement of independence to be undertaken as soon as the number of
foreign settlers should be deemed sufficient to insure success.29
27 June 1, 1846, L. to sec. state. Larkin’s
Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 56-8. June 1st, receipt of Narciso Botiller for $40
from L. for carrying a mail from Sta Clara to Monterey. Monterey, Consulate
Arch., MS., ii. 15. Phelps, Fore and Aft, 283-4, tells us that being at Los
Angeles early in June, when despatches arrived announcing that war would soon
be declared, he was assured by Pico that in spite of orders from Mexico,
American trading vessels ou the coast should not be molested.
28 June 15th, L. to sec. state. Larkin’s
Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 63-4; 94-116. The sketches sent I quote elsewhere as
Larkin’s Description of California; and Id., Notes on the Personal Character
of Californians. In the former he states that in a popular cause, Pico and
Castro could bring into the field 800 or 1,000 men to serve without pay for a
month or more; to aid Mexico in expelling foreigners they could raise perhaps
300 or 400. There is continual dread of a Mexican general coming with an army
to depose the present rulers. Many in office are convinced that a ‘favorable
change ’ would so enhance the value of their lands as to render salary a
secondary consideration. Only such as thrive by absence of law can prosper in
the present state of things. It would be well to pension off or give sinecures
to men of influence and position, as they would then quietly draw others with
them. June 17th, Forbes writes to Bandini that the Juanita is expected to bring
news of war. Bandini, Doc., MS., 74. June 19th, Pico tells Bandini that
the English corvette brought news of war, but he knows nothing officially. Id.,
76.
On allusions more or
less accurate to the efforts and hopes of Larkin and others, see Dunbar’s
Romance, 30-1; Pacheco, Contra Costa Gazette, Dec. 21, 1867; Willey’s Thirty
Years, 13; Hyde’s Statement, MS., 6-7; Torres, Peripe- cias, MS., 49; Pinto,
Apunt., MS., 104; Leese’s Bear Flag Mem., MS., 9; Sanchez, Notas, MS.,
21-2.
29Larkin to
sec. state, July 10th. Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 77.
From a careful study of the correspondence and other evidence cited in
this and the two preceding chapters, I reach the following conclusions
respecting the condition of Californian affairs in the early weeks of June
1846: All classes of the inhabitants realized that a political change was
imminent. There was little hope that Mexico would or could afford protection
or relief by sending money and an army; nor was it expected that without such
aid the country could much longer maintain its status as a Mexican dependency.
The anticipated change must naturally be either a declaration of absolute
independence, or annexation in some form to a foreign power. The United States
or England might get the country either by conquest, purchase from Mexico, or
voluntary action of the Californians. There were prominent men among the
natives disposed to favor each of the schemes proposed, though not yet openly
or actively; while their parties were not clearly defined, the masses being for
the most apathetic and indifferent. Notwithstanding the strong prejudice
against Mexico, affinities of race, language, religion, and association were
still potent in favor of loyalty; yet on the other hand many were beginning to
speculate on the prospective increase in the value of their lands under a new
regime. With personal interests in conflict with the old prejudices, the
ultimate issue was wellnigh certain. The chief authorities, political and
military, while protesting their loyalty to Mexico and their determination to
resist foreign invasion, were in reality lukewarm in this respect, being
thoroughly in earnest only in their opposition to each other. In their minds
the controversy between Pico and Castro outweighed all questions of national
allegiance, and was second only to personal and ambitious interests. Any
foreign nation taking a decided stand could have obtained the cooperation of
either Don Pio or Don Josd, if not of both. Had it been practicable to bring
the question of the political future to a voting test among representative
men, loyalty to Mexico would have temporarily won the day, mainly through
the inability of other factions to combine their forces.
While not yet sufficiently numerous or zealous to effect an immediate
change in their own favor against all the others, the American party was beyond
all comparison the strongest. It really included the independents, since a
declaration of independence was in certain contingencies quite as favorable to
the United States as an appeal for annexation. Americans were more numerous,
and collectively more influential, than foreign residents of any European
nation. A large increase of immigration was expected in the early future. The
Californians were republicans, with but little sympathy for monarchical institutions.
Not only was the American party aided by delay and by the general tendency of
events, but more active agents were at work. Larkin, as a secret confidential
agent of the administration at Washington, was working zealously to advance
the cause. He was authorized not only to conciliate the favor of leading
Californians, and to urge the advantages of annexation, but also to promise
welcome to a new ‘sister republic,’ and, what was still more effective, to
state that his government would use force to prevent European interference. He
was confident, as were other leading Americans, and not without good reasons,
that he was making rapid progress, notwithstanding the drawbacks occasioned by
Fremont’s blunders. It was believed that in the event of war California might
be occupied without any serious opposition from the people; and that if there
was no war, the Californians would soon by declaring their independence start
voluntarily on the way to ultimate annexation. The imminence of war was in
itself, of course, a favorable circumstance, as it could hardly fail to result
in an American occupation, not likely to be merely temporary.
The only obstacle that could seriously impede the
progress of American plans was armed interference by a European power.
This was understood in California, and there were a few leading men, including
Pico, who were in favor of an appeal for protection to England. These men and
their followers were influenced not so much by a preference for a European
system of government as by their personal ambitions, their friendships for
resident Englishmen, and their quarrels with individual Americans. They knew
that English holders of Mexican bonds, as well as English travellers, had
recommended the acquisition by their government of Californian territory. They
were encouraged in their ideas of a British protectorate by British residents;
and they adopted the current American idea that England had set her heart upon
acquiring the country. There is no evidence that they received any official
encouragement from the British government or its agents, and no proof that
Forbes and Spence were intriguing with Pico in favor of an appeal to England.
Pico and his friends had a right to entertain their preference, which was by no
means a criminal or unreasonable one, as it "has been the fashion among
excessively American writers to imply; but as a matter of fact, they were never
very deeply in earnest, never had much strength as a party; and the popular
idea that they were likely to control the destinies of California has been an
absurd exaggeration. So far as negotiations or intrigues in the country were
concerned, the scheme of European interference was a most shadowy myth. The
only danger to be apprehended by the United States was that England would
obtain a cession of California from Mexico, and would attempt a forcible
occupation, securing the governor’s cooperation as a pretext of popular
approval. This danger was also a slight one; but I shall have occasion to speak
again of it.
Finally, we have found no disposition on the part of Californian
officials or the Californian people to molest foreign residents. Pico and
Castro, in accordance
with their routine duty as Mexican'officials, talked of resisting
invasion, and even of preventing the entry of the thousands of immigrants
expected over the mountains in the autumn; but they had no thought and made no
threats of expelling those in the country. Americans were treated quite as well
as Englishmen or other foreigners. The immigrants of 1845 were not even
notified to leave the country, as they had promised to do if required. The
popular prejudice against foreigners, fomented by personal intercourse with individuals,
and still more by reports from Mexican sources of what had been done in Texas,
was naturally stronger against Americans than others; but considering the
imminence of war and other unfavorable circumstances, the toleration and
kindness manifested were remarkable, and in themselves afforded evidence that
Larkin’s hopes of success in his conciliatory policy were not without
foundation.
CAUSES OF THE
SETTLERS’ REVOLT.
June,
1846.
An Unexpected
Outbreak—Its Alleged Motives—Self-defence and Resistance to Oppression—Mere
Pretexts—Current Rumors—The Insurgents Classified—Adventurers—American
Enthusiasts—Ambitious Politicians—Real Motives of the Leaders—Fremont’s Policy—Gillespie’s
Mission—Ambition and Revenge—A Bold Resolution—Overmuch Caution—Nature of
Fremont’s Cooperation—Ide’s Theories and Statements—A Filibustering
Scheme—Needless, Unjustifiable,
Productive of No Good—Not a Part
of the Conquest— Serious Responsibilities of the Insurgent Leaders—A Fortunate
Ending.
The condition of affairs being as described in the preceding chapter,
there broke out in June a revolt of American settlers in the Sacramento and
Napa valleys, who with the support of Fremont’s men seized the town of Sonoma,
captured several leading Californians, and proclaimed the country independent.
The action was startling to all but participants. It was so unexpected, so
utterly inconsistent with the policy by which agents of the United States
believed themselves to be making progress toward voluntary annexation; the time
was so strangely chosen, when news of war, involving a legitimate military
occupation, was expected from day to day; and indeed, the affair was apparently
so ill-timed, ill-advised, and extraordinary in all its phases, that it becomes
necessary to study the motives that led to the outbreak before proceeding to
narrate in detail its stirring scenes.
I begin with the alleged motives, which were by no means mysterious or
complicated, and to illustrate which I introduce in the appended note a
somewhat extended list of quotations.1 Long as it is, the list
1 In
History of the Bear Flag Revolt, by a Committee of Citizens, published in 1S47,
we read: ‘ The American and other foreign portion of the people of Upper
California learned in May 1846 that the govt had determined upon theiv
expulsion from the country, and were mating preparations to seize or kill all
foreigners, and send such as should be made prisoners to the city of Mexico. A
large body of horses were collected, and some 500 or 600 men were ordered under
arms by Gen. Castro for that purpose. Information was received by Mr W. B. Ide
on June 8th, brought by an Indian runner, that 200 mounted Mexicans were on
their march up the Sacramento River, with the design of destroying the crops,
burning the bouses, and driving off cattle belonging to the foreigners. ’ Ide
proceeded to warn and organize the settlers, hut 1 it was quite
apparent that further and more decisive action was necessary to secure the
lives and property of the immigrants; and it was determined to seize the fort
of Sonoma.’ Wm B. Ide was probably the writer of the preceding. In Ide’s Biog.
Sketch, 48, Mrs Healy (Miss Ide) says: ‘We had not been there long [on Belden’s
rancho in April] before a young man, Mr L. H. Ford, came to tell father that
Gen. Don Castro was on his way to drive all Americans from the country. ’ On p.
51-2 we read: ‘ Soon after his arrival he was confronted with the solution of
an important problem regarding the rights and privileges of himself and his
fellow-emigrants... He supposed he had conformed to all the legal conditions
entitling him to all the privileges, etc., of a citizen(!).. .The question was,
whether he should be forcibly ejected from his humble abode and driven back to
the states, or whether he would unite with his fellow-emigrants in resisting
the threatened war of extermination as put forth in a proclamation of the then
reputed governor of the country.. .He had seen the proclamation of Gen. Don
Castro warning the emigrants to leave the country or they would be driven into
the mountains or made prisoners, or be shot in case of resistance. ’ p. G2.
The ‘ inhuman and arbitrary exaction ’ of taxes from foreigners is mentioned
on p. 90. In his remarkable letter to Senator Wambough, which fills a large part
of the volume, regretfully omitting Ide’s ingenious arguments, we read, p.
106: ‘Imagine the disappointment of those brave men who had conquered the
difficulties of the pathless Sierra, etc.... when by the in - tervention of a
self-constituted government, heated to madness by jealousy, excited by
designing emissaries, we were forbidden the usual hospitalities of the country
and ordered to return!’ On p. 108-9, after a sharp blow at Larkin and Fremont,
Ide writes: ‘ Immediately after [about the first of April], Gen. Jos6 Castro,
naturally humane and generous, caused to be issued and posted up at Sonoma and
various other places a proclamation ordering ‘ all foreigners whose residence
in the country was less than one year to leave the country and their property
and beasts of burden, on pain of death.’ This danger was temporarily averted
in a way not clearly described, though a large party was frightened away to
Oregon; when Gillespie came and went after i>6mont. When Fremont came he
soon circulated the following: ‘ Notice is hereby given that a large body of
armed Spaniards on horseback, amounting to 250 men, have been seen on their way
to the Sacramento Valley, destroying the crops, burning the houses, and
driving off the cattle. Capt. Fremont invites every freeman in the valley to
come to his camp at the Buttes immediately.’ The letter to Wambough is
repeated in Ide’s Who Conquered Cal.?
The following
statements are from men who took part in the revolution, or at least were in
Cal. at the time. Henry L. Ford, Bear Flag Revolution, MS., 3, tells us that a
meeting of Mexican officers at Sonoma ‘resulted in Gen. Castro issuing his
cdict for all Americans to leave the country.’ Wm Hargrave, Cal. in 'Jfi, MS.,
3, says the hostility of the natives was very bit-
might be made longer, even if restricted to original authorities; and it
might be extended almost without limit if made to include accounts of later
writers in
ter, and foreigners
became eonvineed that in bold action lay the only prospect of safety. According
to Benj. Dewell, in Napa Reporter, Oct. 12, 1872, ‘the Spaniards became very
troublesome in the spring.’ James Gregson, Statement, MS., 3, has it that
Sutter received a proclamation ordering all Americans to quit the country,
which he read to the settlers, asking them to stand by him. Marshall,
Statement, MS., 1, says one cause of the alarm was the knowledge that Castro
wanted to purchase New Helvetia. Belden says there was some talk of preventing
further immigration, and even of getting rid of those already in the country.
Hist. Statement, MS., 44-5. Semple, Hesperian, iii. 387-8, says that during the
winter Castro issued several proclamations, to the effect that all foreigners
not naturalized must leave the country; but the people remained quiet, believing
that the order could not be enforced; and paid but little attention to an order
read at Sonoma for all Americans to depart forthwith; but were finally alarmed
by Castro’s military preparations—really against Pieo.
In the Monterey
Californian, Sept. 5, 1846, we read: ‘Each man having felt the oppression of
the then existing govt, and the certainty of an increase of those oppressions,
with a clear sense of their danger, their rights, and their duty, they rushed
to the rescue with one impulse and one object. The watehword was equal rights
and equal laws, and they nohly sustained their principles.’ And in the same
journal of May 23, 1847: ‘In this state of things Gen. Castro issued one
proclamation after another, ordering foreigners to leave the country; but the
people, knowing the character of Castro, remained quiet until the time was ripe
for action.’
Fremont, in a letter
of July 25, 1846, to Benton, writes: ‘I had scarcely reached the Lower
Sacramento when Gen. Castro, then in the north at Sonoma, declared his
determination immediately to proceed against the foreigners settled in the
country, for whose expulsion an order had just been issued by the gov. of the
Californias. For these purposes Castro immediately assembled a force at the
mission of Santa Clara... Castro’s first measure was an attempt to incite the
Indian population of the Joaquin and Sacramento valleys, and the neighboring
mountains, to bum the erops of the foreigners, and otherwise proeeed
immediately against them.’ In his testimony in 1847 Fremont says: ‘Information
was reeeived that Gen. Castro was then raising forces and exciting the Indians
both against the settlers and my party, upon the unfounded pretext of an
intended insurrection by them against the Mexican govt in California.. The
movement was one of self-defenee.’ Frimont'x Cal. Claims, 12-13. Gillespie
testifies: ‘So soon as it beeame known to the settlers that Capt. Fremont had
returned, they came to the camp, bringing us the information that the Indians
were leaving their rancherias, or wigwams, and flying to the mountains. In some
plaees they had shown a very hostile feeling, and certainly had been aroused by
some foreign emissiary.. .On the 30th I was informed hy Capt. Sutter that it
was positively true that Gen. Castro had excited the Indians to a revolt and to
join the Californians in exterminating the settlers; that the Indians had been
bribed to bum the wheat then nearly dry; and that it was Gen. Castro’s
intention to attack and cutoff Capt. Fremont’s party if he possibly could... On
June 7th I learned (at S. F.) that Castro had gone to Sonoma to hold a eouneil
with the Vallejos and to proeure horses to commence his operations, whieh he
endeavored to disguise under the rumor of making an attack upon the gov., Don Pio
Pico, who had disapproved of Castro’s want of good faith in making his first
attack upou Capt. Fremont in Mareli’(!). May 28th, ‘a courier was received from
Capt. Sutter, informing Capt. Fremont and myself that “two Spaniards had been
sent by Gen. Castro amongst the different tribes of Indians, and that this was
books and newspapers, who have generally accepted without question the
testimony of the contemporary witnesses. The testimony is clear and to the
point. It is to the effect that the revolt was purely a movement of
self-defence on the part of the American settlers; that General Castro had
published a series of proclamations ordering all Americans not naturalized to
quit the country before a specified date, under penalty of being forcibly
expelled; that he had collected a large military force with which to enforce
his orders; that he had started to attack the settlers, having meanwhile
instigated the Indians to destroy the Americans’ crops; and that the settlers
had simply to choose whether they would fight in defence of their homes and
families, or, abandoning their property, flee to almost certain destruction in
the moun-
the cause of their
flying to the mountains, they having been excited against the settlers.’” ‘An
Indian had been taken prisoner who had received a musket from Gen. Castro for
the express purpose of killing Capt. Sutter ’ (!). Id., •2.3-6, 29. Samuel
Hensley testifies: ‘I returned to Sutter’s a few days after seeing Vallejo,’
who had told him of the English scheme. ‘Capt. Sutter informed me that there
was great excitement among the Indians; that he had sent for the Seguamme chief
who had recently been among the Californian settlements... On his arrival
Sutter examined him as alcalde. The chief stated that he had seen Castro, and that
Castro had made him great promises on condition that he would excite Indians to
burn all the wheat crops of the American emigrants, as he intended to drive all
the Americans out of the country in a short time.’ Then Hensley went to
Fremont’s camp to report and to give it ‘ as my opiuion that American residents
would have to leave the country or fight for their homes; at the same time
saying I was sure we would not leave the country. ’ Id., 33-4. Richard Owens
said: ‘We found the people expecting an attack from the Californians.. .The
report was, and it was generally believed, that Castro had instigated the
Indians to rise and burn the crops of the settlers. Proclamations had been sent
out ordering the Americans to quit the country or they would be driven out by a
certain time. It was known that troops had been collected at Sta Clara, and
that Gen. Castro had come into Sonoma for the purpose of raising a body of
Spaniards and Indians to come out against the emigrants and Capt. FrSmont’s
party.’ Id., 38. Wm N. Loker said, besides confirming the statements of Hensley
and Owens: ‘Just before his [Fremont’s] return there was a meeting of the
principal men at Monterey. They then thought it advisable to order all foreigners
to leave the country, and published a bando to that effect.. .Women and
children were included in the banishment.. . The bando was translated and sent
up the valley; and I put one of them up at Sutter’s Fort.’ Id., 3940. June 1,
1846, Sutter wrote to Vallejo that the Moquelumnes had risen, and he was about
to march against them before they could set fire to his wheat, as they had been
advised to do by persons at S. Jos6, and before Eusebio could kill him with a
gun which the same persons had given him for that purpose. Vallejo, Doe., MS.,
xii. 220. In his Diary, p. 7, Sutter also tells the story of Castro’s inciting
the Indians against him; and he describes the campaign against them which began
June 3d.
tains and deserts of the overland route. Driven, however, to fight for
self-protection, it is not denied that they took a certain patriotic pride in
conquering new territory for freedom, in opening new fields for Anglo-Saxon
enterprise, in overthrowing an inefficient and antiquated system, and in
rescuing even their oppressors from Mexican tyranny! It is a grand and
thrilling picture, and one that has been more than once brilliantly
portrayed—that of a little band of heroic men who defied the power of a nation,
and resolved to die rather than be driven like dogs from the homes to which
they had been invited, and to secure which they had crossed a continent! What a
pity to go behind the scenes and expose the stage effect!
As is well known to the reader, the revolting settlers were men who had
been hospitably received in a land which they had entered in defiance of its
laws. The political and military authorities had given their national superiors
just cause of offence by their toleration of the strangers in spite of
positive orders. They had not threatened or oppressed Americans,
notwithstanding the imminence of war and their peculiar position. General
Castro did not issue the proclamations imputed to him; did not order the settlers
to quit the country; did not organize an army with which to attack them; and
did not instigate savages to destroy their crops. That he could have done any
of these things without its reaching the knowledge of anybody south of San
Francisco Bay is improbable; but such acts would also have been in direct
opposition to the spirit shown in all correspondence of the time. The
Americans of the Sacramento had nothing to fear from the Californians; and this
must have been almost as well known to the leading spirits of the revolt as to
us. The alleged motives, so far at least as the leaders were concerned, were assuredly
not the real ones. They were but pretexts of designing men, used at the time to
secure unanimity of action, and after success to justify that action.
Hist. Cal., Vol. V. 6
I am disposed to think, though I cannot prove it, that certain men went
so far as to circulate forged translations of edicts purporting to emanate from
Castro.
For it cannot be doubted that rumors of impending hostility and
expulsion were current in the northern valleys, or that they were credited by
many, even of those who required no such incentive to revolt. There were many
who did require such an incentive. I do not attempt to name them. Let it be
hoped they constituted a majority of all. They had been but few years in the
country; were fitted by education to believe anything that was bad respecting a
man who had Spanish blood in his veins; did not approve the Mexican methods of
life or government; could hardly understand the justice of requiring of a free
American citizen any formalities of passports or naturalization; and they were firm
believers in the destiny of their nation to possess this western land. But at
the same time these men were lovers of peace and law. They had a dim perception
of the right of a people, even Mexicans, to govern their own country in their
own way; and only by fear of actual oppression, and as a measure of
self-defence, could they be induced to engage in a filibustering scheme
involving the shedding of blood, especially if the objects desired were likely
to be accomplished legitimately by a little delay.
The support of these men was essential to success, and the circumstances
were all favorable for the revolutionists. The American settlers of the
northern frontier formed an isolated community, coming but rarely and
indirectly into contact with the natives, and knowing but little of what was
actually occurring south of the bay. News was eagerly sought, and the wildest
rumors found ready listeners. Larkin’s efforts and prospects were naturally but
vaguely known, if at all, to the majority. Long delay in the declaration of war
by Mexico had caused fears on the
part of some that there would be no war, and that for a long time no aid
was to be expected from the naval forces of the United States. The troubles of
March between Castro and Fremont were known in the north mainly through false
reports of the latter and his men; and it was widelv believed that Castro had
arbitrarily and treacherously driven Frdmont out of the country after having
promised hospitality. Castro was known to be organizing a military force at
Santa Clara. This organization, with Castro’s announcements as a Mexican
officer of a determination to defend California against the expected invasion
in case of war—an invasion with which he naturally and with much real alarm
connected Frdmont’s return from Oregon at the bidding of an official messenger
from Washington—as intrepreted in the north, was readily confounded with
hostile preparations against the settlers. That Castro in reality feared Pico
and his southern allies much more than he did the Americans was not generally
understood by the immigrants; and some of the revolutionists had the assurance
even to attribute Pico’s hostility to his disapproval of Castro’s opposition to
Frdmont and to the foreigners! Finally, just at the most opportune moment for
the plans of the filibusters, Castro sent a party of armed men, as will be
narrated presently, to bring a large number of horses from the north; and this
movement was fully utilized to remove any lingering doubts that yet remained as
to the necessity of defensive aggression. That the revolution was to prevent
English occupation of the country, and especially to prevent the success of
the McNamara colonization scheme, was entirely an invention of later times; but
the tenure of lands was a subject on which the settlers were very sensitive,
and there are some indications that among the current rumors were some to the
effect that the Californian authorities were making hurried grants of all
public lands in anticipation of a political change.
Eliminating that element which engaged in the revolt honestly as a
measure of self-defence, whose fears of danger to life and property though
unfounded were to some extent real, we shall find among the remaining
filibusters, including most of the leaders and many of the followers, some
diversity of motive. There was a class—among the overland immigrants, deserters
from vessels who had come up to New Helvetia from the bay, and Fremont’s
men—composed of adventurers pure and simple. Reckless, daring, and
unprincipled men, with nothing to lose, they were eager for a fight with the
Californians, partly for the mere excitement of the thing, just as they were
always ready for a fight with the Indians. In the turmoil of a revolution,
something might occur to their advantage; at least, they could gratify certain
personal dislikes; and especially did they have an eye 011 the herds of the
native rancheros. Of another stamp were political adventurers, whose reward was
to be, not plunder in the vulgar sense, but glory and office and wealth, under
a reformed political system. Some were enthusiastic Americans, who believed in
the manifest destiny of their nation to possess this land, and had no doubt of
their right to raise the stars and stripes anywhere in America, without regard to
the wishes of the natives. They looked upon the Californians as an inferior
people, who must be taught by force the beauties of freedom, and who had 110
right to resist what they chose to regard as their own superior civilization.
They regarded independence as but a step to annexation, and they were proud to
aid such a cause, even in a struggle which should involve the shedding of
blood, and utter disregard of national, departmental, or individual rights.
Some of the leaders looked forward to official prominence in an independent
Californian republic; others looked further, to the contracting of debts, the
issuance of bonds, and to future profitable negotiations with the United
States; while still others looked upon the
movement as but the beginning of war in favor of the United States, from
the government and people of which nation they expected great honor, and in
which war they hoped to secure a more prominent position than if they waited
for the naval forces to begin hostilities. They were all mere filibusters, and
were entitled to none of the sympathy or honor which the world accords to
revolutionists who struggle against oppression.
The revolution broke out soon after Fremont’s return from Oregon; and it
would not have broken out at all had it not been for the presence and
cooperation of that officer and his hardy followers. Consequently his movements
and motives have great interest in this connection; and they have been the
subject of much speculation and comment in later years. An impression has been
prevalent that Frdmont engaged in the revolt by reason of secret instructions
from the United States, conveyed to him by Gillespie either in writing or
verbally, or indirectly through private letters from Senator Benton. Fremont
has never stated that he received such instructions: having of course no right
to do so even if it were true. On the contrary, he has often denied it more or
less directly. But in his testimony and that of Gillespie in ] 847-8 room was
left, designedly I think, for an inference that they could say more if at
liberty to do so; and the spirit of this testimony, given at a time when it was
sought to legalize against the United States certain claims for supplies taken
by Fremont’s men, together with the secrecy observed by the government
respecting the written instructions to Gillespie, Larkin, and Fremont,
originated, as I suppose, the current theory to which I have alluded, but
which, for reasons that will presently appear, I regard as without foundation
in fact.2
- Fr6mont testified
that Gillespie ‘ brought me a letter of introduction from the sec. of state and
letters and papers from Sen. Benton and his family. The letter from the sec.
was directed to me in my private or citizen capacity, a,ixl though importing
nothing beyond the introduction, accredited the bearer
The story of Fremont’s return from Oregon has been told in an earlier
chapter. The reasons that he gave for that return were the dangers of further
advance northward, arising from the depth of snow, lack of supplies, and
hostility of the Indians—and the nature of the communications received from
Gillespie.
to me as coming from
the sec. of state, and, in connection withthfe circumstances and place of its
delivery, indicated a purpose in sending it which was intelligibly explained to
me by the accompanying letter from Sen. Benton, and by communications from
Lieut Gillespie. This officer informed me that he had been directed by the sec.
of state to find me, and to acquaint me with his instructions, which had for
their principal objects to ascertain the disposition of the California people,
to conciliate their feelings m favor of theTj. S., and to find out, with a
design of counteracting, the designs of the British govt upon that country.’
Fremont'’s Cal. Claims, 12. And again, in Fremont’s Court-martial, 373: ‘One
of the letters from him [Benton], while apparently of mere friendship and
family details, contained passages enigmatical and obscure, but which I
studied out, and made the meaning to be that I was required by the govt to
find out any foreign schemes in relation to the Cal. and to counteract them.’
Gillespie said his instructions were ‘to watch over the interests of the U. S.
in Cal., and to counteract the influence of any foreign or European agents who
might be in that country with objects prejudicial to the U. S. I was the bearer
of the duplicate of a despatch to the U. S. consul at Monterey, T. 0. Larkin,
Esq., as also a packet for J. C. Fremont, Esq., and a letter of introduction to
the latter gentleman from the Hon. James Buchanan; the former I destroyed
before entering the port of Vera Cruz, having committed it to memory. The
packet and letter of introduction I delivered to Capt. Fremont upon the 9th of
May, in the mountains of Oregon.. .1 was directed to confer with and make known
to him my instructions. It was desirable that we should act in concert, and
great vigilance and activity was expected of both.. .1 made him acquainted
with the wishes of the govt, which were the same as stated above for my own
guidance.. .In answer to the first inquiry of the honorable committee, “Were
you charged with any verbal instructions or communications?” etc., I have to
state that I was directed by Mr Buchanan to confer with Col. Fremont, and make
known to him my own instructions... I was also directed to show to Col. Fremont
the duplicate of the despatch to Mr Larkin. In answer to the 2d inquiry, “You
have said that you communicated the wishes of the govt to Col. Fremont; state
particularly what you did communicate to him as the wishes of the govt,” I beg
leave to state that the answer above contains, as near as I can recollect, what
I communicated to Col. Fremont; telling him at the same time that it was the
wish of the govt that we should conciliate the feelings of the people of Cal.,
and encourage a friendship towards the U. S.’ Id., 30-3.
That the testimony
cited was regarded at the time as evasive and incomplete, is shown by the
following quotations from the report of the house committee in Aug. 1848,
denying the validity of all claims contracted before the U. S. flag was raised,
on the ground that Fremont and the rest acted without any known authority from
the U. S: ‘What the purpose was in sending an officer of the U. S. in search of
Col. Fremont, with a simple letter of introduction, “which was intelligibly
explained by the accompanying letter of Sen. Benton,” is left to conjecture,
except so far as is disclosed by the language of Col. Fremont as quoted; but
the effect was to turn Col. Fremont with the men under his command from their
exploring expedition to Oregon back into Cal., where they at once “joined the
settlers” (or the settlers joined them), and engaged in a revolutionary
movement against the authorities of Cal. . . Up to this time there was and
could have been no knowledge in Cal. of the
These communications, as both officers stated, required them “to
ascertain the disposition of the Californian people, to conciliate their
feelings in favor of the United States, and to find out, with a design of counteracting,
the designs of the British government upon that country.” These reasons, even
if the former was
existence of war
between Mexico and the U. S. "Whether the purpose of the sec. of state,
acting as it must be supposed under the direction of the president, and so
“intelligibly explained” by the letter of Sen. Benton, was developed by the
conduct of Col. Fr&nont consequent therefrom, must be entirely a matter of
surmise until that “intelligible explanation” shall have been presented to the
public; but it is very manifest that much yet remains to be told of this as yet
dark and mysterious proceeding. ’ Thus the operations were ‘undertaken either
upon individual responsibility and without the authority of the govt or any of
its departments, or such authority being given, it is not only not disclosed,
but studiously withheld from the public eye.’ Fremont’s Cal. Claims (House Rept
no. 817), 1-5. I do not refer here to all the govt reports on the Cal. claims,
and on Fremont’s court-martial, though all of them contain more or less
repetition of the testimony and comments cited.
Senator Clark, in his
speech of April 25, 1848, Clark’s Speech on Cal. Claims, p. 3-14; also in Cong.
Globe, 30th cong. 1st sess., appen., p. 569; see also, in Id., speeches of
other senators on the subject—made a strong argument for the payment of the
claims, on the ground that the U. S. govt had undoubtedly instructed Fremont
through Gillespie to act as he did, though the speaker by no means approved the
policy of the govt. ‘Whilstthe U. S. were professing to be governed hy a spirit
of justice and love of peace upon the eastern border of M exico, different
indeed was her course in regard to those states in the west, as shown by the
mission of Gillespie early in Nov. 1845, with secret instructions to the consul
in Cal., and to call from scientific pursuits an officer to foment rebellion
and aid in revolutionizing the govt.’
Jay, Mexican War,
150-4, takes a similar view, and after citing the evidence, remarks: ‘It is
impossible to resist the conviction that Fremont was given to understand, but
in a way not to compromit the govt, that the abandonment of the exploration in
Oregon for the purpose of exciting and aiding an insurrection in Cal. would not
expose him to censure.’ Edmund Randolph, in his Oration, says: ‘But resentment
and anticipation of evil were not the sole cause of this movement. There cannot
now he a doubt that it was prompted, as it was approved, by the govt of the U.
S.; and that Capt. Fremont obeyed his orders no less than his own feelings...
What Fremont’s instructions were is a well kept cabinet secret, which will
probably not be divulged, at least in our time.’ Dwinelle’s Address, 1866, p.
19-20. ‘There is reason to believe that he was instructed to feel the geographical
pulse of the natives as well as the mountain passes. ’ Wise’s Los Gringos, 41.
‘ There were some expressions in a letter from Col. Benton that the old
senator’s son-in-law studied with extraordinary diligence. No doubt the oral
communications of Gillespie helped to draw from them a deeper significance than
the words con veyed on the first reading.. .Fremont determined to become the
pursuer rather than the pursued, to turn upon the faithless foe, and
revolutionize the govt. This would have been a hazardous course,... unless,
either in his secret instructions before starting or in the advices conveyed by
Lieut Gillespie, he was assured that a successful indiscretion of this sort
would be acceptable to his govt. As to the precise plan he adopted^ there is no
doubt that he consulted his own judgment alone. But there is abundant
circumstantial evidence that he was given to understand that any defensible
method of gaining
somewhat exaggerated as is probable, were amply sufficient to account for
and justify his action in turning back, though he well knew—as the government
did not—that his services as a conciliator were not likely to be very effective
in California. There is no need of secret instructions in favor of
filibusterism to account for his actions so far. Yet were that all, and did the
nature of the communications rest solely on the testimony of Frdmont and
Gillespie, the theory of such secret instructions would perhaps be as fascinating
for me as it has been for others; but there is other evidence which I deem
conclusive. Secretary Buchanan’s secret instructions to Larkin as confidential
agent—the nature of which has been a matter of surmise to other writers; which
are represented to have been in purport identical with Gillespie’s instructions;
which he was directed to show to Frdmont; a duplicate of which he destroyed
after committing its contents to memory; but the original of which is in my
possession—confirm entirely the cited testimony of the two officers, though not
all the inferences they desired to be drawn from that testimony; and contain no
encouragement, direct or indirect, for any revolt except by the Californians
themselves. Had this document been one written to be seen with intent to
mislead those into whose hands it might fall, it would prove nothing in this
connection; but its existence, on the contrary, was intended to be kept, and
has been kept until now, a profound state secret. It contains a clear
presentment of the policy of the United State*
Cal. to the Union
would be aeeeptahle.. .A bint was enough for one so amhi- tious as Fr&nont,
and if he was not instructed he was most fortunate in his instincts. A
different issue might have overwhelmed him with reproach. As it resulted, he
had the perfect and flattering indorsement of the sec. of state.’ Tuthill’s
Hist. Cal., 167-8. As early as 1847, F. D. Atherton, in a letter from
Valparaiso to Larkin, expressed grave doubts that Fn':inont had been turned
back by the snows in June. Larkin’s Doc., MS., v. 58.
I might easily extend
these citations to show the prevalence of the idea that Fremont acted under
secret instructions; but those given are sufficient. Nor do' I deem it
necessary to cite the opinions of numerous Mexican and native Californian
writers to the same effect, because they had in reality little opportunity of
knowing anything about Fremont’s motives, most of them taking it for granted
that he acted as a secret agent of the U. S.
—to take possession of California in the event of war with Mexico; to
prevent, by force of arms if necessary, any occupation by a European power; but
meanwhile to conciliate by every possible means the good-will of the natives,
with a view that the occupation in case of war might be without opposition, or,
if there were no war, that the people might voluntarily seek annexation a
little later. This policy, from an American standpoint, was essentially a sound
and prudent one. I have already expressed my opinion that the means adopted to
carry it out were not in certain respects honorable from an international point
of view; but T am by no means willing to charge the administration at
Washington with an action so stupidly inconsistent as to have sent on the same
date and by the same confidential messenger, to two different agents in California,
two radically different and utterly irreconcilable sets of secret
instructions. I think there can be no possible room for doubt that Fremont’s
instructions were identical with those issued to Gillespie and Larkin; and I
believe that no doubt would .ever have arisen on the subject had the document
which I have cited been known to previous investigators.
Assuming, then, that Fremont engaged in a revolutionary movement, not in
accordance with, but in disobedience of his orders from Washington, what were
his motives? He claimed to act at the entreaties of the American settlers in
defence of their lives and rights. I need not repeat that this on his part, as
on that of other leaders, was a mere pretext, Fremont most certainly not being
one of those who really believed the settlers to be in danger. I cite in a
note his letter to Benton in explanation of his action.3 Clearly
31 You will rememher bow grossly outraged
and insulted we had already been by this officer [Castro]; many in my own camp
and throughout the country thought that I should not have retreated in March
last. I felt humiliated and humbled; one of the main objects proposed by the
expedition had been entirely defeated, and it was the opinion of the officers
of the squadron (so I was informed by Mr Gillespie) that I could not again
retreat consistently with any military reputation.. .My animals were in such a
state that I could not get out of the valley without reaching the country
ivhich lies on the west (?)
the retreat from Gavilan in March had been a severe blow to the captain’s
pride, and the wound still smarted as irritated by the taunts of bold and
irresponsible comrades and of filibustering settlers. Yet there can be no doubt
that Frdmont’s strongest incentive was personal ambition. He confidently counted
upon an immediate declaration of war between the United States and Mexico; and
he believed that by commencing hostilities he might gain for himself a large
share of credit for the conquest, which would otherwise fall to the naval
commanders. The prevalent rumors among the settlers afforded him a plausible
pretext for an action that also offered a remedy for wounded military pride.
Should he err in his expectations of war, there would yet remain a chance of
prominence in an independent Californian republic. Young and adventurous, he
resolved to take the risks. From the standpoint of a purely personal ambition,
he decided wisely. The result probably surpassed his most sanguine expectations.
His decision made him subsequently a popular hero, a senator of the United
States, a candidate for the presidency, a millionnaire ad interim, a
major-general; in fact, it gave him greater prominence than has perhaps ever
been attained in the United States by any other man of no greater ability. He
was essentially a lucky fellow.
Our admiration for Fremont as a filibustero chieftain—the only
admiration due him in this connection —would be vastly increased had he acted
with some-
side of them in an
entirely destitute condition. Having carefully examined my position, and
foreseeiug, I think, clearly, all the consequences which may eventuate to me
from such a step, I determined to take such active and anticipatory measures as
should seem to me most expedient to protect my party and justify my own
character. I am well aware of the grave responsibility which I assumed; hut I
also determined that, having once decided to do so, I would assume it and its
consequences fully and entirely, and go through with the business completely to
the end... On the 6th of June I decided on the course which I would pursue, and
immediately concerted my operations with the foreigners inhahiting the
Sacramento Valley.’ Fremont to Benton, Jnly 25, 1846, in Niles’ Reg., lxxi.
191. I have already, in note 1 of this chapter, quoted this letter on Castro’s
hostile preparations; and I shall have occasion to refer to it again.
what less of caution after deciding to engage in the revolt, or had he
been somewhat more modest in his subsequent claims. I have already stated that
but for his presence and support the revolt would not have occurred. The
departure of Hastings and Cly- man for the east, and of others for Oregon in
April, shows that there was then but little hope of a successful rising. But
as to the exact nature of his cooperation there has been some difference of
opinion. William Baldridge attributes the movement of the American settlers, of
whom he was one, to Fremont’s direct encouragement, believing—though this of
course was an afterthought—that that officer s true purpose was to provoke a
declaration of war by Mexico;4 and William B. Ide had some theories
on the subject, which will be noticed presently; but the weight of evidence,
direct and circumstantial, goes to show that Frdmont, while holding himself
somewhat aloof from the masses, secretly conspired with a few leaders to bring
about an outbreak, and promised the full support of himself and his party in
case it should be needed, though as an officer of the United States he desired
to abstain from open participation as long as possible. The settlers had no
fear of any force the Californians could muster north of the bay; but if Castro
were to send soldiers from the south, they might require assistance. This
assistance Fremont promised, and, as we shall see, proffered later. This was the
sum and substance of his cooperation. In the few stirring events of the
revolution he personally took no part. He merely held himself in readiness to
act when the necessity should arise, and marched against the foe after others
had won a victory. Yet in the letter to Benton he clearly gave that gentleman,
and through him the people of the United States, to understand that in all that
had occurred he had taken an active part, and had been personally in command.
In this
4
Baldridge’s Days of’46, MS., passim.
he was guilty of selfish and dishonorable misrepresentation.5
There is another version of Fremont’s part in the revolution which merits
attention on account of its author’s prominence in the movement, if for no
other
5In his
letter to Benton, already cited, Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 191, Fremont says: ‘On June
6th I decided on the course which I would pursue, and immediately concerted my
operations with the foreigners.’ A few days later, etc., going on to mention
the capture of Arce’s horses, taking of Sonoma, capture of Gen. Vallejo, etc.,
and continuing: ‘These enterprises accomplished, I proceeded’ (from where?) ‘to
the American settlements on the Sacramento and Rio de los Americanos to obtain
reenforcements’—thus leaving it to be inferred that he had taken an active
part in all the events narrated, instead o£ remaining in camp at Sutter’s Fort.
Then he was called to Sonoma by news of a threatened attack by Castro, and in
his narrative of what followed makes no effort to distinguish between his own
acts and those of others, implying very clearly that all was done hy him, with
the cooperation of Gillespie, and continuing: ‘We reached Sonoma again on the
evening of July 4th, and in the morning I called the people together and spoke
to them in relation to the position of the country, advising a course of
operations which was unanimously adopted. Cal. was declared independent, ’
etc. I do not quote more fully, because the events have to be narrated in the
next chapter; but I do not exaggerate in saying that Fr&nont deliberately
conveyed the impression that he was in active command throughout the
revolution. Benton so understood it, or at least wished it to be so understood;
and he repeated Fremont’s version in language similar but more positive in a
letter of Nov. 9, 1846, Niles’ Beg., lxxi. 173, to the president, who,
like the sec. of war, repeated the version substantially in public documents;
and thus the ambitious captain obtained much popular credit and admiration
which by no means belonged to him, even if credit or admiration had been due to
anybody for such actions. In his Court-martial, 374, Fremont says: ‘In concert
and in cooperation with the American settlers, and in the brief space of about
30 days, all was accomplished north of the bay, and independence declared on
July 5th.’ In August 1856, Thompson of New Jersey—Speech on the Conquest of
California, Wash. 1856,8vo, 16 p.; also in Congress. Globe, 1855-6, p.
2006-9—made a forcible protest in the U. S. senate against the claim of
Fremont to be considered the conqueror of Cal., showing in a clear light the
misrepresentations made hy and in behalf of that officer, though he had to rely
mainly for evidence on the document already cited as Hist. Bear Flag
lievol., and signed as it appears by Ide, Nash, and Grigsby. Thompson says:
‘In these letters it will he found that Fremont recites various successful
military actions. He does not say that he participated in them, but states them
in such a way as to leave the inference irresistible that he did so. Mr Benton
and Mr Marcy both take such for granted, and so indeed would any one on reading
the artful connection in which they are stated. Besides, there are no
documents on file in the department from which the sec. could have i.iade up
the statement in his report, except the letters of Col. Benton and Mrs
Fremont. The facts relate to the time when Fremont joined the movement,.. .to
two actions in which the Californians were defeated, and the taking of Sonoma.
The sec. relates these events so as to produce the impression (no doubt on his
own mind) that Fremont was among the first to countenance the independent
movement; that he took part in the defeat of the Mexicans and the capture of
Sonoma. But we have positive proof showing that Fremont had nothing to do with
these several events. ’ And this was true, though in certain respects Thompson
overestimated the value of his proofs, Ide, Grigsby, and Nash being interested
persons, like Fremont, and coloring their version accordingly.
reason. It is that given by William B. Ide in his letter to Senator
Wambough, and subsequently confirmed to some extent by Ide, Grigsby, and Nash
in their narrative. According to Ide, the American merchants, Larkin and others
of his class, “failed not in the genuine spirit of Yankeedom to direct and
profit by those political impositions, change of administration, and continued
increase of tariff duties by which during ten years of increasing distress and
ruin the main body of the people were made miserably poor,” therefore refusing
support to the oppressed settlers; then “Fremont came among us, who, after
having provoked the assumed authorities of the country, left us to experience
the wrath and retaliatory vengeance his acts had engendered;. . .next came Gillespie,
who failed not to give cautionary advice in relation to a state of preparedness
on the part of all of United States origin, but dissuaded from any kind of
organization,” suggesting, however, that after Fremont’s return his camp would
be the means of temporary protection. Finally, after a month of suspense and
terror on the part of the settlers in view of Castro’s proclamations and
military preparations, Frd- mont returned from the north, and soon in writing
summoned “every freeman in the valley to come to his camp at the Buttes
immediately,” announcing at the same time the approach of Castro’s forces. To
Ide and a few others, not named, Fremont made known his plan of conquest as
follows: “First, select a dozen men who have nothing to lose but everything to
gain. Second, encourage them to commit depredations against General Castro the
usurper, and thus supply the camp with horses necessary for a trip to the
States. Third, to make prisoners of some of the principal men, and thus provoke
Castro to strike the first blow in a war with the United States. This done,
finish the conquest by uniting the forces and marching back to the States.”
This scheme was denounced by Ide and his comrades as dishonorable and
treacherous, whereupon Fremont in anger broke up the interview. “Thus
ended all intercourse on our part with Captain Fremont until June 25th.” Subsequently,
however, King, inviting the visitors to another tent, asked, “Suppose the men
succeed in taking the horses, what will you in that case propose to be done?”
The reply was, “When the breach is once made that involves us all in its
consequences, it is useless to consider the propriety of the measure. We are
too few for division. In for it, the whole man! Widen the breach, that none can
stand outside thereof. Down on Sonoma I Never flee the country, nor give it up
while there is an arm to fight or a voice to cry aloud for Independence. But
let truth and honor guide our course.”
Ide continues: “Several persons, among whom was Kit Carson, begged of
Fremont their discharge from the service of the exploring expedition that they
might be at liberty to join us. This was peremptorily refused. Frdmont, in my
hearing, expressly declared that he was not at liberty to afford us the least
aid or assistance; nor would he suffer any of his men to do so; that he had not
asked the assistance of the emigrants for his protection; that he was able, of
his own party, to fight and whip Castro if he chose, but that he should not do
so unless first assaulted by him; and that positively he should wait only for a
supply of provisions, two weeks at furthest, when he would, without further
reference to what might take place here, be on his march for the States.” That
same night the captured horses arrived, and next day the expedition to Sonoma
began; many embarking in it with the idea that they were only carrying out Fremont’s
plan of provoking hostilities.6
6Ide’s
Biog. Sketch, 107-19, confirmed in the Hist. Bear Flag Revolution, by the
statement that at the interview in question Fremont ‘advised immediate
organization and resistance on the part of the foreigners, but declined any
action on his part or that of the men under his command,’ stating that he
expected to leave for the States in two weeks; and by the further statement
that Fr&nont at Sonoma later declared ‘that he had determined to pursue and
take Jos6 Castro, whom he considered but an
Ide’« version will be found on close examination to confirm rather than
contradict what I have said respecting Fremont’s policy. That gentleman wrote
under a strong feeling, amounting almost to a mania, that he had been robbed by
Fremont of the honor of having been at the head of the revolution, a feeling
that strongly colored all his remarks, and led to many exaggerations; but
though prejudiced and fanatical, Ide was not a man to tell a deliberate
falsehood, and I have no doubt that his account of the interview is
substantially correct. All goes to show that Frd- mont, though one of the
original plotters of the revolt, had a direct understanding with but few of
the leaders, of which number Ide was not one, to whom he promised active
cooperation when it should be required. To the rest he spoke guardedly,
inciting them indirectly to revolt, but cautiously avoiding reusurper in Cal.,
being unauthorized by the govt of Mexico,.. .that although he could not and
would not intermeddle in the internal affairs of Cal.,’ yet, if they would make
certain pledges, ‘he would not only aid them with his advice, but that he would
volunteer his whole force against Castro, and that he would stand by them at
least until Castro shall have been subdued. ’ In connection with the last
phrase cited, I
may note that Folsom, in a letter of Nov. 30, 1847, to Vallejo, speaks of an
interview in which Fremont told Prudon that he was merely acting in aid of Pico
against Castro. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 321.
Wm Hargrave, Cal. in
’46, MS, 4-11, tells us that after much discussion among the settlers of Napa
at the writer’s camp, he, Kelsey, Swift, and another went to consult with
Fremont, being joined by others on the way. At the interview on Feather River,
Kelsey being spokesman, Fremont seemed very cautious, though willing enough to
resume active operations. ‘ He preferred to see for himself how far the
settlers of Napa and Sonoma were ready to go in shaking off the Mexican yoke.
At any rate, he peremptorily refused to take any responsibility for sudden
action on our part, and endeavored to delay or frustrate our efforts. Whether
he expressed himself differently when he spoke to Kelsey alone later in the day
I cannot say. ’ Hargrave says he later heard Fremont ridicule Ide’s
proclamation. Fowler, Bear Party, 2, also mentions the mission of Hargrave and
Kelsey. Both imply that the rising would not have taken place at that time but
for a popular belief that Fremont would in some way cooperate. Some favored
action without regard to the captain’s plans, but this was opposed by a
majority. Baldridge, Days of ’46, MS., passim, is confident that the settlers
would not have risen but for Friimont’s indirect promptings and promises. The
writer and ThosW. Bradley were in Berreyesa Valley when John Grigsby and Wm
Elliot came up with the news. ‘ Grigsby says Fremont prompted them to take up
arms, telling them that it would not do for him to commence the affair, as he
was in the employ of the U. S., but for them to seize on some place which they
would be able to hold, and then he would discharge all ljis men, and with them
would joiu us as volunteers. He also said he wanted to start on an active
campaign as soon as it was possible to get men enough together to do so.’
marks and promises which might in certain contingencies be used to his
disadvantage later. There is no reason to doubt that with his men he would have
fought bravely, had circumstances required it, in defence of the cause he had
espoused; though, as we have seen, he was mean enough in the hour of success to
appropriate to himself the credit for actions in which he really took no part.
In thus presenting the real causes which led to the revolt of June 1846,
I have of course condemned the movement. An armed insurrection involving loss
of life is justifiable in the eyes of the civilized world only as a measure of
self-defence in resistance to gross oppression. In this case there was no
oppression or other than imaginary danger, to say nothing of the fact that the
revolutionists, with few exceptions, had entered Mexican territory in defiance
of the country’s laws. There is, however, much more to be said in condemnation
of this revolt. In spite of our theorizing, the world is prone to approve
practically, after all is over, a movement, whatever its causes, which leads to
beneficial results. Californian affairs under the Mexican regime were in a sad
state, and not improving. An occupation of the country by a progressive
nation could not fail to, and did, produce a marked improvement in every
respect; and the tendency has been, even among those who-could not justify
the revolt, to give its promoters credit for the good that resulted from the
change. They are entitled, however, to no such credit. The revolution was in
no sense a part of the conquest of California, neither leading to nor in any
way promoting that movement. Before the revolt, the government of the United
States had ordered the occupation of the country on account of war with Mexico;
and the occupation would have been effected in the same manner and at the
same date had no revolt taken place.7
7 We shall
see later that it was claimed in behalf of Fremont that his ac-
Two specific claims, closely connected with the general one of having
commenced the conquest, which have been quite generally but very carelessly
allowed in favor of the revolutionists, are that their acts kept California
from falling into the hands of England, and that they checked Governor Pico in
his work of granting the public lands to his own personal friends and to
enemies of the United States. The absurdity of the first claim should be
apparent. If England had any intention of taking California, she certainly
would not have been deterred by the armed settlers of a single section. On the
contrary, the revolt would have served as a most plausible pretext for the Californians
to seek and for England to grant a protectorate. As to the second claim, I may
remark that the McNamara land grant, on which most stress is laid in this
connection, did not come up for action in California, and was probably unknown
to every one of the filibusters until after the revolt was far advanced; that
theoretically the rising must have tended, not to check, but to hasten Pico in
granting lands; that as a matter of fact it did have that effect so far as it
had anyv; and that the United States government did not subsequently make June
14th but July 7th the chron- ol6gic limit of legitimate grants.
That the revolt was unjustifiable, uncalled for, and not productive of
good results, is not by any means all that is to be said against it. Its
promoters were morally responsible for all the blood shed in battle, as well as
for outrages committed by both sides on persons and property before the
raising of the stars and stripes; and not only this, but for a bitterness of
feel-
tions, presumably in
accord with instructions from Washington, by confirming Commodore Sloat in his
belief that war bad been declared, influenced that officer to raise tbe United
States flag. It is probably true that the somewhat irresolute commodore
derived much comfort from the reports of Fremont’s operations, as confirming
the news of war obtained at Mazatlan; and that had his exploit proved
premature, like that of Jones in 1842, he would have urged those reports in his
own defence; but it is hardly credible that they caused him to perform an act
which he had come from Mazatlan expressly to perform in accordance with his
orders, and with very positive news that war had begun.
Hist.
Cal., Vol. Y. 7
ing between the two races in California which lasted for many years. Not
only did the insurgents not contribute to the American ocpupation of the
country, but they absolutely retarded it, and increased its difficulties. They
were largely accountable for all the blood that was spilled throughout the war.
The men who had given the subject most attention and were best qualified to
understand the true state of affairs believed with some reason that the changc
of flag might have been accomplished without resistance or bloodshed, had it
not been for the outbreak at Sonoma, and the hostility engendered by that
affair.8 However this may be, whether or not Larkin, Stearns, and
Leese were correct in their expectation of a peaceable occupation, whether or
not the land owners with the
B In a
letter of July 20, 1846, Larkin said to the sec. of state in substance that
Cal. would in a few years have come under the U. S. flag of her own accord;
that he is inclined to regret the action of the Bear Flag party, and of Com.
Sloat, as the people now deemed themselves coerced and injured, especially by
the Bear party. Fremont and Gillespie should have consulted with him and others
south of the hay before beginning hostilities. Castro had assured him
personally that he intended to declare the country independent as soon as there
were enough foreigners to insure success. Larkin’s Off. Cor- resp., MS., ii.
75-7. In another letter of Jan. 7, 1847, L. wrote: ‘It has been my object
for some years to bring the Californians to look on our countrymen as their
best friends. I am satisfied very many were of that way of thinking, and more
were becoming so. Gen. Castro from 1842 to 1846 made every demonstration in
our favor, and opened plans for future operations, granting passports to all
the Americans whom I presented to him. At the same time he made some foolish
proclamations, supposing they would only be believed in Mexico. The sudden
rising of the party on the Sacramento under the Bear Flag, taking Californians’
property to a large amount, and other acts completely frustrated all hopes I
had of the friendship of the natives to my countrymen, and of Gen. Castro
through fear of his people, to come into the arrangements I expected. On the
arrival of the war squadron this came to my knowledge more and more fully. ’
Quoted from original in the S. F. Alta Ca!., July 7, 1867. And on June
30, 1847, he wrote to the same effect. ‘TheBear Flag party have broken all
friendship and good feeling in Cal. toward our government.’ Larkin’s Off.
Corresp., MS., ii. 118. The views of Larkin, Steams, and others on this
matter have been more fully cited in an earlier chapter. Leese, Bear Mag
Revolt, MS., p. 12, says that Castro, when at Sonoma a few days before the
outbreak, said he was in favor of the U. S. taking possession. Alfred Robinson,
Statement, MS., 21, tells us that the Bear movement greatly imbittered
the hostile feeling aroused by Fremont’s previous actions. Capt. Folsom on Nov.
30, 1847, wrote that ‘well disposed Californians were driven into hostility by
the ill-advised, injudicious, and dishonest conduct of our own agents, and
that the country has been constantly agitated and much of the time in open
hostility to the American eause in consequence.’ Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 321.
I might multiply evidenee in the shape of such opinions. The Californians
almost without exception express the same views, sometimes in most extravagant
language.
cooperation of Yallejo and other influential citizens and officials would
have been able so far to control their countrymen as to prevent armed
resistance, at least there can be no possible doubt that the revolt did
materially intensify the hostility of the natives, and thus prolong the struggle.
We must go yet further, and besides the evils enumerated which were
caused by the outbreak, we must hold the participators in that affair
responsible for other and far more serious evils that were averted, not by
their foresight, but by sheer good luck. Fremont and his companions had, it is
true, reasons to believe that war would be declared between the United States
and Mexico; but they had no means of knowing the date at which hostilities
would begin; and some of them did not reckon on or care for the declaration of
war at all. Let the reader consider what would have been the result had war not
been declared, or had the declaration been made some months later. The filibusters
had no understanding with foreign settlers south of the bay. They would have
maintained their position in the north, and would probably have conquered
central California; but meanwhile Americans in the latter region must
unquestionably have suffered at the hands of the angry natives before they
could have organized and joined the insurgents at some central point. In the
south yet greater disaster could have been avoided only—as it very likely would
have been—by southern foreigners joining the Californians, temporarily at
least, against the insurgents. In any event, and whatever the ultimate result,
the country would have been devastated by a guerilla warfare in which a large
amount of property must have been destroyed, and much blood have been shed,
all to no purpose.9 Fortunately, and no thanks to the insur-
9 It should
be stated here that there are some exceptions among the writers who have
approved the revolt of June 1846, and treated it as a part of the conquest.
Notably John S. Hittell, both as editor of the Alta California, June 15, 1866,
July 7, 1867, and in his History of S. F., 102-3, has expressed briefly but
accurately the true nature of the movement. Some participants,
like Baldridge, Days of
’48, MS., 18-20, disapprove the action, and aay they only joined in it aa a
choice of evils. The general tenor of John Bidwell’s views, Cal. 1841-8, MS.,
is against the revolt. Lieut Wise, Los Gringos, 42, denounces the operations of
the filibusters in language much too severe. Dunbar, Romance, 34-6, points out
the evil effects of the outbreak. During the political campaign of 1856 much
was said against the Bear Flag leaders; but chiefly from a spirit of opposition
to Fremont, rather than from any proper understanding of the merits of the
case. Of those who have eulogized the insurgents as heroes in books and
newspapers, a long list might be presented.
Just aa this volume
goes to press there appears Boyce’s California, 1846- 56,'an admirable work of
the ‘American Commonwealths’ series, a long chapter of which, on ‘ The American
as conqueror; the secret mission and the Bear Flag, ’ is devoted to an
elaborate study of certain topics here treated. I am pleased that the
conclusions of so able a thinker and writer as Dr Royce— founded to some extent
on original evidence in my Library, for the use of which the author makes most
hearty and satisfactory acknowledgment—do not differ materially from my own.
New data obtained by Royce include a statement from Fremont, which throws
light, if not on the general’s acts of 1846, on his character as a witness, and
shows that I had taken too favorable a view of his veracity, since he now
affirms what he had before wisely left to be inferred. It seems proper to state
that this volume as now given to the public was in stereotype before the date
of Royce’s investigations in my Library.
Another book
appearing too late for present use is the History of California by
Theodore II. Hittett. Here I can only note the existence of this work,
remarking that it contains nothing to modify any view or record of this or
earlier volumes, and expressing a hope that it may prove helpful in later investigations,
as I shall have occasion to cite both Royce and Hittell in volumes vi. and
vii.
BEAU FLAG
REVOLT—TAKING OF SONOMA.
June,
1846.
Fremont’s Return from
Oregon—Hensley’s Mission—A Summons to Revolt—Fr£mont Cautious—All Ready—Camp
Moved to Bear River—Castro at Santa Clara—His Visit to Sonoma—Arce’s Ca- ballada—Merritt Sent by Fremont to
Begin Hostilities—Seizure or Horses on the Cosumnes—The Filibusters Reenforced
in Napa Valley—Names—Occupation op Sonoma—Vallejo a Prisoner op War—Negotiations—Written Guaranties—Broken
before the Ink was Dry—Incidents of the Morning—The Insurgents Unmanageable—Aguardiente—A
Controversy—John Grigsby Declines the Command—William B. Ide Chosen—Journey of
the Prisoners to Fremont’s Camp—Locked up in Sutter’s Fort.
It was on May 24th that Fremont and party, returning from the Oregon
frontier, reached the region of Lassen’s rancho in the upper Sacramento Valley.
In a letter to Benton written on that date he announced his intention to
proceed directly homeward by way of the Colorado, giving a brief account of
his. trip northward and return.1 At the same time Gillespie wrote
to Larkin, narrating his experience since leaving Monterey, asking for news,
especially about the men-of-war, enclosing a note for the commodore, if there,
but to be carefully locked up if not, announcing that Fremont would now
proceed homeward, and that the writer would at once start for Yerba Buena in
quest of supplies.2 The letters were intrusted to
'May 24, 1846, F. to
B. Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 191.
2 May 24, 1846, G. to L. Larldn's Doc.,
MS., iv. 134. F. and G. were at Lassen’s; the rest -were 15 miles above.
Samuel Neal, who hastened down the valley.3 The explorers
camped at Lassen’s two days, and one day at the farm of Neal and Dutton on Deer
Creek, thence moving down to the Buttes. Before they reached that point
Gillespie left the party, reached Sutter’s on the 30th, and went down to San
Francisco on the launch, arriving on June 7th, and obtaining from Captain
Montgomery of the Portsmouth a boat-load of supplies, with
which he reached New Helvetia a week later, accompanied by several naval
officers.4 Before his return some startling events had happened.
It is not to be believed that Fremont had any intention of proceeding
immediately homeward, as announced in the letters cited. It is reasonably
certain that revolutionary plans had already been developed to some extent by
him and his associate, though it is of course impossible, as it
is-comparatively unimportant, to fix the exact stage of development at this
time. The instructions from Washington which had chiefly caused his return from
the north would not permit him now to go east. Gillespie had told him on the
frontier not only of the impending war, but of the growing revolutionary spirit
among the settlers. On his first arrival at the ranchos he found abundant
evidence of discontent. The Indians were said to be on the war-path at Castro’s
instigation; and Fremont was asked to join in a raid upon the foe. He
declined, though offering protection to the settlers.5 It is to be
presumed that he had already considered
3 Neal
reached Sutter’s May 25th, and went on, but came back next day on account of
high water, starting again on the 27th via Sonoma. New Helvetia Diary, MS., 49.
*G.’atestimony,inFrimont'sCal.
Claims, 26-7; New Helvetia Diary,'MB., 50. June 7th, G. to L. Larldn’s Doc.,
MS., iv. 144. He arrived at Sutter’s June 12th, and was joined by Fremont on
the American Fork next day. Lieut Hunter, Purser Watmough, and Asst Surgeon
Duvall accompanied him in the ship’s launch.
5 Gillespie’s testimony, in Frimont’s Cal.
Claims, 26, 29. Upbam, Life of Frimont, 231-2, tells us that his hero did march
against 600 of the savages, routing them, dispersing five villages, and
breaking up the great combination against the settlers! June 1st, Sutter writes
to Vallejo that Fremont has arrived above, and will probably await on the
American River orders per the Congress. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 220. "
the project, which at any rate he soon fully adopted, of promoting a
revolt of the settlers, whose pretext should be imminent danger of an attack
from the Californians, and in whose behalf he would interfere on pretext of
protecting Americans as soon as such interference should be either politic or
necessary.
There was a strong element among the settlers, as already explained,
ready and eager to meet the filibuster more than half-way. The news that
Fremont was returning fanned into new life the fire that had hardly smouldered.
At every hunter’s camp the topic was discussed; at every rancho a political
junta of neighbors and rovers was in daily session. The revolutionists
recognized their opportunity to prevail over what had been a somewhat
unmanageable minority. The old rumors of Castro’s hostile preparations were
revived, and new ones invented; new appeals to American patriotism were made;
men were urged from love of life, of family, of liberty, from ambition, from
greed of gain, from whatever motive was likely to be most potent with each, to
shake off the tyrant’s yoke. Especially was Fremont’s return presented as a
significant and auspicious circumstance. He would not return at all, it was
urged, were not an outbreak of hostilities from some cause expected. The
settlers’ attention was thus turned with anxiety toward the explorer. From all
directions delegations were sent to learn his purposes, and soon the roving
population of the valley had established itself in considerable numbers near
the camp at the Buttes.
It took but a few days for the settlers to convince themselves that
Frdmont desired a revolt, and would join it eventually should the necessity
arise, though he would not openly take an active part in beginning it.
Naturally we know but little of the many interviews in respect of persons,
dates, and other details. Two or three are however on record. We know the
results; and it is evident that only to a few did Frd- mont make definite
promises, others receiving them
at second-hand through trusty agents sent out by the few. Samuel J.
Hensley, during a trip to the bay, had learned from Vallejo and others some
facts and more rumors respecting the junta at Monterey, the project of an
appeal to England, Castro’s preparations at Santa Clara, and points of the
general situation. Returning, he arrived at New Helvetia May 28th. From Sutter
he learned that the Indians were threatening serious trouble; and a chieftain
was conveniently found to testify that the savages were acting at the
instigation of Castro. On June 3d, Sutter started on a campaign against the
Indians; while Hensley on the 4th hastened up the valley to make Fremont
acquainted with the impending dangers. At about the same time Neal returned
from below with opportune confirmation of alarming rumors. It was on the 6th
that Fremont, after consultation with Hensley, decided on the course to be
pursued; and two days later Hensley and Neal returned to Sutter’s, from that
point sending out trusty agents to summon the settlers in all parts of the
district.6 If we may credit Ide, a written summons was circulated in
Fremont’s name, though not signed by him. »Ide and others made haste to obey
the summons, which they received on the 8th; but, not being filibusters of a
radical type, were much troubled that Fremont’s plan, so far as he would
condescend to make it known to them, was not one of independence, but rather
one to provoke Castro to begin hostilities through outrages to be committed by
persons who had nothing to risk either of property or reputation.7
This was on the 10th; and before that Kelsey, Hargrave, Swift, and others had
come as representatives of the Napa Valley settlers, they like Ide not being
able to obtain from Fremont any definite promise of aid.8 All was
6 Hensley’s testimony, in Frimont's Cal.
Claims, 33-4; Fremont to Benton. Niles’ Keg., lxxi. 191. The dates are fixed
and confirmed by the New Helvetia Diary, MS., 49-51; and also to some extent
by Sutter’s Diary, 7-8, where the campaign against the Moquelumnes is
described.
7 Ide’s Biog. Sketch, 111-19.
8 Hargrave’s Cal. in ’46, MS., 4-11;
Fowler’s Bear Party, 2.
ready, however; the train was laid; new occurrences were exceptionally
favorable; and steps had already been taken to apply the match. On the 10th the
first act of hostility was committed. About the same time Fremont moved his
camp from the Buttes to the Feather River, and then down to Bear River, near
its junction with the Feather.
General Castro was striving to organize at Santa Clara, under the
immediate command of Jose Antonio Carrillo, a force of militia with which
ostensibly to resist the invasion threatened by the United States, and
especially to resist Frdmont, whose return could be interpreted only as a
threat. Castro had really some fear of Frdmont, though probably no hope of
defeating him; but his chief purpose was to resist Governor Pico, who was
believed to be preparing for a march northward. Not much can be known of the
general’s success; but though funds were scarce, and public sentiment not
enthusiastically patriotic, he doubtless raised about a hundred men, whom he
had great difficulty in keeping together, arming, and mounting. At the
beginning of June he made a trip to San Rafael and Sonoma in quest of supplies,
and to consult with Colonel Vallejo. Victor Castro was directed to be ready
with his boat on the 5th, to bring back the general, with such munitions as he
might obtain.9 Respecting the nature and success of Castro’s
demands upon Vallejo, we know only that he obtained from the latter and through
his influence about 170
9 June 6, 1846, Alcalde Pacheco of San JosS
to Prefect Castro, mentioning the general’s departure and instructions to
Victor Castro. It was also expected that Vallejo might come over on the boat.
The writer speaks of the campaign of Sutter, ‘now allied with Castro’ against
the hostile Moquelumnes. He alludes to troubles between citizens and civil
authorities on one side and the military officers on the other, displays
considerable bitterness, implies that Castro’s preparations are really to
overthrow the civil authority, and urges the prefect to warn the govt. Doc.
Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 251-2. The spirit of this letter shows where the
filibusters obtained some of their reports of Castro’s instigating the Indians,
etc. Lancey, Cruise of the 'Dale,' 49, says that the general went by way of
Yerba Buena, and was absent four days, which is likely accurate, though no
authority is given.
horses, belonging part to the mission Indians of San Rafael and part to
private citizens.10 Francisco Arce, the general’s secretary, and
also a militia lieutenant, had crossed the bay with Castro, and was now sent
with Lieutenant Josd Maria Alviso and an escort of eight men to conduct the
horses by the Sacramento to Santa Clara.11 Crossing the river at
William Knight’s place, now known as Knight Landing, the party arrived at the
fort June 8th, and next day continued their journey, camping for the night at
Murphy’s rancho on the Cosumnes.12
The approach of Alviso and Arce from Sonoma was made the foundation of
the rumor, said to have been brought by an Indian, that Castro’s force was
advancing up the valley, destroying the crops and committing other outrages.
It has also been said, and it is not impossible the statement was remotely
founded on fact, that Arce told Knight or his wife at the crossing that the
horses were to be used by Castro for a campaign by which the settlers were to
be driven out, after which a fort was to be established to prevent the entrance
of any more immigrants by the Bear River pass. This report was carried by
Knight in all haste to Fremont’s camp.13 It may be that Don
Francisco,
10 Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., v. 110-11, says
that the horses were 200 belonging to the govt and 100 to the mission of San
Rafael; and that all were being pastured by Castro’s orders on the Cosumne
River. This, though confirmed by Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., v. 156-9, and
Fernandez, Cosas de Cal., MS., 130-1, is not accurate.
11 By an official report of Gen. Carrillo
it appears that Alviso was really in command, Arce having been detailed to
assist him. Arce in his report also named Alviso as in command. Arce’s
statement of the number of the escort agrees with the entries in the diaries
kept at Sutter’s, and is doubtless correct, though the force has often been
represented as much larger by -those who wished to magnify the exploit of the
insurgents. Jos6 Noriega, Bias Alviso, aud Bias Pina were of the number.
12 N. Helvetia, Diary, MS., 51; Sutter's
Diary, 8; Arce, Mem,., MS., 52-4. The river is also called Tahualmes and
Macasomy. Sutter, Personal liemin., MS., 138, etc., implies that a few horses
were added to the band at his place.
18 This version seems to rest on the
authority of Semple. It first appeared in the Monterey Californian, Aug. 29,
1846, and subsequently with slight variations in the Hesperian, iii. 387-8;
First Steamship Pioneers, 171-3; Bryant’s What I Saw in Cal., 287-8; S. F. Alta
Cal., Aug. 2, 1866; Lancey’s Cruise, 49-50, etc. Semple was in a »ense an
excellent authority, but he was also a prominent conspirator, and one of those
who knew well that the settlers were in no danger. Ford, Bear Flag, MS., 4-5,
gives a confused version to the
a somewhat talkative young man, did make some foolish and boasting
remarks as represented; but it is more likely that the story was invented for
effect, as other similar ones are known to have been. At any rate, the
opportunity was too good a one to be lost by the filibusters. In the forenoon
of the 9th, eleven or twelve started in pursuit of Arce from the vicinity of
Fremont’s camp. Hensley states that they were sent by Fremont;14 and
there can be no doubt that the movement was instigated and planned by that
officer. It was during the absence of this party that Ide had an interview with
Fremont, as already narrated, the latter urging the importance of a raid on
Castro’s horses, and King being anxious to know what the settlers wrould
do if the horses were taken.15 It was also at this time that the
camp was moved to Bear River. Ezekiel Merritt commanded the pursuing party, the
exact composition of which is not known. Semple seems to have been a member, as
probably were Granville P. Swift and Henry L. Ford, and possibly one or two of
Fremont’s men. Most were of the roving immigrants and hunters who had been for
a week assembling near the Buttes, men of the class described by Fremont as
having nothing to risk.16
Merritt and his men were joined by two others at Hock farm. They crossed
the American River at dusk, supped at the rancho of Allen Montgomery, who with
another joined the force. They encamped at night within two or three miles of
where the Cali-
same general effect,
representing that Aree made his boasts while on the way to Sonoma after the
horses, and that Knight was a spy sent out by Fremont.
14 Hensley’s
testimony in Frirmnt's Gal. Claims, 33. Fremont himself says ‘ they were
surprised by a party from my camp. ’ Letter to Benton. Niles' Beg., lxxi.
191.
nIde’sBiog.
Sketch, 111-19.
I6Bidwell,
Cal., 1841-8, MS., 161-4, who was at Sutter’s at the time, thinks there were no
permanent settlers in the party, but chiefly hunters whom Fremont sent out,
using Arce’s expedition as a pretext for a beginning of hostilities. Martin,
Narr., MS., 21-2, says Fremont called for volunteers among his own men, of whom
the writer was one, and that 15 started under Swift; but Martin is not good authority.
Baldridge, Days of'46, MS., 27, also names Swift. One account names Neal
and Knight as members of the party.
fornians were camped, guarding their horses in Murphy’s corral.17
At early dawn on the 10th, they surprised Arce and his companions, requiring
them to give up their arms, which of course was done without resistance.18
Subsequently, however, after a certain amount of threatening bluster from
Merritt and his fellow-filibusters, the arms were restored, with a horse for
each man, and also a few horses claimed as private property by Alviso, who
concealed his real position as leader of the party; and the prisoners were
dismissed with a message that if Castro wanted his horses he might come and
take them, and with the announcement of a purpose to take Sonoma and New Helvetia,
and to continue the war.19
The filibusters returned with the captured horses by the same route they
had come, slept that night at Nicholas Allgeier’s rancho, and reached Fremont’s
new camp in the forenoon of the 11th, after an absence of forty-eight hours.
Arce and his men made haste to San Josd and reported their mishap to Car
17 Ford, Bear Flag, MS., 6-7, gives the
most complete description of the Expedition. See also Lancey’s Cruise, 56.
18 Fremont in his letter to Benton, Niles’
Reg., lxxi. 291, gave the date incorrectly as June 11th, and the error was
repeated in Sec. Marcy’s report of Dec. 5th—29th cong. 2d sess., H. Ex. Doc.
no. 4, p. 51, and from this source in Smucker’s Life of Fr&mont, 28; Cutts’
Oonq., 152-3; and many other accounts. Most writers have taken pride in
representing the number of Merritt’s men as 12 and of Arce’s party as larger.
Larkin’s letters make the force 12 ou each side. Semple spoke of 18 prisoners,
and Ford of 231 Some miscellaneous references on the capture of Arce’s horses
are: TuthiU’s Hist. Cal., 169-70; Hist. Bear FlagRevol.; Pina, Narr., MS., 3-5;
Tinkham’sHist. Stochton, 89; Willey’s 30 Tears, 9; Mendocino Co. Hist., 60;
Marshall’s Statement, MS., 1-2; Belden’s Hist. Statement, MS., 43; Honolulu
Friend, iv. 169; Sta Cruz Sentinel, June 12, 1869.
19 The announcement of a purpose to take
Sonoma is proved by the fact that it was announced in the official reports
before Sonoma was taken. Arce, Memorias, MS., 52-4, says it was at first the
intention to kill him and his companions, and that they were saved only by the
intercession of Murphy and his wife. Of course there was no intention of
killing them; but Merritt was a rough man, who may have tried to make them
think so. In one of Larkin’s letters, Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS., i. 131, the
story was told as a report that on Arce’s complaining that he had been taken by
surprise, Merritt proposed to repeat the operation, the Californians armed and
mounted to choose their distance and give a signal for the attack! This has
been often repeated, and may or may not have had some foundation in fact.
Noriega, one of Arce’s men, disappeared after the affair, as appears from
corresp. of the time; and he turned up at Sutter’s 9 days later, coming from
Murphy’s. N. Helvetia Diary, MS., 52.
rillo and Castro, who in their correspondence represented the affair in
its true light, as an outrage committed by a band of irresponsible highwaymen
at the instigation of Fremont. They regarded it as the precursor of invasion,
and made an earnest appeal to the prefect, as representing the civil authority,
to forget all past dissensions, and join the military in the country’s
defence. Consul Larkin volunteered his assistance in recovering the stolen
animals, or punishing the offenders, if any feasible method of action could be
pointed out.20
Merritt and his party had announced at the Co- sumnes their plan to take
Sonoma. Such a plan may or may not have been definitely formed before they had
started in pursuit of Arce; but if not, it was formed immediately on their
return to camp on the 1 Itli. It was manifestly important, having once begun
hostilities, to leave the Californians no rallying- point north of the bay.
Without delay the company was increased to twenty men, and, still under Ezekiel
Merritt’s leadership, left Fremont’s camp on Bear Creek in the afternoon of the
same day. Crossing the Sacramento probably at Knight’s, supping at Gordon’s on
Cache Creek, and crossing the hills by night,
20 June 13th, Arce to Mayor Gen. Carrillo,
and Carrillo to Gen. Castro by a ‘ violento extraordinario,’ forwarded the same
day from ‘ El Rio ’ to Prefect Manuel Castro. Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 103, 105.
June 13th, Sub-prefect Guerrero at Yerba Buena to prefect. Id., ii. 112. Same
to juez of S. Jos/1 S. Jose, Arch., Loose Papers, MS., 24. Same
date, Carrillo to S. Jos6 alcalde. Id., 51. All agree that the filibusters
elaimed to be acting under Fremont's orders, and threatened to continue their
depredations. Laneey, Cruise, 49, tells us that Gen. Castro received the news
on June 12th, on the Salinas River, hastening back to Monterey and dictating a
letter—as he could only paint his signature!—the same day to Manuel Castro
calling for aid. June 14th, Larkin to Gen. Castro, original in Arce, Doc., MS.,
13. Jnue 14th, L. to Manuel Castro, original in Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 257;
copies Larkin's Off. Corresp., MS., i. 113; Sauryer’s Doc., MS., 49. June i5th,
Alcalde Pacheco to prefect. Has seen one MacGuins6 (McKenzie ?), who was with
Arce, and says that none of the filibusters belonged to Fr&nont’s part}'.
' He recognized only
Merritt, aud says that they claimed to fear that Castro intended to use the
horses to drive the settlers away. Noriega has not been heard of. Doc. Hist.
Cal., MS., iii. 259. Larkin gave a brief account of the affair in letters to
the sec. state on June 18th, 24th, and in a ‘circular to several Americans’on
July 8th. Larkin's Off. Corresp., MS., i. 131; ii. 65; Sawyer’s Doc., MS., 55.
they arrived in Napa Valley in the forenoon of the 12th. They remained
there two days, and their number was increased to 32 or 33, whose names, so
far as they can be known, for no list has ever been made until now, are
appended in a note.21 About midnight they started again over the
range of hills separating the valleys; and just before dawn on Sunday, June
14th, were at the town of Sonoma.22
21 Ezekiel Merritt, Wm B. Ide, John Grigsby,
Robert Semple, H. L. Ford, Wm Todd, Wm Fallon, Wm Knight, Wm Hargrave, Sam.
Kelsey, G. P. Swift, Sam. Gibson, W. W. Scott, Benj. Dewell, Thos Cowie, Wm B.
Elliott, Thos Knight, Horace Sanders, Henry Booker, Duv. Hudson, John Sears,
and most of the following: J. H. Kelly, C. C. Griffith, Harvey Porterfield,
John Scott, Ira Stebbins, Marion Wise, Ferguson, Peter Storm, Pat. McChristian,
Bartlett Vines, Fowler, John Gibbs, Andrew Kelsey, and Benj. Kelsey.
22 There is no doubt about the date of
arrival at Sonoma; but there is a possibility that they did not leave Bear
Creek until the 12th. Lancey, Cruise, 56, etc., takes that view of it. Ford,
Bear Flag, MS., 7-10, says they started at 3 P. M. on the 10th, which, like all
those given by this writer, is an impossible date. Ide, Biog. Sketch, 120,
etc., says it was at sunrise on the 11th, which is equally impossible. These
two authorities, however, are the best extant on details of the march; and as
they seem to agree that one whole night was spent in Napa Valley, I have little
doubt that the start was at 3 p. m. of
the 11th. This is partially confirmed by the statement of Baldridge, Days of
’46, MS., 21, etc., 35-8, that Grigsby and Elliott made a tour through the
valley to enlist the settlers the day before the attack was to be made. Yet
Semple, Hesperian, iii. 388-9, gave the date of starting as the 12th. The date
of taking Sonoma was incorrectly given by Fremont as the 15th, Letter to Benton
in Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 191; and the error has been often repeated. Newspaper
discussions on this date in recent years will have to be noticed presently in
another connection; they have been further complicated by Ford’s error in
making the date of the capture June 12th.
There is also a
discrepancy about the composition of the party. Ide says
13 men left the Sacramento, and were increased
to 32 in Napa Valley, though he implies later that the whole number was 34.
Ford makes the number 20 at first, increased to 33 at Napa. Most authorities
content themselves with stating that there were 33 men at last. The West Shore
Oazeteer, Yolo Co., 12-13, followed by Lancey, says that 12 men out on an
Indian expedition with Armijo, a Mexican, learned at Gordon’s of Merritt’s
movement, and marched cn masse to join him. It is noticeable that these 12 men
added to Ford’s 20 make up Ide’s total of 32. There is no agreement respecting
the place of rendezvous in Napa Valley. Grigsby’s, Kelsey’s, and ‘Major
Barnard’s’are mentioned.
Baldridge, Days of
’46, MS., 5, says that while Merritt was nominally the leader, Grigsby had
entire control of the affair. Sutter, Pers. Remin., MS., 147-50, says the ‘band
of robbers’ were Frdmont’s men, implying that the captain went with them, and
that some of Sutter’s workmen and Indians went along. He confounds this with
later events. Martin, Nctrr., MS., 24, tells us that Fremont’s men were
disbanded, and immediately volunteered to take Sonoma under command of Swift!
Pat. McChristian, Narr., MS., 1-5, claims that the company was organized
according to previous notice, in the hills near Salvador Vallejo’s rancho.
Boggs, Napa Register, April 6, 1872, copies an order sent in advance as
follows: ‘Mr. Geo. Yount: please deliver to the Republic of California 1,000
bbls of flour—signed Wm B. Ide, gover-
In narratives of the time, and later, it was customary to magnify the
exploit of June 14th, by speaking of Sonoma as a Californian stronghold, a
fort, a garrisoned town, taken by surprise, or even by a “gallant charge”
without shedding of blood, so skilfully was the movement planned. There was,
however, no garrison at Sonoma. The soldiers formerly in service there had
been discharged some years before, during the Micheltorena troubles. Some of
the citizens even were absent from the town, and there was 110 thought of even
posting a sentinel. It is true, there remained as relics of the old military
regime nine small cannon, a few of them still mounted, and over 200 muskets in
the cuartel, with a small quantity of ammunition. All was technically public
property, though in reality belonging to Colonel Vallejo, who had not seen fit
to deliver it to the general on his late visit. Two men residing there held
commissions in the Mexican army; otherwise, a more peaceful burg than this
stronghold of the Frontera del Norte on that Sunday morning it would be
difficult to find.
At daybreak Vallejo was aroused by a noise, and 011 looking out saw that
his house was surrounded by armed men. This state of things was sufficiently
alarming in itself, and all the more so by reason of the uncouth and even
ferocious aspect of the strangers. Says Semple: “ Almost the whole party was
dressed in leather hunting-shirts, many of them very greasy; taking the
nor; ’ and gravely
tells us that the flour was delivered! Of course this is pure invention. The
same writer says that on reaching the Sonoma Valley, a. Californian was found
encamped, and was arrested to prevent his giving an alarm. The wheels of this
man’s cart stood for years unmoved, marking the spot. Ide, Biog. Sketch, 120-1,
informs us that Gordon and ‘Major Barnard,’ at whose places they stopped, were
liberal with their hospitality, but not willing to join the party. At Napa, 11
p. M., on the 13th, ‘sleep and drowsiness were on the point of delaying if not
defeating our enterprise.’ Ford and Lancey speak of an address hy Semple before
the departure from Napa. John Fowler, Wm Baldridge, T. W. Bradley, and others,
according to their own statements, did not immediately join the company, which
was regarded as amply strong. Thos Knight, Early Events, MS., 7-11, speaks,
like Boggs, of the arrest of a native before reaching the town. Ide says the
captain of the guard was arrested a little way out, perhaps referring to the
same occurrence.
whole party together, they were about as rough a looking set of men as
one could well imagine. It is not to be wondered at that any one would feel
some dread in falling into their hands.” And Vallejo himself declares that
there was by no means such a uniformity of dress as a greasy hunting-shirt for
each man would imply.23 Vallejo’s wife was even more alarmed than
her husband, whom she begged to escape by a back door, but who, deeming such a
course undignified as well as impracticable, hastily dressed, ordered the
front door opened, and met the intruders as they entered his sala, demanding
who was their chief and what their business. Not much progress in explanation
was made at first, though it soon became apparent that the colonel, while he
was to consider himself a prisoner, was not in danger of any personal violence.
Lieutenant-colonel Prudon and Captain Salvador Vallejo entered the room a few
minutes later, attracted by the noise, or possibly were arrested at their
houses and brought there; at any rate, they were put under arrest like the
colonel. Jacob P. Leese was sent for to serve as interpreter, after which mutual
explanations progressed more favorably.
Early in the ensuing negotiations between prisoners and filibusters, it
became apparent that the latter had neither acknowledged leader nor regular
plan of operations beyond the seizure of government property and of the
officers. Some were acting, as in the capture of Arce’s horses, merely with a
view to obtain arms, animals, and hostages—to bring about hostilities, and at
the same time to deprive the foe of his resources; others believed themselves
to have undertaken a revolution, in which steps to be immediately taken were a
formal declaration of independence and the election of officers, Merritt being
regarded rather as a guide than captain. All seemed to agree, however, that
they were acting under Fremont’s orders, and this to
23 Semple, in Monterey Californian, Sept. 5,
1846; Vallejo, Hist. Cal, MS., v. Ill, etc.
the prisoners was the most assuring feature in the case. Vallejo had for
some time favored the annexation of California to the United States. He had expected
and often predicted a movement to that end. There is no foundation for the
suspicion that the taking of Sonoma and his own capture were planned by himself,
in collusion with the filibuster chiefs, with a view to evade responsibility;
yet it is certain that he had little if any objection to an enforced arrest by
officers of the United States as a means of escaping from the delicacy of his
position as a Mexican officer. Accordingly, being assured that the insurgents
were acting under Fremont, he submitted to arrest, gave up keys to public
property, and entered upon negotiations with a view to obtain guaranties of
protection for non-combatants.
The guaranties sought were then drawn up in writing and signed by the
respective parties. The originals of those documents are in my possession, and
are given in a note.24
24 No. 1. An exact copy, except that as the
duplicates do not exactly agree in orthography and contractions, I have written
each word correctly and in full.
‘Conste por la presente que, habiendo sido sorprendido por una numerosa
fuerza armada que me tom6 prisionero y d. los gefes y oficiales que estaban de
guarnicion eu esta plaza, de la que se apoder6 la expresada fuerza, habiendo la
encontrado absolutamente indefensa, tan to yo como los senores oficiales que
suscribeu comprometemos nuestra palabra de honor de que estando bajo las
garantias de prisioneros dc guerra no tomaremos ni & favor ni contra la
repetida fuerza armada de quien heraos recibido la intimacion del momento y uu
escrito firmado que garantiza nuestras vidas familias 6 intereses y las
de todo el vecin- dario de csta jurisdiccion mientras no hagamos oposicion.
Sonoma, Junio 14 de 1846. M. G. Vallejo, Victor Prudon, Salvador Vallejo.’ In English
the document is as follows: ‘Be it known by these presents, that, having been
surprised by a numerous armed force which took me prisoner, with the chief and
officers belonging to the garrison of this place that the said force took
possession of, having found it absolutely defenceless, myself as well as the
undersigned officers pledge our word of honor that, being under the guaranties
of prisoners of war, we will not take up arms for or against the said armed
force, from which we have received the present intimation, and a, signed
writing which guarantees our lives, families, and property, and those of all
the residents of this jurisdiction, so long as we make no opposition.’
No. 2. ‘ We, the
undersigned, members of the republican party in California, having taken Gen.
M. G. Vallejo, Lieut-col. Victor Prudon, and Capt. D. Salvidor Vallejo as
prisoners, pledge ourselves that in so doing, or in any other portion of our
actions, we will not disturb private property, molest themselves, their families,
or the citizens of the town of Zanoma or its vicinity, our object alone being
to prevent their opposition in the progress of the Hist. Cal., Vol. V. 8
It was naturally to be expected, under the circumstances, that the
arrested officers would be released on parole. Such was evidently the view
taken on both sides at first. Ford says there were some who favored such a
course. Leese, who had the best opportunities for understanding the matter,
and who gives a more detailed account than any other writer, tells us that such
a decision was reached; and finally, the documents which I have presented, Nos
1 and 2 being to all intents and purposes regular parole papers, leave no
doubt upon the subject. But now difficulties arose, respecting some phases of
which there is contradictory testimony.
Thus far only a few of the insurgent leaders had entered, or at least
remained in the house; and the negotiations had in reality been conducted by
Semple and Leese very much in their own way. Ide testifies that Merritt,
Semple, and Wm Knight, the latter accompanying the expedition merely as an
interpreter, were the first to enter the house, while the rest waited outside;
that presently hearing nothing, they became impatient, determined to choose a
captain, and elected John Grigsby, who thereupon went in; and that after
waiting what appeared an age, the men again lost patience and called upon the
writer,
en[ds ?] of the
liberation ’... —one or two words perhaps at the end, and the signatures, if
there were any, are tom off.
No. 3. ‘We, the
undersigned, having resolved to establish a government of on (upon?) republican
principles, in connection with others of our fellow- citizeris, and having
taken up arms to support it, we have taken three Mexican officers as
prisoners, Gen. M. G. Vallejo, Lieut-col. Victor Prudon, and Capt. D. Salvador
Vallejo, having formed and published to the world no regular plan of
government, feel it our duty to say that it is not our intention to take or
injure any person who is not found in opposition to the cause, nor will we take
or destroy the property of private individuals further than is necessary for
our immediate support. Ezekiel Merritt, R. Semple, William Fallon, Samuel
Kelsay.’
These important
papers are found in Bear Flag Papers, MS., 19-20, 60-1. They were given me by
Gen. Vallejo. There are two signed originals of uo.
1, one in the handwriting of Salvador
Vallejo, and the other in that of Victor Prudon. In Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii.
226, is another incomplete and unsigned blotter copy. Noa 1 and 3 were printed
in Marin Co. Hist., 68-9, and Sonoma Co. Hist., 100-1, from copies furnished
by me to Gen. Vallejo. The English document is probably the work of Semple,
but possibly of Merritt, as indicated by spelling and grammar.
Ide, to go and investigate the causes of delay. Now the discrepancies in
testimony begin. Ide describes the state of things which met his view as
follows: “The general’s generous spirits gave proof of his usual hospitality,
as the richest wines and brandies sparkled in the glasses, and those who had
thus unceremoniously met soon became merry companions; more especially the
merry visitors. There sat Dr S., just modifying a long string of articles of
capitulation. There sat Merritt, his head fallen; there sat Knight, no longer
able to interpret; and there sat the new-made captain, as mute as the seat he
sat upon. The bottles had wellnigh vanquished the captors” !25 Leese
also states that brandy was a potent factor in that morning’s events; but
according to his version, it was on the company outside that its influence was
exerted, rendering them noisy and unmanageable, though an effort had been made
by his advice to put the liquor out of reach.26 I do not, however,
deem it at all likely that the leaders drank more than it was customary to
drink in a Californian’s parlor, or more than they could carry; but that some
of the rough characters in the company became intoxicated we may well believe.
At any rate, disagreement ensued; the men refused entirely to ratify the
capitulation made by their former leaders, insisting that the prisoners must be
sent to the Sacramento; some of them were inclined to be insubordinate and
eager for plunder; while the lawless spirits were restrained from committing
outrages by the eloquence of Semple and the voice of the majority; yet the
leaders could not agree. Captain Grigsby declined to retain the leadership
that had been conferred upon him. So William B. Ide was chosen in his stead;
and the revolutionists immediately took possession of all public property, as
well as of such horses and other private property as they needed, at the same
time lock-
25 Ide's Biog. Sketch, 123-5.
26Leese’s
Bear Flag Statement, MS., 6-12. Vallejo, Hist. GalMS., v. 113, says
that the Canadian Beaulieu gave the men a barrel of aguardiente, which caused
all the trouble.
ing up all citizens that could be found.2. It would seem that
the second of the documents I have presented was torn, and the third drawn up
and signed at an early stage of the disagreements, after it became apparent
that it might be best to send the prisoners to the Sacramento, the signatures
showing that it could not have been later. Vallejo, though not encouraged
27 Leeae,
Bear Flag, MS., 6-12, says that after the capitulations were all completed he left
the house; but returning half an hour later, he found all in confusion; Ide
insisted that the prisoners must be sent to Fremont’s camp; Semple admitted
that he could not fully control the men, and said it would be better to yield;
Fallon and ‘English Jim’ notified Vallejo that they must have 80 horses in half
an hour; others insisted on searching Vallejo’s house and took all the arms and
ammunition they could find; and finally they took 60 horses belonging to the
writer, refusing his request to leave two that belonged to his children. So
great did the excitement become, and so freely were some of the men drinking,
that the writer feared personal violence. Leese mentions the fact that Merritt,
having once been struck by Salvador Vallejo, insisted at first on putting him
in irons, but was persuaded to forget his private grievances. This story in a
more dramatic form has often been repeated. ‘With all the keen resentment of a
brave man, Mr Merritt suddenly found this man in his power, the blood rushed to
his cheeks and his eyes sparkled; he leaned forward like a mad tiger in the act
of springing upon his prey, and in an energetic and mauly tone said: ‘ ‘ When
I was your prisoner you struck me; now you are my prisoner, I will not strike
you ” ’! is the way Semple tells it in the Monterey Californian, Sept. 5, 1846.
Don Salvador and Merritt were both men more likely to quarrel than to select so
magnanimous a method of revenge.
Another statement of
Semple, Id., has been very popular. ‘A single man cried out, “Let us divide the
spoils,” but one universal, dark, indignant frown made him shrink from the
presence of honest men, and from that time forward no man dared to hint
anything like violating the sanctity of a private house, or touching private
property; so far did they carry this principle that they were unwilling to take
the beef which was offered by our prisoner’! ‘ Their children in generations
yet to come will look back with pleasure upon the commencement of a revolution
carried on by their fathers upon principles high and holy as the laws of
eternal justice.’ Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., v. 114^15, thinks that it was only
by the zealous efforts of Semple, Grigsby, Kelsey, and a few others that
indiscriminate plunder was prevented. Many Californians talk of plunder and
other outrages that never occurred. Ide says, Biog. Sketch, 128: ‘Joy lighted
up every mind, and in a moment all was secured; 18 prisoners, 9 brass canuon,
250 stands of arms, and tons of copper shot and other public property, of the
value of 10 or 1200 dollars, was seized and held in trust for the public
benefit. ’ Baldridge, Days of 'Jfi, MS., 5, 435, who was not one of those who
took Sonoma, gives a remark of Prudon, ‘Boys, you have been a little too fast
for us, we were going to serve you in the same way in just 10 days’! He also
quotes Grigsby to the effect that some sailors announced their determination to
have the money which they knew to be in the house, but obeyed Grigsby’s order
to desist, especially when two rifles were levelled at them. Martin, Narr.,
MS., 24-6, gives an absurdly incorrect account of the taking of Sonoma, in
which he pretends to have assisted; talks of 18 loaded cannon with matches
burning which faced the attacking party 1 etc. Salvador Vallejo, Notas, MS.,
101-17, tells a little truth about the affair, mingled, as usual in his
testimony, with much that is too absurdly false to deceive any one.
at seeing that the leaders were not permitted by their followers to keep
their promises, was not very much displeased at being sent to New Helvetia. He
was assured that the insurgents were acting by Fremont’s orders; his own views
were known to be favorable to the schemes of the United States; and he had no
reason to doubt that on meeting Fremont he and his companions would at once
be released on parole.
Before the departure of the prisoners and their escort a formal meeting
of the revolutionists was held. That Semple, secretary, made a speech
counselling united action and moderation in the treatment of the natives, and
that William B. Ide was chosen captain, is all that is known of this meeting,23
except what we may learn from Ide’s narrative. The leaders differed in their
ideas, not only respecting the disposition to be made of the prisoners, but
about the chief object of the movement. Evidently there had been no definitely
arranged plan of operations. Fremont had succeeded in bringing about a state
of open hostility without committing himself. Some of the men regarded their
movement as merely intended to provoke Castro to make an attack on Fremont; or
at least they dreaded the responsibility of engaging in a regular revolution,
especially when it was learned that no one could produce any definite promise
from Fremont in black and white to support such a movement. Others were in
favor of an immediate declaration of independence. That such differences of
opinion did exist as Ide states, is in itself by no means improbable; and it is
confirmed to some extent by the fact that Grigsby did resign his leadership,
and by the somewhat strange circumstance that three such prominent men as
Grigsby, Merritt, and Semple should have left Sonoma to accompany the
prisoners. Ide writes that when Grigsby heard that no positive orders from
Fremont could be produced, his “'fears of doing wrong’ over-
w Semple,
in Hesperian, iii. 388-9; and in First Steamship Pioneers, 174-5.
See also Lancey’s Cruise, 57.
came his patriotism, and he interrupted the speaker by saying:
‘Gentlemen, I have been deceived; I cannot go with you; I resign and back out
of the scrape. I can take my family to the mountains as cheap as any of
you’—and Dr S. at that moment led him into the house. Disorder and confusion
prevailed. One swore he would not stay to guard prisoners; another swore we
would all have our throats cut; another called for fresh horses; and all were
on the move, every man for himself, when the speaker [Ide] resumed his effort,
raising his voice louder and more loud, as the men receded from the place,
saying: ‘We need no horses; saddle no horse for me; I can go to the Spaniards
and make freemen of them. I will lay my bones here before I will take upon
myself the ignominy of commencing an honorable work and then flee like cowards,
like thieves, when no enemy is in sight. In vain will you say you had honorable
motives. Who will believe it? Flee this day, and the longest life cannot wear
out your disgrace I Choose ye this day what you will be! We are robbers, or we
must be conquerors!’ and the speaker in despair turned his back upon his
receding companions. With new hope they rallied around the desponding
speaker, made him their commander, their chief; and his next words commanded
the taking of the fort.” Subsequently “the three leaders of the party of the
primitive plan of ‘neutral conquest’ left us alone in our glory.” I find no
reason to doubt that this version, though somewhat highly colored, is in
substance accurate; that Merritt, having captured horses and prisoners, was
content to rest on his laurels; that Grigsby was timid about assuming the
responsibility of declaring independence without a positive assurance of
Fremont’s cooperation; that Semple, while in favor of independence, preferred
that Sacramento should be the centre of operations, unless—what Vallejo and
Leese also favored—Frdmont could be induced to establish his headquarters at
Sonoma; or finally, that Ide and his associates influenced the ma
jority to complete their revolutionary work and take no backward steps. I
think, however, that Ide and all the rest counted confidently on Fremont’s
support; and that Semple and Grigsby were by no means regarded as abandoning
the cause when they left Sonoma.
It was about 11a. m., on June 14th, when the three prisoners, accompanied
by Leese as interpreter at their request and that of the captors—not himself a
prisoner as has been generally stated—and guarded by Grigsby, Semple, Merritt,
Hargrave, Knight, and four or five others,29 started on horses from
Vallejo’s herds for the Sacramento. It will be most convenient to follow them
before proceeding to narrate later developments at Sonoma. Before starting,
and on the way, Vallejo was often questioned by Californians as to the
situation of affairs; but could only counsel them to remain quiet, announcing
that he would probably return within four or five days. His idea was that
Fremont, after releasing him and his companions on parole, might be induced to
establish his headquarters at Sonoma, an idea shared by Semple, Grigsby, and
Leese. Relations between captives and captors were altogether friendly, except
in the case of some hostile feeling among a few individuals against Don
Salvador.80
They encamped that night at Vaca’s rancho. No special pains was taken to
guard the prisoners, who with Leese slept on a pile of straw near the camp.
Vallejo had desired to travel all night; but the men declined to do so, having
had no sleep the night before.- Before dawn on the morning of the 15th, a
29 Lancey names Kit Carson as one of the
guard, falling into the error from the fact that Carson accompanied Merritt
from Fremont’s camp to Sutter’s Fort. There were probably none of Fremont’s men
in the party that took Sonoma. Ide says the guard contained 10 men; Leese says
about 12 men. Both Ide and Ford state that the force left behind was 2i men,
which would indicate that the guard numbered 9.
30 Several writers state, without any
foundation in fact, that Don Salvador was arrested, not at Sonoma, but at his
Napa rancho on the way to Sacramento.
Californian succeeded in reaching the captives, and informed
"Vallejo that a company of his countrymen had been organized to effect his
rescue, and only awaited his orders. The colonel refused to permit such an
attempt to be made, both because he had no reason to fear any unpleasant
results from his enforced visit to the Sacramento, and because he feared
retaliation at Sonoma in case an attempt to escape should bring harm to any of
the guard.31 On the 15th the party reached Hardy’s place on the
Sacramento. Here Merritt left the others, intending to visit Fremont’s camp
and return next morning; but as he did not come back, Leese with one companion
started in the forenoon of the 16th also in quest of Fremont. Arriving at
Allgeier’s place, they learned that the captain had moved his camp to American
River; and starting for that point, they rejoined their companions before
arrival. Here Grigsby presented an order from Fremont for Leese’s arrest, for
which, so far as known, no explanation was given.33
Late in the afternoon they reached the camp, and the prisoners were
brought into the presence of Frd- mont. That officer’s reception of them was
very different from what had been anticipated. His words and manner were
reserved and mysterious. He denied, when Vallejo demanded for what offence and
by what
31 Leese’'s Bear Flag, MS., 8-9. This writer
thinks that Vallejo’s course saved the lives of all the guard, as the surprise
would have been complete, and there were some desperate characters amoDg the
rescuers. Revere, Tour of Duty, 65, heard a similar version from a person who
was present, and that the Californians were under the command of Juan Padilla,
who was also the messenger. Also Lancey’s Cruise, 57. Vallejo, Hint. Gal., MS.,
v. 126
7, and Cayetano Juarez, Narrative, MS., and
in Savage, Doc., MS., i. 39-40, tell us that Juarez; posted himself at the
Portezuela with a Bmall force, sending his brother disguised as a woman to
notify Vallejo of his design to effect a rescue, if permitted. By Boggs, Napa
Register, April 6, 1872, we are informed that 60 or 70 of Castro’s men sent to
drive out the settlers intercepted the guard near Higuera’s rancho, but were
kept off by Vallejo’s shouts that he was in danger of being shot if they came
nearer! And in the Sacramento Record-Union, March 15, 1876, we read of the
attempted rescue at Napa, which failed hy reason of Grigsby’s coolness in
threatening to shoot the prisoners!
52 Leese’s
account is confirmed by a letter written by Vallejo while in prison, to be
noticed later.
authority he had caused their arrest, that he was in any way responsible
for what had been done; declared that they were prisoners of the people, who
had been driven to revolt for self-protection; refused to accept their paroles;
and sent them that same night, under a guard composed in part if not wholly of
his own men—Kit Carson and Merritt being sent in advance— to be locked up at
Sutter’s Fort.33
88 Vallejo,
Hist. Cal., MS., v. 122-8, thinks that Fremont was not unfriendly, but that he
dared not oppose the popular feeling of the rough trappers and settlers.
Leese, on the other hand, very angry of course that no explanation was given of
his own arrest, except that he was ‘a bad man,’ blames Fremont exclusively,
describing his words and actions as arbitrary and offensive in the extreme. The
arrival of Carson and Merritt, and that * of the prisoners later, are recorded
in N. Helvetia Diary, MS., 52; Sutter's Diary, 8.
CHAPTER VI.
BEAK FT,Art REVOLT
CONTINUED—AFFAIRS AT SUTTER’S FORT AND SOUTH OF THE BAY.
JUNE-JULY, 1846.
Sutter’s Position—The
Prisoners—Their Treatment—Correspondence of the Captives—Events at New
Helvetia—South of the Bay— Rosa Sent by Vallejo to Montgomery—Misroon’s
Mission—Official and Private Correspondence—Castro’s Proclamations—Military
Preparations—Three Divisions to Retake Sonoma—Torre Sent across the Bay—Manuel
Castro’s Mission—Insurgents at San Francisco—Weber’s Arrest—Montgomery’s
Policy—Pico at Santa Barbara—The Angelinos not Warlike—Foreigners Offended—The Assembly—Pico and
Larkin—Pico Marches North —Meets Castro—Embrace of Governor and General.
Captain Sutter was still nominally in command at the fort. The turn
affairs were taking sadly interfered with his plans of selling the
establishment, though he was not without hopes that the revolt might in one way
or another be made to advance his personal interests. Had his plans in this
respect, and especially his recent advice to Castro to garrison the fort
against Americans, been fully known to the insurgents, he also would have been
put under arrest. As it was, while he was not fully trusted, neither was he
much feared. He doubtless gave to Hensley and others assurances of secret
support, and was therefore excused from active participation, though he was
closely watched the while. It is well known, being also admitted by himself,
that his relations with Frd- mont were not friendly.1 What
understanding had
1 Sutter, Person. Remin., MS., 140-50, in
a very inaccurate sketch of these times, claims to have been acting in good
faith as an ally of the U. S., renounc-
(122 1
been reached at the time of Carson’s arrival or earlier is not known; but
when the prisoners arrived, Sutter simply obeyed Frdmont’s instructions, and
they were locked up in one of the rooms of the fort, to pass the night in not
very agreeable meditations on their unfortunate condition, mingled at times
with regret that they had not availed themselves of a favorable opportunity to
escape. Vallejo states further that their room contained no furniture except
some rude benches; that no blankets were furnished for that first night; and
that they were without food or water till 11a. m. next day, when an Indian was
sent in with a pot of soup and meat which they were free to eat as best they
could without spoons or dishes. “Doubtless God had decreed,” writes the
general, “that June 1846 was to be the black month of my life.” With a view to
render all safe, and to guard against the effects of any possible sympathy of
Sutter for his brother officers, E. M. Kern was stationed at New Helvetia with
a small detachment of Fremont’s men to guard the captives.2
Having once opened hostilities, the filibusters are not to be blamed for
seizing Sonoma or for arresting the Mexican officers; and having once arrested
them, it was perhaps for the best to send them to the Sacramento; or at least,
it is not strange that the leaders could not control their rough associates and
were
ing his allegiance to
Mexico by opening his gates to Fremont! He admits that F. acted suspiciously,
was ‘shy’ of him, and had him closely watched, the men he finally left at the
fort being really spies rather than a garrison. He attributes F. ’s dislike to
the affair of the stolen horses just before the capt. went to Oregon. S.
claims also to have earnestly disapproved the outrage ou Vallejo and his
companions. Bidwell, Cal. in I84.I-8, MS., 164-7, tells ns that Sutter
had denounced the taking of Arce’s horses, which greatly displeased Fremont, so
that when he came down to the fort he told
S. that if he did not like what was being
done he might go and join the Mexicans.
2 About Kern’s command at the fort there
is not much information extant. Possibly he was not stationed there until
Fremont started for Sonoma. Hensley, however, testimony in Fremont’s Cal.
Claims, 34, states that it was before his own departure for the south, that is,
on the 16th; and Leese represents tbat the prisoners were delivered to Kern at
first. There are frequent references to the fact of his being in command in
later correpondence. Sutter speaks of the garrison of spies left at Fremont’s
departure. The Dianes contain no intimation of any other authority than
Sutter’s.
forced to break a solemn agreement. But once at Sutter’s, for Fremont and
his fellow-revolutionists to put the captives in prison, and keep them there,
disregarding past pledges, demands for justice, or explanations, and
especially Vallejo’s rank and well known sympathies and honorable character, as
well as Leese’s nationality, was a gross and inexcusable outrage. It was a
severe blow to Vallejo’s pride, and a most ungenerous return for his many acts
of kindness to American settlers, his influence in behalf of annexation to the
United States, and the ready confidence with which, counselling his countrymen
against resistance, he had given his parole, and intrusted himself to the
protection of a man whom he regarded as an officer and a gentleman.
The Sonoma prisoners remained in confinement at New Helvetia until
August, being released, under circumstances to be noticed later, after the
revolution was at an end, and the conquest by the United States had begun. Josd
Noriega and Vicente Peralta, making their appearance at the fort shortly after
the outbreak, were added to the number; and Julio Carrillo, Vallejo’s
brother-in-law, coming later from Sonoma under a passport to assure the colonel
of his family’s safety, shared the same fate. Respecting the prisoners’
experience and treatment during their confinement, evidence is meagre and
contradictory. I attach but little importance to the complaints of later years,
coming from the prisoners themselves, and exaggerated by their friends,
complaints involving gross ill- treatment and cruelty; nor on the other hand do
I credit the statement of Sutter that the captives “were placed in my best
rooms, and treated with every consideration; took their meals at my table, and
walked out with me in the evening; their room was not guarded night or day, nor
did any guard accompany them when they walked.” There is no reason, however,
to doubt that Sutter himself was disposed to treat them kindly, or perhaps that
he was chided by
Fremont for his kindness.3 The truth is, that Vallejo and his
companions were kept in close confinement for nearly two months, in rough and
inconvenient quarters. They were fed with coarse food, and were allowed no
communication with friends or families. The few letters allowed to pass from
the prison were closely examined by Fremont’s men; not the slightest attention
was paid to their appeals for justice; and they were occasionally insulted by
an irresponsible guard. This was the sum and substance of their grievance, and
it was indeed a serious one. Their mental sufferings arising from anxiety for
family and property, as well as from wounded pride, were greater than those of
the body resulting from hunger or hard beds. Vallejo had never been in all respects
a popular man in California; and now there were not wanting among his
countrymen those who expressed a degree of satisfaction that the 'autocrat of
Sonoma’
3 Sutter’s
Pers. Remin., MS., 148, etc. He says that after Fremont’s first
complaint, the prisoners were put in charge of Loker, and later of Bidwell, who
treated them not much less kindly than Sutter himself. He did not cease his
visits and care for them until warned through Townsend that he would be himself
arrested. He ignores Kern altogether. In his Diary, 8, he says: ‘I have treated
them with kindness and so good as I could, which was reported to Fremont, and
he then told me that prisoners ought not to be treated so; then I told him if
it is not right how I treat them, to give them in charge of somebody else.’
Revere, Tour of Duty, 74-5, says they were rigorously guarded, the jailers
being suspicious and distrustful, going so far as to threaten to shoot Sutter
for the crime of being polite. Marshall, Statement, MS., 2, who was there at
the time, says that Sutter allowed the prisoners to walk about on parole, until
Fremont threatened to hang him should any escape. Leese, Bear Mag, MS., 16,
says also that Sutter called often to encourage them, until Fremont threatened
to hang him if he continued his visits. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 387-91;
v. 128-64, 183, 199-200, speaks of ‘ Charles,’ who was one of the guards at the
prison. He had been greatly befriended by Salvador Vallejo the year before, but
‘gratitude has no place in the Missourian heart. ’ On one occasion, loaves of
bread from Sonoma were admitted, each of which had a coin
in its centre. ‘Blue Jacket,’ one of the worst of the guards, died soon after
of hydrophobia from the hite of a skunk. Chas E. Pickett arrived from Oregon
during the captivity, and gained Vallejo’s life-long friendship by his
sympathy and kindness. I have no doubt that Vallejo exaggerates the cruelty
with which they were treated. His charges are general and indefinite; and those
of others are as a rule absurd. Salvador Vallejo is somewhat more moderate on
this topic than on most others. What troubled him most was the coming of the
sentinel each day to see if the ‘damned greasers’ were still safe. Hargrave,
Cal. in 18J/8, MS., 7, 11, says Vallejo had no cause for complaint, and was
very comfortably lodged at the fort. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 465, says Vallejo
was treated as he had treated his southern prisoners at Sonoma.—that is, very
badly.
was reaping the rewards of long ‘coquetting’with the Americans. I have
some of the letters written by the captives, which I cite briefly in a note. To
the Californians they wrote that all was well with them, urging submission
rather than resistance; to others they spoke only of their arbitrary and unjust
imprisonment, demanding release or a specification of the charges against them.
The absence of complaints of personal ill-treatment has perhaps no
significance, as such complaints would not have been allowed to pass. Further
correspondence relating to their release will be noticed in due time.4
Before returning to Sonoma, let us glance briefly and in chronologic
order, first, at events on the Sac-
1 June
28th, Prudon to Jos6 de la Rosa. He and the rest still held. Does not know how
long it is to continue. Not allowed to communicate with any one. Vallejo, Doc.,
MS., xii. 228. July 6th, Vallejo to his brother, Jos6 de Jesus V. They are not
dead as has been reported. Robt Ridley is named as one of the prisoners. Their
situation is not very bad, but indispensable for the new order of things. There
is reason to believe there will be an entire change founded in justice, which
will raise the country from its miserable condition. They will all be
eternally grateful to Sutter for kindness shown. They have been solemnly
promised that their persons, property, and families shall be respected. The
writer charges his brother to make all this public. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxxiv.
216. July 6th, W. A. Bartlett, Sonoma, to Vallejo, at whose house he and Dr
Henderson are. Mrs V. as cheerful as could be expected. All hoping for his
early return. Id., xii. 229. July 10th, V. to Fremont, complaining that F. had
not come to see him as he promised. Our imprisonment, ‘as you know, has been
made more severe, with absolute inoom- munication since June 16th.’ Is it to
end now that the U. S. flag is flying over the fort?—insuring as he hopes a
prosperous future for his country. Blotter in Bear Flag Papers, MS. July 23d,
Prudon to Larkin from the ‘Prison of the Sacramcuto,’ complaining of an
‘unjust, severe, and prolonged imprisonment, ’ and asking L. to use his
influence for their liberation. ‘ Our situation is most lamentable, and its
horrors are augmented by our absolute incommunication, so that we could not
know what was passing outside, or others what we were suffering within. I have
written a journal, which at the proper time will come to light. ’ They have
reoeived Larkin’s letter of the 16th; and they send a representation for Com.
Sloat, who is doubtless not aware of their iniquitous treatment. Larkin, Doc.,
MS., iv. 221-2. July 23d, Vallejo to Larkin of same general purport. Cannot
understand why they are still detained now that he has seen the U. S. flag
flying. Alludes to the written guaranties given on June 14th, which are still
in his possession, and which were violated ‘ before the ink of the signatures
had time to dry. ’ Their cattle have been driven off during their imprisonment.
Spanish, and translation, in Larlcin’s Doc , MS., iv. 219, 223. No date
(July 23d?), Vallejo to (Sloat?) giving a brief and clear narrative of their
capture and unjust confinement. This account confirms Leese’s narrative in all
essential parts, though less complete. The writer puts his wrongs in a very
strong light, and cannot believe that those wrongs are continued with the
knowledge of U. S. officers. Blotter in Bear Flag Papers, MS., 63-6.
ramento, and then at occurrences south of the bay during the whole
revolutionary period, though some of them have been or will be noticed more
fully elsewhere. It was on June 10th that Arce’s horses were taken on the
Cosumnes. On the 11th Hensley and Reading arrived at the fort from up the
river; and this afternoon or the next Merritt and his men left camp for Sonoma.
On the 12th or 13th6 Gillespie arrived from Yerba Buena in the
Portsmouth’s launch, accompanied by several officers of the navy, and bringing
a boat-load of supplies for Frdmont, proceeding with Hensley in the launch to
the American River. Frdmont came down with a part of his force, as Gillespie
states, on the 13th, encamping near the mouth of the American; while the main
body encamped on the 15th, eight or ten miles farther up that stream. The
captives taken at Sonoma on the 14th reached Fremont’s camp in the afternoon of
the 16th. Carson and Merritt started at once for Sutter’s, while Hensley and
Reading were despatched ostensibly on a hunting tour, but really to talk
politics with Marsh, and learn the situation south of the bay.0 The
prisoners were locked up in the fort at nightfall, as we have seen. On the
17th, the supplies having been delivered, Gillespie and Fremont went up the
American to join the main body, while the Portsmouth’s launch started for
Sauzalito. The supplies in question were furnished by Montgomery, on the
requisition of Fremont as an officer of the United States. It was on its face
a perfectly legitimate transaction; and I know of no reason to suppose that
Montgomery was informed by Gillespie of the revolutionary project on foot.7
This same day, the 17th, three men,
1 In .V. Helvetia Diary, MS., 51, and
Sutter’s Diary, 8, the latter date is given; the former in Gillespie’s
testimony. Frimant’i Cal. Claims, 26-7.
6The dates,
etc., are fixed by the diaries; the motive by Hensley’s testimony. Frimont’s
Cal. Claims, 34.
7 In his letter to Benton, Niles’ Beg.,
lxxi. 191, Fremont says he wrote to Montgomery by the returning launch,
‘describing to him fully my position and intentions, in order that he might not
by supposing me to be acting under orders from our govt unwittingly commit
himself,’ etc.
Wise, Ferguson, and Stebbins, arrived at the fort from Sonoma, presumably
with news, as they started at once for Fremont’s camp. On the 18th a courier
came from Sonoma with a letter from Captain Montgomery. Frdmont with twenty
men visited the fort on the 19th; and Josd Noriega, a Spaniard from San Josd,
made his appearance and was detained; and next day Vicente Peralta, coming back
from a visit up the river, shared the same fate. It was also on the 20th that
Hensley and Reading returned from below, hastening to Fremont’s camp with the
report that Castro was preparing for a hostile movement, a report confirmed by
John Neal, who brought news that a force was crossing the bay to attack Sonoma.
It was on or about this date that Julio Carrillo arrived and was imprisoned. On
the 21st Fremont arrived near the fort; and next day, leaving a small garrison
—his company being reenforced by Hensley, Reading, and many trappers and
settlers—he marched for Sonoma.8 On the 23d a party, including
Bidwell, was sent toward the Cosumnes to learn whether any foes were
approaching from below, and to make arrangements for a watch to be kept by the
Indians. Friday the 26th was marked by the arrival of Lieutenant Revere and Dr
Henderson of the Portsmouth, who came up from Sauzalito on the ship’s launch;9
and also by that of a small party of immigrants from Oregon. Next day Henderson
departed for Sonoma with a small party; on the 28th Lieutenant Bartlett and Dr
Townsend arrived from Yerba Buena; and on the 29th Bartlett started with
Bidwell for Sono
8 In his letter to Benton, Fremont, says
he broke camp on the American Fork on the 23d. This may mean that after leaving
Sutter’s lie camped at the mouth of that stream and started next morning for
Sonoma. Lancey, Cruise, 64, confirms this, and speaks of Harrison Peirce coming
into camp on the 23d with news of great alarm at Sonoma.
9 Revere, Tour of Duty, 66-75, gives no
dates and few details of occurrences from his own observations on this trip.
He had an interview with Vallejo, ‘ which it was easy to see excited a very
ridiculous amount of suspicion on the part of his vigilant jailers, whose
position, however, as revolutionists was a little ticklish, and excited in
them that distrust which in dangerous times is inseparable from low and
ignorant minds. ’
ma;10 while Revere returned down the river by boat. It was on
July 8th that Robert Ridley was sent up from below and was added to the number
of prisoners. It was on July 10th, the day of Fremont’s arrival from Sonoma,
that news came of the raising of the stars and stripes at Monterey; and next
day that flag was raised over Sutter’s Fort, of which event more anon.
South of the bay, as we have seen, public attention was directed mainly
on the 13th and 14th of June to the taking of Arce’s horses; next day came the
news that Sonoma was in the hands of American insurgents, and that Vallejo
with other officers were prisoners. I find four written records of this news,
bearing date of June 15th. The first is a communication from Sub-prefect
Guerrero to the prefect. He had received the tidings at Yerba Buena verbally
from Joaquin Carrillo, the second alcalde of Sonoma, who had run away when he
saw the arrest of Ber- reyesa, the first alcalde.11 The second was
sent by Justice Estudillo at San Leandro to Alcalde Pacheco at San Josd He
obtained his information from Rafael F^lix, whom Vallejo had despatched as a
messenger to his brother Don Jes.us, ar.d who had arrived at 11 p. m.12 The third record is that of an interview on
the Portsmouth at Sauzalito between Captain Montgomery and Jos^ de la Rosa,
Lieutenant Bartlett serving as interpreter and secretary. Rosa had been sent by
Vallejo—just before the latter started for the Sacramento, though he had not
been able to leave
10 In Sutter's Diary, 8, it is stated that
Bartlett ‘organized the garrison,’ which is unintelligible. After Bidwell’s
departure the diary at New Helvetia was practically suspended until May 1847.
11 June 15,
1846, Guerrero to Castro. Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 115. The party that took
Sonoma was composed of 70 men under the ‘ Doctor of the Sacramento,’ and
another man whom Salvador Vallejo knew from once having had a quarrel with him
(Merritt).
12 June 15, 1846, Estudillo to Pacheco, in
Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 258. He wrote also to the prefect at the same time.
This report was that the prisoners, guarded by 12 men under Merritt, had
passed the rancho of Cayetano Juarez en route for Feather River.
Hist.
Cal., Vol. V. 9
Sonoma until 3 p. m.—to inform Montgomery of what had occurred, “and to
ask of him to exercise his authority or use his influence to prevent the commission
of acts of violence, inasmuch as they seemed to be without any effectual head
or authority; and to this end he hoped for an officer to be sent to the place,
or a letter that would have the effect of saving the helpless inhabitants from
violence and anarchy.” The captain’s response, which Rosa promised to deliver
to Vallejo at the earliest possible moment, was to disavow in the most explicit
terms any knowledge of or authority for the movement on the part of the United
States, of himself, or even of Frdmont; to declare that he could not
officially interfere in any manner with local, political, or criminal affairs
in no way concerning his government; but to proffer personal sympathy and
express his willingness to exert his individual influence for the protection of
innocent persons.13
Besides the message sent back by Rosa, Montgomery decided to send an
officer as requested. He selected Lieutenant John S. Misroon for the mission,
and his instructions given on the evening of the 15th, with a supplement next
morning, form the fourth of the records to which I have alluded. Misroon, being
fully informed respecting Rosa’s report and the reply that had been given, was
directed to visit the insurgent leader; to make known the “state of apprehension
and terror” into which the Californian people had been thrown by the late
movement; to “ request from me that he will extend his protecting care over the
defenceless families of their prisoners and other inoffensive persons of
Sonoma;” to impress the minds of those in power “with a sense of the advantages
which will accrue to their cause, whatever its intrinsic merits may be, from
pursuing a course of kind and benevolent
13 June 15, 1846, record of interview. Copy
of original by Bartlett. Rosa said there were 80 men in the party; otherwise
his version was a very aeenrate one. Montgomery in his reply expressed a belief
that there was no danger of violence to non-comhatants. Bear Flag Papers, MS.,
46-9.
treatment of' prisoners” and of the Californians generally; and finally,
to explain his mission fully to the civil authorities of Sonoma, conveying to
them such assurances as he might have obtained from the insurgents, but
avoiding any discussion or remarks respecting the merits of the revolt.14
The lieutenant was conveyed across the bay in the ship’s boat, reached Sonoma
late on the 16th, remained until the next noon, and at sunset of the 17th was
back at the ship. Of his experience at Sonoma I shall have more to say later;
but his report was most reassuring, being to the effect that the insurgents intended
no violence to the persons or property of non-combatants; that the “utmost
harmony and good order prevailed in camp;” and that Vallejo was held merely as
a hostage.15 Before Misroon’s departure William L. Todd had arrived
as a courier from Ide direct to Montgomery; and he went back in the same boat
with Misroon.
The tidings from the north of course spread rapidly in the next f?w
days, and were the topic of many communications, both among natives and
foreigners.16
u June
15th, 16th, Montgomery’s instructions to Misroon. Bartlett’s original copy in
Bear Flag Papers, MS., 50-2.
16 June 18,
1846, Misroon’s report to Montgomery. Bear Flag Papers, MS., 53-7. The report
included a copy of Ide’s proclamation, and described the flag.
16 June 16, 1846, Capt. Montgomery to
Larkin, giving a brief account of the affair at Sonoma, as reported by Rosa and
Todd. Larkin’s Doc., MS., iv. 158. Prefect Castro to alcaldes. Tells the news,
and orders a meeting of ayunt., that the people may be called to arms. Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 117. Gen. Castro to alcalde S. Jos6. Is
adopting measures to resist the foreign invasion which has begun. S. Josi,
Arch., Loose Papers, MS., 47. Gen. Castro to his soldiers. Refers to the Sonoma
outrage. Trusts they will march enthusiastically to break the chain that is
being wound about them. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 58-9. June 17th, Leidesdorff
at Yerba Buena to Larkin. Gives no details, as Montgomery has written.
Gillespie will probably be back in a few days. Castro is at Sta Cruz preparing
to go up the Sacramento and put things right. The writer is very bitter against
Capt. Hinckley, who is a Mexican at heart, and who has said ‘ the Californians
are fools if they do not at once take the same number of Americans prisoners. ’
(Hinckley died a {ew days later.) Larkin’s Doc., MS., iv. 160. Same day,
LeidesdorflPsreceipt for $36.25 from U. S. consul for a messenger giving the
news. Monterey, Consulate Arch., MS., ii. 19. Fran. Arce to Manuel Castro from
Sta Clara. The hour of the country’s suffering has now arrived. They are
invaded on all sides. Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 122. Prefect Castro to min. of
rel. Invasion of the northern frontier by Fremont, aided by the commander of
the Portsmouth. All that is possible being done for defence. Hopes Mexico will
not abandon Cal. Id., ii. 121. June 18th, Larkin to sec. state. Does not
The current ideas of what had happened were, as a rule, tolerably
accurate. It was understood that Frdmont was at the bottom of the movement; and
this led many of the Californians to believe erroneously that he acted under
instructions from the government at Washington, and that Montgomery, especially
as he had just sent a boat-load of supplies to Frdmont, was also in the plot.
The reported raising of a strange and unheard-of flag by the insurgents was
alarming to many of the natives, but much less so than if it had not been
supposed that the bear and star were but a temporary substitute for the stars
and stripes. Even Americans were disposed to think that Fremont was acting
under instructions, else their surprise would have been much greater.
The first measure of defence, naturally from a Mexican standpoint, was a
patriotic proclamation. General Castro issued two of them on June 17th from his
headquarters at Santa Clara. I reproduce them in a note.17 The first
was an appeal to the Californians to
know if the reports
are true or not. Fremont and Gillespie suspected of being at the root of the
matter. Many believe the U. S. consul has known of the plans all along.
Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 65-6. June 19th, Leidesdorff to Larkin. Gives
an account from ‘ the only authentic sources. ’ No disorders at Sonoma. Full
guaranties. All property taken paid for, etc. Id., Doc., MS., iv. 167. June
20th, Montgomery to Leidesdorff. Is surprised to learn by his letter that 200
men have been collected to oppose the insurgents. The launch has returned from
Fremont. The prisoners were taken to his camp by the request of Vallejo.
Fremont’s neutral position did not allow his taking charge of them, so they
were removed to Sutter’s, where they are detained as hostages. Sutter has
joined the insurgents. The insurgent force must have increased considerably.
Doubts that they can easily be surprised. The men know how to use their arms.
‘My position, you know, is neutral. I am a mere observer of passing events... I
know no way consistently with this view of doing what you name, but feel not
much concerned on that account, for reasons before stated.’ Shall move to Yerba
Buena (from Sauza- lito) next week, if it be found expedient. ’ Fitch, Doc.,
MS., 394.
17 The original of the first is found in
Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 239, apparently in Arce’s writing with Castro’s
signature. In respect of style, grammar, and orthography, it is very bad,
defying literal translation. I have found no original or Spanish copy of the 2d
proclamation. Three sets of translations are extant: one, inaccurate in some
respects, in the Monterey Californian, Sept. 12, 1846; and S. F. Californian,
June 5, 1847; another, slightly corrected, in Bryant’s What I Saw in Cal.,
293-4, followed with slight changes in Lancey’s Cruise, 62-3; Marin Co. Hist.,
77-8, and other local histories; and a third was that made for Larkin from the
original, more nearly literal than the others, in Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS.,
ii. 70-1; Sawyer’s Doc., MS., 52,
fight in defence of their country; and the second a promise of protection
to all foreign residents taking 110 part in the revolt. Both documents were of
the type usually employed in such cases by officers of Latin race—and by many
of other races—to arouse the patriotism of those under their command, and to
‘save their responsibility’ with superiors. They were in substance what
circumstances required, and by no means so absurdly bombastic as it has been
the fashion to regard them. It is true that the outrage at Sonoma was
attributed to the ‘contemptible policy’ of the United States; but Castro had
every reason to suppose Fremont to be acting under instructions, and had this
been so, the policy, in connection with the recent acts and utterances of
Larkin and other agents of their government, would have been indeed ‘contemptible.’
60-1. The following
version varies slightly here and there from either of the three:
‘ The citizen Jos 6
Castro, lieut-eol. of cavalry in the Mexiean army, and comandante general ad
interim of the department of Californiasi Fellow-cit- izens: The contemptible
poliey of the agents of the government of the U. S. of the north has induced a number
of adventurers, regardless of the rights of men, to boldly undertake an
invasion, by possessing themselves of the town of Sonoma, and taking by
surprise the military commander of that frontier, Col. Don M. G. Vallejo,
Lieut-col. Don Yietor Prudon, Capt. Don Salvador Vallejo, and Mr Jaeob P.
Leese. Fellow-countrymen: The defenee of our liberty, of the religion of our
fathers, and of our independence impels us to sacrifice ourselves rather than
lose these inestimable blessings. Banish from your hearts all petty
resentments; turn and behold those families and children unfortunately in the
hands of our foes—snatehed from the bosoms of their fathers, who are prisoners
among foreigners, and who loudly eall on us for succor. There is yet time for
us to rise en masse, irresistible and just. Doubt not that divine providence
will guide us to glory. Nor should you doubt that in this headquarters,
notwithstanding the smallness of the garrison, the first to saerifiee himself
will be your fellow-eitizen and friend, Jos*S Castro. Headquarters at Sta
Clara, June 17, 1846.3
‘The citizen Jos6
Castro, ete, All foreigners residing among us, occupied in their business, may
rest assured of protection from all authorities of the department so long as
they take no part in revolutionary movements. The comandcivcia in my eharge
will never proeeed lightly against any person whatever, neither will it be
influenced by mere words without proofs; declarations shall be taken, proof
exacted, and the liberty and rights of the laborious, ever commendable, shall
be protected. Let the fortune of war take its chance with those ungrateful
persons who with arms in their hands have attacked tho country, forgetting that
in former times they wero treated "by the undersigned with his
characteristic indulgence. Impartial inhabitants of the dept are witnesses to
the truth of this. I have nothing to fear; duty leads me to death or vietory. I
am a Mexican soldier, and I will be free and independent, or die with pleasure
for those inestimable blessings. Jos£ Castro,’ ete.
Prefect Manuel Castro cooperated with the general in his efforts to
prepare for defence, as did the different alcaldes to some extent; but the
response on the part of the people was not a very hearty one. With considerable
difficulty Castro sueeeeded in increasing his foree to about one hundred and
sixty in ten days; a force organized in three divisions under the command of J.
A. Carrillo, Joaquin de la Torre, and Manuel Castro respectively.18
It was his inten-
18 Castro in a letter to Pico 011 June 25th
gives 160 as the total of hisforcc. Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 127. There is no
other definite contemporary record on the subject. I give the following
r£sum<5 of correspondence:
June 17, 1846, Gen.
Castro to Pico. An earnest appeal for P.’s cooperation. All resentment should
be dropped. Let us act together, and give au exampleof patriotism. Dept. St.
Pap., MS., vii. 60-1, 119. June 17th, bando posted by Alcalde Escamilla of
Monterey. All subordinate local officials must call upon the citizens to rise.
Every one having horses must contribute them by 10 o’clock to-morrow, also
supplying arms, etc., as they can. A record to be kept of all contributions and
receipts to be given. Dept. St. Pap., Mont., MS., iii. 121-2. June 17th,
Sub-prefect Guerrero to alcalde of S. Jos£, describing the ‘bear flag,’ and
warning against dangers at S. Jos6. S. Jose, Arch., Loose Pap., MS., 37.
June 19th, Manuel Castro leaves Monterey with citizens for S. Juan to take part
in the campaign. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 29. June 21st, Castro to Pico,
urging him to come north with all the force he can raise. If he will not do it,
let him say so at once, so that time and men may not be wasted in sending
despatches. Id., vii. 56-7. Leidesdorff to Larkin. Sutter has joined the
rebels. ‘ I am told that some of the Californians have driven all their
horses off to the coast, so that Castro will not get them.’ Larkin's Doc., MS.,
iv. 171. Larkin to 17. S. consul at Honolulu. Sends his wife and children for
protection. The Californians talk of seizing him; and at any rate, war has
broken out. Id., Off. Corresp., MS., i. 116. June 22d, Prefect Castro to
alcalde of S. Jos<5. Is cooperating with the general. The citizen who makes
excuses is a traitor. Volunteer companies of 50 men may choose their officers.
Our homes must be defended. S. Josi, A rch., Loose Pap., MS., 28. June 23d,
same to same. Let the men march to Sta Clara at once. Id., 59. Let fire-arms be
collected at the ranchos. Id., 26. To Pedro Chaboya. Let a list be sent him of
those making excuses. Id., 35. June 24th, Larkin to sec. state. Castro has 200
men at Sta Clara; got but few from Monterey. No news of any increase in Ide’s
forces. Castro will probably not go north. Sawyer's Doc., MS., 55-7. June 24th,
a messenger paid $65 for carrying expresses from Monterey to S. Jos6 and to
Leidesdorff and to Montgomery. Monterey, Consulate Arch., MS., ii. 15. Same
date, letter to the Honolulu Friend, iv. 169-70, from a Yerba Buena
correspondent, giving a very good account of what had occurred, including
Castro’s proclamation, and Misroon’s visit to Sonoma. He says that Ide and
Castro are said to have each about 150 men. Forty or 50 of Castro’s men crossed
the bay today (or perhaps on the 23d), and a fight will soon occur. June 25th,
Manuel Castro to Pico, ‘en route for Sonoma.’ Has been to Sta Cruz to get
horses and stir up the people. Second division organized and on the march.
Urges Pico to render aid. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 10. Same date, Gen. Castro
to Pico, 160 men moving on Sonoma. He is marching in the rear and organizing a
reserve force to guard against a repulse. Fremont with 400 (!) riflemen on his
way to protect Sonoma. Pico has now a chance to immortalize his name i£ he will
but listen to Castro’s advice. Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 127; Dept.
tion to send the three divisions across the bay to attack Ide’s
garrison. To this end Torre with his fifty or sixty men did cross from San
Pablo to Point Quin- tin probably in the evening of June 23d, employing for
that purpose the launch belonging to the owner of the rancho. The other
divisions under Carrillo and Castro also followed a day or two later as far as
San Pablo, but did not attempt to cross. Why not, is not altogether clear. Lack
of boats is given as the reason by some, and by others cowardice on the part
of the leaders. Either of these motives would certainly have been quite as
strong in the case of Torre as in that of the others. The truth is apparently
that the crossing, to be followed by a combined attack on Sonoma, was to take
place either on a fixed day, or on a day to be fixed by Torre; but before the
arrival of the day, or before an}T communication from Don Joa-
St. Pap.,
MS., vii. 67. Rafael Pinto ordered to report for duty at headquarters. Id.,
Ben. Cust.-II., vi. 679. June 26th, prefect to alcalde. Allcitizens must at
once become soldiers. S. Josi,Arch., Loose Pap., MS., 26. June 30th,
Leidesdorff to Larkin. If the Portsmouth were not here, he would have to run
away, since Hinckley has advised his arrest. H. and Ridley are ‘ more Mexicans
than the Mexicans themselves. However, they will get their just clue one of
these days.’ Larkin's Doc., MS., iv. 1S9. June 30th, Larkin to U. S. consul at
Honolulu. Has received a letter from Pico, who blames him; ‘but the most I
could do would be to act like his Excellency and issue a proclamation. .. .1
am dreaming of trying to persuade the Californians to call on the commodore for
protection, hoist his flag, and be his countrymen, or the Bears may destroy
them.’ Id., Off. Corresp., MS., i. 125. June 30th, Leidesdorff to Larkin. S.
Rafael taken; 150 insurgents there and 50 at Sonoma. Castro was to have crossed
yesterday from S. Pablo. If he did, it is ‘all up with him.’ Torre was also to
have attacked Sonoma yesterday. Bidwell in command at Sutter’s. Reading,
Hensley, and all the rest are coming to join the force. Id., Doc., MS., iv.
189. June 30th, Gen. Castro to Pico. Back at Sta Clara; and reports Torre’s
retreat and that of the other divisions (as explained in my text). A council of
war has decided to send Manual Castro as a comisionado to the gov. A new plan
of operations must be formed. The insurgents are being rapidly reenforced.
Blotterin Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 131. Same document, dated July 1st. Dept. St.
Pap., MS., vii. 67-8. July 2d, Castro (Sta Claxa) to Abrego. Must try to
negotiate a loan, pledging lands of S. Juan, S. Jos6, and Sta Clara. Id., xiii.
14^15. July 2d, Montgomery to Larkin. The insurgents have come to Yerha Buena
and taken Ridley prisoner. The country is undoubtedly theirs without much more
trouble. In 15 days they will be in your midst. A letter from Castro
to Torre was intercepted, directing him to kill every American and Englishman
that fell into his hands. The men are very bitter against Castro. Larkin's
Doc., MS., iv. 192. July 4th, L. to U. S. consul at Honolulu. Explains Castro’s
former plan of campaign—that is, to join his three divisions with the natives
north of the bay and to surprise Ide’s garrison. Id., Off. Corresp., MS., i.
125.
quin could be obtained, that officer himself recrossed the bay in
retreat, reporting that the insurgent force was too strong to be attacked with
any hope of success. Torre’s experience on the north side will be narrated in
the next chapter. His return was on the 29th, on which date all three divisions
were back at the San Lorenzo rancho; and next day at the old headquarters at
Santa Clara. A council of war determined that the old plan of operations must
be abandoned, and that a new one must include the cooperation of Pico and his
southern forces. Manuel Castro was chosen as the man most likely to bring Don
Pio to his senses and to effect a reconciliation; and a few days later with a
small escort he started on his mission, meeting the governor at Santa In£s. Meanwhile
the general moved with his army southward to San Juan, where he was on July
8th, when news came that Monterey was in the hands of the Americans—news that
sent Don Josd in some haste still farther southward.
Besides the not very brilliant achievements of Castro’s army, and the
correspondence of which I have given a resume, there is but little to be noted
during the revolutionary period of what happened in the central districts. On
July 1st and 2d, San Francisco was twice visited by insurgent parties from
across the bay, one of which spiked the guns in the abandoned fort, and another
took Robert Ridley from his house at Yerba Buena, carrying him as a prisoner to
the Sacramento. This was doubtless done at the instigation of Leidesdorff,
whose sympathy for the revolutionists was unconcealed, and who was very bitter
against Ridley and Hinckley, who, being Mexican officials, did not agree with
the vice-consul’s views. Hinckley escaped arrest by having died a day or two
before. Another arrest of these times was that of Charles M. Weber with two
others, Washburn and Burt, at San Jos^, by Castro. Little is known of this
affair beyond the fact that Weber was arrested and carried south as a pris
oner. According to a current account, supposed to emanate from himself,
Weber, having heard of the Sonoma revolt on June 19th by a letter from Lieutenant
Bartlett, went to Yerba Buena, and thence across to San Rafael, where he had an
interview with Frdmont, and by that officer’s advice returned to the vicinity
of San Jose to raise a force secretly for the protection of American families
in that region, at the same time inviting Fallon of Santa Cruz to raise a force
and join him. It was while thus employed that he was arrested, his life being
spared only because of Castro’s personal friendship. Weber had previously
declined a commission as captain of auxiliaries in the Californian army.19
There is no reason to doubt that Weber and others may have attempted an
organization for self-protection; holding themselves in readiness for the
results likely to spring from the revolt, which, however, many of them did not
approve. It was a current idea among the Californians that Montgomery was
permitting his officers with the Ports
19S. Josd
Pioneer, March 6, 1880; Tinkham’s Hist. Stochton, 101. June 23d, Weber to
alcalde of S. Jos6, declining appointment of captain on account of his business
relations with foreigners. In Halleck's Mex. Land Laws, MS. June 17th,
sub-prefect Guerrero to S. JostS alcalde. By loud talk of foreigners he has
learned that 40 of them are ready to capture S. JosiS, while others do the same
thing here at Yerba Buena. Great precautions should be taken. Is not pleased
that the son of Ide goes about as he pleases at the pueblo. S. Josi, Arch.,
Loose Pap., MS., 37. June 27th, no place or writer’s name. The 25 armed
foreigners at Sta Cruz intended to start this A. M. It is not known whether
they will pass this way, or, as would he more prudent, go to the Sacramento.
Id., 39. According to the Pioneer, Fallon arrived the day after Weber’s arrest.
Flores, Recuerdos, MS., 10-26, claims to have learned from Mrs Buelua of
Weber’s hostile plans and concealed weapons, and to have giveu Castro the
information which led to his arrest. Ide, JBiog. Sketch, 154, says that over
100 had secretly organized under Weber, Bird, and others on the south side of
the bay.
Accounts of Castro’s
preparations by men who took part iu them are given in Pinto, Apunt., MS.,
10L-2; Ezquer, Mem., MS., 23-5; German, Sucesos, MS., 24; Torre, Remin., MS.,
145-52; Buelna, Notas, MS., 22-3; Castro, Rel., MS., 184—95; Arce, Mem., 55,
etc.; Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., v. 188202, 229-30, etc.; but these writers
add little or nothing to what is revealed in contemporary corresp. Several
state that men were forced into the ranks; that they suffered much from hunger;
and that Castro made many enemies by his selfishness. It appears that Ex-gov.
Alvarado took a prominent part in a private capacity in the warlike
preparations. Pablo de la Guerra, Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 1304, gives some
personal items on the subject. C. P. Briggs, in Napa Reporter, Aug. 24, 1872,
narrates the services of the schooner Mermaid at Yerba Buena in convoying
volunteers to Sonoma.
mouth’s
boats to aid the insurgents; but though the sympathies of the naval officers
were clearly shown in their correspondence, there is no
proof that they were remiss in duty.20
Governor Pico was at Santa Barbara, engaged in making ready for a march
against Castro, when on June 23d, by a violento extraordinario from Monterey,
he received the prefect’s communication of the 19th making known the taking of
Sonoma. He immediately issued a proclamation, which I append in a note.21
200sio,
Hist. Gal., MS., 466-7, states that the Portmouth’s boats were engaged in
preventing the crossing of the Californians. Torre, Remin., MS., 145-6, says
that Torre on his retreat was pursued by Montgomery’s boats. In several
communications between Californian officials, their belief in Montgomery’s
cooperation is manifest. Lancey, Cruise, 72-3, quotes from James W. Marshall an
account more amusing than probable, to the effect that when the rebels applied
on the Portsmouth for ammunition, they were met with an indignant refusal; but
were told where a large quantity of powder would he put on shore to dry. By a
pretended surprise, they overcame the guard and took the powder, whereupon the
ship went through the form of firing four guns in their direction!
J1 ‘ The
constitutional governor of the dept of Califomias addresses to its inhabitants
the following proclamation: FelloW;citizens: The national honor being gravely
wounded and compromised in the highest degree at the present time, I have the
glory of raising my voice to you, in the firm persuasion that you are Mexicans,
that there bums in your veins the blood of those venerable martyrs of the
country, and that you will not fail to shed it in defence of her liberty and
independence. At this moment your dept, govt has received the unfortunate news,
officially communicated by the political authorities of Monterey, and dated
four days ago, that a gang of North American adventurers, with the blackest
treason that the spirit of evil could invent, have invaded the town of Sonoma,
raising their flag, and carrying off as prisoners four Mexican citizens. Yes,
fellow-citizens; and who of you on hearing of such fatal perfidy will not quit
the domestic hearth, and fly, gun in hand, to the field of honor to avenge the
country’s honor? Will you be insensible to the oppression in which masters so vile
wish to put us? Will the grievous groans of the country not move you? Will you,
with serene brow, see destroyed the fundamental pact of our sacred and dear
institutions? No! No! Far from me every such suspicion! I do not believe from
your patriotism, your blind love of country, that you will permit the
beneficent and fruitful tree of sacred liberty to be profaned. The North
American nation can never be our friend. She has laws, religion, language, and
customs totally opposed to ours. False to the most loyal friendship which
Mexico has lavished upon her, to international law, and to the soundest
policy, putting in execution her piratical schemes, she has stolen the dept of
Texas, and wishes to do the same with that of Cal.—thus to iniquitously dismember
the Mexican territory, to tarnish the flag of the tres garantias and raise her
own, increasing the number of its fatal stars. Fly, Mexicans, in all haste in
pursuit of the treacherous foe; follow him to the farthest wilderness; punish
his audacity; and in case we fail, let us form a cemetery where posterity may
remember to the glory of Mexican history the heroism of her sons, as is
remembered the glory won by the death of that little band of citizens posted at
the Pass of Thermopylae under Gen-
The document was much more violent and bombastic in style than that of
Castro in the north. The writer evidently had other objects in view than the
ordinary one of 'saving his responsibility’ with his subjects and superiors,
among which extraordinary objects the defeat of insurgents held but a
subordinate place. He did not entirely believe in the Sonoma revolt, being
disposed to regard it as in some way a device of his rival to justify his own
military preparations and assumption of special powers. He was glad, however,
by the fervor and ultra Mexicanism of his proclamation to show his zeal at the
national capital as an offset to Castro’s probable accusations there. He also
hoped, by his violent denunciations of the United States and of Americans, to
advance his own scheme of an appeal to England. But above all, he desired to
create a popular excitement which should largely increase the force with which
he was about to march north, thus enabling him to defeat the general and
control the future of the country so far as any Californian could control it.
This view of the matter is clearly expressed in a subsequent letter written by
Don Pio to prominent citizens of Los Angeles in defence of his proclamation.22
As to the general’s ap-
eral Leonidas. Hear
their motto: “Stranger, say to Lacedemonia that we have died here obeying her
laws.” Shall we not imitate this noble example? Shall we consent that the
northern republic hring to our soil of liberty the horrible slavery permitted
in its States? Shall we suffer human blood sold at a price for vile gain ? And
finally, must we see profaned the august image of the crucified and the dogmas
of our sacred religion? Foreign citizens who tread this soil, the dept, govt
considers you under the protection of the laws and treaties. Your property will
be respected; nobody will molest you; and as you also are interested in
preserving pcace and security, the govt invites you to the punishment of the
bandits who have invaded the north of this dept. Compatriots, run swiftly with
me to crown your brows with the fresh laurels of unfading glory; in the fields
of the north they are scattered, ready to spring to your noble foreheads.
Respond gladly, Mexicans, to the desires of your fellow-citizen and friend, Pio
Pico. Sta Barbara, June 23, 1846.’ Copy from Secretary Moreno’s original
blotter, in Moreno, Doc., MS., 30-2; copy from original, presented to the
society by A. B. Thompson in 1865, in Cal. Pioneers, Arch.,MS., 149-56;
translation bv Lieut Bartlett in Bear Flag Papers, MS., 22-4; translation in
Sawyer’s Doc", MS., 62-5.
22 June 27th, Pico to Requena, Figueroa, et
al., in Moreno, Doc., MS., 3340. ‘Both Mexicans and resident foreigners know
the extreme egotism that generally rules hearts; and while they know the
imminent danger which threat- eus us, rather from within than from without,
they know also who is the au-
peals of these days to forget past resentments and unite for the
country’s defence, it does not appear that the governor made any reply to them.
On the 23d and following days he wrote several communications, in which he
appealed to the patriotism of citizens, summoned the members of the assembly to
Santa Barbara, and above all urged the sending-forward of men and munitions for
his expedition to the north.23
The response to Pico’s appeals in the south was not more satisfactory
than that to Castro’s in the north. Not more than a dozen or fifteen men were
sent from Los Angeles, after much correspondence. There was difficulty even in
finding guards to preserve order in the city. On Pico’s departure from the
capital the foreign residents had taken upon themselves that duty, and had
rendered most effectual service; but now, having no wish to serve under Pico
in the north, especially when it might become necessary to fight against their
countrymen, they chose to be offended at the governor’s denunciation of
Americans, and threatened to leave the city to the protection of native
citizens. Alarmed by the disaffection of the foreigners, prominent men sent to
Pico their protests against the tone
tlior of so many
evils, and are aware of the many appeals which the govt has made to end them.
And what has the govt obtained but insult and outrage upon outrage? Is is not
true that he found great aid in the proceedings of the foi’eigners to carry his
point with the natives? and that for this reason 50 Bar- barenos were eager to
march north under the gov., while before not one would enlist? The govt is by
no means ignorant that it is impossible for us to repel the invasion of
foreigners should they attempt one; but with the force now volunteering, we can
march without fear to the north and punish the audacity of the com. gen., the
cause of all our misfortunes. Can you doubt that had it not been for the affair
of the foreigners the general might already have triumphed over the govt, in
these parts? At the head of 70 men well supplied with all resources he was
inarching toward these towns, aided by men to be feared for their devotedness
to vengeance. The news about the Americans made him change his route, and here
we have the old saying applicable, “No hay mal que por bien no venga.’”
23 June 23, 1846, Pico to sub-prefect of
Angeles. He is to march at once with the alcaldes and 50 men. The northern
adventurers must be taught a lesson. Dept. Si. Pap., MS., vii. 29-30. June
23d-24th, Pico appoints several officers to serve among the defensores. J. P.
Ayala, Luis Arenas, and Jos<S Fernandez, captains. Id., vii. 33, 35, 36-7.
June 23d, Pico to Figueroa. Trusts that he and the other diputados will come immediately.
Id., vii. 28. June 23d, Pico to Bandini. A patriotic effusion, announcing the
news and the duty of all Californians. Bandini, Doc., MS., 79.
of his proclamation, going so far as to advance the theory that the
revolutionists of Sonoma were really acting in the governor’s interest and
against Castro. This theory Don Pio could not accept, claiming that Manuel
Castro could not have been thus deceived; but after defending his proclamation
at some length, both on general principles and on the special plea that I have
cited, he offered to withdraw the document if it had not already been
published—as it had.24 To what extent the Americans allowed
themselves to be conciliated by the excuses of the Angelinos and Pico’s
assurances that he had intended no menace or disrespect to them, is not
exactly known; but it is certain that neither they nor any great number of the
natives could be induced to engage in any other military service than such as
was necessary for the protection of their town and ranchos.
Nor did the members of the assembly obey Pico’s summons to Santa Barbara,
even when he on June 29th sent a very earnest appeal, launching the “anath
24 June 26th, Coronel to Moreno. Doubts have
been thrown on the genuineness of the proclamation in order not to lose the
services of the foreigners. Moreno, Doc., MS., 22. June 27th, Pico to Requena,
Figueroa, Stearns, Botello, and Gallardo, in reply to their communication of
June 25th. Id., 33-40. June 29th, Bandini to P. A long protest against his
inconsiderate declaration of the 23d, which had created no enthusiasm, had
offended over 100 of the most influential men in Cal., and might precipitate
Mexico into a war for which she is not ready. The act of a few men at Sonoma
does not justify the term ‘bandits’ applied to all Americans. Bandini, Doc.,
MS., 80. June 25th, Botello to Moreno. The proclamation has shattered all our
hopes by offending the foreigners. We do not helieve in any foreign invasion at
the north. Moreno, Doc.,18-20. June 28th, Coronel to Moreno. The foreigners
have now learned that the proclamation is genuine—it had been disputed at
first— and have retired to their homes much offended. Id., 29. June 30th,
Wilson to Bandini, denouncing the proclamation, and claiming that the Sonoma
insurgents wereacting in Pico’s interests. Bandini, Doc., MS., 81. July 1st,
Bandini wishes Pico to send trusty men to the north to learn the motives of
the insurgents and the general state of afiairs. Id., 82. July 8th, Botello to
Moreno. Has no faith in a successful resistance. The popular sentiment is
against the tone of the proclamation as too severe. Moreno, Doc., MS., 15-17
Botello, Andies, MS., 135-7, gives a good account of Los Angeles affairs at
this period.
June 24th-9th,
miscellaneous corresp. hetween Suh-prefect Steams, Alcalde Cota, and others,
concerning the measures necessary for the country’s defence. Most of the items
seem to refer to the preservation of order at the capital rather than to the
sending of reenforcements to Pico. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 9-10, 86,89, 121,
124; Id., Angeles, viii. 68; Moreno, Doc., MS., 21; Coronel, Doc., MS., 135-7.
ema of the country against those who do not come to its defence,” and
“holding you responsible before God and the nation if under trivial pretences
you do not set out at once.” There are some indications that the governor still
had hopes of securing a meeting of the consejo general, before which body he
had a secret project to urge. The assembly was convened to consider Pico’s
request, backed up by eight documents on the Sonoma revolt; and by Francisco de
la Guerra and Joaquin Carrillo, who had come as comisionados; but the decision
reached was that their presence was not necessary at Santa Barbara, especially
as Pico would be absent on his expedition; that more complete information was
needed respecting affairs in the north; and that under the circumstances a
weekly mail should be established!25
Meanwhile Don Pio went on with his warlike preparations in spite of the
Angelinos’ lukewarmness in the cause. He also wrote a letter to Consul Larkin
on June 29th, complaining in bitter terms of what Americans had done at Sonoma;
announcing his suspicion that the government of the United States was
concerned in the acts, which “have the appearance of downright robbery;”
blaming the consul for not having interfered in some way to prevent such
scandalous proceedings; and hoping that for the honor of his nation he would
promptly make a satisfactory explanation. Larkin in reply denied that he as
consul had any influence over the Americans who had broken the laws at Sonoma;
and that his government was in any way concerned. In fulfilment of his duty, he
had proffered his aid to the general and prefect, by whom it had been refused.26
Not much is recorded of the gov-
26 June
29th-July 14th, miscellaneous records on the convoking aud acts of the
assembly. Some fault was found by Bandini and others with the tone adopted by
Pico toward the assembly. Dept. St. Pap., MS., viii. 112-13, 117-18, 122; vii.
12-13, 90-1; Id., Pref. y Juzg., ii. 162; Leg. Rec., MS., iv. 358—62; Bandini,
Doc., MS., 83. Even Guerra, a member residing at Sta B., declined to attend the
session on pretext of illness. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii.
26 June 29, 1846, P. to L. English
translation in Larkin's Off. Corresp.,
ernor’s last days at Santa Barbara; but it appears that by the beginning
of July he had about 100 men ready for the march, most of whom were despatched
immediately under Captain Andrds Pico. Don Pio followed on or about July 6th,
and two days later was at Santa Inds. Here Manuel Castro met him, having been
sent by the general to effect a reconciliation, as already stated, and having
passed Don Andres with his advance force at Los Alamos. The prefect, as chief
civil authority in the north, as a partisan of Pico in most of the past
controversies, and as a near relation of both chiefs, was by far the most
effective mediator that could have been employed. Don Manuel worked hard to
make the governor understand the true position of affairs, to show that
reported dangers were real and not mere pretences on the general’s part, to
explain the absolute necessity of united action, and, most potent argument of
all, to make clear to Don Pio the unenviable position he must occupy in the
eyes of all Californians and Mexicans should he allow his resentment to
outweigh his patriotism at such a time. Pico was convinced against his will,
not that Castro
MS., ii. 167;
Sawyer’s Doc., MS., 65-8; SoulA's Annals of S. F., 93-5; Dunbar's Romance,
34-6; Lnncey’s Cruise, 71. July 5th, L. to P. Larkin's Off. Corresp., MS., ii.
132; Sawyer’s Doc., MS., 68-70. Larkin seems disposed to fan Pico’s feeling
against Castro, not only hy claiming that he had refused his aid, but by
implying that the gen. might easily have retaken Sonoma, and also that if he
would have furnished men Larkin would have captured an equal number of
Americans to hold as hostages for the good treatment of Vallejo and the
others.
June 27th, Pico’s
bando, requiring great precautions and a strict enforcement of the passport
regulations. S. Luis Ob., Arch., MS., 9-10. June 28th, gov. to sub-prefect,
urging that the 50 men under Gallardo be sent at once. He has only 68 men,
mostly raw recruits—not enough for his expedition. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii.
30. June 30th, Sta Barbara, the Spanish consul will advise all of his nation to
place their lives and property in security in view of foreign invasion. Id.,
vii. 37. July 2d, Moreno to Andres Pico. A most bombastic letter. Bloody
battle-fields, dying for the country, etc. Gallardo is on his march with 13 ‘
columns ’ (one man in a column ?) from Angeles. Pico and the writer will start
Monday. Pico, Doc., MS., ii. 89. July 3d, J. M. Flores to Pico. Has no doubt
that Cal. is to share the fate of Texas. Refers to Ide’s proclamation. There
is no doubt that supplies are furnished by the U. S. men-of-war. The consul has
publicly declared that the U. S. will get Cal. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 68-9.
July 3d, Pico to Capt. Ayala. Orders to march to join Andrfis Pico. Id., viii.
136. July 8th, Pico at Sta In6s to Sub-prcfect Steams. Declares traitors all
who do not enlist for the country’s defence. Id., vii. 34.
was acting in good faith, but that his officers and men could not be
depended on to fight the general; and at last he reluctantly promised to forget
past dissensions, and to unite with Castro against the foreigners.27
Then they marched northward until the two armies met on or about July 12th at
the Santa Margarita rancho, near San Luis Obispo. Castro brought news that
Monterey had been taken by naval officers of the United States; the governor
and general gave each other a public but not very cordial embrace of reconciliation;
and all turned mournfully toward the capital to devise new plans of resistance
to los extrangeros. I shall follow them later.
27Castro,
Servicios Pub., MS.; Id., Relation, MS., 201--6.
CHAPTER VII.
BEAR FLAG
REVOLT—AFFAIRS AT SONOMA.
June—July, 1846.
Ide in Command—Banner
foe the New Republic—Star and Grizzly— Raising of the Bear Flag—Tiie Flaos as
Relics—Ide’s Proclamation—Falsehood and Bombast—Further Organization—Minor Happenings—Ide’s
Version—Treaty with Alcalde—Todd’s Mission to Montgomery—Misroon at
Sonoma—Mormonism—A New Proclamation—Killing op Cowie and Fowler by the
Californians—Padilla and Carrillo—Sortie by Ide—Other
Captives—Gibson’s Expedition to Santa Rosa—Insurgents Reenforced—Land
Laws—Grigsby’s Return—Ford’s Campaign—Padilla Joined by Torre—A Surprise —Fight
at Olompali—Torre Defeated by the ‘Bears.’
We left William B. Ide
with twenty-four men in possession of Sonoma. The alcalde and many citizens
were under arrest. Three Mexican officials bad been sent as prisoners to the
Sacramento. This was just before noon on the 14th of June. For four or five
days it does not appear that there was any increase in the insurgent garrison;
but during that time several weighty matters of state were disposed of by these
soi-disant founders of a republic. A flag was devised, manufactured, and
raised; a proclamation was written, embodying the principles, plans, and
motives of the insurgents; the imprisoned Californians were perhaps released
under certain stipulations; and diplomatic messengers were despatched and
received by the commander. Many details respecting each of these matters are
involved in more or less uncertainty, as might be expected from the very nature
of the records, chiefly the memory of individuals concerned; but I proceed
Hist.
Cal., Vol. V. 10 (145 )
to throw on the whole subject such light as existing evidence can be made
to furnish, hoping to reduce prevalent doubts and discrepancies of testimony to
a minimum.
The need of a banner was naturally one of the first suggested. The
insurgents had no right to unfurl the stars and stripes, as many of them would
doubtless have preferred to do; yet any flag devised by Americans must needs
have at least a star and a stripe; and the appropriateness of a lone star could
not fail to suggest itself to men familiar with the history of Texas, and the
similarity of condition between that country and what they hoped to make of
California. A simple copy would not, however, suffice, and an additional
emblem was required. Somebody proposed the grizzly bear, an animal then common
in those regions, and whose reputation for “strength and unyielding resistance”
could be attested by every one. of those resolute hunters from personal
experience. For materials they took what they could find; that is, a piece of
common unbleached cotton cloth, the manta of the Mexicans, somewhat less than a
yard in width and five feet long, and some strips of red flannel about four
inches wide. The flannel, the stripe of the flag, made of the requisite length
by piecing, was sewn to the bottom of the cotton. In the upper left-hand corner
of the white field was outlined in ink, and filled in with red paint, an
irregular five-pointed star, fifteen inches in its greatest diameter. Just to
the right of the star, and facing it, was painted in like manner what was
intended for a bear, statant, though it has been pronounced more like a hog by
experts who cared little for the feelings of the last-named animal. Under the
two emblems was rudely lettered in black ink California Republic. Such was the
famous Bear Flag, which has given a name to the revolution, and which caused the
insurgents to be known to the natives as Osos. I think there can be no doubt
that William L. Todd was the artist who painted it; but respecting the accuracy
of
many other current details grave doubts arise from conflicting testimony.
Who first suggested the component emblems of the banner; who furnished the cotton,
and who the flannel; whence came the red paint; was the cloth new or old; had
the flannel graced the undergarment of a fair and patriotic lady, or had it
filled an humbler station as part of a man’s red shirt; who manipulated the
needle and thread; who merely ‘stood around’ in the artist’s way; whose knife
was borrowed to cut the stuff; and was that knife ever returned to its
owner—these are questions that I cannot answer so definitely as might be
desired; but on some of them the reader may find light in the appended note.1
■Win L.
Todd in a letter of June 16, 1S72, to Wm Baldridge says: ‘At
a company meeting it -was determined that we should raise a flag; and it should
be a bear en passant, with one star. One of the ladies at the garrison
gave us a piece of brown domestic, and Mrs Capt. John Sears gave us some strips
of red flannel about four inches wide. The domestic was new, but the flannel
was said to have been part of a petticoat worn by Mrs Sears across the mountains.
For a corroboration of these facts, I refer to G. P. Swift and Pat Mc-
Christian. I took a pen, and with ink drew the outline of the bear and star
upon the white cotton cloth. Linseed oil and Venetian red were found in the
garrison, and I painted the bear and star. To the best of my recollection,
Peter Storm was asked to paint it, but he declined; and as no other person
would undertake to do it, I did. But Mr Storm with several others assisted in
getting the materials, and I believed Storm mixed the paint. Underneath the
bear and star were printed with a pen the words “California Republic,” in Roman
letters. Iu painting the words I first lined out the letters with a pen,
leaving out the letter “i” and putting “ c” where “i” should have beeu, and
afterwards the “ i” over the “ c.” It was made with ink, and as we had nothing
to remove the marks of the false letter, it now remains so on the flag.’ In Napa
Register, July 6, 1872. In a letter of Jan.
11, 1878, to the Los Angeles Express, reprinted
in many other papers, Todd tells the same story in words but slightly
different, saying: ‘ The following persons performed the work—Granville P.
Swift, Peter Storm, Henry L. Ford, and myself.’ He also confirms the same
version in a letter of March
6, 1-878, to the secretary of the Territorial
Pioneers. Copy in Bear Flag Pap., MS., 41. Ford, Bear Flag Revol., MS.,
12-13, gives an account which agrees so far as it goes with that in my text;
and he claims for himself the honor of having suggested the grizzly bear. Ide, Biog.
Sketch, 130-1; and also in a quotation from the MS. before publication
furnished to the sec. of the territorial pioneers in a letter of April 16,
1878, from Jas G. Bleak of St George, Utah—a letter that has been often reprinted—credits
Todd with having done the work; says the flannel was from the red shirt of one
of the men; and erroneously states that the lettering was in red paint. In the
Hist. Bear Flag, we read: ‘A national flag was agreed upon—its base a
brown stripe, next above a wide stripe of green cut so as to represent growing
Tula; the upper part white to represent the clear horizon, on the end of the
flag-staff a rising star, and in the brown stripe the words in capitals
“California Republic.’” Baldridge, Days of ’Jfi, MS., i.-vii. 8, and in Napa
Register, April 27, 1872, who did not reach Sonoma until some days after
the flag was raised, heard an account on arrival confirming Todd’s
very nearly, except
that he understood the flannel to have been furnished by a native Californian,
Chepa Matthews, wife of Wm Matthews. Baldridge complains that some of his
statements of former years, correcting popular errors, were not so generally
credited as they should have been. McChris- tian, Narrative, MS., 1-5, tells us
that Capt. Scott proposed to make a flag if Mrs Hudson would give the stuff,
though Mrs Sears gave the white domestic. Phelps, Fore and Aft, 284-6,
says the flag was a grizzly rampant done on a white cotton sheet with
lamp-black. In the West Shore Gazette, 13, we are told that Mrs Kelsey
furnished the worn-out cotton. Thompson, Hist. Sonoma, 15, has it that Mrs
Elliott supplied new cotton and flaunel. In the Monterey Californian, Feb.
13, 1847, we read that the painting was done with lamp-black and
poke-berries; and that the letters were on the top. According to Gillespie, in Cal.
Pioneers Soe. Arch., MS., 137, the white body of the flag was made of the
chemise of Mrs Wm Hudson, and the flannel came from Mrs Sears’ petticoat. A
chewed stick was used for a brush. Mc- George, in Petaluma Crescent, Sept.
10, 1872. Tuthill, Hist. Cal., 172-3, speaks of a pot of berry juice. An
account from Semple’s MSS. in Hesperian, iii. 389-90, has it that the red
stripe was stained with berry juice, and under it were the words ‘The People’s
Rights.’ In an article prepared for the Pioneer Society by its historian,
Hittell described the bear as standing nearly upright, confounding the original
flag with another. S. F. Alta, Jan. 8, 187S, and in many other papers.
According to a ‘true history of the Bear Flag,’ in the Santa Rosa Sonoma
Democrat, Aug. 8, 1874, copied in Napa Register, Aug. 15, 1874, and in
other papers, we are told that the project of a flag came up in a ‘ casual
conversation ’ between Todd, Dewell, and Cowie. Dewell obtained from Mrs W. B.
Elliott the flannel, domestic, and needles and thread. Blue drilling was obtained
elsewhere. Cowie and Dewell had been saddlers, and the three young men
proceeded to make the flag without consulting any one else, by sewing together
alternate strips of red, white, and blue (!), Todd painting a star in the upper
comer and a bear in the lower. Swasey, Cal. ’45-6, MS., 26, seems to
have adopted the version just given. Peter Storm has often been credited with
having painted the Bear Flag. At a celebration in Napa, Sept. 9, 1873, Storm,
introduced by Brannan, stood up and was cheered as the artist, at the same time
waving a counterpart of the original. Napa Register, Sept. 13, 1873. In
1871 also Storm, visiting S. F., was honored as the painter of the flag.
Calistoga Tribune, Dec. 21, 1871. It would seem that Storm did paint a
flag, but somewhat later and at Napa. Baldridge, Days of ’46, MS.,
i.-vi. 8, and in Napa Register, April 27th, tells us that it was painted
on a piece of greenish fabric at Napa in 1848 for the use of a party going to
Sonoma for a celebration of July 4th. He thinks it is one of the flags
preserved by the pioneers at their hall in S. F. A correspondent, perhaps
Baldridge also, gave the same version to the Napa Reporter, and claims to have
furnished the materials. He says that .Todd’s flag was made of ‘ Dirty
Matthews’ wife’s red flannel petticoat. ’ Fowler, Bear Flag, MS., 2-4, says the
material came from a sloop at the mouth of Napa Creek, the writer being
present, Storm doing the work, and the bear being represented as standing on
its hind legs. Fowler, however, says that this flag was made before June 14th,
and was the one hoisted at Sonoma. Knight, Statement, MS., 9, thinks that Storm
was the painter. In a letter of Feb. 20, 1874, Gen. Joseph W. Revere writes to
the soc. of Cal. pioneers: ‘At the suggestion of Gen. Sherman, I beg leave to
send to your society forthwith a guidon, formerly belonging to the Sonoma troop
of the Cal. battalion, 1846, for preservation. This guidon I found among the
effects of the troop when I hauled down the Bear Flag at Sonoma and substituted
the flag of the U.
genuineness of the flag there preserved, though strictly speaking, it is
not so fully proven by documentary evidence as would be desirable. Two other
bear flags are preserved by the same society. One of them is of the same size
as the original, but differs from it in several respects: the white field is of
bunting; the star is much smaller, and black instead of red; the bear, also
black, is drawn ‘rampant’ and with outlines much less inaccurate than in Todd’s
effort. Beyond the probability that this is the flag painted by Peter Storm, as
indicated in my notes, I have found no proofs respecting its origin. The other
flag is the guidon presented by Revere. Its dimensions are 42 by 20 inches; and
the material, both of field and stripe, is silk. The bear, statant, is under
the inscription, faces away from the star, and is much better drawn than the
original. Both material and execution indicate that it was made after
Fremont’s arrival at Sonoma, and probably after communication had been established
with the men-of-war; but nothing definite is known of its origin beyond
Revere’s statement that he found it at Sonoma in July.
The date on which the Bear Flag was raised has been in late years a topic
of much discussion. The writers who have engaged in it have devoted their
attention almost exclusively to the date of the taking of Sonoma. Obtaining
some slight evidence that the town was taken on June 14th—a date respecting the
accuracy of which there can be no possible doubt, it being fully established by
the many original documents
S. on the 7th (?) of
July, 1846, and have preserved it ever since.’ Printed in Sacramento Enterprise
of Oct. 10, 1875, and in many other places. See accounts of the Bear Flag,
containing I believe nothing not already noted, in S. F. Herald, July 9, 1858;
S. F. Alta, July 20, 24, 1852; Jan. 20, 1866; Jan.
8, 1878; Oct. 8, 1874; Sac. Union, June 21,
1858; Id. Mercury, 1858; S. Jos6 Mercury, 1S61 (Hittell); Antioch Ledger, Aug.
15, 1874; Sta Barbara Press, Oct. 10, 1874; Sta Cruz Sentinel, March 11, 1876;
S. F. Post, July 21, 1877; S. F. Bulletin, Dec. 20, 1877; S. F. Call, Jan. 8,
1878; S. Josi Pioneer, March 1, 1879; Napa Reporter, Jan. 18, 1878; Healdsburg
Enterprise, June 27, 1878; Petaluma Argus, Feb. 22, 1878; Napa Register, April
13, 1872. Also general rfeum6 in Upham’s Notes, 563-6; Lancey’s Cruise, 57-61.
Also mention in nearly all the county histories of Cal., and, in fact, in most
of the authorities quoted in this chapter and the preceding.
I have presented—they have regarded their diligent investigations as
rewarded with conclusive proof that the flag was unfurled on the same day. No
such conclusive proof, however, exists. The question is whether the flag was
raised on the day of the capture, the next day, or later. There is no
contemporary record on the subject of earlier date than June 17th, when Misroon
found the flag flying; and no witness, testifying from memory, has had his
attention called directly to the question at issue. Ide states, though not in a
diary as has been claimed, that the flag-raising was on the 14th. Ford also
implies that the flag was raised before night on the first day, though he also
states that it was hoisted at sunrise next morning. Bidwell’s testimony favors
the theory that it was probably not raised on the first day. A few in later
times tell us that it was several days after the taking of Sonoma; but most say
nothing on the subject. The balance of testimony is therefore in a sense in
favor of the 14th; but the evidence is very slight indeed; and it must be
regarded as doubtful whether the insurgents had time on that Sunday afternoon
to devise, manufacture, and hoist their new banner; especially if, as some say,
the halyards were broken, so that the flag-staff in the plaza had to be lowered
and raised again.2
A proclamation was deemed no less essential than a flag. Some wished to
wait until their force should be increased, or until a few prominent persons
could be induced to join the movement, or until Fremont’s views could be
ascertained. But the majority felt that what they had done bore on its face too
strong a resemblance to a mere filibustering movement for
_ 2 In the
course of the discussion alluded to, the sec. of the territorial pioneers
published the statement that ‘Bancroft, the Pacific coast historian,* had fixed
the date as June 15th; and this statement has heen repeated by a dozen writers.
\Vhile duly flattered by the complimentary title thus circulated in connection
with my name, I must protest that I had never formed or expressed any such
opinion.
plunder; at least, it was sure to be so represented byenemies, and “how
were our forces to be augmented, and who would come to the assistance of those
who were only represented as robbers and rebels?”3 Accordingly a
pronunciamiento was decided on. It was written by Commander Ide, and bore the
date of June 15th, having been prepared, as the writer states, between the
hours of one and four that morning. Many copies were made during the next few
days, in which vast improvements were made in orthography, and some slight
verbal changes were introduced. A supplemental proclamation was issued on the
18th; and possibly that date was also attached to some copies of the original,
a circumstance that has led writers on the subject into great confusion. I
reproduce the document, and add some notes upon the successive stages of its
development.4 This proclamation consisted first
3 ‘ So here we were; by our flag
proclaimed ‘the California Republic ’! 24 self-consecrated victims to the god
of equal rights, unknown by any mortal being except 10 men who had dissented
from our plan and fled to the protection of Fr&nont’s camp [except 30 or
40 Spaniards who had from a brief acquaintance sworn fidelity to our cause],
exposed not only to the wrath of 600 armed men (!), whom we were compelled, in
order to avoid the just imputation of violence and crime, to defy in open
fight, but to the unmingled scorn of all honorable men whether Mexicans or
Americans, if we failed to represent our true character, and the circumstances
which compelled us to assume such an unusual position. Was it prudent to delay
a just representation to the public ear?’ etc. Ide’s Biog. Sketch, 135-7.
*■ What
purports to be an original in Ide’s own writing—Louis R. Lull certifying to the handwriting, Manuel
Castro affirming that it was the one sent him as prefect and remaining in his
possession since 1846, and there being no reason that I know of to doubt its
genuineness—is preserved by the pioneer society, California Pioneers, Arch.,
MS., 71-5; and was printed in the &. F. Alta, Jan. 20,1866. Except in its
outrageously bad spelling and punctuation, it agrees with the one I print
below.
One of the early
copies, or originals—for they appear to have been copied both by Ide and by others
of the garrison—reached Monterey, and was copied by or for Larkin at the time.
This copy is found in Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 69-71; and Sawyer’s
Doc., MS., 49-51. It was also sent up the coast, and was first printed in the
Oregon Spectator, July 23, 1846. This is the version which I reproduce,
differing from the original in orthography only. Whether the corrections were
introduced wholly or in part at Monterey, there are no means of knowing.
A third version is
the one that has been most widely circulated, and always under date of June
18th. It is in substance the same as the preceding, but shows several slight
verbal differences; and it is to be noted that the last three paragraphs are
written in the first person, ‘I also solemnly declare, ’ etc., instead of ‘ he
also, ’ etc. This version first appeared in the Monterey Californian, Sept. 5,
1846; and later in Bryant's What I Saw in Cal., 290-1; Souli's A nnals of S.
F., 92-3; Lancey’s Cruise, 63; and in several of the recent county
histories. That such
a version was circulated is indicated by two Spanish translations in Savage,
Doc., MS., i. 41; and Bandini, Doc., MS., 75. One is a copy of a translation
certified by Dolores Pacheco, and the other a copy of what was understood to be
a translation by Hartnell. They differ from one another, and are inaccurate;
but both bear the date of June 18tb, and both are written partly in the first
person.
Finally, we have the
version given by Ide in his letter to Wambough, as printed in his Biog. Sketch,
138-40. This contains many variations from the original, not, however,
modifying the general purport, most of which I introduce in brackets. The
proclamation was as follows: ‘A proclamation to all persons, citizens of Sonoma
[inhabitants of the county (?) of Sonoma and country around—or in version no.
3—and citizens of the district of Sonoma], requesting them to remain at peace
and to follow [pursue] their rightful occupation without fear of molestation.
The commander-in-chief of the troops assembled at the fortress of Sonoma [com.
at Sonoma] gives his inviolable plpdge to all persons in California not found
under arms [bearing arms or instigating others to take up arms against him]
that they shall not be disturbed in their persons, their property [religion],
or social relations one to another [to each other], by men under his command.
He also [hereby most] solemnly declares his object [the object of his movement]
to be, first, to defend himself [our women and children] and [his brave]
companions in arms, who were invited to this country by a promise of lands on
which to settle themselves and families; who were also promised a republican
government; who, when having arrived in California, were denied even the
privilege of buying or renting lands of tbeir friends; who, instead of being
allowed to participate in or being protected by a republican government, were
oppressed by a military despotism; who were even threatened by proclamation
from the chief officer [one of the principal officers] of the aforesaid
despotism [oppressive government] with extermination if they would not depart
out of the country, leaving all their property, their arms, and beasts of
burden; and thus deprived [were thus to be despoiled] of the means of flight or
defence, we were to be [to have been] driven through deserts inhabited by
hostile Indians [savages] to certain death [destruction.] To overthrow a
government which has seized upon the property of [robbed and despoiled] the
missions [and appropriated the property thereof] for its iudividual
aggrandizement [of its favorites]; [which has violated good faith by its
treachery in the bestowment of public lands]; which has ruined and shamefully
oppressed the laboring [and producing inhabitants] people of California by
their enormous exactions [of tariff] on goods imported into the country, is the
determined [this is the] purpose of the brave men who are associated under his
command. He also solemnly declares [I also declare, etc., in version no. 3] his
object in the second place to be, to invite all peaceable and good citizens of
California, who are friendly to the maintenance of good order and equal rights,
and I do hereby invite them to repair to my camp at Sonoma without delay [and
he hereby invites all good and patriotic citizens in California to assist him
to establish, etc.], to assist us in establishing and perpetuating a republican
[liberal, just, and honorable] government, which shall secure to all civil and
religious [and personal] liberty; [which shall insure the security of life and
property]; which shall detect and punish crime [and injustice]; which shall
encourage industry, virtue, and literature; which shall leave unshacklcd by
fetters [shall foster] commerce, manufactures, and mechanism [by guaranteeing
freedom to commerce]. He further declares [proclaims] that he relies upon the
rectitude of our intentions [justice of his cause]; the favor of heaven; [upon
the wisdom and good sense of the people of California;] and the bravery of
those
oppression by the authorities—equally false, but in one or two
particulars really credited by some of the men; third, some general criticisms
of the existing government—well founded in certain respects, but involving no
wrong to the rebels, and absurd as coming from them; fourth, bombastic
promises of reform and of protection to non-combatants—commendable ■enough, and
of the type usually made a feature of such effusions. As a whole, in
truthfulness and consistency, as in orthography and literary merit, it was
below the plane of Castro’s and Pico’s proclamations. In respect of bombast and
general absurdity, it stood about midway between the two; but it derived some
dignity from the fact that it came from men who meant to fight as well as talk.
As a product of fili- busterism, pure and simple, it deserves praise not to be
awarded from any other standpoint.
Ford tells us that after raising their flag the men completed their
organization by electing himself first' lieutenant; Samuel Kelsey second
lieutenant; Granville P. Swift and Samuel Gibson sergeants. Next morning at
sunrise, after the flag had been hoisted anew and the guard relieved,
Lieutenant Ford addressed his men on the responsibilities of their position
and the necessity of strict discipline. All promised implicit obedience to
their officers, as did also fifteen new men who came in that evening—according
*who are bound to and
associated with him by the principle of self-preservation; by the love of
truth [their love of liberty], and by the hatred of tyranny —for his hopes of
success. He further declares [premises] that he believes that a government, to
be prosperous and happifying [Larkin leaves this word out; while Ide
substitutes ameleiorating/] in its tendency must originate with {among] its
people, who are friendly to its existence; that its citizens are its guardians
[last 12 words omitted], its officers are [should be] its servants, and its
glory their reward [its common reward]. William B. Ide, commander.
Headquarters, Sonoma, June 15, 1846.’
In the various
comments on Ide’s proclamation I find nothing that seems to require notice,
unless it may be the remark of Baldridge, that Ide had a mania for writing and
for organization of govt, all his proceedings being regarded by the men as an
amusing farce. Tuthill pronounces it ‘crude in style, and in its allegations
quite unsupported by facts, yet commendably explicit and direct;’ and several
writers have noted its untruthfulness.
to this writer’s statement, which is probably an error.5 This
is all Ford tells us of events down to the coming of Misroon; and with the
exception of a slight r^surn^ in another narrative, as appended,6 we
have no other definite authority on the subject than Ide himself.
Following Ide, the general accuracy of whose narrative there is no good
reason to doubt, though it is overburdened with patriotic eloquence, bombastic
egotism, and special pleading designed to strengthen his cause against Fremont,
we return to the departure of Grigsby and his prisoners for the Sacramento at
11a. m. on June 14th. After Todd
and his assistants had been put to work on the flag, and while the rest,
divided into two companies, the ‘1st artillery’ and the ‘1st rifles,’ were
puting their arms in order, the commander, after posting guards and sentinels,
“directed his leisure to the establishment of rules of discipline and order,
and of a system of finance whereby all the defenceless families might be
brought within the lines and supported. Ten thousand pounds of flour were
purchased on the credit of the government; an account was opened for the supply
of beef on terms agreed upon; whiskey was altogether a contraband article.” He
also found time to harangue such men as could be spared from other tasks on
their duties. Then with an interpreter he went before the thirty or forty im-
5 Ford’s Bear Flag Revol., MS., 14-15.
6 ‘Capt. Ide was empowered by the troops
to provide provisions for their subsistence, and to draw orders in hehalf of
the republic, which were to he hereafter paid. Berreyesa. the Mexican alcalde,
was sent for, dismissed from that office, and reappointed to the same hy the
new govt. Berreyesa pledged himself that the Mexican population of the district
of Sonoma should not interfere in the revolution. Some further measures were
adopted, limiting duties on foreign importations to one fourth of the existing
rates. Horace Sanders was appointed commissary. A national flag was agreed
upon, etc. Capt. Ide was made captain general; measures were taken to secure
puhlic and private property; and in case private property was used by the
govt, to adopt measures for compensating the owners therefor.. .The general in
chief, on the XGtli, sent Mr Todd on a mission to Capt. Montgomery.. .for the
purpose of ohtaining a quantity of powder.. .He declined furnishing it.. .At
the same time measures were adopted by Gen. Ide in relation to the national
domain, making arrangements for establishing a land office, surveying the
country, and reserving to those who served the state ranchos of some leagues in
extent. In the evening Mr Todd returned with Lieut Misroon,’ etc. Hist. Bear
Flag, by Ide, Grigsby, and Nash.
prisoned Californians to explain “the common rights of all men,” and his
own benevolent intention to right all their wrongs. So eloquently did he put
his case that “the Spaniard, even, embraced the commander as he pronounced the
name of Washington”! and though told they were at liberty to depart, the imprisoned
Berreyesa and his companions chose to remain until a treaty could be made. By a
unanimous vote the “powers of the four departments of government” were
conferred on the commander; and the evening, after the flag had been raised,
was spent in discussions respecting a proclamation.
The proclamation, as we have seen, was written before morning; as was
also a letter to Commodore Stockton, and the “remainder of the night was spent
in drawing up such articles of agreement and treaty stipulations as were most
likely to enlist the good-will of all good citizens of California, without
respect to the circumstance of any peculiar origin of its inhabitants.” The
purport of these stipulations— no copy of which is known to exist, and which
are mentioned by Ide alone—was, first, no “individual division” of public
property, that being used solely as security for payment for public debts;
second, free commerce and no imposts whatever; third, no salaries,
“enticements to corruption,” for officials; fourth, no involuntary taxation,
except as a punishment for crime; fifth, no compulsory military service; last,
all Spaniards and Californians, “good friends,” on taking a solemn oath to
support independent principles and the flag, to. be excused from bearing arms
against their misguided countrymen, agreeing voluntarily to urge the latter not
to resist, and also to furnish all supplies needed for the public service.
There was much difficulty in making these stipulations fully understood by the
Californians; and still more in obtaining the approval of the insurgents
themselves, some of whom “who at first enlisted for plunder and flight to the
States, and who proposed to tear down and pillage the
house of Vallejo, still earnestly contended that a Spaniard had no right
to liberty and but very little right to the enjoyment of life.” In fact, it was
necessary for Ide to conduct the negotiations without the full knowledge of the
garrison, he being sustained in the command only for want of any other man who
could insure obedience.
Monday morning a messenger was needed to carry the letter to the naval
officer in command at the bay. This letter, as Ide insists, was not a request
for aid, but a statement of their acts and purposes, being intended chiefly to
prevent any unwarrantable interference of the United States officers by the
assurance of an intention ultimately to “unite this fair land with that of our
birth.” In order to obtain a courier, however, it was necessary to create an
impression that his mission was to obtain powder. William Todd volunteered,
and on his departure was especially charged by the commander not to ask for
anything, but simply to bring back what might be given him I No news was heard
from the outside world during the first four days. The time was spent in
translating and retranslating treaty and proclamation. “ The men were divided
into four night-guards of six men each, and into eight day-guards of three men
each. One half of the men were at all times by day employed in camp duty; the
other half guarded and slept.” As no one from abroad came within hailing
distance from Sonoma, so it appears that no one was permitted to depart, not
even Berreyesa and his companions.
At sunset of Tuesday the 16th, not on the 17th as Ide states, Lieutenant
Misroon arrived by boat from the Portsmouth at anchor at Sauzalito. He was sent
by Captain Montgomery, as already recorded, at the request of Vallejo, to
prevent, so far as the personal influence of the naval officers could go, any
violence to families and non-combatants, being strictly charged to avoid any
meddling with the merits of the revolt. It
is probable that Todd reached the ship before Misroon’s departure, and
returned to Sonoma with him; but there is no allusion to him or his mission in
the lieutenant’s instructions or report. According to that report Mis- roon
first called on Ide, and obtained from him not only a copy of his proclamation,
but both a verbal and a written pledge to prevent all violence to the persons
or property of peaceful inhabitants. Then he visited the alcalde, to whom he
explained in writing his mission, presenting at the same time the pledge
obtained from Ide. And finally, he “called upon the family of General Vallejo,
and moderated their distress by the assurances of safety for the general which
I had received, and informing them that the prisoners were held as hostages.”
At his request, the Senora de Vallejo was permitted to send an open letter to
her husband by her brother Julio Carrillo, who also carried an account of
Rosa’s interview with Montgomery, and who, notwithstanding his passport, was
thrown into prison on his arrival at New Helvetia. Misroon finally left Sonoma
at noon on the 17th. His report of the next day contained copies of the
proclamation and pledge, a description of the flag, a statement that the garrison
consisted of about twenty-five men, and an expression of his opinion that not
only was there no danger of outrages being committed, but that the Californians
were very well contented with their position.7
’June 15th, I6th,
Montgomery’s instructions to Misroon. June 18th, M.’s report. Bear Flag
Papers., MS., 46-57. The pledge given by Ide was as follows: ‘ I pledge myself
that I will use my utmost exertion to restrain and prevent the men in arms under
my command (all of whom present acknowledge my authority and approve the
measure of forbearance and humanity) from perpetrating any violence, or in any
manner molesting the peaceable inhabitants, in person or property, of Cal.
while we continue in arms for the liberty of Cal. Wm B. Ide, commander. Sonoma,
June 17, 1846. ’ In a letter of June 19th, from Leidesdorff to Larkin,
Larkin's Doc., MS., iv. 167, he describes Misroon’s visit; says it was partly
due to Todd’s arrival; that all was found in perfect order at Sonoma; and tells
an anecdote of one of the insurgents being promptly fined $30 for shooting a
horse that kicked him! According to the /list. Bear Flag, Misroon ‘stated that
Capt. Montgomery was in expectation of important news from Mexico, and that in
the event of war he would place all the resources of his ship and half of his
men under Gen. Ide’s command’! Ford simply says that Misroon arrived and
‘complimented the party for their orderly conduct. ’ Bear Flag Revol., MS., 15.
Ide, ignoring altogether Vallejo’s messenger and the true nature of
Misroon’s mission, as well as his efforts at mediation and the documents which
he obtained and wrote, represents that officer as having come with Todd, and
in consequence of his message, to bring and explain a letter from Montgomery,
the letter and explanations being to the effect that no aid, not even a charge
of powder, could be furnished; though on receipt of news that war had been
declared, the captain would gladly put half his men under Ide’s command, and
cooperate with his ship against the common foe. Todd, greatly to the sorrow of
Ide as he claims, had asked for powder, thus doing incalcu- able harm to the
cause in some manner not very intelligibly explained. Indeed, it is impossible
to follow Ide in his ravings at this part of his narrative, as at some others.
At night, Misroon was enthusiastic enough in the cause, offering to aid in
circulating the proclamation. But next morning a change had come over his mind.
He had been talking with the garrison; it was thought best not to issue any
proclamation ; and the lieutenant even spoke of finding some way to relieve
the insurgents from their ‘disagreeable situation.’ Ide was in a state of
terrible anxiety. Evidently Misroon had heard something of current charges
against the commander. “He had been charged by Captain Fremont with being a
Mormon, and his scheme was denounced as an artifice to betray the whole country
into the hands of the Mormons. And it was known that most of the garrison
believed the foul slander.”8 But the lieutenant was persuaded
8Several
early Californians apeak of Ide as a Mormon, but there is nothing authoritative
on the subject. Many confounded him, I think, with Orson Hyde, and possibly
this was the only foundation for the charge of Mormon- ism. In the Oregon
Spectator, July 23, 1846, iu connection with his proclamation, Ide is said to
be a Mormon, one of ‘Jo Smith’s 12 apostles,’and the query is raised whether
the promises alluded to had been made to the settlers as Americans or as
Mormons. Ide docs not make it quite clear whether the ‘ foul slander ’ was the
eharge of being a Mormon, or that of being engaged in a scheme to win Cal. for
that scot, or both. It does not matter whether lie was a Mormon or a Methodist.
The silence of his biographer, and the peculiar manner of his own references to
the subject, leave some doubt as to the truth.
to read the proclamation; it conquered him; he read it aloud to the
garrison; all approved it; “joy and animation were kindled in every heart;”
triumph was assured; “the battle’s won; we’ll triumph still, in spite of fears
of Mormonism!” Of course it is not to be believed that Ide’s statement is true,
and that Mis- roon thus openly gave his support to the insurgents. Fanaticism
closely verging on insanity is here and there indicated by the commander’s
writings.
On June 18th a new proclamation was written, though Ide mentions only the
copying of the old one, and was sent, together with a document bearing the
signature of Alcalde Berreyesa, to be circulated with translations, both of
this and of the original proclamation, south of the bay. A man named Booker,
Boker, or Brooker, was chosen as messenger; and a week later he posted the
documents at Monterey. I give them in a note.9 This second proclamation
was much
* ‘ A proclamation. All persons who will
remain peaceable shall in no wise be molested or injured. The commander of the
company of soldiers now ill possession of Sonoma promises on his word of honor
to all the Californians who do not take up arms against him peace and security,
and in case any of the commander’s people should in any wise injure any person
who is not concerned, on application being made to the ahove mentioned
authority, the offender or offenders shall he punished, the party injured not
having taken up arms. The commander wishes to establish a good government for
the prompt administration of justice, and with strict attention to individual
rights and liberties, and not with the intention of molesting or permitting to
be molested any person on account of their religious opinions. The new
government will toil indefatigably to the end of acquiring everything that may
be beneficial to the country. This government will reduce the marine duties
three or four parts in a thousand (?). It will defend its rightful intentions,
with the favor of God and the valor of its adherents. The government of the
country has ordered us to retire the same way we came, and as this is
impossible on account of our poverty, we have determined to make this country
independent, and to establish a system of government that will be more
favorable to us than such a dangerous aud long road back. I order that this be
published with a translation, likewise that of the 15th of the present month in
English and in Spanish. William B. Ide, commander in Sonoma, June 18, 1846.’
‘The 14th day of the
present month this present commander took possession of the town of Sonoma,
and up to this date there has not been the least disorder, there having been
nothing taken but arms, ammunition, and horses; and for whatever else they may
have required they have solicited it of individuals, under a promise of
payment in full value the moment the government is properly installed in the
republic of California, which they are determined to do. Jos6 S. Berreyesa, 1st
alcalde in Sonoma.’
These doc. are found
in Larkin's Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 7-; Sawyer’s Doe., MS., 53-4, 59-60, with a
memorandum by Larkin that they were found posted
more moderate in its tone than the first, the writer omitting all the
former false statements but one, and confining himself for the most part to
promises of reform in the government. The earlier document had been intended
mainly for foreign settlers, and for effect in the outside world; while this
one was for the Californians. Ide tells us that it “was written and rewritten,
and sent as far as San de Angelos,” causing more than half of Castro’s army at
Santa Clara to desert within three days!
Between the departure of Misroon, on Wednesday the 17th, and the arrival
of Frdmont, on Thursday the 25th, in addition to a few minor events confusedly
recorded by Ide and Ford, there were two about which much has been written;
though both, so far as details are concerned, are still involved in some
obscurity. The first was the killing of Cowie and Fowler, and the second a
fight between Ford and Joaquin de la Torre. On the 18th or 19th, Fowler and
Thomas Cowie were sent by Ide to obtain a keg of powder from Moses Carson at
the Fitch rancho on Russian River. Disregarding the advice of Ide and Ford,
they are said to have neglected all precautions, and to have followed the main
road. Before reaching their destination they were captured by a party of
Californians under Juan N. Padilla and Ramon Carrillo. These men, twenty or
thirty in number, had been for some days ranging through the country, awaiting
developments at Sonoma, and expecting reenforcements from Castro. Padilla was
a Mexican barber of no influence or standing whatever, and Carrillo was a young
Cali-
on one of his
buildings on the morning o£ the 27th. This had been done by Boker of Me. or N.
H., who was one of the original party that took Sonoma, and who had come south
to raise a force at Sta Cruz, etc. He said that Ide was living in Leese’s
house; and that the party intended to insist on Fr&nont coming forward
openly to take command, else they would either organize without him or break up
and retire from the contest. Ide in his letter to Wambough mentions the
alcalde’s letter and the praclamation as having been sent by Brooker, though he
implies that it was the original proclamation. Tustin, Recoil., MS., 9,
mentions a Henry Booker living on the Sacramento in 1846, and this may have
been the messenger in question.
fornian not noted for his good qualities. The company was composed mostly
of wild and irresponsible young fellows, and included several desperate
characters; but so far as can be known, they had committed no hostilities on
the ranchos round about, as they might easily have done. It was near Santa Rosa
that the two Americans were captured, under circumstances of which nothing is
known. They were killed by their captors, and they are said to have been
mutilated in a most horrible manner. Some state, without details or known
authority, that their remains were found later. A noted desperado named
Bernardino Garcia, or 'four- lingered Jack,’ afterward described the details of
the murder, representing the prisoners as having been tied to trees, stoned,
and cut to pieces, one of them having his broken jaw dragged out with a reata.
His version, or so much of it as could decently be put in print, has been the
current one ever since. That the Californians, as a body, or their leaders
could have committed so horrible a deed it is impossible to conceive. In the
absence of positive original evidence to the contrary, I choose to believe that
Cowie and Fowler were killed in an altercation, in an attempt to escape, or by
an individual desperado. Testimony, as the reader will see, is vague and
contradictory. This affair, however, did much to strengthen the insurgent
cause, forcing the settlers through fear to take refuge with their families at
Sonoma.10
10 The version given by Garcia was printed
in the Monterey Califomiar, Sept. 12, 1846; was repeated in Bryant’s
What I Saw in Cal., 291-2; and has often been reproduced in the papers
of later times. Some additional horrors, from an unknown source, were given in
the S. F. Alta, July 31, 1853; and repeated in Lancey’s Cruise, 61-2.
Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., v. 121-3, followed by Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS.,
v. 204-5, desirous of course to clear Carrillo, his wife’s brother, from the
charge, states that the leaders had no idea of putting the men to death; but
while all were holding a council as to what should be done with the prisoners,
who were left tied to trees outside, Garcia, a blood-thirsty -villain, the
terror of the whole region, fearing that they would be released, went out and
killed them with his dagger, and returned to boast of his act. This version is
at least more plausible than the other. On Aug. 26, 1846, Ramon Carrillo made a
sworn statement before Judge Santiago E. Argiiello at S. Diego about the
northern campaign. He stated that before the captnre of Cowie and Fowler two
other prisoners had been taken; that the Bear party had seized the horses at
Padilla’s rancho; and also Hist. Cal., Vol. Y. 11
Ide claims to have made, apparently just after the departure of Cowie and
Fowler, a reconnoissance with ten men for the purpose of protecting the
families of settlers, and to have discovered a party of twenty-five
Californians, who took alarm and fled, notwithstanding the efforts made to
approach them unobserved. This expedition may or may not explain the pursuit
mentioned by Ramon Carrillo, and the shot fired at the retreating Californians.
At any rate, Ide was convinced “that any attempt to get a fight, just for
that the Bear Flag
men had pursued Mariano Elizalde and shot a bullet through his hat, Carrillo
took the two men and delivered them to Padilla, who, against his advice and
that of others, insisted on having them shot. Four men under a corporal were
sent to shoot and bury them. Next day Carrillo was sent to report the affair to
Castro, who approved what had been done. Original document found by Benj. Hayes
in 1856, in S. Diego, Archives, MS.; see S. Diego Index, MS., 93; Hayes’ Notes,
268; Id., Scrap-books, Cal. Notes, iv. 1*24-5. But in 1864, during the
excitement caused by Ramon Carrillo’s death at the hands of vigilantes, Don
Julio, his brother, published a card in the Sta Rosa Democrat, June 4, 1864,
denying that Ramon had anything to do with the murder of 1846, or that he knew
anything of the capture until after the men were killed. He claimed to have
proofs of this. See also Sonoma Co. Hist., 107-8. In a letter of July 16th to
Montgomery, Grigsby says, ‘ We have found the two men who were lost on the Sta
Rosa farm, horribly mangled.’ He names, as conceroed in the murder, Ramon
Mesa, Domingo Mesa, Juan Padilla, Ramon Carrillo, and Bernardino Garcia, all
now believed to be south of the bay; and, apparently, Bias Angelino, in prison;
Francisco Tibian (?), Ignacio Valenzuela, Juan Peralta, Juan Soleto (?),
Inaguen (?) Carrillo, Mariano Miranda, Francisco Garcia, Ignacio Stiggere (?),
all in the north. By Montgomery’s letters of July 18th, 20th, it appears that
‘four-fingered Jack’was in prison at Sonoma. War with Mex., Rept.s, etc.,
Operations of U. S. Naval Forces, 1846-7, p. 25-9. In the Sta Rosa Democrat,
Aug. 8, 1874; Sonoma Co. Hist.., 107, etc., it is stated that the remains were
buried where they fell, about two miles north of Sta Rosa, on the farm
belonging in 1874 to John Underhill, and later to Geo. Moore. Ide, Biog.
Sketch, 167-8, says the men were sent to Dr Bale’s place for the powder. ‘They
were discovered and captured without resistance, having trusted the promise of
the enemy that if they would give up their arms they should receive no harm.’
He says they started on the 19th. Ford, Bear Flag, MS., 16-17, says it was on
the 18th; and that the news was brought back by Sergt Gibson, who was sent out
on the 20th. Baldridge, Days of'lfo, MS., 57-8, heard of no definite proof that
the bodies were mutilated. He says that Padilla, on returning to Sonoma after the
war, was nearly killed by one of the Bear Flag men. Coronel, Gosas de Cal.,
MS., 155-60, gives a long account of the attack on Padilla in a saloon at
Sonoma, the writer being present at the occurrence. He says that both Padilla
and Carrillo assured him they were not guilty as charged. Knight, Statement,
MS., 7-11, tells us that Cowie and Fowler left Sonoma against the advice of
their friends in a spirit of bravado. Gomez, Lo Que Sabe, MS., 80-4, claims
that Padilla confessed the mutilation of the victims. Several state that the
two men were on their way to Bodega when captured. I do not deem it necessary
to give a long list of references to authorities which merely mention this
affair. It would include nearly every one touching on the revolution.
a sample of what eoulcl be done, so as in the main to avoid bloodshed,
eould not be effectual unless the enemy were allowed an advantage of five to
one; and even then a retreat must be feigned”! Soon it was learned that Todd
also had been eaptured through the treachery of a guide employed to conduct
him to the coast.11 Ford tells us, being confirmed in this particular
by Carrillo’s testimony already eited, that two
others were taken prisoners at about the same time as Cowie and Fowler.
Suspecting that the four had been eaptured, Ford, on the night of the 20th,
sent Sergeant Gibson with four men to Fitch’s rancho. Obtaining the powder, but
no news, Gibson started
nIde’s
letter to Wambough, in Id., Biog. Sketch, 164-70. In the Hist. Bear Flag, it is
stated that Todd’s mission was to carry to the coast a letter K'hich had
arrived from Fremont on the 19th.
back, and near Santa Rosa was attacked by a small party of Mexicans, one
of whom was wounded, and another brought captive to Sonoma. It was from him
that information was first obtained about the murder.11 It is agreed
by all that from about the 19th, the insurgent force rapidly increased,
amounting within a few days to about one hundred men; that many families were
brought into Sonoma for protection; and that Grigsby returned about the 21st to
be put in command of the rifle company. Ide also found time, as he says, to
reconstruct somewhat his financial system so as to furnish rations to all; and
to provide for the future by promising at least a square league of choice land
to every man who had not already that quantity, resolving at the same time that
the missions should be considered public properly, except so much as had been
properly vested in the several churches!
This brings us to the second prominent subject to which I have alluded,
namely, Lieutenant Ford’s campaign against the Californians. Particulars about
it will be found, as in all that occurred in these days, unsatisfactory. It was
on the morning of June 23dla that Ford left the fort with seventeen
or eighteen volunteers.14 His purpose was to rescue the prisoners.
Reports were current that Castro was crossing the bay with his main force. The
danger of an attack on the garrison, and the less apparent danger that a
larger party would cause the death of the prisoners, are the reasons given by
Ide for not sending more men or taking command himself; and he also repeats at
some length his orders, doubtless for the most part
12Ford’s
Bear Flag Revol., MS., 16-18.
13 He calls it the 22d himself, but there is
some evidence that he is wrong.
14 Ide says there were 18 hesides the
leader; Ford, 17; the common version has it 22; Baldridge thinks there were 10;
and the Californians talk of 50 or 60. Baldridge agrees with Ide that one in
every five was chosen, all wishing to go; and he gives an amusing account of
the selection, and of the successful efforts of one Badger Smith to join the
party against the wishes of most, and in spite of the fact that the lucky
number of 5 did not fall to his lot. Ford and Swift made some changes in the
men after the first division. Baldridge was one of those who remained behind;
but he gives the best account extant of the expedition in many of its phases.
Days of ’46. MS., 58-71.
imaginary. Ford was not very friendly to the commander, and generally
ignores his authority in his narrative. It does not appear that there was an
expectation of meeting any foe but the band of Padilla and Carrillo; and the
march was directed toward Santa Rosa, under the guidance, as Ford says, of the
prisoner taken by Gibson. It was found on arrival that the Californians had
abandoned their camp, though they had left a few muskets in a house near by,
which were destroyed. Following the trail at sunset, the * Bears’ reached Padilla’s rancho, and learned from an Indian that the
enemy would probably camp near the laguna of San Antonio. The pursuers spent
the night at a point some half a mile from the laguna; and in the morning
‘charged’ upon the place, making prisoners of three or four men who were found
there. Thence, after obtaining breakfast and changing horses, they directed
their course toward San Rafael, and before long came suddenly upon the Californians.
Meanwhile Castro had sent one of his three divisions, fifty or sixty
men, under Joaquin de la Torre, across from San Pablo to San Quintin, where
they had landed in the evening of the 23d, and proceeded to San Rafael. With
part of his men Torre continued his march by night, and having been joined by
Padilla’s company from Santa Rosa, encamped early in the morning with about
fifty men at Olompali, or Camilo’s rancho, about midway between San Rafael and
Petaluma, where he was found by the 'Bears’ in the forenoon of the 24th, and
where the fight occurred. The meeting at this point was a surprise to both
parties. The Californians were eating a late breakfast at the house, when an
alarm was given that the Americanos were attacking the corral. Ford, on coming
in sight of the rancho, made a charge upon it, only a few men being in sight,
with a view to repeating the affair of San Antonio, and especially of securing
a large band of horses that were seen in the cor
ral. He knew nothing of Torre’s force, and even if the place were
garrisoned, expected to meet only Padilla’s company, twenty-five at the most.
Those in sight hurriedly retired behind a clump of trees; and Ford, on reaching
the corral and the trees, was surprised to see at the house near by an armed
force of forty-six. The Bears were ordered to dismount and take refuge behind
the trees, where, concealed by the underbrush, they awaited an attack with
their rifles ready. The Californians made a charge, but at the first discharge
of the rifles Alfdrez Manuel Cantua was killed, and Agaton Ruiz was badly
wounded. Torre’s men retreated, firing from their saddles in a random way; and
the firing was continued for some time at long range on both sides, no harm
being done to the Americans, but several of the Californians probably
receiving slight wounds.15 Presently
15 The earliest account of the affair that I
have found is that given in a letter of the next day, June 25th, from a
correspondent, ‘ Far West,’ and printed in the Honolulu Friend, Dec. 1, 1S46. ‘
The first blood shed in battle in Cal. flowed yesterday on the plains of
Sonoma.’ Twenty revolutionists attacked and defeated 77 Californians, killing
2, wounding 2, and losing 2. Capt. Montgomery, in a letter to Larkin of July
2d, tells the story briefly. Fifteen insurgents attacked by 70 Californians,
who surprised them just as they had put their horses in a corral, but were
defeated, losing 4 in killed and wounded. Larhin’s Doc., MS., iv. 192. July
4th, Larkin to U. S. consul at Honolulu. Torre, driving ahead extra horses,
came suddenly upon 15 or 20 men of Ide’s party; both fired and parted, the
foreigners carrying off the extra horses, losing a Canadian, named Francis
Young, and an American, while the Californian lost Cantua, Ruiz, and Isidoro.
Id., Off. Corresp., MS., i. 125. July 8th, Larkin to Stearns. Represents the
two parties as having come unexpectedly upon each other, fired, and
retreated—the Americans into a corral; while Torre—seeing that he had but 60
men against 15—tore off his shoulder-straps, and did not deem himself safe
until half a mile out in the bay. Id., Doc., MS., iv. 202.
In a deposition made
by Ramon Carrillo before Judge Arguello on Aug. 26, 1846, Hayes’ Scrap-books,
Cal. Notes, iv. 125, he said: ‘Next day [after the shooting of Cowie and
Fowler] Padilla sent me to Sta Clara to report to Castro what had happened.
Then Castro approved the act. Padilla in his report urged Castro to send him
reenforcements and hasten bis march; therefore he sent 50 men under Joaquin de
la Torre. We crossed to the other side, and had a meeting with a party of
foreigners at Nonpali. After joining Padilla I proposed to him to set free his
prisoners, and he did so before the fight. Then the foe fell upon us, all being
under the command of Torre, who ordered us to mount and fire; but seeing that
he could gain no advantage, since most of his men ran away, he ordered the rest
to retire. We formed again in the plain, where we were not attacked; and then
we retreated to San Rafael, with one man killed and two wounded.*
^ The earliest
printed account was that in the Monterey Californian, Aug. 15, 1846; and
another appeared in the same paper of Sept. 12, 1846. The
Torre’s force disappeared in the direction of San Rafael, and the Bears
came out from their cover. They attempted no pursuit, but secured such horses
as they needed, and returned to Sonoma, where they arrived in the afternoon of
the same day, confident that they had killed at least eight or ten of the foe.
Though Ford says nothing of the American prisoners, one of
latter was reprinted
in the S. F. Californian, June 5, 1847; was given in substance in Bryant’s
What I Saw in Cal., 292-3; and has heen often repeated in the newspapers.
These accounts represent the forces engaged as 2*2 or 13 against 85, and the
number of killed as 8; the Americans firing 18 or 20 shots, and the
Californians 200. Ford is said to have charged on them with several men, ‘in
such a manner as to draw them to the edge of the wood, where the remainder of
the force was stationed.’ The prisoners were rescued.
In my text I have
followed Ford's Bear Flag, MS., 18-22, with some slight modifications derived
from Baldridge’s Days of ’Ifo, MS., 58-71, and other sources. Ford says
that after leaving guards for his 5 prisoners and 40 horses, he had only 14
effective men; that the Mexicans took his movement to the woods as a retreat,
and immediately charged; that his first fire killed 7 and the second volley 3;
and that finally, the enemy being out of range, he took his prisoners and 400
horses, and returned to Sonoma. He says nothing of the rescued American
prisoners. Baldridge gives a full narrative from the story told by the men on
their return. He says they were scattered and careless, not expecting to find
any foe at the rancho. Their charge was on the corral, to prevent the horses
being turned loose; but fortunately the wood was at hand for their protection.
Those that were behind had a narrow escape, and might have been cut off had the
Californians acted promptly. The latter renewed their fire from a hill out of
nmsket-range, but the rifles did some slight execution. Bnrgess, Williams, and
Badger Smith were among those behind the main force, the latter distinguishing himself
by his desperate courage. Todd escaped from the rancho house and joined his
friends while the fight was going on, his companion, an Englishman, refusing to
make the attempt. Todd claimed to have saved his life while a captive, solely
by threatening the retaliation of his fellows on Vallejo and others at Sonoma.
They did not take the horses, or even go over the battle-field, or visit the
house. Swift was in reality the leading spirit of the enterprise. Lancey, Cruise.,
64, follows also Ford and Baldridge through the medium of newspaper
articles.
Luis German, Sucesos,
MS., 18-24, is the only native Californian who gives a tolerably accurate
account of the affair, in which he took part. He thinks, however, that there
were 40 or 50 Americans, and says they fired from the corral as well as from
the wood. The officers deemed it impossible with their es- copetas and lances
and horses to defeat men fighting from cover with rifles; and therefore ordered
a retreat. Such other Californians as mention the matter give no details,
contenting themselves with simply stating that Torre was surprised and defeated
by the Bears, generally overstating the force of the latter, and several of
them severely criticising Torre. Osio, Ilist. Cal., MS., 471-3, thinks
Ford was thinking of surrender when Torre ordered a retreat! See also Castro, Rel., MS., 195-9; Id., Servicios, MS.; Alvarado, Hist.
Cal., MS., v. 199-200; Fernandez, Cosas deCaL, MS., 133-5; Amador, Mem., MS.,
166-7; Bernal, Mem., MS., 3-4; Galindo, Apuntes, MS., 55-6; Flores, Recu-
erdos, MS., 9-10; Gomez, Lo Que Sabe, MS., 283-4; Pinto, ApuntMS., 100. Vallejo,
Hist. Cal., MS., v. 129-33, tells us that Ford, finding the Californians
taking their siesta, fortified themselves in a corral and opened fire upon the
sleeping foe! After a stubborn resistance of an hour and a half, in which
them, Todd, seems to have been rescued, and perhaps the other also. This
fight at Olompali reflected no credit on Torre or his men, nor discredit on
Ford and his little company; yet the cowardice of the one and the heroic deeds
of the other have been greatly exaggerated in current accounts.
two Americans and one
Californian fell, the latter retreated. Ruiz was taken captive, ordered shot,
and left with five bullets in him, but finally recovered after treatment on the
Portsmouth! Then the Bears sacked the rancho and beat to death the venerable
D4maso Rodriguez before the face of his daughters and granddaughters! The same
Rodriguez, however, on June 28th renders an account of cattle and other
property taken from his rancho by Fremont’s men, to the value of $1,243.
Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 227.
Ide, Biog. Sketch,
170-4, asserts that Ford rendered a report to him as follows: ‘I have done
exactly as you ordered. We have whipped them, and that without receiving a
scratch. We took their whole band of horses, but owing to the fact that about
one half the men (?) retreated with all possible haste, I did not think best to
encumber ourselves; so we only picked out each one a good horse.’ ‘Very well
done! I did not order you to bring the horses, ’ etc., was Ide’s reply. In the
Hist. Bear Flag Revol., we read: ‘ Lieut L. H. Ford was despatched in pursuit
of a company of Mexicans, and found them; they proved to he 200 in number; gave
them a fight, killed 8 and wounded 13; after which they fled. This victory gave
a decided character to the revolution, and convinced the Spaniards that it was
not prudent to attempt the capture of any more prisoners.’ Fowler, Bear Party,
MS., 4-5, says that the men were with difficulty restrained from plundering the
ranchos. In the 8. F. Californian, May 29, 1847, it is explained that the
number of killed was incorrectly estimated from the riderless horses. Later it
was learned that only
2 were killed and 2 wounded. Martin, Narr.,
MS., 27-8, claims to have been one of the party that had the fight, under the
command of Gibson. Gillespie, Fremont's Cal. Claims, 25-9, mentions the
skirmish, in which 24 settlers had defeated 70 Mexicans, killing 1, wounding
4, and rescuing 2 prisoners. Boggs, in Napa Register, April 13, 1872, tells us
that the wounded Californian (Ruiz) was shot through the lungs by Swift while
trying to creep up a gully toward the Bears. He recovered, being treated on
board a U. S. vessel; and the writer has often seen him and Swift drink
together in later times, the wound being exhibited and the circumstances being
narrated. Boggs represents the Californians as using caunou. The sec. of war in
his report of Dec. 5th, 29th Cong. 2d Sess., II. Ex. Doc. 4, p. 51, also says
that Torre on his retreat lost 9 pieces of artillery! A writer in the Napa
Reporter, Oct. 12, 1872, names Grigsby as the commander. See also mention in
TuthilVs Iiist. Cal., 172; Sac. Union, April 27, 1855; and many of the recently
published county histories. Tuthill, Smucker, and others, besides speaking of
the capture of cannon and of transports, attrihute Ford’s campaign to Fremont
or to men despatched by him. Fremont himself implied as much iu his correspondence.
Ford accuses a Frenchman—an old mountain man known by most of the party, who
lived near the town, apparently Beaulieu, one of Fremont’s old party—of having
acted as a spy, being allowed to pass in and out of the fort freely. On
returning from Olompali, Ford found a wounded horse in Vallejo’s corral, left
there by the Frenchman, who had reported* the fight, but could not give a clear
account of his own whereabouts and actions, He was arrested and put in irons.
CHAPTER VIII.
BEAR FLAG
REVOLT—FREMONT’S CAMPAIGN.
1846.
Complaints
at Sonoma—Ford’s Letter—Fremont on the Sacramento— Fop.ced to Act—March to
Sonoma—The San Rafael Campaign— Murder of Berreyesa and the Haro Brothers—A
Dastardly Act by Fremont and his Men—Torre’s Ruse—The Insurgents Sent to
Sonoma—A False Alarm—Spiking the Guns of San Francisco— Capture of Robert
Ridley—Fourth of July at Sonoma—Military Reorganization—Change of
Administration—Fremont Assumes the Chief Command—Ide’s Version—The Battalion Organized—
Fremont’s Designs—News from Monterey—Bibliography of the Bear Flag Revolt.
Some days before
starting on his expedition against the Californians, Lieutenant Ford had sent a
messenger to the Sacramento, with an announcement that Castro was said to be
crossing the bay with the intention of attacking Sonoma. Ford himself tells us
that his letter was directed to Merritt, requesting him to raise a force and
come to the garrison’s relief. Ide states, however, that the message was
addressed to Fremont, informing that officer “that the men of the garrison had
no confidence in the ability of Mr Ide to manage matters at the fort at Sonoma,
and that they were in great danger of being betrayed into the hands of the
Spaniards,” since the commander had erred in making conditions of peace with
natives of the region. It is doubtless true that Ide was regarded by many of
the insurgents as too much a man of theories and dreams for his actual
position, a man who regarded himself as a great leader engaged in founding a
re-
( 169 |
public, rather than a filibuster chief. At any rate, he was deemed
eccentric, and was not popular.
Meanwhile Frdmont was waiting and watching. Possibly, he thought, it
might not be necessary for him to interfere at all; or Castro, by marching
directly against him, might give his interference the desired form of
self-defence, or bring about a state of war between Mexico and the United
States. But on the same day, June 20th, there arrived Hensley and Reading from
Marsh’s, and John Neal from Sonoma, with news that the attack was to be
directed against the insurgents; and in fulfilment of promises which, as
already explained, he had made, Fremont felt himself called upon to act. On
Sunday he came down to Sutter’s Fort to make some final arrangements
respecting the garrison, and to leave such part of his impedhnenta as was not
needed. Next day he returned to his camp on American River, and on Tuesday, the
23d, he started with his own company, and a reenforcement of settlers under
Hensley, some ninety men in all, for Sonoma, where he arrived early in the
morning of the 25th. This was Fremont’s first open cooperation with the
insurgents; though a month later, when the insurrection seemed to have been
successfully merged in the conquest, he virtually claimed in his letters that
all had been done by him or under his orders.1
On June 26th, Fremont, reenforced by Ford’s men and others from the
constantly increasing garrison,
1 Fremont to Benton, and B. to pres.
Niles’ Beg., lxxi. 173^4, 191. I do not give references for Fremont’s march
from Sac. to Sonoma, as there are neither doubts nor details to be presented.
Ide, letter to Wambongh, tells us that FvcSmont at first criticised and
ridiculed the proclamation and all that had been done; but very soon pretended
to approve all, except that his own grievances at Castro’s hands had not been
added to the list named in the proclamation, which he complimented without
limit as to style and matter! But FrtSmont did not yet propose to take any part
in the revolution, desiring simply to visit the bay as an explorer, and to
accompany the insurgent army under Ford! Ide’s idea was that Fremont had
expected Castro to scatter the insurgents and then attack him, a neutral party;
that he came to Sonoma and to San Rafael still intent only on getting himself
attacked and thus provoking a war, and that he finally pretended to join the
movement when all the work had been done, merely to appropriate to himself the
glory; in fact, that he used the Bears as cat’s-paws to get his chestnuts from
the fire—and there was certainly a color of truth in all this.
which was 75 strong after his departure, marched with about 130 men to
San Rafael. Here Torre and Padilla were understood to be; and hither Castro
might be expected to come with the rest of his army. No enemy, however, was
found to oppose a peaceable occupation of the mission buildings, where the
insurgent force remained for about a week. The period was for the most part an
uneventful one. Castro did not deem it best to cross the bay, and the exact
whereabouts of Torre could not be ascertained.
On Sunday, the 28th, the only blood of Fremont's campaign was spilled,
and that under such circumstances as to leave a stain of dishonor upon the commander
and some of his men. A boat was seen crossing from San Pablo. It contained four
men, and was apparently steering for a landing at or near Point San Pedro,
several miles from the mission. Kit Carson was sent with two or three
companions to intercept them. After starting, Carson turned back—so testifies
Jasper O’Farrull, an eye-witness—■ to ask Fremont, “Captain, shall I take those men prisoners?” The reply, given with a wave of the hand, was, “I have no room for prisoners.” Then they
advanced, alighted from their horses, and from a distance of about fifty yards
deliberately shot three of the strangers, who had landed and were approaching
the mission. The three victims were the twin brothers Francisco and Ramon de
Haro, aged about twenty, sons of a prominent citizen and former alcalde of San
Francisco, and Jos^ de los Reyes Ber- reyesa, an old man who owned a rancho
near Santa Clara. Two divisions of Castro’s army being at San Pablo with the
intention of crossing the bay as the other division had done, one of the Haro
boys volunteered to carry a message to Joaquin de la Torre, the message
relating doubtless to details of the plan for crossing. The other boy wished to
accompany his brother and share his risks; and the old man Berrey- esa insisted
on being permitted to cross with his
nephews. His son was alcalde of Sonoma, reported to be a prisoner of the
Osos; and the anxiety of a father and mother had impelled him to leave his home
and seek an opportunity of visiting Sonoma. One of the Castros of San Pablo
carried them over in his boat, left them at the landing, and returned; while
the others started on foot for San Rafael, knowing nothing of its occupation by
the insurgents. Their fate has been told.2
* Fremont, letter to Benton, Niles’ Beg.,
lxxi, 191, says simply: ‘Three of Castro’s party, having landed on the Sonoma
side in advance, were killed near the beach; and beyond this there was no loss
on either side.’ Benton, Id., 174, mentions the killing of Cowie and Fowler,
‘in return for which three of De la Torre’s men being taken were instantly
shot. ’ Gillespie, Fremont’s Gal, Claims, 28, says that on the afternoon of
the 26th ‘ letters were intercepted which disclosed their plans, and required
De la Torre to send horses to the point the next morning to mount 80 men who
would be sent over at that time. ’ These letters, if there be no error, were
probably those brought by Haro. Jasper O’Farrell, in the Los Angeles Star,
Sept. 27, 1856, perhaps taken from another paper, besides narrating the facts
of the murder as in my text, states that Carson claimed to have done the act
unwillingly by Fremont’s order. In the same paper is a letter from J. S.
Berreyesa, in which, after narrating the circumstances of the killing, he
states that the clothing of his dead father and cousins was stripped from their
bodies by their murderers, and that Frcimont refused to order the giving-up of
his father’s sarape, which one of the men was wearing, and which the son
finally bought for $25. June 30th, Leidesdorff writes to Larkin of the
shooting,, which took place ‘ day before yesterday. ’ He names Sergt Manuel
Castro as one of the killed. This report seems to have been current for a time.
Larkin’s Doc., MS., iv. 189. Rico, Mem., MS., 19-23, gives the most
detailed account of the departure of the messengers, Rico having been the
officer immediately concerned in sending the messenger. The first news of what
had happened was brought by Torre the next day. Ford is silent on this matter.
Ide, in his letter to Wambough, Biog. Sketch, 190, says: ‘ The flying Spaniards
drew lots among their number, and three men, prepared with letters (intended to
deceive the Bears) in their boots, put themselves in the power of their
pursuers, threw away their arms, and fell on their knees begging for quarter;
but the orders were to take no prisoners from this band of murderers, and the
men were shot, and never rose from the ground... One of the men declared with
his dying breath that he expected death, that he came on purpose to die for the
benefit of his countrymen ’! Bidwell, Cal. in 1841-8, MS., 170, and several
others name G. P. Swift as one of Carson’s companions. Hargrave, Cal. in '4S,
MS., 8, thinks Carson and a Frenchman were alone responsible for the deed.
Swasey, Fremont’s devout admirer, Cal. ’45-6, MS., 10, thinks that ‘ the firing
was perfectly justifiable under the circumstances ’! Fowler, Bear Party, MS.,
5, who was present at the time, says that Carson and the Canadian, who were
alone responsible, were drunk. Martin, Narr., MS., 29, who claims to have been
the sentinel who first saw the boat, and one of the five who captured and shot
the men, as well as Chas Brown, Early Events, MS., 25-6, who married a sister
of the Haros, and several Californians, state that the bodies of the victims
were allowed to lie unburied where they fell for several days. Phelps, Fore and
Aft, 286-90, seems to have originated the absurd story that on one of the men
was found an order from Castro to Torre to kill every foreigner he could find,
man, woman, and child; and this story has been re-
The killing of Berreyesa and the Haros was a brutal murder, like the
killing of Cowie and Fowler, for which it was intended as a retaliation. Its
perpetrators put themselves below the level of Garcia and Padilla. The
Californians, or probably one desperado of their number, had killed two members
of a band of outlaws who had imprisoned their countrymen, had raised an unknown
flag, had announced their purpose of overthrowing the government, and had
caused great terror among the people—the two men at the time of their capture
being actively engaged in their unlawful service. In revenge for this act, the
Bears deliberately killed the first Californians that came within their reach,
or at least the first after their own strength became irresistible. The three
victims were not members of Padilla’s party, nor were they suspected of being
such, nor charged with any offence. As messengers between Castro and Torre,
their mission was a perfectly legitimate one; and so far as was known at the
time of the shooting, they were not engaged in any public service whatever.
They were in no sense spies, as has been sometimes implied. The statement that
they brought orders to kill every man, woman, and child of the foreigners was
an absurd fabrication; but had it been true that such papers were found on
them, or even had it been proved that they had been the very murderers of Cowie
and Fowler, these facts would afford no justification to those who killed them,
because such facts could not have been known until after their death. They were
given no chance for defence or explanation, but killed in cold blood at long-
rifle-range. Viewed in its most favorable light, the act was one of cowardly
vengeance. Members of the
peated by Lancey,
Cruise, 68, and copied from him in Marin Co. Hist., 83, and several other
works. The newspapers have often mentioned this aflair in connection with the
famous Haro claim to lands in S. F. The Californians, as a rule, give an
accurate account of this occurrence. See Castro, Rel., MS., 190-9; Alvarado,
Hist. Cal., MS., v. 207-10; Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., v. 138-41; Berreyesa,
Relacion, MS., 1-7; Bernal, Mem., MS., 1-3; Qalindo, A/mntes, MS., 56; Sanchez,
Notas, MS., 15; Juarez, Narrative, MS.; Amador, Mem., MS., 167; Vallejo,
Notas, MS., 115-16.
Bear party, and apologists of their acts, have wisely had but little to
say of the matter, always refusing to go beyond vague generalities. Of course
John C. Fremont, as commander of the insurgents, is to be held responsible for
the murder. That he personally gave the order which led to the result depends
on the testimony of one person, a man whose reputation for veracity was good.
Injustice to Frdmont, it is fair to say that the testimony was first publicly
given during the political campaign of 1856, at a time when prejudice was
generally more potent than love of truth; but justice also requires me to call
attention to the fact that Fremont has never, so far as I know, denied the
accuracy of O’Farrell’s assertion.
Meanwhile scouting parties from the camp at San Bafael were trying to
learn of Torre’s whereabouts. They were not very successful; but late in the
afternoon of the same day the messengers were shot they captured an Indian on
whose person was found a letter in which Torre announced his intention of
attacking Sonoma early the next morning. This letter, together with the one
that had previously been intercepted, having been taken perhaps from Haro’s
dead body, making known Castro’s plan of crossing before the hour of the
proposed attack, caused Fremont to fear that Ide’s garrison was in danger ;3
and he at once set out with nearly all his force, perhaps against the judgment
of Ford and Gillespie, for Sonoma, where he arrived before sunrise on the 29th.
There, also, if we may credit Ide’s account, a letter had been intercepted,
addressed to some of the natives, and disclosing the plan of attack. The
citizens were in great terror, and wished to leave the town. This was not
permitted; but as night came on they were allowed the jail as a shelter for the
men, and Vallejo’s house for the women and children. The garrison meanwhile
made every preparation for defence; can-
3 July 30th, Leidesdorff to Larkin also
wrote that Torre was to more against Sonoma ‘yesterday.’ Larkin’s Doc., MS.,
iv. 189.
non, rifle, and musket were loaded and primed, and sentinels were posted.
Just before dawn the advanced sentries heard the distant tramp of horses.
Clearly, the threatened attack was to be a reality. Without vouching for its
accuracy, I quote Ide’s melodramatic narrative of what followed. “Thus
prepared, in less than one minute from the first alarm, all listened for the
sound of the tramping horses—we heard them coming!—then, low down under the
darkened canon we saw them coming! In a moment the truth flashed across my
mind; the Spaniards were deceiving us! In a moment orders were given to the
captains of the 18-pounders to reserve fire until my rifle should give the
word; and, to prevent mistake, I hastened to a position a hundred yards in
front of the cannon, and a little to the right- oblique, so as to gain a nearer
view. ‘Come back; you will lose your life! ’ said a dozen voices. ‘ Silence! ’
roared Captain Grigsby; ‘I have seen the old man in a bull-pen before to-day!’
The blankets of the advancing host flowed in the breeze. They had advanced to
within 200 yards of the place where I stood. The impatience of the men at the
guns became intense, lest the enemy came too near, so as to lose the effect of
the spreading of the shot. I made a motion to lay down my rifle. The matches
were swinging. ‘My God! They swing the matches!’ cried the well known voice of
Kit Carson. ‘Hold on, hold on!’ we shouted, ‘’tis Fremont, ’tis Fremont!’ in a
voice heard by every man of both parties, we cried, while Captain Fremont
dashed away to his left to take cover behind an adobe house; and in a moment
after he made one of his most gallant charges on our fort; it was a noble
exploit; he came in a full gallop, right in the face and teeth of our two long
18’s!”4
It did not take long for Frdmont to convince himself that he had been
outwitted; and after a hasty
4 Ide’s Biog. Sketch, 187-90.
breakfast he set out again for San Rafael, where he arrived within
twenty-four hours of the time he left it —to learn that Torre had made good use
of his time to recross the bay and rejoin Castro with all his original force,
and such residents of the northern frontier as chose to accompany him. The wily
Californian had written letters expressly intended to fall into the hands of
the Osos, and thus facilitate his own escape. After retreating before twenty
rifles, he had no wish to face two hundred. He left San Rafael just before
Fremont’s first arrival; and, as Castro’s force did not arrive, he soon began
to consider his position a critical one. Facilities for crossing the bay were
so uncertain that it was not safe to be seen at any landing while the mission
was occupied by the foe; therefore Don Joaquin feigned an advance into the
interior toward Petaluma, and wrote the letters to be intercepted. The ruse was
entirely successful; and, Frdmont’s force having been sent to Sonoma, the Californians,
to the number of 75 or 80, appeared at Sauza- lito in the morning of June 29th.
Captain Richardson had an old launch, or lighter, lying at anchor there, which
he declined to lend, but which he permitted Torre’s men to ‘take by force;’ and
all were soon afloat. Wind and tide were not favorable, and for a long time
they lay near the shore, in great fear lest Frdmont should return, and no less
apprehensive of pursuit by the boats of the Portsmouth. Some were so frightened
that they believe to this day that they were thus pursued. But long before the
Bears had returned to San Rafael the Californians had landed at San Pablo,
whence, with the other divisions of the ‘grand army,’ they marched next day to
Santa Clara.6
5Luis
German, Sucesos, MS., 18-24, gives the most connected and detailed account of
Torre’s escape. Fr6mont, in his letter to Benton, followed by the set of
authorities that obtained their information from that letter,
claims, in a general
way, the credit of having driven Torre away, besides destroying his transports
and spiking his cannon south of the bay, as will presently be noticed.
Gillespie, Fremont's Gal. Claims, 28, has the assurance to write: ‘Capt.
Fremont returned to Sonoma, leaving a force to protect San Raphael. This
movement, executed with so much promptness, alarmed Dd
Having thus ‘driven’ Torre and his men away, Fremont and the Bears had no
further opposition to fear north of the bay, and no reason to remain longer at
San Rafael; yet before their departure for Sonoma two minor enterprises were
undertaken, which, if they served no other purpose, figured somewhat
attractively in reports of this grand campaign. On July 1st Fremont and
G-illespie visited Phelps on board the Moscow, and having removed that
gentleman’s scruples by the assurance that war had really been declared, and
that they were “acting in obedience to orders of the United States government,”
obtained his cooperation for a movement on San Francisco. Phelps furnished his
vessel’s launch with a crew, going himself as pilot, to carry Fr^mont and about
twenty of his men across to the old castillo. Wading ashore through the surf,
and boldly entering the fort, this band of warriors proceeded to spike the ten
guns found there, and to wade back to the boat. In the absence of a garrison,
with no powder, it is not surprising that, so far as can be known, not one of
the ten cannon offered the slightest resistance. But the energies of the insurgents
were not exclusively directed against abandoned guns; for next day ten of their
number, under Sem- ple, appeared in the streets of Yerba Buena, at noon,
la Torre to such a
degree that he fled with his command in the most cowardly manner to Sausalito,
where he stole Mr Richardson’s launch, and escaped across the bay’l Phelps,
Fore and Aft, 286-92, was at Sauzalito at the time, in command of the Moscow,
and he gives an inaccurate version of what occurred, which has, however, been
considerably used by later writers. He says that Fremont sent him, Phelps, word
that he would drive Torre to Sauzalito that night, whence he could not escape
without the Moscow’s boats. Phelps proceeded to make all safe, and took the
precaution to anchor farther out a launch lying near the beach, putting some
provisions on board for Fremont’s use! But when Torre arrived in the morning,
a boat was mysteriously procured from Yerba Buena, and the launch was reached.
Phelps informed the commander of the Portsmouth, but he declined to intercept
the fugitives. Montgomery, writing to Larkin July 2d, Larkin’s Doc., MS., iv.
192, speaks of Torre as having been chased by Fremont, barely escaping by his
good luck in finding a large freight boat. Ford, Bear Flag Revolution, MS.,
22-5, claims that he and Gillespie opposed the march to Sonoma. The Hist. Bear
Flag agrees for the most part with Ide—naturally, as Ide was its chief author.
It speaks of Castro having sent 200 men across the bay. Larkin, Off. Corresp.,
MS., i. 125, in a letter of July 4th to the U. S. consul at Honolulu, speaks of
Torre’s defeat, and of the trick bv which he escaped.
Hist. Cal., Vol. V. 12
and captured Robert Ridley, captain of the port, who was taken from his
house and sent to New Helvetia. This was doubtless done at the instigation of
Viceconsul Leidesdorff, who, as we have seen, had repeatedly denounced Ridley
and Hinckley as “more Mexican than the Mexicans themselves,” in their opposition
to the Bear movement. Hinckley would doubtless have shared Ridley’s fate had
he not died two days before. Obtaining such supplies as were to be found on the
Moscow, together with cattle from the ranchos of the region about San Rafael,
Fremont returned with the whole insurgent force to Sonoma. Through Benton he
ingeniously contrived, without quite committing himself to a falsehood, to
create the impression among the people of the United States, not only that he
had been in active command of the revolutionists from the first, but that
finally, after defeating Torre, he had driven him across the bay, spiking his
cannon, destroying his transports, and breaking up all communication between
the north and south —thus making the whole campaign a brilliant success!6
The 4th of July was celebrated at Sonoma by the burning of much gunpowder,
reading of the declaration of independence, and a fandango in the evening.
Fremont and his men returned from San Rafael that day, or more probably the
evening before; at any rate, in time to take part in the festivities.7
Next day, though some say that also was on the
6Fremont to
Benton, and B. to pres., m Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 173, 191. Montgomery, in two
postscripts to a letter of July 2d to Larkin, mentions the spiking of the guns
and capture of Ridley. Larkin's Doc., MS., iv. 192. Phelps, Fore and Aft,
285-92, gives the fullest account of the first affair—in fact, all we know of
it, so far as details are concerned. See also Bryant’s What I Saw in Cal.,
294^6; Tuthill’s Hist. Cal., 173-4; Lancey’s Cruise, 70, 72; Upham’s Life
Frimont, 233-4; Yolo Co. Hist., 16.
’Fremont in hia
letter to Benton, and Gillespie in his testimony, say that they returned on the
evening of the 4th; but the latter speaks of the salutes fired during the day.
According to the Hist. Bear Flag, the return was on the 3d. Baldridge says that
the declaration, a copy which the writer had brought over the mountains, was
read by Lieut Woodworth of the navy.
4th, the people were called together to deliberate on matters of public
importance. Respecting details of what was accomplished, our evidence is meagre
and contradictory to a certain extent; but it is certain that a new military
organization was effected, and that Frdmont was put in command of the insurgent
forces, Ide’s authority terminating on that day. Frdmont himself says: “In the
morning I called the people together and spoke to them in relation to the
position of the country, advising a course of operations which was unanimously
adopted. California was declared independent, the country put under martial
law, the force organized, and officers elected. A pledge, binding themselves to
support these measures and to obey the officers, was signed by those present.
The whole was placed under my direction. Several officers from the Portsmouth
were present at this meeting.”8 William Baldridge claims to have
been ch^man of the meeting, and names John Bid- well as secretary.9
Bidwell tells us that Fremont— after a speech in which he expressed his
willingness to cooperate, criticised s<<fiue irregularities of the past,
and insisted on implicit obedience—named Ide, Reading, and the writer as a
committee to report a plan of organization. Unable to agree, each made a report
of his own, with the understanding that Gillespie should select one of the
three. He chose Bidwell’s, perhaps on account of its brevity. As presented by
the author from memory, it was a simple agreement to render military service in
support of independence.10
8F. to B.
Niles’ Beg., lxxi. 191. Benton made some improvements on this as on other parts
of the same letter as follows: ‘The north side of the bay was now cleared of
the enemy, and on July 4th Capt. Fremont called the Americans together at
Sonoma, addressed them upon the dangers of their position, and recommended a
declaration of independence, and war upon Castro and his troops as the only
means of safety. The independence was immediately declared, and war
proclaimed.’ These statements were repeated in substance by the secretary of
war, and by many other writers, some of whom go so far as to say that
Fr&nont was elected governor 1
8
Baldridge’s Days of 'Jfi, MS., 6.
10‘To be
signed by all willing to prosecute the war already begun, to
The document signed at Sonoma on July 5th, so far as I know, is no longer
extant; nor have we any written contemporary record of that day’s transactions.
Yet it appears clearly to me that no radical changes were effected in the plan
of revolt; that nothing like a new declaration of independence was made; that
there was no official act ignoring what had been already accomplished. It was
simply the formal and public assumption by Fremont of a command which by most
of the insurgents he had been expected to assume, or even deemed tacitly to
hold from the first. He had virtually thrown off his mask of caution by his San
Rafael campaign, and it was hardly possible, even had he desired it, to draw
back now. Naturally he required pledges of obedience and discipline; and
military reorganization was of course necessary for active operations against
Castro.
To one, however, William B. Ide, this play’s doings were of no small
import, since they put an fftd to all his greatness. He characterized them as
“events and circumstances which changed the character of our enterprise, and
presented California to the United States as a trophy of that species of conquest
that wallows in the blood of murder, or of that ignoble traffic that makes the
price of liberty the price of blood, instead of presenting the same fair land
on terms of honorable compact and agreement, such as all the world can
participate in without loss or dishonor, by the free, frank expression of
voluntary consent and good-will of the parties.” Ide regarded himself as the
leader of the revolutionists, and as the founder of a republic. He moreover
regarded the revolution as a complete success. In his eyes the triumph had already
been won; California had been wrested from
wit: the
undersigned agree to organize and to remain in service as long as necessary for
the purpose of gaining and maintaining the independence of California. ’ This
was signed by all at Sonoma, including Fremont’s men, and was signed by others
later at the Mokelumne River on the march south ; since which time it has not
appeared. BidweWs Gal. in I84I-8, MS., 171-4. This author puts IV^mont’s speech
on the 4th, and the fandango on the evening of Sunday the 5th, after the
organization. °
Mexico. There remained only the trifling formality of taking possession
of that part of the country south of San Francisco Bay, and this would already
have been wellnigh accomplished had Frdmont not prevented the sending of
reenforcements to Weber at San Jos£.n It was Ide’s plan, as he
claims, and as there is no good reason to doubt, when once he had fully
established a free and independent government, to apply for admission to the
American Union on terms to be settled by negotiations, in which of course he
personally would play a prominent r61e. This method of annexation in his view
would not only give him the fame and profit to which he was entitled, but was
more honorable to the United States and just to the Californians than the plan
of conquest finally adopted.
Naturally, holding these views, Ide regarded Fremont’s ‘ unwarrantable
interference ’ as a grievous wrong. His theory was that Frdmont, finding that
his orig#ial plan of provoking an attack by Castro had failed, and that the
revolutionists had succeeded without his aid, had deliberately plotted with
other United States officers to obtain command of the movement. His purpose
was believed to be twofold: first, to gain for himself glory as conqueror of
California; and second, to give the country to the United States without the
troublesome negotiations and treaty stipulations which w§uld be necessary in
dealing with an independent government.12 As to the means by
11
Ide's Biog. Sketch, 191, etc. He says three men had arrived ou July 1st, with
news of preparations south of the bay. He at once made ready a boat to send
arms and other aid; but Fremont managed to prevent the measure on one pretext
and another, really to prevent the complete success of the revolution until he
could obtain exclusive control. Ide’s editor, his brother, says: ‘The civil and
military authority of Mexico had been thoroughly wiped out; California was not,
and had not been, from the 15th of June to the 5th of July under Mexican rule.
She was what her rude national flag had from day to day proclaimed, the
California Republic. During these 20 days there was no obstruction, by a
conflicting party to the exercise by the Bear Flag government of its entire
functions and prerogatives of national independence’! p. 207. "
12Ide’s
version of the ‘second edition revised and corrected’ of Fremont’s plan is as
follows: ‘1st, secure the command of the independent forces of the Bear Flag
republic. 2d, hoist the U. S. flag, and follow up to the entire conquest. 3d,
if no war between Mex. and the U. 8. eusue,
which the plot was carried out, Ide gives the following explanation :
The people were assembled at Salvador Vallejo’s house, Fremont’s 72 men, with
eight or ten 'gentlemen officers’ from the ships, under arms in one room; and
about 280 of the Bears unarmed in another, with an armed sentry between the
two. Then Frdmont entered the larger room with Gillespie and others, and made a
speech. He still declined to meddle in California politics, but was willing to
render aid against Castro, whom he denounced as a usurper, on condition that
the insurgents would pledge themselves to “ abstain from the violation of the
chastity of women,” to conduct the war honorably, and to obey their officers implicitly.
Ide then made a speech, consenting to the pledge of obedience, to draft which a
committee was chosen. The larger assembly named Ide on this committee,
whereupon the smaller, 'the council of friends,’ named two of their number. In
committee meeting the majority, being and representing men who were not connected
with the Bear Flag movement at all, favored setting aside all that had been
done in the past and starting anew; and this idea was embodied in their report.
The reasons urged were: 1st, that July 5th immediately follows the 4th; 2d,
that Fremont, as ‘advisory leader,’ should begin with the beginning; and, 3d,
that in changing the ‘administration,’ a new organization was proper—■“ or, more
definitely, that we who are out of office may have a chance to get in.” After
an ineffectual attempt to get possession of the chair by the representatives of
the smaller body, the majority report was first submitted for approval; and
then that of the minority—but here Ide’s narrative abruptly terminates. We
have no means of
sell out all the
military stores of the U. S. to the govt of Cal., and obtain Cal. by treaty
with the new govt; but in the event of a war, to seize and acquire the whole by
the right of conquest.’ The officer who should thus violate national honor
would naturally be cashiered by his govt; ‘yet as a solace for his dishonor [to
use the language of our informant, who was one of said U. S. officers], he will
be in town with a pocket full of rocks.’ Biog. Sketch, 195. Ford’s narrative
does not include these matters.
knowing this author’s version of the final result, or of the methods by
which Frdmont succeeded in his main purpose of obtaining the command/ notwithstanding
the numerical strength of the Bears as compared with the ‘council of friends.5
Perhaps Ide would have represented the adoption of Bidwell’s brief pledge as a
victory over those who wished to blot out all that had been done before July
5th, and his own withdrawal in favor of Frdmont as a compromise intended to
prevent dissensions; or perhaps his claim might be to have resigned in disgust,
because his policy could not be fully carried out.
The truth is that Ide greatly overrated his influence and achievements.
He believed himself entitled to the glory of having organized a great
revolution, won a great victory, and founded a great republic. His companions
of the original Bear party looked upon him as an honest, zealous, but eccentric
and somewhat fanatical old man, whose zeal, good sense, and education rendered
him as well fitted for the command as any of their number after the departure
of Semple and Grigsby, and whose eccentricities and mania for theorizing and
writing and making speeches could not be regarded as a serious fault on the
part of a garrison commander. They cared nothing for his political theories,
and never thought of him as in any sense a rival of Frdmont. It was on the
latter’s cooperation that they bad founded their hopes of successful revolt
from the first, and they were ready to welcome his accession to the active
command at any time, regarding it as practically an alliance with the United
States. Sympathy is naturally excited in Ide’s behalf by reason of his many
good qualities, by his devotion to what seemed to him a worthy cause, by the
earnestness with which he presents his wrongs, and by the fact that Fremont
did unquestionably rob him of a certain portion of what both parties and the
world at large regarded as fame. But it must be borne in mind that his cause
was in reality a bad one—mere filibus-
terism; that his influence in promoting the revolt had been much less
than that of Fremont; and that, far from having conquered California as he
believed, he had reallv accomplished little or nothing toward that
conquest" Moreover, it is not easy to comprehend that his plan of giving
the country to the United States was in any way more honorable than that by
which the annexation was effected, and which he so violently denounces.
Respecting the military organization effected on July 5th at Sonoma, I
have found no contemporary records whatever. All that is known of the California
battalion as it was at first organized is that it numbered about 250 men of
the Bear Flag party and Fremont’s explorers; formed into three companies under
John Grigsby, Henry L. Ford, and Granville P. Swift respectively as captains;
all under the command of Fr6mont, though it does not appear what was the exact
rank and title—perhaps acting major—assumed by that officer; and with
Lieutenant Gillespie apparently as adjutant.13 About the terms of
enlistment we have only Bidwell’s memory of the paper signed by the volunteers.
Ide seems to have joined the force as a private. Something more of detail about
the battalion in a later stage of its development will appear in the annals of
the conquest. Captain Grigsby with 50 men or more remained at Sonoma. The rest
of the
13 Fremont saya nothing of the force; simply
mentions that it was organized nnder his command, that officers were elected,
Grigsby and 50 men being left at Sonoma. Niles’ Beg., lxxi. 191. Gillespie,
Frimmt’s Gal. Claims, 28, says that four companies were organized, one being
left at Sonoma, and that the whole force was 224. Hensley, Id., 35, says: ‘We
organized the “ California Battalion,” adopting the “grizzly bear” as our
emblem, requesting Capt. Fremont to take command of the battalion, and of all
the forces and resources of the country, which command he accepted.’ In a
contribution to the Alta, July 3, 1866, Gillespie gave the force as 250, 70
being left at Sonoma; and names himself as adjutant and inspector, with rank of
captain. Followed by Lancey’s Cmise, 73, 102. In the Bear Flag Hist., we read
that the volunteers were ‘organized into three companies under captains
Grigsby, Ford, and Swift, leaving a small artillery company to take charge of
the fort.’ Ide says nothing of the organization, but states that there were
about 350 men at Sonoma. Bid well mentions the election of captains Ford and
Swift only. Baldridge says there was some rivalry for the post of senior
captain; but Grigsby was chosen. By different authorities the force of the
battalion on arrival at Monterey is given as 160 or 180 men.
force under Fremont started July 6th for the Sacramento, there to make
preparations for an advance upon Castro, taking with them such horses, cattle,
and other needed supplies as the Bears had accumulated, or as they could find
in the adjoining ranchos.
Fremont and his battalion arrived at Sutter’s Fort, and moved up to the
old camp on the American River on the 9th and 10th of July. It was the avowed
intention to march with the least possible delay against Castro in the south;
and it is of course impossible to prove that such was not Fremont’s real
purpose. I suspect, however, that he would have found a plausible pretext for
delaying the movement for several weeks, in expectation of news that war had
been declared. He was by no means afraid of Castro’s forces, nor was he averse
to a fight in which old scores might be settled; but his position as an officer
of the United States was a delicate one. By postponing hostile action until
the news of war should come, he might, thanks to his past caution, set up the
plea, if by reason of official censure or other motives it should seem safest,
that he had not instigated the revolt or taken any active part in it, but had
taken the nominal command at the last for any one of a dozen reasons which his
fertile brain would suggest. It is by no means impossible that he might have
found it politic under certain circumstances to assume the ground imputed to
him by Ide, that he had gained control of the movement solely to remove
obstacles, in the shape of an independent government, to the military conquest
of the country. The desired tidings arrived, however, on the very day that the
battalion camped on the American; so that the movement even from its beginning
at Sonoma has been known as a ‘pursuit of Castro,’ news of whose retreat from
Santa Clara reached the Sacramento at about the same time. With the news of
Sloat’s operations at Monterey, there came a U. S. flag, which was raised next
morning, July 11th, over Sutter’s Fort; the stars and stripes had already
been floating at Sonoma for two days; the Bear Flag revolt was at an end.
In an introductory chapter to the general subject, and in the course of
my narrative, I have already said quite enough respecting the causes, effects,
and general character of the Bear Flag revolt, and I do not propose to reopen
the subject even en resume. Neither do I deem it best to notice, except in a
passing glance, the actions of the insurgents respecting private persons and
property while in possession of Sonoma and the surrounding region. It is not
possible to ascertain the exact truth in this matter. Those connected with the
movement, almost without exception, both in statements of the time and in
later testimony, declare that no outrage or excess was committed ; that but
little private property except horses was taken, and these always with the
consent of the owners, who took receipts to prove their claims against the new
government later. It is not necessary to believe that all this was literally
true; there can be no doubt that small quantities of plunder were taken by the
insurgents from many citizens without any formalities whatever; and it is not
likely that the ran- cheros were eager to part with their horses and cattle,
even in exchange for the Bears’ promises to pay. Yet it is certain that the
leaders did their best to restrain their somewhat unruly followers; and their
efforts were, all circumstances considered, successful. Rarely if ever has a
filibuster revolt been conducted with so much moderation in respect of private
rights.
I might introduce here a long list of statements by Californians about
outrages committed by the hated Bears; but it would serve no good purpose. Many
of these accusations are evidently and absurdly false; others are grossly
exaggerated; and I have no means of distinguishing accurately the comparatively
few that are well founded. As to the obligations contracted by the insurgents
for horses and other supplies
from June 14th to July 9th, they were turned over to U. S. officials,
together with the so-called public property designed as security for their
payment. The matter of ‘California claims’ in congress is too complicated to
be noticed here. These early claims were, however, acknowledged by the United
States, in connection with more numerous and important obligations of similar
nature incurred during the conquest. The two classes of claims are so blended
that it is not easy to determine from existing records the fate of any
particular claim of the earlier period. Many of the rancheros lost their
receipts; others sold theirs to third parties at nominal prices; and others
still presented fictitious claims. Few if any bona fide original claimants
ever received payment for the property lost.14 I append in closing
some notes on the bibliography of the Bear Flag revolt.16
11 In Bear Flag Papers, MS., 21, is a
memorandum of sundries taken from some one on June 21st and July Stli. It is
marked ‘taken by order of Capt. Fremont.’ In Vallejo, Hist. Gal., MS., v.
141-6, and Mrs Leese’s Hist. Bear Party, there are somewhat vague accounts of
troubles between the Bear leaders and Mrs Vallejo and family, the latter being
accused of sending arms and ammunition to Padilla and Carrillo.
161 name
different sources of information—already often referred to in the preceding
chapters—approximately in the order of their importance. The Bear Flag Papers
is a collection of about 80 original documents of 1846 bearing on the capture
and occupation of Sonoma, the imprisonment of Vallejo and his companions at
Sutter’s Fort, and other topics closely connected with the revolt. Almost
without exception, these papers contain information not existing elsewhere. Of
especial value are the original capitulations and parole papers signed at
Sonoma on June 14th, a contemporary narrative by Leese, official reports of
Lieut Misroon’s visit to Sonoma, and some correspondence of the prisoners. I
have no hesitation in putting this collection at the head of the list. For the
preservation of such valuable historic records the public is indebted, as I am
for their possession, to Gen. M. G. Vallejo. Leese's Bear Flag; Statement of Jacob
P. Leese to Col. J. 0. Fremont. Proceedings in Upper California previous to
the declaration of the war in this department, is one of the papers of the
collection just mentioned, and merits special notice. It is a narrative of 12
large and closely written pages in Leese’s hand; prepared probably in 1847,
under circumstances not definitely known; and containing a more defailed
account of the taking of Sonoma, in certain respects, and especially of the
journey of the captives to Sacramento, than any other. Leese’s statements are
confirmed by other evidence in some parts; and there is no reason to doubt
their accuracy in others.
The manuscripts
contained in Larkin’s Doc. Hist. Cal. and Larkin’s Off. Correspondence, which
bear upon the matter would, if brought together, form a collection much larger,
and in some respects more important, thau that just mentioned. They consist of
more than 200 documents, chiefly correspondence of Larkin, Stearns,
Leidesdorff, Fremont, Montgomery, Gillespie, Marsh, and other promineut men,
dated in the first half of 1846. They are
invaluable in fixing
dates; and they throw much light on every phase of what was occurring in ail
parts of the country. Buchanan's Instructions to Larkin is the most
important single document, though belonging^ only indirectly to the Bear Flag
revolt. Sawyer's Documents consist of copies made from the Larkin papers
before they came into my possession; but it includes a few papers that have
been lost from the originals. They were given me by the late Charles H. Sawyer.
Other private
archives particularly rich in material on the revolt are Castro, Doc. Hist. Cal.; Documentos para la Hist, de California; and Vallejo, Doc. Hist. Cal.
Very many important papers, official and unofficial, are found iu these collections
and nowhere else, to say nothing of the hundreds of petty communications which,
in the aggregate, help so much to perfect the historic record. The smaller
collections of Doc. Hist. Cal., hearing the names of Guerra, Pico, Bandini,
Olvera, Moreno, Coronel, aud Carrillo respectively, also contain each its
original and contemporary contributions to current history, with special
reference to affairs in the south. The Cal. Pion. Soc. Archives and the
Monterey Consulate Archives furnish each a few items not obtainable elsewhere.
The public archives
of the Californian government furnish but meagre information respecting the
events of this period. There is hardly anything of value relating to events on
the northern frontier in June and July. The archives—notably the Legislative
Records; Depart. St. Papers, tom. vi.-viii.; Los Angeles, Arch.; and San Josi,
Arch.—are richer in matters about events preceding the outbreak; though even in
this respect they are much less complete than the private archives.
Among personal
narratives—that of Leese having been noticed, and after a passing glance at
four Letters from California, signed ‘The Farthest West,’ written in June 1846
from Yerba Buena, intended for a New York paper, but originally published in
the Honolulu Friend, Oct. 15-Dec. 1, 1846, and containing much interesting
information on current events—that of William B. Ide merits our first
attention. It is found in A Biographical Sketch of the Life of William B. Ide;
with a minute and interestiny account of one of the largest emigrating
companies (3,000 miles over land) from the East to the Pacific coast. And what
is claimed as the most authentic and reliable account of ‘the virtual conquest
of California in June 1846, by the Bear Flag Party,’ as given by its leader,
the late Hon. William Brown Ide. Published for the subscribers. u.p., n.d.
(probably Claremont, N. H., 1880), 16mo,240p. This little work was edited and
printed by Simeon Ide, a brother of William B., and may be noticed in three
distinct parts. 1 st, biographical matter contributed by different members of
the family, and including original letters; a most praiseworthy sketch of the
life of a prominent pioneer, containing interesting reminiscences of the
overland trip by Ide’s daughter, Mrs Healey. 2d, an account of the revolution
compiled by the editor from various sources, and of no value whatever; since
the aged brother in his New Hampshire home had no facilities for acquiring
accurate information; and the men in California to whom the proofs were
submitted for revision—or at least those of them whose ideas were followed—were
not well qualified for the task. And, 3d, Ide’s Letter to Senator Wambough,
a narrative of the revolt supposed to have been written hefore 1848, and
devoted mainly to a vindication of the author’s reputation as the real
‘Conqueror of California’ against the rival claims o{ Capt. Fremont. This is by
far the most important part of the work. In many respects it is a more complete
record than any other narrative. It is most eloquently though quaintly written.
There is every reason to believe, from the narrative in question and from
other sources, that Ide was an honest and well meaning man. This letter,
however, is a piece of special pleading, everywhere colored by a violent prejudice,
sometimes amounting to a mania, against Fremont, whom Ide honestly believed to
have robbed him of his fame as a conqueror and founder of a republic. The
merits of the case have been discussed elsewhere; but the authors grievance and
bitter prejudice doubtless lead him at several points away from strict accuracy
in the presentation of
minor facta, and thus
detract from the merit of the narrative. The Warn- bough letter, with some
editorial comments, containing nothing not in the Biog. Sketch, was issued
separately under the title, Who Conquered California, etc. Claremont, N. H.
(1880), 12mo, 137 p. Mr Ide quotes once or twice a diary kept by him at Sonoma.
It is not very unlikely that this manuscript may some day be brought to light.
I have also a MS. copy of Ide'8 Biog. Sketch made before the work was
published.
A manuscript report
signed by John H. Nash, John Grigsby, and Win B. Ide as a ‘committee’ of
citizens, and dated Sonoma, May 13, 1847, was furnished to the Sangamon (III.)
Journal, which paper published a ‘ brief resume ’ of its contents reprinted in
Niles’ Register, lxxiii. 110-11, 157. Itis not known what has become of the
original. I have quoted the summary as History of the Bear Flag Revolt. The
original had an appendix containing ‘matters and things which ought not to be
published at the present time,’ say the editors. From the closing paragraph,
it appears that the report was written to favor the payment of the ‘California
claims,’ and to obtain a ‘land premium’ and other remuneration for
revolutionary serviees. It was probably written chiefly by Ide, and in general
purport does not differ materially from the Wambough letter. Henry L. Ford’s
Bear Flag Revolution in Cal. is a MS. narrative written by the author in 1851,
for Rev. S. H. Willey, who published a summary of its contents in the S. F.
Bulletin and Sta Cruz Sentinel. My copy was made from the original in 1877.
Ford was a prominent man in the revolt from the beginning, and may be regarded
as a trustworthy witness. As he wrote from memory, his dates are inaccurate;
and there are some indications that in his recollections he sometimes
confounded what he saw and what he read in the early papers; still his
statement must be regarded as one of the most important extant.
Among the statements
written by Bear Flag men from memory expressly for my use, William Baldridge’s
Days of ’jS is by far the most valuable and complete; though some useful items
are given by Knight, Hargrave, Fowler, McOhristiau, Marshall, Gregson, and
others. Bidwell, California 1841-8, gives testimony that has been of great
service to me, being somewhat disappointing, however, in comparison with his
testimony on other matters, and with what might naturally be expected from a
gentleman of Bid well’s intelligence and opportunities. John A. Sutter’s
Personal Reminiscences are not very valuable in this connection, except as
showing the author’s views on certain points. John C. Fremont has repeatedly
promised and as often failed to give me his testimony on the subjeet. Thomas S.
Martin’s Narrative, by one of Fremont's men, is quite extensive and
interesting; but is unfortunately so inaccurate on many matters susceptible of
proof as to destroy its value on other affairs.
Original statements
by native Californians, of whieh I have many besides the elaborate histories of
Vallejo, Osio, Alvarado, Pico, and Bandini, and the briefer recollections of
Manuel Castro, Francisco Arce, Francisco Rico, Esid- van de la 'Torre, and Luis
German, with contributions of Antonio F. Coronel and Nareiso Botello in the
south, are on this subject as on most others very uneven in quality. Side by
side in the same narrative are found the most absurd and evident inaceuraeies
on one point and valuable testimony on another. The Bear Flag revolt is on an average
more fairly presented by these gentlemen than are many other topics of
California history. Their statements in the aggregate are very valuable when
used in connection with and tested by contemporary records; without such
accompaniment they would lead the historian far astray on many points. Of
course I have no space here to particularize the merits and weaknesses of so
many narratives; and no one of them is, on this special subject, notably
superior or inferior to the rest.
The New Helvetia
Diary, MS., is a record of the time which fixes several dates, and is otherwise
of considerable value. Sutter’s Diary is substantially in most respects a
resume of the same record. Clyman’s Diary, MS., contains some items bearing
indirectly on the general topie. In Niles’ Register of 18467, vol. lxx. p.
161, lxxxi. p. 173-4, 187—91, is a valuable collection of eorre-
spondence on
Fremont’s movements, some of it not elsewhere found. It was on Fremont’s letter
to Benton, and on that of the latter to the president, that were founded brief
mentions of the subject in various govt reports of the time, as well as the
current popular ideas for several years. Fr&mont's Oeog. Memoir and Kern’s
Journal contain some matters pertaining more or less directly to the subject;
and Peters’ Life of Kit Carson may be regarded as containing some original
matter in the shape of Carson’s testimony, though of little value. Frimont’s
Cal. Claims (30th cong. 1st sess., Sen. Rept no. 75) is a collection of
important testimony taken in 1848 from Fremont, Gillespie, Hensley, and many
other prominent men, on a subject growing directly out of the revolt.
Phelps'
Fore and Aft and Revere’s Tour of Duty are books written by men who were in
California in 1846, and to some extent actors in the scenes described. Both
authors fall into some errors, doubtless without any intentional
misrepresentation. The Monterey Californian, 1846, and the S. F. Californian,
1847, contained a. good deal of valuable matter on the subject, much of it
emanating from Dr Semple, editor of the former paper and a prominent Bear Flag
man, a narrative from whose pen appears in the Hesperian, vol. iii. Much
information, in a certain sense original, being in many instances the personal
recollections of pioneers, and in a few eases taking a documentary form,
has appeared in California newspapers of later date, of which it is not
necessary to give a list here, the S. F. A Ita and San Josi Pioneer being
prominent in this respect. It is well to mention in this connection Thomas C.
Lancey’s Cruise of the Dale, published in the paper last named. It contains
more matter on all topics connected with the conquest than any other
publication extant, being compiled from newspaper and other sources by a
gentleman who came to California in 1846, and who was well fitted in many
respects for the task. This work merits more praise than it will ever obtain in
its present form, marred by many typographical blunders, and lacking
systematic arrangement. Of a similar nature to Lancey’s work, though as a rule
inferior, except where they have reproduced it literally, are the local county
histories of California published during the past few years; the editors having
occasionally, however, obtained items that were new and of some value. John S.
Hittell’s History of San Francisco should be noticed here as the only popular
work of late years in which a correct understanding of the character of the
revolt is shown.
Such are the sources
of original information on the Bear Flag revolt; and I may add that most of the
authorities cited treat also of later annals, or the conquest. Miscellaneous
printed works treating more or less fully of both the Revolt and the
Conquest—some of them trustworthy, and others trash, pure and simple; none of
them containing origina-1 matter; and none of them cited in my pages except
occasionally, to show the author’s peculiar views, to correct an error, or for
some other special purpose—may be found in great numbers in my general list of
authorities.
PRELIMINARIES OP THE
CONQUEST.
1846.
The War with
Mexico—Beginning of Hostilities—Feelino im the United States Respecting
California—Polioy of President Polk’s Administration—Instructions to Commodore
Sloat in 1845 and 1846 —Plans fob. Permanent Occupation—The Pacific Squadron at
Mazatlan—Rumors of War—Services of Dr Wood and John Parrott—The ‘Portsmouth’
and ‘Cyane’ Sent to Monterey—News from the Rio Grande—Sloat’s Plans—His ‘
Unwarranted Inactivity’—Changes his Mind—Starts for California in the
‘Savannah’ —English Designs—The Rival Fleets—A Race, in American Imagination—A
Protectorate—An Unfounded Conjecture—The McNamara Colonization Project—Ten
Thousand Irishmen for San Joaquin.
The conquest of
California was a part of the war of 1846-8, between Mexico and the United States.
Not only was California a portion, and the richest portion, of the territory
transferred from one nation to the other as a result of the war; but it was
also the prize chiefly coveted in advance by that element in the northern
republic which promoted the conflict. It was the region whose loss Mexico most
dreaded, and whose prospective annexation to the United States was looked upon
with most disfavor in Europe. Therefore I might appropriately—and in fact,
were I writing a detached history of California, should be obliged to—present
at considerable length the general annals of the war, and particularly the
causes which led to it. I am relieved, however, from this necessity by the fact
that the Mexican war is in its general features
fully treated in another volume of my work; and I shall therefore confine
myself to a brief statement respecting the outbreak of hostilities, and then
proceed to consider those phases only of the subject which directly concerned
the territory to which these volumes are devoted.
The independence of Texas, effected in 1836 by Americans colonists, while
fully recognized by the leading powers of the world, was never so recognized
by Mexico, which nation persisted in regarding the lone- star republic as its
own territory, and believed that the so-called independence was but a pretext
from the first for ultimate annexation to the United States. When the question
of such annexation began to be agitated, the Mexicans of course were confirmed
in their belief, and the popular feeling became very bitter. Over and over
again the government of Mexico declared officially that annexation would be
forcibly resisted, and would be made a cause of war. In the United States it
was not generally believed that this warlike threat would be carried out. There
was, however, a strong opposition to the proposed measure, founded in part on
the justice of Mexican claims, but mainly on the danger of extending southern
political power. The project was defeated in congress; but, after a
presidential election in which its friends were victorious, it was again
brought up, and ratified at Washington in March 1845, receiving the final approval
of Texas in July of the same year. Before the end of 1845 a military force was
stationed, not only on the Texan frontier, but over the line in disputed territory,
which Mexico with much reason claimed as her own, whether Texan independence
were recognized or not. In Mexico, meanwhile, there was practically no
difference of opinion on the merits of the case; but the administration in
power, that of Herrera, was inclined to avoid a declaration of war, and to
favor delay and diplomatic negotiations, prudently foreseeing the danger of
losing, not only Texas, but other parts of the
national domain. The popular feeling, however, was irresistibly opposed
to every policy of concession; the administration was forced to refuse
negotiation with Slidell, the American minister, whose mission it had to a
certain extent encouraged; and finally it was overthrown by Paredes, who took
advantage of the public sentiment in favor of war to raise himself into power.
Another effort to prevent the war was that which aimed at a treaty by which
Mexico should recognize the independence of Texas, in return for a pledge
against annexation. This plan was instigated by the European powers clearly
foreseeing the result of a conflict, but it was rejected by Texas. Early in
March 1846 the American army advanced toward the Rio Grande, impeded by
protests and proclamations and threats, but no forcible resistance. Early in
April the Mexican army was ordered to advance, and General Ampudia, commanding
at Matamoros, assumed a hostile attitude, ordering Taylor to retire at once
beyond the Nueces until the question of boundaries could be settled. The order
was not obeyed. Before the end of April blood had been shed in several minor
encounters of small detached parties, and a considerable part of the Mexican
force had crossed the Rio Grande. On May 3d an artillery duel was begun between
the fortifications on opposite sides of the river, and on May 8th was fought
the first pitched battle at Palo Alto. I need not follow the record of military
operations further. It was on May 13th that congress voted, and President Polk
proclaimed, that “by the act of the republic of Mexico a state of war exists between
that government and the United States.”
As to the popular sentiment in the United States respecting the
acquisition of California, there is little or nothing to be added to what I
have said on the same subject for 1845.1 The threatened war had little
bearing on the subject, for it was not generally be-
1 See Hist.
Cal., vol. iv., chap. xxv.
Hist. Cat,., Vol. V. 18
lieved that there would be any war. It was felt that California was a
most desirable province; that it was not destined to remain much longer under
Mexican control; that it ought for many reasons to belong to the United States;
and that the rapid increase of American immigration would inevitably bring
about the desired result, unless it were prevented by European interference.
Those who were opposed to the acquisition founded their opposition mainly on
political and sectional grounds; but many of those who favored it hoped to see
it accomplished by purchase rather than by methods bearing a dishonorable taint
of filibuster- ism. On two points there was wellnigh unanimous agreement—that
England was no less eager than the United States to obtain California, and that
no interference by that or any European power must in any case be tolerated.
Of course, the war once begun, there was but little disposition on the part of
any to oppose the temporary occupation of California as a military measure;
indeed, during the continuance of the conflict public attention was but very
slightly directed to the ultimate fate of that country, though details of
military achievements, there as in Mexico, were closely watched.2
Respecting the policy of the administration at Washington with regard to
California, we are left in no doubt whatever. From developments in the
Commodore Jones affair of 1842,3 and from the subsequent naval
operations on the coast, I might reasonably infer, as other writers have
repeatedly done before me, that naval commanders had standing instructions
during all this period to occupy California in case of war with Mexico, and to
prevent in any
2The
feeling in the U. S. is well shown in an article on ‘California, ’ published
in the American Review of Jan. 1846, vol. iii., p. S2-99, in which particular
attention is paid to English designs. I might quote extensively from newspapers
of the time; but I find no such material which throws further light on the
subject than has already been obtained from citations of former years. Most
articles on the Mexican war mention California, hut only incidentally.
3 See chap. xii. of vol. iv.
event such occupation by England or France. But we have no need for
inference or conjecture on the subject, since clearly written instructions are
extant. On June 24, 1845, after congress had ratified the measure which Mexico
had declared would be a casus belli, Bancroft, secretary of the navy, wrote in
‘secret and confidential instructions’ to Commodore Sloat, commanding the
Pacific squadron, as follows: “The Mexican ports on the Pacific are said to be
open and defenceless. If you ascertain with certainty that Mexico has declared
war against the United States, you will at once possess yourself of the port of
San Francisco, and blockade or occupy such other ports as your force may
permit. Yet. . .you will be careful to preserve if possible the most friendly
relations with the inhabitants, and. . . will encourage them to adopt a course
of neutrality.”4 In later communications of August 5 and October
17, 1845, Bancroft called Sloat’s attention anew to the importance of carrying
out the previous instructions promptly, substituting in the first the words “in
the event of war,” and in the second “in the event of actual hostilities,” for
the phrase “if you ascertain with certainty that Mexico has declared war.” The
receipt of these documents was acknowledged by Sloat on January 28th and March
17th respectively.
In October of the same year Buchanan, secretary of state, in his
instructions to Confidential Agent Larkin, so often cited in previous chapters,
implied clearly that California would be occupied in the event of war, stating
openly at the same time that European interference would not be permitted.
Accordingly Larkin was instructed, and orders to Fremont and Gillespie were of
like import, to gain the goodwill of the authorities and people, that they
might quietly and voluntarily submit to the proposed occu-
'29th
Gong., 2d 3ess., H. Ex. Doc. No. 19; Gutts’ Gonq., appen. These instructions
are often referred to in later correspondence. See especially document in
Clarice's Speech on Gal. Claims, p. 8-9; Frimont’s Gal. Claims^ 71.
pation; or, if there should be no war, as now seemed most likely, that
they might be induced to declare their independence and ask for annexation.6
Thus the policy of the United States respecting two distinct methods of
acquiring California was clearly though not publicly announced in advance. What
may have been the secret intention, in case both plans should prove
unsuccessful, we may only conjecture; but as we have seen, though many have
believed the contrary, no steps were taken to promote the acquisition by means
of a settlers’ revolt or other form of direct filibusterism. Indeed, it was
fully believed by the government, as by its agents in California, that the
proposed methods of acquisition would prove amply adequate to the purpose.
On May 13, 1846, Bancroft wrote to Sloat: “The state of things alluded to
in my letter of June 24, 1845, has occurred. You will therefore now be governed
by the instructions therein contained, and carry into effect the orders then
communicated with energy and promptitude.” Next day Buchanan sent to Larkin an
official notification that war had begun, and that the Pacific ports would be
at once blockaded. On May 15th Bancroft instructed Sloat more definitely, but
to the same effect. “You will consider the most important public object to be
to take and to hold possession of San Francisco, and this you will do without
fail. You will also take possession of Mazatlan and of Monterey, one or both,
as your force will permit. If information received here is correct, you can
establish friendly relations between your squadron and the inhabitants of each
of these three places. . . You will, as opportunity offers, conciliate the
confidence of the people in California, and also in Sonora, toward the
government of the United States; and you will endeavor to render their
relations with the United States as intimate and friendly as possible. It is
important that you should hold possession, at least
6
Buchanan's Instructions to Larkin, Oct. 17, 1845, MS.
of San Francisco, even while you encourage the people to neutrality,
self-government, and friendship.” In a similar communication of June 8th occur
the following passages: “It is rumored that the province of California is well
disposed to accede to friendly relations. You will if possible endeavor to
establish the supremacy of the American flag without any strife with the people
of California. If California separates herself from our enemy, the central
Mexican government, and establishes a government of its own under the auspices
of the American flag, you will take such measures as will best promote the
attachment of the people of California to the United States. You will bear in
mind generally that this country desires to find in California a friend, and
not an enemy; to be connected with it by near ties; to hold possession of it,
at least during the war; and to hold that possession, if possible, with the
consent of its inhabitants.” Still earlier, on June 3d, Secretary of War Marcy
ordered General Kearny to press on overland from New Mexico to California; and
in his instructions he was directed to establish temporary civil governments in
the regions occupied, to continue in office such authorities as are friendly to
the United States and will take the oath of allegiance; and to “assure the
people of those provinces that it is the wish and design of the United States
to provide for them a free government, with the least possible delay, similar
to that which exists in our territories. They will be called upon to exercise
the rights of freemen in electing their own representatives to the territorial
legislature.” Later instructions to Shubrick and Stevenson and Stockton were of
the same tenor.6
The preceding communications might be cited more fully, and others of
similar purport might be mentioned. Some of them will be noticed in other con
6 The
communications cited are found in Larkin’s Doc., MS., iv. 121; U. S. Govt Doc.,
29th cong. 2d sess., H. Ex. Doc. 19; 31st cong. lstlaess., H. Ex. Doc. 17; Gutts'
Conq., append.; Stockton’s Life, append., etc.
nections; but the citations given suffice for mj present purpose, fully
explaining the policy of the United States, before indicated with sufficient
clearness in the instructions of 1845. Those of 1846 have no practical
importance in connection with naval and military operations on the Pacific
coast in that year, because they did not reach their destination until later
than July. In spirit, however, and in some instances with remarkable fidelity
to detail, they were all obeyed long before they were received. This shows,
what is otherwise clear enough, that the policy to be observed was well
understood in advance—somewhat better, in fact, than could naturally be
accounted for by the written orders extant—by officers and agents in the west.
Naval commanders had been kept acquainted with that policy for several years;
and there is no reason to doubt that Gillespie brought to California, and
communicated to leading men, exact information about the orders to Sloat. It
is to be noted, that the orders of 1846 go somewhat further than to' prove an
intention to maintain a purely military occupation during the war; and
indicate a purpose to retain, by one means or another, permanent possession of
California The selection for the regiment of volunteers of men deemed likely
to remain in the country, like other circumstances that might be mentioned,
illustrates the same purpose; and, indeed, as early as January 1847 the
secretary of the navy, in a communication to Commodore Stockton, “foresees no
contingency in which the United States will ever surrender or relinquish
possession of the Californias.” Thus we see that the administration at
Washington had determined in case of a war with Mexico to occupy California, and
as a result of the war to hold that country as a permanent possession. If peace
should continue, a scheme had been devised and operations actually begun to
promote a revolution of the natives, and a subsequent appeal for annexation. In
any event, California was to fulfil its ‘manifest des
tiny,’ and become a part of the United States. Had both plans failed, it
may be plausibly conjectured that a revolt of American settlers would have been
encouraged; but no such failure was anticipated; and so far as can be known,
no steps were taken in that direction.7
The Pacific squadron of the U. S. navy, under the command of Commodore
John D. Sloat, included in the spring of 1846 the following vessels: the ship
Savannah, flag-ship, 54 guns; the ship Congress, 60 guns; the sloops Warren,
Portsmouth, Cyane, and Levant, each 24 guns; the schooner Shark, 12 guns; and
the transport Erie. Five of these vessels had visited the California coast
during the preceding year, as we have seen. The English squadron in Pacific
waters, under Admiral Sir George F. Seymour, was considerably stronger in
vessels, guns, and men. The two squadrons had been for some time closely
watching each other’s movements because of possible difficulties
7Most
writers on California have something to say on the matter of U. S. policy; but
I find it necessary to make but few references. The prevalent opinion, deemed
by me an error, that the government did promote the settlers’ revolt as a part
of the conquest, has been fully noticed elsewhere. Jay, Mexican War, 154—7,
and Mansfield, Mexican War, 96-7, argue that the war was made for the sole
purpose of seizing California, presenting the prompt obedience of orders in
advance, as proofs that permanent occupation was intended from the first, and
that plans were perfected and orders given long before hostilities began. See
also Thompson’s speech of Jan. 27,1848, in Cong. Globe, 1847-8, p. 260;
Dwindle's Address before Pioneers, 1866, p. 9-20; Thompson’s Recollections,
232-5. Dwinelle says; ‘There are gentlemen of the highest respectability
residing in Cal. who came here upon the personal assurance of President Polk,
in 1846, that the war should not be concluded until Upper Cal. was secured hy
treaty to the U. S.* Wood, Wandering Sketches, 215, says: ‘For many years
before Cal. was annexed, the impression seemed to exist in the U. S. Pacific
squadron that its most important purpose was to occupy Cal., and its vigilance
was directed to the accomplishment of such a duty. The British squadron seemed
to have an equally strong idea that its business was to prevent any such act
upon the part of ours, and consequently these squadrons went about watching
each other.* In Mexico it was the universal belief that the United States govt
was determined to obtain Cal. by filibustering encroachments; and most
regarded war as the only means of resisting such encroachment; but a few
opposed the war, because they believed it would only hasten the calamity.
Hardly a newspaper published in Mexico that did not frequently contain the most
bitter articles in opposition to the American policy respecting Cal.; and, the
subject was continually alluded to in official writings and discourses.
Quotations would be bulky, and would serve no good purpose.
to arise from the Oregon question, if for no other reason: but more of
this hereafter. The movements of Sloat’s fleet have no special importance for
our present purpose until March, when all the vessels— except the Congress,
which with Commodore Stockton on board was at Callao en route from the States,
and the Cyane, which had lately sailed for Honolulu—were cruising on the
Mexican coast, being practically all together at Mazatlan.
Sloat, with the Washington orders down to October 1845 in his
possession, was-awaiting tidings of war which should enable him to carry out
those orders. Lieutenant Gillespie had arrived at Mazatlan overland in
February, and had sailed February 22d on the Cyane, William Mervine commander,
for Honolulu and Monterey, arriving at the latter port in April;8
but it does not clearly appear that he brought instructions to or had any
official relations with Sloat. Late in March the military authorities at
Mazatlan received news by express from the interior that war had broken out,
and that the Mexican Atlantic ports had been blockaded. This report caused much
excitement, during which the archives were removed to Rosario, whither the
comandante went with his garrison, after warning the people in a bando that
the Americans were about to blockade the port. Sloat had no news of an eastern
blockade, neither had the English commanders, whose means of communication
were better than those of the Americans, and who had before given the latter
despatches not otherwise received; but during the excitement news came from California
of Fremont’s trouble with Castro, and on April 1st the Portsmouth, Captain John
B. Montgomery, was despatched in haste to Monterey, where she arrived
0 Details about the exact movement of most
of the vessels are but meagrely recorded. The Honolulu papers, the Polynesian
and Friend, afford some information. The Cyane arrived at Honolulu March 13th
and sailed 19th ‘for Mazatlan;’ but as Gillespie says he came via the Sandwich
Islands, and as there was no record of, or indeed time for, another trip by
that route before April 17th, I suppose she touched at Monterey on the way to
Mazatlan, for which place she sailed April 19th.
on April 22d, remaining there, and later at San Francisco.9
The alarming or reassuring news was not confirmed by later despatches from
Mexico. The local excitement passed away, and the naval officers resumed
their watchful waiting for warlike rumors. Meanwhile the Shark, Lieutenant Neil
M. Howison, had been sent on April 2d to await the Congress at Honolulu; and
about the end of the month the Cyaue returned from Monterey with news that the
Castro- Fr^mont war-cloud in California had passed away.
At the beginning of May William M. Wood, late tleet surgeon, being permitted
to return home overland through Mexico, was intrusted with despatches to the
government, and was instructed to send back to Sloat any information of
importance that might be gathered on the way. Accompanied by John Parrott, U.
S. consul at Mazatlan, Wood went up to San Bias by sea, started inland on May
4th, and on the 10th arrived at Guadalajara. “Startling news here reached us,”
writes Wood, “placing us, and particularly myself, in most unpleasant
circumstances. In triumphant and boastful language we were informed of the
successful attack upon our forces on the Rio Grande, and the capture of some of
our dragoons. The intelligence reached the city about the same time with
ourselves; and soon after newsboys were selling extras in the streets, and
crying, at the highest pitch of their voices, ‘Triumph over the North
Americans.’ In every respect this was bad news, mortifying to our national
pride. . . Our own position was a cause of much anxiety. Here was war, and we
in the centre of the country; I with a hostile uniform in my trunk, and
despatches in my cap, which unfortunately stated that one object of my journey
was to collect information in relation to expected hostilities. What was to be
done, was a
*Larlcin’8
Doc., MS., iv. 107, 115, 126-7, containing corresp. on the trip o£ the
Portsmouth and the news brought hy her of the state of affairs at Mazatlan.
See also Wood’s Wandering Sketches, 346-8, the author of which was at Mazatlan
at the time and gives some particulars.
serious question. I had no disposition to be placed in the position of a
spy in an enemy’s country; and yet, to avoid being in such a position, I should
at once surrender myself to the authorities. By pursuing this course, I would
be compelled to surrender or destroy the despatches, and, what was worse, would
lose an opportunity of communicating the state of affairs to the
commander-in-chief in the Pacific. The condition of things left by us on the
western coast seemed to demand that such an opportunity should not be lost. Whether
correctly or not, it was believed that in case of war the British squadron
would attempt to take California under its protection... After due
deliberation, it was determined that we should continue our journey through the
country, and, if possible, send an express to the commander- in-chief of our
squadron in the Pacific. The latter was a matter of some difficulty, as all
expresses must be sent through and under authority of the government
post-office. However, Mr Parrott was enabled to manage the matter with much
skill. The express went through safely, making ten days’ ordinary travel in
five days, and delivering, on the 17th of May, the first news of the war to our
forces on the Pacific.”10
Having received on May 17th from James R. Bolton, acting consul, the
despatch sent by Wood and Parrott, Sloat at once sent the Cyane under Captain
Mervine to California. She sailed on or about May
10 Wood’s
Wandering Sketches, 348-69. In Me Whorter's Incidents of the
I Far with Mexico, a small pamphlet of 10
pages, without date of publication, and devoted to a record of Wood’s
services, we find Sloat’s letter of April 30th, to the sec. of the navy,
explaining Wood’s mission; and also a letter from Sloat to Wood, dated March
20, 1855, in which the doctor’s great services are acknowledged, with a
statemeut that the news received from him was what determined the writer to
take Cal. Wood was also complimented for his valuable services by the chairman
of the senate naval committee. Lancey, Cruise, 74-8, quotes Wood, and gives
full particulars. The services of Parrott, Wood, and James E. Bolton, the
latter acting consul in Parrott’s absence, are also recorded in the S. F.
Alta, Feb. 25, 1880; and by A. Williams, in Pioneer Soc. Arch., MS., 120-2. The
praise due Parrott and the others for their service has been somewhat
exaggerated, under the mistaken idea that their acts saved Cal. from being
taken by England.
18th, and reached Monterey on or about June 20th. She brought a letter
from Sloat to Larkin, dated May 18th and marked ‘strictly confidential.’ The
original is in my possession, and, as the best means of making known the
commodore’s intentions, I quote as follows: “From information I have received
from Metamoras, it appears certain that hostilities have commenced on the north
bank of the Rio Grande. It is said the Mexicans crossed the river with 1,200
cavalry and 400 infantry, and fell in with a reconnoitring party of our troops
of 50 men, which they attacked, killed, and captured the whole. It was expected
in Metamoras that General Taylor would bombard the town next day. It is my
intention to visit your place immediately, and from the instructions I have
received from my government, I am led to hope that you will be prepared to put
me in possession of the necessary information, and to consult and advise with
me on the course of operations I may be disposed to make on the coast of
California. When my force arrives there, I shall have the Savannah, Congress,
Portsmouth, Cyane, Warren, Levant, and Shark. Of course you will keep all this
a profound secret until my arrival, as no officer of my squadron has any
knowledge of my intended movements. They are, however, aware that a collision
has taken place on the north side of the Rio Grande between the American and Mexican
troops; and should this subject get into circulation, you will make as light of
it as possible, saying that it has been only a mere skirmish between the
reconnoitring parties. I shall call off Monterey first, and hope to be there
as soon as this, which goes by the Cyane. Her commander has instructions to
advise with you whether it is best for him to remain there or proceed to San
Francisco. I do not think it necessary to write more particulars, as I am
confident you will understand my object.”11 Sloat’s allusion to
information which he ex-
nMay
18,1846, Sloat to Larkin, in duplicate. Larkin's Dor>, MS., iv. 1223;
Sawyer's Doc., MS., 57-9.
pected to get from Larkin doubtless signified that he knew the nature of
the latter’s efforts and instructions as confidential agent, and hoped to be
told by him how to raise the flag without opposition from the Californians.
Larkin, however, thought the allusion might be to despatches sent him from
Washington but not received; and he therefore notified Leidesdorff and others
to be on the lookout for missing documents by an overland courier.12
But Sloat, though he knew that hostilities had begun, and had once made
up his mind to act promptly in obedience to his orders, changed his mind, and
did not start for Monterey. It is not known that he received contradictory
reports from the east, or that he had any reasons for delay, save his natural
indecision of character. On May 31st he heard of General Taylor’s battles of
the 8th and 9th on the Rio Grande;13 and this news so restored his
wavering determination, that on the same day he wrote to the secretary of the
navy: “I have received such intelligence as I think will justify my acting
upon your order of the 24th of June, and shall sail immediately to see what can
be done.”14 His renewed enthusiasm did not last long; though about
this time he despatched the Levant under Captain Hugh N. Page to Monterey;15
and we are also told, on authority not the best, of a short cruise off the
coast and return to Mazatlan, all with intent to deceive the English admiral.16
1J June 22d,
Larkin to Leidesdorff, Montgomery, et al. LarHn’s Doe., MS., iv. 119-20;
Sawyer’s Doc., MS., 62. June 20th, L. had notified Montgomery that Sloat was to
come at once. Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS., i. 115,
18 An extract from the Savannah’s log,
furnished by L. W. Sloat to Dunbar’s Romance, 38-9, and also printed in
Lancey’s Cruise, 78-9, contains this entry: ‘May 31, 1846, received report of
Gen. Taylor’s victory over the Mexicans on the 8th and 9th of May.’ The news
of May 31st, according to Williams, in Cal. Pioneer Soc. Arch., MS., 120-5,
was received by Bolton from a German correspondent, Fageman, at Durango.
14 May 31, 1846, Sloat to sec. navy, in
Fremont’s Cal. Claims, 70. Sloat had asked on May 6th to be relieved from his
command on account of failing health. Id,., 72.
151 have
found no definite record of the Levant’s trip, except that she arrived at
Monterey on June 30th. Larkin's Off. Corresp., MS., i. 96.
I6Testimony
of Lieut Geo. Minor, in Frimont’s Cal. Claims, 44. He says
According to the log of the flag-ship, on June 5th the news of Taylor’s
battles was confirmed, and the capture of Matamoros was announced. This, however,
was by no means enough for the irresolute commodore; and he wrote next day to
Secretary Bancroft: “I have, upon more mature reflection, come to the
conclusion that your instructions of the 24th of June last, and every
subsequent order, will not justify my taking possession of any part of
California, or any hostile measures against Mexico (notwithstanding their
attack upon our troops), as neither party have declared war. I shall therefore,
in conformity with those instructions, be careful to avoid any act of
aggression until I am certain one or the other party have done so, or until I
find that our squadron in the gulf have commenced offensive operations,”
announcing, however, his intention of proceeding to California to await further
intelligence.17 This extraordinary determination was of course not
approved at Washington,and brought out a severe reprimand for the dilatory
commander of the squadron. “The department willingly believes in the purity of
your intentions; but your anxiety not to do wrong has led you into a most
unfortunate and unwarranted inactivity,” wrote Bancroft, after dwelling on the
previous orders and hints to act promptly; and on the same day, by reason of
failing health, in accord-
that when the
Savannah sailed an English vessel at once started for San Bias, apparently to
notify the admiral; and on Sloat’s return the same manoeuvre was repeated.
Lancey, Cruise, 78, gives a ‘sailor’s story,’ to the effect that Sloat,
suspecting that Seymour was closely watching his movements, resolved to verify
his suspicion, and put the Englishman off his guard by a Yankee trick. So a
sham trial was got up, and a man condemned to death, a fact much talked about
whenever English hearers were present. The Savannah put out to sea to hang a ‘
dummy ’ at the yard-arm, closely followed and watched by a vessel of the rival fleet.
Soon after, a similar affair was planned and talked about; but when the ship
sailed to execute the sentence, the Englishman thought it not worth while to
watch the operation, and the Savannah started unobserved for Cal.!
17 June 6, 1846, Sloat to Bancroft, in
Frimont's Gal. Claims, 70. Sloat continues: ‘The want of communication with and
information from the department and our consul render my situation anything
but pleasant; indeed, it is humiliating and mortifying in the extreme, as by my
order I cannot act, while it appears to-the world that we are actually at war
on the other coast. ’
ance with his own earlier request, “and for other reasons,” Sloat was
relieved of his command.18
Yet again Sloat changed his mind, in time practically to nullify the
censure of the government, and to escape the dishonor in which his removal must
otherwise have involved him; for long before the communications cited above
had reached him he had done the things which he had been reprimanded for not
doing, and thus saved his reputation. The Savannah's log, according to the
extract published, has this entry: “June 7th, news received of the blockade of
Vera Cruz by the American squadron. At 2 p. m.
got under way for Monterey.” In a later report the
commodore writes: “On the 7th of June I received at Mazatlan information that
the Mexican troops, six or seven thousand strong, had by order of the Mexican
government invaded the territory of the United States north of the Rio Grande,
and had attacked the forces under General Taylor; and that the squadron of the
United States were blockading the coast of Mexico on the gulf. These
hostilities I considered would justify my commencing offensive operations on
the west coast. I therefore sailed on the 8th in the Savannah for the coast of
California, to carry out the orders of the department of the 24th June, 1845,
leaving the Warren at Mazatlan to bring me any despatches or information that
might reach there.”19 It was probably the report of an eastern
blockade that determined Sloat’s action, since in his letter of the 6th he had
declared his intention of awaiting such news. How this news of June 7th was
received I am not quite certain. Perhaps it was through another letter from
Parrott and Wood, written at the city of Mexico, as several persons state; but
there is some confusion in the testimony.20 I shall
18 Aug. 13, 1846, Bancroft to Sloat.
Fremont’s Cal. Claims, 71-2.
19 July 31, 1846, Sloat to Bancroft, in War
with Mexico, Septs Operations of U. S. Naval Forces, 30th cong. 2d seas., H.
Ex. Dec. no. 1, pt ii. p. 2. Repeated substantially in report of sec. navy,
Dec. 5, 1846, 29th cong. 2d sess., H. Ex. Doc. 4, p. 378; and often elsewhere.
20 Wood in his narrative says nothing of any
despatches from the city of Mexico, but implies that those from Guadalajara
were the only ones sent to
notice later the possibility that no such determining news was received
at all, and that Sloat did not make up his mind until after his arrival at
Monterey. At any rate, the commodore sailed on June 8th for California,
whither I shall follow him in the next chapter.
One phase of Sloat’s experience at Mazatlan, and his voyage to
California, yet remains to be noticed; it is that arising from his relations
with Admiral Seymour, and brings up anew the old subject of English designs on
California. It was believed at the time that England intended to take
possession, in the event of war, or at least to assume a protectorate, and thus
keep the territory from the United States. It has been the opinion of most
Americans ever since, and has been stated directly or indirectly by writers on
the conquest almost without exception, that the rival squadrons were closely
watching each other’s movements at Mazatlan and San Bias in the spring of
1846; that there was a contest between the respective commanders as to which
should first obtain definite information that war had been declared, and with
it reach California; that had Seymour in the Colling- wood reached Monterey
before Sloat in the Savannah, the English flag would have been raised instead
of the stars and strips; but that the commodore, either by getting the first
news overland, or by sending the admiral off on a false scent, or by a trick
which enabled him to sail without the knowledge of his rival, or by the
superior speed of his flag-ship, won the race, and
Sloat. Parrott, in an
interview printed in the 8. F. Alta, Feb. 25, 1880, mentions only one despatch.
Sloat in his letter of 1845 to Wood speaks of the news from Guadalajara as
having determined his action, alluding to no other communication. This letter
is also quoted in Willey's Thirty Years in Cal., 14^15. Williams and Lancey,
however, on authority not stated, mention a communication sent from Mexico by
Parrott May 23d to Bolton, who received it June 7th. Parrott’s letter was
founded on one received from a friend at S. Luis Potosi, and closed with these
words: ‘Yon can tell the commodore if he is with you that I did not write to
him, because there is too much risk; that he has a field open to signalize
himself, and I wish him a crown of laurels. ’ This literal citation indicates
that the writers saw the original letter, which may have beeD furnished hy
Parrott or Bolton. (In a later conversation I understood Mr Williams to
confirm this.)
saved California for his government. The tangible facts in the case are
the belief of Americans that England intended to occupy the country; the
presence at Mazatlan of the rival fleets closely watchful one of the other; a
trip of the Collingwood to Monterey, arriving about a week after the U. S. flag
had been raised; and finally, that an Irish subject of Great Britain was attempting
in 1845-6 to obtain Californian lands for colonization. The question for
consideration is whether these facts are a sufficient foundation for the current
version of former writers, or whether that version may be deemed to rest on
mere conjecture and patriotic prejudice.
In other chapters this subject of English schemes has been fully treated
for earlier years; and our investigation has shown simply that several
travellers had praised California highly, had predicted that it could' not long
remain a Mexican possession, had shown the ease with which it might be occupied
by a foreign power, and had dwelt on the advantages to its people and to
England of its becoming an English province rather than a territory of the
United States; that some popular writers had echoed the desires of the
travellers, and had ridiculed the claims of the United States to any exclusive
rights in that direction; and, that a part of the English holders of Mexican
bonds: had favored an arrangement by which Californian, lands for colonization
could be taken in payment, or as security for the payment, of the debt, though
it has: never clearly appeared that even a majority of the bond-holders decided
in favor of such an arrangement. In 1846 the bond-holders’ scheme, so far as
outward manifestations were concerned, was a thing of the past, unless the
McNamara project, of which I shall speak presently, might be in some way connected
with it. The only new developments of the year in this connection were the
undoubted existence of a party among the Californians in favor of a British,
protectorate, and the well known fears, leading to some diplo
matic efforts, of the English government with regard to the prospective
annexation of Mexican territory to the United States in consequence of the war.
The former subject has been fully presented already; the latter requires no
further remark, as England made no secret of her perfectly natural and
legitimate disfavor to the extension of American territory southward and
westward at the expense of Mexico.21
I find nowhere a single word of official utterance to indicate that
England had the slightest intention or desire of obtaining California by
conquest or purchase, or that she ever gave any encouragement to the colonization
plans of her bond-holding subjects. In the total absence of any such definite
indication, and in view of the fact that the testimony in favor of the English
scheme, though bulky, is composed wholly of mere statements of belief from men
who like myself have had no special facilities for penetrating court secrets in
London, I have no hesitation in expressing my conviction that England did not
deem California a desirable acquisition at the price of serious complications
with another nation; and that she knew perfectly well that trouble with the
United States was sure to result from any attempt in that direction. There was
never any definite plan on the part of the government to make California an
English possession.22
211 refer
only to remarks of Bentinck, Palmerston, Disraeli, and others in parliament.
Aug. 1846, Hansard's Pari. Debates, lxxxviii. 978-93, when free reference was
made to the harm to English interests likely to result from the war. See
remarks on the policy of England on this matter in my Hist. Mex.
22 For testimony in favor of the English
schemes, all of the nature indicated in my text, see American Review, iii.
87-99; Fremont’s Cal. Claims; Debates in Congressional Globe, 1847-8; some of
the same speeches printed in pamphlet or book form, as Dix's Speeches, i.
281-2; S. F. Californian, Oct. 28, Nov. 4, 1848; Overland Monthly, iii. 156;
Tuthill’s Hist. Cal., 178—80; Ripley’s War with Mex., i. 294; Lancey’s Cruise;
and indeed almost every authority cited in this and the following chapters,
including manuscript statements of pioneers, and very many newspaper
narratives. Writers and speakers in 1846 and earlier founded their opinions on
prevalent national prejudices, on the Oregon troubles, on the narratives of
English navigators on what was known of the bond-holders’ affair, and on the
suspicions of Larkin and his friends in Cal. In 1847-8, during the ‘claims’
agitation, opinions of many men were brought out and exaggerated as testimony
to magnify the services of Fremont and his Bear Flag battalion. In later times,
writers have simply cited the Hist. Cal.,
Vol. V. 14
In its phase of a proposed protectorate, the matter of English
intervention assumes, it must be admitted, a somewhat different and more
plausible aspect. England made no secret of her opposition to any further
extension of American territory on the Pacific if it could be prevented by
diplomacy or other means than war. There could be little doubt that the United
States would seize California as soon as war began. There was a party of some
strength among the Californians, including the governor, in favor of English
interference; they would likely have asked for protection had a British
man-of-war arrived opportunely— perhaps did petition for it through an agent
sent to Mexico.23 The question is, Had the British government
through any authorized agent encouraged or approved the scheme? Had Admiral
Seymour instructions to raise his flag at Monterey? or was he likely to assume
the responsibility of such an act? If he intended to do it, the design was by
assuming a protectorate, not necessarily to secure permanent possession, but
to set on foot a long train of diplomatic correspondence, to prevent the
United States being in possession at the close of the war, and thus
indefinitely delay if not prevent the dreaded annexation. The aim and the
methods would have been legitimate enough; but was any such purpose entertained
or any such means devised ? As I have remarked, the theory that such was the
case is a more plausible one than that favoring conquest or purchase; but that
is about all that can be said in its favor. There is the same absence of all
positive or documentary evidence, and
the same exclusive reliance by its advocates on mere
i
testimony of the
earlier witnesses of both classes, or more frequently have in a spirit of
boasting alluded to England’s ambition and defeat as matters of historic record
requiring no support.
23 Jos6 M. Covarrubias was sent to Mexico,
as we have seen, chap. ii., in Feb., and he returned at the beginning of July.
Bandini, Doc., MS., 85. Pio Pico, Hist. Cal. MS., states that Covarrubias was
instructed, if not successful in Mexico, to call on the English admiral and
promise a revolt of California on condition of an English protectorate; also
that Covarrubias on his return reported that Admiral Seymour had spoken
favorably of the scheme.
opinion and conjecture. I proceed to note some items of circumstantial
evidence bearing on the subject.
First: the presence of an unusually strong British fleet in the Pacific
at this time, and the close and constant watch kept on the movements of the
American squadron, are amply accounted for by the pending complications of the
Oregon question, which it was thought might at any time result in war between
England and the United States. Consequently naval operations of a general
nature prove nothing respecting designs on California. Second: the statements
of different writers respecting the suspicious actions of the English naval
officers, the methods by which Sloat outwitted Seymour, and the race between
the Savannah and Collingwood, are so contradictory in the matter of details,
and so inaccurate in respect of minor facts, as to more than suggest their lack
of solid foundation.24 Third: some of the theories advanced sug-
2iLieut
Minor, as we have seen, Frimont’s Cal. Claims, 43-5, testified that Sloat so
manceuvred as to get away from Mazatlan without Seymour’s knowledge; and ‘a sailor,’
Lancey’s Cruise, 78, explains the method by which the trick was played.
According to Minor and others, the Collingwood was at San Bias. Benton, Thirty
Years’ View, ii. 692, says: ‘Sloat saw that he was watched and pursued by
Admiral Seymour, who lay alongside of him, and he determined to deceive him. He
stood out to sea and was followed by the British admiral. During the day he
bore west across the ocean, as if going to the S. I.; Adm. Seymour followed. In
the night the American commodore tacked and ran up the coast toward Cal.; the
British admiral, not seeing the tack, continued on his course and went entirely
to the S. I. hefore he was undeceived.’ Arriving in Cal. from Honolulu, ‘to
his astonishment he beheld the American flag flying over Monterey, the American
squadron in its harbor, etc. His mission was at an end. The prize had escaped
him.’ Randolph, Oration, says: ‘The flag of the U. S. was no sooner flying than
the Collingwood entered the bay of Monterey. There had been a race.’ Wm H.
Davis, Glimpses, MS., 343-6, learned from Capt. Mervine at the time “t Monterey
that the rivals had closely watched each other; and that the Savannah and
Cyane left Mazatlan secretly by night, fearing that the Collingwood might have
pursued them and arrived hefore them at Monterey. But we know that the Cyane
had come long hefore. There are other slight inaccuracies, showing that Davis
gives the common report rather than Mervine’s direct testimony. W. S. Green published
in the Colusa Sun a statement—which I find in the Bakersfield Courier, Sept.
21, 1870, and which was published in several other newspapers—purporting to
hare been derived from Sloat's own lips, containing the following: A courier
arrived from Mexico, bringing despatches to Seymour but none to Sloat. Seymour
after the arrival of the courier was ‘all in all’ with the leading Mexicans,
while they looked daggers at Sloat. The commodore watched the movements of the
admiral. The line-of-hattle ship hove short on her anchors and made ready for a
voyage. The two little American vessels did the same. The Collimjwood weighed
anchor, and with clouds of canvas, etc.
gest troublesome questions. For instance: Minor and' others state that
Sloat left Mazatlan for a short cruise and then returned, his departure being
promptly made known to Seymour. What means could he have adopted more likely to
start the admiral for California, and to insure his arrival there in advance?
Or if, as Benton says, Sloat sailed as if for Honolulu, but took a tack in the
night, what necessity was there for Seymour to follow exactly the same route
as his rival? Moreover, why should Seymour have been so anxious to follow every
movement of the Savannah? If he intended to raise his flag at Monterey, was it
absolutely essential that Sloat should be present at the ceremony? Fourth:
Admiral Seymour seems to have paid not the slightest attention to the departure
of the Cyane and Shark and Portsmouth, and Cyane again, and the Levant, any one
of which for all he knew might have orders to raise the stars and stripes at
Monterey, and all but one of which were actually bound for California waters.
Fifth: for a naval commander to devote all his energies to watching a single
ship, and to leave unwatched for six months a coast of which he intended to take
possession, and which was likely to fall into a rival’s hands, was, to say the
least, a peculiar proceeding. To the ordinary mind California would seem a
convenient station for at least part of a fleet whose chief mission was to
protect or conquer that country; and there is no indication that the commander
of the Juno was instructed to forestall, or even to closely watch, the action
of the three American ships. Sixth: Sloat, as we have seen, delayed decisive
action long after he knew that hostilities had
Within half an hour
the Savannah and Preble (?) were ploughing the bosom of the deep, while the
mind of the gallant commodore was made up, etc. Seymour on reaching Monterey
told Sloat that only himself and a few leading Mexicans knew of the existence
of hostilities when he left Mazatlan! See also Powers’ Afoot, 316-18. Walpole,
Four Tears, passim, tells us that the Collingwood was becalmed off the coast,
thus delaying her arrival. Cronise, Nat. Wealth of Cal., 69, says the English
vessel arrived within 24 hours after the Savannah. Others simply say the
Savannah outsailed her rival, or that Sloat won on account of getting the news
of war first through Parrott. Thus it is seen that the evidence is meagre as
well as contradictory.
begun, unable to make up his mind, and disregarding his instructions. Are
we to suppose that Seymour, who, as there is no reason to doubt, knew
practically as much of events on the Rio Grande as did Sloat, was equally timid
and irresolute ? Or that he deemed it his duty to copy his rival’s stupid
blunders as well as to watch his ship? Truly, his delay was inexcusable if his
mission was as alleged; and there was no later success, as in Sloat’s case, to
relieve him of the blame. Seventh: what, indeed, was the need for the admiral
to wait for definite news of war at all? Why might he not, if he had such a
design as is imputed to him, have raised the flag in June as well as in July? The
rapid increase of American immigration, or certainly the acts of the Bears,
afforded a plausible pretext for acceding to the request of Governor Pico and
his friends. Sloat of course required positive evidence of hostilities, because
his proposed action in California was one of war, and by acting hastily, he
might compromise his government; but Seymour had no warlike project in view;
he was merely to assume protection of a people at the request of its
authorities. It is difficult to understand in what respect his act would have
been more compromising to his government, or more offensive to the United
States, just before than just after the declaration of war. Eighth and finally:
there was nothing in the circumstances attending Seymour’s visit to Monterey,
July 16th-23d, to sustain the theory that he had meditated interference. He and
Sloat exchanged the customary courtesies without the slightest disturbance of
amicable relations; and having obtained from the Americans a set of spars for
his vessel, he sailed away for the Sandwich Islands without meddling in
politics, or commenting, so far as may be known, on the change of flag.25
25 In reality, little is known of the
Colling wood's trip, except the date of her arrival at Monterey. Lieut Fred.
Walpole of that vessel wrote Four Years in the Pacific, Lond. 1849, 8vo, 2
vol.; but he pays little or no attention to politics or to details of the
vessel’s movements. That part of his book relating to Cal. is found in vol. ii.
p. 204^19. He gives a little sketch of the
I would not flippantly assert that previous writers have fallen into
error on a matter like this, where from the nature of the case no positive
proof against them can be adduced; but in the absence of like proof in their
favor, it has seemed well to consider the attendant circumstances; and these,
as I think the reader will agree, point almost irresistibly to the conclusion
that the danger of English intervention in any form was a mere bugbear; that
the race between the Savannah and Collingwood was purely imaginary. The
contrary belief has been a fascinating one for Americans; it is agreeable to
dwell on a contest in which we have been the winners. But the satisfaction in
this case is not well founded, and there is no reason to believe that there was
any intention of raising the English flag in California. The reason why the project
of a protectorate, if considered, was not approved, was probably, as in the
matter of conquest or purchase, that ‘the game was not worth the candle/
especially as the candle was likely enough to assume the propor-
Bear Flag revolt and
other current events, noting particularly the appearance and character of
Fr&nont’s trappers. On the subject now under consideration he says: ‘On the
morning of the 16th of July, 1846, after a long voyage, we were becalmed off
the coast of Cal. in the bay of Monterey, and, toward the afternoon, anchored
amidst a crowd of American vessels of war. To our astonishment we found that
they had only a few days before taken possession of the place, hoisted the
American colors, and planted a garrison in the town. ’ There is no indication
that the vessel came by way of Honolulu, as some writers state. Green, in the
newspaper article already cited as purporting to- come from Sloat, relates a
conversation between him and Seymour, which is to be regarded as purely
imaginary. In his report of July 31st, Sloat mentions Seymour’s arrival on the
16th, and departure on the 23d, and the interchange of friendly courtesies.
Sloat thought his coming strengthened the American cause by convincing the
natives that he would not interfere. Niles’ Beg., lxxi. 133. July 23d, Sloat
notifies Montgomery of Seymour’s presence and his friendly conduct. War with
Mex., Rtpts Oper. Navy, 29. Phelps, Fore and Aft, 295, and Dunbar, Bomance, 40,
state that Seymour frankly told Sloat that he had intended to raise the English
flag. Colton, Three Years, p. 13-14, notes the holding of a meeting after the
flag was raised to discuss the question of asking English protection; and he quotes
the facetious argument of one Don Rafael (Gonzalez ?) against it. The same
writer, however, Deck and Port, 393, says: ‘ It has often been stated by
American writers that the admiral intended to raise the English flag in Cal.,
and would have done it had we not stolen the march on him. I believe nothing of
the kind; the allegation is a mere assumption, unwarranted by a single fact.’
Nidever, Lifeand Ailven., MS., 130, and Swasey, Cal. ’45-6, MS., 13—14, mention
an exhibition of marksmanship by Fremont’s men which delighted the officers of
the Collingwood, and reduced their store of silver dollars.
tions of a foreign war. It is well to note finally that the conclusion
reached deprives the Bear Flag cause of the only merit that could ever with any
plausibility be attributed to it, that of having saved California from English
rule through the influence of Frdmont’s action in hastening Sloat’s movements.
The McNamara colonization scheme, though it carries me back to 1845, and
forward some days past the raising of the stars and stripes, is treated here
because it has commonly been considered a part of the general scheme of
English interference. Of Eugene McNamara, except in connection with the affair
in question, we know only that he was “a native of Ireland, catholic priest,
and apostolic missionary.” Before August 1845, and probably in the spring of
that year, lie asked the president of Mexico for a grant of land in California,
to be occupied by an Irish colony. His avowed object was threefold. “I wish in
the first place,” he said, “to advance the cause of catholicism. In the second,
to contribute to the happiness of my countrymen. Thirdly, I desire to put an
obstacle in the way of further usurpations on the part of an irreligious and
anti-catholic nation.” He eulogized the Irish as the best of colonists, “devout
catholics, moral, industrious, sober, and brave.” He proposed to bring over
one thousand families as a beginning, each to have a square league of land, and
this first colony to be located on the bay of San Francisco; a second would be
established later near Monterey; and a third at Santa Barbara. He desired for a
time exemption from taxes; and claimed to have the approval of the archbishop
of Mexico. There being some hesitation on the part of the government, McNamara
again urged the advantages of his project and the necessity of prompt action.
“If the means which I propose be not speedily adopted, your Excellency may be
assured that before another year the Californias will form a part of the American
nation. Their catholic institu
tions will become the prey of the methodist wolves; and the whole country
will be inundated with these cruel invaders;” but ten thousand Irishmen “will
be sufficient to repel at the same time the secret intrigues and the open
attacks of the American usurpers.” In this communication the petitioner asked
for land to be hypothecated in payment of the colonists’ travelling expenses;
and also for the customs duties at San Francisco for a term of years.26
The government was disposed to look with favor upon the scheme; though of
course there was no thought of granting coast lands, or least of all, at the
ports mentioned by the priest;27 and though there .were not wanting
those in Mexico who believed Irish settlers more likely to side with the
Yankees than the Mexicans.28 We know very little of the negotiations
in Mexico, but on August 11th, Minister Cuevas, in a communication to Jose M.
Hljar, announced that McNamara, highly recommended by the archbishop and
others, would come to California with Ini- estra’s expedition. Hljar was
instructed to treat him well, to examine his project, and to consult with the
governor with a view to advise the government what was best to be done.29
There is no evidence, however, that Hljar ever received this communication.
In January 1846, under a new administration, McNamara was informed by
Minister Castillo Lanzas that his memorial and plan, in accordance with the
26 McNamara’s petitions to the president. In
Spanish with translations, in Frimont’s Cal. Claims, 19-21, 77—9. The documents
have no date, and it is not stated where they were found; but there is no
reason to doubt their authenticity. Most of the matter on the subject is
given, from the above source, in the Honolulu Polynesian, v. 105; and S. F.
Californian, Oct. 28, Nov.
4, 1848.
27 Dix, in his speech of March 29, 1848,
Dix's Speeches, i. 262-81; Cong. Globe, 1847-8, p. 560-1, reviews the subject,
and conveys the impression that the final grant did include, besides the bay of
S. F., some of the best lands and most important military and commercial
positions in Cal.! Mayer, Mexico Aztec, i. 343-5, says ‘ the govt of Mexico
granted 3,000 sq. leagues in the rich valley of S. Joaquiu, embracing S.
Francisco, Monterey, and Sta Barbara’!
28In the Amigo del Pueblo, Oct. 25, 1845, we read:
‘jTodavia no se co- uoce que todo 61 que hable el idioma ingles ha de tener mas
simpatfas hdcialos rapaces Yankees que hdcia nosotros?'
29 Aug. 11, 1845, Cuevas to Hijar. Frimont’s
Cal. Claims, 23.
opinion of the council, would be submitted to congress.30 The
documentary result is not extant; but whether congress acted on the subject or
not, the empresario doubtless obtained some encouragement but no positive
promises from the government with a recommendation to go to California, select
lands suitable for his purpose, and submit his project in regular form to the
departmental authorities.81 The Iniestra expedition not being likely
to start soon, if ever, the padre took passage on H. B. M. ship Juno for Monterey,
where he arrived before the middle of June, or possibly at the end of May.
There is no information extant about the Juno's visit, except that she left
Monterey on June 17th, was at Santa Barbara on July 1st, and returning, arrived
on July 11th at San Francisco.32 Making known his project to Larkin
and probably to others, McNamara sailed still on the Juno for the south to see
the bishop and negotiate with the governor. On July 1st at Santa Barbara he
submitted his proposition in writing to Pico, having perhaps first broached
the subject to him a week earlier.33 His plan, which had “received
the benign cooperation of the venerable and illustrious archbishop of Mexico,
and the cordial recognition of the supreme government,” was now to bring as
soon as possible 2,000 Irish families, or 10,000 souls; and he
30 Jan. 19, 1S46, Castillo Lanzas to
McNamara. 30th Gong. 1st Sess., Sen. Sept, 75, p. 22.
31 To Larkin on his arrival McNamara said
that Pres. Herrera had approved the scheme; out that the new president made
objections, on the ground that the Irish would join the Americans, and that he
wanted no English-speaking colonists. Larkin's Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 65.
32 She arrived before June 11th. Larkin’s
Off. Corresp., MS., i. 90. In a later letter Larkin states incidently that she
arrived in May. Id., ii. 81. In Id., ii. 65, he writes, June ISth, that she
arrived, and left for Sta Barbara ‘yesterday.’ July ilth, Montgomery to Sloat.
The Juno arrived to-day and anchored at ‘Sausolita’ (Sauzalito). SOth Cong. 2d
Sess., H. Ex. Doc., i. pt ii. p. 16.
33In the
record of the assembly action of July 6th, Leg. Rec., MS., iv. 363-4, the
governor’s communication to that body is said to have been dated Juno 24th; and
the same date is mentioned in another record of July 7th. Frimont’s Cal.
Claims, 25. Still another says it was written June 24th and submitted on July
2d. Bandini, Doc., MS., 87. There may therefore be some error in the printed date
of July 1st, or there may have been more than one communication.
asked for a grant of the land selected between the San Joaquin River and
the Sierra Nevada, from the Cosumnes southward to the extremity of the Tulares,
near San Gabriel. This petition was sent by Pico to the assembly, with
documents relating to the project and with his approval.34
Lataillade, the Spanish viceconsul, also wrote a letter describing and
advocating the colonization scheme.35 On July 6th the matter was
brought up in a session of the assembly at Los Angeles, and was referred to a
committee consisting of Argtiello and Bandini. Their report, rendered next day
in an extra session and approved, was favorable to McNamara’s petition, and
recommended that the grant be made under certain conditions; the most important
of which were that land should be granted only in proportion to the number of
colonists presenting themselves; that the title should not be susceptible of
hypothecation or transfer to any foreign government or other ownership; and
that sections of good land should be reserved in the region granted.36
The committee further recommended that the departmental government should
petition congress to allow the colonists exemption from taxes for a number of
years; and also for the introduction free of duties of $100,000 worth of
merchandise for each 1,000 colonists.
34 July 1, 1846, McNamara to Pico, and
Pico to assembly. Frtmont’a Cal. Claims, 23. See also references in note 33. '
35 July 2d, L. to Bandini. Bandini, Doc.,
MS., 84. The writer says there were difficulties in Mexico on account of
prospective expenses; but now he understands that the English crown will hear
the expense. He favors the plan, because it will create a barrier both against
the Indians and the Americans. He foresees the raising of the stars and stripes
in case of war; but thinks a period of anarchy will ensue until a regular
government is established, during which the country will be overrun by hordes
of lawless strangers; and that while the Irish colonists could not be expected
for several years, the title to lands being acquired, England would protect it
and keep the lands from the possession of adventurer^.
6 July 7,1846, report of special com. on
McNamara grant. Original blotter inBandini, Doc., MS., 87. Also in Leg.Rec.,
MS., iv. 364-8. The tract specified within which the colony lands were to be
selected—without prejudice to former grants and with the reservation of
alternate sections—was ‘ on the river San Joaquin and towards the Tulares, on
the southern extremity of the lagoons or said tulares, between the latter and
the Sierra Nevada, and on the river of Las Animas and its region as far as the
Cajon de Muscupiabe, near San Bernardino.’
This favorable action of the assembly was forwarded to Pico on the same
day.37 It reached Santa Barbara probably on the 8th; but the
governor, it will be remembered, had started a day or two earlier for the
north, and did not reach that town on his return until the 12th or 13th. Then
he doubtless made out and signed in due form a grant to McNamara, subject to
the approval of the national government. The terms and conditions of the grant
were substantially as fixed by the assembly, it being specified, however, that
the tract was to be wholly in the interior, twenty leagues from the coast;
that each of the 3,000 families—instead of 2,000 as before— should have one
league, or less if the tract should not suffice; and that any excess should be
reserved by the government.38 Thus far all had been apparently
regular and in accordance with legal formalities. But it is to be noted that
the final grant, as extant in print—I have not seen the original manuscript—is
dated at Santa Barbara on July 4th. If the document was really signed on that
date, it was in advance of legislative action and invalid; otherwise it was
signed after the 12th, and fraudulently dated back, in consequence of Pico’s
having learned on his northern trip that the United States flag had been raised
on the 7th.
With his grant McNamara went up to Monterey. There he explained to Larkin
the nature of his scheme somewhat more fully; informed him that he was acting
for a private company in London; showed him the title—bearing date of July 4th,
which shows that date to be not merely a misprint—and asked his opinion
whether the United States would recognize its
37 July 7th, Figueroa, president, and
Botello, see., to Pico. Fr&mont's Cal. Claims, 25. July 8th, Bandini to
Lataillade, in reply to letter of 2d, already cited. Has done what he could for
McNamara, who appears to be satisfied. Bandini, Doc., MS., 88. July 8th, Botello
to Moreno. Has been busy with the McNamara affair, which he warmly approves.
Moreno, Doc. Hist. Cal., 17-18.
38 July 4, 1846, Pico’s grant to McNamara.
Translation from original, in Frimont's Cal. Claims, 23-5.
validity. Larkin told him the governor could not grant more than eleven
leagues in a single deed; and the reverend empresario sailed on the Collingwood
for Honolulu en route to Mexico.39 No attempt was ever made to
secure recognition of the title in California. It is said, however, that the
grant was in Mexico referred to the 'direccion de colonizacion e industria,’
which body reported adversely on several grounds— chiefly that the price fixed
by law for the territory in question, but which McNamara had not even promised
to pay, was about $71,000,000! In spite of this report, it appears that the
colonization committee of congress approved the project; and that is the last
we hear of it.40
Such is the history of the famous McNamara colonization project. It
appears that a company of speculators in London, taking the hint perhaps from
the efforts of the Mexican bond-holders in past years, if not composed in part
of the same men—though there is no evidence on that point—and foreseeing that
in American or other hands Californian lands were likely to increase very
rapidly in value, resolved to become the possessors of as large a tract as
possible. To avoid opposition from the authorities in a catholic country, a priest was employed to
negotiate in the name of an Irish colony. There was probably no expectation of
39 Aug. 22,
1846, Larkin to aeo. state. Larkin's Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 81.
40I have not
found any original record of these actions, which are, however, unimportant on
account of their date after the American occupation of Cal. I find the information
given above with some details in the Honolulu Polynesian, iv. 50, Aug. 11,
1847; quoted also in S. F. Californian, Sept. 29, 1847. It is to be notea that
in this account the legislative action is dated July 3d, and the grant July
4th. On Sept. 27th McNamara wrote from Honolulu to J. A. Forbes a letter
quoted in Hartmann’s Brief in Mission Cases, 65. After raving about the
‘asinine stupidity of old Aberdeen’ in settling the Oregon question, and
referring to his scheme for working the quicksilver mines, he says: ‘ I am also
very desirous of doing something about that grant of land. I will give the
Yankees as much annoyance as I possibly can in the matter.’ Velasco, Sonora,
310, says the grant was confirmed by Santa Anna, and that McNamara went to
Europe to make arrangements; but that litigation is expected. Besides the
works I have cited, -see on the McNamara scheme, indwell's Cal. 1841-8, MS.,
151-2, 176; Coronel, Cosas de Cal., MS., 69; First Steamship Pioneers, 170-1;
Hesperian, iii. 387; Upham’s Life Fr&mont, 240-1; Cronise’s Nat. Wealth
Cal., 69; Lancey’s Cruise, 54-5; Tinkham’s Hist Stock- lon, 92; Yolo Co. Hist.,
25; and many newspaper accounts.
ever sending to California any such number of families as was talked
about; but it was thought that a title might be acquired to lands of great
value. In order to get as much as possible on the most favorable conditions,
and with the least possible delay, advantage was shrewdly taken of the bitter
feeling against all that was American. The scheme met with as much favor as
could have been shown to any measure that had to be submitted to two opposing
administrations; but evoked little enthusiasm even in Mexico. And when the
speculating presbltero arrived in California, where colonization on a large scale
had always been a popular idea, with all his special inducements of opposition
to the Yankee invaders and lobos metodistas, he found the authorities by no
means in a hurry to disregard the laws and put him in possession of the whole
department. He obtained little more than any presumably responsible man might
have obtained in ordinary circumstances—the concession of an immense tract of
land, valueless then and nearly so for many years later, away from the coast,
inhabited by gentile tribes, of extent in proportion to the actual number of
colonists sent to occupy it, with title not transferable —hampered, in fact, by
all the legal conditions. The chance for speculation on a grand scale was not
very apparent. It may be doubted that the London company would have cared for
the grant even had their clerical agent not been obliged to tell them that it
was fraudulently antedated. At any rate it would have been sold at a low figure
to some Yankee speculator during the subsequent years of litigation.
Respecting the international or political aspects of the McNamara
project, there is not much to be said; though it is to that phase of the matter
that writers have chiefly devoted their attention. Most of them state it as an
unquestioned fact that the colony was simply a part of the general plan of the
English government to get possession of California; and failed, just as the
main plan failed, because the British agents were
too late. Had there been any such plan—and I have proved to my own
satisfaction there was not—it would still be necessary to pronounce its
relation to the colony scheme purely conjectural. It is not unlikely that the
promoters of the colony, like the bond-holders of earlier years, hoped to
acquire a title which should eventually attract the attention and secure the
protection of the British government. It is also probable that in Mexico, and
tolerably certain that in California, McNamara, to advance his interests,
sought to give the impression that to grant his petition would be to secure
English favor; but that the government secretly favored the scheme in any way,
I find no evidence. Indeed, the establishment of 10,000 Irish colonists in a
country as a means of acquiring peaceful possession of the same was hardly a
method that would at any time have commended itself to the favor of her
Britannic Majesty.
After the conquest it was claimed that McNamara’s intrigues for an
immense land grant had been one of the chief motives of the Bear Flag revolt;
and in the investigation of ‘California claims’ in 1848, a leading point made
by Frdmont and his friends was that the revolt alone had prevented the success
of that scheme, and had thus saved for American settlers an immense tract of
valuable land. A dozen witnesses or more testified positively that such was
undoubtedly the fact. I do not believe that anything whatever was known of
McNamara or his scheme north of the bay before June 14th, if indeed it was
known before July 7th; but this of course cannot be proved, especially if, as
Larkin states in one letter, the Juno arrived in May;41 and it must
be admitted that such a knowledge would have been an argument of some force
with the set-
41 June
18th, as we have seen, was the earliest date on which anything appears on the
subject in contemporary documents at Monterey; and June 24th in the south. That
Larkin knew of it a week or more and informed the settlers in the north, before
he wrote on the subject to the sec. state, is not very probable. I suppose,
moreover, that his statement in Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 81, that McNamara
arrived in May may have been a slip of the pen on the part of his clerk.
tiers. However this may have been, the second proposition that the
revolt put a stop to this and other grants by Pico to Englishmen is a manifest
absurdity; since not only is it certain that it had no such effect, but
obviously its tendency must have been to cause the governor to make haste in
disposing of the public domain. Moreover, it is by no means certain that the
success of the colony and a recognition by the United States of the grant as
valid would have been an unmixed evil.
July,
1846.
Arrival
op Sloat in the ‘Savannah’—Events of a Week—More Hesitation—Fremont’s
Claim—Larkin’s Influence—Despatches from Montgomery—Resolution—Occupation op
Monterey—Sloat’s Proclamation—The Stars and Stripes at San
Francisco—Documentary Record—The Bear Flag Lowered at Sonoma—At Sutter’s Fort—
The Change at San Josi—Fremont and
his Battalion March Southward—Occupation op San Juan—The Bears at Monterey—
Fremont and Sloat—The Commodore’s Disappointment—The Filibuster’s
Dilemma—Comfort from a New Commodore—Stockton Arrives in the ‘Congress’—And
Assumes Command—The Battalion Mustered in—And Sent to the South—Departure op
Sloat.
Commodore Sloat, in
his flag-ship, the Savannah, coming from Mazatlan, arrived at Monterey, where
he found the Cyane, Captain Mervine, and the Levant, Captain Page—the
Portsmouth, Captain Montgomery, being at San Francisco—on the 1st or 2d of July. I find no means of determining accurately which
is the correct date, though perhaps the preference should be given to the
second.1 A midship-
1 Sloat, in his report of July 31st, U. S.
Govt Doc., 31st cong. 1st sess., H. Ex. Doc., i. pt ii., p. 2, says he arrived
on July 2d; and this date has been, taken by most writers from his statement.
The fragment of the log published by Laneey and Dunbar reads: ‘July 1st, stood
into the harbor of Monterey and came to anchor at 4 p. m., in front of the
town.. .The captain of the port, accompanied by Mr Hartwell [Hartnell],
attached to the custom-house called. Cyane and Levant in port.’ The difference
between sea and land time may he made to account for this entry in the log; but
Larkin, in several communications of the period, dates the arrival on the 1st;
while in another he says it was the 2d. Lieut Minor speaks of a ‘ passage of
23 days,’ leaving Mazatlan on June 8th, which would make the arrival not later
than. July 1st. Midshipman Wilson, in his testimony, says it was July 2d.
(224)
man on the frigate states that the commodore sent an officer ashore to
tender the usual civilitics, by offering to salute the Mexican flag, which
honor was declined for want of powder for a return salute.2 I have
two original letters before me, bearing date of July 2d, one of them in Sloat’s
handwriting, asking if there is any objection to his men landing for
twenty-four hours in squads of 100; the other, written by his son and
secretary, proposing to land and take a ride with the consul next morning.3
According to the log, it was also on the 2d that Lavkin made a long call on
the commodore, and on his departure was saluted with nine guns. Next day Sloat
landed to call on the authorities. Of festivities on the 4th, we know only that
the ship was dressed and salutes were fired. Religious service was performed on
Sunday, the 5th, by Lieutenant Trapin; and on the same day the Portsmouth’s
launch arrived from Yerba Buena with despatches from Montgomery. The 6th was
passed by Sloat and Larkin on board the frigate, in preparing proclamations and
correspondence, of which I shall speak presently. Nothing more is known of
actual events at Monterey from the 1st to the 6th of July.
We have seen that Sloat, with a sufficiently definite knowledge of
hostilities on the Rio Grande, had long hesitated to obey his orders from
Washington. After several changes of mind on the subject, he had on June 6th
announced his intention to proceed to California, but not to take possession
until he should hear of a formal declaration of war or of offensive operations
by the gulf squadron. Next day he received additional despatches, supposed to
have included a report that the gulf ports had been blockaded; and on
1 Wilson’s testimony in Fremont’s Cal.
Claims, 40-1. He says the officers wondered that Sloat shonld have made this
offer, knowing of the Mexican hostilities.
3 July 2d,
Com. Sloat and L. W. Sloat to Larkin. Larkin’s Doc., MS., iv. 193-4. The consul
is also thanked for books and quicksilver ore, and is informed that the men, if
they make some noise, will also spend f1,000 or 81,500 in doing it.
Hist.
Cal.,
Vol. V. 15
the 8th he sailed for Monterey. According to his own official report, he
had resolved at the time of sailing to raise the flag in California in
consequence of the latest news.4 His delay of six days after arrival
before acting, however, in itself seems to indicate that his vacillation did
not end with the departure from Mazatlan. Fremont and his friends point to
Sloat’s letter of June 6th as showing his purpose when he left Mazatlan; to his
delay at Monterey and friendly relations with Mexican authorities there; to the
general impression on board the ships that Sloat’s final action was determined
by the receipt on July 5th of Montgomery’s despatches announcing the acts of
the revolutionists. And in addition to this, Fremont and Gillespie testify
positively that Sloat in his first interview with them gave them distinctly to
understand that he had acted upon the faith of their operations in the north,
and was greatly troubled on learning that they had acted without authority.6
Thus was founded a claim that it was Frdmont’s acts that caused Sloat to
take possession of California for the United States. The claim was to a certain
extent well founded. Fremont’s operations did unquestionably have an influence
in removing Sloat’s doubts and strengthening his purpose; though it was by no
means the only influence in that direction; and though, had it been so, the
chief merit claimed for it, that of having saved the country from England, cannot
be accorded to the rebels. I find no reason to doubt that Sloat, as he claimed,
left Mazatlan and arrived at Monterey with a determination—as strong as such a
man in such circumstances could entertain— to obey his orders and seize the
country. His hesitation, very much less inexcusable here than before on the
Mexican coast, began at his first interview with
1 War with Mex., Report Naval Operations,
p. 2. Sloat to sec. navy, July 31st.
“ Testimony of
Fremont, Gillespie, Wilson, and Minor, in Frimont’s Cal. Claims, 13, 32, 41,
44-5; see also Benton’s Speech of April 10, 1848; Cong Globe, 1847-8, p. 604-6;
G. H.. in S. F. Cal. Star and Calif., Dec. 9, 1848.
Larkin, and was largely due to the consul’s influence. He learned, it is
true, that the American settlers were in revolt, and that the Californian
authorities were popularly believed to be in favor of English interference,
both circumstances calculated in themselves to strengthen his purpose; but at
the same time he learned that the cooperation of Frdmont and Gillespie with
the insurgents was not positively known, and that Larkin did not now apprehend
any trouble from the McNamara scheme, or from Pico’s favor to an English
protectorate. He had not expected definite news or orders from the Rio Grande,
or from Washington ; but he had hoped to find something to support his resolve
in the secret instructions of Larkin and Gillespie. He now learned that those
documents contained nothing in addition to his own instructions, and that they
were devoted chiefly to a plan of acquiring the country by voluntary
separation from Mexico, to be followed by annexation—a plan under which Larkin
had been and still was at work with much hope of success. Larkin was not in
sympathy with the Bear Flag movement. He was embarrassed in his efforts by it,
and puzzled by the reported connection of United States officers with it; and
he did not favor, or later wholly approve, the forcible occupation of the
country, where he confidently expected to see the stars and stripes raised
voluntarily by the Californians. That the views of so prominent a citizen, at
the same time U. S. consul and confidential agent of the administration, should
have had great influence with the commodore is not to be wondered at. A much
more resolute man might have wavered under such circumstances. Both, however,
were wrong. Larkin, well founded as were his hopes, had no right to suppose
that his government intended to put off the military occupation in case of war,
or that such occupation could under the circumstances be effected in the
immediate future with the entire approval of the
inhabitants and authorities. And Sloat should have obeyed his
instructions literally and without delay.® Both Sloat and Larkin being much
perplexed as to what should be done—the former inclining to action and the
latter to delay—on the afternoon of Sunday the 5th the Portsmouth's launch,
under Passed Midshipman 1ST. B. Harrison, arrived with despatches from
Montgomery. The boat had been delayed by
“Larkin’s position in
this matter is by no means a theory, though as such it might be consistently
and successfully presented, the consul’s general views being clearly enough
recorded. I bave a statement hy Larkin himself bearing directly on the subject.
He says: ‘It was known to the commodore and the U. S. consul that a severe
battle had taken place at or near Mata- moros,... yet there was no certainty in
California that war was declared. On the first or second day after the
commodore’s arrival in this port, he informed this consulate that he thought it
of the greatest importance that he should land his marine force and take
possession of Monterey. Without official information, either by the commodore
or myself, I hesitated to take possession of California by force of arms, and
preferred that the civil governor and military commandant should place their
country under the protection of our government. This subject had been
canvassed repeatedly by myself and certain persons in command on shore, and
partially agreed upon should emergencies create the necessity. Some of the town
authorities and a few principal citizens of Mexico in Monterey, while the
Savannah lay at anchor, favored the plan and proposed to send expresses to Gen.
Castro and Gov. Pico.. .There was during this period a rising of foreigners,
most of them unknown in the settlements, at the Sacramento River and
jurisdiction of Sonoma. These circumstances urged many Californians in July
1846 to view with high favor the plan of coming under a peaceable protection of
a foreign government. There was a fair prospect of the commandant general and
some or all the authorities of Monterey coming into the arrangement; but it
required at least ten days to come to a conclusion. On the 4th or 5th of the
month a proposition was thought of in Monterey by some of the citizens to seize
on the American consul and carry him off, in order to make further motives to
the ship’s forces to land. Com. Sloat bccame more and more anxious to land and
hoist our flag. Early on Sunday [it should be Monday] morning of the 6th of
July, he sent a boat on shore for the U. S. consul, who was received in the
commodore’s cabin with the exclamation, “We must take the place! I shall be
blamed for doing too little or too much—I prefer the latter. ” ’ Copy in
Sawyer’s Doc., MS., 847, of what seems to be a memorandum left by Larkin among
his papers. It was apparently written considerably later than 1846. He gets
into confusion in the dates, making the 6th and 7th Sunday and Monday, instead
of Monday and Tuesday. He also makes the Portsmouth’s launch arrive in the
afternoon of the same day that he spent with Sloat, who had made up his mind in
the morning; hut that is evidently an error. He adds: ‘Jt is not improbable but
the possession of the country would have been postponed a few days longer had
not Com. Sloat heen apprehensive that Admiral Seymour on H. M. ship of the line
Collingwood would soon be in port and might wish to hoist the English flag
there.’ In a letter of July 4th to the consul in Honolulu, Larkin says: ‘I closed
my Oahu mail last night, supposing thatsome 15 soldiers sent in from Castro
last night might have carried me off. I suppose, however, they did not think of
it; although two days back they Had it in contemplation. In the mean time I am
dreaming of trying to persuade the Californians to call on the commodore for
protection, hoist his flag, and be his countrymen, or the Bear may destroy
them.’ Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS., i. 99.
contrary winds, having perhaps left San Francisco on the morning of July
3d. The despatches to Sloat, if there were any such,7 are not
extant, but I have before me a communication from Montgomery to Larkin, dated
July 2d, with two postscripts, in which were announced Torre’s retreat with
Frdmont’s latest achievements, the spiking of the guns at San Francisco, and
the capture of Ridley.8 This document was probably brought by the
launch, and was perhaps the decisive one. At any rate, there can be little
doubt that the latest news from the northern frontier, and especially the definite
announcement that Fremont was acting with the insurgents,9 was the
last straw which—strengthened the camel’s back to bear the burden of
responsibility. With clear orders from his superiors at Washington, with
positive knowledge of hostilities on the Rio Grande, with the ever present
fear of being anticipated by the English admiral, and with importunities, as
is very likely, on the part of his commanders,10 Commodore Sloat
dared no longer hesitate, especially as he now foresaw the opportunity, in case
the seizure should prove to have been premature, like that of Jones in 1842, of
throwing part of the responsibility upon Fremont.
7 Wilson testified that the arrival was on
the 5th. Larkin says it was Sunday. Lancey, Cruise, 79, says the passage was 56
hours, on authority not stated. In any case, it is not probahle that Montgomery
knew of Sloat’s arrival; yet, as he expected him, he may have addressed
despatches to him, all the same.
8 July 2d, M. to L. Larkin’s Doc., MS.,
iv. 192. He writes: ‘I feel very desirous to learn something more definite
concerning the mysteries referred to in them (your letters). Were I
enlightened respecting the future designs of our govt, or concerning the actual
condition of affairs with Mex., I could probably do much in the present crisis
toward accomplishing objects in view. My neutral position, while all is
stirring and exciting about me, renders us quiet spectators of passing events.
I am looking for the arrival at this port of hoth commodores; as this must be
the point of all important operations. ’
“Larkin, in the
document cited in note 6, says that definite news was now received of what had
before been mere confused rumors; but this is exaggeration, for he already
knew tolerably well what was being done at Sonoma.
10Davis, Glimpses,
MS., 345-6, learned from Capt. Mervine that there was a council of war on
the night of the 6th (5th), at which Sloat showed himself still irresolute
until prevailed upon to decide on action by Mervine, who used very strong
language, telling him 1 it is more than your commis- eion is worth
to hesitate in this matter.’
Accordingly Larkin was summoned on board the flag-ship. The day was spent
in preparing correspondence, orders, and proclamations; and before night of
July 6th, the launch was started back for San Francisco with copies of papers
to be published on the morrow, and a despatch for Montgomery, in which Sloat
writes: “I have determined to hoist the flag of the United States at this place
to-morrow, as I would prefer being sacrificed for doing too much than too
little. If you consider you have sufficient force, or if Fremont will join you,
you will hoist the Hag at Yerba Buena, or at any other proper place, and take
possession of the fort and that portion of the country ”n
Every preparation having been completed the night before, at 7 in the
morning of Tuesday, July 7th, Sloat sent Mervine ashore with two or three
officers, bearing a formal demand for the surrender of the post of Monterey,
with all troops, arms, and other public property. The summons was addressed to
the military commandant, and was delivered to the old artillery captain,
Mariano Silva. His reply, written at 8
A. m., was that as he had no authority to surrender the post, and as there were
no troops, arms, or other public property, the commodore might settle the matter
with General Castro, to whom the summons had been sent. On receipt of this
reply at half-past nine, Sloat issued to the crews of all the ships a general
order forbidding in the usual terms all plunder and other excesses on shore,
and beginning with these words: “We are about to land on the territory of
Mexico,
11 July 6, 1846, S. to M. U. S. Govt Doc.,
29th cong. 2d sess., H. Ex. Doc. no. 4, p. 648-9. A writer
signing himself ‘ Vindex,’and claiming to have been at Monterey in 1846, in a
semi-official position, writes to the Alta of Sept. 11, 1870, to state
positively, but erroneously, that Larkin with other prominent Americans called
repeatedly on Sloat to beseech him to raise the nag. Mrs Ord, Ocurrmciag, MS.,
142, narrates that the people of Monterey had an idea that the place was to be
taken on July 4th; and one man was injured by the crowd rushing out of evening
prayers on a false alarm tbat the Americans were landing.
with whom the United States are at war. To strike her flag, and to hoist
our own in the place of it, is our duty. It is not only our duty to take
California, but to preserve it afterward as a part of the United States at all
hazards. To accomplish this, it is of the first importance to cultivate the
good opinion of the inhabitants, whom we must reconcile.”
At 10 o’clock 250 men, marines and seamen, were landed from the squadron,
under Captain Mervine, with Commander Page as second. This force marched
directly to the custom-house, where Sloat’s proclamation was read, the flag of
the United States was raised—there had been no Mexican flag flying for two
months—three cheers were given by troops and spectators; and at the same time
a salute of 21 guns was fired from each of the three men-of-war. The proclamation
in English and Spanish was posted in public places; two justices of the peace,
Purser Price and Surgeon Gilchrist, were appointed to preserve order in the
place of the alcaldes, who declined to serve; a summons to surrender, with an
invitation to present himself for a personal interview, was sent to Castro at
Santa Clara; duplicate orders were sent to Montgomery at San Francisco; and
letters of information were forwarded by Larkin to Fremont, Ide, and others in
different directions. Thus Monterey became permanently an American town.
Next day more correspondence was sent out, including communications from
Larkin to Castro, Alvarado, and Stearns; police regulations were perfected;
permanent quarters for a large part of the garrison were fitted up at the
custom-house, where Commandant Mervine also had his headquarters, while Page
lived at the old government house; and a band of music paraded the town for the
entertainment of the new and old American citizens. On the 9th arrived
communications from Castro, at San Juan, in one of which he manifested his
purpose to spare no sacrifice for the defence of his country, though he pro
posed to consult the governor and assembly respecting the means and
methods of defence; and in the other he complained bitterly of Frdmont and his
‘ gang of adventurers,’ demanding an explanation of the relations between the
insurgents and the forces commanded by Sloat. This may have indicated a disposition
to treat if Sloat would disown in the name of his government all Fremont’s
acts; but it was more likely intended as an excuse, and it was really a sufficient
one, for not considering himself bound by past pledges to Larkin. The commodore
also wrote to Pico: “ I beg your Excellency to feel assured that although I
come in arms with a powerful force, I come as the best friend of California;
and I invite your Excellency to meet me at Monterey, that I may satisfy you
and the people of that fact.”
On the 10th, Narvaez, Silva, and several other officers left Castro and
returned to their families; and it was reported that many of the general’s men
had deserted him, while others were about to do so. By the 12th there were 300
men on shore; two 18-pound carronades were mounted as field-pieces; a stockade
and blockhouse were in process of erection; and a cavalry force of from 35 to
50 men had been partially organized. Orders for this company of patrolmen had
been issued as early as the 8th, Purser Daingerfield Fauntleroy and Passed
Midshipman Louis McLane being put in command as captain and lieutenant respectively.
It was on the 14th that Sloat announced the receipt of intelligence that the
flag was flying at Yerba Buena, Sutter’s Fort, Sauzalito, and Bodega; Commodore
Stockton arrived with the Congress on the 15th; next day came Admiral Seymour
in the Collingwood; on the 17th, Fauntleroy with his company was despatched to
San Juan; and finally, on the 19th, Fremont and his battalion appeared at
Monterey.
Thus without opposition, without much excitement,12 without
noteworthy incidents, Monterey had
12 The French consul, Gasquet, seems to have
objected to the posting of
fallen a second time into the hands of the United States, and was
garrisoned by a naval force. I append some bibliographical matter bearing on
the topic, including an abstract of the documentary record.13
a. sentinel near his
house. Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS., i. 138; and on this circumstance, as I
suppose, Vallejo and Alvarado build up a serious quarrel, in consequence of
which Gasqnet was arrested and exiled to S. Juan.
13 Sloat’s official report of July 31st, to
the sec. of the navy, War with Mexico, Septs Operations of the Navy, 2-4, is
a condensed narrative of the ■events noted in my
text, to which little or nothing has been added by later writers. The same
report, slightly disguised as a ‘letter from an officer,’ appears in Niles'
Beg., lxxi. 133. The report of the sec. of the navy on Dec. 5th, U. iS'. Govt
Doc., 29th cong. 2d sess., H. Ex. Doc. 4, p. 378-9, contains a still briefer
account. Each successive point is still more clearly brought out by the
documents of the period cited below. Swan, in Monterey Republican, Jan. 6,
1870; iS. Josi Pioneer, May 4, 1878, tells a story of a frightened sentry at
the custom-house, who one afternoon gave an alarm of an enemy coming on seeing
the approach of a party of marines who had landed at a point ont of sight.
There is a notable absence of incidents, real and fictitious, in narratives
relating to this period. Ezquer, Memorias, MS., 26, was one of the displaced
justices. He says he was put under arrest, and that the doors of his office
were broken down. Most Californians and others who were at Monterey at the time
confine their statements to a brief mention of the occupation. It is not
necessary to name them. Cutts’ Conq. of Cal., 111., etc., having been published
in 1847, deserves mention, though it contains nothing except what was obtained
from Sloat’s report and the accompanying documents. For an account of the
affair as reported in Mexico in August, including a translation of Sloat’s
procl., with amusingly bitter comments by the editor, see Bustamante, Mem.
Hist. Mex., v. 84-90; Id., Nuevo Bernal Diaz, ii. -58, 76-81. Other Mexican
versions, showing no notable peculiarity, in Rivera, Hist. Jalapa, iii. 779; Guerra, Apuntes, 354-5; Dicc. Univ., viii. 157; Reft-
taurador, Aug. 18, 1846.
The official
documents are found, as Sloat’s Despatches, in U. S. Govt Doc., 29th
cong. 2d sess., H. Ex. Doc. 4, p. 640, etc.; and 31st cong. 1st sess., H. Ex.
Doc. 1, pt ii. p. 1, etc. Most of them are copied in Lancey’s Cruise, 79,
etc.; and many have been often reprinted elsewhere. I do not deem it necessary
to make any further reference to the page where each of these well known
routine documents is to be found; nor to give more than a mere mention of
their purport. Somewhat more attention is given to documents not before
published, chiefly found among Larkin’s papers.
1. July 7, 1846, Sloat to com. at Monterey,
demanding surrender. 2. ■Silva to Sloat in
reply, referring him to Gen. Castro. Spanish and translation. A correct copy
of the original, the printed one being inaccurate, in Larkin’s Doc., MS., iv.
199. 3. Sloat’s general order to his men before landing, forbidding plunder
and disorder. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 70-1. 4. Sloat’s proclamation to
the inhabitants of Cal. (see my text a little later). Autograph original in the
hall of the Cal. Pioneers. Original copies as circulated in English and
Spanish, in Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxxiv. 217; Bandini, Doc., MS., 90; Savage,
Doc., MS., iii. 15, etc.; with printed copies in many works. 5. Sloat to
Castro, in same terms as to Silva, demanding surrender; and adding: ‘I hereby
invite yon to meet me immediately in Monterey to enter into articles of
capitulation, that yourself, officers, and soldiers, with the inhabitants of
Cal., may receive assurances of perfect safety to themselves and property.’ 6.
Com. Mervine to citizens, ordering that all stores and shops be closed for two
days, and strictly forbidding retail of liquors. Mont. Arch., MS., viii.
58-9. 7. Sloat to Montgomery: ‘Your launch left yesterday. I enclose two
documents. I hoisted the American flag here to-day at 9 A. m. (?)
You will immediately
take possession of Y. B., and hoist the flag within reach of your guns; post up
the proclamation in both languages; notify Capt. F. and others; put the guns
and fort in order. I wish very much to see and hear from Capt. F., that we may
understand cach other and cooperate together.’ 8. Larkin to Fremont. Desires
him to send message overland on a subject of which he will soon be iuformed.
‘The commodore wishes you at once to cooperate with him under the new state of
affairs, and inform him immediately, calling on Capt. Montgomery for a launch
if you need it, to hring him information of your willingness to do so. By land
immediately you can send me a courier with a letter in your handwriting,
without signature, merely saying you will fall into the plan offered. Show
this to Mr Gillespie.’ Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS., i. 105. 9. Larkin to
Montgomery, enclosing an open letter for Fremont, to be read, shown to
Gillespie—who is desired to come down in the launch—and forwarded. Letters in
writer’s hand to be deemed authentic if not signed. Id., i. 102. 10. Larkin to
Ide. Com. Sloat ‘has this hour (10 A. M.) raised the flag of the U. S.’ ‘I
presume you will be inclined to desist from any contemplated movements against
the natives, and remain passive for the present.’ ‘I would recommend you to
communicate immediately with the commodore.’ Id., i. 100. 11. Larkin to Weber
and Stokes at S. Jos<5, enclosing letter for Ide. To be carried or sent at
once. Dr Marsh also to be notified. ‘The news will come unexpected to you; but
I hope you will be ready to cooperate in calming the minds of those aroundyou.’
Id., i. 101. 12. Passport or certificate of Manuel Diaz, that the bearer has a
communication for Ide recommending him to suspend hostilities. Id., Doc., MS.,
iv. 200. 13. Sloat to Larkin. Suggests the posting of reliable persons on each
road a few miles from town. Id., iv. 201.
14. July 8th, Larkin
to Stearns; with an account of what has occurred, also latest news from the
north. Id., iv. 202. 15. Larkin to Sloat, recommending the appointment of a
school-master at $1,000 salary. He will contribute one tenth. Thinks it will
induce the natives to accept office under the U. S. Called on Castro’s wife,
and found her very uneasy. Will soon know all Castro’s plans. The gen. will
probably be at S. Juan to-night. Will come on board to-morrow with David Spence
and Dr McKee. Manuel Diaz invited, but prefers to wait a few days. Id., Off.
Corresp., MS., i. 100-1. 16. Larkin to Castro. The commodore is anxious for an
interview. Assures him of good treatment. Id., i. 108-9. 17. Larkiu to
Alvarado. Is still friendly to him and Don Jos6. Hopes the latter will enter
into a convention with Sloat, as he may honorably do. Id., i. 100. 18. Larkin’s
circular to Americans, with a full account of the Bear Flag revolt, including
the latest news.
_ 19. July 9th, Sloat
to Fr&nont, telling him what had been done, and urging him to make haste
with at least 100 men. Irimont’s Cal. Claims, 73-4. Castro to Sloat (in reply
to no. 5). Spanish and translation. 20. Same to same, asking an explanation
about Fremont’s operations. (One of these two dop. appears in one of the
official editions, and the other in the other, each as appendix F.) 21. Sloat
to, Pico, enclosing copies of summons to Castro; asking an interview and
assuring him of good treatment, also dated 12th. 22. Castro to Larkin. His
letter to Sloat contains his ‘ultimate determination.’ Sawyer’s Doc., MS.,
77-8. 23. Alvarado to Larkin. Thanks for kind attentions. Cannot disregard his
obligations to his general. Refers to the efforts of the ‘immortal Washington.’
Id., 78-9.
24. July 10th, Larkin to Sloat, informing him of
the return of Silva and Narvaez, and reported desertion of Castro’s men; and
suggesting a proclamation of encouragement for such men. Larkin’s Off.
Corresp., MS., i. 105.
25. July 12th, Sloat to Montgomery, with an
account of the situation of
United States of America by invading its territory and attacking the
troops... on the north side of the Rio Grande, and with a force of 7,000 men
under. . . Gen. Arista, which army was totally destroyed... on the 8th and 9th
of May last by a force of 2,300 men under. . . Gen. Taylor, and the city of
Matamoras taken. . .and the two nations being actually at war by this
transaction, I shall hoist the standard of the United States at Monterey
immediately, and shall carry it throughout California. I declare to the inhabitants
of California that, although I come in arms with a powerful force, I do not
come among them as an enemy to California; on the contrary, I come as their
best friend, as henceforward California will be a portion of the United
States, and its peaceful inhabitants will enjoy the same rights and privileges
as the citi-
affairs; also another
despatch approving his course at San Francisco. 26. Larkin to Fremont. Urges
him to come on to Monterey. The commodore is anxious for his cooperation.
Wishes to organize a body of paid men. Fremont may promise $15 or $20 per
month, and to a great extent choice of their own officers. Larkin’s Off.
Corresp., MS. 27. Wm Matthews, carrying despatches to San Francisco, was
stopped at Tucho rancho hy ‘Chanate’Castro and Jos6 Higuera. He was tied to
another prisoner and carried off on horseback; but escaped while the captors
were drinking. Mont. Arch., MS., viii. 45-9.
28. Muster-roll of Fauntleroy’s dragoons from
July 12th to Sept. 17th.
49 names. Cal. Pion. Soc., Arch., MS., 239-40.
float's communication of Jnly 8th to Fauntleroy, authorizing him to orgauize
the company, 35 strong, from the squadron and volunteers, to protect peaceahle
inhabitants and keep a watch over the enemy. Id., 231. Also Sloat’s
proclamation to ‘good citizens of Cal. and others,’ inviting them to enroll
themselves in the company for 3 months at $15 per month. Doc. not dated, but a
Spanish translation is datecl July 13th.
29. July 13th, five custom-house officers meet
and resolve that they are bound to support the Mexican cause, exhorting all
subordinates to join Castro’s force. Hartnell declined to do so, though he
signed and approved the resolution, because of his large family. Guerra was the
leading spirit. Urib. Doc., MS., 211-13. Pablo de la Guerra, Guerra, Doc., MS.,
iv. 1300-1, claims that he refused to give up the custom-house flags and boats,
commanded his employes to join Castro, and himself left town in all haste to
avoid giving his parole.
30. July 14th, Sloat’s general order announcing
the raising of the flag in the north, and congratulating all who had
participated in the change. Sawyer’s Doc., MS., 83. 31. Thomas Cole paid $165
for carrying despatches to S. Jos6 and Yerba Buena. Horses and pistols taken
from him by Castro’s men also paid for. Monterey, Consulate Arch., MS., ii.
16-17.
32. Jnly 16th, Larkin to Montgomery. Reports
arrival of the Congress, and says all is quiet. About 100 people have asked for
passports to pass in and out of town, though they are not required. Larkin’s
Off. Corresp., MS., i. 107.
zens of any other portion of that territory, with all the rights and
privileges they now enjoy, together with the privilege of choosing their own
magistrates and other officers for the administration of justice among
themselves; and the same protection will be extended to them as to any other
state in the Union. They will also enjoy a permanent government, under which
life, property, and the constitutional right and lawful security to worship the
creator in the way most congenial to each one’s sense of duty, will be secured,
which unfortunately the central government of Mexico cannot afford them,
destroyed as her resources are by internal factions and corrupt officers, who
create constant revolutions to promote their own interests and oppress the
people. Under the flag of the United States California will be free from all
such troubles and expense; consequently the country Avill rapidly advance and
improve, ’both in agriculture and commerce, as, of course, the revenue laws
will be the same in California as in all other parts of the United States,
affording them all manufactures and produce of the United States free of any
duty, and all foreign goods at one quarter of the duty they now pay. A great
increase in the value of real estate and the products of California may also be
anticipated. With the great interest and kind feelings I know the government
and people of the United States possess toward the citizens of California, the
country cannot but improve more rapidly than any other on the continent of
America. Such of the inhabitants of California, whether native or foreigners,
as may not be disposed to accept the high privileges of citizenship and to live
peaceably under the government of the United States, will be allowed time to
dispose of their property and to remove out of the country, if they choose,
without any restriction; or remain in it, observing strict neutrality. With
full confidence in the honor and integrity of the inhabitants of the country,
I invite the judges, alcaldes,
and other civil officers to retain their offices, and to execute their
functions as heretofore, that the public tranquillity may not be disturbed; at
least, until the government of the territory can be more definitely arranged.
All persons holding titles to real estate, or in quiet possession of lands
under a color of right,, shall have those titles and rights guaranteed to them.
All churches and the property they contain, in possession of the clergy of
California, shall continue in the same rights and possessions they now enjoy.
All provisions and supplies of every kind furnished by the inhabitants for the
use of the United States ships and soldiers will be paid for at fair rates; and
no private property will be taken for public use without just compensation at
the moment. Johu D. Sloat, commander-in-chief of the United States naval force
in the Pacific Ocean.”
This proclamation was by no means a model in respect of literary style,
though superior to many of the commodore’s productions. The preliminary
statement that American soil had been invaded by Mexico might be criticised,
even from a standpoint not purely Mexican; though Sloat was not responsible for
it, and such criticism does not belong here. The position assumed that
California was to be permanently a territory of the United States was
certainly a novel and very peculiar one, considering the fact that the United
States ostensibly fought to resist invasion in Texas; but it was more or less
in accord with the spirit of the instructions that Sloat had received, and entirely
so with those then on their way to him. In other respects, however, the
document was most wisely framed to accomplish its purpose. Moderate and
friendly in tone, it touched skilfully upon the people’s past
grievances—neglect by Mexico, high prices of imported goods, official
corruption, and insecurity of life and property; and contained no allusions
likely to arouse patriotic, religious, or race prejudices. No proclamation
involving a change of nationality could
have been more favorably received by Californians of all classes. Many,
not before friends to annexation, welcomed the change as a relief from
prospective Bear Flag rule; though nearly all would have been better pleased
had the lack of all connection between the revolt and the hoisting of the stars
and stripes been somewhat more apparent.
The capture of San Francisco by the United States naval forces was an
event quite as devoid of incident or romance as the occupation of Monterey just
related.11 The Portsmouth's launch, leaving Monterey on July 6th
with despatches from Sloat to Montgomery, had a stormy passage of five days;
but other despatches, already noticed as sent on the 7th, reached their
destination sooner. One copy sent by Henry Pitts by way of San Jos£ was
delivered at 7 p. m. of the 8th;15 while the
duplicate, which Job Dye took by a coast route, arrived at 1 p. M. of the next
day. Before dawn on Thursday the 9th, Montgomery despatched Lieutenant Revere
in the ship’s boat with a flag to be raised at Sonoma; and at 8 a. m., having
landed with 70 men at Yerba Buena, he hoisted the stars and strips “in front of
the custom-house, in the public square, with a salute of 21 guns from the ship,
followed by three hearty cheers on shore and on board, in which the people,
principally foreign residents, seemed cordially to join. I then addressed a
few words to the assembled people,” writes the cap-
14 Perhaps I should here credit one man with
a laudable ambition to make
the
preliminaries at least interesting. A soldier’s yam—whether invented by the
soldier or by the writer who claimed to take it from his lips I know
not—published in the N. T. Commercial Advertiser, June 14, 1867, and reprinted
in half a dozen California papers, informs us that the hero was at Te- pic when
news came that papers had been signed giving Cal. to the U. S., but that
England was also after it. He was therefore sent off on horseback with
despatches for Capt. Montgomery at S. F., whom he reached, after a, series of
thrilling adventures, just in time to have the flag raised and the country
saved!
16 Lancey,
Cruise, 82, says that Pitts was stopped on the way by the Californians; but
this occurred I think on his return. Lanoey’s statement is founded on that of
Milton Little. Monterey Herald, July 13, 1874; Sta Cruz Sentinel, July 25,
1874.
tain to his superior officer,18 “after which your excellent
proclamation was read in both languages and posted upon the flag-staff.”17
Not only was there no opposition, but there was not in town a single Mexican
official from whom to demand a surrender. Sub-prefect Guerrero and Comandante
Sanchez had absented themselves; Port-captain Ridley was a prisoner at Sutter’s
Fort; and Receptor Pinto had more than a week before gone to join Castro, first
disposing of the custom-house flag, which in 1870 he presented to the
California Pioneers, and the archives of his office, which now, thanks to Don
Rafael, form an interesting part of my own collection.18
After the ceremony a part of the force landed, including all the
marines; and the rest, taking up their quarters at the custom-house, remained
as a permanent garrison, under the command of Lieutenant H.
B. Watson. In a meeting held at
Vice-consul Liedes- dorff’s house, steps were taken, in accordance with a
proclamation of Montgomery, to organize a company of ‘volunteer guards,’ to
protect the town and perform duties similar to those assumed by Fauntleroy at
Monterey. Purser Watmough was sent with a
16
Montgomery’s report to Sloat of occupation of S. F., July 9, 1846. U. S. Govt
Doc., 29th cong. 2d seas., H. Ex. Doc. 4, p. 649-50. The story also told
briefly in Sloat’s report. Id., 641. Bryant, Tuthill, and others have given the
date of the occupation incorrectly as July 8th. •
11 The old custom-house, or receptoria,
stood on what is now Brenham place, on the west side of the plazti, or
Portsmouth Square, near Washington street.
18 Pinto
informs me—and the same version appears in the Sta Cruz Sentinel, Aug. 13,
1870', the presentation of the flag heing recorded in the S. F. Bulletin, July
6, 1870; Suisun Republican, Aug. 4, 1870, and other papers— that on his
departure he committed the trunk containing the flag and documents to the care
of Leidesdorff as private property. Rather strangely, Montgomery and
Leidesdorff failed to examine the contents, which were subsequently restored
to the owner. The papers were presented to me in 1878 by Don Rafael, whose
Apuntaciones I have often cited as a valuable contribution to Californian
history, and now—650 in number, very important as records of the country’s
commerce, and including many of great interest on other matters—they are
preserved in my Library in two large folio volumes, with the following title:
Documentos para la Historia de California. Ooleccion del Sr Don Rafael Pinto, Oficicd que fui del ejtrcito Mejicano en
California, y Receptor de la Aduana de San Francisco en los illiimos Mieses de
la dominaeion Mejicana. Regalada por el conducto de Tomds Savage a la ‘Bancroft
Library, ’ 1S7S.
letter to intercept Fremont, erroneously supposed to be at Santa Clara in
pursuit of Castro. Lieutenant Misroon with a small party made a tour to the presidio
and fort, finding the cannon at the latter place just as Frdmont had left them
on July 1st, spiked,, and requiring much labor to render them of any service.
No other public property was found; and no human beings were seen except a few
Indians. The U. S. flag was displayed over the fort. Two days later Misroon
visited the mission and secured a collection of public documents. The
residents had at first fled on hearing of what had happened at Yerba Buena; but
now they were returning to their homes and becoming reconciled to the change.
It was also on the 11th that Revere returned from Sonoma, bringing news that
all was well in the north. Co- mandante Sanchez came in on Montgomery’s invitation,
and pointed out the spots where two guns were buried, the sub-prefect coming in
later and giving up the papers of his office; and the Juno anchored in the bay,
causing some warlike preparations on the Portsmouth, but showing no disposition
to interfere in any way. During this period, and until the end of the month,
there were no incidents worthy of notice.19 There were no arrests,
except of half a dozen of Montgomery’s own men for disorderly conduct. Some
cannon were transferred from Sonoma and mounted on the side of what is now
Telegraph Hill, to protect the town. Correspondence of the time made known at Yerba
Buena much of what was occurring at Monterey and at other places. It was
understood that couriers were sometimes stopped by
“Wm H. Davis,
Glimpses of the Past, MS., 267-8, 346-7, arrived at Yerba Buena during this
period, and chats pleasantly, as is his wont, of what occurred. He and W. D. M.
Howard were arrested late one night while crossing the plaza, having forgotten
the countersign, and were taken to the guard-house; but Lieut Watson
administered no more severe penalty than to force them to drink a bottle of
champagne with him before going home. Davis says the guns were got out and all
made ready for a fight on board the Portsmouth several times on the arrival of
a vessel, once while he was taking breakfast with Montgomery, there being great
fear of trouble with England. Phelps, Fore and Aft, 293-4, also has something
to say of the events of these days.
Californians on the way to San Josd; but otherwise no rumor came to
indicate that all north of Monterey was not as completely and quietly American
as was the little village on San Francisco Bay. Not much is known of the events
narrated, beyond what is contained in the documentary record which I append.20
20 The documents relating to the occupation
of San Francisco are found annexed to Sloat’s report in 29th Cong. 2d Sess.,
H. Ex. Doc. P* 648-68, and in 31st Cong. 1st Sess., II. Ex. Doc. no. 1, pt
ii. p. 10-30. They are as follows: 1. July 6th, Sloat to Montgomery, sent by
the lannch, and already noted. 2. July 7th, same to same, ‘telegraphic,’
already noted. 3. July 9th, Montgomery to Sloat, in reply to no. 2, narrating
events of the occupation as in my text, and enclosing documents of the day.
Advises the bringing of two 18-pounders from Sonoma. Has supplied Fremont with
stores to the amount of $2,199. 4. Montgomery to his ‘ fellow-citizens,* an
address after raising the flag. Thinks the new standard will ‘ this day be
substituted for the revolutionary flag recently hoisted at Sonoma.5
Commends Sloat’s proclamation. Invites citizens willing to join a local militia
to call at Leidesdorff’s house immediately. 5. Montgomery’s proclamation,
calling upon all to enroll themselves into a military company, ehoosing their
own officers. In case of an attack, all necessary force will be landed from the
Porismonth. Announces Watson’s appointment as military commandant pro tem. 6.
Montgomery to Fremont, announcing what has been done, and requesting his presence
at Monterey. 7. Montgomery to Purser James H. Watmough. He is to intercept
Fr6mont at Sta Clara or S. Jos£, and deliver no. 6 to him. 8. Montgomery to H.
B. Watson, making him commander of marines and local militia. Encloses list of
militia force. Arranges signals for aid in case of attack. 9. Lieut J. S.
Misroon to Montgomery. Report of a visit to the presidio and fort with
Watmough, Leidesdorff, and several volunteers. At the fort he found 3 brass
cannon and 7 of iron. Recommends some repairs at the fort. No cannon at the
presidio. 10. July 11th, Misroon to Montgomery. Report of a visit to the
Mission with Leidesdorff and a party of marines.
11. Lieut Revere, having returned, reports the
success of his mission to Sonoma. 12. Lieut Watson’s report of the day. All
quiet. Patrol vigilant and obedient. 13. Lieut Misroon for Montgomery (who is
confined to his bed) to Sloat. Sends additional documents and details. Reports
raising of the flag in the north. Arrival of the Juno. Hopes to recover two
cannon buried at the presidio and mission. Comandante Sanchez had come in on invitation;
had no public property to deliver, hut knew where some guns were buried. A
stand of colors and a boat taken from the custom-house. This was sent to
Monterey by Pitts. Received next day. 14. July 13th, Montgomery to Fallon,
about affairs at S. Jos6. 15. July 15th, Montgomery to Sloat. Has received
Sloat’s of 12th, sent from S. Jos£by Stokes. Is ‘wholly at a loss as to the
whereabouts of Capt. Fremont,’ but thinks he may be at Monterey. Notes arrival
of the Vandalia from S. Diego. Suggests transfer of arms from Sonoma.
Sends correspondence with Fallon. 16. July 17th, Montgomery to Sloat, in answer
to telegraphic despatch of 12th, which was delayed 36 hours at S. Jos£. Is
fortifying the anchorage. The entrance to the bay can be so fortified as to
repel the whole navy of Great Britain. 17. Same to same, on the prisoners at
Sutter’s Fort. 18. July 18th, Montgomery to Grigsby, on Sonoma affairs. 19.
July 20th, Montgomery to Sloat, forwarding correspondence with Grigsby.
Suggests a guard on the road to S. Jos6 infested by mischievous men. Has G men
under arrest for disorderly conduct. Good progress on the new fort. The late
sub-prefect Francisco Guerrero came in from his rancho on summons, and gave up
the papers of his Hist. Cal., Vol. V. 16
At Sonoma, where nothing that we know of had occurred since Frdmont’s
departure three days before, Revere arrived before noon of July 9th, having
left San Francisco in the Portsmouth’s boat at two o’clock in the morning. Of
what followed there is no other record than that of Revere himself, as follows:
“Having caused the troops of the garrison and the inhabitants of the place to
be summoned to the public square, I then read the proclamation of Commodore
Sloat to them, and then hoisted the United States flag upon the staff in front
of the barracks, under a salute from the artillery of the garrison. I also
caused the proclamation to be translated into Spanish and posted up in the
plaza. A notice to the people of California was also sent the next day, to be
forwarded to the country around, requesting the people to assemble at Sonoma on
Saturday next, the 11th, to hear the news confirmed of the country having been
taken possession of by the United States. An express, with a copy of the
proclamation and a United States flag, was also sent to the commander of the
garrison at Sutter’s Fort on the Sacramento, with a request to do the same
there that had been done at Sonoma. The same was also done to the principal
American citizen—Mr Stephen Smith—at Bodega, with a demand for two pieces of
field artillery... I am happy to report that great satisfaction appeared to
prevail in the community of Sonoma, of all classes, and among both foreigners
and natives, at the country having been taken possession of by the United
States and their flag hoisted; more particularly after the general feeling of
insecurity of life and property caused by the recent events of the revolution
in this part of California.”21 It will be remembered that Grigsby
and about fifty men had been left as a garrison, the main force of the indepartment.
He was allowed to depart on parole. Juno sailed. No visits during her stay
except by boarding officers.
21 July 11,1846, Revere to Montgomery. 29th
Cong. 2d Sess., H. Ex. Doc.
4, p. 657. In his Tour of Duty, Revere says
nothing of this visit, though he speaks of his return to Sonoma as commandant a
little later.
surgents having gone to the Sacramento. This fact, perhaps, accounts in
part for the commonplace, mat- ter-ot'-course way in which the Bear flag gave
place to the stars and stripes. But while under the former regime, with Ide in
command, such an event might have been attended with more diplomacy, speech-
making, and general excitement, there is no reason to believe that there would
have been the slightest opposition by the revolutionists. Doubtless some of
the leading spirits would have preferred that the change should come a little
later, accompanied by negotiations which might give themselves personally more
prominence; and many adventurers saw with regret their chances for plunder in
the near future cut off; but there were very slight, if any, manifestations of
displeasure, and no thoughts of resistance. The natives were naturally
delighted at the change; and as is usual in such cases, they were disposed to
exaggerate the chagrin experienced by the hated Osos.22
About the raising of the flag on the Sacramento, we know still less than
of the like event at Sonoma, having no official contemporary record whatever.
The courier despatched by Revere from Sonoma on the 9tli
22 Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., v. 158-61,
tells us that the Bears murmured,
and even threatened
to raise the old flag as soon as Fremont should return. He quotes a letter from
his wife, in which she says: * For two nights the servants have not slept in
my room; the danger is past, for a captain from Sau- zalito, sent by Capt.
Montgomery, who in a letter recommended him highly tome, put the American flag
on the staff where before was the Bear; and since then there are no robberies
that I know of, although sister Rosa (Mrs Leese) says it is all just the same.
In those days were great fiestas, all of us shouting with pleasure and waving
our handkerchiefs; but the Osos were very sad. I heard the wife of Capt. Sears
say that her husband said, “ The American flag had come too soon, and all his
work was lost.” I and sister Rosa are not afraid any more for your life and
that of Salvador and Don Luis’ (Leese). Ou July 16th Capt. Grigsby wrote to
Capt. Montgomery: ‘The Spaniards appear well satisfied with the change. The
most of them, 38, have come forward and signed articles of peace. Should they
take up arms, etc., they forfeit their lives and property. All things are going
on very well here at present. We have about 50 men capable of bearing arms.
There are some foreigners on this side that have never taken any part with us.
I wish to know the proper plan to pursue with them, whether their property
shall be used for the garrison or not. There are some poor men here that are
getting very short of clothing. I wish to know in what way it might be procured
tor them.’ 31st Cong. 1st Sess., H. Ex. Doc. i, pt ii. p. 28.
was William Scott.23 He carried a Hag and a copy of Sloat’s
proclamation, with orders, or a request, to the commandant at Sutter’s Fort to
hoist the former and publish the latter. The courier arrived just be^ fore
night on the 10th; and Lieutenant Kern sent him on to the American River to the
camp of Fremont, whom Montgomery and Revere had supposed to be far away in the
south. Fremont writes: “We were electrified by the arrival of an express from
Captain Montgomery, with information that Commodore Sloat had hoisted the flag
of the United States. . . .Independence and the flag of the United States are
synonymous terms to the foreigners here, the northern which is the stronger
part particularly, and accordingly I directed the flag to be hoisted with a
salute the next morning. The event produced great rejoicing among our people;”24
and, as he might have added, among the imprisoned Californians in the fort, who
were foolish enough to believe that the change of flag would effect their
immediate deliverance, as it certainly should have done. It does not clearly appear
whether Fremont went down in person to raise the flag at the fort on the
morning of July 11th, or simply directed Kern to attend to that duty. Sutter,
who never admits that he was not in command all this time, says of the flag:
“Lieutenant Revere sent me one. It was brought by a courier, who arrived in the
night. At sunrise next morning, I hoisted it over my fort and began firing
guns. The firing continued until nearly all the glass in the fort was broken.”25
23 Monterey Californian, March 20, 1847;
Lancey’s Cruise, 102; and many newspaper accounts.
24 Fremont’s letter of July 25th, in Niles'
Reg., lxxi. 191. Gillespie, Fri- mont’s Cal. Claims, 29, says, ‘About sunset an
express arrived from helow,’ impliedly at the fort, ‘hearing an American flag
to be hoisted at the fort, and a proclamation from Sloat, announcing the
commencement of hostilities with Mexico and the taking of Monterey. The hear
flag had been hauled down at Sonoma, and the American flag run up in its place
immediately upon the arrival of the news. The flag brought by the express was
hoisted at Sutter’s fort at sunrise upon the 11th July under a salute of 21
guns; and the settlers throughout the country received the news with rejoicings
of great joy and gladness. ’
25Sutter's
Pers. Semin., MS., 151. The N. Helvetia Diary, MS., notes
In the Santa, Clara Valley, Weber and Fallon had made an effort to raise
a force among the settlers, with the view of cooperating with the Bear Flag
insurgents. This region being Castro’s headquarters, it was necessary to act
cautiously; but while an open movement against the Californians was
impracticable, some kind of an organization was effected, and a considerable
force was in readiness to join Ide and Fremont whenever they should advance
from the north. Fallon, with nineteen men from the region of Santa Cruz, was
encamped in the hills, awaiting the time for action. Weber’s efforts were
revealed to the Californians, and with two companions he was arrested and
taken to San Juan26 at or about the same time that Castro
transferred his force to that place. On July 7th Pitts arrived from Monterey en
route for San Francisco, with communications for Weber and Stokes, and others
for Ide and Frdmont.27 He may also have been the bearer of Sloat’s
despatch to Castro.28 Next day the general withdrew his troops and
started for San Juan. There are indications that Stokes and his friends soon
hoisted an American flag; but if so, it was lowered and carried away by some
foe to the cause.29 On the 11th, however, Fallon and his party
entered the town from their mountain camp, and the leader notified Montgomery
that they were at his command,
the arrival of
Fremont on the 10th at the fort and the American River; and also the departure
of some men for the campon the 11th; but says nothing of the flag, and then
closes abruptly for several months.
26 See chap. v., this vol.
27 July 7th, Larkin to Weber and Stokes,
enclosing one for Ide. Larkin's Off. Corresp., MS., i. 101. A communication for
Fremont was also doubtless sent by this route as well as through Montgomery.
Marsli was to be notified. Larkin suggested that Stokes or Weber should go to
Souoma if possible, otherwise that Cook or Bellamy should be sent. Lancey says
that Pitts arrived on the 8th, and this may be correct; but as he left Monterey
early on the 7th and reached S. F. at 7 P. M. on the 8th, it seems most likely,
in the absence of positive proof to the contrary, that he passed the night at
S. Jos6.
28 John Daubenbiss, who carried the despatch
for Fremont, says, S. Josi Pioneer, Aug. 23, 1879, that Castro was parading his
troops in town when he started. Lancey, Cruise, 73, says, however, that Daubenbiss
carried the news that Castro had gone to S. Jnan with Weber as prisoner.
29Fallon, in
his letter to Montgomery, mentioned later, says: ‘ The flag that was put up
here was cut down before we came here, but I hope it shall never happen again.’
and ready to raise the flag. Montgomery replied on the 13th with thanks,
and instructions to hoist the flag’ if the force should be deemed sufficient to
defend it.33 But though the force increased rapidly to the number of
about forty, 110 flag could be found at the pueblo. Hearing of this want, Sloat
forwarded the required bunting on the 13th, and on the 16th it was raised over
the juzgado by Fallon and his patriotic followers.31 On the same
day, Alcalde Pacheco having declined to serve under the new regime, James
Stokes- was appointed by Sloat to hold the office temporarily.32 In
a few days Fallon and his men went down to San Juan to join Frdmont.
We left Fremont and his Bear Flag battalion encamped 011 the American
River near Sutter’s Fort. At San Francisco and Sonoma it was believed that
Fremont was in hot pursuit of Castro, and in that belief despatches were sent
to intercept him at Santa Clara, the general’s headquarters. But as a matter of
fact, before the insurgents had completed their preparations for the pursuit,
if indeed the captain really intended to undertake it, news came that Castro
had retreated southward, in consequence of Sloat’s- occupation of Monterey.
This news, together with Sloat’s proclamation and his request that Fremont
should join him without delay, seems to have been brought up the valley by
Robert Livermore, and arrived on the 11th, the same day that the flag was
30 July 12th, Fallon to Montgomery, and the
latter’s reply of the 13th. U.
S. Govt Doc.y 29th cong. 2d sess,, H.
Ex. Doc. 43 p. 660-1. Fallon says Castro started south ‘last
Wednesday3 (8th); and he asks for some arms as a loan, which the
captain is willing to furnish but has no way to send them. Lan- cey, Cruise,
89, cites two other unimportant letters from Montgomery to Fallon, dated July
15th, 16th, though the former date must be an error. Winston Bennett, 8. Jos6 Pioneer,
May 26, June 2, 1877, claims to have been the one to notify Fallon of Pitts’
arrival. He is inaccurate in some of Ins details.
31 Sloat’s report of July 31st, and his
letter to Montgomery of July 12th. See also Hall's Hist. S. Jost, 146-7, 150-3;
S. Jost Pioneer, Sept. 15, 1877; Sta Clara Co. Hist. Atlas, 10; S. Jos6
Patriot» July 23, 1875.
32 July 16th, Sloat to people of S. Jos6. S.
Jos6, Arch.t Loose Pap., MS.*
33. They are urged to choose their own local
authorities.
raised over Sutter’s Fort.33 It was probably the next day that
Fremont’s battalion started down the valley, about 160 strong, with one or two
field-pieces.34 On the Mokelunme River, as we are informed by
Bidwell, the Sonoma agreement, or enlistment paper, was brought out to receive
the signatures of all who had not yet signed; and the document is not known to
have been seen since.3' Continuing his march rather slowly down the
Sacramento and up the San Joaquin, Fremont crossed the latter river near what
is now called Hill’s Ferry, and crossing the hills, probably by the Pacheco
Pass, arrived on July 17th at San Juan, which place Castro had abandoned a week
before. A few hours later, Fauntleroy arrived with a squad of his dragoons from
Monterey, having been sent by Sloat to reconnoitre the country, hoist the flag
at San Juan, and recover some cannon said to be buried there. The stars and
stripes soon floated over the ex-mission pueblo, probably with salute and
cheers and reading of the proclamation as elsewhere. Thus the last place in
northern California, or at least the last making any pretensions to the rank
of‘town,’ came, without the slightest resistance, under the power of the United
States.36
33 Fremont’s letter to Benton. Niles:
Reg., lxxi. 191. Livermore is named as the courier in the Monterey Californian,
March 20, 1847. John Daubcn- biss, in S. Jos6 Pioneer, Aug. 23, 1879, says,
accurately I think: ‘Dr Stokes received the despatch from Pitts, who had
brought it from Com. Sloat at Monterey, and he asked me to carry it to Capt.
Fremont, who was at Sutter’s Fort. I rode to the San Joaquin River, and being
unable to swim my horse across the river, I returned to Livermore (rancho), and
got Mr Livermore to carry the proclamation to Fremont, which he did with the
aid of his Indians.
1 remained at Livermore’s until Lieut
Gillespie arrived from Fremont’s camp, and then piloted him to S. Jos£, where
we found that Capt. Tom Fallon had hoisted the American flag. We arrived at S.
Jos£ at midnight, and next morning I took Lieut Gillespie to Monterey.’ In the
same paper of Jan. 20, 1877, Harry Bee tells how he himself carried the
despatches to Fremont at Sloat’s request; and adds many details of Fremont’s
words and actions, as of his own adventures. The story has some foundation in
fact. See ii, 714.
84Gillespie,
in the S. F. Alta, July 3, 1866, mentions 2 guns, the Gutter,’ that had been
mounted on the fort, and the ‘Fremont,’a 16-pounder iron gun mounted upon the
running-gear of a Pennsylvania wagon, bought from Sutter for $600. The ‘Sutter’
was a brass piece of Russian origin. It was after the war returned to Sutter,
and by him presented to the Cal. Pioneers. Fremont mentions but one gun on his
arrival at Monterey.
0:’ BidwdVs
Cal. in 1841-8, MS., 174; Willey's Thirty Years in Cal., 13.
36 On Fremont’s occupation of S. Juan, see
Stoat’s report, and report of sec-
The current version is that now or a little later Fremont and Fauntleroy
found and took possession of a considerable quantity of arms and ammunition
that had been abandoned by Castro at San Juan. Some writers specify nine
cannon, 200 muskets, twenty kegs of powder, and 60,000 pounds of copper
cannon-balls.37 That Castro left most of his cannon buried, or even
that some of the guns had not been dug up or mounted since the time of
Micheltorena, may well be credited; but that he left at San Juan any
serviceable muskets or powder, in the absence of more positive proof, I must
decline to believe. "Fallon with his men soon came in from San Jos^ to
join the battalion; and leaving a small garrison behind,38 to
relieve which Fauntleroy was soon sent back with some forty men, the dragoons
and the battalion of Bears marched on Sunday, July 19th, to Monterey, where
Gillespie had arrived two days earlier. Fremont’s men, whose appearance is
described in print by Walpole and Colton, seem to have created a decided
sensation in the town.39
l'etary of war, for a
brief statement. Martin, Narrative, MS., 31-2, descrihes the march slightly.
All the authorities mention Fauntleroy’s expedition. German, Sucesos, MS.,
25-6, mentions the curious circumstance that while Fremont and "Fauntleroy
were at S. Juan a mad coyote came in and bit many persons. No one died; but all
the dogs in town were immediately shot.
37 Monterey Californian, March 20, 1847;
Tuthill’s Hist. Cal., 181-2. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., 170-1, and Alvarado,
Hist. Cal., MS., v. 232-3, 267, state that all the arms and ammunition had been
removed before Fremont’s arrival.
s8Lancey,
Cruise, 103, names Daubenbiss and James W. Marshall, and says there were 7 or 8
others.
39 ‘During
our stay Capt. Fremont and his party arrived, preceded by another troop of
American horse. It was a party of seamen mounted. Their efficiency as sailors,
they being nearly all English, we will not question. As cavalry, they would
probably have been singularly destructive to each other. Their leader, however,
was a fine fellow, and one of the best rifle-shots in the States (Fauntleroy?).
Fremont's party naturally excited curiosity. Here were true trappers. These men
had passed years in the wilds, living on their own resources. They were a
curious set. A vast cloud of dust appeared first, and thence in long file
emerged this wildest wild party. Fremont rode ahead, a spare, active-looking
man, with such an eye! He was dressed in a blouse and leggings, and wore a felt
hat. After him came five Delaware Indians, who were his body-guard; they had
charge of two baggage-horses. The rest, many of them blacker than the Indians,
rode two and two, the rifle held by one hand across the pommel of the saddle.
39 of them are his regular men, the rest are
loafers picked up lately. His original men are principally backwoodsmen from
Tennessee.. .The dress of
Naturally an early interview took place between Sloat and Fremont; and
for obvious reasons it was not satisfactory to either. The commodore, whose
hesitation at Mazatlan and Monterey has already been noted, if he had not
exactly been induced to act by the news of Frdmont’s operations, had at least
been greatly comforted thereby. His natural timidity increased by ill health,
he had again begun to fear that, like Jones in earlier years, he had acted
prematurely; and he had looked forward with anxiety to the opportunity of
learning from the captain’s own lips the nature of the instructions or
information under which he had begun hostilities. His anxiety in this respect
is clearly reflected in the letters of himself and Larkin already cited; and it
had been greatly augmented by Larkin’s opinion that Fremont and Gillespie had
acted on their own responsibility. Therefore, when he learned in response to
his questions that those officers had pro-
these men was
principally a long loose coat of deer-skin, tied with thongs in front; trousers
of the same, of their manufacture, which, when wet through they take off,
scrape well inside with a knife, and put on as soon as dry. The saddles were of
various fashions, though these and a large drove of horses, and a hrass field-gun,
were things they had picked up in California. The rest of the gang were a
rough set; and perhaps their private, public, and moral characters had better
not be too closely examined. They are allowed no liquor,... and the discipline
is very strict. They were marched up to an open space on the hills near the
town, under some large firs, and there took up their quarters in messes of six
or seven, in the open air. The Indians lay heside their leader. One man, a
doctor [Semple], six feet six high, was an odd-looking fellow. May I never come
under his hands! The party, after settling themselves, strolled into the town,
and in less than two days, passed in drunkenness and debauchery, three or four
were missing. They were accordingly marched away.. .One of the gang was very
uncivil to us, and threw on us the withering imputation of being Britishers...
On inquiry, he was found to he a deserter from the marines. In fact, the most
violently Yankee were discovered to he English fellows, of high principles, of
course. ’ Walpole’s Four Years in the Pacific, ii. 215-16. Colton, Deck
and Port, 390-1, says: ‘Monday, July 20th, Capt. Fremont and his armed
band, with Lieut Gillespie of the marine corps, arrived last night from their
pursuit of Gen. Castro (!). They are 200 strong, all well mounted, and have
some 300 extra horses in their train. They defiled, two abreast, through the
principal street of the town. The ground seemed to tremble under their heavy
tramp. The citizens glanced at them through their grated windows. Their rifles,
revolving pistols, and long knives glittered over the dusky huckskin which
enveloped their sinewy limhs, while their untrimmed locks, flowing out from
under their foraging caps, and their hlack heards, with white teeth glittering
through, gave them a wild, savage aspect. They encamped in the skirts of the
woods which overhang the town.’ July 22d, Fremont and his men visited the
Cow/res*.
ceeded without authority from Washington, if not in direct disobedience
to instructions, and that they knew nothing whatever about the breaking-out of
war, he was grievously disappointed. Instead of comforting assurance, he
received matter for increased uneasiness. But he seems greatly to have
exaggerated his disappointment and anger, going so far as to state that he had
based his own acts entirely on those of Fremont, which, as we know, was by no
means true. He did this with a view to save his responsibility in possible
future contingencies; the only practical effect was to give Fremont material on
which plausibly to found a claim to more credit than he deserved for the
conquest of California.40
The interview was not satisfactory to Fremont, on the other hand, because
Sloat declined to adopt his plans for a prosecution of the conquest, or even to
accept the services of the Bear Flag battalion as a part of the United States
forces. The filibuster captain felt that, could he get his men once regularly
mustered into the service, he was likely to escape from all possibly
embarrassing results of his past irregular conduct. He wished, moreover, to
have his own wrongs and those of the settlers embodied in the avowed motives of
the war, thus identifying the revolt and the conquest; and he counted on making
in person a brilliant campaign against Castro. But Sloat was not disposed to
show the slightest favor to his schemes, and even declined to do what he had intended,
and partially promised directly and through
40 Testimony of Fremont and Gillespie in
1848. Fremont's Gal. Claims, 13, 32. It seems that Gillespie, in his first
interview with Sloat before Fr&nont’s arrival, had declined to state on
what authority they had acted. Many writers, whom I need not specify, have
repeated the purport of this testimony. Bald- x-idge, Days of '46, MS., 29-30,
met Fr&nont as he left the ship, and saw by his manner that there was some
trouble. A little later he met Sloat’s son, who described the interview much as
it was described by the officers in their testimony, adding that the commodore
was very violent in his denunciations of Fremont’s conduct. Tuthill, Hist.
Gal., 182-4, suggests that Sloat was also jealous that Gillespie, a naval
officer, had been sent past him at Mazatlan to Fremont, a lieutenant of
topographical engineers. Benton, Thirty Years, ii. 692, states that Fremont’s
confession left Sloat without orders for taking Monterey, since the
commencement of war was not known!
Larkin by letter, that is, to utilize the battalion for •service similar
to that being performed by Fauntle- roy’s dragoons. He had raised the flag as
ordered by his superiors, on hearing of national hostilities; and he sensibly
refused to meddle in the quarrels of Fremont and Castro, or in the fictitious
wrongs of the settlers. There was nothing in the letter of his orders, even of
those en route which he had not received, that required him to go beyond the
occupation of the ports; and now, until by receipt of additional instructions,
or at least by news that war had been formally declared, it should be proved
that he had made no mistake, the commodore proposed to content himself with
what he had done in literal obedience to his superiors. Doubtless Larkin
sustained Sloat in his determination.41
The misunderstanding between Sloat and Fremont was not destined, however,
to have any serious effect on subsequent events—-such was the result of Commodore
Stockton’s intervention. Stockton had arrived in the Congress, Captain Dupont,
from Honolulu on July 15th, and reported for duty to Sloat. He had sailed in
October from Norfolk, and the route was round Cape Horn to Valparaiso, Callao,
and the Sandwich Islands.42 The contents of his ‘sealed orders’
have never been made public, and indeed, I find no trace of instructions to him
of earlier date than November 1846. Doubtless he was fully informed respecting
the probability of war, and the policy of his
41 July 17th, Larkin writes to Stockton
that Gillespie, who is about to call on him, seems to have imbibed ‘ local
views’ of affairs. Hopes Stockton will cause him to abandon those views, since
the writer believes ‘ we should continue what has been begun without having
our minds and views prescribed by the Pacific Ocean and Rocky Mountains; the
world at large and posterity will look only for national and extended views for
the good of our country in common.’ Larkin's Off. Corresp., MS., i. 143. July
24th, Larkin to Fremont, saying that as Sloat has decided not to keep up any
interior force, all instructions, etc., in former letters are to be deemed
countermanded to this date. Id., i. 144. '
i2Colton’s
Deck and Port, or incidents of a cruise in the U. 8. frigate Congress to
California, N. Y., 1850, 12mo, 408 p., is a journal of the
voyage by Rev. Walter Colton, chaplain of the vessel. It is an interesting and
deservedly popular work. Its continuation under another title more nearly
concerns California.
government in the case of war or peace, being directed to join the
Pacific squadron and await developments. It is noticeable that Stockton’s
original orders were dated October 17, 1845, the date of the instructions to
Larkin and Gillespie, a fact suggestive of their probable contents.43
Fremont and Gillespie had an interview with Stockton, as well as with Sloat,
and found him to be a man after their own heart. He had none of Sloat’s
timidity about assuming responsibility. He believed that Sloat’s orders and
information from the Rio Grande abundantly justified, not only what he had
done, but would justify much more. He was in favor of accepting the services of
the battalion, and of prosecuting the conquest to a successful issue by a land
campaign. Not only this, but he was willing to virtually adopt the Bear Flag
revolt in all its phases as part of the conquest, thus imbibing the ‘local
views’ against which Larkin had warned him.44
But what pleased Fremont and Gillespie most of' all was Stockton’s
assurance that he would soon be in a position to carry his and their plans into
execution. For at their first interview, on July 15th, Sloat had announced his
intention to retire at an early date, leaving the other commodore in command of
the squad
43 Stockton’s letter of Oct. 24, 1845,
acknowledging receipt of orders of the 17th, and mentioning the sealed orders,
etc. p. 95 of A Sketch of the Life of Com. Robert F. Stockton; with an
appendix, comprising his correspondence with the. navy deportment respecting
his conquest of California; and extracts from the defence of Col. J, C. Frimont
in relat-ion to the same subject; together with his speeches in the senate of
the U. S., and his political letters. New York, 1856, 8vo, 210, 131 p. This
work is sufficiently described by its title. The tone is of course warmly
eulogistic of the hero, who deserved something of eulogy.
So far as Cal. is concerned, the documentary
part of the work is the most valuable, though but few documents are given
which are not elsewhere extant; and the editor for the most part simply echoes
the views of Stockton himself, as expressed in his various reports. Colton,
Deck and Port, 379, says: ‘ Mexican papers were received there [at Honolulu]
the day before our departure, stating that hostilities had commenced between
that country and the U. S. on the Texan line. We doubted the correctness of the
information, but put to sea at once, that we might be off Monterey in season
for any service which the possible exigency might require. ’ The correspondence
of the time shows clearly that Stockton was expected with the Congress to join
the squadron by Sloat, Larkin, and Montgomery long before his arrival even at
Honolulu.
44 Stockton’s ideas on the subject are clearly
expressed in his various reports, and reflected in his acts, as we shall see
presently.
ron.45 Sloat perhaps intended at first to await the arrival
of an order for relief from Washington, such an order—in reply to his request
of May, and “for other reasons”—being then on the way, coupled with a reprimand,
of which he knew nothing; but if so, his disagreement with Stockton respecting
the policy to be pursued in California, and the latter’s willingness to assume
the responsibility of cooperating with Frd- mont, as well as his own failing
health, soon determined him to hasten his departure. Accordingly, on July 23d,
as a preliminary step, he made Stockton commander-in-chief of all forces and
operations on land. Having already an understanding with Fremont, the new
commander on the same day perfected an arrangement by which the 160 ‘ex-osos’
were received as a battalion of volunteers, Fremont being made major and
Gillespie captain, to serve under Stockton as long as their services might be
required. Other officers remained presumably as on the departure from Sonoma;
at least, there is no information extant respecting the reorganization of the
battalion until a later period and for another campaign.46
Captain Dupont was now transferred to the Cyane, Captain Mervine to the
Savannah, and Lieutenant Livingstone took command of the Congress. On Sunday,
July 26th, or perhaps next day,47 the Cyane
16
Stockton’s Report of Operations on the Coast of the Pacific, Feb. 18, 1848.
This detailed report aud defence, which I shall have frequent occasion to cite,
is found in Slat Cong. 1st Sess., H. Ex. Doc. 1, pt ii., p. 33-50; and also in
Stockton’s Life, append A, p. 17-30; Bigelow’s Mem. Frimont, 164, etc.
16
Stockton’s Report; Stockton’s letter of Aug. 28th to Sec. Bancroft, in Cutts’
Gonq., 119. Fremont, in his letter of July 25th to Benton, sent home by Sloat,
says: ‘I received this morning from Com. Stockton a commission of major in the
U. S. army, retaining command of my battalion, to which a force of 80 marines
will be attached. We are under orders to embark to-morrow morning on the Cyane,
and disembark at S. Diego.’ Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 191. Hensley, Fremont’s Cal.
Claims, 36-7, says the men refused to serve at $11 per month, and no rate was
specified until August. July 24th, Larkin to Stockton, advising him that a
force of men accustomed to rifle and saddle will be necessary, in addition to
sailors and marines. Recommends also that he proceed to S. Pedro to act there
as the position of Pico and Castro may demand. Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS., i.
110.
11 The order was to sail on the 26th, and
Sloat in his report gives that as the date of departure; but Colton in his
journal, Three. Years in Cal., 16, states that it was on Monday, July 27th. The
other dates are clearly stated
sailed for San Diego with the battalion on board. On Wednesday the 29th
Sloat transferred his broad pennant to the Levant and sailed for home;48
while Stockton assumed command of the squadron; issued a proclamation, which,
with the acts accompanying its enforcement, I shall notice in the next chapter;
and on Saturday, August 1st, sailed in the Congress for San Pedro, having
before his departure appointed Walter Colton as alcalde in place of Price and
Gilchrist, and also sent Revere and Fauntleroy to command the garrisons of
Sonoma and San Juan respectively. The Portsmouth was left at San Francisco,
and the Savannah at Monterey, the Erie being at the Hawaiian Islands, and the
Warren not having yet arrived from Mazatlan.
in the original
reports and by Colton; but have been confused by several writers, who seem to
have followed the Monterey Californian, Aug. 15, 1846.
48 On the
voyage he wrote his report of July 31st, which has been so often cited in
preceding pages. Sloat’s Despatches on Conquest of Cal., with accompanying
documents, in U. S. Govt Doc., 29th cong. 2d sess., H. Ex. Doc. 4, p. 640 et
seq.; and 30th cong. 1st sess., H. Ex. Doc. 1, ptii., p. 2-50. Montgomery, on
July 25th, one of the documents cited, wrote to Sloat a very kind and
flattering letter of congratulation and good wishes. Sloat reached Washington
early in November.
John Drake Sloat was
a native of New York, born in 1780. He joined the navy in 1800; became
sailing-master and lieutenant in 1812; commanded the U. S. schooner Grampus in
1824-5, cruising for pirates in the West Indies squadron; served two years in
the St Louis of the Pacific squadron; was made commander in 1826; and
subsequently commanded at the recruiting station in New York City and the
Portsmouth navy-yard, becoming postcaptain in 1837. In 1S45 Capt. Sloat was
appointed to succeed Com. Dallas in command of the Pacific squadron. After his
return from Cal. he was in command of the Norfolk navy-yard in 1848-50;
revisited California as president of a drydock commission in 1852; was placed
on the retired list in 1856; promoted to be commodore when that rank was
created in 1862, and to be rear-admiral in 1866. He held several other official
positions, and died at his liome on Staten Island on Nov. 28, 1867. He was
senior honorary member of the Society of California Pioneers; and it is chiefly
from the resolutions published at his death that I take the preceding notes of
his life. Cal. Pioneer Arch., MS., 53-60; also in many newspapers.
THE
CONQUEST—STOCKTON’S RULE—OCCUPATION OF THE
SOUTH.
August,
1846.
Stockton’s
Proclamation—A Pronunciamiento Filibustero—Castro Retreats Southward—Pico’s
Proclamation—Action of the Assembly—Vain Efforts of Governor and General for
Defence—No Enthusiasm or Resources—Castro at the Mesa—Fremont at San
Diego—Stockton at San Pedro—The Commodore Refuses to Negotiate for Fear his Terms may be Accepted—His Weak Excuses—Larkin’s
Efforts—Castro and Pico Resolve to Quit California—Flight and Farewell
Addresses—Pico’s Land Grants— Stockton Enters Angeles—Submission of the
People—Proclamations and Orders—News from Washington—Election Ordered— Plans
for a Civil Government—Garrisons at the Southern Towns—Stockton and Fremont
Return to the North.
The proclamation, or
address, issued by Commodore Robert F. Stockton on July 29th, the date of his
assuming the command and of his predecessor’s departure, is given entire in the
accompanying note.1
1 Address to the people of California.
‘The Mexican government and their military leaders have, without cause, for a
year past been threatening the U.
S. with hostilities. They have recently, in
pursuance of these threats, commenced hostilities by attacking, with 7}000
men, a small detachment of 2,000 U. S. troops, by whom they were signally
defeated and routed. Gen. Castro, the commander-in-chief of the military forces
of Cal., has violated every prin- eiple of international law and national
hospitality, by hunting and pursuing, with several hundred soldiers, and with
wicked intent, Capt. Fremont of the U. S. army, who came here to refresh his
men, about forty in number, after a perilous journey across the mountains, oil
a scientific survey. For these repeated hostilities and outrages, military
possession was ordered to be taken of Monterey and S. F. until redress could be
obtained from the govt of Mexico. No let or hindrance was given or intended to
be given to the civil authority of the territory, or to the exercise of its
accustomed functions. The officers were invited to remain, and promised
protection in the performance of their duties as magistrates. They refused to
do so, and departed, leaving the people in a state of anarchy and confusion. On
assuming the command . . .1 find myself in possession of the ports of Monterey
and S. F., with daily
( 255)
The reader will find it a most extraordinary document; and the more
closely it is studied, the less commendable it will appear. Stockton’s policy
of completing- the military occupation of California by taking posses-
reports from the
interior of scenes of rapine, blood, and murder. Three inoffensive American
residents of the eouutry have, within a few days, been murdered in the most
brutal manner; and there are no Californian officers who' will arrest and bring
the murderers to justice, although it is well known who they are aud where they
are. I must therefore, and will as soon as I can, adopt such measures as may
seem best calculated to bring these criminals to justice, and to bestow peace
and good order on the country. In the first place, however, I am constrained by
every principle of national honor, as well as a due regard for the safety and
best interests of the people of Cal., to put an end at once and by force to the
lawless depredations daily committed by Gen. Castro’s men upon the persons and
property of peaceful and unoffending inhabitants. I cannot, therefore, confine
my operations to the quiet and undisturbed possession of the defenceless ports
of Monterey and San Francisco, whilst the people elsewhere are suffering from
lawless violence; but will immediately march against these boasting and
abusive chiefs, who have not only violated every principle of national
hospitality and good faith toward Capt. Fremont and his surveying party, but
who, unless driven out, will, with the aid of the hostile Indians, keep this
beautiful country in a constant state of revolution and blood, as well as
against all others who maybe found in arms, or aiding or abetting Gen. Castro.
The present general of the forces of Cal. is a usurper; has been guilty of
great offences; has impoverished and drained the country of almost its last
dollar; and has deserted his post now when most needed. He has deluded and
deceived the inhabitants of Cal., and they wish his expulsion from the country.
He came into power by rebellion and force, and by force he must he expelled.
Mexico appears to have been compelled from time to time to abandon Cal. to the
mercies of any wicked man who could muster 100 men in arms. The distances from
the capital are so great that she cannot, even in times of great distress, send
timely aid to the inhabitants; and the lawless depredations upon their persons
and property go invariably unpunished. She eannot or will not punish or
control the chieftains who, one after the other, have defied her power, and
kept Cal. in a constant scene o£ revolt and misery. The inhabitants are tired
and disgusted with this constant succession of military usurpers, and this
insecurity of life and property. They invoke my protection. Therefore upon them
I will not make war. I require, however, all officers, civil and military, and
all other persons to remain quiet at their respective homes and stations, and to
obey the orders they may receive from me or by my authority; and if they do no
injury or violence to my authority, none will be done to them.
‘ But notice is
hereby given, that if any of the inhabitants of the country either abandon
their dwellings, or do any injury to the arms of the U. S., or to any person
within this territory, they will be treated as enemies, and suffer accordingly.
No person whatever is to be troubled in consequence of any part he may
heretofore have taken in the politics of the country, or for having been a
subject of Gen. Castro. And all persons who may have belonged to the govt of
Mexico, but who from this day acknowledge the authority of the existing laws,
are to be treated in the same manner as other citizens of the U. S., provided
they are obedient to the law and to the orders they shall receive from me or by
my authority. The eommander-in-chief does not desire to possess himself of one
foot of Cal. for any other reason than as the only means to save from destruction
the lives and property of the foreign residents, and citizens of the territory
who have invoked his protection. As soon, therefore, as the officers of the
civil law return to their proper duties, under a regularly organized govt, and
give security for life, liberty, and property alike to all,
siou of the southern towns, as compared with Sloat’s policy, in the last
days, of holding Monterey and San Francisco, and awaiting new orders and
information, was probably a wise one. Though some thought differently, there
is reason to doubt that progress could have been made toward voluntary
submission by inaction at this stage of affairs. Instructions from Washington
in letter required an occupation of the ports only; but in spirit—and still
more so the orders then en route—they involved the raising of the flag at interior
towns, if it could be done with safety. I think there can be no doubt that
Stockton was fully justified, not only in taking possession of the southern
ports, but in extending the occupation to the inland towns, and in utilizing
the services of Fremont’s battalion for that purpose. That being the case, the
only proclamation called for by the circumstances was a simple announcement of
his accession to the command, and of his purpose to complete and maintain the
military occupation, with a repetition of Sloat’s promises and appeals for a
peaceful submission.
Nothing of the kind, however, is found in the commodore’s address, in
which all the motives that had actuated Sloat were ignored, and an entirely new
theory was evolved respecting what had been done and what was to be done. The
paper was made up of falsehood, of irrelevant issues, and of bombastic ranting
in about equal parts, the tone being offensive and impolitic even in those
inconsiderable portions which were true and legitimate. Sloat wrote to
Secretary Bancroft, after reading the proclamation at sea: “It does not
contain my reasons for taking possession of, or my
the forces under my
command will be withdrawn, and the people left to manage their own affairs in
thei? own way. ’
The document bears
no'date, aud some writers have dated it on the 23d, when Stockton took command
on land; others on the 28th, when a copy of it was addressed to Com. Sloat; but
there is no doubt that the true date should be the 29th. The proclamation is
found in 31st Cong. 1st Sens., II. Ex. Doc. I, p. 31-3; also in Stockton’s
Life, 116-18; SouU's Annals, 103-4; Lancey’s Cruise, 105-6; Cal. Pioneers,
Arch., MS., 237-8. Spanish translations, original copies, Vallejo, Doc., MS.,
xii. 231; Janssens, Doc., MS., 8-14.
Hist.
Gal., Vol. V. 17
views or intentions toward that country; consequently it does not meet my
approbation.” The third paragraph, describing Castro’s outrageous treatment of
Fremont, is false from beginning to end; but had it been truth, the following
statement that it was on account of these outrages, and to obtain redress for
them, that Monterey had been seized, was not only without foundation in truth,
but was well known to be so by Stockton, who may charitably be presumed to have
been deceived in the first respect. And in all that follows there is hardly a
hint at the simple truth that California was to be held—the people being urged
and encouraged meanwhile to voluntarily change their allegiance—in military
possession until the United States and Mexico should determine its fate by
treaty at the end of the war; but there are constant allusions to the
punishment of criminals, to boastful and abusive chiefs, to usurpers, and to
oppressed inhabitants who had invoked his protection. Unlike his government at
Washington, Stockton did not care to make California a territory of the United
States, nor did he want a foot of that country for any other reason than to
save the lives and property of citizens; his mission was rather to avenge the
wrongs of Fremont and of the people, to bring about reforms in local
government, to punish the wicked rulers and the equally wicked and misguided
Californians who should hesitate to abandon those rulers and should dare to
defend their country! Why the wrongs of the poor American settlers and the
resulting Bear Flag revolt were ignored by the commodore is a mystery. In the
fifth and sixth paragraphs we read of prevalent “rapine, blood, and murder.”
There is but slight evidence, beyond the limits of the writer’s imagination,
that there were at this time any .unusual disorders; but had there been such
disorders, it was certainly an extraordinary idea of Stockton’s to throw the
responsibility upon the local Mexican authorities who had declined to throw
off at a moment’s notice their na
tional allegiance, and accept office under the invaders of their country!
Castro was not a usurper in any sense that concerned Stockton as an officer of
the United States, nor was the latter at all concerned in the faults of
departmental rulers or in Mexican neglect of California, except that he might
legitimately refer to them as a means of encouraging the people to submit with
good grace to the inevitable. The proclamation was in all its phases
offensive, impolitic, uncalled for, inaccurate, and most undignified.2
We have not far to go in search of the motives which prompted Stockton to
publish an address so unworthy of him. It should have borne the signatures of
Fremont and Gillespie, who managed to gain for the time being complete control
over the commodore, and who dictated the proclamation with the sole view to advance
their own interests. They were shrewd and lucky adventurers. Stockton was the
more ready to adopt their views, because by so doing he magnified the
difficulties before him, and his glory in the event of success; because the
address would make a good impression in the States, where little was likely to
be known about the facts; and because it seemed prudent, in view of the
opinions entertained by Sloat and Larkin, to lay the foundations for a defence
of himself and his government, in case the news of war should prove unfounded.
In his later formal report to the government, which I quote at some length
below, Stockton explained the considerations which “ seemed to make prompt and
decisive action an imperative duty”—considerations which, though involving exaggerations
of difficulties encountered, in the aggregate were amply sufficient to justify
his action; but which
2 Tutliill, Ilist. Cal., 186-7, wittily
says that Stockton’s proclamation had a ‘Mexican flavor,’ but was carried out,
‘a very un-Mexican procedure.’ The Califomiaus generally condemn and ridicule
the address, though Stockton himself later became very popular with them. The
commodore was never censured for his absurd utterances, nor does it clearly
appear that he ever admitted their folly.
by no means justified the tone
of his pronunciamiento filibustero of July 29th.3
3 Stockton’s Report, 34—5. He says: ‘The
result of my inquiries and investigations showed me that the position I was
about to occupy was an important and critical one. The intelligence of the
commencement of hostilities between the two nations, although it had passed
through Mexico, had reached Com. Sloat in advance of the Mexican authorities.’
See Bandini, Doc., MS., 85, for proof that before July 3d Covarrubias had
brought news of hostilities on the Rio Grande. ‘When he made his first hostile
demonstrations, therefore, the enemy, ignorant of the existence of the war,
had regarded his acts as an unwarrantable exercise of power by the U. S., and
the most lively indignation and bitter resentment pervaded the country. ’ No
such general bitterness existed; what feeling did exist was due to the acts of
the insurgents, not those of Sloat; and if all had been as Stockton states, how
admirably well calculated was the address to assuage the popular indignation
and explain the true motives of the U. S.! ‘The public functionaries of the
territory were not slow in availing themselves of this feeling, and endeavored
to stimulate it to the highest possible degree. A proclamation was put forth,
denouncing in the most unmeasured terms all foreigners, but it was unquestionably
aimed principally at the citizens of the U. S. and such others as sympathized
with them. ’ He must refer not to Pico’s proclamation of July 16th, which was
not at all violent in tone; but to the earlier one, not called out hy Sloat’s
acts, but by those of the Bear Flag insurgents! ‘Two or three were in fact
murdered, and all were led to apprehend extermination from the sanguinary
feeling of resentment which was everywhere breathed. The local legislature was
in session. Gov. Pio Pico had assembled a force of about 700 or 1,000 (!) men,
supplied with seven pieces of artillery, breathing vengeance against the
perpetrators of the insult and injury which they supposed had been inflicted.
These hostile demonstrations were daily increasing, and by the time that the
command devolved on me... the situation had assumed a critical and alarming
appearance. Every citizen and friend of the U. S. throughout the territory was
in imminent jeopardy; he could count upon no security for either property or
life. It was well known that numerous emigrants from the U. S. were on their
way to Upper California. These marching in small and detached parties,
encumbered with their wives and children and baggage, uninformed of the war
and consequently unprepared for attack, would have been exposed to certain destruction’—a
mode of theorizing likely to be very forcible in the States, but pure
‘clap-trap’ all the same. ‘It was also ascertained that in anticipation of the
eventual conquest of the country by the U. S., many of those in the actual
possession of authority were preparing for this change hy disposing of the
public property, so that it might be found in private hands when the Americans
should acquire possession, believing that private rights would be protected and
individual property secure. Negotiations were in actual progress thus to
acquire 3,000 leagues of land, and to dispose of all the most valuable portions
of the territory appertaining to the missions at nominal prices, so that the
conquerors should find the entire country appropriated to individuals, and in
hands which could effectually prevent sales to American citizens, and thus
check the tide of immigration, while little or no benefit would result to the
nation from the acquisition of this valuable territory.’ More of this later.
There was certainly enough of truth in it to make the seizure of the capital
at an early date desirable. ‘All these considerations, together with others of
inferior moment, seemed to make prompt and decisive action an imperative duty.
To retain possession merely of a few sea-pcrts, while cut off from all
intercourse with the interior, exposed to constant attack by the concentrated
forces of an exasperated enemy, appeared wholly useless. Yet to abandon ground
which we had occupied, to withdraw our forces from these points, to yield
places where our flag had been floating in triumph, was an alternative not to
he thought
Castro’s movements in the first half of July, few details being known,
have already been described, as have those of Pico in the south.4
From his northern campaign Castro had returned, after Torre’s defeat, to Santa
Clara, the 30th of June. From this point he sent Manuel Castro southward, to
effect a reconciliation with Pico, and secure his cooperation in defensive
measures. The general probably remained at Santa Clara until he received
Sloat’s despatch of July 7th, departing on the evening of that day, and arriving
at San Juan on the 8th. Here he passed one night, and on the 9th, after
replying to the commodore’s communications, started with his little army for
the south.6 Juan B. Alvarado accompanied him, though holding no
command. The position taken by both officers in their communications to Sloat
and Larkin is worthy of the highest commendation. To plot a declaration of
independence in the interest of the United States had not perhaps been quite a
creditable proceeding for Castro or Larkin, or the gov-
of. except as a last
resource. Not only would all the advantages which had been obtained be thus
abandoned, and perhaps never be regained without great expenditure of blood and
treasure, but the pride and confidence of the enemy would be increased to a
dangerous extent by such indications of our weakness and inability to maintain
what we had won.’
‘See ehap. vi. of
this vol.
5 There are no means of proving definitely
the date on which Castro left Sta Clara. John Daubenbiss, in a communication
already cited, says Castro was at S. JosiS when he started with despatches for
Fremont, which must have been on the evening of the 7th or morning of the 8th.
Several Californians mention the fact that they encamped one night between Sta
Clara and S. Juan, and spent one night at S. Juan. Larkin wrote on the 10th
that Castro had arrived at S. Juan on the 8th, had that same day received
Sloat’s despatch, and had started on the 9th. Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS.,
ii. 7.3. Castro in his letter to Sloat, dated S. Juan July 9th, says: ‘I
received your note last night at Sta Clara.’ Sloat’s Despatches, 646. But
this may be an error, for it would seem that he must have got Silva’s
despatch if not Sloat’s on the 7th. Larkin, Doc., MS., iv. 201, writing to
Steams on the 8th, says that Alvarado went to S. Juan a week ago and Castro
went ‘yesterday, before he heard from the commodore.’ In another of same date,
Off. Corresp., MS., i. 100-1, he says Castro will probably be at S. Juan tonight.
Sloat, in a letter of the 9th, Frimont's Cal. Claims, 73, says: ‘I have
this moment learned by an Englishman, just arrived from Gen. Castro at the
Pueblo (S. Jos£), that Castro was probably at St Johns last evening... The
Englishman says that when the general read my proclamation to his troops he
expressed his approbation of it.’ Padre Real, writing from Sta Clara on the
12th, says that his compaclre Castro left S. Juan 4 days ago. Vallejo, Doc.,
MS., xxxiv. 221.
eminent at Washington; but for the commanding general to have betrayed
his national allegiance in time of war by complying with Sloat’s demands would
have been in the highest degree dishonorable —even had Don Josd had the
slightest wish to so comply after the acts of the insurgents. The force that
Castro led to the south was possibly 150 men, but probaSly not over 100. He had
about 160 in his San Pablo campaign, including Torre’s men; and perhaps
increased the number at Santa Clara to over 200, though twice that number were
talked about. Many of the militia served, however, against their will, and left
their leader when he started for the south, some because they were unwilling to
leave their families, and others because they deemed all defensive measures
useless, or even favored the success of the Americans.6
On July 11th Castro was at Los Ojitos, near San Antonio; and from this
point he sent a communication to Pico, announcing Sloat’s invasion. There was
yet time, he wrote, to save the country; and he was on the march to join his
forces to those of the governor for that purpose. Pico received the news at
San Luis Obispo the same day, and at once sent orders to Los Angeles,
countermanding previous orders to send troops northward to reenforce his army,
and directing that every effort be made to protect the capital.7
Both chiefs advancing met at Santa Margarita, perhaps on the same day, but more
probably on the 12th, to reconcile their past differences, as elsewhere
recorded. Then they proceeded toward the capital, but not together, as it is
stated, there being still much jealousy and distrust between the northern and
south-
6 In the
letters to be cited in the next note Castro states his force to be 160, but
under the circumstances he was sure to overstate it; and Pico says the number
was 200, his motives for exaggeration being stronger still.
’July 11th, C. to P.,
P. from S. Luis to comandante of Angeles, and Sec. Moreno to sub-prefect. Dept.
St. Pap., MS., iii. 73-4, 34. P. to Bandini on July 16th, speaking of his
meeting Castro and his 200-men. Bandini, Doc., MS., 89.
ern officers and men. Nothing is known in detail of the march of either
division.8
Back at Santa Barbara, on his way to the capital, Governor Pico issued,
on July 16th, the proclamation deemed necessary in such cases.9 It
was an appeal to the people to defend their country against foreign invaders,
with no peculiar features that require notice. At the same time Don Pio
convoked the assembly, and going in person some days later to Los Angeles,
brought the subject of the invasion before the assembled legislators on July
24th, when he and others made patriotic speeches. The decision in this
emergency was, as might have been expected, that the people must be called upon
to do their duty, and that a reglamento must be formed for the organi-
8Moreno,
Vida Militar, MS., 9-11, states that a definite agreement was made that the two
armies should march and encamp 24 hours apart. The reconciliation and the
subsequent march to Angeles are mentioned in the following narratives, none of
which present any details that seem worth reproducing: Gomez, Lo Que Sabe,
MS., 284^300; Bernal, Mem., MS., 4-11; Galindo, Apuntes, MS., 57-8; Amador,
Mem., MS., 188-9,169-70; Pinto, Aptmt., 101-2; Pico, Hist. Cal., MS., 146-50;
Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 477-8; Buehia, Notas, MS., 23-5; Torre, Remin., MS.,
152--3; Lugo, Vida, MS., 30-1; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 137-8; JulioCisar,
C'osas, MS., 7; Arnaz, Recuerdos, MS., 83-5; Coronet, CosasdeCal., MS., 72-3; Pico,
Acont., MS., 64^5.
9 Official
copy certified by Stearns at Angeles on July 19th, in Coronel, Doc., MS., 143.
It is as follows: ‘Pio Pico, constitutional governor of the dept of Cal., to
its inhabitants, know: that, the country being threatened by the sea and land
forces of the U. S. of America, which occupy the posts of Monterey, Sonoma, S.
F., and others on the northern frontier of this dept, where already waves the
banner of the stars, with threats of occupying the other ports and settlements
in order to subject them to their laws; and the governor being firmly resolved
to make every possihle effort to repel this the most unjust aggression of late
centuries, undertaken by a nation which is ruled by the most unheard-of
ambition, and has formed the project of authorizing the robbery without
disguising it with the slightest mark of shame, and only consulting the power
held over us because of our political weakness—in the exercise of my
constitutional powers, and by virtue of repeated superior orders by which I
find myself authorized, I have determined to decree for strict observance the
following articles: 1. All Mexican citizens, native and naturalized, residing
in this dept are required by duty to defend the country when as now the
national independence is in danger. Therefore every man without exception, from
the age of 15 to 60, will present himself armed to the departmental govt to
defend the just cause.’ 2. Sub-prefects through alcaldes, etc., will at once
cause to be formed lists of men, ages, etc., in each municipality. 3. But
without waiting for the formation of these lists, citizens will present
themselves at once. 4. Any Mexican refusing or excusing himself on any pretext
will be treated as a traitor. 5. Those who are physically unable to serve in
person must aid with their property—all to be indemnified by the national govt
in due time. 6. Sub-prefects to be held responsible for a strict observance of
this decree.
zation of the militia. Meanwhile Castro and his men had arrived, and the
two chiefs had their work before them. There are left but slight fragments of
contemporary correspondence to show what was taking place among the Angelinos
in those days; but eked out with the personal recollections of many men who
were actors or spectators in these last scenes of Californian allegiance to
Mexico, they are amply sufficient to indicate in a general way if not in detail
the existing state of affairs.10
10 July 16th,
Pico to Bandini, urging him to join the assembly. Don Juan iii reply pleads ill
health as a reason for not serving, though he protests his patriotism as a true
Mexican. Bandini, Doc., MS., 89, 92. July 16th, Sub-prefect Steams to the
rancheros. Threatens fines if they do not fly to the defence of their country.
Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 94. July 17th, Steams to Receptor Coronel at S.
Pedro, urging him to take steps to learn the exact truth about the reports from
Monterey, whether any proofs existed, etc. Corand, Doc., MS., 195. July
17th, Pico orders sub-prefect to deliver artillery to Capt. Andres Pico.
Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 35. July 18th, ayunt. is called upon by the gov. for
aid; refers the matter to the assembly, but is duly patriotic. Los Angeles,
Arch., MS., v. 326-7. July 20th, juez of S. Vicente. Indians very treacherous
and hostile; but in case of need half the troops and veciuos may go to fight
for the country. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS., ii. 41-3. July
23d, B. D. Wilson to Stearns. Yutes stealing horses. Eight Americans have come
from Angeles to bis rancho, fearing to remain under present circumstances.
Id., ii. 45. July 24th, session of the assembly. Leg. Bee., MS., iv. 370-1.
July 24th, Wilson to Stearns. Mustresignhis office; people refuse to ohey,
either because they are opposed to the govt or because they regard him as one
of the enemy. He keeps three armed foreigners to protect his place from
Indians; Mexicans will not aid him. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS.,
ii. 43-5. July 24th, Castro complains of the ‘infamous holding-back’ of
property by certain persons, either from fear or from having been won over by
the foe. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 76. July 25th, Lugo at S. Bernardino.
Complains of adventurers drifting about, and of Wilson’s efforts to make
trouble. Id., Ben. Pref. y Juzg., MS., ii. 43. Juty 27th, Figueroa and Botello
as an assembly committee propose that—it is a sacred duty, etc., and the
general must ask the gov. for aid, etc. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 77.
July 28th, Pico to alcalde. Everybody must be sent to defend the capital. Id.,
Aug., xi. 178. July 29th, reglamento militar in 13 articles, formed by
Olvera and Guerra as a committee. Dept. St. Pap., MS!., vii. 78-80. July 30th,
Pico and Castro resolve to send a com. to collect arms of private persons,
missions, etc., as far as the frontier of Lower Cal. Id., vii. 36.
For personal
reminiscences on this subject—affairs at Angeles July 16th- Aug. 10th—see the
references of note 8, with the pages following those there named; and also
Temple's Recoil., MS., 9-10; Valle, Lo Pasado, MS., 44-5; Arce, Mem.,
MS., 55-8; Sanchez, Notas, MS., 13-14; Pico, iu Hayes’ Mission Booh, i.
342, and Los Angeles Express, Feb. 4, 1873; Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., v.
245-50; Juarez, Narrative, MS.; Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 478-9; Wilson’s
Observ., MS., 01-2; Castro, Servicios, MS.; Botello, Anales, MS.,
13S-9; Los Angeles Hist. 41-5. From all these-sources we get in the
aggregate much general information, but few details. Botello tells us that it
was evident to all in the south from the first that Castro did not intend to
fight the Americans. Jas R. Barton, Hayes’ Miss. Book, i. 365, says that
he with 8
All went wrong from the standpoint of Pico and Castro; that is, if we
suppose them to have been in earnest, as to a certain extent they probably were
not; or at least, they had no real expectation of success. There were no signs
of popular enthusiasm for the cause. Subordinate local authorities issued their
routine orders in a spirit of apathy. Pew inhabitants rendered more implicit
obedience than they were obliged to by fear or pride. Many of influence, natives
as well as foreigners, were secretly in sympathy with the invaders; others more
or less indifferent took the advice of American friends to hold themselves
aloof as far as possible from actively engaging in a useless struggle. Many,
especially of the lower classes, were very bitter against the Yankees; but of
these some realized that their cause was hopeless, and but few had any
confidence in the good faith or ability of the leaders. Personally, Pico and
Castro succeeded in keeping up at least an appearance of friendly feeling ;
but among their subordinates there was constant jealousy and quarrelling. The
militiamen of the south refused to obey any but civic officers, while Castro’s
men of the north regarded themselves as constituting the ‘ regular army,’ and
assumed pretensions accordingly. The inhabitants of the city had organized
themselves during Pico’s absence into a kind of military body for the defence
of the town against Castro, but though they did not openly revolt now against
the authority of the chiefs, it was well understood that they would not fight
against foreigners. Recruits for the regular force came in slowly. From
or 10 others named,
left Pico’s force when Castro came and went to B. I). Wilson’s rancho, where
they were persuaded to stay and defend themselves; but they later went back, on
Pico’s assurance that they would not be harmed. {See Lugo’s cominun. of July
25th, in this note.) Torre notes that the troops were fed on ‘the bull that
founded S. Gabriel.’ Both he and Gomez note the carelessness and inefficiency
of Castro’s preparations at the Campo de la Mesa; and speak of the scare and
confusion on one occasion when Andres Pico arrived with a party. Moreno tells
how the Angeles troops refused to give up to Castro certain cannon, even at
Pico’s command. Coronel speaks of a conference lasting all day before the civic
troops would consent to obey Castro. Pico mentions the same trouble and his own
efforts to overcome it.
outside districts came patriotic sentiments, with regrets that the
Indians were’troublesome, and 110 men could be sent. Rancheros and others
contributed horses, arms, and other property with evident reluctance and in
small quantities. The government had lost its prestige, resources, and credit.
In fact, Pico had exhausted all his popularity and power in preparing for the
northern campaign against Castro, and had raised less than a hundred men. These
were all that he had now in reality under his command, and more than he could
properly feed with the public funds at his disposal; but double this number had
to be supported, for Castro had brought another hundred, and no funds. All
agree that the soldiers had a hard time, being in every respect inadequately
provided for. Each party, abajenos and arribenos, thought that partiality was
shown to the others; each shifted upon the other the responsibility for the
country’s critical position; and naturally each constantly diminished in
numbers. It has been common for American writers —and even Californians who
wish to account for Stockton’s easy success by charging the governor and general
with cowardice—to speak of Castro’s force as 800 or 1,000 well armed and
equipped men. There was no time in the last half of July when he could have led
out of the city over 200 men to make even the pretence of a fight; and before
the enemy actually came, the number was reduced to 100.
In the early days of August Castro established himself with part of his
force at the Campo de la Mesa, a short distance out of the city, leaving Manuel
Castro and Andres Pico in command of the forces left, most of which soon joined
the general at the Mesa.11 At about the time of this movement came
news that Frts-
11 Aug.
4th, Castro to A. Pico, announcing his departure, and putting him in command of
the auxiliaries. The necessity of complete harmony with D. Manuel and his men
is urged. Pico, Doc., MS., ii. 93. Aug. 3d, Castro to Antonio Coronel, urging
him to assemble his company, etc. Coronet, Doc., MS., 245.
mont had landed at San Diego, followed soon by the announcement of
Stockton’s landing at San Pedro. Of Fremont’s operations at this time, no
official report or other contemporary account is extant. He had sailed with his
battalion in the Cyane July 26th from Monterey; and had reached San Diego on
the 29th, taking possession and raising the flag without opposition or
incident, so far as may be known.12 A week was spent in obtaining
horses, which were by no means plentiful, and on August 8th the battalion,
about 120 strong, started northward, leaving a garrison at San Diego. Several
Californians vaguely relate that on hearing of Fremont’s arrival Castro
despatched a party under Villavicencio, with Alvarado as counsellor, to meet
the riflemen; but they returned without having seen the foe.
Meanwhile Stockton, with 360 marines and seamen available for an
enterprise on land, had sailed from Monterey August 1st on the Congress. On the
way down the coast he touched at Santa Barbara, perhaps on the 4th or 5th, and
raised the stars and stripes there, leaving a small garrison. Strangely, I find
no definite record of the date, or of any circumstances connected with this
event.13 Stockton arrived at San Pedro on the 6th. Here the flag was
raised, and the
12July 29th
is the date usually given, though I can trace it back only to Culls’ Conq.,
154-5, in 1847; and Gillespie, in the Alta, July 3, 1866, says it was on the
30th. Lancey, Cruise, 110-13, tells us, on authority not given, that Andres
Pico was found at S. Diego, and would have been put to death by the settlers
had not Capt. Fitch answered for his honor, etc. As it was, Don Andr6s was
allowed to carry the news to Angeles. I deem it very improbable that anything
of the kind occurred. Lancey also tells us that the Cyane returned immediately
to S. Pedro to meet Stockton, arriving on the 5th; and that Fremont started
north on Aug. 3d, leaving a garrison of 40 men. On Aug. 8th, Capt. Dupont, in
reply to a petition of Pedro Carrillo and others to leave a guard to protect
the citizcns, says he has no power to do so, but that Gillespie will remain
with a force until orders from the commander come. Carrillo (Pedro), Doc.,
MS., 4. Martin, Narr., MS., 32-3, says that Merritt with 13 men was left at S.
Diego. Forster, Pioneer Data, MS., 30-1, had just arrived at S. Luis Rey when
Fremont came there, and had some trouble with that officer about the mission
property. Bidwell, Cal. 1841-8, MS., 176-80, gives some general recollections
of the expedition, which he accompanied.
13 Stockton’s Report, 36. Phelps, Fore and
Aft, 309, followed by Lancey, Cruise, 110, says the garrison-was-composed of
Midshipman Wm Mitchell and
10 men.
force was immediately landed, to be drilled and otherwise prepared for a
march inland.u Next da}r two commissioners from Castro
arrived. They were Pablo de la Guerra and Jose M. Flores, who after asking and
receiving in writing an assurance that they would be well received, visited the
camp and presented a letter from the general, which with Stockton’s account of
the visit is given in a note.16 The latter is not quite intelligible
in all respects; but the former was a simple demand for an explanation of the
commodore’s purposes, coupled with a clearly implied expression of
willingness to enter into negotiations, on the condition usual in such cases of
a suspension of all hostilities pending the conference. The letter was an
14 Here
Lancey gives some information, the source of which has escaped my research. He
says that the Cyane wag found at S. Pedro, which I question; and that
Lieut James F. Schenck was sent in the launch with 20 men to take the town. The
5 men of the garrison escaped, but the officer in command staying to light his
cigarito was made a prisoner and detained on the frigate. He also quote? from
Capt. Paty, of the Don Quixote, an account of how he refused to sell, but
allowed Stockton to take by night secretly, three cannon from his vessel.
ls
Translation in Stockton's Mil. and Naval Oper., 4, preceded by the note of
Guerra and Flores and Stockton’s reply, about the reception of the commission.
The translation is evidently slipshod, but I have not found the original. ‘The
undersigned, command ant general and chief of the division of operations in
this department, has the honor to direct himself to the commander-in-chief of
the U. S. naval forces anchored in the road of S. Pedro, asking explanations on
the conduct that he proposes to follow. Since knowing that he wishes to enter
into conferences on what is most convenient to tlie interests of both
countries, the undersigned cannot see with serenity one pretend, with
flattering expressions of peace, and without the formality that war between
polished nations permits, to make an invasion in the terms that your lordship
has verified it. Wishing, then [de acuerdo], with the governor, to avoid all
the disasters that follow a war like that which your lordship prepares, it has
appeared convenient to the undersigned to send to your lordship a commission...
to know the wishes of your lordship, under the conception [with the
understanding] that whatever conference may take place, it must be on the base
that all hostile movements must be suspended by both forces, since on the
contrary, there will not be negotiations.’ Yours truly, etc. Stockton, Report,
36-7, says : ‘ Two persons arrived, representing themselves to be commisioners
sent from Gen. Castro, authorized to enter into negotiations with me, and
bearing a letter from the general.. .Before, however, they would communicate
the extent of their power or the nature of their instructions ’—it does not
appear in the letter that they had any powers or instructions except to learn
Stockton’s wishes and his willingness for negotiations— ‘ they made a
preliminary demand that the further march of the troops must be arrested, and
that I must not advance beyond the position which I then occupied. This
proposition was peremptorily declined. I announced my determination to
advance; and the commissioners returned to their camp without imparting further
the object of the proposed negotiations.’
indication that Castro was disposed to accede to the well known wishes of
the United States; the condition imposed was in every respect a moderate and
reasonable one; and there was no good reason why Stockton should not welcome
such a proposition, if he really wished to carry out the avowed policy of his
government. He wished, however, nothing of the kind. He did not desire Castro’s
assent to the terms which he was obliged in a certain sense to offer, that is,
a voluntary raising of the American flag by the departmental authorities. On
the contrary, he wished to avoid the embarrassment of continuing those authorities
in power on any basis, preferring, even in case the stars and stripes had to be
lowered on account of the non-existence of war, to leave a clear field to the
Bear Flag insurgents. Accordingly the commodore rejected “the Mexican proffers
of negotiation,” by putting his terms in the form of an insulting threat.’8
In his report of 1848, Stockton gives at some length what he chooses to
have regarded as his motives. His first point is that as no act of the local
authorities would have been valid without approval of the Mexican government,
and as no such ratification could be expected, the Californians would be at
liberty to break any compact that might be made. But the only compact thought
of was one that from its very nature could not be broken, and one respect-
16Aug.
7, 1846, Stockton to Castro, from San Pedro. ‘General: I have the honor to acknowledge
the receipt of your letter, and with you deplore the war... I do not desire to
do more than my duty calls upon me to do. I do not wish to war against
California or her people; but as she is a department of Mexico, I must war
against her until she ceases to be a part of the Mexican territory. This is my
plain duty.’ True enough, but this is not the ground taken in the proclamation
of July 29th. ‘ I cannot, therefore, check my operations to negotiate on any
other principle’—no other had been proposed or hinted at—‘ than that California
will declare her independence, under the protection of the fla,g of the U. S.
If, therefore, you will agree to hoist the American flag in California, I will
stop my forces and negotiate the treaty. Your very obedient,’ etc. A Spanish
translation was printed in the Los Angela California Meridional, July 18, 1855;
in Coronet, Doc., MS., 174. In Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 1301, Pablo de la
Guerra says that after a discussion of two hours he refused to accede to
Stockton’s demand that the Californians should raise the U. S. flag.
ing which the approval or disapproval of Mexico was not of the slightest
consequence. Secondly, he claims that recognition of the Californian
authorities, by negotiating with them, would have involved recognition of them
in other matters, notably in that of granting lands. To question the right of a
governor, in his capital, under his national flag, and in accordance with
Mexican law, to grant lands, because a foreign power had seized some parts of the
department, was certainly a remarkable position to assume; fcut still
Stockton’s point had weight to this extent, that it was his duty to destroy
Pico’s authority as a Mexican governor as soon as possible by raising the flag
over Los Angeles. Could the flag be raised voluntarily by Pico, so much the
better for the end in view. To gain time, therefore, the commodore declined a
conference, for which twenty-four hours would have been ample time, and then
put off his advance from San Pedro four days! In the third place, a truce,
argues Stockton, would have enabled the Californians to exterminate the
settlers, attack the immigrants, increase and organize their forces, and in
fact, do all the things that the present movement was intended to prevent. Even
had the danger of such acts been originally less absurd and imaginary, it is
not quite apparent that a short delay with a view to a voluntary submission of
the foe could have been much more disastrous than a longer delay for hostile
preparations. Finally, the writer says: “Our march would necessarily have been
suspended at the outset; the sailors and marines must have reembarked ; the
California battalion, so prompt and energetic in volunteering to aid us, must
have been abandoned to its own resources, and thus insulated and unsupported,
must either have dispersed or fallen a sacrifice to an exasperated and powerful
enemy”— thus implying, what there is not the slightest evidence to support,
that Castro proposed a truce to continue until questions in dispute could be
referred to Mex
ico. With all his lack of brilliancy, it is not likely that Don Josd ever
conceived so stupid a proposition. Had he suggested such a plan at the proposed
conference, it could have been rejected without great expenditure of time.17
It must be evident to the reader, I think, that Stockton was bound as a
representative of the United States, in view of past negotiations and promises
of his government’s confidential agents, to accede to Castro’s request for a
conference. The presumption was that the general was disposed to make the required
concessions; and if fruitless, the conference would involve no delay whatever.
Stockton feared that Castro would yield; hence his refusal. His explanation
was special pleading designed to cover up his real motives. Lest it appear,
however, to any one that the view here presented is exaggerated, I introduce a
hitherto missing link in this historic chain, matter which strengthens my
criticism at every point, exhibits the American commander’s conduct in alight
by no means creditable to his honor, and shows that he has suppressed an
essential part of the record. It has been noticed that Castro alluded to
Stockton’s desire for a conference. Larkin came down from Monterey on the
Congress, still bent on acquiring California without the use of force.
Immediately, on arrival at San Pedro, he addressed long communications—the
original blotters of which are in my possession—to Abel Stearns, his associate
confidential agent, though also Mexican sub-prefect. This gentleman was urged
without loss of time to consult with Pico, Castro, the assembly, and leading
citizens; and to place before them in the strongest possible manner the
importance of at once declaring their independence of Mexico and putting California
under the American
11 Lanoey, Cruise, 111, states definitely
that Castro proposed a truce, ‘by
the terms
of which each party should maintain its present position, unmo
lested by
the others, until intelligence of a more definite character could be
obtained
from Mexico or the U. S., or until the conclusion of peace’! Other
writers
have evidently fallen into a similar misunderstanding.
flag. Stockton’s irresistible force was presented, and even exaggerated,
to show the folly of resistance. Larkin expressed his belief that the
conjecture of war with Mexico would prove unfounded, in which case the flag
would probably have to be lowered, and the country would be exposed to the.
hostile movements of the Sonoma insurgents, reenforced by 2,000 expected immigrants.
There was but one way to avoid this calamity, to prevent the shedding of blood
in a useless resistance to Stockton, and to secure future happiness and
prosperity. The leaders were to be assured that the commodore had no desire to
wage war; but that he was anxious to have them voluntarily organize a new
government, retaining their offices, and that he would gladly enter into
negotiations with them. They were to be urged to come for a conference,
accompanied if possible by Stearns and other prominent men, without delay, as
the force would probably advance in twenty-four hours. “Could this proposal be
acted on in the pueblo at once, war within the department is at an end. As the
subject has for months been canvassed in California, it does not require long
to come to a conclusion.”18 There can be but little doubt, then,
that it was in response to this invitation, virtually sent by Stockton himself,
that Castro made overtures for a treaty, insultingly rejected by the
commodore, who feared that his terms might be accepted. If Castro had had half
the men accredited to him, half as desperate and hostile as they were
represented in Stockton’s proclamation; and had they made an attack as they did
later on Mervine, in this very region, or on Kearny at San Pascual, the
disaster might justly have plunged the proud leader into life-long disgrace.
On August 9th Castro, after holding a council of war with his officers at
the Mesa, resolved to leave California, and notified Pico to that affect in
writing.
18 Aug. 6,
1846, Larkin to Stearns. Blotter copies of two letters in Lar- kin’s Doc., MS.,
iv. 261, 268.
“After having done all in my power,” he states, “ to prepare for the
defence of the department, and to oppose the invasion of the United States
forces by sea and land, I am obliged to-day to make known to you with regret
that it is not possible to accomplish either object, because, notwithstanding
your efforts to afford me all the aid in your power, I can count on only 100
men, badly armed, worse supplied, and discontented by reason of the misery they
suffer; so that I have reason to fear that not even these few men will fight
when the necessity arises.” He announced his intention to leave the country,
for the purpose of reporting to the supreme government; invited the governor to
go with him; and enclosed two documents which he had written to ‘save his
responsibility.’19 One of these was a farewell address to the
people, issued a few days later by the general en camino para Sonora. “With my
heart full of the most cruel grief, I take leave of you. I leave the country of
my birth, but with the hope of returning to destroy the slavery in which I
leave you; for the day will come when our unfortunate fatherland can punish
this usurpation, as rapacious as unjust, and in the face of the world exact
satisfaction for its grievances. Friends, I confide in your loyalty and
patriotism,” etc.20
The third document was a copy of Castro’s reply to Stockton’s
communication of the 7th; and it was just such an answer as the commodore had
desired and expected. If the general had at one time meditated a dishonorable
submission to the enemy with a view of retaining his office, he had now
abandoned the idea. His pride and that of his counsellors forbade the
acceptance of terms offered in a manner so peremptory and humiliating. His
reply was an indignant rejection of the proposal to raise the American
19 Aug. 9, 1846, Castro to
Pico, written at the Campo en la Mesa. Moreno, Doc., MS., 12-13. ..
S0Aug.
(9th), Castro to the people of Cal. Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 134; Doc. Hist.
Cal., MS., iii. 263. Possibly this is not the address enclosed to Pico on the
9th, but a later one; but if so, the other is not extant.
Hist.
Cal., Vol. V. 18
flag; and his indignation was not altogether assumed for effect in
Mexico, though such was the main purpose of the letter, and though at the time
of writing he had resolved to attempt no defence. Stockton wrote a reply to
this communication, though he afterward denied having done so; but its purport
is not known.21
On receipt of Castro’s communication and accompanying documents, Pico
submitted them to the assem-
21 Aug. 9, 1846, Castro to Stockton, in
Olvera, Doc., MS., 29-32; translation in Stockton’s Nil. and Naval Oper., 5-6.
In his report of Sept. 18th Stockton saya: ‘I did not answer his last letter
but by a verbal message, which does not properly belong to history. ’ Id., 2.
But I have before me an original autograph letter in which Stockton on Angust
11th says to Larkin: ‘You will proceed with a flag of trnceand deliver the
accompanying letter to Gen. Castro, which is a reply to one sent by him to me
yesterday. You will say nothing more than that you are ready to receive any
explanations he may see fit to make of his letters. You will be especially careful
not to commit me in anything for the future, or to say anything of our
movements or Fremont’s.’ Larkin’s Doc., MS., iv. 250.
Castro’s letter to
Stockton was as follows: ‘With unspeakable surprise I have received your reply
to my official note asking explanations of your proposed conduct in the
invasion which the naval and land forces of the U. S. under your command have
perpetrated in this department in my charge. The insidious contents of that
note, and the humiliating propositions which it involves, oblige me, for the
honor of the national arms committed to me, to reproduce to you the last of my
communications, and to make clear to you to what degree I will sacrifice myself
to preserve stainless the post which I hold. Since war exists between the U. S.
and Mexico, and as you from duty wage it against this department, a part of
Mexican territory, so I, as a Mexicau chief of the forces under my orders, am
resolved to defend its integrity at all hazards, and to repel an aggression
like yours, without example in the civilized world, and all the more so when
it is considered that there is as yet no express declaration of war between the
two nations. You .gay that you cannot suspend your operations to negotiate on
any basis other than that California declare her independence under the
protection of the U. S. Never will I consent that she commit so base an act;
but even supposing she should attempt it, she would never carry it out under
the degrading conditions that you propose. And what would be her liberty with
that protection offered her at the caunon’s mouth? I understand it not; but be
assured that while it exists I will take care that this part of the Mexican
republic, in which I first saw the light, seal not its disgrace and slavery.
Still more, believing doubtless that no drop of Mexican blood flows in my
veins, and that I know not the scope of my duties, you offer me the most
shameful of your propositions, which is to hoist the Americau flag in this
department. Never, never, never! Much might I say to you on this subject; but I
only ask you what would you do if the proposition were vice versa. Finally, Mr
Commodore, I repeat that I will spare no sacrifice to oppose your intentions;
and if by misfortune the flag of the U. S. waves in Cal., it will not be by my
consent, or by that of the last of my compatriots, but solely by force; with
the understanding that I protest solemnly before the whole world against the
means used, or which may be used, to separate this department from the Mexican
republic, to whose flag it desires to belong, making you responsible for all
the evils and misfortunes that may result from a war so unjust as that which
has been declared against this peaceful department. I have the honor,’ etc.
bly on August 10th. In a speech he admitted the impossibility of a
successful defence; said he saw no other way to preserve the honor of the
government than to depart with the general and report to the national
authorities; and proposed that the assembly should dissolve, in order that the
enemy might find none of the departmental authorities acting. The members,
after each had given expression to the proper sentiments of patriotism, voted
to approve Pico’s resolve, and to adjourn sine die.22 Then Don Pio
issued his parting address to the people. In this document he announced that
‘between ignominy and emigration,’ he chose the latter. He denounced the
ambitious efforts of the United States to secure the fairest portions of
Mexican territory, and especially the shameful promises by which the foe had
attempted to seduce Californians from their allegiance; and warned them to
prove to the world that it was their desperate situation and want of resources,
not their consent, that brought them under the usurper’s yoke. “My friends,
farewell! I take leave of you. I abandon the country of my birth, my family,
property, and whatever else is most grateful to man, all to save the national
honor. But I go with the sweet satisfaction that you will not second the
deceitful views of the astute enemy; that your loyalty and firmness will prove
an inexpugnable barrier to the machinations of the invader. In any event, guard
your honor, and observe that the eyes of the entire universe are fixed upon
you”!23
It was on the night of the 10th that Pico and'Castro left the capital,
the latter having disbanded his military force. Their departure and parting
addresses have been ridiculed and denounced as a cowardly
22 Aug. 10,1846, record of assembly
proceedings, in Olvera, Doc., MS., 326. Some of Pico’s friends have said that
he wished to continue the defence, but was not permitted by the assembly.
23 Pico,
Proclama de Despedida, 10 de Agosto, 1846, MS. Original in Pico,
Doc., MS., ii. 175-6; translation in Savage, Doc., MS., iii. 68-70; Hayes’
Emig. Notes, 340-1.
flight before the enemy, and an absurd exhibition of Mexican bombast. By
their selfish incompetence and foolish strife in past years, these men had done
much to reduce California to her present unhappy condition, so that she could
no longer make even an honorable show of resistance to the invader. I have not
much to say in praise of either as man or ruler. Yet as they had to choose
between flight and surrender, and as they were Mexican officers, and as it was
a firmly rooted Mexican idea that flight and patriotic protests saved the
national honor in such cases, I think their final acts deserve some
commendation. They chose flight attended with some hardship, rather than the
continuance of power that had been promised them under the American flag,
coupled with dishonor in the eyes of their countrymen. This shows that they
still retained a praiseworthy pride.
And here I must notice briefly one phase of this matter, which is more
fully treated in other chapters relating to the missions and to the subject of
land grants. It has been a current statement among writers on California that
Pico in the last months of his rule exerted himself to distribute among his
friends —and especially among Englishmen, with a view to keep them out of the
hands of Americans—the largest possible amount of public lands; that he made
haste to sell the mission property, for the most part to Englishmen also, for
whatever prices he could get; and that he carried away with him some $20,000 of
funds resulting from these sales, or which had been contributed by the people
for the country’s defence. With respect to the last charge, I hasten to say,
that beyond the statements of Don Pio’s personal enemies, and the current
rumors growing out of those statements, I find no evidence that he carried out
of the country a dollar of the public funds; and it is very certain that he
co'uld not have obtained any such sum as that named. Again, it may be said that
the political aspect of Pico’s land grants and mission sales, as
part of a scheme to give California to England, is almost purely
imaginary. Many men, foreseeing a great increase in the value of lands, were
anxious in these last months to secure grants; and the governor, so far as his
quarrels with Castro left him free to attend to such matters, was disposed to
grant their request. It was by no means discreditable to him, that before his
power was gone he was disposed to distribute the public lands among his
friends, so long as he acted legally. As to the sales of the missions, they
were effected in pursuance of a policy formed in earlier years, with the
approval of the assembly. The price was as large as could be obtained, and I
find no reason to doubt that the proceeds were patriotically squandered in
support of the government, and preparations against Castro. The only question
is the legal one of' Pico’s power to sell the missions at all under existing
circumstances, a matter that is not to be discussed here. So far nothing
appears against the governor in this respect, taking the various grants as
they appear on their face. It would be well for his reputation could we stop
here; but there is no room to doubt that some of the titles were written by the
governor just before his departure, or even after his return, and fraudulently
antedated. Comment is unnecessary.
Pico and Castro, though they both left Los Angeles on August 10th, did
not flee together. Castro, accompanied by his secretary, Francisco Arce, and a
small party24—others having turned back from San Bernardino, and
Weber being carried along as a prisoner but soon released—took the Colorado
River route to Sonora, and reached Altar the 7th of September. Here he
communicated with Governor Cuesta, and sent despatches to Mexico describing the
condition of affairs in California and urging measures to recover the country
and avenge her wrongs.'25 Of
24Arce,
Mem., MS., 58-9, says there were 19 men. Jesus Pico, Acont., MS., 66-7, names
Salomon Pico, Rudecindo Castro, and three Soberanes.
25 Sept. 9, 1846, Castro at Altar to Cuesta,
and Cuesta’s reply of the 13th, in
course no practical attention was paid to the general’s suggestions.
After some military service in Sinaloa, Castro returned to California in 1848,
and departed again in 1853 to become a Mexican official in Lower California.
Pico, leaving Los Angeles in the night of August 10th—after issuing the
proclamation already noted, and also notifying the foreign consuls that
California was to be left without a government—• spent the night at Yorba’s
rancho, and went next day to San Juan Capistrano, where, and in the vicinity of
his rancho of Santa Margarita, he was concealed by his brother-in-law, John
Forster, for about a month. He states that he had many narrow escapes from falling
into the hands of Fremont’s men, and of a party under Santiago E. Argiiello.
This is confirmed by Forster, and to some extent by others. It is probable that
the efforts to effect his capture, rather vaguely mentioned by many writers,
have been considerably exaggerated. At any rate, Fremont, at Bandini’s
intercession, assured Don Pio that he should not be molested.26 It
was hoped perhaps that if he could be induced to remain, he might consent to
convoke the
El Sonorense, Sept. 25, 1846. A list of Castro’s companions was enclosed,
but unfortunately not printed. Sept. 9th, Castro to min. of war. Explains the
circumstances that forced him to leave his post. Awaits orders at Altar, as he
has no means of pursuing his journey. Thinks that with a great effort triumph
would still not be very difficult. The foe has but 3,000 men, most of them not
available except on the coast. In the interior, only the settlers and 400 or
500 hunters were to be feared. Castro thinks no very large number of immigrants
can be expected until next year. Col. Alvarado, Prefect Manuel Castro, and
Capt. Torre, with citizens, are hidden in the mountains, ready to sally forth
and defeat the ‘ infernal intrigues of our oppressors. ’ Original blotter in
Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 136. Oct. 15th, reply of min. of war. Expresses sympathy
and indignation. The govt with a view of vengeance is expediting the march of
Gen. Bustamante. Id., ii. 144. In Nov. Escudero, diputado from Chihuahua,
proposed in congress a scheme and loan to recover New Mexico and Cal., which he
thought would be easy. Escudero, Mem. Chih., 46-9. In his report of Dec. 14,
1846, Min. Lafragua speaks of a new organization of the Califomias into two
territories; but the appointment of gefes politicos had no effect because of
the invasion. Mexico, Mem. Rela- clones, 1847, p. 163.
26 Sept. 15, 1846, Pico from S. Vicente to
Bandini, with thanks for his. efforts. Mentions a letter from Fremont which he
has answered. Bandini, Doc., MS., 97. Capt. Phelps, Fore and Aft, 305-6, who
was at S. Juan before Pico’s departure, mentions Fremont’s letter, and says
that he met Don Pio on the way to S. Diego. He then seemed disposed to give
himself up, as Fremont had urged.
assembly and go through the form of turning over the country to the
United States. The fugitive governor, however, was joined by his secretary
Moreno,27 and escaped across the line into Baja California on
September 7th. With Macedonio Gonzalez he went on to Mulegd, where he arrived
the 22d of October. In November he crossed the gulf to Guaymas, and was
subsequently driven to Hermosillo when Guaymas was bombarded by the Americans.
Over and over again he wrote to the national government, urging measures for
the recovery of California; but no attention ^ was paid to his
representations; and he could obtain neither the payment of his salary, thanks
for past sacrifices, nor even recognition as still entitled to be called
governor. He returned to California in the middle of 1848.28
Meanwhile Stockton at San Pedro was engaged in drilling his 360 men, most
of them ignorant of the simplest military movements on land, and making other
preparations for an advance, from the 7th to the llth. The commodore’s
biographer, in a very inaccurate and bombastic narrative of this campaign,
which has apparently been the source of most that has since been written on the
subject,29 tells us that when Castro’s commissioners arrived, the
American commander, regarding them as spies, resolved to deceive them as to
his strength. He therefore caused
27 There is a tradition that they carried
away and buried the government archives; but a large part of the documents were
retained by Moreno, and their contents now form part of my collection, as
Moreno, Documentos -para la IIistoria de California. Coleccion de D. Jos6 Matias Moreno, secretario que fue del gobierno, afio
de 1846, la cual existe original en la Baja California, en posesion de, la Sra
Doiia Prudenciana Lopez. Copias y extractos por Thos Savage, 1878,
MS., fol., 138 p.
28 March 29, 1846, Pico at Hermosillo to
min. of rel., describing his movements since leaving Cal., and mentioning the
contents and dates of previous reports. Pico, Doe., MS., i. 31-6; Savage, Doc.,
MS., iii. 76-84; Hayes’ Emig. Notes, i. 340, 342. See also Pico, Hist. Cal.,
MS., 161-74; Forster’s Pioneer Data, MS., 32-5; Los Angeles Express, Feb. 4,
1873; Man on, Reciter- dos, MS., 10-13; Wilson's Observ., MS., 61-2; Monterey
Californian, Aug. 22, 1846.
23 Stockton’s Life, 119-23, followed closely
in most respects by Tuthill, Lancey, and others.
his men to march in a circle, one part of which was concealed, until each
had come many times into view. He also received Guerra and Flores where his
guns were, posting himself by the side of a 32-pounder, while the others,
six-pounders, were covered with skins, so as to make it appear that all were of
the same large calibre. To what extent the account of these manoeuvres is
founded on fact, there are no means of knowing; but the additional statements
that Stockton, having delivered his message for Castro to the embassadors “in
the most fierce and offensive manner, and in a tone of voice significant of
the most implacable and hostile determination, waived them from his presence
imperiously, with the insulting imperative, ‘Vamose’;” that another embassy
was treated with like insolence, with the successful purpose of intimidating
the foe; and that to a third embassy, pompously informing the commander that
“if he marched upon the town he would find it the grave of his men,” the reply
was, “Have the bells ready to toll at eight o’clock, as I shall be there at
that time”—may very safely be designated as falsehoods pure and simple.30
The march to Los Angeles was begun on August 11th. Larkin had been sent
ahead with a message for Castro, but that same afternoon news came of the
general’s retreat. No enemy was seen, but progress was very slow, as the
artillery had to be drawn by oxen or by the sailors themselves. Two nights were
spent on the road. Captain Phelps of the Moscow arrived at San Pedro the day
after Stockton’s departure and at once started to overtake him. He gives an excellent
account of the expedition and events immediately following, indeed the only one
extant, so far as details are concerned. From him we learn that 150 sailors
were sent back as soon as Castro’s flight was known; that the main force
encamped for the night at Temple’s rancho, was kept under arms
30 It is fair to say that the last lie was
taken by this writer, as it has been by others, from Colton's Three Years in Cal., 56.
for two hours on account of the alarm created by the cries of two
coyotes; and that Stockton and Larkin entered the city, where they were joined
by the writer, before the arrival of the troops.31 At Castro’,s
abandoned camp were found ten pieces of artillery, tour of them spiked.32
Major Frdmont from San Diego met the marine force just outside the town; and at
about 4 p. m. on the 13th the
combined armies entered the capital, where the flag of the United States was at
once raised with the usual ceremonies, and, here as elsewhere in California,
without the slightest demonstrations of opposition or disapproval on the part
of the inhabitants.33
Some of the Angelinos had fled to their ranchos or those of their friends
as the Americans drew near the town; others had withdrawn to the hill to see
what the strangers would do with the capital. The latter returned to their
homes before night, attracted by assurances that no harm should befall them,
and unable to resist the influence of a full brass band. The former also
returned with few exceptions as the days passed by. Fremont and his men made a
tour southward in quest of fugitives; but were not able greatly to advance the
cause of reconciliation, on account of
31 Phelps’ Fore and Aft, 297, etc. Of Stockton’s army on the march lie
says: ‘First came the full band of music, followed by Capt. Zeilin and his
marines; then Lieut Schenck and the web-feet; Lieut Tilghman and a battery of
four quarter-deck guns mounted on as many bullock carts; tlie carriages of the
guns were secured by the breechings, and ready for instant service. Each cart
was drawn by four oxen—the baggage ammunition followed in similar teams; the
purser, doctor, and some other officers—-part of them mounted on rather sorry
horses, the others on foot.’ In Stockton’s
Life we read: ‘ The enemy were often in sight, threatening their
flanks or advance guard, and hovering on the brows of adjacent hills’! B. D.
Wilson, Observations, MS., 62-3,
claims that he had gone out to meet the Americans; and that it was
on his invitation that Stockton came with him in advance into the town.
32 Stockton’s Mil. and Naval Oper., 2.
33 On Stockton’s occupation of Los Angeles,
see also Stockton’s Report, 389; reports of secretaries of war and navy, Dec.
5, 1846, S9th Cong. %d Sess., H. Ex.
Doc. no. 4, p. 52, 379; Stockton’s despatches and annexed documents,
in 30th Ceng. 1st Sess., H. Ex. Doc.
no. 70, p. 38-42; Lancey’s Cruise, 111-14; Tuthill’s Hist. Cal.,
186-9; S. F. Bulletin, Oct. 10, 1866; Monterey Californian, Sept. 19, 1S46. The first official act of Stockton
at Angeles, as shown by the records, was the appointment of Larkin
as U. S. navy agent. Larkin's Doc.,
MS., iv. 254.
the bad reputation given him by Castro, though when better known he
became popular in the south. The chief influence brought to bear was that of
old foreign residents, who counselled submission. Phelps, a well known trader,
did something in this direction during a business trip to San Diego and back.
Officials were required to give their parole; others merely to comply with the
necessary police regulations of military rule. Castro’s men had started in
several parties for their northern homes soon after the general’s departure,
dispersing as they advanced. A few of them were captured and paroled on the way
by a detachment of the California battalion sent in pursuit.34
Others were paroled later in the north; while a few officers of both sections
escaped altogether the humiliation of submission. The parole records have not
been preserved; but the names of certain officers who broke their promise will
be given later. Local authorities as a rule declined to serve; but there were
exceptions; and several prominent abajenos, notably Bandini and Argiiello of
San Diego, became openly partisans of the American cause.35 There
still smoul-
311 find in
Lancey’s Cruise, 117, more particulars of this matter than any
where else. He says
Lieut Maddox, with the companies of Ford and Swift,
left Angeles Aug.
16th; captured and paroled 15 officers near S. Luis Obispo
after a ‘ sharp skirmish;
’ and reached Monterey on Sept. 2d (this date comes from the Californian, Sept.
5, 1846) or 10th. Alvarado and Jesus Pieo were among those taken; but I do not
think Manuel Castro was paroled, as Lancey states, or that there was any
skirmish. Pico, Acont., MS., 67-8, mentions the arrest and parole of himself
and Alvarado by a party that took possession of S. Luis. Alvarado, Hist. Cal.,
MS., v. 249-50, mentions his own arrest aud parole by Fremont’s men; but says
that Castro had previously disbanded his men and taken refuge in the mountains.
Several Californians describe the march vaguely, but say nothing of any hostile
meeting. I have before me an original summons sent by Sub-prefect Thompson to
Manuel Castro and his companions to appear before him on complaint of citizens
whose horses they were taking on their retreat. It is dated Sta Barbara Aug.
13th. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 261. Of course the summons was not obeyed,
though some say that Don Manuel sent baek a challenge to Thompson to come out
and fight. On or about Aug. 26th Maddox seized 17 horses and a mule on Capt.
Guerra’s S. Julian rancho. It appears he had an order for certain animals, but
took more than the order called for. So testifies the majordomo Gregorio Lopez.
Guerra, Doc., MS., vii. 200-1.
35In
Bandini, Doc., MS., 98, I have an address to the people, in which Bandini and
Argiiello explain their reasons for accepting the situation, and urge all
Californians to do the same. It is a long document, but does not re.
tiered in the hearts of many Californians a bitter Mexican prejudice
against the invaders, but there were few if any open manifestations of
discontent. Mounting a few guns on the hill, and organizing a garrison,
Stockton soon retired his naval force to the Congress. It only remains to
notice the commodore’s successive orders, his proposed organization of a civil
government, his placing of garrisons in the southern towns, and his departure
for the north.38
On August 17th Stockton published his second proclamation to the people,
signing himself "Commander-in-chief and governor of the territory of California.”
It merits none of the unfavorable criticism called forth by the earlier
production. In it the commodore simply announced that the country now belonged
to the United States, and as soon as possible would be governed like any other
territory of that nation; but meanwhile by military law, though the people were
invited to choose their local civil officers, if the incumbents declined to
serve. Liberty of conscience and full protection of life and property were
promised to all who should adhere to the new government; none others were
permitted to remain. Thieves were to be punished by hard labor on the public
works; and the California battalion was to be kept in the service to preserve
the peace.37 It was also on the
quire quotation. The
arguments presented rest on Mexico’s past negleet and California’s consequent
misfortunes; on the inevitable separation from Mexico sooner or later; on the
impossibility of resisting the American forces; on the necessity of
self-preservation; and on the prospective prosperity of the country under so
liberal, fraternal, and strong a govt as that of the U. 8. In Id., 93, 96, I
have letters from Fremont and David Alexander to Bandini, Aug. 22d, 24th, in
which both dwell on the glories of American rule, addressing Don Juan as a
friend of the cause, and Fremont also announcing the definite news of the
Mexican war.
36In the
Monterey, Consulate Arch., MS., ii. IS, Larkin charges up his expenses on the
southern trip $376. Sept. 2d, Olvera informs Moreno that Luis Vignes had to
give up the archives. Moreno, Doc., MS., 23. Hargrave, Cal. in *46, MS., 8-9,
notes the accidental discharge of his gun while he was doing duty as sentry,
and Fremont was in the room above, the bullet narrowly missing him. Tu thill,
Hist. Cal., 189-90, and several others represent Fremont as not having arrived
until after the occupation of Angeles.
37 Aug. 17, 1846, Stockton’s proclamation.
29th Cong. 2d sess., //. Ex. Doc. no. 4) P- 669-70; S. Diego, Arch., MS.,
316-17 {an original); Monterey Californian, Sept. 5, 1846; S. F. Cal. Star,
Jan. 9, 1S47; Bryant's
17th that Fremont’s men started in search of Pico and other Californian
fugitives; and on the same day the Warren, Commander Hull, anchored at San
Pedro from Mazatlan and Monterey, bringing definite news of a declaration of
war.33 On the 15th Stockton had fixed the duties on foreign goods
at fifteen per cent ad valorem, and tonnage duties at fifty cents per ton; on
the 19th, he proclaimed all the Mexican coast south of San Diego “to be in a
state of vigorous blockade,” except against armed vessels of neutral nations;
and on the 20th he issued orders to commanders Hull and Dupont to blockade the
ports of Mazatlan and San Bias with the Warren and Cyane.™
On the 22d of August Governor Stockton ordered an election of alcaldes
and other municipal officers to be held in the several towns and districts of
California, September 15th.40 This order, identical in purport
with a paragraph of the proclamation of the 17th, was the only step taken by
the new governor—except the act of calling himself governor—toward the organization
of a civil government. All else took the form of plans for the future. He
determined, and announced his intention both to Fremont and to the secretary of
the navy, to form a civil territorial government, and to appoint a governor in
the person of Fremont, with other territorial authorities to rule after his own
departure. He even prepared a plan, or constitution, which he submitted to his
government, but did not publish or attempt to put it in op-
What I Saw in Gal., 298-9, etc. All persons during the continuance of
military law were required to be within their houses from 10 o’clock to
sunrise; and
persons found with arms outside their own houses were to be treated as enemies.
It will be noticed that this document differs in no important respect from
Sloat’s proclamation of July 7th.
38 Phelps’ Fore and Aft, 303. The arrival of
the Warren at Monterey on Aug. 12th, and departure on the 13th, are noted in
Colton’s Three Tears, 28-9. The vessel brought not only Mexican papers
announcing the war, but also Sec. Bancroft’s despatch of May 13th.
39Stockton’'s Despatches,
1846, in 29th Cong. 2d Sess., H. Ex. Doc. no. 4< p. 668-75.
40Id., 671; Dept. St.
Pap., S. Josi, MS., vi. 59-60. The former alcaldes, whether elected
or appointed, were to hold the election.
oration.11 In his later report, the commodore gave somewhat
elaborately the motives that impelled him to substitute a civil for a military
government, but did not allude to any definite acts beyond the issuance of
commercial regulations and the order for local elections; though he tried to
create the impression, as he always maintained, that the change from military
to civil rule was practically effected at the time.42 His motives as
alleged were good and sufficient; his right as a naval commander ordered to
occupy Mexican ports to establish a civil government need not be questioned
here; but the fact that he did not organize such a government, while intending
to do so, has some importance in view of later complications.
Deeming the conquest complete, Stockton resolved
11 Aug.
24th, Stockton to Fr&nont; Aug. 28tb, Stockton to Bancroft; no date, form
of constitution; in Stockton’s Despatches, 18Jfi, p. 668-75. To Fremont he says: ‘I propose before I
leave the territory to appoint you to bo governor, and Capt. Gillespie the
secretary thereof; and to appoint also the council of state, and all the
necessary officers.’ To Bancroft he says the same in substance; and adds: ‘I
enclose to you several despatches marked 1 to 14,’ of which no. 6 is the
constitution, ‘by which you will see what sort of a government I have
established, and how I am proceeding. ’ The document no. 6, without title or
date, is as follows, with many verbal omissions for the purpose of
condensation: I, Robert F. Stockton, commander and governor, having taken Cal.
by right of conquest, declare it to be a territory of the U.
S.; and I
order that the form of g;ovt, until altered hy the U. S., shall be as follows:
A governor to hold ofhee 4 years, unless removed by the pres, of the U. S., to
be commander-iu-chief, and supt of Ind. affairs, to approve laws, grant pardons
and reprieves, commission officers, and see to the execution of the laws. A
secretary to record and preserve all proceedings aud laws, to forward copies
each year to the pres, and to congress, and to perform the duties of gov.
temporarily, in case of that officer’s ahsence, etc. A legislative council of 7
appointed by gov. for two years, but subsequently elected each year; the
council’s power to extend to all .rightful subjects of legislation; but no law
to interfere with primary disposal of land, no tax on U. S. property, and no discriminatiou
in taxes between residents and nonresidents. Laws must be approved by the gov.
Municipal officers to continue as before, under the laws of Mexico, until
otherwise provided for by gov. and council. Council to hold its first session
when and where the gov. shall direct; but as soon as possible gov. and council
to establish the capital.
12Stockton’s Report, 40. ‘Actuated by such considerations, I
gave my immediate attention to the establishment, upon a permanent basis, of a
civil govt throughout the country, as much in conformity with the former usages
of the country as could be done in the absence of any written code.’ ‘Having
achieved the conquest of the country, and finding my military strength ample to
retain it, the establishment of a civil govt naturally and necessarily
resulted.’ Aug. 27th, Thos Frazer writes to Larkin: ‘I hear some rumors that
Fremont is going to compel Stockton to nominate him as governor. The
pretensions of the major run high, because old Benton will stick to him through
thick and thin.’ Larkin’s Doc., MS.,
iv. 263.
to withdraw his marine force from California, “to leave the desk and camp
and take to the ship and sea,” and to devote his personal attention to naval
operations on the Mexican coast. With this object in view, he ordered Major
Fremont to increase his battalion to 300 men, to garrison the different towns,
and to meet him at San Francisco on October 25th to perfect final
arrangements.43 All that had been done so far was reported on August
28th to the government at Washington, the report with accompanying documents
being sent overland by Kit Carson at that time.44 On the last day of
August Stockton commissioned Gillespie as commandant of the southern department,
instructing him to maintain martial law, and enforce the observation of the
proclamation of the 17th, but authorizing him also to grant written permits to
persons known to be friendly, to be out before sunrise and carry weapons.45
And finally, on September 2d, the last day of his stay at Los Angeles, he
issued a general order creating the office of military commandant of the
territory, which was divided into three departments. Frdmont was appointed on
the same day to fill the new command.46
Gillespie was left with a garrison of 50 men at Los Angeles. It would
seem that no garrison was left at San Diego, though a few men were sent there a
little later. The position of Bandini and Argiiello has been already noted; and
several citizens accepted office under the new regime. John Bidwell was put in
charge of San Luis Rey and the mission property.47 Stock-
43 Aug. 24th, S. to F. Stockton’s
Despatches, 675. The garrisons, befort and after the increase of force by
enlistment, were to be for S. F., 50, 50; for Monterey, 50, 50; Sta Barbara,
25, 25; Angeles, 50, 50; aud S. Diego, —, 25—so that the increase was not
chiefly for garrison duty, but ‘to watch Indians and other enemies. ’
44 These documents form the collection which
I have quoted as Stockton’s Despatches, lSJfi, in 29th Gong. 2d Sess., H. Ex.
Doc. 4, P- 668-75.
45 Aug. 31st, Stockton to Gillespie.
Stockton’s Mil. and NavalOper., 7-8. Gillespie .might also appoint local civil
officers where none were elected.
46 Id., p. 8. Fremont’s appointment as
military commandant of the territory is given in Frimont’s Court-martial, 110.
47Bidwell’s Cal. ISJ/l-S, MS., 180-1. Aug. 18th, Miguel de Pedrorena
accepts the office of justice of the peace temporarily. Hayes’ Doc., MS., 187.
ton left Los Angeles September 2d; and three days later sailed northward
on the Congress. At Santa Barbara on the 7th he took on board Mitchell and his
men, formerly left here as a garrison. Here he also met Midshipman McRae, who
after crossing Mexico had arrived in a Mexican brig, and who brought despatches
dated Washington, May 15th, two days later than those received by the Warren.*3 He arrived at Monterey the 15th, where the Erie from Honolulu had
arrived before him. Meanwhile Major Frdmont, with the remnant of his battalion,
left Los Angeles and marched northward to the Sacramento Valley. Nothing is
known of the march, except that Lieutenant Talbot and nine men were left as a
garrison at Santa Bdrbara to replace the men taken away on the Congress.49
Aug. 18th-25th, Pedro
C. Carrillo accepts Stockton’s appointment as collector of customs. Carrillo
(P.), I)oc., MS., 5-7.
48 Stockton
acknowledges the receipt, and mentions his meeting with McRae in his report to
the sec. of navy of Sept. 18th, Stockton’s Mil. and Navitl Oper., 1-2, at the
same time stating that he had carried out the orders o£ Maj 15th, even to the
sending of an overland courier, and so he had, and somewhat more, as the order
did not literally require more than the occupation of Californian port towns.
The order is found in 29th Cong. Sens., H. Ex. Doc., 19; Cutts’ Conq., append.,
254^5. Phelps, Fore and Aft, 309-10, who was at Sta Barbara, notes McRae’s
arrival. The brig on which he came was seized by Mitchell. The passenger
pretended—it does not clearly appear why—to be an English officer, with
despatches for the admiral. Phelps suspected this was not true; and while
quizzing him at dinner the Congress appeared,
and the officer threw off his disguise. He said he had crossed to Acapulco in
the disguise of an English officer. Stockton wished to charter Phelps’ vessel
as a privateer, but the offer was declined for business reasons. In a speech at
a banquet of the Cal. Assoc. Pioneers, N. Y., 1875, p. 20, Ex-governor Rodman
M. Price, formerly purser of the Cyane,
said: ‘This I know, the official news of the existence of war came
by Lieut McRae of the navy, a special messenger from Washington to Monterey,
and I carried it from there to Los Angeles and delivered it to Com. Stockton.’
4BIn his
Geog. Memoir, 39-40, Fremont gives an account of the physical features of the
country as observed on this march; but the only dates are ‘about the middle of
Sept. we encamped near the summit of the Cuesta de Sta ln<5s,’ and at the
end of Sept. were in the region of Soledad. Lancey, Cruise, 120, says that Fremont left Angeles Sept. 8th with 40
men; and Sta Barbara Sept. 13th with 30 men.
CHAPTER XII.
THE CONQUEST—AEFAIRS
IN THE NORTH—REVOLT OF FLORES IN THE SOUTH.
Augcst-October,
1846.
At
Monterey—Colton’s Diaries—The First Newspaper—Fauhtleroy and Snyder at San
Juan—San Josi:
under Hyde, Watmouqh, and Weber—San
Francisco Affairs—Reception to Stockton—Revere .at Sonoma—Meeting of Bear Flag
Men—Release of Prisoners— The Walla Walla Invasion—Stockton’s Grand Plans—J uan
Flaco’s Ride—Preparations to Quell the Revolt—Gillespie at Angeles— Varela’s
Attack—Jose Maria Flores—Pronunciamiento—Fight at Chino Rancho—Gillespie’s
Capitulation—Talbot Driven from Santa Bap.eara—Merritt from San Diego—Mervine’s
Defeat— Meeting of the Assembly—Stockton at San Pedro—San Diego Reoccupied.
Affairs at the north from
August to the end of October, during the absence of Stockton and after his
return, may be best and briefly presented in the form of local annals. Let us glance at each of the northern
settlements, Monterey, San Juan, San Jose, San Francisco, and Sutter’s Fort.
Walter Colton, sometime chaplain in the navy, performed occasional
religious service in these times, both on land and on shipboard. He served as
alcalde, at first by military appointment with Rodman M. Price, and later by
popular election; kept a diary, subsequently published; and in company with
Semple edited and published a newspaper. From the book and paper, with some
slight aid from other sources, I form a chronologic summary of local
happenings, which is
(288)
appended in a note.1 Colton’s diary is largely devoted to
petty though interesting details of incidents connected with the author’s
administration of justice, with
1 Aug. 1st, Stockton sailed on the
Congress to undertake the conquest of the south. Aug. 7th, news that the
Brooklyn with its Mormon colony hatl arrived at S. Francisco. Aug. 11th, a
deserter reports Castro as on his last legs, anxious to fly to Mex. H. B. M.
hrig-of-war Spy arrived from S. Bias. ‘She has undoubtedly news of moment, but
will not reveal it.’ Aug. 12th, the Warren, Com. Hull, arrived from Mazatlan,
bringing the official news of war. ‘ The mysterious silence of the officers of
the Spy is now explained. ’ ‘The war news produced a profound sensation here.
The whole population were instantly thrown into groups in the corridors and at
the corners of streets. The hum of voices continued late into the night. It was
an extinguisher on the hopes of those who had looked to Mexico for aid, or who
had clung to the expectation that the American govt would repudiate our possession
of Cal. They now relinquish all idea of a return to their old political
connection, and appear resigned to their fate.’ Aug. 13th, the Warren sailed
for S. Pedro. Alcaldes Coltonand Price issued an order strictly prohibiting the
sale of liquors or wines, under penalty of forfeiture, fine, and imprisonment.
Colton relates several instances of efforts on the part of dealers to evade
this law. Aug. 14th, 20 Indians arrested for stealing horses brought to town.
They were turned over to Capt. Mevrine, who drew up his troops in a hollow
square, with the Indians in the centre expecting to be shot; but they were set
free, and then taken on board the Savannah to inspire them with awe, being
furnished with blankets and handkerchiefs, and dismissed to the air of Hail
Columbia, vowing eternal allegiance to the Americans! Aug. 15th, first number
of the Californian published. A man from Castro’s camp reported that the
general was disposed to treat with Stockton, having only ahout 130 soldiers
left. Aug. 18th-19th, some of Castro’s officers, including Joaq. de la Torre,
arrived and were paroled, announcing tho flight of the general and governor.
Aug. 21st, Lieut McLane returned from an exped. against marauding Ind. Aug.
22d, 29th, no. 2 and 3 of the Californian appeared.
Sept. 2d, Lieut
Maddox, with captains Ford and Swift and a portion of their companies, arrived
from Los Angeles. Sept. 3d, despatches from Stockton included his procl. of
Aug. 17th; also stated that Gov. Pico had not escaped, but surrendered. Sept. 4th,
first jury impanelled in Cal. to try the case of Isaac Graham vs Charles
Roussillon, ‘ involving property on one side and integrity of character on the
other.’ The verdict acquitted the Frenchman of fraudulent intent, and found a
balance due plaintiff of §65. Graham was satisfied, and retracted in writing
his charges. The jury was composed of Juan Malarin, W. B. P. Hartnell, Manuel
Diaz, Jos6 Abrego, Rafael Sanchez, Pedro Narvaez, Charles Chase, Geo. Minor,
Milton Little, Robert H. Thomes, Florencio Serrano, and Talbot H. Green. Sept.
4th, Com. Mer- vine issued an order requiring all of Castro’s officers to
present themselves and sign paroles; also those already paroled were to give
additional pledges. Sept. 5th, no. 4 of the Californian. Sept. 11th, an express
announced the arrival of 1,000 Walla Walla Lid. on the Sac., bent on vengeance.
(See later in this chapter.) Sept. 12th, no. 5 of the Californian. Ex-gov. Alvarado
arrived about this time and was well received by Capt. Mervine and hy the
citizens of Monterey. Sept. 14th, news that 2,000 immigrants had arrived at the
Sacramento. Sept. 15th, municipal election held, with following results:
Alcalde, Walter Colton; alcalde pro tem., Milton Little; alcalde’s councillors,
Spence, Hartnell, Malarin, and Diaz; treasurer of municipal funds, Salvador
Munras. Sept. 15th, Stockton arrived in the Congress. Sept. 17th, Larkin
recommends the confirmation of T. H. Green as collector of the port, and the
appointment of Hartnell as surveyor and appraiser of the custom-house. This
was done. Sept. 19th, the Erie, the Hist. Cal., Vol. V. 19
frequent remarks on the manners and customs of the people—the whole being
an excellent picture of the times, whose reproduction en r&umd is of course
impossible. The Savannah remained at anchor in the bay during Stockton’s
absence in the south; and Captain Mervine was military commandant of the post.
On the commodore’s return Lieutenant Maddox was made commandant of the central
district on Sept. 18th, and a company of dragoons was organized. On the hill in
a position commanding both town and harbor were built by Cecil a block-house
and battery, where three 42-pounders were mounted. The structure, sur-
date of whose arrival
from Honolulu is not recorded, sailed for Panama with despatches. No. 6 of the
Californian. Sept. 20th (or 22d), the Savannah sailed for S. Francisco. Sept.
25th (or 24th), the Congress with Stockton sailed for S. F. Additional orders
on the sale of liquors. Sept. 26th, no. 7 of the Californian. Sept. 29th, order
forbidding gambling. A courier from Los Angeles brought news of a revolt of
the Californians in the south.
Oct. 1st, arrived the
French corvette Brillante, bringing M. Moerenhaut, French consul at Monterey.
Oct. 3d, no. 8 of the Californian. Oct. 5th, news that the Savannah had sailed
for the south, ‘ to bring the insurgents if
Eossihle to an
engagement; but the probability is that they will instantly disand and fly to
the forests.’ Oct. 10th, no. 9 of the Californian. Lieut Maddox’s company
mustered into the service; 2 officers and 15 men. 30 men joined later. Mustered
out April 1847. 31st Cong. 1st Sess., H. Ex. Doc. 24,
22 h. vol. vii. Oct. 14th, streets barricaded
and other preparations made for defence. ‘ Bands have been gathering in the
vicinity to make a night assault on Monterey. Their plan is to capture or drive
out the small American force here and plunder the town.’ Oct. 15th, alarm still
continued. A company of Californians seen in the distance. A despatch sent by
the Barnstable to Stockton for aid. Oct. 16th, Stockton arrived in the
Congress, having been met outside by the messenger while en route for the
south. He landed a force sufficient to protect the town, 50 men and 3 guns
under Baldwin and Johnson. Oct. 17th, no. 10 of the Californian. Oct. 19th, a
party of 20 Californians left the town and vicinity to join the insurgents.
The Congress sailed for S. Pedro. Oct. 23d, the Vandalia arrived from the south
with news of Gillespie’s capitulation at Angeles and Mervine’s defeat at S.
Pedro. Oct. 24th news of the Sterling with Fremont and his men, who had turned
back while en route for the south. No. 11 of the Californian. Oct. 27th, Lieut
W. B. Renshaw arrived in the Maleh Adhel, a prize brig taken at Mazatlan. Oct.
28th, Fr&nont and his men arrived in a famished condition. Scouts reported
a large band of Californians in the hills; and it was thought that they intended
to attack the town that night, Maddox being absent with 30 men at S. Juan, but
that their plan was frustrated by Fremont’s arrival. Oct. 29th, Maddox returned
with a field-piece and many horses. Oct. 30th, a man in charge of the horses
near the town was shot by two of the Californians, but not killed. Oct. 31st,
no. 12 of the Californian. See Colton's Three Years in California, 20-84. In
the S. J. Pioneer, Oct. 13, 1877, is a narrative of the excitement caused by
the discharge of a cannon when strapped on the back of a mule that had brought
it from S. Juan; also in Id., Jan. 19, 1878, of Mariano Soberanes’ tussle with
a sentinel, while surreptitiously visiting his family in town.
rounded b}r a ditch, was at first called Fort Stockton, but
the name was soon changed to Fort Mervine. At first all was quiet; but at the
news of southern revolt, the arribenos also began to show disaffection. Bands
of Californians, more or less fully organized, ranged the hills and drove off
horses, even threatening the town; so that before the end of October much fear
was experienced, not only by Americans, but especially by the many native
families who had been somewhat prominent in espousing the American cause.
Respecting the acts of the rebels in later months I shall have something to say
hereafter.
The appearance of the first newspaper is an event which merits notice
here. Not only had there never been a paper published in the country, but there
had been no subscribers to any paper, except a few in the last two or three
years to the Honolulu Polynesian. The Mexican official paper was
sent with some show of regularity to the Californian government; small packages
of different Mexican and Spanish papers were forwarded occasionally by friends
to officers, padres, or citizens; while trading vessels sometimes brought to
resident foreigners old numbers of journals from the United States, from the
Sandwich Islands, or even from Oregon. It was probably Robert Semple who conceived the idea of a Californian
newspaper in 1846, as Figueroa had done without any practical results in
earlier times. Semple knew something of setting type. Colton favored the
scheme, and had had some editorial experience in Philadelphia on the North
American. The two agreed to edit and publish a paper in partnership. Colton
describes his partner as “an emigrant from Kentucky, in a buckskin dress, a
f'ox-skin cap; true with the rifle, ready with his pen, and quick at the
type-case.” At the government house were found the old press and type, whose
products in 1834-42 I have had frequent occasion to cite in past chapters. The
apparatus had not been used for several years, having been pronounced
useless, perhaps as a mere excuse, when Pico wished' to transfer it to
Angeles in 1845. It had not, as one of the editors stated, and as many have
repeated, been “ picked up in a cloister,” or “ used by a Roman Catholic monk
in printing a few sectarian tracts;” nor had it ever been used by the padres at
all,; but had been the property of Agustin V. Zamorano, who sold it to the
government, which made some slight use of it in publishing official orders,
both at Monterey and Sonoma. Colton says: “ The press was old enough to be
preserved as a curiosity; the mice had burrowed in the balls; there were no
rules, no leads; and the types were rusty and all in pi. It was only by
scouring that the letters could be made to show their faces. A sheet or two of
tin were procured, and these with a jack-knife were cut into rules and leads.
Luckily we found with the press the greater part of a keg of ink; and now came
the main scratch for paper. None could be found, except what is used to
envelope the tobacco of the cigar smoked here by the natives. A coaster had a
small supply of this on board, which we procured. It is in sheets a little larger
than the common-sized foolscap.” It was the ordinary Spanish foolscap on which
most of the archives of California and other Spanish American provinces are
written, the thicker the better for writing, the thinner grades being preferred
for cigarettes, but there being, rarely any opportunity of choice for either
purpose. The font of type being intended for the Spanish language, vv had to
serve for w. “ The upper room in the north end of the upper barracks was
furnished by Lieutenant Minor as an office,” writes Semple; and the first
number of the Californian appeared on August 15th. ‘A crowd was waiting when
the first sheet was thrown from the press. It produced quite a little
sensation. Never was a bank run upon harder; not, however, by people with paper
to get specie, but exactly the reverse.” The paper appeared every Saturday
during the rest of the year and later, being
transferred to San Francisco in May 1847. It contained official orders,
current news chiefly local, editorials and correspondence on the condition and
prospects of the country, contributions from native Californians who favored
the new order of things, and several historical articles on the Bear Flag
revolt and other past events. By the aid of Hartnell, a portion of the contents
was printed in Spanish. The management of the paper reflected much credit on
the publishers. Semple, though he had obtained his discharge from Fauntleroy’s
company in order that he might devote his whole attention to the new enterprise,
was absent much of the time in the region of San Francisco Bay,
engaged—according to the statement of his partner, who with a type-setting
sailor had most of the work to do—in land speculations and in vain search for a
wife.2
Just before Stockton’s departure for the south, Captain Fauntleroy and
‘Major’ Jacob Snyder with fifty men were sent to occupy San Juan in the place
of the small garrison left there by Frdmont. Of their experience there all
that is recorded is an expedition dur-
2 The set of The Californian, Aug. 15,
1846, to May 6, 1847, nos 1-38, so far as published at Monterey, which I have
consulted, and a MS. resum6 of which forms a volume in my Library, is that of
the heirs of Ramon Arguello, in possession of Juan Malarin of Sta Clara,
originally preserved by David Spence. I have also a few specimen numbers of the
original. There is a set in the Cal. State Lihrary at Sac.; also one nearly
complete in the library of the Cal. Pioneers in S. F. It appears that the first
page of no. 1 was printed as a prospectus, hearing the name of Semple alone as
publisher. A copy is in Taylor’s Specimens of the Press, in the Mercantile
Library of S. F. In the ‘extra’ of Jan. 28,1847, Colton gives an account of the
enterprise. A letter of Semple to Fauntleroy explaining the plan and asking his
own discharge, is found in Cal. Pioneers, Arch., MS., 225-7. The paper is
noticed in the Oregon Spectator of Nov. 12, 1846; also in the Honolulu papers.
See full particulars in Colton’s Three Years in Cal., 32, etc. Francis D.
Clark, in a letter of Feb. 22, 1878, in S. Josi Pioneer, March 9, 1878, gives a
statement of John R. Gould of Maryland, that he fitted up the office, restored
the type, and printed the first numbers of the Californian. Gould may be the
sailor alluded to by Colton; but as he also says that Semple did not become a
partner for several months, the accuracy of his whole statement may be questioned.
Gould’s claim is also noticed in Upham’s Notes, 387. The S. Jose Pioneer, Dec.
15, 1877, prints a bill for $20, the subscription to the paper for
5 years to John H. Watmough, signed by
Semple on Aug. 28,1846. See also Hist. Or., i. 467, this series, for claim of
M. G. Foisy that he worked as printer on the Monterey Californian.
ing the first week in August against a party of Indians who had driven
off two hundred horses from San Josd, and who were forced to give up their
booty after a fight in which several of their number were killed. It would
appear that Fauntleroy’s men were subsequently withdrawn; for late in October,
after the revolt at Los Angeles had begun to trouble the northerners, Maddox
marched with thirty men to San Juan, spiked the iron cannon, took the locks
from the muskets, and carried the brass pieces with all horses obtainable to
Monterey.3
Respecting events at San Jos£ from August to October, our information is
hardly less meagre. James Stokes was succeeded as alcalde by George Hyde, who
was appointed “civil magistrate for the district of Santa Clara, with
headquarters at San Josd,” by Montgomery on August 26th. Purser James H.
Watmough, being appointed commandant of Santa Clara on the same date, with a
company of forty men, was sent down from San Francisco; but of his exploits we
know only that on September 14th he is said to have returned to San Jose from
an Indian expedition of two weeks, in which he recovered one hundred horses and
killed several gentiles; and that he probably went back to San Francisco
before the end of September. Early in October, Charles M. Weber returned from
his captivity in the south, and was made military commandant of San Jose
district by Montgomery, who also desired him to accept the position of
alcalde. Weber was authorized to organize a military force and defend the town
and vicinity if possible, but to retreat to Yerba Buena rather than to run too
great risks. No hostilities were committed, however, beyond the occasional
cutting of the flag-staff halyards at night; and Captain Weber was able to
collect a considerable body of horses, with which he
3 See
Colton’s Three Years in Cal., 25, 82; Monterey Californian, Oct. 31, 1846; and
Maddox’s letter of Oct. 28th to Weber, in S. Josi Pioneer, March 6, 1880.
is said to have arrived at San Juan just after the departure of Maddox.*
At San Francisco, where Montgomery remained in the Portsmouth as military
commandant of the northern district, while Watson commanded the little garrison
on shore, all was peace and quiet, with no ripple of excitement, except on the
arrival of vessels or couriers with news from abroad, or on the occasion of a grand
social festivity on shore or on shipboard. Lieutenant Washington A. Bartlett
was on August 26th appointed alcalde of the San Francisco district, with
headquarters at Yerba Buena. September 15th a municipal election was held, at
which nearly a hundred votes were cast. The officers elected were Washington
Bartlett, alcalde; Jos^ de Jesus Noe, second .alcalde; John Rose, treasurer;
and Peter T. Sherre- beck, collector.5 In the last days of September
the Savannah and Congress arrived from Monterey, and Stockton was given a
public reception the 5th of October. As the commodore landed from his barge, at
a point corresponding to what is now Clay street between Montgomery and
Sansome, William H. Russell delivered a flowery address of welcome; after
which the people marched in procession round the
i Monterey Californian, Sept. 5,
26, 1846; original letters of Bartlett and Montgomery to Weber, in Halleck’s
Mex. Land Laws, MS.; account from Weber’s own statements and papers, in S. Josi
Pioneer, March 6, 1880. In one of his letters, Montgomery orders Weber to throw
a ‘kurral’ ronnd his camp to prevent surprise. Sends him three recruits, also
powder and clothing. Militiamen can draw no pay except when in actual service.
$15 per month for subsistence is too much. Sept. 15th, Alcalde Hyde takes the
parole of Capt. Josd Fernandez. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 241.
b Monterey Californian, Sept. 5,
26, Oct. 3, 1846; Hyde's Statement, MS., 8; S. Josi Pioneer, Jan. 4, 1879. The
vote at the election was as follows: alcalde, Bartlett 66, Ridley 29, Spear 1;
2d alcalde, No6 63, Haro 24, scattering 9; treasurer, Rose 67, Francis Hoen
20, scattering 9; collector, Sherreback 86, J. Cooper 2. The inspectors were
WmH. Davis, Frank Ward, Francisco Guerrero, and Francisco Haro. Aug. 29th,
Bartlett enclosed to the alcalde of Sonoma ‘rules and regulations for trade in
the bay.’ Santa Rosa Sonoma Democrat, Dec. 30, 1871. On Sept. 15th Montgomery
issued an order that Indians should not be held in service cxcept under a
voluntary contract, acknowledged before a magistrate, and equally binding upon
employer and em- ployd. Californian, Oct. 3. Among the festivities are notably
a ball at the residence of Leidesdorff on Sept. 8th, at which over 100 ladies,
Californian and American, were present; and another on board the Magnolia on the
18th.
plaza and back to Montgomery street, where they listened to a speech from
Stockton. The discourse, in which he narrated the conquest of Los Angeles, and
made known his plans of vengeance on the “cowardly assassins”, who had dared
to revolt against his authority, was decidedly of the bombastic and ‘spread-
eagle’ variety, marked by the same disregard of truth that had been shown in
his first proclamation; but the speaker was eloquent and the audience pleased.
Then there was more marching; and finally, the governor with prominent
citizens made a tour on horseback to the presidio and mission, returning in
time for a collation given by the committee of arrangements at Leidesdorff s
residence.6 The rumor of an impending Indian invasion had hastened Stockton’s
visit to the north. This rumor proved unfounded; but news of a revolt in the
south had reached him just after his arrival at San Francisco. October 4th, the
day before the reception, Mervine had sailed in the Savannah for San Pedro; on
the 13th the Congress and the chartered merchant vessel Sterling, Captain
"Vincent, left the bay for the southern coast, the former with Stockton on
board, and the latter bearing Major Fremont and his battalion. There is nothing
to be noted at San Francisco after their departure.
Revere had been sent by Montgomery to command the garrison at Sonoma,
consisting of Company B of the battalion, under Captain Grigsby. Revere tells
us that a few disaffected Californians were still prowling about the district,
in pursuit of whom on one occasion he made an expedition with sixteen men to
6 Monterey Californian, Oct. 24, 1846,
with Stockton’s speech in full; Oregon Spectator, April 1, 1847; Davis’
Glimpses of the Past, MS., 349-51, the author having been present at the reception;
Stockton’s Report; and Lancey, Cruise, 131-2, who gives additional particulars.
He names Frank Ward as marshal; describes the composition of the procession
formed at 10 a.m.; says that in addition to his reply to Russell made at the
wharf, Stockton made a long speech in reply to a toast at the collation,
declaring that if one hair of the brave men left to garrison the south should
be injured, he ‘would wade knee-deep in his own blood (!) to avenge it;’ and
mentions a ball which closed the day’s festivities, and lasted until daylight
the next morning.
the region of Point Reyes. He did not find the party sought, but he was
able to join in a very enjoyable elk-hunt. The only other feature of his stay
at Sonoma—and a very interesting one, as described by him, though not very
important from an historical point of view—was an expedition by way of Napa
Valley to the Laguna, now Clear Lake, and back by the Russian River Valley, in
September. With the exception of a few military and hunting expeditions, meagrely
recorded, this was the first visit to the lake by a traveler who included in
the record a description of the country.7 On his return, the
lieutenant heard of the threatened Walla Walla invasion, and hastened with a
force to the Sacramento ; while the Vallejos were commissioned to protect the
Sonoma frontier with a force of Christian Indians, and Misroon before
September 11th assumed command of the garrison. Manuel E. McIntosh was now
alcalde of Sonoma; and the victims of the capture of June 14th
7 Revere's Tourof Duty, 77-95, 112-18, 130-47. The author’s description of
the regions visited is quite extensive. He and his few companions passed the
first night at Yount’s; arrived by noon at the place of J. B. Chiles, who was ■one of the party, ranking as sergeant; and spent the second night at the
rancho of Greenock (Guenoc?), the frontier settler. Next morning, crossing the
last mountain pass, and riding all day through timbered uplands, broad
savannahs, and shady glades, at sunset they reached the lake near its narrowest
part, at the base of the high sierra—now Uncle Sam Mountain—opposite a pretty
islet. After some hesitation, caused by memories of the servant-hunting raids
of the Californians, the Indians ferried the visitors over on tule balzas to
their island town of 200 or 300 inhabitants. Next day they journeyed over the
sterile obsidian-covered plain, to go round the mountain, into the beautiful
country on the upper lake—now Big Valley—and at sunset reached Hopitsewah, or
Sacred Town, the largest of the rancherias, where the lands were enclosed and
cultivated. Here, on the third day after arrival, a grand council of native
chieftains was assembled to listen to and make the speeches of such occasions,
and transfer their allegiance to the great and good govt of the U. S.
After which a grand dance. Next day Bevere’s party travelled over the plain
parallel to the lake until noon, and then turning to the left, climbed the
range. They were attacked by Indians, who mistook them for foes, and one of
whom was badly wounded. A difficult trail led them to the summit at sunset, and
they looked foward into another broad valley and back upon the lake. ‘Few white
men have visited this magnificent Laguna. In the course of time it will become
famous, and perhaps the “tired den- zens” of the Atlantic cities may yet make
summer excursions to its glorious shores. ’ Down into the Russian River Valley
they went to the rancho of Fernando F£lix, where they spent the day. On the
way to Pina’s rancho they killed a huge grizzly; and at Fitch’s rancho of
Sotoyome they found the annual matanzas in progress.
had returned from their imprisonment in August. On September 25th a
meeting of the old Bears was held, at which, J. B. Chiles being president and
John H. Nash secretary, a resolution was adopted “that three persons be
appointed to act as a committee to investigate and gather all the information
in their reach in relation to the action of the Bear Flag party, and report at
a subsequent meeting.” Semple, Grigsby, and Nash were appointed on the committee,
though Semple’s place was afterward taken by Ide; and the resulting report of
May 13, 1847, has already been noticed in this work.8
At Sutter’s Fort Kern remained in command; being confirmed in his
authority by Montgomery on August 26th, at which date E. J. Sutter, son of the
captain, was made Kern’s lieutenant at the fort.0 In August also the
Sonoma prisoners were released, as they ought to have been long before. They
had appealed to Fremont when Sloat’s proclamation and the United States flag
arrived; but not the slightest attention was paid to their appeal. In July a
letter of inquiry about them came from Larkin; and Montgomery interested
himself in their behalf.10 In reply, Vallejo wrote to both Larkin
and Stockton; but before the letters were received, on July 27th, the commodore
despatched an order for the release of Vallejo and his brother-in-law; followed
in a few days by a similar order in behalf of the other captives. All were
required to sign a parole. Vallejo and Carrillo were discharged on or about the
1st of August, the former in very feeble health. The others, Salvador Vallejo,
Victor Prudon, and Jacob Leese had to re
8 Record of the meeting in Monterey
Californian, Oct. 3, 1846. See chap. viii. of this volume; also Hist. Bear Flag
Sevol.
9 Monterey Californian, Sept. 5, 1846.
10 July 16th, Larkin to Vallejo, describing
his efforts to learn his fate. Had sent messengers to Sonoma, and John Murphy
had been sent to the Sac. —for -which service he was to be paid by V. $100.
Bear Flag Papers, MS., 62. July 17th, Montgomery to Sloat, forwarding Forbes’
petition for the release of Vicente Peralta, and also mentioning Vallejo, in
whose case he was personally interested. Sloat’s Despatches, 24-5, or 661-8.
main in prison a week longer, Don Salvador—and probably the rest, though
Leese claims that his captivity lasted until the 13th—being liberated on August
8th by Misroon, the officer sent up by Montgomery for that purpose. Returning
to their homes, they found that cattle, horses, and other personal property had
for the most part disappeared; but the change of government might enrich those
of the number who were the owners of real estate.11 Montgomery sent
11 July 29th, Stockton to Vallejo. One of
his first acts was to order his release; and he has now sent a courier to
Montgomery to have the others freed, whose names he did not know before. Bear
Flag Papers, MS., 67. No date, copy of Montgomery’s order to release Vallejo
and Carrillo. Id72. Leese, Bear Flag, MS., 16-17, thinks the first order named
Vallejo’s brother- in-law, meaning himself, but applied to Carrillo. July 29th,
Larkin to Vallejo. Letters of 23d received this morning. Oi’ders for release
sent two days ago to Montgomery. Now repeated, and the courier will tell the
conversation he had with Stockton. Savage, Doc., MS., iii. 19; Larkin’s Doc.,
MS., iv. 234. Aug. 3d, Montgomery to V., announcing the pleasure it has given
him to order his release, and introducing Lieut Revere, who has instructions
to ‘mitigate’ his parole by accepting simply a promise of friendship to the U.
S., or of neutrality. English and Spanish. Bear Flag Papers, MS., 70, 73. Aug.
7th, Salv. Vallejo to M. G. Vallejo, in answer to letter of Aug. 4th, which
announced that a boat was on the way with the order of release. The boat has
not arrived, and even if it does come there is but little hope of freedom; for
Kern has said he will not obey any order if the name of each prisoner be not
specified, and has even hinted that he is not hound to obey any orders but
those of Fremont. Id., 76. Aug. 7th, S. Vallejo, Pru- don, and Leese, to
Vallejo, expressing their opinion that Kern did not intend to free them, and
asking the colonel to write to Montgomery in their hehalf. Id., 68. Aug. 6th,
Lieut Bartlett to Vallejo, in answer to letter of Jnly 30th. With many
expressions of friendly feeling, he says: ‘I at once laid your note before
Capt. Montgomery, who at once expressed Lis deep regret that you were yet a
prisoner [on the 30th]. He has constantly regretted that you were not liberated
on the day the American flag first waved over New Helvetia, which certainly
would have been the case had his command extended to that post. He has directed
me to assure you that among his first commu- nicatious to Com. Sloat he stated
the names of all persons that had been arrested,. . .and requested
instructions as to the course he should now pursue with regard to them, at the
same time making particular mention ot yonr case.’ Id., 74-5. Aug. 8th, V. to
Montgomery, in reply to letter of Aug. 3d. Thanks for his efforts; bad state of
the writer’s health; appeals for the release of his companions. Id., 78-80.
Aug. 8th, Lieut Misroon takes the parole of Salvador Vallejo at ‘Fort New
Helvetia.’ Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 232. Aug. 12th, V. to Montgomery. ‘Muy
enfermo sail del Sacramento y poor llegu6 & mi casa.5 Thanks for
opportune sending of Dr Henderson. Bear Flag Papers, MS., 81. Aug. 17th,
Montgomery to V. Sends him documents relating to Misroon’s visit to Sonoma in
June. Has just returned himself from Sonoma. Id., 58. Aug. 24th, Larkin to V.
from Los Angeles. Speaks of having sent a sccond courier to New Helvetia before
leaving Monterey. Sept. 15th, V. to L. Returned from his prison ‘half dead,5
but is now better. Has lost over 1,000 cattle, 600 tame horses, all his crops,
and many other things of value; but will go to work again. Larkin’s Doc., MS.,
iv. 280-1. Sept. 25th, Montgomery to V. Thanks for his services to the IJ. S.
Dr Henderson to Sonoma to treat Vallejo’s illness, and soon visited the
colonel in person. Vallejo also came down to San Francisco to be present at
Stockton’s reception.
The alarm of an Indian invasion from the north, to which I have alluded,
had its origin in an affair of the winter of 1844-5. A party of Oregon Indians
had come down to trade for cattle, being well received by Sutter, who had known
some of the chiefs in Oregon, and permitted to hunt for wild horses, to be
exchanged for cattle. Among the party were the Walla Walla chief Yellow Serpent
and his son Elijah. The latter, who had been educated by the missionaries, was
a turbulent and insolent fellow, who killed one of his companions near the
fort, and was prevented by an American from killing another. Among the animals
taken by the Indians were some claimed as private property; but which they
refused to give up. Grove Cook on going to demand a mule that bore his brand
was met by Elijah, who levelled his rifle at him, and told him to take the
animal if he dared. Sutter then summoned the chiefs to his office, and insisted
that branded animals must be given up to their owners, though the Indians were
entitled to a reward for restoring them. They declared that by their customs
such animals belonged to those who found them. While the discussion was going
on, Sutter left the office; and during his absence, Elijah was shot and killed
by Cook in a quarrel, in which, according to the white witnesses present, the
Indian was the aggressor; though it would be more reasonable to suppose, in the
absence of Indian witnesses, and the safety with which
Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 242. Sept. 29th, Id. told. Invites him to Yerba
Buena to meet Stockton. Id., xii. 236. Oct. 19th, Id. to Id. Cannot accede to
Vallejo’s request that Revere be removed from the command, though he would do
so for the cogent reasons urged had the request come a little sooner. Id., xii.
244. Nov. 16th, Id. to Id. A very friendly letter. Regrets that he cannot visit
Sonoma before his departure. Id., xii. 249. March 28, 1847, V. to Bandini on his
imprisonment and losses thereby. Bandini, Doc., MS., 104. June 14, 1847, V. to
Ex-president Bustamante on the same topic. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 304.
an Indian might be killed under the circumstances, that Elijah was
deliberately murdered by Cook. The whole party of about forty then hurried back
to Oregon with their horses, not waiting to receive the cattle due them, and
eluding the pursuers despatched by Sutter. Their story was told to the
missionaries and to the Indian agent, White; and these gentlemen were ready to
credit the version given them without investigation. White wrote on the subject
to the government, to Sutter, and to Larkin.12
Yellow Serpent came back to California at the beginning of September,
1846, with some forty of his people, to trade and to demand justice for the
killing of his son. Reports had come from Oregon, from the missionaries and by
the immigrants, that the Walla Wallas were bent on vengeance; and great was the
alarm when a frontier settler came to New Helvetia with the news that a
thousand warriors were approaching. The chief and his party had arrived at the
cabin of the settler, Daniel Sill; and the explanation that nine men had been
left ill on the way was interpreted to mean that 900 warriors were close behind
I The alarm was sent in all haste to Sonoma and Monterey; and while Stockton
came up to San Francisco, every possible preparation was made for defence along
the northern frontier. Revere, leaving the Vallejos with a force of
Californians and friendly Indians to scour the country and protect exposed
points, hastened to the Sacramento. Soon after his arrival Revere learned the
true state of affairs, and that there was no danger; in fact, the Walla Walla
chief came in person to have a ‘talk,’ announcing that he had come to trade and
not to fight, and urging upon the ‘Boston men’ who now owned the country his
claim for justice. Both
12 See Hist Or., i. 285-9, this series. July
21, 1845, Sutter to Larkin, giving full particulars of the affair. Larkin’s
Hoc., MS., iii. 227. May 16th, White to Larkin. Id., iii. 155. White to sec. of
war. Monterey Californian, Sept. 19, 1846. See also White’s Concise Vieiv, 49;
Parrish’s Oregon Ante., MS., 90; Gray’s Hist. Ogn, 507-11; Mission Life
Sketches, 205-7. Pewpew- moxmox, the old chief was called in Oregon; Sutter
calls him Piopiopio; and the Californians ‘ TCI Co jo Macai.’
soldiers and settlers were anxious for a fight; certain persons tried to
keep up the excitement; and many were not disposed to believe in the Indians’
peaceful intentions, but rather to make a raid upon all the savages in the
valley; but better counsel soon prevailed, and the cheering news was sent
southward that the fear of a Walla Walla invasion was groundless.13
Some enthusiastic biographers have accorded to Major Frdmont the glory of
having persuaded the Walla Wallas to forego their plans of vengeance, and thus
prevented a disastrous Indian war; but as a matter of fact, Fremont did not
arrive until the excitement had passed away. He did, however, obtain some of
the savages as recruits for his California battalion. Of the major’s operations
in the Sacramento during this visit, at the end of September and beginning of
October, nothing definite is recorded, except that he succeeded in getting many
recruits, whose military operations of the next few months, with what is known
of their organization, will be presented in due time. The large influx of
immigrants by the overland route, to be noticed elsewhere, made it easy to find
soldiers for the battalion at this time.
Stockton’s plans on quitting Los Angeles were, as we have seen, to
appoint Frdmont governor, leave detachments of the battalion as garrisons for
the different posts, and to depart with the strength of his fleet to engage in
naval operations on the Mexican coast. He regarded the conquest of California
as complete. He had no doubt that the people would soon become devoted subjects
of the United States,
13 Stockton’s Mil. and Naval Oper., 9;
Stockton’s Report, 41; Revere's Tour, 154, etc.; Sept. 10th-15th, corresp.
between Misroon, M. G. Vallejo, and Salv. Vallejo, on the military
preparations. Vallejo, Doc., MS*., xii. 234-40. See also Vallejo, Hist. Gal.,
MS., v. 203-8; Torres, Peripecias, MS., 77-8; Juarez, Narracion, MS.; Tustin’s
Recoil., MS., 9; Honolulu Friend, iv. 158; Monterey Californian, passim;
Upham’s Life Frimont, 242-3; Bigelow’s Mem. Frimont, 1 72-3. The Californians
have an idea, not very well founded I think, that Salvador Vallejo was the
originator of the scare, hoping to run up a large bill for horses and other
aid, and thus get paid for a part of his past losses.
and believed that his proposed system of civil rule would soon be in
successful operation. Arriving at Monterey, his plans were somewhat interrupted
by the Walla Walla alarm, which called him to San Francisco; but when he
learned that no danger was to be apprehended from the Indians, his prospects
again assumed a roseate hue, and his schemes were not only revived, but had
been greatly amplified. His project was nothing less than to raise a thousand
men in California, to land them at Mazatlan or Acapulco, and with them march
overland to “shake hands with General Taylor at the gates of Mexico” !14
Major Fremont—from this time addressed as military commandant of California,
the date of his appointment to that position being September 2d—was sent to the
Sacramento to recruit the army which was to conquer Mexico. It is not necessary
to characterize the commodore’s project as a “master-stroke of military sagacity
” with Lancey, or as the mad freak of an enthusiast seeking notoriety. Much
would have depended on the result; and before much progress could be made news
came that caused the scheme to be abandoned. At the end of September, John
Brown arrived in all haste from Los Angeles with the report that the southern
Californians had revolted, and that Gillespie’s garrison was hard pressed by
the foe. The courier, known as Juan Flaco, or Lean John, had made the distance
from Angeles to San Francisco, about 500 miles, in six days, a feat which,
variously
14 Stockton’s Report, 40. Sept. 19th,
Stockton to Mervine—‘ confidential ’— announcing his plan, and that Fremont had
been sent to the north for recruits. Sept. 2Sth, S. to Fr&nont, ‘military
commandant of the territory of Cal.’ Anxious to know what his prospects are for
‘ recruiting my thousand men ’— ‘private’—in Stockton’s Mil. and Nav. Oper.,
14-15. Sept. 30th, S. to Mervine. Instructions for the movements of the
Savannah, which was to sail at once. Id., 12-13. Oct. 1st, S. to Sec. Bancroft.
‘I will send the Savannah on her cruise to-morrow, and the Portsmouth in a few
days; and will follow myself in the Congress as soon as I can, to carry out my
views in regard _ to Mexico, with which I have not thought it necessary or expedient
to acquaint the department. Our new govt goes on well... If any chance is
given, 1 have no douht an effort will he made by the Mexicans to recover the
territory; troops are ready to come from Mexico, but if they are not seen on
the way I’ll make them fight their first battle at Acapulco, or between that
and the city of Mexico.’ Id., 13-14.
exaggerated and misrepresented, has made the rider more or less famous.15
Though Stockton did not attach great importance to the reported revolt, it was
sufficient to distract his attention temporarily from his grand schemes of
conquest; and he at once ordered Mervine to sail for San Pedro, to Gillespie’s
relief, which he did on the Savannah the 8th of October.16 Fremont
was summoned from the Sacramento, and arrived at San Francisco on the 12th with
160 men, who were embarked on the Sterling. This vessel with the Congress
sailed next day for the south. Stockton, meeting the Barnstable with
despatches from Maddox, touched at Monterey on the 16th, landing a
15 Brown’s own story, as quoted in Lancey’s
Cruise, 126-8, from the Stockton S. Joaquin Republican, 1850, is in substance
as follows: With a package of cigarettes, the paper of each bearing the
inscription, ‘ Believe the bearer,’ and Gillespie’s seal, he started at 8 P.
M., Sept 24th, hotly pursued by 15 Mexicans. His horse, incited by a bullet
through his body, cleared a ravine 13 feet wide, and fell after running 2 miles
! Then he started on foot, carrying his spurs for 27 miles to Las Virgenes.
Here he was joined by Tom Lewis, and they reached Sta Barbara at 11 p. M. of
the 25th. At the same hour of the 26th, having heen furnished horses
successively by Lieut Talbot, Thos Robbins, and Lewis Burton on showing the
magic cigarettes, they camped between S. Miguel and S. Luis Obispo, where Lewis
gave out; but Brown started again next morning, and late at night reached
Monterey. He was offered $200 to go on to S. F.; and started at sunrise on a
race-horse belonging to Job Dye. Larkin aided him at S. Josc5, where he was detained
4 hours; and he reached Yerba Buena at 8 p. M. of the 28th—630 miles in 4 days!
He slept on the beach, and next morning when the commodore’s boat landed gave
Stockton the rest of his cigarettes. Gillespie, in the Sac. Statesman, May 6,
1858, gives a brief account, agreeing well enough with Brown’s, except that the
horse leaped into instead of across the ravine, breaking a leg, whereupon the
courier had to carry his saddle 4 miles to a rancho; and that he reached
Monterey at night of the 28th, slept two hours, and arrived at S. F. at sunrise
of the 29th! Phelps, Fore and Aft, 311-15, tells us that Stockton got the news
on Oct. 1st, when the courier was picked up drunk and carried to the
flag-ship, where the cigarettes were found on him. Colton, Three Years, 64-5,
notes Brown’s arrival on the night of Sept. 29th, and his start before sunrise
on the 30th. He had ‘ a few words over the signature of the alcalde rolled in a
cigar, which was fastened in his hair.. .He rode the whole distance
(to-Monterey), 460 miles, in 52 hours, during which time he had not slept ’!
Stockton in his reports says the news was received on or about Sept. 30th.
Taking the authority of Gillespie and Brown for the date of the start, and that
of Colton and Stockton for that of the arrival, we have, as stated in my text,
6 days for the ride. But Bryant, What I Saw in Cal., 327, says the courier
arrived Oct. 1st; and it is to be noticed that Stockton in his order of Oct.
1st to Mervine says nothing to indicate that he had received the news. The
Californian of Oct. 3d says he must have received the news on the morning of
the 1st.
16 Gillespie, in Sac. Statesman, May 6,
1858, claims that Mervine, having set sail on or about Oct. 1st, with a fine
breeze, stopped at Sauzalito for some frivolous thing, and his departure was
delayed for three days by a fog.
force for the protection of the town, and proceeded on his way. Fremont
meanwhile met the Vandcilia, learned that no horses could be obtained at Santa
Bdrbara, and turned back to Monterey, where he arrived on the 28th, to prepare
for a march southward. He found awaiting him a commission as lieu-
tenant-colonel in the army of the United States.17 His preparations
and his expedition will be noticed later; it is now time to describe the revolt
of the abajenos against the authority of their new masters.113
Gillespie had been left by Stockton as military commandant of the south,
with a garrison of fifty men at Los Angeles. His instructions were to maintain
military rule in accordance with the commodore’s proclamation; but he was
authorized to grant exemption from the more burdensome restrictions to quiet
and well disposed citizens at his discretion; and a lenient policy in this
respect was recommended. From a purely political point of view, Gillespie’s
task was not a difficult one; that is, there was no disposition on the part of
the Angelinos to revolt against the new regime. In other respects, the prospect
was less encouraging. My readers, familiar with Los Angeles annals, know that
there was an element in the population of the town that was turbulent, lawless,
and hitherto uncontrollable. That the new commandant could convert
11 Monterey Californian, Oct. 31,
1846; Colton’s Three Years, 79-82; Lancey's Cruise, 132-3. The commission was signed
by the president May 29, 1846. ,
18 The
following extract from the Californian of Oct. 3d will show how the revolt was
regarded in the north; ‘We learn hy the last courier that there has been quite
a disturbance at the pueblo below. The more soher portion of the community, it
seems, had no participation in the frantic affair. The principal actors in it
are a class of hare-brained fellows who wanted a row, cost what it might... As
for any prolonged resistance to the existing laws, there is not the slightest
probability of such a result. Had there been any serious determination to
resist and maintain an attitude of hostility, it would have showed itself when
Gen. Castro was there.. .We do not suppose that any one engaged in this affair
expects an ultimate triumph; nor do we suppose that he has looked seriously
into the consequences to himself.. .The ringleaders will be apprehended and
tried under martial law, and may suffer death; so much for an affair that can
be of no benefit to any one, and must entail sorrow on many. The people of
Monterey are wiser.1
Hist.
Cal., Vol. V. 20
these fellows into quiet citizens without a struggle was not to be
expected. Had he been the wisest of rulers, a conflict was inevitable; but the
character and extent and results of the conflict depended largely upon his
skill and prudence. Gillespie had no special qualifications for his new
position; and his subordinates were still less fitted for their duties. They
were disposed to look down upon Californians and Mexicans as an inferior race,
as a cowardly foe that had submitted without resistance, as Indians or children
to be kept in subjection by arbitrary rules. They were moreover suspicious, and
inclined to interfere needlessly with the people’s amusements, and with the actions
of individuals. Little account was taken of national habits and peculiarities.
In a few weeks many good citizens, though not perhaps of the best, who, though
content with the change of government, had no desire to be at once fully
Americanized in their methods of life by process of law, were prejudiced
against Gillespie, characterizing his treatment of themselves or of their
friends in the enforcement of police regulations as oppressive tyranny. Then
came some open manifestations of lawlessness, to which the commandant was too
ready to impute a political significance. Arrests were freely made; and the
people found themselves branded as rebels before they had really thought of
rebellion. A few ambitious Mexican officers gladly took advantage of the opportunity
to foment the excitement; a degree of success at first turned the heads of the
ignorant populace; many were led to believe that their country might yet be
recovered; and others were either blinded by their dislike of the men placed
over them, or had not the courage to resist the popular current. The result was
an actual revolt; and there can be little doubt that Gillespie and his men
were largely responsible for this result.19
“Coronel, Cosas de
Cal., MS., 78-80, tells us that Gillespio from the first dictated needlessly
oppressive measures; that two persons should not go about the streets together;
that under no pretext must the people have reunions at their homes; that
provision-shops must be closed at sundown; that liquor
Serbulo Varela, a wild and unmanageable young fellow, though not a bad
man at heart, whom the reader already knows as a leader in several popular
tumults at Angeles under Mexican rule, soon became involved in difficulties
with Gillespie, doubtless because he was unwilling to submit to police
regulations—though no details are known. Varela thereupon became a kind of
outlaw, ranging about the vicinity of the town, keeping out of the reach of
Gillespie’s men, but annoying them in every possible way. ' A dozen kindred
spirits joined him, irresponsible fellows, but each controlling a few followers
of the lower class;
should not be sold
without his permission; also deciding petty cases instead of leaving them to
the jueces de paz, searching houses for weapons, and imprisoning Rico and
others on mere suspicion. In short, he so oppressed the people that he came to
he regarded as a tryant; and after the first troubles with Varela, redoubled
bis persecutions and drove many to join the rebels. Francisco Rico, Memorias,
MS., 25-6, says that he was imprisoned for 30 days because he could tell
nothing of the whereabouts and intentions of Ramon Carrillo. B. D. Wilson,
Observations, MS., 66-7, was told by the foreigners who came to his rancho
‘that Gillespie’s conduct bad been so despotic and unjustifiable that the
people had risen.. . He had established very obnoxious regulations, and upon
frivolous pretexts had the most respectable men in the community arrested and
brought before him for no other purpose than to humiliate them, as they
thought. Of the truth of this I had no doubt then and I have none now. The
people had given no just cause for the conduct he pursued, which seemed to be
altogether the effect of vanity and want of judgment.’ Temple, Recollections,
MS., 10-11, takes the same view of the matter. John Forster, Pioneer Data, MS., 35-7, thinks there would
have been no difficulty if Gillespie had been less exacting and despotic.
Avila, Notas, MS., 29, attributes the revolt to the same cause. Larkin, during
his later imprisonment, was told by the officers that Gillespie’s rigid
discipline and ignorance of Spanish customs and character had forced the people
to take up anna. Larkin's Off\ Corresp., MS., ii. 89. ‘The discontent was
caused by the ill-advised acts of some of the American officers left in charge
of the little garrisons... Gillespie, with an insignificant and undisciplined
military force, attempted by a coercive system to effect a moral and social
change in the habits, diversions, and pastimes of the people, and reduce them
to his standard of propriety. The result of this injudicious effort was the
rebellion.’ Los Angeles Hist., 17. Lieut Wise, Los Gringos, 44^-5, attributes
the revolt to the fact that ‘the natives bad been confounded and bewildered by
speeches and proclamations,’ etc.; and ‘the banding together of a few mongrel
bodies of volunteers, who enhanced the pleasure of their otherwise agreeable
society by pillaging the natives of horses, cattle, etc., in quite a marauding,
buccaneering, independent way; all of course under the apparent legal sanction
of the U. S.’ See also Dicc. Univ., MS., viii.
157-8; Guerra, Apuntes,
355; Foster’s Los Angeles in IS 47,
etc., 42-3. Lancey, Cruise, 124, tells us that Pio Pico
and Jos3 M. Flores, ‘these treacherous enemies of the U. S.,.. .secretly
collected together the remnant of their former army, and resolved upon another
effort to expel the Americans,’ took advantage of Stockton’s absence, and
suddenly appeared before Los Angeles with 500 men. This, in substance, may be
called the current version, except in respect to Pico’s name.
and these men soon began to dream of raising a force to attack the
garrison, and repeat some of their exploits of earlier years.20 It
is even said that one of the number, Manuel Cantua, was for a time jocosely
termed by his companions, governor of California! Several of the ringleaders
were Sonorans, and others Mexicans. Gillespie, choosing to regard the operations
of these marauders as a treacherous rebellion of the Californians, greatly
aided their cause by his oppressive and arbitrary measures. Many citizens fled
to the ranchos to await further developments, having no sympathy for the
comandante, even if they had not much for Varela.
About the middle of September a detachment of the garrison had been sent
to San Diego under Ezekiel Merritt; and before daylight on the 23d Varela,,
with perhaps twenty companions, made a sudden attack on the adobe building in
which the rest were posted. The Californians had no intention of fighting, but
by the suddenness of the assault, by discharging a few muskets, and by shouts
and beating of drums, they hoped perhaps to surprise and capture the post, as
they had been wont to do in earlier days, or at least to impress both the
garrison and the citizens with the idea that their movement was a formidable
one. But Gillespie’s men, whatever their faults, were not to be defeated by
noise, and a volley of rifle-balls followed the fleeing assailants, one of whom
was
20 The earliest definite record of these
operations is on Sept. 6th, when Bonifacio Olivarea wrote to Salvador Vallejo:
‘ Your friend Cantua and I have thought of giving rentazos to the sailors who
took Los Angeles. Capt. Noriega and Flores are coming; if you also come, we
will all vote for you to command and punish the sailors. We have lances and
reatas here.’ ‘P. S. All that my compadre says is true, and I, who command more
than he, also say it, at the request of M. Cantua, Dionisio Reyes. ’ Original
in Larkin’s Doc., MS., iv. 274. Sept. 15th, Gillespie writes Fitch: ‘Election
for alcalde going on, but only 20 voters have appeared. The party of Sonorenos
who are disposed to disturb the peace proves to be quite small. I know the
names of the ringleaders, who will not long be at liberty.’ Fitch, Doc., MS., 402. The original rebels included S(5rbulo Varela,
Hilario Varel*, Manuel Cantua, Pedro Romero, J. B. Moreno, Ramon Carrillo,
Pahlo V^jar, Nicolas Hermosillo, Leonardo Higuera, Gregorio Atensio, Bonifacio
Olivares, Dionisio Reyes, Urita Valdes, etc.
■wounded in the foot.21 After daylight
Lieutenant Hensley was sent out to make a raid about the suburbs of the town.
The assailants of the night kept out of his way, as did most residents, though
a few were arrested at their homes; but this raid, together with Varela’s demonstration,
had the effect contemplated by the latter, to transform his movement into a general
revolt. The Californians with few exceptions were persuaded that war had broken
out anew, and that patriotism required them to take sides against the foreign
invaders. Varela’s force was speedily increased to nearly 300 men, divided in
bands of which his original associates styled themselves captains. But the
chief places were now assumed by Castro’s old ■officers. It is not impossible that some of them may
have had an understanding with Varela and the others from the first; but there
is no proof that such was the case. Most of these officers were under parole
not to serve against the Americans; and by their act, according to military
law, they disgraced themselves and forfeited their lives; yet they justified
their conduct on the plea that Gillespie by his persecution had virtually
renewed hostilities and released them from their parole. Captain Josd Maria
Flores, one of the paroled officers, and one who had narrowly escaped arrest,
was chosen to act as comandante general; Jos6 Antonio Carrillo was made second
in command, resuming his old rank of mayor general; while Captain Andres
Pico, as comandante de escuadron, took the third
21 Gillespie aays: ‘On the 22d at 3 o’clock
in the morning a party of 65 Californians and Sonorenos made an attack upon my
small command quartered in the government house. We were not wholly unprepared;
and with 21 rifles we beat them back without loss to ourselves, killing and
wounding three of their number. When daylight came Lieut Hensley with a few men
took several prisoners, and drove the Californians from the town. This party
was merely the nucleus of a revolution commenced and known to Col. Fremont
hefore he left Los Angeles. In 24 hours 600 well mounted horsemen, and (armed?)
with escopetas, lances, and one fine brass piece of light artillery, surrounded
Los Angeles and summoned me to surrender. There were three old honey-combed
iron guns (spiked) in the corral of my quarters, which we at once clcared and
mounted upon the axles of carts,’ etc. Sac. Statesman, May
6, 1858. It is very improhable, to say the
least, that no gun in working order had been left for Gillespie by Stockton.
place. It Is not to be supposed that the leaders had any confidence in
their ability to defeat the Americans; but they thought the fate of California
would be decided by national treaty, and if it remained a Mexican territory,
their efforts would give them glory, and influence in the future. In any event,
temporary prominence and power could be secured, and if the worst came, they
could retreat to Sonora.
The main camp of the rebels, where the final organization was effected,
was at the place called Paredon Blanco, just outside the town. On September 24th
was issued a proclamation, or plan, which I give below.22 It was a
document of the stereotyped order,
22 Pronunciamiento de Varela y otros
Californios contra los Americanos, 34 de Set. 1848, MS.; English translation in
Souli’s Annals, 113-14; Stockton's Mil. and Naval Operations, 15-16—the latter,
followed by other authorities, dating it Oct. 1st, from a certified copy issued
by Flores on that date.
‘Citizens: For a
month and a half, by a lamentable fatality resulting from the cowardice and
incompetence of the department’s chief authorities, we see ourselves subjugated
and oppressed by an insignificant force of adventurers from the U. S. of N.
America, who, putting us in a condition worse than that of slaves, are
dictating to us despotic and arbitrary laws, by which, loading us with
contributions and onerous taxes, they wish to destroy our industries and
agriculture, and to compel us to abandon our property, to be taken and divided
among themselves. And shall we be capable of permitting ourselves to be subjugated,
and to accept in silence the heavy chain of slavery? Shall we lose the soil
iuherited from our fathers, which cost them so much blood? Shall we leave our
families victims of the most barbarous servitude? Shall we wait to see our
wives violated, our innocent children beaten by the American whip, our
property sacked, our temples profaned, to drag out a life full of shame and
disgrace? No! A thousand times no! Compatriots, death rather than that! Who of
you does not feel his heart beat and his blood boil on contemplating our
situation? Who will be the Mexican that will not be indignant, and rise in arms
to destroy our oppressors ? We believe there will be not one so vile and
cowardly. Therefore, the majority of the inhabitants of this district, justly
indignant at our tyrants, we raise the cry of war, and with arms in our hands,
we swear with one accord to support the following articles: 1. We, all the
inhabitants of the department of Cal., as members of the great Mexican nation,
declare that it is and has been our wish to belong to her alone, free and
independent. 2. Therefore the intrusive authorities appointed by the invading
forces of the U. S. are held as null and void. 3. All North Americans being
foes of Mexico, we swear not to lay down our arms until we see them ejected
from Mexican soil. 4. Every Mexican citizen from 15 to 60 years of age who
does not take up arms to carry out this plan is declared a traitor, under
penalty of death. 5. Every Mexicaja or foreigner who may directly or indirectly
aid the foes of Mexico will be punished in the same manner. 6. All property of
resident North Americans who may have directly or indirectly taken part with or
aided the enemies of Mexico will be confiscated and used for the expenses of
the war, and their persons will be sent to the interior of the republic. 7. All
who may oppose the present plan will be punished witb arms [put to death]. 8.
All inhabitants of Sta Barbara and the northern district will be immediately
invited
containing a recital of wrongs in which a meagre substratum of fact was
eked out with much that was imaginary; a florid appeal to Mexican patriotism;
a threat of vengeance on the oppressors and punishment to all who might either
give aid to the foe or fail to support the cause of freedom. It was signed by
Varela and more than 300 others; possibly not receiving the signature of
General Flores until a day or two later. Meanwhile the garrison was summoned to
surrender, and the town was surrounded, and in a sense besieged by the Californians.
It does not clearly appear that there was any fighting, though some say that
Gillespie’s men made several sorties, the well mounted natives keeping beyond
the reach of rifle-bullets, and confining their efforts to stampeding the
horses, cutting off supplies, completing their own preparations, and annoying
the Americans as much as possible.23 On the 24th, as we have seen,
Juan Flaco started with the news of Gillespie’s position for Monterey and San
Francisco.
The first ‘battle’ of this rebellion—or the second if we count Varela’s
demonstration against Gillespie—
to accede to this
plan. Camp near Los Angeles, Sept. 24, 1846. S£rbulo Varela [written Barelas],
Leonardo Cota [and over 300 others].’
23 On the events of these and the following
days mneh information is derived from the following works: Coronel, Cosas de
Gal., MS., 80-107; Lugo, Vida, MS., 32-67; Rico, Mem., MS., 25-35; Botello,
Anales, MS., 142-54; Wilson's Observ., MS., 66-91; Forster’s Pioneer Data, MS.,
35-43; Vejar, Recuerdos, MS., 44-64; Moreno, Vida, MS., 13-23, 35; White’s
Cal., MS., 2735; Garcia, Episodios, MS., 8-18; Gastro, Servicios, MS.;
Palomares, Mem,., MS., 58-76; Janssens, Vida, MS., 189-93; Streeter's Recoil.,
MS., 63-75. Manuel Castro to Pio Pico, in Doc. Hist. Gal., MS., iii.
292; Foster’s Angeles in ’47, MS., 21^45; Arnaz, Recuerdos, MS., 55-7, 94-5;
Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 184^5; Vega, Vida, MS., 50-7; Los Angeles Grdnica, May
23-6, 1877; Hayes’ Scraps, Gal. Notes, iii. 35; Davis’ Glimpses, MS., 351-4;
Osio, Hist. Gal., MS., 480-5. Most of the writers cited were actors in the
events described. Their testimony shows no important discrepancies, except in
minute personal details, which cannot be presented in the space at my command.
See Mexican accounts in Diccionario Universal, viii. 157-9; Guerra, Apuntes,
355-61; and especially Bustamante, Mem. Hist. Mex., MS., v. 218, 242-3; vi.
41-4. At first Don Carlos Maria took great comfort from the news that the
Anglo-American garrison of 250 men had been killed a palos in a revolt of the
town! ‘Leccion terrible para los opresores, y que les bajaril
un tanto su orgullo ’! But his later news, though always
exaggerated, was much more accurate. Printed accounts by American writers, as a
rule, barely mention the revolt, reserving details so long as reverses
continued.
was fought at the Chino rancho of Isaac Williams, about twenty-five miles
east of Los Angeles, on September 26th—27th. Benito Wilson had been put by
Stockton in command of some twenty foreigners to protect the San Bernardino
frontier, both against the Indians and against hostile parties that Castro
might send from Sonora, if he had crossed the Colorado at all, which was at
first doubted. Wilson went to his own rancho of Jurupa, whence he visited the
different rancherias of Indians, satisfied himself that Castro had really
departed, and made a hunting tour. On his return to Jurupa he was met by David
Alexander and John Rowland, who brought news of the rising in town, and also an
invitation for the company to go to Chino. This invitation was accepted the
more readily because they had used up nearly all their ammunition in hunting;
but on reaching Chino, contrary to their expectations, they found that
Williams had no powder. By some it was thought best to leave the rancho for the
mountains, whence an attempt might be made to join the garrison in town; but
most declared that their ammunition was sufficient for the few shots needed to
defeat a Californian foe, and it was decided to withstand a siege. That same
afternoon the Californians approached; and Isaac Callaghan, who was sent out to
reconnoitre, came back with a bullet in his arm.2i
Serbulo Varela, Diego Sepulveda, and Ramon Carrillo had been despatched
from the Paredon Blanco with fifty men or more against Wilson. Josd del
C&rmen Lugo, already in command of fifteen or twenty men on the San
Bernardino frontier, with instruc-
24 Wilson’8 Observations, MS., is the most
detailed and complete narration of the whole affair, supported in most
respects by other authorities. Such support is, however, for the most part
wanting to Wilson’s charge that Williams was a traitor; that he enticed them to
Chino by the statement that he had plenty of ammunition; that, while pretending
to send a message from Wilson to Gillespie, he directed the courier, FcSlix
Gallardo, to deliver it to Flores; and in fact, that all his efforts were
directed to gaining Flores’ good-will by the sacrifice of his countrymen.
Michael White, Cal., MS., 27, etc., gives a similar version. Some others state that
Williams took no part in the fie;ht, acting in a cowardly manner.
tions to watch the foreigners, also marched to Chino. Lugo claims to have
arrived first, and to have been joined by Yarela late in the night, which was
probably true.26 The Americans were summoned to surrender, and
perhaps a few shots were exchanged that evening, the 26th, though witnesses do
not agree 011 that point. There was but little ammunition on either side; and
the Californians lacked weapons also. The rancho house was of adobe, surrounding
a large interior court-yard, having but few windows or other openings in the
thick walls, and roofed with asphal- tum. The whole was nearly enclosed with a
ditch and adobe fence. About dawn on the 27th, the Californians, many of them
on horseback, made a rush for the house, the movement being accompanied and followed
by a discharge of fire-arms on both sides. Several horses fell in leaping the
ditch or fence, throwing their riders, two or three of whom were wounded, and
one, C&rlos Ballesteros, killed by a rifie-ball. Inside the house three
were wounded, Perdue, Skene, and Harbin, the two first-named somewhat
seriously.26 There was time but for few shots, for the assailants
reached a position close under the walls of the building, where they could not
be seen. Their next step was to fire the roof. The owner of the rancho presented
himself with his small children, whose uncles, the Lugos, were among the
assailants, and begged that their lives might be spared. Varela appeared at the
main entrance, and called upon the Americans to surrender, promising them
protection as prisoners of war. The terms were accepted; Wilson’s men gave
Lugo, Vida de un JRanchero, MS., 34, etc. Wilson and Coronel confirm
Lugo’s statement to a certain extent. Francisco Palomares, Memorias, MS., 58,
etc., claims to have been second in command. Rico states, and some others
imply, that Hamon Carrillo was the leader.
28 Stephen
C. Foster, Angeles ’^7-9, MS., 25, etc., gives many particulars of the fight,
and the actions of particular individuals, obtained from men who took part in
the affair, six months later. He describes the firing to have been done chiefly
after the Californians had reached the house, they creeping along the walls,
and exchanging shots at close range through the port-holes. Skene was wounded
by a young Lugo, whose father later cared for the wounded man.
themselves up;27 Varela’s force set to work to extinguish the
fire and secure the plunder; and soon all were on the road to Los Angeles.
Sepiilveda and his men in the advance party, and in charge of most of the
prisoners, proposed to shoot the latter in revenge for the death of
Ballesteros; but Varela interposed his authority, and by the utmost efforts
saved their lives. They were turned over to Flores, and eight or ten of the
most prominent at least were kept in captivity until January 1847. The rest
were probably exchanged for those whom Gillespie had arrested, though there is
no agreement in the testimony on this point.28
Gillespie and his men were now posted on Fort Hill, where some guns were
mounted! Whether he also still held possession of the old barracks is not
clear. His position was becoming critical. The Californians, though poorly
provided with arms and ammunition, had plenty of food and horses, were flushed
with their
27 The members of this party so far as known
were B. D. Wilson, Isaac Williams, David W. Alexander, John Rowland, Louis
Robidoux, Joseph Perdue, Wm Skene, Isaac Callaghan, Evan Callaghan, Michael
White, Matt. Harbin, George Walters. Also named on doubtful authority, Dotson,
Godey, Warner.
28 Michael White is positive that it was
Carrillo and not Varela who prevented their being killed. Lugo claims to have
been chief in command throughout the affair, and to have had charge later of those
prisoners who had uot been exchanged. V6jar names Ger6nimo Ibarra as one of the
wounded. He also claims to have had much to do himself with saving the
prisoners’ lives. Several state that the prisoners were exchanged. Coronel
thinks that some of them were released on parole. Foster says much of A. M. Lugo’s
attentions to the wounded, and of his offer to go bail for all. According to
Wilson, they were kept at the camp, at Boyle’s Height, in a small adohe house,
until Gillespie’s departure; then taken into town, where the wounded were
treated by Dr Den; and all received much aid and attention from Eulogio C61is,
while Stearns and other Americans did not make their appearance. Flores
offered to release them on a solemn promise not to bear arms or use their
influence in favor of the U. S., which they declined. Then a plan was formed to
send them to Mexico, which was prevented by a revolt, of which more anon. They
were sent to S. Gabriel for a few days, being practically free, hut were
hrought back to prison. Later they were sent for a time to Temple’s rancho of
Los Cerritos. This was while Stockton was at S. Pedro. Then they returned to
their town prison, but were kindly treated, until Stockton’s second entry into
Angeles. Willard Buzzell, in a newspaper account found in Hayes’ Scraps, Gal.
Notes, iii. 35, says that 13 of Gillespie’s prisoners were exchanged for a like
number of the Chino men. Buzzell was with Gillespie, but his narrative is in
some respects very inaccurate.
victory at Chino, were bitter against Gillespie on old scores, besides
having the death of Ballesteros—a young man who was liked and respected by
all—to avenge, and outnumbered the Americans ten to one. Even if Juan Flaco had
succeeded in his mission, which could not be known, it would be long before relief
could be expected. Meanwhile Flores renewed his demands for a surrender; and
finally offered to permit the gaxrison to march unmolested to San Pedro, if
they would abandon their post in the city. Wilson, at Flores’ request, made
known the proposal to Gillespie, and with it sent his own advice in favor of
its being accepted, on the ground that the post could not be held, that there
was great danger of all losing their lives in the impending attack, and that by
holding out, no good, but rather harm, would result to American residents of
the south. Gillespie accepted the offer; marched out with all the honors of
war, his colors flying and drums beating; arrived at San Pedro without
molestation; and four or five days later embarked on the merchant ship
Vandalia, which, however, did not at once leave the port. He was accompanied
by a few American citizens, and also probably by a dozen of the Chino
prisoners, for whom he had exchanged a like number of Californians under
arrest. The capitulation was in the last days of September, and the
embarkation the 4th of October.29 There is a general agreement that
Gillespie promised to deliver his field-pieces at San Pedro, but broke his
promise by leaving them on shore spiked and useless. The terms of the
capitulation, however, if they wTere put in writing at all, are not
extant.30
29 Gillespie says he
marched to S. Pedro on Sept. 29th; Wilson thinks it was on the 28th; and
several Californians make it the 30th. I find no document to settle it. .
30 In addition to the Californians, Bidwell,
Buzzell, and other Americans confirm the spiking of the guns. Gillespie himself
implies that by the treaty he was to remain on shore at S. Pedro; but says
that, ‘Flores having broken the treaty by stopping my supply of water, I safely
embarked my party on board the Vandalia, which I had detained to cover my
retreat.’ Itisun* likely that Flores permitted the Americans to remain at S.
Pedro. Possibly
The garrison of Los Angeles being thus disposed of, there remained the
posts of Santa Barbara and San Diego to be reoccupied by the Californians.
Manuel Garfias was despatched to Santa Barbara with a small force, to be
increased by enlistments in that region. It was not doubted that Talbot and his
nine men31 would be willing to depart on the same terms as
Gillespie; but Garfias carried a demand for surrender on parole. He sent the
demand on arrival, the messenger being accompanied by a small guard, and two
hours were allowed for decision. The date is not exactly known, perhaps the 1st
or 2d of October,32 and it was nearly dark. Residents of the place
had warned the garrison in advance, and now advised a surrender; but Talbot and
his men decided to run away, and thus avoid the necessity of a parole. They
started at once, met with no opposition from the guard,83 and gained
the mountains. They were experienced mountaineers, though few were over twenty
years of age. They remained a week in sight of the town, thinking that a
man-of-war might appear to retake the post. Their presence was revealed to
Gillespie had agreed
to embark at once, but delaying on one pretext or another, had his water supply
cut off to hasten his movements, seizing upon this act as an excuse for spiking
the guns. Rico claims to have been sent to S. Pedro with a message to Gillespie
that if he did not embark at once as he had promised he would be attacked.
81 They were
Theodore Talbot, Thomas E. Breckenridge, Eugene Russell, Charles Scriver, John
Stevens, Joseph Moulton, Francis Briggs, Durand, William, a Chinook Indian, and
Manuel, a New Mexican. Testimony of Russell and Breckenridge in Frtmont's Cal.
Claims, 52-4.
32 Russell and Breckenridge speak of having
been 34 days on the journey from Sta Barbara to Monterey. This would make the
date of starting Sept. 27th or Oct. 4th, according as we include or not the 8
days spent at the mountain camp in sight of Sta Barbara.
33 Phelps, Fore and Aft, 313-14, tells how
they marched out, one of their number sick. They formed in line, their backs
against the wall, and told the foe they were ready, daring them to advance,
calling them cowards, ‘ laughing them to scorn, ’ etc. Finding they would not
fight, Talbot marched off ia a hollow square, followed by the ‘cabaleros,’ who
reviled the brave squad but dared not attack them! All this is purely
imaginary. A letter of Nov. 15th to the Boston Traveller, reprinted in Niles’
Beg., lxxii. 81, gives an account similar to that of Phelps. Evidently some of
Talbot’s men on arrival at Monterey indulged in the trappers’ propensity for
story-telling. Streeter, Recoil., MS., 55-63, says that all the men but one,
Russell, favored surrender at first; but as he declared his purpose to escape,
the rest concluded to go with him.
Californians by their attempts to obtain cattle and sheep at night; and
then some efforts were made to hasten their movements. A party sent out for
this purpose once came so near the American camp that a horse was killed by a
rifle-ball; American residents, apparently Robbins and Hill, were sent with new
demands for surrender; and finally, just after Talbot’s men had left their
camp, fire was set to the mountain chaparral, with a view to drive them out.
They crossed the mountains, receiving aid and guidance from a Spanish ranchero,
reached the Tulares, and proceeded to Monterey, where they arrived November
8th, having suffered many hardships on the long journey.31 After
Talbot’s flight, American residents of the Santa Barbara region were arrested,
most being paroled, and a few apparently sent to Los Angeles as prisoners. A
small garrison was left at the town, and another at San Buenaventura; all under
the command of Lieutenant-colonel Gumesindo Flores; while 40 or 50 men were
recruited for Flores’ army.a5
At San Diego, as we have seen, no garrison had been left at first; but
about September 15th, at the request of Fitch, who reported symptoms of
disorder, Ezekiel Merritt was sent with a dozen men by Gillespie to protect
the place.36 Immediately, after Gillespie’s retreat, and at the
same time that Garfias was sent to Santa Barbara, Francisco Rico marched for
San Diego with fifty men. At his approach Bidwell
81 Arrival
at Monterey noted in Monterey Californian, Nov. 14th. Lan- oey, Cruise, 130-1,
quotes Talbot, source not mentioned: ‘I suffered more- from downright starvation,
cold, nakedness, and every sort of privation, than in any other trip I have yet
made, ancl I have had some rough ones. ’ Most of the authorities I have cited
on the Flores revolt also mention briefly Talbot’s retreat.
35 Nidever,
Life and Adven., MS.,
116-27, and Dittmann, Narrative, MS.,
37-9, arrived at Sta Barbara with Wm Fife from a hunting tour just iifter
Talbot’s departure. They were arrested, but Fife and Dittmann, not being
Americans, were released. Nidever was sent to Angeles, but ran away and kept
hid until Fremont came south. He gives many details of his personal adventures
in the mean time, all strictly true, as it is to be hoped.
3GSept.
13th, Gillespie to Fitch, who was to furnish provisions. Fitch, Doc., MS., 400. Sept. 15th, Id. to
Id., and Bidwell to Fitch. Id., 401-2. Merritt’s party was expected on the
16th.
left San Luis Rey and joined Merritt’s party. They were also joined by a
few native citizens, and all went on board the Stonington, a whaler lying at
anchor in the bay, taking with them some cannon dug up at the old fort. Rico,
however, did not reach San Diego, being recalled in great haste from Santa
Margarita; but it appears that a few mounted Californians of the district
appeared on the hills from time to time, with sufficient demonstrations of
hostility to keep the Americans on board their vessel for about twenty days.37
Nearly all the male inhabitants of southern California were now, in a
certain sense, engaged as soldiers in the revolt; but less than 200 were kept
actually in service, the rest being warned to hold themselves in readiness for
the time of need. In fact, 200 men, or half that number, were more than could
be armed and equipped. The country was ransacked for old muskets, pistols, and
lances, with indifferent success. An old four-pounder, that had formerly served
on festive occasions for the firing of salutes, was dug up from the garden of
Inocencia Reyes, where it had been buried on Stockton’s first approach; and
this was mounted on a pair of wagon- wheels by an English carpenter. Powder was
still more scarce than weapons; only enough for a few charges of the pedrero
could be procured; and to supply the want a quantity of very inferior quality
was manufactured at San Gabriel. News soon came that the Americans had landed
at San Pedro; and Jose Antonio Carrillo was despatched in haste with fifty
horsemen to reconnoitre and harass the foe; while Flores was to follow with the
gun. Captain Mer- vine, having left San Francisco on the Savannah October 4th,
reached San Pedro on the 6th, and immediately landed about 350 men, who were
joined by
37 Rico,
Memorias, MS., 30; Bidioell’s Cal. in I84I-8, MS., 183-90; Dice. Univ., viii.
158.
Gillespie’s men from the Vandalia. On the 7th they began their march to
Los Angeles. They took no cannon from the ship; and they could find no horses;
but they remembered Stockton’s former march, and had no doubt the Californians
would run at their approach. In the afternoon they began to see mounted men of
Carrillo’s advance guard, with whom a few shots were exchanged, one of the
Californians being slightly wounded. At night the Americans occupied the
buildings of the Dominguez rancho; and before midnight Flores joined Carrillo
with sixty men, bringing also the field-piece. There was more or less firing
during the night, with no other effect than that of keeping Mervine’s party on
the alert. Early the next morning, October 8th, Flores retired with twenty men,
leaving orders to risk no general engagement, but to harass and delay the foe as
much as possible. Soon the Americans advanced, the marines and seamen forming a
solid square in the centre, while Gillespie’s party acted as skirmishers on the
right and left. Carrillo also divided his force into three bodies, about forty
on each flank, and ten with the gun in the centre. When Mervine came near, the
gun was fired by Ignacio Aguilar, and was immediately dragged away by reatas
attached to the horsemen’s saddles, to be reloaded at a safe distance. This
operation was repeated some half a dozen times in less than an hour. The first
discharges did no harm, since the home-made powder was used; but at last the
gun was properly loaded, and the solid column affording an excellent target,
each shot was effective. Six were killed and as many wounded, if indeed the
loss of the Americans was not still greater.38 No one was hurt on
the
88 * Four killed aud several wounded,!
or ‘several men killed and wounded, ’ is all that Stockton says. Report, 42;
Mil. and Nav. Op., 10. No
official report by Mervine is extant, so far as I know. Six killed and 6
wounded is the statement in Gutts9
Conq., 127-8, and most often repeated. Gillespie, Sacramento Statesman, May 6, 1858,
says that Mervine lost 13. Several Californians state that 12 or 13 were
killed, basing their statement on the account of the man employed to move the
remains. Carrillo, in his official report, gave 7 as the number of slain.
Flores, in his report, says they were 12. Phelps says 7 or 8.
Californian side. The sailors advanced bravely, but in this peculiar
warfare bravery was of no avail. Mervine soon perceived that the pursuit of
flying artillery and cavalry by marines on foot could only result in useless
slaughter; he had no means of knowing, what was indeed true, that the enemy
had burned all their effective powder, and could no longer oppose his advance;
and he accordingly retreated to San Pedro and reembarked. The dead and wounded
were carried by their companions; and the former were buried on the little
island before and since known as Isla de los Muertos. The Californians claim
that Mervine left behind him a quantity of useful articles, including a flag.39
During the rest of October a large part of the Californian army, or
about one hundred men, was kept between Angeles and San Pedro, the chief encampment
being at Temple’s rancho of Los Cerritos, and a small detachment being
stationed at Seprilveda’s rancho of Palos Verdes, near the anchorage. The men
had nothing to do but to watch the Savannah; and the leaders were able to
devote their attention to perfecting the machinery of their new government, and
to the more difficult task of obtaining resources for future warfare. Archives
of the Flores regime have for the most part disappeared; but enough remain in
my collection from private sources to show the purport of the general’s
measures.40 The plan
39 Carrillo,
Action de San Pedro contra los Americanos, 8 de Oct. 18/fi, MS. The
original official report, dated at S. Pedro Oct. 8th ; also printed in El
Sonorense, Jan. 8, 1847. Flores’ congratulatory proclamation announcing the
victory is in Janssens, Doc., MS., 19-20. There is a general agreement among
the different authorities on the general features of this battle, though there
is naturally much exaggeration of the forces engaged on the opposite side,
especially by American writers. A newspaper item relates that Mer- rine, before
starting on his march, made a speech to his men, alluding, among other things,
to the grapes they would find at Los Angeles. This remark was afterward
connected by the men with the ‘grape’ fired from the cannon; and ‘ Capt.
Mervine’s grapes, vintage of 1846,’ became a current joke.
_ 40
Agustin Janssens was justice of the peace at Sta Inds, and was made a kind of
military commandant in that region; and among hia papers are found many of
Flores’ orders not elsewhere extant. Oct. 9th, Flores’ general instructions
for Sta In6s district. Keep the largest possible force in anns, with spies on
the Monterey road to look out for Fr&nont, and also toward Sta
was to wage a guerrilla warfare, and thus prevent the naval forces from
penetrating again into the interior, leaving the ownership of California to be
settled between the national governments. Manuel Castro was sent as
commander-in-chief of operations in the north, with Rico as his second in
command, and San Luis Obispo as his headquarters. His achievements will be
noticed later.
The departmental assembly was reorganized October 26th, being summoned
by Flores to resume the functions interrupted by the temporary occupation of
the capital by the forces of the United States. The members present were
Figueroa, Botello, Guerra, and Olvera; Joaquin Carrillo, a vocal suplente, was sworn
in and took his seat. Figueroa acted as president, and Olvera was made
secretary. The president in an introductory discourse congratulated the
country on the success that was attending the Cali-
B^rbara in case of a
lauding there. Keep up communication with Sta Barbara and San Luis Obispo; aid
them, and cut off supplies from the foe in case of attack. If the enemy
advances on Angeles, harass them with guerrillas in the rear. Scrutinize the
passes of all travellers, and arrest all suspicious persons, sending foreigners
to headquarters. If attacked by superior forces, fall back on Angeles.
Janssens, Doc., MS., 17-19. Oct. 12tli, Gumesindo Flores’ comandante from S.
Luis to S. Buenaventura, the 8th company/is glad Janssens is serving with such
zeal. The people are immortalizing themselves. The foreigners here (Sta
Barbara) are rendering good service. Johnson has offered his guns, which go to
the pueblo to-day. Make a list of persons who will not aid. Keep a copy of the
instructions, and send the original to Monterey. Id., 21-3. Oct. 17th, Flores’
general order. One of the best methods of harming the foe being to deprive him
of supplies; any one aiding tho enemy in any way will be punished as an enemy;
rancheros must at once remove their live-stock from the coast beyond the reach
of the naval forces; whoever refuses is a traitor. Id., 23-5. Oct. 18th, Capt.
J. J. Pico at San Luis Obispo orders Miguel Avila to deliver certain property,
left with him by Dana and Howard, to Jos6 Garcia and his men. Avila, Doc., MS.,
21-2. Oct. 20th, Gumesindo Flores to Janssens. A private letter, with
miscellaneous gossip about public affairs. All quiet at S. Pedro; a force gone
to S. Diego; FriSmont’s men leaving him becausc they are not paid; ‘Vallejo
said to be a general of the Americanos’! Janssens, Doc., MS., 26-7. Oct. 23d, Gen. Flores appoints
Manuel Castro comandante of brigade for operations in the north, with Francisco
Rico as second in command. Castro,
Doc., MS., ii. 147. Oct. 25th, Janssens’ circular calling for contributions
for defence, since 10 Americans are said to be seducing the Indians in the
Tulares to attack the rancheros. Eleven names of contributors, including Wm G.
Dana. Id., 28-9. Oct. 26th, Flores decrees any person deserting or leaving
military service, or found one league from camp without permit, to be
court-martialled and put to death; every traveller without a passport to be
arrested. Id., 30-1; Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 265.
Hist.
Cal., Vol. V. 21
fornian cause, and recommended the choice of a governor and general to
fill the places made vacant by the flight of Pico and Castro. It was decided to
unite the two commands in one person; and Jos£ Marfa Flores, already acting as
commander-in-chief, was elected to hold both offices ad interim, until successors
should be appointed by the supreme government, or assume the offices by due
form of law after the restoration of peace. In the decree announcing this
action the country was declared in a state of siege, and martial law in full
force. Botello and Guerra were named as a committee to report on ways and means
for prosecuting the war. Their report, presented next day, approved in the
session of the 30th, and issued as a decree by Flores on the 31st, was in favor
of annulling Pico’s sales of mission estates, and of hypothecating one or more
of those estates as security for a loan of such sums as public necessity might
require. Before the assembly Flores took the oath of ofSce, listening and
replying on that occasion to a speech of President Figueroa. Neither discourse
contained any feature calling for special comment, one being merely an
expression of the country’s confidence in the new ruler, and the other the
usual protestation of unworthiness, coupled with patriotic zeal. The date of
the oath is not very clear. In his communications to foreign consuls, Flores
makes the date November 1st, but he had already issued, October 31st, the
decree mentioned above, and another making Narcisco Botello his secretary.41
Meanwhile Stockton, having left Monterey October 19th, arrived at San
Pedro with the Congress on
41 Oct.
26111-30111, record of assembly proceedings, in Olvera, Doc., MS., 49. Oct.
26th, decree of assembly electing Flores. Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 150. Oct.
30th, Flores to Carrillo, ordering the publication of the decree of Oct. 26th.
Carrillo (D.), Doc., MS., 94. Oct. 31st, Flores’ decree naming Botello as
secretario del deapacbo. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 267-8. Nov. 1st, Flores to
Forbes and Latailla.de, announcing that ‘to-day’ he has taken the oath. Id.,
269, 271. Oct. 30th, decree of assembly on missions. Unb. Doc., MS., 360—1.
Janssens, Doc , MS., 33—5. Oct. 31st, Flores’ decree promulgating the
preceding. Soberanes, Doc., MS., 326; Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 153.
the 23d, and learned from Mervine the facts of his late disaster. “Elated
by this transient success, which the enemy with his usual want of veracity
magnified into a great victory, they collected in large bodies on all the
adjacent hills, and would not permit a hoof except their own horses to be
within fifty miles of San Pedro. I had, however, agreed to land here, to be in
readiness to cooperate with the forces under Major Frdmont, expected from Santa
Barbara; and therefore determined to do so in the face of their boasting
insolence, and there again to hoist the glorious stars in the presence of
their horse-covered hills. On our approach to the shore the enemy fired a few
muskets without harm, and fled; we took possession, and once more hoisted our
flag at San Pedro. The troops remained encamped at that place for several days
before the insurgents who covered the adjacent hills, and until both officers
and men had become almost worn out by chasing and skirmishing with and watching
them, and until I had given up all hope of the cooperation of Major Fremont.
Besides, the enemy had driven off every animal, man, and beast, from that
section of the country; and it was not possible by any means in our power to
carry provisions for our march to the city. . .The insurgent force in the vicinity
was supposed to number about 800 men. The roadstead of San Pedro was also a
dangerous position for men-of-war;”42 and therefore the commodore de
42Stockton’s Report,
42; Id,,, Mil. and Naval Operations, 11, 16-17, with orders of Oct. 26th for
landing, and of the 28th thanking the men for their gallantry. Gillespie with
50 men was to land first, but failed to do so, ‘in consequence of a fancied
force of the enemy. Not so with the sailors and marines,' who landed in a most
gallant manner. Several Californians relate that a letter containing scurrilous
nonsense was sent to Stockton’s camp by being tied to a dog. All seem to regard
this a very funny occurrence; therefore I note it. On Nov. 9th Larkin writes
to his wife; ‘There is a report here among the natives that two or three miles
from S. Pedro the commodore formed his men thus ''■■■y, with the cannon behind them; then sending ahead 100 men, who on
meeting the Californians retreated on the main body, losing a few seamen, when
the main body opened and gave fire, which killed and wounded about 100 people,
many being also taken prisoners. The report appears consistent, and is
believed here. If it is true, I hope the Californians are satisfied.’ Larkin’s
Doc., MS., iv. 320.
cided to attack Los Angeles by way of San Diego* His landing was on
October 27th; and his departure for the south in the first days of November. He
had about 800 men, and with a few light guns might easily have retaken Los
Angeles; but he had evidently modified his oft-expressed opinions of Californian
valor, and had become somewhat cautious. Of the 800 attributed to the enemy,
700 at least existed only in the American imagination; for Carrillo had
adopted,, as all the native writers agree, the tactics which some have
accredited to Stockton on a former occasion at the same place—that of
displaying his men on the march among the hills in such a way that each man was
several times counted. He also caused large droves of riderless horses to
raise clouds of dust in the distance. His success in frightening Stockton away
was beyond his expectations, and possibly his hopes; for there is some reason
to suppose that Flores had founded on the present display and past successes a
hope that the American commander might be induced to consent to a truce, by the
terms of which he would hold the ports and leave the Californians in possession
of the interior until the national quarrel should be settled.43
At San Diego we left the American garrison on board the Stonington.
Bidwell went in a boat with four men up to San Pedro to obtain supplies. He arrived
apparently during Mervine’s absence on October 7th-8th, and started back at
once; but a gale arose, and the trip was a long and perilous one. As soon as
Mervine returned to his ship and heard the news, he seems to have sent
Lieutenant Minor with a small party down to reenforce Merritt; and on his
arrival
13 B. D. Wilson, Observations, MS., 85-8,
states that such a plan was made known to him by j. A. Carrillo; and that as a
prisoner he was sent with a sergeant to an elevated spot near the S. Pedro
landing, with instructions on a given signal to raise a white flag and to
communicate to Stockton the proposition for a truce, He saw Carrillo’s parade
of horses, etc.; and he also saw the ship’s boats full of men approach the
shore; but he says they did not land. He is very positive that Stockton landed
no men; but either his memory is- at fault, or the period of his watch was when
Gillespie’s men failed to land, as already recorded.
the united forces—or possibly Merritt’s men and the whalers before his
arrival—landed and again occupied San Diego. The exact date is not known, and
our information respecting these events is extremely meagre. Meanwhile,
S^rbulo Varela had been sent down from Angeles with a force to operate on the
southern frontier. It does not clearly appear whether or not he was in command
when the place was retaken, or that any hostilities occurred; but many of his
men were unmanageable, and the force gradually dissolved; and on October 26th,
after the Americans were again in possession, Captain Leonardo Cota and Ramon
Carrillo were sent to replace Varela, and to press the siege. Their tactics
here as elsewhere consisted in driving off live-stock and harassing the foe.
They were instructed to make no attack, but to keep a close watch on the
Americans, report their strength and movements, and cut off their supplies. At
the same time they were to see to it that no San Diegan shirked his part of the
country’s defence, acting to that end in accord with Alcalde Marron.44
ilBidwell’s Cal. in
1841-8, MS., 188-98; Lancey’s Cruise, 135; Stockton’a reports, naming Minor as
in command at S. Diego. Oct. 26th, Flores’ order recalling Varela, and his
instructions to Cota and Carrillo. Olvera, Doc.f MS., 52-4. Bid well says he was fired at by the natives at S. Juan
Capistrano on his way up the coast; that on his return he had thrown overboard,
among other things, a keg with a bottle and message, which he had prepared to
leave at S. Pedro if no vessels had been found, the Indian finder of which was
shot by Flores as a spy; and that immediately on his return Merritt’s men and
the whalers landed their cannon and retook the town, not without resistance by
the foe, at whom the two cannon were fired alternately every 100 yards. Soon
Pedrorena went up to S. Pedro for aid, and brought back Gillespie (Minor?)
with a part of his force in the Magnolia. About this time the Californians
attacked the post with a cannon from the hill; but the garrison made a sally,
captured the gun, and with it killed one of the enemy s horses. It is possible
that Bidwell’s version is correct, and that the town was .retaken by the
original garrison before Minor’s arrival.
THE CONQUEST—THE
FLORES REVOLUTION—FIGHT AT SAN FASCUAL.
November-December,
1846.
Stocxton at Sait Diego—Petty
Hostilities—Preparations Interrupted —U. S. Troops Coming from the East—Affairs
at Angeles—Orders and Correspondence—Revolt against the Governor—Coronel’s Adventures—The
Dalton Financial Scheme—The Chino Prisoners— Flores Imprisoned and
Released—Alarming News—Kearny’s Instructions—His March from New Mexico—Meeting
Kit Carson— Capture of Horses and a Courier on the Colorado—Across the Desert
to Warner’s and Santa Maria—Reenforced by Gillespie— Fight at San
Pascual—Defeat of Kearny by the Californians under Pico—Thirty-seven Men
Killed and Wounded—In Camp at San Bernardo—Reenforcements under Gray—March to
San Di- eqo—Stockton and Kearny March on Angeles.
Early in November
1846 Commodore Stockton, leaving the Savannah at San Pedro, went down to San
Diego with the Congress. His plan was to obtain horses and supplies, and to
advance on Los Angeles. Immediately after his arrival he received by the Malek
Adhel despatches from Fremont, explaining that officer’s turning-back, and his
project of making an overland expedition to the south. Of events at San Diego
for a month after the commodore’s arrival, we have but little information
beyond what is contained in his brief reports—in substance as follows: He found the town in a state of siege,
Lieutenant Minor being in great need of reenforcements and supplies. The frigate
struck in attempting to cross the bar, and was forced to return to the
anchorage outside. Arrangements were made to send a party under Captain Gib-
(326)
son of the battalion in the Stonington down the coast to Ensenada after
horses and cattle; Mervine was sent with the Savannah to Monterey to aid
Fremont in his preparations; and Stockton, having made a trip to San Pedro for
that purpose, returned to San Diego. The ship being becalmed on the way,
Lieutenant Tilghman was sent in a boat to urge Minor to hasten his preparations
for the march northward. This time the Congress was brought successfully into
the bay though not without having once dangerously grounded. “The situation of
the place was found to be most miserable and deplorable. The male inhabitants
had abandoned the town, leaving their women and children dependent upon us for
protection and food. No horses could be obtained to assist in the transportation
of the guns and ammunition, and not a beef could be had to supply the necessary
food,” though, as the writer somewhat contradictorily adds, Gibson had returned,
“ driving about 90 horses and 200 head of beef cattle into the garrison.” Meanwhile
the Californians held the region roundabout the town. Stockton says: “On the
afternoon of our arrival the enemy, irritated I suppose by the loss of his
animals, came down in considerable force and made an attack; they were,
however, soon driven back with the loss of two men and horses killed, and four
wounded. These skirmishes, or running fights, are of almost daily occurrence;
since we have been here, we have lost as yet but one man killed and one
wounded.” Thus reported the commodore on November 23d, the only definite date
we have for these events.1 That there were, however, any hostilities
involving loss of life, I think there is room for doubt.
More horses were required; and those already obtained needed rest.
“During the time required fur resting the horses,” writes the commodore, “we
were
1 Nov. 23, 1846, Stockton to Sec.
Bancroft, in Stockton’s Mil. and Naval Oper., 11-12. Also to same purport,
except a3 to the killing of three men, in Id., Report of Feb. IS, 1847, p.
43-4, which is the chief authority for the events immediately following.
actively employed in the construction of a fort for the more complete
protection of the town, mounting guns, and in making the necessary harness,
saddles, and bridles. While the work of preparation necessary for our march was
thus going on, we sent an Indian to ascertain where the principal force of the
insurgents was encamped. He returned with information that a body of them,
about 50 strong, was encamped at San Bernardo, about 30 miles from San Diego.
Captain Gillespie 2 was immediately ordered to have as many men as
he could mount, with a piece of artillery, ready to march for the purpose of
surprising the insurgents in their camp. Another expedition, under command of
Captain Hensley3 of the battalion, was sent to the southward for
animals, who, after performing the most arduous service, returned with 500
head of cattle and 140 horses and mules. About December 3d two deserters,
whose families lived in San Diego, came into the place and reported themselves
to Lieutenant Minor, the commander of the troops. On receiving information of
the fact I repaired to his quarters with my aide-de-camp, Lieut Gray, for the
purpose of examining one of these men. While engaged in this examination, a
messenger arrived with a letter from Gen. Kearny of the U. S. army, apprising
me of his approach, and expressing a wish that I
2 Nov. 29th, Gillespie writes to Larkin:
‘In consequence of the great want of animals, every horse being driven away,
Com. Stockton has landed here with all his force, and intends, to maintain this
position until we catch horses, and then proceed upon the march to the pueblo.
We hear nothing from Maj. Fremont, hut suppose that he must be near the pueblo.
Some few of the enemy show themselves now and then upon the hills opposite to
us, beyond the reach of our guns. We muster now on shore 450 men, and
altogether have a fine camp. The Congress
is safely moored within pistol-shot of tho hide- houses, where she
will no doubt lie until the winter is passed.’ Larkin’s Doc., MS., iv. 334.
3 ‘In November 1846 I was directed by Com.
Stockton to go into lower California and get horses, mules, cattle, saddles,
aud saddle-rigging. I was directed to proceed by sea, and accordingly went on
board the Stonington, and disembarked at San Domingo. In landing we swamped two
boats, with the loss of seven or eight rifles, several pistols, blankets, and
many articles of clothing. We succeeded in getting 140 head of horses and
mules, and about 300 head of cattle, some saddles and saddle-rigging. The
cattle belonged to Juan Bandini, who was in S. Diego at the time.’ Hensley’s
testimony in Fremont’s Cal. Claims,
35. Hensley did not return until about Dec. 20th.
would open a communication with him and inform him of the state of
affairs in California. Capt. Gillespie was immediately ordered to proceed to
Gen. Kearny’s camp with the force which he had been directed to have in
readiness. He left San Diego at about half-past seven o’clock the same evening,
taking with him one of the deserters to act as a guide in conducting Gen.
Kearny to the camp of the insurgents.”4
At Angeles Flores continued to issue as before his routine orders to
subordinates, few of which require any special notice. It is to be noted,
however, that many of them relate to affairs in the direction of San Diego, and
naturally, since there was the camp of the enemy. From these documents it
appears that a party of Americans from San Diego may have undertaken an
expedition into the interior not mentioned in Stockton’s reports. At any rate,
on November 22d
4Stockton’s
Report, 44—5. Judge Hayes, Emig. Notes., 364-6; Miscel., 412, gives some
details of these times gleaned from conversations with the old Californians, as
follows: Bandini, Argiiello, Pedrorena, and others were very friendly to the
Americans. J. A. Estudillo was neutral, like Abel Steams, who went at first
across the frontier, and later to the Cajon rancho. Bandini entertained
sumptuously. Some of the foree were quartered at the house of Dofia Marfa
Ibanez and part at the Argiiello house. Women and ehildren were gathered within
the strong walls of the Estudillo house. The Californians held the fortified
Stockton hill (?) so near that Juan Rocha could be heard shouting to his aunt
for ropa and chocolate. J. M. Orozco amused himself by firing at A. B. Smith
when he elimbed the flag-staff to fix the flag; and also at Pedrorena, who was
eseorting a young lady—merely to seare him. One day a party came down and drove
off some cattle from the flat near the Argiiello house. Then on the 8th day of
the siege, Capt. Argiiello with a company ascended the hill, and though wounded
in the leg, drove the Californians, under Hermosillo, from their position.
They made a new stand behind the ruins of the old presidio walls, but soon
retreated toward the mission. Capt. Pedrorena went in pursuit, and about a mile
up the valley met and exchanged some shots with the advanced guard under
Leandro Osuna. Farther on, an American going to water his mule in a eanada was
killed. Pedrorena was again successful in u, charge on the foe at the old
mission, where Ramon Carrillo (?) and others were taken prisoners. From this
time many, disgusted with Hermosillo’s conduct in these affairs, began to eome
in and give themselves up. Dances and festivities followed. The grand music of
Stockton’s naval band is still spoken of by the natives. At one of the
jollifications came the news of Kearny’s approach. Marron, Papeles, MS., 14-19,
gives some similar reminiscences. Her husband had been forced into the
Californian ranks, escaped, and was retaken and lost nearly all his property.
Andres Pico was ordered in all haste to proceed with a hundred men to San
Luis to cut off the retreat of a body of the enemy which Flores understood to
have started for Santa Isabel. Captain Cota at the same time was instructed to
cooperate with Pico; and the hope was expressed that the Americans might be
caught between the two forces and destroyed. Two days later it was learned that
the enemy had gone back to San Diego; but still Don Andres was ordered to make
a reconnoissance in the region of the San Jos6 Valley; and he seems to have
remained in the south, where we shall presently hear from him. Flores himself
a little earlier had announced his intention to march with 200 men to San Diego
as soon as a quantity of powder could be manufactured. He also made an effort
to win back the support of Juan Bandini for the Californian cause, but without
success.5
5 Nov. 5tb, Flores’ procl. The country
having been declared in a state of siege, all citizens from 15 to 60 years of
age must appear to take up arms at the first alarm. The signal, a cannon-shot,
general alarm, and ringing of bells. Those who fail to respond will be put to
death as traitors. Janssens, Doc., MS., 35-7; Olvera, Doc., 54-6. Nov. 6th,
Flores to com. at Sta In£s. Robbins, A. B. Thompson, Daniel Hill, and Robert
Cruell to remain at Sta In& till further orders; but may go to Sta Barbara
on business. Janssens, Doc., MS., 37-8. Nov. 6th, Capt. G. Flores to Janssens.
Thinks the latter unfortunate in being appointed military commandant. ‘A
Mexican is mal visto, even if he perform miracles.’ Id., 54. No powder, aud not
a dollar to buy
any. Id.,
55. Nov. 8th, Flores to (Antonio Rodriguez?),
ordering him to
raise and command a
9th company at Sta Barbara. Id., 38-40. Nov. 12Lh, 13th, Flores to Cota. Will
soon march to S. Diego. Understands the difficulty of approaching that place;
but you can cut off the enemy’s supplies and communications, and shoot every
Indian found in his service. Must report if the enemy had been reenforced by a
ship that passed S. Pedro on the 8th. Olvera, Doc., MS., 57-9. Nov. 12th,
Flores to Bandini, urging him to support the Californian cause, and assuring
him that he shall not be molested in any way for the past. He calls Don Juan ‘
Uncle.’ Bandini, Doc., MS., 99. Same date, Flores to Cota. Official letter
enclosing one for Bandini; and private letter, in which he says: ‘ I flatter
him a little to see if we cannot turn an enemy into a friend, for our
circumstances do not allow us to commit imprudent acts at present. This man is
the one most to be feared now, and it is necessary not to vex him. You may
write to him and try to raise his spirit and fill him with confidence, and see
what may be got out of him, especially arms and ammunition.’ Olvera, Doc., MS.,
58-60. Nov. 19th, Flores to Janssens. You may impose a contribution of cattle
and grain to support your detachment, not to exceed 15 men. Janssens, Doc., MS.,
40-1. Nov. 22d, Flores to Andres Pico and to Cota. Instructions for campaign,
as in my text. Pico, Doc., MS., ii. 101-3; Olvera, Doc., MS.,63-7. Nov. 24th,
Flores to Pico. Pico, Doc., MS., ii. 105. Nov. 30tli, Raimundo Carrillo,
cornan- dante at Sta Barbara, orders Janssens to go to S. Luis Obispo and learn
what force was there, if proper precautions were taken, and if there was any
news of Fremont’s movements. Janssens, Doc., MS., 56-7.
Flores was an intelligent and well educated man, who, as far as can be
known, had not intrigued for his position, and under difficult circumstances
had performed its duties with entire good faith toward the Californians and
with fair ability and success. He was, however, a Mexican de la otra banda;
there were many who thought a native Californian should be at the head of
affairs; and the success of the new government was sufficient to inspire
jealousies. It is believed, though evidence on this point is not very plentiful
or definite, that Josd Antonio Carrillo, next to Flores in military command,
was the officer who chiefly but secretly instigated opposition to the governor.
During the San Pedro campaign there are related a few instances of
insubordination on the part of Eamon Carrillo and others; about San Diego there
had been bickerings between Californian and Mexican officials, resulting in
much demoralization of the troops; Joaquin de la Torre was accredited with having
used his influence against Flores among northern officers and men; and Manuel
Cantua had been put in prison for disobedience of orders and wholesale
plundering of ranchos. But the general, declaring that he had not sought the
command, that he was willing to resign it, and that success was difficult
enough even if all would unite their efforts, declined to engage in any
quarrel.6
At last for a brief period there was open revolt against Flores’
authority. The immediate cause or pretext was his proposed action in the matter
of obtaining resources for the war, and disposition of the Chino prisoners.
Naturally, as there were no public funds whatever, the task of clothing and supporting
the soldiers in actual service was a difficult one. Antonio F. Coronel was
despatched to Mexico via Sonora as a commissioner to solicit aid from the
national government, taking with him the American
6 Flores’
views are indicated in several communications, especially in those of Nov. 1st,
2d, to Manuel Castro, in Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 270, 272-3.
flag captured at San Pedro, and also a band of horses and mules. Before
he started a party of Sonorans had set out with a much larger band of animals
that had perhaps been stolen. At Warner’s rancho Don Antonio heard of a party
of Americans who had left San Diego to capture his horses; and it was probably
his report that caused Andres Pico to be sent to that region, as already
related. On approaching the Colorado crossing, Coronel heard of an American
force coming from the east, and also of the horse-thieves encamped in that
region; which caused him to turn back, after sending Felipe Castillo to Sonora
with his despatches; and he returned to Aguanga, near Temecula, to await
further developments. Here he was surprised on December 3d, escaping capture,
but losing his animals.7 Meanwhile Flores devised another scheme
for obtaining supplies. Henry Dalton, an English merchant of Los Angeles, who
had married a sister of Flores’ wife, had a quantity of needed articles in
stock, which he was willing to deliver in exchange for drafts on Mexico—of
course at a good round price, as is customary in such contracts the world over,
and as was justifiable enough in this instance, since Dalton assumed a great
risk of losing the whole amount of the investment. In order to promote the
payment of the drafts by exaggerating the achievements of the Californians, and
at the same time to enhance the general’s personal glory, it was proposed to
send the Chino prisoners to Mexico. These prisoners were, however, men of
considerable influence, several of them being married to natives. Through their
friends, prominent among whom were William Workman and Ignacio Palomares, they
made every effort to save themselves. Of course they took
'‘Coronel,
Coaas de Cal., MS., 104, etc. At the time of his surprise he had come down from
hia hiding-place in the sierra to meet couriers who failed to appear, and was
drying hia clothing in a house where he had eaten supper. Barefoot, and clad
only in ahirt and drawera, he escaped by climbing a tree; and wandered for a
long time in the mountains before he could obtain a horse. Popular tradition
has given another explanation of hia dishabilU, much more romantic, but
probably less accurate than that given by himself.
advantage of the current prejudice of the Californian officers against
Flores. Francisco Rico, lately returned from the north, became the nominal
leader of the malecontents; and the most absurd charges Avere made against the
governor, notably that he was preparing to run away to Sonora with the public
funds I How he was to pay the balance of his travelling expenses after
exhausting the said funds does not appear.
During the night of December 3d Rico and his companions took possession
of the cuartel, apparently without opposition; and placed Flores under arrest.
His imprisonment lasted until the 5th. On that day the assembly in an extra
session investigated the matter. Flores admitted his previous plan of sending
the prisoners to Mexico, which plan, however, he was willing to abandon. Not
the slightest foundation could be adduced for the other charges; and
accordingly the assembly denounced the movement as unjustifiable, and
especially so at the present critical juncture. Alarming news from the south
had arrived the night before; Carrillo and his fellow-conspirators deemed it
best under the circumstances not to urge their cause; Palomares and Workman had
effected their purpose, since Wilson and his men were to remain; and therefore
Flores was restored to power; the opposition to him was silenced temporarily
though not eradicated; and Rico in his turn was made a prisoner.8
8 Dec. 5th, 7th, Flores to Cota and to
Janssens, relating his arrest. Olvera, Doc., MS., 68-9, 71; Janssens, Doc.,
MS., 45-6. He thinks that the affair of the prisoners was only a pretext, and
that Carrillo and the rest had been influenced not only by the former’s
ambition, but had been bought with oro Americano to ruin their country, wbicb
he bel-ieves has had a very narrow escape. Dec. 5th, action of the assembly.
Olvera, Doc., MS., 49-51; Pico, Doc., MS., ii. 109-10. Dec. 4th, Olvera wrote
to Coronel, describing the affair. Coronel, Cosas de Cal., MS., 115.
Narratives also in Wilson’s Observ., MS., 82-5; Rico, Mem., MS., 30-5, whose
version is that the assembly, composed mainly of Mexicans, would not listen to
his well founded charges. Bo- tello, Anales, MS., 152-3; Dicc. Univ., viii.
159-60. Dec. 5th, Flores to Cota, mentioning Coronel’s letter, in which he
announced hostile operations of the Americans. Cota is ordered to do his best
to recapture the horses and punish the foe. If this be impossible, he is to
reoccupy his former position. Olvera, Doc., MS., 69-70. Dec. 7th, Flores to
Janssens. Cannot send a man, for the enemy is upon us. Consult with Jesus Pico,
collect the greatest possible force and keep it ready. Janssens, Doc., MS., 45.
The alarming news to which I have referred was Coronel’s report that a
party of Americans had captured his animals near Ahuanga. Flores was greatly
puzzled to account for the presence of the enemy in that quarter, since he
could not understand how they had left San Diego and penetrated into the
interior without being seen by the forces of either Pico or Cota. As a matter
of fact, they had come not from San Diego, but from the opposite direction.
They were the men from whom Stockton had received a letter on or about December
3d; and it is now time to explain their presence in California and to follow
their movements.
Colonel Stephen W. Kearny, leaving Fort Leavenworth at the end of June,
1846, occupied Santa Fe and accomplished the conquest of New Mexico in August,
as related in another part of this work. Before lie started on this expedition
he received orders, dated at Washington, June 3d, to march across the continent
from Santa Fd and take possession of California. He was to cooperate with the
naval forces, which would be found probably in possession of the ports; and
having secured the country, he was to organize a temporary civil government. I
append some extracts from the instructions forwarded to Kearny at different
dates.9 They will prove of some importance
9 June 3, 1846, instructions of Sec. of
War Marcy to Col. Kearny. ‘It has been decided by the pres, to be of the
greatest importance in the pending war with Mex. to take the earliest
possession of Upper Cal. An expedition with that view is hereby ordered, and
you are designated to command it. To enable you to be in sufficient force to
conduct it successfully, this additional force of 1,000 mounted men has been
provided to follow you in the direction of Sta F6... When you arrive at Sta F6
with the force already called, and shall have taken possession of it, you may
find yourself in a condition to garrison it with a small part of your command,
as the additional force will soon be at that place, and with the remainder
press forward to Cal.... It is understood that a considerable number of
American citizens are now settled on the Sacramento River, near Sutter’s
establishment, called New Helvetia, who are well disposed toward the U. S.
Should you on your arrival find this to be the true state of things, you are
authorized to organize and receive into the service of the U. S. such portions
of these citizens as you may think useful to aid you to hold possession of the
country. You will in that case allow them, so far as you shall judge proper, to
select their own officers. A large discretionary power is invested in you in
regard to these matters, as
well as to all
others.. . The choice of routes by which you will enter Cal. will
be left to
your better knowledge, etc Though it is
very desirable that the
expedition
should reach Cal. this season,... yet you are left unembarrassed by any
specific directions in this matter. It is expected that the naval forces of the
U. S., which are now or soon will be in the Pacific, will be in possession of
all the towns on the sea-coast, and will cooperate with you in the conquest of
Cal Should you conquer and take
possession of N. Mex. and Cal.,
or considerable
places in either, you will establish temporary civil governments therein,
abolishing all arbitrary restrictions that may exist, so far as it may be done
with safety. In performing this duty, it would be wise and prudent to continue
in their employment all such of the existing officers as are kuown to be
friendly to the U, S. and will take the oath of allegiance to them.. .You may
assure the people of those provinces that it is the wish and design of the U.
S. to provide for them a free govt, with the least possible delay, similar to
that which exists in our territories... It is foreseen that what relates to
civil govt will be a difficult and unpleasant part of your duties, and which
must necessarily bo left to your discretion... The rank of brevet
brigadier-general will be conferred on you as soon as you commence your
movement toward Cal.’ Cal. and N. Mex., Mess, and Doc., 236-9. June 18th,
‘Since my last letter it has been determined to send a small force round Cape
Horn to Cal... Arrangements are now on foot to send a regiment of volunteers by
sea. These troops, and such as may be organized in Cal., will be under your
command.’ June 5th, the proclamation sent you, intended for Gen. Taylor, to
issue to the Mexicans, will not answer our purpose for Cal. Id., 239-40. Sept.
12th, volunteer regiment about to sail. ‘This force is to be a part of your
command; but as it may reach its destination before you, the colonel, J. D.
Stevenson, has been furnished with instructions for bis conduct in the mean
time. T jend you a copy; also a copy of instructions to the
commander of naval squadron, a copy of a letter to Gen. Taylor, etc., and a
copy of general regulations relative to the respective rank of naval and army
officers. These, so far as applicable, will be looked upon in the light of
instructions to yourself.’ Id., 241-2. Dec. 10th, ‘It is presumed that you will
not find a state of things in Cal. requiring you to remain in that country, but
that you will deem it proper to leave affairs there in charge of Col. Mason,
recently sent out, and return to Sta F6.’ Jan. 11, 1847, ‘It is proper to
remark that the provisions of the law established for New Mexico go in some
respects beyond the line designated hy the president, and propose to confer
upon the people of the territory rights under the constitution of the U. .S.;
such rights can only be acquired by the action of congress.. .Under the law of
nations the power conquering a territory or country has a right to establish a
civil govt within the same as a means of securing the conquest, and with a view
of protecting the persons and property of the people, and it is not intended to
limit you in the full exercise of this authority. Indeed, it is desired that
you should exercise it in such a manner as to inspire confidence in the people
that our power is to be firmly sustained in that country. The territory in our
military occupation acquired from the enemy by our arms cannot be regarded, the
war still continuing, as permanently annexed to the U. S., though our authority
to exercise civil government over it is not by that circumstance the least
restricted.’ Id., 244-5. Jan. 11th, extract of letter to Stockton, forwarded to
Kearny. On Nov. 5th you were informed that the pres. ‘ has deemed it best for
the public interests to invest the military officer commanding with the
direction of the operations on land, and with the administrative functions of
govt over the people and territory occupied by us.’ This was before the receipt
of
the time of Kearny’s expedition, arrangements were made for the sending
of several different bodies of troops to California; but as none of these accompanied
Kearny or reached their destination in 1846,. it will be more convenient to
defer an account of military preparations until I come to treat of results in
the annals of 1847.
It was on September 25th that General Kearny—for his commission as
general had already reached him— left Santa Fe with 300 of the 1st dragoons for
California. The line of march was down the valley of the Rio Grande. Nothing
of interest occurred until the army on October 6th reached a point some
thirteen miles below Socorro. Here was met Kit Carson, with fifteen men,,
including six Delaware Indians, en route from Los Angeles to Washington with
despatches from Stockton. Carson brought the news that the conquest of
California had, at his departure in August, been already fully effected by
Stockton and Frdmont; that there was no longer the slightest opposition to the
American rule; that Stockton was engaged in organizing a civil government; and
that Frdmont was to be made governor.
This news caused the general to modify his plans, and to send back 200 of
his 300 dragoons under Major Sumner to Santa Fe. He retained companies C and
K, or 100 dragoons, under Captain Benjamin D. Moore, Lieutenant Thomas C.
Hammond, and Lieutenant John W. Davidson. His staff consisted of Captain Henry
S. Turner, acting assistant adjutant- general; Captain Abraham R. Johnston,
aide-de- camp; Major Thomas Swords, quartermaster; Lieutenants William H.
Emory and William H. Warner of
Stockton’s despatches
of Sept. 18th, 19th, which were received Dec. 26th. Then follows a general
disquisition on the nature of military occupation.
‘ This right of
possession, however, is temporary, unless made absolute by subsequent events,’
coupled with a general approval of Stockton’s acts, though ‘ at present it is
needless, and might be injurious to the public interests to agitate the
question in Cal. as to how long those persons who have been elected for a
prescribed period of time will have official authority. ’ The number of
appointments should be made as small as possible. Id., 246-7.
the topographical engineers, with a dozen assistants and servants;10
and Assistant Surgeon John S. Griffin. Antonio Robidoux was the guide, and
Carson became his associate. The latter was unwilling to turn back, desiring to
deliver his despatches in person, and also to visit his family; but Kearny
insisted and became responsible for the safe and speedy delivery of the papers.
The whole force of officers and men was therefore 121. Two mountain howitzers
were taken under the charge of Lieutenant Davidson. The men were mounted
chiefly on mules; the luggage was carried at first in wagons, which were,
however, soon abandoned in favor of pack-mules.
The 15th of October, in the region of Fra Cristdbal, they left the valley
of the Rio Grande, and turned to the westward into the mountains, passing the
old copper mines, and striking the upper Gila five days later, without
adventures requiring mention.11 On November 9th they emerged from
the mountains into the valley of the lower Gila; and on the 22d reached the
vicinity of the Colorado junction. The march had been a hard one; many animals
had been lost, some eaten, and the rest were in bad condition; but there
10 Those named were J. M.Stanley,
draughtsman; Norman Bestor, assistant; Jas Early, W. H. Peterson, Baptiste
Perrot, Maurice Longdeau, Francois Von Cceur, Francois Menard, Jas Riley,
Dabney Eustice, and Williams.
11 There are two diaries of the wbole trip
extant. The most complete is Emory’s Notes of a Military Reconnaissance from
Fort Leavenworth in Missouri to San Diego in California. Washington, 1848.
Being 30th Cong. 1st Sess., II. Ex. Doc. 41, P- 55-126; the diary being from
Sept. 25, 1846, to Jan. 20, 1847. The other is Dr Griffin’s Journal of a trip
with the First U. S. Dragoons from New Mexico to California in 1846, MS. copy
in the handwriting of Judge Hayes from the original. A part has been printed in
the Los Angeles History. A third diary is Capt. Johnston’s Journal printed with
that of Emory, p. 567-614. It terminates on Dec. 4th, the author having been
killed in battle by the Californians on the 6th. Lieut Cooke also gives a diary
of the march down the Rio Grande; but he turned back to Sta F<5, and the
rest of the journey is described from the journals of other officers. Cooke’s
Conquest of Cal., 68-86, 228-56. The expedition is briefly described in letters
of Gen. Kearny of Dec. 12th, 13th. 30th Cong. 1st Sess., Sen. Ex. Doc. 1, 51316;
still more briefly in Major Swords’ report of Oct. 8, 1847. 30th Cong. 2d
Sess., II. Ex. Doc., i. 226-8; and mentioned from the above sources in several
govt documents. I have also a MS. Statement on San Pascual, by Asa M. Bowen,
who was with this expedition; and Notes on S. Pascual, MS., by Wm H. Dunne. I
might give a long list of accounts made up from the preceding.
Hist.
Cal., Vol. V. 22
had been no serious mishap or suffering. Here they found a small party
with a band of 500 horses coming from California and bound for Sonora. These
men gave alarming but contradictory reports of the revolution at Los Angeles;
and a bearer of despatches was also captured, whose papers confirmed the news
that a large portion of the country was in possession of the Californians,
including the region through which they were to pass. The Americans obtained
all the horses they desired; and though most in the band were unbroken, many
of the dragoons succeeded in getting a fresh mount. There is a degree of
mystery about the men who had the horses. They told all kinds of stories about
themselves. Coronel says they were horse-thieves proceeding to Sonora with
stolen animals; possibly some of the rancheros had sent the horses to Sonora
on speculation, thinking that if not sent out of the country they were sure to
fall into the hands of either the native or American armies, or certain
Mexican officers may have been interested in the venture; but I think there was
no foundation for the statement made by some of the men that the horses
belonged to Flores or Castro.12
12 Emory says: ‘ Each gave a different
account of the ownership and destination of the horses. The chief of the
party, a tall, venerable-looking man, represented himself to be a poor employ^
of several rich men engaged in supplying the Sonora market with horses. We
subsequently learned that he was no less a personage than Jos6 Maria Leguna
[Segura?], a colonel in the Mexican service.’ Emory inplies that the Mexicans
were kept in arrest ior a while, and released, the animals being taken as
contraband. He mentions a woman of the party to whom a child was born in camp.
Johnston says: ‘They lied so much that we could get but very little out of
them,’ though it appears their reports about affairs in Cal. were very nearly
accurate. ‘ The letters heing opened were resealed by Capt. Turner, and all
returned to the man, who was discharged. These fellows tell various stories
about the horses; they all acknowledge that a part of them belong to Gen.
Castro.. .Nov. 24th, completed our trading with the Mexicans; Capt. Moore’s men
being in part remounted on wild horses, on which never man sat, they got of
course many tumbles; but they stuck to the furious animals until they
succeeded.’ Dr Griffin says the horses, 20 in number, were bought at |12 each,
or for |2 and a hroken-down animal; and the Mexicans were surprised at being
paid at all. Lugo, Vida de un Ranchero, MS., 50-1, says that Capt. Segura ran
away to Sonora with a band of horses and other property; and that he and Diego
Se- piilveda started in pursuit and went nearly to tie Colorado. He says it was
suspected that Segura acted in secret accord with Flores, who seut the funds in
advance, intending to flee to Sonora himself soon. It is not unlikely that the
Kearny’s men forded the Colorado November 25th; and next day, provided
with bunehes of grass and mezquite-beans for the animals, they set out to cross
the Californian desert. The worst of the desert had been passed at noon on the
28th, when they reaehed the Carrizo Creek; but the mareh had been attended with
greater hardships than any before experienced. Both men and animals were
completely exhausted; and many of the latter, of whieh there were 250 at the
Colorado, had been lost on the way. Pressing on, they reaehed Warner’s raneho
of Agua Caliente the 2d of December; and here their troubles, so far as lack of
water and food was eoneerned, were at an end. The route had been for the most
part farther south and a more difficult one than that usually followed from
the Colorado to San Gabriel.13 Warner was absent, but every
attention was shown to the Americans by Marshall. The Indians of the region
were also friendly. Here they were visited by Stokes, an English ranehero of
the region, who volunteered to earry a letter to Stoekton, and who delivered it
at San Diego, as we have seen, the 3d of Deeember.u Here also they
learned that not far
mail-carrier taken by
Kearny wag the Felipe Castillo despatched by Coronel, though it is said that
his despatches bore date of Oct. 15tli.
13The route
was as follows: Nov. 26th, 22 or 24 m. to Alamo; Nov. 27th, 31 or 32 m. to salt
Laguna; Nov. 28th, 27 or 22 m. to Carrizo Creek; Nov. 29th, 20 m. to Bayo Cita,
or Bayeau Chitoes (Vallecito?); Dec. 1st, 18 m. to S. Felipe, deserted Indian
village; Dec. 2d, to Warner’s rancho. The hardships of the march are described
in detail hy Emory, Johnston, and Griffin. The fresh horses obtained at the
Colorado suffered more than the mules. On the way a Mexican family was met on
their way to Sonora.
“The letter, in
Stockton’s Mil. and Nav. Op., 26-7, is as follows: ‘Headquarters, army of the
west, camp at Warner’s, Dec. 2, 1846. Sir: I this afternoon, reached here,
escorted hy a party of the 1st regiment of dragoons. I came by order of the
pres, of the U. S. We left Santa F6 on the 25th Sept., having taken possession
of N. Mex., annexed it to the U. S., established a civil govt in that
territory, and secured order, peace, and quietness there. If you can send a
party to open communication with us on the route to this place, and to inform
me of the state of affairs in Cal., I wish you would do so, and as quickly as
possible. The fear of this letter falling into Mexican hands prevents me from
writing more. Your express by Mr Carson was met ou the Del Norte, and your
mail must have reached Washington
10 days since. You might use the bearer, Mr
Stokes, as a guide to conduct your party to this place. Very respectfully,
etc.’ Stockton’s reply was as follows: ‘Headquarters, S. Di^go, Dec. 3d, 6:30
p. M. Sir: I have this moment received your note of yesterday by Mr Stokes,
and have ordered Capt.
away was a band of horses and mules said to belong to the government; and
Davidson with twenty-five men was sent to capture them, in which enterprise he
was successful. These animals were those of Coro- nel’s party at Ahuanga; but
the horses were most of them unbroken, and therefore of no great use for the
coming emergency.16 On the 4th Kearny marched down the valley to
Santa Isabel, where his men were as hospitably entertained by Stokes’
*aajordom'o ‘Se- lior Bill,’ as they had been by Marshall at Agua Cali- ente.
Next day they marched on to the rancho of Santa Maria. On the way they met
Gillespie, Lieutenant Edward F. Beale, and Midshipman James M. Duncan with
thirty-five men and a four-pounder, the ‘Sutter gun,’ sent by Stockton from San
Diego.16 At different points in the past few days they had heard
reports, tolerably accurate, though not fully credited, respecting the state of
affairs in California. They had learned that they were likely enough to meet
the enemy upon their route; and even that a party escorting prisoners to
Mexico was soon expected to arrive. Now these reports, except the last, were
fully confirmed by the new-comers. Stockton announced that a hostile force was
posted not many miles away, and suggested a surprise. The soldiers,
Gillespie with a
detachment of mounted riflemen and a field-piece to proceed to your camp
without delay. Capt. G. is well informed in relation to the present state of
things in Cal., aud will give you all needful information. I need not,
therefore, detain him by saying anything on the subject. I will merely state
that I have this evening received information by two deserters from the rebel
camp of the arrival of an additional force of 100 men, which, in addition to
the force previously here, makes their number about 150. I send with Capt. G.,
as a guide, one of the deserters, that you may make inquiries of him, and, if
you see fit, endeavor to surprise them. Faithfully, your obedient servant, Robt
F. Stockton, commander-in-chief and governor of the territory of Cal., etc.’
16 Capt. Johnston says: ‘After them came a
party of French, English, and a Chilian, claiming their riding animals, as they
were going out of the country, which the general gave them. Many of the animals
from the herd •,vere put into service, and arrangements made to secure the
balance by driving them into some safe place in the mountains.’
18 ‘The force which accompanied Capt.
Gillespie consisted of a company of volunteers, composed of Acting Lieut Beale,
Passed Midshipman Duncan, 10 carbineers from the Congress, Capt. Gibson, and 25
of the California battalion.’ Stockton's Report, 45. The whole number was 39.
after tlieir unresisted occupation of New Mexico, and their tedious march
across the continent, made no secret of their desire to be brought face to face
with the foe. Kit Carson had affirmed along the march that the Californians
were cowards and would not fight. The battalion men from San Diego doubtless confirmed
this view more or less fully. An attack was therefore decided upon; and in the
evening Lieutenant Hammond was sent out to reconnoitre.1'
Captain Andres Pico, as we have seen, had been sent southward by Flores
on November 22d, to cut off the retreat of a party of Americans understood to
have left San Diego for the region of Santa Isabel. The alarm proved to be a
false one—or at least, the Americans returned before Pico arrived; but Don
Andrds remained in the south, making his headquarters at San Luis Rey and
Santa Margarita, cooperat
17 Emory says: ‘We heard that the enemy was
in force 9 miles distant.’ After Hammond had been seen by the foe, ‘we were now
on the main road to S. Diego, all the by-ways being in onr rear, and it was
therefore deemed necessary to attack the enemy and force a passage.’
Johnston—the last entry of his journal—says, on Dec. 4th: ‘We heard of a party
of Californians, of 80 men, encamped at a distance from this [Sta Isabel]; but
the informant varied from 16 to 30 miles in bis accounts, rendering it too
uncertain to make a dash upon them in the dark; so we slept till morning.’ Dr
Griffin tells us that Gillespie’s men camped soon after the meeting, while the
rest went on some 10 miles to a point two miles beyond Sta Marfa. ‘A party of
the enemy being reported in our vicinity, it was first determined that Capt.
Moore should take 60 men and make a night attack; but for some reason the general
altered his mind, and sent Lieut Hammond with the men to reconnoitre.’ Kearny,
in his report of Dec. 13th, says: ‘ Having learned from Capt. Gillespie of the
volunteers “that there was an armed party of Californians, with a number of
extra horses at S. Pascual, three leagues distant on a road leading to this
place, I sent Lieut Hammond, 1st dragoons, to make a reconnoissance. ’ Geo.
Pearce, one of the dragoons, still living in 1880, says in the Son. Co. Hist,
581-2, that he, Pearce, was sent by Kearny to summon Capt. Moore to an interview;
that Moore opposed a reconnoissance, favoring an immediate attack; but his
objections were overruled, and Hammond, Sergt Williams, and 10 men were sent to
reconnoitre. Pearce heard their report, ‘ that as they neared some Indian huts
at...S. Pascual, the guide stopped them and called attention to a dim light in
one of the huts, and told them that Pico and his men were occupying those huts;
that Sergt Wiliams and the guide [the same native Californian who had reported
at Warner’s rancho] absolutely went to the door of the hut and saw a numher of
men sleeping, and a lone Indian sitting by the fire. They beckoned the Indian
without the hut, and while conversing with him, a sentinel hailed the main
party, and the whole detachment instantly retreated... Ab they retreated they
distinctly heard the shouts of the enemy “Biva California” !’
ing with Captain Cota in watching and keeping supplies from the enemy,
awaiting Flores’ approach with the main force to assist Stockton’s expected
advance. He had perhaps taken 100 men, as ordered, from Angeles, but had lost
many who absented themselves on one pretext or another, and had also picked up
a few recruits, until his force, as nearly as can be ascertained, numbered
about 80, most Californians making it considerably less. Of his movements, like
those of Cota, nothing is known in detail until December 5th, when he was
encamped at the Indian pueblo of San Pascual, where he had arrived that day, or
possibly the day before. His purpose was to cut off the retreat of Gillespie,
whose departure from San Diego on the 3d was known, and whose mission was
supposed to be to obtain cattle and horses. Pico had no expectation when he
went to San Pascual of meeting any but Gillespie’s men; and Cota, or some of
his subordinates, had been sent to cut off the Americans’ retreat if by chance
they should take another return route. Before night on the 5th the Indians
brought in reports that a large force was approaching, and not far distant; but
as these reports were somewhat contradictory, and did not agree with what was
known of Gillespie’s party, the only enemy whose presence was suspected, but
little attention was paid to them, or even to messages from Coronel, describing
the taking of his horses by a party coming from the east. So far as any
reliance can be placed in the statements of his companions, Pico was
inexcusably careless; and even sent away most of his horses to feed at a
distance of several miles. It was a cold and rainy night. Between 11 o’clock
and midnight the sentry was alarmed by the barking of a dog. To his ‘Quien
vive?’ no reply was given, but he thought he could see retreating forms; and a
party sent out to reconnoitre found a blanket marked 'U. S.’ and the trail of
the enemy’s scouts. Now the horses were sent for in all haste, and preparations
for defence were made.
though even then it could hardly be comprehended that thirty-five men on
a raid for live-stock would venture on an attack by night. At early dawn, however,
on the 6th, the near approach of the Americans was announced; and hardly could
the Californians mount their horses, lance in hand, before the advance guard of
the foe was seen riding at full speed down the hill upon them.18
Kearny had 160 men under his command at Santa Marfa. The force of the
enemy at San Pascual, ten miles distant, had been correctly reported, as is
shown by Johnston’s journal, at 80; but no certainty could be felt on this
point. Hammond returned about 2 A. m. from his reconnoissance, reporting that
he had seen the camp of the enemy, and had been seen but not pursued by them.
The call to horse was sounded without delay, and the army was soon on the
march. The San Diego force had encamped at some distance from the general’s
camp, but all were reunited soon after the start. The order of march was as
follows: Captain Johnston commanded an advanced guard of twelve dragoons
mounted on the best horses; close behind was General Kearny with lieutenants
Emory and Warner of the engineers, and four or five of their men; next came
Captain Moore and Lieutenant Hammond with about fifty dragoons, mounted, many
of them on mules, followed by captains Gillespie and Gibson with twenty
volunteers of the California battalion; Lieutenant Davidson was next in the
line, in charge of the two howitzers, with a few dragoons to manage the guns,
which were drawn by mules; and finally, the rest of the force, between fifty
and sixty men, brought up the rear under Major Swords, protecting the baggage,
and protected by Gillespie’s field-
18 On these preparations, as on the
following conflict, much information is derived from Hayes’ Miscellany, 38-40;
Id., Emig. Notes, 400-2, being reminiscences of old Californians collected by
Judge Hayes during an acquaintance of many years; Coronel, Cosas de Cal., MS.,
115-19; Forster’s Pioneer Data, MS., 37-42; Botello, Anales, MS., 154-6; Vijar,
Recuerdos, MS., 6680; Moreno, Vida Militar, MS., 25-31; Palomares, Mem., MS.,
88-95; Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 492-500.
piece. It required more than the ardor of anticipated victory to make the
march a tolerably comfortable one. The animals were either stiff and worn out
by their long journey, or partially unbroken and unmanageable ; while the
men’s clothing was soaked by the night’s drizzling rain, and the cold was now
intense. In the gray dawn of morning they drew near San Pascual; and as they
came in sight of the Indian village and the enemy’s camp, a charge was ordered
by the general, and down the hill dashed Captain Johnston and his men at a
gallop.
It was no part of Californian cavalry tactics to stand still and receive
a charge. Had Gillespie’s forty men come down upon them in a compact body,
Pico’s company would have retired at least far enough to find favorable ground
for a countercharge; and had Kearny’s force appeared in like manner—of whose
presence Don Andrds had as yet no knowledge—they would have retreated promptly
to the hills to await an opportunity for a sudden dash or to content themselves
with harassing the foe and driving off his animals. But seeing less than
twenty horsemen coming down the hill, the Californians made a stand, discharged
the few muskets and pistols they had, and with lances ready received the shock
of the advancing dragoons. Captain Johnston received a musket-ball in the head
and fell dead; a dragoon also fell, badly wounded. Of the very brief
hand-to-hand conflict that ensued at the Indian village, naturally no participant
has been able to give a clear account; and it is not known if there were any
casualties beyond those mentioned. Overpowered by numbers and confused by the
fall of their leader, the Americans perhaps fell back a very short distance
after the first shock; but at that moment Kearny’s main force appeared on the
scene; and Pico’s men fled.
Filled with enthusiasm at the sight of the retreating foe, the gallant
Captain Moore called on his men to charge in pursuit, and was followed by all
that had
come up. Not all of Moore’s and Gillespie’s force had been able to do so;
but it seems hardly probable that enough of them had been kept back by their
animals’ lack of speed to justify Dr Griffin’s opinion and that of Dunne that
not more than fifty men saw the enemy. No order was observed in the pursuit;
all rushed onward pell-mell, each urging his animal at full speed. Between the
fleetest and freshest horses, however, and the slowest and most worn-out mules,
there were many gradations of speed; and the effect on the relative position of
the different pursuers may be readily imagined. What were Pico’s plans, if he
had any, it is impossible to know; his movement has been called on the one hand
a cowardly retreat, and on the other a deliberate trap for the Americans; I am
inclined to think it was neither, but rather the instinctive tactics of
Californian warriors in favor of sudden dashes and short decisive conflict.
However this may have been, after running half a mile, more or less, to ground
more favorable for cavalry evolutions, and noting the line of pursuers
extending with frequent and irregular intervals far to the rear, Don Andrds suddenly
wheeled his column and rushed back to meet the Americanos. The conflict, though
brief, wTas terrible. Kearny’s men derived but slight benefit from
their fire-arms, either because the rain had rendered them useless, or because
most of them had been discharged at long range upon the flying foe. It was
sabre against lance—sabres and clubbed guns in the hands of dragoons and
volunteers mounted on stupid mules or half-broken horses against lances, the
enemy’s favorite weapons, in the hands of the world’s most skilful horsemen.
The Americans fought with desperate valor against heavy odds and with fearful
loss of life; and they stood their ground. For ten minutes, perhaps less, the
hand-to-hand conflict raged; and then, when the force of the assault had
somewhat spent itself, and when the two howitzers had been brought up, the
Californians again fled. This time
the Americans were in no condition to pursue. The mules attached to one
of the howitzers took fright, however, and dashed wildly after the enemy, who
captured the gun and killed the man in charge of it.
The battle of San Pascual, tho most famous and deadly in Californian
history, was at an end. The Americans camped on the battle-field. Lieutenant
Emory was sent back to bring up Major Swords’ party, who were a mile in the
rear, and had not been attacked; and he also recovered the body of Johnston at
the village where the first fight occurred. Eighteen men had been killed in
the fight; nineteen were wounded, three of them fatally; and one was missing.19
Only one death and one wound were caused by firearms; but all the other dead
and wounded had three lance-thrusts on an average in each body, some having
ten. The dead were buried in the night under a willow-tree east of the camp;
but the remains were subsequently removed to Old San Diego, where I saw rude
boards in honor of their memory in 1874. Johnston was the first victim, as we
have seen, being shot in the first charge. Moore fell early in the second
charge, with a lance through the body, after a desperate resistance. Hammond
is said to have received the thrust that caused his death in a few hours while
19 There are some slight variations in
different reports. Kearny says there were 18 killed and 16 wounded; Emory makes
it 18 killed and 13 wounded. In tables contained in Slst Cong. 1st Sess., H.
Ex. Doc. p. 10, 28, the number is given as 17 killed and 16 wounded. The best
authority, however, is Griffin’s quarterly report of Dec. 31st, of which I have
the original blotter in Griffin’s Doc., MS., 4-5. In a letter of Feb. 14, 1847,
the doctorputs the loss at 17 killed and 18 wounded. Id., 22. In his Journal,
p. 28, he makes it 18 killed and 18 wounded, or 35 in all (?). The killed were:
dragoons, Capt. Abraham R. Johnston, Capt. Benj. D. Moore. Co. C, Wm C. West,
corporal; privates Geo. Ashmead, Jos T. Campbell, John Dunlop, Wm Dalton, Wm C.
Lucky, and Samuel F. Repoll. Co. K, Otis L. Moor, 1st sergeant; Wm Whitness,
sergeant; Geo. Ramsdale, corporal; David W. Johnson, farrier; and privates Wm
C. Gholston, Wm H. Fiel, and Robert S. Gregory. Henry Booker, or Baker (?),
private Cal. battalion. Francois Menard, private top. engineers. Missing, and
supposed to have been killed, Hugh McKaffray, Co. K, 1st dragoons. The wounded
were: Lieut Thos C. Hammond, 1st drag., died Dec. 6th; Scrgt John Cox, died
Dec. 10th, at S. Bernardo; Jos B. Kennedy, priv. Co. C, died Dec. 21st, at S.
Diego; Gen. S. W. Kearny, Capt. Arch. Gillespie, Capt. Gibson, Lieut Wm H.
Warner, Jos. Antonio Robi- doux, David Streeter; and 10 others slightly.
trying to save Moore. Gillespie, a skilful swordsman, fought bravely, but
was unhorsed and left for dead 011 the field with three lance-wounds in his
body. Warner also received three wounds; while Kearny escaped with two. Gibson
of the battalion was slightly wounded, and Robidoux, the guide, more seriously.
Respecting the losses of the Californians at San Pas- cual there is no
agreement of testimony. One man, Pablo Vdjar, whose horse fell in the action,
was made a prisoner, and there was perhaps another. About a dozen men were
wounded, one or two perhaps seriously; but I think that none were killed.20
Captain Turner assumed command in consequence of Kearny’s wounds. The day
was consumed in dressing wounds, and in making rude ambulances for the moving
of the disabled. Alexis Godey, a man named Burgess, and one or two others were
sent to San Diego with a letter to Stockton, asking for reenforcements, for
supplies, and for carts in which to carry the wounded. Stokes seems to have
preceded Godey, starting before he knew the exact results of the battle. “When
night closed in,” writes Emory,
20 Capt. Pico’s report of Dec. 6th, received
by Flores at 4 a. m. on Dec. 7th,
and by him communicated to subordinates, Janssensy Doc., MS.,
45-6, says that the victory was gained ‘without other casualty on our side than
11 wounded, none seriously, since the action was decided dpura arma blanca.'
Gen. Keai’ny says in his report: ‘The number of their dead and wounded must
have been considerable, though I havo no means of ascertaining how many, as
just previous to their final retreat they carried off all excepting six.’ It is
hard to resist the conclusion that the general deliberately misrepresents; for
it is certain that no dead Californians were left on the field; and that no
wounded fell into the hauds of the Americans is proved by the fact that a lit*
tie later, when Pico proposed an exchange of prisoners, Kearny had but one,
V^jar, to exchange. Sergt Falls tells me that he and bis party sent to search
the field found one Californian with a broken leg. Dr Griffin speaks of seeing
one man fall after a shot by Lieut Beale; he speaks of two prisoners; and says,
‘I think the enemy must have suffered as much as we did.’ He says that a little
later he sent to Pico an offer to care for his wounded, but the capt. replied
that he had none. Pablo V^jarsays that one man, Francisco Lara, was killed and
12 were wounded, one of them, Casimiro Rubio, fatally. Several Californians
speak of Lara’s death; but in the Los Angeles Hist., 24-8, Lara is said
to have been wounded, capturcd, and to have had his leg amputated at S. Diego,
living for a long time at Angeles. Botello tells us that a Sonoran was wounded
and died a little later of fright. Osio says a boy became frightened, was
unable to run, and was killed. Judge Hayes, personally acquainted with the
participants in the battle and their friends for many years, could never find
evidence that any of Pico’s men were killed.
“the bodies of the dead were buried under a willow to the east of the
camp, with no other accompaniment than the howling of myriads of wolves. Thus
were put to rest together and forever a band of brave and heroic men. The long
march of 2,000 miles had brought our little command, both officers and men, to
know each other well. Community of hardships, dangers, and privations had
produced relations of mutual regard which caused their loss' to sink deep in
our memory.. . Our position was defensible, but the ground covered with rocks
and cacti made it difficult to get a smooth place to rest, even for the
wounded. The night was cold and damp; and sleep was impossible.” The
Californians were not far away, and keeping a close watch. Pico had reported to
Flores that the defeated Americans were encamped and besieged on a little
height near the battle-field without water; that he was waiting only for the arrival
of the division under Cota and Hermosillo to attack them; and that not one
could escape. And Flores replied, thanking Don Andrds for his brilliant
service to the country, and promising a reenforcement of 80 men, horses, and a
field-piece.21
Early on the 7th, Kearny having resumed command, his army, described by
Emory as “the most tattered and ill-fed detachment of men that ever the United
States mustered under her colors,” set out on its march down the valley, taking
a route to the right, along the hills; while the Californians, whose pickets
were part of the time in sight, retired in the same direction, keeping to the
left, nearer the dry bed of the stream. Late in the afternoon they reached the
ran
21 Capt. Turner’s letter of Dee. 6th is
given in Stockton’s Mil. and Nav. Op., 27-8. Dee. 7th, Flores to Jansaens, with
Pico’s report. Janssens, Doc., MS., 45-6. Dee. 7th, Flores to Pieo, in Pico,
Doc., MS., ii. 111-12. Pico claimed to have defeated 200 Americans, killed over
30, including Gillespie, and taken one of the enemy’s two cannon, with a loss
of only 11 slightly wounded. This showed considerably less exaggeration than
Kearny’s report written a week later, that he had defeated 160 Californians—the
maximum force on paper of Pico’s and Cota’s men united—of whom 6 had been left
on the field, the rest of the killed and wounded being carried away.
cho of San Bernardo, deserted by all but a few Indians, where they
found, however, some chickens and cattle. Here they turned to the left,
crossing the enemy’s trail, and approached the river-bed in search of better
feed for their animals; but when they had advanced a mile and reached the foot
of a detached hill, the enemy came upon them from the rear. We h^ve no
intelligible account of this skirmish of San Bernardo; but it would appear that
after an exchange of shots at long range, the Americans, leaving their cattle,
marched up the hill; that Pico’s men started by a longer course to prevent the
success of that movement; that a small party reached the summit on one side
before the Americans who were ascending from the other side; but that they
promptly retired before the rifle-balls of Gibson’s volunteers. At any rate,
Kearny formed his camp on the hill; while Pico withdrew his force to a position
across the creek.22
It was apparent that an attempt to advance would almost certainly result
in a loss of the wounded, and of the baggage, if not in further disaster; and
it was resolved to remain for a time on the defensive. A small supply of water
was obtained by digging, and some of the least emaciated mules were killed for
food. Early on the 8th a man arrived from Pico’s camp with a flag of truce,
bringing sugar and tea, and a change of clothing sent by a friend for
Gillespie, and a proposition to exchange four prisoners just captured.
22 Kearny says: ‘Reaching S. Bernardo, a
party of them took possession of a hill near to it and maintained their
position until attacked by our advance, who quickly drove them from it,
killing and wounding five of their number (!), with no loss on our part.’ Emory
says: ‘A cloud of cavalry debouched from the hills in our rear, and a portion
of them dashed at full speed to occupy a hill by which we must pass, while the
remainder threatened our rear. Thirty or 40 of them got possession of the hill,
and it was necessary to drive them from it. This was accomplished by a small
party of 6 or
8, upon whom the Californians discharged
their fire; and strange to say, not one of our men fell. The capture of the
hill was then but the work of a moment, and when we reached the crest, the
Californians had mounted their horses and were in full flight... They had
several badly wounded. ’ Griffin remarks: ‘ The enemy again appeared and made
another rush to occupy a hill where they could annoy us. They got to the top
about the time we got halfway up, when the fight commenced; but after two or
three minutes the rascals ran, leaving 3 of their spears on the field. ’
There was but one Californian to be exchanged, and with him Emory
proceeded to an interview with Pico. It was Godey’s party that had been
captured near San Bernardo on the return from San Diego, which place they had
reachcd in safety. Burgess was the man exchanged; the others were sent to Los
Angeles. At night Beale, Carson, and an Indian volunteered to go to San Diego,
a mission which they performed successfully.23 On the 9th Sergeant
Cox died from the effects of his wounds, and was buried. On the 10th, as the
horses and mules were feeding at the foot of the hill, the Californians made a
characteristic attempt to stampede the animals by driving upon them a band of
wild horses, some of them with dry sheep-skins tied to their tails. By good
luck and active exertion the success of this trick was prevented; and it even
proved an advantage, for one or two fat animals were shot for food.
The wounded having improved in condition so that most of them could ride,
and there being but little hope that Beale and Carson could reach San Diego and
return with reenforcements, Kearny decided to make a new start next day. An
order had already been issued to destroy all property that could not be transported.24
Before dawn on the 11th, however, reenforcements made their appearance in the
shape of about 200 marines and sailors under Lieutenant Gray, Stockton’s
aide-de-camp, who had left San Diego on the evening of the 9th on or before the
arrival of Beale and Carson.25 When the sun rose the enemy
23 In Peters' Life of Kit Carson, 290-6, is
an account of their adventures on the way, adopted by Lancey, Cruise, 143.
Carson’s account of the whole S. Pascual campaign as given in Peters’ work, p.
278-96, is grossly inaccurate. It is said by this authority and others that
Lieut Beale from his excitement and exposure became mentally deranged for a
time.
21 Dec. 9th,
order signed by Capt. Turner, a. a. a. general, in Qrittn’s Doc., MS., 3.
25 Stockton, Report, 45, tells us that he
first heard of Kearny’s defeat, with no particulars, from Stokes in the evening
of Dec. 6th. Next morning, Dec. 7th, Godey and his companions arrived with a
letter from Capt. Turner (given in Lancey’s Cruise, 142). Preparations were
made to march with all the force that could be spared; and the advance under
Lieut Guest was ordered to march to the mission. Preparations seem to have
proceeded somewhat slowly; for
had disappeared, leaving the cattle at San Bernardo. This sudden
disappearance, and the fact that they were seen no more, cannot be entirely
accounted for by the aid of any records extant; not even by the supposition of
Emory that “our night attack had filled them with the unnecessary fear of being
surprised” by the marines and sailors! Pico’s force had been increased to
about 150 by the arrival of Cota’s company; and Ramon Carrillo with 50 men,
leaving Angeles at 4 p. m. on the 10th, had perhaps arrived before Kearny’s departure.28
That no attack was made on Kearny’s camp is easily understood; the Californians
had a pardonable aversion to charging on horseback up a hill to meet
cannon-balls and rifle-bullets. They had hoped that Kearny might be kept cut
off from communication with Stockton until forced to surrender or to expose
himself to renewed attack by resuming his march. The arrival of Gray’s company
removed all chance of successful attack upon the Americans, if they were
prudent enough to march in compact order. But Pico’s policy naturally, and in
accordance with general orders, would have been to hover about the enemy,
seeking opportunities to annoy him, driving off his animals, and otherwise
impeding his march. Yet, upon learning Gray’s approach, he simply withdrew,
reporting to Flores that Kearny had received reenforcements and marched for
San Diego, he being unable to prevent it for want of horses I And Flores
thereupon ordered him to leave his own and Carrillo’s men to act as scouts in
the south, and with Cota’s
before the advance
started an Indian arrived (night of the 8th or morning of the 9th) with reports
indicating that Kearny’s need of assistance was more urgent than had heen
supposed. Therefore it was decided to send only a part of the force for rapid
movement. At 10 P. M. (of the 9th) Beale arrived and confirmed the worst
reports; and Lieut Gray with 215 men was sent to Kearny’s relief. Emory makes
Gray’s force ‘ 100 tars and 80 marines.’ Griffin says there were 120 marines
and 80 sailors.
26 Dec. 10th, Flores to Pico, in reply to
letter of the 8th. Has been delayed for want of horses; but sends Carrillo, and
will follow himself to-morrow. Pico must not relax the siege. Nothing is to be
feared from S. Diego; for the captured despatch of Stockton, a translation of
which is enclosed, says it is impossible to send aid. Pico, Doc., MS., ii. 115.
company to march to Los Angeles—an order which Don Andrds obeyed before
it was received, and more than obeyed, since he retired with two companies,
leaving but one. This was not a brilliant ending for the campaign; and it is
not unlikely that the disaffection accompanying the late revolt against the
governor had much to do with it.27
At 10 A. m., December 11th,
Kearny’s army marched from the hill camp of San Bernardo, and proceeded
unmolested down the valley. The camp for the night was Alvarado’s rancho of
Penasquitos, where, and at other points along the way, they found considerable
quantities of cattle, sheep, and poultry, all confiscated as belonging to
enemies. At about 4 p. M. on the 12th, they marched into San Diego, where they
were hospitably received by Stockton and by the inhabitants.28
27 Deo.
15th, Mores to Pico, on receipt of his report of the 11th. The want of horses
has heen a serious drawback all along. Owners keep them hidden, but it is
noticeable that they are readily enough found for the enemy. It is reported
that more U. S. troops are coming from New Mexico, and scouts have been sent to
the Colorado. Pico is to recruit his horses in the Sta Ana region. Cota and
Hermosillo with their men and the captured gun will come to the city. Pico, Doc.,
MS., ii. 119-23. It seems that Pico left San Luis Rey and went to Sta Ana with
his force before receiving Flores’ order, leaving Cota’s company in the south.
Cota on the 14th asked to be relieved; and Flores on the 17th, in reply,
complained bitterly of Pico’s disobedience, and of the general indifference and
insubordination of officers and men. The order to Pico has been repeated, and
if disobeyed Cota may abandon the south. If the Californians do not care to
defend their country, he will not be responsible. Id., 127-9; Olvera, Doc.,
MS., 60-3.
281 have
described the S. Pascual campaign from information derived from all existing
sources, the original authorities having heen cited on previous pages, notably
in notes 11 and 18. I add the following items, which could not conveniently he
introduced in my text. Emory says: ‘ We subsequently received authentic
accounts that Pico’s numher was 180 men engaged in the fight, and that 100
additional men were sent him !com the pueblo, who reached his camp on the 7th’!
Griffin affirms that Burgess reported Stockton to have refused to send
reenforccments, and on this account Kearny wished to move at once; but the navy
officers pledged themselves very strongly that the commodore would send
relief. It should be noted that Keamy’s report and Emory’s notes are
accompanied by a plan of the battle, which has been several times reprinted in
other works. Items from Hayes’ Miscellany, and Id., Emig. Notes; some of them
also published in Los Angeles Hist.; Capt. Moore was killed by Leandro Osuna.
Gillespie was lanced and unhorsed by Francisco Higuera, or ‘El Giiero.’
Gahriel Garcia killed the man in charge of the howitzer. Juan Lobo and J. B.
Moreno were conspicuous in the fight. Philip Crossthwaite saved the life of
V6jar, the prisoner whom one of the Delaware Indians (?) was ahout to kill.
Josi Ant. Serrano claims to have left the field while the fight was raging, and
to have found Pico, Cota, and Tomito Sanchez safely out of danger on Soto Hill!
Foster, Angeles in ISJff,
It is difficult to regard the affair of San Pascual otherwise than as a
stupid blunder on the part of Kearny, or to resist the conclusion that the
official report of the so-called ‘victory’ was a deliberate misrepresentation
of facts. True, the Americans remained in possession of the battle-field; but
this fact by no
MS., 8-10, relates
what others confirm, that Higuera would have killed Gillespie if he had not
been in so much of a hurry to get away with his fine saddle and bridle. He
later offered to return the articles, but Gillespie declined to receive them,
as their loss had saved his life. Wm H. Dunne, Notes on S. Pascual, MS.,
remarks that Stokes was in the fight and died soon after from fright and
exposure on the way to S. Diego; the officers were full of wine during the
fight; the men regarded the fight as a stupid and criminal affair on the
officers’ part; Emory showed great gallantry on the taking of Mule Hill; Kit
Carson was thrown from his horse and had his rifle broken. In the Alta, Nov.
14, 1868, Gillespie refutes with much indignation the statement of ‘C. E. P.’
(Chas E. Pickett), in the same paper, that the Americans were under the
influence of wine. Emory in a letter of March 15, 1847, to the N. Y. Courier
and Enquirer, tries to refute the insinuation in the Monterey Californian, Jan.
28, 1847, that discredit was thrown on the American arms by the action of S.
Pascual. Niles’ Beg., lxxiii. 205. Jan. 22, 1847, Larkin briefly describes the
battle in a letter to Vallejo. Vallejo, Doe., MS., i. 22.
The campaign of S.
Pascual has been frequently described at secondhand in books and newspapers.
Brackett, Hist. U. S. Cavalry, 71-6, gives a very good general account. Phelps,
Fore and Aft, 314-15, talked with Pico a few weeks after the battle, and was told
that he had not intended to risk a fight; but that on seeing the disorder of
Kearny’s men he could not resist the temptation. Pico also told Botello,
Anales del Sur, MS., lo4—6, that his charge was a pure accident. Bowen,
Statement on S. Pascual, MS., says: ‘They proved to be about 400, and they
killed all of us but 32 or 33. We were all wounded more or less.’ Streeter,
Recoil., MS., 95-9, gives a narrative derived from the statement of David
Streeter, his cousin and one of the wounded dragoons. John A. Swan, in S. Josi
Pioneer, April 27, 187S, names Honry Booker as the man in charge of the
howitzer. He was perhaps the man who had brought news of the Bear Flag revolt
to Monterey, in June. Bidwell, Cal. in I84I-8, MS., 199-204, who was at S.
Diego at the time, adds nothing to the general accounts. In the life of
Stockton, p. 135, it is declared that the disaster was much more serious than
represented in Kearny’s report. An account credited to A. A. Hecox, in the Sta
Cruz Times, Aug. 27, 1876, is perhaps as inaccurate as any extant; unless
indeed it be excelled in that respect by that of Wm H. Davis, Glimpses of the
Past, MS., 361-5, a writer who on many points is one of the most careful and
accurate of all who have recorded their recollections. Lancey, Cruise, 138-47,
gives a complete account from the official reports and journals, but he
intersperses fragments from unreliable sources. He speaks of Juan Andado (?),
who lost a leg carried away bya6-lb. ball. Lieut Rhuson (Rheusaw?)and Sergt
Jones, of the battalion, distinguished themselves at S. Bernardo. Gillespie in
the Alta, July 3, 1866, followed by Lancey, says the ‘Sutter’ gun was kept back
with tho baggage, against his protest; that a howitzer was fired by him,
holding the foe iu check until the field-piece was brought up and drove them
back; and that at S. Bernardo the gun killed several of the enemy. It is,
however, pretty certain that no cannon was fired at S. Pascual; and there is no
evidence beyond this statement of Gillespie that any was fired at San Bernardo.
An account in the Chihuahua Farol, Aug. 10,1846, and the Sonorense of Aug.
20th, has it that Kearny was killed and that his men shamefully capitulated!
Hist.
Cal., Vol. V. 23
means sufficed to make of defeat a victory, since the enemy uninjured was
free to occupy any one of a dozen equally defensible positions on the way to
San Diego. There was no reason for the attack on Pico’s forces; and even a
bloodless triumph could have done the enemy’s cause but slight harm. Entering
California with but a small part of his original force, after a long and
tedious march, men and animals exhausted, Kearny finds the country in revolt.
Instead of joining Stockton, which he might have done without risk or opposition,
and proceeding as commander-in-chief to devise means for completing the
conquest, he attempts a night attack upon an unknown force of mounted
Californians, knowing that the alarm had been given, and that surprise was
impossible. Coming in sight of the enemy, he orders a charge, and permits a part
of his men, benumbed with cold, their fire-arms wet and useless, their sabres
rusted fast in the scabbards, mounted on stupid worn-out mules and half-broken
horses, to rush in confusion upon the Californian lances, presenting a
temptation to slaughter which the enemy—even if they are as cowardly as their
assailants believe—cannot resist. Individually, the Americans fight most
bravely: nothing more can be said in praise. Many lives are recklessly and
uselessly sacrificed. An irresponsible guerrillero chief would be disgraced by
such an attack on Indians armed with bows and arrows; but Kearny was a
brigadier-general commanding regular troops of the United States. Success would
have brought him no glory; defeat should have brought him disgrace. It does not
appear that any of his officers opposed the general’s plans. It has been said
that all were under the influence of wine; fortunately—for the reputation of
California wine, fiery liquid though it may have been in its primitive stages
of development —-this theory is but slightly supported by the evidence.
Stockton suggested the attack; but we may charitably suppose that he did not
realize the condition of Kearny’s force; and he certainly is to no extent
responsible
for the criminally blundering manner in which his suggestion was
followed. It is noticeable that Stockton was slow to respond to Kearny’s
appeal for aid after the disaster; even refusing at first to send reenforcements,
if we may credit the statement of Burgess, and the letter which fell into
Pico’s hands. Too little is known, however, on this point to make it the ground
of unfavorable criticism.
Of Governor Flores’ operations, and those of his subordinates in and
about the capital, after the San Pascual campaign and until the end of December,
there is nothing to be said, except that those operations consisted of rather
feeble preparations to resist the invader, not without certain petty
bickerings and jealousies among the officers. The Californian cause had
decidedly lost strength during the past few weeks. The effect of military
success at Angeles, Chino, San Pedro, Natividad, and San Pascual had been more
than neutralized by internal feuds and jealousies showing the weakness of the
new government. It was wellnigh impossible to obtain supplies. The rancheros
concealed their horses to prevent their seizure. There was no powder except the
poor stuff made at San Gabriel. The Americans were reported to be advancing
from the north and east, as well as preparing for an attack from the south.
"Men of the better class were convinced by reflection that there was no
hope of successful resistance; and not a few were already devising schemes
for securing pardon and protection from the foe when the collapse should come.
At the end of the year it was the general opinion, sustained by the acts of the
military chiefs, that the first conflict was to be with Fremont rather than
with Stockton.
At San Diego Kearny’s arrival with his wounded dragoons and worn-out
animals did not hasten but rather retarded preparations for beginning the campaign.
The wounds healed favorably, except those of Streeter, sixteen in number, and
of Kennedy, who
had five in the brain, and died. Captain Hensley returned from his raid
across the frontier and brought a large number of cattle and horses, the latter
in poor condition. Vegetables and bread were scarce; and the men were reduced
to short rations of everything but fresh meat. Major Swords was sent to
Honolulu on a trading vessel chartered for the trip in quest of supplies. The
Portsmouth and Cyane arrived to join the Congress. The men were constantly
drilled for land evolutions; and the marines and sailors are said to have
executed on their broncos several movements not laid down in any authority on
cavalry tactics. Relations between the general and commodore were ostensibly
amicable. Meanwhile small parties of Californians came in from day to day,
including some even of those who had been at San Pascual, to give themselves
up, and receive assurances of protection. They brought all kinds of rumors
about the whereabouts and plans of Flores and of Fremont. The only news at the
same time exciting and true was that of the killing of ten gente de razon at
the Pauma rancho by Indians. On December 29th all was at last ready, and the Americans,
600 strong, with Kearny in command of the troops under Stockton as
commander-in- chief, started on the march to Los Angeles. More will be said of
this army in the next chapter, when I come to speak of its achievements.
Progress was slow and uneventful. The first camp was at Soledad; the second at
Penasquitos; and on the last day of 1846 they encamped near San Bernardo, where
Kearny’s men had been besieged so recently.29
n Griffin's
Journal, MS., 33-44; and Id., in Hayes' Emirj. Notes, 379, is the chief source
of information on the last days of the stay at S. Diego. See also Emory's
Notes, 113-16; Stockton’s Report, 45-6; Swords’ report in 30th Cong. !2d Sess.,
H. Ex. Doc. 1, p. 226-7; Hayes'Miscel., 27-9; Dams' Glimpses, MS., 368-70;
Bidwell’s Cal. 1841-8, MS., 204. Some matters connected with the relations
between Stockton and Kearny may be noticed more conveniently elsewhere. In the
Los Angeles Hist., 33, it is related that Juan Bandini and his family came up
from Baja California with Hensley; and that on the way his daughters made an
elegant U. S. flag for the troops—the first ever made in California^-
for which the young ladies were serenaded, and thanked by tho commodore in
person.
November,
1846—January, 1847.
FrAmont’s
California Battalion—Official Plunder op the Rancheros —Successful
Recruiting—Indian Allies—Organization and List of Officers—Manuel Castro and
Other Officers Break Paroles and Join Flores—From San Luis to the
Salinas—Burroughs and Thompson at San Juan—Capture of Larkin—Americans at Los
Verjeles—Approach of the Californians—Fight at Encinalito— Foster Killed—Battle
of Natividad—Death of Burrouohs— Losses—Castro’s Retreat—March of Fremont’s
Battalion from San Juan to Santa Barbara—Condemnation and Pardon of Jesus Pico—Disastrous
Crossing of the Cuesta de Santa Ines—More Forced Contributions—Sanchez’s
Revolt—Alarm at the Pueblo— Marston’s Expedition—Campaign of Santa Clara—End of
War in North—Loss
of the ‘Warren’s’ Launch—Wreck or Murder.
It has been recorded
that Fremont, with about 160 men of the battalion, sailed for the south in the
Sterling to cooperate with Stockton against the southern Californians,but
having met the Vandalia,and learned not only of Mervine’s disaster, but that no
horses could be obtained at Santa Barbara or San Pedro, he resolved to return
for reenforcements and animals, and to advance on Los Angeles from the north by
land. The vessel was becalmed on approaching Monterey; but a few officers were
sent ashore October 24th, and on the 28th Frdmont and his men landed from the
Sterling. I append a few items of chronologic happenings at Monterey in these
days, as an aid to the reader in following the subsequent record.1
1 From Colton’s Three Years; Monterey
Californian; and Bryant’s What I Saw; repeated by Lancey and many other
writers. Oct. 24th, boat from the Sterling. Oct. 27th, Malek Adhel, a prize
brig taken by the Warren at Maza-
(357 )
Officers were at once despatched in all directions by Lieutenant-colonel
Frdmont,for he found this new commission awaiting him at Monterey, with orders
to enlist recruits for the battalion, and above all to obtain the largest
possible number of horses in the shortest possible time. How they were obtained
did not much matter, for the necessity was urgent. Receipts were given, to be
settled by the government after the end of the war; friends of the cause were
treated with some courteous formalities, if they turned over their animals
without delay; while the lukewarm or hostile were plundered without ceremony of
all their property that could be utilized. The commander cannot be blamed for
the proceeding; but doubtless much bitter feeling was provoked, and justly, by
the arbitrary methods employed by most of his agents.2 The United
tlan, arrived under
Lieut W. B. Renshaw. Oct. 28th, the Sterling arrived with Fremont. Capt. Maddox
had gone to S. Juan with 30 men. Oct. 29th, Maddox returned with a brass
field-piece. Large number of Californians reported in the hills, perhaps
intending to attack Monterey. Oct. 30th, a man guarding Fremont’s horses shot
by two Californians. Oct. 31st, enlistments actively going on among newly
arrived immigrants, by efforts of Montgomery in the north. Nov. 5th, second
rain of season. Nov. 9th, Talhot and his men from Sta Barbara arrived. Nov.
12th, Grigsby arrived from Sonoma with 30 men and 60 horses. Hastings expected
from S. Jos6 with 60 men and 120 horses. Nov. 14th, the Savannah arrived with
news from S. Diego. Nov. 16th, Delaware scout arrived with news of a fight
between Americans and Californians; also capture of Larkin. Nov. 17th, Fremont
with his 300 men left Monterey for S. Juan. Nov. 27th, prize brig Julia, Lieut
Selden, arrived from S. Francisco with news that a force had been sent to
protect S. Jos6. Dec. 1st, seven prisoners escaped from jail. Dec. 2d-8th,
etc., county deemed unsafe out of town. Dec. 17th, the Julia sailed for south.
Dec. 22d, news of Bartlett’s capture at S. F.; forces sent to S. Jos6. Dec.
30th, the Dale arrived with a large mail.
2 Nov. 1st, all efficient horses but 3
taken from Fitch’s rancho, 29 in number, worth $730. Fitch, Doc., MS., 406,
422. Many mistakes, with harsh and arbitrary measures, provoking much angry
feeling. Hyde’s Statement, MS., 3.
‘ Every one who can
raise among the emigrants 30 or 40 men becomes a captain and starts off to
fight pretty much on his own hook. Nor is he very scrupulous as to the mode in
which he obtains his horses, saddles, etc. He takes them wherever he can find
them, and very often without leaving behind the slightest evidence by which the
owner can recover the value of his property. He plunders the Californian to
procure the means of fighting him. Public exigency is the plea which is made to
cover all the culpable features in the transaction. This may justify, perhaps,
taking the property, bnt it can never cxcuse the refusal or neglect to give
receipts. It is due to Stockton and Fremont to say that this has been done
without their sanction. Still it reflects reproach on our cause, and is a
source of vast irritation in the community. No man who has any possible means
of redress left will tamely submit to such outrages; and yet we expect the
Californians to hug this chain of degradation, and help to rivet its links.’
Colton’s Three Years, 158. All Amesti’s
States finally assumed the obligation, as we shall see, to pay these
‘California claims;’ and while many rancheros received no compensation, others
were paid for property that they had never lost. Such are the fortunes of war.
It is not possible to form a connected narrative of the operations by which
supplies and recruits were gained, for no official report was ever made on the
subject; but Frdmont’s efforts were very successful, and within a month over
200 recruits were obtained for the battalion. Many immigrants had lately
arrived at New Helvetia, and were ready to enlist for the war at twenty-five
dollars per month. Bryant, Jacob, Grayson, and Lippincott were active in enlisting
the new-comers; and they also raised a company of Walla Walla and native
Californian Indians for the service, known as the spies, or more commonly as
the ‘ forty thieves.’ A company of Indians was also formed to serve at New
Helvetia under Kern and Sutter, thus releasing the old garrison for service in
the south. Captain Hastings had come back to California, and entered with much
zeal into the congenial work, raising a company of 60 or 80 men in the central
region. Captain Grigsby came down to Monterey with his Sonoma garrison of Bear
Flag men. Louis McLane exerted himself with much success to organize an effective
artillery company, for which several field-pieces were found.3
horses, saddles, and
blankets taken without receipts. He then started with his family for another
rancho in an ox-eart; but was met by Capt. Sears’ men, who took the oxen and
left the family in the road. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., v. 182-3; Pinto, Apunt.,
MS., 104-5. Alcalde Chabolla ®f San Juan was beaten for refusing to give up his
saddle. Weeks’ Pemin., MS., 117. All German’s horses were taken, 100 in number;
but he went to Monterey to see Fremont, who gave him back a horse and mule,
and also some money. G. had tried to save 11 fine horses by concealing them,
but a neighbor pointed them out. German, Sucesos, MS., 13-15; Amador, Mem.,
MS., 172-3, gives some details of the process of plundering. Most of the
rancheros were left without horses for their work. See also Cooke’s Conq.,
218-20. Weber’s raids for horses are described in S. Josi Pioneer, March 6,
1880; Lanccy’s Cruise, 191— 2; Tinkham’s Hist. Stockton, 103-4; with some
correspondence found also in Halleck's Mex. Land Laws, MS. Howard and Melius on
complaint to Montgomery got a permit to retain such horses as were necessary
for their business. In the Eureka West Coast Signal, Dec. 20, 1876, I find a
burlesque narrative of Fremont’s coming in person to Sonoma to get Vallejo’s
horses.
8 Bryant’s
What I Saw and Colton’s Three Years contain much information
It was a motley army in respect of race, language, weapons, and
especially uniform; but it would have proved a most formidable and effective
one against any foe existing in California. It contained many lawless,
ignorant, and unprincipled men; but there was also a strong element of
intelligent and brave Americans, thoroughly in earnest, and skilled riflemen;
while the leaders were well fitted by character and experience to discipline
and control such a force. The different parts of the battalion were reunited at
San Juan, after some stirring events to be noticed presently, late in November.
The whole force at that time, according to Bryant, who was an officer present
at the time, was 428 men. No muster-rolls were sent to Washington; and none
have been preserved so far as I know, though I have some partial lists
mentioned in a note, and utilized in my biographical sketches. According to
the official report, when the force was mustered out in April 1847 the total
number of men enlisted had been 475 mounted riflemen and 41 artillerymen, in
ten companies.4 I append in a note the organization of the battalion
into companies, with a full list of officers.5
which has been widely
copied. See also Frimont's Cal. Claims; Honolulu Friend, iv. 190; TuthiU’s
Hist. Cal., 200-3; and Lancey’s Cruise. Sutter, Person. Remin., MS., 153-4,
says that be, at Fremont’s request through Russell, organized the Walla Walla
company under a Canadian named Gendreau; also a company of reformed
horse-thieves from the Mokelumnc and Stanislaus under Jos! Jesus. Nov. 9th,
Larkin writes to his wife of Fr&nout’s rapid progress. He will have 400 to
450 men. Some fear that after his force departs Monterey may be attacked.
Larlcin’s Doc., MS., iv. 320. Sutter says F. had officers who could not sign
their names. Many ‘que ni conocian la o por lo redondo.’ Alvarado,
Hist. Cal., MS., v. 234.
*31st
Cong. 1st Sess., H. Ex. Doc. 24, P- 22 h.
6 Official list in Frimont's Cal. Claims,
61-3; with corrections from Brackett's List, MS.; Bryant’s What I Saw, 365-8;
Swasey’s Cal., MS., 19; and other sources. John C. Fr&nont, lieut-col.
commanding battalion (lieut-col. iu U. S. A.) Archibald H. Gillespie, major
(1st lieut U. S. marines). Pearson B. Reading, paymaster. Henry King,
commissary (capt.) Jacob R. Snyder, quartermaster (called maj.) Wm H. Russell,
ordnance officer (maj.) Theodore Talbot, adjutant (lieut). John J. Myers,
sergeant-maj. and later lieut. Detached officers serving in south and
elsewhere: captains, Samuel J. Hensley, Samuel Gibson, Sautiago E. Argiiello,
Miguel Pedrorena, Charles Burroughs (killed before the battalion went south), Bell,
and Wm A. T. Maddox (2d lieut U. S. N.) First lieutenants, Hiram Rheusaw, James
H. Barton, Edward M. Kern (at Sutter’s Fort), Luis Argiiello, Benj. D. Wilson,
Felipe Butron (?), Montgomery Martin, and Alexis Godey. Second lieut,
On hearing of Flores’ revolution, Manuel Castro and several other
officers left Monterey, breaking their paroles, and made haste to offer their
services to the new general, who on October 23d appointed Castro commandant of
military operations in the
Andrew J. Grayson.
Quartermaster, John Bidwell (capt.) Among officers signing a receipt "for
pay are Ed Gilchrist, surgeon, and Geo. Waldo, rank not mentioned.
Company A, composed
chiefly of Fremont’s original explorers. Richard Owens, capt.; Wm N. Loker, 1st
lieut (adjutant later); Benj. M. Hudspeth, 2d lieut (capt. later); Wm Findlay,
2d lieut (capt. later). Co. B, Henry L. Ford, capt.; Andrew Copeland, 1st
lieut. Co. 0, Granville P. Swift, capt.; Wm Baldridge, 1st lieut; Wm Hargrave,
2d lieut. Co. D, John Sears, capt.; Wm Bradshaw, 1st lieut. Co. E, originally
Co. C, or 3d co. of the organization at Sonoma in July. List of members extant,
see below. John Grigsby, capt.; Archer (or Archibald) C. Jesse, 1st lieut;
David T. Bird, 2d lieut. Co. F, Lansford W. Hastings, capt.; M. M. Wambough,
1st lieut; James M. Hudspeth, 2d lieut. List of members probably extant. Co. G,
Bluford K. Thompson, capt.; D. A. Davis, 1st lieut; James Pi-ock, 2d lieut.
Partial list of members, see below. Co. H, composed mainly of Walla. Walla and
Cal. Indians. Richard T. Jacob, capt.; Edwin Bryant, 1st lieut; Benj. S. (also
called Geo. M.) Lippincott, 2d lieut, acting asst quartermaster in Jan.
Artill. Co. A, Louis McLaue, capt., major later (lieut U. S. N.); John K.
Wilson, 1st lieut, later capt. (midshipman U. S. N.); Wm Blackburn, 2d lieut.
Artill. Co. B, apparently organized after the battalion went south. First lieut
A. Girard in command. Muster-roll of 28 names extant.
In Grigsby’s Papers,
MS., 6-7, 11, 13-14, I find a compact of 33 men of Co. E, dated Oct. 29th at
Sonoma, to serve under Fremont; also list of 33 names (4 new ones being
substituted for 4 of the old), with dates of enlistment from Oct. 4th to Nov.
14th, chiefly at Sonoma. Horace Sanders, orderly sergeant. In Cal. Pioneer
Soc., Arch., MS., 35, I find a list of 57 privates and 12 officers, without
reference to companies, who acknowledge receipt of pay. In Id., 45, is a
muster-roll of Girard’s company of artillery, 28 names, enlistments July to
Nov., dated March 25, 1847. In Id., 101-3, is a contract between Fremont and 71
men, dated at San Juan, Nov. 20th, enlistments from different dates of Oct. and
Nov. This would seem to be Hastings’ Co. F, since Hudspeth and Wambough appear
among the names. In Id., 209-10, is a similar contract with 31 men of the San
Jos6 company (Thompson’s Co. G). Enlistments for 3 months from Nov. 20th. In
Id., 211-12, is similar contract, dated Monterey, Nov. 10th and 28th,
enlistments from different dates of Sept.-Nov., with 20 men of Co. B (Ford’s),
4 of Co. A, and 3, company not specified. C. P. Briggs, in Napa Reporter, Sept.
7, 1872, says that Fremont wished to break up Thompson’s company to fill up the
ranks of the others; but Thompson protested, and after much trouble .his men
were organized into a separate company. T. had been Weber’s lieutenant at S.
Jos6; and there are indications that W. declined to join the battalion with his
men, from dislike of Fremont. In McKinstry’s Papers, MS., 20-3, is a pay-roll
of 50 Indian soldiers of the New Helvetia garrison, Lieut J. A. Sutter,
certified by Lieut. Kern. Nov. 9th to Feb. 26th, pay of troopers $12.50 per
month; infantry, $6; lieut, $50. Thus we have approximately complete lists for
companies B, E, F, G, and Girard’s artillery, about 190 names. For most members
of Co.
A, see list of Fremont’s explorers in vol.
iv., p. 583, of this work. The names of the Indians in company H, are of no
special importance. For companies C and D, and McLane’s artillery, we have no
lists; but many additional names will be found, as well as all those referred
to in this note, in my biographical sketches of pioneers.
north, with headquarters at San Luis Obispo. His instructions were to
enlist with or without their consent all capable of bearing arms, and to seize
all munitions of war wherever they could be found. Horses and other supplies
were also to be taken as found and needed, though preferably from foreigners
who had favored the invaders. Powder and horses would be sent from the south if
possible. Francisco Rico was named as second in command; and Jesus Pico, coman-
dante at San Luis, was ordered to put himself and men at the orders of the
northern chief. The policy to be followed as in the south was that of harassing
the foe by a guerrilla warfare, cutting off supplies, preventing communication,
stampeding horses, and watching for opportunities to attack advantageously.
Arriving at San Luis early in November, Don Manuel set himself to work, and
with the cooperation of Rico, Pico, the brothers Joaquin and Gabriel de la
Torre, Jose Antonio Chavez, and others, he soon raised a force of about 100
men, many of whom became soldiers unwillingly. Castro’s quest for supplies was
similar in methods to that of Fremont in the north, but was less successful,
since the prospect of payment was deemed less favorable; though a stirring
appeal from the prefect-commander was issued to Californian patriots the 7th of
November. The same day he reported to Flores what had been accomplished. The
horses were in bad condition; the men had few and poor weapons; and there was
no powder to speak of; yet he hoped to take some powder from the foe, and he
intended to march for the north two days later. He probably did start on the
9th or 10th, and two or three days later, his force being increased to 125 or
130 on the way, he reached the Salinas River in the region of Soledad.
Pilarcitos, Tucho, and half a dozen other places are named in different
narratives as the sites of military camps in these days, all in the Salinas
Valley below Soledad. The plan of the Californians was to capture as many as
possible of Fre
mont’s horses, and thus keeep the battalioii from aiding Stockton in the
south.6
Meanwhile all was quiet at Monterey, but for the bustle of Fremont’s
preparations. Several of the paroled officers, like Juan B. Alvarado and the
Estradas, were keeping their pledges; while Pablo de la Guerra and perhaps a
few others were put under arrest in consequence of news from the south.7
On November 4th it was reported that one of the Torres had recently gone south
with 30 men and 200 horses, causing much loss to farmers between Monterey and
San Luis.8 We are told also that several men of the Monterey
district, with a knowledge of Castro’s movements, were secretly active in
collecting arms and ammunition, with a view to cooperate with the approaching
force;9 but if this was true, their operations were not suspected.
There were some fears of possible hostilities at the end of October; but it was
believed that the return of the battalion had removed all grounds of anxiety. Meanwhile
the work of military reorganization was going on actively, and recruits were
coming from all directions to swell the force.
On Sunday, the 15th of November, Captain Charles Burroughs, a newly
arrived immigrant who had taken
6 Oct. 23d, Flores to Castro. Appointmeut
and instructions. Castro, Doe., MS., ii. 147. Oct. 30th, J. J. Pico to Castro
from S. Luis. Doc. Hist. Cat., MS., iii. 266. Nov. 7th, Castro’s report
to Flores. Fernandez, Doc., MS., 15. Nov. 7th, Castro’s procl. and appeal to
Californians. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 274. In Castro's Servicios, MS., a
report of 1847, we have a general account of the prefect’s plans and operations
during this campaign. The author attempts no explanation of his parole, but
admits that he was a prisoner at Monterey. He seems not to have been captured
with the rest on the way north, but to have submitted voluntarily, with an idea
that the war was over. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., v. 256-8, says the army was
organized in three divisions or companies of over 30 men each: 1st, veterans
under Gabriel de la Torre; 2d, militia under Jesus Pico; 3d, Mexicans and New
Mexicans under Herrera and Quintana. See also Ord, Ocur., MS., 145-6. •
7 Guerra states that he was kept in close
confinement until Feb. ’47, ou account of his great influence on the
Californians. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 1301. There are other contemporary
references to his captivity.
8 Mont. Californian, Nov. 7, 1846.
9Torre,
Remin., MS., 160-74, gives some details, and names C&rlos and J os6 Antonio
Espinosa, Est6 van and Pablo de la Torre, and Antonio Ruiz de la Mota as the
leaders. They raised a force of some 30 men, and were somewhat successful in
getting supplies; but they do not appear to have joined Castro either before or
after the fight.
an active part in recruiting, arrived at San Juan Bautista from the
Sacramento with about 34 men and a drove of several hundred horses. The same
day there arrived Captain Thompson with about the same number of men from San
Jose, and all camped for the night at San Juan. Knowledge of their presence,
and especially that of the horses, was promptly forwarded to Castro’s camp on
the Salinas. It was also on the 15th that Thomas O. Larkin set out with one
attendant, William Matthews, from Monterey for Yerba Buena. He had previously
sent his family there for safety, and had just received from his wife a letter
making known the illness of his child, together with a message from Captain
Montgomery, who desired an interview. Larkin had no suspicion of danger, and
stopped for the night at Los Yerjeles, the rancho of Joaquin Gomez, sending
Matthews on to San Juan, and intending to follow him next morning. But news of
his trip reached Castro’s camp,10 and Chavez conceived the project
of capturing the consul. The other officers, while admitting the advantage of
such a capture, seem to have opposed the act as likely to make known their
presence prematurely and prevent the success of their main purpose; but Chavez
either overcame their fears, or, as some say, undertook the enterprise without
their consent; and at any rate, he appeared about midnight at Gomez’s rancho
with a dozen men. Larkin was roused from sleep, obliged* to dress in haste, and
carried on horseback as a prisoner to the Salinas camp; but he was treated with
the greatest kindness by all the Californian officers from the beginning to the
end of his captivity. The plan was to utilize the possession of so important a
man in later negotiations for a truce, exchange of prisoners, surrender, or
escape from consequences of broken paroles, as circumstances might require.
They
10Alvarado,
Hist. Gal.. MS., v. 259-64, and several other Californians state that the Fench
consul, Gasquet, sent the information of Larkin’s departure to Castro; but
perhaps this is an error.
also tried at first to induce the prisoner to aid their attempt on San
Juan by writing letters to put the garrison on a false scent; but Larkin
refused to write; and they in turn refused his proposition to be exchanged for
Pablo de la Guerra and others under arrest at Monterey. On the 16th the whole
force started northward in four divisions, Larkin being taken along closely
guarded. The plan, as he understood it, was for a small party to attack San
Juan in the night, and by a retreat to draw out the garrison in pursuit, to be
cut off by the main body.11
As had been feared, Larkin’s capture resulted in making Castro’s presence
known to the Americans. So far as can be determined from the complicated and
contradictory testimony, Captain Thompson started from San Juan early on the
16th for Monterey, to consult with Fremont, accompanied by a small guard and
leaving the rest of his men in camp. He seems to have taken a short cut; while
Captain Burroughs,
11 Larkin’s captivity is fully described in
Ms original letters in my possession. Nov. 25th, L. to his wife, from Sta
Barbara. Larkin’s Doc., MS., iv. 333. Dec. 4th, Id. to Id., from Angeles. Id.,
iv. 347. Jan. 11th, Id. to Id., from Angeles after release. Id., v. 5. Jan.
14th, Id. to see. state, from Angeles. Id., Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 90-1. Jan.
22d, Id. to Vallejo, from Angeles. Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 22. The writer gives
many petty details, and often repeats that from Castro and his officers, as
well as from Flores and others in the south, he received always the best of
treatment; though on a few occasions he was threatened- by irresponsible
soldiers. In the Californian of Feb. 13, 1847, he published a card of thanks
in Spanish, to Nic. A. Den, J. A. Carrillo, J. M. Flores and wife, Eulogio
Cdlis and wife, Dona Luisa Argiiello de Zamorano, R. S. Den, and Luis Vignes.
The news of his capture was published in Id., Nov. 21, 1846; and in Id., Feb.
27, 1847, a kind of journal of his captivity, which has often been reprinted
wholly or in part, as iu Bryant’s What I Saw, 361-3; Frimont’s Cal. Claims,
75-6; Lancey's Cruise, 147-8, 180-1; and various county histories. See also, on
Larkin’s captivity, Rico, Mem., MS., 41-5; Oomez, Lo Que Sabe, MS., 49-50;
Botello, Anales, MS., 170-1; Soule’s Annals, 763-4; Tuthill’s Hist. Cal., 200;
Davis’ Glimpses, MS., 355-6; Ord, Ocur., MS., 146; Savage, Doc., MS., 23; and
indeed, nearly all the references for the Natividad affair in tbe following
notes. After the fight Larkin was hurried south, hy a party under Rico and
Noriega. Rico absurdly talks of a plot to kill him and N. and release the
prisoner, who was to pay $1,000. Larkin was carried to Sta Barbara and finally
delivered to Flores, at Angeles, by whose order he was shown every kindness,
though closely guarded. It was proposed at one time to send him to Mexico with
some of the Chino prisoners, as already related; but he was finally released
on Jan. 9th, the day before Stockton’s occupation of Angeles, and returned to
Monterey on the Cyane early in February.
with all his men and horses, set out a little later by the main road. At
Gomez’s rancho Thompson not only learned what had happened there in the night,
but saw and pursued ineffectually two scouts who had been sent by Castro to
make observations. Failing to capture these, Thompson sent a warning to
Burroughs and hastened back to San Juan to bring up his men. Meanwhile
Burroughs reached the rancho, learned what had occurred, and sent out a party
of six or eight scouts southward into the plain to learn the enemy’s whereabouts
and numbers.12
The Californians advanced northward, Joaquin de la Torre with a dozen
horsemen as scouts in advance. Then came the vanguard under Castro, followed by
Chavez’s company, with Larkin in charge, while Rico commanded the rear guard,
including a party in
12 It ia impossible to be entirely certain
about the details of these events. One of the best accounts extant is that by
‘E. C. K. ’ (Kemble, I think), in the S. F. Californian, Aug. 21, 1847. His
version is in suhstance that of my text, except that he seems to represent
Thompson as having accompanied Burroughs in the morning, and as first sending
and then coming back to S. Juan for his men; but he also speaks of T. having
sent a man to warn B., which is inconsistent with the theory that T. had
accompanied B. Again ‘K.’ (perhaps also Kemble) wrote an account for the Sac.
Union, 1869, which I take from the Los Angeles Star, Dec. 25, 1869, in which he
represents Burroughs, after his scouts had met the foe, to have sent Lieut
Rock (of Thompson’s co., but who had accompanied B.) back to S. Juan to hring
up Thompson and his men. ‘K.’ was one of T.’s men. Again, Winston Bennett, Pioneer
of '43, says that when Burroughs sent back for aid, being attacked, a messenger
was sent to overtake T., who had started with 3 men for Mont. across the hills.
T. was overtaken, returned, and marched to aid B. Lancey, Cruise, 148-9,
following ‘Kemble and others,’ has it that B. and T. both started for Mont.
with a small guard, leaving their companies at S. Juan; that B. sent back to
his lieut to bring up the force as soon as he learned the presence of the foe
on reaching Gomez’s rancho; and that T. came back about the same time to lead
his men, having also learned the presence of the foe, and sent a warning to B.
Swasey, Cal. in '45-6, MS., 15 et seq., ignores all this preliminary matter,
and implies that the entire forces under B. and T. (and erroneously Grigsby),
advanced to Gomez’s rancho, heard of the foe, and finally determined on an
attack. Francisco Rico, Mem,., MS., 35 et seq., and several other Californians
mention the meeting between Castro’s scouts and a party of 8 Amer., some of
them naming Thompson. Vicente P. Gomez, Lo Que Sabe, MS., 316 et seq. (other
versions by G., p. 35, 49), says that he and his brother, sons of Joaquin G.,
owner of Los Verjeles, were the scouts, and gives particulars of the pursuit by
Thompson’s men. Most of the Californians think that Matthews, Larkin’s
companion, camped near the rancho, escaped capture, and carried the news to S.
Juan; but none of the American witnesses say anything of Matthews. I have no
doubt, from a careful study of the testimony, that the version of my text is in
substance correct.
charge of horses and munitions under Sergeant L&- zaro Soto. It was
perhaps 3 o’clock p. m., or even later, when the advance arrived at the Natividad rancho and met
the American scouts. These were the men, six to ten in number, who had been
sent out by Burroughs before Thompson’s arrival. They included George Foster,
often called captain, John (or James) Hayes, the two Delaware Indians, Tom
Hill, and James Salmon, and several Walla Wallas. I think they had been in the
vicinity several hours. On seeing the foe, two or three of the Indians fled to
the rancho to give the alarm, while the rest posted themselves in the
encinalito, or little grove of oaks, close at hand, where they were presently
attacked by Torre, and completely surrounded as soon as Castro and Chavez came
up. The fight at the grove lasted an hour, according to the estimate of Larkin,
who was a spectator. The consul was desired to go to the Americans and induce
them to surrender; but refused to do so unless he could offer a safe retreat to
San Juan or Monterey, to which Castro would not consent. The riflemen behind
trees had an advantage notwithstanding the disparity of numbers against the
horsemen with their few ineffective muskets. Lieutenant Chavez and Alferez Juan
Ignacio Cantua were badly wounded/3 and probably two or three
Californians were killed, to be scalped by the Indian warriors. But Foster,
riddled with musket-balls, at last fell dead at the foot of the tree that had
protected him; and Hayes was disabled by serious wounds in the thighs. Then
the main body of the Americans appeared in sight; 25 or 30 men were left
13 Larkin saw an officer who crept up to get
a view shot, and carried off by one of his companions. This was probably
Cantua, the standard-bearer, and Alvarado names Mariano Soberanea as the man
who distinguished himself by carrying off the wounded man on bis horse, thus
saving him from the tomahawks and scalping-knives of the Indians. Alvarado’s
informant, Juan de Mata Boronda—whose version is also given in Vallejo, Hist. Cal.,
MS., v. 166-70—and some other natives state that the Americans drew the
Californians into an ambush at the grove; but this seems unfounded, except by
the fact that the Californians were surprised at finding the grove occupied by
a foe.
to besiege the few remaining scouts; Rico’s rear guard was moved up; and
the Californian army, about 65 strong, was drawn up on the plain to the right
or east of the grove, to meet the enemy.14
When Thompson arrived with reenforcements from San Juan, after the scouts
had been sent out but before the encinalito fight began,15 there
arose a discussion as to what should be done. Thompson and many of the men in
both companies favored an advance to attack the Californians; but Burroughs
with much reason hesitated to incur the needless risk of engaging in a
conflict which might result in a loss of his horses and the failure of all
Fremont’s plans. The controversy became heated as time passed on, and taunts of
cowardice were flung at the captain by the irresponsible volunteers, Thompson,
a reckless fire- eater, becoming extremely violent in his remarks.16
If any further incentive was needed, it came presently in reports from the
Walla Walla scouts of what was going on at jSTatividad.17 Detaching
fourteen men to guard the horses in Gomez’s corrals, and committing
14 Swasey makes the grove fight a part of
the general engagement, stating that the scouts entered the woods to the right
as the Americans advanced, both fights going on together; but this seems to
have no support. A writer in the Sta Cruz Times, Aug. 27, 1870, tells us that
the grove siege lasted 4 hours before the main body appeared; but this is
doubtless an error, unless, we include all the time spent by the scouts at the
grove before the enemy appeared.
15 Some imply the contrary, and some even
state that the fight began before a demand for aid was sent to S. Juan at all;
but this seems very unlikely. ‘K.’ says Thompson arrived at 9 a. m., and before
noon the line was drawn up on the edge of the plain, though the advance did not
begin till 3 p. M. This may be accurate, and it is possible that the scouts
were posted in the grove; but that the fight had begun or was known to be
raging at the time of his arrival I cannot believe. ‘E. C. K.’ has it that the
message reached S. Juan at 10 A. M., and the force arrived at the rancho an
hour later, which is more probable. Lancey says it was 5 p. M. when the scouts
left the main body for Natividad, but this may be a misprint.
]6
Red-haired, sorrel-top, hell-roaring Thompson are some of the names by which he
was known.
17 Bennett
says that Foster’s Walla Wallas broke through the Californian lines and brought
the news of Foster’s death and Hayes’ wounds, B. being the interpreter of the
message for Thompson. All this seems to me extremely improbable, especially as
Bennett is clearly wrong in several other particulars. These Walla Wallas were
probably those who left Foster before the fight began, but possibly men who
had been sent out to see what had become of Foster’s company, and saw the fight
from a distance. This theory agrees, with the Sta Cruz Times account.
to their care a field-piece found at the last moment to be unserviceable
for the fight, Burroughs gave the order to advance, and the little army of
about fifty men began their march, perhaps half an hour or more after the
encinalito fight had begun.
The Californians were superior in numbers and were skilful horsemen; but
their weapons were a miscellaneous collection of improvised lances, reatas,
ineffective escopetas, and pistols, with powder for only a few discharges of
the fire-arms. The Americans were, most of them, but indifferent riders; but
they were well armed with rifles and had plenty of ammunition. Coming in sight
of the enemy, Burroughs’ men advanced rapidly over the plain. Castro’s men
fired their muskets at long range, doing no harm. The Americans, halting,
discharged their rifles, and at once charged upon the foe at full speed, with
wild shouts, in a manner more creditable to their valor than to their
discipline, each man for himself, with Captain Burroughs in advance on his
gray charger ‘Sacramento.’ The charge was a blunder like that committed at San
Pascual a little later, and with similar results. The Californians feigned
flight, in accordance with their usual tactics;18 but presently
turned to attack their pursuers, as they came at full speed over the plain in
disorder and armed with empty rifles. At the same time apparently the 20 or 30
men at the grove rushed up to attack the Americans on the rear or flank.19
Some writers describe what followed as a desperate hand-to-hand fight, lasting
from ten to twenty minutes; but this is shown by the results to be an
exaggeration. In such a conflict a large number of Americans must have fallen.
But
. 18
Indeed, 30 or 40 of them ran away in good earnest, according to Larkin, who was
still a spectator. These were probably men who were serving against their will.
During the fight, Lorenzo Soto, in his wrath at seeing a relative fall, rushed
upon Larkin to kill (or scare?) him, but L. saved himself by backing his horse
behind others! L. was, however, compelled to change animals successively until
he was reduced to a ‘$1 horse and $2 saddle.’
19 Henry Marshall, Statement, MS., 2-3, was
wounded by a lance in this part of the fight, which he describes more fully
than any other, being followed by Lancey. ‘E. 0. K.’ also mentions this
movement, stating that 2 Americans were killed and one wounded.
Hist.
Cal., Vol. V. 24
I suppose that only the foremost pursuers, and a few of Castro’s men,
came actually to close quarters for a very brief period. The brave Burroughs,
however, leading the charge, fell dead, pierced by a pistol- bullet;20
two or three others were killed; and several were wounded. Very soon, however,
the Americans fell back into a more compact body; some of those in the rear,
who had either reserved their fire at first or had time to reload, fired upon
the advancing foe, killing and wounding several; and Castro’s men again fled.21
The Californians remained in sight until nightfall, and may have indulged in
some charges and evolutions at a safe distance; but there was no more
fighting, and at last the enemy disappeared in the distance. Larkin describes
the fight as having lasted some twenty or thirty minutes, and says the Californians
disappeared in successive detachments. The Californians say that the Americans
finally dismounted and took refuge among the trees, which is not unlikely; and
that they retreated because they had no possible chance of success against the
rifles, especially as they had no more powder. Captain Thompson withdrew his
force to Gomez’s rancho to bury his dead, care for the wounded, and make preparations
for defence, since a renewal of the attack
20‘E. C. K.’
says: ‘He fell headlong from his horse, his unloaded rifle in hand, shot down
by a swarthy New Mexican, in the act of turning upon him.’ ‘K.’ says the
dashing ‘hidalgo rode up abreast, and flourishing a flag in one hand, with the
other sent his bullet through our leader’s body. ’ Christian Chauneey, an
eye-witness, tells us that Burroughs was shot by ‘Threefingered Jack,’ who
wished to get his horse and saddle, though the horse escaped. S. F. Alta, Aug.
8, 1853. Laneey identifies the ‘swarthy New Mexican’ with ‘Three-fingered
Jack,’as Bernardino Garcia, the murderer of Cowie and Fowler at Sta Rosa in
July. According to Sta Cruz Times, Torre was the man who killed Burroughs;
Alvarado says it was Juan de Mata Boronda; and Swasey, who gives one of the
best accounts of the battle, is positive that it was Manuel Castro himself.
Clearly it is not known who fired the sho.t. Swasey notes that B. had in his
pocket a packet of letters for men at Monterey, the corner of each being cut
off and blood-marked by the ball.
21 It is said that Burroughs had at first
ordered every alternate man to fire; but in the excitement little attention was
paid to the order. Thompson, however, induced some of his men to reserve their
fire, aud was thus able at last to repulse the enemy. Wm M. Boggs, in Napa
Register, May 4, 1872, following Gregson—see also Greg son'3 Statement, MS.,
4-5—says that the arrival of Weber with reenforcements put an end to the fight;
but this is only a confused reference to Thompson’s arrival at an earlier hour.
was feared. Tom Hill, with perhaps another Indian named McIntosh, was
sent to Monterey with a message for Fremont, and is said to have had a fight
on the way, in which he was wounded.22
The Americans lost at Natividad four or five men killed, including
Burroughs, Foster, Ames, and .Thorne;23 and five or six wounded,
including Hayes, Hill, Marshall, William McGlone, and James Cash. At least,
these are the losses reported; but it is possible that they were more
numerous, though the Californians doubtless exaggerate in their narratives.24
Foster was buried at the foot of the tree where he fell; the others were
interred at Gomez’s rancho, and a salute fired over their graves. The
Californian loss was perhaps about the same as that of the Americans, though
really little is known about it beyond the wounding of Chavez and Cantua at the
grove. That so few were killed on the American side is accounted for by the
short duration of the fight at close quarters; but that the rifles did so
little execution, especially at
22 The Delaware’s arrival is noted
(incorrectly as on the morning of the lGth) in Colton’s Three Tears, 96-7; also
his fight on the way, in which he met 3 Californians, killing one with his
rifle, another with his tomahawk, while the third fled. Swasey implies that
Hill’s wound was received in the fight before he started for Monterey, from the
fragments of a ballet. Lancey has it that he got a lance through the hand from
the Indian he tomahawked on the way. ‘E. C. K.’ says diaries McIntosh and an
Indian were sent to Monterey. See also Californian, Nov. 21, 1846, for
adventures of the Walla Walla messengers.
23 ‘ Billy the Cooper ’ is mentioned by
several authorities as having been killed. His real name was not known; but he
was possibly the man called Thome by ‘ E. C. K.’ and others.
24 ‘ Pioneer ’ (John A. Swan), in
reminiscences called out by ‘ K.’s ’ article, Savage, Doc., MS., iii. 20 et
seq., was personally acquainted with the killed and wounded, and many others
who took part in the fight, and he thinks the loss was heavier than reported. 4
killed and 5 wounded is ‘ E. C. K. ’s ’ statement. Larkin says 4 killed and 2
or 3 wounded, perhaps not including the grove fight; and again he says there
were 10 or 12 killed and wounded on each side. Gomez states that 4 dead and 9
wounded were brought to the rancho, 6 more dead found and buried at the grove,
and 3 bodies found later by the people of Natividad. Jos3 Ant. Alviso, Campafia
de Natividad, MS., son of the owner of the rancho, who claims to have first
informed Castro of the presence of the Americans at S. Juan, says 4 Amer. were
killed and 4 wounded. Rico says that in the main fight he saw 8 or 9 Amer.
killed, and heard of more, besides those killed at the grove. In a report of
the time, Castro claimed to have killed 21 of the enemy. Fernandez, Doc., MS.,
53. Pico says the Amer. lost 2 officers and several soldiers killed. Flores in
Dec. reported that 11 Amer. had been killed.
the grove, where the enemy came near enough to riddle Foster’s body with
musket-balls, is remarkable; and, indeed, it is not unlikely that the loss may
have been greater than represented. From a dozen to twenty was the estimate of
the Americans, who of course had no means of knowing the truth.25
The dead were probably buried at Alisal rancho. Lieutenant Chavez was cared
for secretly at some of the ranchos, and finally came to Monterey in January,
where for a long time he eluded the vigilance of officials, largely by the aid
of prominent ladies.26 The Californians after leaving Natividad
dispersed for the most part as they advanced southward. Rico with a small party
hastened with Larkin to the capital, where Castro also made his appearance
later with 25 or 30 of his army. Though the Americans were the attacking party,
and were content to remain on the defensive after the fight, yet the result was
practically a victory for them, since the Californians were forced to abandon
their projects of seizing the horses and harassing the battalion by a guerrilla
warfare.27
Frdmont and his men left Monterey November 17th as soon as the news
arrived from Los Verjeles. He
25 Alviso says the Cal. lost 4 wounded. Rico
says he lost 4 killed and 4 wounded, besides several killed before at the
grove. Loss abont same as the Amer. according to Alvarado. Vallejo gives the
loss as 3 killed and 4 wounded; including Vicente Soto and Bautista Garcia. 3
killed and 5 wounded according to Castro’s report. Mrs Ord says 2 killed.
Inocente Garcia, Hechos, MS., 97-8, says bis son Bautista was wounded; also
heard from a fugitive at S. Luis that a cholo and a cook from S. Luis and
several from Monterey had been killed. Pico says several of his own men were
killed and wounded. Nidever, Life, MS., 129-30, says an Italian cutthroat named
Antonio was killed on the Cal. side. Larkin says 3 Californians were killed,
besides Jos6 Garcia from S. America; and 7 wounded. Gomez says the Walla Wallas
scalped 4 Californians.
26 Many stories are told of Chavez’s adventures
in trying to avoid arrest. Once he was concealed in bed between two women,
which prompts Eev. Walter Colton, Three Years, 145, to wickedly quote a verse
from Don Juan. See also Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 152-4; Gomez, Lo Que
Sabe, MS., 95-6. Lancey, Cruise, 151, tells us Chavez was taken on board
the guard-ship at Monterey and had his wounds dressed.
27 Besides the references already given on
the Natividad affair, see Honolulu Friend, iv. 190; Martin’s Narr., MS., 35;
Osio, Hist. Gal., MS., 479-80; La- rios, Vida, MS., 23-4; Amador, Mem., MS.,
170—2; Upham’s Life Frimont, 242-5; Taylor's Eldorado, i. 194; and many of the
county histories.
made some expeditions in different directions in search of such parties
of the enemy as might still be lurking in the district; but found no
Californians, and in four or five days united his forces at San Juan, where he
remained till the end of November. Some parties of recruits joined the force
there, and one from the Sacramento did not arrive until the army had started southward.
At San Juan the organization of the battalion, as already described, was
completed; and on the 29th the army started on its march to cooperate with
Stockton against Flores. The march was for the most part uneventful, and
requires no extended description. Bryant’s diary is in print, and is supplemented
by many other narratives more or less complete.23 The rains of an
extremely wet season had begun, and progress was consequently slow and difficult
along the muddy way. The old grass was spoiled by the rain, and the new was not
sufficient to keep the horses in strength. Many of the animals had to be
abandoned on the way, and still more could barely carry their saddles without
the riders, so that a large part of the march was performed by the men on foot.
Luggage was carried by pack-mules. Beef was almost the only article of food,
cattle being driven along with the army and killed at each halt as required.
Many of the men were ill, but only one death occurred. The route was up the San
Benito, over the’hills to the Salinas, up that valley and past San Miguel to
San Luis, where they arrived the 14th of December.
There is no reason to doubt that Frdmont and his officers exerted
themselves to prevent disorders and outrages on the march, and with a high degree
of
28 Bryant's What I Saw, 365-91; itinerary
of dates and distances in Grigsby's Papers, MS., 9-12; weather record in
Frimont's Geog. Mem., 41-2. Other narratives will be mentioned in later notes
on special points; but the following may be named as not requiring further
mention, though some of them are accurate enough: S. F. Star, Jan. 9, 1847,
copied in other papers; S. F. Alta, Dec. 18, 1852; Martin's Narr., MS., 36-8;
Lancey's Cruise, 156—65; Tuthill's Hist. Cal., 200-3; Upham's LifeFr&mont,
242-9; Z>icc. Univ.,viii. 160; Cutts' Conq., 160—2; Honolulu Friend, iv.
190; Yolo Co. Hist., 20; and several other local histories.
success, considering the unfavorable circumstances. There was some
complaint and insubordination among the men and subaltern officers, requiring a
court-martial for the trial of certain offenders on December 7th.29
The trail of Castro’s retreating force was crossed; and on the 8th two
Californians were arrested, as were several later. An Indian servant of Jesus
Pico was taken on the 12th, and next day shot as a spy after trial. The
evidence against him has never been made public, but the act was doubtless an
unjustifiable compliance with a bitter popular feeling in the army. On the
same day the rancho of Ojitos was plundered, its buildings being burned by a
scouting party.80 At San Luis Obispo it was thought there might be
an armed force, and the place was accordingly surrounded and taken by a sudden
assault on the 14th in the rainy darkness of night; but only women, children,
and non-combatants were found.31
The house of Pico, the former commandant, was
wBryant,
371. Swasey, Cal. 1845-6, MS., 21, mentions James Savage as one of the worst
malecontents, and says that several officers were reduced to the ranks, there
being also several desertions. Swasey, p. 24-5, notes that on
one occasion shots were heard in advance, and the men were found engaged in a
hattle with grizzly bears, of which 26 were killed. Boggs, in Napa Key- ister,
May 4, 1872, notes a mirage by which a madrofio tree was made to appear a
large force of the enemy. Also in Id., June 1, 1872, is described a practical
joke in which the bugler, Butler, was made to blow his morning blast and rouse
the camp, mistaking the moon for the-sun.
3uPico,
Acont.x MS., 70, says the Indian, named Santa Maria, had been
sent out by him to watch the Americans. It is generally stated that papers were
found on his person, perhaps communications to the enemy. S. Jose Pioneer,
Jan. 27, 1877. Paso Robles is mentioned by several as the place where he was
arrested. Swasey says the shooting of the Indian was opposed by many of the
officers, but it was deemed unsafe to disregard the feelings of the
undisciplined men. Janssens, Vida, MS., 197, says that Fremont farther south mentioned
the different outrages as the acts of detached parties, whom lie could not
control. Serrano says Los Ojitos was burned because the owner had two sons in
the Californian army; also that the bell-ringer of San Luis was threatened with
death for having rung the vesper bells, and soon died of fright. Gonzalez,
Mem., MS., 42-3, denounces these acts as cowardly, and notes that an American
tried to mount a wild colt and was killed, probably an error.
31 Swasey,
Cal. '45-6, MS., 21-2, graphically describes the amnsing scenes of this night
assault, including Capt. Sears’ valiant charge over adobe walls into a sheep
corral. He also notes that many were made ill by eating ravenously of the
pumpkins and frijoles found at San Luis. There have been reports that the
inhabitants were surprised at a ball, but this seems to have no foundation in
fact. See Bryant, 374; Janssens, Vida, MS., 193; Pico,AcoM., MS., 71; Lancey’s
Cruise, 160.
searched with special zeal, but was found to be occupied by Henry J.
Dally, from whom it was learned that the owner was probably at Wilson’s rancho;
and a party was despatched at once to arrest him, under Daily’s guidance. They
returned next day with their prisoner, and on the 16th he was tried by
court-martial. Pico had not only broken his parole in taking up arms for
Flores, but he had been prominent in the movement, had forced many Californians
into the ranks, and had taken part with them in the campaign of Natividad.
These facts were made known to Frd- mont through certain communications that
had been delivered to him by Petronilo Rios a few days before, and which were
produced at the trial. The sentence was that Don Jesus, familiarly known as
Totoi Pico, must be shot, a fate that he technically deserved. But his wife,
accompanied by her fourteen children and many women of San Luis, came to throw
herself at the American leader’s feet, begging for her husband’s life. Frdmont
could not resist her tearful pleadings, to which were joined the solicitations
of his officers and of some of his men whom Pico had befriended in former
years. He granted a pardon, and though it provoked much temporary
dissatisfaction among his rude followers, the act gained for him the life-long
gratitude and devotion of Don Jesus, who accompanied the battalion to the
south, rendering every assistance in his power. Several others were arrested,
but released in the region of San Luis, including Joaquin Estrada, Inocente
Grama, and Mariano Bonilla, the latter being left as alcalde to preserve order
at the ex-mission.32
82 Pico,
Acontecimientos, MS., 67-73. He says the documents had been intrusted by him to
Reed, owner of S. Miguel rancho, who had sent them to Capt. Villavicencio by
Rios, who was taken by Fremont. Dally, Narrative, MS., 27-41, gives complete
details of the affair. Both Dally and Breck had been arrested by the
Californians during the military preparations, bnt released on parole. It
appears from his statements and from other evidence that some of the
Californians on returning from Natividad were very bitter, and swore they would
kill all foreigners, who were advised by the officers to keep in close
retirement until the danger was past. Some were arrested for protection.
Streeter, Recoil., MS., 67-75, also gives many details of the
Leaving San Luis on the 17th, the battalion continued its inarch
southward without incidents requiring notice,33 and on the 24th
climbed the lofty Cuesta de Santa In<3s by a difficult pass not far from
that of the modern stage route. The afternoon of Christmas was spent in
descending the southern slope of the mountain, an operation rendered difficult
and even perilous by the rain which fell in torrents all the afternoon and
night with a continuous gale of wind. Horses to the number of a hundred or more
fell over the precipices or were drowned in the mountain torrents; the cannon
and other luggage were left scattered along the way; the men slid rather than
marched down the slippery rocks, waded the gullies, and at dark, storm-drenched
and half-frozen, lay down to rest near the foot of the mountain without protection
from the pouring rain, some not arriving till late at night. Next day the guns
and some other effects were brought down to camp; and on the 27th the battalion
went on to Santa Barbara. No enemy appeared to resist their advance; a few
foreigners came out to meet them; but the town was wellnigh deserted. Here
Fremont remained a week in camp before proceeding southward, whither we shall
accompany him later.34
troubles of
foreigners in those days. Inocente Garcia went to Sta Barbara with Pico and
Fremont. In his IJechos, MS., 93-100, he gives many particulars. Martin,
Narr., MS., 36-7, one of Daily's and Pico’s captors, has also something to say
on the subject. Swasey, Gal. '45-6, gives an eloquent account of the pardon
scene; as also does Talbot in Cults' Conq., 160-1. See also Bigelow’s Mem,.,
145-7; Davis’ Glimpses, MS., 378-9; Lancey’s Cruise, 117, 161. Dec. 16th,
Bonilla’s appointment as alcalde of S. Luis. Bonilla, Doc., MS., 20. It is hard
to say what Fremont, Court-martial, 378, means by the statement that he
captured Pico ‘with 35 others, among them the wounded captain who had commanded
at La Natividad’!
33Janssens,
Vida, MS., 193-5, who was living near Sta In& at the time, gives some
unimportant details of the passage of Fr&nont’s army.
34Davis,
Glimpses, MS., 357-60, 374-6; Dittmann, Narrative, MS., 39-41; Streeter,
Rccoll., MS., 75-81; and Nidever, Life, MS., 127-9, give some details about
Fremont’s arrival and stay at Sta Barbara. The last-named takes particular
pleasure in recounting his services in aiding in the search of houses belonging
to prominent citizens like Guerra. See also, on the march of the battalion and
passage of the mountains, Gregson's Statement, MS., 56; McChristian’s Narr.,
MS., 5-8; Bennett’s Pioneer of ’43; Bidwell’s Cal., MS., 201-4; Sta Cruz
Sentinel, March 21, 1868.
With their vivid descriptions of hardships experienced in crossing the
Cuesta de Santa Inds many writers mingle sarcasm, ridicule, and blame, directed
against Fr6mont for his choice of a route over the summit, instead of by the
comparatively easy Gaviota pass. They accuse him not only of bad judgment and
excessive timidity in his fear of hostilities along the way, but of having
deliberately prolonged his march from the beginning to the end, with a view to
avoid an encounter with the foe at Los Angeles. The charge of cowardice or lack
of energy is an unjust one, though it may be clear to us, knowing the exact
condition of affairs, that the trip over the mountains involved needless risks
and hardships. But at the time, the strength of the Californians in men,
horses, and weapons was grossly exaggerated; rumors of impending attack were
current at every point; and there were probably definite warnings of danger at
the pass from persons whom the leader deemed trustworthy, making it seem
important to take an unusual route, which but for the violent storm would have
involved no very serious hardships. Unfavorable comment on Fremont’s action in
this matter, as on his achievements as an explorer in earlier years, has
sprung largely from the political prejudices of 1856. The average American
cannot be trusted to testify fairly in the case of a political foe, being in
that respect strikingly similar to the citizen of any other nation.
A final northern campaign of the war remains to be put on record before
we return to the operations of Stockton, Kearny, and Fremont in the south.
Could we credit all that has been written of this campaign, a long and somewhat
interesting story might be told. Reduced to approximate limits of truth, the
record is much less bulky and loses something of its fascination. While the
organization and outfit of the battalion were in progress, Captain Weber took
an active part in procuring horses for that force, and most of his
volunteer company joined Fr&nont under Thompson; but Weber raised
another company for the protection of San Josd and the adjoining region, since
there was no lack of rumors respecting impending hostilities by bands of roving
Californians. Lieutenant Pinkney, of the Savannah, with midshipmen Watmough and
Griffin, and a company of 50 men or more, was also sent by Captain Mervine from
Yerba Buena to garrison the pueblo, while Weber was busy in obtaining horses
for the battalion. Many immigrants came down from the Sacramento to Santa
Clara, fortifying the ex-mission, and organizing a company of about 30 men,
under Joseph Aram as captain, for the protection of their families and those of
their companions who were absent with Fremont. Thus the garrisons at Monterey,
San Francisco, San Josd, and Santa Clara were amply sufficient for protection.
There was much difficulty in obtaining supplies of food; and Fremont’s methods
of plundering every rancho where cattle or other stores could be found were to
a great extent those still employed.35
Throughout the preceding troubles many Californians of the better class
had remained quietly on their farms, submitting not cheerfully but without resistance
to the exchange of their animals and other property for Fremont’s receipts.
Their patience, however, had been sorely tried during the process by the
outrageous acts of different irresponsible Americans, who carried on the work
of plunder under a show of military authority but beyond the control of the battalion
officers;86 and it was completely exhausted when
35 On the organization of Weber’s,
Pinkney’s, and Aram’s companies, see Hall’s Hist. S. Jos6, 155-7; Hecox, in Sta
Cruz Times, July-Aug. 1870; Lan- cey's Cruise,' 192. Nov. 26th, J. A. Forbes at
Sta Clara certifies that in consequence of immigrants’ fears of attack a wall
is to he made in front of mission with only one entrance. Dofla Silveria
Pacheco rents her honse for this purpose at $12 per month. S. Jos6, Arch.,
Loose Pap., 57.
36 ‘They are a class of persons who have
drifted over the mountains into the country from the borders of some of our
western states. It is a prime featnro in their policy to keep in advance of law
and order, and to migrate as often as these trench on their irresponsible
privileges. Their conncction with'our military operations here is a calamity
that can only find a relief in
it became evident that the depredations were to be continued after the
departure of both armies. They were ready to resist if an opportunity should
present itself. About the 8th of December as is generally stated, but later I
think, since the news did not reach Monterey till the 2 2d, Alcalde Bartlett
with five men started down the peninsula from Yerba Buena on one of the usual
raids for cattle—that is he went to ‘purchase’ supplies. Francisco Sanchez, who
had a rancho in the San Mateo region, and who had lost his own horses and those
of Howard and Melius under his care at the hands of Weber, could not resist the
temptation to retaliate. So with a small party he waylaid Bartlett and his
companions, making them prisoners and carrying them to a camp in the hills. It
is not probable that there had been any formal organization or plan before, but
now reenforcements came in from different quarters until Sanchez had perhaps
100 men. Some were impelled by exasperation at past losses; others by fear of
vicarious punishment for Sanchez’s act; and there was probably a party of
some 20 men who had been recruited by Torre, Espinosa, and Mota for Castro’s
army but had not joined that force, and had been ranging about the country
secretly since the fight at Natividad, joined perhaps by a few members of the
dispersed army.87 The plan, so far as any plan was formed, was to
utilize the prisoners, with such other advantages as they might gain, to exact
from the Americans a treaty to protect their property and put an end to
depredations.33 No acts of hostility were committed.
the exigencies of
wav... The principal sufferers are men who have remained quietly on their
farms, and whom we are bound in honor as well as sound policy to protect. To
permit such men to be plundered under the filched authority of our flag is a
national reproach.’ Colton's Three Years, 155.
37 Est^van de la Torre, Bemin., MS., gives
some details, but he does not state that the men of his party joined Sanchez,
or indeed give any information about this affair.
38 Colton describes them as with few
exceptions ‘ men of the better stamp, men who had a permanent interest in the
soil, and had refused to join the rash spirits of the south. ’ They stated ‘
that they had taken up arms not to make war on the American flag, but to
protect themselves from the depredations
In the eyes of the Americans this act of Sanchez was the outbreak of a
new rebellion, in which the Californians took advantage of Fremont’s departure
to rise, 200 strong, for the purpose of committing outrages on the unprotected
immigrants.39 As soon as proper steps for defence could be taken, but
somewhat tardily it would appear if Bartlett was captured on the 8th, Captain
Weber marched from San Jose with 33 men on the 25th to attack the foe; but
changed his mind and went to San Francisco for orders and re-, enforcements.
Sanchez is said to have taken advantage of Weber’s absence to approach San
Jose the next day, hoping to find the pueblo unprotected, but to have retired
on finding Pinkney and his garrison prepared to fight.40 Meanwhile,
a force was fitted out and despatched on the 29th by Commandant Hull, who had
succeeded Montgomery at San Francisco. This force of about 100, including
Weber’s company, was commanded by Captain Ward Marston of the marines.41
The march was down the peninsula, delayed
of those who under
color of that flag were plundering them,.. .and that ou assurance being given
that these acts of lawless violence should cease, they were ready to return
quietly to their homes.’ Three Years, 152.
S9For
instance, Hecox, Sta Cruz Times, July 23, 1870, talks of Sanchez’s men as raiding
through the county, capturing Bartlett, and then turning their attention to Sta
Clara in hopes to make short work of the men and ‘appropriate the women to
their own use ’!
*°Hall, Hist. S.
Josg, 157 et seq., followed by others, speaks of a warning sent to Pinkney by
Sanchez, but I doubt that there was any correspondence at all. The same writers
say that Forbes went to the Californian camp to negotiate for a release of the
prisoners. Sanchez pnt Bartlett in Forbes’ keeping for several days, aud offered
to give up all the captives in exchange for Weber; but the authorities at S. F.
being consulted refused to consent to any such arrangement. I do not believe
that any such proposition was made, and I think it most likely that Forbes’
visit and the partial release of Bartlett were later occurrences. See note 45.
In S. Jost Pioneer, March 6th, it is stated that Pinkney was sent down to take
Weber’s place at this time, and it may be true that P. had previously retired
and now returned; as this would explain the approach of Sanchez. Hall
represents Bartlett as having cried like a child when sent back to the
Californians, expecting to be killed!
41 According
to list in Monterey Californian, Feb. 6,1847, followed by Bryant, Hall,
Lancey, and also in S. F. Pacific News, Dec. 12, 1850, from Civil, Lit. and
Naval Gazette, the force was made up as follows: Capt. Ward Marston, with Asst
Surgeon J. (or Marius) Duval as aid; 34 marines under Lieut Robert Tansill; 10
seamen with a field-piece under Master Wm F. Delong (D. Gough or de Longh or De
Iongh) assisted by Midshipman John Kell; John Pray as interpreter; 33 mounted
Sau Jos6 volunteers under Captain Chas M. Weber, with lieutenants Johu Murphy
and John Reed; and 12 mounted
somewhat as it appears by the quality and quantity of aguardiente found
at one of the halting-places; and on January 2d the enemy was seen on the Santa
Clara plain. As the Americans advanced along the road, the Californians on
horseback hovered about them on front and flanks at a safe distance, Marston
firing grape from his field-piece and Sanchez replying apparently with a few
musket-shots.42 Thus the two forces slowly approached Santa Clara,
being in sight of each other for several hours. Either at the beginning or at
some later point of the advance the gun and part of Mars- ton’s force seem to
have become mired in crossing a marshy spot, and Sanchez made a ‘charge;’ that
is, his men came for a few minutes within gunshot, and slightly wounded two of
the Americans,43 but retired as soon as the cannon was again in
condition to be used. As they drew near to the mission, perhaps Captain Aram
came out to aid Marston; at any rate, the Californians disappeared from sight,
going toward the Santa Cruz mountains. The Americans, making no attempt to
pursue the foe, repaired to the mission, and the ‘battle of Santa Clara’ was at
an end. It has generally been described, though with many curious complications
of detail, as a sharp engagement of several hours, in which Marston’s gallant
band attacked the enemy in a strong position, broke their line, drove them back
inch by inch under a constant shower of bullets, and finally caused them to
flee with four or five men killed and as. many wounded, so demoralized that
there was nothing left for them but unconditional surrender! No Californian was
hurt; and evidently Sanchez had no intention of risking a fight, unless by
Yerha Buena
volunteers under Capt. W. M. Smith and Lieut John Bose, including a few men
under Captain Julius Martin—or 101 men in all. Jan. 9th, Richardson to Fitch.
Mentions Bartlett’s capture and the departure of Marston’s force. Fitch, Doc.,
MS., 411.
The Californians are
said to have had a field-piece given up later; but it is not stated that it was
used.
43 One of
Weber’s men and a marine from the Dale. Lancey names them as Jackson Bennett
and Rohert Heeney. I. M. Baker assures me that he saw the men wounded.
good fortune the marines might be tempted into a pursuit resulting in a
hand-to-hand conflict on horseback.44
In the evening a messenger came in from Sanchez with a flag of truce,
doubtless to explain the grievances which had driven his countrymen to arms,
and to offer submission on condition that the United States officers would
guarantee protection of property; and an armistice was- agreed upon
until a reply could be obtained from San Francisco.45 Next day, the
3d,
44The
earliest account in the Monterey Californian, Jan. 16, 1847, mentioned no
fight, but says that Weber was driven into Sta Clara by the Californians, the
leaders met under a flag of truce, and the Californians agreed to disperse
under proper guaranties. In the next accounts, Id., Feb. 6, 1847; Bryant,
415-16, there had been an hour’s fight, 2 Amer. wounded, Cal. losing a horse,
and ‘probably’ some men killed and wounded; but the Cal. were able to escape,
having superior horses. In the S. F. Cal. Star, Jan.
9, 1847, ia a report that Marston had
captured the whole party of Cal. and ended the war. In Id., Jan. 23d, the
version is that the enemy had retired from their ‘fortifications’ near S. F.,
on Marston’s approach, and retreated to near Sta Clara, where they made a
stand; but the cannon in a few hours brought out a flag of truce, leading to a
satisfactory settlement and full pardon of all. In Id., Feb. 6th, the battle is
described as in Californian and a list of officers is given; but after this was
put in type it was learned that 4 Cal. had been killed and 5 badly wounded 1 In
the Annapolis Civil, Lit. and Naval Gazette of 1850, or earlier,
appeared an elaborate account of the battle, and especially of the evolutions
of Marston’s forces, from the journal of an officer. I have no doubt this
account is correct enough, except in the implication that the enemy were
within gunshot and defeated by the said evolutions. This writer also says the
Cal. had 5 killed and ‘a considerable number ’ wounded. Hall and Lancey are
guided by the accounts mentioned, but are somewhat careful not to commit
themselves as to the bloodshed. It must be admitted that only the long distance
between the combatants prevented an exciting affair. The S. Josi Pioneer of
Mar. 6, 1880, on Weber’s authority, represents W. as having been the prominent
man of the affair, and as having by his generalship saved the army from defeat
when involved in the mustard growth at the creek crossing and charged by
Sanchez at full gallop. The battle ‘was of short duration, about 2 hours, for
experience has shown that Mexican valor is unequal to American pluck, and
Sanchez, the last revolutionist of the period, was obliged to capitulate to
Capt. Weber, the man of all men whom he most desired as a prisoner.’ Hecox, Sta
Cruz Times, notes that the immigrants crept out through the mustard to attack
the Californians in the rear, putting them to flight. Eight Cal. were killed!
Miguel Flores, Recuerdos, MS., 16-21, gives a confused account of the fight.
Secundino Robles, Relacion, MS., 15-25, gives a detailed narrative, which is
pure fiction from beginning to end. Henry Marshall, Statement, MS., 3-4,
narrates the affair briefly but with tolerable accuracy. See also Ryan’s Judges
and Criminals, chap. xvi.; Hyde’s Statement, MS'., 9; Cooke’s Conq., 276;
Davis' Glimpses, MS., 356; Tinkham’s Hist. Stockton, 105; and the different
county histories.
45 Lancey speaks of an offer by Sanchez to
surrender on certain conditions, a reply that it must be unconditional, an
assurance from S. that he would die first, etc. It was during the term of this
truce, I think, that Forbes took a prominent part in negotiations; and then, if
at all, that Bartlett was intrusted temporarily to his care, and not earlier,
as Hall has it. See note 40.
Captain Maddox arrived with his company of 50 men or more. News of his
approach came through Sanchez, and an officer was sent to meet him, make known
the truce, and prevent an attack by his men, who were eager for the fray—so
eager that they had only taken ten days to come from Monterey!46 Two
days later a reply came from the commandant at San Francisco, probably to the
effect that the surrender must be nominally unconditional, but with unofficial
assurances, confirmed by prominent citizens, that property should be no longer
seized without the proper formalities and receipts.47 On the 7th
arrived Lieutenant Grayson with 15 men from the north to join Maddox;43
and on the 8th the treaty was concluded, Sanchez giving up his prisoners and
arms, and his men retiring quietly to their farms. Marston and his men
returned to Yerba Buena to receive congratulations from Captain Mervine for
their valor and success. The war in the north was at an end.49
46Maddox
left Monterey Dec. 22d or 23d. Colton's Three Years, 128; Mont. Californian,
Dec. 26, 1847. I do not mean to imply that M. and his men were timid and did
not come as fast aa was necessary; but simply to expose the absurdity of
current accounts about the difficulty of restraining the force from attacking
Sanchez.
47 According
to Colton and the Californian, Sanchez and his companions protested that they
had no intention of fighting against the U. S., but only desired to protect
themselves from lawless depredations; and their terms were acceded to.
46 Boggs, in Napa Register, Mar. 30, Apr. 20,
1872, was one of these men, recruited by himself, Grayson, and Martin in the
Sonoma region. After exciting adventures in crossing the bay they reached S. F.
after Marston’s departure, and even after the fight of the 2d. They were sent
down by water to the Sta Clara landing, stole round the hostile camp, joined
Maddox, and charged into the midst of the Californians! Then they learned that
there was a truce to terminate at 9 o’clock next momiug. At that hour they
charged again (!), but were met by Bartlett with news of his release. Maddox
sent him back with an order to surrender in 10 minutes, and Sanchez obeyed. B.
took from Sanchez’ men as many horses as were needed, and then marched with
Maddox for San Jos£, and soon to Monterey via Sta Cruz. B. gives many details,
the value of which may be estimated from the fact that one of their exploits on
this march was the arrest of Gen. Castro at Sta Cruz!
49 Jan.
12th, Mervine to the army. ‘It is a novel instance in the history of Cal. that
her unrivalled cavalry were obliged to surrender and lay down their arms in
consequence of being so effectually entrapped as to deprive them of their usual
alternative, and render escape impossible ’I Special thanks to the volunteers
and Capt. Smith, who on 13th replies: ‘Our watchword is inscribed upon our
banner, and we trust that you will find us semper paratus. ’ Mont. Calif, Feb.
6, 1847. Lancey says that Sanchez was detained for a while on the Savannah.
A sad event in northern annals of 1846, which may as well be recorded
here as elsewhere, was the loss of the Warren’s launch and twelve men,
including two sons of Captain Montgomery—William H., acting master of the
Warren, and John E., his father’s secretary—with Midshipman Daniel C. Hugenin.50
The boat was despatched late in November or early in December from Yerba Buena
to New Helvetia, the officers having some business to transact with Captain
Kern, and perhaps carrying $900 with which to pay off the garrison. They never
arrived at Sutter’s, and after several weeks Robert Ridley was sent in another
launch up the Sacramento and San Joaquin, finding no traces of boat or crew.
Ridley’s opinion was that they had been lost in a gale shortly after setting
out; and this became the prevalent theory among men acquainted with the
circumstances, though there were those who thought the officers had been
murdered by the crew, or that possibly all had been killed by the Indians. The
question whether young Montgomery was alive or dead figured in later litigation
respecting certain lands in San Francisco.51 In later years a report
became current in the newspapers that one of the missing men, apparently Ladd,
had been seen in New York, and confessed that his companions murdered the
officers, destroyed the boat, and fled with the money, some of them perhaps
joining the Indians.52
50The
sailors of the crew were: Geo. Rodman, Anthony Sylvester, Alex. McDonald, Sam.
Turner, Sam. Lane, Milton Ladd, John W. Dawd, Gilman Hilton, and Lawton Lee.
51 Mont.
Californian, Jan. 23, 1847; S. F. Cal. Star, Jan. 23, 1847; Davis' Glimpses,
MS., 352; Honolulu Polynesian, iv. 51; and inaccurate mention in Sherman's
Mem., i. 35. See also Gal. Repts, 1 Sawyer, 668-9.
D2 A
correspondent of the S. F. Bulletin, June 17, 1869, claims to have met an early
Californian who met one of the party in New York and heard his story. A
‘Pioneer,’in Id., June 22d, says that in 1857 or 1858 he met a miner—still living
in 1869—who pointed out a man as one of the murderers, and gave details of his
having with a, companion worked at various ranchos, one of the two being hanged
after the gold discovery at Hangtown. This story is repeated in other papers.
Wm T. Wheeler, Loss of the ‘ Warren,’ MS., a. boy on the Warren in 1846, and
well acquainted with Ladd and Turner, i3 strong in the belief that the officers
were murdered. He cites some mysterious acts and words of his chum Turner at
parting; and he thinks in case of wreck some part of the boat or the water-cask
would surely have come to light.
CHAPTER XV.
THE CONQUEST
COMPLETED BY STOCKTON AND FREMONT. January,
1847.
Stockton’s Army—The
Advance from San Bernardo to Los Coyotes— Propositions from Flores—A
Proclamation—Sand-storm—Forster’s Services—Change of Roitte to Avoid
Ambush—Preparations of the Californians—From La Jabonerja to Paso de
1>artolo—The Battle of the San Gabriel—Stockton’s Report—Defeat of the
Californians—Fight of the Mesa—Entry into Los Angeles—Fremont’s Mauch from
Santa BArbara to San Fernando—The Californians at Los Verdugos—Efforts of
Jesus Pico—Flores Transfers Command to Andres Pico—Armistice—Treaty of
Cai-idenoa—Tiie War at an End—Fremont
at Anoeles—Flight of Flores and Manuel Castro to Sonora.
We left Stockton and
his army of about 600 men encamped at San Bernardo on December 31, 1846. They
had left San Diego two days before for an advance on Los Angeles. The
composition of the force is given in the appended note.1 Only
Gillespie’s vol-
1 Commodore
Robert F. Stockton, U. S. N., commander-in-chief. Geu. Stephen W. Kearny, in
command of the division. Lient Stephen C. Rowan, U. S. N., of Cyane, major.
Capt. Win H. Emory, U. S. top. engineers, acting adjutant general. Lieut Geo.
Minor, U. S. N., of Savannah, quartermaster, assisted by Daniel Fisher. Purser
ffm Speiden, of Congress, commissary, assisted by John Bidwell (capt. of
volunteers). John Southwiek, carpenter of Congress, chief engineer in com. of
sappers and miners. Doctors John S. Griffin, U. S. A., Andrew A. Henderson, of
Portsmouth, and Chas Eversfield, of Congress, surgeons. Capt. Miguel
Pedrorena, of Cal. battalion, and Lieut Andrew F. V. Gray, U. S. N.,
aides-de-camp of commander-in-chief.
1st division, or
battalion, commanded by Capt. J. Zielin: Zielin’s marines, Co. C, musketeers of
Portsmouth, Capt. Benj. F. B. Hunter, acting lieut U. S. N.; Lieut Ed. C.
Grafton, midshipman U. S. N. Co. F, carbineers, Capt. James M. Duncan, passed
mid.; Lieut Joseph Parrish, mid. Co. E, carbineers of Cyane, Capt. J.
Fenwick Stenson, passed mid.; Lieut Edmund Shepherd, mid. Co. G, carbineers of
Congress, Capt. John Reed (Peet or Peco), sailmaker.
' 2d
battalion, commanded by Capt. Henry S. Turner: Companies C and Hist. Cal., Vol. V. 25 ( 385 )
unteer riflemen were mounted; and the luggage was carried in ten
ox-carts. Horses and oxen in small numbers, as well as small food supplies,
were obtained at several points along the route. Says Stockton: “Our men were
badly clothed, and their shoes generally made by themselves out of canvas. It
was very cold and the roads heavy. Our animals were all poor and weak, some of
them giving out daily, which gave much hard work to the men in dragging the
heavy carts, loaded' with ammunition and provisions, through deep sands and up
steep ascents, and the prospect before us was far from being that which we
might have desired; but nothing could break down the fine spirits of those
under my command, or cool their readiness and ardor to perform their duty; and
they went through the whole nlarch of one hundred and forty-five miles with
alacrity and cheerfulness.”2 Leaving San Bernardo the 1st of
January, 1847, they encamped successively at Buena- vista, San Luis Rey, and
Las Flores, in their uneventful progress.3 Reports came in that
Frdmont was
K, U. S. 1st
dragoons, united and dismounted, 55 men; Lieut John W. Davidson. Co. D,
musketeers of Cyane, Capt. Edward Higgins, acting lieut U. S. N.; Lieut John
Van Ness Philip and Albert Allmand, acting lieuten ants, also Wm Simmons,
commodore’s clerk. Artillery co. of sailors, G guns, 45 men. Capt. Richard L.
Tilghman, lieut U. S. N.; Lieut Wm H. Thompson, passed mid.
3d battalion,
commanded by Capt. Wm B. Renshaw, lieut U. S. N.: Co.
B, musketeers of Savannah, Capt. Renshaw;
Lieut Geo. E. Morgan; Philip H. Haywood and Robert C. Duvall, mid. Co. A,
musketeers of Congress, Capt. John Guest, passed mid.; Lieut Theodore
Lee and Benj. F. Wells, mid. There were 379 sailors and marines in all the
divisions.
4th battalion:
squadron of mounted volunteers, including 30 Californians, acting as guards or
skirmishers on front, rear, and flanks; under command of Capt. Arch. H.
Gillespie, also captains Samuel Gibson, Sam. B. Hensley, and Santiago E. Argiiello;
lieutenants Luis Arguello, Hiram Rheusaw, and
. 84 men, hesides 3 employes of the
topographical engineers. The total
force was 607 men, of
whom 44 were officers.
The authorities for
this list are Stockton’s official report in Stockton’s Mil. and Nav. Op., 31
et seq.; Emory’s Notes, 115; and a MS. list by Brackett, in Miscel. Hist.
Pap., 31. The company lettering is from Brackett; according to Stockton’s
account of later events, companies E, F, and G were respectively Co. A,
carbineers of the Cyane, Co. C, carb., and Co. A, carb. of the Congress. Lieut
H. B. Watson is also named.
s Report of
Feb. 5th, in Stockton’s Mil. and Nav. Op., 31.
5 Griffin’s Diary, MS., 44 et seq., and
Emory’s Notes, 116 et seq., are the best original authorities for the march,
the former being much the more complete. Jan. 1st, J. A. Pico sent word that
he had horses for the army, but
approaching Los Angeles from the north, and that the Californians had
gone to meet him 600 strong under Andres Pico. Soon after they left Las Flores
on the 4th, three men appeared—William Workman, Charles Fliigge, and Domingo
Olivas—under a flag of truee, bringing a letter from Flores, dated on the 1st.
In this communication the general suggested, rather than asked for, a truce to
await confirmation of a current report that peace had been made between Mexico
and the United States, and thus avoid a use: less spilling of blood.4
But Stockton peremptorily refused to enter into negotiations with Flores,
declaring him to be a man without honor, who had broken his parole, and would
be shot as a rebel if caught.5 The envoys made a plea in behalf of
the people; but the commodore would listen to nothing but propositions of
unconditional surrender. Workman, however, accompanied the army to San Juan
Capistrano, where on the 5th he induced Stockton to issue a proclamation
offering a general amnesty to all Californians except Flores, on condition
that he should be given up as a prisoner.6 It was noted that at the
pass be-
was distrusted. Jan.
2d, at S. Luis some sailors hroke into the church and committed petty thefts.
Forster came in with reports. Hensley went to Pico’s rancho of Sta Margarita
and brought in some horses and 45 oxen next day.
1 Jan. 1st, Flores to
Stockton, in Stockton’s Mil. and Nav. Op., 19-20, evidently a not very accurate
translation. F. says he had been urged by foreign residents to communicate
with S. through them as mediators for an honorable adjustment, but has not
felt at liherty to do so until now, when such action is required by the rumors
of peace. He denounces S. for the unjust war he is waging, and expresses the
determination of himself and men to defend their country to the last if S.
declines the truce. In Olvera, Doc., I MS., 71-3, is a blotter of a
somewhat similar letter, written by Flores on Dec. 31st; but he must have made
great changes in it if the translation may be trusted at all. In this copy F.
expresses his joy on the news of probable pcace, and his surprise that S.
should have started from S. Diego under such circumstances; and he writes
simply to save his responsibility in case blood shall be shed after a treaty
has been made. Nothing is said of the unjust war or resolution to resist, etc.
Forster, Pioneer Data, MS., 45 et seq., is the only one who names Olivas; and
he also notes the fact that each of the three ambassadors finally met a tragic
death.
5 Griffin, Forster, and others represent
Stockton as having shown much anger, especially at the idea of Flores’ claiming
to be governor of Cal.
6 Spanish translation in Olvera, Doc.,
MS., 75. Stockton says nothing of this document, but it is mentioned by
Griffin, who feared a pretended acceptance by the people.
tween Las Flores and San Juan a small foree of the enemy might easily
have defeated the army.
Stockton’s camp of the 5th was at Los Alisos; next day he marched to
Santa Ana; and on the 7th to Los- Coy otes. John Forster accompanied the army
and rendered valuable aid in obtaining supplies and information. A violent
wind, raising clouds of dust, continued through the night and morning of the
6th-7th,, of which, as Emory says, the enemy should have taken advantage for an
attack. Conflicting rumors had been received about Flores’ movements, the
general impression being that his first meeting would be with Fr&mont rather
than Stockton; but in the region of Los Coyotes reliable information was
obtained that the Californians would make a stand at the San Gabriel River; and
indeed, the enemy’s scouts were seen, making some hostile demonstrations.7
Next morning, the 8th of January, anniversary of the battle of New Orleans, as
the soldiers did not need to be reminded, the advance was resumed. Though the
official reports make no allusion to any change of plan or route, I have no
doubt that the original intention was to proceed by the most direct way,
crossing the San Gabriel at the lower ford, but was changed in consequence of
information received through Forster that the Californians occupied a most
advantageous position on the lower route.8 At any rate, Stockton
7 Griffin, Diary, MS.,
52, says they even captured two vaqueros, and also Forster, whom they released,
for he soon came back to camp.
•Forster, Pioneer
Data, MS., 49 et seq., as iu conversation, states positively that such was the
case. He learned that Flores, though supposed by the Americans and
non-combatant Californians to be at S. Fernando awaiting Fremont, had really
passed Angeles in the night and had posted his men in ambush in the willows and
mustard at a point near the modem Gallatin, where Stockton’s men could be
attacked at a fearful disadvantage. This is confirmed, as we shall see, by
Coronel and other Californians. In nis narrative, Forster says he got the
information from an Indian. He also mentions interviews with Ramon Carrillo,
who was willing to abandon the cause of Flores, but feared punishment for
breaking his parole and for his supposed part in the killing of the Bear Flag
men at Sonoma. Forster promised to intercede with Stockton, from whom he got a
written guaranty, but could not find Carrillo again. He claims that Carrillo
knew nothing of Flores’ real movements—not a very plausible claim. Dr Griffin
also noted in his diary Carrillo’s reported presence and desire for pardon. In
1874 Forster stated that having fallen
soon swerved to the right after leaving Los Coyotes, and directed his
course toward the upper ford, the Paso de Bartolo. He approached the river
between 2 and 3 o’clock in the afternoon, and found the enemy in possession of
the opposite, or north-western, bank, the Californian scouts having been seen
before in the distance.
What has been said of Flores’ operations during the last half of
December,9 may be literally applied to the first week in January.
There exists no documentary record of what was being done by the Californians
in these days, but there is nothing of mystery connected with the subject.
Dissensions continued between the leaders, Flores being less to blame than the
others for this state of things, but still much discouraged. His original
intention had been to so harass the foe by a guerrilla warfare as to limit the
American occupation to a few points until cither aid or news of a treaty should
come from Mexico. With the hearty cooperation of all, even with his limited
resources, he might have accomplished much in this direction. But there was no
longer any popular enthusiasm whatever. Such patriotic zeal as had at first
existed, and had been fanned into flame by early successes, had now disappeared
in consequence of official disputes and mismanagement, calm reflection, and
the personal hardships resulting from war. There was left no hope of success.
The only remaining stimulants to action were a degree of stubborn national
pride, and a fear of punishment for past offences, fomented by the officers who
had broken their paroles. The Californians were not in earnest,
into the stream he
went back to a house to dry his clothing. Here he met a party of Californians,
among whom was a friend anxious to secure Stockton’s protection, but fearful
because of his Sonoma record; and from him, fora promise of protection, the
information was received. Thus it appears clear enough that Carrillo was
the-informant, though Forster thought it desirable, on second thoughts, to
conceal the fact. The Californians, however, generally attributed the revelation
of the plan to Lorenzo Soto.
9 See p.
355 of this volume.
and they accomplished nothing. Their scouts retired before the advance of
Stockton and Fremont, not even driving off the cattle and horses along the
route. The letter of January 1st was sent by Flores merely in the hope of
gaining time. What reasons if any he had for expecting news of a treaty I do
not know; but Stockton’s verbal reply was not encouraging, and still less so
his later written offer of armistice to the people if they would give up their
general. As the enemy approached from south and north the situation became more
critical, and no new resources were developed. It was thought that Fremont
would arrive first, or at least that the first conflict should be with his
forces, and the Californian army was accordingly stationed for several days at
San Fernando; but Stockton’s advance was perhaps more rapid than had been
expected; and at the last the plans were changed. On the 6th or 7th the army
was moved rapidly and secretly, without entering the town, to the vicinity of
the San Gabriel River, and posted at La Jabon- eria in the willows and mustard
at a spot commanding the route by which Stockton was expected to pass. But
early on the 8th the scouts brought news that the plan had been revealed and
the Americans were marching for the upper ford. The disappointment was great
at losing an expected advantage; but Flores at once set out up the river, and
reached the Paso de Bartolo shortty before the Americans made their appearance.10
10Coronet, Cosas de Cal,, MS., 120, etc. Andres
Pico seems to have been in command at S. Fernando, while Flores and Carrillo
remained in the south, ordering Pico to join them after Stockton had reached
Sta Ana. Pico’s route was by Los Verdugos and Arroyo Seco. The lower ford is
called Los Nietos. This writer names the Sonoran, Lorenzo Soto, as the man who
revealed the ambush. Most of the Sta Barbara company deserted in the night of
the 7th. Larkin’s journal, in Mont. California?i, Feb. 27, 1847, men* tions the
encampment for 2 or 3 days at S. Fernando. Rico, Mem., MS., 48- et seq.,
mentions the amhush and change of route, but thinks the warning was given by
one Dominguez. Each narrator is inclined to attribute this act to some personal
enemy; but I have already noted the probability that Ramon Carrillo was the
man. Manuel Castro, Servicios, MS., in presenting the troubles of the
Californians, throws the blame chiefly on Flores, as cowardly and incompetent,
inspiring no faith, keeping his place by intrigue, and thus
Flores posted his men, nearly 500 in number, on a bluff, or bank, forty
or fifty feet high, skirting the river bottom at a distance of from 400 to 600
yards from the water. The two cannon, nine-pounders apparently, were placed
opposite to and commanding the ford. Two squadrons of horsemen under Andres
Pico and Manuel Garfias were stationed on the right a few hundred yards
southward, and another squadron under Josd Antonio Carrillo on the left at a
greater distance up the stream. A party of skirmishers seems to have been sent
across the river, and to have retired as the Americans advanced. Stockton’s
order of march was as follows: Centre, Turner’s 2d division, with Hensley’s
riflemen as advance guard, and two guns on each flank; right, 1st division under
Zielin; left, 3d division under Renshaw; rear, 4th division under Gillespie,
with two guns under Thompson, and guard of 49 men under Haywood, the cattle and
wagons being in the centre, in what the sailors termed a ' Yankee corral.’ The
army halted about a quarter of a mile from the river to make final
preparations, and then moved forward again to attack the Californians. I append
in a note Stockton’s official report of the engagement that followed,
interspersed with items from other sources.11
robbing real patriots
of their due glory! Osio, Hist. Gal., MS., 487 et seq., tells us the
Californians had no advantages but their courage. To the ambush he adds
Flores’ plan to fire the mustard on the enemy’s approach, and charge under
cover of the smoke! He does not name the ‘spurious Californian’ who betrayed
his country. Botello, Anciles del Sury MS., 156, ctc., gives
a good account of the preparations, agreeing for the most part with that of
Coronel. He says Ramon Carrillo commanded a party of scouts in the
south, and Jos£ Carrillo (son of Don Carlos) a similar party iu the north to
watch Fremont, while the rest of the force was concentrated at S. Fernando. It
was on the 7th that the army countermarched secretly to La Jaboneria. But
Stockton turned off at Los Nietos and spoiled the plan. Palomares, Mem., MS.,
76 et seq., gives some particulars of the retreat of the scouts before
Stockton’s advance, as well as of Flores3 general movements. Avila,
Notas, MS., 32 et seq., calls the upper ford Corunga, implying that it was
distinct from Bartolo. In Los Angeles Hist., 23, it is called Curunga,
or Pico Crossing.
11 Report of Feb. 5, 1847, to Sec.
Bancroft, in Stockton’s Mil. and Nav. Oper., 32 et seq. Stockton also
briefly describes the battle in his reports of Jan. 11th, Id., 17-19, and Feb.
18th, Stockton’s Report, 47-8; but gives no additional information.
There are mentions also in several other official reports of different
officers, but no details. These documents have been often
From the testimony thus cited, the official report somewhat ridiculously
magnifying the battle of San Gabriel for effect at Washington, it appears that
Stockton’s force forded the river under a constant fire
reprinted wholly or
in part, especially by Cutta, Bryant, Stockton's Life, Lan- eey, etc. A brief
but clear account is given in Emory’s Notes, 119-20. See also Californian
narratives as cited in note 10.
‘A detachment of
marines, under Lieut Watson, was sent to strengthen the left flank. A party of
the enemy, 150 strong, had now erossed the river and made several ineffectual
efforts to drive a band of wild mares upon the advance party. ’ There is no
other authority for this attempt, though Castro, Servicios, MS., and others
speak vaguely of having captured some horses and saddles at some time during
the fight; and Griffin says 21 horses were lost, having been tied by the
volunteers before the fight, and forgotten until it was too late. ‘ We now
moved forward to the ford in hroken files; Capt. Hensley’s command was ordered
to dismount, and, acting as skirmishers, it deployed to the front and crossed
the stream, which is about 50 yards in width’ (Emory says: ‘ The river was
about 100 yards wide, knee-deep, and flowing over quicksand. Either side was
fringed with a thick undergrowth. The approach on our side was level; that on
the enemy’s was favorable to him ’),
‘ driving before him
a party of the enemy which had attempted to annoy us. ’ Garcia, ffechos, MS.,
102-3, is the only Californian who says any thing of this party, which he says
was of 200 men under Joaquin and Gabriel de la Torre. Emory says that on
approaching the thieket they received the scattering fire of the enemy’s
sharpshooters. ‘ The enemy had now taken their position upon the heights,
distant 600 yards from the river and 50 feet above its level; their centre or
main body, about 200 strong, was stationed immediately in front of the ford,
upon whieh they opened a fire from two pieces of artillery, throwing round and
grape shot without effect. ’ (Emory says: ‘As the line —of skirmishers—was
about the middle of the river, the enemy opened his battery, and made the water
fly with grape and round shot. ’) ‘ Their right and left wings were separated
from the main body about 300 yards. ’ The Californians say that Carrillo’s division
was 1,000 or 1,500 yards away; and several add that he was stationed there on
pretext of guarding a pass to the hills, but really because Flores distrusted
him. ‘Our column halted upon the edge of the stream; at this time the guns were
unlimbered to return the enemy’s fire, but were ordered again to be limbered
and not a gun to be fired uutil the opposite bank of the river was gained.’ It
is stated in Stockton's Life, 144 et seq., and confirmed by other witnesses,
that Kearny ordered the guns unlimbered before crossing, as was doubtless the
most prudent eourse, but Stoekton countermanded the order. Half-way across, K.
sent a message that it would be impossible to cross, as there was a quieksand;
but S. dismounted, seized the ropes, and declared, ‘Quieksand or no quicksand,
the guns shall pass over. ’ The phrase as heard by Forster, who was present,
was ‘ Quicksands be damned,’ ete. See also Bidwell's Cal., MS., 207 et seq. He
says Kearny showed much suppressed anger at this and before at Stoekton’s reply
to Flores’ letter; but I fancy this is an exaggeration. ‘ The two 9- pounders,
dragged by officers as well as men and mules, soon reached the opposite bank,
when they were immediately placed in battery. The column now followed in order
under a most galling fire from the enemy, and became warmly engaged on the
opposite bank, their round shot and grape falling thickly amongst us as we
approached the stream, without doing any injury, our men marching steadily
forward. The dragoons and Cyane’s musketeers, occupying the centre, soon
crossed and formed upon a bank about 4 feet above the stream. The left,
advancing at the same time, soon occupied its position across the river. The
rear was longer in getting across the water; the sand being deep, its passage was
delayed by the baggage carts; however, in a few
from the enemy’s guns, which under ordinary circumstances would have
caused great loss of life, but had practically no effect because of the bad
powder used, planted his artillery on the right bank, and soon si-
moments the passage
of the whole force was effected, with only one man killed and one wounded,
notwithstanding the enemy kept up an incessant fire from the heights.’ (Emory
says: ‘ On the right bank of the river there ■was a
natural banquette, breast-high. Under this the line was deployed. To this
aecident of the ground is to be attributed the little loss we sustained from
the enemy’s artillery, which showered grape and round shot over our heads.’)
Neither gives the chief reason for the slight loss of life, which was the
worthlessness of the powder made at San Gabriel. Emory’s further statement, ‘
Whilst this was going on, our rear was attacked by a very bold charge, and
repulsed,’ is unintelligible, to say nothing of the ‘ bull.’
1 On taking
a position upon the low bank, the right Hank, under Capt. Zielin, was ordered
to deploy to the right; two guns from the rear were immediately brought to the
right; the 4-pounder under Thompson, supported by the riflemen under Renshaw.
The left flank deployed into line in open order. During this time our
artillery began to tell upon the enemy, who continued their fire without
interruption. The 9-pounders standing in plain view upon the bank w*e
discharged with such precision’—most witnesses state, as was doubtless true,
that Stockton himself aimed one of the guns—‘ that it soon became too warm for
the enemy to remain upon the brow of their heights; eventually a shot told upon
their 9-pounder, knoeked the gun from its trail, astounding the enemy so much
that they left it for four or five minutes. Some
20 of them now advanced, and hastily fastening
ropes to it, dragged the gun to the rear.’ Coronel says that the brow of the
hill protected the Californians, but at the same time prevented their own guns
being fired effectively except as they were advanced to the brow, discharged,
and dragged back; and soon both were dismounted by the Americans’ fire. Rico
claims that the guns were at first of no service; but that after they were put
by Flores in his charge they were dragged forward by reatas and fired with much
effect. Osio says Flores’ best gun was dismounted at the first shot. Forster
says the second shot, aimed by Stockton, destroyed one of the wheels of the
enemy’s gnn, but still they continued to fire it 7 or 8 times, the balls only
reaching half-way. Both Coronel and Botello represent the artillery confliet as
mueh less hot than does Stockton. Emory says that it required one hour and 20
minutes to cross the river and silence the enemy’s guns.
1 Capt. Hensley’s skirmishers now advanced
and took the hill upon the right, the left wing of the enemy retreating before
them. The 6-pounder from the rear had now come up; Capt. Hensley was ordered to
support it, and returned from the hill. ’ Neither Emory nor anyone else mentions
this movement. ‘This movement being observed, the enemy’s left made an attempt
to charge the two gnns, but the right flank of the marines under Zielin, being
quickly thrown back, showed too steady a front for the courage of the
Californians to engage, who wheeled to the left and dashed to the rear across
the river. At this time the enemy were observed collecting on our left and
making preparations to charge our left flank. Gen. Kearny was now ordered to
form a square with the troops on the right flank, upon which the left flank, in
case of being worsted, might rally. The right wing of the enemy now made an
unsuccessful attempt to charge our left, but finding so warm a reception. .
.they changed their purpose and retired, when a discharge of artillery told
upon their ranks. ThB dispositions for charging the heights were now made. The
troops having been brought into line, the command “Forward” being given, on
they went (the artillery in battery) charging the heights, which the enemy’s
centre contested for a few moments, then broke in retreat; their right wing
charging upon the rear under Gillespie, encumbered with packs, etc,... but re-
lenced the Californian battery. Then his men were formed in squares and
advanced toward the bluff. Flores ordered a charge by his horsemen; but the
movement was clumsily executed, as by men whose heart was not in the work; some
of the companies failed to cooperate promptly; an order to halt from an aid
increased the confusion; and the few who came within reach of the Americans
were quickly repulsed. Then the Californians retired, and Stockton took possession
of their post on the blutf without further opposition. The engagement had
lasted probably a little less than two hours from the time when the first shots
were fired. The American leader distinguished himself by his valor and skill,
though his policy at the ford could not have been justified in case of
disaster.
ceiving a well
directed fire from the guard, which hurled some of them from their saddles,
they fled at full speed aeross the river we had just left. The other portion of
their forces retreated behind their artillery, which had taken position in a
ravine, and again opened fire upon our centre; our artillery was immediately
thrown forward—the troops being ordered to lay (sic) down to avoid the enemy’s
cannon-balls, which passed directly over their heads. The fire from our
artillery was incessant, and so aecurate that the enemy were from time to time
driven from their guns until they finally retreated. We were now in possession,
where, a short time before, the insurgents had so vauntingly taken strong
position; and the band playing Hail Columbia,’ etc.
Emory describes this
last part of the battle, doubtless much more accurately, as follows: ‘Half-way
between the hill and the river, the enemy made a furious charge on our left
flank. At the same moment our right was threatened. The 1 st and 2d battalions
were thrown into squares, and after firing one or two rounds, drove off the
enemy. The right wing was ordered to form a square, but seeing the enemy
hesitate, the order was countermanded; the 1st battalion, which formed the
right, was directed to rush for the hill, supposing that would be the
contested point, but great was our surprise to find it abandoned. The enemy
pitched his camp on the hills in view, but when morning came he was gone. We
had no means of pursuit.’ Emory also gives a plan of the battle. Griffin’s
account agrees well with Emory’s. He says the plain was about 250 yards wide,
though Southwick by paeing made it 900 paces. Wilson, Observ., MS., 92, etc.,
who was a spectator at a distance, says a part of the Californians charged and
seemed for a time to have brokeu the American line. Avila, Notas, MS., 34 et
seq., was also a looker- on, and gives a similar account. The Californian
authorities already cited, though their accounts are confused in detail, all
agree that a charge was ordered and partly executed; but state that the
failure of Carrillo to promptly obey orders, or at least to arrive in time, and
an order to bait given by Diego- Sepiilveda, one of Flores’ aids, caused a
failure of what at first seemed likely to be a successful movement. No
witnesses support Stockton’s account of the final scenes of the fight,
reopening of artillery fire, etc.; and I have no doubt they are purely
imaginary. Juan Bautista Moreno, Vida, MS., 31-3, was in command of one of the
charging companies, and was seriously wounded. The battle is described on
authority of Agustin Olvera in Los Angeles Hist., 23-4. For additional
authorities on this fight and that of the next day, see note 13.
The sailors and marines, like the dragoons and volunteers, behaved
admirably, and displayed all the bravery required by circumstances, losing two
men killed and eight wounded. The Californian loss was probably the same in
killed, but the exact number wounded is not known. Each party as usual greatly
overrated the enemy’s loss.
The Americans encamped near the original position of Flores’ right wing,
and are said to have been aroused by firing on the pickets at midnight; but no
further hostilities were committed. The Californians at nightfall were in
sight on the hills, but in the morning had disappeared. Many of them dispersed,
and the rest repaired to the Canada de los Alisos, not far from the main road
to town. Here, ashamed to run away and give up the struggle, they posted
themselves in a favorable position and awaited the enemy’s approach. At about
9 o’clock in the morning of January 9th Stockton resumed his march for Los
Angeles; but instead of following the road he turned to the left into the open
plain as soon as he became aware of Flores’ position, apparently just before
noon. The Californians, however, approached and fired their cannon and the
Americans replied. This artillery duel at long range continued for several
hours as the army advanced at oxen’s pace in a compact square over the plain,
with some slight loss, chiefly of animals, on both sides. On one or two
occasions the cavalry charged upon the square, coming within a hundred yards or
less, but did not succeed in breaking it, and were repulsed by the musketry.
Flores lost one man killed, and an unknown number wounded; Stockton, five
wounded.12
12 The Americans killed on the 8th were:
Fred Steams (or Strauss), seaman of Portsmouth, Thos Smith, seaman of Cyane
(accidental), and Jacob Haight (or Hait), volunteer (died 9th); Stockton in bis
report says one was killed on the 9th, but perhaps refers to Haight, who died
on that day. Wounded on the 8th, WmCope (or Coxe), seaman of Savannah
(severely), Geo. Bantam, of Cyane (accidental), Pat. Campbell, of Cyane, Win
Scott, marine of Portsmouth, Joseph Wilson, of Congress, Ivory Coffin, of
Savannah, and James Hendy, of Congresi; on the 9th, Mark A. Child, Co. C
dragoons (severe), James Campbell, seaman Congress (accidental and severe),
Geo. Crawford, boatswain’s mate Cyane (severe), Lieut Rowan and Capt.
Gillespie, slightly contused by
About 4 o’clock the Californians retired, and the ‘battle of the Mesa’
was at an end. Respecting particulars there is no agreement, and I do not deem
it necessary to reproduce all the versions or to notice the various
inaccuracies and exaggerations of each witness. Stockton crossed the Los
Angeles River and encamped on the right bank about three miles below the town.13
Next morning, the 10th of January, a flag of truce was brought to
Stockton’s camp by Cdlis, Avila, and Workman, who came to intercede in behalf
of the Angelinos. They said that no resistance would be made to the Americans,
and were promised kind treat-
spent balls. Dr
Everafield’a report in Griffin's Papers, MS., 18-19; reports of Griffin and
Emory in Stockton's Mil. and Nav. Op., 36-7; Id., Life, appen., 16-17. Thus the
total was three killed and 12 wounded, though generally stated as 1 killed and
14 wounded. This is the statement in 31st Gong. 1st Sess., H. Ex. Doc. 24, p.
18, where it is said that the man killed was an officer. Stockton himself says
3 killed and 14 wounded.
The Californians lost
3 killed in both fights: Ignacio Sepulveda, Francisco Rubio, and a Vaqui Indian
known as ‘El Guaymeno.’ The only wounded men named are Capt. Juan B. Moreno and
Alfi5rez Ramirez; but there may have been a dozen more slightly wounded. Avila
says only 2 were wounded at the Mesa. In his report Stockton says the loss was
between 70 and 80, besides many horses. In Stockton’s Life, 147, it is stated
that over 70 were killed and 150 wounded!
18 See
Stockton, Griffin, Emory, Coronel, Botello, Avila, and other authorities as
cited in preceding notes. Coronel notes the exploits of a boy of 12 years,
named Pollorena, who captured a horse and saddle from the Americans, being
uninjured by the many shots sent after him. A scrap in handwriting of Jos6
Castro, in Doc. Hist. Gal., i. 523, says: ‘Mr Flores on this occasion hid
himself in a little thicket of alders, and this was the only occasion when he
saw the enemy.’ Griffin tells us that in the morning of Jan. 9th Soto arrived
with a flag of truce, reporting Fremont’s arrival at S. Fernando, and two U. S.
vessels at Sta Barbara. Gen. Kearny gives a brief account of the campaign in
his report of Jan. 12th. 80th Cong. 1st Sess., Sen. Ex. 1, p. 516-17. Emory
gives a sketch also of the Mesa battle-field; and I have also the 2 plans on a
larger scale from other govt documents. Gillespie, in the S. F. Alta, July 3,
1866, has something to say of what was accomplished by his ‘ Sutter ’ gun,
which at La Mesa, at one discharge, took 9 of the enemy from their saddles! The
earliest printed account of the campaign, and a very good one, was that in the
Mont. Californian, Jan. 28, 1847; often reprinted in other newspapers. See
also S. F. Cal. Star, Jan. 16, Feb. 13, 1S47; VahUs, Mem.., MS., 32-4;
Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., v. 268-70; Davis’ Glimpses, MS., 321, 360-78;
Fernandez, Doc., MS., 60—1; Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxxiv. 254; i. 22; Julio C6sar,
Cosas, MS., 10; Bowen’s San Pas- ntal, MS., 33; Cutts’ Conq., 129-31, 201-6;
Bryant’s What I Saw, 398-400; Cooke’s Conq., 263-9; Phelps’ Fore and Aft,
311-19; Tuthill’s Hist. Cal., 197-200; Ripley’s War, i. 482-5; Quigley’s Irish
Race, 227-9; Frignet, Cal., 77; Brooks’ Hist., 257-9; Capron’s Hist., 41-2;
Dicc. Univ., viii. 160; Lan- cey's Cruise, 170-89; Yolo Co. Hist., 21; Hayes'
Scraps, Cal. Notes, iii. 33, 36; Ind., v. 236; Sacramento Union, Apr. 27, 1855;
S. F. Alta, Jan. 9, 1853.
ment and protection for the citizens.14 At 10 a. m., or
a little later, the army broke camp and
advanced slowly up the river. Notwithstanding the assurances just received, it
was deemed wise to neglect no precaution, and the advance was in military
order as if to meet a foe. About noon the troops entered the city by the
principal street, directing their march to the plaza with flying colors and
band playing. Many families had retired to the ranchos or San Gabriel; small
parties of Flores’ horsemen, perhaps, disappeared from view as the Americans
entered; but the hill was covered with curious spectators of the pageant. A
few reckless and drunken fellows indulged in threatening and insulting acts,
and were fired on by some of the sailors; but otherwise there was no opposition
to the entry.15 A strong detachment with artillery was posted on
the hill; Gillespie raised over his old quarters the flag he had been obliged
to lower four months ago; and the Californian capital was once more in
possession of the invaders. On the 11th Stockton, as governor and
commander-in-chief, issued an order
11 Avila, Notas, MS., 30-1, 35-6; also
mentioned by others. Avila says they were sent by i’lores, which may or may
not be accurate. Their visit was about 9 o’clock.
15 Griffin
tells us that one of these fellows struck down another and attempted to lance
him, which act brought out a cry of ‘Shoot the damned rascal,’ and a volley
from the sailors which did no harm. Kearny swore at the men first for firing
without orders, and then for not shooting better. Stockton merely says their
progress was ‘slightly molested by a few drunken fellows who remained about the
town.’ But Emory makes a much more serious matter of it. He says: ‘The streets
were full of desperate and drunkeu fellows, who brandished their arms and
saluted us with every term of reproach. The crest overlooking the town in
rifle-range was covered with horsemen engaged in the same hospitable manner.
One of them had on a dragoon’s coat stolen from the dead body of one of our
soldiers after we had buried him at San Pasqual. (Griffin also mentions this.)
Our men marched steadily on until crossing the ravine leading into the public
square, when a fight took place among the Californians on the hill; one became
disarmed, and to avoid death rolled down the bill toward us, his adversary
pursuing and lancing him in the most cold-blooded manner. The man tumbling down
the hill was supposed to be one of our vaqueros, and the cry of “Rescue him”
was raised. The crew of the Cyane, nearest the scene, at once and without
orders halted and gave the man lancing him a volley. Strange to say, he did not
fall. Almost at the same instant, but a little before it, the Californians from
the hill did fire on the vaqueros. The rifles were then ordered to clear the
hill, which a single fire effected, killing two of the enemy.’ I have no doubt
this is fiction.
of congratulation to the “officers and men of the southern division of U.
S. forces in California, on the brilliant victories obtained by them over the
enem3',and on once more taking possession of the ciudad de Los Angeles.”16
There was no further disturbance in town, except such as was naturally
caused by the effects of California wine on the sailor-soldiers. Families
gradually returned to their homes on assurance of protection from the new
authorities, and for several days the chief excitement arose from speculations
and rumors respecting the whereabouts of Flores and Frdmont. It was reported
that the latter had run away to Sonora; but also at first that he had gone to
attack the battalion; and later that it was pardon not battle that the remnants
of the force sought at San Fernando. From San Luis on the 3d Stockton had despatched
a messenger to Fremont by way of San Diego and Santa Barbara; and on the 9th,
before the fight, a courier had come into camp with news that Fremont was at or
near San Fernando. In the afternoon of the 10th General Kearny sent a letter
to the colonel, announcing the occupation of Angeles and asking for information
respecting his position and needs. It rained in torrents all day the 11th, but
Lieutenant Emory made some progress in planning fortifications, also obtaining
from Griffin an official statement of casualties which he reported to Stockton,
while the latter, in addition to his congratulatory order already cited, found
time to write a brief report to Secretary Bancroft on recent happenings, in
which he said: “We have rescued the country from the
18Stockton's
Mil. and Nav. Op., 20; Id., Life, appen., 9. ‘The steady courage of the troops
in forcing their passage across the Rio San Gabriel, where officers and men
were alike employed in dragging the guns through the water, against the galling
fire of the enemy, without exchanging a shot, and their gallant charge np the
banks against the enemy’s cavalry, has perhaps never been surpassed; and the
cool determination with which in the battle of the 9th they repulsed the charge
of cavalry, made by the enemy at the same time on their front and rear, has
extorted the admiration of the enemy, and deserves the best thanks of their
countrymen. ’
hands of the insurgents, but I fear that the absence of Colonel Fremont’s
battalion will enable most of the Mexican officers who have broken their parole
to escape to Sonora.” Emory broke ground for his fortifications on the 12th;
while Kearny sent another note to Fremont, and also wrote a brief report of the
campaign addressed to the adjutant general. In the morning of the 13th an
armistice, signed the day before and perhaps received by Stockton the
preceding evening, was given by the latter to Kearny, who wrote two more notes
at noon and 2 p. m. to Fremont; and also wrote to Stockton, expressing his fear
that the riflemen, in ignorance of what had occurred at Angeles, might be
embarrassed in their movements, or that Fremont might capitulate and retire to
the north. He offered to take half the force and march to effect a junction.
Ihe commodore’s reply is not known, but, perhaps before a decision could be
made, Russell arrived with definite news from Fremont in a letter for Kearny.
On the 14th Fremont himself appeared with his battalion; and the same day both
Kearny and Stockton reported his arrival to the government at Washington.17
Fremont and his battalion, after a week of rest, marched from Santa
Barbara the 3d of January, probably informed, though I find no definite record
on the subject, of Stockton’s proposed advance. An additional f'annon was
obtained from the prize schooner Julia, which vessel also went to render aid in
case an
17 All the communications referred to may be
found in Frimont’s Court- martial, 6-7, 73—4, 85, 88, 108-9, 162, 243-4,
272, 400, 403-4; Stockton’s Life, appen., 8-9, 16-17, 35, 46; Id., Mil.
and Nav. Op., 20, 36-7; 30th Cong. 1st Ses.s., Sen. Ex. Doc. 1, p. 516-17;
Griffin’s Diary, MS.; and Emory’s Notes, 12‘2. Most of the correspondence
has been often repeated in other publications which it is not necessary to
name. I have in Olvera, Doc., MS., 77, one of the documents issued by Stockton
to the people. It permits Agnstin Olvera and Narciso Botello to come to Angeles
without molestation, dated Jan. 12th. This was doubtless an attempt to bring
into his presence the members of the old assembly, who might make some kind of
a surrender by virtue of their legal authority. It appears from Botello’s
narrative and from Los Angeles Hist., 16-17, that none of the ex-legislators
were induced to present themselves.
attack should be made at the Rincon pass; but no foe was seen until they
arrived at San Buenaventura on the 5th. Here a small party of Californians
appeared at a distance, but ran away at the approach of the riflemen and the
discharge of two cannon. As a precaution, a detachment was sent to occupy a
hill about a mile from the mission during the night. As they advanced next day
up the valley of the Santa Clara, in the face of a dust-laden gale, the enemy
again appeared, 60 or 70 strong, and remained in sight for some time,
entertaining the Americans with a variety of equestrian antics, but always at a
safe distance. The Indian scouts under Tom Hill rode towards the Californians
and exchanged a few harmless shots with them; and once an attempt was made by
the battalion to cross a spur of the hills with a view of attacking an
imaginary foe on the flank; but the route was found to be impracticable, and
the army wisely returned to their plodding way up the valley. Each day small
parties of Californian scouts were seen on the hills, but there were no
hostilities. The 8th brought a renewal of the sand-storm. Supplies for man and
beast were plentiful at the ranchos, and the horses were daily gaining in
strength. I follow Bryant’s journal, additional details from other sources
being either hopelessly contradictory or obviously erroneous. The Californians
give some unimportant particulars of their movements in the hills.18
18 jBryant’s
What I Saw, 386 et seq.; Frimont’s Geog. Mem., 42; Nidever’s Life, MS.,
132-5; Lancey’s Cruise, 181-8; Tuthill’s Hist. Cal., 203-5; Martin’s Narr.,
MS., 38-40; S. F. Alta, Dec. 18, 1852. Fremont, Court-martial, 379, says: ‘A
corps of observation, of some 50 or 100 horsemen, galloped about us, without
doing or receiving harm, for it did not come within my policy to have any of
them killed’! Arnaz, ftecuerdos, MS., 89-91, says he was arrested by Fremont
at S. Buenaventura, and threatened with death if he did not reveal the
whereabouts of the priest, Jos£ M. Rosales. Jos6 E. Garcia, Episodios, MS.,
18-23, was one of the scouts under Jos£ Carrillo’s command, and gives a
description of events. He says his party was joined at Sanchez’s rancho by a
force from S. Buenaventura under Raimundo Carrillo and Demesio Dominguez; and
he speaks of a plan to surprise the Americana at Carrillo’s rancho, which
failed by the accidental discharge of a musket. Foster wrote for the Los
Angeles Express an account of a blunderbuss and cutlass which were among the
trophies of Fremont’s campaign, copied in S. Joei Pioneer, Feb. 16, 1878.
Fremont has been criticised unfavorably and without much justice for the
slowness of his march by the same men who have found fault with his crossing of
the Cuesta de Santa Inds. His delay is ascribed to a desire to keep out of
danger until others should have defeated the foe. If, however, he knew from the
first, as he certainly did at the last, what were Stockton’s plans, his
movements were well timed, since he arrived at San Fernando the day after Stockton
entered Los Angeles. If he was ignorant of those plans, there was no possible
motive for haste, and every reason to advance slowly and cautiously in compact
order. His horses were weak; his troops as horsemen were without skill or
discipline; he had Natividad in mind; and he had heard of San Pascual. Had he
rushed forward, as his opponents of later years pretend to think he should have
done, he would have given the enemy their only possible chance of success; and
had the Californians been half as numerous and well prepared as they were
believed to be, the result would have been most disastrous to the battalion. In
the morning of the 9th a messenger came into camp with a letter from Stockton,
dated at San Luis Rey on the 3d—an explanation of the commodore’s movements
and plans, and a warning to proceed with great caution.19 As they
entered the San
18 ‘ My dear
colonel: We arrived here last night from S. Diego, and leave to-day on our
march for the City of the Angels, where I hope to be in 5 or 6 days. I learn
this morning that you are at Sta BArhara, and send this despatch by way of S.
Diego, in the hope that it may reach you in time. If there is one single chance
for you, you had better not fight the rebels until I get up to aid you, or you
can join me on the road to the pueblo. These fellows are well prepared, and
Mervine’s and Kearny’s defeat have given them a deal more confidence and
courage. If you do fight before I see you, keep your forces in compact order;
do not allow them to be separated, or even unnecessarily extended. They will
probably try to deceive you by a sudden retreat or pretend to run away, and
then unexpectedly return to the charge after your men get in disorder in the
cbase. My advice to you is to allow them to do all the charging and running,
and let your rifles do the rest. In the art of horsemanship, of dodging, and
running, it is in vain to attempt to compete with them.’ Fr&mont’s
Court-martial, 272-3, with mention in Id., 85, 229, 379; Stockton’s Life,
143-4; Bryant, 389.
The messenger’s name
was George W. Hamley, Hanly, Hawley, Hamlin, Hamblin, or Hamlyn—being written
in all these ways—master of the Stoniny- lon. He sailed from S. Diego on the
Malek Adhel; landed at S. Buenaventura Hist. Cal., Vol. V. 26
Fernando plain 011 the 11th, two Californians met them with the news that
Stockton had defeated the Californians, and had occupied Angeles the day before;
a little farther on was met a Frenchman with Kearny’s note for Fremont.20
Then the battalion advanced and occupied the mission buildings of San Fernando
about 1 p. m. of the same day.
Before night Jesus Pico was despatched to the camp of the Californians.
It is not possible, nor very important, to follow the Californian forces
in all their movements after the fight, of January 9th. Many simply dispersed
and went home, as others had done before. The rest in small detachments visited
the different ranchos, some going to San Fernando, but retiring with Carrillo’s
party before Fremont’s arrival. The chief points of reunion were the ranchos of
San Pascual and Los Verdugos, about 100 men being assembled at the latter place
on the 11th. One of Flores’ last acts 011 the 9th, before quitting the city,
was to release Larkin and the other prisoners.21 There was much
dis-
on the 8th; and was
guided by Pedro Carrillo to Frdmont’s camp at the Willows, passing round a
camp of the enemy. Forster thinks Lieut Beale was the man sent from S. Luis;
and Wilson, Observ., MS., 102-3, states that Daniel Sexton carried this message
or an earlier one. As to the courier who reached Stockton’s camp on the-moming
of the 9th, according to Griffin, there is no record of his having been sent by
Fremont. He was probably ssnt by Americans in Angeles, who had heard of F.’s
approach.
20‘Pueblo de
Los Angeles, Sunday, Jan. 10, 1846 (7), 4 p. M. Dear Fremont: We are in
possession of this place with a force of marines and sailors, having marched
into it this morning. Join us as soon as you can, or let me know, if you want
us to march to your assistance; avoid charging the enemy; their force does not
exceed 400, perhaps not more than 300. Please acknowledge the receipt of this,
and despatch the bearer at once. Yours, S. W. Kearny, Brigadier-General U. S.
A.’ Frimont’s Court-martial, 73, 403. Fremont did not send an immediate answer
as requested; and he received three more notes of similar purport from Kearny
during the next two days, before he sent an answer. Id., 73-4, 403-4. It does
not seem necessary to copy them. They were familiar in tone, and more and more
urgent in the request for news.
21 Larkin’s letters describing his captivity
as already cited. Larkin was taken out to the battle-field in the afternoon,
and it was then decided to release him; but at his request Flores and other
officers cscorted him back to town. On movements of the Californians in these
days, most of the references also covering the subsequent capitulation, see
Coronels Cosas, MS., 129-30; Rico, Mem., MS., 52-3; Botello, Anales,
MS., 167-9; Garcia, Episo- dios, MS., 23-5; Lugo, Vida, MS., 63-7; Janssens,
Vida, MS., 196; Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 502-4; Fernandez, Cosas, MS., 148-9;
Julio Cisar, Cosas,
cussion among officers and men about the best course to be taken in the
immediate future. None thought of further resistance; and it does not appear
that any thought of complying with Stockton’s conditions by giving up their leader,
though Flores, having enemies in the camp, was very cautious in his movements.
Such being the state of affairs, Jesus Pico made his appearance late on the
11th,22 being apparently arrested and brought into camp at Los
Verdugos. He came to urge not only submission, but submission to his new master
and friend, Frdmont. He was a man of some influence, came to men who had no
fixed plans, dwelt with enthusiasm on the treatment he had received, and
without much difficulty persuaded his countrymen that they had nothing to lose
and perhaps much to gain by negotiating with Freiuont instead of Stockton. A
message was sent to the party at San Pascual, and by the latter to Flores and
Manuel Castro, at some other point not far away.23 Flores came in
response to this invitation, and all went to Los Verdugos to hold a final
council, in which an appeal to Frdmont was decided on. The general had
resolved, however, to quit California, and started the same night for Sonora;
but before his departure he formally transferred the command to Andres Pico.24
MS., 10; Wilson’s
Obs., MS., 98-100; Palomares, Mem., MS., S8-9; Los Angeles, Hist., 16-17. None
of the particulars or errors seem to require special notice.
22 At midnight, according to the Los Angeles
Hist., 16, but I have uo doubt it was earlier.
23 ‘SS. D» Manuel Castro and D. Jos6 M1
Flores. At this moment there has arrived a messenger from the Verdugos rancho
with the enclosed note ’ (not extant), ‘ and a junta of friends has resolved on
communicating this news to you; since they have Don Jesus Pico secured at that
point where are also assembled 100 men, so that we ouly wait for your opinion
to march and see what guaranties can be obtained. We advise all the friends to
come and take advantage of this opportunity, if they deem it best. San Pascual, Jan.
11, 1847. Francisco de la Guerra,
JoscS Antonio Carrillo.’ Translation from original in my possession. Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 159.
2i ‘ Comandancia
General. No pudiendo continuar eon el mando que in- terinamente he obtenido, y
habiendo variedad de opiniones respecto & los movimientos que deben
emprenderse; se entregara Vd del mando de esta Division, por corresponderle por
su graduaoion. Dios y Libertad. Campo
Then Francisco de la Guerra and Francisco Rico
were chosen as representatives and went with Don Jesus to San Fernando. They were well received by Frdmont, who promised all the Californians
could desire, named commissioners to negotiate a treaty, and signed an
armistice suspending hostilities.25 On the return of Guerra and
Rico, Jos£ Antonio Carrillo and Agustin Olvera were appointed by Pico as treaty
commissioners for the Californians and the camp was moved to the region of
Cahuenga. Fremont’s commissioners were Major P. B. Reading, Major William H.
Russell, and Captain Louis McLane; and the battalion moved its camp to the
rancho of Cahuenga. Here the negotiations were completed and a treaty drawn up
in English and Spanish before night; and next morning, January 13th, it
received the signatures of the respective commandants, Fremont and Pico, the
document with a letter to General Kearny being presently carried by Russell to
Los Angeles.26'
en los Verdugos. Enero 11, 1847. Jos6 M* Flores. Sr Mor Gral
D. And5 Pico.’ From the pencil original, in Olvera, Doc., MS., 78.
25‘To all,
etc. In consequence of propositions of peace... being submitted to me as
commandant of the Cal. battalion of U. S. forces, which has (sic) so far been
acceded to by me as to cause me to appoint a board of commissioners to consult
with a similar board appointed by the Californians; and it requiring a little
time to close the negotiations, it is agreed upon and ordered by me that an
entire cessation of hostilities shall take place until tomorrow afternoon
(Jan. 13th), and that the said Californians be permitted to bring in their
wounded to the mission of San Fernandez, where also, if they choose, they can
remove their camp, to facilitate said negotiations. Given, etc., Jan. 12, 1847.
J. C. Fremont, Lieut-colonel U. S. A. and Mil. Com. Cal.’ In Stockton’s Mil.
and Nav. Op., 21. This armistice was sent to tho city and was received by
Kearny from Stockton in the morning of the 13th. How it was sent to Stockton
does not appear. See also on these and the following negotiations, Pico,
Acont., MS., 73-5; Los Angeles Hist., 16-17.
26 ‘Articles of capitnlation made and
entered into at the ranch of Co- wenga this 13th day of Jan., A. D. 1847,
between, etc. Art. 1. The commissioners on the part of the Californians agree
that their entire force% shall, on presentation of themselves to
Lieut-Col. Fremont, deliver up their artillery and public arms, and they shall
return peaceably to their homes, conforming to the laws ?nd regulations of the
U. S., and not again take up arms during the war between the U. S. and Mexico,
but will assist and aid in placing the conntry in a state of peace and
tranquillity. Art. 2. The com. on the part of Lieut-col. Fremont agree and bind
themselves, on the fulfilment of the 1st art. by the Californians, that they
shall be guaranteed protection of life and property whether on parole or
otherwise Art. 3. That until a treaty of peace be made and signed between the
U. S. of N. America and the republic of Mexico, no Californian or other Mexican
citizen shall be bound to take the oath of allegiance. Art. 4. That any Cal. or
other citizen of
Fremont also marched for the city, which, as we have seen, he entered
with his battalion on the 14th, having been rejoined by Russell on the way.
By the terms of this capitulation, the original of which is in my
possession, and the somewhat clumsy translation of which has been given in a
note, the Californians were pardoned for all past hostilities, and were free
to go to their homes on giving up their public arms—two cannon and six muskets
as it proved—and promising not to take up arms during the war. They were
guaranteed protection, with all the privileges of American citizens, without
being required to take an oath of allegiance; and they were free to depart if
they so desired. There were no exceptions, and even
Mex. desiring, is
permitted by this capitulation to leave the country without let or hindrance.
Art, 5. That in virtue of the aforesaid articles, equal rights and privileges
are vouchsafed to every citizen of Cal. as are enjoyed by the citizens of the
U. S. of N. America. Art. 6. All officers, citizens, foreigners, or others
shall receive the protection guaranteed by the 2d art. Art. 7. This
capitulation is intended to be no bar on effecting such arrangements as may in
future be in justice required by both parties. P. B. Reading, major Cal.
Battalion; Wra H. Russell, ordnance officer Cal. Bat.; Louis Mc- Lane, Jr.,
com. artill. Cal. Bat.; Jos4 Antonio Carrillo, com. de esquadron;
Agustin Olvera, diputado. Approved, J. 0. Fremont, lt-col. U. S. army, and mil.
com. of Cal.; Andr6s Pico, com. de esquadron y en gefe de las fuerzas
naeionales en Cal. Additional article: That the paroles of all officers,
citizens, and others of the U. S., and of naturalized citizens of Mexico, are
by this foregoing capitulation cancelled, aud every condition of said paroles
from and after this date are of no further force and effect, and all prisoners
of both parties are hereby released. (Same signatures as above.) Ciudad de Los
Angeles, Jan. 10, 1847. * Official printed copies in Stockton’s Mil. and Nav.
Op22-3; War with Mex., 63-5, printed in Spanish and English in Monterey
Californian, Feb. 13, 1847. Often reprinted in English. Original 7 articles of
the 13th, with autograph signature, in Carrillo (D.), Doc., MS., 113-16. This
is in the handwriting of J. A. Carrillo, and the signatures to the additional
article are copied by him. In Olvera, Doc., MS., 76, I have a copy from the original,
including all the articles. There are copies in various collections.
Jan. 14th, Padre
Ordaz, at S. Fernando, certifies that F. and party lived on the mission sheep
and cattle, and carried off what horses they could find. This certificate to
protect the lessee. Pico, Pap. Mis., MS., 157. Jan. 16th, Russell acknowledges
receipt from Andres Pico of 2 pieces artillery with 6 charges of grape, and 6
muskets, according to the treaty. Olvera, Doc., MS., 76 -7- Jan. 18th, Angeles
blotter of 6 articles suggested by Carrillo and Olvera in accordance with art.
7 of the treaty, and said to be approved by Stockton; but without signatures,
in Id., 79-81. This document provided for the continuance of incumbents in
office at their desire; popular elections; a recognition of the govt debt by
the U. S.; payment of back salaries(!); protection of priests; and payment of
damages for property destroyed by Americans! It is possible that these measures
may have been favorably considered with a view to a subsequent treaty with
Mexico.
Flores might have claimed protection. The wisdom of granting such liberal
terms cannot be questioned; since a rigorous enforcement of military laws by
inflicting due punishment on officers who had broken their paroles would have
done great harm by transforming a large part of the native population into
guerrilla bandits. That the Californians should have preferred to treat with
Fremont rather than with Stockton, under the urging of Jesus Pico, is easily
understood. That Fremont should have made a treaty at all, when the
commander-in-chief was so near and there were no urgent reasons for haste, is
more remarkable. Under ordinary circumstances, it might- be plausibly suspected
that he acted under secret instructions from Stockton, who desired an excuse
for not carrying out his former threats; but such was probably not the fact.
Fremont’s motive was simply a desire to make himself prominent and to acquire
popularity among the Californians, over whom he expected to rule as governor.
It was better to adopt conciliatory methods late than never. True, his treaty
might not be approved ; but even then he would appear as the natives’
advocate; and it is not unlikely that he already foresaw certain strong
reasons why his acts were sure to be approved by one commander or another.
Stockton was perhaps slightly offended at Fremont’s assumption of
responsibility, and he ev.en pretended to disapprove the conditions of the
treaty, though I have no doubt he would have granted the same conditions,
especially now that Flores had escaped. At any rate, the reasons at which I
have just hinted, and of which I shall have much to say in the next chapter,
were amply sufficient to prevent any controversy between the commodore and
lieutenant-colonel. An additional article was annexed to the treaty by the
commissioners and the original commandants on the 16th; and it was virtually
approved by Stockton, though I find no evidence that he appended his signature
to any copy of the document. In his report of the 15th to his gov-
eminent he wrote: “Not being able to negotiate with me, and having lost
the battles of the 8th and 9th, the Californians met Colonel Frdmont on the
12th instant on his way here, who, not knowing what bad occurred, entered into
the capitulation with them, which I now send to you; and although I refused to
do it myself, still I have thought it best to approve it.”27 The
conquest of California was completed. It only remained for the new rulers to
preserve order, to regulate details of civil and military administration, to
quarrel among themselves, and to await the completion of a national treaty.
*
As we have seen, General Flores started for Sonora in the night of
January 11th, after turning over the command to Andres Pico. Both Flores and
Castro believed that in view of their part in the late campaign their absence
would aid the Californians in obtaining favorable terms from the Americans;
they had besides a degree of pride as Mexican officers that made surrender seem
disagreeably humiliating; and it is doubtful if the former would have remained
if he had been sure of unconditional pardon. The two leaders met and were
joined by about 80 men in the San Bernardino region on the 12th or 13th; but
after reflection on the hardships of the journey, for which they were but ill
prepared, and on the not cheerful prospect of enforced military service in
Mexico, more than half the fugitives, including Coronel and his party, wisely
decided to stifle their Mexican pride and return to their homes. Some half a
dozen officers and 30 privates resolved to accompany Flores and Castro, the
former including Garfias, Juan and Tomds So- beranes, Francisco Limon, and
perhaps Diego Sepiil-
27 Stockton to Bancroft, Jan. 15, 1847, in
Stockton’s Mil. and Nav. Op., 21. Kearny in hia report of the 14th, Frimont’s
Court-martial, 80, Bays: ‘The enemy capitulated with him yeaterday near San
Fernando, agreeing to lay down their arma, and wo have now the proapect of
having peace and quietness in thia country.’
veda and Segura.28 Most of the men were Sonorans or Mexicans,
who followed their natural inclinations in quitting California; and it may be
doubted that any besides the two leaders were influenced by either fear or
pride.
The journey of the refugees over the desert was a tedious one, involving
much suffering; and it is said that Alferez Limon died on the way. On the Gila,
when for some time there had been no other food than the flesh of their horses,
Flores with three officers and a small guard took the best animals and pressed
on in advance of the company.29 The route was through Papaguena by
way of Sonoita; and from Zoni, where he arrived on February 2d, Flores sent
back some provisions and horses for his companions.80 From Altar on
the 5th Flores addressed to Governor Cuesta and Vice-governor Redondo brief
reports of past occurrences in connection with the invasion by “los p^rfidos
Norte Americanos,” and an appeal for aid. The reply from the governor at Ures
contained expressions of sympathy for the exiles, and of indignation against
“our implacable enemies,” but gave no hope of material aid, though within a
month or twTo the munificent sum of $15 was paid out of the treasury
on this account.31 Castro soon arrived at Altar, and the two went on
to Hermosillo, whence Don Manuel wrote on May 16th to Pio Pico a brief account
of the ills that had befallen California; and at
28
Statements of Coronel, Botello, and Larkin. Botello, the governor’s secretary,
says he wished to go, but was advised by Flores not to do so. He says he gave
$500 to Limon, presumably government funds. Lugo, Vida, MS., 66-7, says he
dissolved his party at Cucamonga, and waa urged by F. to go with him, but
declined. He also states that he was sent by Fremont in March to follow Flores’
trail, picking up 60 abandoned horses.
29Alvarado,
Hist. Cat, MS., 268-72, gives some details, apparently obtained from Castro,
who in bis Relation, MS., does not include a narrative of these events.
Alvarado claims that Flores treacherously abandoned Castro and the company to
save himself, but I have no doubt that this is erroneous.
30Feb. 3d,
Flores to Castro from Zoni. Castro, Doc., MS., ii.
174. ‘Paei- encia, amigos, y constancia, porque la reptiblica estd perdida.’
31 Feb. 5th,
Flores to Cuesta and Redondo; Feb. 12th, reply from Cuesta. Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 178, 181, 183; Sonorense, March 5, June 11, 1847;
Fernandez, Doc., MS., 18-21; Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal Diaz, ii. 108-10; Id.,
Mem. Hist.
Mex., MS., vi. 167-9. ,
Alamos in June he issued a written appeal for contributions to enable
him and his two companions to reach Mazatlan. The total contribution in sums
from two reals to ten dollars wras $59.32 It is not
necessary here to follow the subsequent career of the two officers. Both were
somewhat prominent in annals of the Mexican north-west during the next few
years, and Castro returned later to California, where he still resides as I
write in 1884.33
In January General Bustamante, commanding the western department at
Guadalajara, had received from Flores in California a report of his revolt and
successes at Angeles, Chino, and San Pedro, with an appeal for aid to continue
his victories over the invaders. Later Flores had sent a courier with reports
of the triumphs at Natividad and San Pascual; but this man failed to reach his
destination, and was found by the general on his way to Sonora. Bustamante
promptly applied to the minister of war for troops to be sent to California;
ordered the governor and comandante general of Sonora to sent immediate
reenforcements to Flores to secure his triumph pending the arrival of the
troops from Mexico; and congratulated Don Josd Marla and his patriotic
associates for their brave and successful movement against the foreign
invaders. It is tolerably certain that all this would have resulted in nothing
under any circumstances; but the governor’s letter from Ures, congratulating
the Californian hero, and regretting his inability to obey Bustamante’s order,34
saMay 16th,
Castro to Pico. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 292. June 7th, Castro’s original
subscription paper, with 17 signers. Id,., i. 504.
83 See biographical sketches of Castro and
Flores. In June 1849, Flores, then Bub-inspector de Colonias Militares de
Occidente, proposed to go to Cal. for his family, but was not at that time
permitted to do so. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 300.
84 Jan. 18th-19th, Bustamante to Flores and
others; Feb. 4th, gov. to Flores. Castro, Doc., MS., ii. 164, 167-8, 173, 175,
182.
I make no attempt to
name all the accounts of the conquest in 1S46-7 that have been printed; but I
have before me the following references, mostly additional to those given in
other notes, some of them accurate enough, but’none adding anything of value to
the record that is before the reader: Arco, Iris, Aug. 1847-Jan. 1848, passim;
Biglow’s Mem. Frimont, 147 et eeq.; Brackett’s U. S. Cav., 64-77; Bustamante,
Invasion, 65-6; county histories, see
names of counties;
Famham’s Life Gal., 419-26; Ferry, Cal., 17-43; Frost's Hist. Cal., 27-34; Id.,
Hist. Mex., 435-56; Furber’s 12 Vol., 267-71; Goodrich's Hist. Amer., 859-61;
Guerra entre Mex., 353-61; Hittell’s Hist. S. F; Id., editorials in Alta (cited
by me on special points); Honolulu Friend, 18467; Hughes' Doniphan’s Exped.,
23-42; Jay’s Mex. War, 144-50; Jenkins’ Hist. Mex. War, 125-35; Lancey’s
Cruise, passim; Los Angeles Star, Mar. 16, 1872, and other dates; McKune, in
Terr. Pion., 1st An., 40-2; McClellan’s Golden State, 89-109; Mansfield’s Mex.
War; Mayer’s Mex. Aztec, i. 345-6; Mex. War Heroes, ii. 204-7; Niles’ Register,
1846-7. See index; Oswald, Cal.,
9-21;
Oregon Spectator, 1846-7; Ripley's War Mex., i. 295-8; Robinson’s Cal., 73-85;
Ryan’s Judges and Grim., chap. xi.-xii.; S. F. Alta, Sept. 24, 1866; July 7th
of dif. years, and many other dates; S. F. Bulletin, July 20, 1867, and many
dates; S. F. Cal. Star, 1847-8; S. F. Post, July 21, 1877, etc.; S. F. Sun,
Sept. 5, 1856; S. Josi Pioneer, passim; Sta Cruz Sentinel, Apr. 22,1876;
Souli’s Annals S. F, 90-124; Sutter’s Diary; Upham’s Life Fr&mont, 235-51,
Williams’ Lecture, June 11, 1878, in S. F. papers.
STOCKTON’S
CONTROVERSY WITH KEARNY.
January-February,
1847.
Policy of Sloat and
Stockton—A Resume of the Conquest—Kearny’s Instructions from Washington—Later
Orders—State of Affairs on the General’s Arrival—Discussion at 'San Diego—The
Campaign—The Commodore as Commander-in-chief—At Los Angeles —Kearny and
Fremont—The Controversy Begun—The General’s Authority not Recognized—He Goes to
San Diego and Monterey— Arrival of Commodore Shubrick—A Policy of
Peace—Stockton’s Last Acts as Governor—General Conclusions—Kearny in the Rioht—Stockton in the Wrong—Fremont’s
Action Justified— Rule of Fremont as Governor—Legislative Council—Proclamation—Financial
Troubles.
The
war in California was at an end, and the forces of
the United States were in full possession. Who was to rule the country until an
international treaty should fix its destiny? So accustomed had become the
inhabitants to controversies between their civil and military chiefs that they
would perhaps have questioned the legitimacy of an harmonious administration.
Be this as it may, the old ways were not to be abruptly and radically broken up
in this respect at least under the new regime. Under existing conditions,
there were abundant opportunities, if few reasons, for a quarrel at Los
Angeles.
In July 1846 Commodore Sloat, acting under instructions from Washington
to “at once possess yourself of the port of San Francisco, and blockade or
occupy such other ports as your force may permit,” had not only occupied
Monterey and San Francisco,
■ (411)
but, relying on presumed instructions to Fremont, had also raised the
flag at different points of the northern interior, proclaiming a conciliatory
policy, for his instructions also required him “to preserve if possible the
most friendly relations with the inhabitants,” and “encourage them to adopt a
course of neutrality.” His policy, when he learned that Fr&nont had no
additional orders, was to- hold the ports and await further news and
instructions, having some doubts whether war had really been declared. He was
not in sympathy with the American revolutionists, and was not disposed to
utilize their battalion for an aggressive warfare on the Californians. But he
soon retired, and was Succeeded in command of the naval squadron by Stockton.
The latter had no orders of later date than Sloat’s, but he decided promptly to
extend the occupation to the southern ports and to Los Angeles, the capital. In
this respect he acted wisely, but no more can be said in his favor. In utter
disregard of his government’s policy, as made known to a confidential agent,
and without any good reason, he adopted the aggressive policy of the Bear Flag
men and filibusters, issued an offensive and warlike proclamation, and on going
south practically refused to receive the voluntary submission of the
Californian leaders, thus disobeying the spirit of his instructions. Yet he was
in a sense successful; the south was occupied without resistance. Then the
commodore, deeming the conquest complete, resolved to organize a temporary
civil government and to leave Fremont in charge as governor, reporting his
intention at the end of August, and making Fremont military commander early
in September.1
Certain dishonorable and imprudent phases of these proceedings not being
fully understood, there was no reason why they should not be approved at
Washington. Notwithstanding the blunders and braggadocio
1 For details of what is briefly referred
to here see chap. x-xi. of this volume.
ancl filibusterism of Frdmont and Stockton, really the greatest obstacles
to the conquest, these officers might plausibly claim to be the conquerors. The
purpose to organize a civil government, if not altogether regular and
commendable, was in accordance with orders then on the way to the naval
commander.2 Had the conquest proved permanent and complete as
reported, had Stockton organized his government as intended, making Frdmont
governor, and had reports of such action reached Washington before other
measures had been adopted, doubtless all would have been approved and the
governor’s appointment confirmed. But a serious revolt occurred, which involved
both in the south and north all the fighting and bloodshed that attended the
war in California; and the commodore and colonel were forced to postpone all
thought of civil organization and give all their energies to the military task
of putting down a revolt that was largely due to their own errors. Stockton
with his naval force proceeded to San Diego to renew operations against Los
Angeles; Fremont as military commandant hastily ransacked the country for
recruits and supplies for his battalion, and marched south to cooperate with
the commodore, after some of his men had engaged in a fight at Natividad; and
garrisons of marines and volunteers were left to protect the northern posts,
and, as it proved, to engage in some slight warlike service. Details and
results have been recorded in preceding chapters. But before the conquest was
really accomplished, and the leaders were ready to think again of civil
affairs, several things had happened to affect their plans.3
2 July 12th, Sec. Bancroft to Sloat. The
sending of an artillery company, and of the N. Y. volunteers soon to start, is
announced; and Sloat is instructed to extend hia possession to S. Diego, and
if possible to Los Angeles.
‘ This will bring
with it the necessity of a civil administration. Such a government should be
established under your protection; and in selecting persons to hold office,
due respect should be had to the wishes of the people of Cal.’ News of Kearny’s
appointment and a copy of his instructions are enclosed. ‘ The govt relies on
the land and naval forces to cooperate with each other in the most friendly and
effective manner.’ Doc. in Frimont'a Court-martial, 59-60; Stockton’s Life, 30.
3 The later theory of Stockton and
Fremont, that the revolt was a mere
The administration at Washington on the outbreak of the Mexican war, taking
it for granted that the naval forces would occupy the ports, but not anticipating
that they would be able to do much more, resolved to send a military force by
land and sea to cooperate in the conquest or occupation. General Kearny was
selected to take command, and in June was ordered—as soon as he should have
completed the conquest of New Mexico—to march across the continent. His
instructions were to take possession of California, to assume command not only
of the troops that accompanied him, but of those to be sent after him by sea
and land, and of such volunteers as might be organized among the settlers, and
to establish a temporary civil government.4 It was hoped, but not
confidently believed, that Kearny might reach California in the winter of 1846-7.
There were as yet no definite instructions on the course to be followed
if the things the general was sent to do should be done before his arrival by
others, for no such emergency was foreseen; but there were later orders
throwing light on the government’s intention. In July the artillery company
was despatched by sea, with orders dated in June,5 and the instruc-
local and
insignificant matter, not interfering at all with the conquost previously
effeeted or the civil govt already organized, merits no consideration whatever;
but it is fair to notice that the revolt was put down mainly by their efforts,
their energy deserving some commendation.
4 See chap. xiii. of this volume for
details of Kearny’s instructions and operations. The essential points of the
former were as follows: June 3, 1846.
‘ It has been decided
by the president to be of the greatest importance in the pending war to take
the earliest possession of Upper California. An expedition with that view is
hereby ordered, and you are designated to command it.. .You are authorized to
organize and receive into the service of the U. S. sueh portion of these
citizens as you may think useful to aid you to hold the possession of the
country... It is expected that the naval forces of the U. S.. .will be iu
possession of all the towns on the sea-coast, and will cooperate with yon in
the conquest of Cal... Should you conquer and take possession of N. Mex. and
Upper Cal., or considerable places in either, you will establish temporary
civil governments therein... It is foreseen that what relates to the civil
govt will be a difficult and unpleasant part of your duty, and much must
necessarily be left to your own discretion.’ June 18. Announcement of the
proposed sending of troops by sea, artillery and N. Y. volunteers; ‘these
troops and sueh as may be organized in Cal. will be under your command.’ Cal.
and N. Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. ‘236, 240.
6 June 20th, Scott to Capt. Tompkins. He
is.not to be ‘under the orders
tions already cited were sent to the naval commander, alluding to the
possibility of having to establish a civil government before Kearny’s arrival,
but not implying that this was to affect the general’s authority.6
And in September instructions to Colonel Stevenson, given after the reception
of unofficial reports that Monterey had been occupied, were based on the idea
that the New York volunteers would arrive before Kearny, that the latter would
come later to take command, and that probably before his arrival not much would
be accomplished in the interior.7
strictly speaking o£
any naval officer,’ but is to cooperate with the naval forces in the occupation
of Cal. ports. ‘You may find on the north-west coast an army officer with
higher rank than your own, when of course you will report to him, and if
ashore, come under his command. Culls’ Conq., 251.
6See p. 413
for instructions of July 12th. If Kearny’s instructions, enclosed with these,
were to be disregarded, surely an order to that effect would have been given in
clear language. In the instructions of Aug. 13th, 17th, to the naval commander,
Sec. Bancroft says: ‘A military force has been directed to proceed to Cal. for
the purpose of cooperation with the navy ’ in taking and holding S. F.,
Monterey, S. Diego, and if possible ‘San Pueblo de los Angeles.’ ‘ A
detachment.. .has sailed in the Lexington. A regiment .. .will soon sail from
N. Y., and a body of troops under Brig.-gen. Kearny may reach the coast over
Sta F6. Copies of so much of the instructions to Tompkins and Kearny as relates
to objects requiring cooperation are herewith enclosed. The president expects
and requires the most cordial and effectual cooperation Detween the officers of
the two services,. .. and will hold any commander of either branch to a strict
responsibility for any failure to preserve harmony and secure the objects
proposed.’ Cutis’ Conq., 107, 256.
’Sept.
11th, sec. war to Stevenson. ‘Instructions have been given to the naval
commander,.. .and you are directed to cooperate with him in carrying out his
plans. The regiment under your command, as well as the company of Capt.
Tompkins, is a part of Gen. Kearny’s command; but it may be that he will not be
in a situation to reach you, by his orders, immediately on your debarkation.
Until that is the case, yours will be an independent command, except when
engaged in joint operations with the naval force. It is not expected that you
will be able to advance far into the country.. .In the event of hostile
resistance, your operations must be governed by circumstances, and you must
use the means at your command to accomplish the object in view—the military
occupation of the country. It is not, however, expected that much can be done,
if preparations shall have been made to resist, until the forces under Gen.
Kearny shall have entered the country____________________
Where a place is
taken by the joint action of the naval and land force, the naval officer in
command, if superior in rank to yourself, will be entitled to make arrangements
for the civil govt of it while it is held by the cooperation of both branches.
All your powers in this respect will of course be devolved on Gen. Kearny,
whenever he shall arrive.’ Cutts’ Conq., 249-50. dept. 12th, sec. war to
Kearny, enclosing the instructions to Stevenson.
‘ This force is to be
part of your command; but as it may reach the place of its destination before
you are in a condition to subject it to your orders, the colonel.. .has been
furnished with instructions for his conduct in the mean time.’ Cal. and N.
Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. 241.
The next orders, in November—issued after news had come of Sloat’s
operations, of Stockton’s accession to the naval command, and of his
acceptance of Fremont’s battalion of volunteers, but before the reception of
the commodore’s plans for civil government —were positive to the effect that
Kearny on his arrival, and the ranking military officer before, was to be
recognized as civil governor; and these orders were sent by Colonel Mason, who
was to command after Kearny’s departure.8
Thus we see that Kearny by the original orders of June 1846 was required
to conquer California in cooperation with the naval forces, to command all
troops and to direct all land operations in the province, and to establish a
temporary civil government, being governor by virtue of his military command.
The later orders cited, though not received till after the controversy began,
confirm the apparent meaning of the first, and show that Kearny did not
misinterpret them. They show that the administration anticipated the possibility—though
not a probability—of the conquest being extended to the capital, and of a civil
government being organized by the naval forces under Stockton, the regulars
under Tompkins, and volunteers under Fremont and Stevenson, before Kearny’s
arrival and assumption of the command. They do not show that the general’s
authority was to be af-
8Nov. 3,
1846, Gen. Scott to Kearny. ‘ It is desirable that the volunteers’ (Fremont’s
men), ‘ if not originally mustered, should be caused by you to be regularly
mustered into service retrospectively under the volunteer act of May 13th.’ The
appointment of collectors, etc., ‘appertains to the civil governor of the
province, who will be, for the time, senior officer of the land forces in the
country.’ ‘As a guide to the civil governor of Cal., in our hands, see the
letter of June 3d last.’ ‘ After occupying with our forces all necessary points
in Upper Cal., and establishing a temporary eivil govt therein, as well as
assuring yourself of its internal tranquillity,.. .yon may eharge Col Mason,.
..or the land officer next in rank to your own, with your several duties, and
return yourself’ to St Louis. Fr&monl's Court-martial, 4850. Nov. 5th,
sec. navy to Stockton. ‘ The president has deemed it best for the public
interests to invest the military officer commanding with the direction of the
operations on land, and with the administrative functions of govt over the
people and territory occupied by us. You will relinquish to Col Mason or to
Gen. Kearny, if the latter shall arrive before you have done so, the entire
control over these matters.’ Id., 51-2.
fectecl by such events; nor do they indicate that under any
circumstances the position of civil governor could be held by any other than
the ranking military officer. Kearny, as we have seen,9 started from
Santa Fd in September, earlier than had been expected, with three hundred
dragoons. Presently he met Carson, Stockton’s messenger, with despatches for
Washington, and news that California had been conquered and a civil government
organized by Stockton and Fremont. Nothing indicates that he questioned the accuracy
of the report; neither did he find in it anything to modify his instructions
or duties. He sent back two thirds of his dragoons, believing that the other
troops provided for would suffice for holding the country, and continued his
march across the continent. Had he on arrival found Carson’s report strictly
true, all being tranquil, and civil affairs being quietly administered by the
commodore or lieutenant- colonel, he would have been entitled, beyond question
I think, to assume the military command, and with it the governorship.
But, as the reader knows, he found no such state of things. He learned
that Stockton had not organized but only planned a civil government, and that
the conquest was yet to be effected before the plans could be carried out. The
necessity for military service, instead of having disappeared, was much more
urgent than had ever been anticipated at Washington. But Kearny, after the
disaster of San Pascual— which reflected no credit on his ability as an officer
—entered San Diego under peculiar circumstances, wounded like many of his men,
deprived of his best officers who had been killed, his whole command perhaps
saved from destruction by the commodore’s aid. The delicacy of his position,
courtesy due to the naval commander, and the fact that Stockton was actively
engaged in organizing an expedition against the enemy prompted the general not
only to abstain from de-
0 See chap. xiii. of this volume.
Hist.
Cal., Vol. V. 27
manding the chief command, but to decline it when proffered by Stockton.10
The two officers, however, had some correspondence, conversation, and
even argument respecting their claims to the ultimate command. Kearny showed
his instructions, expressed his opinion that under them he was entitled to the
governorship, and probably announced his intention to assume that position
later. Stockton, on the other hand, showed copies of his earlier reports
explaining his plans for a civil government, and made an argument in support
of his theory that the general’s contingent instructions had been superseded by
events, since he and Fremont had already done the things that Kearny was
ordered to do.11
10 So Stockton states, offering a
certificate of two of his aids who were pres- sent as witnesses. The point was
not touched in Kearny’s testimony in the court-martial, but there is no
contradictory evidence. Stockton says: ‘After Gen. Kearny arrived, and in my
quarters and in presence of two of my military family, I offered to make him
commander-in-chief over all of us, and I offered to go as his aid-de-camp. He
said no; that the force was mine, and that he would go as my aid-de-camp, or
accompany me. A few days after this, and when Gen. K. had removed to other
quarters, I made a formal call upon him;.. .during that interview I made the
same offer to him, pretty much in the same language, and received pretty much
the same answer. My motives for making this offer were two: the first was his
high character as a soldier; the second was, I desired he should know that I
was disposed, on his first arrival, to give all power into his hands, without
making a question of rank at all.’ Fremont’s Court-martial, 189; and to same
effect in Stockton’s Report, Feb. 18, 1847, with more explanations that the
offer was made, ‘although it was my decided opinion.. .that I was entitled to
retain the position in which I was placed of commander-in-chief.’
11 Kearny’s testimony: ‘In that
conversation’—that of Dec. 28th, and the only one held on the subject as he
states—‘I told Com. S. that he had seen... the instructions of the president to
me relating to Cal.; that I had come to Cal. with but a small military force;
that deference and respect for his situation, he being then in command of the
Pacific squadron and having a large force of sailors and marines, prevented me,
at that time, from relieving him and taking charge of the civil govt; that as
soon as my command was increased I would take charge of affairs in Cal.
agreeably to my instructions. Com. S. said in reply that he had in Aug.
reported the state of affairs in Cal. to Washington, and that he could not
permit himself to be interfered with until he received au auswer to that
report.’ Frimont's Court-martial, 79, 81-3. Stockton’s testimony: ‘About the
time when Gen. K. was leaving my quarters, he handed me his instructions, and
when I read them, I was simple enough to believe that he had handed them to me
that I might be gratified by seeing how fully and thoroughly I had anticipated
the wishes of the govt. (!) When I returned the papers with a note of thanks...
I sent him copies of some of my own despatches to the govt, that he as a friend
might participate in the pleasure I felt... After this at S. Diego the general
in a conversation with me introduced the subject of the governorship, and
intimated that he thought
Doubtless the commodore regarded Kearny’s nonacceptance of the immediate
command as indicating a probable yielding at the last. There would be time
•enough, however, to settle these matters after the taking of Los Angeles; and
at San Diego there was no interruption of friendly relations. It would seem,
however, that the general took at least one slight step to strengthen himself
in a foreseen controversy;12 thus indicating, as also by certain
later acts, that he did not fully appreciate the strength of his position. It
had been understood that Kearny after declining the chief command would serve
in the campaign as Stockton’s aid; but just before marching from San Diego a
new arrangement was made at the general’s request. All agree that Kearny
accepted and exercised throughout the expedition the immediate command of the
troops, and that Stockton reserved for himself, as publicly announced to the
officers, the position of commander-in-chief and acting governor of California,
his temporary authority as such being fully recognized by the general. Yet a
little later there was much dispute about the relative positions of the two
offi-
he ought to be
governor under his instructions. This of course amazed me, because I had more
than once voluntarily offered to place him at the head of affairs in Cal.,
which offer he had as often refused. We argued the matter, however, he relying
upon his instructions.’ Stockton in Id., 190, and to same effect elsewhere.
Dec. 16th. Stockton to Kearny, returning with thanks despatches and sendiug
copies of his own letters, etc., ‘ that you may see how far the wishes of the
govt have been anticipated.’ Stockton’s Mil. and Nav. Op., 28.
laIt is
difficult to attach any other meaning to K.’s letter of Dec. 22d, advising S.
to march as soon as possible on Los Angeles to form a junction with Fremont’s
force, and adding, ‘I shall be happy, in such an expedition, to accompany and
to give you any aid either of head or hand of which I may be capable.’
Frimont’s Court-martial, 47. Next day Stockton replied in a note explaining
that his purpose to march on Angeles at the earliest possible moment had been
made known to K. in conversation the morning before, and implying some surprise
that K. ’s advice had been deemed necessary. Id.,
111. K. in his reply of the same date, alluding
to the conversation, says, ‘If I had so understood you, I certainly would not
have written my letter to you of last evening. ’ Id., 112. It is possible that
K. really misunderstood S.’s plans, but it seems unlikely;-especially as in his
report of Jan. 17, 1847, he says, ‘The march of the troops from S. Diego to
this place was reluctantly consented to by Com. Stockton on my urgent advice,’
Id., 95; and in his later testimony that the expedition to Angeles ‘ was
organized in consequence, as I believe, of a paper which I addressed to Com.
S.—the one cited above.
cers, Kearny denying that he had been in any sense under the commodore’s
orders. The evidence leaves no possible doubt, I think, that in this dispute
Stockton was right and Kearny wrong, that the former did act as
commander-in-chief of the forces, issuing in that capacity many routine orders,
which were obeyed, some of them against the general’s commands. So clearly is
this established that I do not deem it necessary to present in detail the
bulky testimony, especially as the matter had no such importance in the
general controversy as was imputed to it then and later.13 Kearny
had a right by his instructions and
13 Kearny admits that he recognized S. as
acting governor, and even as. commander-in-chief ‘of California,’ that is, of
all forces except those at S. Diego, but claims that he retained no authority
over K. or the troops over which K. was put in immediate command, and that his
so-called ‘ orders ’ were regarded as mere ‘suggestions.’ In other words, K.
claims to have assumed the military command in accordance with his rank and
instructions as. far as was possible at S. Diego before absent portions of the
forces should report to him, or should be formally turned over by Stockton.
The distinction is, however, a very fine one, hardly satisfactory to the mind
not imbued with military technicalities; and as I have said, the testimony that
Stockton acted practically as commander-in-chief is overwhelming.
Stockton’s testimony
in Frimont's Court-martial, 191-4, 199, 201, and to same effect in other
reports. ‘I did not send my aid to Gen. K. to say to him that I ordered him to
do this and that; but I sent all my messages to him in the most respectful and
considerate manner... Most of the execution of details was confided to Gen. K.
as second in command.’ Testimony of Lieut Gray, as S.’s aid, in Id., 210-11;
Lieut Minor, Id., 241-2. Certificate of Mosely and Speiden of the navy to K. ’s
original offer to go as S. ’a aid. Id., 430. Russell’s testimony on K.’s later
admission that he had served under K. Id., 262. Kearny’a testimony in Id., 47,
61, 70,116-17, 322-5. He rerepresents S. as saying at S. Diego, ‘Gentlemen,
Gen. K. has kindly consented to take com. of the troops on this exped. You
will therefore look upon him as your commander. I shall go along as gov. and
com. -in-chief in Cal.’ ‘I exercised no com. over Com. S., nor did he exercise
any over me.’
‘ He was considered
by me as com. -in-chief in Cal. until he had on Dec. 29th turned over a portion
of that com. to me.’ ‘During the march many messages were brought to me from
Com. S.; these I looked upon as suggestions and as expressions of his orders.’
Lieut Emory, Id., 161-3, 171-2, testifies that K. was in command, but that ‘ my
information is confined very much to- the immediate com. of the troops.’ ‘Com.
S. claimed to be gov. and com.- in-chief.. .On the march Com. S., I understood,
did several acts in that capacity. ’ He mentions also an instance where he
obeyed S. ’s order on the location of a camp. In Id., 70, is Emory’s report of
casualties, dated Jau. 11th, and addressed to ‘His Excell. R. P. Sockton, Gov.
of Cal., ctc.;’ and in Id., 108-9, K.’s advice and offer to march with part of
the troops, addressed to ‘Com. R. F. Stockton, Gov. of Cal., com’d’g U. S.
forces.’ John Bidwell, Cal. 1841-8, MS., 204-7, says: ‘I as quartermaster
received orders from both, and obeyed both so far as I could. S. was determined
to command. A conflict was growing between the two. Sometimes I thought I
could see K. bite his lips with rage.’ Testimony of John Forster, Pioneer Data,
MS., 45, and of B. D. Wilson, Observ., MS., 105-9, that S. was in command. See
also
by his rank of brigadier-general—Stockton’s assimilated rank being that
of colonel—to assume whenever he thought best the military command, involving
the civil governorship. He deferred the act, as he had also a right to do. His
subsequent efforts to ignore Stockton’s real position in the campaign must be
attributed to a wish to strengthen himself for a coming controversy, and later
to the spirit aroused by that controversy.
During the campaign, as at San Diego, there was no interruption of
friendly relations, apparently at least; and the same state of things continued
for about a week at Los Angeles, though Bidwell and a few others thought that
the general was angry at Stockton’s attitude on the march, and Emory testified
that Kearny forbade the reading of the commodore’s congratulatory order to the
troops. Meanwhile, however, it is not unlikely that divers petty occurrences,
not recorded, furnished fuel for the coming fire; at any rate, it became more
and more evident to Kearny that Stockton did not intend voluntarily to
surrender the command. He also began to foresee that the attitude of Fremont
and his battalion of volunteers would be a factor in the problem. He had determined
to assert his authority as soon as his force should be increased, and the
nearest source of such increase was the battalion. He did not yet claim au-
narrative of the
campaign in ohap. xv. of this volume. In the Monterey Californian, Jan. 28,
Feb. 13, 1847; S. F. Californian, June 26, July 17, 1847; reprinted as an
appendix to Benton’s speech of July 1848 in the Cong. Olobe; and also aa appen.
D of Stockton’s Life, 43-8—is a mass of correspondence on this subject. It
contains not only Stockton’s statement, but certificates from some 15 naval
officers affirming most positively that S. held the chief command, and that K.,
commanding the troops by S.’s appointment, was considered by all the officers
as second in command. I have no space for the bulky details.
In his report to the
govt of Jan. 12th, Kearny wrote: ‘At the request of Com. S., who in Sept. last
assumed the title of Gov. of Cal., I consented to take com. of an exped. to
this place...Com. S. accompanied us,’ etc. Then follows an account of the battle,
etc. U. S. Govt Doc., 30th cong. 1st sess., Sen. Ex. Doc., 1, p. 516-17.
Stockton, in his report of Jan. 11th, represented himself as having been
‘aided by Gen. Kearny.’ Stockton’s Life, appen. 8. In his four notes to
Fremont, dated Jan. 10th, 12th, 13th, Court- martial, 73-4, Kearny did not name
Stockton at all, and in one of them he said, ‘I am here in possession of this
plaoe. ’
thority over the volunteers; to assume it by a general order, and require
compliance from Stockton and Frd- mont, would be to precipitate the
controversy; and he chose rather to gain his end by more indirect methods. His
notes to Frdmont, and his proposition to join him, on January 10th-13th, were
due in part to the motive alleged, anxiety for the safety of his force; but also,
and chiefly, to a desire for friendly relations with Fremont, and to the hope
of obtaining from that officer at least a technical ‘report’ to himself as
commander. In this last respect his crafty plan was successful, for on the
evening of the 13thf Major Russell arrived from the battalion’s camp
with the required report.14 #
Russell had been sent by Fremont to deliver the letter, to learn who was
in actual command, and to report to that officer the capitulation of Cahuenga.
Having called on Kearny and learned that he recognized Stockton as
commander-in-chief, the major proceeded to report the treaty to the commodore.
That evening he had at least two interviews with each of the chiefs, and
finally passed the night with Kearny and Turner at their quarters, engaging in
long conversations on current events. As to the general purport of results,
there is no essential discrepancy in testimony. Russell learned that Kearny,
while yet recognizing Stockton as commander-in-chief, claimed
14 ‘On the march, Jan. 13, 1847. Dear Sir: I
have the honor to report to you my arrival at this place, with 400 mounted
riflemen and six pieces of artillery, including among the latter two pieces
lately in the possession of the Californians. Their entire force, under the command
of D. Andres Pico, have this day laid down their arms and surrendered to my
command. Very respectfully, your obedient servant, J. C. Fremont, Lt-col. U.
S. A., and military commandant of the territory of Cal. Brig.-gen. S. W. Kearny, commanding U. S. forces, Puebla de los Angeles.’ In
Fremont's Court-martial, 37, and elsewhere. It was later claimed by Fremont and
his friends that this letter—drawn out by friendly notes addressed to ‘Dear
F.,’etc., and asking for information as to his whereabouts—did not constitute a
‘report’ of liis command to Gen. K. in a military sense; but a military court
decided otherwise. Another point made by the same party with some force was,
that in the immediate controversy at Los Angeles, K. did not urge this report
as the foundation for his authority over the battalion, but reserved it as the
foundation of later charges. This document was really the basis of the verdict
in one of the two principal phases of the court-martial.
the right, under his instructions, to assume the command and organize
the civil government; that he was friendly to Fremont and disposed to encourage
his hopes for the governorship; and that he fully approved the treaty of
Cahuenga. He also learned that Stockton still maintained his authority to hold
the civil and military command as unimpaired by Kearny’s arrival and
instructions; that he disapproved the capitulation; but that he changed his
mind in this latter respect after listening to arguments.15 There is
no doubt that both the general’s and commodore’s approval of Fremont’s recent
acts was founded mainly on their own immediate interests, as the making of the
treaty had been an irregular proceeding.
Russell left town in the morning of the 14th, met Frdmont five or six
miles out, and reported the state of affairs at the capital. This report was to
the effect that the lieutenant-colonel would have to choose between the general
and commodore, since each claimed a right to organize a civil government,
either would probably make Frdmont governor, and both approved the treaty of
Cahuenga. A controversy was clearly foreseen; Russell believed that Kearny was
more friendly than Stockton; and Frdmont apparently agreed with him. There
was, however, as yet
15 Testimony of Russell and Kearny in
Frimont’s Court-martial, 87-8, 243-5, 251-2, 262-5, 268, 321-4, 392. They agree
on the poiuts mentioned in my text. Russell states, however, that K. relied
exclusively on his instructions and admitted—against R. ’s opinion—that
Stockton outranked him. This is denied by K., and is very improbable. R. also
says that Stockton claimed to be acting under written instructions not shown,
which is not supported by any other evidence. And finally, Russell makes K. ’s
encouragement of F. ’s hopes for the governorship amount almost to a promise,
at least to a state ment that he intended soon to leave Cal., and proposed, if
his authority was recognized, to make F. governor; hut Kearny denies that he
made any prom ise, announced any intention, or offered any other encouragement
to F. than to speak of him in favorable terms. It is to be noted that in their
testimony R. would naturally—and probably did—exaggerate and K. underrate the
encouragement to F.’s hopes; that F. was at the time the ranking army officer
in Cal. next to K., and would naturally be left in command on the latter’s departure,
though Lieut-col Cooke was expected soon to arrive; and that Fremont in his
defence, p. 392, notes, as a very strong indication against K.’s testimony and
in support of R., the fact that Capt. Turner, a witness for the prosecution,
was not questioned about the conversation between R. and K., most of which was
in his presence.
no call for a decision; the battalion marched into the city early on the
14th; and Fremont called on both chiefs, first on the commodore, no particulars
being known about either interview. Indeed, so far as the controversy is
concerned, no developments of this day or the next are recorded. Kearny
reported to the government Fremont’s arrival and capitulation, and alluding to
the troops en route by land and sea, said: “On their arrival I will,agreeably
to the instructions of the president, have the management of things in this
country,”16 thus perhaps implying a doubt whether he would be able
to obtain control before the coming of reenforcements. And Stockton, reporting
the same matters, said: “The civil government formed by me is again in
operation in the places where it was interrupted by the insurgents.. . I will
immediately withdraw my sailors and marines, and sail for the coast of
Mexico;”17 thus taking it for granted that there was to be no
opposition to his authority. Yet while there is no definite record of what was
being said and done in the matter, it was well known to Kearny and to many
others at Los Angeles that Stockton intended to ignore the general’s authority.
Indeed, he had on the 14th tendered to Fremont and Russell their commissions
as governor and secretary of state.
On the 16th, therefore, Kearny ordered Stockton either to show his
authority from the government or to take no further action in relation to a
civil organization.18 The commodore in his reply of the same
16 Jan. 14, 1847, K. to adj.-gen., in
Frimont’s Court-martial, 80.
17 Jan. 15th, S. to Sec. Bancroft, in
Stockton’s Life, appen. 9-10. This was sent by Lieut Gray, who left Los Angeles
for the east on the 16th. Griffin's Diary, MS.
18 Jan. 16, 1847, Kearny to Stockton. ‘Sir:
I am informed that you are now engaged in organizing a civil govt, and
appointing officers for it in this territory. As this duty has been specially
assigned to myself by orders of the president,.. .in letters to me from the
sec. war, of June 3 and 18, 1846, the originals of which I gave you on the
12th, and which you returned to me on the 13th’—there seems to be no other
record of this corresp.—‘ and copies of which I furnished you with the 26th of
Dec., I have to ask if you have any authority from the president, from the sec.
navy, or from any other channel of the president’s, to form such a govt and
make such appointments ? If you have such authority and will show it to me, or
will furnish me with
day declined to obey the general’s order, on the ground that the conquest
had been completed and the civil government put in operation before his
arrival. He also suspended Kearny from the command of the troops conferred on
him at San Diego, as he had a right to do so far as the sailors and marines
were concerned.19
Thus in clear terms the general asserted his authority, which Stockton
refused to recognize, and to enforce which the former’s force was less than a
hundred dragoons. The only source of possible increase at the time was the
battalion; therefore Kearny sent to Fremont, through Emory, a test order to
make no changes in the organization of the battalion.20 This order
was delivered in the evening, and later Fremont called upon Stockton at the
latter’s request to receive his commission as governor, seeing at that
certified copies of
it, I will cheerfully acquiesce in what you are doing. If you have not such
authority, I then demand that you cease all further proceedings relating to
the formation of a civil govt for this territory, as I cannot recognize in you
any right in assuming to perform duties confided to me by tho president. Yours
resp., S. W. Kearny, Brig.-gen. U. S. A. Com. R. F. Stockton, U. S. N., acting
gov.’ In Frimont’s Court-martial, 90, and often repeated elsewhere.
19Jan. 16,
1847, Stockton to Kearny, in Id., 118. ‘Sir: in answer to your note received
this afternoon, I need say but little more than that which I communicated to
you in a conversation at S. Diego: that Cal. was conquered and a govt put into
successful operation; that a copy of the laws made for me for the govt of the
territory, and the names of the officers selected to see them faithfully
executed, were transmitted to the pres, of the U. S. before your arrival in
the territory. I will only add that I cannot do anythiug, nor desist from doing
anything, or alter anything on your demand; which I will submit to the
president and ask for your recall. In the mean time you will consider yourself
suspended from the command of the U. S. forces in this place. Faithfully, your
obed. serv., B. F. Stockton, com.-in-chief. To Brevet Brig.-gen. S. W. Kearny.’
20 ‘Headquarters army of the west, ciudad de
Los Angeles, Jan. 16, 1847. By direction of Brig. -gen. Kearny I send you a
copy of a communication to him from the sec. of war, dated June 18, 1846, in
which is the following: “These troops and such as may be organized in Cal. will
be under your command.” The general directs that no change will be made in the
organization of your battalion, or officers appointed in it, without his
sanction or approval being first obtained. Very resp., W. H. Emory, Lieut and
A. A. A. Gen. To Lieut-col J. C. Fremont, mounted riflemen, commanding
battalion Cal. volunteers.’ Court-martial, 5. See also Id., 78, 118,163,194,
395,399,401. The particular change anticipated was the appointment of Gillespie
to command the battalion in Fremont’s place. Kearny says the order to F. was
written— but perhaps not delivered—before he received S. ’s letter, and even
before he wrote to S.
interview the communications that had passed between the general and
commodore, and showing the latter Kearny’s order to himself.21 Next
morning, the 17th, Fremont wrote a reply, in which he declined to obey the
general’s order, on the ground that he had received his appointment from
Stockton, and on arrival at Los Angeles had found that officer still recognized
as commander. “I feel myself, therefore, with great deference to your
professional and personal character, constrained to say that until you and Commodore
Stockton adjust between yourselves the question of rank, where I respectfully
think the difficulty belongs, I shall have to report and receive orders as
heretofore from the commodore.”22
Leaving this reply to be copied by the clerk, Fremont, in response to a
note—“Dear Colonel: I wish to see you on business”—called at Kearny’s quarters.
During the interview the reply was brought in, and after being signed was given
to the general, who earnestly advised the lieutenant-colonel, as a friend and
senior officer, to take back and destroy the paper, offering to forget its
contents. But Fremont declined to reconsider his refusal to obey, even when
Kearny implied a willingness a make him governor in four or six weeks, on his
own departure. There is some contradiction, more apparent than real, and
resulting from the exaggerations of controversial prejudice, respect-
21 Stockton’s testimony. Fr&mont's Court-martial,
196-7. F.’s com. as governor. Id., 175-6. Other commissions by S. bore the same
date.
22 Jan. 17, 1847, Fremont to Kearny. ‘Sir: I
have the honor to be in receipt of your favor of last night, in which I am
directed to suspend the execution of orders which, in my capacity of mil. com.
of this territory, I had received from Com. Stockton, gov. and com.-in-chief in
Cal. I avail myself of an early hour this morning to make such a reply as the
brief time allowed for reflection will enable me. I found Com. S. in possession
of the country, exercising the functions of mil. com. and civil gov., as early
as July of last year; and shortly thereafter I received from him the commission
of mil. com., the duties of which I immediately entered upon, and have continued
to exercise to the present moment. I found, also, on my arrival at this place
some three or four days since, Com. S. still exercising the functions of civil
and military gov., with the same apparent deference to his rank on the part of
all officers (including yourself) as he maintained and required when he assumed
in July last. I feel myself, etc. (as in text), with considerations, etc. J. C.
Frtfmont, Lt-col. U. S. A. and mil. com. of the ter. of Cal. To Brig.-gen. S.
W. Kearny, U. S. A.’ Id., 6, 231.
ing this interview,23 but I have no doubt that, without
definite promises on either side, each believed the date of appointment to be
the essential point at issue. Frdmont certainly understood that by yielding he
could have the governorship later; and Kearny probably believed that by
offering an immediate appointment he could secure obedience.
Finding his authority and his instructions from the government thus
ignored by Stockton and Fremont, and having no troops with which to enforce his
orders, Kearny wrote to the commodore: “I must for the
23 See testimony in Id., 38-9, 76, 78-81,
87, 91-2, 101, 164, 252-3, 380-96. Kearny says: ‘Having finished the reading, I
told F. that I was a much older man than himself, that I was a much older
soldier than himself, that I had great regard for his wife and great friendship
for.. .Col. Benton;.. .that these considerations induced me to volunteer advice
to him, and the advice was that he should take back that letter and destroy it,
that t was willing to forget it. Lt-col. F. declined taking it back, and told
me that Com. S. would support him in the position he had taken. I told him that
Com. S. could not support him in disobeying the orders of his senior officer,
and that if he persisted in it he would unquestionably ruin himself. He told me
that Com. S. was about organizing a civil govt, and intended to appoint him as
gov. I told him Com. S. had no such authority, that authority having been conferred
on me by the president. He asked me if I would appoint him governor. I told
him I expected shortly to leave Cal.,... that as soon a9 the country was
quieted I should most probably organize a civil govt, and that I at that time
knew of no objections to my appointing him as the gov. He then stated to me
that he would see Com. S., and that unless he appointed him gov. at once, he
would not obey his orders, and left me.’ It would seem unlikely that F. should
make this last statement, since both he and K. knew that S. would make him gov.
at once; and F. in his defence makes several strong points against parts of
K.’s testimony. This ‘ bargaining for the governorship ’ is what he deems most
seriously to affect his honor, and he accuses K. of testifying falsely on the
interview. It is to be noted, however, that K. does not state positively that
F. offered obedience in return for au immediate appointment; that F., with all
his righteous indignation on the charge of ‘bargaining,’ omits all details of
the interview; and that the extract of a letter to Benton—‘Both offered me the
post of gov.; Com. S. to redeem his pledge immediately, and Gen. K. offering to
give the commission in four or six weeks ’—introduced by F. as his own
testimony, seems to support K. ’s testimony and the theory that ‘time’ was made
the test. The matter, however, is one that affects the personal veracity of
the two officers more than it does the general controversy. It appears, also,
that at this interview F. expressed sorrow for the dissensious between S. and
K., and perhaps tried to bring about an interview, which K. desired but would
not ask for.
This reply of Fremont
refusing obedience was made the foundation of the principal accusation against
him before a military court. In defence, he made the point that K., at the
interview, by offering to permit the paper to be destroyed, to forget its
contents, and to consider the matter of making F. governor, condoned the act of
disobedience, or ‘mutiny.’ This is true to the extent that K. was technically
at fault; but the dishonor in such cases always pertains not to the officer who
shows such leniency, but to the recipient who uses it against him.
purpose of preventing collision between us, and possibly a civil war in
consequence of it, remain silent for the present, leaving with you the great
responsibility of doing that for which you have no authority, and preventing
me from complying with the president’s orders.” He also announced in writing
his intention to withdraw with his dragoons; and reported the state of affairs
to the adjutant-general at Washington.24
On the 18th about 10 a. m. General Kearny marched from Los Angeles with
his dragoons, having no further communication with Stockton or Frdmont, and
reaching San Diego on the 23d. He told Lieutenant Emory, sent east with
despatches a few days later, that he would assume control as soon as his force
should be sufficiently increased; but the arrival of the battalion of Mormon
volunteers, over three hundred strong, under Lieutenant-colonel Cooke,25
who reported to the general at San Diego on the 29th, was not deemed to justify
such a step. Cooke was ordered to station his men at San Luis Rey and await
further developments; and Kearny embarked on the Cyane January 31st,
reaching Monterey on February 8th. Here he
found Commodore W. Branford Shubrick, who had arrived the 2 2d of January in
the Independence, to succeed Stockton in command of the Pacific squadron. On
the 25th Shubrick had written a friendly letter to Frdmont as the senior
military officer in the
24 Jan. 17, 1847, Kearny to Stockton. The
quotation in my text is preceded by a reference to preceding corresp. of the
16th, and a statement that by the battles of the 8th and 9th, and capitulation
of the 13th, Cal. ‘might now for the first time be considered as conquered.’
Court-martial, 79-80. Jan. 17th, K. to S. ‘I have to inform you thatlintend to
withdraw to-morrow from this place with the small party which escorted me to
this country,’ addressed to S. as ‘acting governor of Cal.’ Id., 195. Jan.
17th, K. to adj.- gen., enclosing copies of corresp. with S. and F. ‘It will he
seen by the pres, and sec. war that I am not recognized in my official
capacity, either by Com. S. or Lieut-col F., both of whom refuse to obey my
orders or the instructions of the pres.; and as I have no troops iu the country
under my authority except a few dragoons, I have no power of enforcing them.’
Id., 94-5.
23 On the Mormon battalion, see chap.
xviii., this volume. Record of K. ’s departure from Los Angeles, also Emory’s
departure, in Fremont’s Court-martial, 87, 92-3, 165, 383. Griffin's Diary,
MS., is authority for the arrival at S. Diego.
country, not knowing that Kearny had arrived, but three days later had
written a similar letter to the general. On the 28th the Lexington had arrived
with Captain Tompkins and an artillery company, as fully recorded in another
chapter; and next day Shubrick had sent the Dale southward with the letter to
Kearny and another to Stockton, requesting his presence at Monterey. Kearny
found the new commodore disposed to recognize his authority as military
commander-in-chief, and to disapprove Stockton’s act in organizing a civil
government in opposition to the general’s instructions, but also to favor a
peaceful settlement of the dispute. He had, moreover, the instructions
addressed to Sloat on July 12, 1846, as already cited, which authorized the
naval officers to organize a civil government. The general agreed with Shubrick
that it was best not to reopen the controversy, but to wait for more explicit
instructions from Washington. Therefore he started for San Francisco, February
11th, on the Cyane; while the commodore reported the decision to Fremont and to
the government.28
26
Shubrich's Eept, Feb. 15th, is a narrative of events since his arrival. In it
the only remark bearing on the controversy is, ‘ I have recognized in Gen. K.
the senior officer of the army in Cal.; have consulted and shall cooperate with
him as such; and I feel that I am particularly fortunate in having so gallant a
soldier,’ etc. Shubrick’s letters of Jan. 25th and 28th to Fremont and Kearny
are not extant, but are mentioned in Id., and Frimont’s Court- martial, 9. The
general’s account of his arrival and consultation with Shubrick is in Kearny's
Eept, March 15, 1847. He says: ‘On my showing to Com,. Sh. my instruc. of June
3, 18, 1846, he was at once prepared to pay all proper respect to them; and
being at that time com. -in-chiefof the naval forces, he acknowledged me as the
head and com. of the troops in Cal.. .He then showed me the instruc. to com.
SI. of July 12th,.. .and as they contained directions for Com. SI. to take
charge of civil affairs, I immediately told Com. Sh. that 1 cheerfully
acquiesced and was ready to afford him any assistance in my power. We agreed on
our separate duties, and I then went to S. F.,’ etc. Fremont’s idea of this
agreement, in Court-martial, 419-20, is that it was virtually an acknowledgment
of the legitimacy of the position assumed by himself and Stockton. Shubrick’s
letter of Feb. 13th to F., Id., 417, in reply to F.’s of Feb. 7th, to be
noticed later, was non-committal and friendly.
‘While the gen. was
here, we consulted fully as enjoined on me by my instrnc., and on him by his,
on the measures necessary to be taken by us for the security of Cal. I am
looking daily for the arrival of Com. St., when I shall of course receive from
him a full account, etc. It is to be hoped that the pleasure of the president
on civil govt, etc., will soon be known.’ Has. no funds to spare for F. In his
report of same date to the govt, Id., 296, Sh.
Meanwhile Commodore Stockton, still holding the position of governor down
to the date of his departure, left Los Angeles the 19th of January and marched
with his marines and sailors to San Pedro, where all embarked on a man-of-war
for San Diego. Here on the 22d he reported the civil government to be in successful
operation. On February 4th he sent a longer report on the troubles with Kearny,
demanding that officer’s recall, “to prevent the evil consequences that may
grow out of such a temper and such a head”! and next day he wrote a full report
of the recent campaign, from which I have quoted extensively in the preceding
chapter.27 Also in February and March the commodore and his naval
officers took some pains to enlighten the public respecting his position as commander
in the final campaign, as already recorded.23 As to his
correspondence or conversation with Shu- brick, if he had any, nothing is
known. From Fremont during January, February, and the first ten days of March,
we have, so far as the controversy is
alludes to the ‘
unfortunate difference’ between St., K., and F. ‘ I have exchanged opinions
with Gen. K., and shall continue to concert with him such measures as may seem
best... With regard to the civil govt,.. . measures have been, in my opinion,
prematurely taken by Com. St., and an appointment of gov. made of a gentleman
who I am led to believe is not acceptable to the people of Cal.’; but Sh.
intends to await further instructions and confine his efforts to keeping quiet
possession of the territory. The despatch of the 13th was sent east by Lieut
Talbot, reaching Washington June 3d.
SJ A letter
of Jan. 19th signed by 12 citizens of Los Angeles, and presumably recognizing
the legitimacy of S.’s proceedings, was offered as evidence, but not allowed to
be read. Frdmont’s Court-martial, 195. Jan. 22d, St. to Bancroft. A brief
report, sent by Lieut Gray, containing an allusion to K.’s ‘ perilous condition
after his defeat at S. Pascual. ’ S. was somewhat too fond of these sly hits.
Stoclcton’s Life, appen. 10. Feb. 4th, Id. to Id. ‘As the guardian of the honor
and services of the navy, I take leave to send you the following narrative.
This case requires no argument; nor will I make a single remark in relation to
the extraordinary conduct of Gen. K. or the indefensible language of his
notes: “demands,” “personal collision,” “civil war,” and the bold assertion
that the country was not conquered until the 8th and 9th of Jan. by the troops
under his command, speak for themselves.’ Id.,
10-12.
Stockton’s rept of Feb. 5th, in Id., 12-16; Id., Mil. and Nav. Oper., 30. This
was seut by Lieut Beale, and reached Washington May 31st. Frimont’s
Court-marlial, 366.
ss See note
13 of this chapter. Feb. 5th, certificate of Spieden and Mosely at S. Diego, in
Frimont’s Court-martial, 430. March 9th, Capt Zielin to captains Pedrorena and
Argiiello, asking for their reports of the battles, and particularly for their
testimony as to who was in command. Savage, Doc., MS., iii. 72.
concerned, only three letters, addressed to Benton, to Shubrick, and to
W. P. Hall, all written to defend his position and that of the commodore who
had appointed him.29
Thus the annals of the controversy have been brought down in a sense to the
end so far as Stockton was concerned, and to the end of its first phase in
Frdmont’s case. And here I may say, as has been implied in what precedes and as
the facts fully justify me in saying, that on the merits of the dispute, Kearny
was in the right and Stockton in the wrong. General Kearny, in obedience to
instructions from Washington, had marched to California, had cooperated with
the naval officers in conquering the country, and was entitled to the chief
command. Stockton’s claim to have effected the conquest and organized a civil
government before the general’s arrival was unfounded; but had it been
supported by facts, it would by no means have justified his disobedience. His
position was untenable, and popular sympathy for him as a conqueror unfairly
deprived of the glory of his achievement has been misplaced through a
misconception of the facts. He had shown a creditable degree of energy and
skill in overcoming obstacles for the most part of his own creation, in putting
down a revolt
28 Feb. 3, 1847, F. to Benton, only a brief
fragment on K.’s offer of the governorship, quoted in note 23. A longer
extract of perhaps the same letter is found in Bigelow's Mem., 197-8. Feb. 7th,
F. to Shubrick, in reply to note of Jan. 25th, explaining his reasons for
having refused to recognize K.’s authority—tbat is, that K. ’s contingent
instructions had been superseded by events. ‘ I trust the foregoing explanation
will fully satisfy you that the position I take is an incident of the
extraordinary circumstances surrounding me, and is borne out by a rigid
adherence to the line of duty. ’ He also explains that he is financially hard
pressed, and hopes Sh. can advauce money for govt expenses. Frimont’s
Court-martial, 9-10. Feb. 11th, F. to Hon. Willard P. HaU. ‘I learn with
surprise and mortification that Gen. K., in obedience to what I cannot but
regard as obsolete instructions, means to questiou my right, and... I cannot...
yield or permit myself to be interfered with by any other until directed to do
so by the proper authorities.’ ‘Intimations...
have
reached me that you were using your talents and high character as a member of
the American congress, in your intercourse with citizens of this place and the
troops under my command, to raise doubts, if not questioning altogether the
legitimacy or validity, of my tenure of office; therefore wants to know i£ the
intimations are founded in fact. Id., 10-11; Hall’s testim. Id., 208-9.
that but for his own folly would have had no existence. No more can be
honestly said in praise of the commodore’s acts and policy in California.
Against Kearny’s position in the dispute nothing can be urged, and against his
conduct—his blunder at San Pascual affecting only himself and his men—nothing
more serious than a savor of sharp practice in certain minor proceedings
indicating a lack of confidence in the real strength of his position, or
perhaps an excess of personal bitterness against his rival.
As far as Fremont is concerned, his action in disobeying Kearny’s order,
or rather in leaving the two chiefs to settle their own quarrel, must I think
be approved; that is, as compared with the only alternative. Like Stockton, he
merits no praise for earlier proceedings. He had perhaps done even more than
the commodore to retard the conquest. His mishaps as a political adventurer
call for no sympathy. But his cause was identified with that of Stockton, who
had adopted his views, had saved him from a position that might have been
dangerous, had given him his command, had approved his irregular acts at Ca-
huenga, and depended upon his support in his own assumption of authority. There
is, or should be, honor even among filibusters. For Fremont to have deserted
his patron at the last, particularly when Kearny’s offer of the governorship
was sure to make the transaction appear a bargain, would have been dishonorable
and treacherous. True, the colonel’s act was declared later by a military court
to be technically mutinous disobedience of a superior’s orders. This amounts
to little, and is all that can be said against Fremont. Had there been no
further developments in the controversy, the verdict would possibly have been
different; or rather it is probable that no charges would have been preferred.
Commissions to Fremont as governor and Russell as secretary of state were
issued by Stockton on Jan
uary 10th, but their respective terms of office began on the 19th, when
the commodore turned over the command on his departure from Los Angeles. It had
been intended to make Gillespie secretary, but he preferred to be major of the
battalion, and his commission was dated the 18th.30 Besides a
governor to succeed himself, Stockton also appointed on the 16th a legislative
council of seven members, as follows: M. G. Vallejo, David Spence, J. B.
Alvarado, Thomas O. Larkin, Eliab Grimes, Santiago Argiiello, and Juan Bandini.
The council was summoned, by Stockton’s proclamation of the 18th, to convene at
Los Angeles the 1st of March; but no meeting was ever held. Some members
declined to serve; there was apparently a degree of sectional dissatisfaction;
and finally no council was deemed necessary by a new administration.31
After the commodore’s departure the battalion was paraded, the commissions
were read by Secretary Russell, and the new government went into operation. On
the 22d Governor Fremont issued
30 On these commissions, already recorded
indirectly, see Frimont’s Court- martial, 175-6, 194, 203, 252, 257-8, 384,
410.
31 Jan. 16, 1847, Vallejo’s original
commission signed by Stockton. Vallejo, Doc., MS., i. 20. I find no other
appointments, and no official list of the members. Jan. 18th, Stockton’s
proclamation convening the council for March 1st. Id., xii. 260. Jan. 22d,
Fremont to Vallejo, enclosing commission, with much flattery. Id., i. 21. Jan.
22d, Larkin to V., enclosing F.’s letter. L. himself will not serve; will send
a vessel for V. and Grimes. Id., i. 22. Jan. 29th, Bandini to V., urging him to
accept and work for the good of his country, as he intends to do. Id., xii.
264. Jan. 29th, Lieut Revere to V., urging him not to accept, since the peace
will not be permanent, and Fremont’s course can not be approved. Id., xii.
265. Jan. 31st, Semple, Colton, and Talbot H. Green urge V. to accept. Id.,
xii. 266-8. Feb. 15th, V. to F. Accepts the position. Id., xii. 277. Jan. 26th,
Bandini to Stockton, declining on account of ill health. Bandini, Doc., MS.,
103. Feb. 26th, at a public meeting at Sonoma it was resolved that the district
north of the bay was entitled to one third of the council, and Gen. Kearny was
asked to increase the number of members to 15, giving the district5; and
Vallejo, Boggs, Grigsby, Stephen Cooper, and W. A. Richardson were recommended.
Unb. Doc., MS., 138-9. According to S. F. Cal. Star, March 6th, the citizens of
Sonoma selected Vallejo, Boggs, and Cooper. Feb. 26th, a meeting also held at
Sta Clara, and Elam Brown selected. Id. March 4th, Kearny to alcalde of S. F.
‘I have not called any such council, nor do I at present contemplate doing so.’
Cal. and N. Hex., Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. 289-91. April 13th, Larkin writes to
Stockton that many blame him (L.) that the council did not meet. ‘You kindly
sent us the Cyane, but Com. Sh. prevented her departure. The members could not
go by land and get there in time. ’ Larhin’s Off. Corresp., MS., i. 137.
Hist.
Cal.,
Vol. V. 28
a proclamation or circular announcing the establishment of civil rule.
“I do hereby proclaim order and peace restored to the country, and require the
immediate release of all prisoners, the return of the civil officers to their
appropriate duties, and as strict an obedience of the military to the civil
authority as is consistent with the security of peace and the maintenance of
good order where troops are garrisoned.”32
For a period of about fifty days Fremont was recognized in a sense
throughout California as governor, though it does not appear that he had
occasion to exercise his authority directly beyond the Los Angeles district.33
Nor were his duties as ruler onerous even at the capital. Part of the volunteers
were discharged, and the rest were stationed at San Gabriel. Locally all was
quiet, the Angelinos devoting themselves as in earlier times to social
pleasures, and the governor, as all agree, winning many friends among the
natives by joining in their festivities and adopting to some extent their ways
of dress and life. The happenings of those days, however, are but meagrely
recorded. Official orders were for the most part of a petty routine nature; and
indeed, the only ones known are such as were subsequently included in charges
against Fremont as supplementary acts of disobedience.34
32 Jan. 22, 1847. Fremont’s circular.
Monterey Californian, Feb. 6th; Bryant’s What I Saw, 414; Cutts’ Conq., 164.
33Lieut-col
Cooke, Conq. Cal., 283, under date of March 12th, writes:
‘ Gen. Kearny is
supreme—somewhere up the coast; Col Fremont supreme at Pueblo de los Angeles,
Com. Stockton is “commander-in-chief” at S. Diego; Com. Shubrick, the same at
Monterey; and I, at San Luis Rey; and we are all supremely poor; the government
having no money and no credit; aud we hold the territory because Mexico is
poorest of all.’ Cooke, however, was a foe to Fremont, Feb. 20th, J, B. Hull,
commandant of the northern district, proclaims that civil authority has taken
place of the military; and revokes all past orders bearing on civil rights. But
he says nothing of any governor. S. F. Cal. Star, Feb. 20, 1847.
31 Jan. 24th-27th, orders in connection with
courts-martial, by which Lieut Rock was cashiered for drunkenness and fighting
with Private Geo. Smith. Jan. 25th, order to Capt. J. K. Wilson to recruit men
for a 2d artillery co. at $25 a month for three months. Feb. 5th, order to
Major Louis McLane to proceed northward for the purpose of obtaining recruits;
also to examine the defences of Yerba Buena, and erect a fort on White Island.
Feb. 13th, Accepts the resignation of captains Ford, Gibson, Finlay; and lieuts
Bald-
The chief difficulty experienced was to obtain funds and supplies for the
battalion. Holders of claims for property taken in the past complained that
payment was too long delayed, and these complaints, with a prevalent doubt that
Fremont’s authority to contract debts would be recognized by his successors,
increased present financial troubles. Yet men were found willing in
consideration of high prices to risk delays and losses. I shall have more to
say of these ‘California claims’ a little later; only two need be mentioned
here. From Antonio J. Cot in February the governor obtained a loan of $3,000
at three and two per cent per month; and from Eulogio C^lis in March another of
$2,500 at two per cent after eight months. With Cdlis he also made a contract
to furnish 600 head of beef-cattle for $6,000, payable in eight months; but the
battalion was discharged, and Fremont’s authority was gone, before any of the
beef was eaten.35
ridge, Rheusaw,
Blackburn, J. Scott, J. R. Barton, and J. M. Hudspeth. They are blamed for
resigning at such a time by Adj. Loker in his order. March 2d, F. binds himself
in name of U. S. to pay $5,000 to John Temple for White (or Bird) Island in S.
F. Bay. Frimont’a Court-martial, 7, 8, 12, 16, 17, 62, 63, 408.
35Cal. and
N. Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. 328-9, 363-73; Frimont’s Cal. Claims (no.
75), p. 35-6; Id. (no. 817). These claims were presented for payment after F.
’s departure, and without his having left any record o£ the transactions. The
cattle contract was perhaps somewhat ‘ crooked. ’ On April 26th F. certified
that CSlis had delivered the cattle, and gave to C. a certificate that $6,975
(including the hides which C. was originally to have retained) was due him from
the U. S. govt.; but in fact the cattle were not delivered by C. until May 1st
and July 7th, and then to Abel Stearns to breed for three years on F.’s account
for half the increase! F.’s defence was that he put the cattle in private hands
to secure himself if the govt should not acknowledge the debt; and this is
plausible if not regular, hut it does not explain his certificate of delivery.
Hensley testified that he received the cattle for the battalion; but this does
not agree with Steams’ receipts.
CHAPTER XVII.
FREMONT’S CONTROVERSY
WITH KEARNY.
March-May,
1847.
New
Instructions—Circular of Shubrick and Kearny—The Latter Assumes the
Governorship—Proclamation and Report—Commodore Biddle—Orders to Fremont,
Gillespie, and Cooke—Turner in the South—Fremont’s Disobedience, Excuses, and
his Famous Ride to Monterey—Quarrel with Kearny—Cooke at Los Angeles—Mason and Fremont—A Challenge—Rumors
of Mexican Invasion—Kearny in the South—Stevenson Succeeds Cooke— Journey of
Kearny, Fremont, and Cooke Overland to the States— Stockton Goes East—Petition
on the Governorship—Fremont’s Trial by Court-martial—Found Guilty and
Pardoned—The Popular Verdict—Benton’s Tirade in the Senate—The California
Claims—Expenses of the Conquest.
At San Francisco
Kearny found Colonel Richard B. Mason of the 1st dragoons and Lieutenant Watson
of the navy, who had arrived the 12th of February, and • with whom the general
returned to Monterey by the Savannah on the 23d.1 Mason and Watson
brought instructions, dated Washington November 3d and 5th, for both general
and commodore, which were positive to the effect that the senior officer of the
land forces was to be civil governor. They also required that the volunteers of
the battalion should be mustered into the service regularly if it had not
already been done, that Fremont should not be detained in California longer
than the necessities of the service might require, and that the military and
naval chiefs should
1 Kearny's Sept, Mar. 15th; S. F. Cal.
Star, Feb. 27,1847. About the 25th Lieut Beale left Cal. for the east.
Fremont’s Court-martial, 271.
(436)
bold frequent conferences, acting always in harmony. Colonel Mason was to
be recognized as commander and governor in the absence of Kearny, who was permitted
to retire as soon as tranquil possession should be insured and a temporary
civil government organized.2
Had Stockton been still in command of the squadron, he would probably
have refused compliance with these orders, on the ground that they were issued
before his report of August had been received; but Shubrick was impelled by
inclination as well as duty to obey. Accordingly on the 1st of March the
general and commodore issued a joint circular, in which the former assumed the
governorship, and Monterey was named as the capital.3 Kearny issued
on the same day general orders and instructions to Cooke, Fremont, and
Gillespie, which will be noticed presently, and bearing which Captain Turner
started for the south next day. Also on the 2d there arrived Com
2 Nov. 3, 1846, Scott to Kearny. Nov. 5th,
Sec. of Navy Mason to Stockton, in Frtmont's Court-martial, 48—53. See
quotations from these instructions in note 8, chap. xvi. of this volume. They
were written after Sloat’s arrival at Washington with Monterey news of July 28,
1846. It was supposed that Mason might arrive and take command before Kearny.
3March 1,
1847. ‘To all whom it may concern, be it known: That the president of the U.
S., desirous to give and secure to the people of Cal. a share of the good
government and happy civil organization enjoyed by the people of the U. S;, and
to protect them at the same time from the attacks of foreign foes and from
internal commotions, has invested the undersigned with separate and distinct
powers, civil and military; a cordial cooperation in the exercise of which, it
is hoped and believed, will have the happy results desired. To the
commander-in-chief of the naval forces the president has assigned the
regulation of the import trade, the conditions on which vessels of all nations,
our own as well as foreign, may be admitted into the ports of the t^-ritory,
and the establishment of all port regulations. To the commanding military
officer the president has assigned the direction of the operations on land, and
has invested him with administrative functions of government over the people
and territory occupied by the forces of the U. S. Done at Monterey, capital of
Cal., this 1st day of March, a. D. 1847.
W. Branford Shubrick, Commander-in-chief of the naval forces. S. W. Kearny,
Brig.- gen. U. S. Army, and Gov. of Cal. ’ The original, printed in English and
Spanish, of which I have several copies; also in Cal. and N. Mex., Mess, and
Doc., 1850, p. 288; S. F. Cal. Star, March 6, 1847; and often reprinted
elsewhere. It is to be noted that in Frimont's Court-martial, 12, is cited a
letter of Feb. 23d, from Shubrick to Fremont, in which the former says: ‘Gen.
K., I am instructed, is the commanding mil. officer in Cal., and invested by
the president with the administrative functions of govt over the people and
territory.’
I find no other mention of this document.
modore James Biddle on the Columbus. He did not, however, disturb
Shubrick in his command of the northern Pacific squadron;4 and he
fully approved the position assumed by Kearny, who on the 4th, but antedating
it to the 1st, issued to the people in English and Spanish a proclamation in
which he offered protection to all interests, and encouraged the natives to
hope for all the rights and privileges pertaining to citizens of a United
States territory. There was no allusion to the controversy except indirectly,
in a kind of apology for irregularities in the past. While the distinct civil
government set up by Stockton was ignored, there was practically no radical
change in proposed measures or policy. California was to be held as a
conquered province, and ruled by the military commander, through the old
officials as nearly as possible in accordance with the old laws until the
United States should provide a territorial government; for as before the
permanence of possession was taken for granted. I append the proclamation in a
note.6
4 Arrival of Biddle, March 2d. Kearny’s
Sept.; Monterey Calif., March 6, 1847. Biddle’s decree of March 4th, raising
the blockade on the west coast except at Mazatlan and Guaymas. Id., March 13th.
March 6th, B. to Larkin on same subject. Larkin’s Doc., MS., v. 34. March 15th,
Larkin to Stockton on Biddle’s arrival, with much flattery for St. Thinks B.
and Sh. will work against St., though the latter has done more for the country
than both combined are likely to do. Off. Corresp., MS., i. 120-1.
5 March 1, 1847, ‘ Proclamation to the
people of California. The presi
dent of
the U. S. having instructed the undersigned to take charge of the civil
government of Cal., he enters upon his duties with an ardent desire to promote,
as far as he is able, the interests of the country and the welfare of its
inhabitants. The undersigned has instructions from the president to respect
and protect the religious institutions of Cal., and to see that the religious
rights of the people are in the amplest manner preserved to them, the constitution
of the U. S. allowing every man to worship his creator in such a manner as his
own conscience may dictate to him. The undersigned is also instructed to
protect the persons and property of the quiet and peaceable inhabitants of the
country against all or any of their enemies, whether from abroad or at home;
and when he now assures the Californians that it will be his duty and his
pleasure to comply with those instructions, he calls upon them all to exert
themselves in preserving order and tranquillity, in promoting harmony and
concord, and in maintaining the authority and efficacy of the laws. It is the
wish and design of the U. S. to provide for Cal., with the least possible
delay, a free government similar to those in her other territories; and the
people will soon be called upon to exercise their rights as freemen, in
electing their own representatives to make such laws as may be deemed best for
their interests and welfare. But until this can be done, the laws now in
existence, and not in conflict with the constitution of the U. S., will be con-
About this time the first detachment of Colonel Stevenson’s New York
volunteers arrived at San Francisco, as is fully recorded in another chapter;
and after issuing a few minor orders respecting these troops and local affairs
in the north, General Kearny wrote a general report of his proceedings since
leaving Los Angeles, which was dated the 15th of March and sent east by the
Savannah. In this report he says: “The Californians are now quiet, and I shall
endeavor to keep them so by mild and gentle treatment. Had they received such
treatment from the time our flag was hoisted here in July last”—that is, if the
policy of Sloat and Larkin had been continued instead of the filibusterism of
Fremont and Stockton—“I believe there would have been but little or no
resistance on their part. They have been most cruelly and shamefully abused by
our own people—by the volunteers
tinued until changed
by competent authority; and those persons who hold office will continue in the
same for the present, provided they swear to support that constitution, and to
faithfully perform their duty. The undersigned hereby absolves all the
inhabitants of Cal. from any further allegiance to the republic of Mexico, and
will consider them as citizens of the U. S. Those who remain quiet and
peaceable will be respected in their rights, and protected in them. Should any
take up arms against or oppose the government of this territory, or instigate
others to do so, they will he considered as enemies, and treated accordingly.
When Mexico forced a war upon the U. S., time did not permit the latter to
invite the Californians as friends to join her standard, but corppelled her to
take possession of the country to prevent any European power from seizing upon
it; and in doing so, some excesses and unauthorized acts were no doubt
committed by persons employed in the service of the U. S., by which a few of
the inhabitants have met with a loss of property. Such losses will be duly
investigated, and those entitled to remuneration will rcceive it. California
has for many years suffered greatly from domestic troubles; civil wars have
been the poisoned fountains which have sent forth trouble and pestilence over
her beautiful land. Now those fountains are dried up; the star-spangled banner
floats over Cal.; and as long as the sun continues to shine upon her, so long
will it float there over the natives of the land, as well as others who have
found a home in her bosom; and under it agriculture must improve and the arts
and sciences flourish, as seed in a rich and fertile soil. The Americans and
Californians are now but one people; let us cherish one wish, one hope, and let
that be for the peace and quiet of our country. Let us as a band of brothers
unite and emulate each other in our exertions to benefit and improve this our
beautiful, and which soon must be our happy and prosperous, home. Done at
Monterey, capital of Cal., this first day of March, a. d. 1847, and in the 71st year of the independence of the
U. S. S. W. Kearny, Brig.-gen. U. S. A., and governor of California.’ An original
in MS., with K.’s autograph, in Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxxiv. 260; print, English
and Span., in Bear Flag Pap., 30; also in S. F. Gal. Star, March 20, 1847;
Gal. and N. Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. 205; and often reprinted.
[American emigrants] raised in this part of the country and on the
Sacramento, Had they not resisted, they would have been unworthy the name of
men. If the people remain quiet and California continues
under our flag, it will erelong be a bright star in our
. • ft
union. 0
Kearny’s orders of March 1st, carried south by Captain Turner, required
the California battalion to be mustered into the service at once by Lieutenant-
colonel Fremont, who was to bring to Yerba Buena by way of Monterey and there
discharge all volunteers declining to continue in the service. Fremont was
also directed to deliver in person at Monterey, with as little delay as
possible, all public documents under his control pertaining to the government
of California. Lieutenant Gillespie of the marines was relieved from his duties
as an officer of the battalion, and ordered to report to the commander of his
corps at Washington. Lieutenant-colonel Cooke was made military commandant of
the southern district, with instructions to post his command—consisting of the
dragoon company, the Mormon battalion, and the volunteers—at such places as he
might deem most eligible for the preservation of peace. Los Angeles was
suggested as headquarters, and a conciliatory policy toward the inhabitants.7
6 Kearny's Report, March 15, 1847.
7March 1,
1847, ‘Headquarters 10th mil. department.’ ‘Orders no. 2.’ i. Mustering in the
volunteers, ii. Relieving Gillespie, iii. Putting Cooke in command, iv. Cooke
to name an officer to receive public property at S. Diego, v. Maj. Swords and
Paymaster Cloud to report at Monterey. ‘By order of Brig.-gen. S. W. Kearny, H.
S. Turner, captain, a. a. ». general.’ In Frimont's Court-martial, 13, 33,
221. Same date, K. to F., referring to the general order, directing him to
bring archives, and adding: ‘I have directions from the general-in-chief not
to retain you in this country against your wishes a moment longer than the
necessities of the service may require; and you will be at liherty to leave
here after you have complied with these instructions and those in the order
referred to.’ F. ia addressed as ‘Com’g bat. of Cal. volunteers.’ Id., 32-3,
102, 424. Same date, K. to Cooke, general instructions, leaving details to his
judgment. ‘It is highly important that a very discreet officer should be in
com. of the troops you may station at the city of the Angels, which has been
for so long a time the capital, and the headquarters of the Mexicans and
Californians when in arms against us. Great discontent and animosity, on the
part of the people there, toward the Americans have existed, and in
consequence of complaints made by them of the
Turner reached Los Angeles on March 11th, delivering his orders and the
joint circular to Frdmont, who next day promised obedience, while the captain
continued his journey to San Luis Rey, where he made known the orders to Cooke.
Fremont’s obedience consisted in submitting the order for mustering to the
volunteers, all of whom declined to be mustered, though the officers had no
serious objections, as the change would not materially affect their pay; and
this result was communicated to Cooke on the 16th in reply to that officer’s
note of the 14th inquiring how many of the volunteers had been mustered. In
this letter, written by Russell as ‘secretary of state,’ Cooke is informed that
“the governor considers it unsafe at this time, when rumor is rife with a
threatened insurrection, to discharge the battalion, and will decline doing
so; and whilst they remain in service, he regards his force as quite sufficient
for the protection of the artillery and ordnance stores at San Gabriel.”
Meanwhile, on the 15th, in view of a prospective absence in the norths—though
he did not start for a week—Fremont issued to Captain Owens, acting commandant
of the battalion, instructions not to leave San Gabriel, not to obey the orders
of any other officer, and not to turn over to any one the public arms and
munitions. On the 18th he drew bills of exchange against the government in
favor of one F. Hiittmann for $19,500; and on the 21st,as governor, he
authorized Collector Alexander at San Pedro to receive government orders in
payment of duties.8
volunteers engaged in
our cause. It is not necessary to inquire if these complaints are well founded
or not. The fact that the people have been unfriendly and opposed to us is
sufficient to make it our duty to reconcile and make friends of them, and this
most desirable object may be effected by a mild, courteous, and just treatment
of them in future.’ Id., 140-1.
8 Testimony and documents in Frimont’s
Court-martial, 13-16, 148-9, 4'20 et seq.; Cocke’s Conquest, 2S4-6. Fremont
claimed that the order to Alexander was merely a repetition in writing of one
giveu earlier verbally, and was given to protect A. The traders who bought up
the claims at a large discount nnd paid them as duties at par evidently made a
good speculation. Eept Court Claims, 229, p. 20. On the Hiittmann bills, see U.
8. Govt Doc., 36th cong. 1st sess.
There were rumors in these days of impending revolt among the
Californians, though there is no evidence that these rumors had the slightest
foundation beyond the imagination, or rather the pretensions, of Fremont and
his partisans. Says the former, after dwelling on the tranquillity of his past
rule: “Suddenly, and in the beginning of March, all this was changed. Men
armed to the teeth were galloping about the country. Groups of armed men were
constantly seen. The whole population was in commotion, and everything verged
toward violence and bloodshed. For what cause? The approach of the Mormons, the
proclamations incompatible with the capitulation of Cowenga, the prospect that
I was to be deposed by violence, the anticipated non-payment of government
liabilities, and the general insecurity which such events inspired. Such was
the cause;” and the effect was that Fremont went to Monterey to lay the
alarming state of things before General Kearny. Or rather these alarms were
invented later as an excuse for disobeying Kearny’s orders.9 It is
true, however, that the Missouri volunteers had succeeded in arousing some
feeling against the Mormons; and that there was a degree of uneasiness among
both Americans and Californians about the recognition of Fremont’s debts by
the U. S. government.
Fremont’s real motive for visiting the north at this time was probably a
wish to learn whether the late orders were founded on new instructions from
Washington or were but a reopening of the old controversy, and also to
ascertain if the general was disposed as governor to assume the debts of the
past administra
9 Fr&nont’s defence, in Court-martial,
422. Hensley in his testimony, Id., 232-3, slightly confirms the rumors of
impending troubles, but he allndes chiefly to the end of March and to April,
when there were reports of an approaching Mexican force. Indeed, in order to
furnish any foundation whatever for Fremont’s statements, it would be
necessary to group all alarming symptoms of the entire year, apply them to the
month of March, and then greatly to magnify the sum total. Murray, Narr., MS.,
76-7, mentions the rumors of revolt as heard at Sta Barbara. Similar reports at
S. Jos6 in the north in March. Uni. Doc., MS., 1G9-70.
tion.10 He started from Los Angeles early on March 22d, with
Jesus Pico and Jacob Dodson, on his ‘famous ride,’ reaching Monterey at nightfall
of the fourth day, or the 25th.11 The same evening, with Larkin, he
called on Kearny as a matter of etiquette; and next morning, by a request
through Larkin, he obtained an interview with the general. According to the
latter’s statement—and there is no other definite information about the
interview—Fremont made known his desire for a conversation, but objected to the
presence of Colonel Mason, and when Kearny insisted that the colonel, as the
officer who would succeed to the command, might properly listen to any
conversation on public affairs, Frdmont made an offensive reply, to the effect
that Mason was perhaps there intentionally to take advantage of some unguarded
expression of his. Then the general, deeming the last remark an insult,
referred to his orders of March 1st, and asked Fremont to state distinctly,
before the conversation could proceed, whether he intended to obey those
orders or not. The lieutenant-col- onel hesitated, was given an hour or a day
for consider
10 Cooke, Conquest, 287, says that Turner
had returned to Los Angeles and started for Monterey, being convinced that F.
did not intend to obey Kearny’s orders; -whereupon F., as soon as he knew T.’s
sudden departure, started to overtake him, hut failed, reaching Monterey
several hours after T.’s arrival. Gen. Sherman, Mem., i. 25, gives the same
version. This may be true, though unsupported by other evidence.
11 On his ride F. and Pico rode Cal.
mustangs, driving six unsaddled to be caught with the lasso for frequent
changes by Dodson, Fremont’s servant and a skilful vaquero. They slept the
first night at Capt. Robbins’ rancho near Sta Barbara, and the second at S.
Luis Obispo, where the 9 horses were changed for 8 fresh ones from Pico’s
caballada. The third camp was in the upper Salinas valley, where they were
threatened and kept from sleep by grizzly bears. Starting on the return in the
afternoon of the 26th, Fremont rode one horse—a gift from Pico—to within 30
miles of S. Luis, as a test of his endurance. At San Luis they took the original
horses, and having slept again at Sta Bdrbara, they arrived at the city early
in the afternoon of the 29th. They had been absent 8J days, had ridden over 800
miles, and had heen actually in the saddle probably about 100 hours. Accounts
of this ride were published in the Washington National Intelligencer, N. Y.
Herald, and N. Y. Times; from which they were reproduced in Bigelow's Mem.,
152-6; N. Y. Herald, May 29, 1876; Sta B. Press, June 3, 1876; Watsonville
Paja- ronian, May 15, 1879; S. F. Belietin, May 31, 1876; S. F. Call, Jan. 21,
1879; and many other newspapers. Pico, in his Acontecimientos, MS., 76-7, gives
a brief account of the ride. He says Dodson gave out on the last day of the
return.
ation, and left the room. He had meanwhile tendered his resignation from
the army, which offer was declined. He came back about an hour later and promised
obedience. Kearny expressed great satisfaction at this conclusion, and repeated
verbally the substance of past orders, requiring him to report at Monterey at
the earliest possible date, but permitting him to come by land after embarking
the volunteers at San Pedro.12
I think it probable that the manner and words of Fremont at this
interview were the turning-point of the controversy, and determined the general’s
later course and accusations; but it is also likely that the tone assumed by
Kearny was most annoying to the younger officer’s pride. Fremont left Monterey
the same day, and two days later Colonel Mason was sent to the south as
inspector of troops, “ clothed with full authority to give such orders and
instructions in that country upon all matters whatever, both civil and
12 Frimont’s Court-martial, 17, 34, 104-7,
423, 427. Fremont gives no particulars of the interview; but ridicules the idea
that he should have come so far merely to insult the general and offer to
resign his commission; and he implies that he asked K. about the claims, and
was told that they would not be recognized, also that he disclaimed any
intention to insult the general. Doubtless his final promise to obey was
founded on information from Larkin as to the nature of the late instructions
from Washington. Lieut Sherman, Memoirs, i. 25, says: ‘All the troops and the
navy (?) regarded Gen. K. as the rightful commander, though Fremont still
remained at Los Angeles, styling himself as governor, issuing orders, and
holding his battalion of Cal. volunteers in apparent defiance of Gen. K. Col.
Mason and Maj. Turner were sent down hy sea with a paymaster, with muster-rolls
and orders to muster this battalion into the service of the U. S., to pay, and
then to muster them out; but on their reaching Los Angeles F. would not consent
to it, and the controversy became so angry that a challenge was believed to
have passed between M. and F Turner
rode np by land in 4 or 5 days, and F. becoming alarmed, followed him, as we
supposed, to overtake him, but he did not succeed. On F.’s arrival at Monterey
he camped in a tent about a mile out of town and called on Gen. K., and it was
reported that the latter threatened him very severely, and ordered him back to
Los Angeles, immediately to disband bis volunteers, and to cease the exercise
of authority of any kind in the country. Feeling a natural curiosity to see
F... .1 rode out to his camp and, fonnd him in a conical tent with one Capt.
Owens.. .1 spent an hour or so with F. in his tent, took some tea with him, and
left without being much impressed with him. ’ Sherman has evidently confounded
two different visits of F. to Monterey. In Id., p. 23, he represents F. as
claiming his position ‘by virtue of a letter he had received from Col. Benton’!
and on p. 27, ‘all agreed that if any one else than Fremont had put on such
airs, K. would have shown him no mercy, for he was regarded as the strictest
kind of a disciplinarian.’
military, as you may think conducive to the public interest/’13
and bearing an order requiring Fremont to obey Mason, to authenticate and
complete any unsettled accounts against the government, and to report at
Monterey in twelve days after embarking the volunteers, bringing with him the
members of his original exploring party.14
On March 23d, the day after Fremont’s departure from Los Angeles,
Secretary Russell started east with despatches understood to include a petition
from Californians for Fremont’s appointment as governor.15 On the
same day, after Russell’s departure, Cooke arrived from San Luis with the
dragoon company and four companies of the Mormon battalion, which troops were
posted in and near the town. Gillespie rode out to receive Cooke in a friendly
manner, but exercised no authority, having obeyed Kearny’s order relieving him
of his command. Captain Owens was in command of the battalion at San Gabriel,
and when Cooke called on him the 24th he professed to have no knowledge of the
orders issued by Kearny and Shubrick, nor would he obey the commandant’s order
to turn over a part of the artillery to the dragoons. He based his refusal on
Fremont’s written order already cited, and he urged Cooke to await Fremont’s
return. There was no quarrel or unfriendly feeling. In his report of the 25th
the commandant, while professing amazement at the prevailing ignorance of
military law, and denouncing “ this treason or mutiny which jeopardizes the
safety of the country, and defies me in my legal command and duties,” yet
deemed it best to “ sacrifice all feeling or pride to duty, which I think
plainly forbids any attempt to crush this resistance of
13March 29,
1847, Kearny to Mason. Cal. and N. Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. 307. Mason
doubtless had verbal instructions respecting his prospective dealings with
Fremont.
14 March 28, 1847, Kearny to Fr&nont.
Court-martial, 17-18, 34, 424. March 31st, Biddle orders Gillespie to report
for duty. Id., 221.
15 Testimony of Cooke and Russell, iu
Fremont’s Court-martial, 125, 266, 268. Russell seems to have gone overland,
but there is no information about his party or journey. He reached Washington
in July.
misguided men. It would be a signal of revolt. The general’s orders are
not obeyed!”16 Doubtless he acted wisely in preventing a rupture
between the Mormons and the Missourians.
Frdmont arrived at Los Angeles on the 29th; but nothing is known of what
occurred during the following days. With Cooke he had no intercourse whatever.
Mason arrived on the 7th of April or earlier.17 He had some
interviews with Frdmont, Cooke being present at Mason’s request, but nothing is
known of details, except that their relations were not friendly, and that
Frdmont deemed himself insulted by Cooke’s presence as a witness.18
On the 12th the colonel called for a list of Frdmont’s civil appointments, and
for all records, civil and military. The list and a few papers were furnished
next day, with an explanation that the main record had been sent to Washington,19
16 Testimony of Cooke, Gillespie, and Loker,
in Fremont’s Court-martial, 14, 122-7, 134-7, 201-3, 273, including: March
25th, Capt. J. K. Wilson’s note to Cooke declining to turn over artillery;
Owens’ order to Wilson to same effect; and Cooke’s report to Capt. Turner;
Cooke says Wilson was at first inclined to obey. He was shown, but not
permitted to copy, Fremont’s order to Owens. Dr Sanderson and Lieut Davidson
accompanied Cooke to S. Gabriel. C. expresses doubt that the proposition for
being mustered had ever been properly presented to the volunteers. One of the
howitzers which Owens was ordered to give up had been captured from Kearny at
S. Pascual, and given up to Frdmont at Cahuenga. There were frequent attempts
to introduce this gun in the court-martial, apparently for no other purpose
than to ventilate Kearny’s misfortune at S. Pascual. An extract from Cooke’s
original diary on these happenings at Bos Angeles is given in his Conquest of
Cal., 288, etc. Cooke’s report to Turner was sent by express to Monterey, but
could not have arrived in time to affect the instructions to Mason.
17 April 7, 1847, Gillespie to Larkin,
mentioning the arrival of M. ‘at this moment’ as very fortunate. Speaks highly
of M., though his measures are harsh according to orders. Savage, Doc., MS.,
ii. 76. At this time Fremont hoped to start ‘next week.’
18 Cooke, in Frimont's Court-martial, 142 et
seq. C. and F. were introduced by M., but F.’s manner did not indicate a
desire for further acquaintance, and they did not speak to each other later at
Angeles or on the march east. A report of M. to Turner dated April 10th and
narrating his official acts down to date, I have not found.
19 April 12, 1847, Mason to Fremont. April
13th, F. to M. Cal. and N. Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. 308. ‘My position
here having been denounced as usurpation by Gen. K., I could not anticipate
from him any call for these papers; and in requiring, myself, from the general
govt, means and authority to comply with my engagement, it became necessary
that these and other objects should be thoroughly made known.’ The only civil
appointments had been Santiago Argiiello and Pedro Carrillo as collectors of
the ports of S. Diego and S. Pedro.
doubtless carried by Russell. Frdmont was annoyed by the matter and manner
of an order to bring in a band of horses that had been sent to graze in the
country in preparation for later use by the explorers. On the 14th Mason had to
send two messengers before Frdmont would come to his quarters to answer
questions about the horses; and when he did come, he used language which caused
the colonel to reply, “None of your insolence, or I will put you in irons.” On
being informed that Mason would hold himself personally responsible for these
words, the ex-governor returned to his quarters, and at once sent Major
Reading with a demand for an apology, followed on refusal by a challenge. This
was accepted the same evening by a verbal arrangement with Reading,
double-barrelled shot-guns being chosen as the weapons; but in a note of the
15th the colonel announced the necessity of postponing the duel until the
parties should meet at Monterey, for which place Mason started a few days
later.20
The affair, however, became known to General Kearny, whose positive
orders prevented a hostile meeting. There is no reason to doubt that both
officers were willing enough to butcher each other; but perhaps neither much
regretted that superior orders and circumstances prevented a duel. In several
respects Frdmont shows to better advantage in this affair than his rival.21
201 find no
record of the exact date; but his general report to Kearny is dated at
Monterey, April 26th. It is a general statement of the condition of affairs in
the south, containing nothing to be noted. Gal. and N. Mex., Mess, and Doc.,
1850, p. 309.
21 The best
account of the whole matter is that in Bigelow’s Memoir, 20313, probably from
Benton’s Speech, including the following correspondence: April 14th, Fremont to
Mason, demand for an apology; M. to F., declining to apologize; F. to M.,
challenge; May 27th, Reading to F., testifying to M.’s verbal acceptance and
choice of weapons; April 15th, M. to F., postponing the meeting; F. to M.,
consenting to a meeting at Monterey; May 4th, Kearny to F., order to proceed no
further in the matter; May 19th, M. to F., thinks that K.’s orders make a
postponement proper; May 4th, Biddle to M., urging a postponement; May 22d, F.
to M., consents to postponement, but wishes to be apprised of the earliest
moment when the meeting can take place ‘ consistently with your convenience
and sense of propriety; ’ May 24th, M. to F., will inform him when ‘peculiar
official obligations’ are ‘so far removed as to
For three weeks after the rupture between Mason and Frdmont the latter
showed no haste to obey orders and depart, though it appears that the last of
the volunteers were discharged on April 19th.22 The exgovernor was
doubtless somewhat occupied with financial matters pertaining to his late
administration, and on April 26th he tried to put one of these matters on a
better footing by certifying the receipt of cattle from Cdlis.23 His
later excuses for delaying his departure were the danger of travelling in
those days, and the fact that the orders did not seem to him urgent!
enahlc me to meet
you.’ On his arrival at Monterey, F. is said to have visited M.’s quarters
without accepting an invitation to sit, for the purpose of making his presence
known. Finally, in 1850, Senator Fremont, at Washington, received a letter
from Mason, informing him that he could have satisfaction by coming to St
Louis. F. paid no attention to this, and M. ’s death occurred a little later.
An unsuccessful attempt was made to bring up this matter in testimony at the
court-martial. Foster, Los Angeles in 1847, MS., 19-21, gives a brief account
of the affair, claiming to have been present at Pryor’s house when the quarrel
took place. He says, and others imply, that there was a ‘ woman in the case,’
an appointment with whom prevented F. coming at M. ’s first and second
summonses. The affair is mentioned by Hargrave, Cal. in I846, MS., 9-10, who
was with Fremont. Boggs, in .Napa Register, May 18, 1872, besides other
blunders, says the challenge was sent to Kearny. Mollhausen, Tagebuch, 289-92,
says the duel was fought.
While I cannot accept
Bigelow’s theory that Mason deliberately by repeated insults drew out a
challenge from F. with a view of killing him, yet the choice of an unusual
weapon, for his skill in the use of which M. was faAous, reflects in my opinion
no credit on the colonel; and it would appear that there was nothing to prevent
M. fighting at Los Angeles if he had wished to fight. Without adopting the
opinion of Benton and others that the letters of Kearny, Mason, and Biddle were
collusive and designed to extricate M. from the affair, it may be noted that K.
’s duty hy the rules of war was to arrest hoth parties, and his act of
postponing the dnel in a written order was » strange proceeding; though his
failure to arrest and bring to trial was in one sense as favorable to F. as to
M., and in another sense not so, since F. was to he arrested on another charge.
“Official statement.
U. S. Govt Doc., 31st cong. 1st sess., H. Ex. Doc., 24, p. 22 h, hy which it
a’ppears that the men were discharged April 1-19. There are no details, but
most of the men soon found their way northward.
23 See note 34 of chap. xvi. In a letter to
Snyder of Dec. 11, 1849, F. explains this transaction. He says that when
Kearny’s order came (March 11th) Andres Pico had gone to S. Luis Obispo (?) to
bring the cattle. On F.’s return from Monterey, where K. had refused to accept
the contract, Pico had arrived at S. Fernando with 400 or 500 of the cattle,
and it was resolved to put them in the keeping of Stearns on the usual terms,
to await the action of the govt. Accordingly F. gave C6lis a receipt for all
the cattle, only part of which had been delivered. C. was trusted to deliver
the rest, and F. signed the receipt, as he claims a right to do, to hind the
govt, as he had to leave the country immediately. Bigelow’s Mem., 394-6.
Stearns received 481 head (those at S. Fernando probably) on May 1st from
C6lis. Perhaps there had been some kind of a theoretical transfer to Hensley,
and hack to C6lis for safe keeping. It was in Fehruary that F. through Larkin
had purchased the Mari- posas estate from Alvarado for $3,000.
Meanwhile, in addition to increasing Indian depredations, there came
alarming rumors that a Mexican army under General Bustamante was coming to reconquer
California. Captain Moreno and other refugees returning from Sonora were
supposed to have brought the reports; and it was also said that Liman- tour had
landed artillery on the frontier, and brought commissions for leading
Californians. A message was sent in haste to the general, Captain Stockton sent
a vessel down the coast, scouts were despatched to watch the Colorado route,
fortifications were strengthened at Los Angeles, and a close watch was kept on
the crowd assembled at a horse-race at Santa Ana; but it was a false alarm,
wholly without foundation so far as can be known.24
The rest of the New York volunteers having arrived, and a company of
volunteer cavalrymen under Lieutenant Burton having been mustered in on April
2 2d, Kearny left Monterey for the south on the Lexington. Accompanied by
Colonel Stevenson and two companies of his regiment, he landed at San Pedro and
arrived on May 9th at Los Angeles, to “find the people of this part of
California quiet, notwithstanding some rumors to the contrary, circulated, and
I fear originated, by some of our own officers to further their own wicked
purposes.” One of the general’s motives in visiting the south was doubtless to
hasten Fremont’s motions. Of their interviews at this time we know only that
Fremont asked permission to go with his exploring party to join his regiment
in Mexico, or to go directly east. from Los
21 The reports began on April 20th. A good
account of the whole affair is given in Cooke's Conquest, 299-303. The writer
thinks the active preparations and arrival of reinforcements caused
Bustamante’s expedition to miscarry. In his report of April 28th, Cal. and N.
Mex., Mess, ami Voc., 1850, p. 286, Kearny says: ‘I do not place much credit in
the latter part of the above (Bustamaute’a approach), but it has much excited
these excitable Californians; and it becomes necessary to reenforce the
command at Los Angeles. ’ May 1st he sent to Wash, copies of all papers
relating to his civil administration. Id., 287; and May 3d he announced his
intention of going south. Id., 303. Stockton's Report contains a mention of his
trip down the coast.
Hist. Cal., Vol. V. 29
Angeles, both requests being denied,25 and that he was finally
induced to obey orders and start by land for Monterey on May 12th. Lieutenant
Sherman, who was serving as Kearny’s aid, had started a day or two earlier with
a detachment of Mormons. On the 13th the general, in reporting Fremont’s
departure, said: “His conduct in California has been such that I shall be
compelled on arriving in Missouri to arrest him and send him under charges to
report to you;”26 though this intention was not made known to the
offending officer. Cooke’s resignation was accepted both as commandant of the
southern district and of the Mormon battalion, Colonel Stevenson assuming the
former command. Kearny left town on the 14th, embarked at San Pedro, and
arrived at Monterey on the 27th, Fremont and his explorers making their
appearance two days later. Gillespie had in the mean time reported to
Commodore Biddle. The topographical party being paraded before the general’s
quarters, those who wished to remain in the country separated themselves from
the main party, and Fremont was ordered to discharge them. He was required to
remain in town instead of camping with his men outside, was not permitted to
send for Kern and King who were absent, or to visit Yerba Buena as he desired,
and was ordered to turn over his surveying instruments to Lieutenant Halleck.27
I have expressed my opinion that Fremont’s technical disobedience in
January was justified by his duty to Stockton. His continued disobedience in
March, before the visit to Monterey, may, I think, to a certain extent, be
regarded as a part or continuation of the same acts, covered more or less
fully by
25 Frimont’s Court-martial, 103-4, being
Kearny’s testimony. Sherman, Mem., i. 27, was sent to F. with a notice that K.
desired to see him, an_ F. came back with S. to the general’s quarters. This
was probably on the 10th.
26 May 13th, Kearny to Adj.-gen. Jones. Cal.
and N. Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. 303. K. also wrote to Benton about F.’s
conduct. Court-martial, 41.
27 Testimony of Kearny and Turner. Frimont's
Court-martial, 113-14, 149-50.
the same justification, the only difference being that Shubrick,
succeeding Stockton, now joined his authority to that of the general. For it
must be noted that Frdmont, so far as the evidence goes, knew nothing of new
orders from Washington, and supposed Kearny to be attempting merely an
enforcement of the old instructions, relying on an increase of troops and the
commodore’s support. But this palliation of his offence ceases with his
knowledge, acquired, at least unofficially, on March 25th, that the general and
commodore had new authority for their measures. Most of Fremont’s alleged
reasons for disobedience were mere excuses, though he certainly had a plausible
ground of complaint against Kearny for not making known his new instructions,
and for disregarding all formalities and courtesies of transferring the command
after having in a sense acknowledged the lieuten- ant-colonel as acting
governor. Yet the manner and tone of Frdmont as well as Kearny were doubtless
much more annoying than is shown by the records; and a quarrel once in
progress, if the parties keep within the bounds of their legal rights, that is
quite as much as can be expected. The path of the adventurer is not altogether
an easy and pleasant one; and in the popular sympathy as for a martyr which his
brilliant father-in-law succeeded in working up for him, Fremont got much more
than his desert.28
Leaving the military and civil command to Colonel Mason, Kearny left
Monterey on May 31st with his escort.29 Fremont and his
topographical party started
28 That the instructions of Nov. 5, 1846,
were not made known to F. seems, however, to have been the fault of Stockton,
who received them in March from Biddle. F. claims that these instructions were
‘mandatory to the naval commander to relinquish the control of the civil
administration, and to ‘ ‘ turn over ’’the papers connected with it. The only
way in which they could be obeyed was for that commander to inform me of the
order he had received, and take from my hands the office and the archives, that
he might, as directed, “relinquish” and “turn them over” to Gen. Kearny. For
some purpose yet unexplained—unless its object is seen in this prosecution—they
were not obeyed.’ Court-martial, 421. The S. F. Cal. Star of June 5, 1847, has
a good editorial on Fremont and Kearny, with praise and blame for hoth.
23May 30th,
31st, K. to Adj.-gen. Jones. In each he announces his intention to start ‘
to-morrow,’ hut the start was on the 31st. Cal. and N. Mex.,
the same day under orders to accompany the general, the two parties
camping each night not far apart. The route was by San Juan and the San Joaquin
and Sacramento valleys,30 and they arrived on the 13th in the region
of Sutter’s Fort, where preparations for the overland trip occupied several
days.31 Here Fremont asked in writing to be permitted, at his own
expense and with a few companions, to proceed in advance to the states; but the
permission was refused; and similar requests later were denied, in one case
the proposition being to take a short route for exploring purposes. It is
claimed by Fremont that from the start, though not under arrest or having any
intimation that he was to be arrested, he was forced to submit to many
indignities at the general’s hands.32 The start from the vicinity of
New Helvetia was on June 16th and from Johnson’s rancho on the 18th. Kearny’s
party consisted of himself, Major Swords, captains Cooke and Turner, Dr
Sanderson of the Mormon battalion, who had resigned, Lieutenant Radford of the
navy, a brother-in-law of Kearny, Willard P. Hall, Edwin Bryant, William Fallon
as guide, a Mormon escort of thirteen men, perhaps a few of Emory’s engineer
assistants who had come to Cali-
Mess. and
Doc., 1850, p. 303-6. Maj. Sworda started June 1st and overtook the party at S.
Juan.
a“ Major
Swords in his report of Oct. 8, 1847, to Quartermaster-general Jesup, U. S.
Gov. Doc., 30th cong. 2d sess., H. Ex. Doc., i. p. 229 et seq., gives the most
complete account of the uneventful journey. See also Tyler's Hist. Morm. Bat.,
299-304.
81 In the N.
Helv. Diary, MS., 63 et seq., it is recorded that on the 12th Loker arrived at
the fort, reporting that K. had camped at Daylor’s and F. at Murphy’s. On the
13th, 14th, and 15th Sutter received visits of pleasure and business from the
general and his associates; and on the 16th visited K.’s camp to witness the
departure.
32 Testimony of Loker and statements of F.,
in Frimont's Court-martial, 273-86, including F. to K., June 14th, and K. to F.
in reply, of same date. One of the chief indignities complained of—besides the
refusals to grant his requests, which were in accord with instructions to K.
from Washington, and for which refusals no reasons were given—was the being
required to camp near and in the rear of the Mormon escort. There was also some
difficulty about a band of horses which had been left on the Cosumnes since
Bear Flag times, and of which Swords by Kearny’s orders took the best. It appears
by the N. Helv. Diary, MS., that some of the horses were used to pay off the
Walla Walla volunteers. •
fornia with Kearny, and an unknown number of servants.33
Frdmont’s party consisted of William N. Loker and nineteen of the
original exploring party, whose names in most cases are not definitely known,34
with an unknown number of servants and other attaches. The journey was a rapid
and uneventful one by the usual emigrant route. On the 22d Kearny was at Mountain
Lake, finding and burying the remains of many who had perished there the
preceding winter, members of the Donner party. He passed Fort Hall in the
middle of July, and subsequently met the stream of immigrants bound for
California and Oregon. He arrived at Fort Leavenworth the 22d of August; and on
the same day ordered Fremont, after having arranged the accounts of his men,
to consider himself under arrest and report himself to the adjutant-general at
Washington.
About a month after Kearny’s departure Stockton left San Francisco, and
proceeded by way of Sonoma to the Sacramento Valley to prepare for the overland
journey.35 Lieutenant Gillespie was intrusted with prepa-
33 Kearny’s
report of May 13th, Cal. and N. Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. 303; Bryant’s
What I Saw, 453, the author not giving any diary or narrative of the return
journey; Cutts’ Conq., 213-15; Niles’ Beg., Ixxiii. 5, where the total number
is given a3 50 or 55; Cooke’s Conquest, 306. He says there were about 40 men,
exclusive of Fremont’s party. No names are known except those given in the
text, and those of Quigley, John Binley, and N. V. Jones of the Mormons.
31 The
number is given as 19 by Loker in his testimouy and in a letter from Kearny. It
seems as if there should have been more, and Martin—who in his Narrative, MS.,
40 et seq., gives a good account of the trip—implies that there were about 40.
Martin is the only name positively given; but Breckinridge, Godey, Moore,
Owens, and Wise were at Wash, ready to testify at the court-martial, and were
probably of the returning party; and there may be added the following, who
started again with Fremont in 1848: Creutzfeldt, Preuss, Praule, Haler (?),
Morin, Hubbard (?), Scott (?), Steppenfeldt, and Duketel (?); also probably
some of the Delawares.
King and Kern were
not of the party; and it was attempted to show later that they were left behind
by Kearny intentionally by his hasty departure, they being at Monterey and
Yerba Buena occupied in closing up affairs. But this charge was probably not
well founded, since the names of both men appear in the N. Helv. Diary, MS.,
during the days when both parties were near Sutter’s Fort.
33 Departure
of Stockton June 28th, with a salute from the guns of the men-of-war. S. F.
Cal. Star, July 3, 1847. In N. Helv. Diary, MS., 78 et seq. Stockton’s presence
is mentioned. He seems to have crossed at Hardy’s and gone to Johnson’s on the
15th.
rations, but was not permitted by Commodore Biddle, at Kearny’s
suggestion, to visit the northern districts before the general’s departure.
Thus, as it was claimed, the start was delayed.36 The party is said
to have numbered forty-nine, “a heterogeneous collection of all nations almost,
and professions and pursuits,” but Stockton, Gillespie, Hensley, and Louis
Lafleur are the only members whose names are definitely known.87
The start from Johnson’s rancho was on the 19th or 20th of July, and the
arrival at St Joseph, Missouri, early in November. Our only narrative of the
journey is that given by Stockton’s biographer, which is filled almost
exclusively with praises of the commodore’s bravery in resisting the attacks
of the Indians, who sent an arrow through both his thighs; of his diplomatic
skill, shown in avoiding other Indian fights; of his achievements as a hunter
among the buffalo; and of his remarkable wisdom in conducting the whole
enterprise. There was nothing, if we may credit this eulogist, which the
‘conqueror of California’ could not do more brilliantly than other men.33
It was the general understanding that Major Russell, leaving California
in March, had carried to Washington a petition signed by many southern Californians
for the appointment of Prdmont as governor. In May another similar petition was
signed by many
36 It was charged that K. delayed G.
intentionally so as to deprive Frd- mont of his testimony. K. admitted that he
had favored Mason’s idea that G.’s presence on the Sacramento might make
trouble, and had suggested Biddle’s order; but denied that he knew of G. ’s
plan to go east at this time. Frimont’s C'ourt-martial, 308.
37 J. B. Chiles was probably one of the
number; and of the other witnesses at Washington in Nov., Wm Findlay, J.
Ferguson, Wm and James Brown, R. Jacob, and L. C. Vincenthaler may l;ave come
with Stockton or with Fremont a little earlier. Three Rocky Mountain trappers
were engaged as guides and interpreters. One of them, described as having a
Crow wife, was perhaps Greenwood. Kern and King of Fremont’s party started
with Stockton, but after four days were left sick in the mountains. See
testimony of Gillespie and Hensley in Fremont’s Court-martial, 218-28, 233-4.
38Stockton’s
Life, 159-66. ‘Tears coursed down the weather-worn eheeks of the
bold and hardy mountaineers when they took the last friendly grip of the
commodore’s hand. They implored him if he ever made another overland journey to
send for them. Lawless, reekless, desperate, wicked, and callous, as many of
them were, Stockton had found the tender spot in each man’s heart.’ He reached
Washington about Dec. 1st.
in the south, and received some signatures in the north, where, when the
affair became known, a strong opposition was excited. This was based on three
leading motives, all more or less analogous and intertwined. First was
Fremont’s unpopularity among the natives and others, fomented by the ex-members
of the battalion clamorous for their pay, and by other holders of unpaid
claims; second, the influence of Governor Mason and his friends, naturally
opposing a change of rulers; and third, a sectional spirit against the natural
theory that Fremont would unduly favor the south, where his friends for the
most part resided, or where his past irregularities had least affected the
property of the people. Possibly the real merits of the case had also an
influence; for it would certainly have been the worst of policy to reopen old
controversies by a return of the ex-governor, whatever may have been the
merits of his cause. His friends in the north tried to create an impression
that his return would promote the payment of the claims, the nonpayment of
which was due to his foes; but without success. A public meeting was held at
San Francisco to remonstrate against him, a committee being appointed to seek
evidence against his fitness, and a counter-petition being circulated. Larkin
also wrote to the secretary of state in opposition to Fremont. But the
administration probably never thought of making the appointment.39
It was on September 17th that Fremont reported at Washington, calling for
the charges against him,
33 Record of the S. F. meeting of June 14th
in S. F. Gal. Star, June 19th; S. F. Californian, June 19th. The prominent men
named were Nathan Spear, R. M. Sherman, H. Petitt, Frank Ward, T. J. Famham,
Jasper O’Farrell, Robt Semple, Or Wiersbicki, Thompson, Leese, Leidesdorff, Murphy,
and Guerrero. An editorial in the Star also opposes Fremont in a moderate
spirit. In Taylor’s Spec. Press, 630, is a blank form of the petition against
F. for signatures. His Bear Flag exploits, partiality for the south, and unpaid
accounts are the points urged against him. June 30th, Larkin to sec. state.
Larkin's Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 117-18. He says Abrego, after signing the
petition for F., gave a courier $20 to overtake the memorial and erase his
name. Alvarado also regretted having signed the paper. See also mention of the
matter in Tuthill’s Hist. Cal., 222-3; Souli’s Annals of S. F., 195.
and demanding an early trial.40 The order convening a
court-martial bore date of September 27th, the court assembled at Washington
the 2d of November, and the trial lasted till January 11, 1848. Captain John F.
Lee was judge-advocate of the court, and Frdmont was defended by Senator Benton
and William Carey Jones. Respecting the court, the charges, and the published
record of proceedings, I append some particulars in a note.41 The
testimony, oral and documentary, has already been presented in spirit, and
largely in literal quotations as a record of the controversy in California;
and it is not my purpose
40Sept.
17th, F. to adj.-general, in Bigelow’s Mem., 217-20. This work also contains
Fremont’s final defence, and the most complete account of all connected with
the trial extant, except the original record.
41 Message
of the President of the U. S. communicating the Proceedings of the
Court-martial in the trial of Lieut-colonel Frimont, April 7, 1848 (cited by me
as Frimont’s Court-martial), in U. S. Govt Doc., 30th cong. 1st sess., Sen. Ex.
Doc., 33. (Wash. 1848.) 8vo, 447 p. The court was composed of the following
officers: Brev. Brig.-gen. G. M. Brooke, Col S. Churchill, Col J. B. Crane,
Brev. Col M. M. Payne, Brev. Lieut-col S. H. Long, Licut-col R. E. Derussey,
Lieut-col J. P. Taylor, Brev. Lieut-col H. K. Craig, Maj. R. L. Baker, Maj. J.
D. Graham, Maj. R. Delafield, Brev. Maj. G. A. McCall (replaced by Col T. F.
Hunt), and Maj. E. W. Morgan. The witnesses examined were, for the
prosecution, Kearny, Cooke, Turner, Bryant, aud Emory; for the defence,
Stockton, Gillespie, Hall, Gray, Talbot, Hensley, Minor, Russell, Beale, Loker,
and Swords.
The charges were as
follows: i. Mutiny. 1st specification, that Fremont, having reported to Kearny,
his superior officer, on Jan. 13, 1847, and having received K.’s order of the
16th to make no changes in the battalion, with a copy of K.’s instructions from
Washington, did by his letter of the i7th refuse to obey; 2d spec., that he
disobeyed the same order further and assumed to act as commander, by directing
Capt. Wilson ou the 25th to raise a co. of artillery; 3d spec., same, by
authorizing McLane on Feb. 5th to recruit men; 4th spec., that he reasserted
his resistance, etc., by his letter of Feb. 7th to Shubrick; 5th spec., that he
avowed and justified his mutiny, etc., by his letter of Feb. 11th to Hall; 6th
spec., that he assumed to act as gov., in contempt of lawful authority, by his
deed of an island to Temple on March 2d; 7th spec., that on March 15th, having
received the joint circular of K. and Shubrick and general orders no. 2 of
March 1st, and having promised obedience, he further disobeyed by his orders to
Capt. Owens not to give up arms, etc., causing 0. to disobey Cooke; 8th spec.,
that on March 16th he made known to Cooke in writing his refusal to obey orders
and discharge the volunteers, still assuming to act as gov.; 9th spec., that on
March 21st he continued his assumption, disobedience, contempt, etc., by his
order to Alexander to accept govt payment for duties; 10th spec., same, by
divers orders from Jan. 24tn to Feb. 13th on court-martial and resignation of
officers; 11th spec., that F., after receiving K. ’s verbal orders of March
26th, and written orders of the 28th, disobeyed those orders by remaining at
Los Angeles until after May 9th. ii. Disobedience of the lawful command of his
superior officer; spec. 1-7 corresponding to spec. 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, of
the first 1st charge, iii. Conduct to the prejudice of good order and military
discipline; spec. 1-5 corresponding nearly to spec. 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, of the 1st
charge.
to attempt any minute analysis here. The matter filling the bulky record
of over four hundred pages may for convenience of comprehension be divided into
four parts, of which the first, consisting of the routine verbiage and
repetitions deemed essential in such documents, needs no further notice.
The second portion is composed of matter intended mainly for the people
of the United States rather than the military court. It was the evident, and
indeed avowed, aim of Frdmont and his friends to make the trial cover the
entire field of Californian annals iu 1846-7, so far as those annals were
favorable to themselves. They wished to magnify the opposition of the natives
and other obstacles to success in order to exhibit Stockton and Frdmont as
conquerors and heroes. They were disposed to make much of the errors and
belittle the efforts of other officers. They would dwell on San Pascual, and
say little of Chino, Gillespie at Los Angeles, Mervine at San Pedro, Burroughs
at Natividad. In all this they had a decided advantage. They were permitted to
go in this direction far beyond the real questions at issue, though not so far
as they wished, or as the historian might desire. Moreover, for the jury they
had in view, their questions not permitted to be answered, unsupported implications,
and arguments on what was to be proved by testimony not admitted, were quite as
effective as the legitimate evidence introduced. And it cannot be denied that
they won a victory; that the verdict of popular sympathy was in Fremont’s
favor. In this phase of the trial the prosecution could do nothing but limit
the extent of irrelevant testimony. Could they have known, however, and proved
the facts revealed in this volume respecting the true character of Fremont’s
and Stockton’s part in the conquest from the beginning, they would have had an
easy road to victory over the pretending conquerors.
The third class of material consisted of a long series of
counter-charges, expressed or implied, against
Kearny, including also attempts to refute certain similar accusations
against Fremont introduced by Kearny and his friends in their testimony, but
not included in the formal charges. These petty complaints on the part of the
defence were intended mainly for the public, though some of them properly supported,
as they were not in most instances, might have had an influence on the court.42
Many of these matters have been noticed in the preceding pages. In the
aggregate they seem to show on the part of General Kearny an animus against his
opponents prompting him to conduct in certain minor transactions not
creditable to his high position; yet not too much importance should be attached
to this phase of the affair, since only one side of the case was presented. A
wide latitude was given to Fremont’s brilliant defenders, while Kearny, not
being on trial, was deemed to require no defence and no counter-attack on his
foe. The popular verdict in this as in the former branch of the case was in Fremont’s
favor; for resulting admiration of the path-fhider and conqueror was hardly
42Kearny’s
statement that F. tried to ‘bargain’ with him for the governorship is the one
against which, as most affecting his honor, F. protested most earnestly. Daring
the trial K. is accused of remembering only what was favorable to himself until
hard pressed in cross-examination or confronted with written proofs of the
things he had forgotten; also of false or contradictory testimony on a few
details; and of unduly multiplying, complicating, and exaggerating his charges.
The attempt was made to show that he tried to keep away important witnesses for
the accused; and had not only sent secret accusations to the government, but
had indirectly worked up public sentiment against his foe through the
newspapers. Besides various indignities on the march east and in the manner of
the arrest, his keeping his contemplated charges a secret from Frdmont was
regarded as irregular, as was his refusal to permit F.’s departure for Mex. or
the U. S. without giving any reasons. Various insults were mentioned or hinted
at, as the insisting on Mason’s or Cooke’s presence at interviews, sending
Mason south with authority, parading the explorers offensively at Monterey,
forcing F. to sleep in town, sending the Mormons to ‘ crush ’ him, etc. And, of
earlier date, attention was called to his denial of Stockton’s position as
commander on the march to Los Angeles; his claim that the expedition was
undertaken at his own urging; his crafty efforts to draw out from F. at San
Fernando a ‘report;’ and his failure to mention this pretended report during
the first controversy, or to attempt any suppression of F. ’s mutiny—even
encouraging his hope for the governorship after the mutiny was committed. Much
stress was also put upon his neglect to make known his instructions of Nov.
5th, or to call for a formal transfer of the eommand.
less marked than disapproval of a general who had unworthily persecuted
an officer of lower rank.
Fourth and last, we find matter pertaining legitimately to the charges
of mutiny, disobedience, and conduct to the prejudice of good order and
military discipline. The evidence was clear and conclusive. Whatever name might
be given to the offence, Fremont had disobeyed in January and March three distinct
orders, or sets of orders, given by his superior officer. His defence from a
strictly legal point of view had no force whatever. The prosecution might have
rested their case on the documentary evidence alone; they made no argument,
while permitting Benton almost without limit to manufacture public opinion in
behalf of his prot^gd The reading of the argument for defence occupied three
sessions of the court; and after three days of deliberation a verdict of guilty
on all the twenty-three specifications of the three charges was brought in on
January 31st, the sentence being, dismissal from the service.43
Seven members of the court signed a recommendation of clemency, on account of
previous professional services and of the peculiar circumstances in which the
accused was placed between two officers of superior rank each claiming the
command. President Polk on February 16th accepted the verdict, except on the
charge of mutiny, and approved the sentence, but remitted the penalty, ordering
Frdmont to resume his sword and report for duty. But the lieutenant-colo- nel
declined to accept the president’s clemency, and sent in his resignation, which
was accepted on March 14th.14 The court-martial had been an
excellent ad
13 Remarks
by the court: ‘ With all the latitude of evidence and the broader latitude of
defence, the court has found nothing conflicting in the orders and instructions
of the govt; nothing impeaching the testimony on the part of the prosecution;
nothing in fine to qualify, in a legal sense, the resistance to authority of
which the accused is convicted. The attempt to assail the leading witness for
the prosecution (Kearny) has involved points not in issue, and to which the
prosecution has brought no evidence. In the judgment of the court his honor and
character are unimpeached.’
11 Bigelow's
Mem., 317-18.
vertisement for the young adventurer, and he had no further use for his
commission. He would return to California to seek political honors and wealth
from his Mariposas estates. He started before the end of the year with a
private exploring party, which was broken up with a loss of ten men frozen to
death before reaching New Mexico. But in 1849 Fremont arrived in California,
where we shall hear of him again.
Commodore Stockton’s course in the Californian controversy was never made
the subject of official investigation; but not having been allowed to testify
as fully as he desired at the trial, on February 18th he addressed to the
secretary of the navy a complete narrative defence of his conduct, a document
which I have often had occasion to cite. Inheriting a large fortune, the
commodore resigned his commission in 1849. In 1851-2 he represented his state,
New Jersey, in the senate of the United States; and was subsequently an aspirant
for the presidency. It was in support of this ambition that a eulogistic
biography was published in 1856, a work largely devoted to Californian matters
and fully utilized in these chapters.45 It would add materially to
the dramatic interest of this comedy of errors could I say that the
‘conquerors’ were opposing candidates in the presidential contest of 1856; but
only one could secure the nomination. Stockton died at his New Jersey home in
1866.
General Kearny did not aspire to the presidency or even to the
senatorship; but he was nominated in July 1848 for the brevet of major-general
for “gallant conduct at San Pascual, and for meritorious conduct in California
and New Mexico.” This roused
45The full
title of thia anonymous work is: A Sketch of the Life of Com. Robt F. Stockton;
with an appendix, comprising his correspondence with the naval department
respecting his conquest of California; and extracts from the defence of Col. J.
C. Frimont in relation to the same subject; together with his speeches in the
senate of the United States, and his political letters. N. Y. 1856, 8vo, 210,
131 p., portrait.
afresh the wrath of Thomas H. Benton, who made in the senate a speech of
thirteen days, the ‘substance’ of which filled over sixty quarto pages of fine
type I In this most extraordinary discourse the senator took up, besides the
details of the San Pascual campaign, every point brought out or hinted at in
the late trial, repeating all that had been claimed in defence of Fremont and
Stockton, and supplementing each step with a torrent of ingenious
misrepresentation and bitter invective. In respect to San Pascual his general
position that Kearny merited nothing but censure is fully supported by the
facts; yet even here the speaker’s partisan spirit and unfairness are
manifest. As to other phases of the subject, Benton aimed to prove not only
that the general had been wrong in all the controversy, but that, with his
rascally confederates Emory, Cooke, Mason, and Biddle, he had engaged in a
deliberate and villanous plot, first to rob Stockton of the governorship, and
then to crush the saintly Frdmont for having dared to refuse cooperation. He
avowed his purpose to hold up Kearny, and in hardly less degree his associates,
as criminals meriting nothing but contempt. Space does not permit me to cite
Benton’s opinions and arguments, or to refute them, except as I have done so in
presenting the general record. I have presented the controversy in a spirit of
fairness, finding something to praise and blame in the conduct of the different
parties, but little of saintly innocence or diabolic .villany on either side.
It is hard to account for Benton’s vindictive bitterness after what had been
virtually a victory for his son-in- law. I think that any reader of the speech
familiar with the events and men involved, even if favoring the senator’s
general views, would at this day regard the tirade as a ludicrous overshooting
of the mark. In temporary conclusion the senator said: “I must break off. The
senate has no time to hear me further. The first division of the subject is
not through; two other divisions remain to be taken up (1); but I
must break off. A time will come in open session to finish what is only
begun... .After the conspiracy of Catiline, Cicero had a theme for his life;
since this conspiracy against Frdmont, and these rewards and honors lavished
upon all that plotted against his life and character, I have also a theme for
my life.”46 But it does not appear that Benton ever found an
opportunity to resume this part of his life-work; indeed, General Kearny died
before the end of the year.
This seems to be the proper place for a connected view of the ‘California
claims,’ often alluded to in this volume, though in most phases the subject is
too complicated for detailed notice within the space at my command. The claims
were debts incurred for government expenses during the rule of Frdmont and
Stockton in 1846-8. So far as there were naval funds available, these current
expenses to the extent of about $30,000 were paid; but for the rest property
had to be taken from natives and foreigners in California, with or without
their consent. At first the Bear Flag men seized the property of Californians
north of the bay to supply their own needs and to weaken a so-called foe; and
when the cause was nominally merged in that of the United States, certain
remnants of the property were transferred with the battalion. Thus was founded
the smallest and least definite portion of the claims. Next, after the raising
of the stars and stripes, and chiefly for the needs of the battalion in the
autumn of 1846, both native and foreign residents were plundered
indiscriminately in the north and central districts; though receipts for
supplies taken, mainly horses and cattle, were generally given to the victims,
many of whom willingly parted with their property and all looked to the United
States for payment. Then there were the debts incurred in the spring of 1847
during Fremont’s rule,
46 Benton’s
Speech in the U. S. Senate, July 1848, on the promotion of General Kearny, in
Gong. Globe, 1847-8, appen. 977-1040.
and mainly in the south, all duly certified, and a large portion
consisting of money loaned on Frdmont’s drafts on the government cashed by the
merchants. These advances were obtainable only at very high rates of interest;
and the matter was complicated by the fact that part of the liabilities were
incurred when government funds would have been available but for the political
controversy; and finally, pay due the volunteers formed also a considerable
element of the indebtedness.
That the government was morally bound to pay these claims of all four
classes has never been seriously questioned, though trouble was sure to arise
in settling particular demands. Nor can Fremont and Stockton be blamed for
their general policy in creating the debts, though wrongs were done and errors
committed in individual cases. Payment was expected as soon as peace should be
restored; and but for the quarrel between rulers, many of the claims would have
been promptly settled with naval funds by Stockton. He made an effort in that
direction, the success of which was prevented by Shubrick and Biddle; and he is
said to have paid before his departure certain claims for which he felt a
peculiar personal responsibility.47 In the last days of Fremont’s
rule the fear that the debts of his administration would be repudiated, or
that at the least long delays must be expected, caused much excitement, and not
a little unfavorable feeling towards the ex-governor; but this was for the most
part undeserved. He showed commendable zeal in doing the little in his power to
protect the creditors and himself. Kearny and Biddle cannot be blamed, I think,
for refusing, in view of technical irregularities of the past, to pay the
claims. The financial muddle was the result of circumstances, for which
Stockton more than any other man was responsible.
Yet the existence of these unpaid claims remained
17 Sloclcton’a Life, 159. It is said that
his drafts were all duly honored; but I find no official record of amounts or
details.
as the most serious obstacle to tranquillity in California. Soon after
the departure of Kearny and the rest, Governor Mason called the attention of
the government to the bad feeling excited by the claimants,, expressing his
opinion that “a speedy payment will do more toward reconciling the Californians
to the change of flags, and be worth more to the United States, than ten times
the money it will take to pay the debt;”48 and urging that a
discreet and disinterested citizen be sent to investigate and settle the
claims. Larkin also wrote to explain the matter and urge prompt payment.49
The secretary of war recommended immediate action, Fremont having presented a
memorial on the subject, and in February 1848 the matter was referred by the
senate to the military committee, whose report was dated the 23d, containing
testimony on the value of the services rendered by Stockton and Fremont, with
something respecting the necessity, nature, and amount of the indebtedness incurred.60
On the 3d of March Mr Cass introduced a bill appropriating $700,000, and
providing for a board of commissioners to consist of Frdmont and two other
officers of the battalion, whose adjudication was to be- final. Many speeches
were made, but the only difference of opinion was respecting the
constitutionality
48 June 18, 1847, Mason to adj.-gen. Cal. and
N. Hex.. Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. 312. Another object to be gained was to
enable disbursing officers to sell their drafts at par, instead of at 20 per
cent discount. Yet on the 21st, Id., 328-30, Mason sends a warning about the
claim of Cot for money lent to Fremont; and also the govt claims received for
customs dues by his order. Meanwhile, he advised individual claimants to
collect evidence to substantiate their claims, which would doubtless be settled
at an early date. Id., 327, 361. It was on Oct. 9th that he sent a warning and
the documents respecting the C(51is claim. Id., 363-73. Mar. 13th, M. Soberanes
to Mason, complaining of the burning and plundering of Los Ojitos by Fremont,
and enclosing certificates. Uni. Doc., MS., 202-3.
49 June 30th, Aug. 23d, Larkin to sec. state.
Larhin’s Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 118-20. March 15th, L. to Stockton, urging him
to do something. Says Capt. Hall has accepted and approved many of the claims,
so as to strengthen confidence of the holders in Stockton’s govt. Id., i.
120-1. See also article in S. F. Calif., June 12, 1847.
50 U. S. Govt Doc., 30th cong. 1st sess.,
Sen. Rept, 75, being the important document I have so often cited as Fremont's
Cal. Claims. F. ’s estimate of the amount needed was about $500,000, but he
suggested an appropriation of $600,000. More attention was given, however, to
the salvation of Cal. from falling into British possession than to the subject
proper of the investigation-
and personnel of the board, the obligation to pay the debt being
admitted. The bill passed the senate on April 28th; but the house brought up
Mason’s recent charges against Frdmont, amended the bill, and so delayed it
that it was left as unfinished business on adjournment in August. Nothing more
was heard of the subject for four years.61
In 1852 the matter came up again in congress, the legislature of
California having also taken some action in favor of a settlement.62
Without serious opposition or extended debate, by act of August 31st the
secretary of war was directed to appoint a board of three commissioners to
investigate, at Washington, all claims connected with the service of the
California battalion, an appropriation of $168,000 being made for the purpose.63
The board, appointed on September 6th, consisted of Brevet-colonel Charles F.
Smith, Lieutenant-colonel Charles Thomas, and Major Richard B. Lee. They made
three reports, in accordance with which many of the claims were paid, in
1853—4; but these require no special notice, because included in a later final
report.64
Meanwhile one of the claims presented itself in peculiar shape. On March
18, 1847, Fremont had by allowing a premium of $4,500 obtained $15,000 from F.
Huttmann for drafts on the government. These drafts, not being accepted by
Secretary Buchanan,
61 Cong. Globe, 1847-8, p. 261, 284, 423,
558-71, 604-8, 627-31, 676-8, 685, 696-708, 1049, 1069; also Houston's Sen.
Eepls, 30th cong. 1st sess., passim. The matter being referred to a bouse
committee, a substitute bill was reported on Aug. 18th, reducing the
appropriation to $500,000, and appointing disinterested members for the board.
U. S. Govt Doc., 30th cong. 1st sess., H. Rept. ,817. Fr&nont explains in
this report the irregularities of the C^lis claim.
62 Cal. Sen. Jour., 1852, p. 554^9, being a
report of a committee made on Feb. 5th. Maj. Snyder was chairman, and devoted
the report mainly to an inaccurate explanation of the causes that led to the
acts of Fremont in June 1846.
63 Sec. 6 of army appropriation bill, U. S.
Stat. at Large, a.
108. The section is repeated in many of the reports to be mentioned in
the following notes.
64Fr&mont's
Cal, Claims, Reports of Board of Commissioners, 1853-5. The report of Dec. 29,
1853, is not given, but alluded to in the next; Report of March 13, 1854, in U.
S. Govt. Doc., 33d cong. 1st sess., Sen. Ex. Doc., 49; Report of Dec. 5,1854,
in Id., Sen. Ex. Doc., 8, H. Ex. Doc., 13,33d cong. 2d sess.; Report of
April 18, 1855, in Id., 34th cong. 1st sess., Sen. Ex. Doc., 63.
Hist.
Cai,., Vol. V. 30
were protested; suit was brought in London, where Fremont was arrested
and put in jail, though soon released on bail; and judgment was obtained for
the original $19,500, with interest and costs, all amounting to $48,814. A
bill was accordingly introduced in congress for Fremont’s relief, resulting in
a long discussion, in which the story of the conquest and the claims was once
more gone over. Finally, by act of March 3, 1854, it was decided to pay the
$48,814, but to charge the original $15,000 to Fremont until he should prove
that the money had been spent for the public service. This he had not proved in
August of the same year, when the amount was deducted from the larger sum due
him on accounts of later date than 1848; nor had the proof been furnished as
late as 1856. I know nothing of the final settlement, or of the use originally
made of the money obtained from Huttmau. There was another similar draft of
$1,000 in favor of William Wolfskill, about which nothing appears in later
times; nor is anything known respecting the final disposition of the Cdlis
claim for money and cattle. I suppose that Frdmont settled these matters
privately with the claimants, and probably very much to his own profit so far
as the cattle were concerned.65
In the same congress there was much discussion respecting an item of the
appropriation bill, devoting $31,000 to the claims, and $10,000 to the expense
of sending a commissioner to California for additional information, but nothing
seems to have been accomplished in this direction.66 The reports of
the com-
55
Discussion in congress on the bill for Fremont’s relief, in Cong. Globe, 1852-3,
p. 231, 254^5, 593-603, 649, 1010, 1012, 1019, 1033, 1036-7, appen. 370. Act of
March 3d, in U. S. Stat. at Large, x. 759. Also a very full account of the
Hiittmann affair, including a curious itemized bill of the London attorneys,
filling 30 p. of print, in Frimont’s Accounts, 1842-56, in XJ. S. Govt Doc.,
34th cong. 1st sess., Sen. Ex Doc., 109, p. 40, 88-140. It appears that
additional costs to the amount of S2,150 were passed to F. ’s credit. The
failure of F. down to 1856 to prove that the money had been devoted to public
uses suggests that it had not been so used, with curious complications
respecting the interest and costs paid by the govt; but the details of
these accounts are not entirely clear to me.
58 Cong.
Globe, 1852-3, p. 795-6,1034, 1056. Aug. 5, 1854; it was ordered
mission in 1854 showed progress in settling the claims; on April 3, 1855,
the secretary of war issued an order dissolving the board; and its final report
was made on April 19th. By this report it appears that 363 claims had been
presented, amounting to $989,185. Of this the amount allowed and recommended
for payment— provision being made by congress for all but $8,129 before the
date of the report—was $157,365; disallowed, chiefly reductions in the amount
of claims allowed, $157,317; suspended for lack of sufficient evidence,
$307,927; ruled out as not within the jurisdiction of the board, including
$3,695 payable without its action, and some claims for destruction of property
by American or Mexican troops recommended for consideration, $186,509;
withdrawn, and in some cases resubmitted at lower rates, $147,800; registered
too late for investigation before April 19th, $28,570. Of the whole number only
four claims were entirely disallowed, while 180 were allowed without reduction.
The largest allowance was $48,700 to General Vallejo, and the smallest $2.50
to Nathan Barbour for a pair of shoes. A notable reduction was that in the case
of Captain Phelps, who claimed $10,000 for the use of his boat by Frdmont in
crossing the bay to spike the guns at San Francisco in 1846, but was obliged to
be content with $50167 The commissioners seem to have accepted the
certificates and testimony of Fremont and his officers as sufficient to
establish the claims; but they reduced the amounts by fixing a schedule of
prices for horses, cattle, grain, arms, saddles, and other supplies much lower
than the rates charged by the claimants.
The pay of the volunteers seems not to have been
that the battalion
muster-rolls be put on file and made to correspond to Reading’s pay-rolls. U.
8. Stat., x. 582.
57 M. G-.
Vallejo received $48,700 out of a claim for $117,875; S. Vallejo, $11,700 of
$53,100; Sutter, $9,832, his entire claim; Argiiello, $6,800 of $21,688; T. H.
Green, $6,425 of $11,205; C. A. Carrillo, $4,035 of $14,010; Leese, $3,934 of
$6,189; A. J. Cot, $3,435, his full claim; Julio Carrillo, $2,670 of $17,500;
John Temple, $2,144 of $15,766. Part of the reductions were, however, among the
suspended claims. The records of the commission were not published; but sample
cases are given in Frimont's Accounts.
included in the claims thus disposed of; and I am not able to say when or
how these men got their arrears of wages, if at all. Nor can I find any record
of further investigation or final settlement of the suspended or unconsidered
claims left by the board to the amount of about $335,500. In August 1856 the
senate called for and obtained a statement of Fremont’s accounts running back
to 1842, and including many transactions of later date than 1848; but this
report throws no light on our present subject, except as already noted.68
The court of claims succeeded to the functions of the board, but so far as I
can learn never considered any of the suspended claims. Two other claims were,
however, taken up, that of Bias P. Alviso for the horses taken at the beginning
of the Bear Flag revolt, and that of Vallejo for the use of his buildings at
Sonoma for seven years. The court decided against Alviso’s claim for $2,050,
and mainly on the ground that the government was not responsible for property
taken before the U. S. flag was raised, thus reversing the position impliedly
taken before; and in favor of Vallejo’s claim of $20,600, reduced to $12,600.69
In April 1860 a senate committee reported against taking further action on a
number of claims, with few exceptions new, on the grounds that one—that of
Alviso—had been rejected by the court, and that no reasons were given why the
claims had not been submitted at the proper time to the board of commissioners.60
It is probable that most of the suspended claims were spurious, having been
sent before the board as experiments, and others rested on so slight a basis
that not even the battalion officers had the assurance to certify them. That
many were never repaid for property actually taken by Fremont’s men is certain;
and there is no reason to doubt that others were paid for articles never lost.
68Frimont’s
Accounts, 1842-56, 8vo, 144 p. Report of see. treas. Aug. 16, 1856, in U. S.
Govt Doc., 36th oong. 1st sess., Sen. Ex. Doe., 109.
58Id., Rept
Court Claims, 204, 229; Id., H. Rept. 7. .
60 Id., Sen.
Rept, 198.
THE MORMON BATTALION.
1846-1848.
Westward
Migration of the Mormons by Sea and Land—The Plan to Occupy California.—Elder
Little Applies to the Government for Aid—Timely War—Polk’s Promises—Kearny’s
Instructions— Colonel Allen’s Call—Theory of the Saints—A Test of Loyalty and a
Sacrifice—Recruiting the Battalion—List of Officers—Tyler’s History and
Bigler’s Diary—March to Santa Fe—Death of Colonel Allen—Smith in Command—Doctor
Sanderson—Calomel and Arsenic—Cooke in Commani>—His Journal—March across
the Continent—Eight with Wild Cattle—Arrival at San Diego—In Garrison at San
Luis Rey and Los Angeles—Mustered Out—Re-enlistment
of One Company—Homeward March to Salt Lake in Several Detachments and by
Different Routes—A Festival of 1855—A
Ram in the Thicket.
It was in the spring
of 1846 that the Mormons began their westward migration from Nauvoo, Illinois,
and at the same time a ship-load of them went from New York to California. By
midsummer the advance of the overland line had been extended to Council Bluffs
on the Missouri River, and the Brooklyn had landed over two hundred of the
saints at San Francisco. The annals of this people, including all the
circumstances leading to their exodus, pertain to the History of Utah, as
presented in another work of this series. In a later chapter of this volume
Brannan’s immigrant company will be noticed with others of the year. Here only
a few brief remarks are called for. The Mormons had not definitely determined
where in the far west they would choose their new home. Wherever beyond the
Rocky Moun
tains natural advantages of soil and climate might appear best
supplemented by isolation and prospective non-interference, there should be
established the new Zion. Apparently it was deemed likely that experimental
settlements in several different regions might be maintained for some years
before the final choice could be made. Yet there can be no doubt that California
was the spot on which Brigham Young and his followers had fixed their chief
attention as probably best adapted to their purpose. But there is nothing
whatever to support the theory, more or less current among their enemies, that
they intended to occupy the land in opposition to the United States, joining
hands with Mexico or England if their own strength should not suffice. Existing
and prospective international complications might for years be expected to aid
them in establishing themselves on the Pacific; later their policy would be
dictated by their interests as limited by the possibilities; but the Mormons
were always loyal to the republic, to the extent at least of preferring it to
any other government than their own theocratic system. The settlers’ revolt at
Sonoma, the early occupation of the coast province by the United States, the
rapid influx of gentile immigrants, favorable prospects in the Salt Lake
region, and the peculiar conditions resulting from the discovery of gold were
the leading factors that fixed the Mormon realm in Utah rather than in
California.
The Latter-day Saints believed they had just cause of complaint that the
national government had refused to protect them against the oppressions which
forced them to quit their homes in Missouri and Illinois, and they did not
hesitate to apply at Washington for aid in their enforced exodus. There were
roads to be opened, forts to be built along the transcontinental highway to
Oregon, military and naval stores to be transported to the interior and to the
western coast; in fact, there was work to be done for the government which the
exiles could do as cheaply as anybody, and
the compensation would be of the greatest assistance to the migrating
families. Application was also made for more direct aid. Elder Samuel Brannan’s
device seems to have been to share the profits with certain influential men at
the national capital in return for aid, or at least for non-interference;
though his contract was not approved by the church council. But more on this
matter elsewhere. Elder Jesse C. Little represented Mormon interests in the
east, and in the letter of appointment and instructions to him, dated January
26, 1846, was the following suggestion: “If our government should offer
facilities for emigrating to the western coast, embrace those facilities if possible.
As a wise and faithful man, take every honorable advantage of the times you
can.” Armed with letters of introduction to prominent men, Little went to
Washington, where with the aid of Amos Kendall, Thomas L. Kane, and others, he
soon secured the attention of President Polk, with whose plans respecting
California the reader is familiar.
No secret was made of the intention to settle in California. It was
mentioned in some of the introductory letters to which I have alluded; and in
a petition addressed by Little to the president he wrote: “From twelve to
fifteen thousand Mormons have already left Nauvoo for California, and many
others are making ready to go; some have gone around Cape Horn, and I trust
before this time have landed at the bay of San Francisco. We have about forty
thousand in the British Isles, all determined to gather to this land, and
thousands will sail this fall. There are also many thousands scattered through
the states, besides the great number in and around Nauvoo, who will go to
California as soon as possible, but many of them are destitute of money to pay
their passage either by sea or land. We are true-hearted Americans, true to
our native country, true to its laws, true to its glorious institutions. .. We
would disdain to receive assistance from a foreign power, although it
should be proffered, unless our government shall turn us off in this
great crisis and compel us to be foreigners. If you will assist us in this
crisis I hereby pledge my honor as the representative of this people, that the
whole body will stand ready at your call, and act as one man in the land to
which we are going; and should our territory be invaded, we will hold ourselves
ready to enter the field of battle, and then, like our patriotic fathers, make
the battle-field our grave, or gain our liberty.”1
While negotiations were in progress, news came that hostilities with
Mexico had begun; and most opportunely in certain respects for the Mormon
designs, though defeating their purposes in other directions. Little’s memorial
quoted above was drawn out by Kendall’s announcement that the administration
had resolved to occupy California, and was disposed to accomplish that object
through the Mormons, by aiding them to hasten their journey across the
continent. The project promptly arranged by Polk and his advisers, if we may
credit Little’s version, was for a thousand picked men to press on
overland,and ‘make a dash’ into California, while another thousand were to be
sent out by sea on a U. S. transport. Possibly the elder in his enthusiasm was
disposed to exaggerate the president’s promises; while on the other hand we may
readily imagine that Polk, on further consideration, either with or without the
promptings of enemies to the church, or of promoters of other military and colonization
schemes, concluded that he had promised too much, that it was not altogether
desirable or necessary to allow the Mormons too much power in California;
that it would be as well to use rather than be used by them; and that there
would be no difficulty
1 Life of Brigham Young; or Utah and her
Founders. By Edward W. Tullidge, N. Y. 1876, 8vo, iv. 458, 81 p. Little’s
instructions and petition are quoted from this work, which contains a
more complete account of the transactions at Washington than I have found
elsewhere; though the leading facts are given in other works. It was in a
conversation with Kendall about the Mormons that Stevenson claims to have first
suggested the idea of sending a volunteer regiment to Cal.
in obtaining other volunteer colonist soldiers. Churchmen believe that
Thomas H. Benton did more than than any other to turn the president against
them, which is not at all unlikely.
Whatever may have been the original proposition, and it is well to
remember that details of preceding negotiations rest almost exclusively on
Mormon authority, the final decision was to raise a battalion of five hundred
men, to be mustered into the U. S. service for twelve months, and to march by
Santa Fe to California, where they were to be discharged at the expiration of
their term, retaining their arms and accoutrements. Little and Kane went to
Fort Leavenworth with despatches for Colonel Kearny, who on June 19th issued
to Captain James Allen of the 1st dragoons the order appended in a note.2
Allen started at once for the north, and on June 26th, at Mount
2 June 19, 1846, Kearny to Allen. ‘ It is
understood that there is a large body of Mormons who are desirous of emigrating
to California, for the purpose of settling in that country, and I have
therefore to direct that you will proceed to their camps and endeavor to raise
from amongst them 4 or 5 companies of volunteers, to join me in my expedition
to that country, each company to consist of any number between 73 and 109; the
officers of each company will be a captain, 1st lieut, and 2d lieut, who will
be elected hy the privates and subject to your approval, and the captains then
to appoint the non-commissioned officers, also subject to your approval. The
companies, upon being thus organized, will be mustered by you into the service
of the U. S., and from that day will commence to receive the pay, rations, and
other allowances given to tho other infantry volunteers, each according to his
rank. You will, upon mustering into service the 4th company, be considered as
having the rank, pay, and emoluments of a lieut-colonel of infantry, and are
authorized to appoint an adjutant, sergeant-major, and quartermaster-ser- geant
for the battalion. The companies, after being organized, will be marched to
this post, where they will be armed and prepared for the field, after which
they will, under your command, follow on my trail in the direction of Santa
F6, where you will receive further orders from me.. .You will have the Mormons
distinctly to understand that I wish to have them as volunteers for 12 months;
that they will be marched to California, receiving pay and allowances during
the above time, and at its expiration they will be discharged and allowed to
retain, as their private property, the guns and accoutrements furnished to
them at this post. Each company will be allowed 4 women as laundresses, who
will travel with the company, receiving rations and other allowances given to
the laundresses of our army. With the foregoing conditions, which are hereby
pledged to the Mormons, and which will be faithfully kept by me and other
officers in behalf of the govt of the U. S., I cannot doubt but that you will
in a few days be able to raise 500 young and efficient men for this
expedition.’ The subject is included in Sec. Marey’s instructions of June 3d to
Kearny, who was to enlist a number of Mormons not to exceed one third of his
entire force. Cal. and N. Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. 236.
Pisgah, Iowa, one of the principal camps of the Mormons, issued a
circular announcing his mission. In this document he repeated the substance of
Kearny’s instructions, and added: “This gives an opportunity of sending a
portion of their young and intelligent men to the ultimate destination of their
whole people, and entirely at the expense of the United States, and this
advanced party can thus pave the way and look out the land for their brethren
to come after them. Those of the Mormons who are desirous of serving their
country, on the conditions here enumerated, are requested to meet me without
delay at their principal camp at Council Bluffs, whither I am now going to
consult with their principal men, and to receive and organize the force
contemplated to be raised. I will receive all healthy, able-bodied men of from
eighteen to forty-five years of age. I hope to complete the organization
within nine days from this time.”3 By the high council of Mount
Pisgah, Captain Allen was sent westward with a letter to President Young at
Council Bluffs, the main and frontier encampment. Here a council was held the
1st of July, at which it was determined by Young and his advisers that the
battalion as called for must be raised; and corresponding orders were issued at
once.
Thus is explained the origin of the Mormon Battalion, involving, it
would seem, nothing mysterious or underhanded in any of its phases. The Mormons
had asked for aid in moving part of their people to California; the government
needed a volunteer force which in no other way could be raised so promptly; the
favor was mutual. The Mormons, however, not receiving aid to the extent or of
the kind they had hoped for, regarded the action taken as a mere requisition
for troops, and in numbers out of all proportion to the population that was to
furnish them.4 In its
3 June 26, 1846, Allen’s circular to the
Mormons, in Tyler’s Hist., 114; Tullidge’s Life Young, 42.
4 ‘It may well be imagined that many of
the saints hesitated. It was not from lack of courage either. The danger would
never have caused them to
best aspect, the call for troops was a test of Mormon loyaltj7;
some have claimed to regard it as a device to weaken the saints and hasten
their destruction; and it has even been given out as the secret history of the
transaction, “as President Young was afterward informed on the best of
authority,” writes George Q. Cannon, “that Thomas H. Benton got a pledge from
President Polk that if the Mormons did not raise the battalion he might have
the privilege ot raising volunteers in the upper counties of Missouri to fall
upon them and use them up.”5 Some think
shrink; but they had
been deceived so many times hy those who held authority in the nation that
they looked upon this new requisition with distrust... Assistance in emigrating
with their families westward would have been hailed with joy. Work of any kind
and at any price on the route of their proposed journey, by which they could
earn a subsistence, would have been considered a godsend. But joining the army and
leaving their families in such a condition was repugnant to their feelings.
Such a thing had never been thought of, much less asked for, by the saints. The
assertion which has been made by their enemies, that they desired and solicited
the privilege of joining the army to go against Mexico, leaving their wives and
children homeless and destitute wanderers on the hanks of the Missouri, is a
base libel on the character of the saints. They were loyal citizens, hut they
never expected such a sacrifice would be required of them to prove their
loyalty to the government. Though Captain Allen represented the call as an act
of benevolence on the part of the govt, and assured the saints that here were
hundreds of thousands of volunteers in the states ready to eulist, it is
doubtful whether he would have got one of the saints to join him if it had been
left to his own influence.’ Tyler's Hist., 115-16. ‘One view is that the govt,
prompted by such men as Benton, sought to destroy, or at least to cripple, the
Mormons, by taking from them 500 of their hest men in an Indian country and in
their exodus; while the other view is that the govt designed their good and
honor. The truth is, that a few honorable gentlemen did so design; but it is
equally true that the great majority heartily wished for their utter
extinction; while Sen. Douglas aud many other politicians, seeing in this vast
migration of Mormons the ready and most efficient means to wrest California
from Mexico, favored the calling of the battalion for national conquest without
caring what afterward hecame of these heroic men who left their families in the
wilderness, or whether those families perished hy the way or not... The reader
has noted Mr Brannan’s letter, received by the leaders before starting; they
looked upon this “call” for 500 or 1,000 of the flower of their camps as the
fulfilment of the threat. The excuse to annihilate them they believed was
sought; even the govt dared not disperse and disarm them without an excuse. At
the best, an extraordinary test of their loyalty was asked of them, under
circumstances that would have required the thrice hardening of a Pharaoh’s
heart to have exacted. ’ Tullidge’s Life Brig. Young, 44-5.
5 All the speakers at a reunion of the
battalion in 1855 regarded the raising of the troops in the light of a
sacrifice which had saved their people. Father Pettegrew addressed the women
as ‘ wives and daughters of those men who were offered a sacrifice for the
church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,’ men ordered ‘to go and fight for
the rights of the people before whom they were fleeing.’ Said President
Kimball: ‘I know that resulted in the salvation of this people, and had you not
done this, we should not have
that the leaders looked upon the raising of the battalion as an
advantage to their cause.
Whatever their views, the Mormon chiefs set themselves to work most
zealously as recruiting officers. Young, Kimball, and Richards rode back to
Mount Pisgah, sending letters to encampments farther east. Doubtless there was
a little hesitation among the people, since the enlistment of married men
involved many hardships for their families;6 but promises of
protection for women and children, with predictions of exemption from disaster
to the men, joined to eloquent and authoritative teachings on duty to the
nation and the church, rapidly overcame all opposition. The battalion, about
five hundred strong, was recruited in about two weeks; and four companies and
part of the fifth were mustered in at Council Bluffs the 16th of July, the
fifth company being filled a little later. I append a list of officers. The
name of each member of the battalion who reached California will be found in
the Pioneer Register at the end of these volumes.7
been here. President
J. M. Grant had visited Washington and testified to Benton’s bloody project;
and if we conld not have raised the complement of men, what would have been the
fate of this people ? Israel must have been put in the tomb, unless by the
interference of high heaven a ram had been found in the thicket.. .Yes,
brethren, had it not been for this battalion, a horrible massacre would have
taken place upon the banks of the Missouri.’ President Young took the same view
of Benton’s project. ‘Without doubt, this was decreed in Washington, and I was
moved upon to forestall it. As quick as this idea entered my mind it came to
me, I will beat them at then- own game. Did we not do it?’
6 Thomas L.
Kane, in The Mormons: A discourse delivered before the Historical Society of
Pennsylvania, March 26,1850, says: ‘The call could hardly have been more
inconveniently timed. The young, and those who could best have been spared,
were then away from the main body, either with pioneer companies in the van,
or, their faith unannounced, seeking work and food about the south-western
settlements to support them till the return of the season for commencing
emigration. The force was therefore to be recruited from among the fathers of
families, and others whose presence it was most desirable to retain. There
were some, too, who conld not view the invitation without jealousy.. .But the
feeling of country triumphed. The nnion had never wronged them. “You shall have
your battalion at once if it has to be a class of elders,” said one, himself a
ruling elder. A central mass meeting for council, some harangues at the more
remotely scattered camps, an American flag brought out from the storehouse of
things rescued and hoisted to a tree mast—and in three days the force was
reported mustered, organized, and ready to march.’
7An
official report, U. S. Oovt Doc., 31st cong. 1st sess., H. Ex. Doc., 24 p. 22
g, gives the number mustered in as 15 officers and 481 men. joined
It should here be stated that the experiences of the Mormon battalion
have been written by Sergeant Tyler in a manner that leaves little or nothing
to be desired.8 I have followed his work as my chief authority. The
troops started on their journey the 20th of July. “There was 110 sentimental
affectation at their leave-taking. The afternoon before their march was devoted
to a farewell ball; and a more
later 7, resigned and
discharged 3, deaths 7, desertion 1, and mustered out in Cal. 17 officers and
468 men. There is apparently some error here, to say nothing of the fact that
ahout 150 men did not reach California. Tyler gives the names of 506 men,
including officers and the men left behind. Kane says there were 520 men. Other
authorities speak of the number as about 500.
List of officers in
tho Mormon battalion: Commander, Lieut-col. * James Allen; later Lieut A. J.
Smith; and finally Lieut-col. Philip St George Cooke, all of the 1st U. S.
dragoons. Adjutant, Lieut Geo. P. Dykes, and later Lieut P. C. Merrill;
quartermaster, Lieut *Sam. L. Gully, and later Lieut Geo. Stoneman;
sergeant-major, James H. Glines, and later James Ferguson;
quartermaster-sergeant, Sebert C. Shelton, Redick N. Allred; surgeon, Dr Geo.
B. Sanderson; assistant-surgeon, Dr Wm L. McIntyre; spiritual directors, David
Pettegrew and Levi W. Hancock.
Co. A, Capt.
Jefferson Hunt; lieut, Geo. W. Oman, Lorenzo Clark, *Wm W. Willis; sergeants,
James Ferguson, Phinehas R. Wright, Reddick N. Aldred, Alex. McCord, Wm S.
Muir.
Co. B, Capt. Jesse D.
Hunter; lieut, *Elam Luddington, Ruel Barrus, Philemon C. Merrill; sergeants,
Wm Coray, Wm Hyde, Alhcrt Smith.
Co. C, Capt. James
Brown; lieut, Geo. W. Rosecrans, Sam. Thompson, Rohert Clift; sergeants, Orson
B. Adams, Elijah Elmer, Joel J. Terrill, David Wilkin, Edward Martin, Daniel
Tyler.
Co. D, Capt. *Nelson
Higgins; lieut, Geo. P. Dykes, Sylvester Hulett, Cyrus C. Canfield; sergeants,
Nathaniel V. Jones, Thomas Williams, Luther T. Tuttle, Alpheus P. Haws.
Co. E, Capt. Daniel
C. Davis; lieut, James Pace, Andrew Lytle, *Sam. L. Gully; sergeants, Sam. L.
Brown, Richard Brazier, Ebenezer Hanks, Daniel Browett.
Those whose names are
marked with a * did not reach Cal. There were seven or eight young men who went
as servants to the officers, whose relatives they were in most cases. For
biographical notices of each officer and private, see my Pioneer Register and Index.
8 A Concise History of the Mormon
Battalion in the Mexican War, I846- 1847. By Sergeant Daniel Tyler, no place
(Salt Lake City), 1881, 8vo, 376 p. ‘Neither labor, pains, nor expense has been
spared in the effort to make this a just and authentic history. The author has
not aimed at sensational effect, nor made any attempt at literary
embellishment, but rather endeavored to offer a plain statement of facts and
give due credit to all concerned,’says Tyler in his preface, and the result
shows that no better man could have undertaken the task. Naturally his
narrative is marked hy that display of faith which is a characteristic of all
religious writers; but this, while adding a charm, detracts in no respect from
the value of the record. His authorities are chiefly diaries written by his
comrades at the time, and letters written by them in later years. The ‘
introductory ’ includes a sketch of The Martyrdom of Joseph Smith, hy President
John Taylor, and Col Kane’s discourse of 1850 on The Mormons, as already cited;
also a poem on the Mormon battalion by Mrs Eliza R. Snow. There is appended an
account of the battalion festival at Salt Lake City in 1855.
merry dancing rout I have never seen, though the company went without
refreshments, and their ball was of the most primitive,” writes Colonel Kane.
One of the soldiers’ last acts before departure was to subscribe a large part
of their pay for their families and the Mormon poor. The elders made parting
addresses of encouragement, and Brigham Young formally predicted, as he had
done before, that “not one of those who might enlist would fall by the hands of
the nation’s foe; that their only fighting would be with wild beasts.” That
their subsequent safety resulted from this prediction the Mormons had no doubt;
and that they were under divine protection soon became evident to them when a
tornado threw down the trees of a forest in which they were encamped without
harming a man. The captains and some of the men were accompanied by their
families, and there were in all about eighty women and children who started on
the journey. Much of their way was through a country inhabited by their old
foes, the Missouri ‘mobocrats/ but there were no hostilities and few hardships.
The arrival at Fort Leavenworth was on August 1st, and here the battalion
remained two weeks, drawing their arms and accoutrements, with forty dollars in
money for each man, most of which was sent back to the church by elders Hyde,
Taylor, and Little, who here took final leave of their soldier disciples. Here
Lieutenant- colonel Allen fell sick and died before the end of August. He was
very popular with his men, none of whom have anything but words of praise for
him.
On the 12th and 14th of August the troops started on their long march to
Santa Fe; and now their troubles began. It is not necessary to chronicle here
the hardships and petty adventures incident to such a journey, though as given
in the Mormon diaries9
9 Besides the diaries quoted by Tyler, I
have Henry W. Bigler’s Diary of a Mormon in California, MS., which contains
a most valuable and interesting record, not only of the march to Sta F6 and
thence across the continent, but of the later discovery of gold in California.
the narrative is not without a charm. Sufferings resulted mainly from
heat and bad water, and there was much sickness, with several deaths; but there
were also miraculous cures attributed to faith, prayer, and baptism. One phase
of the battalion’s troubles, however, merits somewhat more extended
notice—that resulting from complaints against the officers. On the death of
Allen, Lieutenant A. J. Smith of the regular army was sent from Fort
Leavenworth to take command temporarily. The Mormon privates and part of their
officers claimed that the command belonged to the senior captain, Hunt, and
that Colonel Allen had promised such an arrangement in the event of his own
removal from the position. The fact that such a promise had been made was comfirmed
by Brigham Young. On the other hand, it was claimed that Allen had no right to
make the promise; nevertheless a council of the Mormon officers with only
three dissenting votes decided in favor of Smith. From that time the lieutenant
was naturally an object of dislike to the soldiers, who looked on him as unfriendly
to the Mormons, cruel in his treatment of the sick, and perhaps disposed to
destroy the battalion by overwork and privations. Only divine protection enabled
the saints to survive, and only the patriotic devotion that had prompted the
original sacrifice of their enlistment kept them from mutiny. Such was their
view of the matter;10 yet their wrongs must be
10 «And on the brave
battalion went With Colonel Allen, who waa sent Ae officer of government.
The noble Colonel
Allen knew
His “ Mormon boya”
were brave and true,
And he was proud of
hia command Ae ho led forth hie “Mormon band.”
Ho sickened, died,
and they were left Of a loved leader eoon bereft I And hie eurceasors proved to
be The embodiment of cruelty.
Lieutenant Smith, tho
tyrent, led The cohort on in Allen’e atead To Santa Fe, where Colonel Cooke The
charge of the battalion took.’
Mrs Snow’s poetical
version.
‘It would have been
difficult to select the same number of American citizens from any other
community who would have submitted to the tyranny and abuse that the battalion
did from Smith and Sanderson. Nor would we have done so on any consideration
other than as servants to our God and patriots to our
regarded as in some measure imaginary. Raw recruits chafc under the
discipline imposed by an officer of the regular army, and often attribute to
him the hardships of their march. It was hard for the Mormons to realize their
position as volunteers in the U. S. service, and they were prone to include in
their list of grievances all that did not please them.
It was not, however, against their leader that the bitterest feelings
were excited, but against Sanderson, the surgeon of the battalion. The Mormons
have their own views on medical science, and do not entertain the highest
respect for the methods of the schools. They rely for the cure of ordinary
ailments on herbs; while for more serious illness prayer, anointing with oil,
laying-on of hands, and baptism are prescribed. And now, a ‘mineral quack’ had
against their will been made superior to Dr McIntyre, ‘a good botanic
physician,’ and insisted on dosing them with his ‘calomel and arsenic.’ The
Mormons claimed that their religion discountenanced the taking of mineral
medicines. Adjutant Dykes, however, affirmed that they had no such religious
scruples, and that the church authorities themselves took such medicines, and
Captain Hunt would say no more than that it “was rather against our religious
faith.” Therefore Smith supported the surgeon and insisted that his instructions
must be followed, though subsequently a letter
country.’ Tyler’s
Hist., 147. All were delighted when the acting colonel was arrested hy a
sentinel for not giving the right password. ‘The appointment of Smith, even
before his character was known, caused a greater gloom throughout the command
than the death of Colonel Allen had.’ Id., 144. Young’s letter affirming
Allen’s promise to leave the command to Hunt. Id., 155-6. ‘Whether Col Smith
had had no experience in travelling with teams, or whether he desired to use up
the teams and leave the battalion on the plains helpless, does not appear.’
Id., 159. ‘It appears that the colonel and surgeon are determined to kill us,
first by forced marches to make us sick, then hy compelling us to take calomel
or to walk and do duty.’ Rogers’ journal in Id. ,160. ‘ While privates were
punished by him for the merest trifles, officers could go where and do what
they pleased.’ Id., 177. ‘And now commenced a series of the most trying
cruelties. Our commander was not of himself cruel and wicked, but he was weak,
and became to a great extent the creature of Dr Sanderson, a rotten-hearted
quack that was imposed upon us as our surgeon. ’ Ferguson in Id., 365. Bigler
and all the rest confirm the lieutenant’s cruelty, weakness, and want of skill.
from President Young was received, saying: “If you are sick, live by
faith, and let surgeons’ medicine alone if you want to live.” For a time the
doctor dealt out his drugs, which the patients put anywhere but down their
throats; but presently Sanderson learned how his prescriptions were being
treated, and thereafter in some cases obliged the sick to take the potions from
an old iron spoon in his presence. The wrath of the soldiers and the troubles
of the doctor may be imagined ; the controversy was kept up till the end; and
the Mormons were satisfied that all deaths in the battalion were due to the
surgeon’s quackery.11 Indeed, the chief cause of complaint against
Smith was his
11 ‘The surgeon was from Mo., did not
belong to our people, and had been heard to say he did not care a damn whether
he killed or cured; and for this our sick refused to go at sick-call and take
his medicine, and Smith was told, straight up and down, there and then, before
we would take Dr Sanderson’s medicines we would leave our bones to bleach on
the prairie.’ Bigler's Diary of a Mormon, MS., 9. Sept. 2d, ‘Smith began to
show his sympathy forthe sick by ordering them out of the wagons, and swore if
they did not walk he would tie them to the wagons and drag them.’ Id. But Tyler
relates that Sergt Williams defended the sick and threatened to knock the
colonel down. Tyler’s Hist., 144. Young’s letter of August 19th on medicine.
Id., 146. ‘It was customary every morning for the sick to be marched to the
tune of “Jim along Joe” to the doctor’s quarters, and take their portion from
that same old iron spoon,’ and the doctor ‘threatened with an oath to cut the
throat of any man who would administer any medicine without his orders.’ Id.
The author having a fever begged to be left on the road and reported dead
rather than take the drugs. Id., 148. He had to take them, but to neutralize
their effect he drank a large quantity of water against the doctor’s orders.
Id., 150. Alva Phelps was suffering severely. ‘ The doctor prepared his dose
and ordered him to take it, which he declined doing, whereupon the doctor with
horrid oaths forced it down him with the old rusty spoon. A few hours later he
died, and the general feeling was that the doctor had killed him. Many boldly
expressed the opinion that it was a case of premeditated murder. When we
consider the many murderous threats previously made, the conclusion is by no
means far-fetched.’ That evening a dancing star was noted in the east. Id.,
158. All were glad when the doctor left with the advance party of the well,
leaving the sick behind. Id., 163.
‘A doctor which ths
government Has furnished proves a puniahment.
At hia rude call of
“Jim along Joe ”
ThB Hick and halt to
him must go.
Both night and morn
this call is hsard,
Our indignation then
is stirred.
And we sincerely wish
in hell His arsenic and calomel.’
Hancock’s song on ths
Desert Route. Id., 183.
To Boyle the doctor
‘gave the usual dose—calomel—which he did not swallow, but consigned it to the
flames. The writer and another elder or two were called upon to anoint him with
oil and lay hands upon him, and before night he was well.’ Id., 209. Calomel
gave out and arsenic was substituted long before Cal. was reached. Id., 215.
David Smith killed by the doctor’s medicines. Id., 274.
Hist.
Cal., Vol. V. 81
support of Sanderson; and another, Adjutant Dykes, though a Mormon and a
preacher, was regarded as an apostate because he had favored Smith and only
mildly opposed the doctor. Says Elder Hyde: “It was plainly manifest that
Lieutenant Dykes sought to gain favor of and please the wicked rather than
favor his brethren.” And Tyler, that “Dykes became so notorious for his
officious and captious manner, that the battalion accorded to him the title of
‘accuser of the brethren.’ ” And another saint: “There are a few like G. P.
Dykes that go into error, and who will not do right. Brother Dykes has gone
into errors and is damned; he has the curse of his brethren upon him for his
follies and misdoings.”
The route proposed had included Bent’s Port, where supplies were expected
and where perhaps the winter might be passed; but to gain time the commander
decided on a shorter way, much to the displeasure of his men. On the Arkansas.
River, about the middle of September, many of the families were detached and
sent to pass the winter at Pueblo under Captain Higgins with a guard of ten
men. This division of the battalion was also opposed, as was a later one of October
3d, when the stronger half of each company was sent on in advance, leaving the
feeble to follow more slowly. The two divisions arrived at Santa Fd the 9th and
12th of October, and were saluted with a hundred guns by order of General
Doniphan, an old friend of the Mormons, who were delighted to know that no such
honor had been paid to Colonel Sterling Price, their enemy, on his arrival a
few days before. From Santa Fd 88 men deemed unfit for prospective hardships
were sent back to Pueblo for the winter under Captain Brown and Lieutenant
Luddington, and with them went also the laundresses of the battalion. Again,
on November 10th, after the start from Santa Fc, 55 sick under Lieutenant
Willis were detached for Pueblo. Of the 150, more or less, thus left en route,
it is only necessary to state that they
never came to California, but most of them found their way to Salt Lake
the next year.
General Kearny had already left Santa Fe for California with his
dragoons, as the reader will remember;12 but he had left
Lieutenant-colonel Philip St George Cooke, of the 1st dragoons, with orders to
take command of the battalion and open a wagon route to the Pacific by the Gila
route. Cooke assumed the command the 13th of October. Lieutenant Smith became
acting commissary of subsistence; Lieutenant George Stoneman, of the 1st
dragoons, acting quartermaster instead of Gully, who soon left the service;
Lieutenant Merrill, adjutant instead of Dykes, who resumed his place in the
company; and James Ferguson was appointed sergeant-major. Major J. H. Cloud,
paymaster U. S. A., accompanied Cooke. Stephen C. Foster, called “doctor” in
the narratives, was employed as interpreter. The guides were Weaver,
Charbonneau, and Leroux, and a Mr Hall seems to have served in a similar
capacity. Dr Sanderson continued his services as surgeon.
For the march from New Mexico to California we have, in addition to
Tyler’s work and Bigler’s diary, the official journals and reports of the
commander.13 Of this officer the Mormons speak in favorable terms,
describing him as a stern man of forbidding manner, a strict disciplinarian,
but impartial in his orders, and
12 See chap. xiii. of this volume.
13 Journal of the march of the Mormon
battalion of infantry volunteers, under the command of Lieutenant-colonel P.
St George Cooke (also captain of dragoons), from Santa Fi, New Mexico, to San
Diego, California, kept by himself by direction of the commanding general of
the army of the west, in U. S. Govt Doc., apecial aeaa. (30th cong.), Sen. Doc.
no. 2, Waahington, 1849, 8vo, 85 p. Thia journal extenda to Jan. 30, 1847. ,
Report of
Lieut-col P. St George Cooke, of his march from Santa F6, New Mexico, to San
Diego, Upper California (1846-7), in U. S. Govt Doc., 30th cong. 1st aesa., H.
Ex. Doc. 41, p. 549-63, with a map of the route. This is a report to Gen.
Kearny, dated at San Luia Rey Feb. 5, 1847.
The
Conquest of New Mexico and California; an historical and personal narrative. By
P. St Geo. Cooke, brigadier, brevet major-general, U. S. A. Author of Scenes
and Adventures in the Army; or, Romance of Military Life, etc. N. Y. 1878.
12mo. Thia containa a condensed narrative of the march, with much additional
matter, though hardly enough to juatify the author in presenting the book aa he
doea in a preface aa the ‘ first historical narrative of the conquest,’ and ‘a
connected and permanent record.’
a man of great energy and perseverance. They were delighted that a
captain was the first to be put under arrest for failure to comply with the
regulations; and they were pleased with some flattering things he said of them
in later years. In his journal the colonel says: “The battalion were never
drilled, and though obedient, have little discipline; they exhibit great
heedlessness and ignorance, and some obstinacy.” And in his later work: “Everything
conspired to discourage the extraordinary undertaking of marching this
battalion 1,100 miles, for the much greater part through an unknown wilderness
without road or trail, and with a wagon train. It was enlisted too much by
families; some were too old, some feeble, and some too young; it was
embarrassed by many women; it was undisciplined; it was much worn by travelling
on foot and marching from jSTauvoo ;u their clothing was very scant;
there was no money to pay them or clothing to issue; their mules were utterly
broken down; the quartermaster department was without funds, and its credit
bad; and mules were scarce. Those procured were very inferior, and were
deteriorating every hour for lack of forage or grazing. So every preparation
must be pushed—hurried.”
They started October 19th down the valley, obtained such supplies and
fresh animals on the way as the inhabitants could be induced to part with for
exorbitant prices, sent back 58 of the feeblest, as already noted, and the
13th of November left the Rio Grande for the south-west, 340 strong,
accompanied by only five women, who were wives of officers and transported at
their husbands’ expense. The guides declared it impossible to follow the Gila
route proper, or that taken by Kearny, who had left his wagons behind; and a
circuit to the south through Sonora was determined on. The country proved to
be almost unknown to the guides, who presently recommended a
14 And by Lieut Smith’s tyranny and
blunders, and most of all by Dr Sanderson’s calomel and arsenic, as the Mormon
writers assert.
route by Janos and Fronteras; but on learning that Janos lay toward the
south-east, Cooke determined to turn to the right, and did so the 21st of November,
moved thereto, the Mormons believed, by divine interposition; for at the
suggestion of Father Pette- grew and Brother Hancock, their spiritual advisers,
they sent up fervent prayers the night before “that the Lord might change the
colonel’s mind,” and accordingly that officer ordered a turn to the west, saying
“he would be damned if he would go round the world to reach California.” The
way followed was from a point on the Rio Grande in latitude 32° 40',
south-westward to San Bernardino on the later boundary of the two republics at
the corner of four states, westward to the Rio San Pedro, down that stream
northward, and thence west to Tucson, and to Kearny’s trail on the Gila.
For infantry with wagons for which they must find or make a road, with
worn-out animals and short rations, the journey was much more difficulty than
that of Kearny’s company, or any that had previously crossed the continent in
these latitudes.
“ How hard, to starve
and wear us out Upon this sandy desert route,”
was the chorus of a song by which the saints relieved their minds along
the way. Nothing short of long extracts from the diaries, for which I have no
space, would adequately picture their toils, which I do not attempt to
catalogue. Their sufferings were, however, less severe than between Fort
Leavenworth and Santa F^, because the families and the feeble had been left
behind. On December 11th on the San Pedro there was an exciting battle with a
band of wild bulls, described by Levi Hancock in a song, in which affray
several men were wounded, including Lieutenant Stoneman, who as I write is
governor of California. They were at Tucson in the middle of December, but the
town had been abandoned by the garrison and most of the people, though Cooke
had
some correspondence with the comandante. The Mexicans began to plan on
paper an organization for defence,15 but the Americans did not stay
to be annihilated. The day after Christmas they were on the Gila, having three
days before received a letter from Kearny; on January 8th the junction of the
Gila and Colorado was reached; on the 15th news came back of the disaster at
San Pascual; and on the 21st the battalion encamped at Warner’s rancho, where
the Mormons were not inhospitably received.16 News respecting the
state of affairs in California, though of vital interest to the new-comers,
need not be recalled to the memory of my readers, who are familiar with the
situation. Cooke proposed at first to go to Los Angeles, where he thought his
aid might be needed; but presently came an order to march to San Diego, where
the battalion finally arrived the 29th of January, and where the commander
issued next day a congratulatory order, with well merited compliments to the
Mormons for the manner in which they had performed their difficult task.17
15 Some correspondence on the subject in El
Sonorense, Jan. 1, 8, 1847; aa there had been in Id., Oct. 23, 1846, a warning
of Kearny’s approach.
16 Notwithstanding that, ‘unlike the
hospitable Pimas, he hid his bread and drove his cattle into the mountains,’ as
Ferguson remarks. Cooke, Tyler, and the rest speak not unfavorably of Warner.
17 ‘Headquarters Mormon Battalion, Mission
of San Diego, Jan. 30, 1847. (Orders no 1.) The lieut-colonel commanding
congratulates the battalion on their safe arrival on the shore of the Pacific
Ocean, and the conclusion of their march of over 2,000 miles. History may be
searched in vain for an equal march of infantry. Half of it has been through a
wilderness where nothing but savages and wild beasts are found, or deserts
where, for want of water, there is no living creature. There, with almost
hopeless labor, we have dug deep wells, which the future traveller will enjoy.
Without a guide who had traversed them, we have ventured into trackless
table-lands where water was not found for several marches. With crowbar and
pick and axe in hand, we have worked our way over mountains, which seemed to
defy anght save the wild goat, and hewed a passage through a chasm of living
rock more narrow than our wagons. To bring these first wagons to the Pacific we
have preserved the strength of our mules by herding them over large tracts,
which you have laboriously guarded without loss. The garrison of four presidios
of Sonora concentrated within the walls of Tucson gave us no pause. We drove
them out with their artillery, but our intercourse with the citizens was
unmarked by a single act of injustice. Thus, marching half naked and half fed,
and living upon wild animals, we have discovered aud made a road of great value
to our country. Arrived at the first settlement of California, after a single
day’s rest, you cheerfully turned off from the route to this point of promised
repose, to enter upon a campaign, and meet, as we supposed, the
The war in California was at an end when the battalion arrived, and in
the garrison life of some six months there is but little that demands notice.
The Mormons have always been disposed to overestimate the value of their
services during this period, attaching undue importance to the current rumors
of impending revolt on the part of the Californians and of the approach of Mexican
troops to reconquer the province. They also claim the credit of having enabled
Kearny to sustain his authority against the revolutionary pretensions of
Fremont. The merit of this claim will be apparent to the reader of preceding
chapters. But during the interregnum of military occupation a garrison force
was essential, and in this respect, as in their march across the continent, the
Mormons did faithful service, giving no cause for unfavorable criticism.
Devoting themselves zealously to military drill under the instructions of Cooke
and Stoneman, they became so proficient in the manual of arms as to elicit high
compliments from Colonel Mason and other regular- army officers. At first the
men suffered from want of proper clothing, and for want of other food than
fresh beef; but gradually their needs were supplied. They made some complaints
of petty wrongs, else had they not been volunteers. Many were sorrowful that
inexorable discipline would not allow them to retain their flowing beards to be
shown at Salt Lake. Dr Sanderson still prescribed, but only one man was thought
by them to have been killed by his drugs. A sentinel was found asleep at his
post, but the sentence of a court-martial was very mild, and was remitted by
the colonel—"a specific and direct answer
approach of an enemy;
and this, too, without even salt to season your sole subsistence of fresh meat.
Lieutenants A. J. Smith and George Stoneman, of the 1st dragoons, have shared
and given valuahle aid in all these labors. Thus, volunteers, you have
exhibited some high and essential qualities of veterans. But mueh remains
undone. Soon you will turn your attention to the drill, to system and order, to
forms also, which are all essential to the soldier. ’
Tyler, p. 255, says:
‘ The foregoing order, one of those simple acts of justice so rarely done to
Mormons, whieh was not read until Feb. 4th, six days after it was written, was
cheered heartily by the battalion.’
to prayer.” The dragoons were stanch friends of the Mormons, but the men
of Frdmont’s battalion were regarded as foes. Doubtless many of the latter, immigrants
from the western states, were hostile, and circulated among the Californians
damaging reports on Mormon character; but it is probable that this enmity,
especially that of Frdmont himself, and the rumored threats to attack the camp
and “wipe the saints out of existence,” were seen through the glasses of
prejudice. It is true that the Californians had formed in advance a very
unfavorable opinion of the Mormons, but equally true that the latter by their
conduct succeeded in almost entirely removing this feeling. In morals and
general deportment they were far superior to other troops in the province,
being largely under the control of their religious teachers. Church meetings
were held often, and sermons were preached by Captain Hunt, the spiritual
guardians Pettegrew and Hancock, or by elders Hyde, Tyler, and others. With a
view to the future necessities of themselves and families, they were allowed to
hire themselves out as farmers and artisans, and did so to a considerable
extent, especially at San Diego, where they burned bricks, dug wells, and made
log pumps, to the great advantage of themselves and of the citizens.18
The battalion left San Diego on February 1st, and on the 3d took
possession of San Luis Rey, where part of the force was stationed for two
months. On the 15 th Company B under Captain Hunter was sent to garrison San
Diego. At the end of the month Lieutenant Thompson was despatched to the
Colorado
18 On the popular feeling against the
saints, see Fremont’s Court-martial, 233, 242-3, 259-63. In Foster's Angeles in
’47, MS., 6-7, 35-41, is found some slight information on the battalion,
including a long yarn about some trouble between J. A. Carrillo and the Mormon
officers. See also, for mention of the arrival, etc., Ripley’s War with Mex.,
i. 489; Griffin’s Pap., MS., 23; Cults’ Conq., 69, 209> Julio Cisar, Cosas
de Ind., MS., 10-11; Los Angeles Express, Nov. 17, 1871; S, F. Cal. Star, Feb.
6, 1847; Bryant’s What I Saw, 416-17; Warren’s Mem., 54-5; Hughes’ Doniphan’s
Exped.,244r-8; Millennial Star, x. 23-4; xi. 47-8; Tullidge’s Women of
Mormondom, passim.
to bring wagons left there. From the 2d of March Stoneman with his
dragoons took the place of Company B at San Diego for two weeks, after which
the Mormons resumed the post. News of the assumption of the command by
Shubrick and Kearny came on the 14th, with Cooke’s appointment to the military
command in the south; and four days later the main body of the battalion marched
to Los Angeles, Lieutenant Oman being left at San Luis with thirty-two men
until April 6th, when the post was abandoned, and all of the four companies
were reunited at the pueblo. At the same time the men petitioned for discharge,
but the petition was suppressed by the officers. On the 11th Company C was sent
to hold a position already occupied by the dragoons in Cajon pass, and eleven
days later Lieutenant Pace was sent with another detachment to relieve the
first company; but this force was recalled in haste on the 24th, and the
Mormons were set at work building a fort on the hill at Los Angeles in
consequence of reports that a Mexican force was approaching. The saints
declined on May 4th an offer of discharge on condition of enlisting for five
years as dragoons. On the 8th came the first letters from absent families at
Council Bluffs and Nauvoo; and the same day Lieutenant Thompson was sent with
twenty men of Company C against some hostile Indians in the mountains, six of
whom were killed, and two of the Mormons wounded with arrows. Next day General
Kearny arrived with the New York volunteers and Colonel Stevenson, who
succeeded Cooke in command of the southern district. After some efforts to
promote a reenlistment of the Mormon volunteers, Kearny departed on the 13th
with Cooke, whose resignation had been accepted, and who took with him twelve
of the men as a bodyguard, three from each company. A small detachment was
sent to San Pedro on the 10th of June; and next day John Allen, an apostate
Mormon, was court-martialled and soon drummed out of camp, as
he had previously been expelled from the church. During the rest of June
and the first half of July there is nothing requiring special notice, though
there were continued efforts to secure a promise of reenlistment. Company B
arrived from San Diego on July 15th; next day all were mustered out by
Lieutenant Smith in the unceremonial way that might have been expected from the
battalion’s b6te noir of earlier times; a few days sufficed for paying off the
men; and on the 20th one company of Mormon volunteers under Captain Daniel C.
Davis was mustered into the service for an additional term of six months.19
There was an earnest effort by the authorities to secure a reenlistment
of the battalion for another term of garrison duty. Favorable conditions were
offered, and the command was to be given to Captain Hunt. Kearny made a speech
on the subject before his departure, and Stevenson was active in the matter
under Governor Mason’s instructions, visiting the San Diego company in Juue,
and making a speech at Los Angeles on his return. He presented as a strong
attraction the privilege of choosing their own officers, with the fact that the
Mormon commander would be the third in rank among officers in California, and
might become first. The company officers favored the proposition, and urged the
men to reenlist as the best means of aiding the cause and their absent families.
The men as a rule had no serious objections; but the religious advisers, the
parties really in control, decided adversely. Father Pettegrew thought that
duty to the families demanded a return, which would be sanctioned by the church
leaders. Elder Hyde
19 Tyler's Hist., passim; Bigler’s Diary,
MS., contains many details of the experience of Co. B at S. Diego from March
17th to July 9th. Sergt Hyde and
18 men were posted in the fort on the hill.
Religious services were held regularly, Hyde being the preacher; and there was
also a ‘ young men’s club ’ for debate, etc. Capt. Hunter’s wife died April
27th. On May 4th six months’ pay was received, and chiefly devoted to the
purchase of an outfit for return to Salt Lake. Sam. Miles acted as assistant to
the alcalde; and on June 24th Lieut Clift was appointed alcalde of the post.
The Mormons entirely conquered the original prejudice of the Dieguinos against
them, and effected a kind of industrial revolution in the town.
believed that their sacrifice of the past was enough, being satisfactory
to God and probably to the government. Elder Tyler could see, in the light of
past deceptions, no ground for confidence that promises respecting the
command would be kept. “Were not our noses put upon the grindstone? and were
they not still there ? ” It is said that Stevenson’s closing remarks gave
offence. They were: “Your patriotism and obedience to your officers have done
much towards removing the prejudice of the government and the community at
large, and I am satisfied that another year’s service would place you on a
level with other communities.” This Tyler compares to the action of a cow that
gave a good bucketful of milk and then kicked it over. “It was looked upon as
an insult added to the injuries we had received without cause. We could
challenge comparison with the world for patriotism and every other virtue, and
did not care to give further sacrifice to please pampering demagogues.”
Doubtless Pettegrew’s’ opinion was regarded as an order not to be disobeyed;
the government officers, as is frequently the case under such circumstances,
looked about for some ulterior motive. Stevenson’s theory, as reported to
Mason, was that it was designed to make room for other Mormon soldiers. “They
desire to get the military control of the country, and from time to time will
supply from 100 to 1,000 men for the service, until their whole community shall
have had some experience as soldiers, and become furnished with arms; which by
the time the civil government shall be organized will give them control as
well of the ballot-box. . . This I know to be their calculation, for Hunt and
his officers have so expressed themselves to me.” And in the same report it is
stated that Captain Hunt was about to start for Monterey to proffer his
services to raise a new battalion of Mormons from those on their way to the
country. But Father Pettegrew finally permitted the formation of one company to
remain as a garrison at San Diego,
and seventy-eight volunteers were obtained from the different companies.
They were promised disbandment in March of the next year, and transportation
to Bear River or San Francisco on discharge. Captain Hunter also remained, to
be made Indian agent at San Luis Rey.20
I have already stated that about 150 of the battalion never came to
California, but found their way from New Mexico to Salt Lake, where they were
discharged from the service. The first of the saints to return eastward were
twelve men who were detached to accompany Kearny and Cooke on the overland
route. Their names are not known, except John Binley and N. V. Jones, who kept
a diary. Three of them went with the general by sea, leaving the pueblo on May
13th, while the rest accompanied Lieut Sherman by land to Monterey,21
arriving the 25th and starting again the 31st. Something is said elsewhere of
Kearny’s march, but nothing occurred of importance in this connection. Two
parties of Mormons westward bound were met on the plains in July and August.
They reached Fort Leavenworth in September, where the saints were discharged
with $8.60 each for overtime, and soon found their way to Council Bluffs to
rejoin their families.22
20 June 5, 1847, Gov. Mason to Stevenson,
enclosing a letter to Hunt on efforts to be made for reenlistment. Cal. and N.
Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. 326-7. June 7th, Id. to Lieut Smith, on muster
in and out. Id. July 23d, Stevenson to Mason, the letter quoted in my text.
Id., 347-8. July 27th, Id. to Id., announcing reenlistment and conditions. Id.,
345-6. In his report to the adjutant-general of Sept. 18th, Mason says: ‘Of the
services of this battalion, of their patience, subordination, and general good
conduct, you have already heard; and I take great pleasure in adding that as a
body of men they have religiously respected the rights and feelings of these
conquered people, and not a syllable of complaint has reached my ears of a
single insult offered or outrage done by a Mormon volunteer. So high an opinion
did I entertain of the battalion and of their special fitness for the duties
now performed by the garrisons in this country, that I made strenuous efforts
to engage their services for another year. ’ Id., 336. In the S. F. Alta, Jan.
3, 1854, is mentioned a, rejected claim on the treasury for $85,000 for mileage
for the battalion, being the difference between commutation by the overland
and isthmus routes.
21 Sherman, Mem., i. 28, says there were
about 40 men, and that they were under his command on the march to Monterey.
Tyler says there were 12 under Stoneman, and is confirmed by Kearny as to the
number.
22 Tyler’s Hist., 299-304, following Jones’
diary.
The members of the battalion mustered out on July 16th, and who did not
reenlist, were ready for departure in a few days, numbering about 240 men. Paying
no attention to the late military organization, they formed themselves after
the manner of the Israelites into companies of hundreds, under Andrew Lytle and
James Pace; William Hyde, Daniel Tyler, and Reddick N. Allred being captains
of fifties, and other chiefs being named as captains of tens. Elisha Aver- ett
was put'in command of ten pioneers, one of whom was Henry W. Bigler, whose
diary is the principal authority for the journey.23 The pioneers
started on July 21st, Allred and his fifty on the 23d, the rest a little later,
and on the 27th all were reunited at the San Francisco rancho near the Santa
Clara River. Here they purchased a supply of cattle for meat, starting again on
the 28th, and reaching what was perhaps Kern River the 1st of August. It is not
easy or necessary to trace their exact route. There were no serious hardships,
though at first they were troubled by men who claimed some of the horses they
had bought as stolen property; and later there was some difficulty in obtaining
Indian guides. An unsuccessful effort was made to find Walker’s pass, and then
they directed their course for Sutter’s Fort, where they arrived August 26th,
encamping on the American River, two miles from the fort. Here they met Captain
Hunt, who had come by the way of Monterey and San Francisco.24 A few
wished to remain over winter, to take advantage of Californian wages, and they
were permitted to do so, Hancock
23 Bigler’s Diary of a Mormon, MS., 43 et
seq. Closely followed by Tyler, 305 et seq. Elder Tyler a little earlier had a
dream, or vision, in which ‘ tho eyes of my understanding were then opened, and
I was filled with the glory of God throughout my whole system. I saw that we
travelled northward and eastward instead of south and east as anticipated;’
and in which he foresaw many things and places connected with their journey and
future destiny.
24 Hnnt is not named by the Mormon writers,
but his arrival on the 25th is noted in N. JJelv. Diary, and also that of other
Mormons a day or two later and earlier. Some men of the battalion had been sent
in advance of the main body to make arrangements with Sutter for supplies. Bigler
gives many details, for which I have no space.
and Pettegrew deciding that it would be no sin, and all offering their
prayers for success.
Part of the men left New Helvetia on the 27th, the rest following a day
or two later to follow Kearny’s trail over the Sierra. On September 5 th the
Mormons were at the scene of the Donner disaster, where many fragments of
human bodies were lying unburied. Next day they met Samuel Brannan returning
from a visit to the eastern saints. He announced the arrival of the advance
party of immigrants in Salt Lake Valley, but gave a gloomy picture of prospects
there, and advised all, except those whose families had reached Salt Lake, to
turn back and work till spring, when very likely the church would be tired of
the dreary desert and come to California. Presently, after Brannan’s departure,
Captain James Brown, originally of the battalion,25 was met with
letters for many, and an epistle from the twelve apostles, advising those of
small means to remain in California through the winter. About half of the men
followed this counsel, returning at once to New Helvetia, where they were
25 Bigler says he had a detachment of the
battalion, which had been left at Pueblo, and which was bound to Monterey to
get their discharge papers. Neither the numbers nor names are given,
unfortunately, because they should be included in my Pioneer Register. Probably
there was but a small escort. In his report of Oct. 7th, Gov. Mason, Gal. and
N. Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. 355, writes: ‘ When on my way up to San
Francisco, I was overtaken by Captain Brown of the Mormon battalion, who had
arrived from Fort Hall, where he had left his detachment of the battalion to
come to California to report to me in person. He brought a muster-roll of his
detachment, with a power of attorney from all its members to draw their pay;
and as the battalion itself had been discharged on the 16th of July, Paymaster
Rich paid to Captain Brown the money due the dctachment up to that date,
according to the rank they bore upon the muster-rolls upon which the battalion
had been mustered out of service. Captain Brown started immediately for Fort
Hall, at which place and in the valley of Bear River he said the whole Mormon
emigration intended to pass the winter. He reported that he had met Captain
Hunt, late of the Mormon battalion, who was on his way to meet the emigrants
and bring into the country this winter, if possible, a battalion, according to
the terms offered in my letter to him of the 16th of August, a copy of which
you will find among the military correspondence of the department. In my letter
I offered Captain Hunt the command of the
battalion, with the rank of lieu- tenant-colonel, with an adjutant; but I find,
by the orders lately received, that a battalion of four companies is only
entitled to a major and acting adjutant. I will notify Captain Hunt of this
change at as early a moment as I can communicate with him. I am pleased to fina
by the despatches that in this matter I have anticipated the wish of the department.
’
hired by Sutter to work on his mill-race. Bigler was of this party, and
Tyler of those who continued their journey. The latter arrived at the Salt Lake
settlement on October 16th.28 Many remained here, but thirty-two
kept on after a stay of only two days, and after a journey of two months
without adventure calling for special notice joined their people at winter
quarters on the Missouri River the 18th of December, 1847.
The company of reenlisted Mormon volunteers27 started the 25th
of July from Los Angeles for San Diego, where they arrived August 2d.
Lieutenant Barrus with a detachment of twenty-seven men was sent a few days
later to occupy San Luis Rey. Two of the company died during this second term
of service. As before, the work of the Mormons was rather that of mechanics
than of soldiers, since there were no disorders requiring military
interference. Says the writer of one diary: “I think I whitewashed all San
Diego. We did their blacksmithing, put up a bakery, made and repaired carts,
and in fine, did all we could to benefit ourselves as well as the citizens. We
never had any trouble with Californians or Indians, nor they with us. The
citizens became so attached to us, that before our term of service expired they
got up a petition to the governor to use his influence to keep us in the
service. The petition was signed by every citizen in the town.”23
The term expired in January, but the men were not mustered out and paid off
until the middle of March 1848. More than half remained for a time, some permanently,
in California, scattering northward to the
26 Tyler notes that they brought from Cal.
various kinds of seeds, which were found very useful in the valley, especially
the club-head wheat and a prolific variety of pea.
27 The officers of this company were:
Captain Daniel C. Davis; lieutenants, Cyrus C. Canfield, Ruel Barrus, and
Robert Clift; sergeants, Edmund L. Brown, Samuel Myers, Benj. F. Mayfield, and
Henry Packard. There were four corporals, two musicians, and 68 privates, whose
names appear in my Pioneer Register.
“Henry G. Boyle’s
diary, in Tyler's Hist., 330.
mines, towns, and farms; but a party of twenty-five, under Boyle as
captain, went to Williams’ rancho to make ready for an overland journey. They
started on April 12th with one wagon and 135 mules, followed the southern
route by Mojave and the Santa F^ trail, and reached Salt Lake the 5th of June.
The experience of the detachment that returned to work through the winter
at Sutter’s Fort is clearly recorded in Bigler’s diary, but belongs to the
annals of the gold discovery, as recorded elsewhere.29 In May 1848
preparations for a migration were begun, and Daniel Browett with a small party
made a preliminary exploration for a new wagon route over the Sierra. By the
end of June arrangements had been completed, about forty-five men30
were gathered at Pleasant Valley, near Placerville, and Brouett with Allen and
Cox had started in advance to make new explorations. The main company started
on July 2d. Jonathan Holmes was leader, or president, and Lieutenant Thompson
captain. On the 19th they found the bodies of Brouett, Allen, and Cox, who had
been murdered by the Indians at a place that still bears the name of Tragedy
Spring. The route was south of the lake and into Carson Valley, where they encamped
the 5th of August. Thus with much toil but without serious disaster the Mormons
opened a new wagon road over the mountains. Soon they struck the old Humboldt
trail, on which they met several parties of emigrants, announcing to the latter
the news that gold had been discovered. The arrival at Salt Lake was on
September 25th. It should be added that a large part of the saints left behind
by the different detachments of the battalion found their way, with many of
Brannan’s men, to the Salt Lake
29 See vol. vi. of this work. Tyler in one
place gives the number of this detachment as 40, but elsewhere says that more
than half of the party turned back. The two statements seem contradictory,
though the exact number of the eastward-bound company is not known.
30 So says Bigler. Tyler says 37. There was
one woman, the wife of Sergt Coray. There were 17 wagons, 150 horses and mules,
and about the same number of cattle.
settlement in 1848-9, though a few spent the rest of their lives in
California.
Respecting Captain Hunt’s project of raising a new battalion of Mormons,
we are told that Colonel Stevenson, by Governor Mason’s instruction, wrote a
letter to President Young on the subject, alluding to the old prejudices
against the saints, which in California had been so completely dispelled by
intercourse with the volunteers until there had come to exist a strong feeling
of respect for them, and a general desire that they should remain in the
service and become permanent residents. But Young persisted in his view that
the original enlistment had been a necessary sacrifice, which there was no call
to repeat. According to Cannon, “he said he did not want the battalion to
reenlist for another six months. He regretted that he did not have clothing for
them; but he would rather wear skins, he said, than go back to the United
States for clothes.”13 The probability would seem to be that Young
would gladly have furnished another battalion had it still been the intention
to establish his people in California; but the determination to find their
promised land in Utah rendered it undesirable to part with the bone and sinew
of the saints.
Tyler appends to his admirable history of the battalion the record of a
festival held by survivors and their friends at Salt Lake City in February
1855, including speeches and reminiscences by comrades and church
dignitaries,including President Young. There is a strong vein of religious
faith running through all that was said, making the record all the more
fascinating. The old idea of the enlistment as a sacrifice that saved the
whole Mormon people from massacre was brought out in an intensified form;
indeed, the motto of the festival was, “The Mormon battalion—a ram in the
thicket.” The many hardships of the march, the promised and fulfilled immunity
from bloodshed, the frequent miraculous cures of the sick, the wagon-
31 Geo. Q. Cannon’s History of the Churchy
quoted in Tyler's Hist343-5.
Hist.
Cal., Vol. V. 32
roads opened and other achievements, the prayers and piety of the men,
the vain threats of Frdmont and his wicked followers, the finding of gold, and
the return to join the brethren in their new home—all were pictured anew to
eager listeners. Praise from president and others high in power was lavishly
bestowed, with something of blame and no end of good counsel. Song and dancing
supplemented the speech-making. It is pleasing to fill one chapter of a volume
with saintly doings, even if they do not seem to differ very radically, but for
certain peculiarities in the telling, from the deeds of those not of the faith
as recounted in other chapters.
NEW YORK VOLUNTEERS
AND ARTILLERY COMPANY.
1846-1848.
Congress Calls for
Volunteers—Letter to Stevenson—Policy
of the Government
Revealed—Recruiting in New York—In Camp at
Governor’s Island—Clark’s History and Murray’s Narrative— First or Seventh—List of Officers—Character of
the Men—Camp Life and Drill—Popular Ridicule—Discontent and Desertion—
Habeas Corpus—Instructions—Stevenson’s Troubles—Resisting Aerest—A Baffled Sheriff—Newspaper
Comment—Voyaqe of the ‘ Perkins,’
‘ Loo Choo,’ and ‘ Drew’—Later Vessels and Recruits— The Colonel’s Valor—At Rio—Arrival at San Francisco—Distribution of the Companies—Garrison Life—Disbandment—Company F, 3d U.
S. Artillery—In Garrison at Monterey—Deserting
for the Mines—Sherman’s Memoirs—Burton’s Company—The Dragoons.
An act of congress
dated May 13, 1846, authorized the president of the United States to call for
and accept the services of volunteers for the Mexican war, and on June 26th the
following communication was addressed by William L. Marcy, secretary of war, to
Colonel Jonathan D. Stevenson of New York City: “The president having
determined to send a regiment of volunteers around Cape Horn to the Pacific, to
be employed in prosecuting hostilities in some province of Mexico, probably in
Upper California, has authorized me to say that if you will organize one on
the conditions hereinafter specified, and tender its services, it will be
accepted. It is proper it should be done with the approbation of the governor
of New York. The president expects, and indeed requires, that great care should
be taken to have it composed of suitable persons—I mean persons of good habits—
(499)
as far as practicable of various pursuits, and such as would be likely to
desire to remain, at the end of the war, either in Oregon or any territory in
that region of the globe which may be then a part of the United States. The act
of the 13th May last authorizes the acceptance of volunteers for twelve months,
or during the war with Mexico. The condition of the acceptance in this case
must be a tender of services during the war, and it must be explicitly
understood that they may be discharged without a claim for returning home
wherever they may be serving at the termination of the war, provided it is in
the then territory of the United States, or may be taken to the nearest or
most convenient territory belonging to the United States, and then discharged.
The men must be apprised expressly that their term of service is for the
war—that they are to be discharged as above specified, and that they are to be
employed on a distant service. It is, however, very desirable that it should
not be publicly known or proclaimed that they are to go to any particular
province in Mexico. On this point great caution is enjoined. The communications
to the officers and men must go so far as to remove all just ground of
complaint that they have been deceived in the nature and place of the service.
It is expected that the regiment will be in readiness to embark as early as the
1st of August next, if practicable. Steps will be immediately taken to provide
for transportation.”1
Stevenson was a colonel of militia, a ward politician, and ex-member of
the legislature. Just what wires were pulled by him and his friends to secure
this new position it is neither possible nor important to know; but he had done
some service for the administration that seemed to call for reward, and he was
reputed to be a man of some energy and executive ability.2 The
policy of the administration re-
1 Report of sec. war, July 17, 1846.
Niles’ Reg., lxx. 344.
2 Thos ( ’. Lancey, in his New York
Volunteers, an article founded presum-
wpecting California is so well known to readers of this and the preceding
volumes of my work as to require no further remark; but it must be noted that
the letter to Stevenson which I have quoted, made public in July at the request
of congress, was one of the earliest documents in which the administration
clearly revealed its purpose to make the Mexican war one of permanent conquest,
since the destination of the volunteers as settlers for California was but
slightly veiled with a view to possible diplomatic contingencies. It was
deemed but remotely possible that the men would arrive in time to aid in the
conquest, but they might probably be utilized in garrison duty during the
military occupation, and they would certainly serve as a nucleus for the
Americanizing of the new province, either by remaining at the close of the war
as settlers or—in case of unlooked-for happenings—by being disbanded in
Oregon, to return as immigrants, and await or hasten the operations of manifest
destiny. This newly revealed phase of the project naturally made the Stevenson
letter a text for much comment in congress and elsewhere, but without important
results.3
ably on an
unpublished narrative by Col Stevenson, and printed as part of Clark's First
liegiment, 52-68, gives some particulars, to the effect that Stevenson in
the legislature had made a speech in support of the administration’s policy in
declaring war. Soon visiting Washington and hearing of the proposed Mormon
battalion, he mentioned his desire to go to Cal. Postmaster- general Kendall,
his friend, reported the remark to President Polk, who at once conceived the
idea of sending a regiment of volunteers, an idea which, with the choice of a
commander, was approved by John A. Dix, Daniel S. Dickinson, W. L. Marcy, and
other prominent men consulted. At u, subsequent interview the president
questioned the colonel closely as to his previons pursuits and experience. The
appointment was approved by the cabinet and by Gen. Scott. Stevenson returned
home, received his instructions of June 26th, applied to the governor for
permission to raise a regiment on June 30th, and on July 4th made the project
public at a meeting of militia officers, the matter being published iu the next
morning’s papers, and the work of recruiting being begun on the 7th. Frisbie, Semin.,
MS., says that Stevenson owed his place to the friendship of Marcy.
3See speech
of Ashmun of Mass., July 27, 1846, in H. of R. Cong. Globe, 1S40-6, appen. 809.
Mr A. caused to be read the Stevenson letter, and extracts from the
administration orgau in Washington. ‘ From these papers it will be seen, 1st,
that the administration uow openly proclaims that congress has declared war
upon Mexico—that our government has made war openly in the face of the world!
It is no longer half reluctantly asserted that the war exists by the act of
Mexico; but boldly and unhesitatingly,
Recruiting offices were at once opened at different points in New York
City, and also at Albany, Bath, and Norwich, three companies being raised
outside of the city, and seven mainly within its limits. The recruiting
officers were for the most part those who became commissioned officers of the
respective companies. No secret was made of the regiment’s destination and
prospective service, though in consequence of the precautionary instructions
already cited, there was perhaps no formal publication of the colonizing
scheme. No volunteer dreamed of conflict with any foe; all regarded themselves
as immigrant adventurers bound for a distant land of many charms, under the
protection of government. There was but slight pretence of patriotism, and no
fear of danger; neither did there present themselves at first any obstacles
more serious than the declamations of politicians who disapproved the Mexican
war. By the end of July the ranks of all the companies were filled, and they
were sent to Governor’s Island, where on the 1st of August the regiment—except
apparently one or two companies from the interior—was mustered into the United
States service by Colonel Bankhead, commandant of the post.1 The
regiment was mustered as the 7th N. Y. Volunteers, because arrangements
that we have made the
war! ’ And after an analysis of the Stevenson letter, he continues: ‘ It is no
longer pretended that our purpose is to repel invasion —to strike and defeat
the military organizations which Mexico may set on foot to contend for the
boundaries of Texas. The mask is off; the veil is lifted; and we see in the
clearest characters invasion, conquest, and colonization emblazoned on our
banners. We are no longer engaged in a defensive war; but we behold an
expedition about to sail from New York to a distant region of the globe, which
it cannot possibly reach in less time than from four to six months, commanded
by a mere political fortune-hunter of not the highest character, and destined
to accomplish the conquest and dismemberment of a sister republic, whose
weakness seems to make her a ready prey to men whose pursuits are those of
plunder.’
4 According to the official reports, there
were 767 men at this time, and Lancey makes the number 800 a little later. It
had been the idea to raise 1,000 men. Clark’s recapitulation of the
muster-rolls shows a total of 844, not perhaps including recruits who enlisted
after the regiment sailed for Cal. The official report, House Ex. Doc., 24,
31st cong. 1st sess., p. 2211, makes the total number, including 188
recruits, 955 officers and men. If the whole regiment was mustered Aug. 1st,
there must be errors in Clark’s dates of arrival of companies from the
interior; but Murray also says the country companies arrived later.
had been previously made for the organization of six other regiments from
New York; but as the latter were never raised, or rather were consolidated into
one, mustered into the service later, Stevenson’s regiment became the 1st N. Y.
Volunteers, and the name was formally changed by orders from the war
department. But the other regiment had also been mustered in as the first, its
colonel declined to comply with the order requiring a change, and Burnett’s
regiment is still known as the first in New York.5 I append a list
of regimental and company officers as taken from the muster-rolls by Francis D.
Clark, and published in his latest monograph on the subject.6
6 Clark’s First Segt, 76, 91.
8 The First
Regiment of New York Volunteers commanded by Col. Jonathan
D. Stevenson, in the Mexican War. Names of the
members of the regiment during its term of service in upper and lower
California, 1847-8, with a record of all known survivors on the 15th day of
April, 1882, and those known to have deceased, with other matters of interest
pertaining to the organization and service of the regiment. Compiled by their
comrade, Francis D. Clark. New York, 1882, 8vo, 94 p., wiiii an appendix of 16
p., bringing the record down to Aug. 1, 1883. Portraits of author and of
Col. Stevenson. The author, a member of Co. D, and later resident of N. Y.
City, began in 1870 to collect information respecting his surviving and dead
comrades; and besides taking a prominent part in all anniversary reunions,
serving as secretary, replying to toasts, and writing newspaper items on his
chosen subject, published a Roll of Survivors, New York, 1871, single sheet,
and again a Roll of Survivors, N. Y. 1874, 8vo, 20 p. He was secretary of the
associated pioneers of the territorial days of Cal., and mainly the author of
the pamphlet report of that organization. Cal. Assoc. Pion., N. Y. 1875, 8vo,
58 p.; also contributing a narrative of his regiment’s experience to the Cal.
Territorial Pioneers, First Annual. He deserves much credit for bis intelligent
efforts, and hia book calls for no unfavorable criticism so far as the author
is concerned. As a monograph, however, the book might well have been made much
larger by the addition of interesting personal and local reminiscences; and it
does not speak well for the survivors of the regiment, mauy of whom are rich,
that they did not give more encouraging support to the enterprise. Perhaps they
reserved their best efforts for the time when the colonel’s long-promised narrative
shall appear.
Official list of 1st
N. Y. Volunteers: Colonel Jonathan D. Stevenson, Lieut- uol. Henry S. Burton,
Major James A. Hardie, Surgeon Alex. Perry; Ass’t surgeons, Robert Murray and
Wm C. Parker; commissary, Capt. Wm G. Marcy; adjutant, Lieut J. C. Bonnycastle;
ass’t quartermaster, Capt. Joseph L. Folsom; sergeant-major, Alex. C. McDonald;
quartermaster-sergeants, successively, Stephen Harris, Geo. G. Belt, and James
C. Low; drum-major, Geo. Batchelor; chief musicians, Joseph Vevis and Frederic
Grambis; sutler, Sam. W. Haight; clerk, James C. L. Wadsworth.
Co. A. Capt. Seymour
G. Steele; lieutenants, Geo. F. Penrose, Charles B. Young, and Geo. F. Lemon;
sergeants, S. 0. Houghton, Walter Chipman, and Edward Irwin.
Co. B. Capt. James M.
Turner (did not go to Cal.); lieutenants. Thomas
For names of all members of the regiment, officers and privates, with
biographical notices of many, I refer the reader to the Pioneer Register at
the end of this and the preceding volumes. Five or six of the officers were of
the regular army and graduates of West Point. The regiment was almost
exclusively made up of. young unmarried men, many of whom were minors. The
leading motive for enlistment was the immigrant’s hope to better his condition
in a new country; many were attracted solely by a love of adventure, and but
for the ice would as readily have gone to the north pole; while others had
records, associations, and debts, from which they were willing to run away.
Captain Steele’s company, if we may credit the Herald of the time, was composed
of temperance men. Mechanics were most numerous, including thirteen printers;
and there were also clerks and farmers. Many were men of good education,
family, and prospects. Says Walter Murray: “There were
E. Ketchum, Henry C. Matsell, and E. Gould
Buffum; sergeants, Charles Richardson, James G. Denniston, and *John Wilt.
Co. C. Capt. John E.
Brackett; lieutenants, Theron R. Per Lee, Thomas J. Roach, Chas C. Anderson, Wm
R. Tremmels (not in Cal.), and *Geo. D. Brewerton; sergeants, Edmund P. Crosby,
Wm Johnson, and *Geo. Robinson.
Co. D—many of its
members from Philadelphia. Capt. Henry M. Nag- lee; lieutenants, Geo. A.
Pendleton, Hiram W. Theall, and Joseph C. More- head; sergeants, Henry J.
Wilson, Aaron Lyons, and Wm Roach.
Co. E. Capt. Nelson
Taylor; lieutenants, Edward Williams, Wm E. (Jutrell, and Thomas L. Vermeule;
sergeants, John M. O’Neill, Henry S. Morton, and Abraham van Riper.
Co. F. Capt. Francis
J. Lippitt; lieutenants, Henry S. Carnes, Wm. H. Weirick, John M. Huddart, and
*Jeremiah Sherwood; sergeants, James Mulvey, James Queen, John C. Pulis, and
*Thomas Hipwood; chaplain, T. M. Leavenworth.
Co. G. Capt. Matthew
R. Stevenson (son of the colonel); lieutenants, John McH. Hollingsworth,
Jeremiah Sherwood, *Wm W. Weirick, and *Wm H. Smith; sergeants, John Connell,
Geo. Jackson, Geo. Robinson, Walter Taylor, and Wm B. Travers.
Co. H—raised at
Albany, N. Y. Capt. John B. Frisbie; lieutenants, Edward Gilbert and John S.
Day; sergeants, Eleazar Frisbie, Wm Grow, Henry A. Schoolcraft, and James
Winne.
Co. I—raised at Bath,
N. Y. Capt. Wm E. Shannon; lieutenants, Palmer B. Hewlett, Henry Magee, Wm H.
Smith, and *John McH. Hollingsworth; sergeants, Joshua S. Vincent, Joseph
Evans, and Joseph B. Logan.
Co. K—raised at
Norwich, N. Y. Capt. Kimball H. Dimmick; lieutenants, John S. Norris, Geo. C.
Hubbard, Roderick M. Morrison, *Theron R. Per Lee, and *Geo. D. Brewerton;
sergeant, Jackson Sellers.
The names marked with
a * are those of officers transferred to other companies, on the rolls of
which they also appear.
men of pretty much every class except the most opulent ; a large
proportion of steady mechanics of all trades, with a smart sprinkling of the
b’hoj^s of New York City, and not a few intemperates and ne’er-do-wells.”7
This rough element was strong enough to give the regiment a bad name in some
respects, as we shall see. Some of the volunteers achieved later notoriety as
criminals, ending their career in prison or on the gallows; while others could
never so far forget their early training as to devote themselves to any other
industry than the vicious one of machine politics in its different branches.
Yet there can be no doubt that the standard of character and ability was much
higher than in most volunteer regiments of this or any other period. An extraordinary
number, both of officers and men, reached in their western home and elsewhere
enviable positions in military and political life: as lawyers, judges, and
merchants; as men of wealth and local influence. And a majority of the rest may
point with pride to their humbler record as respectable law-abiding citizens.
Without indorsing current declarations to the effect that “patriotism was the
ruling motive of these brave men,” we may suppose that under circumstances
demanding such qualities they would have been as brave and patriotic as other
men.
With military drill and discipline at the island camp, where the regiment
remained nearly two months,
7 Narrative of a California Volunteer, by
Hon. Walter Murray, MS., 212 p. The author was a private of Co. A, detailed aa
cook during the encampment at Governor’s Island, and in later years a
prominent citizen of California. His narrative ia by far the most complete
extant on the enlistment, encampment in N. Y., voyage of the Loo Choo, and
experience of his own and the other companies that served at Sta Barbara and in
Lower California. Unfortunately—though this does not much impair its value so
far as regimental annals are concerned—the MS. terminates abruptly before the
return of the writer to Alta California. John B. Frisbie’s Reminiscences, MS.,
written in Mexico, 1884, contains some details about the history of the
regiment.
Another original MS.
in my possession is Capt. Alhert G. Brackett’s Sketch of 1st Regiment New York
Volunteers. It is a carefully prepared account en r6sum6 of the organization
and achievements of the regiment, none the less creditable to the author from
the fact that it is less complete than Clark’s work published several years
after this MS. was furnished for my use. The author is, I think, a sou of Capt.
Brackett of Co. C.
reality began to take the place of romance in the minds of many
volunteers. Many ran away, and more escaped the service, more or less
reluctantly, by the aid of their parents, armed with writs of habeas corpus,
designated at the time as writs of ‘non-Californium’ by newspaper writers and
others who were wont to refer flippantly to the ‘baby regiment.’ There were the
usual ludicrous happenings in connection with the work of transforming raw
recruits into soldiers; as when a sentinel, after repeated instructions that
no one must be allowed to pass without the countersign, hailed the next comer
with the conventional “ Who goes there?” “A friend,” was the reply. “Then
say‘Newport/or I’ll shoot;” or when another guard started to chase a man who
had eluded his vigilance, all the volunteers in sight following the two at full
speed in their eagerness to bet on the result of the race. Murray also notes
the disastrous effects of the coffee and other rations concocted by himself and
other cooks of like inexperience. Because of political opposition to the
project of sending out this body of warrior-colonists, and for lack of the
excitement and solemnity sometimes arising on such occasions from prospective
danger and bloodshed, Stevenson’s regiment had to endure somewhat more than its
due share of ridicule; but this did no harm, and the places of those that left
the ranks were filled without much difficulty.8
Among those remaining as well as those who retired there were causes of
dissatisfaction more or less serious. Recruiting officers had talked of
land'grants in California, and the men, when their first enthusiasm had
cooled, realized that the government, to say nothing of lands, had not even
bound itself to carry them to California at all. Then they were
8 Besides the narratives already cited,
the best authorities on the experience at Governor’s Island are articles in
various newspapers of the time, many of which I find reproduced or quoted in
Niles’ Register, vol. lxx.-i., passim. The N. Y. Herald of Aug. 10 and Sept. 6,
1846, gave to its readers pictures of the encampment.
legally entitled, under the laws of New York, to choose their own company
officers; but in few cases, if any, were they really permitted to do so. Again,
the prices charged for articles of clothing were deemed excessive, so much so
that several companies refused to receive these articles on their pay account,
being confined in consequence for insubordination. Somewhat serious
disturbances were reported in the newspapers, and on one occasion at least the
regular troops were called out to quell disorders.9
Late in August three stanch ships were chartered for $65,000—a reasonable
rate, as even the newspapers admitted, though they did not fail to note a willingness
on the part of certain friends of the administration to furnish inferior
vessels at double the price—to carry the regiment round the Horn to the Pacific
coast; and on board was placed a large and well chosen assortment of arms,
munitions, and implements for war or peace. Instructions from the war
department to Colonel Stevenson were dated September 11th. The regiment was to
be a part of the force under General Kearny; but as the latter might not arrive
so soon as the volunteers, the colonel might for a time find himself in chief
command of the
8‘On the
18th the regiment was inarched to the guard-house to receive their bounty money
previous to embarking. The men of Co. C—the first company marched up—refusing
to pay the prices charged for their clothing, viz.: $5 for jackets, $3 for
pants, and $1.50 for caps. They were willing to pay a fair price, but were
confined for insubordination. Co. A then came up, and refused. They were
marched back to their quarters and confined to their tents. Col Bankhead,
finding the refusal general, told them they would he compelled to embark
without their pay—which they preferred to taking the clothifig at the prices
charged.’ Niks’ Reg., lxxi. 57. ‘The uniform of the regiment, which will
soon be completed, designed by Major Hardie, is very neat and serviceable;
pantaloons of dark mixed gray with scarlet strip or cord up the seam of the
leg, blue coats with scarlet trimmings, a new style of French cap, very
becoming; the first dress parade will take place next Sunday.’ N. Y. Herald,
Aug. 3, 1846. See also extracts from the Union,
U. S.
Gazette, and
Tribune, in Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 386, 402. ‘ It is likely that some of the young
men who expected to enjoy the “ largest liberty ” under the rule of such a
colonel, and the most lawless license in the El Dorado they seek, will find
themselves under restraints which they neither anticipated nor desired.’ N. Y.
Com. Advocate, in Id., 20. ‘We hear that a sort of court-martial was held on
Governor’s Island yesterday, and the ringleader in the recent kick-up there
among Col Stevenson’s volunteers was convicted of mutiny and ordered to be
shot! ’ Tribune, in Id., lxx. 402.
land forces. “ It is not expected that you will be able to advance far
into the country; nor is it advisable for you to undertake any hazardous
enterprises. Until you shall fall under the command of General Kearny, your
force will be mostly if not wholly employed in seizing and holding important
possessions on the sea-coast;” but “where a place is taken by the joint action
of the naval and land force, the naval officer in command, if superior in rank
to yourself, will be entitled to make arrangements for the civil government of
it while it is held by the cooperation of both branches;” so that Stevenson’s
chance to be for a brief time military governor of California was very slight.
Instructions to Kearny and the naval commanders were enclosed to him, as were
his to the others; but as the military occupation was completed and Kearny was
on the ground long before the volunteers arrived, the policy as well as the
facts of military occupation being moreover well known to the reader, there is
no need of entering more fully into the details of this document.10
But while ships were ready and instructions signed there were yet
vexatious delays of departure resulting from complications between the colonel
and his enemies. It is not easy or very important to determine the merits or
even the exact nature of the complications referred to, which are but vaguely
recorded in papers of the time. The colonel’s own version, as presented by
Lancey, is in substance as follows: Thomas J. Sutherland, a military
adventurer, being refused a position on the staff, used insolent and
threatening language, and was ordered out of the tent and off the campground.
In his anger he devoted himself to plots of vengeance, and some fifteen days
before the time set for sailing Stevenson received a warning through the war
department of prospective attempts to prevent his departure, and to make a
certain captain, Shannon or Naglee, I suppose, colonel in his place. Presently,
10 Sept. 11,
1S48, Sec. Marcy to Stevenson. Cutts* Conquest, 248-50.
through a friend in the sheriff’s office, there came more information, to
the effect that seventy or eighty men who had joined the regiment, but had been
unable at the last to pass the medical examination, had been induced to bring
suit for false imprisonment, claiming damages to the amount of $80,000. Writs
of attachment were made out and were to be served on the day of sailing; but
thanks to the warning, Stevenson was able to baffle the efforts of his foes and
to escape the sheriff’s posse.11 There is no good reason to question
the general accuracy of this testimony, though there is room for suspicion that
it does not include quite the whole truth, that the suits for false
imprisonment were not the only ones pending, and that all opposition to the
gallant colonel did not proceed from the plots of the disappointed Sutherland.
The evidence extant is for the most part vague, and it may involve nothing more
discreditable to Stevenson’s reputation than the fact that the class of
metropolitan politicians which he represented was not—in 1846—regarded as meriting
unqualified praise. I append some extracts which will illustrate the spirit of
the time, showing what
"Lancey, in
Clark’s First Reg., 55, etc. Embarking the troops in great haste, Col S. gave
orders that no one should be permitted to board or leave the vessel without his
written permission; and men were stationed at different points with 32-pound
shot to sink any boat that might persist in making fast. Several attempts were
made by officers of the law to reach the colonel by sending false messages or
false names, and by other devices; and once the heavy shot was dropped
alarmingly near a boat belonging to the foe. At midnight the colonel with an
escort armed to the teeth found his way with muffled oars to hold a parting
interview with his three motherless daughters in Brooklyn. For two days after
the forces embarked a strict guard was kept up. The guns were manned, loaded
with grape and canister, and kept ready for instant service. S. explained to a
few trusty friends ‘ that he intended to resist arrest at all hazards, even if
the sheriffs boat had to be blown out of the water’! The pilot of an
approaching steamer was given five seconds to back off, or be a dead man, and
he chose to save his life. And finally, as the flag-ship was towed out to sea,
another steamer bearing the sheriff’s posse left the wharf in pursuit, but was
distanced in the race. About five miles out the colonel made a parting visit to
the other two ships; and on the Susan Drew,
‘ did not
notice the extended hand ’ of the captain who had plotted against him and who
was to have been make colonel. ‘ When, however, this gentleman placed his hand
in his, Col S. looked him steadily in the eye. The officer at that glance
flushed guiltily, and knew then that the colonel was aware of his perfidy
toward him. Slowly the checkmated villain withdrew his hand and slunk away ’!
12In his
speech of July 27th in congress, Ashmun says of the Stevenson letter: ‘ It is
addressed—not to an officer of the array whose habits and education fit him
for mere military service of the ordinary kind—not to a man who has heen
distinguished by any public service in the field—but a mere political
adventurer, who is only known to the world as a partisan from the neighborhood
of the Five Points, and the region where the Empire Club holds sway, and where
the doctrine that “to the victors belong the spoils” is acknowledged and
practised.’ Gong. Globe, 1845-6, app. 809. There was some jealousy on the part
of other volunteer organizations for favors shown to this regiment, especially
as a son of Sec. Marcy was to go as paymaster. Mechanics’ Journal, in Niles’
Beg., lxx. 344. ‘For ourselves, we have never believed that this expedition
would sail under the command of J. D. Stevenson; and warrant for such an
opinion may be found in the well known Glentworth affair. A man who has ever
found it necessary to be an alias should never be intrusted with a military
command, or made the associate and companion of gentlemen. How Gov. Marcy cau
justify it to his conscience and to the country for having recommended
Stevenson for this highly important command we cannot conjecture.’ N. Y.
Courier and Enquirer, in Id., 416. The same paper prints some of Sutherland’s
charges, in substance as follows: 1st, forcing the men to purchase unsuitable
clothing at excessive prices, his son- in-law being the pretended contractor.
2d, falsely reporting company rolls as complete, in order to obtain commissions
for incompetent favorites. 3d, using his influence to exclude men of capacity
and experience (that is, Sutherland himself!), and accepting only men who
would become his ‘suppliant underlings.’ 4th, declaring his intention to run
away from his government convoy, and not to ohey the president’s orders in Cal.!
And 5th, duplicity practised on president, governor, and others, ‘ unbecoming
an officer and a soldier. ’ In the S. Californian, Oct. 6, 1847, is an extract
from the jV. Y. Express on statements in the legislature on the clothing
swindles. ‘ The difficulties are not yet ended. The colonel has chartered four
vessels, but as things look now, one will be amply sufficient, unless he sails
very soon. The circuit court is crowded this morning with the parties and
witnesses to a case of habeas corpus, which is to test the legality and
validity of Col Stevenson’s commission. Gen. Sutherland continues to be the
active instrument of opposition, and will perhaps succeed in breaking up the
enterprise. If he does not, it will fall to pieces of itself, most likely. In
either case, a partisan of the govt has been liberally rewarded, and it is “
all right. ” ’ North American, in Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 39. ‘Col Jonathan 1).
Stevenson—a motion was yesterday made for the appointment of a receiver of the
property and effects of this gentleman, upon a creditor’s bill filed against
him, in which N. Dane Ellingwood was complainant. The motion was granted. Will
not this stop his supplies from the government 1 He is also under bail, which
was put in upon his arrest under a writ of ne exeat to stay within the
jurisdiction of the court.’ JV. Y. Tribune, in Id., 57. ‘The Cal. expedition is
off at last, shorn somewhat of its numeric force, as it has long been almost
wholly of its moral. Its departure haa been signalized by a prolongation of
that unhappy compound, made up almost equally of misfortune and misconduct,
which has attended it from the beginning; and it requires no very abiding or
superstitious faith in omens to believe that the issue will be useless and
inglorious in strict conformity with the inception and progress.’ ‘We put on
record at this time our unhesitating confidence that as a specimen of utter
hopeless failure this Cal. expedition will stand without a superior, perhaps
without an equal, in the innals of any nation’ I Com. Advertiser, Sept. 28,
1846, in Id., 68. More of the Ellingwood suit in Nov. Gazette and Times, in
Id., 146.
September. Each of the three transports carried three complete companies
and part of another, Company E being the one that was divided. The Thomas H.
Perkins, 697 tons, under Captain James P. Arther, well known in California,
bearing the commander’s penant, carried companies B, F, and Gr, with Colonel
Stevenson, Surgeon Perry,and Quartermaster Folsom. The Loo Choo, 639 tons,
James B. Hatch master, and also familiar with the western coast, carried
companies A, C, and K, under the command of Major Hardie, having also on board
Assistant-surgeon Parker and Chaplain Leavenworth. The Susan Drew, 701 tons,
Putman master, carried companies D, I, and H, under the command of
Lieutenant-colonel Burton, with Com- misary Marcy and Assistant-surgeon Murray.
All the fleet was under the convoy of the U. S. sloop-of-war Preble. So sudden
was the departure, for reasons that have been given, that over forty men and
officers, including Captain Taylor and lieutenants Ver- meule and Penrose,
were left behind. These men were despatched on November 13th on the Brutus,
Adams master, under Captain Taylor. Subsequently two hundred recruits were
raised by the efforts of Captain Turner, who had returned from Rio Janeiro.
Half of this force sailed on the Lsabella, Briggs master, from Philadelphia,
under Lieutenant Thomas J. Roach; and the other half on the Sweden, Knott
master, from New York, under Lieutenant Thomas E. Ketchum— all in August 1847.
The voyage of all the transports was a most uneventful one. On the
Perkins it is related that Captain Arthur had laid in a store of poultry as a
consideration of being permitted to join the officers’ mess, but subsequently
changed his mind with a view to sell his chickens. The officers refused to
purchase, but the men were not averse to stealing, and the captain’s
speculation was not a profitable one. Not many of the volunteers were able to
resist sea-sickness, which kept the colonel for several days in his
state-room, and left him “but the ghost of his former self,” and so weak
that for a long time he had to be supported by two soldiers; but the weakness
was of the body and not of the spirit, if we are to judge by Stevenson’s own
account of his methods in enforcing discipline and quelling incipient mutiny.13
During the last week of November all the ships were together at Rio Janeiro,
where certain complications between the United States minister and the
Brazilian government afforded the warlike colonel and his men an opportunity
to show their patriotic enthusiasm. They even had the honor of adding something
to the diplomatic difficulties. To the quartermaster-sergeant’s wife had been
born on the Perkins a daughter, and at her christening as Alta California
Harris, Minister Wise indulged in some comparisons between the event and the
recent christening of a “royal bantling of the Brazilian nation.” For this
patriotic pleasantry the government was thought to be contemplating an order
that every American vessel must quit the port. No such order, however, was
issued, and consequently the New York volunteers did not appear with fixed
bayonets in the streets of Rio. All sailed again at the end of November, and
proceeded on their uneventful way round Cape Horn. Murray describes the
13 A
sergeant in transmitting orders to his detachment said: ‘I have given you the
order, and I don’t care a damn whether you obey it or not. ’ For this the
colonel reduced him to the ranks, and set him to cleaning the ship. For
refusing to perform this duty he was triced up by the thumbs and wrists. This
caused discontent, ‘until at length, seeking to frighten Col S. into relaxing
his severity, Capt. Folsom, who had before presumed on his superior’s
friendship, entered his cabin, and in rather an insolent manner said to him:
“Col S., do you know that there will be a mutiny on this vessel this afternoon?”
“No, sir,” replied Col S., “but I do know that there will not be a mutiny. And
further, Capt. F., you know that I sleep over 900 tons of gunpowder, but you
do not know, sir, that I liave a train laid from that powder to my berth.”
“What?” stammered the captain. “Col S., you surely do not mean to say—” “Yes,
sir, I do; and you can rest assured that before I will suffer the command of
this vessel to pass from me there will not be a plank left for a soul on board
to cling to; and now, sir, let the mutiny proceed” ! Pale as a spectre, and
with eyes fairly emerging from their sockets, the thoroughly alarmed officer
hastily excused himself and hurried forward, where he no doubt imparted the
fearful threat. ’ What slight traces of mutiny still remained disappeared
after the colonel had promptly knocked down, a soldier who spoke
disrespectfully of his authority. Lancey, 63-4.
voyage of‘ the Loo Choo, but his narrative contains nothing calling for
notiee, unless it be the drowning of a sailor near the cape, the death of
Lieutenant Trem- mels in a fit of apoplexy, caused by the excitement of the
accident, and a narrow eseape from grounding in entering Valparaiso, where this
craft and the Drew arrived in January 1847, the other transport not entering
any port between Rio and San Francisco.
The Perkins was first to reach San Francisco, where she landed the first
detachment of volunteers the 6th of March, 1847. Next to arrive was the Drew,
on the 19th; while the Loo Choo, which had been first at Rio and at Valparaiso,
was delayed by a calm in the tropics, and did not anchor at Yerba Buena till
March 26th. The Brutus, bringing the men who had been left behind, without
having touched at any port after leaving New York, arrived on April 18th; and
the next day the convoy Preble came into port, having touched at Callao.11
As offensive military operations were at an end, and General Kearny was at
Monterey, it only remained to put the regiment at his disposal for garrison
duty. Companies H and K were stationed at the San Francisco presidio, under
Major Hardie as commandant of the post, with Captain Folsom and Dr Parker; and
here these companies remained to the end of their service, except that Company
H exchanged posts with the Sonoma company for a short time in August 1848.
Companies A, B, and F were assigned to Santa Barbara, under the ecmmand of
Lieutenant-colonel Burton, with Surgeon Perry; and
11 The dates of arrival are given in the S.
F. Cal. Star, March 13, 27, April 24, 1847. In Larkin’s Doc., MS., iv. 33, I
have a letter of Capt. Arther of the Perkins, dated March 6th, the date of
arrival. Stevenson desired Arther to carry his troops to Monterey, but the
captain refused, demanding $5,000 for the trip, or later $3,000. He published
a defence of his action in the Star, where some unfavorable criticism had
appeared. Murray, Narr., 55-6, says the first comers told those 'who arrived
later a dismal story of the country, the climate, and the prospective
dog’s-life before the volunteers. Alfred A. Green’s Life and Adventures of a
’Jfler, MS., may be noticed here as containing a brief narrative of the voyage,
which is alluded to in few words by several members of the regiment who have
given me their reminiscences. The Isabella and Sweden, with two hundrea
recruits, ar rived at Monterey in February of the next year.
Hist.
Cal.,
Vol. V. 33
they sailed 0x1 March 31st in the Moscow, landing the 8th of April.
Company F remained at Santa Barbara during the whole term of its service; but
A and B sailed for La Paz the 4th of July, leaving Captain Lippitt in command
of the post. Companies D, E, G, and I left San Francisco in the Lexington April
3d for Monterey. Company D engaged in some expeditions in pursuit of Indian
horse-tbieves, and the 5th of March, 1848, sailed for La Paz in the Isabella,
with the recruits that had come on that vessel. Companies E and G left
Monterey in the Lexington May 5th, and served as a garrison at Los Angeles from
the 9th to the time of their discharge, Colonel Stevenson being commandant of
the post and of the southern district. Company I remained at the capital till
December 28th, then going to garrison San Diego in place of the Mormons, the
post being from that time under the command of Captain Shannon. Finally Company
C left San Francisco in April, and was stationed at Sonoma under Captain
Brackett. A detachment of twenty-five men were sent to garrison Sutter’s Fort
from June to September, under Lieutenant Anderson. In May 1848 the company was
ordered to Lower California, but was sent back to Sonoma from Monterey; and on
August 5th it went to San Francisco, being replaced on the northern frontier by
Frisbie’s men of Company H.15
After the arrival of the volunteers and their distribution to the
different garrisons, there is but little to be added to regimental annals but
the record of disbandment. The men performed their military duties well
enough, though at several points there were complaints of disorderly conduct
on the part of the rougher element; but their real achievements, as wisely in
15 The distribution is given in Clark’s
First Regiment; in Brackett’s Sketch, MS.; in the S. F. Californian of April
10, 1847; and scattered items are found in many different accounts, which there
is no need to specify, since Clark’s work is entirely satisfactory. The
services of Naglee’s company, as mounted men, against the Indians, are
mentioned in Mason’s reports of June 18th and Oct. 7th. Cal. and N. Mex., Mess,
and Doc., 1850, p. 312, 355.
tended by the government from the first, were not as soldiers, but as
settlers and citizens of a new country, under circumstances in some respects
more wonderfully favorable than had been dreamed by the youthful adventurers
in New York. Petty happenings of garrison life—though fully related by Murray
for Santa Barbara, and less completely elsewhere by other writers—do not belong
to the history of the regiment, but to local annals of the garrison towns, not
very exciting even when eked out with occurrences not military in their
nature. An accidental explosion at Los Angeles on the 9th of December, 1847, by
which several men were killed and others injured, was perhaps the most notable
event in this connection. The companies that were sent south saw some actual
service in the peninsula, losing two men in battle, but their experience
belongs to another part of my work.16
The volunteers had enlisted cfor the war,’ and accordingly, on
receipt of news that the war had been ended by the treaty of May 30th, orders
were issued by Governor Mason for the mustering-out of the regiment. This was
on August 7, 1848. On the 15th Lieutenant Hardie of the 3d artillery—major of
the regiment, who now resumed his position in the regular army, but retaining
command of the post— mustered out companies C and K at San Francisco, and
Company H on the 25th as soon as it arrived from Sonoma. Captain A. J. Smith of
the 1st dragoons mustered out Company F at Santa Barbara the 8th of September,
the staff companies E and G at Los Angeles on the 18th, and Company I at San
Diego on the 25th. The remaining companies, A, B, and D, on their arrival from
Lower California, were mustered out by Captain Burton of the 3d artillery, late
lieuten- ant-colonel of the volunteers, at Monterey on October 23d and 24th.
The field-officers were mustered out
16See Hist.
North Mex. States, ii., this series. These companies returned in the Ohio,
arriving at Monterey Oct. 14, 1848.
by Captain Burton at Monterey the 26th of October. In his report of
December 27th to the war department, giving details of the disbandment,
Governor Mason wrote in complimentary terms of Stevenson, Burton, and Hardie,
and of the faithful and efficient service each had rendered in his district,
extending the praise also to subaltern officers and soldiers. I append in a
note some items of interest on the disbandment, gleaned from the official
documents.17
,7 Gal. and
N. Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1850, containing all the correspondence. Sept. 18,
1847, bad conduct of Lippitt’s men at Sta Barbara, Mason’a report, p. 335. Nov.
11th, ‘Lieut Burton reports mncli insubordination, and that the company
officers have little or no control over their men. A similar state of things
exists among some of the companies in Upper Cal. ’ p. 422. June 17, 1848,
Brackett’s company at Sonoma reduced from 60 to 23 men by desertions for the
gold-fields, p. 621-3. Aug. 7th, Lieut W. T. Sherman (a. a. a. general) to Maj.
Hardie. Order to discharge the volunteers at S. F. Maj. Rich, the U. S.
paymaster, is expected on the Olga to pay off the men, but they must be
discharged and wait for pay if he does not arrive, p. 633. Aug. 7th, Id. to
comandante at S. Jos£, to proceed with detachment to S. F. for discharge. This
is the only record I find of such a detachment, p. 633. Aug. 11th, Sherman to
Capt. A. J. Smith, who is to go south on the Anita to discharge the southern
companies. Unserviceable property was to be sold at auction. ‘As many citizens
may feel insecure in consequence of the withdrawal of all military force, you
are authorized to leave with the alcalde or other trusty citizen a few arms and
some ammunition, taking his receipt for the same. The arms will be delivered
out of those which were taken from the citizens of Cal. during the past war,
and may be distributed to persons who can be trusted, who stand in need of such
protection.’ p. 637-8. Aug. 16th, Sherman to Quartermaster Folsom at S. F.
Volunteers to be paid according to laws of congress and instructions of the
war dept. Gov. M. ‘is not aware of any law that entitles officers of this
regiment to mileage, or any other allowance, to the place of enrolment.’ p.
638. Aug. 21st, Id. to Paymaster Rich at S. F. He is to go south on the Anita,
after turning over to Maj. Hardie money to pay the S. F. volunteers lately
mustered out. p. 639. Aug. 20th, Stevenson to Mason. An appeal that the
volunteers in the south be permitted to retain their arms, and to have 15 days’
rations. Otherwise they will be left in a bad condition, with scanty means to
reach the mines. The Mormons were allowed to retain their arms, and were
furnished transportation to Salt Lake, for less service than that of the N. Y.
volunteers; and Gen. Kearny had assured S. that like favors should be shown to
Stevenson’s men. p. 644-5. Aug. 26th, Sherman in reply for Mason declines to
permit the retention of arms. The Mormons kept theirs by a special agreement at
the time of enlistment; Gen. Kearny left no instructions on the subject, or
record of his promise; and moreover, it would be unwise to leave U. S. gnns of
late patterns in tho hands of private individuals, because in such case it
would be impossible to distinguish these arms from those improperly acquired.
Bat as to rations, if Maj. Rich decides against allowing any travelling ex-
peuses, provisions will be given for the journey to Monterey or S. F.; and
women, sick men, etc., will be transported on the Anita, p. 642. Aug. 21st,
Sherman to Capt. Lippitt. The auction sale of provisions will give the Sta
Barbara men a chance to get supplies for their jonrney to the mines. S. to
Hardie, permitting the issue of a certificate of honorable discharge. Id. to
Id., about paying off the men, Rich not having arrived, p. 640. Aug. 25th,
Official statistics of the regiment as published in the government
documents are as follows: Mustered in at New York in August 1846, 38 officers
and 729 men; joined later, 188 men; officers resigned, six; men discharged,
136; died, 33; killed in action, two; killed by accident, seven; wounded by
accident, two; deserted, 323; mustered out in California 1848, 39 officers and
658 men. According to Clark’s researches, nothing is known respecting the death
or whereabouts if living of about four hundred and fifty of the men. Of the
rest about one hundred and thirty were living in California as late as 1883,
and about the same number had died in California before that date. On their
discharge nearly all found their way as soon as possible to the gold mines,
whence year by year such as did not die there scattered with and without gold
over the Pacific territories. Their fate was far from being the disastrous one
predicted by hostile newspapers at the start. The volunteers performed well
enough the duties assigned them as soldiers and settlers; and the result
fairly justified the views of the administration that promoted the
organization. The colonel, the oldest man in the regiment at starting, was
still a resident and federal office-holder of San Francisco in 1885; while not
a few other members of
Anita at
Mont., awaiting Rich. Aug. 28th, Rich had arrived, and had paid off S. F.
volunteers, p. 603-4, 643-4. Oct. 9th, sec. of war to Col Mason. Volunteers
insisting on returning to the U. S. might be retained in the service until an
opportunity for return occurred. If discharged in Cal., they will be ■entitled to 3
months’ extra pay. p. 258. I find no other record about this extra pay. Dec.
27th, Mason’s report to sec. of war. ‘About the time of the disbanding of the
three companies from L. Cal. at this place (Monterey), some of the individuals
of these companies committed gross acts of pillage upon public and private
property, took forcible possession of a public building belonging to the town
authorities, which they ocunpied for some days, and wantonly injured to a
considerable extent.’ p. 649-53. March 3d, Mason writes that many of the
volunteers had brought with them to Cal. arms and ammunition, which they sold
to Californians. All that could be found were seized, to be returned after the
war was over. p. 4S8. In the 8. J. Pioneer of Nov. 21, 1877, is an account of
the circumstances attending the mus- tering-out of the last companies at
Monterey, and the men’s departure for the mines. The facts and dates of the
disbandment are also given in Clark’s First Regiment. It appears that Lieut
Sherwood, being absent on detached service at the mustering-out of his company,
was not formally discharged ■until 1873.
the regiment held positions of honor in California and elsewhere.18
The first United States troops sent to California after the declaration
of war against Mexico were companies C and K, first dragoons, marching from
Santa Fd under General Kearny, and arriving in December 1846. Next came the
Mormon volunteer battalion, which, crossing the continent, forded the Colorado
and entered California on January 10, 1847. The third detachment was an
artillery company of the regular army, which came by sea later in January.
Fourth was the regiment of New York volunteers, arriving by sea in March of the
same year; and finally, at the end of 1848, there came overland from Chihuahua
four additional companies of dragoons under Major Graham. Three of the five
bodies of troops have been noticed in this and earlier chapters; the other two,
the artillery company and dragoon battalion, require attention here.
Company F third artillery was composed mainly of new recruits enlisted
for a term of five years in Pennsylvania and Maryland during the spring of
1846. About half the company were foreigners, chiefly Irish and German. It was
organized and drilled at Fort McHenry, and thence transferred to Governor’s Island,
its captain, Henry S. Burton, accepting a command in the New York volunteers,
and his place being taken by Captain Christopher Q. Tompkins. The first
lieutenants were Edward O. C. Ord and William T. Sherman; the second
lieutenants, Lucien Loeser and Colville J. Minor. Dr James L. Ord, not of the
army, served by contract as assistant surgeon; and Lieutenant Henry W. Halleck
of the engineers ac
18 Statistics in U. S. Govt Doc., 31st cong.
1st sess., H. Ex. Doc. 24, p. 22*. In addition to authorities on Stevenson’s
regiment already mentioned,.
I might cite a long
list of newspaper articles, chiefly in the form of anniversary reunions,
speeches, and lists of survivors; but these furnish nothing in addition to what
has been presented, except biographical material utilized elsewhere.
companied the detachment. The rank and file numbered 113 men.19
General Scott’s instructions to Tompkins were dated June 20, 1846;20and
on the 14th of July the company embarked on the U. S. ship Lexington, commanded
by Theodoras Bailey, the vessel carrying also a large supply of guns and military
stores. The voyage was an uneventful one, without a single death or other
casualty; and is well described, like the company’s later experience, by
General Sherman in his memoirs.21 Touching at Rio Janeiro, doubling
Cape Horn in October, and calling at Valparaiso in November, the Lexington
anchored at Monterey on January 28, 1847, after being driven up to the latitude
of San Francisco.22
The artillerymen of Company F on landing at Monterey relieved the naval
garrison under Maddox and Baldwin, took possession of the block-house on the
hill and of the custom-house, soon building an additional fort, and some of
the officers being quartered ac private houses in the town. Captain Tompkins
resigned his place and went east on a sailing vessel in
19 See all the names in my Pioneer Register
at the end of these volumes. A copy of the muster-roll has been furnished me
from Washington by Adj.-gen. L. C. Duncan. The roll contains 131 names; but as
other authorities give the number at starting as 112 or 113 men and 5
officers, it is probable that the others were later recruits. The names are
given also by Kooser and Lancey. The non-commissioned officers were as follows:
sergeants, Charles Layton, John E. Noble, James H. Carson, Harvey Maxim, Lewis
Curman, and Patrick Hand; corporals, Richard H. Bell, Patrick Reid, Henry A.
Hoffman, and Owen Leavy.
20In Cutis’
Conq. Cal., 251-2. Similar in purport to instructions to other officers already
given. He was to cooperate with the naval officers, to take charge of ordnance
and army stores, to erect and defend forts, etc. The artillerymen were to be
merely passengers on tho U. S. ship, except in ease of action, when they were
to render aid.
21 Memoirs
of General William T. Sherman. By himself '. New York, 1875, 8vo, 2 vols. Chap.
i. p. 1-60, is devoted to ‘early recollections of California,’ 1847-8. The
narrative is interesting and valuable, though in minor details the author is
not always an accurate witness.
T‘Kooser
makes the date of arrival Jan. 23d, and Sherman Jan 26th; but Lancey, Cruise of
the Dale, 211 ct seq., seems to be the best authority, being an entry from his
original diary. Lancey gives a good account of the company’s history,
including the substance of the accounts by Sherman and Kooser. Dr Ord, Iiemin.,
MS., makes the date of arrival Jan. 27th. In the Monterey Californian, Jan. 28,
1847, it is stated that the Lexington ‘ has just arrived.’ See also S. F.
Calif, Feb. 6, 1847; S. F. Cal. Star, Feb. 6, 1847. In Niles’ Reg., lxxi. 146,
is a letter from a member of the company at Rio, Sept. 11th.
May. Lieutenant Sherman acted at first as quartermaster and commissary,
and later as assistant adjutant- general under Colonel Mason, serving only for
a very brief period as company officer. Lieutenant Minor died in August of a
malignant disease brought from Manila on "the Columbus, which also killed
nine of the soldiers. Thus Ord and Loeser were chiefly in charge of the
company, until the latter in the summer of 1848 was sent east with despatches,
and a little later, on the disbandment of Stevenson’s regiment, Captain Burton
resumed his original place in command of the company. Garrison life at
Monterey, though a feature in local annals of the town and in the personal reminiscences
of the company’s members, had no salient points which can be brought out in the
space at my command. Private Benjamin Kooser, who spent the rest of his life in
California, being well known as editor of several newspapers, wrote several
interesting articles on the annals of the company.23 Sergeant Carson
was another who gained some reputation as a writer in later years.24
Sherman, Ord, and Halleck acquired a great national reputation as military commanders
after having taken somewhat prominent parts in Californian affairs; and
information about the more humble career of other officers and soldiers of
Company F may be found in other parts of this work.
The discovery of gold furnished an attraction more irresistible to the
regulars than to the volunteers, because they could not like the latter look
forward to an early discharge. Accordingly they took advantage of every
favorable opportunity to desert for the mines. By the end of August there had
been thirty-three desertions,
23 Kooser’s
Pioneer Soldiers of California, published in the S. F. Alta, 1864, beiDg then
partly reproduced from the San Andreas Independent of an earlier date, and all
reproduced in Cue S. Jos6 Pioneer, Jan. 19, 1878. See also Twenty Years Ago in
Cal., in S. F. Bulletin, Jan. 31, 1867, from the Sta Cruz Sentinel. These
articles contain names and reminiscences of the writer’s comrades, 46 of whom
were known to have died before 1864, and 16 were known to be living.
21 Carson’s Early Recollections of the
Mines, Stockton, 1852, being the first book printed at Stockton.
and only about fifty men were on duty.25 The movement
continued, though we have no further statistics, and in September Governor
Mason began to grant furloughs for a few months to trustworthy soldiers who
desired a few months of mining life. A few remained faithful to the end of
their term in 1851, and some even reenlisted. After an absence in the Tulares
and at San Diego, the company, renewed for the most part, served again at
Monterey from 1852 to 1857, being then sent to Fort Yuma, where in 1864 one of
the original members, William Rafter, still answered to the roll-call.26
A small company of volunteer cavalry was mustered into service at
Monterey in April 1847, under the command of Lieutenant B. Burton, and rendered
some service against the Indians with Naglee’s men during the rest of the year,
being mustered out in December.27 The Huntress brought a detachment
of recruits from New York in September 1848, of whom nothing is known, except
that, according to Mason’s report of November 24th, “just so fast as they recovered
sufficiently from the scurvy to leave the hospital, they went off” for the
mines; and in December only twelve of the number remained on duty.513
The dragoons of Company C, under Captain Smith and Lieutenant Stoneman,
including the members of the original Company K, numbered eighty-three men in
August 1848, having lost none by desertion as long as they were kept on
garrison duty in the south; but on being transferred to San Franciso and other
northern points about this time, desertions began, as had been predicted.29
25 Cal. and N. Mex., Mess, and Doc.,
1850, p. 603, 643.
26 Kooser’s Pion. Sold. He gives a
blank form of the first furlough granted by Mason.
27 U. S. Govt Doc., 31st cong. 1st
sess., H. Ex. Doc., 24, p. 22 h; Cal. and JSr. Mex., Mess, and
Doc., 1S50, p. 355-8.
28 Id., 648-9; S. Jose Pioneer, Nov. 21,
1877.
29 Cal. and N. Mex., Mess, and Doc.,
1850, p. 603, 633, 638, 642-3, 648. Nineteen men under Stoneman sent to S.
F. in Aug. Twelve desertions before Nov. 24th.
After the war was ended in Mexico a battalion of dragoons marched from
Coahuila in August 1848, by way of Chihuahua and Tucson, to California. It consisted
of companies A and E first dragoons, under Lieutenant Cave J. Coutts and
Captain Daniel H. Rucker, and companies D and E second dragoons, under
lieutenants Reuben P. Campbell and Elias K. Kane, acting as captains. It was
under the command of Brevet Major Lawrence P. Graham of the second dragoons,
and numbered 275 men, besides 205 teamsters and other workmen enlisted for a
year from July 1st, or nearly 500 men in all. They left Chihuahua at the
beginning of September, were at Tucson late in October, crossed the Colorado
into California late in November, and arrived at Warner’s rancho on December
29th. The journey is well described by Coutts in his diary, a copy of which is
in my possession. It was attended by much toil and hardship, most of which,
according to the writer, was due to the incompetence and drunkenness of the
commander. Between him and the company officers, and among the latter, there
was much dissension on the march and later. I have no space for the quarrels or
for details of the march; and the Californian experience of this battalion does
not come within the limits of this volume. So late did the dragoons arrive that
they had no opportunity even to desert for the mines before the end of the
year; and I have not thought it best to include their names in my Pioneer
Register. Major Graham was commandant in the south, and several of the officers
were somewhat prominent in 1849; but, with the exception of Colonel Coutts,30
who became a leading citi-
80 Coutts’
Diary of a March to California in I848, MS. Copied in 1874 from the original
furnished by the author. It includes some experiences of 1849, among others the
service of Coutts’ company as escort to the boundary commission. Sherman,
Memoirs, i. 61, mentions the arrival of Graham’s battalion, as does Gov. Mason
in his report of Dec. 27th. Cal. and N. Mex., Mess, and Doc., I860, p. 649;
also items relating to the dragoons in 1849, in Id., 690-915, passim. In the
report cited Mason says: ‘ I was in hopes that the news of the discovery of the
gold mines in this country, together with its effects on the troops stationed
here, would have reached the department before any more were ordered out, for
every day adds to my conviction that no sol-
zen of southern California,
little is heard of officers or men in the country’s later annals.
dier should be sent
to California for some years to come, unless congress provide them pay bearing
some proportion to the amount they can make in the country, and, at the same
time, devise some laws by which deserters, and those who entice them away,
employ them, and purchase from them their arms, accoutrements, clothing, and
other public property, which they steal and carry off, can be more summarily
and severely punished; the present laws being entirely inadequate, as long
experience has proved. Troops are needed here, and greatly needed; but of what
use is it to send them, with the positive certainty of their running off to the
gold mines as soon as they arrive, taking with them whatever public property
they can lay their hands on ? To arrest them is impossible, as they receive
every encouragement to desert and every facility to elude pursuit. I cannot but
apprehend that Major Graham’s men will desert nearly as fast as the horses
recover strength to travel, for the wages in the country continue as
extravagant as when I last wrote, and the gold mines hold out fully as tempting
a prospect as ever.’
CHAPTER XX.
1846-1848.
Statistics of Population—Pioneers
of 1846—Classification—Discontented Immigrants—The Oregon Company—Clyman and
Hastings Bound for the States—Overland Westward—Bryant and Thornton—Many
Parties—Tedious, Uneventful Journeys—Hastings’ Cut-off—The Donner Party—List
of Names—A New Cut-off —Fatal Delay—Dissensions—Starvation ijt the
Sierra—Breen’s Diary—Record of Deaths—Authorities—The Forlorn Hope—The Four
Relief Parties—General Remarks—The Mormon Immigrants—Plans of the Saints—List
of Names—Brannan and his Contract—Voyage of the ‘ Brooklyn ’—Arrival at
Honolulu and Yerba Buena—An Industrious People—Dissensions—New Hope on the San
Joaquin—Change of Plans and a Disappointed Colony—Pioneers
and Immigration of 1847-8.
The
foreign male population not of Spanish blood has
been given as 150 in 1830, 300 in 1835, 380 in 1840, and 680 in 1845. This
population—no longer foreign under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo—may be put
at 4,200 in 1848, counting only persons whose names are known. New-comers of
the last three years numbered 3,900. Of these 2,020 came as soldiers in the
volunteer or regular army; 120 in the navy, not including the muster-rolls of
men-of-war, which would amount to several thousands; 360 were overland immigrants;
320 came by sea, about half of them immigrants proper; and of 1,080 it is not
known how they came. Meanwhile departures and deaths as recorded numbered about
280, though there are at least twice as many of whose later presence there is
no definite record. I suppose that the total population, including half-
(524)
breed children, was less than 7,000. I do not present separate lists of
the pioneers for 1846-8, as I have done for earlier years, because they would
be very long, and at the same time an unnecessary repetition of my Pioneer
Register and Index, which is completed in this volume, and contains in
alphabetical arrangement all the names for these and other years. As pioneer
records are somewhat less complete for this than for earlier periods, and as I
am obliged to put this chapter in type before the completion of the register,
the figures given here must be taken as approximations only, though not
misleading.
My register of pioneers for the year 1846 contains in round numbers, not
including mere visitors or the naval muster-rolls, as already explained, about
1,000 names. They may be roughly classified as follows: overland immigrants,
not including females, 250; officers, dragoons, and servants in General
Kearny’s escort from New Mexico, 120; or a total of 370 who came by land, 50 of
which number entered California only to die in the snows of the Sierra or at
the fight of San Pascual. Then there were about 230 men who came by sea, 100 or
more of these belonging to the navy, and a like number being the Mormon colony
from New York. Finally, we have about 400 men whose presence is known but not
the manner of their coming. These include 160 members of the California
battalion, many of whose names should doubtless be added to the list of
immigrants; 40 of Fauntleroy’s dragoon volunteers, many of whom were sailors;
130 men shown by the records to have been at some place in California; and 70
later residents whose arrival is somewhat definitely ascribed to this year.
Early in the spring many foreigners, chiefly immigrants of 1845, left
California, some of them dissatisfied with the country or its political
condition, others not having come with an intention of remaining. One party of
thirty or more went to Oregon, some names being known, but nothing respecting
the organ
ization or journey.1 There were also several small parties
that came southward from Oregon, leaving but slight trace in the records beyond
the names of a few members.2 The other departing company was that of
Clyman, Hastings, and Hudspeth, consisting of nineteen men, three women, and
three children, starting over the mountains eastward late in April at about the
same time as the others for Oregon. Hastings and Hudspeth were bent on
exploration in behalf of new immigrations, as we shall presently see.3
The coming of Kearny and his dragoons from New Mexico has been sufficiently
described elsewhere in this volume; and I find 110 trace this year of other
immigrants by this route, or by any other land route than that of the Humboldt
and Truckee.
I have the names of about 200 male immigrants who came over the Sierra by
the Truckee route, besides perhaps another hundred of those who probably came
that way. I do not suppose the total immigration numbered much more than 500
men, women, and children; though the estimate has generally been higher. The general
subject of overland immigration for the year may be briefly disposed of, the
ex
1 The party
included James Barrett, Jarvia Bonney, Truman Bonney, Julian Bradshaw, Elijah
Bristow, John Chamberlain, Wm Dodson, Jones, R. C. Keyes, Abner Frazer, Wm Frazer,
McDonald, H. O’Brien, James Owens, John Owens, R. K. Payne, W. R. Roulette,
Allen Sanders, Charles Savage, Felix Scott, and E. F. Skinner; and also
probably many of the following: Martin Brown, M. Coleman, W. C. Cooper, C.
Domte, Duncan, Hayea. Geo. Hibler, Huet, A. Kinney, Lenoir, Thos Owens, and
Sipp; though some of these may bave gone east instead of north.
1 June 26, 1846, a
party of seven, including Wambough and Wood. N. Helv. Diary, MS., 54. Chas E.
Pickett was probably one of these men. It appears that the party was attacked
by the Rogue River Indians. A large party, including many Canadians, left Or.
together, but was soon divided into many smaller ones. The smallest was that of
Rich. C. Kirby and perhaps Alfred Baldwin, which followed that of Wambough.
Sta Cruz Co. Hist., 25.
3 Clyman’s Diary, MS., 5-6,148,
unfortunately ending with the departure from Cal. See also Doc. Hist. Cal.,
MS., iii. 122; Sutter-Suflol Corresp., MS., 34; N. Helv. Diary, MS., 44. Boggs,
Across the Plains in ’Jfi, met Clyman’s party at Laramie, but gives no
particulars. Wm Sublette, Owen Sumner and family, Henry Owens, Clemens and
family, Wilson and family, and Reddick; also perhaps G. M. Smith, Ed Owens,
Isaac A. Flint, A. H. Crosby, M. R. Childers, and Benj. Carpenter.
periences of one company only requiring extended notice. Several times in
earlier years the same journey had been made under similar circumstances, by
the same route, with like motives, hardships, and adventures, as recorded in
earlier volumes of this history. Names of immigrants with brief biographic
notices are given elsewhere in my Pioneer Register. Personal reminiscences of
the long, dreary, and toilsome journey, admitting no profitable condensation,
though fascinating in their details, are much too bulky for reproduction here.
No two parties had exactly the same experiences, but the variations lose their
life and interest when presented en resum^. Bryant and Thornton of the
California and Oregon trains respectively have presented particulars in published
diaries that leave but little to be desired.4
Prom May to July some two thousand emigrants, with about 500 teams of
oxen, mules, and horses, plodded their way over the plains between Independence,
Laramie, and Bridger. From each of many towns or regions of the western states
a small party 'under its own captain had found its way to the rendezvous on
the Missouri. Here or out on the plains these parties met and travelled
together in various combinations, forming at different times one, two, or three
great companies under regularly chosen chiefs, with minor detachments extending
far to the rear or front. The principal families of each little party generally
but not always remained together to the end; but there were frequent transfers
of miscellaneous
* What I Saw in California: Being the
journal of a tour, by the immigrant route and South Pass of the Rocky
Mountains, across the continent of North America, the great desert basin, and
through California, in the years ISJjB, 184-7.. .By Edwin Bryant, late alcalde
of St Francisco. N. Y., 1848, 12mo, 455 p., 2d ed. There were six American
editions, an English, and two French in 1848-9. This work has been often cited
in the preceding pages, and is an excellent authority, not only on the overland
journey, but on events in Cal. The author went back with Gen. Kearny in the
summer of 1847.
Oregon and
California in 1848. By J. Quinn Thornton. N. Y., 1849, 12mo, 2 vols. See Hist.
Oregon, this series, for details respecting the author and his work. He gives,
like Bryant, a diary of the overland journey from day to day.
members, and the party groupings were always changing. Some of the
parties, as distinguished by the names of their leaders, were those of Russell,
West, Reed and Donner, Boggs, Gordon, Cooper, Dickenson, Young, Craig and
Stanly, Aram, Brown, Ritchie, Bryant and Jacob, Lippincott, Grayson, Graves,
Harlan, Breen and Murphy, and Dunleavy. I make no attempt to trace the
complicated company changes, to condense the diaries, or to name the members of
the different parties; but append some general notes on the subject.® Except in
a few instances, there is
5In Niles’
Reg., lxx. 128, 208, 211; lxxi. 146, 151, are items on the emigrants. Those
bound for Cal. are estimated at 500 persons; 350 were under Russell’s command
at one time. In the Fort Bridger region great discontent was reported in July.
In Id., 32, is mentioned a project to colonize S. Diego with 500 or 1,000
emigrants to start from Ft Smith in April. For many details respecting the
immigration of this year, see Hist. Oregon, i. 552 et seq., this series. Many
biographic sketches in newspapers and county histories afford items of
information about the companies.
Bryant and
Jacob from Kentucky were accompanied in the last stages of the journey by Wm H.
Russell, Hiram Miller, John C. Buchanan, Wm H. Nuttall, James McClary, Brookey,
and Brown. With mules and no wagons they left Bridger July 20th, took the route
by the south of Salt Lake, reached the Humboldt Aug. 7th, its sink the 19th,
Truckee Lake 25th, and Johnson’s rancho 30th, being the first party to arrive.
Full details in Bryant’s What I Saw. •
Col Russell seems to
have started with Thomas West, who like Russell was at one time captain of the
united emigrants. West’s party from Missouri included his four sons, and his
son-in-law Thomas Campbell and family. B. S. Lippincott and party with 6
wagons seem also to have been with West during much of the journey. They had a
fight with Indians on the Humboldt, one Sallee being killed, and several
wounded, including L. himself. West and Lippincott were perhaps the third party
to cross the Sierra, the second being Craig and Stanly, who left Fort Hall July
23d, and wore overtaken by Bryant near the sink of the Humboldt Aug. 18th,
being 12 or 15 days in advance of the other emigrants.
Ex-gov. L. W. Boggs
from Missouri and party came by Fort Hall and the Humboldt, being in company
with Thornton and the Oregon train much of the way. Wm M. Boggs was at one time
captain of the company. He has published a narrative, entitled Across the
Plains in ’46, in Calistoga Tribune, Oct. 14-Dec. 21, 1871; but the names of
only three families are known, those of A. J. Grayson, James Savage, and Wm
Bryant. It appears that Grayson at first had been at the head o£ a small
party, the members of which had quarrelled with and left him. Apparently in
company with Boggs over the mountains was the party of Elam Brdwn, also from
Missouri, consisting of 14 families and 16 wagons. Adams, Allen, Stilwell, and
Crowley are the names known, besides some who went to Oregon. They are said to
have reached Johnson’s on Oct. 10th. Contra Costa Co. Hist., 519-22; Sta Cruz
Co. Hist., 27; S. J. Pion., Jan. 26, 1878. Thornton, i. 181, represents the
Brown and Allen party as having tried the Applegate cut-off to Or. Stephen
Cooper’s party, including the Carriger and Wardlow families, were also
apparently in company with Boggs and Brown. They are said to have reached the
mountains Sept. 21st and the lake on the 24th. Sonoma Co. Hist., 674. And with
but meagre information respecting dates or other details of progress
west of the Salt Lake region; and unfortunately the New Helvetia diary does not
cover the period of overland arrivals this year.
A portion of both the California and Oregon immigration were induced to
attempt a shorter way, or cut-off, to their respective destinations. Applegate
met the Oregonians at Fort Hall and persuaded part of them to follow him down
the Humboldt with the Californians for several hundred miles and thence to the
Willamette. The result, as elsewhere recorded in my History of Oregon, was not
disastrous; but a controversy respecting the merits of the two routes has been
kept alive, chiefly through the bitterness of Thornton, down to the present
day. The Californians were met in the region of Fort Bridger by Hastings and
Hudspeth, and several parties were induced to save several hundred miles and
to avoid many hardships by taking the cut-off south of the lake, partly
explored by Frdmont in earlier years. Hastings, in his partisan zeal, supported
by the proprietors of the fort for their own interests, exaggerated the
advantages and underrated the difficulties of the new route; but though not a
very wise counsellor in such matters, he doubtless acted according to his
them—or possihly a
little in advance, as Oct. 1st is given as the date of arrival at Johnson
s—was Joseph Aram’s party of 12 wagons and over 50 person’s, including the
Imus, Isbel, White, Berry, and Hecox families. S. J. Pion., July 8, 1882; Cal.
Christ. Advoc., July 2, 1863.
The parties of
Gordon, Dickenson, and Young seem to have been connected; though Dickenson and
Gordon seem to have taken the Eort Hall route; while Young took the cut-off.
Bryant, 27, 50, 99; Thornton, i. 38, 134, 164; S. F. Bull., Aug. 11, 1876; S.
J. Pion., March 20, 1880; Lancey, 151. Gordon’s party is said to have included
John Williams. Sam. C. Young, in S. J. Pion., Nov. 9, 1878, descrihes the trip,
and names, besides himself and family, his son-in-law Arthur Caldwell and
family, John McCutchen, Buchalas, Jos. Gordon, Jacob Gordon, Duncan Dickenson,
W. Hoover and fam., Jacob Russ, Simpson, and McMonigle. Some of these names are
probably erroneous, as is certainly the date of Oct. 16th for crossing the
summit. It was perhaps on the 5th or earlier. Geo. Harlan’s party was another
that took the cut-off and probably crossed the mountains about the same time as
Young under the guidance of Hastings. These were the last parties to cross,
except those of the Donner company. No dates or other particulars are known
about the Dunleavy party, or that of M. D. Ritchie, which included John Stark,
and perhaps also Cyrus, Tucker, and Jesse.
Hist.
Cal.. Vol. V. 34
judgment honestly, and he made no serious error. Bryant decided to follow
the new route, but left letters advising others with families and wagons not
to attempt it—letters which are said not to have been delivered. His party with
pack-mules, being guided by Hudspeth for a part of the way, was the first of
the season to reach California. Two other parties, those of Harlan and Young,
were guided by Hastings in person, had much difficulty in finding a way for
their wagons, lost much of their live-stock in the Salt Lake desert, but at
last reached the old trail, and were the last to cross the Sierra. I have now
to write of those who were left behind.
On the 20th of July, at Little Sandy stream, several of the parties
formed a new combination, chose George Donner for their captain, and thus
formed the “Donner party” of 87 persons, 36 being men, 21 women, and 30
children—five of the latter infants, 49 of the whole number belonging to four
families, those of Donner, Graves, Breen, and Murphy. The names are given in a
note.6 There was nothing remarkable
6 Those whose names are marked with a “ ’
died in the Sierra; those marked ‘ + ’ died before reaching Cal. Of the
survivors those marked ‘1 ’ were still living in 1880; those marked <2’
died before that date; it is not known what became of the rest. McGlashan is
the chief authority for this note. See all the names in my Pioneer Register and
Index, in this and the preceding volumes.
* George Donner, wife ‘Tamsen, daughters
'Elitha C., 'LeannaC., 'Frances
E. (child), 'Georgia A. (ch.), 'Eliza P. (5
yrs). *Jacob Donner' (brother of Geo.), wife ‘Elizabeth, daughter 2Mary
M., sons 2Geo. Jr, *Isaac (ch.), ‘Lewis (ch.), ‘Samuel (ch.); sons
of Mrs D. by a former husband, Solomon Hook (ch.), ‘William Hook (ch.). 2James
F. Reed, wife 2Mary W., sons'James
F. (5 yrs), 'Thomas K. (3 yrs), daughters
'Virginia E. (12 yrs), 'Martha F. (8 yrs). ‘Baylis Williams and half-sister
Eliza Williams. ‘John Denton, ‘Milton Elliott, ‘James Smith, Walter Herron,
'Noah James. These 29 were from Springfield, 111., and constituted wbat had
been originally the Reed-Donuer party; Reed being the most prominent member.
*Franklin W. Graves,
wife ‘Elizabeth, sons 'WmC., 2Jonathan B. (7 yrs), ‘Franklin W. Jr
(5 yrs), daughters 'Mary A., 'Eleanor, 'Lovina, 'Nancy (9 yrs), 2Elizabeth
Jr (infant); son-in-law ‘Jay Fosdick, wife 2Sarah Graves, ■fJohn Snyder.
These 13 came from Marshall co., 111., and had originally formed a separate
party. What others the party had included, if any, does not appear.
2Patrick
Breen, wife 2Mary, sods ’John,
'Edward J., 'Patrick Jr (ch.), 'Simon P., 'James F. (ch.), 2Peter
(ch.), daughter 'Isabella M. (infant). ‘Patrick Dolan. These 10 were Irish,
and came from Keokuk, Iowa. They joined
in the composition of the company, which included rich and poor;
American, Irish, and German; Protestant, Catholic, and Mormon. Most members
were well enough provided with the necessary outfit. George Donner was a man of
some wealth, and was carrying a stock of merchandise to California for sale. On
July 22d they parted from the Oregon train, reached Fort Bridger on the 25th,
and finally resolved to take the cut-off.
They started on the 28th, only a few days behind Hastings, from whom they
soon received a letter advising a new change of route to avoid obstacles encountered
by the other company in the Weber Canon. Reed and two companions were sent to
overtake the advance company, obtain additional information, and explore the
route—an operation which consumed a week or more; and then the whole party
started by the new cut-off. It proved a most difficult way, so much so that all
of August passed before they reached open country on the lake shore. Prom the
southern extremity of the lake, where Halloran died of consumption on
September 3d, they directed their course to the north-west, crossing the desert
from the 9th to
the train at Independence,
but it does not appear whether any others were of the same party.
Mrs *Lavmia Murphy, a
widow, sons *JohnL., *LemuelB. (13 yrs), Wm
G. (11 yrs), 2Simon P. (eh.),
daughter 2Mary M.; sons-in-law, tWm M. Pike and wife 2Harriet
F. (Murphy) and child. 'Naomi L. Pike (2 yrs), and *Cath- erine Pike (infant), !Wm
M. Foster and wife 'Sarah A. C. (Murphy) and son *George (infant). These 13 are
said by McGlashan to have eoine from Tennessee; but according to Tyler, Hist.
Morm. Bat., 312, who got his information from Mary Murphy (Mrs Johnson), Mrs
Murphy had lived at Nauvoo and later at Warsaw, accepting an engagement to cook
and wash for the emigrants with a view to reach with her children the ultimate
destination of the saints.
*Wm H. Eddy, wife
*Eleanor, son *James P. (ch.), daughter *Mary (infant), from Belleville, 111.
'Wm McCutchen, wife 2Amanda M., daughter *Harriet (infant), from
Jackson co., Mo. 'Louis Keseberg, wife 2Philipine, son *Louis, Jr
(ch.), daughter *Ada (infant), a German family that had come to America two
years before. Other Germans were +Wolfinger and Mrs W., *Joseph Rhinehart, *
August Spitzer, and *Charles Burger. tHardcoop was a Belgian. *Samuel Shoemaker
came from Ohio; *Charles T. Stanton from Chicago; +Luke Halloran from Missouri.
* Antonio and 1Juan Bautista were of Spanish race from N. Mexico.
The party affiliations of these 22 before reaching Ft Bridger are not known.
There were also two Cal. Indians, *Luis and *Salvador, who joined the company
later.
the 15th with great suffering and loss of cattle. One family lost all
their oxen; much property had to be abandoned; new hardships and losses
followed before they reached the head waters of streams flowing into the
Humboldt. The remaining supply of food was believed to be insufficient for the
journey. Mc- Cutchen and Stanton volunteered to bring relief from California,
and started, each with a horse, before the 20th. It was about the end of
September when the company struck the old emigrant trail on the main Humboldt,
long after the last parties had passed. Belated and destitute, they began to
realize their danger.
The second stage of this disastrous journey covers in time the month of
October, including the march down the river and into the mountains. At Gravelly
Ford, on October 5th, in an unfortunate quarrel over their teams, Snyder was
killed by Reed, and the latter was banished from the party. Accompanied by
Herron, he passed on in advance, hoping to bring back relief for his family.
Hungry and foot-sore, the rest plodded their way onward. At the sink of the Humboldt
on the 12th twenty-one head of cattle were stolen by Indians. Several families
had no oxen or horses left. The old Belgian Hardcoop, unable to walk, was left
to die, as was also the German Wolfin- ger, the latter under circumstances
suggesting foul play on the part of his countrymen. On the 19th, in the region
of the modern Wadsworth, Stanton was met, returning from Sutter’s Fort with
succor. He had seven mules, five of them loaded with flour and beef, and was
accompanied by two Californian Indians, Luis and Salvador.7 An
unfortunate delay of several days for rest in the region of Reno was marked
7 Not much is known of the journey to Cal.
and back. Stanton and Mc- Cutchen had left the company about Sept. 20th, had
overtaken the hindmost party of emigrants—that of Young—and had crossed the
Sierra with them. Sutter was prompt to furnish food, animals, and the Indians;
McC. was too ill to return; but S. hastened back over the mountains. His
generous zeal- destined to prove fatal to himself—was the more noticeable that
he had no relatives in the company.
also by the death of Pike, accidentally shot by Foster. On the 23d,
alarmed by indications of an impending storm, they resumed their journey, but
when they reached the region of Truckee and the lake, at the end of October,
the snow was falling, and was already several feet deep on the summits.
The worst of later calamities might perhaps have been avoided at this
time, either by an earnest and well directed effort to cross the range, or by
careful preparations for a winter in camp; but there was no acknowledged and
capable leader, no agreement in opinion, no unity of plan or action, only a
wild desire for escape on the part of some, a yielding to despair by others.
For three weeks or more the frightened emigrants in small detached parties
wasted their strength, in frequent, frantic, and vain efforts to break through
the snowy barrier; and when they had so far regained their senses as to realize
the necessity of concerted action, there came a week of storm, ten feet or
more of snow, which required all energies to be directed for a time to the
preservation of life. Most of the cattle, their main reliance for food, had
strayed and perished, being buried in the snow, where only a few were ever
found. Remaining animals were slaughtered and carefully preserved. A cabin
built by the Stevens party in 1844 was still standing near the lake shore; and
others were hastily constructed. There were a few unsuccessful efforts to take
fish from the lake. Eddy killed a bear and some ducks. Some six miles eastward,
on Alder Creek, the Donner families with five or six others were encamped in
tents and brushwood huts, worse off in some respects than those at the lake,
George Donner being disabled by an accident, and Jacob Donner, a feeble man
unfitted for such hardships, the first to die. Shoemaker, Rhinehart, and Smith
died here before the 21st of December, and Williams at the lake on the 15th. On
the 16th a volunteer party of fifteen, known as the ‘forlorn
hope,’ started on improvised snow-shoes over the mountains. I will follow
them later.8
There were sixty-one persons left in the mountain camps, most of them ill
and weak, with nothing to eat but hides. Snow-storms still continued. The stump
of a tree cut when the snow was deepest was found by later measurement to be
twenty-two feet high. Patrick Breen’s diary, as written from day to day through
this terrible winter, is in my collection, the most precious and fascinating
record and relic of these events. I make no attempt to portray in words the
horrors of the situation. It was more than two months before any message came
from the outside world. Burger died December 30th, young Keseberg January 24th,
John L. Murphy on the 31st, Eddy’s child and McCutchen’s February 2d and 3d,
Spitzer and Mrs Eddy on the 7th, Elliott on the 9th, and Pike’s child on the
20th. At last, when it had been resolved by most to eat the bodies of the dead,
as a few had probably done already, the first relief party of seven men arrived
on February 19th with a slight supply of food, and the charitably false report
that all of the forlorn hope were safe. Three days later they started on their
return with twenty-one of the survivors,9 leaving thirty-one too
weak for the journey or unwilling to abandon others needing their care. A week
later, on the 1st of March, the second relief of ten men—including Reed and
McCutchen—arrived, to leave one of their number and to start back on the 3d
with seventeen of the sufferers,10 leaving fourteen.
6 The
members of this party were Eddy, *Stanton, *Graves, *Dolan, *Fos- dick and
wife, Foster and wife, *Lemuel Murphy, Mrs Pike, Mary Graves, Mrs McCutchen,
*Antonio, *£uis, and *Salvador. Those marked with » * died on the way.
* These were Elitha, Leanna, and George
Donner Jr; Mrs Reed with her children Virginia and James; Mrs Keseberg and *
child; Wm G. and Mary Murphy; Wm C., Eleanor, and Lovina Graves; Edward and
Simon Breen;
*Wm Hook,
Noah James, Mrs Wolfinger, Naomi Pike, Eliza Williams, and
*John
Denton.
10 These were the seven Breens, Martha and
Thomas Reed, *Isaac and Mary Donner, *Mrs Graves with her four children Nancy,
Jonathan, *Frank- lin Jr, and Elizabeth Jr, and Solomon Hook.
Five of these—Mrs Elizabeth Donner, Lewis and Samuel Donner at Alder
Creek, the children of Foster and Eddy at the Lake—died in the short period
that elapsed before the coming of the third relief at a date not exactly known.
This party of four, including Eddy and Foster, carried away five of the survivors.11
Keseberg and Mrs Murphy at the lake camp were unable to travel; George Donner
at Al-^ der Creek was dying, and his wife, though in good health, nobly refused
to leave him. These four were left for another month to suffer torments that
proved fatal to all but one.
Before proceeding with the annals of the different relief parties, I
introduce some remarks on authorities for the whole subject. Patrick Breen’s
original diary must be regarded as the best record of events at the lake
cabins, and in substance it has been several times published.12 The
early papers of California published information about the immigrants’
disasters and efforts made to relieve them.13 Bryant and Thornton,
com-
11 Frances, Georgia, and Eliza Donner,
Simon Murphy, and Juan Bautista. Eddy, in Thornton, ii. 22S, says that' Clarke
carried his booty, and left a child of one of the Donners to perish. ’ It is
possibly true that Lewis Donner was left, as there is no record of the date of
his death.
12 Diary of Patrick Breen, one of the Donner
Party, 1846-7. Presented by Dr George McKinstry to the Bancroft Library. MS.,
16mo, 15 leaves. Itwas printed in the S. F. California Star, May 22, 1847;
Nashville (Tenn.) Whig, Sept. 1847; Bryant's What I Saw, 256; Thornton’s Or.
and Cal., 201; Mc- Glashan’s Hist., 93, and elsewhere. Thornton’s extracts are
more garhled than the others; but none are literally accurate, there being
changes and omissions in nearly every entry. The variations are not, however,
historically of any special importance. The diary extends from Nov. 20th to
March 1st.
I reproduce literally the first and last
entries, to show the general nature of alterations in the printed versions.
‘Friday Nov. 20th 1846 came to this place on the 31st of last month that it
snowed we went on to the pass the snow so deep we were unable to find the road,
when within 3 miles of the summit then turned back to this shanty on the Lake,
Stanton came one day after we arrived here we again took our teams &
waggons & made another unsuccessful attempt to cross in company with
Stanton we returned to the shanty it continuing to snow all the time we were
here, we now have killed most part of our cattle having to stay here untill
next spring & live on poor beef without bread or salt it snowed during the
space of eight days with little intermission, after our arrival here, the
remainder of time up to this day was clear and pleasant frezing at night the
snow nearly gone from the valleys... Mond. March the 1st to fine& pleasant
froze hard last night there has 10 men arrived this morning from bear valley
with provisions we are to start in two or three days & cash our goods here
there is amongst them some old they say the snow will be here untill June.’
13 See Monterey Calif., Feb. 13, March 27,
1847; S. F. Cal. Star, Jan. 16,
panions of the sufferers in the early part of their journey, devoted a
portion of their published diaries to the subject, the former confining himself
chiefly to correspondence of the time, and the latter taking testimony from
survivors, especially from Eddy.14 In 1856 Mrs Eliza W. Farnham
published a narrative drawn mainly from the testimony of Mrs Breen.15
In 1871 an article by F. H. McDougal, based on the statements of Mrs Curtis,
called out narrative statements from Reed and McCutchen;16 and in 1877
William C. Graves published his Version in a series of newspaper articles.17
Meanwhile there was printed in books and newspapers a great mass of material on
the subject, which I do not deem it necessary to catalogue, though most of it
is before me, because it is made up, so far as it has any foundation except
imagination, from the authorities I have cited, and oftener than otherwise
hastily and at second-hand. Finally, C. F. McGlashan published a volume on the
subject in 1879, treating it in a manner that has left little or nothing to be
desired. All the facts that I am able to utilize, and many more, may be found
in his work. Consulting all the earlier versions cited above, the author supplemented
results by correspondence and personal interviews with surviving members of
the party, thus acquiring a mass of personal items of which he made excellent
use. On no other topic of early Californian history would any single work so
fully suffice for my purpose.18 I have a few original manuscripts
which
Feb. 13, March 6, 13,
April 10, May 22, June 5, 1847; Oregon Spectator, April
1, Jane 24, 1847.
14 Bryant’s What I Saw in Cal., 249-65,
letters from Sinclair and McKin- stry. Thornton’s Or. and Cal., ii. 96-246.
This is the most complete narrative published in early times. Both Bryant and
Thornton, as we have seen, give Breen’s diary.
15 Famham's Cal. In-doors and Out, 380-453.
Reprinted also in Hollister Central Calif., March 22-April 19, 1871.
16 These three articles were written for the
Pacific Rural Press. I find McDougal’s article in the Hollister Central Calif,
Feb. 1, 1871; and those of Reed and McCutchen in the S. J. Pioneer, April 28,
May 5, 1877.
11 Graves' Crossing the
Plains in 'Jfi, in Healdsburg Russ. River Flag, April
26 to May 17, 1877, and Id., Dec.
30, 1875. This account also reproduces Breen’s diary. .
18 History of the Donner Party. A Tragedy of
the Sierra. By C. F. Me-
throw light on certain phases of the matter, notably the narratives of
John Breen and of Daniel Rhoads, the latter a member of one of the relief
parties.19
The ‘forlorn hope’ of fifteen persons already named started from the lake
camp to cross the Sierra on December 16th, taking rations for six days. This
journey lasted thirty-two days, and was in some respects the most horrible
episode of the winter’s events. Stanton, who had perhaps saved the lives of
all, was himself left to die on the 23d. When they had been four days without
food, on Christmas they reached the ‘camp of death,’ where a snow-storm
confined them for a week. Antonio, Graves, Dolan, and Lemuel Murphy died and
were eaten. Again they pressed on; the strings of their snow-shoes furnished a
new-year’s dinner; Fosdick died on the 4th of January; and on the same day Eddy
killed a deer. No food on the 7th; the two Indians had refused to eat human
flesh, and ran away to save their lives, but they were soon overtaken, and were
shot by Foster. About the 11th the survivors reached a rancheria and were fed
with acorn bread—all the Indians had to give. Eddy, more dead than alive, was
led to Johnson’s rancho, whence a party returned and brought in the other six
survivors, probably on the 17th.20
We have seen that Stanton and McCutchen had reached Sutter’s Fort in
October, and that the former had recrossed the mountains with two Indians, all
three to perish, but bearing relief that saved the lives of many. Next Reed and
Herron left the company,
Glashan.
S. F., 1S80, 8vo, 261 p., portraits and illustrations. The first edition was
issued at Truckee in 1879.
13 Breen’s
Pioneer Memoir, MS., p. 1-45; Rhoads’ Relief of the Donner Party, MS. See also
Burnett’s Recoil., MS., i. 377-94, the author having taken testimony of Eddy,
Foster, and other members; Thornton’s Or. Hist., MS., 26-30; Rabbison’s Growth
of Towns, MS., 6-8.
2U The
rescuers are named by Eddy, in Thornton, ii. 154-5, as John Howell, John
Rhodes, Segur (?), and Tucker, who started first on foot; and Ritchie, Johnson,
Joseph Varro (Verrot), and Kiser (Seb. Keyser), who followed next day on
horseback. This is confirmed, except in names and numbers, by Sinclair’s
letter, in Bryant, 255, written at the time, before the 1 first
relief ’ had started.
and after a most perilous journey succeeded in reaching a small party of
belated emigrants in Bear Valley, met Stanton on his return, and finally
arrived at the fort, probably at the end of October. Here they hastily
collected supplies and horses, were joined by McCutchen, obtained the services
of two Indians, and started to return. They found it impossible to push their way
through the mass of snow that had fallen, and were obliged to turn back,
rescuing Jotham Curtis and wife of the late immigrants, who from some strange
freak had encamped in the upper Bear Valley. It was believed by experienced men
at the fort that the Donner party by killing their animals and preserving the
meat might live at their mountain camp till relief could reach them; and Reed
went south in quest of aid. Before anything could be effected, however, the
survivors of the forlorn hope had arrived at Johnson’s with reports
necessitating immediate action.21
The news was sent to the fort as soon as possible by an Indian runner;
volunteers were called for, and a relief party was fitted out, largely through
the efforts of Sinclair, Sutter, Kern, and McKinstry, who became responsible
for the payment of wages by the government.22 A company of thirteen,
known as the ‘first relief,’ left Johnson’s rancho on the 5th of February; but
only seven went beyond Bear Yalley, whence they started on the 15th. These were
Reasin P. Tucker, Aquila Glover, Riley S. Moultry, John Rhoads, Daniel Rhoads,
Edward Coffeemire, and Joseph Sells.23 They reached the lake on the
19th,
21 Statements of Reed and MeCutehen in Rural
Press. In these statements, and still more in Thornton, ii. 183-94, many
details are given of dealings with Curtis, who seems to have been a peculiar
character. Mrs Curtis was authority for the account that drew out replies from
R. and McC. It is not clear that Herron accompanied them in this attempt at
relief.
22 In Nov.-Dee. 1847, Ritchie made a claim
for $171 for services in rescuing the immigrants. Gov. Mason hopes soon to get
instructions enabling him to pay such claims. Cal. and N. Mex., Hess, and Doc.,
1850, p. 448.
23 Sells, or Sel, is named by Eddy aud McKinstry;
but he is called Joseph Foster by Tucker, and Geo. Foster by Rhoads. Coffeemire
is said to have been a sailor, and is called Coffeymier and Copymier, also by
Rhoads ‘Mike.’
and started back three days later with twenty-one of the immigrants, three
of whom died on the way.24 All were on the point of starvation from
failing to find a cache of supplies, when on the 27th they met another .relief
party, and being thus succored they reached Johnson’s the 2d of March, and
Sutter’s two days later.
The party thus met was the ‘ second relief’ of ten men under Reed and
McCutchen. They had not been able to accomplish anything in the south until the
excitement of the Sanchez, or Santa Clara, campaign was over, but then at
Yerba Buena and north of the bay great interest was aroused. A public meeting
was held; Captain Hull, General "Vallejo, and other prominent men exerted
themselves; a subscription of some $1,500 was raised; twenty volunteers or
more were enlisted; Brittan Greenwood was engaged as guide ; supplies were
furnished from the naval stores; business men furnished schooners for transportation
to Sonoma and New Helvetia; and Lieutenant Selim Woodworth volunteered to
command the expedition. All this before the receipt.of Sinclair’s letter
announcing the arrival of Eddy and others of the forlorn hope.25
Reed and McCutchen, with Greenwood, went by way of Sonoma, arrived at New
Helvetia in advance of Woodworth’s party in the schooner, and pressed on to
Johnson’s rancho. Prom this point, with seven companions—Charles Cady, Charles
Wm Eddy started but
returned with the horses on the 11th, perhaps with Verrot. On the same day Wm
Coon and George Tucker were left in camp to guard provisions. On the 15th, at
Bear Valley, M. D. Ritchie, Adolf Brii- heim, and Jotham Curtis declined to go
any farther. McGlashan quotes from diaries by R. P. Tucker and Ritchie and a
narrative by Geo. Tucker. He makes Tucker the captain. McKinstry, in Bryant,
255, makes Glover the captain, and quotes his diary. Eddy, also, in Thornton,
ii. 167, names Glover as the chief.
u See note
9 for names of those rescued by the 1 st relief.
25 See S. F. Cal. Star, Feb. 6,13,1847.
McGlashan, p. 126, gives a memorial addressed to Gov. Stockton by citizens of
S. Jos6. Reed describes his efforts in the Rural Press. An account of the
meeting at S. F. is given in Thornton, ii. 158-61, including an eloquent appeal
by Dunleavy. Alcalde Bartlett, Capt. Mervine, Lieut Maury, W. A. Richardson, Wm
Pettet, John Fuller, Ward & Smith, Howard & Melius, are also named as
active in these preparations.
Stone, Nicholas Clark, Joseph Gendreau, John Turner, Hiram Miller, and
Matthew Dofar26—constituting the second relief, started on February
23d, met on the 27th the other party, as already noted—including Reed’s wife
and children—and on March 1st, in two parties, reached the lake camps. Two days
later, leaving Clark, Cady, and Stone, and taking seventeen of the immigrants,27
they started on the return. From the 5th to the 7th, while Gendreau, Turner,
and Dofar were far in advance, and Cady and Stone were in the rear, having left
the camps to overtake their companions, the rest of the party were in Summit
Yalley, at what was known as ‘ starved camp,’ where three of the immigrants
died. A heavy snowstorm prevented progress, and the caches of food had been
destroyed by wild beasts. At last the five of the relief took three of the
others and started on, and the number of parties was increased from three to
four. But the advance reached Bear Valley, where Woodworth was encamped;
returned with two companions, John Stark and Howard Oakley, to meet Reed; Cady
and Stone came up; and all the fifteen soon reached Woodworth’s camp. There
were, however, eleven of the immigrants left in the snow at ‘ starved camp.’
Then was organized the ‘ third relief.’ Woodworth and his men had moved
slowly and accomplished nothing. Probably they had done their best, but they
had little skill or experience in this kind of work. Meanwhile Eddy and Foster
had partially regained their strength, and after some additional efforts at
Yerba Buena, had overtaken the naval division in Bear Valley. Five volunteers
were obtained, and the party set out at once, the exact date not being known.
Stark, Oakley, and Stone volunteered to rescue the eleven at ‘ starved camp,’
and were left
26 Of Dofar nothing more is known. He may
have been Dupas. Gendreau is generally called Jondro.
27 See note 10 for names.
there by their companions, succeeding in their purpose only after the
most extraordinary efforts, since nine of the number had to be carried. Eddy,
Foster, Miller, and William Thompson pressed on over the mountains; met Clark
and Juan Bautista trying to escape; and reached the lake about the middle of
March. Leaving four adults, as already mentioned, they brought out four
children and Juan Bautista. Little is known of their return; but they seem to
have overtaken Stark and the Breens; and on their arrival at the camp in Bear
Valley all seem to have proceeded to Johnson’s rancho, and perhaps all to New
Helvetia, Woodworth declining or pronouncing it impracticable to attempt a
rescue of the four left in the mountains.
Again, by the efforts of Alcalde Sinclair and others at the fort, and by
an offer of half of any property that might be saved, nine men, constituting
the ‘fourth relief,’ were induced to start in April.28 These were
William Fallon, William Foster, John Rhoads, R. P. Tucker, J. Foster, Sebastian
Keyser, and Edward Coffeemire. Starting from Johnson’s on the 13th, they
reached Donner Lake on the 17th. Of the four who had been left by the last
relief, George Donner and his wife and Mrs Murphy had died, and only Keseberg
survived, having preserved his life by eating the bodies of his dead
companions. Keseberg had been an unpopular member of the company. Fallon and
his men were disappointed at not finding a large amount of money which Donner
was believed to have possessed, and which they had hoped to share; they
suspected Keseberg of having killed Mrs Donner and concealed the money; and
their suspicions were confirmed when, on threats of being hanged, he gave up a
small amount which he said Mrs Donner had intrusted to him for her children.29
28 Thornton mentions also another expedition
in March, consisting of J. Rhoads, Stark, Coffeemire, Sells, Tucker, Wm Foster,
and Graves, which was not able to penetrate beyond Bear Valley on account of
melting snows. Or. and Cal., ii. 231.
20 Fallon’s diary is quoted in Thornton’s
Or. and Cal., ii. 232 et aeq.; and
In view of the utter impossibility of knowing the exact truth in this
matter, the lack of definite testimony even of most of the accusers, the
doubtful character of Fallon, the hope of gain actuating the party, the bitter
feeling shown in their version, the evident exaggeration and falsehood of many
details respecting the state of things at the camp, the straightforward
statement of the accused to McGlashan in 1879, and the fact that, in the face
of popular prejudice and testimony stronger than could ever again be obtained,
he obtained a nominal verdict against Coffeemire in a suit for slander at
Sutter’s Fort in May 1847 30—in view of all this, I believe that
Louis Keseberg is entitled to a verdict of not guilty. He has been merely the
unfortunate object about which has crystallized all the pop-
his version ia also
given by Bryant, who went east with him. The version has often been repeated
with all its sickening details of mangled corpses found at the camps, ‘ a large
pan full of fresh liver and lights,’ ‘ two kettles of human blood,’ with plenty
of beef untouched, and Keseberg as a fiendish ghoul hoasting of his fondness
for human flesh, fie is also accused of having murdered Wolfinger, been
responsible for the death of Hardcoop, of having feigned disability to depart
with the relief parties, and of having murdered and eaten Foster’s child. K. ’s
own version, as related in 1879) is given by McGlashan, who also represents
Tucker’s testimony as being much more favorable to the accused than the
current version.
301 have two
original papers connected with this case, the general result of which—a verdict
of $1 damages—is remembered by several witnesses. May 2d, Alcalde Sinclair to
Sheriff Geo. McKinstry, sending summons for witnesses, and asking McK. also to
be on hand as a witness; also orders the selection of a jury of 6 or 12 men.
Wood and Rhoads to be added to the jury list. ‘ The nature of the trial you are
acquainted with. The plaintiff wanted the moderate charge of $1,000 to be put
down for damages!!! ’ May 4th, Sinclair to McK., summons to Mrs Wolfinger as a
witness for the next day. McKinstry’s Pap., MS. 30, 34.
The popular story
circulated by such prominent men as Dr Bushnell and Bishop Kip and Bret Harte,
that Geo. Yount, the Napa pioneer hunter, had a dream which revealed the danger
of the Donner party, and led to their being saved, deserves brief mention. Its
only foundation was probably iu Yount’s statement that he had such a dream. It
is not likely that the dream lost anything in the telling, either by the old
trapper or by those who repeated the story. At any rate, Yount did not go to
the relief of the sufferers, and his dream did not lead in any way to their
rescue.
On June 2, 1847, the
remnants of the Donner property were sold for the benefit of the children. N.
Helv. Diary, MS., 59. According to the Alta, June 22, 1868, the first railroad
train from the east had among its passengers a woman who, as a little girl, had
been one of the Donner party. Many relics of the party were dug up in 1879; and
a cabinet with some 200 of these articles was kept at Truckee for a time. S. J.
Pioneer, Nov. 15, 1879. According to newspapers of the same year, there was a
plan to erect a monument at Donner Lake to the memory of the party.
ular horror excited by the cannibalism of the Donner party.
Of the 36 men, 21 women, and 30 children making up the original party of
87, there perished 22, 5, and 12 respectively, or a total of 39, while the
survivors numbered 48. For biographic mention of each, as of members of the
different relief parties, I refer the reader to my Pioneer Register and Index
in these volumes. About 30 were still living in 1880. In June
1847 General Kearny and his party,
including Fallon and Bryant, on their way to the east, gave burial to the
remains of such victims as they could find; and this work was completed in
September by the returning Mormons of the battalion.
In thus recording the experiences of this ill-fated company, I have
designedly made no attempt to paint in words the horrors of their journey. The
plain facts are sufficiently horrible. I have also omitted for the most part
all allusions to individual acts seeming to justify censure or eulogy. Such
acts of both classes have been attributed to nearly every adult in the party,
and to some of the rescuers. Soon after leaving Fort Bridger dissensions arose
between parties, cliques, and families; serious quarrels ensued before the
time of their greatest trials; and the prejudices thus developed colored all
later testimony. There is not an original narrative which does not show traces
of the writer’s personal likes and dislikes, or which does not contain directly
or indirectly accusations or complaints. It is neither possible nor desirable
to investigate the details. Doubtless most committed errors of judgment, were
moved by their troubles to say and do foolish things, or were driven in the
insanity of starvation to petty acts of apparent cruelty and selfishness; but
on the other hand, there were few, if any, who did not on one occasion or another
show traits of heroic self-sacrifice. Most of them ate human flesh, and they
did right; it was the necessity, not the act, that was deplorable; and the
544 PIONEERS—DONNER
PARTY—THE MORMONS.
_ i . few who at the prompting of stomach or
conscience refused the revolting food deserve no special commendation. These
immigrants acted as otherS would have done under like circumstances, though
under a competent leader and with unity of purpose and action they might have
escaped the worst of their misfortunes. I think McGlashan has done wisely in
suppressing disagreeable details and dwelling on the noble deeds of each
member; but his kindly exaggeration of praise, no less than the disgusting
accusations of other writers, is unsuited to my work. Yet it is well to note
the self-sacrifice of Stanton and Mrs Donner, the manly efforts of Reed and
Eddy, and the bravery of the rescuers from California; also to point out that
the killing of Snyder, so far as we may know, was an act of self-defence; and
that the most serious charges against Keseberg had but slight foundation in
fact.
One phase of the Mormon migration to California has already been noticed
in a chapter devoted to the battalion of volunteer soldiers.31 This
battalion marched from the far west, but the migratory movement was intended
to include the whole church, and there were many of the faith living in the
eastern states. In a farewell message to saints in the east, dated at New York,
November 8, 1845, Orson Pratt explained the general plan to migrate en masse beyond
the limits of “this wicked nation,” and called upon the brethren to sell their
property, purchase teams, and go to Nauvoo for a start with the rest in the
early spring. Such as might not be able to provide a proper outfit for the
overland journey—and it was clearly set forth that poverty-stricken saints
would not just now be welcome at Nauvoo—were counselled to take the cheaper
route by sea; and it was announced that Elder Samuel Brannan would be left in
51 See chapter xviii. of this volume. See
also Ilist. Utah, this series, for a general account of the Mormon movement
westward.
charge of this emigration to charter a vessel, or half a dozen vessels if
necessary, and start in January for the Pacific coast.32 Brannan was
a native of Maine, who after a residence in the west—during which he had
imbibed the true faith, but had been wellnigh killed by fever and ague—returned
to New York to publish the Prophet and preach to the saints of the metropolis.
He was a man of more ability and zeal than high principle; still few better
could have been selected to lead this people around Cape Horn to the land of
promise.
Very soon the ship Brooklyn of 450 tons, Richardson master, was
chartered at $1,200 per month; and the rate of passage for adults was fixed at
$50, though an additional sum of $25 was required for subsistence. It was
hoped, however, that more favorable terms could be secured for later companies,
since a New York merchant proposed to carry Mormons at $16 per ton, if he could
secure the carrying of certain government stores. There were over 300
applicants for passage on the Brooklyn, but most of them were too poor to pay
the sum required, and had to remain behind, though some were aided by
contributions from richer brethren. A large supply of implements for farmers
and mechanics—enough for 800 men, as was estimated, with a view to later
accessions to the colony—was put on the ship, which carried also three flouring
mills and a printing-press, with all the material pertaining to the Prophet
newspaper. Books, especially those for school use, were not forgotten; and 179
volumes from a benevolent lawyer of Brooklyn were added to the library at the
last moment.3*
32 Nov. 8, 1845, Pratt’3 message, in Nauvoo
Times and Seasons, v. 1043.
33 Nauvoo Times and Seasons, vi. 1094,
1112-14, 1126-8, including Bran- nan’s announcements, explanations, and
instructions to the faithful about preparations for the voyage, and prompt
assembling at New York. Also a series of rules and regulations for conduct on
the trip in 21 articles. I. M. Vancott was the man who gave 179 volumes of
Harper’s Family Library. A negro cook and steward were employed at $16 and $18
per month. Exact dates in the preparations of Nov. to Jan. are not clear, from
the fact that most of the items in the Times and Seasons are taken from the N.
Y. Messenger without naming dates of the latter.
Hisx. Cal., Vol. Y. 36
The whole number of emigrants finally leaving New York was 238,34
including 70 men, 68 women, and 100 children. They were chiefly American
farmers and mechanics from the eastern and middle states, and included a
few—just how many it is impossible to state—who were not Mormons. I append a
list of names.35
34 According to my list in next note, though
as will be seen there are a few uncertain items in the matter of children.
Kemble, Twenty Years Ago, says there were 238 souls, about a dozen not being
Mormons. Eagar says there were 236, all Mormons but Frank Ward. The Times and
Seasons, vi. 1126, makes the number 230, with 3 or 4 not Mormons.
351 have
three lists of the Mormon immigrants, the most complete of which is that
published in the Honolulu Friend, July 1, 1846, as a passenger list on the
arrival of the Brooklyn at that port. Another was made before the vessel left
N. Y., and is found in the Nauvoo Times and Seasons, vi. 1113; but many changes
were made apparently before departure. The third list is one made out by Wm
Glover, Mormons in Cal., MS., in 1884, with notes as to what became of the
different members. There were probably a few non-Mormon passengers not named
in the following list. See a biographic notice of each member in my Pioneer
Register and Index.
Brannan’s company of
Mormon immigrants, 1846: Isaac Addison, wife, and daughter; Silas Aldrich (died
at sea), wife Prudence, son Jasper, and daughter; Wm Atherton and wife; Julius
C. Austin, wife, and 3 children; Samuel Bran- nan, wife, and child; Alondus L.
D. Buckland, and mother Hannah D. Buck- land; Newell Bullen, wife, and 3
children; Charles C. Burr, wife, and child; Nathan Burr and wife; John Cade
(possibly Kincaid) and wife; Sophia P. Clark; Abram Combs, wife, and 3
children; Mrs Fanoy M. Corwin; John Eagar, Lucy Eagar, and daughter (perhaps 2)
Mary Eagar, Thomas Eagar; .Elias Ensign (died at sea), Miss Eliza Ensign (died
at sea), Jcrusha Ensign and son; Wm Evans, wife, and 4 children; Joseph R.
Fisher, Mary Ann Fisher; Jerusha Fowler, and 4 children (a child of John (?)
Fowler diedat sea); Wm Glover, wife, and 3 children; Isaac Goodwin, wife (died
at sea), and 6 children; Jonathan Griffith, wife, aud 2 children; Mrs Mary
Hamilton (and perhaps children); A. G. Haskell; Jacob Hayes; Joseph Hicks; John
M. Horner and wife; Elisha Hyatt, wife, and son; Cyrus Ira (or Irea); John
Joyce, wife, and child (perhaps 2); Mrs Isabella Jones; Ed. C. Kemble; George
Kittleman, John Kittleman, Sarah Kittleman, Thomas Kittleman, Wm Kittleman,
wife, and 6 children; Richard Knowles, and wife; Samuel Ladd (or Johnson);
Emmeline A. Lane; Isaac Leigh (or Lee), and wife; James Light, wife, and child;
Angeline M. Lovett; Patrick McCue, wife, and 4 children; Earl Marshall and
family; Moses A. Meder, wife Sarah D., and child; Barton Mowry, wife, and 2
sons; Origin Mowry and family (?); Rinaldo Mowry; Ambrose T. Moses, wife, and 4
children; Miss Mary Murray; Edwin Narrimore, Mercy M. Narrimore (apparently
remained at Honolulu for a time), and child; Joseph Nichols, wife Jerusha, and
child (a child also died at sea); Lucy Nutting; Howard Oakley; E. Ward Pell,
wife, and 2 daughters; Robert Petch, wife, and 2 children; John Philips; Peter
Pool, Mary Pool, Elizabeth Pool; Christiana Read, Hannah T. Read (Jimison ?),
and child, John Reed, Rachael Reed; Isaac R. Robbins, wife, and 2 children;
John R. Robbins, wife, and 2 children (2 children died at sea); Henry Rowland
(Roulan, or Rollins) and daughter (?), Isaac Rowland; Eliza Savage; James
Scott; George W. Sirrine, John J. Sirrine, wife, and child; Horace A. Skinner,
wife, an$ child; Amelia Smith; Orrin Smith, wife, and 6 children; Robert Smith,
wife, and 2 children; Zelnora S. Snow; Mary Sparks and family; Quartus S.
Sparks, wife, and child;
Besides superintending preparations for the departure of this particular
company, Elder Brannan devoted much attention to the general welfare of the
whole Mormon people in their new western home, and this not altogether to the
neglect perhaps of his own interests and those of certain friends. He discovered,
or pretended to have discovered, that the government would probably take steps
to prevent the Mormon migration, on the ground that they intended to take sides
with either Mexico or England against the United States. But the shrewd Samuel
also discovered a remedy for all prospective misfortune. He learned that Amos
Kendall and certain influential associates, acting through one Benson as
agent, and claiming President Polk as a ‘silent party’ to the project, would
undertake to prevent all interference if the Mormon leaders would sign an
agreement “to transfer to A. G. Benson & Co. the odd numbers of all the
lands and town lots they may acquire in the country where they may settle. ”
Accordingly such a contract was drawn up by Kendall, signed by Brannan and
Benson, witnessed by Elder Appleby, and sent to President Young for approval.
In relation to this matter, I am unable to say whether Brannan was made to
believe by certain men for their own interests that the saints were in danger
and that they had influence with the government, being thus induced to sign
the contract for protection, or whether
Daniel Stark, wife,
and 2 children; George Still, wife, and 3 children; Simeon Stivers; Wm Stout,
wife, and child; Jesse A. Stringfellow; Thomas Tompkins, wife, and 2 children;
Frank Ward (not a Mormon); Caroline Warner and 3 children; George K. Winner,
wife, and 6 children (a child died at sea).
The list in Times and
Seasons contains the following names, not in the Honolulu list, of persons who
probably could not finally raise the passage money: Dan. S. Baldwin, Manena
Cannon, Jonas Cook, James Embly, J. M. Farnsworth, Wm Flint, Joseph France,
John Hairbaird, Wm Mack, Stephen
H. Pierce, Wm C. Reamer, Dan. Richardson,
Charles Russell, Susan A. Searls, James Smith, Sam. Smith, and Simeon Stanley.
One Ferguson, an Irishman from Waterford, is named by Maguire. Irish in Amer.,
269. Lincoln is named by Findla, Statement, MS., 3-4, as a Mormon preacher.
Clark, of 1 Clark’s Point,’ S. F., is called a Mormon by Sherman.
Jtern., i. 52. Marshall and Oakley are not named in the Honolulu list, though
there is no doubt about their coming. Ladd was known as Johnson in Cal.
the scheme was one devised by the crafty elder himself as a means of
becoming a partner in the proposed speculations of Benson & Co. in
California. Brigham Young and his council declined to approve the contract,
and no very serious results to the Mormons ensued; but the war with Mexico may
have interfered with the plans of the speculators, of which nothing more is
known. It is noticeable that Lansford W. Hastings was a Californian agent in
this affair, and that he also represented it as a project secretly supported by
the government.38
It was on February 4th that the Brooklyn sailed from New York with her
load of emigrants. She was not a fast sailer, but excellent preparations had
been made for the comfort of the passengers. Elaborate regulations had been
drawn up for all the details of
36
Tullidge’s Life of Brigham Young, 18-24, contains the best account of this
matter, with quotations from original documents. In his letter of Jan. 26th to
Young, Brannan says: ‘I had an interview with Amos Kendall, iu company with Mr
Benson, which resulted in a compromise ’—a previous letter of the 12th had
made known the impending danger to the saints—‘the conditions of which you will
learn by reading the contract between them and us.. .K. is now our friend, and
will use his influence in our behalf in connection with 25 of the most
prominent demagogues in the country. You will be permitted to pass out of the
states unmolested... I shall select the most suitable spot on the bay of S. F.
for the location of a commercial city. When I sail, which will be next Saturday
at one o’clock, I shall hoist a flag with “Oregon” on it.. .1 am aware that it
(the contract) is a covenant with death, but we know that God is able to break
it and will do it. The children of Israel in their escape from Egypt had to
make covenants for their safety and leave it forGod to breakthem; and the
prophet has said, “As it was then so shall it he in the last days. ”.. .Mr
Benson’s address is No. 39 South St., and the sooner you can give him answer
the better. He will spend one month in Washington to sustain you, and he will
do it, no mistake. But everything must be kept silent as death on our part,
names of parties in particular. I now commit this sheet to the post, praying that
Israel’s God may prevent it from falling into the hands of wicked men.’ In a
postscript to a copy of the contract he says: ‘It is no gammon, but will be
carried through if you say “amen.” It was drawn up by Kendall’s own hand; but
no person must be known but Mr Benson.’ In his journal Brigham Young writes:
‘The council considered the suhject, and concluded that as our trust was in
God, and that as we looked to him for protection, we would not sign any such
unjust and oppressive agreement. This was a plan of political demagogues to rob
the Latter-day Saints of millions, and compel them to submit to it by threats
of Federal bayonets.’ March 3d, Hastings to Larkin, predicts great things for
Cal. from the vast tide of immigration. Benson & Co. are about to establish
a great commercial house in Cal. and will send two ships a year, bringing
immigrants free of charge. This is a confidential govt arrangement, B. &
Co. not really bearing the expense. The motive of the govt will be clear to L.
Larkin's Doc., MS., iv. 55.
routine conduct, and there were days when several of the rules were not
broken. Strict attention was paid to the duties of religion; yet before the end
of the voyage four leading members had to be excommunicated for improper views
and conduct, or what seemed such to the immaculate Samuel.37 Besides
these spiritual backsliding there were ten deaths, and two births, the infants
being named Atlantic and Pacific. In each ocean a storm put all in danger. Once
Captain Richardson gave up the vessel as lost; but the Mormons paid no heed to
such terrors, for were they not in the keeping of the Lord, and bound for a
land of promise? It is even claimed that faith somewhat strengthened them to
bear the pangs of sea-sickness. The last storm struck the ship when she was
near the latitude of Valparafso, and trying to make that port, driving her back
nearly to the cape. The first anchorage was at the island of Juan Fernandez on
May 4th. But here they got for nothing the supplies that would have cost dear
at Valparaiso.33 After five days they continued their voyage,
arriving at Honolulu on June 20th, and remaining there ten days, being hospitably
welcomed, and honored by Mr Damon with a kindly notice in the Friend.® Here
they met Commodore Stockton, about to sail for Monterey, and learned something
of the prospect that California would soon be occupied by the United States.
Much of the time during the remainder of the voyage was
37Brannan’s
letter in Liverpool Millen. Star, ix. 307. Elder Pell, B.’s counsellor, was one
of the culprits. ‘ Wicked and licentious conduct ’ was shown by ‘ evidence of
the most disgusting character, ’ if we may credit B. The trial was after
leaving Honolulu.
381 have a
copy of a letter from one of the passengers, written at Juan Fernandez on the
5th, and describing the voyage to that point as pleasant and uneventful.
39 Honolulu, Friend, July 1, 1846,
including, as wc have seen, a list of the Mormons. Quoted also in the
Millennial Star, ix. 39-40. John P. Gregson, then on the Erie, in a letter of
1875, says one of the Mormon ciders and family remained at Honolulu on account
of ill health, and conversed freely with the writer about the plans of tho
saints. Glover says that Orrin Smith’s family was the one left at the islands.
Mrs Narrimore and son arrived at S. F. in 1847 on the Don Quixote, and may
therefore have remained at Honolulu.
spent in military drill, with a view to possible hostility on the part of
the Mexicans.40
The arrival at San Francisco was on July 31st, and of course there was
not the slightest opposition to the landing from United States officials, as
there would probably have been none had the Californians been still in power,
though it is true that immigrants from the western states had not given the
Mormons a good name.41 Brannan and his associates were doubtless
somewhat surprised to find the stars and stripes floating over their land of
promise, and it is even possible that the pious elder’s first remark, as
reported, was, “ There is that damned flag again ” I But it has been the
fashion greatly to exaggerate their disappointment. Could the Mormons have
established themselves, fifty or a hundred thousand strong, in the country
while it was yet a Mexican possession, it might have better suited their plans,
since it would have given them a vantage-ground for negotiations with the
United States. Possibly in certain contingencies they would have acted against
that government had their interests seemed to require it; but that they
expected or desired such a state of things may
40 Glover names Ladd and Robt Smith as
teachers of tactics; and says the drill continued until Capt. R., fearing a
mutiny, stopped it. Kemble says the teacher was a deserter from the U. S. army.
Eagar represents the arms as haying been bought at Honolulu on the advice of
Stockton.
Wm Glover’s Mormons
in California is a MS. record of the voyage and all connected with the
immigrant company, written from memory in 1884, at the request of Franklin D.
Richards, and furnished for my use by the latter. It is of especial value in
its information on what became of the different members, and is supplemented by
a letter of July 31, 1884. Twenty Years Ago. The ‘Brooklyn’ Mormons in
California, is a very complete narrative of the whole matter, probably the best
extant, published in the Sacramento Union, Sept.
11, 1866, and written by one of the company,
whom I suppose to have been
E. C. Kemble. John Eagar’s brief narrative is
a MS. furnished by Mr Richards, with Glover’s Mormons. It is not of great
value, containing several erroneous statements. In the 'Times and Seasons, vi.
1126-7, is a full account of circumstances attending the departure from N. Y.
Brief account by the ‘wife of Col Jackson,’ in Tullidge’s Women, 445-8.
Californian songs of the Mormons, in Young’s Wife No. 19, p. Ill, 116-17;
Marshall’s Through America, 179-80. Mention of Brannan’s company may be found
in most works on early California.
41 March 2d, Gov. Pico to assembly, on
rumors of an intended Mormon immigration. Olvera, Doc., MS., 14-15; Dept. St.
Pap., MS., ix. 16-17. March 4th, Larkin to U. S. sec. state, on the same
reports, which he represents as having caused much fear. Larkin’s Off.
Corresp., MS., ii. 42.
well be doubted. - There had been nothing secret or mysterious about
their purpose to occupy California, but they had hoped to be first in the
field, and masters of the situation, the grantors not recipients of favors in
their dealings with a government that had not protected them against the mobs
in Missouri and Illinois. Yet, though they had not expected the war to break
out so soon, they must have known what was likely to happen before they left
the states; news at Honolulu had left but slight doubt as to the result; and
now, if not entirely pleased, they were prepared to make the best of the
situation, taking comfort from the thought that they had at least escaped
complications with the Mexicans, and had saved a considerable sum in duties
that would have had to be paid on their cargo.
Thus San Francisco became for a time very largely a Mormon town. All bear
witness to the orderly and moral conduct of the saints both on land and sea.
They were honest and industrious citizens, even if clannish and peculiar. There
was no practice of polygamy to excite animosities. They had a few months’
provisions left on disembarking, but they owed something on their passage
money. After camping for a time on a vacant lot, some went to Marin county to
work as lumbermen and thus pay their debts; others were put in possession of
the old mission buildings; all sought work at whatever tasks presented themselves,
making themselves generally useful; while a party of twenty was sent into the
San Joaquin valley to prepare for the coming of the Nauvoo saints by the
overland route. Many of them appear in the town records of 1846-7 as the
grantees of building lots. Yet all was not tranquil in the community. Four had
been expelled from the church on the voyage, as before remarked, and three more
soon after landing. Some of the company made complaints against Bran- nan,
whose misdeeds are not clearly specified, but who was apparently exonerated
after a legal investiga
tion. Before the end of 1846 twenty “went astray after strange gods,
serving their bellies and lusts, as the elder expressed it; that is, they
declined to follow his instructions. In January 1847 Brannan began the
publication of the Yerba Buena California Star, using the material of the old
Prophet office; and it was continued through this year and the next. It was not
issued as an organ of Mormonism but as a newspaper, though I think some
special fextras’ were devoted to church affairs, not being
generally circulated.42
Brannan wrote from Yerba Buena on the 1st of January: “We have commenced
a settlement on the River San Joaquin, a large and beautiful stream emptying
into the bay of San Francisco; but the families of the company are wintering in
this place, where they find plenty of employment, and houses to live in; and
about twenty of our number are up at the new settlement, which we call New
Hope, ploughing and putting in wheat and other crops, and making preparations
to move their families up in the spring, where they hope to meet the main body
by land some time during the coming season.”43 The site of New
42 Jan. 1, 1847, Brannan to the brethren
from the Star extra in Millen. Star, ix. 306-7. He expects another shipload of
immigrants, 2 vessels being reported as having sailed, one from N. Y. and the
other from Boston. (Tha Xylon to leave in N. Y. in April with Mormons. Or.
Spectator, Aug. 20, 1846.) ‘A few of the passengers on our arrival endeavored
to make mischief and trouble by complaints of the bad treatment they had
received during the passage, which induced Capt. Montgomery to institute a
court of inquiry, before which the larger portion of the company were cited to
appear for private examination. But the truth was mighty and prevailed! ’
Tuthill, Hist. Gal., 214-15, says the first jury trial in Cal. was won by
Brannan on this occasion. In Ryan's Judges and Criminals, 59-60, is a burlesque
account of the controversy, implying that the quarrel was about funds. The Monterey
Calif., Oct. 10, 1846, contains a brief notice of a split in the Mormon ranks,
whieh by scattering them will be good for the country. The Mormons are spoken
of as a plain, laborious, frugal people, not meriting the opprobrium cast upon
them. Aug. 19th, justice of the peace at S. Diego uses the ‘Mormon invasion’ as
an incentive to patriots to furnish 100 horses for the troops. Hayes’ Doc.,
MS., 188. Glover states that only two of the Mormons enlisted in the
California battalion, and this mainly through his own opposition, mauy of them
having been willing to enlist at first.
43 Millen. Star, ix. 306. According to
Solano Go. Hist., 312, a site was selected by L. W. Hastings at Montezuma,
where H. resided for several years; hut the place did not suit the brethren,
and they went elsewhere.
Hope was on the north bank of the Stanislaus, about a mile and a half
from the San Joaquin. William Stout was in charge of the party that went in a
launch from Yerba Buena to found the first settlement in San Joaquin county. A
log-house was built and a saw-mill, eighty acres were seeded and fenced, and in
April the crops promised well, but not much more is known of the enterprise,
except that it was abandoned in the autumn. The company is said to have had
trouble with Stout, who soon left the place, as did ■others.44 The reason for abandoning the
enterprise was not, however, these dissensions, but the receipt •of news that
the church had decided to settle at Salt Lake. Brannan went east to meet
President Young and the main body, leaving New Helvetia late in April, reaching
Fort Hall on June 9th,45 and meeting the saints at Green River about
July 4th, to come on with them to Salt Lake Valley. He was not pleased with the
decision to remain there and found a city, and soon started back sorrowful with
the news. In the Sierra he met the returning members of the battalion on
September 6th, giving them a dreary picture of the chosen valley, and
predicting that Young would change his mind and bring his people to California
the next year.46
The members of the Brooklyn company were like-
“In S. Joaq. Co.
Hist., 100-1, the settlement is called Stanislaus City. It is said that after
the planting aud feneing was done Stout elaimed the farm, and advised the
others to select farms for themselves ! This made trouble, Brannan was
summoned, and it was decided that the house and farm must be reserved for the
twelve apostles, whereupon Stout soon departed. A meagre crop of potatoes and
a flood are mentioned. Buckland, the last to quit the place, went to Stockton
in Nov., the rest of the company having gone to the south. The land was
abandoned until 1851. See also S. J. Pioneer, June 23, 1877. Glover, Mormons in
Cal., MS., says ‘the company was broken up and every one went to work to make
a fit-out to go to the valley as best we could. The land, the oxen, the crop,
the houses, tools, and launch, all went into Brannan’s hands, and the company
that did the work never got anything. ’
45 June 19th, Brannan writes to a friend in
N. Y. from Fort Hall. Will start next day with 2 men and part of the horses. Mill.
Star, ix. 305. Glover say3 B. was accompanied by Charles Smith. Meeting with
Young. Tullidge's Life Young, 166.
46 Tyler's Hist. Morm. Bat., 315. Brannan’s
return is announced in the S. F. Cal. Star. Sept. 18, 1847.
wise disappointed to learn that the new home of their people was to be in
the far interior. Some declined to leave the coast region; the rest, giving up
their dreams of a great city at New Hope, devoted themselves half regretfully
to preparations for a migration eastward. The discovery of gold in the spring
of
1848 reunited most of them at the
mines of Mormon Island; but their experience as miners belongs to a later
volume. Nearly one hundred adults, with some forty children, found their way in
different parties, chiefly in 1848-50, to Utah, where many of them are still
living as I write.47 The rest, forty-five adults and sixty-five
children, according to my lists, remained behind. Most of them, like the
leader, apostatized from the true faith; a few in later years joined Mormon
communities at San Bernardino or in Arizona, while a few either died in the
faith, or living, retain something of their former theories. Probably about a
dozen of all who came on the Brooklyn are still residents of California.
Pioneers of 1847; according to my register, were 1,900, or
about twice as many as those of the preceding year,48 They may be
classified in round number as follows: Overland immigrants, not including
females, and in reality only a small part of the whole number, 50; volunteers
of the Mormon battalion, 350; a total of 400 known by name to have come by land
routes. The regiment of New York volunteers, or soldier immigrants, 950;
officers and men of the artillery company, U. S. regulars, 120; other known
arrivals by sea, 70, including 20 in the navy; making a total of 1,140 who came
by water. Men whose coming is ascribed to 1847 in records of later years, 60;
those whose presence at some point in California is shown by records of the
year, 300; or a total of 360 to be
_ 47
Glover, Mormons in Gal., MS., describes the journey of himself and a few others
across the Sierra in the spring of 1849, and names most of those still living.
48 See
beginning of this chapter.
divided in unknown proportions between arrivals by sea and land.
My register for 1848 contains 520 names. Classified as above, they
included 35 overland immigrants, 25 from Oregon, 140 known to have come by sea,
100 whose arrival merely is ascribed to this year, 50 mentioned for the first
time as being in the mines, and 170 found at other places without any definite
record respecting the manner of their coming. To this number of 520 there
should be added, however, 480 men—dragoons, teamsters, mechanics, and
servants—who came under Graham from Mexico, arrived in southern California late
in December, and with few exceptions are not named in my lists. Thus the total
number of registered new-comers for the year was 1,000, though necessarily the
record is less accurate than for earlier times. For later years even an
approximately correct register is an impossibility.
The overland immigration to Oregon in 1847 was very large; that to
California much smaller than had been expected, though it was understood in
advance that prevalent uncertainty in the east respecting the political
situation, together with reports of the Donner disasters of the past year,
would have an unfavorable effect. Oregon agents at forts Hall and Laramie also
did much to discourage those who had California in view, not adhering more
strictly to the truth in their statements than had Californian agents at the
same points a few years earlier. Yet a party of about fifty came down from
Oregon, arriving in June or earlier.49 The regular immigration by
the Humboldt and Truckee route may have numbered two hundred
19 S. F. Calif., July 10, 1847; Or.
Spectator, June 10, 1847. Charles Bennett and Stephen Staats, who later
returned to Or., are named as membera of thia party. The S. F. Cal. Star, Feb.
13, 1847, predicta a large immigration in the autumn and an immense one the
next. In the Monterey Calif., Aug. 29, 1846, ia an extract from the Little Rock
Gazette, announcing the coming of an Arkansaa company in 1847. See lettera in
praise of Cal., though mingled with doubts on the actual state of affairs, in
Niles' Reg., Ixxiii. Ill; Cults’ Conq., 263-4; S. F. Bulletin, June 16, 1877;
Belfast (Me.) Repub. Jour., in Eurelia West Coast Signal, May 24, 1871; Newark
(N. J.) Advertiser (letter of June 17th from Monterey).
souls, though, as we have seen, only about fifty names are known. The
parties were met by Kearny and later by Stockton, and were passed by Brannan on
his return from Salt Lake, news from these sources being published in the
papers. They had no remarkable experience on the way, and arrived with seventy
wagons at New Helvetia in the first half of October. Charles Hopper, a pioneer
of 1841, now returning with his family, was in charge of the main company as
guide or captain. There was another small party that attempted a northern
cut-off to the upper Sacramento, but was obliged to take the Appleton route to
Oregon.60 As far west as Salt Lake Valley the Mormon trains formed a
prominent element in the year’s immigration.
Of the overland parties of 1848 still less is known, but the immigration
was perhaps not less numerous than in 1847, though there are only about
thirty-five names on the records. The only narrative of the trip extant is that
written from memory by J. P. C. All- sopp, who came with a small party from New
Orleans by way of St Louis and Independence. Several of the number stopped at
Salt Lake to become Mormons, and seven, crossing the Sierra by the Carson
Valley route, arrived at San Francisco in December.61 James T.
Walker with a party of eight started in 1847, but, being belated, was obliged
to spend the winter in the Green River country, and came on to
50 Aug. 23,
1847, Hunsacker and Smith arrive at the fort with news of the immigration. JV.
Helv. Diary, MS., 100. Sept. 4th, news from Ft Hall in extracts from a diary
kept perhaps by Brannan’s companions. 1,500 wagons turned aside to Or. S. F.
Gal. Star. Sept. 18th, Brannan’s report. 25 wagons probably at Truckee; others
farther back. Id. Oft. 3d-9th, arrival of immigrants at Sutter’s. Gerke,
Fairchild, Fonrgeaud, and Beston named. N. Helv. Diary, MS., 118-20. See also
Sutter’s Diary, 9. Oct. 16th, Capt. Hopper’s company of 60 wagons crossing the
S. Joaquin on the way to S. Josd. Also mention of the party (Wiggins) which
took the northern route. S. F. Cal. Star; also Hist. Or., i. 623, this
series. Oct. 21st, Sutter to Vallejo. Immigration very small, only 70 wagons.
Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 315. See also Honolulu Polynesian, iv. 51, 137, 146.
James Findla, Statement, MS., was a member of Hopper’s company, and gives a
brief accouut of the journey. In Dec. a caravan of about 212 New Mexicans
arrived at Los Angeles to trade. S. F. Californian, Dec. 29, 1847.
Allsopp’s
Leaves from my Lop, MS., 34-45.
California this year.62 Bigler of the returning Mormons gives
some information of parties met by the way. On August 15th at the sink of the
Humboldt they met eighteen emigrant wagons from Fort Hall. Ten more were met on
the 26th; and next day Captain Hensley came up with a party of ten men on
mules, who, after failing to follow the Hastings cutoff, had discovered a new
and better route. Three days later appeared Captain Chiles with forty-eight
wagons, claiming to have found a better way than Hensley’s, but the latter’s
was taken by the Mormons, since Chiles’ trail could not be found.53
52 Contra Costa Co. Hist., 686.
63Bigler's
Diary of a Mormon, MS., 89-95. In the Oregon Spectator, Sept. 7th, is a report
from advance immigrants that there were 600 wagons on the way, 300 of which
would probably go to Cal.
MISSIONS—INDIAN AFFAIRS—COMMERCE.
1346-1848.
Sale
of Mission Estates—Act of the Assembly in April—The Mon-
TESDEOCA OrDEK—PiCO’S
SALES FROM May TO J ULY—PURCHASERS
and
Teems—The Tornel Order—Evidences of Fraud—Action of Flores’ Government—Decision
of the Courts—Policy or Kearny and
Mason, 1847-8—Ecclesiastical
Affairs—Bishop and Friars— Vicars—Indian Affairs—Sutter, Vallejo, and Hunter as
Sub- Indian Agents—Local Items—Commerce and Maritime Affairs— Meagre Data for 1846—Statistics—Mason’s Communications—
Collectors—Removal of Burdens—Free-trade—New Tariff from Washington—War
Contributions—Modifications by Mason and Shubrick—Gold-dust for Duties—U. S.
Revenue Laws Introduced • with the Treaty—The First Steamer in California
Waters— List of Vessels, 1846-8.
In accordance with
Governor Pico’s regulations of October 28, 1845, authorized by the territorial
junta in its resolution of May 28th, three missions were sold and four rented
to private individuals before the end of the year, as has been recorded in the
preceding volume.1 Six other establishments were to be sold in
January, but a purchaser was found for only one, that of Soledad, bought by
Feliciano Soberanes for $800 on the 4th. The sale of San Francisco was in later
years ascribed to February 10th, but Santillan’s title was doubtless fraudulently
antedated. There
1 See vol. iv. p. 546-53. The
establishments sold were S. Juan Capistrano to Forster and McKinley for $710,
Purisima to Temple for $1,110 (but the title was made out on Dee. 6th to J. H.
Malo), and S. Luis Obispo to Scott, Wilson, and McKinley for $510. Those rented
were Sta Barbara to N. A. Den and Dan. Hill at $1,200, S. Buenventura to Amaz
and Botello at $1,630, Sta In6s to Covarrubias and Carrillo at $580, and S.
Fernando to Pico and Manso at $1,120.
were also six missions remaining to be rented under the regulations, as
soon as obstacles arising from their debts could be removed, but these
obstacles proved insuperable. Respecting the governor’s legal right with the
junta’s approval to sell the mission estates at this time, doubts were expressed
by able men in the litigation of later years; but the wisdom of the policy and
the good faith of the sales cannot be questioned. The titles acquired by the
purchasers of the four missions named were finally confirmed.2
In his address to the assembly on March 2d, Governor Pico explained the
condition of affairs, and called upon that body to devise some means of saving
the missions from total ruin. The debts were large, creditors clamorous, and
products limited. If leased, the amount of rent that could legally be applied
to the payment of debts would be insignificant; if not rented, the expenses of
administration would eat up all the revenue.3 The result was a
resolution introduced by Juan Bandini4 on March 23d, approved by
the assembly on the 30th, signed by the president and secretary on the 3d, and
published in a bando by Pico on the 4th of April. It authorized the government
to “carry into effect the object of the decree of May 28, 1845,” and if
necessary for that purpose, to sell the mission estates at auction,
distributing among the Indians any surplus of funds that might exist, and in
any case providing for the maintenance of the padre and the expenses of public
worship. It was to have no effect on what had already been done under the earlier
decree. I append a translation.6
2 Land commission, no. 224, 410, 476, 526,
in Hoffman’s Repts.
3 March 2, 1846, Pico to assembly. Olvera,
Doc., MS., 17-18. See also St. Pap. Miss., MS., xi. 64.
4 In Bandini, Doc., MS., 66, are blotter
copies, with erasures, interlineations,
etc.,
showing the development of the measure. Also in Dept. St. Pap., MS., viii.
89-95, as presented on March 23d, with a preamble explaining the necessity of
such action. March 28th, Figueroa writes to Pico on the project. He was
probably one of the committee.
6 March 30, 1846, decree of assembly on
missions, published by the governor on April 4th:
Article 1. The
government is authorized to carry into effect the object
Before anything had been done to carry this decree into effect, there
arrived from Mexico, dated November 14th and submitted to the assembly on April
15th, an order of the national government suspending all proceedings for the
sale of mission property. This, without recorded comments, was referred on May
13th to the committee on missions, and nothing more is heard of it for several
years.6 In original
of the decree of 28th
May last, published by this honorable assembly, respecting missions; to which
end, seeing tha impracticability of renting, mentioned in article 3 of said
decree, the departmental government will act. in the manner which may appear
most conducive to obviate the total ruin of the missions of San Gabriel, San
Luis Rey, San Diego, and the remainder, which are in similar circumstances.
Art, 2. As most of
these establishments are owing large amounts, if the- property on hand should
not be sufficient to satisfy their acknowledged debts, attention shall be had
to what the laws determine respecting bankruptcies, and steps shall be taken
accordingly.
Art. 3. Should
government, by virtue of this authority, find that, in order to prevent the
total ruin which threatens said missions, it will be necessary to sell them to
private persons, this shall be done at public auction, the customary notice
being previously given.
Art. 4. In case of
sale, if, after the debts be paid, .any surplus should remain, this shall be
divided among the Indians of the premises sold, government taking care to make
the most just distribution possible.
Art. 5. In any case,
care must be taken to secure a sufficient amount for the maintenance of the
padres and the expenses of public worship, the government being at liberty to
separate a part of the whole establishments, whether in lands for cultivation,
landed or other property, at its discretion, which will be sufficient to secure
both objects, the respective priests being previously heard and attended to.
Art. 6. The premises
set apart according to the foregoing article shall be delivered as a sale at a
perpetual interest of four per cent; and the proceeds shall be applied
precisely to the objects mentioned in said article 5.
Art. 7. What has been
done agreeably to what was ordained in the decree of the honorable assembly of
the 28th May, before cited, remains in full force; and these presents shall in
no manner alter the contracts made and measures taken by government, in
accordance with said decree of May 1845; nor shall they in future put any
obstacle in the way of what may be done in accordance thereto.
Art. 8. The
government will remove any obstacles not foreseen in this decree; and within
six months at furthest will notify this honorable assembly of the result of its
fulfilment.
Hallech’s
Rept., 166-7; Leg. Rec., MS., iv. 325-8; Dept. St. Pap. Angeles, MS., x. 88-9.
The original bando is also in my possession. Doc. Hist. Gal., MS., iii. 155;
and it has often been reprinted in Spanish and English. In later
litigation, the lawyers attempted to show that Pico’s reference to the date of
this document as April 3d was an evidence of fraud, but there is no foundation
for such a theory.
6Nov.
14,1845, Minister Montesdeoca to gov. of Cal. ‘ It has come to the- knowledge
of the president that the departmental govt has made arrangements to sell at
public auction all the property belonging to the missions, which your
predecessor had ordered to be returned to the respective missionaries for the
management and administration of their temporalities; therefore, he has seen
fit to notify me that that govt must report on those particu-
archive records of later months of 1846, there is found but little to
indicate that the Montesdeoca order was not obeyed, at least to the extent of
suspending the sales.7 Yet in later years there were produced title
deeds signed by Pico, showing the sale at different dates between May 4th and
July 4th of twelve missions, including the four which had been rented in
1845. I append a list, referring the
reader to local annals for more particulars.8 These titles vary considerably
in form. In none is there any allusion to a sale by auction, and it has never
been claimed that the sale was of that character as required by the decree.
The consideration, even where a definite sum is named, was in most cases an
amount already due from the government for past advances, and in the other
cases there is no evidence respecting the payment or use made of the money.9
Most of the titles require
lars, suspending at
once every proceeding connected with the alienation of the property in question
pending the resolution of the supreme govt. ’ St. Pap., Mis. and Col., MS., ii.
404-5; Hartman’s Brief, 49-50; Leg. Bee., MS., iii. 329-30, 341, and often
reproduced. This order had no bearing on the governor’s power to grant in
regular form ranchos that had formerly been used by the missions, but referred
only to buildings, cattle, lands in use, etc. Hoffman’s Opinions, passim. It
was also claimed that the order referred only to the 13 missions restored to
the padres in 1843, and not to S. Juan Bautista. Holliday's Brief, in Panaud
v. U. S., Hayes’ Miss. B., 366, p. 14.
7 May 13th, Pico calls upon all creditors
of the missions to present their claims and proofs. Castro, Doc., MS., 84; S.
Luis Ob., Arch., MS., 8; Dept. St. Pap., Pref. y Juzg., MS., ii. 117. There are
also, in St. Pap. Mis., MS., xi. Gl-6, and Cfnb. Doc., MS., some records on the
sale of S. Diego, S. Fernando, S. Buenaventura, and Soledad.
8 Missions sold by Pico in 1846: May 4th,
S. Juan Bautista to 0. Deleis- sfeques for a debt; May 5th, S. Jos6 to Andres
Pico and J. B. Alvarado for $>12,000; May 18th, S. Luis Rey to Cot and JosiS
Ant. Pico for $2,437; June 8th, S. Rafael to Ant. Sunol and A. M. Pico for
$>8,000, S. Buenaventura to JosiS Arnaz for $12,000, S. Diego to Santiago
Argiiello for past services to govt, ami S. Gabriel to Reid and Workman for
debt; June 10th, Sta Barbara to Eich. Den for $7,500; June 15th, Sta In6s to
Covarrubias and Joaquin Carrillo for $7,000; June 17th, S. Fernando to C6lis
for $14,000; June 30th, orchard of Sta Clara to Castaneda, Arenas, and Diaz fur
$>1,200; July 4th, S. Miguel to P. Eios and Wm Reed; June 4th, Soledad to
Soberanes for $800.
The three sold in
1845, as already recorded, were Purisima, S. Luis Obispo, and S. Juan
Capistrano. A fraudulent title to S. Francisco was dated Feb. 10th. Eespecting
the disposition of S. CArlos, Sta Cruz, S. Antonio, and Solano nothing
appears, except that at the latter a house wa^ granted by Castro to Prudon on
June 3d.
9 Pico has been accused of carrying away
large sums to Mex., but there is nothing to support the charge. In hisi7£si.
Cal., MS., 133-4,171-2, he speaks of the mission sales, without throwing much
light on the subject. He says he sold in 1846 only five missions; that the
sales of S. Gabriel and S. Luis Eey
Hist. CiL., Vol. V. 36
the purchaser to pay the mission debts, and to provide for the padre’s
support and the expenses of public worship, also reserving from the sale the
church and priest’s residence. Some of them make provision for remnants of the
community Indians. Nearly all refer to the assembly’s act as the grantor’s
authority,10 and also to a general authorization from the supreme
government, without naming any definite order or date, or alluding in any way
to the Montesdeoca order. In later years a Mexican order of Mareh 10th,
declaring the governor and general ‘facultados ampliamente’ to defend the
eountry, was produced as legalizing the sales.11 I regard the
document in itself as sufficient, although the courts did not take this view of
it.12 But the date of receiving this order is not known; it is improbable
that it arrived before May 4th, when the sales began, or before the middle of
June, when most of them had been effected; had it been in his possession, Pico
would almost certainly have cited it; and during the period between the
reception of the Montesdeoca order on April 15th and the unknown date when the
Tornel order came to hand the governor had no right to sell the mission
estates.13
In the case of several missions, it was proved clearly enough that the
titles and corroborative papers in pri-
did not go into
effect; that the sale of S. Fernando was virtually a mortgage to secure sums
contributed to the govt (it is true the deed contained a provision that the
property might be redeemed within 8 months); S. Diego was given to Arguello for
past services; and the consideration for S. Buenaventura was merely nominal.
Not a dollar ever came into Pico’s hands.
10 Copies of most of the titles are printed
in Spanish and English in Hartman’s Brief.\ in Mins. Cases, appendix. A
noticeable peculiarity is that the date of this act is generally given as April
13th, instead of 3d (trees, for Ires).
11 March 10, 1846, Tomel to Castro and
Pico. The original in my possession. Pico, Doc., MS., ii. 171.
12 Hoffman’s Opinions, 12, 38; U. S. Sup.
Court Repts, 1 Wallace, 745, 766. The ‘ample powers,’ it seems to me, must have
included the power to raise funds by selling the only national property in the
province.
13 A point not noticed, so far as I know, by
the land lawyers was this: the Tornel order authorized Pico and Castro to adopt
measures for the defence of Cal. against the Americans, but for nearly the
whole period of the alleged mission sales Pico was straining every nerve—not to
resist the Americans, for he did not believe an invasion imminent—but to defend
himself against Gen. Castro! The absence of the Tornel order from the archives
may be explained either by the late date of its reception, or, if it camc in
June, by Pico’s unwillingness to admit to the sureuos that Castro had also the
‘ample faculties.’
vate hands had been written after Pico’s return to California in 1848, or
at least after the raising of the United States flag in July 1846, and
fraudulently antedated. That the same was true of others is strongly indicated
by various circumstances: notably the absence of original archive evidence, the
error in date of the assembly’s decree, with other irregularities in the
documents,14the mystery enshrouding the alleged payment of large
sums of money, the delay of purchasers in making known their claims, and the
failure to call certain witnesses in the resulting litigation. I suppose,
however, that several of the establishments were deeded more or less in good
faith before July 7, 1846, to creditors of the government who were willing to
take the risks of obtaining confirmation of their titles; but I do not venture
to name the missions so disposed of.
The only subsequent action of Californian authorities in this connection
was a decree of the assembly on October 30th, promulgated by Governor Flores on
the 31st, which annulled Pico’s sales, and authorized the new ruler to
mortgage some of the missions, and thus raise funds for a continued resistance
to American invasion.15 Of course under the United States regime
this act had no validity except as an argument respecting the view taken by
Californians of the sales and their legality. As to the ultimate fate of these
mission titles, the supreme court decided
14 On the other hand, if Pico had written
the titles after his return in 1848, lie would naturally have cited the Tornel
order in his possession. The suspicious circumstances are catalogued and
exaggerated by Hartman and others. The Mex. treaty commissioners in 1848
assured the U. S. representative that there had been no land grants since May
13, 1846.
15Oct. 27,
1846, measure introduced by com. on ways and means. Olvera, Doc., MS., 46-8.
Oct. 30th, 31st, decree approved by assembly and published by Flores. Original
in Soberanes, Doc., MS., 326; also in Ilalleck's Rejrt., 107; Castro, Doc.,
MS., ii. 153; Janssens, Doc., MS., 33-5; Unb. Doc., MS., 360-1. Unfortunately
this decree does not name the missions that have been sold, and it may possibly
refer to the sales of 1845. It also provides that the missions shall continue
in the possession of the lessees. This might indicate ignorance that the leased
missions had been sold; but it must be noted that by some of the deeds the
purchasers were to have possession only on the expiration of the lease.
in 1863, in the cases of San Gabriel and San Luis Rey, that Pico had no
right to make the sales; but before that decision was rendered, the titles of
San Diego, San Buenaventura, San .Fernando, Soledad, and San Juan Bautista had
been finally confirmed by the land commission and district courts, while the
other six had been rejected by the same tribunals. The ‘church property’
proper, including the church buildings, priest’s house, and lands to the
extent of six to one hundred and ninety acres at each of the twenty- one
establishments, was finally confirmed to the archbishop, representing the
catholic church.
It soon became evident to the new rulers of California that there was
room for much doubt respecting the true ownership of the mission estates, and
during 1847-8 they wisely adhered to the policy of maintaining the matter in
statu quo. On March 22, 1847, Kearny ordered that four establishments in the
north should remain in charge of the priests, without prejudice to the rights
of claimants, until proper judicial tribunals should be established.16
This caused some trouble at Santa Clara, where American immigrants had taken
possession. Governor Mason announced that “the government fully recognizes and
will sustain the rights of the priests at the missions and to all mission
property, against all who cannot in due course of law show a just and sound
legal title;” and he once ordered a military force under Captain Naglee to
eject the immigrants; but Padre Real finally permitted them to remain till
after harvest, and longer by paying a small sum for the support of the church.17
In the south the occupants, whether priests, lessees,
16 March 22, 1847, Kearny’s order that S.
Jos6, Sta Clara, Sta Cruz, and S. Juan remain in charge of the priests.
Halleck’s Sept, 168; Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. p. 73-4, etc.
17 Cal. and N. Hex., Hess, and Doc., 1850,
p. 343-4. P. Real had sold some mission lands, under orders from Gen. Castro of
May 25 and June 16, 1846; but Mason on Jan. 3, 1848, declared all such sales
void. Neither did he permit claimants under the alleged Pico sale to take
possession of the orchard. At Sta Cruz, on complaint of the padre, forbade the
sale of lots by the alcalde. Id., 433. Prudon’s occupancy of a building at
Sonoma was sustained against the padre’s claim and alcalde’s decision.
or purchasers, were allowed to remain in possession; nor was interference
permitted with the Indians who were living on certain tracts of disputed lands.
Even a claimant under a grant from Governor Flores was temporarily sustained at
Santa Inds. In the ease of certain occupants who claimed a double title, that
of lessee was preferred, and an effort was made to obtain documentary evidence
for future use as well as to prevent a waste of property by a strict
investigation of accounts. For alleged abuses, the lessee of San Buenaventura
was ejected after investigation by Colonel Stevenson; and San Diego was also
leased by the American authorities. In current correspondence there is little
but local items.
“ Of general mission and ecclesiastical matters outside of those
connected with the disposal of estates, a bare mention will suffice.” This
remark on the subject for 1845 will apply equally well to the period of
1846-8. At the beginning there were thirteen surviving friars, six
Fernandinos, and seven Zaeatecanos; at the end only one of the former, Padre
Ordaz, was left, with six of the latter. The year of the American conquest
brought death to five of the missionaries. The old organization was kept up to
a certain extent, Padre Duran retaining the prefecture in the south until his
death in June 1846, and Anzar being succeeded by Gonzalez as chief of the
Zacatacan friars. Even the formality of assigning stipends for each of the
missions was kept up in Mexico, though of course no money was forwarded.18
Bishop Garcia Diego, being seriously ill in April 1846, appointed fathers Duran
and Gonzalez as his vicars, who after the bishop’s death in May took charge of
the ecclesiastical government; and after Duran’s early death, Gonzalez
retained the position for the rest of the period.19
18 Mex., Mem. Hacienda, 1846-8.
1# April 19,
1846, bishop to PP. Duran and Gonzalez, with appointment. April 20th, pastoral
letter of D. and G., asking for prayers, etc. April 22d, bishop announces the
appt accepted hy D. and G. April 28th, gov. announces the matter. May 1st, 3d,
death and burial of the bishop. May 6th, circular
Church matters led to few complications during the military occupation,
though American ideas of marriage as a civil contract troubled the priests
considerably, and their complaints caused Governor Mason to issue, in August
1847, an order forbidding alcaldes to perform the marriage ceremony when either
of the parties was a member of the catholic church. Entire freedom was guaranteed
in matters pertaining to religious belief and worship; but beyond the
preaching of the Mormon elders at San Francisco, and some slight beginnings of
protestant service there and at San Josd and Santa Cruz, there was little to
interrupt the current of old-time religious customs.
Indian affairs, the doings of gentiles and apostates, will afford a few
items for local annals of 1846-8; but the general subject requires but brief
treatment. Naturally, the quarrels of Californian rulers, followed by the war
of American occupation, tended to promote rather than check the ravages of
horse-thief tribes roaming through the broad interior. During the first half of
1846 complaints of depredations were of constant occurrence, especially in the
Los Angeles region, where propositions to effect a loan, to send out an armed
force, or to station a garrison at the Cajon pass were always pending; and
where parties of volunteers under Lugo, Salazar, Palomares, Wilson, and others
made several effective raids. Many Indians were killed, recovered property was
distributed among the captors, and captive women and children were brought to
the ranchos to work and be educated. In April the assembly went so far as to
resolve in seven articles to devote surplus revenues to active efforts against
of the vicars. May
19th, sub-prefect orders their recognition. Sta Clara, Par- roquia, MS., 29; Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 187; Dept. St.
Pap., MS., vii. 118; Id., Prcf. y Juzg., ii. 62, 65, 118, iv. 65; Icl.,
Angeles, xi. 172; Sta Barbara, Lib. Mis., MS., 39; S. Luis Ob., Arch., MS., 25;
Arch. Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. 66. Oct. 7, 1847, the chapter of the metropolitan
of Mex. approves Gonzalez’s title as vicario capitular y gobernador de la mitra
de Californias. Arch. Obisp., MS., 26. In Corresp. Mis., MS., 13-37, is
an undated appeal of P. Gonzalez to the pope in behalf of Cal., asking for the
power to administer confirmation.
the savages!20 At the same time, in reply to urgent petitions
from the people of San Jose for protection, Governor Pico authorized the
prefect to organize a vigorous campaign, and to pay expenses with $6,000— from
Castro’s part of the revenues!21 Of Indian affairs in the Sacramento
Valley at this time something has been said in connection with Fremont’s
operations.
During the war in the last half of 1846 prominent phases of the general
subject, and almost the only ones of which anything is recorded, are the fears
of Walla Walla invasion, the enlisting of Kern’s Indian garrison at New
Helvetia, and the formation of an Indian company to serve in the California
battalion, all of which have been noticed elsewhere. Here I may mention a kind
of census, by which the native population of the region about the fort, the
district including the ranchos and settlements of the valley, was made 2,665, a
number increased to about 22,
000 by Bidwell’s estimate of the
next year for the region above the Buttes.22 In the San Jos£
district a somewhat extended campaign of Purser Watmough with San Francisco
volunteers is recorded in September.23 In the south the only
noticeable event was the massacre of eleven men at Pauma rancho in December by
Garra’s band of Cahuillas and fugitive ex-neophytes of San Luis Rey. These men
had retired to Pauma to avoid military service either for or against Flores.
There was an unfounded theory that they were really killed in the fight at San
Pascual. The Indians were instigated by William Marshall, who doubtless led
them to suppose their acts would be approved by the Americans. Marshall was
afterwards hanged for this offence; and in January Garra’s
20Leg. Rec.,
MS., iv. 332-3; Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii., 192; Dept. St. Pap., MS., viii.
97-9; Id., Pref. y Juzg., ii. 123. If the surplus did not suffice, civil
employes were to be called upon for part of their salaries.
21 Dept. St.
Pap., MS., vii. 45-S; Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 191; S. Jos6 Arch., MS., Loose
Pap., 31.
TiOriginals
in McKinstry’s Pap., MS.
nMont.
Calif., September 26, 1S46. Long account by C. P. Briggs in Napa Reporter, Aug.
31, 1872.
band was drawn into an ambush, and most of the offenders slain by a force
of friendly Indians and Californians under Lugo.24
In 1847-8 under American rule depredations of hostile Indians still
continued, and the records show but slight change in methods or results of
warfare against them. None of the local happenings are of sufficient importance
to call for notice here. In April General Kearny appointed Sutter as sub-Indian
agent for the district of the Sacramento and San Joaquin, and Vallejo for the
Sonoma district extending to Cache Creek and Clear Lake. Their salary was to
be $750. They were to have no power to spend public money, but were to deal
chiefly in good advice, explanation of recent changes in government, and
promises of reward or threats of punishment from the president of the United
States as the ‘great father’ of the Indians, mainly bent on taking care of his
good children. Both Vallejo and Sutter had large experience in dealing with the
Indians of their respective districts, and no better men could have been
selected for the position. In August Captain J. D. Hunter was appointed agent
for the southern district, with headquarters at San Luis Bey, and additional
instructions were issued by Governor Mason, in which he enjoined upon the
agents the care and protection of Indian servants and ex-neophytes, as well as
the keeping in check of gentile bands. Statistics and information on manners
and customs were also ealled for, and a new supply of promises furnished,
though there were as yet no funds available for the purchase of gifts.25
In the Sacramento Valley
al See local
annals of S. Diego, chap. xxiii. of this volume.
25 April 7, 1847, Sutter’s appointment.
April 14th, Vallejo’s. Aug. 1st, Hunter s. Aug. 16th, Mason’s instructions.
Cal. and N. Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1850, 294-7, 344-5, 358-9; Vallejo, Doc.,
MS., i. 23-4; xii. 311; S. F. Californian, April 10, 17, 1847. Oct. 30th,
Vallejo’s recommendations on regulations for Indian matters. Vallejo, Doc.,
MS., xii. 317; Unb. Doc., MS., 94-7. Nov. 29th, Mason’s order forbidding sale
of liquor to Indians. Original print in English and Spanish. Vallejo, Doc.,
xii. 319; 8. F. Californian, Dec. 8, 1847. In April 1848 Vallejo offered his
resignation, which was not accepted. April 15th, May 25th. Vallejo, Doc., MS.,
xii. 342, 346.
there were complaints of outrages by settlers, notably in July, when
Armijo, Smith, and Egger killed a dozen Indians in capturing some forty for
laborers, an act that resulted in a trial of the offenders by a special court.
San Josd residents also abused the Indians, and took horses from them on the
Cosumnes; and the records contain frequent mention of depredations and of
expeditions in preparation. Also in the districts of Los Angeles and San Diego
complaints and raids continued, the dragoons being defeated on one or two
occasions by the Indians. The same state of things continued in the early part
of 1848, but the items are vaguely recorded or unimportant. In May there were
alarming rumors in the Sonoma district, but they were believed to have no other
foundation than a desire to prevent the removal of troops and the recall of
citizens from their search for gold. Better founded were the fears at Los
Angeles in August on the disbanding of the volunteers at the end of the war;
but arms were furnished the citizens, and no serious disasters resulted.
At the end of this chapter I give a list of vessels shown by different
records to have visited the coast in
1846-8, though it is doubtless not so complete as the similar lists for
earlier years. Of commercial and maritime annals during this period of
transition from Mexican to United States methods, beyond what has been included
in the narrative of political events, there is naturally little to be
presented. Particularly is this true during the period of military operations
from June 1846 to January 1847. Statistical and other records are meagre; but
slight attention was paid to the observance of any system; there were no
notable controversies or other happenings; and the series of petty detached
items that might he put in print would be uninteresting as well as valueless.
Prom January to July 1846 commercial affairs were in the same condition as in
the preceding year, the only change being
an order of Governor Pico in March abolishing the tax of $600 per year on
each foreign vessel.26 The Monterey custom-house remained in charge
of Guerra, and finally of Hartnell,27 while Abrego retained control
of the treasury.28 A few petty regulations on trade and the
collection of duties were issued by Governor Stockton or his subordinates.29
Exports of the year were estimated by Larkin at 80,000 hides, 60,000 arrobas of
tallow, 10,000 fanegas of wheat, soap to the value of $10,000, and furs
$20,000, 1,000 barrels of brandy and wine, 200 ounces of gold, and 1,000,000
feet of lumber.30
Of trade statistics for 1847-8 we have still but fragmentary items, San
Francisco having become now the chief port of entry, doing more business
probably than all the others combined, and attracting some attention as a
Pacific metropolis threatening the supremacy of Honolulu.31 Exports
and imports at San Francisco for the last quarter of 1847 were $49,598 and
$53,590 respectively, the former including $30,354 of Californian products,
and $31,741 of
26 Mar. 28, 1 846, Pico abolishes the tax on
foreign vessels. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H., MS., viii. 14; against protest
of administrator at Mont. Dept. St. Pap., Ben., MS., iii. 86.
27 111 May Hartnell was admin., Jos£ Rafael
Gonzalez, com. de celadores, and the ccladores, Benito Diaz, Ant. Chavez,
Jacinto Rodriguez, and Wm A. Hartnell. Doc. Hist. Cal., iii. 204. Hartnell was
inspector in Sept., and Talbot H. Green collector in Nov.
28 There are no complete accounts extant. In
April receipts from customs were $26,826; the outlay was $32,566, includiug
$11,552 for extraordinary expenses; and the balance in the treasury May 1st
was $10,835. Dept. St. Pap.,
' MS., xiii.
16-17.
29Aug. 15th,
Stockton fixed a tariff of 15 per cent on imported goods, and a tonnage duty of
50 cents. Cults’ Conq., 125. Sept. 4th, S. orders collector of S. Diego to
collect $10 anchorage on whalers instead of the tonnage. Miscel. Hist. Pap.,
MS., no. 3. Aug. 29th, elaborate regulations for inspectors of hides and tallow
for the region round S. F. Bay, approved by the comandante, and signed by
Alcalde Bartlett. Sauzalito, Corte Madera, S. Rafael, Petaluma, Sonoma, Napa,
Sutter’s Landing, and Dr Marsh’s Landing were the places where produce might be
shipped for Yerba Buena, besides others apparently on the Contra Costa. Sonoma
Sta Rosa Dem,., Dec. 30, 1871. Sept. 6th, trade regulations of Capt Montgomery.
S. F. Munic. llepts, 1866-7, p. 519.
30Larkin’s
Descrip. Cal., MS., 94. July 24th, L. writes to his cousin in Boston very
enthusiastically on commercial prospects. Doc., MS., iv. 227.
31 See Hon.
Polynesian, iv. 78, 135, v. 17. It need not be added that the Hawaiians did not
altogether admit the danger, or fear the annihilation of their trade.
the latter coming from the Sandwich Islands. An estimate of the time was
$250,000 for the year’s imports from Honolulu at all the ports.32
Arrivals of merchant vessels at San Francisco for the year ending April 1848
were eighty-five.33 Exports from Santa Barbara from March to
September 1847 amounted to 627,780.3i At Monterey sixty-seven
vessels arrived in thirteen months ending October 9, 1848, of which fifty-five
were traders with a tonnage of 11,504 tons. The amount of duties collected at
Monterey in the same period was $25,000,and in all California $120,000,
according to a record kept by a naval officer.35 In August 1847
Larkin wrote to the government, “the commerce of California has trebled within
a year. The regular traders of many years’ standing from Boston appear to have
retired from the trade, which is now carried on by transient vessels from the
Sandwich Islands, South America,and the United States.”36
From the beginning of 1847 we have a series of communications that passed
between Governor Mason, the collectors of ports, and military commandants of
the several districts, on commercial affairs and the collection of revenues.
Most relate to the appointment of collectors and their duties in various
matters of official routine.37 These collectors received a salary of
$1,000, except at San Francisco, where it was $1,200; and they made quarterly
returns to the military commandants of their respective districts, the
31 S. F.
Calif., Mar. 29, 1848. Of the exports $33,890 went to Honolulu,
$7,286 to Sitka,
$5,000 to Mazatlan, $2,000 to U. S.; imports from U. S., 16,791, Oregon,
$7,702, Chili, $3,676, S. I., $31,741, Sitka, $2,471, Bremen, $493, Mex., $712.
Copied in Annals of 3. F., 198; Cronise’s Nat. Wealth, 63; Hunt's March. Mag., xix. 52, etc.
33S. F. Alta, Apr. 17, 1852.
34 Carrillo,
Doc., MS., 15. Duties for quarter ending June 30th were
$307. Id., 11, 16.
35Niles’
Reg., Ixxv. 208. For 6 months ending Feb. 1847, the number of trading vessels
entering Monterey was 23. Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 112.
36Larkin’s
Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 120. In June L. had written, ‘Goods are falling off in
price; produce from the ranchos is rising.'’ Id., i. 159.
31 Cal. and
N. Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1S50, passim; also the same or similar letters in MS.
collections, and in the S. F. Star and Californian.
resulting funds being subject to the governor’s orders for expenses of
the civil government.33 As to system, the ports were still regarded
as Mexican, and in theory the old regulations were followed, except as modified
by circumstances, according to the views of the new authorities. Practically,
and in accordance with promises by different commanders during the war, the
old burdens were largely removed, much to the satisfaction of both the people
and traders. In February it was ordered that certain staple articles of food
should be admitted free for six months; and by the regulations of March and
April the cargoes of American vessels were to be admitted free, those of
foreign vessels to pay fifteen per cent on the value at the port of entry, with
five cents per ton anchorage, and fees amounting to four dollars.39
Even under these regulations there was much smuggling, but of several
confiscations recorded none seem to require notice.
In October, however, there came from Washington new orders, including
tariff regulations formed in March for all Mexican ports in possession of the
United States. It was decided to open all these ports to trade, to collect
heavy specific duties as war contributions, and thus to force the Mexican
government by the loss of revenue and by popular complaints of high prices to
treat for peace. As a war measure directed against a hostile people, this was
perhaps good policy; but the regulations were absurdly inapplicable to the
condition of California, where the natives were not only submissive, but
without national influence, and where American residents were the
38The
collectors were: at San Diego, Pedro C. Carrillo, Santiago Argiiello, and from
June Miguel Pedrorena; at S. Pedro, Dav. W. Alexander; at Sta Barbara, Pedro C.
Carrillo; at Monterey, Talbot H. Green; at S. F., Wm A. Richardson.
s9Feb. 11,
1847, Shubrick’s order for free admission of beef, pork, bread, flour, butter,
cheese, sugar, and rice for six months. S. F. Cal. Star, Feb. 20, 1847. March
29th, Biddle’s orders to collectors. Carrillo, DocMS., 78; and other orders of
like import in April. No vessel could clear for Mex. ports not held by the U.
S. Nothing but specie, treasury notes, or drafts to be received for duties.
chief purchasers of imported goods.40 Mason and Shubrick
recognized at once the injustice and impolicy of such a measure in California,
and decided not to enforce its most onerous requirements. Explaining their
reasons to the government and announcing in proclamations that the continuance
of their lenient policy would depend on the good behavior of tho people, they
issued in October a new series of regulations radically different in many
respects from those of the national authorities.41
40 U. S.
Govt Doc., 30th cong. 1st sess., H. Ex. Doc. 1, p. 552-89; with correspondence
at Washington preceding and following the new regulations, which bore date of
March 30th, and was sent to Cal. on May 10th. The essential features were as
follows: Ports open to all hut Mex. vessels; $1 per ton for all port charges;
u, high specific duty—too long for reproduction here —on all imported goods;
all goods to he unloaded at the first port entered; goods shipped from port to
port to pay the same duties as if coming from abroad, and this coasting trade
to be open only to American vessels; military stores contraband; mining
machinery free, and also all U. S. stores; exports free; all Mex. monopolies
and prohibitions annulled; stringent regulations for all details of
collection, confiscation, etc.; and the collection of revenue to be in the
hands of military officers.
11 Oct. 20,
1847, Mason’s commercial regulations in Honolulu Polynesian, iv. 114, in 26
articles. Oct. 9th, Shubrick and Mason to people of Cal., threatening to
enforce the orders on military contributions in case of any disturbance of the
peace. S. F. Californian, Oct. 20, 27, 1847. Some regulations hy Shubrick on
Sept. 15th are referred to, but I have not found them. Oct. 14th, 20th, various
instructions from Mason, in accordance with the new regulations. Cal. and N.
Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1S50, p. 404-10. Sept. 23d, ‘ all vessels, not American,
engaged in the coast trade pay the same duties as when coming from a foreign
port. ’ Id., 397. Editorial on the tariff regulations, in S. F. Calif., Nov.
24, 1847. Call for a meeting at S. F. to prepare a memorial to congress on the
subject. Id., Dec. 1, 1847. Objections to the new system. Niles' Reg., lxxii.
209-10, 219. The tariff is also given in Amer. Almanac, 1848, p. 178. Nov.
10th, Larkin to sec. state, in defence of Mason’s course in substituting a
modified tariff. Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 12. Nov. 11th, Mason to
adjutant-general, defending the liberties he has taken, and explaining some of
his innovations. Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. 422-5.
‘ Promises and
assurances founded upon these instructions (those to Kearny of June 3, 1846)
have gone forth to the people of Cal. as a solemn pledge on the part of our
govt. It was believed and received hy the people generally as a pledge; but
some of our enemies have asserted that these promises were made by us to delude
them into subordination, after which the same high duties and restrictions on
commerce would be restored. Now, these persons pass for prophets, because after
nearly a year of quiet, high duties are again ordered to be laid, with restrictions
on the coast trade, that will in a great measure prevent the expected
competition and reduction of prices; this, too, with the avowed declaration to
treat the Californians as open enemies, subject to military contributions... I
would most earnestly recommend that these duties and restrictions be
withdrawn.’ May 10th, sec. war to Kearny, forwarding the new regulations.
Whalers not subject to duties or tonnage unless engaging in trade. Vessels
which left the U. S. before the new orders need pay duties at each port only on
the goods landed there. U. S. Govt Doc., 30th cong. 1st sess., H. Ex. Doc. 1,
p. 566-7. Oct. 13th, the last-named privilege extended
For the specific duties was substituted an ad valorem rate of twenty per
cent; tonnage was reduced from one dollar to fifteen cents; the rule requiring
all the cargo to be landed at the first port was ignored; the privilege of the
coasting trade was extended to all vessels owned in California; products of the
country might be freely shipped from one port to another; and no duty was to be
collected on lumber. The collection of revenue was now imposed on the military
commandants, and the collectors, except at San Pedro where there was no
military post, lost their places.
I find no evidence that the government
at Washington ever disapproved the military governor’s innovations, or that
more than a tacit approval was given. Some slight modifications were adopted
before Mason’s protest was received; and in November others more important,
changing the specific to ad valorem duties of twenty and thirty per cent on two
classes, or lists, of imports—but all apparently without the slightest
reference either to California’s needs or the governor’s acts. The revised
regulations arrived in April 1848.42 Except that the coasting trade
was now declared open to all vessels, I find no indication in commercial
correspondence of the time that any essential changes were made. At the end of
July, however, Mason instructed his officers to receive for duties gold-dust
at very low rates on deposit, redeemable for coin in three and six months.43
In August 1848, on receipt of news that the war
to all vessels, Amer.
and foreign. Id., 586. A vessel may proceed from port to port to make up a
cargo of exports free of all duties. Id. Nov. 10th, the former Mex. export duty
on precious metals to be collected. Approved by pres, Nov. 16th. Id., 587.
42 April 28, 1848, Mason to Folsom,
forwarding the modifications of Nov. 5,
1847, not given. Cal. and J¥. Mex., Mess, and Doc.,
1850, p. 544^5. July 26th, custom-house and port regulations by Mason, with no
reference to rates of duties. Id., 583-5. Miscellaneous corresp. of i848, in
Id., passim. The substance of the modifications of Nov. 5th is given in F. Cal.
Star, May 20, 1848.
43 Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. 664, Mason to
Howard, Gillespie, and Ward. Also other orders to same purport. M. had at first
consented to take gold if melted into some convenient form, but finally decided
that he had no right to do so. In Sept. it was decided to issue sea letters to
vessels owned by Americans, which should serve as registry papers temporarily.
Id., 671.
had been ended and a treaty signed, the authorities decided, without
special instructions from Washington, that as California was now a part of the
United States, the national revenue laws must be enforced. Accordingly the
collectors were reappointed and furnished with copies of the regular
custom-house regulations for their guidance, though they were still, in the
absence of orders to the contrary, under the supervision of the military
chiefs.44 There was no subsequent change in 1848, American vessels
entering free and foreign imports paying duties as at any American port. In
the early part of 1849, however, and before the revenue laws were formally
extended to California by act of congress, a new view of the matter was taken
by Governor Mason; namely, that foreign cargoes could not be legally admitted
in California, where there was no regular port of entry; yet, to prevent
inconvenience and expense, the authorities would take the liberty of admitting
such cargoes on payment of duties and fees.43 Of the amount of
military contributions and irregularly collected revenues collected in 1847-8,
I find no definite record; but before the convention of 1849 the amount yet
unexpended was nearly a million, and, as we shall see, the disposition to be
made of this ‘civil fund’ became a subject of discussion later.
In maritime annals of this period the appearance of the first steamer in
Californian waters merits a passing notice,46 among the vessels of
1846-8, with a list
u Id., 592,
655*60. Pedrorena was appointed at S. Diego, Aug. 7th;
Alexander continued at S. Pedro; Lient Carnes apparently continued at Sta
Bdrbara; and Edward H. Harrison appointed at S. F. after Edward Gilbert had
declined.
40Feb. 24,
1849, Mason to Harrison. Id., 69-4-5. Oct. 9, 1848, sec. war decides that no
duties can he collectcd on Amer. goods or such as have paid duties in U. S.
ports; but he gives no instructions on foreign imports. Id., 258. In March Gen.
Smith introduced still another variation in theory not affecting the practice;
namely, that foreign vessels might land tbeir goods by ' depositing ’ the
amount of duties and fees, ‘ subject to such disposition as congress may make of
them.5 Id., 713.
46 The best authority on this subject is Geo.
McKinstry in original letters found in McKinstry's Pap., MS., 40-4, the
author having made the trip to
of which I conclude this chapter.47 The steamer had no name,
but has since been called the Sitka. Her dimensions were: length 37 feet,
breadth of beam 9 feet, depth of hold 3-g feet, drawing 18 inches of
Sacramento on the
steamer. A notice of the arrival from Sitka is found in the S. F. Cal. Star,
Oct. 23, 1847. Notice of the steamer at Sonoma Nov. 25th, when there was a
celebration, with toasts to the ‘rival towns of Sonoma and S. F.’ Californian,
Dec. 1, 1847. See also Annals of S. F., 197; S. F. Directory, 1852; Hutchings’
Mag., iv. 4; Sac. Directory, 1871, p. 103; Sacramento Illust., 8; Hon. S. I.
News, ii. 50; S. F. Alta, May 4, 1858; Nov. 12, 1872; Sac. Union, May 19, 1858;
S. F. Bulletin, Feb. 26, 1868; and many other newspaper articles. Some accounts
describe the boat as a stemwheeler; and some say she was 60 ft long and 17 ft
wide.
47 Vessels on the coast of California,
1846-8:
Abigail,
Amer. whaler; Barnard, master; at S. F. July-Aug. 1846.
Admittance,
prize ship; at Mont. June, Sept. 1847; under command of Lieut Revere.
Alford,
Hamburg brig; at S. F. March 1846.
Alice,
Hinckley, master; at S. F. Sept. 1847.
America,
whaler; Nash, master; at S. F. Sept. 1846.
Anciis,
French schr; Limantour; at Sta B. and S. Pedro Jnly-Aug. 1847. Also at Mont.
and S. F. in May.
Angola,
Amer. bark; 311 tons; Sam. Varney; at Mont. from Salem and Honolulu for Sitka
in June 1846, consigned to Larkin. Again at Mont. and S. F. in Nov. 1847, from
Honolulu. ,
Anita,
Amer. bark; Woodworth and Shoive; on the coast 1847-8. Cargo cost $25,000; J
sold for $20,000; duties, $12,000.
Antonita,
schr, built in Cal. 1847; Rousillon & Sainsevain, owners; E. Gray, master;
34 tons, 40 ft long, 6 ft 8 in. deep, 12 ft 4 in. wide. Permit
to trade Nov. 23d.
Ariel,
Haw. schr; Griffin; from Honolulu; wrecked 200 miles from S. F. in Oct. 1848.
Passengers and erew saved.
Armata,
Amer. ship; Fitch; at S. F. from New London Sept. 1847.
Baikal,
Russ, brig; Lieut Rudierkof; at Mont. in Sept. 1846.
Barnstable,
Amer ship. Arr. S. Diego in March 1846; Hall, master; at Sta B. and S. Pedro in
Aug. Aids Com. Stockton in Oct. at Mont. and S. F. On the coast throughout
1847, and in spring of 1848.
Belfast,
hrig from N. Y.; at S. F. Oct. 1848. Said to have been the first vessel to
discharge cargo without lighters.
Benj.
Rush, Amer. ship; L. H. Smith; at S. F. Sept. 1846.
Bowditch,
Amer. ship; Borden; from Rhode Island; at S. F. Sept. 1847.
Brillante, Freneh corvette; E. de Bouzet. Arr. S. F.
from Callao
Sept. 24th, Mont. Oct. lst-7th, 1846, with the eonsnl Moerenhaut on board.
Brooklyn,
Amer. ship; 450 tons; Richardson. Arr. S. F. from N. Y. with Mormon colony July
31, 1846. Visited other ports, and sailed in Sept. for Panama
via Honolulu. (See chap. xx.)
Brutus,
Amer. ship; Adams. Arr. S. F. April 17, 1847, from N. Y. with part of the N. Y.
volunteers. (See chap. xviii.)
Cabinet,
Amer. whaler; Bottene; at S. F. Aug.-Sept. 1846.
Cadboro,
H. B. Co.’s brig; at S. F. Jan. 1846, with crew of the U. S. schr Shark;
wrecked in the north.
California,
Amer. ship; Fisher; at S. F. Sept. 1847, from N. Bedford.
Callao,
Engl, bark; Hiittmann; at Mont. in Sept. 1848.
Caroline,
bark; Halsey; at S. F. Sept. 1846.
Charles,
Amer. ship; Thomas Andrews; brought naval stores and a private cargo to Mort.
1847. Sold J of the cargo at immense profit at S. F. after the
water, and having side wheels moved by a miniature engine. She was built
at Sitka by an American as a pleasure-boat for the officers of the Russian company,
and was purchased by Leidesdorff, being brought
discovery of gold iu
1848. The supercargo took gold-dust and carried it home overland across Mexico,
but the anxieties of the trip killed him.
Charles
and Eilward, schr; at Sonoma and S. F. Sept. 1848.
Citizen,
ship; Lansing; at S. F. Aug. 1847, from N. W. coast.
Clementine,
whale ship; Hashagen; at S. F. Oct.-Nov. 1847.
Collingwood,
Brit, man-of-war; Admiral Seymour; at Mont. in July 184G, from Mazatlan, thence
to Honolulu. (See chap. ix.)
Columbia,
H. B. Co.’s bark; Dunean; at S. F. April 1847, from Columbia River. At Honolulu
in May.
Columbus,
U. S. ship; Commodore Biddle, Capt. T. W. Wyman; at Mont. and S. F. March-July
1847. (Chap. xvii.)
Columbus,
Amer. whaler; Hutehins; at S. F. Aug.-Sept. 1846.
Commodore
Shubrick, Hawaiian schr; 60 tons; Von Pfister; at S. F., Mont., and Sta Cruz in
April-June 1847. She came back from Honolulu in Sept., Mohran (or Morgan), and
was sold to Ruckel & Cooke, Elliot Libbey becoming master. Licensed to
trade by Gov. Mason Nov. 11th.
Commodore
Stockton, schr; Young, and later KLinch; running between Mont., S. F., Bodega,
and Oregon Jan.-Dee. 1847.
Concepcion,
Cent. Amer. brig; Beristain; at S. Pedro and Sta B. in Sept.
1847. She reloaded her cargo after paying duties, and
departed before Feb.
1848.
Con/ederacion,
Chil. ship; Jones, master; Rich. Carson, sup.; at the ports June-Oct. 1847. _ _ .
Congress,
U. S. frigate; Com. Stockton, Capt. Dupont, Lieut Livingstone. Arr. Mont. from
Honolulu July 15, 1846. On the coast through 1846-7-8.
Constantine,
Russ, brig; at S. F. from Sitka Jan. 1847.
Copia,
Amer. whaler; Taber; at S. F. Aug. 1847.
Corea, Amer.
ship; Hempstead; at S. F. from New London Nov. 1847.
Covington,
Amer. ship; Duval; at S. F. from Warren, R. I., Sept. 1847.
Currency
Lass, schr; Geo. McLean; at S. F. and other ports from Honolulu April-May
1847, and again from Nov. 1847 to Jan. 1848. Perhaps had made a trip in 1846
also. .
Cyane, U. S.
man-of-war; Mervine and Dupout; on the Californian and Mexican eoast during the
conquest in 1846-7. Some details of movements have been given in my chapters.
She arrived at Norfolk, Va., in Oct. 1848.
Dale, U.
S. man-of-war; W. W. Mclvean; on the coast Dec.-Jan. 1846-7; again in Cal.
ports May-Sept. under Selfridge; and in Oct.-Nov. 1848 under Rudd. .
Don
Quixote, Hawaiian bark; Paty; on the eoast March-April, 1846, from Honolulu.
Carried Castillero as commissioner to Mex. Again on the coast Aug.-Nov. and in
Feb. 1847. .
Eagle,
brig; Levett; at S. F. Feb. 1848 from China.
Edward,
Amer. ship; John S. Barker; at S. F. Sept. 1846.
Elizabeth,
Amer. whaler; Hall; at S. F. Aug.-Sept. 1846.
Elizabeth,
Amer. brig; King; on the coast from Honolulu Jan.-Dec. 1847, and wrecked near
Sta B. Feb. 1848.
El Placer,
brigantine, 60 tons; Charles Wolters, master and owner; a prize of the Cyane,
formerly the Manuel Adolfo. Amer. sea-letter granted by Gov. Mason Nov. 15, 1848.
Emily
Morgan, Amer. ship; Ewer; at S. F. from New Bedford, Aug. 1847.
Erie, U.
S. store-ship; Turner; at S. F. and Mont. Aug.-Sept. 1846, and Hist. Cal., Vol. V. 37
down to San Francisco in October 1847 on the Nas- lednik. Having made a
trial trip on November 15th, she ventured later to Santa Clara and then to
Sonoma. Finally, on the 28th of November, she started on the
again Feb.-Oet. 1847,
bringing Col Mason, and Lieut Watson, who took command of the ship.
Euphemia,
Hawaiian brig; 150 tons; Thos Russum; at Mont. March-Aug. 1846 from Honolulu.
Wm H. Davis, sup. and part owner, gives many details in his Glimpses,
MS., 335 et seq., 353-4. She came back in Nov.-March
1846-7;
also in July-Sept. 1847; and in 1848 with Vioget as master.
Euphrates,
Amer. ship; Edwards; at S. F. Sept. 1847 from New Bedford.
Europa,
Bremen whaler; Curns; at S. F. Aug. 1846.
Eveline,
Amer. brig; Goodwin; at S. F. Aug. 1847 from Honolulu.
Fama,
Amer. ship; Nye; came from Honolulu in 1845, and was wrecked near Sta B. on
Feb. 26, 1846.
Ferdinand,
French whaler; at S. F. Sept. 1846.
Flecha,
schr; Mont. May 1848.
Franeisca,
Amer. brig; Lemoine; on the coast from Honolulu Feb. 1847; and again in June,
being wrecked at Sta B. in Nov.
General
Kearny, schr; Shelly, and later Menzies; at S. F. and other ports April-May
1847. Had some trouble ahout entering as an American vessel.
Georgiana,
Amer. bark; Kelly; at S. F. Aug. from Valparaiso for Honolulu.
Golden
Gate, pilot-boat from Boston; at S. F. Dec. 1846.
Haalilio,
Haw. schr; Smith; left Honolulu Oct. 1848 for S. F.
Hannah,
Amer. brig; Chever; on the coast Jan.-March 1846. Carried despatches from
Larkin to Mazatlan.
Henry,
Amer. brig; Bray, and later Wm R. Kilborn; at S. F. from Columbia Riv. Aug.
1847, and again in Nov.-Dec., landing goods at Sta Cruz. In May
1848 she was at Mont. bound to Mazatlan with naval stores.
Herald,
Engl, frigate; Capt. Kellett; at S. F. on surveying service Sept.
1846.
Hindoo,
probably fictitious name of a ship attacked by pirates; the novel Amelia
Sherwood being founded on the voyage.
Honolulu,
Amer. schr; Newell; left Honolulu for S. F. in June 1847. Made
two trips to Cal. in 1848.
Hope, Haw.
schr; King; wrecked in Dec., perhaps on coast of Lower Cal.
Huntress,
Amer. ship; Spring; brought recruits to S. F. from N. Y. in Oct. 1848.
Independence,
U. S. man-of-war; Com. Shubrick, Capt. Page; on the coast Jan.-Oct. 1847.
Iris,
Amer. bark; Hewes; at S. F. Sept. 1847 from New Bedford.
Isaac
Howland, Amer. whaler; Corey; at S. F. Aug. 1846.
Isaac
Walton, Amer. ship; Allyn; 800 tons; brought naval stores from N. Y. in Aug.
1848.
Janet,
Engl, bark; Dring; at S. F. from Columbia River and Calcutta Aug. 1847. Her
cargo was seized, and she was deserted by captain and crew in
Oct. 1848 (?).
Janus,
Amer. whaler; Hammond; at Honolulu from S F. Dec. 1846.
Jeanette,
Amer. whaler; Atkins; at S. F. July-Aug. 1846.
John
Young, Haw. brig; at S. Pedro and Sta B. Aug. 1846.
Jdven
Guipuzcoana, Peru, bark, 200 tons; Barker (or Vaca); on the coast from Callao
Aug.-Dee. 1846. Back from Honolulu April-Aug. 1847. Hand- ford also named as
master.
Juanita,
Mex. schr; Scott; carried Covarrubias to Mex. in Feb. 1846. In July in trouble
with the revenue officers at Sta B. At Mont. in Nov.
Julia, TJ.
S. prize schr; Lieut Selden; on the coast Nov. 1846-Sept. 1847;
great voyage of her career to Sacramento, carrying ten or a dozen souls,
including the owner, George McKinstry, L. W. Hastings as far as Montezuma, and
Mrs Gregson and baby—the latter serving a use-
then sold in Oct.,
and.in Nov. arrived at Honolulu under Moran. Came back as Julian under Hawaiian
flag in Oct. 1848.
Juno,
Brit, man-of-war; Blake; on the coast June-July 1846. McNamara passenger.
jKekauonohi, Haw.
schr; Treadway; left Hon. for S. F. Aug. 1848.
Keone Ana,
Haw. brig; Jeupaa; on tbe coaat from Lima Sept.-Oct. 1847. Duties at S. Diego,
$1,676. Dutiea at Sta B., $104, refunded.
Lady
Adams, brig; Hanna; at S. F. from Callao Jan. 1848.
Lambayacana,
schr; left S. F. for Valparaiso iu Aug. 1848.
Laura Ann,
Engl, brig; Thomas; on the coaat July-Oct. 1847. Back from Hon. Dec.-Jan.
1847-8, and again at S. F. in Oct.
Levant, U.
S. man-of-war; Page; at Mont. June 30-July 28, 1846, when she sailed for the U.
S. with Com. Sloat.
Lexington,
U. S. transport; Bailey; brought Co. F 3d artill. from U. S.; on the coast
Jan.-June 1847, and again in Oct.-Nov.
Lion,
French transport; at S. F. from Hon. Sept. 1846 and probablv earlier.
Louisa,
schr; at Mont. and S. Pedro May 1848.
Magnet,
Amer. ship; Wilbur; at S. F. Sept. 1846.
Magnolia,
Amer. ship; Simmonds; on tbe coast Sept.-Nov. 1846.
Malek
Adhel, Mex. brig; captured by the Warren at Mazatlan in Sept.
1846, and sent to Mont. under Lieut Renshaw with
dispatches in Oct. and to S. Diego in Nov. She was sold to Phelps in Sept.
1847, and was on the coast until 1848 under Hall and Phelps.
Maria
Helena, Ohil. bark; Curphey; at S. F. and Mont. July-Oct. 1847.
Maria
Teresa, Mex. brig; Hanks; at Mont. and S. F. May and Sept. 1846.
Mary Ann,
Haw. schr; Paty; on the coast June-Nov. 1847, thence to Honolulu under Russum.
A part of her cargo was seized at S. F. by the revenue officers.
Mathilde,
Danish brig; 130 tons; Rabbens; on the coast April-Oct. 1847.
Mermaid,
schr; at S. F. June 1846.
Moncoba,
Engl, bark; at S. F. March 1846 from Columbia Riv.
Moscow,
Amer. bark; Phelps; ou the coast from Jan. 1846, engaged in trade and also
aiding Fremont and Stockton in their operations. She carried a company of the
N. Y. volunteers down the coast in 1847, but was wrecked before the end of the
year.
Mount
Vernon, U. S. store-ship; Given; on the coast April-May and again in Aug. 1847.
Narwal,
French whaler; G. Radon; at Mont. Sept. 1846.
Naslednik,
Russ, bark; Hamden; at S. F. Oct. 1847 from Sitka.
Natalia,
Chil. bark; Luco; at S. F. from Hon. Dec.-March 1847-8.
New
Perseverance, French brig; Boyer; at S. F. Sept. 1848.
Obed
Mitchell, ship; Wing; at S. F. from N. W. coast Aug. 1847.
Ohio, U.
S. man-of-war; Com. Jones, Capt. Hardy; on the coast from Oct. 1848.
Olga (1);
Teschemacher, sup.; 1846.
Pacific,
ship; Edwards; at S. F. from N. W. coast Aug. 1847.
Paladian,
Amer. whaler; McLane; at S. F. July-Aug. 1846.
Pandora,
Brit, brig; Wood; at S. F. Sept. 1846 on surveying service.
Parachute,
Amer. ship; Duval; at S. F. Sept. 1846.
Patriot,
Bremen whaler; Mensing; at S. F. Aug. 1846.
ful purpose in ‘trimming’ the little craft. The trip was made in six days
and seven hours, one of the passengers saving the odd hours by leaving the
steamer and walking. Returning to Yerba Buena,
Portsmouth,
U. S. man-of-war; Montgomery; on the coast from April 1846
to late in 1847.
Preble, U.
S. man-of-war; W. F. Shields, and later James Glynn; on the coast
in April-May, also Oct. 1847, and in April-May 1848.
Prescott,
Amer. whaler; Mallory; at S. F. Aug.-Sept. 1846.
Primavera,
Mex. brig; W. Stenner; on the coast from April 1847. Sold in June by
creditors at Los Angeles to E. Celis for $1,000, and resold to Ed.
A. King. Wm S. McKinney became master; and his
license to trade was issued by Gov. Mason Nov. 13th.
Providence,
French schr; Mitchell; left Hon. for S. F. Aug. 1847. Perhaps Prudence, Louis.
Providence,
brig; Hinckley; at S. F. from Hon. March 1848.
Rhone,
Amer. ship; Hill; at S. F. from Baltimore and Hon. Aug. Oct.
1848.
Roman,
Amer. ship; Shockley; at S. F. Sept. 1846.
Sabine,
Amer. brig; Vincent; at S. F. from Boston March 1848. Back from Honolulu in
Aug.-Sept. under Chaffield.
Sagadahoc,
Amer. schr; Barmore; left Hon. for S. F. Oct. 1848.
Santa
Cruz, Cal. schr; Lowe; on coast 1846-7.
Sarah
Parker, Amer. whaler; Russell; Mont. Sept.-Oct. 1846.
Savannah,
U. S. man-of-war; Com. Sloat, and later Capt. Mervine; on the coast from July
1846 to March 1847.
Seis de
Junio, Chil. brig; at S. F. from Hon. June-Jnly 1848. In trouble about duties.
South
Boston, Amer. whaler; Hoxie; at Hon. from S. F. Feb. 1847.
Southampton,
U. S. store-ship; R. D. Thorburn; on coast from Sept. 1847 to
end of 1848.
Spy, Brit,
man-of-war; Wooldridge; at Mont. Aug. 1846.
(S'. S., Haw. schr;
Molteno; left Hon. for S. F. Jan. 1848.
Starling,
Haw. schr; Hinckley; left Hon. for S. F. Feb. 1848.
Sterling,
Amer. ship; G. W. Vincent; on the coast in 1846, being used as a
transport for the Cal. battalion.
Stonington,
Amer. whaler; Geo. W. Hamley;on the coast Aug. 1846 to Feb.
1847, aiding Stockton in his operations at S. Diego.
Susanita,
launch, schooner-rigged; bought of Vioget by Brannan, and sent up to Sacramento
in 1848 under Grimshaw.
Sweden,
ship; Nott; at S. F. from N. Y. Feb. 1848.
Tasso,
Amer. bark; Libbey; on the coast from 1846 to Oct. 1848.
Tepic,
Engl, brig; Luce; at S. F. July 1848, and again from Hon. in
Sept.- Oct.
Thomas 11.
Perkins, Amer. brig; Arther; at S. F. from N. Y. in March
1847, bringing part of the N. Y. volunteers.
Thomas 11.
Benton, U. S. brig; at Sta B. Aug. 1847.
Toulon,
bark; Crosby; at S. F. from Columbia Riv. Jan.-April 1847.
Triad,
ship; Horton; at S. F. from N. W. coast Aug. 1847.
United
States, Amer. whaler; Stevens; at S. F. Sept. 1846.
Valiant,
French whaler; Des Prairies; at Mont. April 1846.
Vancouver,
H. B. Co.’s bark; at Mont. and S. F. April 1846, from Columbia River.
Vandalia,
Amer. ship; Everett; on coast from 1846 to May 1847. Cargo cost $37,000; sold
for $134,000; duties, |27,000. ’
Vesper,
Amer. ship; Clark; at S. F. Sept. 1847.
she was wrecked at her anchorage in a gale; but was raised, hauled inland
by oxen, and transformed into a launch or schooner. As the Rainbow she ran on
the Sacramento River after the discovery of gold.
Warren, U.
S. man-of-war; Hull, and later Lanman; on the coast from Aug. 1846 to the end
of 1848.
Wave, Haw.
sloop; Quimby; left Hon. for S. F. Oct. 1848.
Whiton,
Ainer. bark; R. Gelston; a't S. F. from N. Y. in April 1847; again iu July and
Nov. from Columbia River.
William,
U. S. prize schr; at Mont. from S. Bias March 1847. Under English colors. Case
tried before admiralty court at Mout. Sold at auction in April. At S. F. in
Aug.
William,
Neilsvn; Weston, master; at Hon. from Cal. July 1846.
Xylon,
Amer. ship; Millington; on the coast from N. Y. and Hon. in
March- April 1847.
Zach
Taylor, schr; built at Sta Cruz in 1848 (?) by Blackburn.
THE RULE OF GOVERNOR
MASON.
1847-1848.
Mason’s Proclamation
and Reports—Fears of Revolt—Visits to the South and North—Return of Jos£
Castro—The CaSon Perdido at Santa BXrbara—Return of Pio Pico—His Claims for the
Governorship—Imprisonment and Release—Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo—Mason’s
Proclamation—California in Congress, 1846-9— Causes and Effects of the War—Slavery in the Territories—
Opposition to the Acquisition of California—Debates on Territorial
Government—Final Unsuccessful Efforts—Military Rule— Riohts of Conquerors—Views
of Congress and Administration— Policy of Sloat, Stockton, Fremont, and
Kearny—Mason’s Theory and Practice—Items—Alcalde Nash at Sonoma—Trial of
Armijo— Barrus and Foxen—De Facto Government after the Treaty.
The war in California
had ended in January 1847, and the ensuing controversies between rival
chieftains in May. The departure of Fremont and Kearny and Stockton removed for
the most part all cause for dissension, and left the country tranquil. It also
well- nigh removed all elements of interest in territorial annals, so far as
the sequence of events is concerned. Since dropping the chronologic thread at
the end of Kearny’s rule as governor, I have devoted four chapters to subjects
pertaining wholly or in part to Mason’s rule in 1847—8; namely, the Mormon
battalion, New York volunteers and artillery company, immigration, missions,
Indian affairs, and trade. Most items in the records and correspondence of the
period, outside of local and personal affairs, have been disposed of in
connection with the subjects mentioned; but there
are a few other matters that require notice in this
(682)
final chapter of the regular series; notably matters pertaining to the
civil and municipal government, and to congressional discussion on the destines
of California, besides a brief glance at minor events in the order of their
happening.
On May 31st Colonel Richard B. Mason, on the departure of General Kearny,
proclaimed his assumption of the position of governor and commander-in- chief
of United States forces in California by order of the president.1
During the month of June, as indeed all other months of his rule, Mason’s
attention was chiefly occupied with routine details of military, revenue, and
municipal affairs, his correspondence taking the form almost exclusively of
replies and instructions to local subordinates on various minor matters,
which, as already explained, I make no effort here to trace. On June 18th he
reported to the government, expressing his need of mounted troops for Indian
service, giving attention to the ‘California claims,’ and stating in general:
“The country continues to be quiet, and I think will remain so, though the
people dislike the change of flags, whatever may be said or written to the
contrary, and in the southern part would rise immediately if it were possible
for Mexico to send even a small force into the country; nothing keeps them
quiet but the want of a proper leader and a rallying point”—a view that was
much exaggerated.2
In July Lieutenant-colonel Burton was sent on the Lexington with two
companies of the New York volunteers to take possession of Lower California,
which was accomplished without serious difficulty.3 Apprehensions
of revolt continued, though almost entirely unfounded. Colonel Stevenson had
complained in
1May 31,
1847, Gov. Mason’s proclamation. Los Angeles Arch., MS., iii. 65; S. F.
Californian, June 12, 19, 26, 1847.
2 June
18th, Mason to adj.-general. Cal. and N. Mex., Mt'ss. and Doc., 1850, p. 312.
3Kearny’s
order of May 30th, founded on that of sec. war of Jan. 11th; Mason’s order to
Burton June 1st; and M.’s report to govt of B.’s departure July 21st. Id., 310,
323, 331. For the occupation of L. Cal., see Hist. North Mex. States, ii., this
series.
June that “prominent Californians” had threatened to cut down his
flag-staff, and was authorized to say that “such an act will be considered an
act of war, and punished accordingly.”4 Captain Lippitt, left in
command at Santa Barbara, soon learned that the Californians were about to
attack his post, and sent Mr Sparks to Monterey to explain the danger. The
governor went on the Dale to Santa Barbara, w7here lie remained a
week, and “became fully satisfied that there were no just grounds to apprehend
a popular outbreak; and that if threats had been made, they were nothing more
than the expression of natural feelings resulting from the bad conduct of some
of the men composing the garrison.” Stevenson also came to assure him of
prevailing quiet at Los Angeles; and Mason, back at Monterey, explained the
state of affairs in his report of September 18th, devoted mainly to the
military condition and needs of the country.5 Then he went to San
Francisco, where he was entertained at a grand ball, found all in a
satisfactory condition, but was called back by the arrival of Toler
4 Cal. and N. Mex., etc., 341. Mason to
Stevenson, July 14th. July 7th, Fitch in a private letter says: ‘The
inhabitants are almost unanimously opposed to the U. S. govt, and detest us
from the bottom of their hearts, in particular the new-comers’! Fitch, Doc.,
MS., 447. July 27th, ‘Z.’writes to 8. F. Californian, Oct. 6, 1847, on
the danger of a revolt at Los Angeles if the military force should be
reduced. He says the southern people differ from those of the north; ‘they
drink harder, gamble more, and have a more obscene code of ethics, by far, and
have consequently less sympathy with us. They are Mexicans. ’
5 July 16th, Lippitt to Sherman; July
21st, Mason to adj.-gen.; Sept. 18th, Id. to Id. Cal. and N. Mex., etc.,
330-1, 335-9. In this report he says:
‘ When you remember
the extent of the coast and frontier; the great uumbers of Indians upon the
immediate border, who know that a change of government has been effected in
this country, and are watching its effects upon the character of the people, as
to whether it is better for them to live on as thieves and robbers or as
friendly tribes; and also the immense amount of property on deposit, you can
readily appreciate my anxiety in contemplating that event. There are other
dangers in this country I must point out. The number of natives and foreigners
iu the country are nearly balanced, and of course a strong jealousy exists
between them, not only on the score of which government shall prevail, but as
to ideas of personal liberty, property, and all the every-day dealings of
life. There are subordinate jealousies, too, between the foreigners of
different nations, the old settlers and the new; and indeed, when you remember
that a great part of these foreigners are deserters from ships, and men who
have been accustomed to lead a lawless life, you can see what confusion would
result from the sudden withdrawal of strong authority, well backed by force.’
with despatches before he could extend his tour, as had been intended, to
Sonoma and New Helvetia. His report was dated October 7th; and in the next, of
November 11th, devoted mainly to commercial topics, he reported a continuance
of tranquil prosperity, with good news from the peninsula.6 In
December there was a renewal of alarming rumors, with which the presence of
Sonorans was in some way connected, and whieh brought out on the 27th a
proclamation requiring all Sonorenos in the territory to appear within ten
days before the military authorities to explain their business, under penalty
of arrest and treatment as enemies and spies.7 Meanwhile an
overzealous sentinel at Los Angeles having fired his gun at the approach of a
horse or cow failing to give the countersign, the garrison was called to arms,
the guns were made ready, and finally a lighted fuse was dropped into the
ammunition-chest, causing an explosion that partially destroyed the guard-house
and killed several dragoons and volunteers.8
In 1848 fears and rumors of revolt continued. Some were inclined to
connect the return of Josd Castro with revolutionary plots, while others took
the view that his return without an army indicated the end of all plottings.
Three of the men suspected, Antonio Chavez, Francisco Rico, and Gabriel de la
Torre, were obliged to give bonds of $5,000 each that
6 Arrival at S. F. and ball. S. F. Cal.
Star, Sept. 25, Oct. 2, 1847; S. Californian, Sept. 29, Oct. 6, 1847. Oct. 7th,
Mason to govt. Cal. and N. Mex., etc., 355-8. ‘It affords me much pleasure to
assure the department that the most perfect harmony subsists between the
members of the naval and land forces on this coast, and that the most friendly
intercourse is kept up between the officers. I have had frequent occasion
myself to ask assistance of commodores Biddle and Shubrick, and my requests
have been granted with promptness and politeness; and in return I have afforded
them all the assistance in my power. Our consultations have been frequent and
perfectly harmonious, resulting, I hope, in the advancement of the common
cause of our country.’ Nov. 11th, rept on commerce. Much insubordination among
the volunteers.
7 Sonorans at S. Jos£, rumors of
hostilities. S. F. Californian, Dec. 15,1847. Dec. 27th, Mason’s proclamation.
Bonilla, Doc., MS., 28; Cal. and N. Mex., etc., 450.
8The
accident was on Dec. 7th. Los Angeles Hist., 30; Clark's First Regiment, 76-7.
they would commit no aet of hostility. This was in February, and at the
same time Castro was travelling very slowly from Los Angeles northward, having
eome back to California under a passport signed by Mason in the preceding June.
He was notified by the governor of the prevalent rumors respecting impending
revolt, and thereupon came to Monterey and gave a solemn promise to abstain
from all political interference.9
Still other revolutionary developments are to be noticed at Santa
Barbara. In April, when forces were being organized to fight the Indians, a
plot was revealed to use these forces against the Americans with a view to the
taking of both Santa Barbara and Los Angeles; but an investigation by Colonel
Stevenson showed no definite foundation for charges that had been made against
certain leading citizens.10 Meanwhile, however, the affair of the
canon perdido tended to increase popular excitement and official fears. A
six-pound gun belonging to the Elizabeth, that had been carried from the
barracks to the beach for shipment, disappeared in the night of April 5th. All
efforts to find it were unsuccessful; some said it had been carried in a cart
toward Los Angeles, others that it had been put on board a vessel; the
authorities
9Feb. 5,
1848, bonds given by Chavez and the rest. Unb. Doc., MS., 131; Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 331. March 14th, Chavez
allowed to go to S. Bias. Gal. and N. Mex., etc., 492. July 17, 1847, Mason’s
passport to Castro. Id., 323. Feb. 7, 9, 1848, Mason to Castro. Id., 472, 474.
April 12th, Mason’s report of both affairs. U. S. Govt Doc., H. Ex. Doc. 1, pt
ii. 103^4. March 4th, trouble thought to be brewing near S. Jos6 hy a party in
the redwoods under one Beverley. Unb. Doc., MS., 8-9. Nov. 14th, Manuel Castro
urged by his mother and brother-in-law to return to Cal. Doc. Hist. Gal., i.
505.
10Testimony
at the investigation of April 18th-20th, in Guerra, Doc., MS., i. 219-28. Capt.
Lippitt had been told by Pedro Carrillo, who got his information from his
brother Jos6, and he from the mother of Juan Rodriguez, that the latter, lying
behind the counter at Camarrillo’s store, had overhead a consultation on the
proposed revolt between Francisco and Pablo de la Guerra, Antonio Rodriguez,
Juan P. Ayala, Jos6 Lugo, and perhaps Cesario Lataillade. Rodriguez and his
mother as witnesses knew nothing of the matter. Jos6 Carrillo had heard some remarks
on the ease with which the barracks might be taken. Pedro Carrillo had
represented the matter to Lippitt as an idle rumor, with the understanding that
nothing should be done. March 10th, Alcalde Pedro Carrillo testifies to good
feeling between troops and citizens, as shown particularly on Washington’s
birthday. Carrillo, Doc., MS., 10.
were inclined to connect the disappearance with current rumors of
revolt, and to believe that the Bar- barenos, if as patriotic as they claimed
to be, might clear up the mystery. .Loeal officials and prominent citizens were
offended at the suspicions east upon them, but they could not learn who had
taken the gun. Accordingly, at the end of May, Governor Mason imposed a
military contribution of $500 on the town, to be paid pro rata by all
inhabitants, but to be repaid to the town on discovery of the guilty
individuals, or proof that they were not residents of Santa Bdrbara. This aet
caused mueh excitement and indignation, especially among American residents;
the alcaldes offered their resignation, whieh was not aeeepted; and some
individuals made trouble about paying their assessment; but the amount was
collected, and in August was turned over to the alcalde to be used as a
municipal fund. Ten years later the cannon was found. Five men—probably without
the knowledge of others, and possibly with a vague idea that the gun might be
useful in some rising of the Mexicans—-had dragged it away in the surf by the
aid of a yoke of oxen, and buried it in the sand of the beach. It is not of
record that the municipal fund was ever devoted to public uses, the tradition
being that it disappeared in an effort to double it at monte; but the affair
gave names to two streets of the town still called Canon Perdido and Quinientos
Pesos.11
11 April 12th, Mason, by Sherman, to Jos6
de la Guerra; April 20th, Guerra’s reply; Apr. 27th, Mason’s reply; May 19th,
G.’s reply; threats of penalty, protests, explanation of details, etc. Guerra,
Doc., MS., i. 83-94; Doc. Hist. Gcd., MS., iv. 1184-6. May 31st, July 21st,
Mason’s order for a military contribution, and later explanation. Addressed to
Stevenson. Cal. and N. Hex., etc., 572, 615. July 11th, Stevenson to Mason. Has
collected $385; thinks the Barbarenos not guilty. Two Americans were exempt for
past services. Unb. Doc., MS., 151-6. It appears that at first the tax was $2
per head, but later changed to a percentage on property. Jos6 Ant. Aguirre was
not allowed to leave the port on the Guipuzcoana till he had paid his quota of
$45. Guerra, Doc., MS., vii. 202-4. Corresp. of July-Aug. on resignation of the
alcaldes Pedro C. Carrillo and E. Ardisson. Both refused to pay the tax, and
some of their property was seized. Unb. Doc., MS., 195-6; Miscel. IHst. Pap.,
MS., 9; Gcd. and N. ilex., etc., 589. Aug. 7th, Mason’s order to Lippitt to
turn over the $500 as a municipal fund. Id., 591. Jos<5 E. Garcia,
Episodios, MS., 1-7, was one of the 5 who buried the cannon, and he gives a
Last in the series of alarming circumstances, and last development in
Mexican rule over California, was the return of Pio Pico, with claim to be
recognized as governor. His pretensions were characterized by Mason as absurd,
and so they were so far as any chance of success was concerned; yet they were
plausible enough from certain points of view. The armistice of February 29th
suspended all hostilities pending the ratification of a treaty, and left
Mexican civil officials free to exercise their functions. Pico, being in
Sonora, understood this to restore him temporarily to authority, and he applied
to the naval officer in command for permission to return in his official capacity,
which was denied, with the assurance that there was no objection to his coming
as a private citizen.12 Don Pio crossed to the peninsula in May, and
arrived at San Diego on the 6th of July, reaching Santa Margarita three or
four days later, and going to Workman’s La Puente rancho on the 15th, and to
San Gabriel on the 17th. Meanwhile Colonel Stevenson became alarmed at Pico’s
return without a passport, at his failure to report to the military commandant
at San Diego, and especially at current rumors of his having said he came with
full powers as governor; and issued an order requiring him to present himself
at once on penalty of being treated as a spy. Two detachments of troops sent to
bring in Don Pio did not find him; but having heard of the order and sent Hugo
Reid to explain matters, he came in voluntarily, with the assurance that he had
no hostile intentions,
full account of the
affair. His companions were Jos6 Ant. de la Guerra, Jos^ Lugo, Jos6 Dolores
Garcia, and Paciflco Cota. Streeter, in his Re collections, MS., 83-9, gives
many details; as also does Stephen C. Foster, Loa Anqeles in 1847-9, MS., 31-4.
12 May 10th, Com. Rudd to Pico, on the Dale at
Guaymas, in reply to request of April 22d. Regrets his inability to carry P.
across to MulegtS. Original in Pico (Pio) Doc., MS., ii. 181. That other Mex.
officers took the same view as Pico is shown by an order of April 22d, from
Gen. Anaya at Mazatlan to the ‘Mexican comandante general of Cal.,’ to proceed
under art.
1 of the armistice to
elect authorities to rule Cal. as part of the Mex. republic., Uni. Doc., MS.,
392-3. Also by a letter of Gov. Pards of N. Leon, announcing on April 4th his
own restoration, and sent to Pico as gov. of Cal. Pico, Doc., MS., ii. 177.
and was permitted to go on to San Fernando.13 Here he summoned
Covarrubias, his former secretary, and on the 22d addressed official letters to
both Stevenson and Mason to inform them that he came in consequence of the
armistice as Mexican governor of California “to establish in the towns of this
territory the benefits of said armistice,” and to ask for the issuing of the
corresponding orders to give his mission due effect!14 The colonel after
receiving another letter of inquiry replied that although Pico’s position was
not tenable, that matter would be left for the decision of Mason, but meanwhile
he must take no steps and abstain from conversation tending to foment
discontent on penalty of imprisonment. Don Pio in
13 July 17th, Stevenson’s order to Pico.
Original in Pico, Doc., MS., ii. 183. July 20th, Stevenson’s report to Mason.
Cal. and N. Mex., Mess, ami Doc., 1850, p. 599. July 21st, Mason to Stevenson,
in reply to a letter not extant, on Pico’s arrival. P. must be required to give
a written parole, treated with the respect due his rank, but watched carefully.
Id., 572. Pico gives a elear account of the whole matter in his Ilist. Cal.,
MS., 174-8. Stevenson represents Pico as denying ‘ ever having said that he
eame back with powers to resume his gubernatorial powers,’ but Pico says he
simply disavowed any hostile intentions, and was allowed to go to S. Fernando
and open an ‘ official correspondence. ’
uJuly22d,
Pico to Stevenson and to Mason, blotter originals in Pico, Doc., MS., ii.
185-8. The following English translation of the letter to Mason is in Cal. and
N. Mex., etc., 602: ‘Most Excellent Sir: As Mexican Governor of California, I
have come to this eountry with the object that the armistice agreed upon in the
city of Mexico, on the 29th of last February, by the generals in chief of the
forces of the United Mexican States and those of the United States of the
North, he observed herein. In making this declaration to your excellency, the
just principle on which it is founded fills me with confidence; and from the
favorable information which I possess respecting the qualifications which adorn
your excellency, I trust that my mission to California will produce its due
effect.
‘For which reason,
and in due observance of the before-mentioned armistice, I have the honor to
address myself to your exeellency, requesting that you will he pleased to
expedite your orders to the end that, in the places in California occupied by
the forces of the United States of America, no impediment be placed in my way
toward the establishment of constitutional order in a political,
administrative, and judicial maimer.
‘It is my desire that
the Mexicans and Americans look upon and consider themselves with the most
sineere fraternity; and iu accordance with this principle, I feel disposed to
co-operate with your excellency in surmounting any difficulties which may arise
in the business which occupies us.
‘ This opportunity
offers me means of protesting to your excellency the assurances of my
distinguished consideration and high respect. God and Liberty! San Fernando,
July 22, 1848. Pio Pico. His Excellency R.
B. Mason, Governor and Commander-in-chief of
the forces of the United States in California, Monterey.’ July 25th, Pico to
Stevenson; July 28th, Stevenson’s reply; July 29th, P.’s reply; July 30th, S.’s
reply. Pico, Doc.f MS., ii. 193, 197-8, 201-6.
reply came to the city, complained in writing of the threat as uncalled
for, since he would be the last to encourage disturbances in his country, and
was permitted to go to his rancho of Santa Margarita to await Mason’s
response.15 Governor Mason, who on July 26th had sent a warning in
relation to Pico’s possible action in antedating records of land grants, received
his letter on the 3d of August, and his answer was an order to Stevenson to
arrest Don Pio, confine him at Los Angeles, prevent his conferring with any of
his countrymen, and send him north by sea at the earliest opportunity. There is
no definite record of the date or duration of his confinement, but Pico and
others agree that he was kept under arrest for a week or more at Stevenson’s
quarters. Mason’s order for his release, on. receipt of news that a treaty had
been signed, was dated August 8th, and was accompanied by some bluster in very
questionable taste about the ex-governor’s pretensions.10
The treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, concluded on February 2d, ratified at
Washington March 10th and at Queretaro May 30th, put an end to the war, and
gave California permanently and formally to the United States.17 The
news reached California on the
15Aug. 5th,
Stevenson’s pass to Pico. Pico, Doc., MS., ii. 211-13. This and the preceding 7
documents of the correspondence were printed in Spanish in the Los Angeles Cal.
Meridional, July 18, 1855. See Coronel, Doc., 174.
16 July 26th, Mason to Stevenson on land
titles. By prompt and discreet action it was hoped to get on the right side of
Don Pio before the holders of fraudulent grants could reach him. Cal. and N.
Mex., etc., 668-9. Aug. 3d, Mason’s order of arrest. Id., 631-2. Aug. 8th,
countermand. ‘Had it not been for this, you may inform Pico, he would have been
sent to Oregon or some other foreign country. The manner in which he entered
California might have subjected him to the treatment of a spy; and his
subsequent conduct, after his conversation with you, together with his absurd
pretensions to the government of the country, made him merit harsher treatment
than he now receives. You will please inform him that Upper California is now
American territory, and that he is at liberty to leave it or not, as he
pleases; but so long as lie continues in Upper California he must be cautious
how he acts toward our authorities, civil or military. I have the honor to be
your obedient servant, W. T. Sherman.’ Id., 635. Aug. 23d, Mason’s report to
govt. Id., 601. Pico, Hist. Gal., MS., 174-8, says he refused to accompany the
officer sent to arrest him, and was left to present himself voluntarily the
next day. He was treated with courtesy and allowed many favors.
17 See Hist. Men:., v., this series, for
full account of the negotiations and
Gth of August, and was announced next day in a proclamation by Governor
Mason. Making known the cession of Upper California, the boundary, and the
choice of citizenship offered, the governor continues: In the mean time the
Mexicans “ will be protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty and
property, and secured in the free exercise of their religion. They, however,
are reminded that, as war no longer exists, and as Upper California now belongs
to the United States, they owe a strict obedience to the American authorities,
and any attempt on their part to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the
country will subject them to the severest penalties. From this new order of
things there will result to California a new destiny. Instead of revolutions
and insurrections, there will be internal tranquillity; instead of a fickle and
vacillating policy, there will be a firm and stable government, administering
justice with impartiality, and punishing crime with the strong arm of power.
The arts and sciences will flourish, and the labor of the agriculturist,
guided by the lamp of learning, will stimulate the earth to the most bountiful
production. Commerce, freed from the absurd restrictions formerly imposed,
will be greatly extended; the choked-up channels of trade will be opened, and
the poisoned fountains of domestic faction forever dried up. Americans and
Californians will now be one and the same people, subject to the same laws, and
enjoying the same rights and privileges; they should therefore become a
resulting treaty.
Also Tratado de Paz, Mex. 1848, 8vo, 55 p., in Engl, and Spanish. The territory
corresponding to Texas, N. Mex., Arizona, and Cal. was ceded to the U. S. for
$15,000,000, and the amount of all decided and pending claims against Mexico.
The boundary was the middle of the Gila and a straight line from the Colorado
junction to the Pacific, at a point one league below the southernmost point of
the port of S. Diego. Free navigation of the Gila and of the Colorado and gulf
below the junction was assured. Mexican residents of the ceded territory were
free to remain or depart as citizens of Mexico or the U. S., but must choose
within a year, a failure to do so being equivalent to a decision to become
citizens of the U. S. All property rights were to be inviolably respected,
including those of the church and of all ecclesiastical or religious
corporations or communities. Mexican grants of land were to be recognized; and
legitimate titles in Cal. were to be such as were legitimate under Mex. law
before May 13, 1846.
band of brothers, emulating each other in their exertions to develop the
wealth and resources, and to secure the peace, happiness, and permanent
prosperity, of their common country.”13
Reporting his action to the government on August 19th, Mason was later
occupied with the disbandment of the volunteers, with consequent fears of
Indian hostilities, with details of an anomalous system of government, and with
various routine matters, besides affairs connected with the gold excitement.
He says: “I do not anticipate any rebellion or revolution on the part of the
Californians, although the southern district must be entirely abandoned by the
military force now there; and in fact, the minds of all men are so intently
engaged upon getting gold, that for the present they have not time to think of
mischief;” yet he did not cease to urge upon the government the necessity of
providing additional means of security.19
Congressional action on the territory acquired from Mexico is a subject
that can neither be disregarded nor satisfactorily treated in connection with
Californian annals of 1846-8. Not only does its treatment involve much
repetition in the history of New Mexico, Texas, and of the Mexican war as
presented in
18 Aug. 7th, Mason’s proclamation of peace.
Cal. and N. Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. 590-1. Original print in English and
Spanish. Pico [Pio), Doc., MS., ii. 215.
19 Aug. 19th, Mason to govt. The letter
announcing the treaty was dated Quer^taro May 30th, and was sent up from La Paz
overland by Col Burton. Cal. and N. Mex., etc., 597. June 23d, Buchanan to
Larkin, with the news. Larkin's Doc., MS., vi. 134. Aug. 23d, Mason to govt.
Ammunition sent to Oregon for Ind. war; also furnished to Cal. rancheros for
protection, Pico’s return, fortifications urgently needed at S. F., no lahorers
can he hired for less than $10 or $20 per day. 'Cal. and N. Mex., etc., 601.
Aug. 25tb, Id. to Id. Paying off of troops, continued desertions, crews of
merchant vessels mutinous, but no power to arrest them, no equipments, i'd,
603. Aug. 28th, desertions, troops must be better paid or it is of no use to
send them; those faithful now deserve reward. ‘ Should any rebellion take
place, no future promise of pay, however great, would call 100 men from the
mines.’ Not an ounce of ammunition can be bought. Id., 643. Nov. 24th, Mason
wishes to be relieved, ‘ the war being over, and the soldiers nearly all
deserted. ’ Many people of L. Cal. have been brought here, orders given to feed
and quarter them for two months. Id., 648-9. Dec. 27th, compliments to officers
for past services. Reports of several horrible murders and robberies, including
that of Reed and family at S. Miguel. Id., 649-53.
other volumes of this series, but it belongs inseparably to the grandest
and most complicated topics of United States history, national development,
territorial extension, the struggle between slavery and freedom,
nullification, abolition, secession, and all the successive steps that led to
the greatest war of modern times. How futile the attempt to present en r^sumd
even an outline view of these matters; yet a r^surnd, and that of the briefest,
is obviouslv all that can be offered here.
Texas in 1844-5 was regarded in the United States as including a strip of
territory extending from the gulf to latitude 42°, along the Louisiana boundary
of 1819, and westward rather indefinitely into Mexican possessions. The people
at this time strongly favored its annexation, because of a general desire for
enlarging the republic in accordance with manifest destiny, of a theory that
the country had been needlessly yielded to Spain in 1819, and of popular
sympathy for the supposed wrongs of Texan settlers. With additional strength as
a popular measure in support of certain presidential aspirations, and as a
field for profitable land speculations, a treaty of annexation was signed in
1844; yet it was rejected in the senate by a vote of two to one. This result
was due to the fact that by the treaty the United States would have assumed the
existing war with Mexico, that by its terms Texan boundaries were arbitrarily
extended to the Rio Grande, and that annexation by treaty was not deemed the
best method of procedure. To the majority the idea of an aggressive war on
Mexico was not a pleasing one; a minority favored the measure at any cost,
either desiring war or believing it might be avoided.
Early in 1845 the project was presented in a modified and more
acceptable form, that of a joint resolution to admit territory “rightfully
belonging” to Texas, under a constitution to be submitted to congress, and
with the condition that four new states might be formed under the provisions of
the Missouri
Hibt.
Cal.,
Vol. V. 38
compromise, prohibiting slavery north of latitude 36° 30'. This passed
the house by a vote of 120 to 97. In the senate it could be passed only by the
addition of a peculiar amendment or alternative substitute providing for
preliminary negotiations at the president’s discretion, and then by a vote of
27 to 25, with the understanding that negotiations with Mexico should be opened
by Polk, the president-elect, before submitting the resolution of congress to
Texas. But President Tyler in the last days of his term, having approved the
bill, at once despatched it to Texas by a special envoy. Thus the measure was
carried in March by a trick. If President Polk was to any extent a victim, he
proved a very willing one, since he made no effort to recall the envoy, and the
administration became fully committed to the measure, which was accepted by
Texas in July. Accordingly, in December the state was admitted by the new
congress by a vote of 141 to 56 in the house, and 31 to 14 in the senate. There
was- a strong opposition from the north to the extension of slavery, but many
who opposed annexation on account of Mexican complications deemed themselves
bound by the action of the last congress.
Mexico had repeatedly announced that the annexation of Texas would be
taken as a declaration of war, and as such it was intended by the
administration; but for fear that Mexican threats might not be carried out,
the declaration was renewed by the advance of United States forces to the Rio
Grande. Hostilities began in April 1846, and in May the president called upon
congress for means to prosecute the war and repel invasion. The war bill was
passed by both houses almost unanimously, and signed by President Polk on May
13th. There were protests against the preamble, which falsely declared the war
to exist by act of Mexico, but the actual beginning of hostilities created a
military spirit which few cared to resist, especially as there were some real
grounds of com
plaint against Mexico. And as yet the war had no other avowed purpose
than that of repelling invasion, obtaining indemnity for past grievances, and
effecting a settlement of Texan boundaries.
Not only were immediate steps taken to enlist volunteers for active
service and to occupy frontier provinces of Mexico, but the purpose of the war
party to permanently hold California and New Mexico began to be revealed,
notably by proceedings in connection with organizing the New York volunteers
and Mormon battalion. In August, at the end of the session, the president
called upon congress for funds to be used in making peace, that is, as an
advance payment to Mexico for concessions in fixing boundaries. A bill to grant
$2,000,000 for ‘extraordinary expenses’ not specified, eaused a warm discussion
and strong opposition. Whigs denounced the war and the proposed acquisition of
territory, which were defended by democrats. At last a substitute bill, giving
$30,000 for negotiations, and $2,000,000 for expenditure if needed on
ratification of a treaty, with the ‘Wil- mot proviso,’ prohibiting slavery in
any territory that might be acquired, was passed in the house by a vote of 87
to 64. In the senate the rejection of the Wil- mot proviso probably, and
certainly any action on the bill, was prevented by a Massachusetts senator who
spoke ‘against time’ until final adjournment.
Before the matter came up again at the second session of the twenty-ninth
congress several victories had been won on the field of battle, California and
New Mexico had been occupied, and the intention to wage a war of conquest, and
force Mexico to pay its cost, had become more clearly apparent. In his December
message the president alluded to the establishment of a civil government in
the provinces named. In the senate a resolution to refer this part of the
message to the committee on territories was defeated on the ground that it
would be absurd to take any action respecting territory not yet belonging
to the United States. In the house, however, such a resolution was
adopted, as was another calling on the president for information on the civil
government, with copies of all instructions on the subject to Kearny, Stockton,
and others. Discussion took a wide range, and gave congressmen an opportunity
to repeat their opinions on the war and its probable results, as well as on
the rights of the government under international law in conquered provinces.
But the chief topic of debate at this session was the ‘three million
bill,’ of like purport, save in amount, to that defeated before. The whole
subject of the Mexican war was now much more fully considered than ever before,
and on the main issues at least there was no longer any concealment. Whigs,
with few exceptions, denounced the war as unjust and aggressive from the
first, and still more earnestly in its newer aspects as a war of conquest. They
favored a treaty adjusting Texan boundaries and providing for a payment of the
old claims. They opposed the dismemberment of Mexico, the enforced collection
of indemnity for expenses of the war, and the use of money to purchase a peace.
Some of them declared their belief that the three millions were to be used as a
bribe for Mexican officials, and pointed to the return of Santa Anna under a
United States passport. They opposed the acquisition of California and New
Mexico, because the republic was large enough, because the population of those
provinces was undesirable, because of the irregular methods proposed, and
especially because of difficulties in connection with the slavery question.
Southern whigs were particularly anxious and earnest in urging this phase of
the matter, declaring that the acquisition of new territory would result in
endless controversy and perhaps in breaking up the union. Webster and other
conservatives in the north held the same view. Democrats, on the other hand,
justified the war as provoked by Mexico, freely admitting the intention to
force the
enemy to pay its cost, advocating the acquisition of California and New
Mexico as both justifiable and desirable, and defending the purchase of a
peace. Most urged a vigorous prosecution of the war for the purposes indicated,
though Calhoun with a small following favored a defensive policy, a mere
holding of the occupied provinces till Mexico should yield. The danger to be
feared from the slavery agitation was represented as purely imaginary, though
some speakers admitted that disunion would result from northern attempts to
interfere with southern rights in newly acquired territory—attempts which as
they trusted would never be made. Opponents of the bill were plausibly
denounced as willing to prolong the war by insisting on irrelevant issues.
Slavery in new territory was, of course, the real point of contention.
Abolitionists in the north were now openly, and disunionists in the south
secretly, in favor of forcing the issue. Conservatives in both sections wished
to avoid it. The Wihnot proviso or its equivalent introduced in both houses at
this session was made the text of the controversy. Southerners opposed it,
claiming that congress had no right to prohibit slavery in the territories,
and generally expressing acquiescence in the Missouri compromise. Northerners,
including many anti-slavery men, opposed it as premature, since it was absurd
for congress to legislate on territories not yet belonging to the United
States; as needless, since slavery was already prohibited by Mexican law in
California and New Mexico, where it could, moreover, never exist for natural
reasons; and as tending both to prolong the war and to excite sectional
controversy. Its advocates included abolitionists, men opposed to the
extension of slavery, those doubting the possibility of extending free soil,
and a few conservatives who regarded the proviso as the best means of defeating
the bill. Doubtless there was a southern radical element secretly approving
the proviso as a means of agitation.
In the house the three-million bill was passed in February 1847, with
the Wilmot proviso, by a vote of 115 to 105, but this house bill went no
farther. In the senate the proviso was defeated by a vote of 31 to 21, and the
bill was passed on March 1st by 29 to 24. It passed the house two days later by
115 to 81, the proviso as an amendment being defeated by 102 to 97.
Though funds were thus placed at the president’s disposal, there was much
hard fighting to be done before Mexico could be forced to yield. Santa Anna,
whether or not he had made and broken any agreement respecting a treaty,
served a useful purpose to the United States, exhausting Mexican resources by a
compact resistance. At last, in March 1848, the treaty of peace, ceding
California and New Mexico for $15,000,000, was referred to the senate and ratified
by the requisite two-thirds vote. In July it was communicated to the senate as
having been finally ratified by Mexico in May. Meanwhile, at the first session
of the 30th congress discussions on the president’s message, on the Oregon
question, and on various resolutions for and against the right of congress to
legislate on slavery in the territories had afforded opportunity for keeping
the old questions alive, without leading to any practical result, or even to
the evolution of any new theories. In his message of July 6th the president
announced that California and New Mexico now belonged to the United States,
that the temporary military government in those provinces had ceased to exist,
and that a territorial civil government was an urgent necessity, at the same
time recommending a spirit of mutual concession in establishing the new order
of things. On July 22d, in compliance with resolutions of congress, adopted not
without debate, he communicated additional information on boundaries and on
the past military rule.
So fully had earlier debate made known the views of congress on the
questions at issue, that it was
deemed useless to attempt the passage of any territorial bill either
prohibiting or permitting slavery. Neither the north nor south would yield, and
each party of course held the other responsible for the failure to provide a
government for California. In the senate a select committee reported on July
19th a bill to make territories of Oregon, California, and New Mexico, with the
compromise feature of leaving the matter of slavery to be settled by the
courts, facilities being provided for easy and prompt appeal to the United
States supreme court. In the discussion it was advocated by southern whigs and
by democrats generally; but its opponents declared it to be an evasion rather
than a compromise, that it was a southern measure, that the supreme court as
constituted would support slavery, that congress should not relinquish control
over the matter, and that the bill in its details was faulty. It was passed on
July 26th, after a continuous session of twenty-one hours, by a vote of 33 to
22; but in the house, after brief discussion, it was laid on the table by a
vote of 112 to 97. Congress adjourned in August, and California had no
government. But the Oregon bill, excluding slavery, was finally passed by both
houses, though the senate favored making the Missouri compromise the basis of
its action, and the president announced that he would not have approved the
bill but for the fact that Oregon was north of latitude 36° 30'.
Before congress met again in December 1848, the gold excitement had added
a new element of interest and importance to the pending controversy. Again the
president urged the necessity of a government. In the discussions of this
session more attention was given than before to the people, conditions, and
needs of California, though these were still but secondary topics. Slavery in
the territories was the real question and the subject of voluminous speeches.
I cannot present even en rdsumd the complicated network of bills, substitutes,
amendments, and points of order
by which each party strove to gain an advantage. The north was resolved
to restrict slavery, and would entertain no proposition for compromise. Once
the house in committee of the whole passed a resolution to cede back to Mexico
the new territory, retaining San Francisco for the $3,000,000 already paid. An
offer of private speculators to take California and pay the cost of the war was
mentioned. The house also passed a bill for Upper California s'imilar to the
Oregon bill, prohibiting slavery, by adopting the ordinance of 1787; but the
senate did not act on this proposition. Considerable importance was attached
in debate to the danger of losing California if a government was not speedily
provided for her rapidly growing and adventurous population.
The impossibility of obtaining territorial governments being apparent
from the first, Senator Douglas introduced and most zealously advocated a bill
to admit California and all the new territory at once as a state of the union,
the people having, of course, the right to decide the slavery question for
themselves. This was cutting the gordian knot indeed; but besides being a
solution that would be practically a defeat for the south, though certain
prominent southerners favored a similar measure in the house, it had several objectionable
features. The judiciary committee reported adversely, on the grounds that
congress had no power to create but only to admit a state, that the population
was scanty and unfit, that the right to divide the state later as was proposed
could not be reserved, and that boundary troubles with Texas were inevitable.
Failing in this, Douglas offered a substitute bill admitting California, and
providing for the admission of New Mexico as soon as her population should be
sufficient; but the measure was not favorably considered.
The final effort was to attach the matter to appropriation bills. An
amendment of the army bill, giving to the inhabitants the rights of habeas
corpus, trial by jury, and freedom from martial law, was
rejected, perhaps because the ‘inhabitants’ included negroes. But an
amendment to the civil and diplomatic bill, extending the revenue, Indian, and
land laws over California and New Mexico, was adopted in the senate by 25 votes
to 18, the south expecting some advantage from the implied extension of the constitution
to the provinces. The house substituted an amendment authorizing the president
to hold the new provinces by using the army and navy to maintain existing laws,
and also extending the United States revenue laws; but this was not accepted by
the senate, chiefly because the Mexican laws prohibited slavery. Finally, on
March 4th, after an all-night session and complicated debate, the senate
receded from its original amendment, and thus passed the appropriation bill, leaving’
California as before without a government. Then at the last moment before
adjourning, and not without protests from southern senators against the
protection of any property rights where their own were ignored, a bill was
passed extending the revenue laws over California, and establishing a
collection district there.20
The matters thus presented extend chronologically somewhat beyond the
limits of this chapter and volume, but belong to what precedes rather than to
what follows. Later developments connected with the admission of California as
a state, after the people had formed a constitution, will be treated in a later
volume. We have seen that the subject of California in congress, down to the
middle of 1849, includes really but very little of California and a good deal
of congress, or congressional action on matters that were national rather than
provincial in their scope.
As we have seen, not only did congress after the treaty of 1848 consider
the government that should
20 For the voluminous debates of which I
have attempted to present an outline, see Cong. Gloie, 1845-9, 29th and 30th
congresses. Also Benton’s Debates and Hmiston’s Debates for tlie same period.
be provided for California, but earlier, in December 1846, the system
that had actually been put in operation there. A resolution calling upon the
president for information and explanation on the subject was passed after long
debate, which was, however, merely a part of the general controversy, with but
slight bearing on the state of affairs in the far west. Certain peculiarities
in the proclamations of Sloat, Kearny, and Stockton afforded a favorable
opportunity to attack the administration, to denounce the war, and particularly
the apparent purpose to make it a war of permanent conquest. After the
discussion had served its partisan purpose the matter was dropped, as the
president’s explanation was unassailable on the point nominally at issue, and
his plans of conquest were otherwise clearly enough announced. The debate,
however, brought out the views of congressmen respecting the civil government
of conquered provinces as regulated by international law. Mr Douglas took the
ground, more or less fully supported by others, that by the act of occupation
California and New Mexico became United States territory, and as such
immediately subject to the control of congress. On the other hand, Mr Rhett and
a few followers expressed very radical opinions in favor of the arbitrary and
unlimited powers possessed by the president as commander-in-chief. Neither of
these extreme views, however, was generally supported.21
The position assumed by the president from the beginning to the end of
the war, both in messages to congress and instructions to subordinates,
supported in the debates by conservative members with citations from writers on
international law, and carried out
21 Debates in 2d sess. 29th congress, in
Gong. Globe, 1846-7, p. 13, 20, 33, 37-9, 43-4, 46, 67, 75-6, 85, 87, 345. The
president’s explanatory message is also found with accompanying documents as U.
S. Govt Doc., 29th cong. 2d sess., H. Ex. Doc. 19. See also, on civil
government, Cong. Globe, 18478, p. 910-16, 989-92, including the message of
July 22, 1848. Also Globe,
1848-9, p.
191. The most complete treatment of the subject, in all its phases, is found in
the speech of Mr Seddon of Va.. Dec. 10, ] 846, in Globe, p. 23-6.
more or less uniformly by the successive commanders in California, was in
substance as follows: War having been regularly declared, the executive, as
commander-in-chief, could use his forces to conquer and hold any part of the
Mexican territory as an act of war. The first object was to obtain possession,
to overcome all armed resistance, and to secure submission on the part of the
people. This accomplished, it became a right and duty to protect citizens in
their individual rights, and thus prevent anarchy. To this end the conquerors
acquired the powers of sovereignty temporarily lost by Mexico. Methods would
depend largely on the judgment of commanders, and might vary with
circumstances; but a conciliatory rather than an oppressive policy was
required. Strict martial law might be enforced if deemed necessary; otherwise,
the people being submissive and friendly, a temporary civil government might
be established as a legitimate feature of military rule. The nature of the
system to be introduced was not to be determined by the people; Mexico was
entitled to no voice in the matter; the power of the conqueror was absolute,
except as limited by the requirements of humanity and justice, constituting
what is called international law and usage. Other things being equal, it was
natural and right to continue the old Mexican methods; but the conqueror might
legitimately conciliate popular favor for his government and nation, as well
as promote the cause of justice, by annulling oppressive acts of Mexico; and in
introducing modifications deemed convenient or essential to safety, he might
properly take the institutions of his own nation as a model. By the conquest
California did not become United States territory; the president had no power
to make or declare her such; she did not come under the protection of the
constitution or of legislation by congress. What powers of permanent annexation
or government congress and the executive might legitimately have assumed over
California before the treaty
is a question that need not be considered, since there was no attempt to
exercise such powers. The government set up was a temporary one, and a part of
the military rule by conquerors. Commanders in California were responsible to
the president, under whose orders they acted;, and he was responsible to
congress in this matter of civil government to no greater extent than in any
other matter connected with the prosecution of the war.
Instructions from Washington, with consequent proclamations and acts „of
Sloat, Stockton, Fremont, and Kearny down to the middle of 1847, have been
fully presented in the narrative of events.22 In the instructions no
irregularity is to be found, unless it may be in that requiring an oath of
allegiance to the United States from officials. No more than an oath of
obedience to the new authorities could be properly demanded.23 In
New Mexico General Kearny went so far in his proclamations as to elicit from
the president a statement that certain parts were not “approved or
recognized,” but for the rest, including the acts of Sloat and Stockton, he
said in his message of December 1846: “If any excess of power has been
exercised, the departure has been the offspring of a patriotic desire to give
the inhabitants the privileges and immunities so cherished by the people of
our own country. Any such excess has resulted in no practical injury, but can
and will be early corrected in a manner to alienate as little as possible the
good feelings of the
22 See instructions to Sloat et al., p.
195-9, this vol.; Sloat’s procl. of July 7, 1846, p. 234; Stockton’s procl. of
July 29th, p. 255; Stockton’s procl. of Aug. 17th, p. 283; Stockton’s proposed
government, p. 284; instructions to Kearny, p. 334; treaty of Cahuenga, Jan.
13, 1847, p. 404; Jan. 22d, Fremont’s procl. and govt, p. 432; Kearny’s procl.
of March 1st, p. 437-8.
23 It is in the instructions of July 12,
1846, that we read: ‘The object of the U. S. has reference to ultimate peace
with Mex.; and if, at that peace, the basis'of the wti possidetis shall be
established, the govt expects through your forces to be found in actual
possession of Upper Cal. This will bring with it the necessity of a, civil
administration. Such a govt shall be established under your protection; and in
selecting persons to hold office, due respect should be had to the wishes of
the people of Cal., as well as to the actual possessors of authority in that
province. It may be proper to require an oath of allegiance to the U. S. from
those who are intrusted with authority.
inhabitants.” Of proceedings in California 110 special disapproval was
ever deemed necessary.
Sloat, in his conciliatory proclamation of July 7th, went far beyond his
instructions or the authority of his chief, in promising that California should
be permanently, a territory of the United States; yet he practically attempted
nothing but the military occupation of certain points; and Stockton, while in
his warlike and impolitic tirade of the 29th he went still further astray by
declaring that his only purpose was to protect oppressed citizens and
foreigners, and that he would withdraw his forces as soon as that purpose
should be effected, simply proceeded to extend the military occupation, and
take the paroles of submissive Mexican officers. In his proclamation of August
7th he continued military law, while promising some changes in the near future;24
and in his elaborate system of territorial government soon devised, local rule
under Mexican law was provided for, and the features of his scheme to which
exception might be taken on legal grounds were never approved or carried into
effect. Then after the revolt and reconquest came the treaty of Cahuenga,
January 13, 1847, the terms of which were entirely unobjectionable, requiring
from the Californians only present submission to the American authorities, but
no oath of allegiance, and not treating them as in any sense citizens of the
United States. Stockton’s system of civil government was then partially
established; Fremont was appointed governor, and in his proclamation of January
22d he simply required “ the return of civil officers to their appropriate
duties, and as strict an
24 ‘ The territory of Cal. now belongs to
the U. S., and will be governed aa soon as circumstances may permit by officers
and laws similar to those by which the other territories of the U. S. are
regulated and protected. But until the gov., see., and council are appointed,
and the various civil departments of the govt are arranged, military laws will
prevail, and the commander- in-chief will be gov. and protector of the
territory. In the mean time the people will be permitted ’ to elect civil
officers to administer the laws according to former usages. The system of govt
devised by Stockton about this time, and sent to Washington for approval, may
be found in Cutts’ Conq., 123.
obedience of the military to the civil authority as is consistent with
the security of peace.” The controversies of those days referred to the
governorship, and not to the system of government.
Thus far Sloat, Stockton, and Frdmont had acted without instructions,
yet, while by their unfortunate differences in act and promise and theory they
had done much to retard Californian peace and prosperity, they had not gone far
astray in the matter of civil government and its administration by conquerors.
Kearny, acting under definite instructions of June, July, and November 1846,
and in the light of experience, in his acts of March 1847 had no occasion to
make radical changes in the methods before observed. His requiring from
officials an oath to support the constitution was illegal, besides not being in
accord with the capitulation of Cahuenga, but it was in his instructions. He
dispensed with the legislative council, being under no obligation to follow
Stockton’s ideas, but the council had not acted. His promise of a regular
territorial government may be understood as referring to the formation of a
treaty; his absolution of the inhabitants from all allegiance to Mexico was but
a farce; his prediction that the stars and stripes would float over California
as long as the sun should shine upon her was as harmless an expression of his
opinion and that of his superiors as had been the earlier one of Sloat.
Governor Mason succeeded Kearny at the end of May, and made no
innovations in system followed by his predecessors. All the successive
commanders among themselves and with the national authorities practically
agreed respecting essential features of the temporary military and civil rule;
and the president’s excuses for irregularities in 1846, as previously quoted,
will apply with equal force to later informalities. Instructions of January
now received were much more definite than earlier ones, approving in a general
way what had been done, but explaining the rights of con
querors, and containing a warning that the existing government was but
temporary, and that California could not yet be considered a territory of the
United States.25 Thus, pending a treaty of peace, there was but
little opportunity for subsequent misunderstanding or theorizing on the
general system, though perplexing details of application were likely to
present themselves. Alcaldes who had been elected or appointed continued to
administer justice according to their ideas of Mexican law and the old usages,
appealing in difficult or complicated cases to the governor, whose policy was
to interfere as little as possible, particularly in questions affecting
property rights. Naturally, in places where both the alcalde and the people
were foreigners, some very peculiar versions of Mexican law and of old customs
obtained; but petty local affairs were well enough managed as a rule, though
there was no lack of complaint that the country was without law. Local annals
given in later chapters will furnish some illustrative items, especially on the
municipal troubles of San Francisco, San Josd, and the larger towns. I append
some brief notes;26
25 See p. 334^5 of this vol. for instructions
to Kearny. I quote here more fully those to the naval commander: ‘ The course
of our govt in regard to Cal... .depends on those on ■whom the
constitution imposes the duty of making and carrying treaties into effect.
Pending the war, our possession gives only such rights as the laws of nations
recognize, and the govt is military, performing such civil duties as are
necessary to the full enjoyment of the advantages resulting from the conquest,
and to the due protection of the rights of persons and of property of the
inhabitants. No political right can be conferred on the inhabitants thus
situated, emanating from the constitution of the U. S... .Unless incorporated,
with the assent of congress by ratified treaty or by legislative act, our
rights over enemies’ territory in our possession are only such as the laws of
war confer, and theirs no more than are derived from the same authority... .In
the discharge of the duty of govt... it has not been deemed improper or unwise
that the inhabitants should be permitted to participate in the selection of
agents tn make or execute the laws to be enforced.... I have regarded your
measures... as founded on this principle, and so far as they carry out the
right of temporary govt under existing rights of possession they are approved.
But no officers created, or laws or regulations made to protect the rights or
perform the duties resulting from our conquests, can lawfully continue beyond
the duration of the state of things which now exists, without authority of future
treaty or act of congress... .The president foresees no contingency in which
the U. S. will ever surrender or relinquish possession of the Californias.’
26 June 2, 1847, Mason to Alcalde Boggs,
explaining the system of govt as per instructions of Jan. 11th. Cal. andN.
Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. 317. See S. F. Cal. Star and Californian,
1347-8, for much comment by editors
and there are a few cases that may be somewhat more- fully noticed in
this connection.
The case of Alcalde Nash at Sonoma was the only one in which the military
authority in civil matters
and correspondents on
matters of govt. In March a man came to Mont. with' a paper from an alcalde
which stated that he had been convicted of horsestealing, and desired a new
hearing. Mont. Calif., Mar. 20, 1847. Mar. 26th, Kearny orders the dismissal of
an old suit for winnings at a race. Cal. and N. Mex., etc., 291. Mar. 24th,
Colton appointed judge of the admiralty court of Cal. Id. April 10th, Kearny
orders that liquor shops be closed on Sunday, drunken and disorderly persons to
be arrested and punished. Los Ang. Arch., MS., iii. 46-7. If a man is not
content with the alcalde’s decision, let him wait for the establishment of
other courts. S. Jos4 Arch., Loose Pap., MS., 5. April 24th, Kearny to Bellamy,
in answer to complaint. ‘During the existence of the war there must of
necessity arise many cases of great hardship and injustice, which for the time
being are without remedy.’ Cal. and N. Mex., 299. May 1st, alcalde remonstrates
with K. for setting; aside his proceedings. Unb. Doc., MS., 117. May 5th, K.
recommends arbitrators in a divorce case. Cal. and N. Mex., 305. June 1st,
Larkin to N. Y. Herald, writes: ‘ We must live ou in lawless blessedness. We
have, however, a fair supply of lawyers, and each can produce the laws of his
native state and urge on the alcalde their adoption as most applicable to the
case in hand/ Off. Corresp., MS., i. 158. June 5th, alcaldes decline to take
the oath of allegiance, which would make them traitors to Mex. Unb. Doe., MS.,
204. June 16th, Mason orders an alcalde to come to Mont. and bring with him a.
prisoner and witnesses. Cal. and N. Mex., 323. June 14th, Mason writes:
‘ The alcaldes are
not ‘ ‘ authorities of the U. S., ” nor are they Mex. authorities. They are the
civil magistrates of Cal., and therefore the “ authorities of Cal.,” subject to
removal from office by the gov.’ Id., 321. Only one change of venue can be
granted. Id., 333, 376. July 3d, alcalde may call for military aid to enforce
his decrees. Id., 339. He must apply in writing. The slightest possible force
to be used. There are many other communications on this matter. July 24th,
order of Gen. Scott, making the martial law a supplemental code for punishment
of serious crimes by or against military men, circulated and to be enforced in
Cal. Id., 353. Aug. 4th, troops cannot, take charge of prisoners except in
grave cases. Los Ang. Arch., MS., iii. 99. A murderer at Sta Cruz shot by
alcalde’s order. Unb. Doc., MS., 108. Aug. 23d, ‘The civil officers would be
most willing to shift upon mil. the disagreeable task of arresting and
guarding their criminals, but this must not be permitted. Officers in command
are only expected to aid civil officers when the- latter are unable to enforce
their decrees; and even then a sound discretion should be exercised.’ Cal. and
N. Mex., 349. Aug. 25th, ‘Your auth. as- alcalde in all cases between citizen
and citizen is the same as it was under the Mex. law. But when a soldier is
concerned, then mil. law must have precedence.’ Id., 354. Oct. 25th, alcaldes
may have jurisdiction over crimes- committed on board ships, as there are no
other courts. Id., 404. Oct. 26th, alcalde may sentence a man for manslaughter
to 7 years’ hard labor on public works, and may send him to Mont. Id., 410.
Alcalde can not be required to retry old cases. Id., 412. Nov. 1st,
instructions on formalities in a trial for murder. Id., 413. Nov. 29th, Mason’s
order of fine of $50 to $100, and imprisonment of 3 to 6 months for selling
liquor to an Ind. Id., 437, and elsewhere. Dec. 3d, there are no courts other
than alcaldes’; and Mason declines to appoint a special court, though he has
done so in some cases. Id., 439. Dec. 20th, Mason suggests an additional
penalty of 50 lashes for stealing horses. Id., 445. Dec. 22d, if a jury cannot
agree in a reasonable time, a new one may be empanelled. Id., 446. Dec. 29th,
in cases involving over $100 a jury of six men.shall decide. Id., 452, and
elsewhere. March 2d,
was disputed. John H. Nash was an old man who had eome overland from
Missouri in 1845, and had been elected alcalde in 1846. In consequence of reported
irregularities in his management of the office, General Kearny appointed L. W.
Boggs, an abler but not a better man, to succeed him in April 1847. Nash denied
Kearny’s right to remove an alcalde elected under the system established by
Sloat and Stockton, refusing to turn over the records of his office, and being
supported by the citizens, who, to the number of seventy, headed by Ide and
Grigsby, held a public meeting to petition for his reinstatement. He was
egotistic and eccentric, much like Ide in some respects, and even proposed to
make an effort at Washington for Kearny’s removal. For a time in May Sonoma had
practically no alcalde, each declining to act; but Mason declined to revoke his
predecessor’s order as being presumably well founded, and early in June
ordered Captain Brackett to use force for the transfer of records, at the same
time sending Nash a peremptory order. The latter still declined to obey, and
Brackett excused himself from the performance of an act that would make him
unpopular. Meanwhile in June Boggs was performing the duties of his office. In
July Lieutenant Sherman was sent by Mason to arrest Nash
1848, grave cases must be tried by jury, which must
award a sentence if they convict; but the verdict and testimony must be sent to
gov. for approval. Id., 488. Men cannot be punished for crimes they will
probably commit when they have a chance. Id. Mar. 9th, Mason writes: An attempt
on the jail ‘would afford me an excellant opportunity of making an example on
the spot of some of the lawless characters with which this country is infested,
and I shall always have a halter ready.’ S. Josi Arch., Loose Pap., MS., 43.
April 17th, alcalde has convicted a man of selling liquor, without jury, because
Californian jurymen have on two occasions refused to find a countryman guilty.
Urib. Doc., MS., 122. Apr. 12th, Mason will not take any action in disputes
about horse-races. Cal. and N. Mex., 508. April 29th, M. will not
disturb the decision of arbitrators. Id., 546. May 8th, debts contracted in U.
S. cannot be collected here during the war. 8. Josi Arch., Loose Pap., MS.,
29. May 21st, Hartnell sent to S. F. to attend to printing a Spanish
translation of laws to be pub. by Mason. Cal. and N. Mex., 555. May
31st, M. proposes to build prisons, appropriating §1,000 for each, and citizens
to pay the rest. Id., 558. Aug. 23d, Hartnell to get $2,000 salary as
govt interpreter and translator. Id., 659. The support of civil prisoners must
be paid from municipal funds. Id., 569. A mil. commandant reprimanded for too
hasty action in civil matters. Id., 575.
Hist.
Cal., Vol. V. 39
and bring him to Monterey. Argument and sea-sickness on the way brought
the old gentleman to terms, and Mason at once sent him home at public expense,
“ fully sensible of his error,” and promising an immediate surrender of all
the papers of his office, with full accounts of his administration.27
Antonio M. Armijo, Robert Smith, and John Egger, of the Sonoma district,
were arrested in August 1847, and charged with the murder and kidnapping of Indians
in the Sacramento Valley. The affair gave rise to much correspondence and
excitement. Vallejo and Sutter were appointed as special judges to try the case
with a jury of twelve, and Boggs was added to the number later. For want of an
impartial jury and for other reasons, the case was transferred from Sacramento
to Sonoma, where it was tried in October, Captain Brackett acting as
prosecutor, and Sutter being absent. The accused were acquitted; and Governor
Mason declined to approve an exorbitant bill of about $2,000 for costs of the
trial.28 A similar special court, consisting of Stephen C. Foster
and Abel Stearns, was appointed in April 1848 for the trial of several members
of the Mormon battalion at Los Angeles on a charge of passing counterfeit gold
coin. Each had a separate trial before a jury, and Lieutenant Ruel Barrus was
found guilty, confessing that he had played at monte with counterfeit money,
and was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment at hard labor, but the governor,
in consideration of his youth and other palliating circumstances, reduced the
term to one year. The
27 Documentary record very complete in Unb.
Doc., MS., 82-3, 107-13, 116, 143, 145, 316; Cal. and M. Mex., Mess, and Doc.,
1850, p. 289, 295, 31720, 325, 343, 377; 8. F. Cal. Star, May 22d; 8. F.
Californian, July 24tli, Sept. 4th. Also a very good and interesting account in
Sherman’s Mem., i. 30-8. Green, a lawyer, with whom Nash lived, seems to have
incited him to resist, and to have attempted some bluster at the time of his
arrest. Pickett and Scott with Boggs himself were Nash’s enemies. Boggs claimed
in Aug. that N. had not rendered his accounts, accusing him of making
fraudulent deeds of town lots, and of changing the original map. J. R. Snyder
and Tim. Murphy were appointed commissioners to investigate.
20 Col. and JST. Mex., Mess, and Doc., 1850,
p. 343-4, 348-9, 384, 394-5, 419-22; Unb. Doc., MS., 89-90, 124-6, 292-3,
297-8, 313. One of the items not allowed was lawyer Green’s bill for $200.
others were acquitted.29 Yet another special court was that
appointed to try Benjamin Foxen in May at Santa Barbara. He had killed Agustin
Ddvila near Santa Inds for stealing his chickens. Estdvan Ardis- son and Pedro
C. Carrillo were the judges; the jury included six Americans and six
Californians; and the verdict was manslaughter, for which Foxen was sentenced
to four years’ imprisonment.30
News of the treaty putting an end to the war brought some perplexing
questions respecting the government of California. How they were settled is
best explained in Mason’s own words. In his proclamation of August 7, 1848, he
said: “The congress of the United States, to whom alone this power belongs,
will soon confer upon the people of this country the constitutional rights of
citizens of the United States; and no doubt in a few short months we shall have
a regularly organized territorial government; indeed, there is every reason to
believe that congress has already passed the act, and that a civil government
is now on its way to this country, to replace that which.lias been organized
under the rights of conquest. Such territorial government will establish all
local claims and regulations which, within the scope of its legitimate powers,
it may deem necessary for the public welfare. In the mean time the present
civil officers of the country will continue in the exercise of their functions
as heretofore, and when vacancies exist or may occur, they will be filled by
regular elections held by the people of the several towns and districts, due
notice of such elections being previously given. The existing laws of the
country will necessarily continue in force till others are made to supply
their place.” And his position was further explained in his report to the
adjutant-general.31 A similar
29 Uni. Doc., MS., 17, 37-9; Cal. and
1ST. Mex., 1850, 39^1, 562, 570-1. 0. C. Canfield and Sam. Myers were the
others accused.
30Gal. and
2F. Mex., etc., 505-7, 570; Unb. Doc., MS., 63, 365-70.
31 Aug. 7th,
Mason to people of Cal. Cal. and N. Mex., Mess. and Doc., 1850, p. 590-1. Aug.
19th, Mason to adj.-gen. Id., 597-S. In the latter doc-
view of the situation was taken by the national authorities. In his
message of July 6th, the president wrote: “The war with Mexico having
terminated, the power of the executive to establish or to continue temporary
civil governments over these territories, which existed under the laws of
nations whilst they were regarded as conquered provinces in our military
occupation, has ceased. By their cession to the United States, Mexico has no
longer any power over them; and until congress shall act, the inhabitants will
be without any organised government. Should they be left in this condition,
confusion and anarchy will be likely to prevail.”32 And later, when
congress had
ument he says: ‘ The
above are the only instructions I have received from the department to guide me
in the course to be pursued, now that war has ceased, and that the country
forms an integral part of the United States. For the past two years no civil
government has existed here, save that controlled by the senior military or
naval officer; and no civil officers exist in the country save the alcaldes
appointed or confirmed by myself. To throw off upon them or the people at large
the civil management and control of the country would most probably lead to
endless confusions, if not to absolute anarchy; and yet what right or authority
have I to exercise civil control in time of peace in a territory of the United
States ? or, if sedition and rebellion should arise, where is my force to meet
it ? Two companies of regulars, every day diminishing by desertions that cannot
be prevented, will soon be the only military force in California; and they will
be of necessity compelled to remain at San Francisco and Monterey, to guard the
large depots of powder and munitions of war, which cannot be removed. Yet,
unsustained by military force, or by any positive instructions, I feel
compelled to exercise control over the alcaldes appointed, and to maintain
order, if possible, iu the country, until a civil governor arrive, armed with
instructions and laws to guide his footsteps.
‘ In like manner, if
all customs were withdrawn, and the ports thrown open free to the world, San
Francisco would be made the depot of all the foreign goods in the north
Pacific, to the injury of our revenue and the interests of our own merchants.
To prevent this great influx of foreign goods into the country duty-free, I
feel it my duty to attempt the collection of duties, according to the United
States tariff of 1846. This will render it necessary for me to appoint
temporary collectors, etc., in the several ports of entry, for the military
force is too much reduced to attend to those duties.
‘I am fully aware
that in taking these steps I have no further authority than that the existing
government must necessarily continue until some other is organized to take its
place; for I have been left without any definite instructions in reference to
the existing state of affairs. But the calamities and disorders which would
surely follow the absolute withdrawal of even a show of authority impose on mo,
in my opinion, the imperative duty to pursue the course I have indicated, until
the arrival of despatches from Washington (which I hope are already on their
way) relative to the organization of a regular civil government. In the mean
time, however, should the people refuse to obey the existing authorities, or
the merchants refuse to pay any duties, my force is inadequate to compel
obedience.’
82 Congress. Globe, 1847-8, p. 901. Similar
views in the message of July 24th. Amer. Quart. Rev., i. 560-4.
adjourned without providing for the government of the new provinces, the
president, through Secretary Buchanan, in a letter of flattery, congratulation,
promise, and advice, announced the existence of a de facto government, to be
continued in accordance with the governor’s views until another should be legally
substituted.33
And thus the country was governed as before dur-
83 Oct. 7, 1848, Buchanan to Wm V. Voorhies,
agent of the post-office department. U. S. Govt Doc., 30th cong. 2d sess., H.
Ex. Doc. 1, p. 47-50; Cal. and N. Mex., etc., 6-9. The purport is also given in
See. Marcy’s letter to Gov. Mason, dated Oct. 9th. Id., 258-9. Buchanan writes:
‘In the mean time the condition of the people of California is anomalous, and
will require, on their part, the exercise of great prudence and discretion. By
the conclusion of the treaty of peace, the military government which was
established over them under the laws of war, as recognized hy the praetiec of
all civilized nations, has ceased to derive its authority from this source of
power. But is there, for this reason, no government in California ? Are life,
liherty, and property under the protection of no existing authorities? This
would he a singular phenomenon in the face of the world, and especially among
American citizens, distinguished as they are above all other people for their
law-ahiding character. Fortunately, they are not reduced to this sad condition.
The termination of the war left an existing government, a government de facto,
in full operation; and this will continue, with the presumed consent of the
people, until congress shall provide for them a territorial government. The
great law of necessity justifies this conclusion. The consent of the people is
irresistihly inferred from the fact that no civilized community could possihly
desire to ahrogate an existing government, when the alternative presented would
he to place themselves in a state of anarchy, beyond the protection of all
laws, and reduce them to the unhappy necessity of submitting to the dominion of
the strongest.
‘ This government de
facto will, of course, exercise no power inconsistent with the provisions of
the constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land.
For this reason, no import duties can be levied in California on articles the
growth, product, or manufacture of the United States, as no such duties can he
imposed in any other part of our union on the productions of California. Nor
can new duties he charged in California upon such foreign productions as have
already paid duties in any of our ports of entry, for the obvious reason that
California is withiu the territory of the United States. I shall not enlarge
upon this suhject, however, as the secretary of the treasury will perform that
duty.
‘The president
urgently advises the people of California to live peaceably and quietly under
the existing government. He believes that this will promote their lasting and
best interests. If it he not what they could desire and had a right to expect,
they can console themselves with the reflection that it will endure hut for a
few months. Should they attempt to change or amend it during this brief period,
they most probahly could not accomplish their ohject before the government
established hy congrcss would go into operation. In the mean time the country
would he agitated, the citizens would be withdrawn from their usual
employments, and domestic strife might divide and exasperate the people against
each other; and this all to establish a government which in no conceivable
contingency could endure for a single year. During this hrief period it is
better to bear the ills they have than fly to others they know not of.’
ing the rest of 1848 and later; as well governed as it is likely to have
been under any system that congress could have devised. It was probably well for
California that no regular territorial government was put in operation. The
people doubtless had the right from August to organize a provisional government
for themselves. The president advised them not to do it, while Senator Benton
took it upon himself to give contrary advice.34 Governor Mason,
before receiving the letters of Buchanan and Marcy, favored such a movement in
case congress should be known to have adjourned without action.35
And some local efforts in the same direction were made before the end of the
year; but these matters belong properly to the annals of 1849-50—the
constitutional convention, and the admission of California into the union as a
state.
Here as well as anywhere may be added a few items respecting the foreign
consulates in California in 1846-8. Thomas 0. Larkin’s functions as U. S.
consul ceased of course with the treaty. He was notified to this effect by
Secretary Buchanan in a letter of June 23,1848, with approval of his past
performance of duties. Meanwhile he had been appointed U. S. naval agent by
Stockton in August 1846, receiving in October 1847 the president’s appointment
of March. There are no circumstances connected with his official career in
these years that call for further notice than is given elsewhere.36
James A. Forbes retained the position of British vice-consul.37 J.
S. Moerenhaut was French consul from October
1846, and appointed Etienne Jourdain
as vice-consul
s4Benton’s
letter was dated Aug. 27th. See S. F. Alta, Jan. 11, 1849; Burnett’s Recol.,
MS., ii. 18-20.
35 Nov. 25th, Mason to Kemble, referring to
a conversation on the subject. Unb. Doc., MS., 140-1.
36 Aug. 13,1846, appointment as naval agent.
Larkin’s Doc., MS., iv. 254. June 23, 1848, Buchanan to L. Id., vi. 134. See
also Mont. Consulate Arch., MS., ii., and Mont. Navy Agent Accts, MS., i. ii.
37His claim
to exemption from paying duties on goods imported by himself was not allowed
by Mason in Dec. 1847. Cal. and N. Alex., Mess, and Doc., 1850, p. 446-7.
at Yerba Buena in December 1848. Moerenhaut had occasion to proseut for
settlement the grievances of Pierre Atillan. Clement Panaud, and of Richards
and Maube, who had suffered in property at the hands of Fremont’s men.38
Cesareo Lataillade received his exequatur as Spanish vice-consul in April 1846,
and took possession of his office in June. In 1847 be was allowed to reside at
Santa Barbara. His chief effort was to obtain redress for the imprisonment of
Jose Noriega at Sutter’s Fort by the Bear Flag men.39 Late in 1848
George Trail Allen was appointed Hawaiian consul in California.40
38Gal. and
N. Mex., etc., 254, 320, 322, 379, 566; Unb. Doc., MS., 99103, 285-6. Mason
could grant no relief; but in the case of R. and M. orders came from Washington
to appoint an investigating board.
39Doc. Hut.
Cal., MS., ii. 30; iii. 167, 236; Dept. St. Pap., MS., vi. 37, 40; Larkin’s
Doc., MS., iv. 145; Id., Off. Corresp., i. 110; Unb. Doc., MS., 16, 391-2; Los
Ang. Arch., MS., iii. 173-4; Gal. and N. Mex., 297, 427, 430; S. F. Calif.,
Aug. 7, 1847.
40 Unb. Doc.,
MS., 132; Gal. and N. Mex., 687.
CHAPTER XXIII.
LOCAL ANNALS—SAN
DIEGO TO MONTEREY.
1846-1848.
San Diego
Events—Fr£mont, Stockton, and Kearny—Massacre at Pauma—Mormons and New York
Volunteers—Municipal Affairs —Ranchos—Revenue—San Diego Mission—San Luis Rey—Padre Zalvidea—San Juan
Capistrano—Los Angeles District—Index of Occurrences—Sub-prefect and
Alcaldes—Mormons, Dragoons, and Volunteers—Ranchos—San Gabriel—Padre
EstAnega—San Fernando Mission — Santa Barbara — Pueblo Government — Land
Grants—Mission—Bishop GarcIa Diego—President Duran—San Buenaventura—Santa
In£s—Purisima—Monterey District—Summary—Town Affairs—San CArlos—San Luis
Obispo—San Miguel —Murder of Reed Family—San Antonio—San Juan Bautista—
Soledad—Santa Cruz and Branciforte.
Local annals of 1846-8, a
period of transition from the old to the new, must be compressed within narrow
limits; and this may be done without omission of essential matter or serious
inconvenience, except at one or two points, where, however, matters pertaining
to the effects of the gold discovery are reserved for another volume. The time
of military and mission statistics was past, and I shall attempt no estimates
of local gains or losses in population, the gain for the whole territory, but
for the foreign immigration and the final influx of gold-seekers, being very
small. There are lists of municipal officers which are worth being placed on
record, with here and there a local occurrence to be added to the index of
events recorded in other parts of this work, all to be presented mainly in
fine-print notes.
Nothing happened at San Diego, though much interest was felt, and a few
prominent citizens went to the capital to participate, in the political
controversies of the time, until the Americans came under Fremont in July
1846, to be driven out in August, but to return in November under Stockton, who
here made his final preparations for the reconquest of the south.1
The coming of Kearny, his disaster at San
1 San Diego
events. 1846. Feb.-May, minor Ind. troubles, chiefly in the form of rumors.
Dept. St. Pap., Ben. P. & J., MS., ii. 124-9. Election for the consejo
general in May; Bandini summoned to the capital. This vol., p. 45—51. Warner in
corresp. with Larkin. Id., 63. Occupation by Fremont for the U. S. at the end of
July. Id., 266-7. July 21st, padron showing 73 men fit for military duty. Dept.
St. Pap., Ben. P. <b J., MS., ii. 159. Aug., Phelps’ efforts at
reconciliation; Bandini and Argiiello favor the U. S.; probably no garrison
left at first. Id., 282, 286-7. Sept., Merritt and a few men sent to garrison
S. D. from Los Angeles. Id., 308. Reoccupation by the Californians. Id.,
316-18. Oct., reoccupation by Americans. Id., 324-5. Stockton’s arrival in
Nov., and his preparations to march on Los Angeles. Id., 326
9 et seq. Kearny’s arrival in Dec. from N.
Mex.; battle of S. Pascual; relations of Stockton and Kearny; they start for
Los Angeles. Id., 339-56, 385,417, et seq. Dec., massacre by Ind. at Pauma.
Id., 567-8. The victims were Sergt Francisco Basualdo, Jos6 M. Alvarado, Manuel
Serrano, Ramon Aguilar, Dominguez (known as Dominguito), an old man, Santiago
Osuna, JosS Lopez, Santos Alip&s, Eustaquio Ruiz, Juan de la Cruz, and a
New Mexican not named. There is much mystery about this affair. There were
theories that the Ind. were incited by the Americans; that they were incited by
Flores indirectly—that is, instructed to attack all attempting to quit Cal. or
join the Americans; that there was no massacre, the victims having been killed
in the fight at S. Pascual; and that they were first captured by the S. Luis
fugitives in connection with an effort to bring back the latter to the mission,
and were treacherously killed by the Cahuilla allies. Estudillo, Datos, MS.,
45-9, says the S. Pascual Ind. tried to save the victims but were too late.
Ahout the Ind. chiefs engaged on both sides thero is great confusion of
testimony. See Machado, Tiempos Pasados, MS., 37—42; JulioCisar,
Oosas de Ind., MS., 1113; Hayes’ Em. N., 595-6; Id., Memorab., 139-41; Id.,
Scraps, Ind., i. 100, 141.
1847. Jan., campaign against the Ind. in consequence
of the Pauma affair noted above. Lugo, Vida, MS., 51-63;
Hayes’ Em. Notes, 577-8; Julio Cisar, Cosas, MS., 13-14. The
evidence is still conflicting; but the S. Lui- senos under the chiefs Manuelito
Cota and Pahlo Apis seem to have been the victims of an ambush and bloody fight
near Ahuanga, the Cahuillas under Juan Antonio aiding tbe Californians under
Jostj del Carmen Lugo and Ramon Carrillo. More complaints of Ind. depredations
in April. S. D. Arch., MS., 319; Hayes, Doc., MS., 200-2; Unb. Doc., MS., 303.
Jan.-Feb., return of Kearny and Stockton from Los Angeles; arrival of the
Mormon battalion; Co. B, Capt. Hunter, as a garrison. This vol., pp. 428-30,
486-9. March, garrisoned for two weeks by Lieut Stoneman and the dragoons. Id.,
489. July, departure of the Mormons to be mustered out, and petitions of
citizens on the need of a garrison. Id., 490; S. D. Arch., MS., 322; Fitch,
Doc., MS., 446. Return of the reenlisted Mormons, Capt. Davis, in Aug. Id.,
451; this vol., p. 495.
1848. Arrival of Co. I, N. Y. Volunteers, to take the
place of the Mormons, who were mustered out in March; Capt. Shannon becomes
commandant, of the post. Id., 514. Feb., complaints against Shannon’s men for
engaging
Pascual, and the massacre of a dozen Californians by the Indians in
December were also more startling events than had occurred in this region for
years. Leading citizens cheerfully embraced the cause of the United States from
the first; and others who fled to serve under Flores for a few months soon
returned after their defeat, and the course of events in 1847-8 was as tranquil
as ever, the garrisons of Mormon and New York volunteers being received as
welcome additions to the population, giving new life to the little town and to
the social festivities that alone interrupted the chronic monotony of existence
there. Josd Ramon Argiiello succeeded his father as sub-prefect and held
in mercantile
speculations, introducing military clothing free of duties. Cal. and N. Mex.,
Mess, and Doc., 482-3. Jan.-April, more trouble -with the Ind., several chiefs
being imprisoned; Charbonneau implicated. Bandini, Doc., MS., 108; 8. D. Arch.,
MS., 328, 331. July, return of Pio Pico. This vol., p. 588. Sept., Shannon’s
company mustered out. Id., 515. Dec., Graham’s battalion of U. S. dragoons
arrives at Warner’s rancho. Id., 522-3.
Municipal affairs.
1846. Jos6 Ramon Arguello appointed sub-prefect Apr. 3d, sworn in Apr. 12th. He
held the office till the Americans came. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 16; Id.,
Ben. P. & J., ii. 11, 50, 85, 128. Jueces de paz,
Jos6 Antonio Estudillo and Juan M. Osuna. The latter at first
declined the office and possibly did not act. Aug. 18th, Miguel Pedrorena took
Estudillo’s place in the latter’s absence. Sept. 15th, Joaquin Ortega and Henry
D. Fitch elected. 1847. Jueces de paz, or alcaldes as they were usually termed,
Henry D. Fitch and perhaps Philip Crosthwaite elected. Hayes’ Em. Notes,
486-91; but Thomas Ridington soon took C.’s place, and was acting at times as
1st juez in June-July, also as sheriff. June 23d, Fitch declining to serve
longer, Lieut Robert Clift of the Mormon co. was appointed by Col Stevenson,
and confirmed by Gov. Mason Dec. 10th. Feb. 5th, Alcalde Fitch’s bando of
police regul. S._ D. Arch., MS., 319. Additional regul. May 15th. Id., 320.
April, alcalde has trouble with Warner, who refuses to obey his orders, and
Thos Russell accused of an attempted murder; gets instruc. from Kearny. Fitch,
Doc., MS., 431; Cal. and N. Mex., 301-3. June, Johnson fined $50, with 2
months’ work, for stabbing with intent to kill. S. D. Index, MS., 96. July,
court-house and school in course of construction. S. D. Arch., MS., 319. 1848.
The resignation of Robert Clift as juez or alcalde was accepted Feb. 19th; Juan
Bandini and E. L. Brown were appointed as 1st and 2d alcaldes by Stevenson
March 29th, and by Gov. Mason April 15th. Bandini resigned Sept. 27th on
account of illness, and Juan Mari'a Marron was elected Oct. 3d, being approved
by the gov. Dec. 2d.
Custom-house affairs.
1846. Henry D. Fitch as receptor resigned and was succeeded by Pedro C.
Carrillo in April. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. Cust.-H., MS., vi. 7-8; Id., P. <£•
J., ii. 127. Aug. 18th, Carrillo was reappointed by Com. Stockton, and took the
oath on the 24th. Carrillo, Doc., MS., 5. In March the assemhly proposed the
opening of the port to foreign trade. Dept. St. Pap., MS., viii. 134. Sept.,
purchase of a boat for $60 and furniture and stationery $77 for acct of U. S.
Carrillo, Doc., MS., 14. 1847. Carrillo after Feb. was apparently succeeded by
Santiago Arguello; and June 24th, Miguel Pedrorena was appointed. This vol., p.
446, 572; Fitch, Doc., MS., 421;
the place till the Americans came. Municipal affairs were but very
slightly interrupted under the new regime; and the successive justices of the
peace, or alcaldes as they were generally termed, were Jos^s Antonio
Estudillo, Miguel Pedrorena, Joaquin Ortega, Henry D. Fitch, Thomas Ridington,
Robert Clift, Juan Bandini, and Juan M. Marron. The revenues of the port were
managed successively by Fitch, Carrillo, Argiiello, Pedrorena, Shannon, and
Pedrorena again, acting as receptores, or collectors. About a dozen ranchos
within the district were granted by Governor Pico to private owners in 1846;
and during
1847-8 an effort was made to keep the matter of titles for these and
earlier grants in statu quo for presentation to later tribunals. San Diego
mission had no resident padre after the departure of Padre Oliva in August
1846. The remaining property was ceded in
Hayes,
Doc., MS., 203. From Oct. tinder the new orders the mil. commandant was
required to act as collector. This vol., p. 574. 1848. C. C. Canfield
acting as collector in Feb.; Capt. Shannon in July. Fitch, Doc., MS., 486, 522;
hut Aug. 7th, Pedrorena was reappointed, with a salary of $1,000, if the collections
should amount to that sum over expenses. Cal. & N. Mex., 654.
Private ranchos in S.
Diego district 1846-8. ‘Camajal y El Palomar, 4 1., granted in 1846 to J. J.
Warner, who was cl. Canada, see S. Vicente. Guadalupe, mission, in B. Cal., 5
1., 1846, Juan Bandini. Leg. Rec., MS., iv. 321. Island, 1846, Pedro C.
Carrillo; Billings cl. Mission, 184G, Sant. Ar- gfiello, who was cl.
Monserrate, 3 1., 1846, Isidro M. Alvarado, who was cl. Otay, 2 1., 1846,
Magdalena Estudillo, who was cl. Pala, see S. Luis Rey. Palomar, see Camajal.
Potrero, see S. Jacinto. S. Felipe, see Valle. S. Jacinto Nuevo y Potrero, 1846, Miguel Pedrorena, whose heirs were cl. S.
Jacinto Viejo y Nnevo, sobrante, 5 1., 1846, Maria del Rosario Estudillo de
Aguirre, whose husband was cl. *S. Luis Rey & Pala, 12 1., 1846, Scott
& Pico; Wm C. Jones cl. Sta Rosa, 3 1., 1846, Juan Moreno, who was cl. S.
Vicente, Canada, 3 1., 1846, Juan Lopez; Domingo Yorba cl. Sobrante, see S.
Jacinto. Valle de S. Felipe, 3 1., 1846, Felipe Castillo; John Forster cl.
' Valle de las Viejas, 41., 1846, Ramon Osuna et al.; Wm Williams cl.
S. Diego Mission.
1846. Jan. 6th, inventory made by Pico and Manso, signed also by P. Oliva.
Engl, translation in U. S. v. Argiiello, cl. brief on Excep. before
Surveyor-gen., 120-2; Hayes’ Legal Hist. S. D., 45. Total value, $1,654, of
which $1,000 is for main building; live-stock 110 cattle, 65 horses,
4 mules; credits $19,588, of which $18,816
is due for supplies to troops; debt $1,474, of which $500 due to Miguel
Pedrorena has been paid with the Sta M6nica rancho. June 8th, Gov. Pico’s deed
of sale to Santiago Argiiello, who gets all the lands and other property
excepting the church and padre’s dwelling, but is bound to support the padre
and worship, and to pay the mission debts. The consideration is money due to
A. from the govt, for past services. Hartman’s Brief in Miss. Cases, app. 80-3.
July 24th, gov. orders P. Oliva to surrender the estate by inventory to
Argiiello. Unb. Doc., MS., 390. A ground plan of the mission buildings, no
date. St. Pap., Miss., MS.,
vii. 3. P. Oliva left the mission when the
Americans came. S. Diego, Lib.
June to Santiago Argiiello in payment for past services. Though Arguello’s
title was confirmed in later years, the American authorities did not permit him
to hold the property in 1847-8, putting it in charge of E. L. Brown, and later
of Philip Crosthwaite, who was given a lease for two or three years. Naturally
the buildings gradually went to ruin, but there were a few aged Indians left
whose claim to support was recognized in theory at least. At San Luis Rey,
Father Zalvidea, the senior of the little remaining band of Fernandinos, died
early in 1846, and the mis-
Mis., MS.,
57. 1847. Oliva at S. Juan in Oct. complains that the commandant had removed
the roofs of mission buildings at S. Diego. Urib. Doc., MS., 97, 389.
Oct. 17th, Captain Davis to Stevenson, P. Oliva on his departure left a man in
charge. J. A. Estudillo shows a power of attorney from Oliva; and Sant.
Argiiello has a bill of sale from the gov., probably antedated. Id., 97-8.
Sergt E. L. Brown seems to have been put in charge of the missiou, no exact
date. Hayes’ Em. Notes, 150. 1848. April 26th, P. Prefect Jimeno permits the
alcalde to take material from the ruined buildings —not pertaining to the
church edifice!—to build a new church in town. In May there were some efforts
to obtain a padre from Lower Cal., and P. Mancilla agreed to come. 8. D. Index,
MS., 141; Hayes’ Miss. B., i. 407. Aug. 6th, Crosthwaite receives the property
from Brown. There were 53 cattle, 43 horses, 13 asses, 33 sheep, and 44 goats.
In June there had been only 107 animals instead of 186. Unb. Doc., MS., 173.
Aug. 9th, Stevenson to gov., if left in present state the property will soon
disappear. It should be sold. Some old Ind. still remain, and they might
receive rations from the post. Id., 159. At this time or in Oct. Crosthwaite
leased the mission for 3 years (or 2 years). He went to the mines, leaving his
father-in-law, Bonifacio Lopez, in charge, and when he came back in 1849 found
the U. S. troops quartered here. Crosthwaite, in Hayes’ Em. Notes, 154. Aug.
18th, Gov. Mason having received from Stevenson an inventory ordered the property
put at the disposition of Padre Gonzalez of Sta Barbara—perhaps only the
church property. Cal. & N. Mex., 596. Sept. 8th, P. Gonzalez to Stevenson,
has received the governor’s orders; but the property is already rented for 2
years. He has sent the inventory to the padre prefecto Jimeno. Unb. Doe., MS.,
214-15.
San Lnis Rey. 1846.
May 18th, deed of sale to Jos<5 A. Cot and 3os& A. Pico for $2,437.
Hartman’s Brief, app. 83-5; Unb. Doc., MS., 277-9. July 24th, gov. orders the
admin., Marron, to deliver the property to Cot and Pico. St. Pap., Miss., MS.,
xi. 53. John Forster, Pioneer Data, MS., 22-3, 30, says that he took possession
for the purchasers, and then left Marron in charge for C. and P. See also
Marron, Pap., MS., 9. In Aug., Fremont put John Bid well in charge, removing
Marron and having some trouble with Forster. Bidwell’s Cal., MS., 181;
Forster’s Pion. Data, MS., 30—1; Lorenzana, Mem., MS., 17-18. The latter thinks
Godey was put in charge. She also says, p. 22, 27, that on Aug. 2oth P. Oliva
came up from S. Diego and stayed two months before going to S. Juan. P.
Zalvidea had died earlier in the year. Aug. 22d, Cot complains to Stockton of
forcible dispossession at the hands of Fremont, and asks for reinstatement,
though willing to leave the question of title to the courts. Stockton left the
matter to Gillespie and nothing was done, as appears in a later complaint of
Cot in Oct. of the next year. Unb. Doc., MS., 277-9. Bidwcll had to retire in
Oct. at the time of the Flores revolt. This vol., p. 267, 286, 318; and Jos6
Alipds seems to have
sion had no later resident minister, except perhaps Padre Oliva for a
short time in the same year. The San Luis estate was sold in May to Cot and
Pico for $2,437; but their agent was dispossessed by Fremont, and they failed
to regain possession. Some doubts were expressed then and later about the
genuineness of the sale; but the title was finally rejected on the ground that
the governor had no power to sell the missions. Juan M. Marron was in charge
until Au-
commanded a small
military force here until Stockton took the place the next Jan. Estudillo,
Datos, MS., 47. The S. Luis neophytes were concerned in the Pauma massacre of
Dec., as related in another paragraph of this note.
1847. Jan.-April, Stockton’s arrival, and Mormon
garrisons. This vol., p. 386-7, 428, 441, 488-9. June-Aug., complaints of Ind.
depredations. They broke into the church, stole the crucifix, and threatened
another raid. S. D. Arch., MS., 320; S. F. Californian, Sept. 15, 1847. Aug. 1st,
Capt. J. D. Hunter of the Mormon battalion appointed sub-Indian agent with
headquarters at S. Luis. This vol., p. 568. Mormon garrison under Lieut
Barrus. Id., 495. Aug. 2d, Gov. Mason to Hunter, he is put in charge of the
mission property only to protect it; if any priests come they are to be treated
witk kindness and given rooms and supplies and anything they want, even tht»
entire management of the Ind. Cal. & N. Mex., 348. Sept. 1st, Stevenson to
gov., the Ind. are pleased at Hunter’s appointment; but complain that livestock
has been removed, which should be recovered. S. says the Ind. have raised grain
enough for their wants, and their settlement shows more evidence of comfort
than most of the ranchos of rich Californians. Unb. Doc., MS., 92-3. Nov. 24th,
gov. to J. A. Pico, request to turn over any mission, property in his
possession to Hunter, and to furnish an inventory of all such property that may
have been at any time in his possession. Pico, Doc., MS., ii. 131. Nov. 24th,
gov. sends a hlank appointment for alcalde, to be filled out by Stevenson with
name of John Shannon (Charbonneau?) or any other. Cal. <fc N. Mex., 434.
Dec. 1st, gov. to Hunter on conciliatory measures with J. J. Warner and the
Ind. whose land W. claims, so as to keep the Ind. quiet, and leave question of
title for the courts. Id., 438. 1S48. Jean B. Charbonneau alcalde until Aug.,
when his resignation, offered because as a half-breed he was thought to favor
the Ind. too much, was accepted by the gov. S. D. Arch., MS., 333; Unb. Doc.,
MS., 364-5; Cal. & N. Mex., 5S7-8. Jan. 31st, Hunter reports that he has
raised a small wheat crop on the mission farm at Pala, and has induced the
Ind. to do the same. Unb. Doc., MS., 62-3. In Sept., Hunter intended to resign,
Id., 174; and Dee. 17th, he was granted a leave of absence for 6 months, Wm
Williams to take charge of the mission in his place. Cal. & N. Mex., 681.
Jos6 Maria de
Zalvidea was born at Bilbao, Vizcaya, Spain, on March 2, 1780, taking the
Franciscan habit Dec. 13, 1798, and coming to the Mex. col* lege of S. Fernando
in Sept. 1S04. He arrived in Cal. in Aug. 1805, and his missionary service was
at S. Fernando in 1805-6, at S. Gabriel in 1806-26, at S. Juan Capistrano in
1826-42, and at S. Luis Rey in 1842-6, From the first he was rated by his
superiors as one of the best and most zealous of the friars, as priest,
teacher, and manager of temporalities. Autobiog. Autog.
de los Padres, MS.; Sarrla, Inf. de 18X7, MS., 45-6; Payeras, Inf. de
1820, MS.,
125. Zalvidea’s great field of labor was at San
Gabriel, where he toiled incessantly for 20 years, and with the greatest
success, to build up the temporal interests of his mission, but never
neglecting spiritual affairs or sacrificing the love of his neophytes or the
esteem of all who came in contact with him. He
gust 1846, and John Bidwell from that time till October. A garrison of
the Mormon battalion held the place during the greater part of 1847; and from
August Captain Hunter as sub-Indian agent for the south took charge of the
mission, being succeeded temporarily by William Williams at the end of 1848.
Hunter found a considerable number of Indians, who under his protection tilled
the soil with much industry
was donbtless in
those days a model missionary, and then and later was regarded by the common
people as a saint. He gave much attention to viticulture at S. Gabriel, being
the first to introduce this industry on a large scale, and taking the greatest
pride in his immense vineyard. In my list of authorities a diary of exploration
in 1806, and a petition of 1827 in behalf of the Indians, bear his name. In
political controversies he took no part; in 1829 he was willing to swear
allegiance to the republic so far as was consistent with his profession; and in
1838 he declined a passport to retire, on the ground that there was none-to
take his place. His transfer in 1826, against his wishes, was doubtless mainly
because his services were needed at S. Juan in the place of Padre Boscana; but
also because some of his idiosyncrasies— notably that connected with his
vineyard, which he proposed to protect by an iron fence—had assumed the form of
insubordination to his superiors, or perhaps suggested that a change might be
mentally beneficial. All this has, however, been much exaggerated in current
accounts of later years, as has also Zalvidca’s brooding over the change and
its effect on his mind. Somewhat eccentric at first, he became more so in his
old age, and finally during his stay of four years at San Luis he became
probably in some respects insane. Among those who write from personal
acquaintance with the padre are Estu- dillo, Datos, MS., 35-40; Marron,
Reeuerdos, MS., 3-9; Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 113-14; Coronel, Cosas de
Cal., MS., 217-19; Janssens, Vida, MS., 167; Davis, Glimpses, MS., 134-6, Julio
C£sar, Cosas de Ind., MS., 6-7; White, Cal., MS., 64-5; Serrano, Apuntes, MS.,
183-6; Perez, Recuerdos, MS., 5-6; and Lorenzan'a, Mem., MS., 14—16. There was
also in 1874 a newspaper discussion between Ex-gov. Downey and Gen. Vallejo
about the padre’s character and his acts at S. Gabriel. Nearly all agree as to
his many eccentricities in the last years, most of them, as is understood,
having been noticed in less degree from the first. When addressed he invariably
replied,
‘ Vamos, si senor,’
and turned his eyes partly away. His method of eating was to mix all that was
put before him, solid and liquid, sweet and sour, in one dish, and then devour
the mass; or if this was prevented, he would take the dishes in succession,
butter, wine, meat, etc., without regard to the order, always swallowing the
entire contents of one dish before beginning another, and never leaving
anything on the table. On rising he cleaned his horn spoon and fork, while a
servant cleaned his earthen basin, and carried all three to his room, putting
his napkin in his girdle. Most of his time he spent in reading devotional
books, walking meanwhile about the mission, and occasionally stopping to make
strange gestures and exclaim, ‘ Va-te Satands,’ as if engaged in a conflict
with the evil one, or driving away evil thoughts. While thus engaged he paid no
heed to warnings of danger, and on several occasions wild cattle charged upon
him without harming him or evoking anything but a slight reproof for throwing
dirt upon bis book. He made frequent use of the scourge, and wore belts with
iron points penetrating the flesh. In his last months he would have no watchers
at night, and was always found covercd with blood from self-inflicted wounds in
the morning. Yet even in the midst of all this madness in devotional matters,
he showed himself to have a clear head and the most practical and liberal ideas
on all
and success. Jean B. Charbonneau acted as alcalde for a time. Padre
Vicente Pascual Oliva came to San Juan Capistrano in the autumn of 1846, and
died there in January 1848. There seems to have been no other resident minister
during the period; and nothing is known of progress at the pueblo, which,
however, had a population of 113 souls, according to a padron of
1846. John Forster, who had
purchased the mission
other
subjects. He was a tall man, of fine presence and fair complexion; always
courteous in his manners, with a smile and kind word for all, and never annoyed
by the presence of others even in his maddest moments. He was skilled in the
native tongue, in whieh he used to preach on Sunday at S. Gabriel, according to
Hugo Reid. There is no evidence that he ever had an enemy or said an unkind
word of any man. He refused to quit S. Luis, where he believed his services to
be needed; but finally it was thought best to remove him to S. Juan. A eart was
prepared with all possible conveniences, hy advice of Padre Oliva and
Apolinaria Lorenzana, who had nursed him for some days. The night before the
journey was to be made Zalvidea died. He was buried in the mission church, at
the left of the altar. The date is not known, but it was apparently early in
1846. r
San Juan Capistrano. 1846. John Forster juez de paz, Juan Avila su- plente.
Dept.
St. Pap., MS., vii. 86; viii. 141-5; Id., Aug., xi. 170; Id., Ben. P. /., iv.
63. March, padron of S. Juan showing a pop. de razon of 113. Dept. St. Pap.,
MS., viii. 141-5. P. Oliva came here to live in the autumn. S. Diego, Lib.
Mis., MS., 57; Lorenzana, Mem., MS., 22,27. Gov. Pico concealed for a time in
this vicinity after his flight from Augeles in Aug. This vol., p. 278. 1847.
Forster reappointed alcalde by Gov. Mason July 14th. Cal. & N* Mex., 374.
Resigns Dec. 3d because the Ind. agent, Hunter, interferes and the troops
decline to aid him. Unb. Doc., MS., 129-30. 1848. Bias Aguilar alcalde. In Aug.
he objects to being deemed subordinate to the alcalde of Los Angeles. Los Ang.
Arch., MS., iii. 221-2. The S. Juan mission registers show that P. Tom&s
Est6nega officiated occasionally in 1843 -6; P. Ign. Ramirez de Arrellano in
1844; and P. Bias Ordaz in 1847-8.
Vicente Pascual was
born July 3, 1780, at Martin del Rio, Aragon, and became a Franeisean at the
convent of Kra Sra de Jesus in Zaragoza, Feb. 1, 1799. He came to Mexico in
1810 and started for Cal. in 1811, but was delayed by the revolution and hy a
serious illness at Acapulco, and did not arrive until Aug. 1813. He served at
S. C&rlos, as supernumerary, in 1813-14, at S. Fernando in 1814-15, at S.
Francisco in 1815-19, at S. Miguel in 1819-20, at S. Diego in 1820-46, and at
S. Juan Capistrano in 1846-8. Ordinary merit, good application, and a certain
ability as preacher were the qualities accredited to him by his superiors. Autobiog., Autog. de los Padres, MS.; Sarrla, Inf. de 1817, MS., 71-2;
Payeras, Inf. de 1820, MS., 123. Not mueli is known of this padre, who seems
to have been a very coinmonplace man, with few notable merits or defects.
Duhaut-Cilly, Viaggio, ii. 19-21, mentions the poor quality of food and the
uncleanly scrvice at the padre’s table, and his expressions of surprise that no
one seemed to care to eat with him. Oliva’s moral character was not in all
respects above suspicion, though there is no definite evidence against him. He
declined to take the oath of republican allegiance in 1826 and later. When the
Americans came he left S. Diego, where he had lived for 26 years, and after a
short stay at S. Luis, came to S. Juan probably in Oct. He died here Jan. 2,
1848, without receiving the sacraments, as the rains prevented Padre Ordaz
from arriving in time; but Ordaz buried him on the 29th in the presbytery of
the mission church. S. Jnan Cap., Lib. Mis., MS., 11-12.
property in 1845, and to whom it was confirmed in later times, was not
disturbed in his possession. He served as alcalde in 1846-7, and Bias Aguilar
was his successor.
Los Angeles had an unusually interesting history in 1846-7 as the
capital, and as the centre of the Californians’ last or only resistance to
foreign invasion; but this was also the history of California in those years,
and has been narrated with all desirable detail in the earlier chapters of this
volume. Therefore here, even more than elsewhere, does an index suffice.2
Leading events of 1846 were Pico’s controversy with Castro and the north, involving
fears of local invasion; Stockton’s occupation of the city in August; and
Flores’ revolt, including the fights at Chino and San Pedro. At the beginning
of 1847 came the reoccupation by United States forces, the final submission of
the Californians, and the controversies of Stockton, Fremont, and Kearny,
ending in the triumph of the
2 Los Angeles events. 1846. Jan.-July,
political affairs in the controversy of Pico vs Castro, sessions of the
assembly, etc. This vol., p. 30-53. Lists of inhab. in the region, including
one of 427 men capable of bearing arms in July. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 64-5;
Id., Ben. P. & J., ii. 159-60. April 18th, Pio Pico sworn in as
constitutional gov. by Mex. appointment. This vol., p. 40. March-Aug., Indian
affairs, showing frequent alarms at rumors of invasion from the Colorado River
bands, with several expeditions from the S. Bernardino region. On one occasion
18 Ind. were killed at S. Francisco rancho, having revolted after being
captured. It was at one time resolved to station a guard at the Cajon. Six Yuta
families came to Jurupa to settle. Bandini, Doc., 67; Dept. St. Pap., vi. 11,
80, 86-7, 92-3; viii. 104-10; Id., Aug., viii. 64, 71; Id., Ben., iv. 36-9;
Id., P. & J., ii. 48; iv. 62; Leg. Bee.,
iv. 346-8. June, news of the Bear Flag, cool
response of the Angelinos to Pico’s calls. This vol., p. 140. Action of the
assembly on the McNamara scheme. Id., 218-19. July, action of the gov.,
assemb.,and general on news of Sloat’s invasion. Id., 263-6. Aug., the American
forces at S. Pedro 6th, negotiations, flight of Pico and Castro 10th, Stockton
takes the city 13th, Gillespie left in command 31st. Id., 266-87. Sept.-Oct.,
Gillespie’s acts aud policy, Varela tumult 23d, Flores’ revolt, fight at Chino
rancho 26-7th, Gillespie driven out, Mervine’s defeat at S. Pedro Oct. 8th,
sessions of the assembly, Stockton at S. Pedro 23d. Id., 305-25. Nov.-Dec.,
Flores’ operations, Rico’s sub-revolt, Dec. 3d. Id., 329-34, 355. Larkin at
Angeles as a prisoner. Id., 365. Return of Manuel Castro’s army from the
northern campaign. Id., 372.
1847. Jan., defence by Flores and capture by Kearny
and Stockton, battle of the S. Gabriel Sth, battle of la Mesa 9th, city
occupied by U. S. forces 10th, arrival of Frgmont and his battalion 14th, flight
of Flores and Castro 11th, treaty of Cahuenga 13th. Id., 3S5-407. Jan.-Feb.,
controversy between
latter and the removal of the capital from Los Angeles to Monterey in
March. Subsequent annals of 1847-8—a period of semi-military rule under Colonel
Stevenson as commandant of the south with garrisons from the Mormon battalion,
New York volunteers, and U. S. dragoons—offer but little of general importance,
though including items of local interest as appended in my note. Abel Stearns
served as sub-prefect for a time before the Ameri-
Stockton, Kearny, and
Fremont, departure of K. and S., Fremont as gov. Id., 422-35. March-May,
Frfimont’s controversy with Keamy, Capt. Turner arrives 11th, Fremont’s ride
22d, Col Cooke in command 24th, F.’3 return 29th, Col Mason’s arrival April
7th, Fremont vs Mason 14th, arrival of Kearny May 9th, F.’s departure 12th,
Stevenson succeeds Cooke. Id., 44050. March-May, slight details of troubles
with Ind., by whom on one occasion the dragoons were repulsed with three men
wounded. Los Ang. Arch., MS., iii. 48-50, 54-5; v. 434-5, 445-6; Savage, Doc.,
MS., ii. 76; Unb. Doc., MS., 87-8, 115-16, 330; Lugo, Vida, MS., 67-8; Moreno,
Vula, MS., 33-5. Mareh^July, the Mormons at Angeles. This vol., p. 489 et seq.
May, ete., Co. E and G, N. Y. volunteers, at Angeles as a garrison. Id.,
514-15. May, efforts to obtain the services of a parish priest in place of the
sickly presbyter Jimenez del Reeio. The president would not permit P. Ordaz to
serve. Los Awj. Arch., MS., iii. 59-62. June, artillery sent from Monterey for
the Angeles fortifications. Cal. tfc N. Mex., 328. July, etc., rumors of
troubles with the Californians. This vol., p. 583 et seq. Dec. 7th, explosion.
Id., 515, 585. The killed were Sergt Travers and Private Legare of the N. Y.
vol., and Private Stokely of the dragoons; 10 others were wounded. Griffin's
Pap., MS., 124-7. At an election for ayunt. in Dee. there were 96 voters, 22 of
whom could write. Los Ang. Ayunt. Bee., MS., 80.
1848. Jan. 4th, a
slight temblor, according to a newspaper. Feb. 6th, a force to be posted at the
Cajon to keep Ind. raiders in chcek. Unb. Doc., MS., 43-4. April 15th, a N.
Mex. caravan under F. E. Vigil and Juan I. Morsine to start on return. Dept.
St. Pap., Aug., MS., viii. 77. April, trial of Bamis and other Mormons for
passing counterfeit money. This vol., p. 610-11. July, return of Gov. Pico.
Id., 588. Aug. 8tb, orders to Stevenson on breaking up the military post, and
removing the guns and war-stores. Cal. tfc N. Mex. 1850, p. 635-6. Aug. 20th,
Stevenson to gov., an earnest appeal against leaving the people exposed to Ind.
raids without troops or arms. Id., 645-6. List of over 100 land-owners with
their water rates. Hayes, Doc., MS., 209. There were 259 voters for the ayunt.
Los Ang. Arch., MS., v. 469.
Municipal goverment
and list of officials. 1846. Abel Stearns sub-prefect in June-July, appointed
June 17th, sworn in 20th, Nareiso Botello secretary. It will be remembered
that Steams was also sub-confidential agent of the U. S. 1 Members of the ayuutamiento:
alcaldes Juan Gallardo and JosS L. Sepiilveda; rcgidores Leonardo Cota, Luis
Jordan, Miguel Pryor, and Julian Chavez; amdico Alexander Bell, secretary
Ignacio Coronel. Cota, Jordan, and Chavez acted as jueces at different times.
Chavez is also named as juez de aguas, and Casildo Aguilar as celador. In Feb.
the ranchos of S. Bernardino, Yucaipa, Napolitan, Jurupa, Huapa, and Cucamonga
were formed into a separate district, with B. D. Wilson as juez de paz and
Jos<5 del C&rmen Lugo as suplente. Aug. 20th, Louis Robidoux succeeded
Wilson by Stockton’s appointment. Francisco Garcia was juez of S. Feliciano,
with JosiS Salazar as suplente. Ignacio Coronel was receptor at S. Pedro ia Hist. Cal., Vol. V. 40
can occupation; and municipal affairs, except as interrupted by the
military rule of Gillespie in August and September 1846, and of Fremont in
January
1847, were managed by an
ayuntamiento with Juan Gallardo and Jos£ Salazar as successive alcaldes; but
for 1848, though an ayuntamiento was elected, it was
July. Jan. 21st, gov.
orders payment of $4,656, the balance of the $5,000 paid for A. M. Lugo’s house
bought for use of the govt. Unb. Doc., MS., 388. Other accounts say that he
bought the house of Isaac Williams, paid $600 on account, and in June mortgaged
the building to C61is for $2,000. Hayes’ Grim. Trials, 1 et seq.; Botetto,
Anales, MS., 127. June, the ayunt. has its feelings wounded by an order to
submit all its acts to the govt for approval. Los Ang. Arch., MS., v. 348-51;
Dept. St. Pap., Ben. P. <0 J., MS., ii. 81. July, subprefect tells alcalde
that he has no right to leave town without his (Steams’) permission. Dept. St.
Pap., MS., vii. 94.
1847. The city was under military rule in Jan., as it
had been since the preceding July, but on Feb. 10th the following ayunt. was
elected: Alcaldes Jose Salazar and Enrique Avila; regidores Miguel N. Pryor,
Julian Chavez, Rafael Gallardo, and Jos6 Ant. Yorba; sindico Jose Vicente
Guerrero; sec. Ignacio Coronel. Primary election on the 7th. There were
frequent absences and consequent temporary promotions. Juez de policia Pedro Cabrera from Oct.; juez auxiliar at Sta Ana Teodosio
Yorba; zanjeros Basilio Lusiano and Mariano R. Roldan. Alcalde at
S. Bernardino Louis Robidoux, reappointed by Gov. Mason June 1st. Receptor at
S. Pedro, Pedro Carrillo, succeeded by
D. W. Alexander. Municipal receipts for the
year $1,219. Los Ang. Arcb., MS., v. 432. Iu June a regidor was fined $10 for
impoliteness. In Aug. Alcalde Avila tendered his resignation on account of
disagreements with the mil. com. Id., 415-18. Dec. 18th, an election of alcaldes
for the next year was held, no other members of ayunt. named. On the 19th Col
Stevenson complained to Gov. Mason that the alcaldes-elect were of the worst
class, one of them noted for his hatred of Americans, and the other an ignorant
and vicious fellow; many citizens ask that Foster be appointed juez de 1“
instancia to supervise the alcalde’s acts. Unb. Doc., MS., 128-9. Meanwhile the
gov. on Dec. 10th (perhaps antedated) had appointed Foster, and ordered the
alcalde to surrender the records on Jan. 1st; and on the 29th he directs
Stevenson to declare the election void, as having been held without the governor’s
authority. Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 443, 451.
1848. Alcaldes elected as above but not acting,
Ignacio Palomares and Jos6 Sepulveda; alcalde and juez de 1" instancia
from Jan. 1st by governor’s appointment as above, Stephen C. Foster; 2d alcalde
from May Vicente Guerrero; Abel Stearns sindico from Jan.; jueces de campo
from Feb. 12th Antonio Ign. Avila, Agnstin Machado, Tom&s Serrano, Juan Ramirez,
Antonio Salazar, Franciseo Lopez; Henry Cardwell alguacil mayor, or sheriff,
appointed May 30th; auxiliary alcalde for S. Antonio, S. Rafael, etc., Hilario
Morillo; collector at S. Pedro Dav. W. Alexander. On Jan. 1st Stevenson met the
old and new ayunt., introducing Foster as the appointed alcalde. Salazar
preferred, and seems to have been permitted, to deliver the office to
Palomares, his elected successor, leaving P. to sutrender to Foster. P. and his
associates wished to retain their offices, and that Foster should be juez de
l”inst., or prefect, to supervise their acts; they were permitted to petition
to that effect, but did not do so in the time allowed, and Foster was
installed. Stevenson then appointed Stearns sindico and Aguilar collector, those
elected declining to serve. At first citizens refused to ao the regular guard
duty, but yielded gradually to a system of fines. Letter of Stevenson Jan.
11th. Unb. Doc., MS., 159-67. Jan. 13th, Stevenson’s procl., annulling the election.
Los Ang. Arch., MS., iii. 155-6. Feb. 8th, S. has appointed subordi-
not permitted to be installed, and Stephen C. Foster served as alcalde by
the military governor’s appointment, not without considerable dissatisfaction
on the part of the citizens at not being allowed to choose their own officers
as had been promised them; yet Foster seems to have ruled for the most part
wisely,
nate officials;
Foster is gaining respect; all is going smoothly. Id., 156-7. May 16th, Foster
to gov., explaining his difficulties owing to the unfriendly feeling of the
people, and suggesting the town’s financial and other needs. Id., 72-3. Aug.
20th, Foster offers his resignation, which on Stevenson’s advice not accepted,
and F. is promised all possible aid and is urged to retain the place. On Sept.
6th, F. withdrew his resignation and thanked the gov. for his confidence. F.
was at the same time govt interpreter and translator for the southern mil.
district. Id., 28-9, 33; Cal. <£• .A'. Mex. 1S50, p. 639-60.
Additional
municipal matters. Items of police regulations on prisoners, vagrants, use of
liquors, lighting shops, carrying arms, etc., arc omitted. In the
administration of justice there are no eases that require notice. In April 1846
the citizens petitioned for the removal of the Ind. rancheria; and in June the
gov. sold its site to Juan Domingo for $200 to raise funds for a mil. expedition.
Los Ang. Arch., MS., iii. 28-30; v. 336, 338, 399; Id., Ayunt. Rec., 16; Dept.
St. Pap., Ben. P. <6 J., MS., iv. 54. The Ind., however, were still at this
rancheria in 1847, or had formed another. In Nov. its removal was ordered, it
being a resort of vice; and again in Feb. 1848 a similar order was issued. Los
Ang. Arch., MS., iii. 133-5, 165; v. 429-30. May 29, 1846, the ayunt. chooses
two experts in company with the 2d alcalde to survey the town ejidos, measuring
2 leagues from the church to each point of the compass (which would give 16
sq. leagues !) and erect boundary monuments. Id., v. 344. April 1847, lot 10x30
v. sold for $20. Id., 487. July, owing to abuses andscarcity of salt, the
authorities take charge of the only salina. Id., 409: Murder of a Frenchman,
not named, July 4th-5th. Id., iii. 87-90. A man asks to be relieved from
payment of fee on his lot, because he has built a house on it; but is obliged
to pay on the unoccupied part. Id., v. 412. July 22d, a committee on streets
reports that the cemetery street is too narrow and that the sindico’s
instructions on the subject are illegal; wants more light; and the ayunt.
decides in substance that the matter must be regulated as well as possible
under the circumstances without being too particular about trifles. Id., Ayunt.
Rec., MS., 98-100. Aug., complaints that land-owners object to paying the water
rates. Id., Arch., iii. 103-4. Oct., Valle asked for a lot 200 v. front by 75
v. deep, having contracted to supply the town with meat and needing plenty of
room; but only 100 v. front were granted. Id., Ayunt. Rec., 9'2-3. Dee., Sant.
Argiiello got a title to lot 44x96 v., saying that he had bought the land when
the formalities were different, and like many others had no proper title. Id.,
96. Aug. 1, 1848, Alcalde Foster’s decree on regulations for use of the water
for irrigation. Coronet, Doc., MS., 249-51. .
Private ranchos in Los Angeles district. Los Alamos y Agua Caliente, 6 1.,
granted in 1846 to Francisco Lopez et al.; Agustin Olvera cl. Animas, see Rio.
Boca de la Playa, 1J 1., 1846, Emigdio V6jar, who was cl. *Cahu- enga, 4 1.,
1846, Luis Arenas; Nic. Morehon cl. *Cajon de los Negros, 3 1.,
1846, Ignacio Coronel; Wm Workman cl. *Cienega, 20
1., 1846, Agustin Olvera, who was cl. Tom&s de Santiago, 4 1., 1846,
Teodosio Yorba, who was cl. Palos Colorados, 1846,
Jos6 L. .Sepiilveda, who was cl. Negros, see Cajon. Playa, see Boca. *Rio de
las Animas, C 1., 1846, Leonardo Cota and Julian Chavez; J. F. Jones et al. cl.
San
Fernando mission lands, 14 1.,
1846. Eulogio de C61is, who was cl. *San Gabriel
mission, 1846, Workman and Reid, who were cl. Mission lot 500 x 200 v., 1846,
Simeon, who was
and there was but slight ground for complaint of Stevenson’s policy and
acts. But for the constant depredations of Indian horse-thieves, which the new
like the old authorities were unable to prevent, quiet and good order prevailed
for the most part throughout the district. About twenty new ranchos were
granted to private ownership by Governor Pico in 1846; and all matters of title
and possession were as a rule left in statu quo after the change of flag. At
San Gabriel Padre Estenega died early in 1847, and
cl. *Id., 25x40v.,
1846, Andres Duarte et al., who were cl. Id., 400 x 200 v., 1846, Jose;
Ledesma, who was cl. Sta Anita, sold by H. Reid to Henry Dalton for $2,000 in
May 1847. (It sold for $200,000 in 1874.) Los Ang. Arch., MS., v. 488. Sta
Catalina Island, 1846, Thomas M. Robbins; J. M. Covarrubias cl. Santiago, see
Tomds. Sierra, 4 1., 1846, Bernardo Yorba, who was cl. Id., 4 1., 1846, Vicente
Sepiilveda, who was cl. *Sierra de los Verdugos,
1846, Antonio F. Coronel, who was cl.
San Gabriel. 1846.
Jan.-May, Mariano R. Roldan and Henry Dalton are named as encargados, or
perhaps majordomos. Pedro Romero juez de campo. Las
Ang., Ayunt. Bee., MS., 46; Dept. St. Pap., Ang., MS., viii. 63-4, 71;
Id., Ben. P. <t J., iv. 65; St. Pap., Miss., MS., xi. 60-1. Feb. 20th, the
vecinos, 40 whites and 100 Ind., ask that the ex-mission be declared a pueblo,
complaining of mismanagement on the part of the padre and major- domo. But the
govt decided in March that the thing could not be done, as the mission had a
heavy debt. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 14^16; Leg. Bee., MS., iv. 319, 325. In
May the alcalde reported that the farmers had to leave their ranchos and gather
at the mission for protection against Indians. In June Hugo Reid was auxiliary
administrator and juez de paz. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 83, 89. June 8th, the
mission estate was granted to Hugo Reid and Wm Workman, in payment for past
services to the govt, they binding themselves to pay all debts, support the
padre, and pay the expenses of worship. Deed in Hartman's Brief, 85-7; Hayes’
Miss. S., 368. Reid was probably put in possession, but dispossessed by
Stockton and Fremont, though I find no definite records on the subject. Powder
for the Cal. army made here in Oct. This vol., p. 318. 1847. Bernardino Lopez, encargado de justicia, though Roldan’s name is also
mentioned in May; Joaquin Valenzuela juez de campo; Francisco Villa zanjero. Manuel
Olivera seems to have been put in charge of the mission property by the
American authorities. Part of Cal. battalion stationed here; trouhle between
Owens and Cooke. This vol., p. 434, 441, 445. May 24th, Col Stevenson requires
that all not legally entitled to live at S. Gabriel must quit the houses and
lands at once; and no taverns must be established. Olivera must be protected in
the discharge of his duties. Los Ang. Arch., MS., iii. 63. P. Ordaz’ signature
appears on the register from May 14th. S. Gab., Lib. Mis., MS., 60. June 8th,
Pres. Jimenez to Stevenson, at his request has ordered Ordaz to take charge of
the mission, but not of the secular administration. Unb. Doc., MS., 266-7; yet
later the padre seems to claim to be in charge also of temporal matters. Los
Ang. Arch., MS., iii. 84-6, 102, 309. He remained here till 1850. May and July,
Lopez and the Ind. protest against Olivera’s arbitrary acts and insist on his
removal. Id., 54-6, 84-5, 92, 95-7. It seems that P. Est<5nega had allowed
the Ind. to retire from the community to their ranchos or those of others;
Olivera required them to return, which they were unwilling to do unless O. was
removed. The result is not recorded. Aug. 4th, P. Ordaz asks the alcalde of Los
Angeles to order the ex-neophytes to repair the
Padre Ordaz took charge as curate a few months later. In June 1846 the
mission estate was sold to Reid and Workman in payment of past aid to the
government; but they were apparently dispossessed by the United States officers
in August, and the next year Manuel Olivera was put by them in charge as
administrator of the property. The purchasers’ title was finally declared
invalid on the ground that the governor had no right to sell the missions. A
few Indians still lived in the vicinity under the care of the padre, and an
auxiliary juez de paz with a few other petty officials managed local affairs in
subordination to the alcalde of the city. At San Fernando Father Ordaz
remained until May 1847, and he was the last resident minister. The mission had
been
church add curate’s
house. He is told that they are at his orders, but not at the administrator’s.
On the 20th the padre protests against the granting of a lot without his
consent. Id., 102, 105, 109-10. 1S48. Feb., Gov. Mason to Stevenson, says the
man in charge has lately sold a still worth $800 or $1,000 for $200. Gal. &
N. Mex. 1850, p. 479. Stevenson begs Ordaz to oblige his prot£g6 Guillermo
Novarro to quit the place, because the settlers complain of his selling liquor
and buying stolen goods. Los Ang. Arch., MS., iii. 1689. March, creditors
claim $3,014 and they should be secured. Unb. Doc., MS., 266. Evidently Reid
and Workman had not paid the mission debt; but on the other hand they had not
been kept in possession of the estate.
Tomds Eleuterio
Est^nega (or Estenaga) was born in the province of Vizcaya about 1790, became
a Franciscan at Cantabria, came to the Mex. college in 1810, and to Cal. in
1820. After remaining for a few months as supernumerary he served at S. Miguel
in 1820-1, at S. Francisco in 1821-33, and at S. Gabriel in 1833-47. Prefect
Payeras described him soon after his arrival as a pious and worthy missionary,
but in bad health. Payeras, Inf. de 1820, MS., 131-2. Est^nega was tall,
slender, and of fair complexion; and bad health always impaired his usefulness,
though there was an improvement after his transfer to the south. He was
generally well liked by his neophytes, and not unpopular with others. Though
declining to take the oath to republicanism he promised obedience to the govt;
in 1832-3 he served temporarily for several months at S. Rafael; in 1834 he was
held as a prisoner for a time by the Ind., and was also involved in the famous
‘ conspiracy ’ of Duran aud Guerra; in 1841 he was accused of neglecting the
morals of his neophytes, and the same year declined to officiate at the fiesta
of Sept. 16th; and in 1843 he took the oath to the * bases constitucionales.5
I find no trace of him in the mission registers of S. Gabriel after 1845, and,
rather strangely, no record_ of his death. But it appears that he died there
early in 1847, since the juez on May 8th writes of what the ‘late’ Padre Est<5nega
did ‘over two months ago.5 Los Ang. Arch., MS., iii. 54-6.
San Fernando. 1846.
Jan. 1st, inventory signed by P. Ordaz and the lessees; live-stock 710 head
wild animals, 9*2 cattle, 16 horses, 375 sheep, $2,048; furniture, tools, etc.,
$122; total $2,170. Pico, Pap. Mis., MS., 156. June 17th, sale of mission
estate for $14,000 to Eulogio de C^lis. Deed in Hartman's Brief, 89-92; St.
Pap., Miss., MS., xi. 65. C6lis was bound to support the padre and worship,
also to give the Ind. the use of the lands they
rented in 1845 to Pico and Manso, who apparently held possession in
1846-8, though the property was sold in June 1846—subject to the lease, I
suppose— to Eulogio Celis for $14,000, the title of Cdlis being in later years
confirmed. There were no occurrences at this ex-mission to be noted except the
occupation by Fremont’s battalion in January 1847, and the signing of the
treaty of Cahuenga which put an end to the war in California.
Santa Barbara took but slight part in the stirring events of the conquest
of 1846-7, though it was here that Governor Pico, hearing of invasion in the
north, issued his patriotic but not very effective proclamations. From August
to October 1846, a small garrison of Fremont’s battalion was posted here; and
from April 1847 a detachment of the New York volunteers, at first under
Lieut-colonel Burton and later of Captain Lippitt, garrisoned the place; but
excepting the episode of the canon perdido, there was nothing exciting, even
from a local standpoint.3 When we add to the peaceful sequence of
Santa Barbara events the absence of the municipal records, it is not surprising
occupied during their
life-time. Presumably he bought subject to the lease, though nothing is said ou
the subject. The purchaser was not to take possession for 8 months, during
which time the govt might redeem the property. On the date of sale, June 17th,
I have an original order from Gov. Pico to the ‘ lessee ’ to pay the rent as it
becomes due to Andres Pico and Juan Manso on account of a debt of $3,000 due
them from the govt. Pico (Pio), Doc., MS., ii. 85. Andres Pico named as lessee
in Sept. 1847. Dept. St. Pap., Ang., MS.,
viii. 76. 1847. Jan., Cal. army and Frlmont’s
battalion in possession; treaty of Cahuenga. This vol., p. 401 et seq. 1848.
Gov. Pico’s return. Id., 589.
3 Sta Barbara events, etc. 1846. Lieut-col
Gumesindo Flores oomandaute, except as interrupted by the U. S. occupation.
Jan., several officers of the company resign. This vol., p. 35. Feb., wreck of
the Fama. Id., 578. May, plan for a ‘consejo general’ never assembled. Id., 37,
44-7. June, Gov. Pieo here; news of the Bear Flag revolt at Sonoma; Pico’s
proclamation and appeals. Id., 138-42. July, assembly refuses to meet at Sta
B. Id., 37. McNamara’s proposed colony and his visit. Id., 215-19. Another
proclam, on receipt of news of U. S. occupation of Monterey. Id., 263. Aug.,
Stockton touches here on his way south, leaving a garrison and raising the U.
S. flag. Id., 267. Sept., Mitchell and his men replaced by Talbot and
volunteers of the battalion as a garrison. Id., 286-7. Oct., reoceupation by
the Californians under Garfias; Talbot driven out.' Id., 316-17. Nov.,
Raimundo Carrillo comandante, under Flores. Id., 330. Dec., Fremont arrives
with the battalion. Id., 376.
1847. April, arrival of Co. A, B, and F, N. Y. vol.,
under Lieut-col
that local annals of the district are for the most part a blank.
Anastasio Carrillo served as sub-prefect until the United States flag was
raised; and town affairs were managed by the following justices of the peace:
Antonio M. Ortega in 1846, Pablo de la Guerra in 1847, and Pedro C. Carrillo in
1848. Colo-
Burton; July, Co. F
remains as a garrison under Capt. Lippitt as comandante o£ the post. Id.,
513-16. Many details of camp life at Sta B. in Murray's Narr., MS.; Green’s
Life, MS. July, rumors of trouble with the Californians. This vol., p. 584.
Custom-house receipts; Pedro C. Carrillo collector. Id., 571-2.
1848. Feb., Gov. Mason has heard very unfavorable
reports about the conduct of Co. F, and complains of the soldiers having
clubbed together to purchase large quantities of supplies free of duties for
purposes of trade. Cal. <£• N. Mex. 1850, p. 481-2. March, citizens
authorized by juez to make expeditions to the tulares in quest of wild live-stock,
on which a certain amount must be paid into the town treasury. Sta B. Arch.,
MS., 65-7. April, affair of the canonperdido. This vol., p. 586-7. Sept.,
mustering-out of the N. Y. vol. Id., 515; records, etc., turned over on Sept.
8th hy Capt. Lippitt to Capt. Smith. Unb. Doc., MS., 21-2.
Municipal affairs.
1846. Anastasio Carrillo sub-prefect Jan.-June, though often desiring to be
relieved. Jueces de paz Antonio M. Ortega and Juan P. Ayala, Juan Camarrillo
having been appointed juez 2° but excused at his own request. Estfrvan Ortega
collector of munic. taxes. 1847. No records until May since June 1846. On May
9th Pablo de la Guerra and Luis Carrillo were elected 1st and 2d alcaldes. They
declined the governor’s appointment and refused to take the oath of allegiance
to the U. S.; yet in some way they seem to have retained the positions
throughout the year. Unb. Doc., Ij, 123-4, 204-5. Aug., gov. to Alcalde
Carrillo, has ordered Capt. Lippitt to discontinue military proceedings against
two men for insulting women and theft. Is willing to yield the jurisdiction in
such cases to the alcaldes when as now he has reason to believe them influenced
by proper motives. Cal. <1- N. Mex. 1850, p. 354. Dec. 11th, alcalde to
gov., criticising the decree forbidding the sale of liquors to Ind., which he
has not enforced. Moderate drinking is good for working men, and the Ind. will
not work for anything else. Abuse of liquor is what should he punished; and the
whites behave worse in this respect than the Ind. Unb. Doc., MS., 197-201.
1848. There had beeu an election, if not two, in Jan.-Dec., but one set of
alcaldes declined to serve, against another apparently the citizens protested,
and Pablo de la Guerra went on serving until on Feb. 8th Gov. Mason appointed
Pedro C. Carrillo and Est£van Ardisson as alcaldes. Unb. Doc., MS., 25, 372-3;
Cal. <L- JV. Mex. 1850, p. 473-4. It seems that another Don Pedro (Don
Pablo?) would have been appointed, but he declined to accept the offices from a
mil. gov. May, Stevenson threatens Carrillo with removal if he refuses to obey.
More trouble in Aug. Unb. Doc., MS., 335, 194. July, Capt. Lippitt reports that
there are no civil magistrates. Id., 10. Trial of Benj. Foxen for the murder of
Agustin D&vila by the two alcaldes appointed as a special court hy the gov.
This vol., p. 611. Gervasio Ayala, EstSvan Ortega, and
Inocente Lo- renzana jueces de policia. Sta B. Arch., MS., 67. Geronimo Ruiz
zanjero at Carpinteria. Id., 71. March, munic. regulations by the 1st alealde.
Unb. Doc., MS., 25-7. Trouble with Ind. thieves: Tic6 authorized to make a
raid. Sta B. Arch., MS., 69-71. April, gov. declines to interfere with the decision
of an umpire in a horse-race. Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 508-9. June, the
military must aid the civil authorities in guarding prisoners; much fault found
with Lippitt’s comp. Id., 565. July, Stevenson has visited Sta B., and has
arranged munic. matters there, though he had to remonstrate with
nel Stevenson, in command of the southern military district, had
generally some fault to find with the jueces, but the difficulties never
assumed any serious form. Only seven or eight ranchos were granted by the
governor in this district. The mission, which had been rented in 1845, was sold
in June 1846 to Rich-
the alcalde. Unb.
Doc., MS., 23-4. The town must raise funds for expenses of admin, of justice;
gov. finds fault with both Lippitt and Carrillo for their acts in several minor
cases. Cal. <Ss N. Mex. 1850, p. 569-76. Sept., the mil. com. releases a
prisoner for want of civil authorities and a jail. Unb. Doc., MS., 22. Dec.
13th, Ramon Rodriguez buried; he was shot at Ortega’s rancho while trying to
arrest evil-doers. Dec. 20th, a boy 7 years old found dead from stabs near
town. Dec. 28th, Lynch, Remer (or Raymond), and Quin shot, for murder at S.
Miguel. Sta B., Lib. Mis., MS., 41- 2.
Private ranchos.
Canada de S. Miguel and Canada del Diablo, 2 1., granted in 1846 to Ramon
Rodriguez, whose heirs were cl. *Cuyama, 111.,
1846, Cesareo Lataillade; whose widow was cl. Diablo,
see Cafiada. Goleta,
1 1., 1846, Daniel Hill, who was cl.
Liebre, 11 1., 1846, Jos6 M. Flores, who was cl. S. Buenaventura mission, 12 1., 1846, Jos£ Arnaz; M. A. Rodriguez de Poli,
cl. S. Marcos, 8 1., 1846, Nicholas A. Den, who was cl. (Stevenson
annuls the grantto R. S. Den, in Oct. 1848. Arch. Sta B., MS., xi. 51.)
S. Miguel, see Canada. Sta Barbara mission,
1846, RichardS. Den, who was cl. *Sta Ines mission, 1846, Jos<5 M.
Covarrubias, who was cl. Sta In6s, land near, granted by Gov. Flores in 1846 to
Joaquin Ayala, who in ’47 was allowed by the govt to retain possession, though
hi3 title could not be good. Savage, Doc., MS., ii. 78. The grant of a house at
the presidio by Gen. Castro to NicoUs Lopez was in Feb. 1848 declared null.
Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 479.
Sta Barbara mission.
1846. Jan., several letters of P. Duran to gov. on tbe delivery of the rented
mission property, and about lots assigned to the Ind. and for support of the
padres. ^lrcA. Arzob., MS., v. pt ii. 69-72. March 24th, inventory of the property
valued at $6,387. Hayes’ Miss. B., i. 373-6. June 8th, bond of Den and Hill,
who pledge their ranchos of Dos Pueblos and S. Pedro to return all the property
in good condition after the term of nine years. Id., 372; Unb. Doc., MS., 279.
June lOtb, deed of sale to Richard S. Den for $7,500. Hartman’s Brief, app.
96-9; Hayes’ Miss. B.,
i. 377. July 1848, the govt orders the
investigation of the lease by Col Stevenson. Cal. tfe N. Mex. 1S50, p. 573-4.
Aug. 18th, govt annuls the act of Alcalde Carrillo in putting R. S. Den iu
possession of S. Mdrcos, one of the mission ranchos, though not on the ground
that the mission sale was illegal. Id., 596. I find nothing about the final
disposition of R. S. Den’s title, except that it was confirmed by the land
commission, but that in his later suit against Den and Hill to get the property
he was defeated in the U. S. circuit court on the ground that Pico had no power
to sell the mission estate. Death of Garcia Diego, succession of Duran and
Gonzalez, and death of Duran. This vol., p. 565-6. Late in 1848 Presbyter Josd
M. Rosales was for doctrinal irregularities sent away from Cal. by the gov. of
the diocese, Gonzalez, notwithstanding the petition of 50 citizens that he bo
retained for Los Angeles, the original of which is in Carrillo (D.), Doc., MS.,
121-4.
Francisco Garcia
Diego was a native of Mexico, and had been ‘ lector de artes y de sagrada
teologia ’ at the Franciscan college of Guadalupe de Zacatecas, when sent to
California in 1833 as comisario prefecto in charge of the Zacatecan band of
missionaries. He became minister of Sta Clara, where he remained until 1835,
discontented with the general condition of affairs, but performing acceptably
the routine duties of his position, and showing himself to be a well meaning
and intelligent man. Then he went to Mexico, to come
ard S. Den for $7,500, but the lessees seem to have kept possession
throughout 1846-8. Den’s title was confirmed by the land commission, though
there are indications that it was practically annulled in later litigation.
Padre Duran, the venerable president of the Fernandinos, died at his post early
in 1846, one
back in 1841 as the
first bishop of California. The country needed no bishop, and Garcia Diego was
in no way fitted to overcome obstacles that would have discouraged a younger
and more energetic man. Without priests or money he could accomplish nothing,
and only at Sta Barbara did he reeeive hearty popular support. Advanced in
years, somewhat overweighted by the dignities of his office, grievously
disappointed at the failure of his subjcets to support his grand schemes for
their good, he becamc peevish, and even childish, rarely leaving his home at
Sta Barbara, though he made an episcopal tour to the north in 1844. The
kind-hearted and inoffensive old man, having left the governorship of the
diocese to PP. Duran and Gonzalez, died at midnight of April 30, 1846, at the
age of 60 years, 5 months, and 24 days. He was buried May 3d by P. Gonzalez in
a new tomb made for the purpose in the mission church. Sta B., Lib. Mis., MS.,
39; Arch,. Arzob., MS., v. pt
ii. 67; Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 197;
Arch. Obisp., MS., 25.
Narciso Duran was
born Dec. 16, 1776, at Castellon de Ampurias, Catalonia, and became a
Franciscan at Gerona May 3, 1792. He came to Mexico in 1803 and to Cal. in
1806, serving at S. Jos6 in 1806-33, and Sta Barbara in 1833-46. In 1817-20 he
was praised by his superiors as a most zealous and efficient missionary, fit
for the prelacy. Autobiog. Autorj. de los Padres, MS., S&rria, Inf. de
1817, MS., 69-70; Payeras, Inf. de 1820, MS., 139. Duran was president
of the Fernandinos in 1825-7, 1831-8, and 1844-6, being comi- sario prefecto in
1837-43, and governor of the diocese after the bishop’s death in 1846. In all
the mission ehaptsrs of the last three volumes of this work, the reader has
found Padre Nareiso’s name more prominent than that of any other friar, and
several of his writings appear in my list of authorities. He was a most earnest
and successful missionary, the only fault ever found with him in this respect
being an exeess of zeal in tha forcible conversion of gentiles for his mission
of San Jos6; while as prelate he was a worthy successor o£ Sarria, Senan, and
Payeras. Throughout the trouhlous times of secularization he managed the mission
affairs with marked ahility. To a greater extent than most of his comrades he
was a politic and practical man, contenting himself with a part when all eould
not be won. Though an able and bitter foe to secularization, yet as a choiee o£
evils when he realized that seeularization eould not be prevented he gave
honest and valuable adviee respecting the practical working of the successive
sehemes. Though he often beeame impatient and despondent, these moods never
lasted long; and though he engaged in many controversies and wrote many bitter
and sarcastic things, he yet retained the esteem of most adversaries, and was
always beloved by the people of all classes, being especially popular and
influential at Sta Bdrbara in the later years. Rather strangely I find no
direct trace of his presence at S. Jose before 1811. An immense musie book,
written in colors on home-made parchment and bound in heavy boards and
leather, has an explanatory preface signed ‘ Fr. N.’ in 1813. In 1817 he was
present at the founding of S. Rafael. He refused the oath to republicanism in
1826; refused to aid the revolutionist Solis in 1829; and in 1831, suffering
from the gout, obtained a promise of his passport for Habana. In 1832,
discouraged at the mortality among his Ind., he writes ‘ la paciencia no me
alcanza, y 110 veo las horas de tirar esta earga. ’ Figueroa recommended hi3
exile in 1833, and Duran never had friendly feelings for this governor,
believing him to be a much overrated man. In 1836 he had a controversy with Chico,
and became an earnest and most valuable
month after the death of Bishop Garcia Diego of the Zacatecanos; but
Padre Gonzalez still remained throughout this period and for nearly thirty
years longer, to become the last survivor of all the Californian missionaries.
The mission of San Buenaventura had also been rented, but was sold for $12,000
in June
1846 to Josd Arnaz, one of the
lessees. His title as purchaser, though confirmed by the courts in later years,
was not recognized by the government in 18468, and he was even ousted as
lessee in 1848, Isaac Callaghan obtaining a lease from Colonel Stevenson, and
being also juez auxiliar, as Jose Moraga and
supporter of Alvarado
even against Carrillo, his personal friend. In 1839 he again thought of
departure and obtained a new passport, having already one from Figueroa. In
1845 he ordered the balance due him to be paid to the neophytes. In 1845-6 his
advice was sought and in many respects followed by Gov. Pico in the matter of
renting and selling the missions. In physique Duran was of medium stature,
somewhat stout, of fair complexion, and blue eyes. Mofras, Explor., i. 199,
gives a portrait, only a tolerable likeness according to P. Gonzalez, says
Taylor. His death occurred on June 1, 1846, at
5 P. M., and he was huried June 3d, by
Padre Gonzalez, in the church vault. Sta B., Lib. Mis., MS., 40; Arch. Arzob.,
MS., v. pt ii. 72. Only two of the Spanish Fernandinos, Oliva and Ordaz,
survived him.
San Buenaventura. 1846. JosS Moraga appointed juez de paz in Jan. May 20th,
the Ind. authorize the gov. to dispose of the mission for govt needs. Miscel.
Doc., MS., 14-24. June 8th, deed of sale to Jos6 Amaz for $12,000 due him. St.
Pap., Miss., MS., xi. 61-3; Hartman's Brief, app. 92
6. June 10th, assembly approves grant of 400
varas to Fernando Tic6. Leg. Eec., MS., iv. 354. June 19th, inventory of
various effects delivered to the lessees, including 1,273 head of cattle. Pico,
Pap. Mis., MS., 77-9. Arnaz, Rec., MS., 83, says he paid Botello $1,000 for his
interest in the lease. Gov. Pico here with his army in June. This vol., p. 48.
Occupied by the Calif, in Oct. Id., 317. 1847. Fremont and his battalion arrive
Jan. Id., 400.
1848. Francisco Ortega juez de paz until May 26th,
when he was removed by Col Stevenson and Isaac Callaghan appointed in his
place; and Gov. Mason, though criticising Stevenson’s act, confirmed the
appointment on June 11th. Jan. 7th, gov. authorizes 6 Ind. to continue their
occupation of mission lands unless JosS Moraga can show a legal right to
dispossess them. Cal. & N. Mex. 1S50, p. 454. Feb.-June, imperfect details
of Stevenson’s investigation of Amaz’s acts in disposing of mission property.
The corresp. seems to indicate that Amaz was regarded merely as lessee, and
that his hill of sale was not presented. At any rate, he was ousted and his
vineyard and other property were seized as security. Id., 479, 504, 549, 563-4;
Los Ang. Arch., MS., iii. 175-84, 191-2; Unb. Doc., MS., 331-4. It was in
connection with this change that Callaghan was appointed to succeed Ortega;
and apparently in Aug. Callaghan became lessee. Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p.
588. Streeter, Recoil., MS., 91-5, claims to hare been a partner of C., his
brother- in-law, and says nothing was heard of Arnaz’s ownership till 1850.
Arnaz, Recuerdos, MS., 91-3, however, says that his title as owner was
presented to Stevenson and by him declared a forgery. The Arnaz title was
finally confirmed by land commission and U. S. courts, though litigation
lasted many years, and many men in that region still regard the title as
fraudulent. I
Francisco Ortega had been before him. Presbyter Jos^ M. Rosales remained
in charge of spiritual interests until expelled by his prelate late in 1848,
and Alejandro M. Branchi was the next curate from 1849. Santa Ines was sold to
the lessees, Covarrubias and Carrillo, for $7,000 in June 1846; but though they
kept possession until after 1848 under their lease, their title by purchase was
finally declared invalid. Joaquin Carrillo, Agustin Janssens, Francisco Cota,
and Jose M. Covarrubias are named as successive jueces de paz; and Padre
Joaquin Jimeno continued as curate, being also rector of the ecclesiastical seminary,
an institution which, with Padre Francisco de Jesus Sanchez as vice-rector,
still maintained a precarious existence. Pun'sima was entirely abandoned, and
nothing about the establishment appears in the records.
Though no longer the capital, Monterey had still the custom-house, the
prefectura, and the military comandancia, being still as in former years the
centre
have found no
satisfactory reasons to doubt that the sale was made in good faith.
Santa In£s. 1846.
Joaquin Carrillo juez de paz in Jan.; Octaviano Gutierrez juez 2° in June;
Agustin Janssens juez and military comandante in Oct. Jan., corresp. between P.
Jimeno, Juez Carrillo, and the gov. about support of the padre, who complained,
and proposed that the rent of $>580 should be equally divided between the
Ind. and padre. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 100. June 15th, deed of sale to
Covarrubias and Joaquin Carrillo for $7,000. Hartman’s Brief, app. 99-102; Unb.
Doc., MS., 280-1. Interview between Gov. Pico and Pref. Castro in June. This
vol., p. 143. Some unimportant troubles with the Ind. are described by
Janssens. Vida, MS., 188-91. 1847. Sept. 6th, Gov. Mason calls upon the lessees
for copies of their contract, also accounts of rents, etc. Gal. & N. Mex.
1850, p. 392. Nov. 29th, gov. declines to recognize the sale to Covarrubias
and Carrillo, because the sale had not been at auction as required, and because
their acts in continuing to pay rent in 1846-7 was against the theory of a
purchase. They must be regarded as renters, and must settle up and show
receipts on that basis. Id., 436.
1848. Francisco Cota juez auxiliar, succeeded in
March by Jos4 M. Covarrubias; though Janssens claims to have been juez in Jan.
_ Dec. 31st, financial condition of the ecclesiastical seminary, Fr Jos6
Joaquin Jimeno rector, Fr Francisco de Jesus Sanchez vice-rector; receipts for
1848 ($58 from paients of pupils, $667 from sales of live-stock, $250 from
bishop, $239 from rector, $300 from vice-rector, from Americans $25, and alms
$96), $1,635; expend. $1,846, deficit $211; deficit of 1847, $337. Crops 226
fanegas of grain. Cattle at end of 1848, 1,706 head. Savage, Doc., MS., ii. 83;
Sta Inis, Lib, Mis., MS.,
of all political developments in the north, as fully indexed in my note.4
During the first half of 1846 the controversy between Castro and Pico was the
chief topic of consideration, though sectional feeling was less intense here
than at Los Angeles; and the popular attention was also much directed to
foreign
4 Monterey events. 1846. Jan.-June,
Monterey and Castro versus Los Angeles and Pico. This vol., p. 30-53. Larkin’s
efforts in hehalf of. the U. S. Id., 54 et seq. Jan., Fremont’s visit. Id., 4.
Quarrel of Man. Castro and Cambuston. Id., 34. March, Fremont’s operations at
Gavilan. Id., 9-21. March-April, junta of military men to save the country.
Id., 41-2, 59 et seq. April, arrival of Gillespie on the Cyane. Id., 27-8, 200.
May, delegates for the Sta Barbara consejo. Id., 45 et seq. June, arrival of
the Juno and McNamara. Id., 217. Castro’s efforts against Pico and the U. S.
Id., 51-3. Ide’s Bear Flag proclamation posted here. Id., 159. July, arrival of
Com. Sloat and raising of the U. S. flag. Id., 224-38. Arrival of
Fremont and Gillespie; Sloat succeeded by Stockton; radical change of policy. Id.,
248-60. Aug.-Sept., chronological summary of local happenings, including
movements of war vessels, publication of the 1st newspaper, 1st trial by jury,
etc. Id., 288-93. Nov.-Dee., a like summary; also organization of the
Cal. battalion, imprisonment of Larkin, and campaign of Natividad. Id., 357-77.
1847. Jan., arrival
of Co. F, third artillery. Id., 519. Arrival of Com. Shubrick. Id.,
428-9. Return of Capt. Maddox and company from the Sta Clara campaign. Feb.,
Kearny arrives from the south. Ib. March, arrival of Com. Biddle; Kearny
assumes the governorship; Fremont’s visit and quarrel with Kearny. Id.,
436-8, 443-4. April, arrival of four companies of the N. Y. vol., Co. I
remaining as a garrison until Dec. Id., 514. Grand ball given hy the
naval officers on April 9th. 8. F. Californian, Apr. 17, 1847. About this time
two harrels of liquor were smashed on the wharf by Lieut Sherman, an event that
John A. Swan never forgets to mention. Volunteer cavalry co. under Lieut B.
Burton. This vol., 521. May, arrival of Kearny and Fremont from the south, and
departure for the east; Gov. Mason in command. Id., 450-1. July 4th celebrated
at the capital. S. F. Calif, Sept. 8, 1847. In the same paper the
progress of the town is noted; 27 houses being erected; the 1st brick house in
Cal. lately completed by Dickenson; great improvements at the fort on the hill
under direction of Lieut Ord; Miss Eager’s school very popular. Nov., Larkin
writes that town lots have risen from §100 to $2,000. Larkin’s Off. Corresp.,
MS., ii. 124. Dec. 30th, a fire in Jos6 Abrego’s house, extinguished hy the aid
of citizens, soldiers, and sailors. Calif, Jan. 19, 1848. Disgraceful conduct
of some of the volunteers at a ball given at the barracks. Id., Oct. 20,1847.
1848. Feb. 26th, subscription for a hall on Washington’s birthday $355.
Larkin’s Doc., MS., vi. 38. May 29th, news of the discovery of gold. Colton’s
Three Years, 242. Sept., a board of trustees appointed by the alcalde to manage
a stone building erected for public uses. Ashley, Doc., MS., 264. Oct.,
mnstering-out of last comp, and staff of N. Y. volunteers. This vol., 515-16.
Municipal affairs.
1846. Prefect Manuel Castro, with Florencio Serrano as secretary. Jan., Castro
complains that the ayunt. has been installed without notice to him; insists on
his rights. Castro, Doc., MS., i. 255. French consul complains that Castro is
not legally prefect, being under 30 years of age. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. P. &
J., MS., ii. 4. May, Castro offers his resignation, Id., 58, which was not
accepted. The prefect’s part in political and military affairs of Jan.-July
lias been fully recorded in other chapters. Alcaldes—elected in Dec., taking
possession Jan. 1st, approved by gov. Jan. 22d, —Manuel
Diaz and Joaquin Escamilla; regidores Ignacio Ezquer, Francisco Arias, Rafael
Estrada, Job F. Dye; sindico Florencio Serrano, secretary Am-
intervention as a source of relief from prevalent evils. Meanwhile the
Montereyans were willing to wait in patience for whatever fate might have in
store for them, listening to Larkin’s appeals in behalf of the United States,
and startled only by Fremont’s absurd performance at Gavilan and the American
settlers’ filibusterism on the northern frontier. In July the stars and stripes
were raised without the slightest opposition, and the old capital became a
garrison town, whose uneventful progress was duly recorded in a weekly
newspaper and in Alcalde Colton’s diary. The coming of Company F, third
artillery, and the restoration of the capital were the events of 1847; while
the next year can hardly be said to have had any dis-
brosio Gomez. Diaz
wished to be excused in Jan., but was required to serve. Ezquer often served as juez 1“ in Diaz’s illness. Auxiliares de policia,
Teodoro Gonzalez, Juan Antonio Vallejo, Francisco Granados, Adalberto Thoms,
Guillermo Gomez, and Jesus Soto. Jueces de campo Agustin Escobar, Estd- van de
la Torre; id. of the valley (Salinas) ranchos, Jos6 Antonio Alviso, Agustin
Martinez, Andr6s Juarez, Francisco Garcia, and Felipe Garcia; id. S. Carlos,
Juan de Mata Boronda. Jueces auxiliares, of the valley ranchos, Santiago
Estrada and Joaquin Buelna, with Andrds Soto and Prudencio Espinosa as
suplentes; id. S. C&rlos Juan Rosales. Tithe-collector Francisco Pacheco.
In July, by U. S. military appointment, Edward Gilchrist and Rodman M. Price
were made alcaldes; but Gilchrist was succeeded by Walter Colton on July 20th;
and ou Sept. 15th, at a popular election with 68 votes out of 338, Colton was
chosen alcalde with Milton Little as substitute; councillors David Spence, W.
E. P. Hartnell, Juan Malarin, and Manuel Diaz; treasurer Salvador MunrAs. Mont.
Calif., Sept. 19, 1846. Jan., police regulations in 17 articles. Doc. Hist.
Cal., MS., iii. 83. April, instructions to jueces auxiliares. Mont. Arch.,
MS., viii. 28-9. Aug., etc., regulations on sale of liquors, etc. Mont.
Californian. Aug. 15, Sept. 26, Oct. 3, Oct. 31, Dec. 19, 1846.
1847. Alcalde Walter Colton; councillors, etc., not
named; Wm R. Gamer sheriff. The municipal record is very slight, showing only a
few minor regulations of different dates, though Colton in his published diary
gives occasional amusing incidents in the administration of justice. In Oct.
two Ind. were shot for murder. S. F. Calif, Oct. 20th. 1848. Colton still
serving as alcalde until Oct., when Florencio Serrano took his place. Wm R.
Longley was appointed 2d alcalde on Jan. 13th, Wm R. Gamer still served as
clerk.
Ranchos. Laguna de Tache, 111., 1846, Manuel Castro; id. and J. Clark cl.
S. Juan Bautista, orchard, 400 y., 1846, Ollivier Deleissfeques; C. Panaud et
al. cl. *S. Juan Capistrano del Camote, 10 1., 1846, T. Herrera and G.
Quintana. S. Lorenzo, 11 1., 1846, Rafael Sanchez, who was cl. *S. Miguel,
1846, Wm Reed, Petronilo Rios, and M.
Garcia; Rios cl. S. Miguelifco, 500 v., 1846, Miguel Avila, who was cl.; *2 1.,
id. grantee and cl. Soledad, mission, 21., 1846, Feliciano Soberanes, who
was cl. Ranchos without names; 61. to Jos6Castro, Robt B. Neligh cl.; to *T. H.
Green, who was el.; 1,500
v. to Jos6 Castro, Patrick Breen cl.; Carmelo
(perhaps not in Monterey district), 10 1., Wm Knight; J. G. Morehead cl.
Tucho, 1 1., 1846, Joaquin Arroyo. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., i. 502. In 1847-8,
Alcalde Colton was called upon to furnish copies of grants of town lands with
details as to the titles; particularly with reference to the lots within
Hallcck’s survey of lands in the
tinguishing local feature before the news of gold came to depopulate the
town. Manuel Castro ruled as prefect down to the American occupation; and Manuel
Diaz as alcalde presided over the ayuntamiento that managed municipal affairs.
After the change of flag, Edward Gilchrist was made alcalde, but was soon
succeeded by Walter Colton, who ruled till late in 1848 and was followed by
Florencio Serrano. As Monterey was the residence of the military governor, the
municipal authorities had but little to do, though the reverend alcalde has
woven into his published narrative a series of amusing experiences in the
administration of justice. Ranchos granted in 1846 were only about a dozen,
including several of the ex-mission estates. For San Cdrlos mission there is no
record whatever; and it is not even clear who was the resident priest at
Monterey, though the names of Real, Anzar, and Ambris appear on the registers.
At San Luis Obispo, Padre Jos^ Nicolas Gomez served as
vicinity o£ the
fort—or those of Shubrick, Bailey, Doyle, Spence, Green, and Deleissequea; also
a map of Fort Hill is given. Halleck's Report, 169-75.
S. Carlos, no record
of ex-mission affairs, or rather no affairs of which to make a record. The
names of PP. Real, Anzar, and Ambris appear on the registers, though neither
resided at the mission.
S. Luis Obispo. Jos6
Ortega juez succeeding Estrada, Jan.-March, with Victor Linares as juez 2°;
Jesus Pico juez Feb.-Sept. Garcia, Hechos, MS., 95, says that Pico as mil. com.
took the baton by force from 0., being unwilling to be ruled by a man who had
an Ind. wife. In Sept. Mariano Bonilla was appointed juez, and served through
the year. Jan. 4th, juez to gov., the buyers of the mission have not yet
appeared. Describes the buildings, which are in bad condition, except the
church. Dept. St. Pap., Ben. P. is J., MS., ii. 62-3. Feb. 9th, some Ind. have
run away and carried off the alcalde’s wife. S. Josi Arch., MS., loose pap.,
30. Feb. 20th, P. Gomeztogov., can not understand why after all his labors
there comes an order to turn over the property to others. Dept. St. Pap., MS.,
vii. 105-G. Feb. 2Gth, jueces de campo appointed, not named. Pico, Acont., MS.,
79-80. March 7th, Linares orders P. Gomez to turn over property to Pico for
Scott and Wilson; Gomez appeals to bishop, who asks gov. to reserve certain
storerooms and the mills. Gov. promises to investigate. Arab. Arzob., MS., v.
ptii. 65-6. March 10th, Gomez to gov., complaining of lack of means of support,
also of his mortifications andinsults. Dept. St. Pap., MS., vii. 42-3. March
29th {?), possession given to Pico. Id,., Ben. P. & J., ii. 63. April 18th,
Linares, jeez 2°, reprimanded by sub-prefect for insubordination. S. Luis Ob.,
Arch., MS., 2. Apr. 28th, order of juez about use of water for irrigation. Id.,
3. June 1st, Pico reports an Ind. fight in which 6 were killed. Dept. St. Pap.,
Ben. P. & J., MS., ii. 46. June 12th. Gov. Pico orders enlistment of men
for his mil. ex- ped. to the north. S. Luis Ob., Arch., MS., 12. June 22d,
25th, doc. connected with the putting of John Wilson in formal possession of
the ex-mission estate, with measurements, etc. Hartman's Brief, app. 71-4.
Janssens, Vida,
curate; and pueblo affairs were directed successively by Josd Ortega,
Jesus Pico, Mariano Bonilla, and John M. Price as justices, or alcaldes. The
purchasers of 1845 seem not to have been disturbed in their possession of the
ex-mission estate, their title to which was in later years declared to be
valid. San Miguel was subject spiritually and municipally to the curate and
justice of San Luis. The estate was sold in July to Rios and Reed, and their
possession was not disturbed by the new authorities, though the purchase was
declared invalid by the courts later. The murder of Reed and his family in
December 1848 was the most notable event of San Miguel annals during this
period. At San Antonio, Padre Doroteo Ambris
MS., 190, mentions
the arrest of Williams, an American, by a party of drunken Californians, who
were finally induced by J. to release him, when made to understand the danger
to Mex. prisoners in Amer. hands. This was just before Fremont’s arrival.
July-Dee. Gov. Pico and Gen. Castro meet; news of capture of Mont.; Skirmish
between Lieut. Maddox and Calif.; Man. Castro has his headquarters at S. Luis;
capture of the place by Fremont, trial of Jesus Pieo, etc. This vol., p. 144,
262, 282, 321, 362, 374-5. 1847, Mariano Bonilla alcalde until Oct., when he
resigned, as he had tried to do in April; Gov. Mason offered to appoint any one
the people could agree on, but there is no record of a new appointment. May
30th, alcalde’s regul. on sala of liquors, etc. Mont. Arch., MS., xiii. 14-15.
June Gth, Wm G. Dana at Nipomo complains of S. Luis as a sink of debauchery,
where the alcalde’s authority has no weight; Ind. are raiding, horrid murders
are reported, and farmers will have to quit their ranchos if no military aid is
sent. Unb. Doc., MS., 168. Bonilla had made like complaints, and on June 16th
was ordered by Gov. Mason to come to Mont., bringing three criminals and three
witnesses with him. Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 323. Aug. 24th, juez ordered by
gov. to turn over to the priest all the property held by the padres at the
raising of the U. S. flag. S. Luis Ob., Arch., MS., 5; Bonilla, Doc., MS., 24-5.
1848, Alcalde John M. Price, appointed by Gov. Mason Jan. 25th. He was first
elected, but the gov. disapproved the election, at the same time sending the
appointment. 8. Luis Ob., Arch., MS., 24; Cal. & Mex. 1850, 462-3. Price
was accused by Miguel Avila of having stolen his cow, and when P. was made
alcalde A. thought his case not improved, and he petitioned the ayunt. of Mont.
for a trial without the alcalde’s intervention. Avila, Doc., MS., 17-18. Feb.,
police regulations. S. Luis Ob., Arch., MS., 15-18. March 21st, gov. orders
Price to organize an exped. against the Ind., ammunition to be supplied by the
govt. Id., 23-4; Cal. <bN. Mex. 1850, 495-7
_S. Miguel. 1846,
mission in charge of the juez and padre at S. Luis Obispo. July 4th, estate
sold, as was claimed, to Petronilo Rios aud Wm Reed; but very little is known
of the transaction. Reed lived here since 1845 or earlier. 1847. Sept., gov.
orders that Reed be left in possession, a satisfactory provision for the priest
being made, and the title being left for later settlement. Bonilla, Doc., MS.,
24, 26; Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 396, 436-8. Nov. 30th, gov. orders that the
S. Miguel Ind. be put in possession of lands granted them in 1844. Ib. 1848.
Dec., murder of Reed and family by a party of tramps, formerly soldiers. Reed
entertained these fellows for several days with his usual hospitality, but
unfortunately revealed the fact
had charge as curate; but there is no record of events, or of the mission
estate, which apparently was never sold. At San Juan Bautista the curate was
Padre Josd Antonio Anzar in 1848, and there was probably no other resident
priest during the period. Quintin Ortega and Jose Maria Sanchez were the
municipal
that he had quite a
large sum of gold in his possession, having recently returned from a trip to
the mines where he had sold a flock of sheep. Leaving S. Miguel the villains
went only to Sta Margarita, and after dark returned and murdered all the
occupants of the ex-inission, making a heap of the corpses in one of the rooms,
and carrying off the gold and other valuables. The victims were Reed, his son
aged 2 or 3 years, his wife Maria Antonia Vallejo, her unborn child, her
brother Jos<5 Ramon, Josefa Olivera a midwife who had come to attend Mrs
Reed, her daughter aged 15 and nephew aged 4, an Indian servant aged over 60
and his nephew of 5 years, and a negro cook. The murderers were apparently five
in number, were pursued by a force of men from Sta Barbara under Lataillade,
and were finally overtaken on the coast near the Ortega rancho. One of the
number after being fatally wounded shot and killed Ramon Rodriguez, who rashly
rushed upon the party; another jumped into the sea and was drowned; and the
other three, Joseph Lynch, Peter Remer (or Raymond), and Peter Quin, were
executed at Sta Barbara on Dec. 28th. Samuel Brenard is given as the name of
one of the party not taken alive. Details are given by Catarina Avila de Rios,
Itecuerdos, MS., widow of Petronilo Rios, Reed’s partner, then living at Paso
de Robles, and who buried the victims. Streeter's Recoil., MS., 195-9;
Janssens, Vida, MS., 207-9; Sta B., Lib. Mis., MS., 42.
S. Antonio. No record
of any disposition of the estate in 1846. This vol., 561; and no claim before
the land commission in later times, except that for the church property as
elsewhere. Doroteo Ambris in charge as curate, but perhaps not living here
continuously, from Feb. 1846. S. Antonio, Lib. Mis., MS., 26. Vicente P. Gomez,
Lo Que Sabe, MS., 204-16, says that he at the request of P. Ambris and with
Gov. Mason’s approval took charge during 1847-8, gathered about 35 Ind. fam.,
raised good crops, but became tired of living alone exposed to the attacks of
passing miners, and gave up the place.
S. Juan Bautista. 1846. Jueccs de paz, Quintin Ortega and Angel M. Castro,
with Joaquin Soto and Antonio Castro as suplentes. After the Amer.
occupation Matthew Fellom was appointed alcalde. Cutts’ Conq. Cal., 125.
Chabolla is also named in Nov. March 15th, juez Angel Castro asks for leave of
absence. Doc. Ilist. Gal., MS., iii. 135. March, affairs connected with
Fremont’s fiasco at Gavilan. This vol., p. 9-20. May 4th, sale of the orchard
of S. Juan to Ollivier Deleiss&ques on account of govt indebtedness. Hartman’s
Brief, 102-6. June-July, events connected with the U. S. occupation; Castro’s
headquarters; Fr&nont and Fauntleroy. This vol., p. 51, 231, 233, 245,
247-8, 254, 261. Oct., occupied by Maddox. Id., 290-4. Nov., CaJ. battalion
organized; fight at Natividad. Id., 360-72. Estolano Larios, Vida, MS., 24,
says that his rancho, Palos de Lanza, was so named from the lance- shafts here
obtained for the fight at Natividad. 1847. Alcalde JoscS Maria Sanchez. In Nov.
Julian Ursua was elected, and Gov. Mason, though declaring the election null
and void, appointed Urstia; but U. seems not to have been willing to act, and
Sanchez retained the place. March, order that the mission property remain in
charge of the priest. This vol., p. 564. May, Deleissfeques asks the French
consul to reclaim for him the orchard granted him by Pico, but of which the U.
S. govt has dispossessed him. Unb. Doc., MS., 287. i848. Alcalde Jos<5 M.
Sanchez. March, Jos6 Castro buys De- leissfeques’ title, and asks to be put in
possession, which Mason declines to
chiefs. The ex-mission orchard was sold in May 1846 to Ollivier
Deleiss&ques, and though he did not obtain possession in 1846-8, his title
was finally confirmed. Soledad was sold in June 1846 to Feliciano Sobe- ranes,
who retained possession, and whose title was confirmed. The ex-mission has no other
annals. I
permit unless the
priest consents, as he probably will. Unb. Doc., MS.,
263, 268, 271; Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 490.
Soledad. 1846.
Sold June 4th to Feliciano Soberanes for $800. Hartman’s Brief, app.
110-13; St. Pap. Miss., MS., xi. 66. There is no record for 1847-8, but
apparently Soberanes was not disturbed in his possession. Gomez, Lo Que Scwe,
MS., 217-18, says the buildings were in ruins, and it was a desolate
looking place, having, moreover, a bad reputation as a place where travellers
bad to pay heavily for hospitalities, and where their horses were apt to be put
astray, involving a compensation for their recovery.
Sta Cruz and Branciforte. 1846. Jueces de paz JosiS Bolcof and Mace- donio
Lorenzana, suplentes Guadalupe Castro and Roman Rodriguez. Juez de
cainpo Isidro Salazar. On the American occupation Bolcof was desired to
continue in office, either alone or with John Hames, Larkin's Off. Corresp.,
MS., i. 140-1; but apparently declined; and Joseph L. Majors was appointed
in Ang. with Wm Thompson as 2d, and Lawrence Carmichael as secretary. Jan.
21st, juez has given tho Castros possession of S. Andres lands, Castro, Doc.,
MS., i. 281, at which the juez of Mont. complains. Id., 283. March, lumbermen
refuse to pay taxes. This vol., p. 57. According to a resolution o£ the ayunt.
the town lands extend one league in each direction from the mission. Sta Cruz
Arch., MS., 109. All claimants must present their titles for inspection. Id.,
108. April, killing of Henry Naile by James Williams at the house of Wm Buckle.
The two men had a quarrel about their property rights in the Sayante saw-mill,
N. being struck and challenging W. to fight a duel, perhaps threatening to kill
him next day or on sight. Next day W., concealed at Buckle’s house, shot N. as
the latter passed, and then gave himself up with the claim of having acted in
self-defence. Witnesses examined were Wm Buckle, Joseph L. Majors, John Hames,
Wm Blackburn, Jacob R. Snyder, Joseph R. Foster, and Williams, the testimony
being favorable to W. The result is not given, but I think W. was acquitted.
Mont. Arch., MS., v. 2-9. Graham claimed Naile’s arms, but the juez refused to
give them up. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 171. April 15th, John Marsh and others
inform Larkin of the affair, asking him to take steps to bring the murderer to
justice. Larkin’s Doc., MS., iv. 90. Jas W. Weeks, Remin., MS., 107-8, was
corouer in this case. Jan., huilding and launch of the schooner Sta Cruz,
built by Charles Roussillon for Pierre Sainsevain. S. Jose Pioneer, Aug.
2, 1875. Oct. 15th, Maria en Gracia Rodriguez complains to Alcalde Majors that
her sister-in-law has slandered her and her daughters; desires that she be made
to give satisfaction, or be punished according to American laws. Sta Cruz Arch.,
MS., 33. Rancho of S. Vicente granted to Bias A. Escamilla, to whom it was
later confirmed. Land. Com., no. 608. 1847. Alcaldes Majors and Thompson
till June; later Wm Blackburn and Wm Anderson. Beginning of protestant worship,
by Hecox, Anthony, and Dun- leavy. Cal. Christ. Advoc., July 2, 1863; This
vol., p. 566. March, order that the mission remain in charge of the priest.
Id., 564. June 21st, gov. sends to Blackhum his appointment, and directs him
not to permit encroachments on Sainsevain’s land. Cal. & N. Mex., 1850,
p. 332-3. Aug., Pedro Gomez, who murdered his wife on the 14th, was
convicted before Alcalde Blackburn and a jury, and was shot by B.’s sentence on
the 16th. Sta Cruz Arch., MS., 100; S. F. Calif., Sept. 8th; S. F. Cal.
Star, Sept. 11th. Nov.,
find no definite record of any resident curate at Santa Cruz and
Branciforte, where the successive jueces and alcaldes were Jose Bolcof, Joseph
L. Majors, and William Blackburn, with the aid of four councillors in 1848. The
murder of Henry Naile in 1846, the execution of a wife-murderer by Alcalde
Blackburn’s order in 1847, with a municipal controversy and vain attempt to
oust the famous alcalde in 1848, were prominent among local happenings.
hia own hair cut
close in front of the alcalde’s office. Willey's Centen. SJc., 25. Nov. 24th,
the priest of Sta Cruz (not named) complained to gov. that the alcalde had been
granting lots belonging to the mission; therefore the gov. calls on the alcalde
for his authority to do so, and for documents and map to show that a town has
been organized; otherwise he has no right to dispose of lands. Cal. & N.
Mex. 1850, p. 433-4. In later years there were also charges that the priest
(Anzar of S. Juan ?) had improperly disposed of some mission property. Unb.
Doc., MS., 273-4. 1848. Blackburn and Anderson alcaldes. A. A. Hccox acting
alcalde in Nov. March 18th, a town-council elected, consisting of Jos L.
Majors, Manuel Rodriguez, John Hames, and Geo. W. Sirrine; approved by gov. on
24th on petition of citizens. They were to act as advisers to Blackburn. Sta
Cruz Arch., MS., 108; Unb. Doc., MS., 340. April 28th, petition of J. W. Powell
and 26 others for the removal of Blackburu and appointment of James G. T.
Dunleavy in his place; also counter-petition of 134 citizens in Blackburn’s
favor. Unb. Doc., MS., 7-9, 23. March 20th, council decides that the beach is
the best and only suitable site for the town. Sta Cruz Arch., MS., 10S. Oct.,
alcalde of Mont. complains that Alcalde Anderson refuses to obey his summons to
appear in a suit; and is instructed by the gov. that A. is subject to him and
must obey. Cal. <k N. Mex., 1850, p. 675.
LOCAL ANNALS OF THE
NORTH.
1846-1848.
Population op California—San Francisco—Events—The Name Yerba Buena—Descriptions and
Statistics—Plan, and Notes on Buildings —Municipal Official List—Controversies
of Alcalde and Council —Town Lots—Survey, Streets, and Improvements—School and
Church — Newspapers — Military and Revenue—Ranchos and Ex-mission — Annals of
San Jose — Local Occurrences — Indian Troubles—Municipal Affairs and Lands—The
Contra Costa— Santa Clara—Mission San Jose—Sonoma and the Northern Frontier—San
Rafael—Bodega—Napa—Benicia—Original Correspondence of Semple and
Larkin—Stockton and New Hope—New
Helvetia in 1846-7—Plan of San Francisco—Early Buildings.
In local annals of 1846-8, as already explained, no estimates of
population have been given, since no reliable foundation for such estimates
exists in contemporary records for most of the settlements. In the aggregate
there was a small gain in the Hispano- Californian population, which was
slightly less in 1845 and slightly more in 1848 than 7,000 souls. The number of
foreigners has been given elsewhere as approximately a little less than 7,000.
Probably a total of 14,000, or 7,500 and 6,500 for the two classes, would be as
accurate an estimate as it is possible to make of the population in the middle
of 1848. There were still from 3,000 to 4,000 ex-neophyte Indians leading a
somewhat civilized life at or near the towns and ranchos, with perhaps nearly
twice as many scattered among the gentiles. Estimates of the period have but
slight value, but agree.well enough with these figures in a general way.
San Francisco in 1846-8 was in some respects the most thriving town in
California, its future greatness as commercial metropolis of the coast being
clearly foreseen even before the discovery of gold—an event destined to give
the bay settlement an immediate development not dreamed of by the most
enthusiastic citizen. In view of this latter growth, even the most petty local
affairs assume an additional interest and importance; and fortunately, besides
the ordinary sourccs of information, we have two local newspapers from which to
draw material. Thus the aggregate of items is much more bulky here than
elsewhere; but they are best presented, as in chapters devoted to other towns,
in the form of a classified note. It is well to add here that in the Annals and
the work of John S. Hittell we have two very satisfactory records already
before the public, much more complete for this than for earlier periods of San
Francisco history. I refer the reader also to the end'of this chapter, where by
means of a plan and accompanying notes I have attempted to give a clear idea of
the town’s development before the discovery of gold.1
1 Summary
of S. F. events, 1 846. Jan., Fremont’s visit on the way from N. Helvetia
to Monterey. This vol., p. 3. Feb. 7th, Vice-consul Forbes thanks the receptor
for having attended the funeral of the ‘British subjects interred yesterday.’
Pinto, Doc., MS., ii. 221-2. March 16th, Sub-prefect Guerrero to receptor,
asking the loan of a Mex. flag, as he has to enter town with an armed force to
publish a commun. from the prefect. Id., 229. End of March, Lieut Talbot at Y.
B. to obtain supplies for Fremont. This vol., p. 22. April, visit of Gillespie
on his way from Mont. to overtake Fr&nont. Id., 28. May, Benito Diaz chosen
delegate for the consejo general at Sta B. Id., 45. June 7th, Gillespie’s 2d
visit to get supplies for Fremont. Id., 102,
126. June 15th, news of the capture of Sonoma by
the Bears; steps taken by Capt. Montgomery of the Portsmouth. Id., 129-32. July
1st, 2d, visit of Frfimont, Semple, and the Bears; spiking the guns at the
presidio; capture of Ridley. Id., 136, 177-8. July 9th, Montgomery takes
possession for the U. S. Id., 238-41. July 11th, arrival of the British Juno.
Id., 240. July 31st, arrival of the Brooklyn with Brannan’s Mormon colony. Id.,
550-1. Aug.- Oct., local happenings, including a grand ball on Sept. 8th, an
election on the 18th, a grand reception to Com. Stockton on Oct. 5th, and the
commodore’s departure on the 13th. Id., 295-6. Nov., loss of the Warren's
launch. Id., 384. Dec., capturc of Alcalde Bartlett by Sanchez, and the
resulting Sta Clara campaign in Jan. Id., 379 et seq. A Christmas celebration
mentioned in the Sac. Union, Jan. 1, 1873.
Events of 1847. Jan.
9th, publication of the 1st newspaper, the California Star. Jan. 16th, first
news of the Donner party’s peril. More definite news came in Feb.-March, and
much space was given to the subject in the
In the first half of 1846 San Francisco took locally but slight part in
the political and military movements that were agitating the territory; yet it
was here that Fremont, having already captured the unoccupied San Rafael and
shot three inoffensive Californians, accomplished the crowning achievement of
his campaign by spiking the presidio guns and capturing that valiant Mexican
chief Robert Ridley. Then the United States flag was raised in July, and in the
same month the Mormons came to double the town’s population. In December
Alcalde Bartlett was captured while engaged in a raid on the Californians’
live-stock; and in January 1847 the first newspaper appeared. At this time
steps were taken officially to prevent the permanent substitution of Yerba
Buena for the town’s original name. A chief motive was
columns of the Star
until June. See also this vol., p. 539. Jan. 23d, Alcalde Bartlett issued the
following order: ‘Whereas the local name of Yerba Buena, as applied to the
settlement or town of San Francisco, is unknown beyond the immediate district,
and has been applied from the local name of the cove on which the town is
built—therefore, to prevent confusion and mistakes in public documents, and
that the town may have the advantage of the name given on the published maps,
it is herehy ordered that the name of San Francisco shall hereafter be used in
all official communications and public documents or records appertaining to
the town.’ Published iu the Star, Jan. 30th. Both the order and the reasons
given for it were proper and timely. Yet, as has been often pointed out, one
phase of the leading motive was not mentioned in the order; namely, that
Francisca, the rival town on the Strait of Carquines, was likely to gain a
decided advantage in the outer world by the resemblance of its name to San
Francisco. Gen. Sherman, Mem., i. 55-6, and in an oft- repeated newspaper
interview, has something to say on the subject. There was and has been ever
since much opposition to the so-called change on the part of the numerous class
who date the history of the state and city back only to the coming of American
immigrants. The publishers of the Star, though bitterly hostile to Semple and
Benicia, kept the name Yerba Buena at the head of its columns for a time,
submitting to the inevitable under protest in the issue of March 20th. From
Jan.-Feb., three lawyers, Jones, Pickett, and Hastings, advertise in the Star,
and in Feb. the first auction sale of goods is advertised by Dickson and Hay.
Feb., visit of Gen. Kearny, who meets Mason and Watson. This vol., p. 436.
March, meeting to protest against the lack of representation for the immigrant
element in the proposed governor’s council; Dunleavy nominated. Star. March
6th, arrival of the PerUns with part of N. Y. volunteers; arrival of the rest
of the regiment March 19th and 26th on the Drew and Loo Choo. This vol., p.
513. April 17th, arrival of the Brutus; semi-monthly mail for S. Diego. Star.
May 22d, the Californian first appears at S. F., being transferred from Monterey.
May 29th, a grand illumination in honor of Gen. Taylor’s victory in Mexico. Star.
June 8th, fire in the bush back of town, causing some alarm. Star of 12th.
June 14th, public meeting to protest against FrSmont as gov. This vol., p. 455.
July 4th, grand celebration, decoration of men-of-war,
doubtless fear of rivalry on the part of Francisca at the strait of
Carquines; but the action was most opportune. It has been generally but
inaccurately regarded and deplored as a change of name; but Yerba Buena was but
a comparatively modern designation for a part of San Francisco; and to have
taken from the great founder of the Franciscan order the honor of naming
California’s great city would have been a most unfortunate piece of barbarism.
So far as events are concerned, there is nothing in the later annals of 1847-8
that requires further notice than is given in the note. Descriptive and
statistical statements by visitors and residents appearing from time to time
in books, manuscript reminiscences, and especially in the Star and
Californian, have considerable interest, a prominent element being that of
enthusi-
salutes from guns on
ship and shore, meeting at Brown’s Hotel, oration by Dr Semple. The Y. B. M. R.
C., Scherrehach, orderly sergt, had called a meeting in advance to make
arrangements. Star and Californian of the 10th. July, anniversary of raising U.
S. flag in Cal. celebrated in a supper given by Alcalde Hyde at Sherrebaek’s
house. Californian, July 10th. Aug. 14th, the Star notes a ball at Brown’s a
few days before. Sept., visit of Gov. Mason, with Maj. Rich and Lieut Sherman,
entertained by a ball. This vol., p. 584. Sept., breaking up of the Mormon
establishment, or dissolution of the firm of Brannan & Co.; commissioners
appointed to settle the business; and from this time advertisements appear of
property for sale at S. F. and elsewhere, including the set of Harper’s Family
Library presented to the colony on leaving N. Y. Star, Oct. et seq. Oct.,
arrival of the 1st steamer for Leidesdorff. This vol., p. 575-81. Oct. 20th, a
fierce norther, beaching several craft. Star. Nov., murder of Dornte by
Beverley at Denike’s bakery. Star, 20th. Rainy season set in before the 3d.
Californian. Nov. 18th, first thanksgiving dinner of New Englanders at Brown’s
Hotel, presided by Admiral C. W. Wooster, ending with a ball. Besides the
records in the two newspapers, E. C. Kemble wrote his recollections of the
affair 20 years later. S. F. Bulletin, Dec. 23, 1868. Dec. 4th, call for first
meeting of Odd Fellows at the Portsmouth House; regular meetings later. Star.
Jan. 1, 1848, the sloop Stockton, Briggs, was advertised for regular tri-weekly
trips to Sonoma. March, discovery of gold first announced. May, capsizing of
Capt. Richardson’s boat, drowning
5 persons; the gold fever raging in town.
Descriptions,
statistics, etc. (See plan and notes at end of this chapter.) Yerba Buena is
mentioned naturally by many visitors, both in print and MS., but the
descriptions and figures given are, as a rule, vague, inaccurate, and of no
real value. The general purport is that in 1846 the place had from 25 to 50
buildings, mostly shanties, and a population of from 100 to 200; but that in
1847-8 it had greatly increased in size and in activity. Most mentions are not
'worth analysis here, though the reproduction of them all en masse, did space
permit, would have some interest. Wm H. Davis furnished the S. F. Call of March
11, 1877, a list of about 50 persons residing at Yerba Buena in July 1846,
representing a population of 150, with 23 buildings. The Star of Jan. 30, 1847,
gives a slight description of the town and its surround-
astic predictions respecting the town’s future greatness. A careful
statement by Gilbert in August 1847 makes the population 459; number of
buildings 157, of which half had been erected in the last four months; places
of business 41. Before the gold-fever began to rage in May 1848, the number of
inhabitants had probably increased to about 900 and that of buildings to 200.
Many of these are shown on a
ings, giving Y. B. a
pop. of about 500, a gain of 300 in two years; it ‘is rapidly improving, and
bids fair to rival in rapidity of progress the most thriving town or city on
the American continent. It is no doubt destined to be the Liverpool or New York
of the Pacific.’ Again, in the issue of March 13th, the Star indulges in
enthusiastic prophecies. If labor and lumber can be obtained, from 300 to 500
houses will go up within a year. There are many similar articles in hoth
papers. Lieut Wise in March, Los Gringos, 70-1, found the population ‘ composed
of Mormons, backwoodsmen, and a few very respectable traders from the U. S.
Very rare it was to see a native.’ Fris- bie, Remin., MS., 30, Murray, Narr.,
MS., 56-9, and others of the N. Y. vol. have something to say of the town
as they found it in March. Fifty houses built in the last month, according to
the Star of April I7th. James C. Ward’s Diary contains many items on local affairs
from April. Hyde, Ilist. Facts, MS., 14^15, thinks that by June there
were 600 inhab. The Star of Aug. 28th and Sept. 4th contains some comparatively
careful statistics, which have often been republished, as follows: pop. in
June, of whites, exclusive of the N. Y. volunteers, 375, or 247 males and 128
females, Ind. 34, Sandwich Isl. 40, negroes 10, total 459. Of the whites, 228
were boru in the U. S., 38 in Cal., 27 in Germany, 22 in England, 14 in
Ireland, 14 in Scotland, 6 in Switzerland, 5 in Canada, and 21 in various
countries. Increase during the past year about 100 per cent. Over four fifths
under 40 years of age; 273 can read aud write. Tho white males include 10
professional men, farmers 12, traders 16, clerks 13, navigators 7, laborers 20,
hotel-keepers 3, 26 carpenters, and 62 other mechanics. Places of business
number 1 apothecary shop, 3 hakeries, 2 blacksmith shops, 3 butcher shops, 1
cabinet-maker shop, 2 carpenter shops, 1 cigar-maker’s shop, 2 cooper shops, 7
grocery stores, 1 gunsmith’s shop, 2 hotels, 2 mills (horse and wind), 2
printing-offices, 1 shoe shop, 8
stores, 2 tailor shops, 1 watchmaker’s shop, total 41. On April 1st
there were 31 frame buildings, 26 adobes, and 22 shanties, or 79 buildings; at
the end of August there had been added 47 frames, 11 adobes, and 20 shanties,
total 79; grand total, 157 buildings. (See end of this chapter.) The writer,
‘E. G. ’ (Edward Gilhert), ‘cannot suppress a desire to say that S. F. is
destined to become the great commercial emporium of the north Pacific coast,’
notwithstanding the claims of Monterey and Benicia. Sherman, Mem., i.
32-4, whose visit was in Sept., has much to say of the town, its lots, and its
prospects. In the Californian of Dec. 3d appeared a dream on the future greatness
of S. F., signed ‘Nina,’ and said to have been written by Mrs Larkin. It was
reproduced in the Alta of Sept. 14, 1851, and in other papers. About the
end of 1847, the pop., according to a school census, was 473 men, 177 women,
and 60 school children, or 710 in all, with enough more to raise the total to
over 800. In the Alta of Feb. 17, 1867, A. D. Piper gives many interesting
items about S. F. in 1847, as utilized elsewhere. See also Parker's S. F. Directory,
1852-3; Colville’s S. F. Directory, 1856; Ryan’s Judges and Criminals; besides
the Annals of S. F.; and Hittell’s Ilist. S. F. The Star of March 18th
gives the pop. by school census as 812, besides children too young for school.
According to Ward’s Diary, in March 1S48 the town was 3 times as large as in
March 1847, having about 600 pop. The pop. at this time, at
plan at the end of this chapter. Until the coming of the Americans in
July 1846, Francisco Guerrero continued to serve as sub-prefect, and Jesus Nod
was the juez de paz. Under the military rule of the United States, Washington
A. Bartlett was alcalde from August to February 1847; Edwin Bryant from that
time till May; George Hyde from June, aided—or embarrassed, as he viewed it—by
a council of six— Glover, Howard, Leidesdorff, Jones, Parker, and
the news of the gold
discovery, according to the Annals, 200, was about 850, with 200 buildings. The
Californian of April 26th gives 192 buildings and
1,000 inhabitants.
List of municipal
officers. 1846. Sub-prefect, Francisco Guerrero until July; Francisco de Haro
sometimes acting temporarily. A secretary asked for in Jan., but no appointment
given. Jueces de paz, appointed in Dec.
1845 for this year by prefect at nomination of the
sub-prefect, Jesus No6 and Jos6 de la Cruz Sanchez, suplentes Vicente
Miramontes and Robert Ridley. Ridley was suspended early in April by the
sub-prefect, on complaint of No6, and also on account of R.’s quarrels with
Leidesdorff, the two having a fight in Guerrero’s presence. Castro, Doc., MS.,
ii. 60. The others held office till July. JohnC. Davis treasurer, Francisco
Ramirez collector; jueces de campo, Candelario Valencia, JosG M. Flores,
Rodolfo Miramontes, and Leandro Galindo, all appointed Jan. 4th by a junta of
the jueces and suplentes. Castro, Doc., MS., i. 246. From the occupation by the
U. S. on July 9th, there were no civil authorities until Aug. 26th, when Lieut
Washington A. Bartlett was appointed alcalde of the district. On Sept. 15th
the following were elected: alcaldes Bartlett and Jesus No6, treasurer John
Rose, collector Peter T. Sherreback. See this vol., p. 295. No6 seems not to
have accepted the office, for; from the date of Bartlett’s capture
by Sanchez in Dec., probably by appointment of Capt. Hull on Dec. 10th, George
Hyde acted as alcalde.
1847. Alcalde Washington A. Bartlett (Geo. Hyde
acting until B.’s return about Jan. 10th), with J. G. T. Dunleavy as municipal
clerk. Feb. 22d, Edwin Bryant was appointed alcalde by Gen. Kearny, and took
possession the same day, Bartlett returning to his naval duties. John C.
Buchanan was Bryant’s clerk. There is no mention of a 2d alcalde. Sherreback
still continued to serve as collector, and presumably Rose as treasurer,
though I find no record. E. Ward Pell acted as sheriff, in March-April at
least. May 2d, Bryant offered his resignation, and May 28th Gov. Kearny
appointed George Hyde to succeed him. Hyde assumed the office on June 1st.
Frank Ward was acting alcalde during Hyde’s absence in June, by temporary
appointment of Major Hardie. Jasper O’Farrell was appointed surveyor by the
gov. on July 6th at request of Leidesdorff and others, dated June 28th.
Council, or ayuntamiento, appointed by Hyde on July 28th; W. A. Leidesdorff, R.
A. Parker, J. P. Thompson, P. T. Sherrcback, J. Rose, and B. R. Buckelew.
Council elected on Sept. 13th, Wm Glover, W. D. M. Howard, Wm A. Leidesdorff,
E. P. Jones, Robert A. Parker, and Wm S. Clark. Wm Pettet was secretary of the
council, having been the alcalde’s sec. before, until Sept. 27th, when E. P.
Jones succeeded him, being succeeded by W. F. Swasey on Oct. 4th. Leidesdorff
was made treasurer. Oct. 2d, gov. appointed T. M. Leavenworth 2d alcalde. Oct.
11th the council appointed Henry Smith and W. S. Thorp constables, Smith being
also jail-keeper; but on Dec. 17th Thomas Kittleman was appointed constable in
place of the above.
1848. Alcaldes Hyde and Leavenworth to the end of
March. By governor’s appointment of March 27th, John Townsend became 1st
alcalde from
Clark—from September until March 1848; John Townsend from April to
August; and T. M. Leavenworth from September to the end of the year and later.
The administration of municipal affairs in 1847-8 was attended by continuous
and bitter controversy, a prominent element of which was connected with
charges against Alcalde Hyde preferred by citizens and members of the council.
The merits of the quarrel are somewhat obscure, and the whole matter is too
complicated for discussion here, even if I were
April 1st,
Leavenworth still holding hia place. Council aa before, with E. C. Kemble as
secretary from April 10th. From June, Leavenworth, in Townsend’s absence, was
acting 1st alcalde. Chas V. Gillespie notary public from July 29th. Aug. 29th,
T. M. Leavenworth chosen 1st alcalde; the election was declared null, but at a
new election on Oct. 3d Leavenworth was reelected. At the same time B. R.
Buckelew and Barton Mowry were chosen members of the council in place of Glover
and Leidesdorff.
Municipal government
and controversies. 1846. Jan. 4th, sub-prefect to prefect, complains of lack of
an office and a secretary; of the quarrels between Forbes, Leidesdorff, Ridley,
and Hinckley, whom he has tried in vain to reconcile; and of troubles with
deserting sailors, whom the U. S. viceconsul will not permit to be confined.
Castro, Doc., MS., i. 251. Feb. 16th, same to same, has many prisoners from all
parts of the partido, and the juez moves slowly; wants a lot to build a house
on the water side of the plaza, to be used perhaps as a casa municipal. Id.,
ii. 14. March 12th, is unable to borrow from the merchants the little money
needed to buy ammunition for the force about to march against a foreign foe.
Pinto, Doc., MS., ii. 227. C. E. Pickett, Paris Expos., 13, claims to have
declined the alcaldeship. Ryan, Judges and Crim., 61, relates that at the 1st
election a reckless fellow, Joe Downey, clerk of election, managed by
fraudulent tampering with the ballots to get himself elected alcalde, but was
arrested and carried drunk on board the Portsmouth.
1847. Jan., C. E. Pickett, or 1 Yerba
Buena,’ in the Star accused Alcalde Bartlett, the 1 vaquero general,
’ of misappropriating town funds, failing to have a survey made, etc., besides
criticising the acting alcalde, Hyde, for such offences as smoking in court.
Thereupon Bartlett called on Capt. Hull for an investigation, which was made by
Howard, Leidesdorff, and Guerrero as a committee, who completely exonerated the
alcalde from having mismanaged any part of the municipal receipts, amounting
to $747. Star, Jan. 930, 1847. Jan. 30th, discharge of fire-arms prohibited in
town. Feb. 17th, Com. Hull announces the restoration of civil authority. March,
complaint of no post-office. April, gov. decides that the munic. auth. should
provide an office for the alcalde outside the building occupied by the
military. May, Hyde’s appointment provoked much opposition. A public meeting
was called, by a notice reading: ‘ The people’s voice stifled by intrigue.
People of S. F., rally for your rights! A majority has petitioned the gov. to
appoint John Townsend.. .Geo. Hyde is appointed! Will you submit to this ? The
proclam, of Stockton gives you the right of electing alcaldes.. .Assemble at
Brown’s Hotel this evening (May 30th), and assert your rights.’ In Feb. there
had been an altercation at a public meeting between Hyde and Dun- leavy on one
side and Jones and Brannan on the other. Leidesdorff informed the gov. that the
opposition to Hyde came from the friends of Cal. independence from the U. S.,
supported by the Mormons. Maj. Hardie attended the meeting of the 30th, and
refused to permit an election. Unb. Doc., MS., 68,
disposed to take sides with either party. It is clear enough that
personal enmities, business cliques, and newspaper rivalries were leading
factors in the controversies; that the Mormon influence played no other part
than that of bugbear among the foes of that sect; and that there was a strong
feeling in favor of election and against military appointment that would have
rendered almost any appointed alcalde unpopular. Yet so much smoke is generally
indica-
109-10. In June Hyde
left town for Monterey, and his absence was pronounced ‘ culpable negligence,’
etc., by the Star of the 26th. Major Hai'die reported that on account of the
prevalent disorders he had appointed Ward to act as alcalde. Unb. Doc., MS.,
119. Hyde, however, declared to the gov. that the Mormons abused him because he
sought to check their influence. Id., 105. On July 15th the gov., jnst after
H.’s visit, had written an order for the election of a council, but was called
away and completed the letter on Aug. 15th, after the appointment of the 1st
council. He authorized the alcalde to hold an election, or not, as he deemed
best. Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 378-9. The appointment of July 28th is
recorded in the Californian of tbe 31st. J. P. Thompson was sec. The alcalde at
a meeting said he had proposed the council to the gov., who had not objected.
At the election of Sept. 13th 200 votes were cast; the judges were Vioget,
Leavenworth, and Robert Gordon; the clerks W. F. Swasey and W. Hood. The
unsuccessful candidates for councilmen were Everhart, J. S. Lincoln, C. L.
Ross, Stephen Harris, B. S. Lippincott, Wm Pettet, John Sirrine, E. H.
Harrison. Id., Sept. 15th. A notice of the election had been published in the
papers, both of which approved the measure, and later the men chosen. At the
first meeting, on Sept. 16th, Howard, Jones, and Clark were appointed a
committee to frame a code of laws. At the next meeting, on the 21st, the code
was reported and adopted; then came trouble. Dr Jones moved to appoint a com.
of 5 citizens to investigate the affairs of the alcalde’s office, an
alteration of th? records, ‘ an enormous outrage,’ having been charged in the
Star of Aug. 21st, and there being other charges; but Hyde protested warmly,
and after a wordy altercation the meeting was adjourned without the appointment
of the committee. An incorrect report was furnished the papers, both of which
disapproved Hyde’s action, though the Californian of Sept. 29th published a
defensive letter, in which H. denied having prevented a full investigation. At
the meeting of the 24th the matter was taken np, and the council made itself a
com. of investigation against the vote of Jones and Glover. The citizens also,
through Ward, Brannan, and Ross, sent charges to the gov., with a petition for
H.’s removal; and Mason on Oct. 1st ordered the council to make an investigation.
Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 361-2. There is no record of progress in the
investigation during the rest of the year; but the Star continued to make
charges, and the Californian, while disposed to criticise the council for
inaction, to publish Hyde’s letters, which finally brought out in the Star of
Oct. 30th a collection of letters from Brannan, Folsom, Pickett, and Ross.
Clearly there was a bitter quarrel, but as to its merits we are left for the
most part in darkness.
1848. In Jan.-Feb. there are but slight indications
of the continuance of the controversy, and none at all of the investigation
supposed to be in progress. The two papers continued to snarl at each other,
the Californian criticising the council, which was mildly defended by the
Star. Hyde fouud it necessary to deny his alleged ownership in the former
paper. Charges were made against Leidesdorff, the treasurer, provoking several
letters and edito-
tive of more or less fire, and in view of the character of some of the
accusers and the earnestness of their doubtless exaggerated statements of
prevalent lawlessness, it is perhaps necessary to conclude that Hyde was not
altogether a model alcalde. Much opposition was also developed against
Leavenworth, though it did not produce definite results until after the end of
the period now under consideration.
rials, and a
resolution for investigation in the council. Early in March, 4 of the 6
councilmen sent an undated request to the gov. to removo Hyde, implying that
the charges against him had been substantiated; but the gov. required
something more definite. March 9th, Hyde to gov., declaring the charges
slanderous and fully refuted; but the council are not gentlemen enough to
retract the accusations. There is a bitter feeling against him on the part of
certain men; Leidesdorff, formerly his friend, has turned against him; he is
disgusted with his thankless position, and wishes to come to Monterey and
resign. Similar request on the 11th. Unb. Doc., MS., 41-2, 27-8. March
10th, prominent citizens, including Fourgeaud, Jones, J. C. Ward, Brannan,
Howard, W. H. Davis, E. H. Harrison, Leidesdorff, C. L. Ross, G. W. Whittock,
Henry Melius, etc., petition the gov. for the removal of flyde and Leavenworth,
and the appointment of Townsend and Buchanan, They represent the town as in a
disgraceful state of disorder; bloody street-fights of almost daily occurrence;
the alcalde defied, publicly insulted on the bench, not daring to endanger his
personal safety, and moreover, the open associate of the worst characters.
Another petition of the same date supports Townsend’s claims. Same date,
Leidesdorff, in a private letter to the gov., explains that the accumulation of
testimony has changed his opinion of Hyde, who is responsible for all the
lawlessness, prevents the council from effecting reforms, is suspected of being
the author of scurrilous articles in the Californian, and, like the
professional gamblers McDougall and Lippincott, is the writer’s personal foe
on account of his efforts to suppress gambling. Unb. Doc.y
MS., 2932. March 18th, Jones and Leidesdorff of the council to gov., declaring
that Hyde prevented the progress of the investigation by legal quibbles and
long cross-examination of witnesses on matters foreign to the case, continued
for
2 months, until the patience of the
investigators was exhausted, the accusers withdrew from the prosecution in
disgust, and the witnesses went home; yet
2 of the charges were fully sustained by
the evidence and were admitted by the accused, viz.: 1st, changing numbers on
the town map; 2d, granting lots to later applicants, ignoring tEe rights of
earlier ones. Of the council, Glover and Howard, through sickness and absence,
have not been present at meetings; Parker thinks he has said enough in the
earlier report, and Clark declines to unite with J. and L.; therefore, only
these two sign, and they ask the gov. to treat the report as a * private
communication’! Id., 39-40; Calif, Apr. 5th. March 19fch, 20th, Hyde to gov.,
complaining that, despite his efforts to have the investigation completed,
nothing has been done for months; the council has acted most unjustly by
waiting so long before recommending his removal; they are influenced solely by
personal enmity; but he tenders his resignation as he has done before, and
recommends that the alcaldc in future have nothing to do with the council,
which should choose its own president. March 20th, Clark to gov., dissenting
from the views of the 4 councilmen against Hyde, as not supported by evidence.
Unb. Doc., MS., 171-3, 80-1. The Star of the 25th has an editorial as^unst
Hyde^ who had gone to Monterey to influence the gov. in his own behalf. The Calif
of the 22d had an editorial against the proceedings of the council, also
noting H.’s departure to consult the gov. Also on the 23tli, the gov. replied
to Leidesdorff and
Town lots to the number of about 1,200 were granted or sold for the
benefit of the municipal treasury during the three years; at first for
purposes of actual settlement, under condition of fencing and building; later
without conditions, though still at nominal prices of $12 and $25 each for lots
of 50 and 100 varas; and finally at auction, the purchasers, especially of
beach and water lots, being for the most part speculators who paid in some
instances as high
Jones, declining to
treat their commun. as ‘private,’ or to remove Hyde, as no proper investigation
had been held and no details of testimony had been furnished. This corresp. was
published in the Californian of April 5th, with an editorial favorable to Hyde.
But as we have seen, on March 27th Hyde’s resignation was accepted and Townsend
was appointed. In his Hist. Facts, MS., 16-26, Hyde, in reply to the statements
of Jones and Leidesdorff, and to that of the AnnaU of S. F., 201, that ‘some 9
or 10 charges of a criminal nature were made, only two of which were
established by proof,’ denies positively that these two charges were
substantiated, or that they were ever admitted by himself; and he gives copies
of letters from W. D. M. Howard, R. A. Parker, and W. S. Clark of the council,
written in 1855 in reply to his own letters, and confirming his statement that
he was completely exonerated from the 2d charge, while the 1st one was not
‘established by proof.’ In June-Aug., Alcalde Townsend went to the mines, and
the citizens sent petitions to have Ed. Gilbert, and later J. D. Hoppe,
appointed 1st alcalde. The gov. declined to make an appointment, but on Aug.
7th directed the 2d alcalde to hold an election, at which on Aug. 29th
Leavenworth was elected by 99 votes against 76 for Hoppe. K. H. Dimmick, Wm
Evans, and John S. Norris were the judges. On the same day Howard, W. H. Davis,
Jones, and 40 others protested to gov. against the election as illegal, and
the gov. on Sept. 4th sustained their view, on the grounds that sufficient
notice had not been given; that the franchise had been limited to the town,
whereas it extended to the district; and that Mexicans and other classes of
residents had been denied the right to vote. He ordered a new election, with at
least 3 weeks’ notice, and named Howard, Gillespie, Dimmick, Clark, and J. C.
Ward as judges. Unb. Doc., MS., 73-4, 19, 78-80; Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p.
568, 593, 661-2. Sept. 8th, 29 citizens ask for an election for 2 councilmen.
Unb. Doc., MS., 158. Sept. 16th, gov. orders the election of councilmen to take
place on the same day as that for alcalde, Oct. 3d. Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p.
667. Sept. 22d, Leavenworth to gov., has advised his friends to give Hyde,
Ross, etc.,
‘ ample rope to hang
themselves with.’ Their assertions will be proved false. Unb. Doc., 36. Of the
2d election, at which Leavenworth was reelected, I have no other record than
that in the Annals of S. F., 206, where it is stated that 158 votes only were
cast. There seems to have been no further serious controversy before the end of
the year, though trouble was brewing for 1849.
Pueblo lands. Beyond
the fact that the alcaldes continued to grant lots, there was nothing in
developments of 1846-8 which had any special bearing on the town’s claim to 4
leagues of land, or the great question of later litigation. Wheeler’s Land
Titles in 8. F. contains, besides an excellent r6aum6 of land annals down to
the date of publication in 1852, lists of about 1,200 lots granted to private
owners in 1846-8, dates, lots, grantees, and grantors being specified. 1846.
There had ^een 61 lots granted previously at Yerba Buena, and 18 were granted
before July 9th, making 79 at the end of Mex. rule; while in July-Dee. there
were 39, or a total of 116 at the end of 1846. These grants were made according
to the Vioget survey of 1839, and with the con-
as $600. During the earliest phases of the ‘flush times’ before the end
of 1848 some of the lots on favorite corners changed hands for $10,000; and 40
years later many then not deemed desirable are worth more than a million each;
while four miles beyond the limits of O’Farrell’s survey lots sell from $6,000
dition of fencing and
building on the lota within a year. Oct. 8th, Larkin, Grimes, and Wm H. Davis
petition Com. Stockton for land on the water side of Montgomery St. for a
wharf. Larkin's Doc., MS., iv. 303.
1847. Total no. of lots granted 762, of which 248
were water-lots obtained like many others for speculative purposes, being
beyond the limits of actual improvements. Total no. at end of the year 878.
Jan. 16th, the Star in an editorial advised the people that no title to beach
and water lots could in any way be obtained; but argued that the lots ought to
be sold for the benefit of the town, and hoped this would be rendered legally
possible. At a public meeting in the plaza on Feb. 15th, enlivened by harsh
words between Parson Dunleavy and Editor Jones, resolutions to the above effect
were adopted. Star, Feb. 20th. Accordingly, Gov. Kearny, who probably had no
authority to do anything of the kind, on March 10th proceeded to ‘grant,
convey, and release ’ to the town all the title of the IJ. S. in the beach and
water lots between Fort Montgomery and the Rincon, except lots to be selected
by army and navy officers for government use, the lots to be sold at auction
for the henefit of the town. Gal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 291, often repeated
elsewhere. Halleck, Report, 123-4, regarded this as an order for the selection
of lands needed by the govt, and a release of U. S. title to the rest, if the
lots were within the limits of the town—not as a land grant by a territorial
governor. March 16th, Alcalde Bryant announced the sale for June 29th, and
Jasper O’Farrell was employed to make a survey for the purpose; terms one
fourth cash, and one fourth in 6, 12, and IS months, with interest at 10 per
cent. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 282; S. F. Cal. Star, March 20th and following
nos. Feb. 1st, W. S. Clark applied to the gov. for a confirmation of his title
to the lot on Broadway and Battery, where he was to build a wharf; but the gov.
said he had given up all authority in the matter, though recommending the grant
to the local authorities. Gal. -V. Mex. 1850, p. 297-8. Similar reply to Wm
Pettet. Id., 301-2. Advertisement of sale in Californian from May 23d. June
21st, Gov. Mason decides, in the case of Buckelew, that any loss sustained by
an owner by changes in the streets should be paid by the town, but that other
(beach) land cannot be granted in compensation except by public auction. Cal.
& N. Mex. 1850, p. 333. June 23d, gov. orders Maj. Hardie to select the
lots needed by the govt for custom-house, wharves, etc., before the sale. Id.,
339-i0. The Rincon site of the later marine hospital was also reserved under
this order. By advertisement of July 10th the sale of beach-lots was postponed
to July 20fch. In the newspapers of July also holders of Mex. titles to lots,
who had not complied with the conditions, were ordered to present their titles
at the alcalde’s office. The sale took place July 20th-23d, when nearly 250
lots, each 45 x 1374 feet, were sold. The beach- lots brought as high as $600,
while water-lots sold from $50 to $400. The results announced in the Calif, and
Star of July 25th. Hittell, Iiist. S. F., 114, says that all those between Clay
and Sacramento streets were reserved for possible public uses, and sold 6 years
later at an average of $12,000 each. Aug. 23d, Larkin says
house-lots in S. F. have increased 500 per cent. Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 120-1.
Sept. 22d, charge from citizens that the records had been tampered with, some
20 grants having been erased for some informality. Californian. Something has
been already said on this subject. Hyde, in his Hist. Facts, MS., admits that
some errors of his predecessors were corrected on the map, though not by him;
and Wheeler’s lists show opposite many num*
to $10,000. In 1846, but for buildings and fences vaguely outlining
unnamed streets on a small area, there were no public improvements; but in 1847
the region extending some half a mile in different directions from the plaza
was surveyed and mapped by Jasper O’Farrell, street names being permanently
fixed. Gradually, as needed, a few streets were graded
bers sucb notea as ‘
erased, deed void, not taken out as required by law. Geo. Hyde.’ Meanwhile,
O’Farrell’s survey extending over land as well as water, and far beyond the
limits of Vioget’s survey, lots were granted, about 500 in numher, at $12 each
for 50-vara lots, and $28.62 for 100-vara lots, of which few were granted.
Sept. 27th, council decides that hereafter lots shall not be forfeited for
failure to fence and build, all conditions being removed. Star, Oct. 2d. Sept
30th, gov. to alcalde, orders not to grant any more lots south ■of Rincon
Point and east of a certain line. Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 361. Oct. 11th,
council ratifies the action of the alcalde in having granted more than one lot
to one person. Star, Oct. 16th; Calif., Oct. 13th. Oct. 28th, council orders
that hereafter all lots on land or water must be sold at auction. Star, Oct.
23d. Nov. 22d, C. E. Pickett, two citizens, and a soldier, petitioned the gov.
to appoint a special court to settle laud titles in S. F., a scheme which Gov.
Mason on Dec. 14th declared impracticable. Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 470.
1848. Total no. of lots granted this year, 388, making 1,266 in all; 36 were of
the beach and water lots, 300 of the 50-vara survey,
10 of the 100-vara survey (below Market St),
17 100-vara lots in the region of the lagoon, 6 at North Beach, and 10 at
Clark’s Point. Jan. 5th, advertisement of sale of the rest of the water-lots
at auction on Feb. 1st; postponed to 1st Monday in March. Star, Jan 8th, Feb.
3d. I find no record of the sale, and the 36 lots appear on Wheeler’s list as
haviug been ‘granted on petition ’ to W. S. Clark and W. C. Parker on Sept. 9th
and 25th. In connection with the plan at the end of this chapter, some
additional items on the location of the earlier grants may be found.
Streets and public
improvements. See plan and notes at end of this chapter. The survey made by
Vioget in 1839 has already been mentioned. By it lots were granted throughout
1846, but it gave no name to streets. In Jan.
1846 Jacob R. Snyder obtained authority from the
sub-prefect to survey lands—chiefly outside of the town, perhaps—for the
owners. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 48. But of the results in town, if there
were any, nothing is known.
I have found no definite record of the
naming of streets at first, but evidently Montgomery, Kearny, Clay, Washington,
Jackson, and some other leading streets were named in 1846, after the raising
of the U. S. flag in July. In Oct. Larkin and others petitioned the gov. for
land on Montgomery St for a wharf, but nothing was accomplished. Except a
general outlining of streets by fences and buildings on a part of the lots, aud
the wooden bridge over the neck of the lagoon, there were no street
improvements before the end of 1846. At the end of the year or beginning of
1847 the necessity of a new survey was agitated at a public meeting and in the
Star, hut there was a general disagreement about what to do and how to pay for
it. In Feb., however, a Yerba Buena cotresp. of the Honolulu Friend, v. 84,
writes that a man was then engaged in surveying the place and laying out
streets; also that there was a hope of having a wharf in a few months. This may
have been O’FarreU, who was perhaps already at work making a semi-official
extension of the Vioget survey. The result was probably a map signed by Alcalde
Bartlett Feb. 22d, and preserved iu the Sacramento State Library and S. F.
hall of records, a photographic copy of which is descrihed in the Alta of Feb.
27, 1875. It covers the tract included between Vallejo, Powell, aud Sutter
streets. Powell St has no
through sand hills to the water front. On one occasion it was resolved
to open California Street from Kearny to the bay, at a cost of $150. The only
other improvements were the filling-up of the lagoon at the corner of Jackson
and Montgomery streets, and the construction of two wooden wharves at the foot
of Clay and Broadway streets, respectively, representing at that period rival
sections of the town.
name; Battery is
Battery Place; Sansome is called Sloat; Pacifec is Bartlett;
Sacramento is Howard;
there is no Pine St between Bush and California; and Dupont and Stockton are
reversed, Dupont being farthest west. The lots and grantees seem not to agree
in all cases with those indicated on the later survey. The lot at the s. E.
cor. of Vallejo and Sansome is marked as tlie graveyard. The Californian of July
24th mentions this burial-place on Sansome and Broadway, calling attention to
the necessity of selecting a new place. And according to the Alta of Feb. 4,
1851, Anderson of the N. Y. vol., who died in Sept., was buried far out of town
in the North Beach region, this being the beginning of a new cemetery, which
already in 1851 was in process of destruction. O’Farrell’s regular survey of
the town was begun probably in March, though perhaps virtually a continuation
of earlier work as above, and completed in Aug., in connection with the sale of
water-lots. It included three divisions, the beach and water lots between
Clark’s Point and the Rincon, the 100-vara survey south of Market St, and the
50-vara survey adjoining the original Yerba Buena.. Says Hittell, O’Farrell’s
survey covered ‘an area of about 800 acres. His map included the district
bounded by the lines of Post, Leavenworth, and Francisco streets and the water
front, and south.of Market St it showed four full blocks fronting on Fourth St,
and
11 full blocks fronting on Sccond St. There
were besides a. few fractional blocks. O’F. disliked many things in Vioget’s
little survey, but some he could not change. Kearny and Dupont streets were too
narrow, but these could not be widened without an expense of several thousand
dollars, which nobody wanted to incur. It was considered indispensable,
however, that the acute and obtuse angles of V.’s lots should be corrected, and
to do this a change of 2J degrees was necessary in the direction of some of the
streets. This transferred the situation of all the lots, and was subsequently
called “O’Far- rell’s swing” of the city. For years, on account of the swing,
buildings were to be seen at various places projecting a little beyond the
general line of the street. The corner of Kearny and Washington streets was the
pivot of the swing, and the main monument or starting-point was established
there. The new map gave to the streets the names which they now have.’ Hist. S.
F.t 114-16. Lots granted before the end of 1846 were chiefly in
the tract bounded by California, Stockton, and Broadway streets and the water
front, 27 lots within this space remaining unsold; south of California only 7
lots had been sold, west of Powell 17, and north of Vallejo 13. In Sept. 1847
the council appointed a committee to consider the subject of building a wharf;
and iu Oct. the construction of two wharves was ordered, $10,000 being appropriated
to that at the foot of Clay St, and $2,000 to that on Broadway, which was to
be 10 x 150 feet. The Clay-St result was ridiculed in the Californian of Nov.
10th as a ‘monument to the folly of the town,* fortunately not strong enough to
last through the "whiter; but it was decided to extend the wharf to 49x547
feet, at a cost of $11,000, for which $1,000 was appropriated Nov. 27th. The
Broadway structure ‘took a start seaward’ in Dec., but $2,000 more was
appropriated, and the work went on slowly till suspended in Jan. 1848 for lack
of funds; and in Feb. all wharf work was ordered to be stopped, except so far as
material was on hand for the Clay-St structure. The last we hear of
A private school was opened by J. D. Marston in April 1847; after much
agitation of educational projects by citizens and press a school-house on the
plaza was completed in December; and finally a public school under Thomas
Douglas as teacher was open
the wharves before
the gold excitement is a record of various ‘reports of progress,’ not umnixed
with protests, in April; for besides the usual ‘jobs,’ there was much rivalry
between property owners of the ‘old town’ and those at Clark’s Point.
Meanwhile, the project of filling up the lagoon had been agitated since
October, and work had been actually begun near the corner of Montgomery and
Jackson in Jan., the widening of Montgomery St at that point being favorably
considered. In Oct. O’Farrell was paid $300 on account for his labors as
surveyor; and negotiations with him were opened to run the town boundary after
the completion of the survey. In Nov. the council decided to open Broadway from
Sansome to the bay, and California from Kearny to the bay, the appropriation
being $150. The sum of $2,000, soon increased by $500, was appropriated in Jan.
1848 for general street improvements. In April Gerke took a contract to grade
Pacific Street, and it was resolved in March to complete the work, citizens
being allowed to work out their indebtedness to the town. In March there were
also petitions for moving fences to correspond with the survey, and for
opening Jackson St to Sansome; but only reports of progress in April appear as
results.
Education. I find no
record of any school in operation or even proposed in 1846, under either the
Mexican or American rule. But the Star of Jan. 16, 1847, urged the importance
of attending to educational interests, having counted 40 children iu the
streets who ought to be in school. A lot and $50 in money were editorially
offered. In the next number, Jan. 23d, a subscription and a public meeting
were proposed. A meeting was held and a committee of 5 appointed; but nothing
more was accomplished, as appears from editorials in the same paper of Feb. 6th
and March 6th. According to the Annals, 677, a private school was opened in
April by Marston, a Mormon, as Fitzgerald, Educ. in Gal., MS., 2, states,
though there was no such Mormon in the Brooklyn colony; but I find no definite
information about this school. In July and Aug. both Star and Californian
continued to agitate the matter, and it was complained that the lot selected
had been granted by the alcalde to private ownership. In June, however, Lieut
Ed. Gilbert had taken a census showing 129 persons under 20 years, and 56
between 5 and 15 years. Star, Aug. 28th. At a council meeting of Sept. 24th,
Leidesdorff, Glover, and Clark were appointed a com. on the building of a
school-house. They reported progress on Oct. 4th, and were empowered to
receive sealed bids, which were opened on the 11th, and that of Mr Stark
accepted. Its completion was announced in the Star of Dec. 4th, though with a
complaint of the council’s lack of energy as likely to defer the opening of a
school, and another that ‘the nut-brown of red-wood lumber is not sufficiently
fanciful for San Francisco, ’ and the appearance of the exterior should be
improved. Also mention in the Galifomian of Dec. 29th. The Annals, 675, has a
view of the structure. On Feb. 1, 1848, at a public meeting presided by E. H.
Harrison, with E. C. Kemble as sec., Brannan, Ross, and Harrison were chosen as
a committee to canvass the town for scholars, select a teacher, and suggest to
the council the propriety of ordering an election of 5 school commissioners.
Star, Jan. 29th, Feb. 5th. On Feb. 14th the council ordered an election, for
the 21st, when Fourgeaud, Ross, Townsend, John Sirrine, and Wm H. Davis were
chosen as trustees. Id., Feb. 19th, 26th. They advertised for a teacher on
March 1st. Id., March 4th. The council on the 17th appropriated $400 for the
payment of a teacher; and on April 1st the school was announced to begin on the
3d, under Thomas Douglas, a graduate of Yale; tuition $5 to $12
in April and May 1848. Besides the weekly meetings of the Mormons there
was no regular religious service at San Francisco until November 1848, when
Rev. T. D. Hunt, presbyterian, was employed as town chaplain; but there had
been occasional preaching by naval chaplains and others; and in May 1847 a
sabbath school was organized through the agency of Oregon methodists, with J.
H. Merrill as superintendent. The California Star, San Francisco’s first
newspaper, was published by Samuel Brannan, with E. P. Jones and E. C. Kemble
as successive
per quarter. The
opening was as announced. Id., March 18th, Apr. 1st, Sth. On May 2d the council
declared the trustees illegally chosen, and ordered a new election on the 13th,
when L. W. Hastings, Ross, Davis, Brannan, and Fourgeaud were chosen. Id., May
6th, 13th, 20th. Meanwhile the school continued prosperously enough under the
care o£ Douglas, until perhaps the early part of June, wheu the gold excitement
seems to have carried patrons, trustees, and finally the teacher to the mines,
and educational matters were neglected until 1849, though in Nov. an
advertisement for a teacher appeared in the Star and Californian.
Church and religious
affairs. In 1846, the priest at the mission remained on duty until the raising
of the U. S. flag; and subsequently priests from abroad occasionally visited
Dolores; but there was never any catholic service at Yerba Buena. Brannan and
other Mormon elders held religious services at private houses every Sunday from
the time of their arrival in July. There is no record of any protestant service
in 1846, though it is not impossible that such service may have been performed
on some occasion by a chaplain of the naval force. On May 8, 1847, at a public
meeting, Rev. T. M. Leavenworth (episcopalian) urged the importance of a
church, presenting a document for the signatures of those interested; and a
committee was named to carry the matter further. Star, May 8th. It does not
appear that anything was accomplished as a result of this effort. But on the
16th Rev. James H. Wilber of the Oregon methodist mission, a passenger on the
Whiton, organized a sabbath school, which was addressed by Leavenworth,
included a promising class of kanakas, was put in charge of J. H. Merrill as superintendent
and J. D. Marston as secretary, and was to meet every Sunday forenoon at the
alcalde’s office. Rev. Wm Roberts, superintendent of the Oregon missions,
promised a library as soon as the books could be found in tbe hold of the
vessel. Id., May 22d. In the same paper of July 24th preaching by Newell,
chaplain of the Independence, was announced for the next Sunday. Ward in his
Diary, in 1848, notes that ‘Capt. L. H. Thomas, a most estimable Welsh
gentlemen, reads prayers every Sunday in the school-house, and Mrs C. V.
Gillespie has organized a Sunday-school, the first on the Pacific Coast.1
In October 1848 Rev. T. D. Hunt, presbytecian, arrived from the Sandwich Islands,
and from Nov. 1st officiated at the school-house as chaplain of the town, at a
salary of $2,500. Annals, 688.
Newspapers. On the
Brooklyn, in July, arrived the press, type, and general outfit of the Prophet,
a Mormon paper that had been published in N. Y. by Samuel Brannan, who
doubtless intended to continue its publication as a church organ in Cal. This
became undesirable as soon as it was revealed that Cal. was not to be the
promised land of the Mormons; but the plan of publishing a newspaper was not
abandoned. It is said by Hittell, Hist. S. F., 109, that a sheet of printed matter
describing Taylor’s victory in Texaa Hist.
Cal., Vol. V. 42
editors from January 9, 1847, to June 10, 1848. The Californian,
transferred from Monterey, was published and edited successively by Robert
Semple, B. R. Buckelew, Robert Gordon, H. L. Sheldon, and other associates from
May 22, 1847, with some gaps in May-August 1848, to November 11th. Then it was
swallowed up by its former rival, and the California Star and
Californian appeared from November 18th, to be known at the beginning of 1849 as the Alta
was issued in Oct.
1846, but I have not seen it. The first number of the California Star was
issued on Jan. 9, 1847, Elbert P. Jones taking the position of editor,
temporarily, as he announced, in the absence of the man who was to be permanent
editor—presumably Kemble. The paper was of 4 pages, 8J x 12 inches of print,
subscriptions $6 per year. A prospectus of the usual style was signed by
Brannan as publisher. The Star was a very good local newspaper, its editorial
and other departments showing no special ability or lack of it on the part of
the managers, who as usual in such cases sometimes indulged in expressions more
coarse and violent than good taste would justify. The paper was complimented
for its neat appearance by its Monterey contemporary in Jan., but the
compliment was not returned. On April 17th Jones withdrew from the editorship
on account of ‘circumstances’not explained, which prevented any connection
between himself and the publisher; and Edward C. Kemble and John Eagar took
charge until Brannan’s return from the east, when Kemble became the regular
editor. On Jan. 22, 1848, vol. ii. no. 3, the paper was enlarged to 10| x 1CJ
inches of print, taking—as an advertisement—three columns of Brandreth’s
pills. The issue of April 1st with a supplement was sent overland to the states
to the number of 2,000. It was published regularly each week until June 10th,
or vol. ii. no. 23; and its suspension on account of the gold excitement was
announced in an extra sheet of June 14th. The Californian, as has been related
elsewhere, was established at Monterey hy Colton and Semple in 1846, with the
material that had been used by the Californians since 1834. Its San Francisco
existence began with no. 1 of vol. ii., on May 22, 1847, Robert Semple being
publisher and editor, the size being 4 pages of 3 columns each about 16 inches
long— subsequently increased to 4 columns on a page, or the same size of the
enlarged Star—and the price of subscription being $5. From the issue of
July 17th, vol. ii. no. 9, B. R. Buckalew succeeded Semple as proprietor and
editor; from Aug. 28th, no. 15, the ‘The’ was dropped from the title, which
became simply Californian; and from the issue of Sept. 8th, no. 17, the day of
publication heing changed from Saturday to Wednesday, Robert Gordon was named
as editor. In Dec., Gordou seems to have been publisher as well, but early in
1848 Buckelew’s name reappears. In April the editors were Bucke- lew and J. D.
Hoppe; and in May Buckelew sold out to Hoppe, H. L. Sheldon, and perhaps Jos.
Dockrill, Sheldon being the editor. On May 17th the 3d volume was begun, but on
the 24th a fly-sheet had to be issued announcing temporary suspension on
account of the impossibility of retaining workmen. This is the way the Star of
Juno 3d puts it, ‘Gone too —. The Californian ceased issue with an
annunciatory “slip” on Tuesday last. Verdict of inquest—fever.’ I have another
slip of June 2d, containing two columns of news ou treaty with Mexico,
FrSmont’s trial, etc., two advertisements, and the following editorial: ‘ For
the purpose of convincing what there is left of the#‘public” that the Californian
is not extinct, nor yet altogether used up, we, in our triple character of
editor, priuter, and devil, have compiled^ set up, worked off, and circulated this
extra, which we hope will do our readers
California.
Military and revenue affairs require no further mention than is given in my
note and in other chapters of this volume. The same may be said of the few
ranchos granted or pretended to have been
granted in 1846, only one of them subsequently confirmed; and of the mission
at Dolores, where there was no regular curate except for a time in 1846, and
where no definite or formal disposition is known to have been made of the
remnants of the ex-mission estate.
much good; for it
would probably very much perplex his Satanic Majesty to tell at what precise
period they will hear from us again. ’ A number was issued on July loth, and
another iu Aug.; and the publication was regular from Sept. 2d, vol. iii. no.
5, to Nov. 11th, no. 15, Sheldon still being editor. Then Kemble returned from
the mines, bought out the Californian, and from Nov. 18th published The
California Star and Californian, which was in reality a continuatiou of the
Star, beginning with vol. ii. no. 24, where that paper bad stopped. Early in
Jan. 1849, Ed. Gilbert having become associated with Kemble, the name was
changed to The Alta California, which still appears regularly in 1886; and
through all its changes the typographic peculiarities of the original Star
heading have been preserved.
Military matters.
Francisco Sanchez was nominally comandante at S. F. until the end of Mexican
rule, though practically no military duties were performed by him or any other.
After the U. S. flag was raised in July, Capt. John B. Montgomery of the navy,
succeeded before the end of the year hy Capt. Hull, was in command of the
district; but Lieut H. B. Watson was put in command of the garrison, being
succeeded late in the year by Capt. Ward Marston, and the latter in Feb. 1847
by Lieut Robert Tansill. The old custom-house was occupied by the military, and
a battery of guns from the presidio bad been established near the foot of
Vallejo Street, called Fort Montgomery, and giving a name to Battery St. On
Feb. 17th Hull and Tansill announced the end of military rule and the
resumption of their functions by the civil authorities, and Tansill departed in
April. Meanwhile, from the arrival of the N. Y. volunteers in March, companies
H and K were stationed at the presidio as a garrison, and Major James A.
Hardie was commandant of the post, Capt. J. L. Folsom being assistant
quartermaster down to Aug. 1848, when the volunteers were mustered out, and
apparently later as lieut of artillery, a small garrison of dragoons being stationed
here. There are many communications of Hardie and Folsom to the gov., in which
they complain of prevalent disorders at S. F.
Custom-house affairs.
Rafael Pinto continued as receptor to the end of Mexican rule, Robert Ridley
being captain of the port; Lieut W. A. Bartlett was put in charge of the
revenues by Montgomery after the raising of the U.
S. flag; and Wm A. Richardson was appointed
by Stockton collector and captain of the port, to succeed Bartlett in Oct. A
year later, in Oct. 1847, the collection of revenues devolved on the military
officers by orders from Washington, and Capt. Folsom was put in charge from the
1st, holding the position until, on the news of peace with Mexico, Lieut Edward
Gilbert having declined the place, Edward H. Harrison was appointed on Sept.
3d, at a salary of $2,000. See p. 5G7 et seq. of this vol. for revenue and
commercial affairs.
Ranchos. *Mission
estate granted in 1846 to Prudencio Santillan, title rejected by the U. S.
courts as having been fraudulently antedated. J. R. Bolton was the chief
claimant; also preemption claim of *Francisco Ruflno to a mission lot rejected.
*Presidio lands, h league, 1846, granted to H. D.
A very good outline of local affairs in the San Jose region is given in
Hall’s history, which with supplemental items from the usual archive and other
sources is represented and indexed in the appended note.2
Fitch, whose widow
was claimant. His petition of May 13th for the laud where he proposed to build
a mill is given in Dwinelle’s Colon. Hist., add. 95-6. *Punta de Lobos, 2 1.,
1846, Benito Diaz; J. C. Palmer et al., cl. This land extended from Pt Lobos to
the laguna de Loma Alta. Larkin owned the claim which was submitted to the American
authorities in Oct. 1846-June 1847, and was pronounced invalid in a report by
Capt. Folsom. Documents in llalleck’s Report, 173-9. San Mateo, 21., 1846,
Cayetano Arenas; W. D. M. Howard, claimant.
Mission. Prudencio
Santillan served as curate until July 1846, leaving his post on the coming of
the Americans, and not returning to reside permanently until after 1848.
Nothing whatever seems to have heen done in consequence of the order of sale
issued in 1845. Jan. 4, 1845, the sub-prefect forwarded to the prefect for the
gov. a petition of residents that they be permitted to continue their
residence in the ex-mission buildings in order that the majordomo might not
remove the roofs, as he had done in the case of other abandoned dwellings. They
also recalled an earlier order of Gov. Alvarado to establish a pueblo at
Dolores; and as there are no Indians, and as there is no room for live-stock at
Yerba Buena, they desire to form at Dolores ‘ a frontier (!) to the town at Y.
B., which is being formed entirely of foreigners.’ Castro, Doc., MS., i. 248.
This shows that there was still a majordomo—perhaps Vazquez, still?—as there
was also in April, at $20 per month. April 20th, sub-prefect to prefect, says
that P. Santillan wants two rooms for schools, and the majordomo should be
ordered to give them up. His salary is a useless expense; he lives in the house
and sells brandy, has no duties to perform, and his cattlc are always about the
church. There is an old order for granting lots, etc., but nothing can be done,
for the majordomo pays no heed to the civil authorities. Id., ii. 64. The grant
of the mission estate to Padre Santillan in Feb. has no special interest in
connection with the annals of this period, because his claim was not known
until after 1S48, and was, besides, shown to be fraudulent. Nor are there any
events that call for mention. Sept. 18, 1847, Capt. Folsom was ordered to
obtain the records existing at the mission and send them to the governor’s
office for safe-keeping. Cal. dk JV. Mex. 1850, p. 397. Feb. 5, 1848, gov.
orders that P. Santillan he consulted about lands that may be put in his charge
for the use of the Ind.; also about such movable property as may exist. Id.,
472. On Jan. 22d, Robert Ridley was made subaltern alcalde at the mission by
Hyde, with authority from the gov. Id., 452; Star, Jan. 15th.
2 San Jos6 events. 1846. Visit of Fremont
in Jan. This vol., p. 3. Feb., Fremont again at S. Jos£ and Fisher’s rancho.
Id., 6-8. March, 78 citizens sign a petition for an Ind. expedition. Dept. St.
Pap., MS., vii. 47-8. April, local authorities indorse the declaration in favor
of Paredes. This vol., p. 41. Delegates chosen for the Sta Barbara consejo.
Id., 45. In March-May there was considerable popular excitement about Pierre
Sainsevain’s grist-mill, which he had established the year before by permission
of the govt. Over 20 citizens—two of whom could write their names—petitioned
for the removal of the dam represented as very prejudicial to the welfare of
the town. There was a sharp correspondence, Sainsevain claiming that the
movement was a device of some picaros whom he had refused to trust, his mill
being a public convenience. The prefect finally ordered the removal of all
obstructions in the stream so far as demanded hy public convenience and health,
leaving the owner at liberty to sue for damages. Original corresp. in Doc.
Hist. Cal., MS.,
iii. 136-7, 207-8, 210, 214, 228, 498-9.
June-July, operations of Gen. Castro at Sta Clara, in his efforts against Pico,
the Bears, and the U. S. This
This was the centre of General Castro’s military operations in the first
half of 1846; but the change of flag was effected here as elsewhere without
hostilities. The native element was more prominent than in other sections of
the north, and as the valley was also a favorite rendezvous of the immigrants
who looked down with contempt upon the whole Spanish race, it is not strange
that there was some clashing and disorder, which, however, never assumed
serious proportions. The Santa Clara campaign between Sanchez and Marston was
the end of the war in the north. Indian horse-thieves were continuously
troublesome to the rancheros, as they had ever been. Raids by and against them
were of frequent occurrence; but the new authorities, like the old, seem to
vol., p. 51, 53, 105,
108-9, 132-3, 185, 261. Arrest of Weber and others. Id., 136. July, raising the
U. S. flag. Id., 245-6. Local happenings Aug.- Oct., Watraough in command. Id.,
294-5. Bryant, whose visit was in Sept., describes S. Jos6 as a village of 600 or
800 inhab., in a fine valley, of adobe buildings and very irregular streets,
with thousands of ground-squirrels burrowing in the plaza, and men and women
of all classes engaged in gambling. ]\’hat I Saw, 315-17. Dec.-Jan., 1847,
Lieut Pinkney’s garrison, Weber’s efforts, the Sta Clara campaign, final
hostilities of the war in the north. Thia vol., p. 377-83. Feb., meeting to
elect a member of the council. Id., 433. Feb. 16tli, Hull orders Weber to
disband all volunteers. S. Josi Pioneer, March
6, 1880. Action of citizens in behalf of the
Donner party. This vol., p. 539. First visit of a steamer to the embarcadero.
Id., 578. Beginning of protestant worship. Id., 566. In Ilall’s Hist. S. Josi,
188-9, S. Josi Pioneer, March 3, 1877, are some items about early buildings. In
Ward’s Diary is what purports to be a view of the town, which would aerve
equally well for an adobe house or two on a plain anywhere else. Dec., a
military guard desired; Gov. Mason orders an investigation of quarters,
supplies, etc. Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 447-8. Aug. 7, 1848. Order to send
detachment of N. Y. volunteers to S. F. to be mustered out. Id., 633. Hall,
196, notes a snowfall of two or three inches about Christmas.
Indian affairs. March
15, 184G, petition of 78 citizens for a force of 100 men to fight Indians,
whose raids are becoming unbearable; bitter complaints that the custom-house
receipts are wasted by the employees living in great style and working 2 or 3
hours a, month, while the workers of the country have to pay double price for
their goods, and defend themselves against the Ind., who might be annihilated
at a emull expense by continued and systematic effort. Dept. St. Pa.p., MS.,
vii. 45-8. Apr. 30th, Gov. Pico orders a, campaign, appropriating 156,000 for
the purpose—from Castro’s part of the revenue I Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 191.
July, etc., renewed depredations after the U. S. took possession; complaints of
the failure of citizens to provide for defence; campaign of Purser Watmough,
killing several Ind. and recovering 100 horses. S. Jose Arch., MS., loose
pap., 32; this vol., p. 567. From Fch. 1847, after the removal of the garrison,
complaints were renewed. The gov. decided that troops at S. Jos6 would
accomplish nothing, since the Ind. came in small parties, having an
understanding with other Ind. on the ranchos; but it was thought best to send a
company to the S. Joaquin Valley to watch
have had only moderate success in checking the depredations of these
robbers, who often had confederates among the rancho Indians. Before the change
of flag, San Josd was subject to the sub-prefect of San Francisco. The jueces
de paz, later called alcaldes, were successively Dolores Pacheco, James Stokes,
and John Burton in 1846; Burton and James W. Weeks in 1847; Weeks and Charles
White in 1848. Each of the alcaldes was involved in more or less contro-
the passes, with a
force of 35 Cal. volunteers on horseback. Felipe Butron was appointed a lieut
to raise and command these men. They seem to have started late in April, but we
have no account of their achievements. The citizens in May urged the
appointment of B. K. Thompson as Ind. agent 011 the S. Joaquin. S. Josi Arch.,
MS., loose pap., 17, 41, 49; Unb. Doc., MS., 146-7, 311; Vallejo Doc., MS.,
xii. 288; 6'. F. Californian, June 19, 1S47. Sept. 6, 1847, preparations for a
grand campaign; Ind. on ranchos to he furnished with papers, which they must
show or be treated as horse-thicves. Ind. caught stealing should be shot; if
merely loitering about, they should be sent to the alcalde. Cal. <fc JSf.
Mex. 1850, p. 355. July 1848, Jos£ de Jesua, a S. Joaquin chief, acting in
behalf of the whites against the horse-thieves. Unb. Doc., MS., 74-5. Bemal,
Mem., MS., 11-23, gives many details of an exped. in April 1848, in which 8 Ind.
of a party of 9 were killed and many horses recovered; and Larios, Vida, MS.,
7-16, 25-7, describes an attack by Iud. on his father’s rancho of Sta Ana near
Hollister in Sept
Municipal officers.
1846. During the first half of the year S. Jos6 was subject to the suh-prefect
of S. Francisco. Jueces de paz Dolores Pacheco and Pedro Chabolla, suplentes
Valentin Higuera and Jos6 Fernandez. These were appointed in Dec. 1845 by the
prefect, though the sub-prefect’s recommendation was for Jos6 Noriega and
Pacheco, with Chabolla and Higuera as suplentes. Castro, Doc., MS., i. 235.
Jueces de campo appointed by Alcalde Pacheco Jan. 25th, Joaquin Higuera, Jos6
F61ix, Jos6 M. Alviso, and Agus- tin Bemal, juez de policia Francisco
Palomares; sindico Salvio Pacheco. Juez de paz of the contra costa Joaquin
Estudillo of S. Leandro, suplente Antonio M. Peralta appointed Dec. 15, 1845,
approved Jan. 22, 1846. Alcalde from July 16th, by Sloat’s appointment, James
Stokes. According to the Californian of Sept. 5th, Geo. Hyde was appointed
civil magistrate of the Sta Clara district on Aug. 26th, but I find no evidence
that he served. John Burton was appointed by Montgomery temporary alcalde on
Oct. 19th, S. J. Arch., MS., ii. 35, and served throughout the year. I find no
support for Hall’s statement that Burton was alcalde and Stokes juez de paz
from July.
1847. John Burton alcalde until Sept. Wm Fisher was
appointed Aug. 30th, but declined; and on Sept. 14th James W. Weeks was
appointed. Ignacio Alviso auxiliary justice in March. L. C. Anthony sheriff in
Nov. Estudillo was still juez of the contra costa, though in April the citizens
petitioned for the appointment of Elam Brown. 1848. Alcalde James W. Weeks, who
had sent in his resiguation in Dec., until Feb. 9th, when Charles White was appointed
1st alcalde and Dolores Pacheco 2d alcalde. White resigned on July 16th on
account of opposition among the Mexican population and the lack of a military
guard; andWm Byrne was appointed on July 26th; but Bryne declined to accept
the office and White continued to act. H. K. Dimmick was elected alcalde on
Dec. 12th for the next year. In the contra costa, Elam Brown was appointed
March 30th to succeed Estudillo as alcalde.
Pueblo affairs and
administration of justice. 1846. Jan., complaints of vagabonds killing cattle,
encouraged hy traders who buy the hides. Doc.
versy, arising chiefly from class and race prejudices. They had but
little skill in the administration of municipal affairs, but for the most part
did their best under unfavorable circumstances to maintain order, though the
town did not achieve a flattering reputation in this respect. The inability of
the government to furnish a military guard for interior posts did much to
increase the difficulties, the force of Indian horse- thieves and Mexican
vagrants being gradually sup-
Hist.
Cal., MS., ii. 28, 33. Jan.-May, instructions to jueces de campo, and police
regulations. Estudillo, Doc., MS., ii. 94; S. Josi Arch., MS., loose pap. 31-2;
Castro, Doc., MS., i. 261. Alcalde Pacheco tried to avoid accepting the office
on account of legal irregularities and because of opposition from a part of the
people; and vague complaints were made against him after he did accept, by A.
M. Pico and others. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 13, 184; Castro, Doc., MS., i.
274, 277-9. Before Stokes’ appointment an election was talked of, but not held.
Larkin’s Off. Corresp., MS., i. 139. 1847. Jan., the juez of the contra costa
claims equal authority with him of S. JosiS, complaining of Bur- tou’s summons
to him to appear before him. Estudillo, Doc., MS., ii. 9S. Feb., Com. Hull
gives instructions in the matter of complaints against Weber. S. Jose Arch.,
MIS., loose pap., 7. March, alcalde ordered by Kearny to dismiss the old suit
of Gabriel Castro against Antonio Hemano for winnings at a horserace. Cal.
& N. Mex. 1S50, p. 291-2, 301-2. April, if Stokes is not satisfied with the
decision of the alcalde’s court, he must wait for higher tribunals to be
established that he may appeal. Id., 295. May 1st, alcalde and junta protest
agaiust Kearny’s setting aside legal proceedings; the alcalde wants to resign,
as his rights are invaded. Unb. Doc., MS., 117-18. June 5th, 8 citizens ask the
gov. to appoint an alcalde in Burton’s place, and also to station a guard. Id.,
114. Oct. 18th, murder of an Ind. by another. 8. F. Calif., Oct. 20th. Oct., a
man named Chute convicted by a jury of manslaughter. Gov. recommends a sentence
of 7 years of hard work. Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 410-11. Dec. 2d, P. Real
complains of men who stand at the church door to look at the women as they came
from mass, a practice that should be stopped in the interests of religion,
morality, and public tranquillity. Soberanes, Doc., MS., 328. Dec. 28th, J. S.
Ruckel to gov., reporting increasing lawlessness; states that the late alcaldes
Burton and Weeks, though upright men, commanded no respect; recommends White
and a guard of 6 temperate men under asergeant. Unb. Doc., MS., 132-3. 1848.
Jan., complaintsof horse-thieving, which is not all the work of Ind., since the
Bernals were attacked by 6 foreigners. Id., 46. March, three men, Hands,
Higgins, and Williams, arrested and sent to Monterey for the intention to
commit robberies, etc. Gov. Mason objected to this, but did not send the men
back. Hands enlisted; Higgins was a deserter sent to S. F.; and the other was
shipped to Mazatlan. Cal. <b N. Mex. 1850, p. 487-8. Reported organization
of a party of marauders^ in the red-woods under one Beverley. Unb. Doc., MS.,
8-9. April, alcalde tried a Mex. for selling liquor, without a jury, because in
earlier cases the native element of the juries refused to commit. Id., 122.
May, gov. does not know whether Alcalde Brown of the contra costa is
subordinate to S. Jos£ or not. July, alcalde complains of dangers resulting from
the political intrigues of Salvio Pacheco and the violence of his son Juan
Ignacio against foreigners. No native will deal justly with foreigners. The
writer is accused of favoring the natives, yet fears for his life if Pacheco is
punished. Unb. Doe., MS., 76 -7; but White was urged to do his best and
continued in office. Dec., three men, Matthew Freer, Wm Campbell, and David A.
Davis, for highway rob-
plemented by foreign marauders from ship and army, three of whom were
hanged for highway robbery at- the end of 1848. A junta, or council of twelve
members, subsequently reduced to six, there being no end of controversy
respecting their election or appointment, shared the alcalde’s tasks in
1847—8. The attention of the council seems to have been chiefly directed to
the town streets, squares, and lots, several surveys being made during this
period; but their greatest achievement was perhaps the distribution of the
outside pueblo lands in 500-acre tracts among resident heads of families, an
action that in later
bery and attempted
murder, were convicted by a jury, and hanged on Dec. 18th. Id., 340, 34; S. J.
Arch., MS., loose pap., 8-9, 55.
Junta or council. In
Dec. 1846 Alcalde Burton appointed a, committee, or council, of 12 citizens to
aid in managing the pueblo affairs. The men selected were Antonio Sunol,
Dolores Pacheco, Jos6 Fernandez, Jos6 Noriega, Felix Buelna, Salvador Castro,
Wm Fisher, Isaac Branham, Grove C. Cook, Charles White, Julian Hanlis, and J.
W. Weeks. Hall’s Hist., 174-5. In Feb. 1847 this committee was ratified by a
meeting of the people, and the committee was named a junta. May 1st, ten of the
above, all except Castro and Cook, represent to Kearny that they had been so
chosen, complaining that K. had decided a case on hearsay evidence, ignoring
the alcalde and junta. Hist. Doc., MS., 117-18. July 3d, Weeks and others
object to the election as illegal, and propose that the gov. appoint 3
Californians and 3 Americans, recommending Pacheco, Noriega, Castro, Fisher,
Hanks, and Thomas Campbell. Id., 130. It appears that a new election of 6
councilmen was ordered, and that two elections were held, the gov. in Nov.
deciding that only the 1st was valid, but if any members elect were not actual
residents their places must be supplied by a new election. Cal. & N. Mex.
1850, p. 417. On Nov. 15th Noriega, Castro, Campbell, James F. Reed, Robert B.
Neleigh, and John Murphy were elected. Next day Charles White and 6 others
protested against Reed and Murphy as non-resident gamblers chosen by a small vote.
Reed is also accused of having killed a man (the Donner- party affair?). They
also declare Weeks an unfit man for alcalde, and will present charges if
necessary. The gov. then appointed J. S. Ruckel, Weeks, and a third to be
selected by them, to investigate the election and decide the matter equitably.
I do not find their definite report; but Ruckel reported privately in favor of
a new alcalde and an appointed council. Id., 431-2; Unb. Doe., MS., 120-1,
132-3. Fisher, Castro, White, Noriega, Sunol, and Pacheco are spoken of as ‘d
majority of the late junta’ meeting on Dec. 31st. Id., 45-6.
Pueblo lands. Feb.
11,1847. Alcalde Bartlett of S. F. advises Burton to sell lots at the regular
prices, 25 cents per front vara. There are complaints of his charging $100 for
a 100-vara lot. S. J. Arch., MS., ii. 34. One of the first acts of the junta,
probably in Feb., was to order a survey of the town into blocks, streets, and
squares, 50-vara lots to be sold for $12.50 and fees, and no person to buy more
than 4 lots, or half a block. In May the survey was made by Wm and Thomas
Campbell. The alcalde’s grants of these town lots were finally sustained, even
against earlier titles claimed by Weber and Pico. In June the junta, their
action being ratified by the alcalde and people, decided to have the outside
pueblo lands surveyed into tracts of 2,000
years was annulled by the courts. Town lots at San Jose, as at San
Francisco, were sold by the alcaldes at 25 cents per front vara. Of the few
land grants made in 1846 only one, with a few mission lots, was subsequently
confirmed by the land commission. Santa Clara, under the care of Padre Josd
Marla Real as parish priest, has been included, so far as events are concerned,
with the town, having been, indeed, more prominent than the latter in the semi-
varas square, or 500
acres—or less if the land were not enough for all—oue of which should be
reserved for a school, and the rest should be distributed, one to each, among
the actual citizens who were heads of families, the rest being reserved for
distribution to later citizens, and each tract paying an annual tax of |3. The
survey was made by J. D. Hutton in July-Aug., and the tracts were distributed*
by drawing lots, the alcalde issuing titles which were in later years not
sustained by the courts. Hall's Hist. S. J., 176-82. In 1848 a new survey was
made hy C. S. Lyman, U. S. surveyor, the streets and squares being much
extended. Id., 182-4. See Alta, Dec. 15, 1869, for a decision of U. S. Circuit
Court in one of the ‘ 500-acre ’ cases. In Jan. 1848 the alcalde complained
that Hutton had defrauded the citizens by certifying tracts of 200 to 380
acres to contain 500. He should be prosecuted for obtaining money under false
pretences. Unb. Hoc., MS., 45-6. March 10th, gov. decides that alcaldes have no
right to dispose of pueblo lands. S. J. Arch., MS., loose pap., 14.
Kanchos granted in
1846. *Calaveras, 8 leagues, Francisco Pico, who was claimant. Huecos, 9 1.,
Luis Arenas and John Roland, R. claimant. *New Almaden mine, Andres CastilliTO,
who was claimant. *S. Jos6 mission estate, Andres Pico and J. B. Alvarado, who
were cl. *Sta Clara, embarca- dero, 1,000 varas, Basilia Bernal, who was cl.
Mission lands, Juan C. Galindo, * Antonio M. Osio, Fraucisco Arce, *Jos6
Arnaz; *orchard to Castaneda, Arenas, and Diaz—Larkin cl. June 3, 1847, gov. to
Gabriel Alviso, declaring his lack of authority to grant lands. Cal. a: ]tf.
Mex. 1850, p. 318-19. Aug. 24th, alcalde directed not to interfere in the land
quarrel of Forbes and Come. Id., 389. Nov. 24th, gov. cannot settle disputes on
land boundaries in the contra costa. Id., 435. March-Apr. 1848, the gov.
decides that Ifiigo has no claim to certain lands as against Castro. Id.,
498-9, 542-3.
Sta Clara mission.
Padre Jos6 M. Real continued in charge as curate and temporal manager of Sta
Clara, and also of mission S. Jos£. 1846. May 25th and June 10th, P. Real
authorized by govt to sell mission lands to pay debts and support himself and
the church. Unb. Doc., MS., 269-70. June 30th, sale of the orchard and
buildings pertaining to it for $1,200 to Juan CastaSeda, Luis Arenas, and
Benito Diaz; deed in Hartman's Brief, 116-18. This deed was later proved to
have been fraudulently antedated. Hoffman's Opin., 15. 1847. Diaz was
negotiating with Larkin for the sale of the Sta Clara orchard, and on Feb. 14th
wrote to the padre to say, in Larkin’s name, that the only obstacle was the
Indian title, and to ask if for a fair compensation to the Ind. he could
remove that obstacle. On its face there was nothing dishonorable or irregular
in this proposition; but Real chose to consider himself insulted by a request
to commit the ‘ bajeza de vender los intereses deunos inocentes,’ and wrote a
sharp letter to Larkin on the 19th. Original in Savage, Doc., MS., ii. 57-8;
copy in Larhin’s Doc., v. 20. The padre also went so far as to publish the two
letters in the Star of March 20th. In reply, Larkin published his reply to Real
of Feb. 24th in the Star of April 10th. In this reply he had denied having
authorized Diaz to write such a letter, or
military developments connected with, the change of government in 1846-7.
The mission orchard was claimed to have been sold for $1,200 in May 1846, but
the purchasers did not get possession, and their title was afterwards declared
invalid. There was also much controversy between the priest and the iinmi-
known its purport,
expressed indignation at Real’s insulting tone, and reminded him that in 1846
he was very willing to deliver the property to another party, notwithstanding
the rights of his innocents. In a letter to Forbes of Mar. 4th, Larkin’s Off.
Corresp., MS., i. 114, L. speaks of the same matter, and of Real's disposition
to exceed his powers as a kind of sub-Indian agent. Kearny’s order that the
property remain in care of the priest was dated March 22d. In the Star of April
27th, Diaz published an explanation. May 1st, Alcalde Burton gives notice to
all persons to quit the mission, unless allowed by the padre to remain. S. J.
Arch,., MS., loose pap., 30. June 14th, Real to gov., sends a list of effects
lost by the forcible occupation of the two missions by immigrants and troops,
amounting to $4,007, besides damages to buildings, gardens, etc., not less than
$15,575. Unb. Doc., MS., 254-7. Junc 24th, gov. orders all occupants to vacate
the buildings at Sta Clara and S. Jos6 immediately, the alcalde being directed
to enforce the order. Cal.
N. Mex.
1850, p. 334. July 10th, gov. to Capt. Naglee, ordering him to go to the
mission with his company and eject the immigrants, using force if they would
not yield to persuasive means. Id., 340-1. But next day, at a personal
interview between Real and Gov. Mason, the former consented to permit the
immigrants to remain until after harvest, and later, by making a special
arrangement with the priest and paying rent for the benefit of the church.
Therefore, Naglee was ordered simply to take a position in the valley, and
hold himself in readiness to sustain the civil authorities. Id., 334-5, 343-5.
Oct. 14th, Real to gov., protesting against the fraudulent disposal of the
orchards. Larkin, on Sept. 16th, had furnished an expediente of 16 doc. showing
his title. Unb. Doc., MS., 275, 277. Possession was not givefi, and, as I have
said, the title was not finally confirmed. In the Star of Oct.-Dec. was
advertised for sale a tannery at Sta Clara, as part of the property of the late
Mormon concern of Brannan & Co. Nov., etc., corresp. on the sales of
mission lands by Real, which were annulled by the gov. This vol., p. 564;
Halleck’s Bept. 129, 168; Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 429-30, 448, 452-3. In
Nov., Real claimed some special privileges as a priest in personal litigation,
not regarding the alcalde a ‘ competent judge ’ in his case; but the gov.
refused to take such a view of the matter. Id., 435.
S. Jos6 mission. This
establishment, with Sta Clara, was under the care of Padre Real as parish
priest; and most of the corresp. given above may be applied to this mission
also. Of local events, nothing whatever appears in the records. May 5, 1846,
the mission estate was sold, as was claimed later, to Andres Pico and J. B.
Alvarado, for $12;000. Deed in Hartman’s Brief, 107-10. But the purchasers were
not put in possession, ajid it was later decided, as in the case of Sta Clara,
that the deed was fraudulently antedated. March 20, 1847, Col. Mason reported
to Kearny having visited the mission and found the immigrants in possession,
they having broken open the doors aud done much damage. Unb. Doc., MS., 146.
Larkin had also acquired a title to the orchard of this establishment, and on
Apr. 4, 1848, complained that the property was neglected, demanding possession,
or that Real be required to give security for its preservation. Id., 276. But
his request was not heeded, and his title was later pronounced invalid. In May
1847 he seems to have rented the property to James F. Reed, but the bargain
probably had no effect. Larkin’s Doc., MS., v. 130.
grants who had taken possession of the mission buildings; but the
intruders yielded to the governor’s threat of ejecting them by force, and
finally came to terms with the padre. There was also a pretended sale of San
Jose mission, which did not go into effect. Padre Real had charge of this
establishment as well as that of Santa Clara.
The great event of Sonoma annals for the period was the seizure of the
place on June 14, 1846, by the American filibusters, whose operations under the
Bear flag have been fully narrated. Other occurrences are somewhat dwarfed by
the glory of this great outburst of patriotic folly; and from the downfall of
Mexican power on the frontier to the gold fever of 1848, there was hardly a
ripple of excitement in the little town; Grigsby, Revere, and Brackett were the
successive military commandants; and the savages were for the most part easily
controlled by the efforts of Vallejo as sub-agent of Indian affairs. The town
had about 260 inhabitants in 1848.® Municipal affairs were directed
’Sonoma and northern
frontier events. 1846. Jan., quarrel about the aloaldeship, to be noted later
in this note. May, Prudon chosen delegate to the Sta-B. conaejo. This vol., p.
45. June, Castro’s visit. Id., 51, 105-6. June 14th, capture of Sonoma by
Bcar-flag men, and subsequent happenings. Id., 109-21, 145-68. June-July,
Fremont’s campaign. Id., 169-90. July 9th, raising of U. S. flag. Id., 242-3.
Lieut Revere put in command. Id., 254. Occurrences from Ang. Id., 296-8. 1847.
Feb., public meeting on the governor’s council; call for a military force. Id.,
433; Unb. Doc., MS., 140. April, three stores, town growing fast. S. F. Calif.,
May 29th. Co. C, N. Y. vol., Capt Brackett, stationed here. This vol., p. 514.
April, et seq., troubles with Alcalde Nash. Id., 608-10. Aug., trial of Armijo
et al. for outrages on Ind. Id., 610. Nov., visit of the 1st steamer, Sitka,
at the landing. Id., 578. Andrew Hoeppner’s medical springs near Sonoma
advertised in S. P. papers from May. A visit, view of Vallejo’s house and the
chnrch. Ward's Diary. Sketch of tbe town in ’47. Napa Register, Jan. 4, 6,
1877. In the
S. Josi Pioneer of Sept. 15, 1847, is an
account of a theatrical performance, claimed to be tho first in Cal., in 1847,
by members of the garrison and others.
1848. Jan., 45 houses and about 260 inhabitants.
Star, Jan. 8th. Correspondence of the Californian of March 22d, on the notable
improvement of the town. May, decision to remove garrison, and consequent fears
of the people. Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 556-8. June, Brackett’s co. reduced
by desertion. This vol., p. 516. Aug., Frisbie’s Co. H takes the place of Co.
C, and all mustered out. Id., 515.
Indian affairs. 1846.
During the exciting times of the Bear revolt and U. S. occupation nothing is
heard of the hostile Indians; but in 1847 troubles recommenced, though not
reaching very serious proportions. April, M. G.
under Mexican rule by Jose de los Santos Berreyesa as juez de paz, after
a torrent of ink had been shed in controversy about the office; then after an
interregnum of military rule, and perhaps a short rule of Manuel McIntosh, the
famous John H. Nash became alcalde, ceding the place, not without a struggle,
in 1847 to Lilburn W. Boggs, who was aided by a council of six citizens, and
continued to preside over
Vallejo appointed
Ind. agent for the district. This vol., p. 568. May, skirmish between Fernando
F6lix and party and Ind.; one white man killed; investigation by Vallejo.
Savage, Doc., MS., iii. 28-31. May 26th, V. to gov., the Yueaya chief sent in a
party with articles taken in war, promising to use his influence for peace, The
Ind. armed to resist outrages, which must be stopped. Unb. Doc., MS., 314-15.
July, Brackett to gov. announces that the Ind. have been stealing Salv.
Vallejo’s stock. Id., 301-2. Investigation of the matter. Savage, Doc., MS.,
iii. 32-5. Aug., gov. to Vallejo, approving his policy; cannot increase the
garrison. Gal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 380-1.
1848. Apr., V. asks to he relieved; white settlers
should not be permitted to settle on lands of the gentiles until some
arrangement has been effected. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 342. May, threatened
hostilities in consequence of removal of Brackett’s company. The gov. had not
much faith in the danger, declared it impracticable to retain the garrison; the
people must defend themselves, and V. must use his influence; intruders must be
removed. In an emergency, aid will be sent from S. F., also ammunition. But the
garrison was finally retained till Aug. Id., xii. 346; Cal. & N. Mex.
1850, p. 556-8, 613-14. New depredations in the Clear Lake region in Dec. Id.,
682. Kelsey and Stone had settled near the lake and were grossly ill-treating
the natives, who took a bloody vengeance in 1849.
Municipal official
list. 1846. Jueces de paz, appointed hy prefect in Dec., and approved by gov.
Jan. 22d, Jos6 de los Santos Berreyesa and Joaquin Carrillo; suplentes, DAmaso
A. Rodriguez and Antonio Valle. The preceding juez, Jos6 de la Rosa, had a
quarrel with Berreyesa, and found in his actions some pretext for refusing to
turn over the office until Jan. 9th, when he put B. under arrest and swore in
Rodriguez the suplente as juez 1°, and Carrillo next day as juez 2°. There was
no end of corresp. and charges, but the details are not worth presenting.
Berreyesa took possession on March 5th, and Rosa was fined $50, trying to avoid
payment on the ground that he was an employee of the com. general. Origiual
corresp. in Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 12, 14, 17-18, 20, 25-9, 30-1, 34-6,
41-5, 127, 129, 139-40. By the Bear-flag men in June there was a pretence of
keeping Berreyesa in office for a short time; but for several months under the
insurgents and the U. S. there was only military rule. It vaguely appears that
Manuel McIntosh acted as alcalde in the autumn for a while; but later, at a
date which I have been un- ahle to find, John H. Nash was elected by the
citizens. 1847. Nash alcalde until April. For an account of Nash’s refusal to
give up the office, see this vol., p. 608-10. L. W. Boggs was appointed by
Kearny to succeed Nash on April 10th, taking possession of the office in June.
June 14th, James F. Reed was appointed sheriff. Oct. 28th, Andrew Hoeppner
appointed 2d alcalde. Dec. 3d, election of a town council, consisting of Quin
Fine, John G. Ray, John Lewis (or Davis), L. P. Leese, Jesse Beasly, and H. A.
Green. Unb. Doc., MS., 122; S. F. Calif., Dec. 15th. May, alcalde asks gov.
for information about the extent of his jurisdiction; whether, as Vallejo
says, it extends to the Sac., Bodega, S. Rafael, and Napa. There is no jail,
ana the troops are tired of guarding prisoners. Unb. Doc., 110-11. Trial #f
Armijo et al. See this vol., p. 610. Dec., gov. to alcalde, on powers of the
council,
local government in 1848. Only three or four ranchos were granted on the
northern frontier in 1846. In the disposal of town lots, Vallejo’s past acts as
director of colonization were recognized temporarily by the military
authorities; and the sale of lots by the alcaldes continued here as elsewhere.
The only reference to ex-mission affairs was in connection with a citizen’s
claim under General Castro’s grant for one of the buildings, which was sustained
against the alcalde’s decision. San Rafael in 1846—8 was under the rule of
Ignacio Pacheco as juez de paz, and later of Timothy Murphy as alcalde, the
latter being still in charge
referring him to
instructions for the council of S. F., as printed in the Star and Californian
in Oct. Gal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 446. 1848. Boggs continued to serve as
alcalde.
Lands. The ranchos
granted in 1846 were Chimiles, Napa, 41., to Jos6 Ign. Berreyesa, Gordon and
Coombs cl.; German, 5 1., to Ernest Rufus, C. Mayer cl.; Rincon de Musulacon,
21., to Francisco Berreyesa, J. Horrel et al. cl.; and *Yucuy, Lake, 8 1., to
J. J. Berreyesa, who was cl. April, Vallejo presents to gov. his authority,
under Figueroa’s orders of 1835, for having granted lands on the northern
frontier and town lots at Sonoma, authority which he had exercised down to
Feb., but which he now surrenders. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 284-5; St. Pap.,
Miss. S Colon., MS., ii. 405-6. The gov. in reply assured V. that he had no
douht that his acts would be recognized hy the U. S. govt. Cal. <6 N. Mex.
1850, p. 292-4. May, the alcalde thinks the old powers should be restored to
Vallejo. Unb. Doc., MS., 113. June 7th, gov. to alcalde, authorizes him to
carry out so much of V. ’s former instructions as applied to the sale of town
lots; and the sales by Nash must be considered valid. Cal. & N. Mex. 1850,
p. 321. Lots were sold by the alcaldes here as elsewhere, and the titles were
sustained in later years. Some of the charges against Nash, as against Hyde at S.
F., were to the effect that he had sold lots improperly, and tampered with the
map and records. Snyder and Murphy, as we have seen, were commissioned to
investigate these charges. May 17, 1848, gov. to alcalde, denying the right of
the council, or any other authority, to dispute a title given by Vallejo to
Juan Castafieda before the U. S. flag was raised. Id., 551.
Mission. In June 1846
Gen. Castro gave Victor Prudon one of the ex-mission buildings in payment of
amounts due him from the govt. In March
1847 Alcalde Nash decided against Prudon in favor
of the church, with $420 damages; but Gov. Mason overruled this, and ordered
that P. be left in possession. In the litigation of later years, however, the
title of the church was confirmed. In Sept. 1847 the gov. ordered Capt.
Brackett to secure all records pertaining to the mission, and send them to
Monterey. Vallejo, Corresp., MS., 12; Cal. & N. Mex. 1850, p. 293-4, 396;
Unb. Doe., MS., 258.
San Rafael. 1846.
Jueces de paz, Ignacio Pacheco and Gregorio Briones, appointed by the prefect
and approved by gov. From the military occupation in June to the end of 1847 I
find no definite record of any civil authorities, though I think that Pacheco
and perhaps Murphy may have served as alcaldes. June 1st, Gen. Castro to Col
Vallejo, orders a distribution of all remaining mission property to the Ind.,
reserving only a few horses for the national defence. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii.
218. A few days later Castro visited S. Rafael to get the horses, which, being
sent under care of Francisco
of the ex-mission property. The estate was perhaps sold in June 1846 to
Sunol and Pico for $8,000, but the purchasers failed to secure possession. Two
other ranchos in Marin County were granted this year. The only stirring local
events were in connection with the Bear revolt, or the operations of Torre,
Ford, and Fremont, including the fight at Olompali, the bloodless capture of
the mission, and the murder of the Haro brothers. Bodega, though honored by a
formal raising of the stars and stripes in July 1846, and the appointment of a
civil magistrate, had no history during this period, except as a rancho and
the site of a prosperous saw-mill. Napa in 1848 was surveyed as a town site,
had one or two buildings, and was honored in the San Francisco press with the
title of Napa City. Benicia had also its beginning and a much
Arce, served as a
pretext to the Bears for opening hostilities. This vol., p. 105 et seq. It was
at the same date, June 8th, that the ex-mission estate, as was claimed, was
sold by Gov. Pico to Antonio Sunol and Antonio M. Pico for $S,000. Deed in
Hartman’s Brief, 113-16. The purchasers did not obtain possession, and their
title was later decided to be invalid, E. A. Breed et al being the claimants.
Other ranchos granted in 1846 were Baulines, 2 leagues, Gregorio Briones, to
whom the grant was confirmed; and *Buacocha, 2J 1., M. Teodora Peralta, who was
claimant, rejected. Jnne-July, fight at Olompali, Fremont’s campaign, Torre’s
operations, murder of the Haros and Berreyesa. This vol., p. 164-77. 1847.
April, Kearny to Murphy, asking for an inventory of n lission property in his
charge, also information about a debt to Hartnell. Cal. & N. Mex. 1850,
p. 297-8, 302-3. Sept., Capt. Folsom ordered to obtain the mission records
and send them to the governor’s office for safekeeping. Id., 397. 1848. Tim.
Murphy, alcalde. Feb., inquiries ordered by gov. about mission property that
may be taken for use of the Indians. Id., 472.
Bodega. This place
had no beginning as a town in 1846-8; but the U. S. flag was raised here in
July. This vol., p. 232; and Stephen Smith was appointed civil magistrate for
the region. Monterey Calif., Sept. 5th. Subsequently Bodega was subject to the
jurisdiction of the Sonoma alcalde in 1S47 -8. For nearly a year the operations
of Smith’s saw-mill were suspended during the war by the flight of Indian
laborers and the seizure of horses by the Americans; but in 1847-8, on account
of the active demand for lumber at S. F., the industry became very profitable.
Napa. According to
the Napa and Lake Co. Hist., 232 et seq., the town site of Napa was surveyed by
Nathan Coombs early in 1848, the adobe rancho houses of Juarez and fiiguera
being the only buildings standing in the vicinity. The first building was a
saloon, built by Harrison Pierce—still standing in 1881—in May, completed in
time to be deserted for the mines on the outbreak of the gold fever, but
occupied by Pierce in the autumn. Yet it is to be noted that Wm F. Swasey and
Chaa C. Southward advertised in the Star of April-June a store at Napa City. In
Aug. the election of a subordinate alcalde was ordered. Cal. Si N. Mex. 1850,
p. 595.
Benicia. At the end
of 1846 M. G. Vallejo and Robert Semple devised the scheme of building a new
city on the Strait of Carquines. For this pur-
more ambitious career, of which full details from original sources are
given in my note. General Vallejo gave five miles of land, on which Robert
Semple, with Larkin as a partner, undertook to build a city at the Carquines
Strait, which should be the Pacific metropolis. Two hundred lots were sold and
pose, on Deo. 22d V.
deeded to S. an undivided half of a tract of 5 square miles of the Soscol
rancho, the deed being put on record at Sonoma and S. F. The town was to bo
named Francisca, in honor of Vallejo’s wife, Dona I'rancisca Benicia Carrillo.
V. ’s chief motive was to increase the value of his remaining lands, hy
promoting the settlement of the northern frontier; and he was willing to
dispose of his interest in the proposed town. The earliest original rccord that
I have found is a letter of May 4, 1847, in which Semple writes of Larkin’s
desire to buy the general’s interest, and expresses his approval if the change
suits Vallejo. S. is closing up his business, and will move his newspaper to
Francisca by Aug. at latest. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 289. Accordingly, on May
18th at Sonoma, Semple deeded back his half of the property to Vallejo.
Original in Bear Flag Pap., MS., 31. Next day, the 19th, Vallejo deeded whole
property, reserving the right to some town lots, to Semple and Larkin for a
nominal consideration of $100. Vallejo, Doc. Hist. Gal., MS., xii. 291; San
Francisco Californian, July 3d. Semple transferred his paper in May, not to
Francisca but to S. F.; and the issues of May 29th and June 5th contained
notices of the proposed town, sale of lots, establishment of a ferry, etc.
Meanwhile Semple had gone in person to Francisca to start his ferry and have
the town site surveyed by Jasper O’Farrell. Doubtless the city founders had
counted on deriving an advantage from the resemblance of the name Francisca to
Sau Francisco, against Yerha Buena, a name little known in the outside world.
But the dwellers on the peninsula, as we have seen, had checkmated them by
refusing in Jan. to permit Yerba Buena to supplant officially the original
name. Accordingly the speculators deemed it wise to yield; Semple writes on
June 12th from ‘Benicia,’ and after a parting wail in the Californian of the
12th, the change to Benicia is announced in the issue of the 19th. In his
letter of the 12th to Larkin, Semple says the plan is completed and the lots
are numbered; several have been selected by men who propose to build; two men
are preparing to open stores; S. will have three frames ready for putting up in
July; five men are getting out lumber; 50,000 ft could be sold in 3 weeks; S.
has bought 1,000 vara3 opposite (Martinez) for a ferry-house; plenty of coal at
the point opposite Marc Island! ‘Benicia is making quite a stir in the great
city of S. F. ’ Larkin’s Doc., MS., v. 159. On June 29th articles of agreement
were signed at S. F. hy Semple and Larkin. Lots of even numher were to belong
to L. and odd numbers to S.; wharves and all privileges equally divided; each
to sell or convey his interest without interference by the other; each donates
4 squares for puhlic uses; each gives a lot for ferries, and 4 lots in 100 for
town use. Galif, July 25th. S. returned at once to the strait; and in July
Larkin contracted with H. A. Green of Sonoma for lumber, and with Samuel Brown
to build 2 two-story wooden houses for $600 and 2 miles of land at the Cotate
rancho. Larkin's Doc., MS., v. 177, 179, 181, 202, 249. In Aug., as appears
from Semple’3 letters, the doctor contracted for
50,000 feet of lumher at $40, opened a small
store, wrote to the gov. to secure an alcaldeship (which the gov. declined,
after consultation with Larkin, on Aug. 23d. Gal. <5e N. Mex. 1850, p. 389);
Vallejo sent Indians to build him a house, Charles Heath was employed in
boat-building, Stephen Smith agreed to establish a lumber-yard if the town
contiuued to prosper, McClurg and Haight agreed for 16 lots to build a store
and warehouse in which to keep a good supply of goods and lumber, Maj. Stephen
Cooper decided to settle at
fifteen or twenty buildings erected before the gold excitement, which
latter event was deemed extremely favorable to the prospects of the town.
Francisca was the name at first selected, in the vain hope that the name of San
Francisco would be permanently changed to Yerba Buena, but it was the new
estab-
Benicia, a ditch was
dug, and a brilliant success became a matter of certainty!' Larkin's Doc., MS.,
v. 'ZOO, 204-5, 210, 227. Meanwhile, and in. Sept., as appears from original
corresp., there was a fair demand for lots abroad. V. Bennett, John H. Brown,
J. Hudspeth, A. J. Grayson, J. W. Eggleston, David W. Chandler, John Couzens,
Samuel R. Palmer, H. Smith, Wm Gordon, Josiah Belden, C. W. Wooster, John W. H.
Drummond, and B. R. Buckelew signified their willingness to take the lots
assigned them. One of them writes that he has credited the price, as a matter
of form, ‘merely nominal of course.’ Id., 238, 246, 254, 260, 276, 316. Wm I.
Tustin, Recoil., MS., 5-8, says that he arrived early in the summer with his
wife and child, just as O’Farrell was departing, and while Semple was absent in
quest of lumber. He therefore claims to have been the first resident, and to
have built the first house. The 2d was built by Henry Crouch for Semple; the 3d
by Wm (or Benj.) McDonald, later Pfister’s store; and the 4th for Cooper as a
hotel. A similiar ae- count is given by S. C. Gray in Solano Co. Hist., 149 et
seq. Cooper, in S. F. Star, Apr. 1, 1848, tells us that the 1st house was begun
on Aug. 27th. The original corresp. shows that Tustin’s house and several
others were occupied before Sept. 7th. In a letter of Nov. 11th, Semple, Bear
Flag Pap., MS., 34-6, writes that there were 15 line houses under cover, and
several more in process of construction. On the 20th he sent a more detailed
report, showing, as supplemented by earlier allusions, a total of 16 buildings,
as follows: Wm. I. Tustin’s adobe 40 x 18 ft, Semple’s adobe store 40 x 18,
occupied by E. H. Von Pfister, Semplc’s wooden house 30 x 25, in which Stephen
Cooper lives,. Semple’s 2-story wooden house 36 x 18, Cooper’s 2-story adobe
hotel 36 x 18,. Landy Alford’s house 18 x 16, Nathan Barbour’s house 18x16,
Briggs & Russell’s frame house 28 x 20, Forhagh’s (Benj. Forbush ?) adobe
house 18 x 20, Wm Bryant’s frame house 24 x 12, ‘elegantly built,’ Henry (or
Wm) Russell's- frame house 24 x 12 (Bryant and Russell were partners), Charles
L. Benedict’s wooden house and grocery 18 x 16, Vallejo’s building 130x36,
intended to be raised to 2 stories the next year, blacksmith’s (Fine, who died
iu 1848) adobe shop 18 x 17, and 2 houses 23 x 19 and 18 x 16, built by Barbour
for owners not named. Some of these were not quite furnished, even when occupied,
and there were half a dozen other frames ready for shipment or erection. The foundations
for Larkin’s two houses were ready, but Green and Brown were very slow about
going on with the building. Meanwhile, and before the end of the year, Semple
had a canal 13 ft wide between 1st and 2d streets, and had made much progress
on road and wharf; ho had found plenty of chalk, quicksilver, and coal in the
vicinity; and had many applications for lots, the price of which was raised
from $20 to $50. John S.. Williams had selected lots and prepared to build;
Henry Smith was mentioned as engaged in building; and Green made a new contract
to put up Larkin’s houses. The doctor was full of enthusiasm, was delighted at
the success of vessels in reaching his port, and had no doubt that Benicia was
to be the Pacific metropolis in spite of the lies told at the villages of S.
F. and Sonoma. His great trouble was Larkin’s lukewarmness in the cause. It
required the most persistent urging to induce L. even to visit the place late
in the autumn. That a man in his senses should look out for a few dimes at Monterey
and neglect interests worth millions of dollars at Bcnicia seemed to Semple
incomprehensible. Larkin’s Doc., MS., v. 250, 258, 304, 315, 344, 351-2, 354.
The doctor’s, marriage about Christmas to Maj. Cooper’s daughter did not
dampen his
lishment that had to change its name. Semple’s faith and industry, like
his disgust at the comparative lukewarmness of others, were unlimited. It is
still believed by many that opportune cooperation with a little good luck in
1848-9 might have made Benicia in reality a formidable rival to the city on the
penin-
zeal. The Solano Co.
Hist, names as present at the festivities, besides some that had been named
above, David A. Davis, Charles S. Hand, Edward Higgins, F. S. Holland, Henry
Matthews, George Stevens, and Wm Watson. At the end of Dec., 28 citizens
petitioned the gov. for a new district to be set off from Sonoma under an
alcalde. Unb. Doc., MS., 127-8; and on Jan. 3,
1848, the gov. granted the petition, appointing
Stephen Cooper alcalde, and on the same day (!) consulting Alcalde Boggs at
Sonoma as to the desirability of the proposed change. Cal. <Ss jV. Mex.
1850, p. 452-3. The boundaries of the Benicia district were: from month of Napa
River up that stream to head of tide-water, east to top of ridge dividing Napa
from Sac. valleys, northwards along that ridge to northern boundary of Sonoma
district, east to Sac. River, and down that river and Suisun Bay to point of
beginning. Early in 1848,
E. H. Von Pfieter began to act as Larkin’s
agent, and I have many of his original letters, as well as Semple’s. There was
much corresp. about lumber, contracts, and projected buildings; Higgins and
Hand did some work on Larkin’s foundations; Persifor F. Smith applied for lots
for a residence and store; Faust dug a well; Hand did some work on a school;
Green was always on the point of beginning to do something on Larkin’s houses;
R. L. Kilburn of Napa wished to settle here and make contracts for buildings;
Cooper fenced Larkin’s square and planted it with locust trees, projecting also
a vineyard; Semple predicted that there would be 100 houses before the end of
the season, meanwhile working day and night and economizing to pay his debts,
also building or repairing with the aid of Wood a launch in addition to his old
ferry- scow (Tustin says tho scow was built in Napa Creek by Chas Heath, and
the sloop at Benicia, being painted, green and called the Greenhorn), and meanwhile
dreaming of a horse-power ferry-boat; a gale blew down one of the doctor’s
frames and part of Pfister’s store; Fine, the blacksmith, died; E. L. Stetson
tried to form a partnership with Pfister or start a store of his own; Russell
sold his house and left town; Davis and Fine opened » store at the ferry-house
on the contra costa, which hurt von P.’s business, so that he thought of taking
James Creighton as a partner; and Mr Brunt is named as a house-owner. Larkin’s
Doc., MS., vi. 28, 33, 35, 46-9, 61, 68, 72, 93, 97. In the Star of
April 1st Maj. Cooper has a letter of March 22d, in which he says: ‘There are
now 14 houses of adobes and frame, the smallest 18 ft by 16, and the largest 56
by 20 ft, 2-story. We have here 8 carpenters, one blacksmith, and one
wagon-maker, a tavern, and two stores. There has been upwards of 200 lots sold,
averaging about $18 each, 60 or 70 of them sold on condition that the
purchasers shall within the present year build a house to cover 600 sq. feet,
many of which are in progress of erection.’ He adds that the ferry has paid
$150 a month, which has been donated, with lots, for the benefit of schools.
But in May eame the gold fever to interrupt for a time Benicia’s progress
toward greatness. On May 19th Semple wrote that in three days not more than two
men would be left; on the same day Von Pfister announced that in two months
his trade had been only $50, and that he was goingto the Sacramento, learing
Larkin’s business in charge of Cooper; and now H. A. Green came at last to work
on Larkin’s long-delayed houses, actually completing one of them ! Semple
remained, for his ferry and transportation business became immensely
profitable. Id., v. 121; vi. 112, 116. The doctor promptly realized that the
discovery of gold, notwithstanding^ its temporary effects, was to be the
making of Benicia and a death-blow to its rival, Hist. Cal., Vol. y. 43
sula. Stockton, under the efforts of Charles M. Weber, made a beginning
as a town, and achieved a considerable development during the early golden
times as a centre of trade for the southern mines. New Hope, 011 the
Stanislaus, was cut off in its infancy as a settlement by the resolution of
the Mormon potentate to fix the ‘new hope’ of his people in the far interior.
S. 'Francisco. All that was needed was to
establish a wholesale house, obtain for ships the privilege of discharging
their cargoes, if not of paying duties, at the strait, and induce one or two
prominent shippers to make use of the privilege. Scores of traders came to B.
from the mines, anxious to buy there and avoid the dangers and delays of a trip
to S. F. If Larkin would only see his opportunity! But the Monterey capitalist
was apathetic, blind to his opportunities as his partner thought. Exhortations,
entreaties, and even threats seem to have had hut little effect on him. Semple
from July to Dec. tried to make him understand that he was years behind the
times, that he was by no means the ‘live go-ahead Yankee’ for whom S. thought
he had exchauged Vallejo, that he must wake up. On July 31st he threatened if
L. did not come and go to work by Aug. 20th, to having nothing more to do with
him. In Dec. his indignation knew no bounds, when he learned that L. was
thinking of erecting a row of buildings in Yerba Buena! This he declared the
hardest blow yet aimed at Benicia, worse than all the lies that had been told,
since it showed that the chief owner had no confidence in the new town. ‘ For
God’s sake, name a price at which you will sell out,’ he writes, and offered
$15,000 for Larkin’s interest. Id,., 150, 154, 244. Of actual progress in the
last half of 1848 we have no definite information; but Bethuel Phelps finally
became a partner with Semple and Larkin; and several years elapsed, as we
shall see, before Benicia’s dreams of metropolitan greatness came to an end.
Many men of good judgment yet believe that could a beginning of wholesale trade
have beeq made in 1847-8, Benicia would have been the great city; while others
regard Semple’s project as the baseless vision of an cuthusiast. It should be
added here that Vallejo’s original title to the Soscol rancho was finally, and
most unjustly, rejected by the U. S. supreme court; which caused the holders
under Semple and Larkin much trouble until they were relieved by an act of
congress. At Montezuma, J. Laird advertised his ferry from Feb. 1848 as
affording the best crossing of the Sacramento for travellers from Sonoma and
San Jos6 or Sutter’s Fort. Star, Ccdifornian. Halo Chemuck or Cha.no was the
name of a new town on the river in the same region, projected byBidwell,
Reading, and Hoppe, and several cabins were built before the gold fever began
to rage. Californian, Aug. 28, 1847. Star and Calif., Dec. 9, 1848.
Stockton. In 1844-5
C. M. Weber, through Wm Gulnac, had obtained the French Camp rancho. The first
settlers, living in tule huts, were Thomas Lindsay, killed by the Indians, and
David Kelsey, who died of small-pox. In 1846 Weber made efforts to induce
immigrants to settle on his grant, but fear of Indians and the outbreak of the
war prevented success. In Aug. 1847 Weber himself moved to the place from S.
Jos<5, and besides attending to hia business as a ranchero, laid out a site
called Tuleburg as the nucleus of a town of the future. Except the captain’s
employees, however, the place can hardly be said to have had any inhabitants
until the gold fever broke out in March-May. Then Tuleburg became the
headquarters of a mining company organized by Weber to operate in different
diggings. This company being dissolved, the captain gave his attention from
Sept. to the town, resurveyea aud renamed Stockton, where he built a store.
Thus the town dates in reality from the gold excitement, and this slight
mention is all that is called for
At New Helvetia, or Sutter’s Fort, from the time of the settlers’ revolt
early in 1846 to the discovery of gold at the beginning of 1848, there was
nothing in the course of events or development that requires
in this volume. See
Gilbert’s account in S. Joaquin Co. Hist.; and Tinlcham’a Hist. Stockton. The
Mormon settlement of New Hope, on the Stanislaus, where several cabins were
erected and other improvements made in 1846-7, has been mentioned in this vol.,
p. 552-3. In April 1847 a letter in the Star indicates 10 or 12 settlers, and 3
or 4 houses completed. In the Star from Oct. is advertised, in connection with
the dissolution of the firm of Brannan
& Co., the sale of all the improvements at
New Hope, Robbins, Stark, and Glover being agents.
New Helvetia events.
1846. Jan.-April, visits of Fr&nont and Gillespie. This vol., p. 3, 22, 24,
29. Jan., Mr Trow preparing stakes to lay out a new town on the Sacramento. N.
Helv. Diary, MS., 32. Survey by Hastings and Bidwell finished Feb. Id., 34. The
new town is called Sutterville in Yolo Co. Hist., 30, and Nueva Helvetia in
Bryant's What I Saw, 272. June, preliminaries of the settlers’ revolt. This
vol., p. 77 et seq. First operations: Taking of Arce’s horses, 10th. Id., 105
et seq. June 16th, Vallejo and other prisoners from Sonoma; E. M. Kern in
command at the fort; chronologic affairs to July 10th. Id., 120-9, 170. July,
return of Fremont from Sonoma, 9th; missing U. S. flag, 11th; march of the
battalion for Monterey. Id., 184
6, 243-4, 246-7. Aug.-Oct., Kern and E. J.
Sutter in command; release of Sonoma prisoners; Walla Walla Indian scare. Id.,
298-302. Sept., John Sinclair elected alcalde. Unb. Doc., MS., 296; McKinstry’s
Pap., MS., 9. Oct.-Nov., enlistment of immigrants for the battalion, also an
Ind. garrison for the fort. This vol., p. 359. Arrival of immigrants. Id., 524
et seq. Measures for relief of Donner party, Oct.-Feb. Id., 337 et seq. 1847.
Sinclair still acting as alcalde for the district; Geo. McKinstry sheriff.
June- July, departure of Kearny, Fremont, and Stockton for the east. Id.,
452-4. June-Sept., 25 N. Y. vol. under Lieut Anderson garrison the fort. Id.,
514. Aug., j'lormons here on their return cast. Id., 493. Arrival of
immigrants. Id., 554-7. Arrival of the 1st steamer in Dec. Id., 578-9; N. Helv.
Diary, MS., 143. Dec., statistics furnished by Sutter to govt: white pop. 289,
halfbreed, Hawaiian, and negro 16, tame Ind. or ex-neophytes 479, gentiles
21,873 ! Sixty dwelling-houses at the fort; 6 mills in the district, and a tannery;
no schools, but the new town will have one next year; 14,000 fan. wheat raised
this season. McKinstry’s Pap., MS., 28; Unb. Doc., MS., 91-2, 296, 307. 1848.
Sinclair alcalde and MeKiustry sheriff. An election of 4 subordinate alcaldes
was ordered in Aug., and in Nov. Sinclair was reappointed by the gov. The
discovery of gold was in January. Ind. affairs of
1846-8 are
briefly mentioned in this vol., p. 566 et seq., and except numerous petty
details too bulky for reproduction, nothing beyond this brief outline is
obtainable.
Banchos of the
Sacramento and S. Joaquin valleys granted in 1846, most of the titles being
finally pronounced invalid, were as follows: Canada de Capay, Yolo co., 9
leagues, Santiago Nemesis and F. Berreyesa, Jasper O’Farrell claimant;
*Moquelamo, Calaveras, 111., Andrfe Pico, who was cl.; *Sacramento, Colnsa, 11
1., Manuel Diaz, who was cl.; ranchos not named, in Butte Co., to Dionisio and
Miximo Fernandez, who was cl.; 11 1. to *Henry Cambuston, who was cl.; in S.
Joaquin Co., 8 1. to A. B. Thompson, who was el.; 111. to *Jos6 Castro, who was
cl.; 111. to *Jos6 Castro, B. S. Lippincott cl.; 11 1. at junction of S.
Joaquin and Stanislaus rivers to *John Rowland, who was cl. March 5, 1848, Gov.
Mason refuses to recognize a lease of lands to Sutter and Marshall by the
Indians. Cal. <b N. Mex. 1850, p. 490.
fuller notice than is given in the appended note. John Sinclair acted as
alcalde of the district under the American rule, and the population at the end
of
1847 was estimated at nearly 300,
besides Indians.
I append a plan of San Francisco in 1848, as promised at the beginning
of this chapter, with a long explanatory note.*
* San
Francisco and its buildings before tbe outbreak of tbe gold fever in May 1848.
In these notca and the accompanying plan I have attempted to
fix the location of the principal buildings of the town. Including shanties,
there were standing about twice as many structures as I have indicated, but
many of them were mere out-buildings connected with those located, and respecting
tbe sites of the rest there is no agreement among witnesses. I have also
indicated the original owners of the lots in each block. The blocks contained
six or four 50-vara lots each, which are referred to by number in tbis order.
The numbers given to the blocks are arbitrary, for my own convenience and that
of the reader. Buildings are referred to by letters on the plan. My special
authorities, in addition to the many cited elsewhere in this and earlier local
chapters on S. Francisco, are the following: official maps of S. F., showing
blocks and lots; Wheeler’s Land Titles, showing the grantees of lots;
advertisements and items in the Star and Californian of
1847-8;
original corresp. of Leidesdorff, Ross, Sherman, and others, in Larkin's Doc.;
Swasey’s View of S. F. in 1846-7, published in 1884, founded on the
recollections of Stevenson, Hyde, and Vallejo, besides those of the author, and
a work of considerable merit; A. D. Piper’s recollections, in the Alta of Feb.
17, 1867; J. C. Ward’s Diary, in the Argonaut; and the testimony of the
following men, as given to me in interviews of 1885: Wm H. Davis, Wm S. Clark,
Charles V. Gillespie, Richard M. Sherman, and John H. Brown. Except Juana
Briones’ house, and perhaps one or two more in the North-Beach region, there
were probably no buildings beyond the limits of my plan, though the limits of
Vallejo, Powell, and Bush streets are arbitrarily chosen, the survey, as elsewhere
explained, extending considerably farther. My plan shows also the extent of
water subsequently filled in and covered by the growing city. In no respect is
more than approximate accuracy claimed. All the buildings not otherwise
removed, except two, were destroyed by the fires of 1849-51.
Block 1. Lot-owners,
1 John Travers 1847, 2 Josiah Belden (beach), 3 L. Everhart ’48, 4 Henry Huber
(beach). Block 2. Lot-owners, all in 1847, 1 Roland Gelston, 2 Wm H. Peterson,
3 J. M. Stanley, 4 Ed Bryant, 5 Ed Burgess, 6 Laz. Everhart.
Block 3. Lot-owners,
all in 1847, 1 Jas. F. Reed, 2 Christian Russ, 3 Adolph Russ, 4 Robert Semple,
5 McK. Beverley, 6 Charles Russ. Ward tells ns that Semple gave his lot in ’48
to J. C. Buchanan, probably to show his faith in Benicia. Buildings: a, the
Russ brothers put on the comer lot a ship’s caboose, building additions as
required, and occupying the premises from 1847. Until after the gold fever this
was the southern frontier of settlement. It was separated from the next buildings
north, and hidden from view, by a high sand bank (not shown in Swasey’s view)
lying between Pine and Cal. streets. The lots have not changed owners, and are
still in 1885 the site of the Russ House, a more pretentious structure than the
original.
Block 4. Lot-owners,
all in ’47, 1 Benj. Kilbum, 2 James Barrett, 3 Philip Brown, 4 E. P. Jones, 5
Geo. McDougall, 6 Charles Docente. The
San
Francisco in 1848.
VALLEJO |
| I 1 STREET ( I
mission trail, or
road, followed approximately the line of Kearny and Mission streets to the
mission, 3 mile3 south-westward. Block 5. Lot-owners, all in ’47, 1, 2, 4, 5 C.
L. Ross, 3 J. M. Curtis. 6 Jean Kleinshroth. Block
6. Lot-owners, 1, 4 not sold till ’49, 2, 3,
5, 6 E. P. Jones in ’48. Block 7. Beach-lots sold to B. S. Lippincott and C. L.
Ross.
Block 8. Lot-owners,
1 sold in ’49, 2 Wm S. Clark 47, 3 L. W. Hastings *47, 4 Dionisio Garcia ’46,
5 John Townsend ’47, 6 W. A. Leidesdorff (beach). Buildings: c, Dr Townsend,
late in ’47, erected a wooden residence on his lot, where he lived with his
family and had his physician’s office in ’48 and later. His alcalde’s office
was apparently not here. At a, Starkey, Janion & Co., merchants, had their
store, with a separate office, on the Leidesdorff lot in ’49-50. It was
probably built in '48. They had also an office in ’48 at the cor. of Clay and
Kearny, probably in the City Hotel.
Block 9. Lot-owners
in ’47, 1 Charles C. Burr, 2 Charles Heath, 3 Jos Hicks, 4 Basil Hall, 5 Eliab
Grimes ’46, 6 Robert Ridley ’44. Buildings: a, adobe house, or rather a mixed
structure of wood and mud, built by Ridley on his lot in ’46. E. W. Pell lived
here with Ridley for a time. Early in ’47 it was bought by Leidesdorff, who
spent the rest of his life there. Leides- dorff’s cottage is described as the
only house in town which had a garden, being the southernmost house until Russ
built one over the sand hill far out in the suburbs. Ward gives a view of the
cottage, with some other buildings in the distance northward. W. D. M. Howard
lived here after L.’e death in ’48-50. Above this building, at c, Swasey has an
unnamed structure, which is also remembered by others. It was probably a shanty
erected by Grimes to hold the lot. Ross mentions a house and lot on cor. of
Pine and Kearny, offered to him in ’48 for $350.
Block 10. Lot-owners
in ’47, 1 Howard Oakley, 2 Geo. McKinstry, 3 Geo. Panano, 4 Keari Palani, 5 J.
A. Slitter, 6 Jacob Dopken. Block 11, lot 1 E. H. Harrison ’48, 2 C. L. Ross
’47, 3 C. W. Wooster ’47, 4 Rich. Knowles ’47, 5 J. B. McClurg ’47, 6 John
Philips ’47. Block 12, lots 1, 2, 3 sold in ’49, 4 James Lick ’48, 5, 6 Wm S.
Clark ’48.
Block 13. Lot-owners,
’47, 1 John R. Robbins, 2 Leidesdorff (beach), 3 Wm Pettet, 4 blank. Buildings:
a, LeidesdorfFs warehouse, on the beach, at what was later Leidesdorff and Cal.
streets. Built by L. probably in ’44 or ’45, and used by him till his death in
May ’48, also apparently as U. S. quartermaster’s warehouse. There was a small
pier, or wharf, at the landing near the building. S. H. Williams & Co. had
a store here in ’49, and probably occupied the old warehouse before the end of
’48. Wm Pettet had a wooden building on his lot at c, occupied perhaps at first
by himself as a painter. In June ’47 Gelston & Co. occupied the store with
the Whiton’s cargo in charge of C. L. Ross. They left this place in July or
Aug. for the cor. of Washington and Montgomery (block 29), after having
occupied for a short time Larkin’s store on the beach (block 18 or 23). Wm
Foster occupied the building next as a furniture shop, being succeeded in April
’48 in the same business by McLean & Osburn, as appears from advertisements
in the Californian. Before the end of ’48 McL. & 0., or perhaps Osburn in
company with Brannan, built a better wooden building west of the other, near
the comer. This was the lot on which Donahue & Kelly’s bank stood later.-
Post and Cooke are named as early owners.
Block 14. Lot-owners,
1, 2, 4, 5 John Fuller 1837 and ’47, 3 Francisco Sanchez ’45, 6 C. W. Flugge
’44. Davis, a later owner of 3, is certain that he bought of Flugge, and not
Sanchez, the numbers being transposed on the official map. Near the middle of
his 100-vara lot, at e, Fuller in 39 put up three small wooden buildings, in
which he lived with his family from that time. One of the three, that on the
left, or south, was occupied by Leidesdorff in ’45-7, until he moved to the
Ridley place (block 9). Dr E. T. Bale’s family lived here with Fuller in ’44-5.
In March ’47 Fuller’s property was advertised to be sold by the sheriff, but
his occupation seems not to have been disturbed. The property is described in
the adv. as bounded on the north by Howard St (Sacramento). An alley in this
block still bears the name of Fuller
Place. Lot 3, on ■which
stood tho granite building bo long
occupied by Wells, Fargo & Co., was bought in ’45 by Wm H. Davis, who built
on it a,.wooden Bhanty, a, and a red-wood fence. Mrs Montgomery oceupied the
house for a time in ’45-6; and in ’49 Davis put up a brick building, leased to
govt for a. custom-houBO, and burned in ’51. Lot 6 was bought by Wm M. Smith,
who at c built in ’47 or ’48 a house occupied by his partner, Frank Ward, till
’49.
Block 15. Lot-owners,
1 J. M. Hudspeth ’47, 2 Geo. McDougall ’47, 3 Henry D. Fitch ’46, 4 James R.
Berry ’44, 5 E. T. Bale ’44, 6 Wm S. Hinek- ley ’44. According to Swasey,
Robert Ridley had a houBe at a in ’47, which is confirmed by Brown; but others
do not remember such a building, or that Ridley had a house in town after
quitting his house in block 9. Block 16. Lot-owners, ’47, 1 Geo. K. Winner (?),
2 Christina Read, 3 ABa Stevens, 4 J. Handerick, 5 Keaniu Cuani, 6 Wm Johnson
’44. Block 17. Lot-owners, ’47, 1 blank, 2 Robert Roberts, 3 Mills L. Callender,
4 L. C. Gray, 5 G. D. Le- moine, 6 Robert Smith.
Bloek 18, beach-lots,
granted in ’46 to the wife of James A. Forbes. A portion seems to have been
owned by Larkin in ’47, though there is some confusion in the matter. Ross,
representing Gelston & Co. in Pettet’s store (block 13, c), tried in ’47 to
buy or lease Larkin’s lot, ‘opposite, on the corner, in a line with Ward.’
Larkin's Doc. He did not get the lot, but rented from Larkin his ‘house on the
beach, on the Forbes’ lot,’ at S50, occupying it for less than a month as a
Btore. A sick man occupied it in Oct. In Feb. ’48 Larkin’s ‘ little white house
under the hill ’—apparently the same—was vacant, and Ross, as L. ’s agent, had
a chance, by improving it and moving it to the corner, to leaBe it for $300 to
Mowry and wife for a shoe-shop and coffee-ealoon. This was done—or at leaBt the
improvements were made. At the same time, Ross deBired to obtain a lease of the
Forhes’ lot on which to build a warehouse on the beach, else he would have to
huild on his own lot, next to Starkey & Janion (block 8). It does not
appear that he succeeded before the end of ’48. All this appears from original
corresp. in Larkin’s Doc.; but nobody remembers anything about the matter, and
it is complicated by the fact that L. had another Forbes’ lot in block 23, and
also lots with some buildings in block 21 on the hill. Wm H. Davis informs us
that the Hudson’s Bay Co. built a kind of warehouse at c in ’42-3, and it was
still standing in ’47-8; but he rememberB no other building in the block except
a shed at a, built by himself for Paty & Co. iu ’44, which was removed
before ’48. Davis thinkB the wharf at e, foot of Commercial St., later known as
Long Wharf, was begun in ’48, but this Beems doubtful. On the Clay-St. wharf at
i, as recorded elsewhere in this chapter, considerable work was done before the
gold excitement in ’48, but nobody remembers that the result was of any
practical use at that time. I suppose that the building at c may have been
identical with the Larkin building alluded to above. The dotted line crossing
this block and the one next north indicates the position of a steep bank rising
from the beach. Near Clay St. it was about 10 feet high, but diminished in
both directions, and disappeared just above Washington and below Sacramento
streets. In ’35 et seq. Capt. Richardson’s Indians are said to have had a
temascal near the foot of Sacramento St.
Block 19. Lot-owners
from ’40, 1, 2, 4, 5 Jean Vioget, 3, 6 J. P. Leese. At a, about the comer of
the later Commercial St., Leese built in ’38 a large wooden Btore, and
adjoining it, in ’39, a small kitchen. L. lived here till ’41, when he sold the
buildings and both lots to the H. B. Co. Wm G. Rae, for the company, built an
additional structure south of the kitchen in ’42, used at first for a stable,
and later as a warehouse; advertised as a warehouse at cor. Sac. and Montgom.
streets in ’47. The main building, used as a dwelling and Btore, is mentioned
by every visitor, and is fully described in the narrative of Mrs Rae. After
Rae’s death in ’45, Forbes occupied the buildings for a time, until in ’46 the
property was sold to Melius & Howard, who lived and traded here in ’46-8,
Howard, however, moving his residence to the Leidesdorff cottage (block 9, a)
in May ’48. On the northern lot, at e, M. & H. erected late in ’48 the
first brick building in town. Perhaps John
Fuller had a shanty
here in ’38, before moving to his house in block 14. At
c, on his own land, Vioget in ’40-1 erected a
wooden structure, in which he lived and kept a drinking and billiard saloon
till about ’44. He was succeeded in the same business—still remaining owner—by
Juan N. Padilla, Robert Ridley, and (perhaps later) J. H. Brown, down to Aug.
’47, when it was refitted and kept as a hotel by E. P. Jones, to the gold
excitement, though it had been advertised for sale by Vioget in Oct. ’47. The
name had been changed from the Vioget House to Portsmouth House in July ’46.
Swasey has a separate building below the hotel as J ones’ residence, which
would seem an error. Piper describes the hotel as ‘ a small cluster of one-
story buildings.’ Late in ’48 a part was occupied as a store by Finley, Johnson
& Co.; and another part, the N. w. cor., as a hardware store by C. E.
Wetmore.
Block 20. Lot-owners,
’43, 1 Trinidad Moya, 2 Vicente Miramontes, 3 Jos6 Benavides ’46, 4 Juan
Castafieda, 5, 6 Leidesdorff. The City Hotel, at
a, was a large adobe building erected by
Leidesdorff in ’46. It is mentioned as a new building in the Star
of Feb. ’47, and was kept as a hotel by John
H. Brown—being often known as’ Brown’s
Hotel—until Oct., when Mr and Mrs Skinner took charge. The rooms fronting on
the streets were much used in ’47—8 as offices and stores. Shelly & Norris,
Jasper O’Farrell, Alcalde Hyde, A. J. Grayson (book and variety store),
McDonald, auctioneer, Wm S. Clark, C. V. Gillespie, McDougall & Parker,
brokers, and Starkey, Jan- ion & Co., seem to be among those who thus used
the rooms. In the last half of ’48 Brown was again in charge, R. A. Parker
being the lessee at $2,000. The Annals, 346, has a view of the building, and
quotes an account published in the Alta just after its destruction by the fire
of ’51. In ’48-9 the City Hotel was the headquarters of the gamblers; and was
from ’49 leased at $16,000, and sublet for stores and rooms at a great profit.
It was a low building with a veranda in front. The adobe house at c was built
in ’46 by Vioget on the Benavides lot, V.’s wife being a Benavides, and
occupied by him in ’47-8. At e on the same lot, according to Davis, was a small
two- story wooden house where the Grimeses lived in ’47-8, and where Capt. G.
died.
D. thinks this also may have been built by
Vioget in ’46. Above Grimes, at i, Vicente Miramontes built on his own lot
about ’44 a wooden house, in which he lived with bis family to ’48 and later.
Swasey’s no. 21, accredited to No<5, may be intended for this house. At m,
Wm Pettet advertises, in April ’48, a store for the sale of glassware, etc., ‘
opposite the school-house.’ Swasey has a group of 3 buildings here, one of
them the residence of Padilla. Dr Fourgeaud seems also to have had an office in
this vicinity.
Block 21. Lot-owners,
1 Wm Kittlemau ’47, 2, 3, 5, 6 J. P. Leese ’36, 4 Newell Bullen ’47. At a Leese
built in ’36 the first house in town, as elsewhere recorded (vol. iii. p.
709), where the St Francis Hotel stood later. It is not known that it was
occupied after Leese left it, and it was perhaps removed about ’40. Davis is
positive that it was not there in ’46-8, though Swasey gives a small building not
named. At c, or at Sac. and Dupont, according to the Alta of Oct. 26, 1852,
the U. S. military authorities built a kind of block-house in ’4G. Nobody
remembers such a structure, though Gillespie locates the jail in this vicinity
in ’48. The 100-vara lot, however, became the property of Larkin, and in ’47
had on it a shed that had been built by Capt. Hull for a hospital, doubtless
the blockhouse as above. A man named Antonio occupied it forL., but was ejected
by order of Shubrick. L. had a cellar dug for a new house, and there are
several communications on the subject. Later in ’47 L. had two small houses
rented for $3 and $7; also—perhaps the same—two sheds rented to a baker for $9.
Larkin’s Doc. There may be some confusion between this and L.’s other lots in
blocks 18, 23, q. v. Block 22. Lot-owners, ’47, 1 Matthew J. Haan, 2 Robert
Petch,
3 Howard Oakley, 4 Wm Pettet, 5 Daniel
Clark, 6 John Sirrine.
Block 23. Lot-owners,
southern lot (beach) Nathan Spear ’49, northern J. A. Forbes ’46, perhaps owned
later by Larkin. See note on block 18, there heing some confusion about these
Forbes-Larkin lots. At a, on the northern
half of the Spear
lot, Ward & Smith had their large wooden store in ’47-8. It was advertised
as ‘ No. 3 Moutgomery St.,’ this and the building nearly opposite being the
only ones in town that indulged in numbers. Wells & Ward (J. C.), according
to Davis, occupied part of the building in '48; and he also states that the
Star and Californian at the end of that year was published here. In April,
Ross occupied W. & S. ’s ‘warehouse, ’ which may have been the same
building. Larkin’s Doc. About the same time Mowry was living in W. & S.’s
yard, but soon moved to Larkin’s house near by. Id. At c, Davis states that
at the foot of the bank was a spring, where in ’38-9 Fuller, living
diagonally opposite, had a kind of wash-house or shed. Late in ’47 R. M.
Sherman bought the southern half of the lot, and employed W. H. Merrill to
erect a wooden store, which was occupied by Sherman & Ruckel in ’48. In 1885
Sherman still owns the property, and has an office in the Sherman Building. The
dotted line, as before explained, shows the bank rising abruptly from the
beach. S. says that he had a bridge from his front door to the bank, which
proves that it was in the street at this point; others think it was not so far
west. C. L. Ross seems to have had a, lumber-yard on the flat either in this
block or the one next north.
Block 24. Lot-owners,
1 Geo. Allen ’42, 2 Nathan Spear ’46, 3 Spear and Mrs Hinckley ’47-6, 4 Peter
Sherreback ’42, 5 Wm S. Hinckley ’39, 6 Juan
A. Vallejo ’40. Lot 3 was at first owned by
Spear & Hinckley, but the partnership was soon dissolved and the lot
divided. At a, in ’38, Spear put a ship’s house from the Kent on the comer of
his lot for temporary use till he could erect another building. Later he used
it as a sleeping-room, and Kent Hall seems to have stood here till after ’48.
At c, next northward, Spear built his wooden store in ’38-9, just north of Kent
Hall and farther back from Montgomery St. Here he lived and traded till ’46,
when he sold out to Wm H. Davis the huilding and his half of the lot. Davis
lived here for a year, as did his clerks later, and kept store till ’49, when
it was removed to make room for a new building erected by the lessees Bleeker,
Van Dyke, audBelden. It was advertised as ‘No. 2 Montgomery St.’ The firm was
Davis & Carter in ’48. C. E. Pickett made the store his home in ’46-8.
Davis owned also lots 2 and 5. At e, Capt. Hinckley built an adobe house in ’40
on his half of the lot, where he lived with his family till his death in ’46,
and his widow later. Alcalde Bartlett had his office here for a time in ’46-7.
In April ’47 the house was leased to Ward & Smith for 8 years, and was
occupied as a dwelling by Smith, who married Mrs Hinckley. It was removed in
’50. The site corresponds nearly to the comer of the later Merchant St. Davis
thinks that adjoining it ou the north a small wooden office was built early in
’48, aud used by Ward & Smith. The Vallejo lot next north was purchased by
Larkin, and had no building till after ’48, though Swasey erroneously puts a
building on it. The lot was for sale in ’47-8, and there were many offers for
the whole or part by Ross, Boggs, Hastings, and Holbrook, from $800 to $4,000.
Larkin’s Doc. In ’48, after the gold fever began, it was sold to Bran- nan for
$10,000. At i, in ’39-40, Spear built a 2-story heavy frame building for a mill
run by mule power. Daniel Sill was the builder and miller. It stood about 15 ft
back from Clay St. Not used as a mill after ’45, being hought by Davis in ’46,
and used as a storehouse, the machinery being sold. In ’48 Davis sold the
buildiug to Cross, Hobson & Co., who occupied it as store, office, and
dwelling. At m, Robert A. Parker had a store in ’48-9, advertised from April
’48 as a ‘new store opposite the Portsmouth House,’ Parker moving there from
his old ‘ adobie store. ’ There was free grog on the occasion of putting up the
sign in April. Swasey and Leighton occupied it in ’48, succeeding Parker.
Swasey calls it the Ross building. Brown declares there was no such building
between the mill and the adobe. Davis remembers it as a wooden store, and
thinks it was built by Gelston. Holbrook brought out on the Sabine a store all
ready to put together, and in March ’48 ivas in search of a site. I think this
may have been the same building. At n was Paty’s adobe, probably built
by Benito Diaz about ’46, and sold to Capt. Paty in ’47. Davis thinks this was
Parker’s adobe store in ’47-8, but the
weight of evidence
seems to be against bim. McDonald & Buchanan, auctioneers, seem to have
been here Jan.-May ’48, though their place is advertised both at s. E. and N. E.
comer of the plaza, and Gillespie thinks he remembers them at the latter. Wm
Beero had a cabinet-maker’s shop in the rear of this building in ’48; and Wm
Hendricks a barber-shop in this or that adjoining, being advertised as opposite
the Portsmouth House. At o, on his own lot, Peter Sherreback built a wooden
house in ’43, •which he occupied through ’48. John Sullivan, S.’s
brother-in-law, lived with him in ’44-6. The Hinckley lot, east of this, had,
like the Vallejo lot, no buildings.
Block 25. Lot-owners,
1 Jesus No6 ’43, 4 Stephen Smith ’46, 2, 3, 5, 6 town plaza from the time of
Vioget’s survey in ’39. On the plaza, at a, the adobe custom-house with tile
roof was built in ’44-5, as recorded in vol. iv. p. 669-70. From July ’46 it
was the U. S. military barracks, and later occupied by the alcalde and revenue
officers. It stood till the fire of ’51. A view is given in the Annals, 255.
Adjoining the custom-house, at c, there was a jail built later. Clark remembers
the jail, and it is on Swasey’s view. Davis, Gillespie, and others fail to
remember any such building. At e, on the plaza, was the small wooden
school-house built in ’47, as recorded in note 1 of this chapter. At i, on his
own lot, Stephen Smith in 45-6 built a wooden house, which he perhaps occupied
for a short time. In ’46 he leased it to Brannan, who lived there and published
the Star, which in Feb. ’48 was moved up Washington St. to the next block,
Brannan being succeeded in this house by Gillespie. There is a picture of
Brannan’s house—possibly the one farther up the street—in the Annals, 347. In
the other corner, at m, Jesus No6 lived in a wooden house on his own lot in
’46-8. Swasey’s location of No6’s house is inaccurate.
Block 26. Lot-owners,
I Wm Glover ’47, 4 Sam. Brannan ’47, 2, 3, 5, 6 Wm A. Richardson ’36 (though in
Wheeler’s schedule E this 100-vara lot is left blank). At a was the adobe ‘casa
grande’ built by Richardson in ’37 on the site of his tent of ’35 (see vol. iv.
p. 668-9, 709). It was one of the largest buildings in town in ’46-8. R. and
family lived here till ’42, his house being mentioned by all the early
visitors. Its site was nearly that of the later Adelphi theatre. James McKinley
bought it at the end of ’42, and Wm H. Davis occupied it as agent of McK. &
Paty in ’43-5, Benito Diaz also residing here part of the time. Many of the
Mormons wintered here in ’46-7. Davis thinks the building was unoccupied from
the time he left it except for miscellaneous occasional uses; but Josiah
Belden states that he (B.) occupied it as a store for Paty in ’46-7 (though
this may possibly have been at n in block 24); and it is stated by Wm S. Clark,
A. D. Piper, and a writer in the Alta of Sept. 21, 1851, that R. A. Parker had
bis store here. I think this must have been Parker’s store at the ‘adobie
house’ advertised in the Star from July ’47 to March ’48, when he moved to m in
hlock 24. David Dring was the owner in ’49-50. This was the only building of
’47 still standing in the region of the plaza in Sept. ’51. In May ’52 it was
taken down, having been undermined by winter rains. This left standing only one
building (a in block 51) that dated back before the discovery of gold. Alta,
May 3, ’52. The office of the Star, as appears from an advertisement of Feb. 3,
’48, was moved (from i block 25) about 100 varas up Washington St., ‘within a
stone’s-throw of the old windmill.’ I suppose that Brannan moved the office,
and perhaps his residence, to his own lot at c, though nobody seems to remember
such a change. Swasey has several small unnamed buildings in this vicinity. Wm
Glover built a house and lived on his lot at e.
Block 27. Lot-owners,
1 Wm Evans ’47, 2 John Eagar ’47, 3 Wm H. Montgomery ’46 (Ed. Hudson ’47), 4
Daniel Stark ’47, 5 Wm J. Powell ’46, 6 John B. N. Montgomery ’46. Block 28,
beach-lots granted to Dionisio- Garcfa in ’39. Nobody remembers any buildings
on the block. In Oct.-Dec. ’48, Edmonson & Anderson’s centre market is
advertised as on the cor. of Washington and Montgomery St. ‘opposite Ross’ N.
Y. store,’ and may have been here.
Block 29. Lot-owners,
1, 2, 4, 5 John C. Davis ’39, 3 Francisco Guerrero
'43, 6 Gregorio
Briones ’45. At a, Jobn C. Davig built his wooden house with carpenter and
blacksmith shop in the rear about ’39. As blacksmith, D. was succeeded in May
’47 by E. Walcott, and in Nov. Davis & Co. hy Rose & Reynolds, with D.
as their agent. John Finch was also connected at some time with this business.
Davis probahly lived here off and on till his death. R. M. Sherman rented the
house from the widow late in ’48. On the Guerrero lot at c, perhaps a little
nearer Montgomery St, C. L. Ross built his ‘New York store,’ and occupied it
from Oct. ’47, as per advertisement in the Star. All remember this store, still
occupied hy Ross in ’49. In the corner below Ross’ store, Swasey and Brown put
Wm Reynolds’ house, which others do not remember. In July, a new building at
the cor. of Washington and Montgomery was used for preaching on one Sunday, and
was immediately occupied as a store by Gelston & Co., who moved from their
old ‘ store on the heach,’ about the site of which there is some uncertainty
(see note for blocks 13, 18). This appears from editorial items in the Star of
July 24th, 31st, but G. & Co.’s adv. still continued ‘Montgomery St on the
beach.’ Ross’ adv. begins Oct. 16th and G. & Co.’s disappears Nov. 6th,
R.’sadv. reading both ‘ Mont. St on the heach ’ on ‘ Cor Wash, and Mont.’ This
is somewhat confusing, but I have no doubt that Ross and G. & Co. occupied
the N. Y. store together for a time, R. having been at first G. & Co.’s
agent, or perhaps a partner. I think this was the only building near the
corner. Ross had a lumber-yard somewhere on the beach, and at one time he
occupied Ward & Smith’s warehouse (a, block 23). From July ’47, Lazarus
Everhart advertised his tailor-shop at the ‘Laagggoonn.’ Clark remembers this
shop at e as a ship’s caboose, which he thinks was ‘ Kent Hall ’ (moved here
from block 24, a); but Davis thinks it was a shanty farther N. w. at Jackson
St. From April ’48, Geo. Eggleston kept the Washington market, apparently at m,
and later in the year Karl Schlottour had a bakery in the rear of the market.
The lagoon at A. is represented on the city map, presumably from O’Farrell’s
survey, as longest from N. to s., almost reaching Washington St; but all witnesses
agree that it was longest from E. to w., and that it did not touch the Guerrero
lot. At i, Alcalde Hinckley is said to have built a slight wooden bridge in
’44. The ‘ valley of dry bones,’ a name which seems to have originated from
some experience of the N. Y. volunteers, was at the cor. of Kearny and Jackson,
according to the Star of Jan. 15, ’48.
Block 30. Lot-owners,
1, 2,4, 5 J. B. R. Cooper, 3 Fran. Haro ’43, John Finch ’47, 6 Domingo F^lix
’43. From perhaps as early as ’44-5 Finch, known as Tinker, lived and kept a
saloon and bowling-alley at a. Thompson was his partner in ’47-8. The building
was quite a large frame. From March ’48, Conway & Westcott (though W. ran
away presently) advertised the Colonnade Hotel, on Kearny a few doors from the
plaza. I think this may have been the Tinker building, but possibly a distinct
one. Domte, a man who was murdered in ’47, is said by Clark and others to have
lived on this block at e. On the Cooper lot at c, John Cooper, a cousin of J.
B. R., is said to have built a wooden shanty in ’40, where he kept a groggery
for a year or two, after which Hiram Teal used it as a store to ’43. Its later
occupants are not remembered. David Ramsey’s store was advertised as ‘opposite
the custom-house,’ perhaps at i, from March ’48; and the Star and Californian
office as on Washington St and the plaza in Dec.
Block 31. Lot-owners,
1 Joel P. Dedmond ’44, 2, 3, 5, 6 Francisco Sanchez ’37, 4 Wm Richardson ’44,
J. C. Buchanan ’47. Capt. Paty in ’44-5 bought the Sanchez 100-vara lot, fenced
it, and built a shanty at a. John Halls, who advertises as a surveyor in ’47-8,
is located here by Gillespie. At c there was another shanty, said to have been
occupied by a Lascar named Jacinto in ’39^47.
Block 32. Lot-ownera,
1 Robert Henry, 2 John S. Misroon, 3 blank, 4 James Early, 5 A. A. Andrews, 6
blank. Andrews huilt a wooden house at u—not apparently on his own lot, since
several remember clearly that it was on the corner—where he lived from ’45 to
Nov. ’47. Wm H. Davis bought the property in ’46, and lived there from Nov. ’47
to ’50. On this lot also
seems to have stood
the windmill noted by several as a prominent landmark in ’46-7. Piper says it
had been built to grind wheat.
Block 33. 6
beach-lots, owned by Pettet, Jones, Leidesdorff, and Joice. At a, seems to have
been situated B. R. Buckelew’3 watchmaker’s shop, advertised from April ’47,
though B. ’3 lot was in the next block. This region wa3 sometimes known a3
Buckelew Point. It would seem that in this building must have been the office
of the Californian; at least, nobody remembers it elsewhere.
Block 34. Lot-owners,
1 Hoen & Dohling ’46, 2 beach-lots owned ^ by Elli3, Dixon & Hay, and
Hood, 3 blank, 4 Leandro Galindo ’46, 5 Miximc Fernandez ’46, 6 Geo. Denike
’47. At c, on his own lot, Denike from ’46 had a bakery, saloon, etc. It was
here that Dornte was murdered by Beverly in ’47. From May ’48 D. advertised
hi3 new hotel on the same 3ite. _ At
a, Dickson & Hay built the ‘Beehive’store
in ’47, which they advertised from Jan. ’48 as adjoining Ellis’ and opposite
Ross’ lumber-yard. They moved at this time from their ‘old premises adjoining
Leidesdorff’s ’—p033ibly a room in the City Hotel. At e wa3 an adobe building
occupied in ’47-9 by
A. J. Ellis a3 a boarding-house and groggery.
Everybody remembers how a bad taste in E. ’3 whiskey led to the discovery of a
drowned Russian sailor in the well. It was on Hoen’s lot, and Clark thinks H.
lived here before he moved to block 43; Davi3 says the house was built by
Benito Diaz in ’44, and by him sold to Elli3 in ’47. In Feb. ’48, L. W. Perry,
a painter, had a shop at the cor. of Jackson and Montgomery, perhaps at this
comer adjoining Ellis.
Block 35. Lot-owner3,
1 John Martin ’43, 2 B. Diaz and J. B. Mesa ’44,
3 J. M. Santa Maria ’46, 4 Gregorio
Escalante ’43, 5 Bruno Valencia ’43, 6 Cdrlos Glein ’44. From about ’45
C&rlcs Gleiu had a blacksmith-shop, and perhaps a residence, on his lot at
a. Near at hand, perhaps at c, John Ellick kept a grog-shop in ’47-8, being
part of the time in partnership with Denike. Somewhere in this vicinity must
have been Prudon’s adobe in ’39-43, but I cannot locate it, unless perhaps it
may have been at m, where Davis remembers an adobe shanty, occupied iu ’45-8
by Escalante and Ramirez; but D. evidently confounds this building ta some
respects with that of Cacere3 (block 36), whom he calls Valle. At e, Piper
mentions two small adobes, one of them unfinished, in ’47. They were evidently
on the Diaz-Mesa lot. Davis thinks one was begun in ’43-4 by Diaz and never
finished; the other was built by John Cooper about ’44. At i, on the site of
the modern Commercial Hotel, Hood & WiUon advertised their carpenter-shop
from April ’48.
Block 36.
Lot-ownera, 1, 2, 4, 5 Francisco Caceres ’38, 3 Juan B- ’43,
4 blank. The Bazaar, a market, was
advertised from May ’48, and is located by Gillespie at a. Swasey put3 John
Sullivan’s residence at about the 3ame spot, but othera do not remember it. On
hi3 own lot at c, Francisco Cdceres built an adobe house in ’38-9, and lived there
with bis family till ’44, and perhaps later, though part of the family moved to
S. Rafael, where they had a land grant. On the map of ’47, Prudon is named as
the owner of the lot, which he obtained, according to Davis, by marrying
Ciceres’ daughter. Between the Sullivan and C&ceres houses on Swasey’s
view are two buildings not named, and which I cannot identify.
Block 37. Lot-owners
’46, 1 Wm P. Reynolds, 2 John Duncomb, 3 Juan Yvain, 4 Wm M. Smith, 5 Miguel
Pedrorena ’45, 6 Wm Fisher ’45. From March 48, Henry Hartman advertised a
tin-shop on Pacific between Dupont and Stockton, perhaps at a. Block 38.
Lot-owners, 1 Julius Martin ’47, 2 Rafael Guirado ’47, 3 Ldzarc Pena ’45,4
Lewis Rogers ’47, 5 Martin Murphy ’47, 6 Wm Pettet ’47. Near the s. e. cor. of Pacific and Powell, in a
little depression, Davi3 remembers that Jos6 Antonio Ortega had a little
shanty house in ’38-41, perhaps at a. See also block 41.
Block 39, beach-lots
not 3cl(l till after ’48, except no. 3 (cor. Broadway and Sansome), which wa3
bought by B. R. Buckelew in ’47. But B.’s house was, as we have 3een, not on
this lot. The only building on the block was
A. B. Thompson’s hide-house at a, at the head
of a little cove, and accessible
to boats at high
tide. Davis remembers it as early as ’38-9, and Clark in ’46-8.
Block 40. Lot-owners,
1 S. J. Hensley ’46, 2 Manuel E. McIntosh ’46, 3 Jacob Harmand ’47, 4 Thomas
Kittleman ’46, 5 Christian Thomas ’47, 6 Jasper 0’Farrell ’47. At a, Hood (of
H. & Wilson, see block 35) had a shanty house in ’46-7, according to
Clark’s recollection. In Nov. ’48, DeWitt & Harrison advertised their
removal to their new store 'on Sansome St., opposite the govt reserve,’and
their place is located by Clarkatc. Block 41. Lot-owners, 1 Bernal ’44, 2 E. S.
Marsh ’47, 3 P. B. Beading ’46, 4 John Connell ’47, 5 Hugo Beid ’47, 6 John
Allen ’47. The house shown by Swasey as that of Ortega would seem to have been
in this block, at a, but I find nobody who remembers it. See block 38.
Block 42. Lot-owners,
1 Thomas Smith ’45, 2 Vardeman Bennett ’47, 3 Eusehio Soto ’45, 4 John Couzens
’47, 5 Geo. Wisner ’46, 6 V. Bennett ’47. At a was perhaps Francis A. Hammond’s
ahoe-shop advertised from April ’48 as on Pacific St. near Bennett’s. At c,
Bennett kept a groggery, bowling-alley, and sailor’s retreat from ’45,
sometimes with Thompson as a partner. According to Hittell, B. refused to be
‘swung’ out of his original lot by the O’Far- rcl survey, and his title was
sustained by the courts in ’59. Smith also kept a saloon and bowling-alley at e
on his own lot in ’46-8, with Wm Patterson as a partner part of the time. His
adv. appears from Oct. ’47. Marston’s school of’47, according to the Annals,
was in a shanty on Dupont het. Pacific and Broadway, say at i; but nobody
remembers it. On his own lot at m, Couzens probably had a house besides his
place in block 47.
Block 43. Lot-owners,
’46, 1 Aug. Deck, 2 Elliot Libby, 3 Francis Hoen,
4 J. C. Fr&nont ’47, 5 J. H. Watmough,
6 John AUig (Ellick). At a and c, on their respective lots, Hoen and Ellick are
remembered by Clark and Davis to have had liouses in ’46-8. At e, J. Montgomery
& Co. advertised the Shades Tavern and bowling-alley, with a store next
door eastward, perhaps all in one huilding, in the last months of ’48. Very
likely the buildings were not erected till after the gold excitement in May.
Block 44. Lot-owners, 1 James Murphy ’47, 2 Thos Kerr ’47, 3 Wm Reynolds ’44, 4
J. E. Montgomery ’46, A. J. Grayson ’47, 5 Daniel Murphy, 6 John Rose ’44. I
think Rose may have had a shanty on his lot at a, though nohody mentions it.
Block 45. Lot-owners,
’47, I, 2 Wm S. Clark, 3 Chas Albien, 3 (beach) Clark, Pettet, and Buckelew. At
a, on the lot which he still owns in ’85, Wm S. Clark, who gave the name to
Clark’s Point, built a warehouse in ’47 -8. The ‘new warehouse at foot of
Broadway at the stone pier’ was advertised to let in March ’48. In the whaif
at c the first piles were driven by Clark, and considerable work was done by
the city, as recorded in note 1 of this chapter. The battery, or Fort
Montgomery, of 1846, which gave a name to Battery St., was in the next block
north, between Battery St and the water, at the foot of the hill.
Block 46. Lot-owners,
’47, 1 J. H. Ackerman, 2 Peter Wimmer, 3 Alex. Hatler, 4 Ira T. Stebbins. Lot
no. 3, or a, was designated as a cemetery at the cor. of ‘Sloat’ and Vallejo
streets in the Bartlett map, and several bodies were buried there in ’46-7, but
none after ’47, the burial-place being transferred to North Beach. Block 47.
Lot-owners, ’47, 1 Pika Paele, 2 Henry Harris ’46, 3 J. D. Hoppe, 4 Geo. Pott,
5 John B. Faust, 6 Geo. M. Evans. An advertisement of ’47 mentions ‘H. Harris’
house (a) above Couzens’ slaughter-house (c), where Geo. Evans also lived.’ The
houses are also remembered by Clark.
Block 48. Lot-owners,
.’47, 1 Michael Foley, 2 E. P. Jones, 3 Michael Morey (or Murrey), 4 Aug.
Tieroff, 5 F. J. Lippitt, 6 Aquila Glover. Block
49. Lot-owners, ’47, 1 Stephen A. Wright, 2 Kale
Puaani, 3 Robert Whittaker, 4 James McClary (McCIurg?) ’46, 5 blink, 6 James
Greyson (Gregson?).
Block 50. Lot-owners,
1 E. P. Jones ’46, 2 John Thompson ’47, 3 Enoch P. Jewett ’47, 4 Frank Ward
’46, 5 Henry Smith ’47, 6 John D. Harris ’47. W. H. Merrill’s American House,
akind of boarding establishment, was built in ’47, a two-story wooden building.
Merrill kept the place through ’48. It
ia mentioned in the
Star of Nov. 27, ’47, as a new building, where the festivities attending Win
H. Davis’ marriage were celebrated. Davis locates it at a; some others think it
was not in this block. F. J. Lippitt had his law- office at Merrill’a in Dec.
’48. It seems likely enough that Jones and Ward put some slight improvements on
their lots granted in ’46, but they are not remembered.
Block 51. Lot-owners,
’47, 1 Barton Mowry, 2 Richard Moffatt, 3 Wash.
A. Bartlett, 4 Origin Mowry, 5 R. M. Sherman,
6 John Joyce. At a was built in ’47 an adobe house with wooden roof, for Mowry.
The 2d floor was used by the Mormons for their meetings. This was one of the
two old huildings that escaped the fires, and it was the only one left after
’52. It was still standing in ’67, when A. D. Piper, who helped to build it,
wrote his recollections for the Alta of Feb. 17th. At e, Sherman began a house
in ’4S, Merrill being the builder, which was sold to S. A. Wright in ’49.
Additions.—After the
preceding pages were in type, Wm Glover of Farmington, Utah, a member of the
Brooklyn colony, and a prominent citizen of S. F. in ’46-8, furnished me a
supplementary statement on the subject, which includes not only his own
recollections, but those of eight others of the Mormon colony. The testimony is
of value; most of it confirms what I had priuted; and the additions hy blocks
are as follows: Block 8, a, Wm Stout. 9, e, John Halls. 10, a, Dr Parker. 13,
c, e, John and Isaac Robbins. 15,
c, James Ferguson; e, Carrington’s
carpenter-shop; i, Hiram Grimes (?). 16,
a, Christina Read. 17, a, Robert Smith. 21,
e, Joseph Nichols; n and o, Thoa and Wm ICittlemau. 22, a, John Sirrine; e,
Robert Petch. 26, a, Parker’a store; c, Brannan’s house, and Star office a
little farther east; o, Beers’ cabinet-shop. 27, a, Julius Austin. 37, a,
Daniel Clark. 42, a, A. Buckland. 44, <•, A. J. Grayson. 50, a, Merrill’s
place in next block north.
51, e, John Joyce.
1542-1848
CONCLUDED ALPHABETICALLY
FROM VOLUME IT.
R. (‘II Signor'),
1827, sup. of the Hires. iii. 129-30. Raabes (Claudio), at S. Gabriel ’46.
Rabbens, or ‘Raben,’ 1847, mr of the Mathilde. v. 579. Rabbettoile (Pierre),
1847, Co. P, 3d U.S. artill.; ‘ Rabbittaile ’ on the roll; living in ’64.
Radford, 1847, lieut on the U. S. Warren, who went east overland with Kearny,
v. 452. Radon (G.), 1846, mr of the Narwal. v. 579.
Rae (Wm Glen), 1841,
nat. of Scotland, and agent of the H. B. Co., in charge of the Cal.
establishment of the co. at S. F. ’41-5. He was an able man of business, and a
jolly, popular bon-vivant. In ’45 he was driven by a complication of causes,
arising from business, political, and domestic troubles aggravated by
dissipation, to commit suicide at the age of 31. iv. 216-19, 593-4, 605-8; v.
679. Rae’s wife was Eloise, daughter of Dr John McLough- lin, and they had a
son and 2 daughters. The widow became Mrs Harvey, and died at Portland, Or., in
’84 at the age of 68. In a MS. Life of Dr Me- LougUin, she had furnished me a
valuable sketch of her experience in S.F. Her property was left to her son,
Joseph McL. Harvey, but the will, acc. to the newspapers, is contested by the
daughters of Rae, Mrs Wygant and Mrs Myrick. Raeckman (Israel), 1846, Cal. Bat.
(v. 358). Rafter (Wm), 1847, Co. F, 3d U. S. artill. (v. 518); still in the
service ’64. v. 521. Raggio (Luigi), 1847, Ital. from Mex.; justice of the
peace S. Luis Ob. ’51; S. Benito Co. ’67-81 with family. Ragsdale, 1837, mr of
the True Blue. iv. 106.
Rainey (Dav. P.),
1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). Rainsford (John), 1829, Irish sailor from the
Islands, known as ‘ Kanaka Jack,’ and as Joaquin Solis from his personal
resemblance to the convict, iii. 179. He worked as a lumberman; joined the
comp, extranjera in ’32. iii. 221; appears on Larkin’s books from ’34; got a
Mont. lot in ’35; age 30 in ’36; sold out in ’37; at S.F. in ’39-41, acting as
interpreter and mr of a launch on the bay. iv. 130. In ’42 he lived at Sonoma,
getting naturalization papers, and perhaps visiting the Geysers; grantee of a
Napa rancho by the Sonoma alcalde in ’45. Land Com., no. 804; died in ’46.
Ramirez (Agapito), at
Los Ang. ’45-6, iv. 522, 541. R. (Angel), 1834, Mex. ex-friar and
ex-revolutionist, in charge of the Mont. custom-house ’346; a leading
supporter of Alvarado at first and later a conspirator against him; an
intriguing, vicious fellow, who died in ’40. His wife, or mistress, in ’36 was
Francisca Gutierrez, who came with him overland from Tepic. Biog. iii. 5878;
ment. iii. 357-8, 261, 297, 370-3, 377, 452, 455, 469, 477, 487, 513, 523-5,
569, 573, 670-2, 677, 683, 688; iv. 96, 163. R. (Angeles), at Los Ang. ’46. R
(Aquilino), killed at S. Buen. ’38. iii. 554. R. (Antonio), at Los Ang. ’39,
age 25. R. (Francisco), Chileno at S.F. ’43-6; age 40 in ’45; collector in’46.
v. 648. _ R. (Ignacio), first man buried at Mont. 1770. i. 175.
Ramirez (Jos6), 1820,
Mex. eub-lieut of artill. ’20-26, when he returned to Mex. ii. 263, 371, 381,
422, 470, 510, 537, 674; iii. 25. He was an old man of 60, aud soon died,
leaving a widow, Maria de Jesus Ortega, of StaB., who returned to Cal., and in
’75 was still living at Sta Clara. R. (Jos4), resid. °f. Branciforte ’28-30.
ii. 627; wife Margarita Lorenzana, child. Riviano (Bibiano?), Vicente, Victor, Andres,
Jos6 Arcadio, Luis, Estefana, Barbara. R (Jos<5 Ant.), carpenter-instructor
1792-5; at Los Ang. ’21. i. 615; ii. 351. R (Jos« Guad.), soldier at S. Juan B.
before 1S00. i. 558. R. (Josd Maria),
(687)
1825, Mex. alfdrez,
who came with Gov. Echeandi'a, and was soon attached to the S. Diego comp. iii.
13-14, 16, 24, 78. He married Dolores Palomares, and in ’30 was tried and
acquitted for bigamy. Took part in the revolt of ’31, and was the slayer of
Vicente Gomez, iii. 204, 673; iu ’33-4 comisionado to secularize S. Diego
mission, iii. 326, 620, 630; in ’35-6 admin, of S. Antonio (possibly another
man), iii. 354, 687-8; in’36 at Mont.; also comisionado of Sta Ines. iii. 426,
463, 663-4; iv. 46. He was involved in the sectional quarrels of ’37-8, being
more than once arrested in the south, iii. 504, 555, 566;. in ’40 was grantee
of land at Los Ang. iii. 634; iv. 635; and in ’44 is ment. as lieut, being also
instructor and adjutant of the Los Ang. comp, of defen- sores. iv. 407-8. An
Alf. Ramirez was wounded at the S. Gabriel in Jan. ’47. v. 396. R. (Jos<5
Maria), soldier at Mont. ’36, age 33, nat. of Oajaca. R. (Juan), at Los Ang. in
’36, one of the vigilantes, iii. 432; age 32 in ’39; juez de campo ’36, ’40,
’48. iii. 636-7; v. 626; justice of the peace in ’50. R. (Manuel), 1801, Mex.
convict, ii. 170. R. (Marla Potenciana), wife of Ma- cario Castro 1777. ii.
141. R. (Miguel), sindico at Branciforte ’36. iii. 697;. in ’45, age 50, nat.
of Tepic, wife Margarita Lorenzana, son Canuto b. ’26 at
B.; prob. same as Jos6 above. R. (Ramon), at S.
Gabriel ’46. Ramon (Jos6), Ind. grantee of Puri'sima, Sta Clara. Ramos
(Jos<5), Mex. convict settler 1798. i. 606.
Ramsay, mr of the
Good Rope. ii. 284. Ramsdale (Geo.), 1846, corp. Co. K, C, 1st U.S. dragoons.
Killed at S. Pascual. v. 346. Ramsey (Chas), 1848, settler in Solano Co., still
in Green Valley ’78. R. (Dav.), 1847, corp. Co. H, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); kept a
store at S.F. ’48. v. 683. R. (John W.), 1847, Co. E, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Rand,
or Ran (Caleb), 1847, settler in Sta Clara Val. with wife from ’46-7; went to
Or. ’72; d. ’79. R. (Geo.), 1847, perhaps of N.Y.Vol. (v. 499), under another
name. R. (Joshua), 1847, Co.
C, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. before ’82. Randall
(Andrew), 1847, gunner on the U.S. Portsmouth; in ’50 called a doctor and
scientist; in ’53 apparently the claimant for several ranchos, iii. 677, 712;
iv. 655, 670, 672. R. (Chandler G.), 1847, said to have heen orderly sergt in
N.Y.Vol., but not on the rolls; a carpenter at S. Jos<5 from ’49 to his
death in ’58, age 36. R. (Charles G.), 1847, Co. B, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. S.
Josd after ’50; doubtless same as preceding. R. (Eli), 1847, at Stockton.
Tinhham. R. (John), 1826, mid. on the Blossom ’26-7. Randolph (Isaac N.), 1846,
Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336); kept a hotel at Sonoma ’48; in Amador Co.
from ’53 to ’63, when he committed suicide. R. (J. B.), 1847, lieut on the U.S.
Columbus. Raney (McKee), 1S48, nat. of Va, settler of S. Joaq., apparently
living in ’84; also- called ‘Reany.’ Rangel (Juan Jos£), 1829, Mex. convict set
at liberty ’34. Ranguel (Manuel), at Los Ang. ’46. Ransch (Joseph A.), 1847, at
S.F. asking for land; perhaps ‘ Rausch. ’
Ratiguande (Wm),
1828, doubtful name; mr of the Fdniz. iii. 147. Rausch (Nicholas J.), 1847, Co.
K, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); owner of S.F. lot; later a prominent German citizen of
S.F. where he died in ’63. Rawson (Dan. B.), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v. 469).
Ray (Charles), 1823, mr of the Plowboy. ii. 492. R. (David), 1848, immig. from
Or. with wife and 5 children; died on the Yuba the same year. Burnett. R. (John
G.), 1846, memb. of the Sonoma council ’47. v. 668; Cal. claim of $250 (v.
462); in ’60 kept a hotel on the Geyser road. The John Ray who came to Rose Bar
with his family in ’48, Yuba Co. Hist., 83, may be he or David. Rayaty
(Julian), at Los Ang. ’39, age 26. Raymond (Almon P.), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat.
(v. 469). R. (Fred.), 1847, nat. of Mass., who died at S.F. May 27th. R.
(Peter), 1846, Co. E, Cal. Bat. (v. 358); murderer of J. R. von Pfister in the
mines Oct. ’48, hut escaped from jail. I think he may possibly be the Peter
Remer executed at Sta B. in Dec. for the Reed murder, v. 632. Raymore (Thos),
1832, memb. of the comp, extranjera at Mont. iii. 221. Raynor (Wm), 1846, Co.
C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336).
Read (Christina),
1846, of the Mormon colony, v. 546; owner of a S.F. lot. v. 679. R. (Edward),
1844, Amer. from Mazatlan, who went mad on the voyage, and seems to have died
at S. Pedro, iv. 453. R. (Hannah T.), 1846,
of the Morm. colony
with a child, v. 546; perhaps Mrs Jimison later. R. (John), 1826 (?), Irish
sailor said to have come from Acapulco this year. iii. 176. I find no original
record of his presence before ’33 except that in '34 several witnesses
testified to having known him for 6 years, or since ’28. Prevented by Ind.
from cultivating the Cotate rancho, and serving for a time as majordomo of S.
Rafael, acc. tacurrent sketches he came to Sauzalito in ’32. Weeks claims to
have visited him in the Sauzalito cabin in ’31. His boat running occasionally
to Yerba Buena, may be regarded as the 1st ferry. From ’33 his name appears on
Larkin’s hooks and in various records, iii. 365; iv. 117. He was naturalized in
Sept. ’34, and in Oct. was grantee of the Corte de Madera del Presidio rancho,
iii. 711. In ’35 he was godfather at the baptism of Geo. Yount, and in ’36
married Hilaria, daughter of Jos6 Ant. Sanchez, being appointed admin, of S.
Rafael, and perhaps serving as alcalde the next year, when he was visited by
Edwards, iii. 718; iv. 86. Henry A. Peirce describes a visit to his place in
’41, and he died in ’43, leaving 4 children. The widow was still living in ’72
with a daughter by a 2d husband. The son, John J., b. in ’37, inherited his
father’s estate and was still living in ’80, with wife Carlota Suarez and 2
children. Another son was Richard, b. about ’39. One daughter, In£s, Mrs
Deffenbach, lived in ’80 in the adobe house built by her father; the other,
Hilaria, married J. Boyle of S.F. R. (Rachel), 1S48, married at S. F. to F.
Weaver. R. (Wm B.), 1847, Co. F, 3d U. S. artill. (v. 518).
Reading (Pierson B.),
1843, nat. of N.J. and overl. immig. in the Chiles- Walker party, iv. 393-4,
400. He entered Sutter’s service as clerk and chief of trappers, making wide
explorations in ’44-5, commanding at the fort during Sutter’s absence in the
Micheltorena campaign, and getting in ’44 a grant of the S. Buenaventura
rancho, iv. 483, 486, 673. In ’46 he was active from the first in promoting the
settlers’ revolt, and served ’46-7 in the Cal. Bat. as paymaster, with rank of
major, owning a lot at S.F., and havinga ‘Cal. claim.’ v. 127-8, 170, 179, 360,
404-5, 447, 674, 685. After bis discharge he settled on his Shasta C®. rancho,
but in ’48-9 engaged extensively in mining operations on Trinity River, where
Reading Bar bore his name, and in ’49 had a store at Sac. in company with
Hensley and Snyder, besides taking part in political affairs. In ’50 he went
east to settle his accounts as paymaster, and to pay a large debt at Vicksburg
resulting from a business failure of ’37, and returning was candidate for
governor in ’51, barely missing election. Subsequently he devoted himself to
agriculture in northern Cal.; married Fanny Washington in ’56, and died in ’68
at the age of 52, leaving a widow and 5 children. Maj. Reading was a man of
well-balanced mind, honorahle, energetic, and courteous; one whose Californian
record seems never to have furnished material for adverse criticism.
Real (Antonio Suarez
del), 1833, Mex. friar of tbe Zacatecas college, who served at Sta Cruz ’33-44,
and retired to his college in the latter year, or perhaps in ’45. iii. 319,
693—5; iv. 371, 657, 662, 675. Padre Real was a dissolute man addicted to more
than one vice, and even accused of theft, but credited with having been kind
and indulgent to bis neophytes. Sir Geo. Simpson, Laplace the French voyager,
and Josiah Belden have something to say of the friar’s character. R. (Jos6
Maria del Refugio Sagrado Suarez del), 1833, brother of Antonio, Mex. friar of
the Zacatecanos, missionary at S. Cdrlos to ’43, and priest at Sta Clara, with
charge of S. Jos£ and S. Carlos from ’44. iii. 319, 679-80; iv. 5, 427, 549,
638, 651, 657, 682. In ’46-7 he was in some difficulty about sales of mission
lands and encroachments of immigrants, v. 564, 663, 665-7; and in later years
his troubles with the authorities continued to some extent, until in ’51 the
guardian called on P. Gonzalez to suspend Real if he could not he induced to
leave Cal. voluntarily. He went in ’52; in ’53 writes from S. Jos<5 del Cabo,
L. Cal.; and in ’55 he had severed his connection with the college and was
serving as parish priest at Mazatlan. Padre JosS Marla somewhat resembled his
brother in character, though an abler man, with more skill in concealing his
irregularities. It was most unfortunate for the general reputation of tbe Cal.
padres—a most excellent body of men, as Hist.
Cal., Vol. y. ii
is fully
shown in these volumes—that the Real brothers, Quijas, Mercado, and a few other
black sheep of the fold were the friars whose conduct was best known to the
foreign immig., and on whom many pioneers have founded their estimate of the
missionaries. Reamer (Wm C.) of the Mormon col. of ’46; did not come to Cal.
Reausseau (Charles), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. in S.F. ’68. •
Recio (Antonio M.
Jimenez del), parish priest at Los Ang. ’47. v. 625; prob. came in ’45 or
earlier. Rector (Geo. W.), 1847, nat. of Ky; resid. of S. Luis Ob. Co. ’6S-83.
Reddick, 1845, one of Fremont’s men perhaps, iv. 583; went east with Sublette
in ’46, or perhaps >to Or. v. 526. Redmond (John B.), 1848 (?), Irish
settler of Marin Co. ’64-80. Reed (B. F.), 1846, Cal. claim of $300 (v. 462).
R. (Edward), 1831, mr of the Harriet. R. (Geo.), 1828, mr of the liascow.
iii. 148.
Reed (James Frazier),
1846, nat. of Ireland and a prominent member of the Donner party from 111.,
accomp. by his wife, 4 children, and his wife’s mother, Mrs Sarah Keyes. The
latter died in May at the age of 90. In Oct., before reaching the mts, Reed, in
a quarrel, killed John Snyder and was banished from the company. With one
companion he crossed the Sierra, and after an unsuccessful attempt to recross
with relief, served as lieut in the Sanchez campaign, and in Feb. ’47 went back
to the lake in the 2d relief. All the family saved their lives and settled at
S. Jose, where R. became wealthy and held local offices, dying in ’74, and his
wife, Margaret W., in ’61. James F. Jr was living at S. Jos6 in ’80, as was
Thomas K., also Virginia
E., wife
of John M. Murphy, with 6 children, and Martha J., widow of Frank Lewis, with 7
children. Portraits of father, mother, and the daughters in McGlashan’s work.
v. 508, 530, 532, 534, 664, 666, 668, 676.
Reed (John), see
‘Read.’ R. (John), 1837 (?), nat. of N.C., who came from N. Mex.; often
accredited to the Workman party, but his name is not in Rowland’s list, and
Given is positive he was not of the party, iv. 118, 278. Accredited to ’37 by
the Los Ang. Co. Hist., but perhaps did not come till after ’41. Served against
Micheltorena in ’45. iv. 495; signed the declaration against Castro in June
’46, and in Stockton’s campaign of 46-7 served as sergt in the Cal. Bat. A
visit to Sutter’s fort is recorded in ’47. He was a son- in-law of John
Rowland, and became owner of La Puente rancho, where he died in ’74, leaving a
widow, but no children. R. (John), 1846, of the Mormon colony, v. 546; perhaps
should be‘Read,’or the others‘Reed.’ R. (John), 1846, lieut in Marston’a force
Sta Clara campaign, v. 350. R. (John),
1846, sailmaker on the Congress, acting capt. in Stockton’s
Bat. ’46-7. v. 385. R. (Joseph), 1847, accredited toN.Y. Vol., but not on roll;
in St Helena ’75. R. (Martin), 1830, asked permission to cut timber at S.F.;
maybe an error for‘John Read:’ R. (P. H.), 1847, on the Vandalia at S.F. and
Mont. R. (Rachel), 1846, of the Mormon colony, v. 546; perhaps ‘Read.’ R. (Richard),
1845, deserted from the Hopewell at S. Diego. R. (Thos B.), 1845, doubtful name
of an overl. immig. iv. 578. R. (Wm), 1826, claimed to have been with Jed.
Smith, iii. 153. R. (Wm), 1837, Engl, sailor and lumberman in Mont. district
’37-8; being also named as pilot and mate of the schr California ’37-9. iii.
532; iv. 101. He married a native and settled near S. Miguel before ’46, in
which year, with Petronilo Rios, he got a grant of the mission rancho, v. 561,
637. Returning to his home from a successful trip to the mines he was murdered
in Dec. ’48, with wife, children, and servants—11 persons in all—by 4 robhers,
some of them discharged N. Y. Volunteers. One of the assassins was killed in
the pursuit, and the others, calling themselves Lynch, Remer, and Quinn, were
executed at Sta B. Dec. 28th. v. 592, 639-40. R. (Wm), 1842, trader at S.F.
from N. Orleans, aged 32, with wife and 3 children, John, Maria, and Eliza,
the last bom or S.F. Padron in Dwinelle.
Reer (James), 1846,
Cal. Bat. (v. 358). Reese (Dav.), 1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518). R.
(Geo.), 1847, ditto. R. (James), 1846, Co. E, Cal. Bat. (v. 358). Reeves (S.
C.), 1848, Columbia River pilot who came to Cal. on the news of gold, in a
long-boat rigged for the trip; returned to Or. as mr of the Jdven Ouipuzcoana,
but came back to navigate S.F. bay on the
Flora, and
was drowned in ’49. Hist. Or., i. 589, 808. Reffe (Winchester), 1847, nat. of
Ky and overl. iminig.; a farmer near Stockton ’49-56; settler in Lake Co.
’65—80; wife Lucy Maxwell. Regalado (Pedrp) invdlido corp. of S. F. comp.
’39-40. R. (Victor), 1848, nat. of Texas who came from Sonora to the mines;
later at Los Ang. Reichart (John), 1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518);
supposed to be living in ’67.
Reid (Hugo Perfecto),
1834, nat. of Scotland, who had been 6 years in Mex., coming to S. Diego in
Aug. ’34 with a pass from Gefe Pol. Monterdc at La Paz. iii. 412. He settled at
Los Ang., aged 23, and in ’35 was accused of complicity in the ApaUtegui
revolt, iii. 285; iv. 117. He is ment. in various records from this time, and
seems to have been engaged in trade with Leese and Keith. Becoming naturalized
in ’39, he settled on the Sta Anita rancho, granted to him in ’41-5. iv. 635. I
have several of his letters to Hartnell, who aided him in getting the land
against the efforts of J. A. Carrillo in he- half of the Lopez family. In ’39
he had a wife, Victoria, and 3 children, the wife having a grant of the Cuati
rancho in ’38. iii. 633. He is named as mr of the Esmeralda in ’42-3. iv. 565;
in ’43, ’46, encargado de justicia at S. Gabriel,
iv. 637, of which establishment he was
purchaser with Workman in ’46. v. 561, 627-9. In ’47 he sold Sta Anita to
Dalton, v. 628; was cAvner of a S. F. lot. v. 685; is named as sec. of a
meeting at S.F. on land matters; visited the mines in ’48, being also Pio
Pico’s agent to explain the motives of his return.
v. 588; and in ’49 was a member of the
constit. convention. He gave much attention to Ind. manners and customs, on
which subject he wrote a valuable series of papers, published in the Los Ang.
Star. i. 180. His death was in ’52. Felipe and JosiS Dolores seem to have been
his sons, iv. 119, the former heing at S. Juan B. in ’49. R. (Joseph), 1847,
Co. H, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at Napa ’71—82. R. (Patrick), 1847, corp. Co. F, 3d
U.S. artill. v. 519; supposed to be living ’64. R. (Wm), 1835, Amer. physician
at Los Ang., accused of complicity in the revolt, iii. 242-5, 285. The ayunt.
passed complimentary resol. on his medical services; prob. confounded with
‘Keith,’q.v. Reinhart (John), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358). Reintrie
(Henry), 1842, sec. of Com. Jones, iv. 310, 321; a nat. of Cuba of French
parentage, who was sec. on the Independence in *47; in ’68 vice-consul-general
at Habana. Reisch (Jacob), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).
Remer (Peter), 1848,
one of the murderers of the Reed family at S. Miguel, executed at Sta B. in
Dec. v. 632, 640. I think he was Raymond of the N.V.Vol., ’47, who killed
Pfister in Oct. ’48. Remington (Darius C.), 1847, Co. K, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); in
Wash. Ter. ’74. Remon (Jos6 Ant.), 1819, at Los Ang. ii. 354. Renard (Wm),
1840, mr of the Francis Henrietta; letters of introd.; perhaps did not come.
Rendall (John), 1826, mid. with Beechey.
iii. 121. Rendon (Guadalupe and Julian), at Los
Ang. ’46. R. (Ignacio), settler at Los Ang. ’10-19. ii. 349, 354. Renom, 1817,
boatswain on Roque- feuil’s vessel, d. at S.F. ii. 288. Renshaw (Wm B.), 1846;
lieut U.S.N., acting capt. in Stockton’s bat. ’46-7; came from Mazatlan with
despatches on the Malelc Adhel Oct. ’46. v. 290, 357-8, 386, 391-5. Repeto
(James),
1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). Repoll (Sam.
F.), 1846, killed at S. Pascual. v. 346; prob. the following. Repose (Sam. T.),
1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336).
Requena (Manuel),
1834, nat. of Yucatan, a trader who came by sea from Guaymas, sold his vessel,
and remained in Cal. In ’35 he was fiscal at the Apaldtegui trial, iii. 285;
alcalde of Los Ang. ’36. iii. 418-19, 431, 481, 636; took a prominent part
’36-8 in the southern opposition to Alvarado, and after the affair at Las
Flores retired for a time across the frontier, iii. 491, 504, 518, 548-9, 555,
558, 561, 565. In ’39-41 he was a member of the junta, iii. 590, 604; iv. 193;
in ’44 alcalde, iv. 411, 633; and in ’45 ministro of the sup. tribunal and
suplente congressman, iv. 532, 539-40; v. 50. In the troubles of 46-7 he seems
to have taken but slight part; but in ’50-67 he was often member of the city
council. He died in ’76, at the age of about 72, having always been a citizen
of excellent standing and much local influence. His wife was Gertrudis Guirado,
who died in ’74. His daughter married Dav. W.
Alexander, from whom
I obtained copies of a small collection of Requena, Doc. Hist. Cal. Retar
(Henry), 1840, sailor on the California. Revell (Andrew or Joseph), 1848, S.F.
letter list.
Revere (Joseph
Warren), 1846, nat. of Mass., and lieut on the Cyane. He .was the officer sent
to raise the U.S. flag at Sonoma in July, and remained in com. of the northern
district for several months, making a tour to Clear Lake—the 1st ever described
in print—and visiting Sutter’s fort to repel the threatened Walla Walla
invasion, v. 59-60, 128-9, 238, 242-3, 254, 296-7, 301, 433, 667. In ’47 com.
of the prize Admittance, v. 576; later claimant for a Marin Co. rancho, iv.
673. Hia Tour of Duty, published in ’49, contained an interesting narrative of
his adventures and observations in Cal. He resigned in ’50 to become a ranchero
in Mex., soon entering the govt service, but in ’61 reentering that of the U.S.
as colonel of a N.J. regiment. He rose to the rank of brig.-gen., but was
dismissed from the army by court-martial in ’63 for alleged misconduct at
Chancellorsville. He resided at Morristown, N.J.; published another book, Kiel
and Saddle, in ’72; took much interest in pioneer Cal. matters, v. 148-9; and
died in ’80. Revilla (Crist6bal), 1775, mate on transports ’75-6. i. 241, 287.
Rey (Chas),*I823, mr
of the Plowboy. ii. 492. R. (Crist6bal), in trouble
1797. i. 639. R. (Joseph), 1842, French lumberman in
the contra costa. Reyes (Antonio), at Los Ang. i. ’19—39; ii. 355; and Ant.
Marfa ’46-8, perhaps the same. R. (Dionisio), in Los Ang. revolt ’46. v. 308.
R. (Fecundo), at Los Ang. ’46. R. (Francisco), settler at Los Ang. 1787;
alcalde ’93-5; owner of ranchos; d. before 1816. i. 461, 553,561-2, 612, 661-3;
ii. 172, 185, 349. R. (Ignacio), juez de campo at Los Ang. ’45. iv. 634. R.
(Inocencia), inent. at Los Ang. ’46. v. 318. R. (Isidro), aux. alcalde at Los
Ang. ’38. iii. 636; age 26 in ’39; cl. for Boca de Sta M6nica ’52. iii. 633. R.
(Jacinto), settler at Los Ang. 1804. ii. 349. R. (Jos6), saddler-instructor
1792-5. i. 615. R. (Jos6), convict settler of 1798. i. 606. R. (Josg), corp. of
S.F. comp. ’20-8; perhaps same at Los Ang. ’46-8; Sta. B. ’50. R. (Manuel), at
Los Ang. ’46. R. (Martin), settler at Los Ang. 1790. i. 461. R. (Saturnino and
Seferino), at Los Ang. ’46-8.
Reynolds, 1810, mr of
the Sultan ’10-14. ii. 282. R. (Ed. D.), 1847, purser on the U. S. Southampton.
R. (Sam.), 1843, visited Cal. from Hon. R. (Stephen), 1833 (?), Mass. trader at
Honolulu, often named in Cal. corresp. of ’30-44, many of his original letters
being in my collection. I think he visited Cal., but find no positive record.
He died insane in Mass. about ’53, having lost his property in a sugar
plantation at the Islands. R. (Wm), 1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). R. (Wm),
1845, named at S. F.; also as alcalde of S. Rafael, and later claimant for part
of Nicasio rancho, iv. 587, 593, 672, 677. There may be some confusion between
him and the following. R. (Wm John), 1839, Engl, sailor and carpenter on the
Index, who left the ship and settled at S.F. in ’43. iv. 119. In ’44, being 25
years old, he became a Mex. citizen, owner of a lot, iv. 669, and corporal in
the defensores. He worked as a carpenter with Davis and Rose, spending much of
the time, ’45-6, in Napa Valley, where he seems to have worked on a mill, and
where he built a small vessel, the Londresa. His visits at N. Helv. are
recorded in the Diary of ’45-7; and he is said to have been married in ’46 (?)
by Alcalde Boggs. There is no reliable record of the part he took in the revolt
of ’46, though some vague and inaccurate reminiscences are recorded in the Napa
Register of ’72. He was familiarly known as Chino Reynolds, was rarely detected
in telling the truth about early events, and died in ’76 at Sonoma. R. (Wm P.),
1845, son of Stephen, b. in Manila, mate on the Fama. iv. 565; worked for Davis
& Grimes; served in Fauntleroy’s dragoons (v. 232, 247); owner of S.F. lot.
v. 684; in ’49-52 was in charge of Lugo’s rancho, Los Ang., and later a trader;
still at Los Ang. ’58. Rezdnof (Nikolai Petrovich), 1806, Russ, chambcrlain,
who visited S.F. to establish commercial relations bet Alaska and Cal. ii. 38,
67-80, 182, 219.
Rhea (John), 1831,
Amer. trapper from N. Mex. in the Wolfskill party, who settled at Los Ang.,
where he kept a saloon, with a billiard-table, from
’34 to ’36, but is
thought to have gone east about ’37. iii. 387, 405. Rhett,
1845, perhaps one of Fremont’s party, iv. 583.
Rheusaw (Hiram), 1845, overl. immig. of the Swasey-Todd party, v. 576, 587. He
is ment. at Sutter’s fort early in ’46; and went south with Fremont in Aug.,
remaining there with Gillespie, and ranking as lieut in the Cal. Bat. during
the final campaign. v. 360, 386, 435; Cal. claim of $15 (v. 462). I have no
record of him after his discharge from the service in April ’47. Rhinehart
(Joseph), 1846, German memb. of the Donner party, who perished in the snow. He
had no family, v. 531, 533.
Rhoads (Daniel),
1846, son of Thomas, nat. of 111., and overl. immig. with wife and his father’s
family. He worked for Sinclair on the Grimes’ rancho, and was a member of the
1st Donner relief, v. 538, of which he has furnished for my use a valuable
narrative in MS. Working in the mines ’48-9, after a visit east he settled in
’51 ou a rancho near Gilroy, moving in ’57 to the Kings River country, and
living in ’83 at the age of 62 near Lemoore, Kern Co. He had at that date a son
and three daughters. Portrait in Kern Co. Hist., 168. R. (Henry C.), 1846, son
of Thomas, in Fresno Co. ’72. R. (H.), 1847, visited Cal. on the Gen. Kearny.
R. (John B.), 1846, oldest son of Thomas; member and perhaps capt. of the 1st
Donner relief, and also memb. of the 4th; on the jury in the Keseberg trial, v.
538, 541. He settled in the Sac. Valley, was a memb of the legislature ’63, and
died in ’66. R. (Thomas), 1846, nat. of Ky, a Mormon, and overl. immig. with
wife and 12 sons and daughters. He settled on the Cosumnes, and the visits of
different members of the family are often recorded at Sutter’s fort in ’47. In
that year Mrs R. died on Sutter’s launch while being earried to S.F. for
medical aid, and was buried at Benicia. R. subsequently went to Utah, where he
died in ’69 at the age of 77. The sons, Daniel, Henry, John, Thomas, and Wm B.,
are named in this register. Of the daughters, Elizabeth married Sebastian
Keyser in ’46, and in ’72, as Mrs Pieree, lived at Kingston, Fresno Co.; Sarah
married Wm Daylor in ’47, in ’51 became the wife of Wm R. Grimshaw, and in ’72
lived at the Daylor rancho with 7 children. Grimshaw’s narrative has been my
chief source of information about the Rhoads family. A 3d daughter married
Jared Sheldon in ’47, and in ’72 lived at Daylor rancho with 2 children. The
youngest daughter went to Utah and married John Clawson. The wife of T. Elder
is also named as a daughter of R. R. (Thomas Jr), 1846, son of Thomas; prob.
the T. Rhoads who served in the Cal. Bat. (v. 358); drowned while crossing the
plains in ’52. R. (Wm B.), 1846, son of Thomas; in Fresno Co. ’72. Rhodes
(Jonas B.), 1848, at S. F. from Valparaiso. R. (Stephen C.), 1846, sailor on
the U.S. Dale; came back to Cal. in ’49, and died at S.F. ’50 at the age of 40.
Rice (Daniel), 1832,
Amer. carpenter from S. Bias. iii. 408; at Los Ang. ’40, age 30; married a
Romero about ’35. R. (Geo. Joseph), 1826, nat. of Mass., who came from Hon. on
the Rover, iii. 176; ii. 558; and settled atLos Ang. In ’28 he made a trip to
Hon. on the Ileros for his health, returning by L. Cal. and S. Diego, obtaining
naturalization and a license to marry in ’29. His wife was a Lopez, and he was
for a time associated in business with John Temple, the partnership being
dissolved in ’32. I have several of his letters of ’31-4. In the later years he
kept a billiard-saloon, which he sold to Fran. Figueroa about ’35; and he is
said to have left Cal. for the east about the same time. R. (John), 1830, Amer.
shoemaker from N. Mex. iii. 180; at Los Aug.’36, age 25. R. (Joseph M.), 1846
(?), Soc. Cal. Pion. R. (Thos), 1825, mate on the Rover. R. (Wm H.), 1846, died
in Alameda Co. ’67; said to have been a sailor in the navy ’46. R. (Wm), 1826,
mr of the Warren ’26, ’29 (?). iii. 149.
Rich (Wm), 1841,
botanist in U.S. ex. ex. iv. 241, 243. R. (Wm), 1847, maj. U.S.A., and
paymaster ’47-8; came on the Preble, v. 517, 646. Richards (Henry), 1842,
sentenced at Los Ang. to 10 years of presidio in Jalisco for murder; nothing
known of the case. iv. 296, 342, 633. R. (James), 1847, Co. E, N.Y. Vol. (v.
499). R. (Q.), 1847, Co. E, Mortn. Bat. (v. 469). R. (Nathaniel), 1833, mr of
the N. America, iii. 383. R. (Pierre), 1844, French
man ip Mont.
district; fined for buying smuggled goods; had a claim for damages done by
Fremont. iv. 453, 566; v. 615. R. (PeterF.), 1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469);
reenl. R. (Wm), 1829, British subject who got a carta.
Richardson
(A.), 1846, mr of the Brooklyn, which brought the Mormon colony, y. 545, 576;
d. in N. Y. ’84 at the age of 86, and his wife the same day aged 77. R.
(Artemas W.), 1847, Co. C, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); county surveyor in Tuolumne; d.
at Sonora’54. R. (Benj.), 1848 (?), a capitalist of S.F. and N.Y. whose arrival
is doubtfully accredited to this year in newspaper sketches of ’84. R.
(Charles), 1847, sergt Co. B, N.Y. Vol. v. 504; d. at sea ’55. R. (Henry),
1844, clerk on the Sterling; d. in Cal. iv. 453. R. (Henry P.), 1847, trader on
the coast ’47-8; owner of S.F. lot and of property at Benicia. R. (Paul), 1840
(?), a noted trapper and mountaineer, who several times crossed the continent
to Or., and may have entered Cal. before ’48, as he did in ’49. iv. 120. _
Richardson (Wm
Antonio), 1822, Engl, mate on the whaler Orion who ‘left’ his vessel at S.F.,
was permitted by Gov. Sola to remain on condition of teaching his arts of
navigation and carpentry, and in ’23 was baptized at the mission by P.
Est&aega, receiving at that time the name of Antonio, and being 27 years
old. ii. 478, 495-6, 591. I have his autograph letter of ’23 in Spanish, and
many of later date. In ’24 he was in trouble about debts, ii. 526; and this was
by no means the last occurrence of such difficulties; but in ’25 he married
Marla Antonia, daughter of Comandante Ignacio Martinez,
ii. 592; iii. 29; and in ’27-9 he applied for
naturalization—obtained in ’30— calling himself a piloto, with some ideas of
ship-building, speaking Spanish, and having a capital of about $3,000, besides
some live-stock, and producing a certificate from P. Altimira of great
usefulness to the mission by carpenter- work, and teaching calking to the Ind.
He had a boat that traders could hire, served as pilot on the bay, as in the
case of Duhaut-Cilly. ii. 590; was more than suspected of smuggling with the
support of his father-in-law, and in ’29 was employed to vaccinate Ind. at
different missions, iii. 168, whence his later title of doctor. At the end of
’29 he moved with his family to S. Gabriel, where he made his home till ’35,
though making trading trips up and down the coast in different vessels, ii.
558; iii. 143, 285, 382. In ’35, returning north, after aiding in founding
Sonoma, he erected the 1st structure in S. F., a kind of tent, or shanty,
replaced in ’36 with a large adobe building; became the owner of town lots;
declined the office of alcalde in ’37; and from the 1st day of ’37 served as
capt. of the port by Vallejo’s appointment, iii. 295, 512, 700, 705, 709; iv.
97-8, 116, 153, 601-2; v. 682. His private business was the collection of
country produce by a launch running on the bay. In ’36 he became owner of the
Sauzalito rancho, granted to Galindo in ’35; and in ’41 he went there to live,
though still holding his office of capt. of the port of S.F. till Nov. ’44,
with no little trouble arising from his interested leniency to whalers who
insisted on going to Sauzalito ‘for wood and water.’ iv. 245, 314, 376,
430, 665-6, 669-70, 683. In ’46 he afforded some
slight aid to the Californians against the Bears, v. 176; but under Stockton’s
appointment served again as capt. of the port and collector in ’46-7. v. 572,
659, 433, 539. Had a Cal. claim of $6,683 (v. 462); was claimant for Sauzalito,
where he spent the rest of his life, and his wife for Pinole, iii. 713; iv.
672; was a witness in the Limantour and other land cases; and died in ’56,
leaving a widow, still living in ’80, a. son, and 2 daughters. Capt. R. was a
skilful sailor and an energetic man of business; and though somewhat too often
involved in business difficulties, and severely criticised—as who was not ?—in
land litigations, is still given a good name by men of all classes who knew him
in the early days. A biog. sketch is given in the Marin Co. Hist., 386, the
very inaccurate nature of which would not be noticed here but for the
statement that it is founded on an original diary. R. (Wm B.), 1832, Amer.
tailor said to have come on the Espia, though I find no other record of such a
vessel, iii. 408. Named in Larkin’s books from ’33; and in ’40 at Mont., age
30, and married. In ’46 he served in Co. B, Cal. Bat. (v. 358), and was still
living in Mont. Co. ’50. Called also Rocherson and Rickerson. Sometimes a Wm
Ii. appears
in the records, at
Sonoma and elsewhere, who cannot be identified with Wm
A. or Wm B., so that there may have been a
third of the name Richer, see ‘Nief.’
Richie (Benj.), 1847,
Co. C. Morm. Bat. (v. 469). Richmond (Wm), 1847, Co. D, ditto. Richter (Carl),
1832 (?), writes to Hartwell, in Russian, from Sitka, and seems to have spent
some time in Cal., being a friend of the padrs prefecto. Rickman (Robert),
1841, overl. immig. of the Bartleson party; visited Mont. in Jan. ’42 with
letters from Sutter, but went east the same year. iv. 267, 270, 275, 342. Rico
(Francisco), nat. of Mont. h. about ’20; in ’42-4 clerk and celador of the
Mont. custom-house, being also grantee in ’42-3 of S. Lorenzo and Rancheri'a
del Rio Estanislao ranchos, iv. 339, 377,
431, 655, 672. In the revolution against
Micheltorena ’44^5, Rico took a prominent part from beginning to end. iv. 460,
462, 487, 501, 505, 588. In his Notes of ’45 Larkin descrihes him as an
honorable, straightforward man of good standing but little property. In ’46-7
as capt. of defensores he was an active supporter of the Flores movement, being
2d in com. in the Natividad campaign, chief of a sub-revolt against Flores, and
finally commissioner sent to treat with Fremont, v. 45, 307, 316-18, 321, 333,
362, 365, 368, 372, 404. As late as Feb. ’48 he was required to give honds to
commit no hostilities against the U. S. v. 585-6. In later years he was a
ranchero in Mont. Co., heing apparently supervisor in ’56. In ’77 he gave me
his Memoriae, a narrative confined exclusively to the events of ’44-7 which
fell under his personal observation, the general accuracy of his statements
being well attested hy original documentary records. In ’85 I have not heard of
his death. R. (Martin Gonzalez), appointed in Mex. district judge for Cal. in
’29, but never came. R. (Vicente), sergt at Sta B. ’29-30. iii. 78, 114. Ricord
(John), 1847, N. Y. lawyer who had been attorney-gen. of the king of the
Sandwich Isl. An unfavorable letter from Com. Biddle to Gov. Mason respecting
his record at Hon. and in the U.S. preceded him in Cal., and he was unable with
all his arts to secure a high govt position. He opened a law office at Mont.,
and in ’48 was a speculator in quicksilver mines.
Riddell (D. A.),
1834, mr of the Wm Lye. iii. 384. R. (Timothy W.), 1834, mr of the Martha, iii.
383. Ridington (Thomas), 1833, Amer. sailor, who landed from the Ayaeucho and
settled at S. Diego as a shoemaker, age 33. iii. 409. In ’35 he applied for
naturalization, and in ’38 got provisional papers from Carlos Carrillo as gov.
His arrest was ordered in ’40, iv. 15, but he was not exiled; and in ’44 and
’47 he served as justice of the peace, iv. 618-20. I find no record of him
after ’48. His wife was Juana Machado, widow of Ddmaso Alipds, who still lived
at S. Diego in ’78, with 4 married daughters, giving me a narrative of Tiempos
Pasados. Ridley (Robert),
1840, Engl, sailor and clerk, who appears on Larkin’s
books from Jan., being in com. of Sutter’s launch, and for a time in charge of
Ross ’41, acting also as clerk for Spear and Rae at S.F. iv. 117, 120, 129,
138, 186, 233, 668-9.
678-9. In
’44 he was naturalized, owner of a lot, corporal of the militia, and married to
Juana Briones of North Beach, all at the age of 25. He was a pronounced
cockney, a fine-looking fellow, prone to gossip and big stories, capable of
drinking prodigious quantities of brandy, and popular with all classes. In’45
he got a grant of Sonoma rancho, iv. 671; and this year or the next built a
house in town—the Leidesdorff cottage, at the comer of Montgomery and
California streets. He was capt. of the port in ’46, and for a time 2d alcalde;
but having a fight with Leidesdorff—whose letters are full of denunciation of
this ‘greatest blaggard in town’—he was removed from the office, v. 648-9. In
July, as a Mexican official, he was arrested by the Bears and cast into prison
at Sutter’s fort, but released in time to get some votes for alcalde in Sept.
v. 126, 129, 136,178, 239, 295, 644-5, 659. In ’47 keeping a saloon at S.F.; he
went on a voyage of search for the Warren’s launch, v. 384, 680; later appears
at Mont. for a time; but in ’48 was appointed alcalde at S.F. mission, where he
spent the rest of his life, dying in ’51. His heirs were unsuccessful
claimants for the Visitacion rancho, v. 671. His name was prob. Robert T.,
though the 2d initial is written also J. andF., and he is also called Richard
and Joseph.
Riely, 1847, of Lee
& R. at Mont. Rielson (Geo.), 1846, at Bemal’s rancho near S. Leandro.
Riff'e (Wm), 1846, Cal. Bat. (v. 328); proh. aame as ‘Reffe.’ Rigby (Geo. F.),
1847, Co. F, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); at S. Jos<5 ’50. Riley (James), 1846, with
Kearny from N. Mex. as asst in the engineer dept, v. 337. R. (James), 1847, Co.
D, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); owner of S.F. lot ’48. Ringgold (J.), 1841, lient
U.S.N., com. of the Porpoise in U.S. ex. ex. iv. 232, 235, 568. Rina (Louis),
1840, refused grant of Sta Catalina Isl. as a foreigner; doubtful name. Rioboo
(Juan Antonio Garcia), 1783, Span, friar who served as supernumerary at S.F.
and S. Diego, retiring in ’86. Biog.
i. 455-7; ment. i. 379, 388, 404, 422, 459.
Rios (A.),
land-ownerat S. Juan Cap. ’43. iv. 621. R. (Cayetano), soldier of S. F.,
drowned ’17—IS. v. 202, 382. R. (Gregorio), at Los Ang. ’46.
C. (Joaquin), sub-majordomo at S. Juan B.
’35; land-owner at S. Juan Cap. ’41.
iii. 692; iv. 626. R. (Petronilo), Mex. sergt of
artill. at S.F. ’27-40. v. 592;
iii. 71, 584, 672, 702; prob. came in ’24-5. In
’36 named in Mont. padron as 30 years old, wife Catarina Avila, child. Jos6
Camilo b. ’34, Maria Lina ’35, Jos6 Simon ’36. In ’42 grantee of S. Bearnab6
rancho, Mont. iv. 655; in ’46 grantee with Reed of the S. Miguel estate, v.
375, 561, 637, 639-40; and in ’52 claimant for Paso de Robles, iv. 655. He
still lived in S. Luis Ob. Co. ’60; and in ’77 hia widow, living at Sta Clara,
gave me her Eecuerdos of the Reed murders at S. Miguel in ’48. R. (Santiago),
juez de paz at San Juan Cap. ’42-3, where he was also grantee of land. iv. 627.
R. (Severiano), settler at S. Juan Cap. ’41. iv. 626. R. (Silverio), at S.
Diego ’31. iii. 201; in ’39 at Sta Ana rancho, Loa Ang.; in ’46 at S. Juan
Cap., age 45, wife Francisca, child. Salvador b. ’39, Jos6 Dolores ’41, Jos6
Santos ’45. R. (Silverio), at S. Juan Cap. ’46, age 32, wife Primitiva (?),
child Margarita h. ’39, Manuel ’42.
Riper (Abraham van),
1847, sergt Co. E, N.Y. Vol. v. 504. Ripley (Francis L.), 1833 (?), nat. of Ga,
who in newspaper sketches is said to have visited Mont. thia year aa mate on a
whaler, iii. 409. In ’48, being wrecked on the L. Cal. coast he came up to
Mont. on the Ohio, and, except a short time in the mines, spent the rest of his
life in Mont. Co., being city recorder and county surveyor for several terms.
He died at Sta Rita ’79. Ripoll (Antonio), 1812, Span, friar who served at
Purisima and Sta B., and fled from Cal. in ’28; a very enthusiastic missionary.
Biog. 578; ment. ii. 235, 264, 354, 364, 366, 394, 416, 423, 530-2, 534^-5,
655; iii. 92-4. Rippstein (Jacob),
1846, overl. immig. with Hoppe and Buckelew; Co. F,
Cal. Bat. (v. 358); ownerof S.F.lot’47; in Yuba Co. ’85,afarmcr. Riser (John
J.), 1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); reenl.; settled in Cal. on discharge,
visiting Utah ’48-50, and ’51-82 in Alameda Co. with wife and 6 children,
Catharine, Geo. C., Chas W., May B., Franklin A., and Helen R.
Ritchie (Archibald
A.), 1848, a sea-captain who bought land in Solano Co.; later successful cl.
for several ranchos, iv. 671, 674; of the S.F. firm R., Osgood, & Co.; d.
in ’56, leaving a family. R. (M. D.), 1846, nat. of Pa, known as ‘colonel’ for
services in the Blackfoot war, overl. immig. with family, v. 528-9. Working a
while for Sutter and being one of the first Donner relief, v. 538-9; he
settled at Napa in ’47, working on the ranchos of Boggs and Bale, and renting a
mill of Vallejo in ’48. He died at Napa in ’74, having lost his wife in ’73,
leaving 6 married daughters—Mrs Stark and Poul- son of Lake, Mrs Pond, Cooper,
and Hecox of Napa, and Mrs Howard of Solano—with 32 grandchildren. Riter
(Henry), 1847, Co. B, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499). R. (Levi), 1848, Mormon who went to
Salt Lake ’49. Glover. Rithey (Wm M.), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358); at
Sutter’s fort ’47. Ritschard (John), 1848, resid. of Sac. ’48-52; d. in
Switzerland ’77. Rittenhouse (J. B.), 1844, purser on the U.S. Levant. Ritter
(Henry), 1839, deserter from the schr. California at S.F. R. (John), 1847, Co.
A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); reenl.
Rivas (Juan), at Los
Ang. ’46-8. Rivell (Andrew), 1848, in S.F. letter list. Rivera (Antonio) Mex.
sold, in the Hidalgo piquete at Mont. ’36, age 27. R. (Francisco), Alvarado’s
comisionado to Mex. 42. iv. 283; grantee of
S. Luis Gonzaga,
Mariposa, ’43. iv. G73. R. (Joaquin), mason-instruetor 1792-6. i. 615. R.
(Pascual) corp. at the Col. Riv. puehlos, killed by Ind.
i. 359, 362. R. (Salvador),
mason-instruetor, 1792. i. 615, 684. Rivera y Moncada (Fernando Javier), 1769,
capt. in com. of the Loreto garrison from 1756 or earlier, and in ’69 in com.
of the 1st exped. by land to Cal., accompanying PortoU also on the 1st exped.
from S. Diego to Mont. and S.F. i. 115-25, 132-6, 140-1, 150-5; returned to L.
Cal. ’70-1. i. 165, 167, 171-2, 175, 178,
182. In ’74, by appointment of Aug. 17, ’73, he
came hack to Cal. to succeed Fages as mil. com. of the province from May 25th.
i. 216-18, 220, 225-6, 231, 238, 486, 608. His rule lasted until the arrival of
Gov. Neve Feb. 3, ’77, and then he went to Loreto to act as lieut-gov. of L.
Cal. For events of his rule, including his troubles with Anza aud Serra in ’76,
see i. 230, 232-5, 244—5, 248-9, 255-7, 264-73, 276, 279-80, 286-8, 292, 294-5,
298-309, 683. In ’78-9 he was commissioned to raise colonists for Cal., and at
the Colorado River on his way was killed by the Indians July 17, ’81. i. 319,
339-44, 361-3, 487; ii. 44. On his character and family, see i. 363-4. Riviere
(P.), 1847, doubtful name in N. Helv. Diary ’47-8.
Roach (Chas T.),
1848, in S.F. letter list. R. (John), 1830, Amer. from N. Mex. iii. 180; in the
comp, extranjera at Mont. ’32. iii. 221; also named in a list of ’36. R.
(Thomas), 1846, gunner in Stockton’s Bat., campaign of ’46-7, according to a
newspaper sketch. R. (Thomas J.), 1847, lieut Co. C, N.Y.Vol. v. 504, 511;
deputy collector of the port of S.F., where he engaged in trade after a tour in
the mines. In ’50 he settled at Trinity bay, and in '52, being county judge
elect of Klamath, was drowned in trying to cross a mountain stream, at the age
of 28. His brother, Philip A. Roach, is a well-known citizen and official of
S.F. R. (Wm), 1847, sergt Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 504); county sheriff of Mont. for
several terms; in Sept. ’66 his body was found in a well near Watsonville. Roan
(Francis), 1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518). Roane (Archibald), 1847, Co.
F, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. at Georgetown, D.C., ’79. R. (John), 1847, musician
of N-Y.Vol.
Robb
(James B.), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Robbins, 1842, mentioned as a
lieut. with Com. Jones, iv. 308. R. (Isaac R.), 1846, one of the Mormon colony
with wife and 2 children, v. 546; a councillor of the church in Utah ’84. R.
(John), 1833, at Mont. R. (John R.), 1846, one of the Mormon colony, v. 546,
with wife and 2 children, 2 children also having died on the voyage; agent to
settle affairs of Brannan & Co. 47; owner of a S.F. lot. v. 678; in Utah
’84. R. (Thomas M.), 1823, nat. of Mass. and mate on the Rover ’23-5. ii. 495;
mate of the Waverly ’26-8. iii. 147, 149, 154. About ’30 he settled at Sta B.,
where he opened a. store, commanded the Sta Barbara schooner, and in ’34
married Encarnacion, daughter of Ciirlos Carrillo, ii. 573; iii. 140, 384; iv.
117. He is named in the padron of ’36 as an Amer. trader, age 35, a catholic
with wife and child. In ’37-9 Capt. R. commanded the govt schr California in
the service of Alvarado and Vallejo, winning an honorary commission as capt. in
the Mex. navy. iii. 531; iv. 101
2, 552, 569, 580; v. 317. His name does not
appear except in private commercial records in 40^-4, though I have a copy of
his MS. Diary of weather and movements of vessels at Sta B. for the 1st quarter
of ’43. In ’46 he was grantee of La Calera rancho and Sta Catalina Isl. iv.
642; v. 628; being also in some slight trouble with the Flores govt. v. 330,
304; Cal. claim of $143 (v. 462). He was claimant for La Calera in ’52, and
died in ’57, his widow living until ’76. Capt. Robbins is remembered as a
hospitable, good-natured old salt, whose store was a general rendezvous for
seafaring men and traders, who were always welcome at his table. _ _
Roberts (Mrs), 1847,
first person buried at Benicia, drawn to the grave by an ox-team. Tustin;
perhaps ‘Rhoads,’ q.v. R. (Geo.), 1836, nat. of Ga, at Souoma and Ross;
baptized at S. Rafael’38 as Jorge Maria, iv. 118. R. (J.), 1846, Cal. Bat. (v.
358); perhaps same as preceding. R. (James), 1840, at S. Diego. R. (L.), 1847,
Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); in ’82 a farmer at Kaysville, Utah. R. (Robert),
1847, owner of a S. F. lot. v. 679. R. (Sam.), 1847, Co. E, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499);
chief of the Hounds at S.F. ’50, sen
tenced to 10 years in
thepenitentiary. Pop. Trib.,i. 90, 99-100. R. (Wm),
1847, Or. missionary at S. F. v. 657. R. (Wm), 1848,
Amer. sailor at the mines. Robertson, 1848, kept a gambling and grog shop at
Sta B. R. (John), 1848, Engl, from Chile on the Confederation; kept a bakery
and saloon at Mont., going soon to the mines. Settled in Salinas Val., and died
there in ’70 at the age of 55. R. (Robert), 1840, at S. Diego ’40-8. iv. 15,
120. Robeson (Thomas), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 326).
Robidoux (Antoine),
1846, nat. of St Louis, Mo., who had lived 15 years in Mexican provinces and
married a Mex. wife. He came with Kearny as guide from N. Mex., and was
severely wounded at S. Pascual. v. 337, 346-7. Going east in ’47 he came back
after ’49 to remain until ’54. From about ’56 he lived at St Joseph,
Mo.—founded by his brother—where he died in ’60 at the age of 66. The name is
variously written, but I follow his autograph. R. (Louis), 1844, brother of
Antoine, who came from N. Mex. in ’44, having possibly visited the country
before, iv. 265, 453. He purchased the Jurupa rancho, where he settled with his
family, a man of considerable wealth. In the troubles of ’46-7, being juez de
paz at S. Bernardino, v. 625-6, he favored the Americans, was one of the chino
prisoners (v. 311), and served in the Cal. Bat. He was cl. for Jurupa and S.
Jacinto, iv. 621, 633; was a prosperous ranchero down to about ’62; and died in
’68 at the age of 77. Robinson, 1838, mate of the Llama, iv. 91. Robinson,
1841, storekeeper at S. Diego,
iv. 619; perhaps ‘Robeson.’ R., 1847, of the
firm R. & Townsend at Mont. ’47-8.
Robinson (Alfred),
1829, nat. of Mass., who at the age of 23 came on the Brookline as clerk, and
remained in Cal. as agent of Bryant & Sturgis of Boston. He was baptized
as Jos6 Maria Alfredo before ’33, travelling up and down the coast from S.
Diego to S.F. to bargain for the purchase of hides and the sale of goods, often
mentioned in commercial records, and many of his original letters—generally
signed ‘Alfredo’ or ‘Robinson’—being in my collection. iii. 137, 146, 179,
258, 374; iv. 116; v. 590-1, 619-20. Early in ’36— obtaining in his haste a
dispensation of two bans with a hint from Padre Duran to contribute $20 to the
church—he married Ana Maria, daughter of Capt. Jos6 de la Guerra y Noriega; and
in ’37 with his wife sailed for Boston via Honolulu, iv. 101. He came back on
the Alert in ’40 to resume his former agency, remaining till ’42, when he again
went east via Mazatlan, carrying despatches from Com. Jones to the govt, and
also gold to the Phil, mint from tho Los Ang. placers, iv. 297, 320, 403, 562,
640. While prevented by a certain personal reserve and dignity from achieving
the ‘ hail fellow well met ’ popularity of some of his contemporaries,
Robinson always inspired respect by his straightforward dealings; and his
alliance with the leading family of southern Cal. naturally did much to give
him a good standing among Californians. In ’46 he published anonymously his
Life in California, » standard work, followed by most writers on the annals of
’30-42, and worthy of much praise, though showing here and there the personal
and political prejudices of tlia author and his father-in-law. For notice of
the book, with citations on various topics and a sketch of the author, see iv.
343-5; ii. 176, 563, 620-5; iv. 2-3, 6, 20, 35-6, 332-5; v. 98. In ’49 he came
back to Cal. as agent of the Pacific Mail Steamship Co., in later years
becoming agent for the sale and management of several large estates in the
south; and in ’85 still lives at S.F. —the oldest surviving pioneer so far as
my records show. In ’80 he furnished a, brief Statement, which has been found
useful in connection with his book and his original correspondence. His wife,
after living in the east I think from ’37 to ’50 or later, died at Sta B. in
’55. There were 8 children, 2 of them b. before ’40, James (who died at West
Point at the age of 17), Alfredo, Miguel, James 2d, Elena, Maria, Antonia, and
Paulina. One of the sons lives at S.F. ’85, his wife being a daughter of Horace
Hawes.
Robinson (Christopher
F.) 1847, at Mont. from Hon. ’47-8. R. (Edward R.), 1830 (?), Amer. sailor,
said to have touched at Mont. iii. 180; then ‘coasted off and on’ for 10 years,
and settled in the Sac. Val. Mentioned 45-8 in the N, Helv. Diary; in ’47
married Mrs Christina Patterson and lived on Dry Creek,
ROBINSON—ROCHE,
699
S. Joaq. Co.; but
went to the mines in ’48; testified in a land ease ’60; near Gilroy ’72; and in
S. Joaq. Co. ’78. R. (Geo.), 1839, mate on the California sebr, who seems to
have died before ’42. iii. 532; iv. 101, 119. R. (Geo.), 1842, officer of
marines on the United States. Maxwell. R. (Geo.),
1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). R. (Geo.),
1847, sergt Co. G, N.Y. Vol. v. 504. R. (James), 1841, nat. of the Bermudas,
sailor disch. from the Julia Ann; still at Mont. 42. R. (J. F.), 1848, passp.
from Hon. R. (L.), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358). R. (Robert), 1835, Scotch sailor,
in trade at S. Diego to ’50. iii. 423. R. (T.), 1847, gunner on the Columbus.
R. (Wm), 1847, Co. D, Morra. Bat. (v. 409). R. (Wm), 1847, Co. D, N.Y. Vol. (v.
499). E. (Wm), 1848 (?), sup. of a N.Y. vessel wrecked in S. Amer., said to
bave arrived this year; at Benicia ’49; later county judge of Shasta, and
finally a filibuster in Peru. R. (Wm D.), 1847, Co. D, N/Y. Vol.; (v. 499);
owner of S.F. lot; watchman at Mont. ’48; still at Mont. ’72-82. R. (Wm M.),
1847, nat. of Va; member of S. Joaq. Pion. Soc.
Robles (Avelino),
soldier S.F. comp. ’27-30; killed at Branciforte ’39. iii. 588. R. (Autonio),
nat. of Zacatecas; at Branciforte ’28, wife Rosalia Mer- lopes, child. Jos6
Raimundo, Teodoro, Secundino, Guadalupe, Nicol&s, Fulgencio, and Estefana.
In the padron of ’45 he appears as Josd Antonio, age 70, wife Gertrudis
Merlopes age 50. He had settled at B. in 1797. i. 569; regidor 1805;
comisionado ’17; secretary ’27; and alcalde ’33. ii. 156, 390, 605, 627. iii.
696-7. He died in ’42 and his widow in ’49. R. (Fulgencio), son of Antonio, a
rough character, killed in ’42. iv. 663. R. (Juan Jos<5), 1769, soldier of
the 1st exped.; from ’76 sergt of the S. Diego comp.; killed on the Colorado
’81 by Ind. i. 342-3, 362, 452. R. (Manuel), soldier at S. Diego ’71-2. R.
(Miguel), alcalde at S. Luis 1781. R. (Nicolds), son of Antonio, in trouble at
Branciforte ’39. iii. 588; named in ’43. R. (Rafael), soldier of the S.F. comp.
’19-30. R. (Ramon), at Mont. ’36, age 27; nat. of Branciforte; wife Perfecta
Castro, child Felipe b. ’33. R. (Secundino), son of Antonio, b. ’13; maj. of
Sta Clara mission from ’41. He claims to have been one of the discoverers of
the N. Almaden quicksilver mine about ’28; and respecting affairs of the mine,
and on the Sanchez campaign of ’46-7; in ’77 at his rancho of Sta Rita, Sta
Clara Co., he gave me a Relation. He was also one of the claimants of Rincon de
S. Francisquito. iv. 672. His wife was Antonia Garcia, and they had 29
children. Still living in ’81. R. (Teodoro), brother of Secundino, and with him
cl. for S. Francisquito. iv. 672. Rob- redo (Jos6), 1791, lieut in Malaspina’s
exped. i. 498.
Roca (Jos£), 1796,
Mex. sergt of artill., son-in-law of lieut Sal.; mentioned to 1802, and after
an absence came back in 1805. i. 540-1, 648, 679;
ii. 30-1, 144, 147. R. (Ramon), appointed
capt. of the S. Diego comp. ’17, but never came to Cal. Rocha (Antonio Jos6),
1815, Portuguese who came on the Columbia, ii. 273, 393; naturalized ’31; in
’36 living at Sta B. with his wife,_ Josefa Alvarado, and 5 children, age 45;
perhaps the grantee of La Brea ■28. ii. 350, 565,
633. An Antonio R. was assessor at Los Ang. ’69-70.
R. (Comelio), 1798, Mex. convict settler, i. 606. R. (Juan Est^van), corp. at
S. Diego, 1775. i. 250-1. R. (Juan Jos6), 1825, Mex. brevet alf^rez who came
with Echeandia under sentence of banishment for 2 years, iii. 13-14. He was put
in com. of the Mont. detachment of the S. Bias comp., and is often named in the
records of later years, being comisionado for the secularization of S. Juan
Cap. in ’33-4, in charge of S. Gabriel ’36-7, and acting com. of the southern
force in the sectional war of ’37. ii. 549; iii. 13-14, 36, 61-2, 69, 73, 99,
204, 326, 346, 481-2, 488, 491, 495, 504, 520, 626, 644-5, 648. He died at S.
Diego, at a date not recorded. His wife was Elena Dominguez; and a son Manuel
died at S. Diego in ’54. R. (Ramon), soldier at Sta B. before ’37 Roche (Eugene
de la), 1845, came from Hon. to S.F. this year or the next acc. to his
testimony and that of others in the Santillan case. Rochin (Francisco), soldier
of the S.F. comp. ’27-37; at S. JosS ’41, age 30, wife Maria Archuleta, child
Francisco b. ’40; still at S. Jos6 ’47. R. (Ignacio), soldier at Sta B.
executed for murder 1795. i. 638, 669. His wife was Ana Maria Bojorques. R.
(Leandro), regidor at S. JosS ’35. iii. 730; in ’41
named in the padron
as 32 years old, wife Maria Fran. Romero, child. JosS Ant. b. ’30, Petra ’27,
Concepcion ’28, JEfigenia ’29. R. (Liicas), soldier of Mont. comp.’36, age 15.
R. (Miguel), killed by his wife’33. R. (Vicente), drummer in the Hidalgo
piquete at Mont. ’36, age 11. Rochon (Z.), 1846, came to Sta Clara Co., where
he still lived in ’82.
Rock (Geo.), 1836,
first appears at Sonoma as a witness against a borse- thief. iv. 118; seems to
have had a rancho near Sonoma, and in ’37 was nominal grantee of S. Julian,
Sta B., iii. 655-6, being in ’37 grantee of Guenoc, Lake Co. iv. 671. According
to the Lake Co. Hist., he lived at Guenoc from about ’48, as agent for Jacob P.
Leese. R. (James), 1841, Amer. deserter from the U.S. ex. ex. iv. 279; though
there is a record that seems to show the banishment of a woman for trato
ilicito with Santiago Rock in ’40. He settled at S. Josi, where in ’45 he
signed the call to foreigners, iv. 599. In ’46 he served as lieut of Co. G,
Cal. Bat., but was cashiered by court-martial in Jan. ’47. v. 361, 366, 434;
and was killed by Ind. in S. Joaq. Val., according to the S.F. Star of July
24, ’47. Rockwell (Orrin P.), 1848, guide to the Mormons on the journey east.
Tyler. ‘Rocky Mountain Jack,’ 1826, claims to have been one of Jed. Smith’s
party, iii. 153.
Roderick (John),
1841, Engl, mate of the schr California ’41-2; mr of the Bolivar ’44-5. iv.
279, 563. Rodford (Wm), 1845, lieut on the U.S. Warren. iv. 587. Rodgers, 1838,
mr of the Flibbertygibbet, iv. 103. R.(1843), at Mont., mr of a vessel.
Peterson. R. (Geo.), 1845 (?), lumberman before’46.
iv. 587. Brown. R. (James), 1842, nat. of Md,
deserter from the U. S. Cyarte, and captured by Salv. Vallejo March ’43. Rodman
(Geo.), 1845, coxswain of the Warren’s launch, lost in S.F. bay ’46. iv. 587;
v. 384. R. (Robert C.), 1847, sailmaker on the U.S. Columbus. Rodrian (Chas),
1847, Co. K, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); owner of S.F. lot.
Rodriguez, at S.F.
’44, age 20. R., corp. at Sta Cruz ’24. ii. 519, 522. R., sailor sirviente at
Sta Cruz 1795. i. 496. R. (Alejandro), alcalde of Bran- ciforte ’35. iii.
696-7; in ’36 at the Trinidad rancho, Mont., age 44, wife Concepcion Martinez,
child. Manuel b. ’18, Josfi ’23, Maria del Sacramento ’26, and Juan
Buenaventura ’32; at Branciforte ’45, age 50 (?), with the same family less
Manuel; died in ’48. R. (Antonio), 1829, Mex. convict, liberated ’33. R.
(Antonio), drummer in the Hidalgo piquete ’36, at Mont., age 13. R. (Antonio),
soldier at Sta B. ’32; wife Mariana Arellanes; commended for valor ’24. ii.
552; juez or alcalde at Sta B. ’39-40, ’44. iii. 654-5;
iv. 642; arrested in ’45, served under Flores
’46, suspected of hostile intentions ’48. iv. 542; v. 330, 586; justice of the
peace ’51-2. R. (Antonio), mentioned as 103 years old at Los Ang. ’73. R.
(Antonio), alcalde of Branciforte ’37, and grantee of S. Vicente rancho ’39.
iii. 678, 695, 697; also of Bolsa del P&jaro ’36. On the Branciforte padron
of ’45 he is named as 46 years old, nat. of Cal., wife Dolores Galindo, child.
Guadalupe b. ’22, Magin ’31, Venancio ’34, Miguel ’37, Jos6 Maria ’43,
Balvaneda ’35, Adelaida ’38, and Maria Ant. ’41. R. (Antonio), regidor at S.
Jos6 ’37. iii. 729-30. R. (Antonio Catarino), 1809, Span, friar, who served
chiefly at S. Luis Ob. and Purisima, dying in ’24. Biog. ii. 580; ment. ii.
155, 159-60, 236, 292, 369, 384, 387, 394, 529, 532-3, 581, 618, 655.
Rodriguez (D&maso
Antonio), corp. of Mont. comp., transf. toStaB. comp, in ’18; sergt ’21-30, ii.
572, being a leader of insurgents in ’29, iii. 78, and alfiSrcz from ’31. From
’33 he was alf&ez of the S.F. comp., sometimes com. of the post, iii. 396,
573, 701-2, being an invdlido at Sonoma on full pay from ’37. In ’44 he was
instructor of the Sonoma defensores, grantee of Lac rancho, and perhaps 2d
alcalde of S. Rafael, iv. 407-8, 671, 677. In ’46 named as supl. juez, and as
in theOlompali fight with the Bears, which took place on his land. v. 168,688;
had a Cal. claim of $2,675 (v. 462). He died soon after ’46. R. (Fecundo), at
Mont. ’36, nat. of Cal., age 22, wife Guadalupe Robles, child. Rafaela b. ’33,
Concepcion ’36. R. (Felipe), at Sta B. before ’37, wife Rafaela Soto; soldier
of S. F. comp. ’44; prob. 2 men. R. (Francisco), Sta Cruz poet of ’18. ii.
245; in ’28 at Branciforte, wife Rafaela Castro, child. Jesus, Escoldstica,
Benita, and Antonia; alcalde in’30. ii. 627; grantee
of Arroyo del Rodeo
’34. iii. 677; still living in ’55. R. (Fran.), at Los Ang. ’43-6; justice at
Alamitos ’56. R. (Giacundo), at Sta Cruz ’43. R. (Ignacio), grantee of Conejo
rancho 1802 et seq. ii. 112, 172, 516, 664.
Rodriguez (Jacinto),
nat. of Cal., first mentioned in public records as lieut of militia and
employed by Alvarado in ’36. iii. 491. From ’39 he was alfiSrez of tho Mont.
comp, aiding in the arrest of the foreigners in ’40. iii. 671; iv. 23, 282,
652. Celador of the Mont. and S. F. custom-house ’43-46, being grantee of the
Jacinto rancho, Colusa, in ’44. iv. 377, 431, 463, 557, 570, 671.
Named in
the Branciforte padron of ’45 as 31 years old, wife Guadalupe ,
child. Rafaela b.
’32, Conception ’35, Guadalupe ’36, and Josefa ’39. Alcalde at Mont. in ’49 and
member of the constit. convention, the reasons for such a choice by the
Montereyans not being very apparent. He still lived in Mont. Co. ’74 and later,
a man of some property. I obtained from him a brief Narration of his
recollections of early events. His oldest son, Porfirio, died at Mont. ’77. R
(JosiS), sirviente at S.F. 1777. i. 297. R. (JosiS), soldier at Sta B. 1832,
wife Bernarda Rosas. R. (JosiS), prisoner at Mont. ’47; alias ‘Letra.’ R.
(Jos<5), sindico at S. F. ’38. iii. 705; at S. F. ’42, age 35, wife Romana
Miramontes, child. Maria b. ’38, Marfa ’40, Jos<5 and Francisco ’37; perhaps
the same who bad a Cal. claim of $46 (v. 462), and was at S. JosiS ’50. R.
(Jos6), at Branciforte ’45, age 21. R. (Josi§), soldier, carpenter, and teacher
at Mont. 1796-1800. i. 643. R. (JosS Antonio), soldier at S. Antonio ’93 and
earlier; corp. of the escolta at S. Miguel ’97. i. 560; invdl. at Branciforte
from ’99, being comisionado of the villa for some years to 1810. His wife was
Marla Vicenta de Leon, and 6 of his sons were soldiers of the Mont. comp, after
1800. i. 571; ii. 156, 171, 390. He died in ’37. R. (Josi5 Ant.), at Trinidad
rancho, Mont., ’36, age 26, wife Marfa Elena Castro; juez at S. Juan B. ’44.
iv. 661; perhaps was drowned in attempting to save goods from the Star of the
West in ’45. R. (JosiS Brigido), son of Jost5 Ant., b. at S. Antonio 1793;
soldier of the Mont. comp. 1811-30; a tailor by trade. From ’34 he was a
ranchero in Sta Cruz Co., and in ’77, at the age of 84, residing near Soquel,
he gave me his Recuerdos Ilistdricos. He died in ’80, leaving only one
surviving member of his family, an aged sister.
Rodriguez (Jos6
Marla), at Sta B. before ’37 with wife Cdrmen Dominguez and 5 children; at Los
Ang. ’46. R. (Juan), resid. of S. Diego ’30. ii. 546. R. (Luis), at Sta B.
before ’37 with wife Maria Arrellanes and 3 children.
E. (Manuel), Mex. soldier of the Mont. comp,
at Soledad 1791-1800. i. 499; in 1819 comisionado of Branciforte. ii. 390;
being an inv&l. corporal; sindico in ’39 and alcalde ’44. iii. 697; iv,
408, 664; in ’45 on the padron as 68 years old, nat. of Sinaloa, with a
daughter Josefa b. ’11.; memb. of town council ’48. v. 642; though this may
have been the following. R. (Manuel), at Branciforte ’45, age 28, wife Marla Gonzalez,
child. Jos<5 b. ’42, Santa ’44. R. (Manuel), 1795, Mex. cadet and alf^rez of
the S.F. comp, though serving in the S. Diego comp., of which he became lieut
and comandante. In 1806 he was made capt. of the S.F. comp, and sent to Mex. as
habilitado general, dying in ’10. Biog. ii. 98-9; i. 646-7; ment. ii. 11-15,
39, 106, 109, 125, 188-9, 370, 421. R. (Maria Engracia), at Sta Cruz ’47. v.
641. R. (Matias), soldierat S. Juan B. before 1800. i. 558. R. (Nemesio),
soldierof S.F. comp. ’41-2. R. (Norberto), soldier at Sta B. before ’37.
Rodriguez (Pablo),
Ind. settler at Los. Ang. 1781-6. i. 346, 348. R. (Pedro), at Trinidad rancho,
Mont., ’36, age 25, wife Gertrudis Espinosa, child. Juan de Parma b. ’32, Jos£
’35. R. (Ramon), grantee of Agua Puerca ’43 and Canada de S. Miguel ’46. iv.
655; v. 632; killed ’48 in attempting to arrest the murderers of Reed in Sta.
B. Co. v. 632, 648. R. (Ramon), in Branciforte ’28, wife Teresa Soto, child
Josd de la Cruz. ii. 627; in ’45, age 40, wife Marla Ignacia Alviso. R. (Sebastian),
sergt of the Mont. comp. ’28-30, and comisionado of Sta Cruz ’31. ii. 609; iii.
307; in 36 at the Trinidad rancho, Mont., nat. of Cal., age 50, wife Maria
Perfecta Pacheco, child. Jos6 b. ’12, Jacinto ’13, Francisco ’17, Teresa ’22,
Desiderio ’23, Bernab(5 ’26, Maria Ant. ’28, Carmen ’30, Ramona ’32. iii. 679.
Grantee of Bolsa del PAjaro in ’37, iii. 677, for which he was cl.—as also for
Rincon de la Ballena,
Marin, iii 678—and
about which there was much litigation between his Treirs and those of his
brother Alexander. He or another of the name is named as a retired soldier with
the rank of alferez in ’44-5. iv. 408. He died in ’54 or ’55. R. (Tomaso A.),
grantee of Llajome rancho, Napa. iv. 671.
Roe (Chas), 1832, one
of the comp, extranjeraat Mont. iii. 221. Roeder (Louis), 1847, Co. C, N.Y.
Vol. (v. 499). Roether (Chas), 1845, German immig. prob. of Grigsby-Ide party,
iv. 579, 587. His name often appears in the N. Helv. Diary ’45-7; settled at
‘Charley’3 rancho’ in Butte Co., moving in ’58 to Feather River in Yuba, where
he died in ’68, leaving a widow and 3 children. Rogenade (Jacob), 1848, uat. of
Poland, who came with the U.S. dragoons (v. 522); murdered at Los Ang. ’54.
Rogers, 1847,
teamster in Sutter’s employ. R. (James), 1834; Engl, mr of the lolani ’35; on
Larkin’s books ’34-43; n rested in ’40 but not exiled.
iii. 382, 412; iv. 17, 23. R. (John P.), 1848,
from Or. to the mines; brother- in-law of Gov. Burnett. R. (Lewis), 1847, owner
of a S.F. lot. v. 684. R. (M.), 1848, passp. from Hon. R. (Sam. H.), 1847, Co.
B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); in Ariz. ’81. R. (Seth), 1827, mr of the Andes ’27-9.
B. (Win.),
1847, Co. F, 3d US. artill. (v. 518). R (Wm H.),
1847, Co. A, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); at Brooklyn, N.Y., ’74-84. R. (Wm J.), 1843,
mr of the John Jay.
iv. 566. Roget (Dr), 1848, intending to settle
at Benicia.
Rohlman (John), 1843,
Ger. settler in Sta Clara ’76; carta ’44, then in Sac. Val.; perhaps the name
should be ‘Rohlan.’ iv. 400. Rojas, at Los Ang. ’37.
iii. 504. R. (Feliciano), at Corralitos rancho,
Mont., ’36, age 16, nat. of Mex.; in ’41 at S. Juan Cap. iv. 626. R.
(Justiniano), Ind. said to have been baptized at Sta Cruz in 1791 at the
supposed age of 40; d. Sta Cruz
1875, a famous centenarian. Rojo (Jos6 Marla), at Sta
B. before ’37 with wife Altagracia Garcia, juez de paz in ’39. iii. 657-5;
grantee of Cuyama in ’43. iv. 642.
Roland (Fred. C.),
1828, Engl, sailor, age 23, who landed at S. Pedro, went to Los Ang., and
sailed from S. Diego ’29 on the Maria Ester; yet apparently at Los Ang. ’30.
ii. 558. R. (John), 1841, overl. immig. of the Bartleson party, who seems to
have returned east in ’42. iv. 270, 275. R. (John), 1846, grantee of Los
Huecos, Sta Clara, and of land on the S. Joaq., for which ranchos he was cl. in
’52. v. 665. At N. Helv. ’48. I do not know if this was the same man as the
preceding, Rohlman or Rohlan, John Rowland of the south, or distinct from all.
Roldan (Mariano), aux. alcalde iu Los Ang. dist ’36. iii. 636; grantee of La
Habra ’39, iii. 633, when he was 39 years old; juez de campo’40. iii. 637; at
S. Gabriel’46-7. v. 626, 628. He seems to have been a Mex. who came about ’36
and went back after ’47. Rolfe (Tallman H.), 1847 (?), nat. of Me, who came
from Or. ’47 or ’48, salesman for Brannan & Co. at Sutter’s fort ’48, and
later alcalde in Yuba Co., but was a printer by trade, perhaps working on the
S. F. Star, and later connected with many papers in Cal. and Nev., being long
the editor of the Austin Reveille and Nevada City Gazette. He died at S. Bern,
in ’72. Some sketches represent him as having come in ’46 and served in the
Cal. Bat. Rollin, 1786, surgeon of La Pdrouse’s exped. i. 435. Rollins (Henry),
1846, according to Glover one of the Mormon colony (v. 546), with son Isaac
and a daughter; prob. ‘Robbins,’q. v. R. (John), 1843, at Mont.; perhaps ‘Robbins.’
R. (John), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); in Springville, Utah, ’82. B.
(John), 1847, Co. E, ditto.
Romaldo, neoph.
grantee of land, S. Luis Ob. ’42. Roman, tailor of
1798. i. 598. R., neoph. accused of murder’27-8. iii.
193. R. (Richard),
1848, doubtful date; at Vallejo ’51; state treasurer
’49. Romana (Miguel), 1841, sup. of the Jdven Carolina, iv. 566. Romero, a
discov. of silver near Mont. ’25. ii. 667. R., soldier ment. ’34, ’37. iii.
257, 638. R. (Abelino), at S. JosS ’41, age 52, nat. of Cal., wife Juana Rubio,
child. Matilde b. ’24, Pedro Ant. ’29, Victoria ’31, JosS Ant. ’34, Francisco
’37, Rosario ’39. R. (Antonio), two sirvientes of the name at Sta Clara 1777.
i. 306; one grantee of S. Jos6 land 1783. i. 350; regidor ’85. i. 478; alcalde
’90. i. 478; in ’95-7 owner of a rancho near Mont. i. 683, 716. R. (Antonio),
perhaps son of the
preceding, regidor at
Moirt. ’33-4; grantee of rancho ’40. iii. 673, 679. R. (Antonio), soldier at
Sta B. before ’37; settler at Los Ang. 1807. ii. 350. R. (Balbino), gunner at
the Mont. revolution of ’36. ii. 461. R. (Domingo), 2d alcalde at Los Ang. ’35;
in trouble ’40. iii. 635, 639. R. (Felipe), blacksmith at S. Diego 1775. i. 250;
wife in ’78 Rosario Marquez, several children bom before ’83. R. (Domingo),
soldier at Sta B. before ’37; at Los Ang. ’39, age 47. R. (Florencio), at S.
Jos6 ’41, age 36, wife Encarnacion Miranda, child. Jos<5 b. ’35, Patricio
’37, JosS Ant. ^9. R. (Gabriel), soldier at the Colorado pueblos, killed by
Ind. 1781. i. 359, 362. R. (Guadalupe), at Los Ang. ’46; named in ’58 as a
centenarian. R. (Ignacio), soldier of the S.F. comp. ’28-31. R. (Inocencio),
soldier of the S.F. comp. ’23-33; in ’37 alf. of militia at S. JostS. iii. 732;
in ’44 grantee of a Contra Costa rancho, iv. 671. R. (Javier), tanner at S.
Jos<S ’41, age ’38, nat. of L. Cal. R. (Joaquin), at Los Ang. ’46.
Romero (Jos<S),
1823, Mex. capt. who made an exploring exped. from Sonora to Cal. ’23-5. ii.
507-9, 542, 568; iii. 14. R. (Jos£), soldier of the S.F. comp. ’19-22, ’30; in
’41 at S. Jose, nat. of Cal., age 42, wife Maria Garcia, child. Teodosia b.
’30, Estefana ’31, Garcia ’33, Jos<5 ’32, Lovribano (?) ’35, and Poliarno
(?) ’38. R. (Jos<5), at S. Isidro rancho, Mont., ’36, age 48, nat. of Cal.,
wife Paula Cantua, child. JosS b. ’29, Aguilino ’32, Maria ’31, Francisco ’34,
and Juan ’35. R. (Jos6), Mex. at Branciforte ’45, age 48, ehild. JosS b. ’37,
Dolores ’40. R. (Jose), at Los Ang. ’46. R. (JosS Antonio), settler at the
Colorado pueblos, killed by Ind. 1781. i. 359, 362. R. (Jos6 Antonio), soldier
and settler at S. Jos<5 1777. i. 212. R. (Josi5 Ant.), teacher at S. Jos6
’23. ii. 603; at Mont. ’26. ii. 612; maj. and alcalde S. Cdrlos ’35.
iii. 354, 674, 680; being also grantee of
Canada, de Laureles. iii. 677. R. (Jos6 Ant.), at Sta B. ’37, wife Dorotea
Alanis, 5 children. R. (Josii Maria), soldier of artill. militia 1801-10. ii.
190. He was a son of Juan Maria, b. about 1788. In ’77, living at Los Nietos,
he gave me some vague Memorias of the olden times, ii. 237-8.
Romero (Jos<S
Mariano), 1834, Mex. teacher who came with the H. &. P. colony (iii. 259),
and established what he called a normal school at Mont., writing also a
Gatecismo de Ortologia, printed at Mont. in ’36. He opposed the Cal.
revolutionists, and. left the country with Gutierrez in ’36. iii. 463. R. (Juan
Maria), eorp. of the Sta B. comp. 1788; his wife was Lugarda Sal- gado. R.
(Juan Maria), 1816, Irish interpreter in the Lydia case at Mont.
ii. 276. R. (Manuel), at Los Ang. ’39-48. R.
(Maria), miner of Carmelo Vol. ’25. ii. 667. R. (Mariano), soldier of the S.F.
comp. ’22-33. R, (Martin), 1818, Paraguayan of Bouchard’s insurgents, ii. 237.
R. (Miguel Ant.), soldier at the Colorado pueblos 1780-1. i. 359. R. (Pedro),
settler at S. Jos(5 1791. i. 716; wife Guadalupe Garcia, child Marla Guad.,
in’93. R. (Pedro), settler at Los Ang. 1790. i. 461. R. (Pedro), at Los Ang.
’45-6. iv. 541; v. 308, 628. R. (Pierre), 1831, Fr. laborer at Los Ang., age
53, from N. Mex. iii. 387, 405. R. (Rafael), Span, locksmith at Mont. ’20-8.
iii. 51. R. (Teodoro), grantee of Potrero de Felipe Lugo ’45. iv. 635. R.
(Tomis), soldier at Sta B. ’32, wife Fclipa Lugo; sergt ’35. iii. 650; alfi5rez
’39. iii. 583. R. (Vicente), soldier on the southern frontier from ’25; in
later years at S. Diego. His Notes of the Past were dictated to Benj. Hayes.
Romeu (JosS Antonio),
1791, Span, lieut-col and gov. of Cal. from April
16, ’91, to his death on April 9, ’92. He was
an officer from whom much was expected, especially in financial reforms; but
though presumably a competent man, and certainly a conservative and amiable
one, he was prevented by ill health from attending to any but routine duties
during his brief term. Rule and biog. i. 481-500; ment. i. 370, 389, 393, 441,
471, 474, 479, 501-2, 530. Romeu’s body was buried at S. Cdrlos, and has been
multiplied in current newspaper sketches into the remains of dozens of
governors. Romie (Ernest), 1841, doubtful name of a German at Mont. Toomes; at
S.F. ’84. Swan. R. (John F.), 1843, tailor at Mont. ’43-8; also visiting
Sutter’s fort; had a son at school ’46. iv. 400. Roody (John L.), 1846, farrier
Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). Rook, 1848, from Hon. on the Sagadahoc.
Roper (John),
1832, one of the
comp, extranjera at Mont. iii. 221. Ropiam, 1S16, Hawaiian sailor on the
Albatross, ii. 275. Roquefeuil (Camille), 1817, mr of the- Bordelais ’17-18,
and author of a narrative of the Voyage, ii. 287-91, 222, 251, 331, 373, 419.
Rosa, ment. at Mont.
1798. i. 691. R. (CArlos), at S. Diego 1803. ii. 13. R. (Jos6 de la), 1834,
Mex. printer who came with the H. & P. colony, iii. 263, 289; going to
Sonoma and becoming a kind of protege of Gen. Vallejo; had some skill as a
musician, and also worked at mending clothes and tinware. In ’45 he wa3
alcalde at Sonoma, being also the grantee of Ulpinos rancho, for which he was
the unsuccessful claimant in ’54. iv. 674, 678-9. In ’46 he was the messenger
sent to Capt. Montgomery with news of the Bear revolt, also having a quarrel
with Berreyesa. v. 129-30, 668. In 1875 Don. Pepe was still living at or near
Martinez. Rosales (Bernardo), settler of 1779-83. i. 350, 605. R. (Cornelio),
soldier at S. Josd mission 1797-1800. i.
556. R. (Jos6 Ant.), at S. Jos6’30. R. (Juan), at
S. Prancisquitorancho, Mont., ’36, nat. of Mazatlan, age 48, wife Isidora
Garcia, child. Jos6 b. ’33, Maria ’36; in later years juez de paz. iii. 678,
680; iv. 653; v. 637. Rosale3 Pacheco (Jos6 Maria), 1843, Mex. priest who
served as curate at S. Buen. till ’48, and in ’49 at S. Antonio; also as
chaplain of Flores’ army ’46-7. He was sent away by his superior in ’49-50 for
some ecclesiastical offence, iv. 371, 422, 644-5; v. 400, 632, 635. Rosalio
(Eugenio), owner of Mont. rancho- 1795. i. 683. Rosamel (J. de), 1840, com. of
the Fr. corvette Danaide. iv. 35-6, 103. Rosas (Alejandro), Ind. settler at Los
Ang. 1781-6. i. 345, 348. R. (Basilio), ditto, i. 345-6, 348-9, 460. R.
(Feliciano), at Los Ang. ’46. R. (Jos6), convict settler of 1798. i. 606. R.
(Jo3e), maj. at Soledad ’36. iii. 691. R. (Jos6 Ant.), nat. of Los Ang. and
soldier, shot and his body burned at Sta B. 1801 for a crimm nefando. i.
639-40; ii. 119. R. (Juan), settler at S. Jos6 1791-1800. i. 716. R. (Manuel),
fifer of S.F. comp. ’39-42. R. (Ramon), at Los Ang. ’46. R. (Sinforoso), at Los
Ang. ’46.
Rose (John), 1818,
Scotchman of Bouchard’s insurgents captured at Mont., age 27; in ’21 at
Purisima, his spiritual welfare being the object of much anxiety to the authorities,
ii. 232, 241, 248, 292, 393, 412, 444. Rose (John),
1841, Scotch carpenter and sailor registered at S.
Bias since ’39, who touched at Cal. ports in ’41-2, and landed permanently at
Mont. from the Clarissa in Nov. ’43, settling at S.F. and going into
partnership with Davis and Reynolds as carpenters and builders, iv. 279. In
’44, being 36 years of age, he obtained a town lot, was naturalized, and served
as corporal in the defensores. iv. 669, 593. In ’46-7 he was town treasurer, v.
295, 648; served as lieut in the Sanchez campaign, v. 381; was a member of the
council, v. 648. In ’46 his firm built a schooner in Napa Creek, and in ’47-8 a
mill for Salv. Vallejo, going to the mines in ’48. Rose gave his name to Rose
bar on the Yuba, aud was the first settler of Nevada Co., where he had a
trading post from ’49. Still living, at Smartsville in ’80 and prob. in ’85. R.
(John M.), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). R. (Thomas), 1847, employed by
Larkin to carry despatches. R. (Wm), 1843, Engl, naturalized; prob. an error.
Roseerans (Geo. W.), 1847, lieut Co. C, Morm. Bat. v. 477. Rosencrantz
(Andrew), 1847, Co. F, 3d U. S. artill. (v. 518). Lancey; not on the roll.
Rosenberg (N.), 1833, mr of the- Polifemia, ’33-5. iii. 383. Rosentiel (Anton),
1847, musician N. Y. Vol. (v. 499); d. S.F. ’55. Rosete (Marcos), soldier of
the Hidalgo piquete. Rosistof, 1838, mr of the Sitka, iv. 106.
Ross, 1846, came to
Sta Clara Val. Hall; went to the mines ’48. R. (Chas L.), 1847, nat. of N.J.
who came on the Whiton with a cargo of goods for sale, member of the firm
Gelston & Co., a prominent merchant and landowner of S.F. ’47-9, also
taking part in public affairs, and serving as school trustee, v. 650-1, 656-7,
678-9, 681, 683. He lived in S.F. for some years after ’50; kept a hotel in
Calistoga’66; returned to S.F.; and shortly before ’85 went to the Sandwich
Isl. In ’80 he furnished me a statement of Experiences of '1ft. R. (Geo. W.),
1842 (?), in S.F. almshouse ’81, said to have- come in ’42. iv. 341. Chronicle.
R. (Henry), 1831, sailor on the Catalina; at S. Diego again ’34 with Hugo Reid.
R. (John), see ‘Rose.’ R. (J.)..
1876, Co. F. Cal. Bat.; later Co. B, artill. (v.
35S). R. (Sam. H. P.), 1848, nat. of La, who came on the Major Tompkins, and
went to the mines, age 18. Afterward trader, county surveyor, assoc, judge, and
superinteudent of schools in Merced Co.; d. at Hopeton ’73. R. (Wm), 1828, mr
of the Times.
iii. 149. Rossen (Joseph), 1848, an Or. pioneer
of ’43 who came to Cal. ’48; at Weaverville ’73. Rossignon, 1848, Er. trader in
the mines with Ama- ador and Sunol, who ran away to Peru with the profits of
all three. Prob.
‘ Roussillon,’ q. v.
Rotchef (Alex.),
1836, Russian manager at Ross ’36-41. iv. 117-18, 129, 153, 164, 171-6, 179-86;
iv. 233. Roteta (Antonio V.), 1825, naval officer on the Asia. iii. 25-6. Roth
(John), 1848, German sailor in the navy, disch. in ’48; in the mines ’48-51;
trader at Mont. ’52-73; d. at Castroville ’79, leaving a wife. Roudon
(Guadalupe), at S. Bern. ’46, age 35. Rouelle (Jean
B.), 1841
(?), Canadian trapper from N. Mex. iv. 278-9. Nothing is known of his coming,
but he is named as the discoverer of gold in ’42 in the S. Fernando region, iv.
631. A few years later he moved with his family to the Sac. Val., and was there
during the mining excitement, being named in the N. Helv. Diary. Finally settled
on Feather River. Rouissillon, 1802, Polish count who sailed with Cleveland and
Shaler. ii. 11, 22. Roulam (Henry), 1846, of the Mormon colony. See ‘Rowland.’
Rouleau (Francois), 1836, Fr. laborer at Los Verjeles rancho, Mont., age 30.
Roulette (Wm R.), 1845, overl. immig. of the Grigsby-Ide party; lived in Capay
Valley ’45-6; prob. went to Or. ’46. iv. 579-80; v. 526. Round (Joseph), 1845,
mrof ths Pacific. Rousseau, 1846, with Gillespie when he met Gen. Kearny.
Roussillon (Charles), 1843 (?), Fr. trader who 1st appears at Los Ang. this
year, but is said to have come in ’37, or even in ’33. iv. 400. From ’44 he was
in the Mont. district, chiefly at Sta Cruz, where be had a mill and dealt in
lumber, building a schooner in ’46, v. 641, and in ’47-8 being a partner of
Sainsevain. The 1st jury trial in Cal. was that of Graham vs R. in ’46. v. 289.
I have some of his business corresp., but no record after’48. Perhaps he went
to S. Amer. See ‘Rossignon;’ age 31 in ’45.
Rowan, 1842, doubtful
name of a trapper at Los Ang.; came again to Cal. ’50. v. 341. R. (H.), 1847,
lieut on the U. S. Cyane. R. (James), 1799, mr of the Eliza, i. 545, 706; and
of the Hazard 1802-4. ii. 11, 17-18, 24-5, 108, 115, 122, 130. R. (James),
1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); in ’48 teamster for Brannan & Co. at Sac.
R. (Stephen C.), 1846, lieut U. S. N., and acting maj. of Stockton’s Bat.;
wounded at the Mesa Jan. ’47. v. 385, 395; in later years yice-admiral. Rowe,
1848, at Sonoma, called one of the N.Y.Vol. R.
1848, went to Hon. on the Currency Lass. R. (James),
1816, sailor on the Lydia, ii. 275. Rowland (Henry), 1846, of the Mormon colony
with his son Isaac and perhaps a daughter, v. 546. They were generally called
‘Rollins’ by the Mormons. Henry R. died in the faith before ’80. R. (John),
1841, nat. of Pa and leader of the Workman-R. immig. party from N. Mex., where
he had lived 18 years, amassing considerable wealth and marrying a native wife.
iv. 276-9, 637. He was suspected of complicity in certain revolutionary or
filibustering schemes in connection with the Texans, and this was a leading
motive of his emigration; indeed, warnings were sent to Cal., but they did not
prevent his getting in ’42 a grant of La Puente rancho in company with Workman,
iv. 331, 635. Then he went to N. Mex. and brought his family, spending the rest
of his life on his rancho, iv. 343. In ’45 he joined the other southern
foreigners in their opposition to Micheltorena. iv. 495, 508; and was one of
the Chino prisoners in ’46, v. 314, having a Cal. claim of about $1,500 (v.
462); but as a rule took no part in public affairs, being noted for his retiring
disposition and fondness for home life. He died in ’73 at the age of ahout 80.
His son Wm R. was sheriff in ’73, and he or another son married a. daughter of
Bernardo Yorba. Roy (C.), 1822, mrof the whaler Alert, ii. 474. R. (Chas),
1823, mr of the Plowboy. ii. 492; perhaps Ray. R. (Pierre), 1782, Fr. sirviente
at S. Buen. i. 377. Royabe (Claudio), at Los Ang. ’46. Royal (B.), 1845, at
Sutter’s fort ’45-6; perhaps one of Sublette’s men.
Hist.
Cal., Vol. V. 45
Rub (Geo.), 1S47, Co.
C, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499). Rubi (Mariano), 1790, Span. friar whose missionary
service was at S. Antonio and Soledad. He retired in ’93, and was prob.
expelled from the college for immorality. Biog.
i. 499; ment. i. 388, 492, 576, 597. Rubio
(Casimiro), at Los Ang. ’43-5. iv. 541. 633; fatally wonnded at S. Pascual ’46.
v. 347. R. (Francisco), soldier of the S.F. comp. ’24-31; executed in ’31 for
crime committed in ’28. His was one of the cansas cdlebres of Cal. ii. 592,
594; iii. 191-3, 699. R. (Francisco), at Los Ang. ’46; killed at the S. Gabriel
fight Jan. ’47. v. 396. R. (JosS M. de J. Gonzalez), see ‘Gonzalez.’ iii. 318,
724. R. (Jose), at Los Ang. ’46-8. R. (Manuel), at Los Ang. ’46. R.(Mateo),
nat. of Flanders, soldier of the S. Diego comp, in 1779 and earlier, and a
settler at Los Ang. 1794-1819. i. 454;
ii. 349, 354. His wife was Ursula Dominguez,
and the birth of 4 children is noted before 1790, one of them being Francisco
Ramon. R. (Nabor), Mex. at Mont. ’3fi, age 40. R. (Rafael), soldier of the S.F.
comp. ’24-6. R. (Santiago), at Los Ang. ’19. ii. 355. R. (Tomds), at San Juan
Cap. ’46, age 30, child Candelaria; at Los Ang. ’48.
Ruckel (Joseph L.),
1847, a prominent trader at S.F., S. Jos<5, and Mont. ’47-8, of tbe firms
Sherman & R. and R. & Cooke, v. 663. Ahout ’55 be went to Or., where he
became a steamboatman and pres, of the O. S. N. Co., still there in ’74-5.
Rucker (Dan. H.), 1848, capt. of dragoons in Graham’s battalion. v. 522. R.
(R. A.), 1848, at S.F. and Mont. Rudacof, 1846, Russ, naval lieut on the Baikal
at S.F. Rndd (John), 1848, came from Callao on the Lady Adams and took com. o£
the U.S. Dale. v. 577. Rudenstein (John), 1846, asst surgeon on the U.S. Dale,
d. ’69. Rudierkof, 1846, Russ, lieut; prob. same as ‘Rndacof.’ v. 576.
Rufus (Ernest), 1844,
nat. of Germany, about the manner of whose coming, perhaps earlier, nothing
appears, iv. 453. He was naturalized in March ’4J, appointed in July a lient in
Sutter’s army, fighting for Micheltorena, and in Dec. got a grant of the
Cazadores rancho in Sac. Yal. iv. 479, 485, 671, 680. In ’45, in partnership
with Wm Benitz, he leased the Ross property from Sutter; and in ’46 was
grantee of the Rancho de German, north of Ross. iv. 679;
v. 669. He sold the rancho, or parts of -it,
to Glein and Hagler in ’47, but seems still to have resided in Sonoma Co. as
late as ’79. Ruggles (John), 1847, Co. K, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); at Sac. in ’82.
Ruiz, mentioned in
1798. i. 670. R. (Agaton), wounded at tbe Olompali fight, v. 166-8. R.
(Anselmo), at Los Ang. ’39-46, age 25 in ’34. R. (Carlos), at Sta B. before
’37, wife Maria Ant. Yerdugo, 4 children. R. (Catarina), widow of M. Nieto,
grantee of Las Bolsas ’34. R. (Efigenio), settler at Los Ang. 1790. i. 461. R.
(Eustaqnio), killed at Pauma ’46. v. 617. R. (Francisco), com. de policfa at S.
Diego ’36, regidor ’37. iii. 616. R. (Francisco), at Los Ang. ’39-48. R.
(Francisco Maria), nat. of L. Cal. and sergt of the Sta B. comp, from 1795,
alf£rez 1801, lieut 1805, and from 1806 comandante at S. Diego, being promoted
to capt. in ’20 and retired from active service in ’27. He received a grant of
the Penasquitos rancho, and died in’39 at the age of about 85. He never
married. Biog. ii. 5,39-41; ment. i. 636, 665; ii. 50, 85, 99-101, 109, 117,
191, 240, 245, 340-1, 345, 451, 457, 546-8, 551-2, 571, 663; iii. 7-8, 612. R.
(Fructuoso), settler at Loa. Ang. 1799; regidor 1802. ii. 110, 349. R.
(Ger6nimo), zanjero at Carpenteria ’48.
v. 631. R. (Guadalupe), at S. Gabriel ’46. R.
(Hilario), soldier at Sta B. before ’37. R. (Joaquin), grantee o£ Bolsa Chica,
Los Ang., ’41, being also claimant ’52; at Los Ang. 13, ’39, ’46; age 47 in
’39. ii. 350; iii. 639. R. (Jos6), invalido settler at Los Ang. ’15. ii. 349.
R. (Jos6), soldier at Sta B. ’32, wife Isabel Uribe. R. (Jos6), at StaB. ’32,
wife Maria Ign. Lngo, child. Deogracia, Ger6nimo, Baltazar, Hilarion, and
Gabriel; in ’45 a ranchero. R. (Jos6 Manuel), brother of Francisco M., lieut in
L. Cal., appointed to Cal. in ’24 but did not come; he became gov. of L. Cal.
ii. 515, 540. R. (JosS Pedro), grantee of Calleguas rancho Sta B. ’47, bis
heirs Gabriel et al. cl. iii. 655. R. (.Jos<5 Maria), settler at S. Jos<5
1791-1800. i. 716. R. (Juan), settler at Los Ang. ’12. ii. 350; at Sta B. ’50.
R. (Juan Maria), mentioned in 1801. ii. 171. R. (Leon), 1842, Mex. sub-lieut of
the batallon fijo ’42-5.
iv. 289. R. (Mairuel D.), mason-instructor
1792-5. i. 615. R. (Manuel Garcia), made alterez 1789, hnt did not come to Cal.
i. 340. R. (Mariano), at Loa Ang. ’39, age 25. R. (Martin), aettler at Sta B.
’32, wife Catalina Lizalde; at Loa Ang. ’46. R. (NicoUs), at Sta B. ’37, wife
Encarnacion Pico, and 5 children. R. (Santiago), mason-inatructor 1792-5. i.
615, 684-5. R. (Toribio), ditto, i. 615. Ruiz de la Mota, see ‘Mota.’
Rule (John H.), 1847,
Scotch teacher at Mont., from Callao on the Guipuz- coana. Ruinville (Geo. W.),
1839, at Mont., as per Larkin’s books. Rnm- schottcl (Richard), 1847, Co. C,
N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); hospital steward at Sac.; at Vallejo ’71-4; drowned at
Stockton ’74. Runyan (Levi), 1847, Co. I), Morm. Bat. (v. 469). Rupe (Henry),
1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518); supposed to be living in ’64.
Ruschenberger (W. S. W.), 1836, surgeon on the U.S. Pcacock, and author of a
Narrative of the voyage, iv. 140-2; iii. 680. Rush (Madiaon), 1847, acting
lieut on the U.S. Columbus.
Russ (Adolph Guatav),
1847, son of J. C. C., born in Germany ’26; of Co.
C, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); owner of a S.F. lot; in
the ininea ’48. He settled in S.F., where he still lived in ’82, having been a
member of the legislature in ’67. Hia Biography and. Remembrances in my col. of
MSS. are brief sketches of the family and of S.F. affairs in early times. He
married Frances Simon in ’51, and had 5 children surviving in ’79. R. (August),
1847, brother of A. G.,
b. N.Y., drummer of Co. F, N.Y.Vol.; still
living in S.F. ’82. R. (Chas Christian Ed.), 1847, brother of A. G., b. in
Germany ’28; fifer of N.Y.Vol.; owner of a S.F. lot. v. 676. After his disch.
at Sta B. he went to the mines in ’48, making many later mining tours down to
that of Frazer River in ’58. The intervals were filled in with business
enterprises at S.F. He married in ’52, and was the father of 7 children. Still
a rich and prominent citizen of S.F. in ’82; life and portrait in Contemp.
Blog. R. (Henry B.), 1847, brother of A. G., who came, as a boy, with the
family; in later years supervisor of S.F., where he still lives in ’85. R.
(Jacob), 1846, overl. immig. of Young’s party.
v. 529. R. (J. C. Christian), 1847, German of
Co. C, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). He had made a fortune as a jeweller in N.Y., and lost
it by burglarly one night when he closed his shop and went to see a procession
in honor of Gen. Jackson. He enlisted with 3 sons, and was accomp. by his wife
and other children. Opening a jeweller’s shop at S.F., he obtained, as did his
sons, building lots,
v. 676, and rapidly regained his fortune
during the flush times. He hecame the owner of much leal estate, besides the
original lot on which he built the hotel still owned by the family and called
the Russ House. His house on this lot was in ’47-8 the southern limit of
settlement, being separated from the town by a sand hill. He also built a
residence on Harrison St in the far-off wilderness, and the Russ Garden near by
was from ’57 a popular place of suburban resort. He died in ’57, and his widow,
Christina, in ’80. The sons are named in this Register; a daughter, Mrs Mebius,
died in Dresden ’85.
Russell, 1846, mr of
the Sarah Parker, v. 580. R. (Chas), 1846, of the Mormon colony, hut prob. did
not come to Cal. v. 547. R. (Eugene), 1845, one of Fremont’s men, and of the
Sta B. garrison ’46. iv. 583; v. 316; later in Co. A, Cal. Bat. (v. 358). He
applied for land in the S. Jos6 district ’46. R. (Geo. W.), 1847, sailor on the
Independence; applied to Larkin for a clerkship. R. (Henry or Wm), 1847,
carpenter and builder at Benicia, a partner of Bryant and of Briggs, v. 672. R.
(John), 1845, sailor on the Bevj. Morgan. R. (J.), 1848, passp. from Hon. R.
(Robert E.), 1846, of Cal. Bat. (v. 358); Cal. claim $46 (v. 462); witness at
Wash. ’48; at S. Jos6 ’50. Perhaps same as Eugene. R. (Thomas), 1835, Amer.
sailor picked up by the Pilgrim at Sta B. and landed at S. Diego in ’35. iii.
412. He became a permanent resident of S. D., and is named by Dana in his Two
Years. In ’36, with one Weldon, he made an exped. in search of buried treasure
at the Colorado River missions, the affair causing more excitement than
increase of wealth, iii. 613. The same year he was in trouble through sending a
challenge to Lumsden for a duel. iii. 618. In ’40 he worked as a carpenter,
being married to a native, 37 years old, and a naturalized citizen. Next heard
of in ’47, when he was in trouble for refusing obedience to the alcalde, or
perhaps for an attempt to
commit murder, v.
618; and in ’48 ment. by Buffum in the mines at Weber Creek. A man of the same
name was cl. for land in Sta Cruz Co. ’52. R. (Wm), 1845, Amer. at Mont.;
perhaps the owner of a S.F. lot ’47; or one named in Napa Val. ’47-8; or as
present at Dr Semple’s marriage at Benicia ’47. v. 672; or some of these may be
the following. R. (Wm), 1847, Co. G, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499).
Russell (Wm H), 1846,
nat. of Ky who had been somewhat prominent in local politics, memh. of the
legislature, U.S. marshal, etc.; also serving in the Florida war. He came to
Cal. overland with Bryant and Jacobs, v. 528; made a flowery oration at the
S.F. reception of Com. Stockton in Oct. v. 295-6; served as ordnance officer
with rank of major in the Cal. Bat. v. 160, 399; and was one of the
commissioners to make the treaty of Cahuenga, v. 404-5, being somewhat active
in the Fremont-Kearny controversy, and sec. of state at Los Ang. during
Fremont’s rule as gov. v. 422-4, 432-3. In March ’47 be was sent east with
despatches, his chief mission being to secure F.’s appointment as gov. v. 445,
454; and he was one of F.’s principal witnesses at the court-martial, v. 420,
423, 456. He came back to Cal. in ’49, and practised law at S. Josd, Sac., and
S.F. to ’54 or later; about ’61-2 was U.S. consul at Trinidad de Cuba, but
resigned and returned to Ky, where he died. A daughter married a grandson of
Henry Clay. A second wife was married about ’62. Russell was a boastful man of
many words, and a hard drinker, but honorable, intelligent, and popular, with
much ability. R. (Wm W.), 1847, lieut of marines on the U.S. Independence.
Russum (Thos), 1846, Engl, mr of the Euphemia and Mary Ann ’46-7. v. 578-9;
heard of in England in later years. Ruth (John), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v.
499). Rutledge (John), 1847, acting lieut on the U.S. Erie. Rutter (Henry),
1841, employed on Leese’s launch at S.F. R. (John), 1829, mr of the Planet,
iii. 148.
Ryan (Edward), 1847,
Co. B, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. S.F. ’66. R. (Geo. F.), 1843, Irishman who got a
pass in Dec. R. (Geo. P.), 1847, went to Hon. on the Gen. Kearny. R. (P. H.
W.), 1847, Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). R. (Q.), 1847, blacksmith at Mont. R.
(Wm), 1845, sailmaker on the U.S. Savannah. R. (Wm Redmond), 1847, Co. D,
N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). He returned east hy PanamA, and wrote his Personal
Adventures in Upper and Lower Cal., 1848-9, published in London ’50. Died atN.
Orleans ’52. Ryder (Geo. W.), 1847, arr. Oct., according to Soc. Cal. Pion.
roll; died S.F. ’68, age 49.
Saavedra (Ramon A.),
1790, Span. com. of transport and exploring vessels on the coast 1790-7. i.
506, 523-4,542, 706, 728; ii. 184. See also Hist. N. W. Coast, through index.
Sahici (Matias), 1834, Ital. sailor who came from Mex. with the H. & P.
colony, and settled at Mont. after working for awhile at the Palo Colorado as a
sawyer, iii. 412. He is mentioned at Los Ang. in ’47, and seems to have married
a daughter of Wm Wolfskill. Sabas, (Josd), at Los Ang. ’48. Saenz (Ignacio),
Mex. convict of 1791. i. 606. S. (Juan), soldier of the S.F. comp. ’19-30. S.
(Luis), ditto ’42. S. (Macario), of S.F. militia’37. S. (Manuel), soldier of
S.F. comp. ’32-3; militia’37; at Sonoma ’44, age 30. S. (Pablo Pedro), of S.F.
militia ’37, exiled in ’39. iii. 580; perhaps Pablo and Pedro. S., see also
‘Sais,’ ‘ Saez.’ S. de Lucio, see ‘ Lucio.’ Saez (Josd, Justo, and Miguel),
settlers at S. Jos6 1797. i. 717. S. (Na- sario), settler at S. Jos6 786. i.
477; wife Micaela Sotelo, child, in ’93, Miguel, Juan, Benedicta, and Felipa.
Sagarra (Eduardo), Peruvian shot for stealing at Mont. ’31. iii. 191, 669, 673,
679. S. (Mateo), 1818, of Bouchard’s insurgents, captured at Mont. ii. 232.
Sahr (Albert), 1847, owner of S.F. lot.
Sainsevain (Pierre),
1839, French carpenter, age 20, who arrived at Sta B. on the Ayacucho. iv. 117,
119. His passport was dated Bordeaux, Nov. ’38. He was a nephew of Louis
Vignes, whom he joined for a time in the manufacture of wine at Los Angeles. In
’43 he was grantee of tbe Cafiada del Rincon rancho, iv. 655, and from ’44
owned a saw-mill at Sta Cruz, being from ’46 in partnership with Roussillon,
building a schooner in ’46, v. 641, and also from ’46 having a flour-mill at S.
Josd, which gave rise to some local troubles, iv. 685; v. 660. He went to the
mines in ’48, Sainsevain Bar being
named for him; and in
’49 was a member of the constit. convention. In later years he became one of
the most prominent vineyardists and wine-makers in the state. His wife, married
in ’45, was a daughter of Antonio Suflol. St Clair (Trouett), 1843 (?), trapper
who prob. came from N. Mex. about this year. iv. 400; ment. by Schallenberger
and in the jV. Helv. Diary ’44-5; still living in Sta Cruz Co. as late as ’79.
St Germain (Baptiste), 1831, Fr. from N. Mex.; prob. with Wolfskill. iii. 387.
St John (Augustus A.), 1847, Co. B, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). St J. (Henry), 1843 (?),
Engl, sailor, and later sugar- plauter in the Sandw. Isl., said to have come to
Cal. this year. iv. 400. He was later a miner and cattle-dealer, who attempted
suicide at S.F. ’83. St J. (J.), 1848, passport from Hon. St J. (Stephen M.),
1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). St Quintin (Joseph), 1847, Co. C, N.Y.Vol.
(v. 499). Sais (Domingo), soldier of the S.F. comp. ’26-33; of S.F. militia
’37; grantee of Cafiada de Herrera, Marin,’39. iii. 711. He had been elector
and regidor of S.F. ’37-9. iii. 705; and his age was ’39 in ’44. His name is
written also ‘Saenz’ and ‘Saez,’ which are perhaps more correct forms; at
least, it is impossible to distinguish between them in Cal. S. (Miguel),
settled at Los Ang. 1806. ii. 350. Saizar de Vitoria, see ‘Vitoria.’ Sajat
(Lewis T.), 1847, owner of S.F. lets.
Sal (Hermenegildo),
1776, Span, soldier who came with Anza; guarda- almacen at S.F. ’78-82; alferez
’82; lieut ’95. Ho served at Mont. 1782-1800 (except’91-4 at S.F.); much of the
time as habilitado and comandante. In 1800, being retired as capt., he died at
Mont. Though a quick-tempered man, he was a faithful officer, strict
disciplinarian, and excellent accountant. Biog. and fam. i. 678-80; ment. i.
297, 335, 396-7, 441, 463, 467-8, 490, 493-6, 501, 509-11, 514, 516-18, 526,
537, 547, 551-2, 569, 572-3, 588-94, 634, 680, 692707, 718; ii. 143, 191; iii.
11. Salamanca (Secundino), 1791, Span, lieut In Malaspina’s exped. i. 490.
Salazar, 1796, com. of the Concepcion and Activo ’96-7. i. 540, 544. S. (Alonso
Isidro), 1791, Span, friar, who was a founder of Sta Cruz, where he served
until his retirement in ’95, writing in Mex. an important report on the
Condicion Actual de Cal. Biog. i. 497-9; ment.
i. 494, 566, 576, 579-80, 603-4, 618, 626,
661. S. (Antonio), at Los Ang. ’46; juez de campo ’48. v. 626. S. (Canuto),
fifer of the S.F. comp. ’39-42; iu ’54-5 at S.F., age 28; witness in the
Santillan case. S. (Dionisio), at Branciforte ’45, age 28, wife Perfecta
Castro, child. Encarnacion b. ’40, and Juan ’41. S. (Fulgencio), soldier of the
S.F. comp. ’38-42. S. (Ignacio and Jesus), at S. Bern. ’46. S. (Isidro),
teamster at Mont. ’47. S. (Jorge), soldier at Mont. ’36, age 25. S. (Jos6),
convict settler 1798. i. 606. S. (Jos6), soldier of S.F. comp. ’38-43. iv. 667;
Cal. claim (v. 462). S. (Jos6 Antonio), N. Mexican trader and settler from ’39.
iv. 81, 278, 387; in ’46 supl. juez at S. Feliciano rancho. V. 625; in ’47
alcalde at Los Ang. v. 626; still there in ’48. S. (JosS Maria), regidor at
Branciforte ’34. iii. 696, 588; in ’45 on the padron as a nat. of Cal., age 60,
wife Hermenegilda Rios, child. Isidro b. ’15, Jorge ’19, Juan ’25, Maria
Refugio ’30, Refugio ’33. S. (Juan), com. of the guard at S. Fern. ’23. ii.
570; in ’27-30 acting habilitado at Sta B. and S. Diego, ii. 543, 572; iii.
114. In ’31-4 he was promoted from sergt to alferez, and was once a prisoner
during the sectional wars in ’37. He was acting com. of S. Diego, and is ment.
as late as ’46. iii. 482, 503-4, 541, 608-10; iv. 617; v. 566. S. (Miguel),
soldier at S. Josi5 mission 1797. i. 556. S. (Ramon), at Los Ang. ’46.
Sales (Alex.), 1833,
Amer. hunter from N. Mex., at Los Ang._’36, age 29. Prob. Cyrus ‘Alexander,’
q.v.; also ment. in the campaign of ’45. iv. 495. _ S. (Francisco), grantee of
land at S. Gabriel ’45. iv. 637. Salgado (Augustin), at Los Ang. ’46. S.
(Francisco), ditto; in S. Luis Ob. 50-8. S. (Tom&s), juez aux. Mont. dist
’44. iv. 653. Salines, 1842, Frenchman in Sutter’s employ. iv. 341; prob. the
Salinas named in N. Helv. Diary ’45-8. Sallalla (Faustino), soldier at the
Colorado Riv. pueblos 1780-1, killed by Ind. i. 359, 362. Sallcman, 1847,
doubtful name of a Frenchman at S. Josd. Sallee,
1846, of West’s overl. party, killed on the Humboldt,
v. 528. Salmon <Alejo), colegial at Sta In& ’44. iv. 426. S. (James),
1846, Delaware Ind.
in the fight at
Natividad. v. 367; at Sutter’s fort ’47. Salvador, Cal. Ind. sent by Sutter to
relief of the Donner party ’46. He refused to eat human flesh, hut was himself
shot and eaten, v. 531-2, 534, 537. Saly, 1845, at Sta B. Samlyn (Henry), 1847,
Co. F. Cal. Bat. (v. 358). Samop (Jaime), Ind. alcalde at S. Diego 1799. i.
655. Sam Tetoy, Ind. chief, later called ‘Solano,’ q.v. ii. 329. Sampson (Z.),
1848, passp. from Hon.
Sanchez (Antonio),
soldier at Sta B. before ’37. S. (Est^van), soldier at Sta B. ’32, wife R.omana
Lopez. S. (Francisco), son of Jos<5 Ant.; soldier of the S.F. comp. ’24-5;
in ’27-8 elector and sec. at S.F. and S. Josi. ii. 592, 605; in ’35 see. iii.
704; in ’37 sec., capt. of the militia, elector, and grantee of town lots. iii.
506, 511, 701, 705; v. 683; in ’38-9 acting-com. at S.F. and grantee of S.
Pedro rancho, S. Mateo co. iii. 563, 701, 713. He served as juez de paz in ’43.
iv. 065; in ’42 is named on the padron as a nat. of S. Jos6, age 35, wife
Teodora Higuera, child. Luisa b. ’34, Luis ’36, Dolores ’38, and Pedro; in ’44
capt. of defensores. iv. 407, 458, 667; in ’45 capt. of the post, and grantee
of town lot. iv. 666, 669; v. 678. In ’46 was acting com. at S.F., though
absent at the capture by the U.S. v. 4, 17, 61, 239-41, 659; and in ’46-7,
provoked by the depredations of the Americans, he headed a kind of revolt, with
a view to obtain guaranties, taking captive Alcalde Bartlett and his guard, who
were making a plundering tour. v. 379-83. Don Francisco still lived at S.F.
mission in ’55. He is remembered as a hospitable man, though somewhat hostile
to Amer., and always regarded by them with suspicion.
Sanchez (Francisco de
Jesus), 1842 (?), Mex. friar of the Zacatecanos, who was apparently left behind
in L. Cal. wben the others came in ’33. iii. 319. He was minister at S.
Buenaventura ’42-3 and ’52-3; at Sta In£s ’44-50, being vice-rector of the
seminary, iv. 425-6, 644-5; v. 635. He is named occasionally at S. Gabriel and
Sta B. to ’58, but I have found no later record of him. S. (Francisco Miguol),
1774, Span, friar who served at S. Gabriel, and temporarily at other missions,
till his death in 1803. Biog. ii. 113-14; ment.
i. 299, 388, 451,459, 495-6, 511, 576, 664,
719. S. (Gil), regidor at Mont. ’36, tithe col. at Branciforte ’39, grantee of
Arroyo de la Laguna ’40, killed Robles ’42, agente de pol. ’45. iii. 675, 676,
697; iv. 653, 663. S. (Hilario), grantee of Tamalpais ’45. iv. 674. S.
(Isidro), son of Jos£ Ant., of S. F. militia ’37, age 23 in ’42, wife Teodora
Alviso, child. Dolores b. ’37, Isabel ’40, and Narcisa ’41; involved in the
assault on Capt. Libby ’45. S. (Jacobo), in revolt at Los Ang. ’45. iv. 538-9.
S. (Joaquin), sirviente at Sta Clara 1776. i. 306. S. (Joaquin), 1801, sergt
sent from Mex. to superintend cultivation of hemp. i. 620-1; ii. 178, 181. S.
(Joaquin), soldier of the S. F. comp. ’23. S. (Jos<5), 1791, piloto in
Malaspina’s exped. i. 490.
Sanchez (Jos6
Antonio), nat. of Sinaloa, soldier of the S. F. comp, from 1791, corp. from
1805, sergt from 1806, brevet alferez from ’20, and alfdrez from ’27, or, as
some records indicate, from ’32. He was for some years corp. of the Sta Crnz
escolta. i. 496, 526, 535; was later engaged in over 20 Ind. campaigns and
exploring exped., especially in ’17-26, being famous for his skill and courage
as an Ind. fighter, ii. 91-2, 126, 232, 322, 329, 335, 339, 371, 445, 497-9,
538, 584; iii. 111-12, 123. In ’27-35 he was the grantee of Buri- buri rancho,
S.F. ii. 591-5, 664; iii. 711; in ’29-33 com. at S.F., though involved in the
revolt of ’29. iii. 75, 96, 223-4, 333, 365, 701; but in ’32-4 apparently
attached nominally to the Mont. comp. iii. 671. In ’36 he was retired from
active service, living on his rancho or at the mission; is named on the padron
of ’42 as 67 years of age; and died in ’43, being denied the comforts of
religion on his death-bed, and for a time Christian burial, through some quarrel
with the friars, to whom he was always hostile, iv. 373. He was a good man, of
known honesty and valor, but very ignorant and unfit for promotion. His sons
were Josi de la Cruz, Francisco, Manuel, and Isidro. His daughters married
Fran, de Haro, two Valencias, and John Read. S. (Jos6 Ant.), settler at S. Jos6
1791-1800. i. 716.
Sanchez (Jos<5
Bernardo), 1S04, Span, friar who served chiefly at S. Diego and S. Gabriel till
his death in ’33. A very prominent missionary and presi-
dent of the
Femandinos in ’27-30. Biog. iii. 641-2; ment. ii. 47, 99,106-7, 110, 159, 344,
366, 394, 442, 487, 560, 564, 567, 569, 580, 655, 657; iii. 87, 91-2, 94, 96,
102, 108, 142-4, 155, 309-10, 315-16, 337-8, 347, 351. S. (JosS de la Cruz),
son of Joso Ant., clector at S.F. ’35, regidor ’36-7. iii. 704-5; grantee of S.
Mateo rancho ’36-41, and admin, of S. F. mission ’36-40. iii. 713, 715; named
in the- padron of ’42 as 40 years old, wife Maria Josefa Merido (?), child.
Soledad b. ’23, Concepcion ’30, Jos£ Maria ’34, Ricardo ’37, and Francisco. He
was supl. juez de paz ’43, sergt of defensores ’44, 2d alcalde ’45, and 2d juez
do paz in ’46. iv. 665, 666-7; v. 648. He continued to live at the mission till
his death in ’78. S. (Jos6 Joaquin), at Los Ang. ’25. ii. 559. S. (JosiS Maria),
1824, Mex. who in ’35 was grantee of Llano de Tequesquite rancho, iii. 677; ago
30 iu ’36; juez at S. Juan B. ’37. iii. 692; his rancho sacked hy Ind. ’38.
iii. 693; iv. 75; Cal. claim ’46-7 (v. 462); alcalde at S. Juan B. ’47-8. v.
640. He was cl. for Las Animas, Sta Clara, ’52
Sanchez (Juan),
sirviente at S.F. 1777. i. 297. S. (Juan), grantee of Sta Clara rancho, Sta B.,
’37. iii. 656; wife In£s Guevara and 4 children hefore ’37; still in StaB. Co.
’54. S. (Juana Maria L.), 2d baptism at S.F. 1776. i. 291. S. (Macario), at S.
Jos£ 1800. S. (Manuel), prob. son of Jos6 Ant., elector at S.F. ’35 and
petitioner for Canada de Guadalupe rancho, iii. 704, 711; alf. of militia ’37.
iii. 701; in ’42 age 30, wife Francisca Solis, child. Manuel
b. ’31, Rosario ’37, Dolores ’38, Juan
Francisco ’41. S. (Maria Josefa), Cal. claim for $9,030 (v. 462). S. (Miguel),
1829, Mex. convict liberated in ’33. S. (Rafael), Ind. executed at Mont. ’45.
iv. 654. S. (Rafael), 1842, Mex. sub-lieut of the batallon fijo ’42-5, acting
also as Micheltorena’s sec. He remained in Cal. as custom-house officer in ’45;
is mentioned in the annals of ’46, serving on the 1st jury and getting a grant
of S. Lorenzo rancho, iv. 289,
513, 557; v. 35, 41, 45, 61, 289, 637. S. (Ramon),
1826, Mex. sup. of the Sta Apolonia, and mr of the Magdalena, 27-8. iii. 147-8.
S. (Ramona or Romana), grantee of Butano, Sta Cruz, ’44. ii. 591. S. (Teodoro),
juez de campo at Laguna Seca ’35. iii. 674.
Sanchez (Tom&s),
at Los Coyotes rancho, Los Ang., ’39, age 37; collector of taxes at Los Ang.
’43. iv. 633. After ’49 he was somewhat prominent as sheriff; still living in
’77. S. (Tomito), at S. Pascual ’46. v. 352; perhaps same as Tom&s. S.
(Urbano), owner of the Sta Apolonia ’26. iii. 148, 682; prob. not in Cal. S. (Vicente),
settler at Los Ang. ’14-19. ii. 349, 354; arrested and sent to Sta B. in irons
’22. ii. 559; elector and proh. alcalde ’26-7. ii. 560; iii. 33; member of the
dip. ’28. iii. 41-2. In ’29-32 he as dipu- tado, alcalde, and citizen was
involved in a complicated series of troubles, being deposed and imprisoned, and
in turn imprisoning others. The details cannot be presented, even if anybody
ever understood them. He was a vicious, gambling, quarrelsome fellow, though of
some intelligence and wealth; and political quarrels between Echeandia and
Victoria had something to do with his troubles, about which suits were pending
as late as ’44. ii. 561;
iii. 187-8, 195-6, 200, 205, 212, 230, 630, 634.
In ’36-9 he had something to do with the vigilance com., and with the sectional
quarrel on both sides, iii. 417, 432, 491 ,.504, 565, 636. In ’42-4 his name
appears, being the grantee of Ci^nega or Paso de la Tijera, and also coinis. de
zanjas. iv. 295, 629, 633-4; and in ’45 he was again alcalde, not free from popular
complaints, iv. 497, 523, 633. I have no later record of him. Sancho (Juan
Bautista), 1804, Span, friar who served at S. Antonio till his death in ’30.
Biog. ii. 621; inent.
ii. 152, 385, 388, 655.
Sandeau, 1846, a
mountaineer with Kearny from N. Mex. Lancey. San- dels (G. M. W.), 1842,
Swedish scientist who came from Mex. on the §chr California, and went to Hon.
on the Diamond iu ’43. He wrote an account of his observations under the name
of ‘King’s Orphan.’ iv. 345-6, 363, 565, 640, 650,665. Sanders (Allen), 1845,
Amer. blacksmith from Or. in the McMahon party, working for Sutter Jul.-Dec. In
the spring of ’46 he visited Napa and Sonoma, married Miss Bonney, and in March
went with the Bonneys to Or., where he is said to have been living in ’80. iv. 572;
v. 526. S. (Horace),
1845, overl. immig. of the Grigsby-Ide party, iv.
579, 587. He was perhaps a
Bear Flag man. v.
110; and served as sergt Co. E, Cal. Bat. v. 361; having Cal. claim of |20 (v.
462). Thos Knight states thatin’70-1, S. was livingnes Carson, Nev. S. (Richard
T.), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). Sandej son (Geo. B.), 1847, asst surg.
U.S.A., surg. of the Morm. Bat., and anobje< of the most intense dislike on
the part of the Mormons. He went east wit Gen. Kearny, v. 446, 452,477,480-2.
Sandoval (Josefa), 1791, wife of Goi Romeu. i. 488, 490. S. (Luciano), 1842,
cornet of the batallon fijo ’42-5. ii 289. S. (PAnfilo), 1828, Mex. convict
liberated ’34.
San EstSvan
(Antonio), 1831, chief of a N. Mex. caravan, iii. 396. Sane (J. R.), 1847, mr of
the Benj. Tucker. Sanford, 1843, at Sutter’s fort ’41 and perhaps an
overl. immig. of the Chiles party, iv. 393, 578. S. (Sam. 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol.
(v. 499). Sanger (John), 1844, mr of the Newton; i at S. Diego, iv. 567;
perhaps ‘Sawyer.’ Sangrador (Miguel), tanner-ii structor 1792-5. i. 615, 725.
Santa Ana, soldier at
Sta B. ’24. ii. 532. Santa Cruz (Jos6 Antonio com. de policfa at Mont. ’33,
’36, juez de campo '35. iii. 673-5; age 43 in ’31 nat. of Mex., wife Gertrudis
Villavicencio, child Juan Jos6. Santa Marii 1815, teacher who came with Gov.
Sola. ii. 426. Sta M., Ind. sirv. at i Luis Ob., shot by Fr&nont. v. 374.
Sta M. (Jos6 Maria), clerk of the coui at Mont. ’42; owner of S.F. lot ’46. v.
684. Sta M. (Vicente), 1776, Spai friar who served chiefly at S. Buen., where
he died in 1806. Biog. ii. 121—t ment. i. 240-1, 246, 287, 300, 302, 376, 382,
385, 388, 399, 466, 522, 553, 571 674; ii. 159-60, 490. Sautiago (Juan JosS
Norberto), 1786, Span, friar, wL served at S. Juan Cap. and retired in 1810. Biog.
ii. 110; ment. i. 388, 42! 458-9, 474, 563, 576, 657; ii. 114, 159-60, 197.
Santillan (Jos<5 Prudencio
1841, Mex. novice of Ind. parentage who came with the
bishop and soon bi came a priest, iv. 195. He was parish priest at S.F. mission
in’46-50, thoug much of the time absent; and went to Mex. in ’50. His chief and
only farr rests on his claim of ’50 to the misssion lands under a grant of Gov.
Pico j I ’46, a grant which after a long and famous litigation, though approved
by tl hand com. and district court, was finally declared invalid by the U.S.
su] court, being doubtless fraudulently antedated, v. 558, 659-60. Santillan bi
came asst curate at Mazatlan before ’56, and my last record of him is that i
’59 he was arrested for refusal to celebrate the return of peace at the order
< Gov. Pesqueira; yet in ’78 the holders of the land claims professed to be
ab' to produce him as a witness. Santos, sirv. at Soledad 1791-1800. i. 49!
S., neoph. grantee of Rincon del Alisal, Sta
Clara, ’44. iv. 672. S. (Guadi Iupe), at Mont. ’36, age 26.
Sargent
(Constnrtine), 1846, purser’s clerk on the U.S. Congress, committe suicide at
Mont. Dec. S. (Henry S.), 1848, nat. of Conn. recently from Or
d. at S.F. Oct. S. (James K.), 1847, Co. F,
N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Sarmienl (Jos6 M.), 1842, Mex. lieut of the batallon fijo;
died on the voy. to Cal. i' 289. Sarria (Vicente Francisco), 1809, Span, friar
whose missionary servic was at S. CArlos and Soledad until his death in ’35. He
was prefect in ’13-11 ’23-30, and president ’23-5; one of the ablest, best, and
most prominent < the Fernandinos. Biog. iii. 688-9; ment. i. list of auth.;
ii. 88, 148, 159-61 217-18, 240, 327-30, 364, 383, 386, 394, 396-409, 451-3,
461, 491, 501-5,515 13, 517-18, 521, 525-6, 535, 622-3, 655, 657, 659, 662; iii.
7, 16-19, 87, 89-9 128, 191, 336, 338, 350-1. Satte (Juan Jos£), 1827, Moorish
servant from f Bias on an Engl, ship; at S. Jos6 ’29, age 42.
Sauerweid (Alex. A.),
1848, Russian, in S. Joaq. Co. ’78. Saunde (John), 1838, Amer. or Irish sailor
at Mont. and Sta Cruz ’38, ’43; at S.F. ’4 age 30. iv. 119. He went to sea
again in ’47-8, but returned in ’52-3, sot shipping again. S. (Theodore R.),
1847, Co. A, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); in N."5 city ’82. S. (Wm L.), 1833,
trapper named in Mont. lists of ’34. In ’34 1 writes Capt. Jos. Walker a severe
letter denying any indebtedness and claifl ing to hold a receipt from
Bonneville. He may therefore have come in ’< with Walker (iii. 389), or in
’32 with Dye, who mentions a Saunders in h party.
Savage (Chas), 1845,
at Sutter’s fort. iv. 578; went to Or. ’46. v. 526; ai
wag at Jacksonville
’81. S. (Eliza), 1846, of the Mormon colony, v. 546; in Utah ’84. S. (James
D.), 1846, overl. immig. who served in Co. F, Cal. Bat.
v. 374 (358); named in the N. Helv. Diary,
47-8. He had been a trapper and mountaineer, having great influence among the
Ind., by whose aid he ia said to have acquired much wealth in the gold mines.
In ’48-9 he had trading .posts on the Mariposa and Fresno; and in later times
rendered great service to govt and to settlers as interpreter, commissioner,
and major in com. of u. volunteer battalion. He was probably the discoverer of
the Yosemite Valley. In ’52 he was killed at the Kings River reservation in a
quarrel with Maj. Harvey, the county judge. An ignorant man of much natural
shrewdness, he made many warm friends and bitter foes. It is related of him
that he made it a point to marry a chief’s daughter in every tribe; exchanged
hardware and whiskey by weight, ounce for ounce, with the Ind., for gold-dust;
and bet his weight in gold on the turn of a card in a S.F. gambling-house. S.
(Levi), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); at Lorqueville, Utah, ’82.
Sawis (Nathaniel),
1816, doubtful name of a deserter from the Albatross.
ii. 275. Sawyer (John), 1844, mr of tbo
Kewton; d. at S. Diego ’45. iv. 453, 567. S. (Joseph), 1828, Scotchman at S.
Diego ’28-9. Saxton (Chas), 1847, Co. G, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499). Schaffer (J. R.),
1848, nat. of Va; at Hon. from S.F. on the Tepic; dist attorney of S. Joaq.
Co.; d. in ’75, perhaps in Idaho.
Schallenberger
(Moses), 1844, nat. of Ohio, and overl. immig. as a boy in the Stevens party.
His remarkable adventures at Donner Lake, where he was left by the party and
passed the winter alone, are noted in iv. 445-7, 453-4, as related in his MS.,
Overland in '44- He appears in various records of ’46-8 as clerk and trader at
Sutter’s fort, S. Jos£, Mont., and Sta Cruz; but finally settled at S.
Jos<5, where be acquired considerable property, and was still living in
’85. I have been unable to obtain information about his career in late years or
his family. His sister was the wife of Dr Townsend of the Stevens party, and
bis daughter Maggie in ’84-5 was a teacher, who from her father’s notes wrote
the MS. narrative of tbe overland trip. Schenck (James F.),
1846, lieut on the U.S. Congress, serving in
Stockton’s Bat. ’46-7; nat. of Ohio; rear-admiral ’79. v. 268, 281. S.
(Woodhull S.), 1845, lieut on the U.S. Portsmouth. Schiller (Ed.), 1847, Co. A,
N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); d. Texas ’81. Schimer (Earnest), 1847, Co. G, ditto.
Schlottour (Karl), 1847, Co. F, ditto; baker at S.F. ’48. v. 683; at
Rough-and-Ready ’82.
Schmidt (Geo. W.),
1848, German who died at S. Diego’73; an early steamboat man. S. (Jacob), 1847,
cooper at N. Helv. S. (Karl), 1821, Russian manager at Ross, succeeding Kuskof
’21-6. ii. 464-5, 506-7, 642, ■648. iii. 146.
Schmolder (B.), 1846 (?), author of the Neuer Wegweiser, who ■styles
himself in June ’47 as Capt. ‘
from Cal. ’ He sought to organize a German •colony.
Schneider (Johann), 1846, Co. B, Cal. Bat. (v. 358). Schoa (Juan), at Los Ang.
’46. Schoolcraft (Henry A.), 1847, sergt Co. H, N.Y. Vol. v. 504; Sutter’s
agent, recorder, and alcalde at Sac. ’48-9. He went east, and while returning
with an appointment as collector of Sac. died at sea near Aeapuleo’53.
Scboonmaker (Jacob J.), 1847, Co. A, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); at Viaeland, N.J.,
’82. S. (Milton C.), 1847, ditto; d. at Stockton ’50. Schreador (Geo.), 1847,
Co. D, ditto; d. Napa Co. ’82. Schreiber (Chas),
1846, Cal. Bat. v. 358; one of the Sta B. garrison.
Sehroeder (Martin),
1847, Engl, mr of a vessel, married at Mazatlan, who
brought his family in ’49 via Hon.; d. at S. Jos6 ’SI, leaving 5 children.
Schroth (Chas), 1848, on roll of the Soe. Cal. Pion.; living in S.F. ’81.
Schubart (Peter),
1842, Dane naturalized in Feb.; also called ‘Serbia.’ iv. 341. Schultz
(Ernest), 1847, owner of S.F. lot. Schultze (Fred.), 1847, Co. F, N.Y. Vol. (v.
499). Schulz, 1848, cooper at Sutter’s fort. Schumacher (John), 1847, Co. G,
N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); at Los Ang. ’82. Schwartz (John L.), 1841, Dutch immig. of
the Bartleson party. 270, 275, 279. In ’44-5 he obtained a grant of Nueva
Flandria on the Sac. Riv., iv. 672, where be established a fishing station and
built a boat. He and his place are described by Bryant in ’46 and Buffum in
'48; also mentioned in N. Helv. Diary, ’45-7. He died in ’51 or ’52, and his
brother George was unsuccessful el. for the rancho iu ’53. Schweitzer (Philip),
1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518).
Scollan (John), 1847,
Co. A, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); at Sta B. ’82. S (Andrew), 1847, Co. D, N.Y. Vol.
(v. 499). S. (Antonio J.), 1846, grante S. Luis Rey and Pala. S. (Chas G.),
1847, sergt Co. B, N.Y. Vol. (v. 4 treasurerof S.F.; d. in Nicaragua ’56. S.
(Felix), 1845, nat. of Va and p overl. immig. iv. 578-9. One of his daughters
died at Sutter’s fort Jan. In M arch he went to Or., v. 526, where he became a
prominent settler, v ing Cal. again ahout ’51-3, and being killed by Ind. in
’58. See Hist. Or 750. _ S. (Gabriel), X846, had a ‘Cal. claim’ (v. 462). S.
(G. J.), 1848, a cabin on the Capay rancho, Yolo Co.
Scott (James), 1826,
nat. of Scotland, who first visited Cal. as sup. of Olive Branch and Waverly,
being mrof the Huascar in ’27-8. iii. 176, 154, From ’30 he seems to have
considered Sta B. his home, though constantl; the move, as shown by his
business corresp. in my collection, ii. 573; iii. ■
iv. 117; sup. a/nd mr of various vessels; also
otter-hunter. iv. 144, 209, i
v. 578. From ’39, or earlier, to ’47 a
partner of Capt. John Wilson; menl mission accounts ’40. iii. 657, 660; in ’45
purchaser of S. Luis Ob. and gra: of Canada de Chorro rancho, iv. 553, 558,
655, 658-9. Not friendly to Ar in ’46-7, but not much heard of in those years.
He died at Sta B. in S. (James), 1833, Engl, sailor on the Catalina, iii. 409;
in Mont. dist. ’3' in trouble on the schr California ’39. S. (James), 1846, of
the Mori colony, excommunicated at S.F. v. 546; owner of S.F. lots ’47. S. (Ja
R.), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469).
Scott (John), 1831,
sup. of the Ayacucho ’31-5. iii. 381; perhaps Jar S. (John), 1845, possibly of
Fremont’s party, but prob. the following, iv., 587, 453. S. (John), 1845,
overl. immig. of the Grigsby-Ide party, iv. . 587. Acc. to the Yolo Co. Hist,
he lived as a hunter in Capay Val. to J ’46; he was prob. one of the Bears, v.
110; and served as a lient in the Bat. v. 435. Swan remembers a Jack Scott in
the mines from Sta Cruz S. (Leonard M.), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). S.
(Sam.), 1847, na Ky and overl. immig.; a trader at Sta Clara, successful miner
who built first house at Placerville, and finally a settler near Snelling,
where he die ’81, leaving one son, Moses. S. (Wm), 1846, marine on the Portsmo
wounded at the San Gabriel in ’47. v. 395. S. (Wm), 1847, Co. C, li Vol. (v.
499); owner of S.F. lot; county treasurerof S.F.; killed in Nicaraj
Scott (Wm W.), 1845,
brother of John and overl. immig. of the Grigi Ide party, iv. 579, 587. He came
from St Louis mainly for his health, took part in the Bear revolt, being also,
it is said, the man who in July carried the U.S. flag from Sonoma to Sac. v.
110, 148, 244. In ’46-8 he 1 a store at Sonoma, being, I suppose, of the firm
S. & Boggs often named, sometimes visiting Sac. with goods for sale. In ’47
he married Mary . Smith; in Jan. ’48 he killed a man named McRice; and I have
his autogr letter of Feb., in which he attributes his bad conduct to the use of
liquor, solemnly ‘ swears off’ forever. Later in the year he appears as a
carpente Sutter’s employ, and is said to have been at the Coloma mill when gold
found. A man of the same name settled in Scott Valley, Lake Co., in ’48, was
still living in ’54. The preceding items may refer to more than one n Scriver
(Chas), see ‘Schreiber.’ v. 316. Scullen (John), 1847, Irishman of
B., said
to have heen killed by Ind. in Ariz. ’66; prob. ‘Scollan,’ q.v.
Seagrim (Thos), 1839,
sailor on the schr California. Seaman (Steph
1846, acting sailmaker on the U.S. Dale. Searles
(Geo.), 1847, Co. D, S Vol. (v. 499). Searls (Susan A.), 1846, of the Mormon
colony, prob. not c ing_ to Cal. v. 547. Sears (Franklin), 1845, nat. of Mo.
who crossed plains to Or. in ’44, and came to Cal. in the McMahon party, 572-4,
587, g ing an unenviable reputation as an Indian-killer. He is named in the N.
Ii Diary ’45-6, and in March ’46 was nearly killed hy a fall from his hors
Sutter’s fort. Recovering, he joined Fremont and went south, serving a Pascual
under Gillespie and in Stockton’s campaign. An account of S. ’ cual by Boggs in
the Napa Begistr, May 11, ’72, seems to be founded on statements. In ’48-9 he
took out large quantities of gold near Bidwell’s ! and in ’51 settled at
Sonoma, where he was living in ’80 at the age of 63.
wife was Margaret
Swift, and there were 2 children surviving in ’80, one of them, Rachel, heing
the widow of J. R. Snyder. S. (John), 1845, brother of Franklin, and overl.
immig. of the Grigsby-Ide party, iv. 579, 587, with his wife. He was a
blacksmith and settled at Sonoma, where he was prob. a Bear Flag man—indeed,
Mrs S. is credited with having furnished flannel for the famous flag. v. 110,
147-8. He was capt. of Co. D, Cal. Bat. v. 359, 361; had a Cal. claim (v. 462);
and was in the Feather River mines ’48. He seems either to have left Cal. or
died soon after this date.
Sebastian, Ind. who
died at Nicasia ’80, said to be about 100 years old.
S., 1773, Ind. who was the 1st Christian to
make the trip by land from Cal. to Sonora, i. 221. S. (Narcisco), 1844,
Canadian at Sta Rosa, having left Ridley’s service. Secondi, or Sagondyne
(James), 1845, Delaware Ind. of Fremont’s party, iv. 583; still in F.’s employ
’53. Seely, 1845, in N.Y. ’84, claiming to have been one of Fremont’s party;
also declared by a newspaper corresp. to be the original of Bret Harte’s ‘Yuba
Bill.’ Segundo (Angel), sirviente at S.F. 1777. i. 297. Segura (Jos6 Maria),
1842, Mex. capt. of the batallon fijo, who remained in Cal. after
Micheltorena’s departure, acted as com. at Los Ang. for a time in ’46, and
seems to have departed with Flores in ’47. iv. 289, 364, 492, 513; v. 408.
Seibert, 1847, in Sutter’s employ ’47-8. Seider (Geo. F.), 1847, Co. A,
N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). ‘ Seis Cuartillas’ (Theodore), 1834, French carpenter at
Mont. Sel, see ‘Sells.’ Selden (Ed. A.),
1846, mid. on the U.S. Columbus, act. lieut in com.
of the prize Julia ’46-7.
v. 358, 37S. Selfridge (Thos O.), 1847, capt
U.S.N., com. of the Columbus and later of the Dale. Sellers (Jackson), 1847,
sergt Co. K, N.Y.Vol. v. 504. Sells (Joseph), 1846, at Sutter’s fort ’47-8;
also called Selly and Sel; member of the Donner relief parties, v. 538, 541.
Semple (Robert),
1845, nat. of Ky and overl. immig. of the Hastings party,
iv. 586-7; a printer and dentist by trade. In
’45-6 he was engaged in farming with Johnson and Keyser, first becoming
prominent in the Bear revolt, v. 79, 106-7,110, 114-19, 298, 644. Though a
pronounced filibuster and conspirator, he doubtless exerted his influence with
much success to restrain the lawless vagabonds of his party from the commission
of outrages. In July he went to Mont., served for a time in Fauntleroy’s
dragoons (v. 232, 247), and then with Walter Colton published at Mont. the 1st
Cal. newspaper, tbe Monterey Californian. v. 291-3, 658. Early in ’47 the
paper was transferred to S.F., and Semple, obtaining from Vallejo a large tract
of land on Carquines Strait, devoted his energies, in company with Larkin, to
the building of a great city at Benicia, as fully recorded in v. 670-4, at the
same time taking an interest in various political matters, delivering a 4th of
July oration at S.F., and owning a S. F. lot, which he patriotically gave away
to show his faith in Benicia as the metropolis, v. 433, 455, 646, 676. His
great speculation of city-bnilding was not very successful, but he made a large
amount of money in ’48-50 by running a ferry-boat across the strait. In ’49 he
was a member and president of the constit. convention; but does not appear
later in public life. He moved to Colusa Co., where he died in ’54 at tbe age
of 48, his death being the result of a fall from his horse. Dr S. was a
good-natured, popular, and honorable man, of much intelligence and natural
ingenuity, of some education, a good speaker—indeed, there were few things he
could not do fairly well, though noted for obstinate faith iu his way of doiDg
things as always the best. His height was about 6 ft. 8 in., giving rise to no
end of amusing stories, true and false, respecting such achievements as wading
the strait of Carquines. In ’47, being a widower, he married Frances, daughter
of Stephen Cooper, by whom he had a daughter, Mary Benicia. His widow is living
in ’85 as Mrs Van Winkle. A son, John W., came to Cal. in ’49, dying in ’50;
and also a brother,
C. D., who was claimant for the Colus rancho,
v. 671. Sefian (Jos6 Francisco de Paula), 1787, Span, friar who served at S.
C&rlos and S. Buenaventura until his death in 1823. A model missionary, who
was president in 1812-15, and ’20-3, being also prefect in ’23. Biog. ii.
490-1; rr.ent. i. 388, 469, 572, 576-7, 598, 604-5, 674, 685; ii. 121-2; 159,
209, 240, 258, 270, 317, 326-7, 333,
578, 580, 655, 657.
Senar (Francisco), 1828, doubtfu ’name of an Irish sailor at Mont. ’28-9.
Septem (Henry), 1816, sailor of the Albatross, ii. 275.
Septilveda (Diego),
one of the grantees of S. Bernardino rancho ’42; somewhat prominent in the
Flores revolt at Los Ang. ’46-7. v. 312, 320, 407-8. S. (Dolores), son of Juan
Jos£, b. S. Diego 1793, settler at Loa Ang. 1812, still living there ’46-8,
having been accidentally wounded in ’39. ii. 349, 565, 595. S. (Dolores),
killed by Ind. at Puri'sima ’24. ii. 529. _ S. (Dolores), soldier of the S.F.
comp. ’37. S. (Encamacion), grantee of Ojo de Agua ’40.
iv. 633. S. (Enrique), prisoner at S. Buen.
’38; grantee of S. Pascual ’40.
iii. 554-5, 634. S. (Fernando), son of
Francisco, at Los Ang. ’39-’46; ment. in ’40-3. iii. 632-3, 639. S.
^Francisco), settler at Los Ang. ’15. ii. 349; in ’25 regidor and acting
alcalde ii. 559; iii. 11; in ’31 in the operations against Victoria, by whom he
was imprisoned, iii. 196, 208; in ’36-7 comisionado of S. Juan Cap. iii. 626-7;
49 years old in ’39, when he was grantee of S. Vicente and Sta M6nica. iii.
634; ment. in ’40-3; iii. 639; iv. 629. In ’52 he was cl. for the rancho. S.
(Ignacio), killed at the S. Gabriel ’47. v. 396.
Sepiilveda (Ignacio),
son of Jos6, b. before ’48, educated in the east as a lawyer. In later years he
became a. very prominent lawyer of Los Angeles, and one of the foremost of all
the native Californians in respect of both ability and character. He was a
member of the legislature in ’64; served in Mex. under Maximilian; was county
judge in ’70-3, district judge from ’74, and superior judge from ’80, resigning
his position in ’83 to accept a responsible position as representative of
Wells, Fargo, & Co. in Mex., where he has since resided to ’85. His Historical
Memoranda, i. 644, is » valuable contribution to my collection of original MS.;
and he has otherwise aided me in my work. His wife, who died before ’77, was an
American, and there was a daughter. S. (Isabel), at S. Rafael ’42. iv. 237. S.
(Jos£), regidor at Los Ang. ’33-4. iii. 635; in ’36-8, active among the
vigilantes, alcalde, grantee of S. Joaquin rancho, and somewhat prominent on
both sides in the sectional quarrels between north and south, iii. 432, 485,
495-9, 509-10, 518-19, 565, <333, 636. His age was 37 acc. to the padron of
’39, when he was regidor and took part in a tumulto. iii. 589, 636; iv. 633;
sub-prefect in ’45. iv. 632-3. He was cl. for S. Joaquin in ’52, and died in
Sonora ’75. His wife was a sister of Juan Avila. S. (Jos6), two of the name at
Los Ang. ’39, a shoemaker and farmer. S. (Jos6), juez de campo at S. Josd ’43.
iv. 685; still there in ’55. S. (Jos6 del Carmen), at Los Ang. ’46-8. S. (Jos6
L.), juez de paz at Los Ang. ’42. iv. 632; 2d alcalde ’46, ’48. v. 625-6;
grantee of Palos Colorados ’46. v. 627; nominated for prcfect ’45; memb. of the
council ’50. I am not sure that he was not the same man as Josd above. S. (Josd
Manrico and Jos6 Miguel), at Los Ang. ’46. S. (Juan), soldier of the S.F. comp.
’20-7; at S. Jos6 ’41, age 41, wife Francisca Pacheco, child. Deinesio b. ’29,
Silveria ’31, Lucia ’33, Marfa Ant. ’35, Sebastian ’38, Bartolom(5’39. S.
(Juan), juez de campo at Palos Verdes ’40. iii. 637; 2d alcalde at Los Ang.
’45, taking some part in politics, iv. 497, 539, 633; age 27 in ’39; alcalde in
’49; supervisor ’54; county assessor ’57-8. S. (Juan Maria), atLos Ang. ’46;
justiceof the peace ’56. S. (Manuel), at Los Ang. ’46-8. S. (Patricio), soldier
at Sta B. before ’37. S. (Rafael), settler at Los Ang. 1789. i. 461. S. (Vicente),
grantee of La Sierra, Los Aug., ’46. v. 628.
Serbia (Pedro), 1842,
Danish resid. of S.F., age 26; same as ‘Schubert,’ q.v., and probably intended
for ‘Sherrebeck,’q.v. Serer (Domingo) corporal at Mont. ’36, age 26. Serna
(Manuel), reputed centenarian of S. Diego ’79. S. (Patricio), Mex. soldier of
the Hidalgo comp, at Mont. ’36, age 33. Serra (Junipero), 1769, Span, friar,
1st president of the missionaries, and founder of many missions, who died at S.
C&rlos Aug. 28, 1784. Biog. i. 409-16; ment.
i. 116-23, 129, 134-5, 137-8, 164-8, 170,
175-7, 181, 183-4, 187-94, 199-221,
224, 227, 229-31, 238-9, 244, 246, 248-9, 255, 257,
268, 270-1, 280, 287, 297304, 309, 320-8, 330-1, 333, 351, 373, 376, 378, 382,
386, 388-400, 414-15, 422, 455, 457, 459, 469, 473-4, 476, 486, 671, 687.
Serrano (Florencio), 1834, Mex. of the Hijar & Padres colony, iii. 263,
268; who served in ’35 aa clerk of the admin, at S. Antonio, and as teacher,
iii. 687; and from ’36 as clerk of
SERRANO—SHAW.
717
different offices at Mont.
taking part in the revolt against Alvarado in ’37, and being see. of the ayunt.
in ’38. iii. 524-5, G75. In ’44 he was 2d alcalde, iv. 653, 656, 404, 411; and
in ’45-6 sindico and sec. of the prefecture, serving on the 1st jury in ’46.
iv. 652-3; v. 289, 636. In ’48-9 he succeeded Colton as alcalde of Mont. v.
637-8; being beforo and later engaged in trade. His wife was Rita, sister of
Joaquin de la Torre, and there were several sons who supported Don Florencio
in his old age, poverty, and blindness. He died in ’77 at the age of 63. He was
of Span, parentage, of fair education and good repute. Shortly before his
death he dictated for me his Afmnte.s, a full statement of his life and
recollections of Cal. affairs, which throws light on many topics. S.
(Francisco), alcalde at Los Ang. 1799. i. 661. S. (Ignacio), at Los Ang. ’46.
S. (Jos6), juez de campo, Los Ang. ’35. iii. 635; grantee of Canada de los
Alisos ’42-6, iv. 634, being also cl. in ’52. S. (Jos6 Antonio), son of Leandro,
at S. Juan Cap. ’41. iv. 626; grantee of Pauma ’44. iv. 621; in the fight at S.
Pascual ’4b. v. 352; still living at S. Diego ’75, age 61. His wife was a
daughter of Rosario Aguilar. S. (Jos6 S.), atLos Ang. ’46. S. (Leandro), son
of a soldier of the 1st exped., b. at S. Diego; for many years majordomo of
Pala for the mission S. Luis Reg.; in ’28 maj. at S. Juan Cap., and grantee of
Temescal, ii. 547, 663; iii. 612, where he spent the rest of his life, dying in
’52. His wife was Presentacion Yorha and later Josefa Montalba. S. (Manuel),
killed by Ind. at Pauma ’46. v. 617. S. (Rafaela), at S. Diego ’21, ’41. ii.
546; iv. 619. S. (Tomds), juez de campo at Los Ang. ’48. v. 626. Servin
(Ignacio), 1842, Mex. sub-lieut in the batallon fijo ’42-5. iv. 289, 513; still
in Cal. ’46. v. 41.
Sessions (Wm B.),
1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). Sessor (Peter),
1847, Co. F, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); in S.F. ’82. Settle
(Josiah), 1840 (?), nat. of Ohio said to have crossed the plains to Cal. this
year; prob. an error, though he may have come from N. Mex. iv. 120. Went to Or.
’52, to Wash. Ter. ’60, and died at Seattle ’76. Sevy (Thomas), see ‘Levy.’
Sexton (Daniel), 1841, nat. of La and overl. immig. of the Workman party, iv.
278-9. He worked as a carpenter in the Los Ang. region, and finally settled at
S. Bern.; claims to have raised the U.S. flag at his camp ’40. iv. 342; served
in the campaign against Micheltorena ’45. iv. 495; carried a piessage from
Stockton to Fremont ’47. v. 402; married an Ind. woman; cl. for land in Los
Ang. ’52; still living in ’84. S. (Geo. S.), 1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469);
Co. reenl. S. (Lorin), 1847, Co. I, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499). Seyman (James),
1848, at Sutter’s fort. Seymour (Chas H.), 1848, on
roll of Soc. Cal. Pion.;
d. S.F. after ’81; an employ^ in the mint. S.
(Sir Geo. F.), 1846, admiral in com. of the British Pae. squadron at Mont. on
the Collingioood, July. v. 199-214, 232, 577.
Shadden
(Thos J.), 1843, Amer. immig. of the Hastings party from Or. accomp. by his
family, iv. 390, 400. In ’44 he obtained a land grant in Yolo Co. iv. 674; is
named in ’45-6 as visiting Sutter’s fort from S. Jos<3, Sta Cruz, and other
points; and had a ‘Cal. claim’ of $837 (v. 462). A son is said to have been bom
in ’47. Shadden settled on the Cosumnes, where he lived in a eabii of tules in
’49, having been before that date a miner and trader in mules. He went to Or.
about ’51. Shaler (Wm). 1803, mr of the Lelia Byrd 1803-4, and author of a
Journal pub. in 1808, which was prob. the 1st extended ac- eountof Cal.
published in the U.S. ii. 10-14, 21-4, 102-3, 109, 119, 122, 143-4,
183. Shannon (John), v. 621; see
‘Charbonneau.’ S. (Wm E.), 1847, capt. Co. I, N.Y. Vol., in com. at S. Diego
’47-S, being also collector, v. 504,
514, 617, 619. In ’49 a trader, of firm S.
& Cady, at Coloma, also alcalde, member of the eonstit. convention, and
district judge. From Dee. ’49 a lawyer at Sac., where he died in ’50 of
cholera. Sharkey (Frank L.), 1847, Co.
I, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at Norwich,
Conn., ’82. Sharnon (John), 1847, alcalde at S. Diego; prob. ‘Charbonneau,’ q.
v. Sharp (Matthew W. or A.), 1847, Co. I, ditto; at S. Diego ’48; died near
Coloma ’50. Shattuek, 1842, lieut U.S.N. with Com. Jones at Mont. iv. 308. _
Shaw, 1846, overl.
immig. who died on the Calaveras in ’49. S. (Charles),
1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). S. (James),
1848, guide to return
ing Mormons. S.
(James B.), 1846, nat. of Australia; resid. of Sonoma Co. ’51-77. Son. Co.
Hist. S. (Thomas), 1824 (?), nat. of Mass. I have his autograph letter,
apparently written at S. Pedro Oct. 28, 1824, but there may be an error, ii.
526. In ’26-8 he was clerk and sup. on the Courier and Waverly.
iii. 154; in 30-1 on the Pocahontas, making a
contract to carry away Gov. Victoria, iii. 148, 210, 383; in ’33-5 sup. and
sometimes mr of the Volunteer, Harriet Blanchard, and Lagoda. iii. 382, 384,
410. He was in Boston ’36, not expecting to revisit Cal.; but in ’39-40 he came
back as sup. of the Monsoon, his name often appearing in commercial corresp.
and mission accounts.
iii. iv. 105; iii. 623, 727. He is said to have
died in Boston about ’66.
Shea (Win), 1840, one
of the exiled foreigners not known to have returned.
iv. 18. Shearman, 1844, mr of the Menhar. iv.
567. Shehey, 1847, died at Sutter’s fort Oct. Sheldon (Geo.), 1848, passp. from
Hon. S. (Henry
B.), 1848,
editor and part owner of the S.F. Californian, v. 658; sec. of the guards;
owner of a lot at S. Jos6. Went to the Sandw. Isl. about ’65. S. (Jared), 1840,
nat. o' Vt, who came from N. Mex. or Sonora with a pass dated March D, ’40. iv.
117, 120. Possibly he had visited Cal. before, as his arrival is often credited
to ’34 or ’32. He was naturalized in ’43, then describing himself as a
carpenter who had arrived in ’40, being in ’44 grantee of the Omochumne rancho
on the Cosumnes. iv. 672; where he was a partner of Wm Daylor, and where he
spent the rest of his life but for his service in the Mi- cheltorena campaign,
iv. 486, 501, and a brief experience in the mines. In ’51 he was killed in a
difficulty with miners about a dam. His wife, married iu ’47, was a daughter of
Thomas Rhoads, and survived him with 3 children, Wm h. ’48, Sarah ’49, and
Catherine ’51 (drowned in ’52). Shelikof (Paul), 1825, Russian manager of Ross
’25-9, succeeding Schmidt, ii. 648, 650-1; iii. 213. Shelly (Pearson B.), 1847,
mr of the Gen. Kearny, v. 518; and trader at S.F. '47-8, of firm S. &
Norris, v. 680; also owner of S.F. lot. Shelton,
1842, at S.F.; proh. ‘Sheldon,’ q.v. S. (Sebert C.),
1847, Q.M. sergt Morm. Bat., but reduced to ranks Co. D. v. 477. Shepherd
(Edmund), 1846, mid. U.S.N., acting lieut in Stockton’s Bat. ’46-7. v. 385. S.
(Lafayette), 1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). Sherman (Heran V. S.), 1847, Co.
H, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499); d. before ’82. S. (J.), 1837, named in Larkin’s
accounts.
Sherman (Richard M.),
1846, nat. of R.I., who passed his boyhood on a farm, and then went to sea for
5 or 6 years, coming to Cal. from Honolulu as clerk on the Euphemia, leaving
the vessel at S.F., where he worked as bookkeeper for Paty & Davis, and iu
’47-8 made a trip to the Isl. as sup. of the Euphemia. He became the owner of a
town lot, on which he built a store in which the firm of S. & Ruckel did
business in ’4S-50. v. 681, 686. In ’51 he went east, but returned on a
husiness visit in ’55-6. He resided in Mass. and at Providence, R.I., till ’84,
when he returned to S.F. to take charge of his real estate interests, including
the ‘Sherman huilding,’ on the lot purchased by him in ’47, in which he has an
office in ’85, at the age of 72. In an interview, and also in a letter from
R.I., he gave me some information about early S.F. and his own life. His 1st
wife, married in ’54, was Sally S. Mauran, who died in ’65; the 2d, of ’69-70,
was Emma F. Mitchell; and the 3d, ’78-85, Kate Field. Five children survived in
’85, Harry M., Elizaheth M., Adeline M., Ethel, and Richard M. Jr.
Sherman (Wm
Tecumse.h), 1847, nat. of Ohio, graduate of West Point, who came to Cal. as
lieut Co. F, 3d U.S. artill., and in ’47-50 served most of the time as
adj.-gen. under the military governors, v. 444, 450, 492, 518, 520, 609, 636,
646; also of the firm Warner, Sherman, & Bestor at Coloma ’48-9. He went
cast with despatches in ’50; blit, having resigned his army commission, came
hack in ’53 to conduct as partner the hanking business of Lucas, Turner, &
Co. until ’57. His Californian experience of ’47-57 is fully narrated in the
early chapters of his Memoirs, a most interesting and accurate record, except
in a few comparatively unimportant details. Sherman was later superintendent
of a La military academy and president of a St Louis street railroad until in
’61 he reentered the military service as colonel. His subsequent career in the
war of ’61-5 and since is a prominent part of U.S. history, which I
make no attempt to
summarize. He reached a higher position than any other pioneer named in this
register; and in ’85 is still living as retired general of the army. His wife,
married in ’50, is the daughter of Hon. Thomas Ewing. The general has often
revisited Cal., taking a deep interest in pioneer matters.
Sherreback (Peter),
1840, nat. of Denmark, who came by sea and settled at S.F. as a trader, iv.
117, 1-0. He was baptized and naturalized in ’41-2; sindico ’43. iv. 666;
agente de polieia ’44. iv. 666; being married the same year or the next to
Mary, sister of John Sullivan. In ’45 he was owner of S. F. lands, and aided
Sutter in support of Micheltorena. iv. 486, 669, 673; v. 681-2. He was
collector ill ’46-7. v. 295, 648; and memh. of the council ’47.
v. 678. He still lived at S.F. in ’55 and
later, but I find no mention of his death. His widow was still living in ’60.
The original name was probably ‘ Scherrebaeh, ’ but it is written in a great
variety of ways. Sherwood (Jeremiah), 1847, lieut Co. G, N.Y.Vol. v. 504, 517.
In ’48-9 clerk for Brannan & Co. at Sac.; later member of N.Y. legislature;
d. N.Y. City ’83. Scheuer (Pierre), 1834, Fr. mason at Mont., age 27, married
to Maria J. Garcia. Perhaps same as ‘Cheorette,’ q.v.
Shields (H.L.), 1847,
lieut Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. on muster-roll; but did not come to Cal. (v. 518).
S. (Sam.), 1831, Amer. from N. Mex. in the Wolfskin party, iii. 387, 405; d. at
Los Ang. a few years later. S. (W.F.),
1847, capt. in com. of U.S. Preble. Shipley (Otto),
1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518). Shipp (Wm), 1847, ditto. Shirland
(E.D.), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); nat. of N.Y. and settler in Placer Co.
from ’50; capt. in war of ’61-5; county clerk and recorder of Sac.; at Auburn
’82. Shirley (Paul), 1846, on the roll of the Soc. Cal. Pion.; d. in Ohio ’76.
Shislylind (Gustaff), 1847, musician Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).
Shockley, 1S46, mr of
the Homan. Shoemaker (Sam.), 1846, one of the Donner party from Ohio; died in
the Sierra, v. 531, 533. Shoetzof, 1803, in charge of a party of Aleut,
hunters, ii. 25, 63, perhaps Shvetzof. Shoive, 1847-8, mrof the Anita, v. 576.
Shooks (Win), 1841, doubtful name at S. Diego. Toomes. Shooter (Chas), 1847,
Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Short (J.O.B.), 1846, nat. of Ky, and overl. immig.
with his mother—later Mrs Merriner—who settled at S. Rafael, where he still
lived in ’80 with wife, Mary Miller, and 5 children. S. (Jacob), 1846, brother
of J. O.B., and his partner in ’80. S. (Patrick), 1832, Irish priest who came
in exile from Honolulu with P. Baehelot; in ’34-6 an associate of Hartnell in
his school near Mont.; left Cal. in ’37, and went to Valparaiso, where he still
lived in ’70. iii. 317— 18, 364, 3S4, 408, 670, 677-8; iv. 102. Shotwell
(Geo.), 1841, overl. immig. of the Bartleson party, accidentally killed on the
journey, iv. 269. Shreve,
1848, mr of a vessel at S.F. Shrives, 1848, mr of the
Anita. Shrives (Dan B.), 1847, Co. F, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Shroter (Chas), 1847,
Co. G, ditto; at S.F. ’82. Shubrick (Wm Bransford), 1846, commodore U.S.N., in
com. of Pacific squadron ’46-7, on the Independence, v. 428-9, 437, 636.
Shnlters (John), 1847, Co. H, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Shultz (Ernst), 1847, owner of
S.
F. lot. Shumway (Aurora), 1847, Co. C, N. Y.
Vol. (v. 469); reenl. Shurts (Watson), 1847, Co. F, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).
Sibrian see
‘Cibrian.’ Sibs (Sam.), 1836, doubtful name of a witness at Sonoma. Sicard
(Pierre Theodore), 1833, Fr. sailor and carpenter who on applying for
naturalization in ’40 claimed a resid. of 7 years, iii. 409. He was in the
Mont. dist ’34 and at the S. Pablo rancho ’40. In ’42-4 he worked for Sutter at
Hock Farm; and in ’44 got a grant of the Nemshas rancho on Bear River adjoining
Johnson’s, iv. 672, where he settled in ’45. His visits from Bear River to
Sutter’s fort in ’45-8 are often recorded in the N.Uelv. Diary; in 48-9 a miner
and trader on the Yuba, where a flat and bar took his name. Though deemed rich
in those days, he became poor; was living with Claude Chana in ’71, and died
before ’79. Siekels (J. F.), 1847, surgeon on the U.S. Independence. Siddons
(WmM.), 1848, on the roll of the Soc. Cal. Pion. Sierra (Benito de la), 1775,
Span, friar who visited Cal. as chaplain on the Santiago and S. Antonio, and
died at S. Bias ’77. He had served in L. Cal. ’69-73. i. 240-1, 287, 310.
Sigler (Wm), 1845, at Sutter’s fort Nov.; prob.
an overl. immig. In
the spring of ’46 he carried despatches up the valley to Fremont. He was
murdered at Moon’s rancho Tehama Co. in ’49 or ’50. iv. 578, 583; v. 24.
Sill (Daniel), 1S32,
nat. of Conn., trapper and carpenter who came from N. Mex. in the winter of
’32-3, settling at Sta B., where he hunted otter under Capt. Dana’s license,
and was partner in a bakery in ’34. iii. 388, 408. In ’35 he came to Mont. and
got a carta; and from ’39 or earlier lived at S.F., building a mill for Spear
in ’39-40. v. 681; named by Famham as one of the- foreigners arrested in ’40.
iv. 17. From ’44 he spent most of his time in the- Sac. Valley, working as a
blacksmith for Sutter part of the time. In ’46 he bought a rancho of Lassen
where he had a cabin, v. 301; and in ’49 was joined by his son Daniel and
daughter Harriet—later Mrs Mahew. He died in :62, at the age of 66.
Sillen (D. S.), 1846, Cal. Bat. (v. 358). Siltzer (Henry), 1847, Co. G,
N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Silva, family at S. Dieguito rancho ’31. iii. 612. S.
(Antonio), 1840 (?), Portuguese deserter from a whaler, employed for several
years at Petaluma by Gen. Vallejo, iv. 120. S. (Mariano), 1840, Mex. capt. of
artill. at Mont. ’40-6; went to Mazatlan ’47 or ’48.
iv. 31, 198, 293, 307-8, 311, 357, 652; v. 41,
230, 232-3. S. (Mariano), at Los Ang. ’39; in ’46 at S. Juan Cap., age 37, wife
Francisca Perez. S. (Mariano), nat. of Chile, patron of the custom-house boat
at Mont. ’45. Silvas (Antonio M.), at Los Ang. ’39, age 37. S. (C&rlos),
owner of land at S. Juan Cap., 41. iv. 626. S. (Clara), at S. Juan Cap. ’46,
age 40, child. Ger6nimO'
b. ’29, Guadalupe ’32, Lugarda ’37, and
Fernando ’38. S. (Diego), at S. Bern. ’46, age 24. S. (Jos6), settler at Los
Ang. 1789. i. 461. S. (Juan), at Mont. ’36. iii. 617. S. (Mariano), at Los Ang.
’46, age 35. S. (Ramon),, owner of land at S. Juan Cap. ’41. iv. 626. S.
(Teodoro), at Los Ang. ’1016; ii. 110, 350. Silverio, neophyte who killed his
wife at Mont. 1798. i. 691.
Sime, 1848, in the
legislature ’55; John L. in S.F. guard ’49. Simental (Josi C.), 1800, sentenced
to 6 years in Cal. as a settler, i. 606. Simeon, Ind., grantee of lot at S.
Gabriel’46. v. 627. Simmonds (Stephen), 1835 (?), nat. of N. Y., landing at Sta
B. from the whaler Liverpool Packet, and becoming an otter-hunter with Nidever
for several years. Named in ’39-40 at Sta B. and Mont. Making voyages in
different vessels; he was in ’44 sick in> care of the consulate, and is said
to have died at Branch’s rancho about ’45.
iii. 413. Simmons, 1848, lieut on the U.S. Ohio.
S. (Alex. R.), 1846, mid. on the U.S. Columbia. ’46-7. S. (Bezer), 1843, nat of
Vt, mr of the Magnolia ’43-6. iv. 400, 567; v. 579. Later of the S.F. firm S.,
Hutchinson, & Co.; member of the council ’49; d. in ’50 at the age of 40.
His assignees were cl. for the Novato rancho, iii. 712. His wife was a sister
of Frederick Billings, and died in ’49. S. (Charles), 1847 (?), miner and
later trader at Reno, Nev., where he died ’79; accredited hy the newspapers to
N.Y. Vol. Left a daughter at Livermore, Cal. S. (Wm), 1846, clerk in the navy,
acting lieut in Stockton’s Bat. ’46-7. v. 386. S. (Wm A.), 1847, Co. B, Morm.
Bat. (v. 469). Simon (Lem.), 1828, Amer. sailor of the Gen. Lucre left at S.
DiegO' drunk. S. (Luis), 1828, Engl, arrested for having no pass; prob. same as
preceding. Simons (Maurice), 1846, passed mid. on the U.S. Congress.
Simpson, 1827, mr of
the Cadboro. iii. 146. S., 1845, doubtful name of an overl. immig. iv. 578. S.,
1846, ditto; may hare gone to Or. v. 529. S. (Geo.), 1841, at S.F. on the
Cowlitz. S. (Sir Geo.) 1841, chief of the H.
B. Co., visiting Cal. on his trip round the
world, and author of a Narrative which contains much valuable information on
the country, ii. 77-8; iv. 191, 209, 218-21, 235-6, 250-3, 259-61, 333, 343,
564, 639-40, 650-1, 665, 678. S. (Henry I.), 1848, author of Three Weeks in the
Gold Mines, in the form of a letter written at Mont. in Sept. He claims to he
of the N.Y.Vol., but perhaps writes under an assumed name; or still more
likely the letter is a fraud concocted in N.Y. S. (Wm), 1844, Engl, who got a
passport. S. (Wm), 1828, witness against Capt. Bradshaw, iii. 133. Sims (Jack),
1846, aided in building the Sta Cruz schr. S. J. Patriot. S. (Joseph), 1847,
Co. D, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); Engl, settler in Sac. Co. ’7.9-80, with wife Mary L
Moor, and 3 children.
Sinard (‘Major’),
1847, visitor at Sutter’s fort. Sinclair (Archibald), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v.
499). S. (John), 1839, Scotchman for some years in employ of the H.B. Co. in
Or., later editor of a paper at Honolulu, who in Dec. ’39 was at Mont. asking
for a carta, and in ’40 at Sutter’s fort. iv. 117, 119, 139. In ’41 he was sent
baek to tlie Isl. by Sutter to make arrangement for consignments of goods,
going on the Llama and returning on the Julia Ann. His negotiations for Sutter
were not very successful, but lie made a bargain with Grimes, by virtue of
which on his return in Dec. ’41 he obtained naturalization, and in ’42 took
possession of the El Paso raneho, north of N. Helv., as the representative of
Grimes, to whom it was granted in ’44. iv. 229, 237 , 566. He was visited in
’42-3 by Sandels and Yates, who describe him as a very intelligent man fond of
grog; also by Fremont in ’44, iv. 438, when he was an officer in the N. Helv.
militia, iv. 479, 6S0. He was Sutter’s aide in the Micheltorena campaign, iv.
485-6; is often named from ’45 in the N. Helv. Diary; and in ’46-9 he was
alcalde of the Sae. district, v. 675, having a Cal. claim of $450 (v. 462),
taking part in relief measures for the Donner party, v. 538, 541, and finally
dying in ’49 on his passage by steamer to the States. S. (Wm), 1845, clerk for
Rae at S.F. iv. 593. S. (Wm B.), 1828, Amer. carpenter, age 25, who left his
vessel at Sta B., eseaping with 3 others in a boat to Sta Catalina Isl.
Singleton (A. W.), 1848, passp. from Hon. Sinova (Jos£ F.), settler at Los Ang.
1785-6; 2d alcalde in ’89. i. 346, 348,461. Sinton (Rieh. H.), 1848, a
well-known citizen of S.F. down to ’S5, whose arrival is accredited,
erroneously I suppose, in various publications to ’47 or ’48.
Sipole (Wm), 1847,
Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518); d. before’64. Sipp, 1846, Amer. ship-carpeuter
from Or. in the McMahon party, who prob. went back to Or. in’46. iv. 572; v.
526. Siptler (J.), 1846, in Cal. Bat. (v. 358). Si- ralde (Mariano), at Sonoma
’44, age 27; perhaps ‘Lizalde.’ Sirey (James),
1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); settled at Stockton
’48; at S.F. ’71-4; Stockton ’75; d. before ’82. Sirrine (Geo. W.), 1846, of
the Mormon colony, v. 546; of Stout, S., & Meder, lumber dealers at Sta
Cruz ’47; metnb. of the town council ’48. v. 642. In Ariz., still in the faith,
’S5. S. (John J.), 1846, ditto, with wife and child, v. 546; in ’47 candidate
for the council and owner of a S. F. lot. v. 650, 680; an elder and school
trustee ’48. v. 656; presid. of the council ’4S; in Ariz. ’85. Sisk (Thos J.),
1848 (?), survivor of tbe Texan- Mier massacre; died at Grass Valley ’69.
Sisson (Reuben), 1847, Co. K, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. S. Rafael ’49. Sitjar
(Antonio, or Buenaventura), 1771, Span, friar who served at S. Antonio—being
also founder of S. Miguel— until his death in 1808. Biog. ii. 151-2; ment. i.
173, 176, 196, 298, 388, 411, 469, 498, 552, 560, 576, 587, 688-9; ii. 147,
159-60. Swarthout (Nathan),
1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. v. 469.
Skeckett (Job), 1845,
Delaware Ind. in Fremont’s party ’45-7 (iv. 581). Skee (Alex.), 1827, mr of the
Huascar ’27-8. iii. 147. Skein (Joseph), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469).
Skene (Wm), 1846, one of the chino prisoners, wounded, v. 313-14. Skillington
(H.), 1848, at Hon. from Mont. Skinner (Eugene F.), 1845, overl. immig. from
N.Y. in the Grigsby-Ide party, with a family. Working for Sutter and visiting
S.F. and S. Jos£, he went in ’46 to Or., where he founded and named Eugene
City, dying there in ’64, and leaving a widow and 3 children, iv. 579-80; v.
526. S. (A. A.), 1848, Or. pioneer of ’45, judge of the Or. sup. court, brother
of Eugene, said to have made a trip to the gold mines; d. at Sta Cruz ’77. S.
(Horace A.), 1846, of Mormon colony, with wife and ehild. v. 546; in ’47-8 he
kept the City Hotel at S.F. v. 680; in Utah ’84. S. (John), 1847, Co. A,
N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at S. Jos£ ’50; at Campo Seco ’71-4.
Slocum (Wm A.), 1837,
U.S. commissioner on the Loriot, and author of
a, Report, iv. 146-7, 165. Slade (Philip 0.),
1832, nat. of N. H. who came by sea. iii. 408; in Mont. dist. ’33-5;
naturalized ’39, being a sawyer at S. Rafael; last appears at S.F. ’40. S.
(Thompson), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358. S. (Wm D.), 1847, Co. H, N.Y. Vol.
(v. 497). A printer who was city marshal at Yreka; d. before ’82, prob. in ’63.
Slague (John), 1836. Fr. sailor 3ist. Cal.,
Vol. Y. 4G
on the Ayacucho, age
19. Slater (Richard), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); mail-carrier for
Brannan ’48. Slausum, 1834, Eng. sailor, age 46, at Mont. Sleight (Peter),
1847, Co. K, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499). Slepe (Jerome), 1834, Eng. hatter in a Mont.
list, age 27. Sloat (John D.), 1846, nat. of N.Y. in com. of the Pacific
squadron, raising the U.S. flag in Cal. July. v. 37, 195-215, 224-54, 411-12,
580. Com. Sloat was a timid, irresolute man; but after he decided to take
possession of the Cal. ports his policy was entirely praiseworthy as compared
with that of Stockton, his successor. Biog. note v. 254. S. (Lewis W.), 1S46,
son of John D., and his sec. on the Savannah, v.
225. He came back to Cal. about’54 and was a notary
public at S.F. for several years. Slohodchikof, 1806, chief hunter on the coast
from Alaska,
ii. 40; in ’13-14 clerk of Kuskof at Ross,
visiting S.F. ii. 204, 302, 304, 373. Slocmn, 1844, mate of the Newton. Slover
(Isaac), 1828, Kentuckian trapper of Pattie’s party who went back to Sonora
with a pass in Nov. iii. 163, 166-7,
178. He came back with a N. Mex. colony about
’41-3, settling at S. Bernardino, where he was killed by a bear in ’54, at the
age of about 80. Slover Mt still bears his name. Slnsser (Levi S. B.), 1847,
nat. of Pa; in Sonoma Co. ’48-77. Sly (James C.), 1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v.
469); a miller in Sutter's employ, also in the mines ’48, exploring a new route
and Salt Lake Val. S. (John), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358).
Smith, naturally many
of the name cannot be identified. S., 1831, sailor drowned at Sta B. iii. 405.
S., 1831, about to leave Hon. for Cal. S.,
1844, officer on the Nodeste. S., 1845, Engl, who got
a pass for Sonora.
S., 1846, from Hon. on the Euphcmia. S., 1847,
had a project of establishing a colony on the Moquelumne, transferring his
claim to McKinstry in ’48. S. Joaq. Co. Hist. S., 1847, mid. on the U.S.
Independence. S., 1847, owner of a saw-mill near S.F. S., 1848, at Sutter’s
fort from Sta Clara; lately from Or. S., 1848, mr of the Haalilo.
Smith (A. B.),
1837(?), committed suicide atS. Diego ’67, said to have been a resid. for 30
(20?) years; ment. at S.D. ’46. iv. 118; v. 329. S. (Albert),
1847, sergt Co. B, Morm. Bat. v. 477; also Q.M. sergt
at Manti, Utah, ’81. S. (Alex.), 1846, ment. by Michael White as in the Los
Ang. region, known as ‘Stuttering Alec.’ S. (Andrew J.), 1847, capt. in the 1st
U.S. dragoons, who came with the Morm. Bat., of which he was acting com. for a
time in the east. v. 477, 479-83. He was the officer who mustered out the Morm.
Bat. and part of the N.Y.Vol., subsequently taking com. of the dragoons, v.
490, 515, 631. He went east with Sherman iu ’50; and in the war of ’61-5 became
a general. S. (Azariah), 1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); author of a song for
the bat.; at the Coloma mill ’38 when gold was discovered. S. (Chas). 1824,
named in an archive record as an otter-hunter. ii. 527; perhaps Karl ‘Schmidt.’
S. (Chas), 1828, Engl, deserter from a Fr. whaler at Todos Santos; at S. Diego
’28-9. S. (Chas), 1846, powder-boy on the Dale. S. (Chas), 1846, Co. G, Cal.
Bat. (v. 358). S. (Chas), 1847, Co. I, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). S. (Chas), 1847, with
Brannan on trip to Salt Lake. v. 553; perhaps
C.C. S.
(Chas F.), 1847, Co. I, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. before ’82. S. (Chas R.), 1825
(?), said to have been at Sta B. in charge of Dana’s store. S.Luis Ob. Co.
Hist.; in ’29 writes from Hon., and had visited Cal. before; in ’31 came on the
Louisa as sup.; in ’32 joined the comp, extranjera. iii. 221;' ment. in
Larkin’s accts ’36. S. (C.C.), 1847, trader at Sutter’s fort ’47-8, a partner
of Brannan; made a trip to Hon. on the Tcpic ’48. S. (C. S.), 1848, passp. from
Hon.
Smith (D.), 1847, Co.
B, artill. Cal. Bat. (v. 358). S. (D.), 1848, at Hon. from Mont. S. (David),
1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); d. in April at S. Luis Rey. v. 481. S. (D.
W.), 1846, Co. G, Cal. Bat. (v. 358). S. (Edward), 1848, overl. immig. from
Mo., with wife, son, and 5 daughters; postmaster at S. Jnan B.; died ahont
’57. One of his daughters married John Breen in ’52. S. (Elijah M.), 1847, Co.
I, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at Aurora, Mono Co.,’82 S. (Elisha), 1847, Co. E, Morm.
Bat. (v. 469). S. (Ezekiah),
1847, at Sutter’s fort; prob. Azariah. S. (P.), 1846,
Cal. Bat. (v. 358). S. (Frances R.), 1846, married to W. W. Scott at Sonoma,
June. S. (Frazer),
1814, mr of the Isaac
Todd. ii. 271-2. S. (Fred.), 1848, German farmer at
3. JosiS ’50-76. S. (Fred C.), 1845 (?), said
by his son, Budd S.—U.S. consul at S. Bias—to have eome as mr of the hark
Helvetia, but I have 110 other record of such a vessel this year. iv. 587.
Smith (G. M.), 1845,
at Sutter’s fort, apparently an overl. immig.; also the same or another at
Sonoma ’45-6; perhaps the father of Frances JR.. iv.
679-80,
526. S. (Geo.), 1825, mrof the Spy’ 25-7. iii. 149. S. (Geo.), 1846, Co. C, 1st
U.S. dragoons (v. 336). S. (Geo.), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358); had a fight
with Lieut Roek, and was sentenced by court-martial to 22 months of hard labor,
v. 434. ■ S.
(Gerard D.), 1847, Co. C, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499). S. (H.), 1848, passp. from Hon.
S. (Henry), 1846, at Sutter’s fort;
interested at Benieia. ’47-8. v.
672; perhaps Henry C. S. (Henry), 1846 (?), keeper of a sailor’s
hoarding-house at S.F., owner of lot, constable, and jail-keeper ’47.
v. 648, 685; perhaps same as the following.
S. (Henry), 1847, Co. I, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); drowned in Feather River ’49. S.
(Henry C.), 1845, nat. of Ohio, and overl. immig. with the Hastings party, iv.
586-7. He served, perhaps, in the Cal. Bat. (v. 358); had a ‘Cal.
claim’for$25(v. 462); wasamemb. of the legislature from Sta Clara Co. ’52; el.
for land. iv. 673; supervisor of Washington, Alameda Co., ’55; in Nev. ’61-4;
in Alameda Co. from ’65 to his death at Livermore in ’75, at the age of 51. His
wife was Mary van Gordon, married in ’46, and his surviving children were
Julia A. (Mrs Hargrave), Emma L., Franklin P., and Charles. S. (Henry J.),
1847, Co. F, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499). S. (Hiram), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358).
S. (I.), 1845, at Sutter’s fort Apr. ’46. S. (Isaac P.), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat.
(v. 358); at Sutter’s fort ’47. S. (Israel), 1848, present at the discov. of
gold acc. to the eounty histories. S. (I. T.), 1846 (?), nat. of la and overl.
immig.; a settler in Sonoma Co. from ’51 to his death in ’79, leaving a wife
and two children; called also I. P.
Smith (J.), 1846,
Cal. Bat., Co. B, artill. (v. 358). S. (J. J.), 1846, Co.
F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358). S. (Jack), 1846, at
Sutter’s fort from up and down the valley ’46-8. S. (Jacob), 1816, pilot of the
Lydia, ii. 275. S. (James), 1827, capt. of a vessel at S.F. S. (James), 1841,
nat. of Engl., naturalized in ’44, when he had been 3 years in Cal., being then
a fanner in the Sac. Val.
iv. 279. Often named in the N. Helv. Diary from
’45. In Jan. ’46 he married the widow Marshall, and died in ’48. Bidwell thinks
the widow married Gregson, and was living in Sonoma Co. ’64, having a son named
Marshall; but there may be some confusion here; see ‘Gregson.’ S. (James),
1844, mr of the Hibernia ’44-5, iv. 566, 587, who in later years established a
line of packets hetween S.F. and Honolulu, being well known as Capt. ‘Jim’
Smith. He died at New London, Conn., in ’68, at the a^e of '65, leaving no family,
as I am informed by Capt. H. H. Watson. S. (.Tames), 1846, of the Donner party
from 111., dying in the mountains, v. 530, 533. S. (James), 1848, passp. from
Hon. S. (James G.), 1847, Co. F, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); drowned in Amer. Riv. ’49.
S. (James M.), 1847, Co. K, ditto.
Smith (Jedediah),
1826, Amer. trapper ehief who eame from Salt Lake via Colorado Riv. and Mojave
to S. Gabriel. In ’27 he went to Salt Lake from the S. Joaquin Val. and
returned, heing the 1st to eross the Sierra. From Cal. he went to Or., and in
’31 was killed hy the Ind. in N. Mex. See record of his visit, iii. 152-60;
ment. ii. 551, 569, 600; iv. 263. S. (John), 1834, Engl, carpenter, age 28, in
Spear’s service at Mont. iii. 412; also a ‘tailor ’ Smith the same year. Named
in Larkin’s aecounts ’36-40; arrested in ’40 but escaped exile, iv. 17. There
may be some confusion between this man and the following. S. (John), 1837, nat.
of Nova Scotia, who came by sea; asked for naturalization in ’42, being a
carpenter in the Sac. Val. and 5 years a resident. iv. 118. Sutter says S.
obtained land from him near Marysville; naturalized in ’44, and got a grant of
land in Yolo Co. iv. 674; living on his rancho ’45-8, ment. in the HT. Helv.
Diary, a partner and neighbor of Michael Nye. S. (John), 1845, Amer. sailor on
the Morea in trouble at S.F. S. (John), 1846, Fauntleroy’s dragoons (v. 232,
247). S. (John), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336); sentenced by
court-martial to imprisonment at
Los Ang. ’47. S.
(John), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); in Utah ’82. S. (John), 1847, Co. F,
3d U.S. artill. (v. 518); living ’64. S. (John), 1848, passp. from Hod. S.
(John F.), 1838, Fr. carpenter from the Sandw. Isl. at Sta B. iii. 409; where
he built the 1st wooden house, and died in ’66. Huse. S. (John G.), 1847,
perhaps of N.Y.Vol. (v. 499), under another name. S. (John H.), 1848, passp.
from Hon. S. (John M.), 1847, Co. E, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). S. (Joseph), 1845,
douhtful name of an overl. immig. iv. 578.
Smith (L. H.), 1846,
mr of the Benj. Rush. v. 576. S. (Lewis), 1847, Co. B, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). S.
(Lot), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); reenl.; in Ariz. ’82. S. (Napoleon
B.), 1845, nat. of Ohio, and overl. immig. in the Hastings party with his
brother Henry C. iv. 586-7. He worked a while for Sutter, and then became a
lumberman in the S. Antonio redwoods, but perhaps took some part in the revolt
and war of ’46-7. In ’48-9 he went to the mines, and kept a store at Mission S.
Jos£, heingsuh-prefect for a ti mein’49. Later he became a trader at Martinez,
being county assessor, and memh. of the legislature in ’52. In ’57-85 he lived
on a rancho in Contra Costa Co. His wife was Margelina, daughter of Elam Brown,
and he has 8 children: Frank (b. Jan. ’48, the 1st in Contra Costa), Lawrence
M., Sarah C., LouisN., Ellen J., Elam, Timothy S., and Warren C. I have a full
Biog. Sketch of ‘Bony ’ Smith written in ’75. S. (Oliver), 1848, doubtful name
at Benicia. S. (Orrin), 1846, of the Mormon colony, with wife and 6 children,
excommunicated on the voy., and perhaps left for a time at Hon. His daughter
Amelia was in Utah ’84. v. 546, 549. S. (0. K.), 1848, nat. of N.Y., and overl.
immig.; memh. of the legisl. ’61, being a farmer at Visalia, age ’39. S.
(Persifer F.), 1848. Gov. Smith did not arrive till ’49, nevertheless by a slip
of his pen he writes at S.F. in March ’48, inquiring for Benicia lots. v. 673.
Smith (R.), 1833, mr
of the Fake.ja. iii. 382. S. (Robert), 1846, of the Mormon colony, with wife
and 2 children; teacher of tactics on the Brooklyn; owner of S.F. lot ’47; died
in the faith about ’49. v. 546, 550, 679. S. (Rohert), 1847, at Sonoma and N.
Helv.; known as ‘Growling’ Smith, and arrested for outrages on Ind. v. 569,
610. He may have been the ‘Badger’ Smith of theBearsin ’46. v. 167. S. (Sam.)
1837, named in Larkin’s accounts. S. (Sam.); 1845 (?), at Sonoma and
N. Helv. ’45-8; iv. 587; seems to have had a rancho in the Sac. Val. ’47, also
working for Larkin. Sam. S. of Baltimore is named in the El Dorado Go. Hist, as
having come in ’43 and kept the 1st store at Kelsey. At S.F. as a witness ’47
and owner of a town lot. Acc. to the Marin Go. Hist., a Sam. S. lived in the Pt
Reyes region in ’46. S. (Simeon P.), 1847, in S.F. letter-liat.
Smith (Stephen),
1841, nat. of Md., who had spent some time in Pern, and who visited Cal., prob.
on the Corsair, in ’41. iv. 279. I have his letter of July written at Callao
after his return from Cal. On this 1st visit he made arrangements with Gov.
Alvarado to introduce a steam-mill; and in ’43 he came back from Baltimore with
the engine—the 1st in Cal..—and mill machinery on the George Henry, iv. 395-6,
565-6. As soon as he could be naturalized he got a grant in ’44 of Bodega,
where he had set up his mill, and where he lived for the most part from that
time. iv. 186,392, 670, 679. In ’45, visiting S. Bias, Smith was arrested on a
charge of heing engaged in filibustering schemes for the U.S., hut soon
released, as there was no proof, iv. 601. As he later told Lieut Sherman that
he came to Cal. on the assurance of Weh- ster that the U.S. would surely have
the country, it is possible that in the earlier years lie talked indiscreetly.
In ’45-6 he owned lots in S.F., and built a house at the cor. of Dupont and
Washington streets, iv. 669, 673; v. 682. In ’46 he raised the U.S. flag at
Bodega, and in ’46-8 served as civil magistrate, v. 242, 670. In the flush
times his mill was a very valuable property, and he was cl. for not only
Bodega, but the Blucher rancho, iv. 670. He died at S.F. in ’55 at the age of
69. His wife was a Peruvian, a sister of Manuel Torres; who married Tyler
Curtis in ’56; and he left three children, Manuela, Stephen, and James B., all
of whom seem to have been living in’75. The daughter, bom at Bodega ’46,
married John M. English, and lived in Oakland ’81.
Smith (Theodore),
1847, Co. F, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). S. (Thomas), 1841, at S. Jos<5. iv. 279;
naturalized ’44, when he claimed to have been a resid. since ’42; owner of S.F.
lot 45, where he kept a, saloon ’46-50, a stout and stuttering Englishman, iv.
669; v. 682, 685. S. (Thomas), 1845, overl. immig. of the Swasey-Todd, or
possibly the McMahon, party, iv. 576-7, 573; apparently at Sutter’s fort
’46-7. S. (Thos), 1846, sailor in Stockton’s Bat., fatally wounded at the S.
Gabriel, Jan. ’47. v. 395. S. (Thos), on the roll of the Society of California
Pioneers as having arr. in Sept. S. {Thos J.), 1845, ditto, arrived S.F. Dec.
iv. 587; perhaps the cl. of S.F. Mission lots in ’52; at Gold Hill, Nev., ’81.
S. (Thos L.), 1829 (?), Kentuckian trapper and mountaineer, known as ‘Peg-leg’
Smith from his wooden leg. The chronology of his wild career is confusing; but
he may have stolen horses in Cah in ’29 and several times later, as he was fond
of boasting in late years, iii. 172, 179. In ’41 ‘El Cojo Smit’ was reported to
be in com. of a party of vagabonds from N. Mex. iv. 208, 278, 342. After ’49 he
lived in Cal., and died at S.F. in ’66.
Smith (W.), 1846,
Cal. Bat., Co. B, artill. (v. 358), enlisting at Mont. Oct. S. (Willard), 1847,
musician Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); in ’82 at Littleton, Utah, stake president
and probate judge. Smith (Wm), 1800, mate of the Hazard, perhaps visiting the
coast several times before 1808. ii.
17, 24-5, 95-6. In 1810—11, as mate of the
Albatross, he was engaged in fur- hunting on the coast, especially in taking
seals at the Farallones. ii. 93. In ’16 ho came back from China in com. of the
Albatross, and was arrested for smuggling at Sta B., though his vessel escaped
capture, ii. 275-7, 362, 248, 633. He was anat. of Va, whose voyages and
adventures in all parts of the world would fill a volume. In ’36 or earlier he
found his way to Cal. again, iv. 103, 141; and now, too old to command, he
still made his home on board Boston vessels on the coast or at the Islands,
being transferred from one to another according to his whims, and occasionally
spending a few months on shore. He died at Sonoma on May 5, ’46, at the age of
78. S. (Wm), 1824, mr of the Young Tartar, ii. 519. S. (Wm), 1827, Amer.
carpenter in the Mont. dist. ’29, age 22. iii. 176. Ment. as a sawyer working
for Cooper in ’31; ‘ Bill the Sawyer ’ at S. Jos6 ’33, married to a Sais; in
Mont. lists of’34; also near Pt Reyes; at Sonoma and S.F. ’37-9; one of the
arrested foreigners ’40. iv. 17; Engl, carpenter, age 42, at S. Jos<5 ’41;
wife Maria Josefa Sais, child. Daniel h. ’33, Jos6 ’36, Patricio ’37, Jos6 S.
’39, Maria ’38; one of Sutter’s men in the Micheltorena campaign ’45. iv. 495;
at S. Jos6, S.F., and in the Sac. Val. ’46; owner of a lot at S.F. and settler
at Benicia ’47—all these may he one or balf a dozen Bill Smiths for all that I
know.
Smith (Wm H.), 1847,
lieut Co. I, N.Y.Vol. v. 504; owner of S.F. lot. Still at S.F. ’52; in Tuolumne
Co. ’74. S. (Wm M.), 1845, nat. of Ga», who came with Capt. Paty from S. Bias.
iv. 587. A droll fellow, who had been a circus-rider, known as ‘Jim Crow’
Smith; in ’46-8 memher of the S.F. firm of Ward & S., owning lots and
hnilding a house, besides serving as capt. of volunteers in Marston’s Sta Clara
campaign, v. 381, 539, 679, 681, 684. In ’48 he married the widow of Capt.
Hinckley, and in ’49 moved to Martinez. After a while he went to the bad
altogether, heing a violent and dangerous man when intoxicated, and about ’54
he killed himself. S. (V\^m Taylor), 1846, lieut on the U.S. Dale. Smyth (Wm),
1826, mate of the Blossom, iii. 121; artist from whose drawings Forhes’
California was illustrated. iv. 151.
Snitter (Lewis),
1847, Co. E, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Snook (Joseph Francisco), 1830, Engl, mr of
the Ayacucho, who had been on the Mex. coast in Virmond’s employ since ’24.
iii. 146, 180. He was naturalized in ’33, and in ’33-9 mr of the Catalina, iii.
381; iv. 102, 117. In ’38 he purchased of Berry a rancho at Pt Reyes or
Tomales, confirmed next year by the diputacion. Before this time he had
married Maria Antonia, daughter of J.B. Alvarado of S. Diego, and he talked of
quitting the sea and forming a partnership with Fitch; but in ’40-2 he
commanded the Jdve.n G-uipuzcoana. iv. 12, 104, 305, ■566; and
the Juanita in ’46. In ’42
he was grantee of the S. Bernardo rancho,
S. Diego, iv. 621,
where he lived with his family, dying suddenly in April ’47 or ’48. His widow
married Henry Clayton. Snow (A.), 1847, at Benicia. B. Tribune. S. (B. P.),
184S, passp. from Hon. S. (R. D.), 1848, ditto. S. (Zelnora S.), 1846, of the
Mormon colony, v. 546; in Utah ’84.
Snyder (Elijah),
1847, Co. E, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at Trenton, N.J., ’75. S. (Jacob R.), 1845,
nat. of Pa, and overl. immig. of the Swasey-Todd party,
iv. 576, 587. Mentioned at Sta Cruz and various
other points in ’45-6, employed as a surveyor. v. 654,-641. He served as
quartermaster in Fauntleroy’s dragoons, v. 293-4; and later in the Cal. Bat.,
ranking as major, v. 360. In ’47 he was appointed surveyor for the middle
department of Cal., and also commissioned to investigate eharges against
Alcalde Nash of Sonoma, v. 610, 465. In ’48-9 with Reading and Hensley he harl
a trading post at Sacramento, and was a member of the eonstit. convention; from
’50 memb. of a S.F. firm; in ’52-3 state senator; in ’53-60 treasurer of the
U.S. mint at S.F. About ’62 he retired for the most part from public life to a
raneho at Sonoma, where he died in ’78 at the age of 65. He was a man of fine
personal appearance, of good abilities, of excellent character, and of
well-deserved popularity. Portrait in Colton's Three Years; Sonoma Co. Hist.
His 1st wife, of ’50, was Susan H. Brayton; the 2d, of ’74, was Raehel J.
Sears; and he had no children. S. (John), 1846, of the Donner party from 111.,
killed by Reed on the Humboldt before reaching Cal. v. 530, 532. S. (John),
1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469).
Soberanes, occupant
of Sanzal rancho ’23. ii. 616, 664. S. (Agustin), sirviente at Sta Clara 1776.
i. 306; still at S. JoscS 1794. S. (Ezequiel), son of Mariano, volunteer
officer under Castro at the taking of Los Ang. ’45. iv. 492. S. (Felieiano), at
Mont. ’26, and regidor ’29-30. ii. 612; grantee of Alisal ’34. iii. 676; named
in thepadronof ’36 as a nat. of Cal., age 47, wife Maria Ant. Rodriguez, ehild.
Josefa b. ’13, Pdnfilo ’15, Gabriela ’18, Francisco ’19, Jos6 Ant. ’21, Jos6
Maria ’23, Carmen ’25, Mariano ’28, Felieiano ’29, Jos<5 Andrc5s ’31,
Francisca ’32, and Jos<5 Mateo ’33. Alcalde in ’38-9. iii. 675, 697; grantee
of S. Lorenzo in ’41. iv. 655; and in ’41-5 the admin, of Soledad mission, of
whieh estate he became the owner, iv. 194, 559, 660-1; v. 558, 637, 641; being
in ’45 juez 2° at Mont., iv. 653, 656, where he still lived in ’51. S.
(Franeiseo), grantee of Sanjon de Sta Rita, Merced, '41. iv. 673. S. (Guadalupe),
alfdrez of auxiliary cavalry ’45-6. v. 41; in Mont. Co. ’50. S. (Jos6 Ant.),
mentioned at Sutter’s fort ’47. S. (Jos6 Maria), a soldier of the 1st exped. of
1769-74; at Soledad 1791 et seq.; in 1795 an inv&lido in possession of the
Buenavista raneho, Mont. i. 683, 441, 499. Prob. ancestor of most of the
Soberanes here registered. S. (Jos6 M.), son of Feliciano, ment. in ’46. v. 41.
S. (Josefa), daughter of Felieiano, grantee of Los Coches ’41. iv. 655. S.
(Juan), sub-lieut of militia ’46. v. ’41; went with Flores to Mex. ’47. v. 407.
S. (Mariano), soldier of the S.F. comp. ’19-21; in ’23 alcalde of Mont.,
sfndico ’27, alealde ’29-30. ii. 611-12; iii. 49, 76, 82, 194; in ’35 admin, of
S. Antonio, iii. 354, 687-8; in ’36 living at Alisal, age 40, a widower—his
wife had been a daughter of Ignaeio Vallejo—7 child. Mariano b. ’19, Juan ’21,
Ezequiel ’23, Tomds ’25, Guadalupe ’28, Victor ’29, Ignacio ’31. In ’42 he was
grantee of Los Ojitos rancho, iv. 655; in ’45 juez at S. Miguel, iv. 660. In
’46 he was arrested with his sons, and his property at Los Ojitos destroyed by
Fremont, v. 374, 464, for which Don Mariano had a Cal. elaim of §19,930, of
which §423 was paid (v. 462). He was el. for Los Ojitos in ’52, and the raneho
is still owned by his sons in ’85. S. (Mariano), son of the preceding; grantee
of S. Bernardo rancho ’41—though this may have been the father, iv. 655. He was
somewhat active in the final campaign of Natividad against the Amer. v. 290,
367; and was still in Mont. Co. ’78. His son, Clodomiro, was for a short time
employed in my Library, and a small collection of Doc. Hist. Cal. bears his
name. S. (PAnfilo), son of Feliciano, juez de paz at Mont. ’43; custom-house
guard at Mont. and S.F. ’44-5. iv.
557, 653, 656. S. (Tomas), clerk in the Mont.
custom-house ’44. iv. 431; went to Mex. with Flores ’47. v. 407. Sobradelas
(Pablo), 1825, Span, marine from the Aquiles; ordered to depart in ’28-30. iii.
51-2. Sohns (John), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).
Sola (Faustino),
1786, Span, friar who served for brief terms at S. Luia Ob. and S.F., retiring
in 1790, and dying at the college of S. Fernando in Mex. 1820. He was a brother
of Gov. Sola. i. 388, 423, 469-70, 474; ii. 471. S. (Pablo Vicente), Span,
lieut-col, who ruled Cal. as gov. from Aug. 15, ’15, to Nov. 22, ’22, being
promoted to colonel in ’19, and leaving Cal. as dip. to the Mex. congress in
’22. Except that he was a member of the junta de Cal. in Mex. in ’25, iii. 3-5,
nothing is definitely known of his later life. For his life and character, see
ii. 470-3; on his rule in Cal. ii. 208-470, passim; miscel. mention. i. 662;
ii. 78, 188, 479, 485, 514, 562, 565-6, 569, 571, 580, 587, 604, 607,
616, 642, 674, 676; iii. 3, 5, 11, 33,109. Solano
(Francisco), Ind. chief of the Suisunes, who from ’35 was an ally of Vallejo at
Sonoma, doing more than any other to keep the Ind. of the northern frontier in
order, iii. 295, 360, 598; 71-3, 444, 674. He was the grantee of Suisun rancho
in ’42. His original name was Numa or Tetoy, and the name Solano, giveD him at
baptism from that of the mission, passed from him to the county. I have no
record showing tbe date of bis death. His widow, Isidora, was still living at
Sonoma in ’74, at an advanced age, and furnished a llelacion that is not
without interest. Solar (Jose Maria), at BraDciforte ’30. ii. 627. Solares
(Pedro), soldier at the Colorado Riv. pueblos 1780-1. i. 359. Solas (Matias),
sirviente at Sole- dad 1791-1800. i. 499.
Soler (Juan), 1774,
guarda-almacen at Mont. i. 224. There was some complaint of his unfitness for
the place in ’78-9; and be died at Mont. in ’81. S. (Nicol&s), 1781, Span.
capt. who held the position of ayudante-inspector of the Cal. troops in ’81-8;
a prominent officer and inveterate fault-finder, generally in trouble because
things were going to the dogs. He became comandante at Tucson, and died in ’90.
Biog. i. 397-8; ment. i. 334, 370, 383, 3S5, 392-6, 411, 443, 451, 462-3, 467,
471-2, 479, 484, 676; ii. 571. S. (Pablo), 1792, surgeon of the Cal. troops at
Mont. to 1800. i. 439, 501, 679-80. Soleto (Juan), doubtful, ’46. v. 162. Solis
(Joaqnin), 1825, Mex. convict who in ’29 headed a revolt of Californian
soldiers, and in ’30 was sent as a prisoner to Mex. For full account of the
revolt, see iii. 68-S5; mention of Solis, ii. 576, 591, 604, 615, 664; iii. 16,
149. Solirzano (Francisco), settler at Los Ang. ’16. ii. 350. S. (Jog6 Antonio), sergt of the Mont. comp.
’32-3. iii. 671, 673. S. (Ramon), soldier of the S.F. coinp. ’39-42; at Sonoma
’44, age 19.
Somera (Jos6 Antonio
Fernandez,or Angel), 1771, Span, friarat S. Gabriel, forced by illness to
retire in ’72. i. 137, 176, 187-9, 192-3. Somers (Fred.),
1847, Co. B, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Somoza (Antonio
Maria), 1842, Mex. lieut in the batallon fijo ’42-5, adjutant, instructor, and
com. at Los Ang. ’44-5; still in Cal. ’46. iv. 289, 354, 407, 538; v. 41.
Soncho (Francisco), juez de paz at S.F. ’42. iv. 665, 667. Soret (Angelina),
1847, owner of a S.F. lot. Soria (Francisco), alcalde of Mont. (?), ’29. ii.
612; in ’28 resid. of Branciforte, wife Rita Pinto, child. Josfi, Cecilia,
Carmen, and Gregorio; juez de paz at
B. ’32, regidor ’38, juez de campo ’43, 2d
alcalde ’45. iii. 588, 696-7; iv. 6634; in ’45 at B., age ’50, wife Guadalupe
Juarez, child. Jos6 Ant. b. ’27, Miguel ’33, Cineda (?) ’36, Jos<5 ’44,
Cecilia ’28, Benita ’35, Prudencia ’37. S. (Jos<5), at Branciforte ’45, wife
Maria de Jesus Robles, child. Refugio ’43, Teresa’44. S. (Juan Jos6), alcalde
of Mont.’28. ii. 612; and prob.’29. Sosa (Mariano), visiting Dominican friar at
S. Gabriel ’31-2. iii. 641.
Sotelo (Francisco),
settler at Los Ang. 1803. ii. 350. S. (Gabriel), ditto ’15. ii. 350. S.
(Gabriel), S.F. militiaman ’37. S. (Jos<5), at S. Bernardino ’46, age 45. S.
(Jos6 Maria), at Branciforte ’45, age 50, wife Encarnacion. S. (Juan), soldier
in S.F. comp. ’42, militia S.F. ’37. S. (Mariano), soldier of S.F. comp.’34-9.
S. (Pedro D.), at Los Ang.’46. S. (Ramon), settler at Los Ang. 1805; killed at
Purisima ’24. ii. 350, 412, 529, 566. In ’17 P. Payeras writes of him as ‘el
famoso criminal de California.’ Miguel Sotelo, perhaps bis descendant, was a
famous outlaw killed hy the sheriff at Los Ang. in’78. S. (Venancio), at Los
Ang. ’48. S. (Vicente), at S. Bern. ’48, a££€S 22
Soto, sailor
sirviente at Sta Cruis. i. 496. S. (Andres), at Mont. 538; supl.
juez of raDcbos ’46. v. 637. S. (Antonio), settler at S. Jos6 before 1800,
regidor 1809-10,
alcalde ’18, dying suddenly in that year. i. 716; ii. 134, 37b. S. (Antonio),
soldier of S.F. comp. ’19-29; in ’41 at S. Joa<5, age 42, wife Maria G.
Briones, child. Ramon b. ’22, Raimunda ’27, Angel ’28, Nieves ’30, Concepcion
’32, Francisco ’39, Felipa ’40. S. (Antonio 2d), soldier of the S.F. comp.
’19-27. S. (Bernardino), had a Cal. claim ’46-7 of $873 (v. 4G2). S. (Casilda),
grantee of La Merced, Los Ang., ’44. iv. 635. S. (Casimiro), at Mont. ’36, age
28, wife Eleuteria Castro, child Maria Trinidad b. ’34. S. (Domingo), at S.
Jos^ ’41, age 22; and living with him Jesus, age 18, Fernando
12, and Jos6 Ant. 14. S. (Eufemio), juez de
campo Mont. ’37. iii. 675. S. (Eugenio), body found banging at Sta Cruz ’38.
iii. 697. S. (Eugenio), at
Branciforte
’45, age 40, wife , child. Ramona
b. ’35, Juana ’37, Rosalia ’40,
and Josefa ’44. S.
(Eusebio), militiaman at S.F. ’37; owner of a town lot ’45. iv. 669; v. G85. S.
(Felipe), at S.F. ’37-44. S. (Fernando), owner of a Russian River rancho ’46.
Raven. S. (Flores), at Los Ang. ’46.
Soto (Francisco), 1st
child b. at S.F. 1776, son of Ignacio. He became a soldier in the S.F. comp.,
was a corp. in 1810, and was promoted to sergt for bravery in an Ind. campaign
of that year; also made an exped. in ’13, and another in ’20. ii. 91, 204, 324,
339. He was possibly the Fran. S. at S. Matias rancho, Mont., ’36, age 57,
child Lorenzo b. ’21. S. (Francisco), corp. in S.F. comp. ’19; sergt’20-9;
ment. in ’27-8. ii. 584, 592; iii. 66-7, 111, 156. I am unable to distinguish
the different men bearing this name. S. (Francisco), grantee of Bolsa Nueva
rancho ’29. ii. 615, 664. S. (Francisco), corp. died of wounds received in an
Ind. exped. ’29. iii. 111—13. S. (Francisco), at Mont. ’36, age 28, wife Maria
de Los Angeles, child. Ascension b. ’32, Trinidad ’34, Gertrudis ’3G. S.
(Francisco), at S. Jos<3 ’41, age 34, wife Barbara Castro, child. Ana Maria
b. ’34, Francisco ’36, Vicente ’38, Encamacion ’39; in ’42-4 grantee of S.
Lorenzo, Alameda Co., for which bis widow was cl. in ’52. iv. 673. S.
(Francisco), at S. Jos<3 ’41, age 24. S. (Francisco), grantee of S. Vicente,
Mont., ’35-42. iii. 678. S. (Francisco), prob. some one of the preceding;
sergt of the Mont. comp. ’35-6. iii. 671; a supporter of Alvarado and comisario
de policia. iii. 461, 675; ment. as lieut in ’39. iii. 588; admin, of Sta Cruz
’39-40. iii. 695; went to Mex. with Covarrubias in ’40. iv. 13, 15, 24; but is
ment. again in ’42. iv. 308.
Soto (Gervasio),
soldier of the S.F. comp. ’19-31; resid. of Branciforte ’36.
iii. 697; at S.F. age 54 in ’44; at S. Jos6 ’45.
iv. 686. S. (Guillermo), soldier of the S. Buen. escolta 1786, when his wife,
Nicolasa Ramirez, died; settled at Los Ang. 1789. ii. 349; alcalde in’98 and
1809. i. 661; ii. 110. S. (Ignacio), soldier of S.F. comp, from 1776; in 1793
at S. JosS, wife Barbara Espinosa, child. Antonio b. ’76, Francisco Maria ’77,
DAmaso ’78, Isidoro ’80, Josefa (who married JosS Sanchez) ’83, Joaquin ’84,
Jos6 Francisco, Rafaela, Bemarda, Tomas, Juan, Rafael, and Dolores, i. 291,
477. S. (Ignacio), soldier of the S.F. comp. ’24-30. S. (Ignacio), corp. at
Mont. ’36, age 22. S. (Ignacio), soldier at Mont. ’36, age 26. S. (Ignacio), at
S. Jos6 ’41, age 33, wife Teresa Martinez. &, (Isidoro), soldier retired
with rank of lieut ’44. iv. 408; in ’36 at Mont., age ’55, wife Marcela
Linares; married sons Ldzaro and Joaquin.
Soto (Jesus), sergt
who went to Mex. with Castro ’40; aux. de policfa ’46 at Mont. iv. 13, 30; v.
637. S. (Joaquin), son of Isidoro, at Mont. ’36, age 33, wife Dolores Cantua,
child. Joaquin b. ’24, Luisa ’26, Barbara ’27, Josefa ’32, Laran (?) ’34;
possibly the grantee of Piojo in ’42. iv. 655; juez de paz at S. Juan B. ’46.
v. 640; and still in Mont. Co. ’51. S. (Joaquin), son of Ignacio; married at
S. Jos6 1803 to Maria de la Luz Berreyesa. ii. 138. S. (Joaquin), resid. of
Branciforte ’30. ii. 627. S. (Joaquin), juez de campo at Los Carneros, Mont.,
’35. iii. 674. S. (Joaquin), at S. Matias rancho ’36, age 51, wife Juana
Butron, child. Barbara b. ’24, Antonia’25, Deogracias ’28, Maria ’30, Adelaida
’31, Maria ’33, Salvador ’34. iii. 678. S. (Joaquin), at S. Bernardino ’46,
age 35. S. (Joaquin), grantee of Cafiada-de la Carpinterla ’45.
iv. 655.
Soto (JosS) soldier
of the S.F. comp. ’21-9. S. (Jos<5 Maria), settler at Los Ang. ’15. ii. 349.
S. (Josefa), grantee of Capay rancho ’35-44. iii. 711;
iy. 671. S. (Juan)
soldier of the S.F. comp. ’19-24; in ’41 at S. Jos<5, age 55, wife Petra
Pacheco, child. Jos6 b. ’19, Francisco ’25, Jos6 Ignacio ’30, Guadalupe ’33,
Silverio ’34, and Juana ’35. S. (Ldzaro), son of Isidro, at Mont. ’36, age 34,
wife Solecita Cantera, child. Isidro b. ’28, General (?) ’31, Ramon ’34, and
Joaquin ’35; grantee of Canada de la Segunda ’39. iii. 677; at Mont. ’46. S.
(Lorenzo), at the Natividad fight ’46. v. 368; in the south ’47.
v. 389-90; cl. for Los Vallecitos ’52. iii.
612. S. (Luis), at S.F. ’42, age 23. S. (Manuel), soldier of the S.F. comp.
’23-31. S. (Manuel), at Branciforte ’28. S. (Maria Ant. Mesa de), widow at S.
Jos6 ’41, age 39, child. Juan Cap.
b. ’23, Jesus ’25, Dolores ’27, Juan Cris.
’29, Francisco ’31, Jos6 Ignacio’33, Patricio ’35, Jos6 Cruz ’37, and Celia
’39. S. (Mcliton), in the Solis revolt of ’29, sent to Mex. iii. 73, 77-8,
S2-5. S. (Milano), Mex. soldier at Mont. ’36, age 33. S. (Pedro), soldier at
S.F. ’42. S. (Rejis), settler at Los Ang. 1789.
i. 461. S. (Raimundo), worked for Larkin ’48
on his rancho. S. (Ramon), at S.F. ’44, age 20. S. (Teodora), grantee of Canada
del Hambre and Las Boleus, Contra Costa, in ’42. iv. 671. S. (Tiburcie), at
Mont. ’36, age 30, wife Concepcion Zuniga, child. Jos^ de Jesus h. ’29,
Raimundo ’30, Vicenta ’33, Juliana ’34, and Miguel ’35. Sonervoit (Alex.),
1847, Co. E, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); at Los Ang. ’77. Sout (W.), 1846, Cal. Bat.,
Co. B, artill. (v. 358). Southward (Chas C.), 1847, clerk for Parker at S.F.;
owner of town lots; in ’48 trader at Napa in partnership with Swasey. v. 670;
at Vallejo after ’50; Trinidad ’54; Vallejo ’77. Southwick (John), 1846,
carpenter on the U.S. Congress; capt. and chief engineer in Stockton’s Bat.
’46-7. v. 385. South- worth (Eli), 1838, nat. of Mass., visited Cal. from Hon.
on the D. Quixote, and possibly earlier, ’33-5, on the Loriot. iv. 103, 119,
141. In ’43-5 he lived at S.F. as a partner in Paty’s business, being named in
the padron of ’44 as 25 years old. Aiter ’48 he engaged in the lumber business;
and from ’53 be lived with William H. Davis at S. Leandro until his death in
’57. Souza (Wm),
1847, Portuguese fruit-dealer at Sta Clara ’63-76.
Spalding (Josiah),
1840, mr of the Lausanne, in trouble with the authorities. iv. 104, 121,
171-4. A Mass. man who died about ’70; his daughter at Mont. in ’84. S. (J.
C.), 1848, passp. from Hon. Sparks (Isaac J.), 1832, nat. of Me, and long a
resid. of St Louis, Mo., who came from N. Mex. with Young’s party of trappers,
iii. 388, 408. He engaged in otter-hunting on the coast, and in ’34 seems to
have made a trip to N. Mex., or at least got a pass,
iii. 395; in ’35 aiding in the removal of Ind.
from S. NicoUs isl. iii. 361, 652. From ’35 he lived at Sta B., keeping a store
from ’36 in a house bought of Foxen, but devotiug himself mainly to
otter-hunting, for which he received several licenses, iv. 81, 117; asked for
naturalization in ’37, estimating his property at $2,000; grantee of a rancho
in ’39, he having become a catholic before ’36. He was not arrested in ’40.
iv. 24; but in ’41 was in some trouble because of a young woman who bore him
two children, iv. 2S0, being threatened with a fine of $19 (!) if he did not
put an end to the scandal, and the woman being finally exiled to Los Ang. In
’43 he was grantee of Huasna rancho, S. Luis Ob., for which he was later cl. as
also for Pismo. iv. 655; iii. 678. He served rather unwillingly under Fremont
for a time in ’46-7, had a Cal. claim of some $900 (v. 462), and in ’47 was
sent to Gov. Mason to explain the state of affairs at Sta B. v. 584. He gave up
hunting, except as a pastime, after ’48; made an unsuccessful trip to the
mines; and later led the life of a prosperous ran- chero in S. Luis Ob. Co.
till his death in ’67 at the age of 63. He was regarded as an honest and
active man. His portrait was published in the Hesperian of ’59, with a sketch
of his early life. A family is mentioned in the later years, but I find no
record to show whom he married. S. (Mary), 1846, ef the Mormon colony with
children, v. 546; daughter of Mrs Hamilton; not named in the Honolulu list; and
possibly wife of Q. S. S. (Quartus S.), 1846, of the Mormon colony, with wife
and child, v. 546. Called also Q. L. and Q. C.; nat. of Conn., teacher and
preacher, who seems to have left the church; said to have been a lawyer at S.F.
in later years, hut not in the directories. S. (Stephen), 1846, sailor on the
Dale. Sparrowhawk, 1846 (?), mr of the J6- ven Ouipuzcoana, who settled at
Stockton, and died ’61 ace. to newspapers. Spate (Conrad), 1847, Co. B,
N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); killed in L. Cal, ’47.
Spear (Nathan), 1823,
nat. of Boston, druggist’s clerk with his brother Paul in B., who made a trip
to the Sandw. Isl. in ’19, and another on the Hover in ’23, touching at Mont.
In ’29 he came again to the Islands, in ’30 married Jane Holmes, and in ’32
came to Cal. in time to join the comp, ex- tranjera at Mont., iii. 221, 40S,
where he opened a store, obtaining a carta, and owning a schooner, the
Nicolo.s, which ran to Sta Cruz. iv. 83, 141. His name occurs often in
commercial records of each year, and I have many of his letters. In ’36 he
formed a partnership with Leese and Hinckley to open a store at S.F., whither
he moved in ’38, leaving his Mont. store in charge of Wm Warren. At this time
the partnership was broken up by a quarrel over $13,000 of profits, but Spear
continued the business in the store at the cor. of Montgomery and Clay streets;
transferred the Nicolas to S.F. bay for the collection of produce, adding the
Isabel to the fleet—Wm H. Davis, his nephew and clerk, being generally in com.
of one of the schooners; and built a mule-power grist-mill; being arrested as a
matter of form in ’40. iii. 705, 709; iv. 17, 82, 116, 130, 245, 250, G68; v.
6S1. In ’45 he was injured by Californians in an assault on Capt. Libby, iv.
569, 665-6; and is named as a witness at the Rae inquest, iv. 593. In ’46-7 he
is named as owner of lots, candidate for alcalde, and taking some slight part
in politics, v. 295, 455,
680-1; but
on account of ill-health moved to Napa Val. with his family in ’46, denouncing
a quicksilver mine on the Bale rancho. He returned to S.F. at the end of ’48,
and died there Oct. ’49 at the age of 47. He was an enterprising man of
business, honorable in his dealings, gentlemanly in his manners, and scholarly
in his tastes though of limited education. He never became a Mex. citizcn, and
therefore obtained no land grant. His wife, a half-breed Hawaiian, died in Napa
’48; and there was one son, William N., b. at Napa ’46, who in ’78 gave me a
valuable collection of his father’s Papers. He died before ’84. Spect (Jonas),
1848, nat. of Pa, who came overland to Or. in ’47, and to S.F. on the Henry,
possibly at the end of ’47. In ’48 he was a very successful miner, being the
discoverer of gold on the Yuba. He kept a store at Sacramento; was elected to
the 1st state senate; was a founder of Fremont, where he lived till ’56; a
resid. of Yernon till about ’68, when he moved to Colusa, dying there in ’83 at
the age of 66. Portrait in Colusa Co. Hist., 42; Yolo Co. Hist., 26; see also
Hist. Or., this series, p. 629. Spedding (Matthew), 1848, Engl, farmer in Sta
Clara ’76. Speiden (Wm), 1846, purser on the U.S. Congress; commissary in
Stockton’s Bat.; witness at the Fremont court-martial, v. 385, 420.
Spence (David), 1824,
nat. of Scotland, who had lived a few years at Lima, and came to Cal. on the
Pizarro to superintend the meat-packing establishment of Begg & Co. at
Mont. ii. 519, 526. In ’27 he started in business for himself, iii. 128, and
was prosperous from the beginning, being cautious, close, and energetic. His
name often appears in the records of each year, and I have many of his business
letters. In ’28 he was baptized at Sta Cruz as David Est<;van; in ’29
married Adelaida, daughter of Mariano Estrada, taking an active part in the protection
of Mont. during the Solis revolt, iii. 71,.74, 82, 49;
ii. 609; and was naturalized in ’30. In ’34-9
he was grantee of Encinal y Buena Esperanza rancho, of which be was cl. and
permanent owner, iii. 677; in ’35 alcalde, iii. 673. In ’36 he was a member of
the diputacion, and in this and the following years was secretly a supporter of
Alvarado’s govt, choosing not to act openly as a member of the ‘congress,’ yet
exerting quietly much influence in municipal and legislative matters, iii.
426, 454-5, 460, 469, 501,524;
iv. 86, 116, 148. He was elector and juez de
paz in ’39-40, furnishing information to Laplace, giving Sutter a letter of
introduction, and doubtless favoring the exile of Graham and his vagabonds,
iii. 675-6; iv. 8-9, 128, 136, 1545; ment. ’41-2. iv. 212, 309-10; in ’43-5
member of the junta departamental.
iv. 361, 411, 425, 521, 540; in ’45 in com. of
the foreign guard to protect Mont. during the Micheltorena troubles, being also
appointed prefect by Gov. Pico, but apparently declining the office, iv. 515,
522, 653. In ’46, though popularly believed to have intrigued for an English
protectorate, he was regarded by Larkin as friendly to the U.S., was member of
the council after the
change of flag, and
of the legislative council in ’47. v. 28, 61, 68, 234, 289, 433, 637. He
subsequently served as prefect in ’49-50, and as county supervisor in ’58-60.
About ’48 he gave up his mercantile enterprises, and devoted himself chiefly to
the care of his estate and the raising of live-stock. In ’73 he furnished me'
some brief Historical Notes, and died in ’75 at the aga of 77. Don David had aa
excellent reputation among the pioneers of Cal., few exerting so wide and good
an influence. While not exactly popular by reason of his conservatism and
closeness in money matters, obstinate as any of his race, and making enemies as
well as friends, he yet merited and received the respect of all classes. His
wife survived him but a month, and his only son David, born in ’30 and educated
at Honolulu, iv. 103, died in ’68, leaving 3 sons and a daughter, who inherited
their grandfather’s large estate.
Spence (Geo.), 1846,
Co. E, Cal. Bat., enlisting at Sonoma in Oct. (v. 358). S. (Robert), 1846,
ditto; in the mines ’48. Spencer, 1839 (?), on board the Boston trader Sophia,
aoc. to the S. Diego World of Feb. 15, ’73, when S. revisited S.D. S., 1809-10
(?), hunter reported to have been in Cal. ii. 89, S. (Oscar H.), 1846, Irishman
on roll of Soc. Cal. Pion.; d. at Vallejo ’76, age
52. S. (Wm W.), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v.
469). Spidle (John), 1847, Co. S, ditto; badly hurt at Los Angeles. Spiel
(Henry), 1845, overl. immig. of the Swasey-Todd party, iv. 576, 587 (though
John H. Brown says that he went to Or. and came to Cal. in ’46). He served in
Co. B, artill. of the Cal. Bat. (v. 358), and settled at Sta Cruz, where, acc.
to Brown, he was accidentally killed about ’53. Spitler (John), 1846, Co. E,
Cal. Bat., enlisting at Sonoma in Oct. (v. 358). Spitten (John D.), 1846, Co.
C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). Spitzer (August), 1846, German immig. of the
Donner party, who died in the mts. v. 531, 534. Spooner, 1848, from Hon. on the
Sagudahoc; perhaps Sam. B. at S. Jos6 ’50.
Sprague (Richard D.),
1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat., musician (v. 469); reenl.; at Brigham City, Utah, ’82.
S. (Thomas), 1848, doubtful date in a newspaper sketch. Spriggs (Thos), 1847,
died in SonomaCo.’51. Spring, 1848, mr of the Huntress, v. 578. Springer (James
Peter), 1841, nat. of Ky, and overl. immig. of the Bartleson party, iv. 270,
255, 279. He returned east in ’42. iv. 342; is said to have made the overl.
trip several times, being engaged in promoting immigration; and' finally came
to Cal. with his family in ’52, settling at Saratoga, Santa Clara Co., and
being a member of the legislature of ’59. He died in ’61, leaving a widow and
daughter. An account of the trip of ’41, by him, is given in Taylor’s Discov.
and Founders. S. (Lewis), 1847, painter at Mont. ’47-50. Sproston, 1847, mid.
on the U.S. Independence. Squires, 1848, saddler at Sutter’s fort.
Stack (Garrett),
1847, Co. E, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499). Stadmuller (Joseph),
1847, Co. F, 1st U.S. artill. (v. 518). Stagg (Wm),
1816, sailor on the- Albatross, ii. 275. Stall (Alfred B.), 1847, Co. I, N.Y.
Vol. (v. 499); d. before ’82. Standage (Henry), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v.
469); in Ariz. ’82. Stanley, 1845, in Sutter’s employ ’45-6. iv. 578. S.
(Fabius), 1S46,. lieut on the U.S. Dale; nat. of N.C.; later rear-admiral; at
Washington, D.C., ’79. S. (John M.), 1846, nat. of N.Y. and artist with Kearny
from N. Mex.
v. 337; owner of S.F. lot ’47. v. 676; went
by sea to Or. and thence to the islands; in ’51-2 connected with the survey of
the Northern Pac. R. R.; d. at Detroit ’72. S. (J. R.), 1846, at Sta Cruz ’81.
S. J. Pion. An R. Stanley of ’44 is also mentioned in ’78. Id. S. (Joseph),
1842, sailor on the United States; at Reno, Nev., ’83. S. (Simeon), 1846, of
the Mormon colony; did not come to Cal. v. 547. Stanly, 1846, overl. immig: v.
528, who joined the Cal. Bat. (v. 358), and died on the march south in Dec. Stanton
(Chas Tyler), 1846, nat. of N.Y. and overl. immig. of the Douner party from
Chicago. He crossed the Sierra to Sutter’s fort and went back to aid the party,
though he had no relatives among the numher. Again he volunteered to cross the
nits for succor, but died in the attempt, v. 531-2, 534, 537. Portrait in
McOlashan’s Hist. I have a long letter from his brother, Philip V. N. Stanton,
to Geo. McKinstry in ’48, containing much information about the young man’s
life, character, and family.
Stargenigge (John),
1847, shingle-maker at Mission S. Jos£. Stark (Benj. P.), 1847, from Hon. on
the Currency Lass, returning on the Toulon. S. (Daniel), 1846, of the
Mormon colony, with wife and two children, v. 547; owner of a S. P. lot ’47. v.
682; builder of a school-house, v. 656; commissioner to settle the affairs of
Brannan & Co.; member of the S. F. council in ’49; living in Utah ’84. S.
(Henry), 1847, Co. B, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499). S. (John S.), 1846, nat. of Ky and
overl. immig. with M. D. Ritchie, whose daughter, Mary J., was his wife. v.
529. He took part in measures for the relief of the Donner party, v. 540-1;
settled in Knights Valley; county judge of Napa ’50-1; memb. of the legislature
’51, ’55-6; lived near Calistoga ’51-68; in Lake Co. from ’68 to his death at
Guenoc in ’74, leaving a widow and 8 children. Starke (Fred.), 1845, German
sailor who deserted from a whaler at Sauzalito. iv. 587; a ranchfiro in
different parts of Sonoma Co.; miner in '48-9; in ’80 on a farm near Petaluma
with his wife Mina Hastier. Starkey, 1848, Engl, merchant of the S.F. firm of
S., Janion, & Co. v. 678, 680; d. at S.F. about ’50. Stayton (James), 1847,
Co. B, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499), d. on the Calaveras ’52.
Stearns (Abel), 1829,
nat. of Mass. who had lived 3 years in Mex., where be was naturalized in ’28,
and arrived at Monterey in July ’29. iii. 179. He came with the intention of
obtaining a large tract of land, to be seleoted in the Sac. or S. Joaq.
valleys, which, apparently in payment of some claim, the Mex. govt, had offered
him. His associate in this scheme was Geo. W. Ayres, q.v. Being meanwhile for a
year or two in the employ of Capt. Cooper, Stearns seems to have selected his
land, or at least to have reached a point where the action of the diputacion
was required, and in urging a meeting of that body he excited the enmity of
Gov. Victoria, by whom he was banished to the frontier to return as one of the
leading inciters of the revolution of ’31. iii. 49,
179, 193-4, 200-2, 630. Nothing more is heard of
the land project; and in ’33 S. settled at Los Ang. as a trader. I have much of
his business correspondence from year to year. In ’34 he obtained a town lot,
and also a building at S. Pedro, which he enlarged and used as a warehouse.
His dealings were chicfly in hides and liquors; and from ’35 he was often in
trouble by reason of smuggling operations; and also in ’35 severely wounded in
a quarrel about a barrel of wine sold to Wm Day. iii. 375, 417, 631-2, 641; iv.
95, 116, 208. Don Abel was, perhaps, not more addicted to contrahand trade than
Larkin, Fitch, Spence, and others, but be was less cautious and less fortunate
in keeping on the right side of the authorities. In ’36 he was sindico. iii.
63G; and for some reason that is not very clear, hut perhaps for his agency in
the matter of the vigilantes, was ordered to leave Cal. by Gov. Chico, becoming
in this and the next few years a strong supporter, in a quiet way, of Alvarado,
even as against Carlos Carrillo, iii. 197, 424, 428-9, 501, 565. In ’39 his
name is mentioned in connection with the flag tumult, iii. 589; in ’42
entertained Com. Jones, iv. 321; sent gold from the S. Francisquito placers to
the Philadelphia mint. iv. 297; and purchased the Alamitos rancho and its
live-stock for $6,000 as a foundation for his future landed wealth. He was
somewhat active in the movement against Gov. Micheltorena in ’45, being also a
suplente of the assembly, iv. 495, 497, 508, 540. In ’46 he was subprefect and
also worked earnestly—both as a foe of Mex. and friend of the U.S.—to further
the plans of Larkin, by whom he was formally appointed a sub-confidential agent
of the U.S. His efforts and those of his chief were defeated at the last by
Stockton’s perversity, if, indeed, there was any remaining hope of success
after the rascally acts of Fremont and his associates, v.
50, 63, 66, 71, 231, 264, 271-2, 625. In the
warlike events of ’46-7 he remained neutral as a Mex. official, though he had
some small Cal. claims (v. 402), and is mentioned in the annals of ’47-8, being
sindico in the latter year,
v. 329, 435. 448, 610, 62G. In ’49 he was a
member of the constit. convention, and later served as assemblyman,
supervisor, justice of the peace, aud memher of town council. He was cl. for
the Laguna and Alamitos ranchos,
iii. 633; iv. 621; and the owner of many more,
becoming the largest owner of land and cattle in southern Cal. His wealth was
somewhat affected by the
drought of ’63-4 and
by other reverses, yet he left an immense estate at his death, which occurred
at S.F. in ’71, when he was 72 years of age. Don Abel was a shrewd man of
business; somewhat tricky in the petty transactions of early years, but
apparently honorable in the larger operations of later times; a man of quick
temper and strong prejudices, but hospitable, not penurious, a good friend, and
kind husband. He hated Mexico and the Mexicans, but liked the Californians to
such a degree as to cause at times some hostility on the part of Americans. In
person he was very ugly, being known sometimes as Cara de Caballo, and having
an impediment in speech from the cut inflicted by Day in ’35. His wife was
Arcadia, daughter of Juan Bandini, as beautiful as her husband was ugly,
raising the personal appearance of the family to a high average, who survived
him without children, inherited the bulk of his estate, married Robt S. Baker,
and still lives in southern Cal. in ’85. S. (Fred.), 1847, killed at the S.
Gabriel, v. 395; perhaps ‘Strauss.’
Stebbins (Ira), 1845,
overl. immig. of the Hastings party, iv. 586-7; working for Sutter in ’45-6,
later at Sonoma, and prob. one of the Bears, since he i8 recorded as having
arrived at N. Helv. from Sonoma on June 17th. v. 110, 128; owner of S.F. lot
’47. v. 685; said to have been killed in the south by Mnrieta’s men. His name
is written Ira H. and Isaac T.; possibly two men. Steel (Austin), 1845, mr of
the Dromio (?). S. (James), 1841, an employ^ of the H. B. Co. S. (Joseph),
1826, Boston trader, and mr of the Harbinger ’26-8, of the Planet ’29-30,
Chalcedony in ’32-3, Sarah and Caroline and Kent ’36-8, and Roger Williams in
’40. His name constantly appears in commercial records of all these years, and
he was evidently a humorous and popular trader, iii. 93, 146-8, 176, 381, 384,
461, 563; iv. 104-6, 117. Steele (Geo.
E.), 1847,
Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); reenl. S. (H. A.), 1841, lieut on the St Louis. S.
(Isaiah C.), 1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); reenl. S. (Seymour G.), 1847,
capt. Co. A, N.Y. Vol. v. 503-4; in Humboldt Co. ’74; at S. Diego ’82. Steers
(Andrew J.), 1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); reenl.
Steingraudt (Louis),
1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). Stenner (Wm), 1831, nat. of Mass. and
mate of the Ayacucho. iii. 405; for 2 years in charge of the hide-houses at S.
Diego; in ’33 obtained a passport; perhaps the same who was mr of the Primavera
in ’47, v. 580, having a Cal. claim of $450 (v. 462). Stenson (J. Fenwick),
1846, passed mid. U.S.N., and acting capt. in Stockton’s Bat. ’46-7. v. 385.
Stephens, 1848, miner at Coloma. S. (Alex.), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v. 469);
in Sutter’s employ ’47-8, and at the Coloma mill when gold was found. S.
(Alfred), 1837, on Larkin’s books. S. (Charles), 1848, at Sutter’s fort. S.
(John), 1798, Boston sailor at S. Diego, i. 545, 654. S. (Peter), 1847, Co. F,
N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. at S.F. ’49. S. (Thos H.), 1848, owner of S.F. lots. S.
(Wm), 1836, Engl., age 35, in a Los Ang list. Stepp, 1845, one of Frdmont’s
men, separated for a while from the party, but accompanied Gillespie up the
valley to rejoin it. His full name was prob. ‘Steppenfeldt,’ or possibly there
may have been another of that name. iv. 583; v. 24, 453.
Sterling, 1840 (?),
at Sta Rosa in ’77, known as ‘Major’ S., said to have visited S.F. in very
early times on a coasting vessel, iv. 120. S. (Chas B.),
1847, nat. of La, clerk for naval agent Larkin at
Mont. ’47-8, and later employed by him in the Sac. Val., where he wrote long
letters on his adventures in the mines. He prob. camc as purser on a
man-of-war; was the 3d settler in Colusa Co.; married Lucinda Stewart ’49 in
Yolo Co.; and died after ’50 at a date not recorded. Sterrett (Isaac), 1842,
lieut in com. of the U.S. Relief. iv 314, 568. Stetson (Ed. L.), 1841, clerk on
the Don Quixote ’41-2, named in'Larkin’s accounts and by Davis, iv. 341; mr of
the Warren at Honolulu and Mazatlan ’45-6; in ’47-8 clerk for Larkin at Mont.
and Beninia, and later for Brannan at Sac.; at S.F. ’51. Stetyel (Geo.), 1848,
in S.F. letter-list.
Stevens, 1840, mr of
the Leonidas, iv. 104. S., 1845, mr of the Wm C. Nye iv 570. S., 1846, mr of
the United States, v. 580. S., 1S47, mid. on the U.S. independence. S. (Mrs),
1845, at Mont., went east on the Ad- ndttcmce S. (Alex.), 1847, Mormon at the
Coloma mill when gold was found. S. (Asa)j 1847, owner of S.F. lot. v. 679. S.
(Charles), 1847 (?), at S.F. ’54.
Annals. S.
(Elisha), 1844, nat. o£ Ga and capt. of the overl. immig. party to which I have
given his name.
iv. 445-8, 453, 679. I find no record of him in the following years; bnt in ’72-83
he was living on Kern River, with an excellent memory of early times as he
wrote, -which however he proposed to ■utilize one of these
days to make a book which should bring him money and fame. Alleged portrait and
biog. in S. F. Post, Dec. 26, ’83. I have
in ’85 received neither a copy of his book nor news of his death. S. (Geo.),
1847, at Benicia. Y. 673. S. (Geo. A.), 1847, mid. on the U.S. Dale. S.
(Isaac),
1842, at Sta Cruz ’42-3. S. (James), 1840, mr of the Roger
Williams and Cervantes, iv. 12,104; also on the coaat in ’45 and perhaps in
’48. S. (James),
1845, doubtful name of an overl. immig. iv. 578; also
Richard. S. (John), 1837, at Mont. S. (John), 1840, on the Lausanne acc.
to a letter pub. in the county histories, iv. 121; yet not named as a passenger
at Hon. and not known to have remained in Cal., unless he may be the following.
S. (John), 1846, Co. A, Cal. Bat. (v. 358), one of the Sta B. garrison, v. 316.
S. (John H.),
1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at Stockton ’71-4. S.
(Joshua T.), 1845, mr of the United States. S. (Lyman), 1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat.
(v. 469); in ’81 at Orderville, Utah. S. (Thos H.), 1848, owner of S.F. lota.
S. (Wm),
1846, sailor on the U.S. Dale. S. (Wm), 1847, at
Sutter’s fort. Stevenson, (B. W.), 1847, mid. on the Independence.
Stevenson (Jonathan
D.), 1847, nat. of N.Y., democratic politician, and militia officer, who came
to Cal. as colonel in com. of the regiment of N.Y. volunteers. For a record of
the regimental history, see v. 499-518; and for additional mention of Col
Stevenson’s career in ’47-8, v. 415, 439, 449-50, 48990, 497, 565, 584, 588-9,
625, 631-2. From May ’47 to the end of the war and mustering-out of the
volunteers in ’48 lie was military commandant of the southern district, with
headquarters at Los Ang. The colonel never had an opportunity of showing liis
prowess as a warrior, but he was a man of much energy, of strong will, and good
executive ability, a strict disciplinarian, who performed the dutiea of his
position in a very creditable manner. After ’48 he settled at S.F. as a real
estate agent, and was particularly interested for some years in developing the
latent greatness of New York of the Pacific, being the claimant for the rancho
of Los Mgdanos, Contra Costa, iii. 712. From ’72 he held the position of U.S.
shipping commissioner at S.F., where he still lives in ’85 at the venerable age
of 85 years. Portrait in Annals of S.F., and Clarke’s Hist. The public has
often been led to expect the publication of his recollections of a long and
active life, a work that could not fail to be of deep interest. In ’47 Col S.
was a widower, having 3 daughters in N.Y.; in ’51 he married again and has
several daughters born in Cal. S. (Matthew R.), 1847, son of the colonel and
capt. of Co. G, N.Y.Vol. v. 504; died nt Sackett Harbor, N.Y., ’63. S. (Wm),
1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518); supposed to be living in ’64.
Steward (James),
1826, on the Rover. S. (S.), 1848, at Mont. Stewart (Alfred V.), 1846, at S.F.
’46-7. S. (Chas), 1848, passp. from Hon. S. (Frank S.), 1847 (?), at a reunion
of surviving N.Y. Vol. ’84. S. (J. B.), 1847; mid. on the U.S. Columbus. S. (James),
1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). S. (John C.), 1835, sailor on the Pilgrim who
settled at S. Diego in ’38; married Rosa Machado, and still lived at S. D. in
’77. S. (Robert
B.), 1847,
Co. D, Monn. Bat. (v. 469). S. (Thomas), 1824, Scotch carpenter on the Royal
George, arrested at Sta B.; at Mont ’29; at S. D. ’36. ii. 526. S. (Thos K.),
1848, on Amer. River; at Sac. ’61. S. (Wm M.), 1848, sec. of Com. Jones, making
a trip with Colton to the mines; owner of S.F. lots, memb. of the council,
justice of the peace, and candidate for gov. in ’49; still at S.F. ’54.
Stickney (John),
1836, mr of the Keat and perhaps of the Sarah and Caroline ’36-7. iv. 104,
106. Stiggere (Ignacio), doubtful name of a Californian at Sonoma, v. 162.
Still (Geo.), 1846, of the Morm. colony, with wife and 3 children, v. 547.
Sarah Still, who in ’48 was married to J. D. Marston, may have been his
daughter. He did not go to Utah.' Stillman (Dexter),
1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). Stillwell (Joseph),
1846, overl. immig.,
who served in Co. E,
Cal. Bat., enlisting at S. Jos6 iu Nov. v. 528 (358); he was a son-in-law of S.
0. Young, still at S. Jose in ’50. Stilts (Jesse), 1846, arrived. Hittell. S.
(John), 1846, prob. overl. immig., enlisting at Sonoma in Oct. in Co. E. Cal.
Bat. (v. 358); settler in Solano Co. ’48, and still there in ’78. S. (Marion),
1846, prob. son of John; nat. of Mo.; in Solano Co. ’78. Stirling, see
‘Sterling.’ Stivers (Simeon), 1846, nat. of N.J. and memb. of the Mormon
colony, v. 547. He was a carpenter at S.F., moving in ’48 to Mission S.
Jos<5, where he still lived in '82 with wife, Anna M. Jones, and child.
Letitia M. b. ’59, Simeon E. ’61, Charlotte J. ’64, Sam. ’66, Champion
D. ’69, Anna M. ’72, Mark ’74, and Edward ’78.
Stock, 1841, mr of tbe Leonidas, iv. 566.
Stockton (Robert
Field), 1846, nat. of N.J. of an old and prominent family, who left Princeton
college in 1811 to become a midshipman in tho U.S.N.; served with credit in the
war of 1812 aud later; and in ’46 as captain came to Cal. on the Congress,
succeeding Com. Sloat in command of tbe Pacific squadron, and holding the
position of military gov. of Cal. till Jan. ’47. He returned east overland in
’47, resigned his commission in *49, was U.S. senator from N.J. in ’51-2, was
mentioned as a democratic candidate for the presidency several times, and
notably in ’56, and died ’66 at the age of about 70 years. His career in
connection with Cal. affairs is fully recorded in v. 232, 251-87, 289-90,
295-6, 302-29, 356, 385-435, 449, 453, 456, 460, 463, 539, 549, 577, 644; iv.
673. It is too complicated and too much the history of the couutry in ’46-7 to
be presented en r6sum6 here. Com. Stockton was brave, resolute, energetic, and
in many respects an agreeable gentleman, but an insatiable thirst for popularity
and fame was his most marked characteristic, and may be supposed to have
determined his policy in Cal.—a policy which, however we may admire some of his
acts and qualities, merits nothing but condemnation. His adoption, in
opposition to the views of Sloat and Larkin, of the filibustero plans of
Fr&nont and his associates may charitably be regarded as a mere error of
judgment; yet it is hard to resist the conviction that the true state of
affairs was known to him, and that his warlike proclamation to a peaceful
people, his blustering tirade against imaginary evils, his willingness to
identify a criminal revolt of vagabond settlers with the legitimate military
occupation, bis practical refusal to accept the voluntary submission of tbe
Cal. authorities, his whole policy of conquest which was to produce such
unhappy results—that all this was chiefly due to his persoual vanity and
ambition rather than to his honest opinion respecting the interests of his
nation. To the same motive may be ascribed his later policy—not without
plausibility and dignity in certain aspects—in the controversies with Gen.
Kearny. Stockton was beyond comparison an abler and more honorable man than
Frdmont, yet his reputation as ‘conqueror’ of Cal.—notwithstanding his
energetic and praiseworthy surmounting of obstacles that but for his folly
would not have existed—is as unmerited, though not so fraudulent, as that of
the ‘pathfinder.’ S. (Wm B.), 1847, Co. F, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); d. before ’82.
Stoddard (Rufus), 1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); worked as a brick-maker and
builder at S. Diego. Stokely (John), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336);
killed by tbe explosion at Los Ang. Dec. ’47. v. 625.
Stokes (Edward),
1840, Engl, sailor who came from Hon. on the Fly, having possibly visited Cal.
before, iv. 104, 120. He married Refugio, daughter of Jos6 Joaquin Ortega, and
in ’43-4 was grantee of the Pamo and Sta Isabel ranchos, iv. 621. In ’46 he
rendered aid to Kearny by carrying despatches to Stockton at S. Diego, v. 339.
The date of his death after ’50 does not appear, but his widow married Agustin
Olvera, and was still living in '70. S. (James), 1834 (?), Engl, sailor who in
Cal. became a doctor; first appearing on the records of ’3a, when he served as
consulting physician in the case of Gov. Figueroa, but prob. left some vessel a
year or two earlier, iii. 412, 296. He is occasionally named as doctor,
druggist, and trader at Mont. in *35-43.
iv. 117, 342; married Marfa Josefa Soto in *44;
appears at Mont., S. F., N. Helv., and S. Jos6 in records of *45, being in com.
of a detachment of the
Mont. guard, iv. 515,
but appears to have considered S. Jos6 his home from this year. In ’46 Dr S. is
vaguely accredited in tradition with having intrigued for an Engl,
protectorate, hut was tho 1st to raise the U.S. flag at S. Jos6, where by
Sloat’s appointment he served for a time as alcalde after the change of flag,
owning also a lot in S.F., and having a Cal. claim, v. 34, 68, 245-fa, 294,662.
He became the owner of the Verjeles and Natividad ranchos, Mont. Co., for which
he was later claimant, iii. 679; iv. 656; and in ’48 made a trading tour to the
mines. I find no record of him or his family after ’52. Stolze (Adolphus),
1847, Co. F, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).
Stone, 1833, at Mont.
acc. to Larkin’s accounts. S., 1847, settler in Lake Co. with the Kelseys,
killed by the Ind. in ’49. Nothing more seems to be known about the man.
Possibly he was the following. S. (Chas), 1847, of the 2d Donner relief party,
v. 539-40. S. (Elisha), 1841, of the original Bartleson party; did not come to
Cal. iv. 269. S. (Heber), 1847, Co. B. N.Y. Vol. (v. 499). S. (Henry), 1847,
owner of S.F. lot. S. (Joseph M.),
1848, passp. from Hon. S. (Mahlon), 1846, at Los Ang.
S. (Wm W.), 1808 (?), a resid. of Cal. from ’48, and at Angels from ’57 to his
death in ’62; said to have visited the coast in 1808 (proh. an error) and at
other dates before ’48. Stoneman (Geo.), 1847, nat. of N.Y., graduate of West
Point, and lieut of Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons, coming to Cal with the Mormon
Bat. as quartermaster, but soon rejoining the dragoons, v. 477, 483, 485, 489,
521,
617. Down to ’55 or a little later he was engaged
in garrison, exploring, or Ind. service on this coast. At the beginning of the
war of ’61-5 he was a major in the regular army, reaching the rank of brevet
major-general of volunteers, and gaining an enviable reputation as a cavalry
officer. After the war he returned to Cal. and settled near Los Angeles,
holding later the positiou of railroad commissioner, and being as I write in
’85 governor of California. In these official capacities he will require some
notice in a later volume; and in the case of so prominent a pioneer, it is to
me a matter of regret that I have no data for a more complete sketch of his
earlier Cal. experience. Stope (Gerard), 1836, Engl, at Mont. Stoppard (Moses),
1847, Co. K, N.Y. VoL (v. 499). Storer (Geo.), 1847, nat. of N.Y., from Hon. on
the Francesca; settled in Sonoma; in Mendocino township ’77; thero is perhaps
confusion between this man and Geo. ‘Story.’
Storm (Peter), 1833
(?), Norwegian sailor, whose coming is credited in current sketches to this
date with doubtful accuracy, iii. 409. Famham names him as one of the
foreigners arrested in ’40. iv. 17. The 1st definite record is that he lived at
S.F. in ’44, age 40. .He settled in Napa Co. in ’44-5, and probably took partin
the Bear revolt of ’46. v. 110, 147-9. He spent the rest of his life mainly in
Napa, and died at Calistoga in ’77. Story (Edward), 1848, Amer. lawyer with
Brooks in the mines; said to have been alcalde at Mont. earlier (?). S.
(Geo.), 1847, Co. C, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); near Healdsburgin ’80. Stothers (John
E.), 1847, Co. F, ditto; d. at Oakland after ’70. Stout, 1848, mr of the
Bristol. S. (Wm), 1846, of the Mormon colony, with wife and child, v. 547. He
was one of the founders of New Hope in the San Joaquin Val. v. 550; but left
the Mormons, and in ’47 was in the lumber business with Sirrine and Meder at
Sta Cruz. In ’48 had a store at the mines, perhaps of the firm of Brannan &
Co. S. (Wm C.), 1836 (?), agent of P. M. S. S. Co. from ’48; died in N.Y. ’70
at the age of 69; said to have visited Mont. in ’36. iv. 118. Stow (Aaron),
1847, Co. K, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at Davenport, la, ’82.
Stradspeth, 1845, one
of Fremont’s men. iv. 583. Kern. Strange (John),
1847, Co. C, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Strauss (Fred.),
1846, sailor on the Portsmouth, killed at tho S. Gabriel Jan. ’47. v. 395;
perhaps ‘ Stearns.’ Streeter (David), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336);
severely wounded at S. Pascual. v. 346, 355; later a barber at Sta B., where
he died in ’63. S. (Wm
A.), 1843,
nat. of N.Y. and cousin of David; dentist and mechanic, who came from Peru with
Stephen Smith as engineer to superintend the construction and running of the
Bodega mill. iv. 396, 400. He soon left Smith and went south as dentist or
physician till ’48. iv. 651, 501. Went to the mines, was in
partnership with
Weber at Stockton, and leased the S. Buen. mission. Lived at S. Luis Ob. ’51-5,
and after ’55 at Sta B., holding some local offices in both counties. In ’78 he
gave me his Recollections of Early Events. Proh. still living in ’85 at the age
of 74. Strihling (C. K.), 1836, com. of the U.S. Cyane ’42 -3, and ’45, and of
the Peacock in ’36. iv. 105, 308, 311, 321, 564—5. String- fellow (Jesse A),
1846, nat. of Pa and memb. of the Mormon colony, v. 547. He worked as a
carpenter at S.F. (where he owned a lot), Napa, and S. Jos<5, going to the
mines in ’48-9. Later a farmer at S. Jos<5, where be died in ’78, leaving a
widow and 3 grown children. Stroms (John A.), 1846, Co. C, 1st U. S. dragoons
(v. 336). Strong (Demas), 1848, Amer. trader at Big Bar and Sutter’s mill;
alderman and mayor of Sao.; returned to N.Y. ’50; in N.Y. senate’64. S. (James
H.), 1847, lieut on the U.S. Columbus. S. (John M.), 1847, Co. F, 3d U.S.
artill. (v. 518). S. (Wm), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469).
Stuart (Chauncey),
1848, in S.F. letter-list. S. (Maria Ant.) 1813, mistress of Capt. Ayers, ii.
269. S. (W. K.), 1848, nat. of Md and overl. iin- mig.; in Nevada co. ’51 to
his death in ”73; widow living in ’82. Study (David), 1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat.
(v. 469). Stump (David), 1848, miner from Or. at Grass Valley and Placerville
’48-9. Stupplebeen (Jacob), 1848, passp. from Hon. Sturgis (Thos), 1831, mr of
the Crusader ’31-2. iii. 382. Sturt (F.), 1848, passp. from Hon. Stuurtzenegger
(John), 1846, Co. G, Cal. Bat. (v. 358); owner of S.F. lots ’47-8; d. at
Oakland about ’60-5.
Suarez (Simon), 1797,
sub-lieut of the compania franca at Mont. i. 540-1, 544. S. (Vicente), juez de
campo at S. Jos6 ’44. iv. 685. Sublette (Wm),
1845, came overlaud with a party of 15 men whose
names are not known; at S.F. Jan.’46; went east with Clyman and Hastings, iv.
577—8; v. 526. Suc- cara, chief of the Sotoyomes ’37. iv. 72. Suckert (Leon),
1847, Co. D, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); d. S. F. ’71. Sugert, Ind. chief at Sta Cruz
1791. i. 494. Suhr (Albert), 1847, owner of S.F. lot.
Sullivan
(Cornelius), 1847, Co. I, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); locksmith at Mont. ’47-8; Sta
Clara ’71-4; at Lompoc ’82. S. (C. G.), 1839, doubtful date in a newspaper
sketch, iv. 119; d. in ’64, at or near Gold Hill. S. (James), see ‘O’Sullivan.’
S. (John), 1844, nat. of Ireland, and overl. immig. of the Stevens party with
his sister Mary and two brothers, iv. 446, 453. He had come to Canada at the
age of 6, and had worked as a stevedore there and as a logger in Me, going to
Mo. in ’42. After serving under Sutter in the Michel- torena campaign (iv.
476), he settled at S.F., v. 682, where he was teamster, trader, lot-owner, and
later capitalist, being founder and president of the Hibernia Bank. He had also
kept a store in ’48 on Sullivan Cr., Tuolumne. He was a man of upright
character, charitable, and well known for his gifts to the church. He died in
’82 at the age of 58.. His 1st wife was Catherine Farrely in ’50, who died in
’54; and the 2d was Ada E. Kenna of ’60, by whom be had 10 children. There were
2 sons by the 1st marriage, one of whom, Robert, died in ’82. The other, Frank
J., b. in ’52, was educated at St Ignatius College of S.F., in England, and at
Columbia law school, N.Y. In ’78-85 he practised law at S.F., having been State
senator in ’82 and a candidate for congress in ’84. His wife is Alice, daughter
of James Phelan. He has furnished for my use a narrative of his father’s life.
John Sullivan s sister married Peter Sherreback. S. (John), 1847, Co. G,
N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. S. Luis Rey ’48. S. (Michael), 1844, brother of John, and
immig. of the Stevens party, iv. 446, 453; owner of S. F. lot ’47. S.
(Richard), 1847, owner of S.F. lot. S. (Robert), 1844, brother of John, who
came as a boy in the Stevens party, iv. 446, 453. .
Sumedor (Wm), 1840,
permitted to remam m Cal. Summers (W. F.), 1848, at S. Diego. Sumner (N.),
1847, Amer. at N. Helv. S. (Owen), 1845, immig. from Or. in the McM.-Clyman
party with his family, including Mrs Payne. He went east with Clyman in ’46.
iv. 572-3; v. 526. S. (Owen Jr),
1843, son of Owen, who came from Or. with the
Hastings party, perhaps with a family. His sister Lizzie married Geo. Davis at
Sutter’s fort. Heprob. •went east in ’46 with his father, iv. 390-2, 400. S.
(Wm), 1826, mr of the Hist* Oal.,
Vol. V. 47
Zamora,
and in ’32 of the Waverly. iii. 149,317, 364, 384,652. Suner (Francisco),
1808, Span, friar who served at 5 different missions, and died at S.
Buenaventura in ’31. Biog. iii. 658-9; ment. ii. 90, 110, 147, 159-60, 265,
346, 348, 364, 394, 490, 576, 578, 655; iii. 96,
310, 351.
Sunol (Antonio
Maria), 1S17, nat. of Spain, who had been a sailor in the French naval service,
coming to Cal. on the Bordelais, and deserting on her return from the north in
’18. ii. 289. He settled at S. Jos£, where he apparently kept a shop and sold
liquor in ’23. ii. 605; married about ’24-5; was postmaster ’26, ’29. ii. 605;
and in ’28-30 was the object of some investigation on account of his Span,
birth, but was not sent away. iii. 51-2. From about ’39 he was owner of the
rancho of S. Jos<5 del Valle, and from about ’37 of Los Coches, Alameda Co.,
selling live-stock to Sutter on credit and having no little trouble to collect
the debt. iv. 134, 237; being sindico in ’39-40, iii. 731, and sub-prefect
’41-4. iv. 274, 684-6. He is mentioned by Mofras in '41 as ‘very devoted’ to
France, and blunderingly by Wilkes; and in the padron of ’41 is named as a
Span, trader, age 41, wife Marfa Dolores Bernal, child. Jos6 b. ’26, Paula
(later Mrs Sainsevain) ’28, Narciso ’36 (’35?), and Francisca ’38. In ’43 he
was suplente of the junta, iv. 361; is ment. in the annals of ’45-6. iv. 485-6;
v. 4, 45; being the purchaser of S. Rafael mission, and a memb. of the S.
Jos<5 council, v. 561, 664, 670. He engaged in mining in ’48; was the
claimant for his two ranchos in ’52. iv. 671, 713; and died in ’65, leaving an
excellent reputation. His son, Joss', was probably the man killed in ’55 by a
squatter on his rancho. He had been juez de policia in ’49. Another son, Narciso,
was educated in France, and still lives in Sunol Valley, ’85, with wife,
Rosario Palomares, and 6 child., Margarita, Virginia, Francesca, Eulalia, Josephine,
and Juanita. Portrait in Alam. Co. Hist., 176. Other children of Don Antonio
Maria surviving in ’83 were Encarnacion (Mrs Etchebarne), An- toneta (Mrs
Murphy), and Jos6 Dolores. Suria (Tomis), 1791, artist in Ma- laspina’s exped.
i. 490. Suriano (Juan Fran.), 1602, alfgrez in Vizcaino’s exped. i. 98. Surok
(Francisco), 1845, doubtful name of an applicant for land. Sntphen (Wm), 1847,
Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).
Sutter (John
Augustus), 1839, German-Swiss trader impelled by bankruptcy in ’34 to become an
adventurer in America, where, after an unsuccessful career in N. Mex. ’35-7, he
came to Cal. by way of Or., the Sandwich Isl., and Alaska, and established a
trading and trapping post at New Helvetia, obtaining a land grant of 11
leagues, and in ’41 the Russian improvements at Ross. Biog. matter relating to
Sutter is given elsewhere in these volumes so fully and compactly as to require
only reference here. For his early life and arrival in Cal. ’39-40, see iv.
122-39, with ment. in iii. 670, 700; iv. 74, 93, 102, 117, 119. Progress of his
estab. ’41-2. iv. 226-40; also 211, 213, 219-20, 275, 283, 672-3, 679-80.
Purchase of the Russian property in ’41, with the Muldrow swindle, and efforts
of the Russians ’42-50 to collect the debt. iv. 177-89. Mention in ’43 iv. 356,
366, 387-9, 396. Career in ’44. iv. 439, 448-9, 453. Sutter’s famous campaign
of ’44-5 undertaken against the Californians purely as a land speculation, iv.
407, 472, 474, 477-517. Affairs of ’45, particularly his efforts to sell his
estab. to the Mex. govt. iv. 607-16. Policy and acts of ’46 in connection with
the Bear revolt, etc. v. 3, 22, 29, 65, 80, 102, 104,1225, 359, 538. Mention
in ’47, when S. had a ‘Cal, claim,’ served as sub-Ind. agent, and owned a S.F.
lot. v. 452, 467, 568, 610, 678. For his experience of ’48 and the following
years, especially in connection with the gold discovery, see vol. vi. of this
series. In ’48-9 Sutter was regarded as being very rich, having at least what
in the hands of an abler man would have been the basis of an immense fortune;
but hi3 wealth, won by good luck without business capacity, could not thus be
kept under the new conditions of the flush times, and soon he was reduced to
comparative poverty, the successive steps of his downfall being too complicated
for presentment here. Doubtless in some instances he was the victim of
rascality oil the part of sharper adventurers than himself. His original land
grant of ’41 was confirmed after it had passed for the most part out of his
possession; but the Micheltorena grant of ’45 was very justly rejected by the
supreme court. The end of his public career, in a
sense, ■was in ’49,
when he was a member of the constitutional convention, and received some 2,000
votes for governor. From ’50, being
joined by his family from Switzerland, he lived at Hock Farm. From ’64, by act
of the Cal. legislature, he received a pension of $250 per month till ’78,
when the bill was defeated. Meanwhile, about ’65, he went east, and lived from
’71 at Litiz, Pa, making constant but vain efforts to obtain from congress
compensation for alleged wrongs of the past; though it does not appear that in
his old age and infirmity he ever suffered actual privations. In ’76, at his
home, he dictated to me his Personal Recollections, identical in outline with
the story so often told by him, but fuller in most phases than any that has
been printed, and most interesting. He died at Washington, D.C., in ’80 at the
age of 77, leaving a widow who still lives, I think, in ’85, two sons, and a
daughter. The family seem to have come to Cal. from ’44-50 at different dates,
though I /ind but slight information on the subject. Of the sons, Alphonse died
some years before '80. One of them seems to have come as early as ’44, when the
capt. writes to com- ,plain of his not being regarded as a naturalized citizen.
John A. Jr, to whom Iiis father turned over all his property temporarily in
’49, and who was a partner of Hensley, Reading, & Co., was for some years
before and prob. after ’80 U.S. consul at Acapulco. Emil Victor, identical, I
suppose, with E. J., who was Kern’s lieut at the fort in ’46, v. 298, was for
many years to ’80 a well-known notary at S.F., and committed suicide in Belgium
in ’83. The daughter, Anna Eliza, was married in ’52 to Geo. Engler, and in
’80, as Mrs Dr Link, was living at Acapulco. The biog. matter referred to
above contains much of comment on Sutter’s character. None of the pioneers
named in this register has received so much praise from so many sources; few
have deserved so little. Yet it has been by no means a pleasing task, in view
of the famous captain’s kindly nature and his misfortunes of later
years—especially for one who, like myself, has heard from his own lips the
story of his wrongs—to reveal the man’s true character, as I have deemed it a
duty to do. He was but an adventurer from the first, entitled to no admiration
or sympathy. His career in N. Mex. was, at the best, discreditable. He came to
Cal. in the false character of an ex-capt. of the French army. He was great
only in his wonderful personal magnetism and power of making friends for a time
of all who could be useful to him; good only in the possession of kindly
impulses. His energy was a phase of his visionary and reckless enthusiasm; his
executive ability did not extend beyond the skilful control of Indians aud the
management of an isolated trading post. Of principle, of honor, of respect for
the rights of others, we find but slight trace in him. There was no side of any
controversy that he would not readily adopt at the call of interest;
nationality, religion, friendship, obligation, consistency, counted for little
or nothing. There were no classes of ,his associates, hardly an individual,
with whom he did not quarrel, or whom in his auger he did not roundly abuse. For
all the favors received at the hands of Californians, he did not hesitate to
turn against them, or even to arm foreigners and Indians against them, when a
personal advantage seemed within his reach. That his frequent plots and threats
of vengeance and revolution and French intervention were for the most more
amusing than dangerous does not much increase our respect for the angry
plotter. His only capital was money borrowed on the way to Cal., or property
obtained on credit from Californians and Russians after his arrival, all on
pretences more or less false. He never hesitated to assume any obligation for
the future without regard to his ability to meet it; he rarely if ever paid a
debt when due; and a general, vague, and kindly purpose to fulfil all his
promises in the brilliant future but ■imperfectly excuses
his short-comings. His apparent success in ’39—45
was in a sense wonderful, but it rested almost entirely on a fortunate
combination of circumstances, and notably on Gov. Alvarado’s
unwise act—partly inspired by the idea of
introducing in the north an element of opposition to Vallejo, with whom he had
a temporary quarrel—in permitting a foreigner to found an isolated rendezvous
for hostile and uncontrollable elements of a vagabond population in the far
interior. Though Sutter’s establishment did something to promote the influx of
Amer. settlers, it was in no sense beneficial to the in
terests of the U.S.,
merely fomenting filibusterism witball its unhappy results. The discovery of
gold, often mentioned in this connection, was purely accidental; but I cannot
see that its postponement for a time would have done any harm; and I can
imagine that its earlier occurrence—likely enough to result from Sutter’s
settlement—might have been decidedly detrimental to the U.S. in some respects.
That the establishment, chiefly by reason of its situation at the foot of the
mountains, was of benefit to the immigrants is true; also that Sutter treated
them kindly, though not more so than a dozen others; but that he did so at a
personal sacrifice, as has been so often claimed, is not true; for Sutter’s
letters of that time are full of self-gratulations on hist ucky chance to
exchange food and cattle for wagons and implements, to hire mechanics, and to
have his land increased in value by the influx of settlers. Neither is it true
that Sutter in ’45-6 was friendly to the U.S. or to the immigrants as
Americans. He did not, as has been claimed by himself and friends, refuse an
offer of $100,000 for his property that the immig. might not he deprived of a
refuge; on the eontrary, he did his best to sell, and failed chiefly because
the Mex. govt saw a cheaper way to get the property by buying the Russian
mortgage. And as elsewhere stated, I have the captain’s original letter, in
which he warned Gen. Castro against Gillespie as a secret agent of the U.S.,
urged the govt to buy his fort, and advised the stationing of a garrison there
against the immigrants! Perhaps had this been known pioneers in later times
would have been less profuse in their praise of the noble-hearted old patriot.
Suwerkrop (E.A.), 1848, at Hon. from S.F. on the Julian.
Swab (Emmanuel),
1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Swain, 1848, from Hon. on the Sagadahoc. S.,
1829, mr of the Siisanci. iii. 149. S. (Chas
A.),
1829(?), nat. of Mass., said to have visited the coast*in the whaler American,
iii. 179, and again on the same vessel in ’38, though I find no record of such
a vessel in either year. He returned in ’49 to stay as a farmer, miner, and
contractor, dying at S.F. ’84 at the age of 71, leaving a widow and son. S. (F.
B.), 1848, passp. from Hon. S. (Isaac), 1823 (?), on the roll of theSoc. Cal.
Pion. S. (Josiah H.), 1S47, at Mont. ’47-8; perhaps came in ’46 on a whaler,
and one of Maddox’s volunteers, said to be living at S.F. ’84. Swan. Swaine,
1794, one of Vancouver’s men. i. 526.
Swan (John A.), 1843,
nat. of England of Scotch parentage, who came as a sailor on the Soledad from
Mazatlan after 11 years of adventure as a sailor in many parts of the world,
iv. 400, 568, 651. He made two trips with Capt. Cooper on the schr California
in ’43^1, then quitting the sea. He kept a little shop and
sailors’boarding-house at Mont., his name appearing from ’44 on Larkin’s books
and in other records; made a trip to the gold-mines in ’48;. went to Fraser
River in ’59-63; again visited British Columbia in ’64-6; and has since resided
at Mont. He has written many articles on the olden time for the newspapersj
whieh, with others in MS., have place in my collection, some of them being
named in my list of authorities; and he has furnished me besides from time to
time many useful items for this register. Swan’s writings are not only
interesting, but remarkably accurate, his memory being rarely at fault, and the
tendency to testify on matters beyond his personal knowledge—too prevalent
among pioneer writers—being in his case reduced to a minimum. His work in this
direction mevitB high praise. In the later years down to ’85 this kind-hearted
old sailor, 73 years old, burdened with poverty and deafness, lives in an old
historie adobe at the former capital, delighting in the old ruins that keep
alive his dreamy recollections of the past; and occasionally, with ‘ pioneer
of ’43 ’ plainly inscribed as credentials on his hatband, he makesa trip to S.
JosiSand S.F. to look after the constantly lessening band of his old-time
acquaintances. S. (Lyman), 1848, passp. from Hon. S. (Thos M.), 1848(?), in
Napa Valley acc. to testimony in later litigation. Swanich (James), 1845,
Delaware Ind. of Fremont’s party ’45-7. iv. 583, 587; said by Martin to have
been killed on the Or. frontier ’46. Swanson (Joseph), 1848, in S.F. letter
list; el. in ’53 for land in Contra Costa. Swartout (Hamilton), 1847, Co. A,
Morm. Bat. (v. 469). Swartz (John S.), 1847, Co. E, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Swasden,
1847, doubtful name in a Mont. list.
Swasey (Wm F.), 1845,
nat. of Maine and overl. immig. from St Louis in the party tbatl have called by
his name, which was really a division of the Grigsbv- party, iv. 576, 587. For
two months be wasemploy ed by Sutter as book-keeper, and at the beginning
of’46 went by way of S.F. and S. Josg to Mont., where he worked for a short
time as clerk for Wm H. Davis, and from June to Sept. was consular clerk for
Larkin at$60 per month. v. 16,60. In Oct. he joined the Cal. iSat., serving
through tbe southern campaign as asst commissary (v. 358): and having a ‘Cal.
claim 1 of $40 (v. 462). In ’47 be came to S.F., where he was owner
ot a town Jot, clerk of election, and sec. of the council, v. 648, 650.
-x? o WfS
G?Saged in trade in partnership with Leighton &
Co. at S.F. fin iw. Southard at Napa. v. 670, 078, 681; also
visiting the mines, and in . ^emj?er
the S.F. district legislature and taking some partin
politics. Inlo 1-61
Swasey was a notary public at S.F., being also a witness m some of the famous
land cases; in ’61-6 capt. of volunteers and asst quartermaster at Benicia. He
has continued to reside at S.F., though I find that he was appointed in /5
U.S.^ marshal of Wyoming, and has been a somewhat prominent member of the
Pioneer Society, being the author of many gracefully written eulogies of dead
pioneers. In ’85, at the age of 60 years or more, though about 45 in
appearance, lie has received a new appointment as notary public. Of his family
I know nothing except that his mother died recently in CaJ. at a very advanced
age. His View of S. F. in ’47 is ment. in v. 676, et seq Capt. Swasey
lyis furnished me his recollections of California in '45-6; to hi in I am
indebted for the invaluable JVcmj Helvetia Diary, of which, as Sutter s
clerk, he was one of the authors; and in several other matters he has- afforded
me some assistance.
Sweet (Chas C.),
1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). S. (Paul), 1840(?), nat. of K. I., said to have
landed at Mont. this year. iv. 120. In ’43-5 a tanner near Sta Cruz, iv. 356,
being named in the Branciforte padron of ’45 as Engl., age 30, and single;
perhaps served in Cal. Bat. ’46-7 (v. 358), having a Cai. claim of $35 (v.
462); and still at Sta Cruz ’49-80. Sweeting, 1848, doubtful name of a
hotel-keeper at S.F. Broohs. Swift (Granville P.), 1844, nat. ^ au(^
immig. from Or. in the ICelsey party, having crossed the plains in 43. iv.
444-5, 453. He served in Sutter’s campaign of ’45. iv. 486, 501; was a leading filibuster
of the Bears in ’46. v. 95, 104, 107, 110, 147,153, 168, 172; ancl in ’4G-7 was
capt. of Co. C, Cal. Bat. v. 184, 282, 289, 361; having a Cal. claim of about
$2,000 (v. 462). He was a finedooldng man, over 6 ft in height, a crack shot,
and of undoubted bravery, a bitter hater of the Mexicans. He settled on Stony
Cr. , Colusa, in ’47; made a large fortune in raining on Feather J\iv., with
the aid of Ind., in *48-9; later a stock-raiser in Colusa and Tehama; from ’54
ranchero in Sonoma; and from about ’68 engaged in fruit-culture and
quicksilver-mining in Solano, where he was accidentally killed in ’75, at the
age of about 54. He had a habit of burying his money on his rancho; several
such deposits being accidentally found after he had forgotten them, and in one
instance $24,000 having been stolen by an employee. S., 1807, mr of the Derby
and Hazard; perhaps on the coast earlier, ii. 17, 78, 84. S. (Richard), 1846,
Co. B, Cal. Bat., enlisting at Mont. in Oct. (v. 358).
Swinburn (Wm), 1839,
Engl, mate of the schr California, who became a lumberman in the Mont.
district, getting a pass in ’41. iv. 119. In ’44 in S. F. dist, age 35. Swinson
(Dav.), IS48, at Mont. Swords (Allen J.), 1847, Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. at
La Paz ’48. S. (Thomas), 1846, major U.S.A., who came from N. Mex. with Kearny
as quartermaster, and returned east with him in ’47, after having made a trip
to Honolulu for supplies; witness m the Fremont court-martial, v. 336, 343-7,
356, 440, 452, 456. In the war of ’61-5 he was chief quartermaster of the
western dept, and in ’79 lived in N.Y. as a retired brigadier. Sylvester
(Anthonj7), 1845, one of the men lost 46 on the Warren's launch, iv.
587; v. 384. Syrec, 1848, named as having kept a store on the Moquelumne.
Tabeau (Baptiste),
1844, one of Fremont’s men, killed by Ind. iv. 437,
440. Taber (J. D.)t 1S46,
apparently an overl. immig.; of T. & Hoyt, hotel
keepers at Mont.
’47-8; had a family in Contra Costa ’60. T., 1847, mr of the Copia. v. 577.
Tabor (Wm), 1846, in Sta Clara Val. with family. Hall. Tafor6 (Jose Ignacio),
1819, nat. of S. Amer., soldier of the S. Bias comp, at- Mont.; disch. ’24;
regidor at Mont. ’27. ii. 612. Taggart (Geo. W.), 1847, musician Co. B, Morm.
Bat. v. 469. T. (Robert), 1848, nephew of Dr Isbel, who killed B. K. Thompson
on the way east overland. T. (Sam.), 1842, executed at Los Ang. for murder,
iv. 296, 342, 633; called also ‘Tagget’and ‘Taggett.’ Tait (James A.), 1847,
Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at Sta Cruz ’71-83. T. (Wm G.), 1847, Co. A, ditto.
Tajochi (Tom&s), Ind. chief of S. Diego ’33. iii. 327, 359.
Talamantes (Felipe),
settler at Los Ang. 1794; grantee of Sta B. land 1819; at La Ballona ’39-40,
age 57. ii. 349, 354; iii. 633, 637. T. (Tomds), prob. brother of Felipe, at La
Ballona ’39, age 47. He took an active part in, the fight against Gov. Victoria
in ’31. iii. 196, 207; was juez de campo ’44. iv. 633; and still at Los Ang.
’46. Talbot, 1847, of L. & Uphain at Mont. ’47-8. T. (J. M.), 1846, witness
to enlistment in Cal. Bat. T. (Theodore), 1844, nat. of Ky who came with
Fremont, and again in ’45. iv. 437, 581, 583. He was a young man of good
education, who was iu a sense com. of that division of the company entering
Cal. by the southern route; and in Cal. acted' as Fremont’s confidential agent,
v. 3, 6, 22, 644. He was left in com. of the- Sta B. garrison, and later served
as lieut and adjutant in the Cal. Bat. v. 287, 304, 316-17, 358, 360, 630.
Being sent east with despatches in Feb. ’47, he was a witness in the Fremont
court-martial, v. 430, 456. Died at Wash., D. C., ’62. Talmadge (Abijah D.),
1847, Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v. 4S9); killed in ’48 by Moquelumne Ind. Tamam (Ig.),
1846, douhtful name, Cal. Bat. (v. 358). Tamanin (Prokop), 1822, mrof the
Volga, ii. 474. Tamaree (Peter),. 1834, at Mont. Tanibor (Juan), nickname;
killed at Los Ang. 45. iv. 492.
Tanferau (Toribio),
at S.F. mission from ’40; witness in the Santillan case- ’55. Tanner (Albert),
1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). T. (John L.),
1848, married at Sonoma to Mary, daughter of J. D. Taber
of Mont. Tan- sill (Robert), 1846, lieut of marines on the Dale; in Marston’s
Sta Clara campaign; coin, of the S.F. garrison ’47. v. 380, 659.
Tapia (Antonio), juez
aux. at S. Cirlos ’42. iv. 653. T. (Bartolo), ranchero at Los Ang. 1791-1813.
ii. 270, 350-3. T. (Carlos), at Los Ang. ’46. T. (Felipe), soldier at S. Jos4
and settler 1786-90. i. 350, 477-8. f. (Fernando), at Los Ang. ’48. T.
(Francisco), cadet of' Sta B. comp. ’25-6.
ii. 572. T. (Gregorio), grantee of Aguajito
rancho ’35. iii. 676; at Pilarcitos- ’36, age 22, wife Martina Vasquez, child
Maria de los Angeles; perhaps at Sta Cruz ’54. i. 524. T. (Jostf Ant.), at Los
Ang. ’46; arrested in ’45. iv. 541. T. (Jos6 Bartolom^), majordomo of S. Luis
Oh. 1789, wife Maria Lobo; grantee of Topanga Malibu rancho 1804. ii. 112; iii.
634. T. (Mariano), 1792, pot- ter-instructor from Mex. ’92-6. i. 615, 715. T.
(Ramon), at S. Bern. ’46, age
25. T. (Tiburcio), son of Jos6 Bartolomi, b. at
S. Luis Ob. 1789; later soldier and corporal of the Sta B. comp., being com. of
the Purisima guard in ’24 at the revolt, ii. 529; memher of the diputacion ’27,
’33. iii. 36-7, 41, 63, 246; alcalde of Los Ang. ’30-1, ’36; ii. 561; iii. 634,
636; sindico ’33, and encargada de Ind. ’35. iii. 635; favored Alvarado ’38.
iii. 565; aux. alcalde ’38. iii. 636. In ’39 he was alcalde, acting prefect,
and grantee of Cucamonga rancho, iii. 586, 589, 633, 636, 640. In ’42 he was a
supl. ministro of the sup. court; and in ’44 2d alcalde, iv. 296, 633. Don
Tiburcio was a man of good sense, good, character, and some wealth, still at
Los Ang. ’48 at the age of about 60. A current tradition of later times
represented the old man as having buried his- treasure on Fremont’s approach in
’46, and as having died without revealing its exact location. T. (Urcino),
settler at Los Ang. 1809. ii. 350. Tapin,
1846, lieut on the U.S. Savannah. Tapinto (Mariano),
1792, tailor-instructor ’92-5. i. 615.
Tapis (Est^van),
1790, Span, friar who toiled as missionary longest at Sta B. and S. Juan B.,
and was president of the missions in 1803-12. Biog. ii. 623-4; ment. i. 388,
492, 522, 573-4,576, 588-90, 594, 640, 669, 672, 689; ii. 7, 9-10,
26, 28, 33-4, 42, 55, 85, 88-90, 108-9, 112-13,
120-1, 140, 148, 159, 161, 165,.
168, 175, 182, 326,
346, 366, 369, 378, 383, 386-7, 394, 396, 461, 518, 655. Taplin (Charles),
1844, of Fremont’s party; also in ’45, returning east in ’46 with Sublette, iv.
437, 583. He again joined F. in ’48. Tarakinof (Boris), 1806, Russ, chief of
Aleut, otter-hunters; captured at StaB. in ’15. ii. 40, 80, 210, 274, 307-13,
353. Tasion (Manuel S.), grantee of a S. Gabriel lot ’47. iv. 637. Taufer
(Andrew), 1847, German memb. of the Soc. Cal. Pion.; d. at S.F. ’79, age 71.
Taylor, 1848, iu the
mines from Mont. and S. Jos6. T., 1848, at S.F. from the states. T. (Alex. S.),
1848, nat. of S. C., where his father—who had been a lieut on the privateer
Saucy Jach in the war of 1812—died in ’21. The son eame to Cal. from China in
Sept. ’48, but beyond the facts that he was for some years clerk of the U.S.
district court at Mont., and later settled at Sta ft., marrying Josefa Ortega,
and dying in ’76, nothing of biog. proper appears in any record that I have
seen. He was known as Dr Taylor, but I do not know whether he ever practised
medicine. It is not, however, as a pioneer, but as an investigator and writer
on the ethnography, bibliography, and history of Cal. that he deserves
particular notice; and in these respects he was a remarkable man. Without
having any special aptitude by nature or education for such work, he developed
a fondness for it almost amounting to a mania. His zeal in face of the most
discouraging obstacles is worthy of all praise, though it must be confessed
that the result was wellnigh valueless. He was not content with being a collector
or even translator and narrator, hut had a most unfortunate passion for working
the results of his observations and study into what he regarded as a scientific
form, the result being too often an absurd jumble of bad Spanish, worse Latin,
and unintelligible affectations. While at Monterey he obtained from the priest
a valuable collection of old mission documents (later given to the archbishop,
and cited hy me as Arch, del Obispado) which he made the basis of numerous
newspaper articles, in which, by reason of faulty translations, typographical
blunders, unfounded additions, and the difficulty of locating the dividing line
between record and comment, the value of the original was much impaired. His
writings from about’53 for the S.F. Herald, Bulletin, Cal. Farmer, Hutchings'
Magazine, Hesperian, Sac. Union, and other papers wert very voluminous. The
most extensive of his works and most valuable, being least injured by his
peculiar methods, though containing very little original matter, is the
Indianology of Cal., published in the Gal. Farmer of ’60-3, of which most of
the linguistic portions are reprinted in Lucy-Fossarieu, Bangues Indiennes de
la Gal., Paris ’81; and which gave Dr T., very properly, an honorary membership
in several learned societies of the east. Another of his most ambititious
attempts, but least valuable by reason of his utter lack of facilties for
bibliographic work, was the B'ibliografa Calif arnica, pub. in the Sac. Union,
and noticed in i. 35 of this work. His Ijis- torical Summary of Lower
California, puh. in Ross Browne’s Besources, ed. of ’69, and his Precis India
Galifomicus, included by Wm H. Knight in Bancroft's’ Hand-booh of ’64, are
very ereditahle works, being the only ones that had the advantages of careful
editing and proof-reading. His First Voyage to the Goast of Gal., of ’53, was a
translation of Navarrete’s version of Cabrillo’s voyage, with comments of
little value, i. 69, 72, 77. In his later years Dr Taylor collected all his
writings, with numerous MS. additions here and there, into a series of 7
scrap-books, under the titles Bibliografa California, Indianology of the Calif
ornias, Animated Nature of Cal., Odds and Ends of Gal. Life, and Discoverers
and Founders of Cal., Felix, and Gal. Petra (the 1st 3 being in ’85 in the
library of the Soc. Cal. Pion. in S.F.), and issued a descriptive circular,
‘The Storehouse of Cal., History and Life,’ through which he tried in vain to
find in America and Europe a publisher for his collected writings, without a
suspicion of the truth that the work and time and ability and resources of data
that would enable an editor to put the crude mass in such shape as to do
justice to the author’s reputation would produce an original work of much
greater value. I visited him in ’74 at his rancho at La Partera, near Sta B.,
and found him, though grievously oppressed by illness and poverty, as
enthusiastic as ever in all that pertained to early Cal. annals. He pointed
sadly but with
pride to a wooden box
that contained his life work—the 7 volumes mentioned above; and when I sought
his advice respecting my own researches, he pointed again to the box as
containing all that could ever be gleaned about early Cal.; and be was, I am
sure, entirely honest in his belief. ‘Test, if you like,’ he said, ‘the
accuracy of my work by examining the documents I gave the archbishop, but I
know from long years of earnest research that nowhere else, especially from
mission and Spanish sources, will you find a scrap of new information.’ Yet
only 3 miles away from the rancho where he had lived for many years, at Sta B.
mission, I took 6,000 pages of copies of most important missionary
correspondence that he had never seen! All honor, nevertheless, to such men as
Hayes and Taylor and Lancey, who have toiled under more or less unfavorable
auspices to save from destruction the data for our hi^ory.
Taylor (Christopher),
1848, came from Or. in Sept. on the Henry, engaging in trade at Sutter’s fort,
as member of the firm of Priest, Lee, & Co.; finally settled at Dayton, Or.,
where he was in ’78. T. (Geo. W.), 1847, nat. of Ya, who enlisted in Co. F, 3d
artill., at Mont. (v. 518); in the mines ’49, and later at Mont.; d. at Napa
’84. Lancey. T. (Hiram), 1841, Amer. musician in the Workman party from N.
Mex. iv. 278-9. I have his original passport dated Sta Fc Aug. 24th. At Los
Ang. and on the Cosumnes ’42; went to Or. with Leese in ’43, but came back in
’48. He made money in the mines, and settled at Cloverdale, where he died at a
date not given. T. (John),
1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). T. (John),
1847, Co. E, N.Y. Vol.
• (v. 499); d. in
N.Y. ’79. T. (Joseph), 1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). '
Taylor (Nelson),
1847, nat. of Conn., and capt. of Co. E, N.Y. Vol. v. 504, 511. He was a
dentist, and after » brief experience in the mines settled at Stockton as a
trader, also running a ferry on the Stanislaus; memb. of 1st legislature;
trustee of insane asylum from ’50; sheriff from ’54. In ’56 he went to N.Y. and
became a lawyer; brig.-gen. in war of '61-5; in ’65 memb. of congress; in
’71-85 resid. of South Norwalk, Conn. T. (Walter), 1847, sergt Co. G, N.Y. Vol.
v. 504. T. (Wm), 1818, Amer. lieut of Bouchard’s insurgents, ii. 227, 237. T.
(Wm), 1828, Scotch tailor at Mont. ’28-32, joining the comp, extranjera; a married
man, age 34 in ’29. iii. 178, 221.
I T. (Wm), 1834, mr
of the Magruder. iii. 412, 383. T. (Wm), 1834, Engl, sailor who landed from the
Margarita at S. Diego, where he still lived in ’40, an unmarried carpenter, age
43. Perhaps the same who voted at S. D. in ’48; name written Tela, Telen, and
Thell. T. (W. E.), 1847, daughter born to his wife at Sonoma; at S. Jos6 ’50.
T. (W. H.), 1848, passp. from Hon.
Teal (Hiram), 1841,
nat. of New England, who bronght a stock of goods from Mazatlan, and kept a
store at S. F. ’41-3, with Titcomb as partner or clerk,
iv. 279; v. 683. He went to Hou. in ’43 on the
Diamond, en route for Mex. Tcbaca (Gabriel), settler at the Colorado pueblos
1780-1, killed by Ind. i. 359, 362. Teforia (Jos<5), 1831, named by Dye as
one of Young’s party, iii. 388. Tego (Manuel), resid. of Branciforte ’30. ii.
627. Tejeda (Juan de A.), 1602, alferez of Vizcaino’s exped. i. 98. Tellez
(Rafael), 1842, Mex. lient-col and brevet-col in com. of Micheltorena’s
batallon fijo; somewhat prominent in Cal. affairs till sent to Mex. for aid in
’44. iv. 289, 357, 367, 409, 439, 461, 471-2. In ’46 he seems to have started
for Cal. with troops, but in Sinaloa engaged in a revolution, v. 32-3, and
became acting com. at Mazatlan, where he was when the Amer. took the town in
Feb. ’48. He seems to have died before the end of that year, and Californians,
who did not like him, delight in the tradition that after a drunken debauch he
drowned himself in a barrel of mescal!
Temple (Francis Pliny
F.), 1841, nat. of Mass., who eame on the Tasso at the age of 20, engaging in
trade at Los Ang. with his brother John. iv. 279. Later he established a stock
rancho at S. Emigdio, near Ft Tejon; was a member of the banking firm of
Heilman, T., & Co. from ’68, and from ’72 of T. & Workman. He died in
’80 at his rancho of La Mereed. iv. 635; v. 320; leaving a widow—the daughter
of Wm Workman—and several children. He took but slight part in politics, but
was always prominent in business affairs. All his property was lost by the failure
of the banking firm in ’75. In ’77 he gave me a brief narrative of his
Recollections, and rendered me assistance in
•obtaining testimony
from others. T. (John), 1827, nat. of Mass., and brother of the preceding, who
came from Hon. on the Wavcrly, and in the earliest years signed his name
‘Jonathan.’ iii. 149, 176-7. He was at onee baptized at S. Diego, and after a
few trading trips on the coast obtained naturalization and married Rafaela,
daughter of Francisco Cota, in ’30, engaging in trade at Los Ang., in
partnership with Geo. Rice, till ’32, and later alone, or with his brother from
’41. ii. 558. 1 have some of his business corresp., but he does not figure in
public affairs, except that the vigilantes of ’36 met at his house,
ii. 418, 539; iv. 117. In the sectional
quarrels he took no part, but was glad in ’39 to hear of Alvarado’s final
success; is named in the following years as creditor of southern missions; and
in ’45 was the purchaser of Purisima. iii. 595, 623; iv. 92, 553, 629, 648; v.
558. In the annals of ’46-7 he is named in connection with financial matters,
having Cal. claims to the amount of about $16,000. v. 49-50, 435, 467. From
about ’48, becoming owner of the Cerritos rancho, iii. 633, he gave his
attention to stock-raising on a large scale; later he was the builder of the
Temple block and other fine structures at Los Angeles; and in Maximilian’s
time obtained an immensely profitable lease of the Mexican mint. He died at
S.F. in ’66, at the age of 68. He had been an able and successful man of
business, socially genial and well liked. His widow survived him, living in
Paris with her daughter, Mrs Ajuria, the only child of whom I find any mention,
born in ’31.
Tenchman (Christian),
1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). TenEek (Anthony), 1848, U.S.
commissioner from Hon. on the Humboldt. Tenid i(Tb.), 1846, doubtful name in a
Los Ang. list. Tennent (Archibald), 1848, passp. from Hon, T. (Sam. J.), 1848,
Engl, surgeon on a whaler, who left his vessel at the Islands and came to Cal.
on hearing of the gold discovery. He married Rafaela Martinez and settled at
Pinole rancho, Contra Costa, where he still lived in ’82 with 5 children, his
wife having died in ’68. Portrait in Contra Costa Co. Ilist., 46. Tenorio
(Ignacio), nat. of S. Amer., who had been oidor of the audieneia of Quito, and
a very rich man, but who, traditionally, had devoted his fortune to charitable
and educational purposes, and came to Cal. about ’15 to live with the friars.
Not much is known of him except that he was buried at S. Juan Cap. in ’31 by P.
Zalvidea, who in the record spoke in high terms of his piety.
Teran (JosiS M.),
regidor at Braneiforte ’34. iii. 696; memb. of the S. Diego ayunt. ’37, and in
trouble, iii. 508; perhaps two men. Termain (James Gilbert), 1843, recommended
by the Engl, consul for a carta. Terrill (Joel J.),
1847, sergt Co. C, Morm. Bat. v. 477; at Ogden, Utah,
in ’82. Tesehemaeher (Fred. Henry), 1842, clerk and supercargo of Boston
trading craft ’42-8. iv. 341; v. 579; owner of S.F. lots ’46-7; resid. of S.F.
after ’49; el. of the Lup- yomi rancho, Napa, ’52. iv, 671; mayor of S.F.;
still living in ’85, when he visited S.F. Portrait and brief biog. notice in
North Pac. Review, i. 223, 252. I have a few of his early letters; but for so
prominent a pioneer there is a remarkable lack of information about him.
Tessau, 1837, officer of Petit- Thouars’ exped., making a survey of S.F. bay.
iv. 149.
Thaffer (Andrew),
1847, Co. E, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. S.F. ’79. Thamen (Henry), 1847, owner of
S.F. lot. Theall (Hiram W.), 1847, lieut Co. D, N.Y.Vol. v. 504; an early
settler of Sonora; d. at White Pine, Nev., before ’82; prob. in ’69. Theyer
(Geo.), 1848, from Or., a settler in S. Joaquin. Thing (Capt.), 1S38, left S.
Diego for Boston on the Kent. iv. 104.
Thomas, 1845,
doubtful immig. of the Grigsby-Ide party, iv. 579. T.,
1846, at Sta Cruz, June; perhaps same as following.
T., 1847, mr of the Laura Ann ’47-8. v. 579; perhaps L. H. T., 1847, at
Sutter’s fort. T. (Ambrose), 1836, at S. Jos6 Dec.; also Antonio at Los Ang.
’35; both prob. ‘Tomlinson,’ q.v. T. (Christian), 1847, owner of S.F. lot. v.
685. T. (Elijah), 1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); at Leeds, Utah, ’82. T. (Ignacio),
1818, Engl, sailor who left the Bordelais, ii. 393, and in ’29 lived at
S. Josfi, age 41, and blind. T. (John W.),
1847, Co. A, N.Y.Vol, (v. 499); at S. Jos6 ’82. T. (L. H.), 1848, sold piano to
Larkin; conducted prayer at the S.F. sehool-house. v. 657. T. (Thomas), 1840,
one of the S. Bias
exiles who did not
return, iv. 18. Thomen (Henry), 1846, overl. immig. who worked for Sutter, and
owned S.F. lot ’47; at Sac. '60, age 45; perhaps, at S.F. ’79.
Thornes (Robert
Hasty), 1841, nat. of Me, and overl. immig. of the Bar- tleson party, iv. 270,
275, 279. With Albert G. Toomes he worked as carpenter and builder at S.F. in
’41-2, and later at Mont., where the firm name of Thornes & Toomes appears
often in Larkin’s books and other records. In ’44 he was naturalized, and
obtained a grant of Los Saucos, Tehama, iv. 673; and may have put some cattle
on the place in ’45, but did not settle there till ’47, being mentioned at
Mont. in ’45-7, especially as a member of the 1st jury. v. 289. He took no part
in the war or in politics, but spent his life— with a brief interval of mining
on Feather River—on his Tehama rancho, becoming a wealthy and highly respected
and influential citizen. He died in ’78, at the age of Cl, leaving no family. A
sister resides in Oakland ’85 as the wife of Isaac Given, a pioneer of ’41.
Portrait in Tehama Co. Hist., 108. T. (Wm H.) 1843, nat. of Me, and distant
relative of R. H., who came from Boston as a sailor-boy, age 16, on the
Admittance, which he left in ’45, and returned east in ’46 on the schr
California to Mazatlan, and thence via England to Boston. Again he came to
Cal. in ’49 on the Edward Everett, returning via Manilla, etc., on the Alex.
Humboldt. In Boston he was a journalist on the daily papers, and from ’62 a
publisher on his own account, making a comfortable fortune, which was lost in
the great fire of ’72. In later years of the firm of Thomes & Talbot,
publishers of Ballou’s Monthly; also author of many romances of adventure for
boys. On Sea and Land, one of his latest works, is a narrative of adventures in
Cal. on the Admittance in ’42-5, full of interest and bad Spanish, remarkably
accurate in its foundation of name3and dates; let us hope that the
superstructure of the sailor-boy’s personal experiences is equally reliable. A
later story of Cal. life, covering the period of the conquest and now appearing
in the Monthly is likely to be as fascinating if somewhat less historic. An
excellent account of the trip and company of’49 was also written by Thomes for
the magazine, reprinted in the S.F. Alta of Oct. 22, 29, ’82. In ’85 he
revisited Cal. to revive old recollections, at which time he furnished me many
useful items ahout early men and things, also permitting me to consult the
original Diary of Capt. Peterson, his old master on the Admittance, and later
Iiis father-in-law.
Thompson, 1841,
blacksmith at Los Ang. and Sta B. T. (A.), 1839, passenger from Hon. on the
Clementine, iv. 102, 127. T. (Alpheus B.), 1825, nat. of Me, and sup. on the
Washington ’25-30, having possibly visited the coast earlier, iii. 29, 139,
149; sup. of the Convoy ’31; iu ’33-5 sup. of the Loriot, being arrested for
smuggling in ’33, and in ’35 carrying prisoners to Mex. iii. 288, 365, 383,
393. He considered Sta B. his home, and dated his residence from ’34, that
being the year in which he married Francisca, daughter of Carlos Carrillo, by
whom he had 3 children before June ’36. I have much of his corresp. from year
to year. In ’36-7 he was sup. of the Bolivar, on which he went to Hon. and back
in ’37; from ’38 had a hide-house in the Clark’s Point region of S.F.; is named
as mr of the Union in ’40; and also as creditor of several missions, iii. 057,
660; iv. 101, 106, 117; v. 684-5. He went to Hon. on the Julia Ann ’41; was
naturalized in ’43, being still sup. of the Bolivar; was owner of the Oajaca in
’44-5, sub-prefect at Sta B. ’46, grantee of a rancho in S. Joaquin Co., having
a Cal. claim of some $2,000, and being in all these years engaged to some
extent in otter-hunting, iv. 563, 566-7; v. 282, 330, 455, 675. His name
frequently occurs in commcrcial records down to ’48; and after that date
continued to reside at Sta B., where, and throughout the country, he had an
excellent reputation for honorable conduct. He died at Los Ang. in ’69 at the
age of 74. His wife had died in ’4], but there were 2 daughters and 4 sons who
survived. One of the sons, Francis, is a somewhat prominent citizen of Sta B.,
and in ’78 rendered me assistance in my search of the mission archives.
Thompson (Bluford
K.), 1846, overl. immig. and capt. Co. G, Cal. Bat., taking part in the fight
at Natividad. v. 361, 364-72. He was a coarse, pro
fane, reckless
fellow, a gambler by profession, with some pretensions to gentlemanly manners
when sober; known sometimes as ‘Red-headed’ or ‘Hell Roaring ’ Thompson. After
the war he settled at Stockton, being candidate for Ind. agent in ’47. v. 662;
where he soon killed James McKee. He was tried for murder at Sutter’s fort in
Feb. ’ 48, being acquitted; but was obliged to quit the country, and on the way
cast was killed in a new quarrel with R. Taggart on the Sweetwater. T. (Ch.),
1847, at Sutter’s fort. T. (Edward)j
1844, Amer. sailor on the schr California, in trouble
at Mont. T. (Edwin)’
1848, at S.F. as he testified in ’65. T. (Frank A.),
1832, mr of the Roxana ’32-3. iii. 384; mr of the Pilgrim and Alert ’35-6. iii.
381, 383; iv. 100. T. (Geo. A.), 1839, naturalist who came from Hon. on the
Clementine with letters from John C. Jones to the gov. and Gen. Vallejo. He
was in search of specimens; called also Gordon H. T. T. (Henry), 1847, Co. D,
Morm. Bat. (v. 469). T. (James), 1828, Irish sailor, age 28, from Acapulco on
the Maria Ester at S. Diego with a letter from Virmond, intending to settle,
ii. 545; iii. 178; got a carta in ’29; in his application seems to say he had
lived 8 years in Oal., but prob. means in Mex. T. (James), 1846, sergt-major of
Fauntleroy’s dragoons (v. 232, 247); perhaps the man at Benicia ’47. T.
(James), 1S47, Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); perhaps the man who on July 4th read
the declaration at S.F.; at Brooklyn, N.Y., ’82. T. (James L.), 1847, Co. C,
Morm. Bat. (v. 469).
Thompson (John),
1832, joined the comp, extranjera at Mont. iii. 221, 408; perhaps still at
Mont. ’36. T. (John), 1843 (?), said to have crossed the plains, to have built
a mill on Napa Creek ’45, and to have spent 7 years on the coast; revisited
Cal. in ’76 from Brooklyn, N.Y. iv. 393, 400. T. (John),
1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); at Riverdale, Utah,
’81; perhaps the owner of a S.F. lot ’47. v. 685. T. (John?), 1847, partner of
Finch, and per ha] is later of Bennett, in a S.F. saloon ’44-8. v. 683; thought
to be at S.F. :85. T. (Joseph P.), 1842, nat. of Mass. who came this
year ace. to his own affidavit in ’62. iv. 341; perhaps camc in '39-40 as sup.
on the Joseph Peabody. He came again in ’44 from Hon. on the Fama; at Sta Clara
’45; at S.F. ’46-7, being owner of a lot and sec. of the council, v. 648, 650;
at Napa '47-8, where he kept a store; el. for Napa lands ’52; lost a leg by a
street-car accident at S.F. ’84. He was a brother-in-law of Henry A.
‘Peirce,’q.v. T. (Josiah), 1836, brother of Joseph P., at Mont. ’36; sup. of
the Rasselas '37-8. iv. 105, 141. T. (Miles), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v. 460);
reenl. T. (Peter), 1847, Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. Los Ang. ’79. T. (Sam.),
1847,lieutCo. C, Morm. Bat.
v. 477, 488-9, 496; capt ol returning Mormons
in ’48. T. (Sam.), see ‘Buckle.’ T. (S. S.), 1830, man who ordered a bottle of
brandy. T. (Stephen B.), 1824, doubtful name of Taylor’s list. T. (Wm), see
‘Buckle.’ T. (Wm), 1840. at Sta B., May. T. (Wm), 1845, Spear’s milleratS.F.
’45-6. iv. 5S7; of 3d Donner relief ’47; killed by a bull at Hon. in ’50 after
7 years’ resid. in Cal. These may be 1, 2, or 3 men. T. (Wm H.), 1846, mid. on
the Congress; act. lieut of Stockton’s Bat. 41-7. v. 386. T. (W. T.), 1823 (?),
said to have been mr of a trader this year; came to reside in Cal. ’49; in ’6970
U.S. gauger at S.F. Call. Thoms (Adalberto), 1846, aux. de policia at Mont. v.
637.
Thorbum (Robert D.),
1847, lieut in com. of the U.S. Southampton ’47— 8. v. 580. Thome, 1846, killed
at the Natividad fight, v. 371; perhaps an overl. immig., or he may have been
the following. T. (Wm), 1846, of Fauntleroy’s dragoons. Thomer (Francois),
1847, Co. C, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. at Los Ang. ’48. Thornton (J. Quinn), 1847,
a prominent pioneer of Or. who touched at S.F. in Nov. on his waj' east by sea.
Author of Oregon and Cal. in '48, a work containing much information on the
overl. immig. of ’46 and the Donner party, v. 527, 535-6; see also Hist. Or.
Thorp(Dav.), 1837, at Mont. Dec. T. (Lindy), 1845, immig. from Or. in the
McMahon party,
iv. 572, 587; apparently living in Polk Val.
’79. Yolo Co. Hist., 86. T. (W. S.), 1847, constable at S.F. v.'648; prob. the
man who in ’48 married Mrs Caroline Warner of the Mormon colony. Thuming
(Henry), 1843, sailor on tbe Admittance; deserted in ’44. Peterson. Thursby
(Lewis P.), 1847,
Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v.
499); in Ga’71. Thurston (Chas H.), 1847, Co. B, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); at
Marysville ’82. Thusum (Benj. F.), 1845, mr of the Hannah ’45-6. Lancey.
Thybury, 1847, shepherd in Sutter’s service.
Tibbetts, 1837, in
the cattle exped. from Or. iv. 85. Tibbey (W. H.),
1848, mr of the Hawaiian schr Mary. Tibeau, 1841, Fr.
Canadian gambler from N. Mex. in the Workman party, iv. 278; died on the return
trip in ’42. Tibian (Fran.), doubtful name of ’46. vi. 162. Tickner (B.), 1847,
fleet surgeon on the U.S. Columbus. Tic6 (Fernando), son of Joaquin b. at S.F.
1798; settled at Sta B., where in ’29 he is ment. as ex-alcalde, iii. 78;
grantee of Ojai rancho ’37. iii. 655; juez de paz ’41. iv. 641; purchaser of S.
Buen. ’45-6. iv. 643, 634. He was constable at S. Buen. ’52 and supervisor ’54.
T. (Joaquin), 1796, sergt of Catalan volunteers, i. 540; exccutor of Alberni’s
will 1801. ii. 5. His wife was Juana Carrera, and several children were bom at
S.F. Tierney (John), 1839, Irish carpenter named in Larkin’s accounts ’40. iv.
119; naturalized ’44, claiming 5 years’ residence; at Mont. to ’48. Tieroff
(August), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); owner of S.F. lot ’47. v. 685; at
S.F. ’71-82. Tighe (John), 1847, Co. H, ditto; dead before ’82.
Tilee (Dan. E.),
1847, Co. D, ditto; d. N.Y. before ’80. Tilghman (Richard L.), 1846, lieut on
the U.S. Congress; act. capt. of artill. in Stockton’s bat. ’46-7. v. 281, 327,
386. Tillett (James F.), 1847, artificer Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. v. 518.
Tillotson (John H.), 1845, mid. on the U.S. Portsmouth. Timeans (Charles),
1847, Co. C, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Tindall (Israel C.), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S.
dragoons (v. 336). T. (Wm), 1847, Co. F, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. S.F. before’82.
Tinker (John), see‘Finch.’ Tinkerman (Michael), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).
Tinslar (B.R.), 1841, surgeon on the U.S. St Louis. Tinson (John), 1847, Co. B,
N.Y Vol. (v. 499). Tipson (Wm H.),
1847, Co. A, ditto; a Canadian printer who died at
S.F. ’79. Tise (Andrew),
1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518).
Titcomb (Amos A.),
1847, nat. of N.Y. and resid. of S.F. till his death in ’70, having held the
office of supervisor. Left a widow and one child. T. (Rufus), 1841, nat. of New
England, who came from Mazatlan with H. Teal, whose clerk or partner he was at
S.F. ’41-3. iv. 279. Tittel (F. G. Augustus), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499);
d. at S.F. ’64 (or’68); apparently father of the 2 following, but there is some
confusion about the family; name often written Tittle. T. (Fred. Gustavus
Ernest), 1847, son of F. G. A., German fiferof Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518),
married Miss Winterhalder and settled at Sta Cruz as a farmer. Later
livery-stable keeper, ward politician, supervisor, militia colonel, memb. of
the legislature (’61), and cigar-dealer at S.F. In ’70-1 he was engaged in the
Alaska fur trade; and died in ’77, leaving a daughter. T. (F. G. Wm), 1846 (?),
brother of the preceding, said to have come this year; a lieut in Mex. under
Maximilian; d. at S.F. ’70 at the age of 42, leaving a widow and 2 daughters.
The latter are actresses, or danseuses, in ’85 involved in interesting legal
complications respecting a lot in S. F. which was owned by their grandfather,
and on which the Maison Dor<Se, Kearny St, now stands.
Toba
(Fernando), cadet of the Mont. comp. 1801. ii. 147, 150; in later years act.
com. at Loreto. Tobar, named as a sergt ’21. ii. 575. T. (Albino), settler at
S. Jos6 1791-5, sent away for had conduct, i. 598, 636, 716. T. (Jos6), 1779,
piloto on the Santiago; and later com. of the Favorita and other transports and
exploring craft on the coast down to 1800. i. 328-9, 37S, 430,444,540. T. (Juan
Jos<5), 1838, Mex. capt. and brevet lieut-col, who had been somewhat prominent
in Sonora as a mil. officer and revolutionist since ’28, and who came to Cal.
to support Gov. Carrillo, retiring in disgust after the campaign of Las Flores,
iii. 557-61, 505, 555. Tobias, chief in the Sonoma region, iv. 72. Tobin (Robt
J.), 1848, from Tahiti; at S.F. with wife; still at S.F. ’54. Toca (Jos6 M.),
ship-boy and teacher at Sta B. 1795-7. i. 643. .
Todd (James J.),
1845, Amer. sailor at Mont. T. (John), 1848, at Sta B., May; also in ’50. T.
(John J.), 1845, Amer. sailor at Mont., perhaps same as James J. T. (Thos J.),
1844, Amer. sailor at Mont., aided by
the consulate and
shipped for Oahu in ’45. T. (Wm J.), 1844, Amer. sailor in consular care at
Mont. Though the records sewn clear, it would seem likely that James J., John
J., Thos J., aud Wm J. did not represent 4 dif. men. T. (Wm L.), 1845, nat of
111., nephew of Mrs Abraham Lincoln, and overl. immig. of the Swasey-Todd
party, iv. 576, 580, 587. Named in the N. Ilelv. Diary ’45-7* Early in ’40 he
went to Sonoma, where he joined the Bears, gained imperishable fame as the
artist who painted the Bear flag, was the messenger sent with the news of
revolt to Capt. Montgomery at S.F., and was at one time a captive of the wicked
Californians, v. 110,131, 146-9, 154, 156, 167-8. He lived at Sonoma for
several years after ’46, not, apparently, serving in the Cal. Bat.; then went
to El Dorado Co., where a valley bears his name; and in ’78 was living in S.
Bernardino, his death not being reported down to ’85.
Tole (Thomas), 1836,
sailor at Los Ang. from Lima, age 24. Toler (Hopeful), 1847, came to Cal. with
despatches, some official appointment, and 2' daughters, on the Preble, v.
584-5; worked as a clerk in settling the Leidesdorff estate; went with his
family to the mines in ’48; in ’49 a notary public at S.F. I have no record of
what became of him. One of his daughters, Charlotte Catherine, married L. W.
Hastings in ’48, and died at a date not recorded; the other daughter wTas
still living about ’SO. T. (Wm P.), 1842, son of Hopeful and mid. U.S.N. with
Com. Jones at Mont.; also on the Savannah ’45-7; returned as lieut on the St
Mary in ’49. He married a Peralta, and still lived at S. Leandro in ’S5. Tolman
(H.), 1848, passp. from Hon. Talmayr (Louis Auguste), 1836, Fr. carpenter from
Peru; at Los Ang., age 22.
Tometty (Nicholas),
1845, Amer. citizen at Mont. from St Louis Sept. Tomlinson (Ambrose G.), 1832,
trapper of Young’s party from N. Mex., who remained in Cal. iii. 388, 408. He
is also called Thomas L. and Thomason, and known as ‘ Tom the Trapper. * He had
a passp. in’34; was interested from ’35 with Job Dye in distillery near Sta
Cruz; signed the letter of thanks to Com. Kennedy at Mont. ’36. iv. 141; and
apppears on Larkin’s books from ’37. He was one of Graham’s riflemen (iii.
457); was arrested but not exiled in ’40, being supposed by some to be the man
who, in fear of death, revealed Graham’s plot to P. Real at the confessional,
iv. 5, 17. In ’41 he wrote to Com. Forrest a report on the murder of Anthony
Campbell. t\ 686. At this time he lived at S. Jos6 as a carpenter, age 38, wife
Maria de Jesus Bernal, child Tom&s. In ’42 Dr Maxwell amputated his leg,
and lie died before the end of ’44. He is called Engl, and Amer., and possibly
there were two of the name, but if so I cannot disentangle the records. T.
(John J.), 1848, nat. of Md, who came from Or.; trader in Cal. and Ariz., and
memb. of a Los Ang. firm; d. S. Bern. ’67, age 41. Tompkins (Amos), 1830, at
Mont. bound for Guaymas. T. (Christopher Q.), 1847, nat of Va and capt. Co. F,
3d U.S. artill. v. 414-15, 429, 518-20. He went east with Kearny the same year;
was a col in the confederate army ’61-5; and died in^ N.Y. ’77. T. (Thomas),
1846, of the Mormon colony, with wife and 2 child, v.
v. 547; at Sutter’s fort ’47-8; did not go to
Utah.
Tooms (Geo. W.),
1847, Co. D, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); treasurer of Stanislaus Co.; at Modesto ’82.
Toomes (Albert G.), 1841, nat. of Mo. and overl. immig. in the Workman-Howland
party from N. Mex. iv. 278-9. In partnership with R. H. Thornes he worked as
carpenter and builder at S^.F. for a short time and at Mont. from ’43. In ’44
he was married to Maria Isabel Lorenzana, was naturalized, and obtained a grant
of the Rio de los Molinos rancho in Tehama Co. iv. 673. He visited the rancho
to put cattle on it in ’45 and again in ’47, but did not settle there till ’49,
as, the firm of T. & T. is ment. at Mont. down to the end of ’48. From ’49
he lived on the place, be- comiug a rich and respected citizen, and dying in
’73 at the age of 56. His widow, without children, died at Oakland in ’78,
leaving her large property to a neighbor who had been friendly during her
illness. The will was contested by cousins of the Ortega family, with results
not known to me.
Toribio, ment. in
’18, ’33. ii. 383; iii. 323-4. Torre (EstSvan de la), son of Jos6 Joaquin, who
in ’36 lived at Mont. age 18; in ’44 regidor; in ’46 juez-
de campo. iv. 653; v.
363, 637. He never had much to do with politics; but has always been an
industrious, hard-working man, as ranchero and miner. In ’76, living on his
rancho of Bolsa de las Escarpines—of which Salv. Espinosa, his father-in-law,
was grantee and claimant—he gave me a most interesting and valuable dictation
of his Eeminiscencias, which has been frequently cited in these volumes. His
narrative is particularly valuable as a picture of manners and customs in Mex.
times, but is also a good record of the various public events in which his
brothers—more devoted to war and politics than himself—took part. He is a man
of excellent repute, and still living in ’85 with wife and several children. T.
(Gabriel), brother of Est£van, soldier of the Mont. comp, from ’27, taking part
in the revolts of ’28-30. iii. 67, 69-70; sergt in ’34-6, taking part in the
movement against Chico, iii. 671, 429; but retired about this time, and in ’39
grantee of Zanjones rancho, and agente de policia at Mont. ’44. iii. 679; iv.
633, 653. From ’45 he was a capt. of defen- sores, and waT active in ’45-6
against Micheltorena and the U.S. under Castro and Flores, down to the final
treaty of ’47. iv. 515, 652, 654-5; v. 41, 362-3; and in ’48, during the rumors
of intended revolution, was one of the Californians required to give bonds and
commit no hostilities, v. 585-6. He was a brave and somewhat reckless man,
devoted to the cause of his country. I have no record of the date of his death.
T. (Joaquin), brother of EstiSvan and Gabriel, b. about ’12, ednc. at Mont.
ii. 429; soon enlisted in the Mont. comp.; corporal in ’36; alfurez from ’39.
iii. 583, 671; iv. 13, 652. In ’40 he took an active part in arresting the
foreigners, and accompanied the exiles to S. Bias, being also grantee of Arroyo
Seco rancho, iv. 19-21, 30; iii. 677. In ’42-4 he was celador at the Mont.
custom-house, iv. 339, 377, 431; and in ’45 took a leading part in the
revolution against Micheltorena, being made capt. of the Mont. comp., and
acting alcalde for a time. iv. 462, 487, 507, 652, 654. In ’46 he was in com.
of the troops sent by Castro against the Bears, getting the worst of a skirmish
at Olompali, but deceiving Fremont by a ruse, he succeeded iu crossing the bay
and accompanied Castro to the south, v. 41, 134
6, 165-8, 174-7. After the occupation by the
U.S. he was paroled, but with the rest broke his parole and fonght in the
Natividad campaign, v. 289, 331, 362, 366, 370. Don Joaquin was a man of much
energy and courage, like his brother Gabriel in many respects, and not friendly
to the Amer. invaders. He was cl. for Arroyo Seco in ’52, and in ’55 was killed
by Anastasio Garcia, a murderer whom he was trying to arrest near Sta B. T.
(JosS Joaquin), 1801, Span, cadet of the Mont. comp, to ’22, serving much of
the time as governor’s sec. ii. 379, 488, 457, 463, 580, 676. In ’22 he was
grantee of the Bolsa del Potrero, sold to Capt. Cooper in ’29. ii. 615, 664;
iii. 13; in ’23-5 sec. of the junta and diputacion. ii. 486-7, 513, 612; iii.
7, 20; in the lists of Span, of ’28-30, but not sent away. iii. 51-2. In ’36 he
is named in the Mont. pa- dron as 48 years old (prob. 52, as his birth is
recorded in 1784 in one doc.), wife Maria dc los Angeles Cota, child.
Est<5van b. ’18, JosiS Ant. ’20, Encarnacion (who married Capt. Silva) ’22,
Rita (who married Florencio Serrano) ’26, Pablo ’31, Jos6 ’33, and Maria de
Alta Gracia ’34. I find no later record of Don JosS Joaquin. His widow died at
Mont. in ’77 at the age of 87, leaving 3 sons, 3 daughters, and 43
grandchildren. T. (JosS Maria), soldier of the Mont. comp. ’36, age 19; juez de
campo ’42. iv. 653. T. (Pablo), in Castro’s force ’46. v. 363; son of J. J. T.
(Raimundo), son of J. J., at Mont. ’26. ii. 612; soldier from ’28; corporal of
the escolta at S. Miguel ’29; involved in the Solis revolt and sent to Mex.
’30. iii. 67-85; served in Jalisco and Sonora; and returned to Cal. in ’47, to
be murdered a little later near Mont.
Torrens (Hilario),
1786, Span, friar who served at S. Diego to ’98, when he retired, dying in ’99.
Biog. i. 651; ment. i. 388, 423, 455-6, 459, 576-7. Torres (Antonio), at Los
Ang. ’46. T. (Francisco), 1834, Mex. physician of the H. & P. colony, who
was in ’35 exiled to Mex. for complicity in the movement at Los Ang. against
Gov. Figueroa, iii. 281-90. T., 1792, mr of the Sta Gertrudis. i. 506. T.
(Manuel), 1802, surgeon of the Cal. forces at Mont. 1802-3; and apparently at
Mont. again 1805. ii. 31, 140. T. (Manuel), 1843, nat. of Peru, who came with
Stephen Smith, his brother-in-law.
iv. 396; and for some
years was employed by Smith at his Bodega mill. Iu '45 he signed the bonds of
Amer. immigrants, iv. 681, and was grantee of the Muniz rancho, Sonoma Co.,
which was finally confirmed to him. iv. 672, 679. In ’48 he married Mariana,
daughter of Capt. Wm A. Richardson. He took "but slight part in the
troubles of’46-7. In ’75, residing at S.F., Don Manuel gave me his Peripetias
de la Vida Californiana, a most interesting MS., devoted to manners and
customs and observations on early men rather than to a narrative of events. In
’85 he resides at Martinez. Torrey, 1845, doubtful member of Fremont’s party,
iv. 5S3. Tosta (Bonifacio), appointed gov. in ’23, but did not come to Cal. ii.
484-5. Totten (Matthew), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). Tova
(Antonio), 1791, lieut of Malaspina’s exped.
i. 490.
Towner (Loammi),
1S47, Co. B, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. at S. Jos6 after ’50. Towns (Charles), 1844,
one of Fremont’s men, who left the party in Cal. iv. 437, 439, 453. Townsend
(Alfred A.), 1847, from Valparaiso with letters from Atherton to Larkin; of
firm T. & Robinson, bakers and saloon-keepers ■at Mont. ’47-8;
went to the mines ’48. T. (John), 1844,
nat. of Va, a physician and overl. immig. from Mo. in the Stevens party with
his wife. iv. 446, 453. He served as Sutter’s aid in the Micheltorena campaign,
iv. 483, 485, 516; then practised medicine at Mont. for a timo iu ’45. In
Clyman’s Diary he is described as ‘much attached to his own opinions, as
likewise to ■the
olimate and country of Cal. His pleasant wife does not enter into alL her
liusband’s chimerical speculations.’
In’46-9 Dr T. practised medicine at S.F.,
visiting Sutter’s fort in ’46.
v. 128; being at Benicia ’47, and also prospecting the Marin Co. hills for
minerals; the owner of several S. F. lots, on one of which he built a house and
office, v. 678; in ’48 taking some part in town politics, and serving as school
trustee and alcalde, but making a trip to the mines, v. 648-9, 651-2, 656; and
in ’49 member of the council. Late in ’50 he moved to a farm near S. Jos3,
where he and his wife (a sister of Moses Schal- lenberger) died of cholera in
Dec. ’50 or Jan. ’51. Dr T. was a man of excellent character, and of genial,
enthusiastic temperament. T. (John M.),
1848, Sta Clara fruit-grower ’59-76. T. (J. S.),
1848, passp. from Hon.; perhaps same as preceding. Towson (Thomas), 1846, Co.
F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358); enlisting at S. Juan Oct. Toye (H. H. F.), 1847, Co. G.
N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. in Nicaragua ’56.
Trail (G.), 1848,
passp. from Hon. Trapin (R. S.), 1845, lieut on the U.S. Savannah; performed
relig. service at S.F. ’46. v. 225. Travers (John) 1847, owner of a S.F. lot.
v. 676. T. (Wm B.), 1847, sergt Co. G, N.Y.Vol. v. 504; killed by the Los Ang.
explosion, v. 625. Travis (VV.), 1848, passp. from Hon. Treadway (P.), 1848, mr
of the Kehanmohi. v. 579; went back to Hon. on the Julian. Treanor (D.), 1848,
passp. from Hon. Treat (Thomas), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). Trejo
(Entimio), appointed celadorat Mont.; perhaps did not come. iv. 557. Tremmels
(Wm R.), 1847, lieut Co. C, N.Y.Vol.; died on the voy. to Cal. v. 504, 513.
Tresconi (Alberto),
1844, prob. Italian, named in Larkin’s accounts and other records at Mont. from
this year. iv. 453; at Sta Cruz ’79, owningprop- erty in Mont. Co. Trevethan
(Wm), 1826, Engl, sailor who came from the Islands on the Raver, iii. 176, and
worked as boatman at Mont., afterwards becoming lumberman and carpenter, and
for a time majordomo of S. Miguel. In ’29 his age was 26; and from ’33 his name
appears in various records as a sawyer in the Mont. dist. In ’40 he was
arrested, but not exiled, iv. 17, 23; naturalized in ’44, and married, perhaps
earlier, to Maria Antonia Perez. In these years he lived in the S. Antonio
redwoods, and was for a time subalcalde; later he moved to Sta Cruz Co., where
he still lived in ’70, with 10 children. Trigo (Jos6 R.), at Los Ang. ’46.
Triunfo (JoscS Miguel), grantee of Cahuenga rancho ’45. iv. 634. Troutman
(James B.), 1857, Co.
F, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). T. (John), 1847,
drummer in ditto. Trow (Henry),
1845, Engl, sailor in Sutter’s employ ’45-6. iv. 578,
587; v. 675; ment. in connection with Benicia affairs ’47-8; later in the mines
of Trinity or Shasta; and last seen by Bidwell between ’56 and ’60.
Trubody (John), 1847,
nat. of Engl, and overl. immig. from: Mo. with family, who, after a short stay
at Sutter’s fort, settled at S.P., though owning land! at Napa. He and his wife
were active memb. of the 1st methodist society in, Cal.; the latter, Jaae
Palmer, dying in ’77. T. (Josiah P.), 1847, son of John, b. in Pa, who went
from S. F. in ’56 to Napa; married Sophronia Ament in ’65; at Napa in ’80
engaged with his brother in the cultivation of berries. T. (Wm A.), 1847, son
of John, b. in Mo.; educated in the east from ’50; married a. daughter of T. L.
Grigsby ’68; at Napa '80. Truett,
1847, at Sutter’s fort; doubtful name. Truitte (S.),
1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat., enlisting at S. Juan Oet. (v. 358). Trujillo, half a
dozen of the name at. Los Ang. ’46. T. (Lorenzo), 1841, chief of a N. Mex.
eolony settling at S. Bern., where he stillli-ved. ’46, age 50. iv. 278, 638.
T. (Manuel), Mex. sec. of Cdrlos Carrillo as gov. ’37-8; perhaps the same who
was admin, of S. Luis Oh. ’35; left Cal. with Tobar ’38. iii. 548-9, 565,
682-3. Truman (Jacob- M.), 1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); one of the
explorers of a new route- over the mts ’48. Trusted (Gottfried), 1847, Co. F,
3d U.S. artill. (v. 518).
Tubb (Michael), 1846,
Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336); an alcalde at Mormon camp ’49; apparently a
partner of J. W. Cassin in Tehama Co. in later years. T. (Wm), 1846, Co. C,
ditto; prob. brother of Michael. Tucker (Geo. W.), 1846, nat. of Ohio, son of
R. P., memb. of 1st Donner relief. v. 539; miner in ’48-9; settler in Napa
’47-81; married in ’58 to Angelina Kellogg, by whom he has 8 children. T.
(John W.), 1846, brother of
G. W., and resid. of Napa ’47-81; wife Mrs C.
E. AVeed ’79. T. (Reasin P.), 1846, overl. immig. with wife and several sons.
v. 529; a member of the 1st and 4th Donner relief, v. 538, 541; settled in Napa
with his sons, bnt in ’79 living at Soleta, Sta B.; also called Daniel. T. (S.
J.), perhaps another son of R. P., in Napa ’47. T. (Thomas), 1845, in Sutter’s
employ. T. (Wm), 1847, Co. I, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at Sonora ’71; not in Clark’s
last list. Tuel (James), 1846, Fauntleroy’s dragoons (v. 232, 247).
Turcote (Francois),
1830, Canadian trapper of Young’s party; prob. returned to N. Mex. iii. 174.
Turincio (Manuel), 184], mr of the Columbine. iv. 564. Turkson (Paul), 1845,
trader at S.F. Turnbull (Thomas), 1841,. Engl, sailor on the Braganza, who left
the vessel and was at Sta Cruz ’42-3.. In ’48 his relatives in London write for
information about him. Turner,
1848, from Hon. on the Sagadahoc. T. (Chas C.), 1845,
com. of the U.S. Erie ’45-7. iv. 565. T. (David), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v.
499). T. (Henry S.), 1S46, capt. 1st dragoons, who came with Kearny from N.
Mex., fought at S. Pascual; com. of 2d bat. of Stoekton’s force ’46-7; went
east, with Kearny ’47; and was a witness at the Fremont court-martial, v. 336,
347, 385, 391-5, 437, 441, 444, 452, 456. He was
again at S.F. ’52-4, being a member of the banking firm of Lucas, T., & Co.
T. (James M.), capt. of Co. B, N.Y.Vol. v. 503, 511; did not come to Cal. v.
540. T. (John S.),
1826, one of Jed. Smith’s trappers in Cal. ’26-7.
iii. 153, 159-60, 176; came back with McLeod’s party ’28. iii. 161; and again
before ’35, when lie went from Cal. to Or., revisiting Cal. with the Cattle
party of ’37. iv. 85. Bryant met him near Clear Lake in ’46; he was one of the
2d Donner relief ’47. v. 540; and died the same year in Yolo Co. T. (Loammi),
1847, Co. B. N.Y. Vol. (v. 499). T. (Sain.), 1845, one of the men lost on the
Warren’s launch ’46. iv. 587; v. 384. Turney, 1848, from Or., kept a restaurant
at Sutter’s, fort.
Tustin (Fernando),
1845, son of Wm I., who came overl. as a child, iv. 579, 587; a blacksmith in
S.F. ’83. T. (Wm Isaac), 1845, nat. of Va, and overl. immig. of the Grigsby-Ide
party with wife and son. v. 579, 587. He worked for Sutter and remained in the
upper Sac. Val. ’45-6; iv. 580; and in ’47 settled at Benicia, where he built
the first adobe house, v. 672. Later he moved to S.F., where he engaged in the
manufacture of windmills, and whera he still lives in ’85 at the age of 65. In
’80 he wrote for my use his Recollections, a MS. which has furnished me not a
few items of interest. Tuttle- (Elanson), 1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). T.
(Luther T.), 1847, sergtCo..
D, ditto, t.
477; at Manti, Utah, ’81.
Twist (Hilary), 184G,
Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). T. (W.W.), 1847 (?), sheriff of Los Ang.
’52-3; killed in Sonora, Mex.; accredited to the N.Y.Vol. by Bell. Itcmin.,
58,288. Twitchell (Anciel), 1847, Co. D, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). Tylee (Dan. E.),
1847, doubtful name Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); not in Clark’s last list. Tyler
(Daniel), 1847, sergt Co, C, Morm. Bat.; also elder in the church, capt. of 50
on the return, and author of an excellent History of the Morm. Bat. v. 477,
488, 491, 493; in Utah ’85. T. (Henry B.),
1847, capt. of marines on the U.S. Columbus. T. (J.),
1846, Co. B, artill. Cal. Bat., enlisting at Sac. Oct. (v. 358).
Uber, 1843, German in
charge of Sutter’s distillery. Yates; iv. 229. Uhrbrook (Henry), 1847, Co. G,
N. Y. Vol. (v. 499); in Nicaragua with Walker; d. Sta Clara ’75. Ulibarri
(Francisco Homan Fernandez), 1809, Span, friar who served chiefly at S. Jnan B.
and Stalnds, dying at S. Gabriel, ’21. Biog. ii. 569; ment. ii. 154, 159-60,
237, 357, 366, 369, 386, 394, 655. Ulloa (Gonzalo), 1819, com. of the S.
Cdrlos. ii. 253; com. S. Bias ’21-2. ii.
441, 456-7. U. (Francisco), 1539, in his
navigation of the gulf possibly looked upon Cal. territory, i. 64, 68; Hist.
North Mex. St., i. 78 et seq.
Unamano (Francisco),
1842, mr of the Constante. iv. 564. Underwood (G.L.), 1847, Co. I, N.Y.Vol. (v.
499); at Petaluma’74; d. Portland, Or., ’81. Unzneta (Jos£), sergt of artill.
at Mont. 1803-4. Upham (Wm), 1847, of U. & Talhot at Mont. ’47-8. Upson
(Trueman), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).
Uren (Thomas), 1848,
d. at Dutch Flat ”73. Placer Co. Hist., 411. Ur- guides (Antonio, Dolores,
Guillermo, Juan, and Tomas), at Los Ang. ’46-8. U. (Encarnacion), settler at
Los Ang. ’12; alcalde in ’24. ii. 349, 354-5, 359. Uria (Francisco Javier de la
Concepcion), 1797, Span, friar, whose longest service was at Sta In&. He
died at Sta B. in ’34. Biog. iii. 659; ment. i. 562, 577; ii. 29, 115, 155,
159-60, 236, 368, 394, 526,528-9, 579, 581, 620, 622,655;
iii. 92, 96, 118, 350-1, 657. U. (Jos6 Antonio),
1799, Span, friar, who served chicfly at S. Jos6 mission, retiring in 1808.
Biog. ii. 115; ment. i. 556, 557;
ii. 46, 68, 130, 137-8, 155, 159-60.
Uribe (Francisco,
Jos6 M., and Pedro), at Los Ang. ’46. U. (Ricardo), soldier of Sta B. comp,
before ’37; at Los Ang. ’45, being a leader in a revolt. iv. 523, 541, 632.
Uribes (Jos£ Miguel), settler at Branciforte 1797. i. 569. U. (Tomds), regidor
at Los Ang. ’19. ii. 351, 354. Uriquidcs (Maria Magdalena), 1794, wife of Gov.
Borica. i. 728. Urrea (Jos6), interpreter at the Col. River pueblos 1780-2. i.
359, 362, 367. Urresti (Jose Antonio), 1804, Span, friar, who served for brief
terms at several missions, and died at S. Fern, in ’12. Biog. ii. 357; ment.
ii. 109, 114-16, 121-2, 159, 355, 394. Urselino (Josd), carpenter at S. Diego,
killed by Ind. 1775. i. 250, 253. Ur- sua (Julian), grantee of Panocha rancho
’44. iv. 672; chosen alcalde at S. Juan B. ’47. v. 640. Usson (Ramon), 1772,
Span, friar who was intended for the mission of S. Buenaventura, but after
Leing stationed as supernumerary at S. Diego and S. Antonio, he went away sick
as chaplain on the exploring transports in ’74, retiring also from that
service after one voyage, i. 192-3, 196, 227, 240-1, 455.
Vaca (Manuel), 1841,
nat. of N. Mex., prob. of the prominent N. Mex. family of that name—descended
from Capt. Vaca, one of the conquerors of 1600, and often absurdly connected
with Cabeza de Vaca—who came with his family in the Workman party, settling in
Solano Co., where with Pena he obtained a grant of the Putah rancho, where he
spent the rest of his life, dying, I think, before ’60. iv. 278, 516, 672; v.
119. Don Manuel was a hospitable man of good rppute, whose name is borne by
the valley and by the town of Vacaville. Of the family there is not much
definite information. Juan was killed by Ind. on the Moquelumne in ’45. Marcos
is named in N. Helv. records from ’45; had a Cal. claim of $4,967 (v. 462); and
was perhaps grantee of a rancho, iv. 671; being 2d alcalde at Sonoma ’45. iv.
678. Nepo- muceno is named in a Sonoma list of ’44; age 26; perhaps the same as
Juan. Teofilo was 19 in ’44, and died at the rancho in ’77, leaving a family.
These Hist. Cal., Vol. Y. 48
I suppose -were all
sons of Manuel. In ’30 Jos4 Ant. Vaca had visited Cal. from N. Mex. iii. 173.
Vail (James M.), 1847, Co. I, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); killed by Ind. in El Dorado
Co. ’48. Vaillant (Jean), 1830, trapper of Young’s party from N. Mex. iii. 174.
Valdes (Antonio),
settler at Los Ang. ’15. ii. 350. V. (Antonio Maria), at Los Ang. ’36; age 25
in ’39 (another Antonio ’47); zanjero in ’44. iv. 633. V. (Basilio), regidor at
Los Ang. '36-7; sfndico ’40-1, ’45. iii. 481, 509, 631-2, 634, 636, 638; still
at Los Ang. ’48. V. (Cayetano), 1791, lieut of Malaspi- na’s exped. i. 490;
com. of the Mexicana 1792. i. 506-7; killed at Trafalgar. V. (Creseeneio),
soldier of Sta B. comp, before ’37; at Los Ang. ’39, age 40. V. (Dorotea), an
old woman, aged 81, living at Mont. ’74, who gave me her Reminiscences of very
early times, ii. 232. She was a daughter of Juan B. Valdes, one of the early
settlers of S. Diego, where she was born in 1793. V. (Eugenio), settler at Los
Ang. 1800. ii. 349. V. (Felix), 1843, Mex. officer of the batallon fijo, who
seems to have come later than the main body; is named in several transactions
of ’43-5, and was the grantee of Tem4cula rancho in ’44. iv. 406, 470, 509,
621, 639. V. (Francisco), at S. Bern. ’46, age 25. V. (Gervasio), sub-deacon at
the Sta In6s seminary ’44. iv. 426. V. (Jesus), Sonoran killed at Sta B. ’40.
iii. 655. V. (Jos£), soldier of Sta B. comp. ’32; at Los Ang. ’46-8. V. (Jos6
Maria), at Los Ang. and S. Bern. ’39-46. V. (Jos6 Ramon), b. at Los Ang. 1803;
a soldier of ’21-32; later ranchero and trader Sta B.; in ’38 sindico. iii.
654; in ’42-3 juez de paz. iv. 642; in ’45 maj. at S. Buen., iv. 645, where in
’78 he gave me his Memorias. ii. 240; wife Daria Ortega, 3 child, in
’37. V. (Juan B.), an old settler who left some hist. mem. i. 175. V. (Julian),
at Los Ang. ’39-48. V. (Luciano), teacher at Los Ang. ’30. ii. 564. V. (Maria
Rita), grantee of S. Antonio rancho ’31. V. (Melecio), settler at Los Ang.
1789. i. 461. V. (Miguel), at Los Ang. ’48. V. (Rafael), soldier of Sta B.
comp. ’32; wife Rafaela Pico; 5 child, in ’37. V. (Rodrigo), shoemaker at Mont.
’41. V. (Salvador), fifer of the S.F. comp. ’39-42. V. (Simplieio), arrested
in ’45 for conspiracy. iv. 522. V. (Urita), in revolt at Los Ang. ’46. v. 308.
Valencia (Antonio),
soldier of S.F. comp. ’19-28; hanged in ’49 for murder of Pyle near S. Jos6 in
’47; perhaps 2 men. V. (Antonio), soldier of Sta B. comp, before ’37; arrested
in ’37, and executed for murder at Los Ang. ’42. iii. 638; iv. 632. V.
(Antonio), at Los Ang. ’46. V. (Ascencio), shot for murder at Los Ang. ’41.
iv.630. V. (Bruno), soldier of the S.F. comp. ’1927; in ’41 at S. Jos£, age
39, wife Bernarda Duarte, child. Francisco b. ’31, Maria Concepcion ’30,
Meliton ’35, JosiS Ramon ’38; owner of S.F. lot’43. iv. 669; v. 684; juez de
campo ’43. iv. 685. He apparently lived at S. Mateo. V. (Candelario), soldier
of the S.F. comp. ’23-33; in ’34 grantee of Acalanes rancho, Contra Costa, iii.
711; S.F. elector ’35. iii. 704; owner of lot at S.F. mission ’40. iii. 706;
juez de campo ’42, iv. 665, being named on the S.F. padron as 38 years old,
wife Paula Sanchez, child. Eustaquio b. ’2S, Jos£ Ramon ’29, Maria ’32, Lucia
’43, Tom&s ’37, Josefa ’41. Sergt of defensores ’44. iv. 667; juez de campo
’46. v. 648; witness in the Santillan case ’54. His wife was a cl. for
Buri-buri rancho. V. (Dolores), wife of Lieut Grijalva 1776.
ii. 104. V. (Eustaquio), son of Candelario,
resid. at S.F. mission from ’37, witness in the Santillan case ’55. Grantee and
cl. of a mission lot ’45-52. iv. 673. V. (Francisco), regidor at S. Jos<5
1802. ii. 134; still at S. Jos£ ’41, age 68, nat. of Sonora, widower. He was
perhaps the father of the S.F. Valencias. Thefamily nameis borne by a leading
street in S.F. V. (Gregorio), at S. Bern. ’46. V. (Guadalupe), at S. Jos4 ’41,
age 26, wife Ramona Martinez, child Miguel b. ’40. V. (Ignacio), settler at Los
Ang. 1808. ii. 349; at S. Bern. ’46, age 25, prob. a son. V. (Jos4 de Jesus),
soldier of the S.F. comp. ’27-37; in ’42 at S.F., age 35, wife Julia Sanchez,
child. Catarina b. ’35, Riso ’37, and Francisco; corp. of defensores ’44. V.
(J. M.), his wife the 1st person buried at S.F. ’76. i. 296. V. (Jos6 Ramon),
b. at S.F. ’28, grantee and cl. of mission lots. iv. 673; in Marin Co. ’65-76.
V. (Julio), at S. Jos<5’41, age 35, wife Concepcion Alviso, child. Cirilo b.
’28, Guadalupe ’33, Magdalena ’45, Manuel ’39; in ’44 of the S. Jos<5
guard, iv. 685. V. (Manuel), set-
tier at S. Josd 1788,
died. i. 477. V. (Manuel), grantee of Caiiada de Pinole, Contra Costa, iv. 672.
V. (Manuel), at Loa Aug. ’37 in jail; known aa ‘El ■Chino.’
V. (Miguel), 2d alcalde at Sta B. ’29;
soldier before ’37, wife Prisca
Olivera; alcalde ’31-2, iii. 653, 212;
maj. at Sta Inua ’39. iii. 664. V. (Ramon), grantee of land at S. Gabriel, iv.
637. V. (Ritillo), arrested ’38. iii. 638; a leader in Loa Ang. tumult ’45. iv.
523. V. (Vicente), sindico at Sta B. ’27, ’39. ii. 572; iii. 52, 654; wife
Margarita Valenzuela, 4 child, before ’37.
Valentin, at
Soledad’26. ii. 623. Valentino, at N. Helv.'47-8. Valenzuela (Antonio), at Sta
B. before ’37, wife Marfa Ant. Felix; grantee of land at S. Juan Cap. ’41. iv.
626; land at S. Gabriel’43. iv. 637; at S. Gabriel’46. V. (Desiderio and
Dolorea), at Loa Ang. ’4G-8. V. (Eatanialao), soldier of the S.F. comp. ’27-31;
at Los Ang. ’46. V. (Felipe and Franciaco), at Los Ang. ’46. V. (Gaspar),
zanjero at Los Ang. ’44. iv. 633; resid. ’39-48. V. (Ignacio), invdlido at Sta
B, ’32, wife Felipa Fernandez, child Juana. V. (Ignacio), named in ’46. V. 162.
V. (Joaquin), at Loa Ang. ’39, age 29; at S. Gab.’46-7 aa juez de campo. v.
628; at Sta B. ’50. V. (JosiS), at Los Ang. ’46. V. (Jos6 Maria), at Loa Ang.
’15. ii. 350; soldier at Sta B. ’32; alcalde at Sta B. ’35. iii. 654; maj. at
Sta B. mission ’38. iii. 656-7; admin, at Pu- n'sima ’38-41. iii. 666; iv. 648;
still at Sta B. ’51. Hia wife waa Joaefa Cota, with 4 children before ’37. V.
(Jos6 Sahas), at Loa Ang. ’46. V. (Luis), soldier at Sta B. ’32, wife Joaefa
Rocha; at Loa Ang. ’46-8. V. (Manuel), ■soldier of
Sta B. 1799; settled at Loa Ang. 1800. ii. 349. V. (Mannel), corp. at Mont. ’36,
age 22. V. (M&ximo), juez de campo at Los Ang. ’38.
iii. 636; still there ’48. V.
(Pedro), settler at Loa Ang. 1798. ii. 350; at Loa Ang. ’46; d. S. Juan Cap.
’68. V. (Prdapero), owner of land at S. Gab. ’43. iv. ■637. V.
(Ramon), at Loa Ang. ’46-8. V.
(Salvador), ranchero at Sta B. ’45. V.
(Secundino), at Loa Ang. ’39-46. V.
(Segundo), settler at Loa Ang. 1800-19. ii. 349, 354.
Valle (Antonio del),
1819, Mex. lieut of the S. Blaa infantry comp., stationed at S.F. for a few
yeara. ii. 253, 265, 371; in ’22 accompanied the can6nigo to Roas, ii. 464, and
from that year was in com. of the inf. comp, •at Mont. ii. 534, 536, 583, 609,
675, 549; iii. 26. In ’23-4 he was in trouble, was tried by a military court
for breachea of discipline, and once ordered to
S. Bias, but waa finally permitted to remain.
His troubles aeem to have sprung from the hostility of Gov. Arguello, against
whom he made many complaints; and he was not released from arrest till ’26.
Robinson describes him in’31 aa ‘a little dried-up piece of vanity.’ In’32 he
supported Zamorano, going to Loa Ang. with Ibarra, iii. 227; ment. in ’34. iii.
271; in ’34-5 he waa comisionado for the secularization of S. Fern., where he
served also aa major- domo to ’37. iii. 346, 353, 646-7. He opposed Alvarado in
’36, waa arrested in ’37, and supported CArloa Carrillo in ’38. iii. 488, 504,
545. In ’39 he was grantee of S. Franciaco rancho, iii. 633, where he died in
’41, the same year that gold waa diacovered on hia place. V. (Antonio), aoldier
of the Hidalgo batallon at Mont. ’36, age 14; juez de paz at Sonoma ’46. v.
668. V. (Ignacio), 1825, son of the lieut and nat. of Jalisco, who came to
Cal. with Echeandfa, and in ’28 became a cadet in the Sta B. comp., going to S.
Diego with the gov. and serving as ayudante de plaza, ii. 572, 549. In ’31-2 he
joined the pronunciados against Victoria and Zamorano, though his father aerved
on the other aide, being made alfdrez in ’31, and attached to the Mont. comp,
from ’32. iii. 201, 204, 227, 671. He was comisionado to secularize S. Gabriel
’33, Sta Cruz ’34, and S.F. ’35. iii. 289, 326, 346, 354, 644, 694-5, 714-15.
Don Ignacio supported Gutierrez against Alvarado in ’36, going south after G.’a
downfall, supporting Carrillo, and being sent to Sonoma as a prisoner in ’38.
iii. 463, 545, 449, 555, 566, 578. In ’39 he ia named as alf., habilitado, and
aupl. voeal of the junta; but was mustered out of the mil. service the aame
year, iii. 583, 590, 592, 641,651, though still ment. as habil. in ’40-1. On
the death of his father in ’41 he settled on the S. Francisco rancho, where in
’42 he was appointed juez of the new mining district, iv. 297, 315, 630-1; in
’43 elector, suplente of the junta, and grantee of Tejon. iv. 361, 635; in 45-6
still memb. and sec. of the junta, memb. elect of the consejo, and treas
urer of the civil
govt by Pico’s appointment, iv. 519, 521, 547, 558, 631; v. 35. He was alcalde
at Los Ang. in ’50, recorder in ’50-1, member of the council and of the
legisl. ’52. His record throughout his career is that of a faithful officer
and excellent citizen. In ’77, living at his rancho of Camulos, be dictated for
me his recollections of Lo Pasado de California, and gave mo a col. of Doc.
Hist. Cal., which contains some important papers. He died in ’80 at tbe age of
72. Of his family I know only that a son, R. P., is in ’85 prominent in Cal.
politics, having beeu member of the assembly and state senator. V. (Luis),
1834, com. of the Morelos, iii. 269, 383. V. (Rafael), teacher at S. Jos&
’21. ii. 379.
Vallejo (Ignacio
Vicente Ferrer), 1774, nat. of Jalisco, Mex., son of Ge- r<5nimo V. and
Antonia Gomez, b. in 1748, of pure Span, blood, and of a family which included
many persons of education, especially several priests, friars, and nuns of some
prominence, as is proved by a certificate of limpieza de sangre founded on
testimony taken in Jalisco 1806 at the petition of Juan Josd a priest and
brother of Ignacio. The latter, however, had no inclination for education or
the church; nothing definite is known of his early life; but in ’73, at the age
of 25, he enlisted at Compostela under Rivera for Cal. service, and arrived at
S. Diego in Sept. ’74 with Lieut Ortega. He was a somewhat unmanageable
soldier, often in trouble; but was praised for bravery in connection with the
Ind. rising at S. D. in ’75. i. 255; and in ’76 was given leave of absence from
mil. service to become an employe at S. Luis Ob. i. 299, 428; being formally
discharged, I suppose, at the expiration of his enlistment term. From ’81 he
was employed at S. Cirlos, having, it seems, much skill and energy in directing
agric. and irrigation works, though by no means a model of regular conduct, as
is shown by occasional charges and reprimands. In ’85 he was appointed
comisionado of S. Jos£; reBnUsted in ’87 for 10 years in the Mont. comp.; was
promoted to corporal ’89; and in ’95 was removed from his position at S.Jos6 on
complaint of the citizens; being corp. of the escolta at Soledad in ’93-5;
returning to S. Jos6 as superintendent of flax culture ’95-6, and bolding
again the post of comisionado, or perhaps corp. of the guard, in ’97-9. i. 439,
478-9, 499, 543, 552, 587, 620, 710-11, 716-19, 725. In 1799 he was made
comisionado at Branciforte, holding that place for several years, or more than
once, the records not being quite clear,
i. 571; ii. 156; in 1805 was promoted to
sergt, and in 1807—having obtained the certificate of gentle blood in 1806, as
mentioned above—was declared sargento distinguido. ii. 140-1, 182; iii. 451. I
have his hojas de servicio of dif. dates, showing him to have been engaged in
several Ind. campaigns, and to have been recommended for promotion,
which—prob. on account of his intractability and early irregularities—he did
not get. In ’18 be is ment. in connection with the Bouchard affair,
subsequently being employed on certain public works at Mont. ii. 230-1, 339,
379, 381, 609. In 24 he was sent to S. Luis Ob. on service connected with tbe
Ind. revolt of that year; asking the same year for retirement, which was
apparently not granted, though he got a grant of the Bolsa de S. Cayetano
rancho, on which his cattle had been for some years, ii. 536-7, 615-16, 619,
664; iii. 43, 678; ment. in ’30. iii. 83. Ho died at Mont. in ’31 at the age of
83. Don Ignacio is described in his enlistment papers as 5 ft 5j in. in height,
with brown hair, gray eyes, short nose, full beard, and fair complexion. He was
a rough, coarse-grained, uneducated man; proud of his Spanish blood and family;
haughty in manner, insubordinate and unmanageable as a soldier, and often in
trouble with his superiors; careless in his morals; but endowed with considerable
force j,nd executive ability, and honorable and straightforward, I think, in
his dealings with other men. His wife was Maria Antonia, daughter of Francisco
Lugo, married in 1790, who died in ’53. There were 13 children,
5 sons—4 of whom survived their father, and
are named in this register—and 8 daughters—3 of whom, including Magdalena b.
1833, Isidora, and the wife of Mariano Soberanes, died before 31. The survivors
were Prudeneiana, who married Jos6 Amesti, and died after ’77. Encarnaeion, who
married Capt. J. B. R. Cooper, and still lives in ’85; Rosalia, Mrs J. P.
Leese, living in ’85;
Josefa, wife of
Alvarado (ii. 141), Estrada, and Madariaga successively; and Maria de Jesus,
still living in ’53.
Vallejo (JostS de
Jesus), son of Ignacio, b. at S. Jos<3 in 1798; 1st named in records of the
Bouchard affair of 1818, when he perhaps commanded a battery at Mont. ii.
229-32, 234. From about ’24 he seems to have lived at the Bolsa de S. Cayetano,
belonging to his father and after ’31 to himself, till ’36, being suplente of
the diputacion in ’33, regidor at Mont. in ’35, and capt. of militia artill.
under Alvarado iu ’36-8. ii. 615; iii. 82, 246, 430, 457, 474, 511, 525, 567,
673, 678, 732. From ’36 he was comisionado and admin, of S. Jos<3 mission,
iii. 725; iv. 47, 194; in ’39 suplente of the junta, iii. 590; in ’40 engaged
in an Ind. campaign, iv. 76, 138; and in ’40-2 grantee of the Arreyo de la
Alameda, for which in later years he was the successful claimant, iii. 711; iv.
670. He was mil. com. at S. Jos<3 ’41-2, and is ment. in '44. iv. 201, 465,
684, C86; delegate to the consejo general ’46. v. 45; Oal. claim of $2,825
’46-7 (v. 462). He spent the rest of his life at Mission S. Jos6, where he was
postmaster in ’52, and in ’75 dictated for my use his Reminiscencias His-
tdricas. He died in ’82 at the age of ’84. His wife was Soledad Sanchez, and
two daughters, Teresa and Guadalupe, survived him. V. (Juan Antonie), son of
Ignacio, owner of S.F. lot ’40. iii. 706; v. 681; suplente juez at Mont. ’43. iv.
653; aux. de policia ’46. v. 637. He was later a ranchero in the P^jaro Valley,
having but little to do with public affairs at any time. Died at Mont. ’57.
Larkin describes him as the most popular of the brothers.
Valleje (Mariano
Guadalupe), son of Ignacio, b. at Mont. in 1808, and educated at the same town.
ii. 429; see a sketch of his life to ’36 in iii. 471-3. He entered the mil.
service in ’23 (or from Jan. 1, ’24) as cadet of the Mont. comp., and in ’27
was promoted to alf<5rez of the S.F. comp., though remaining at Mont. till
’30 as habilitado and sometimes acting com., being in ’27 a suplente of the
dip., and in ’29 a prisoner of the Solis revolters, besides making a somewhat
famous exped. against the Ind. ii. 583-4, 608; iii. 36, 65, 69, 73, 89, 112-14.
From ’30 he served at S.F., being com. from’31; but as memb. of the dip. during
the revolution against Victoria, of which he was an active promoter, and the
Zamorano-Echeandia regime of ’32, he was absent in the south much of the time.
iii. 50, 99, 187, 189,192-3, 200, 212, 216-19, 365, 399,701. In ’33, though
denied a place in the dip. on account of his mil. rank, V. was sent to the
northern frontier to select a presidio site and to inspect the Russian
establishment, on which he made a report; and was also occupied by troubles
with his soldiers and with the missionaries, iii. 245-8, 254-5, 321-4, 393,
631, 699, 716; iv. 161-2. In ’34 he was promoted to lieut, sent as comi-
sionado to secularize Solano mission, and was grantee of the Petaluma rancho,
besides being intrusted with the preliminary steps toward establishing a civil
govt at S.F., and being elected a substitute member of congress, iii. 256-8,
279, 292, 712, 719-20. In ’35 he was the founder of Sonoma, being made com.
mil. and director of colonization on the northern frontier, engaging also in
Ind. campaigns, iii. 286-7, 294, 354, 360, 363, 721-3; and from this time was
indefatigable in his efforts to promote the settlement and development of the
north, efforts that were none the less praiseworthy because they tended to
advance his own personal interests. From ’35 he was the most independent and in
some respects the most powerful man in Cal. The year ’36 brought new
advancement, for though Lieut V. took no active part in the revolution, yet
after the first success had been achieved, such was the weight of his name,
that under Alvarado’s new govt he wa3 made comandante general of Cal., taking
the office on Nov. 29th, and was advanced to the rank of colonel by the Cal.
authorities; and in the sectional strife of ’37-9, though not personally
taking part in mil. operations, he had more influence than any other man in
sustaining Alvarado, being advanced by the Mex. govt in ’38 to the rank of
capt. of the comp, and colonel of defensores, his position as comandante
militar being recognized by Mex. from ’39. iii. 423, 429-30, 440-3, 456-7,
471-4, 488-9, 511-14, 523-5, 531-4, 541-4, 546-7, 561-2, 567, 570,-4, 579-83,
590-2, 594, 670, 718; iv. 47, 67, 70-4, 86-7, 145. The new admin.
being fully established,
Gen. V. gave his attention not only to the development of his frontera del
norte, but to an attempted reorganization of the- presidial companies in
anticipation of foreign invasion, and to the commercial interests of Cal.; but
insuperahle obstacles were encountered, the general’s views being in some
respects extravagant, the powers at Mont. not being in sympathy with his
reforms, and a quarrel with Alvarado being the result. Meanwhile no man’s name
is more prominent in the annals of ’39-42, space permitting special reference
here only to his relations with Sutter and with the Russians, iii. 595-604; iv.
11-12, 61, 92, 121, 128-9, 133-4, 165, 171-8, 196, 198-206, 208, 213-14,
218-20, 237-9, 249-52, 273-5. After several years of controversy with the gov.,
and large sacrifices of private means in fruitless efforts to serve his
country, the general induced the Mex. govt to unite the mil. and civil commands
in one officer from abroad, and turned over his command to Micheltorena in ’42.
There is no foundation for the current charge that he sought the governorship
and overreached himself. Under the new admin, he was promoted to lieut-colonel
and made com. mil. of the linea del norte, his jurisdiction extending south to
Sta In6s. iv. 281-93, 312-17, 338. In ’43 he was granted the Soscol rancho for
supplies furnished the govt, his grant of Petaluma being extended; and was
engaged in ’43-4 not only in his routine duties and efforts for progress, but
in minor controversies with Micheltorena, Mercado, and Sutter, iv. 351-3,
356-7, 373, 386-8, 396, 402, 407-8, 423, 444-5, 672, 674. Prom this time the
general clearly foresaw the fate of his country, and became more and more
satisfied with the prospects, though still conscientiously performing his
duties as a Mex. officer. In the movement against Micheltorena in ’44-5 he
decided to remain neutral, unwilling and helieving it unnecessary to act
against a ruler appointed through his influence, and still less disposed to
engage in a campaign, the expense of which he would have to hear, in support of
a treacherous governor; but he discharged his soldiers to take sides as they
chose, and warmly protested against Sutter’s villany in arming foreigners and
Ind. against his country, the only phase of the affair likely to give a serious
aspect to the expulsion of the cholos. Meanwhile he was a faithful friend to
the immigrants, iv. 459-60, 462-5, 481-2, 486, 516, 519, 530, 561, 603, 608. In
the spring of ’46 he was an open friend of the U.S. as against the schemes for
an English protectorate, though his famous speech on that subject must be
regarded as purely imaginary, v. 17, 28, 36, 41, 43, 46, 59-63, 66, 105-6; and
in June-Aug., perhaps because of his devotion to the cause of the U.S. in its
more legitimate form, he was cast into prison at Sutter’s fort by the Bears,
being rather tardily released by the U.S. authorities, and even awarded some
slight honors, and a considerable amount of his ‘Cal. claim’ heing later
allowed as partial recompense for his losses, v. 111-21, 123-6, 157, 297-300.
467-8. Commissions of hrevet colonel and colonel were issued to him in Mex. in
July and Sept. Still mindful of the interests of his section, he gave the site
on which Benicia was founded, the town being named for his wife. v. 670-1; and
in ’47 he received the appointments of legislative councillor and Ind. agent.
V. 433, 539, 568, 610, 667-8. In ’49 Vallejo was a memher of theconstit.
convention, in ’50 a member of the 1st state senate; from that time he was
engaged in brilliant aril financially disastrous schemes to make Benicia the
permanent capital of Cal., of which more will he found in vol. vi. of this
work; and in ’52 et seq. the claimant for several ranchos, with varying
success. In later years Gen. V. has continued to reside at Sonoma to ’85, often
called upon to take part in puhlic affairs, though reduced financially to what,
in comparison with the wealth that once seemed secure in his grasp, must seem
like poverty. That he has heen from 1830 one of the leading figures in Cal.
annals is clearly shown in the records to which I have referred above; and in
connection with the narrative thus referred to will be found much of comment on
his acts and character. Here it must suffice to say that without hy any means
having approved his course iu every case, I have found none among the
Californians whose puhlic record in respect of honorable conduct, patriotic
zeal, executive ability, and freedom from petty prejudices of race, religion,
or sectional poli-
tics is more evenly
favorable than his. Aa a private citizen he was always generous and
kind-hearted, maintaining his self-respect as a gentleman, and commanding the
respect of others, never a gambler or addicted to strong drink, though hy no
means strict in his relations with women. In the earlier times he was not in
all respects a popular man by reason of his haughty, aristocratic, overbearing
ways that resulted from pride of race, of wealth, and of military rank.
Experience, however, and long before the time of his comparative adversity,
effected a gradual disappearance of his least pleasing characteristics, thongh
the general still retained a pompous air and grandiloquence of speech that
unfavorably impress those who know him but slightly. He is in, a sense the last
survivor of old-time Californians of his class; and none will begrudge him the
honor that is popularly accorded, even if praise sometimes degenerates into
flattery. He is a man of some literary culture, and has always taken adeep
interest in his country’s history. Many of his writings are named in my list
of authorities. His services to me in this connection have been often and most
gladly acknowledged. His collection of Doc. Hist. Cal. is a contribution of
original data that has never heen equalled in.this or any other state. His MS.
Historia de Cal., while of course not to he compared with the original
documents, is not only the most extensive but the most fascinating of its
class; and while, like the works of Bandini, Osio, Alvarado, Pico, and the
rest, it is a strange mixture of fact and fancy, yet to a student who has the
key to its cipher, it is a most useful aid; and moreover it should be stated
that its defects are not all fairly attributable to the author. In ’32 Vallejo
married Francisca, daughter of Joaquin Carrillo of S. Diego, who still lives in
’85. They had 13 children. None of the sons has ever been prominent in public
life; one of them, Platon, is a well-known physician of Vallejo—a town that,
like a street in S.P., bears his father’s name; and two others still reside in
Cal. Two of the daughters married the Frisbie brothers and two others the
Haraszthys all well-known men, and four or five I think still live in Cal.
Vallejo (Salvador),
son of Ignacio, b. in ’14. His early years were passed as a ranchero, but in
’36 his brother established him at Sonoma, where he ranked as. capt. of
militia, was often in com. of the post, engaged in many Ind. campaigns, went
south to serve Alvarado in the Las Flores campaign of ’38, served as juez de
paz in ’39, when he also had an appointment as admin, of Solano mission; was
capt. of defensores from ’44. iii. 511-12, 522, 547, 552, 529, 531, 591, 720-3,
71-2, 163, 197, 252, 355, 362-3, 407, 444, 465, 678. He was grantee of the Napa
rancho in "38, of Salvador’s rancho in ’39, and of Lup- yomi in ’44. iii.
705, 712; iv. 671. In ’46 he was a prisoner of the Bears, v. 112-21, 298-9; is
named in connection with the Walla Walla affair, v. 302; and had a Cal. claim,
$11,000 of which was paid, v. 467. He is said to have made a large amount of money
in ’48-9 by the aid of Ind. miners; but his lands passed gradually out of his
possession, though he was a successful el. for Llajome. iv. 671. In ’63 he was
commissioned major of the native Cal. cavalry, going to Ariz., but engaging in
no active service. He died at Sonoma, where he had long lived with the general,
in ’76. Hon Salvador was a rough, hard-dunking, unprincipled fellow; recklessly
brave, and often inhumanly cruel in his Ind. warfare; very popular among his
countrymen, though easily provoked to quarrel; generous and hospitable to the
early immigrants, though hostile to Americans and to all foreigners a3 a rule.
He dictated some Notas Bistdricas for my use, but his good qualities as a
historian did not include truthfulness. His wife was Marfa de la Luz Carrillo,
but I have no further information about his family. Vallely (John), 1847, Co.
G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Vallivode (Stephen), 1839-40, doubtful name, mr of the
Elena, iv. 103. Vallobodski (Stephen), 1837, mr of the Sitka, iv. 106; doubtful
name, prob. same as preceding. Valois (Antoine), 1846, Frenchman at Los Ang.
Val- verde (Agustin), tailor at Los Ang. ’39, age 27. V. (Jos6 M.), Mex. tailor
at Los Ang. ’36, age 29, wife Franeisca, child Jos£.
Vanallen (John), at
Sta Cruz. Vanaken (Paul), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). Vanauken
(Philander), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Vanbuseum (J.V.), 1847, Co. B,
ditto; d. before *82. Vance (Robert), 1847,
Co. F, 3d U.S.
artill. (v. 518); living iii ’64. Vancoeur (Francis), 1846, from N. Mex. with
Kearny. Lancey. Vancouver (Geo.), 1792, English navigator who accompanied Capt.
Cook in his famous voyages; and in 1792-4 three times visited Cal. in com. of
an exploring exped. to the N. W. coast and round the world. His Voyage
contains much of interest on Cal., and is a standard work on the regions
farther north. Capt. V. died in 1798. For his visits to Cal. and his book, see
i. 510-29; ment. i. 503, 506, 533, 538, 602, 619,623, 645
6, 649, 653, 658-9, 667-9, 674-5, 681-2,
685-6, 696, 698, 702-5, 714, 724; ii. 23, 121-2, 206; see also Hist N. W.
Coast, i., this series. Vanderbeck (J), 1847, owner of a S.F. lot. Vandussey,
1847, at Sutter’s fort. Vanegas (Cosme), inv&lido at Sta B. ’32, wife
Bemardina Alvarez, child Estefana; ranchero at Sta B. ’45. V. (Jos6), Ind.
settler at Los Ang. 1781; alcalde’88, ’96. i. 345,
348, 461, 661. V. (Pablo), at Sta B. before ’37,
wife Rita Rodriguez, and 4 children. Vanhorn (Barnett), 1847, Co. F, 3d U.S.
artill. (v. 518); d. before ’64. Vankenscn (Jeremiah), 1847, Co. I, N.Y.Vol.
(v. 499); d. Aroca, N.Y., ’55. Vannesa (Henry), 1848, nat. of N.J., who came
from the Society Isl., became a pilot on S. F. Bay, and was lost in ’67 on the
pilot-boat Caleb Curtis, age 47, leaving a widow and 3 children. Vanpelt
(Jacob), 1847, Co. E, N. Y.Vol. (v. 499); owner of S.F. lot; d. at S.F. ’49.
Vanriper (Abraham),
1847, sergt Co. E, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. on the
Mokelumne ’48-9. Van- vechten (Geo.), 1847, Co. H, ditto; at New Brunswick,
N.J., ’74-82, Van- zandt (R. H.), 1847, mid. on the U.S. Columbus.
Varela, 1818, mr of
the Kuperto. ii. 291-2. V. (Casimiro), one of tbe 1st settlers at S.F. 1777. i.
297. V. (Hilario), ringleader with his brother in a Los Ang. revolt. ’44—5;
also in ’46. iv. 476, 538, 540-1; v. 308. V. (Manuel), killed by Pomponio
before ’24. ii. 537- V. (S^rbulo), brother of Hilario, a turbulent character
at Los Ang. ’38-9, age 26; engaged in revolts of ’456; and taking part in the
last campaigns against the U.S. iii. 564, 589; iv. 540-1; v. 307-14, 325.
Varelas (Casimiro), settler at Los Ang. 1790; d. before 1816. V. (Cayetano),
settler at Los Ang. 1809-19; still there in ’46. ii.
349, 354. V. (Ignacio), settler at Los Ang. ’15.
ii. 349. Vargas (Francisco), Los Ang. trader ’39, age 37; alterez of Mont.
comp. ’43, and appointed instructor of the S. Juan comp, of defensores ’44. iv.
652, 407. V. (Josefa Rodriguez de), wife of Capt. Soler. i. 398. V. (Jos6
Mannel), 1828, Mex. convict, liberated in ’34. V. (Julian), 1831, perhaps of
Young’s party from N. Mex. iii. 388. V. (Manuel), 1781, soldier of the Mont.
comp.; cabo dis- tingnido in 1787; sergt of the comp, from about ’87 to ’94,
being generally employed by Gov. Fages as a clerk. On retiring from the service
he taught school at S. Jos6, S. Diego, and Sta B. down to 1800 or later, i.
468, 484, 642-4, 680, 688. His wifej married at S.F. 1783, was Maria Gertrudis
Linares, and in ’95 there was a daughter named Micaela. V. (Mariano), friar
named for Cal. 1801; did not come. ii. 159. Vargas Machuca, 1834, named by
Janssens as a Mex. alf^rez who came with the colony. Varney, 1841, mr of the
Thos Perkins, iv. 569. V. (Sam.), 1846, mr of the Angola, v. 576; and trader at
S.F. ’46-8.
Vasquez, at Mont.
’28. ii. 615. V., at S.F. ’44, age 48. V., mr of the Flecha ’48. V. (Antonio), soldier
of the Mont. comp. ’36, age 20; pei-haps the man killed at Los Ang. ’45. iv.
492. V. (Atanasio), settler at S. Jos6 1786. i. 477. V. (Felipe), of the Mont.
policia ’33. iii. 673; grantee of Chamizal ’35. iii. 677; in ’36 at Pilarcitos,
age 54, wife Maria Nicanor Lugo, child. Jos6 Ant. b. ’20, Pedro ’22, Dionisio
’24, Sinforosa ’26, and Manuel ’32. V. (Hermenegildo), soldier at Mont. 1809;
regidor at S. Jos6 ’27. ii. 605; grantee of land ’35. V. (Jos£), .soldier of
S.F. comp. ’19-24; at Mont. ’48; S. Luis Ob. ’51. V. (Jos6 Ign.), settler at S.
JosiS 1777. i. 312. V. (Jos£ Maria), 1829, Mex. convict set a liberty ’33; at
S. Jos6 ’41, age 31, wife Andrea Garcia, child Susana b. ’36. V. (Julio), at
Mont. ’36, nat. of Cal., age 40, wife of Brigida German, child. Ambrosia b.
’16, Apolonia’18, Ramon ’23, Gregorio ’26, Domingo ’28, Maria Guad. ’30,
Altagraeia ’32, Perseverancia ’33, Juan ’34, Marcos '35. V. (Pedro), applic.
for land ’45. iv. 656; cl. for Son- lajule ’52. iv. 674; Cal. claim $3,375
’46-7 (v. 462). Vasquez (Tibnrcio),
Mex. settler at S.F.
1777, and at S. Jos6 *83. i. 297, 350 (another named as a convict of ’98. i.
606); named in the S. Jos<5 padron of ’93, wife Maria Bo- horques, child.
Felipe, Maria, Hermenegildo, Rosalia, Faustino, and F61ix; alcalde 1802, 1807.
ii. 134, 192; sfndico’24. ii. 605. He seems to have died in ’27. The famous
bandit of later years was prob. his grandson. V. (Tiburcio), prob. son of the
preceding; soldier of the S.F. comp. ’19-25; in '39 regidor at S.F., and
grantee of Corral de Tierra rancho, iii. 705, 711; in ’40-6 admin, and maj. of
S.F. mission, iii. 715; iv. 675; v. 660; named in the padron of ’42, b. at S.
Jos6, age 49, wife Alvira Hernandez, child. Juan Jos6 b. 25, Bdrbara ’27,
Josefa ’29, Siriaca ’31, Jos6 Marfa ’32, Purificacion ’33, Luciano ’34,
Francisco ’36, Francisca’38, and Pablo ’40. He was still at S.F., a witness in
the Santillan case, ’55. V. (Tinioteo), at Branciforte 1803. ii. 156.^
Vassilief, 1820, com. of Russ, vessels, ii. 319.
\ ealy (John), 1829,
Amer. cooper, age 34, who landed at S. Pedro ill from a Hon. vessel. Vedder
(Peter G.), 1847, Co. H, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. in Nicaragua’56. Vega
(Jos<5), sergt killed by Ind. at the Colorado Riv. pueblos, i. 359-62. V.
(Matfas), soldier at S. Juan Cap. 1776; killed at Colorado Riv. pueblos 1781.
i. 303, 359-62. V. (Victoriano), 1834, came from Mex. in the H. & P. colony
at the age of 24; in ’77 at S. Gabriel gaining a living by making cigarettes.
He gave me a MS. dictation of 62 p. on Vida Galiforniana. His real name was
Esparza. V. (Jos6 M.), 1769, Span, arriero killed by Ind. at S. Diego, i. 138.
V. (Emigdio), juez de campo at Los Ang. [38; juez de paz at S. Juan ’44-5;
grantee of Boca de la Playa ’46. iii. 636;
iv. 627. In ’46 living at S. Juan Cap. He was
35 years old, wife Rafaela Avila, child. Maria de Jesus b. ’38, Jesus ’43,
Ramon ’45. V. (Emilio), aided in taking Los Ang. ’37. iii. 519. V. Enrique),
juez de campo at Los Ang. ’40. ii. 637. V. (Francisco), settler at S. Jos6
1791-5. i. 716-17; man of same name, son of Ricardo, at Los Ang. ’46-77. V.
(Juan Cris6stomo), regidor at Los Ang. ’39, age 25. iii. 636; member of the
council ’65-70. V. (Ldzaro and Manuel), at Los Ang. ’46. V. (Pablo), son of
Salvador, b. at S. Diego in 1802; soldier of the S. D. comp, from ’21, but soon
sent to Mont. for an attempt to desert. In ’28-9 he was a leader in the revolt,
and wasvsent to Mex. in ’30, but returned in ’33. iii. 66-7, 69, 74, 85; again
ment. in ’37. iii. 519; and in a revolt of ’46, being taken prisoner at S.
Pascual. v. 308, 347. His wifo was a daughter of Juan M. F6lix and Isabel Cota.
In ’77, living near Spadra with his brother Ricardo, with a large family and in
great poverty, he dictated 90 pages of the Eecuerdos de un Viejo for my use. V.
(Ramon), at Los Ang. ’46. V. (Ricardo), son of Salvador; in ’33 juez de campo
Los Ang. iii. 635; grantee of S. Josd, or Azuza, ’37-40. iii. 633; age 28
in’39. He became a rich man, but was reduced to poverty, and in ’77 lived near
Spadra with a large family. V. (Salvador), 1792, Mex. carpenter-instructor at
S. Diego ’92-5; at Mont. ’96. i. 615, 684. His wife was Maria Josefa Lopez.
Vela (Martin), at
Branciforte ’28-30. ii. 627; wife Maria de la Luz Fucntes. Velarde (Baltasar),
at S. Bern. ’46, age 34. V. (Desiderio), Los Ang. hatter, age 38, in ’39. V.
(Jacobo), settler at S. Jos<3 1791-1800. i. 716; alcalde in ’98. Velasquez
(Josd), 1781, alf^rez of the S. Diego comp., engaged in explorations to the
Colorado Riv. and in other directions; d. at S. Gabriel 1785.
i. 340, 367, 451, 454-5; ii. 44. V. (Jos^),
1798, convict settler at Branciforte 1798-1803. i. 606; ii. 156. V. (Jos£),
corporal of the S. Diego comp. 1803. ii. 14, 103. Velez (Miguel), sirviente at
S.F. 1777. i. 297. V. (Rafael), appointed sec. of the com. gen. ’29; did not
come. iii. 54. Velsor (Stephen), 1847, Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. before’82.
Vendurm, 1846, doubtful name in a Los Ang. list.
Verdia (Josij), died in ’16, leaving his
property to the mission fund. ii. 407; iv. 338. Verdugo (Cris6stomo), at Los
Ang. 46. V. (Francisco), at Los Ang. ’39, age 38. V. (Jos<5 Antonio), at S.
Bern. ’46, age 20. V. (Jos6 Maria), retired corp. of the S. Diego comp, and S.
Gabriel escolta, who was grantee of the S. Rafael rancho in 1784, '98, and is
often named down to 1816 in connection with farming operations, i. 553, 609,
612, 661, 664; ii. Ill, 185,
350, 353, 663; iii. 634. V. (Juan Diego), at S.
Diego 1776; wife Maria Ign.
de la Concepcion
Carrillo, who in ’50 was cl. for tbe F£lix rancho, granted in ’43. iv. 634;
daughter Rosalia, married to Sergt Gongora. V. (Julio), son of Jos6 Maria; aux.
alcalde at S. Rafael rancho ’31, ’33, ’36, and juez de campo ’40. iii. 635-7;
cl. for the rancho ’52. V. (Manuel), juez de campo at S. Diego ’41. iv. 619;
soldier, retired with rank of lieut ’44. iv. 408. V. (Mariano), 1769, soldier
of the 1st exped., serving in the S. Diego comp.; sergt at Mont. ’81-7; settler
at Los Ang. 1787-1819 or later, being alcalde in 1790-3, 1802; grantee of
Portezuelo rancho 1795. i. 252-3, 461, 468, C61-2;
ii. 110, 350, 353-4, 663. V. (Miguel), at Sta
Ana rancho Los Ang. ’39, age 26; at S. Juan Cap. ’41. iv. 626. V. (Pedro and
Teodoro), at Los Ang. ’46. Verdnzco (Francisco), 1834, Mex. ex-capt., who was
connccted with the H.
& P. colony; bat being implicated ill the
alleged revolt of ’35 was sent to Mex. as a prisoner, iii. 281, 286, 288.
Vergara (Quirino), 1842, comet in the batallon fijo ’42-5. iv. 289.
Vermeule (Thomas L.),
1847, lieut Co. E, N.Y. Vol. v. 504, 511; nat. of N.J.; memb. of the constit.
convention ’49; lawyer, politician, and writer for the newspapers. He died at
S. Jos6 before ’67. Vermilion (John), 1840, one of the exiles not known to have
returned, iv. 18. Vernon (Richard), 1848, overl. immig. with Allsopp. Verrot
(Joseph), 1844, Canadian of Fremont’s- party, remaining in (Jal. iv. 437, 439,
453; named in the N. Helv. Diary, ’46 -8; an early settler of Yuba Co.;
connected with the Donner relief, v. 537; married Mary Luther in ’48, and a
son, Charles, was born in ’50. Usually called ‘Vero’ or ‘Varro.’ Vevis
(Joseph), 1847, chief musician of N.Y.Vol.
v. 503; d. before ’82. Vhor (Christopher),
1836, Arabian, age 49, at Mont-
Viader (Jos6), 1796,
Span, friar who served for 37 years at Sta Clara, leaving Cal. in ’33. Biog.
iii. 726-7; rnent. i. 577, 719-20, 723; ii. 56-7, 135, 137, 153, 159, 168, 218,
387, 394, 577, 585, 600, 623, 655; iii. 20, 88-9, 96, 318, 338, 365, 727. Viana
(Francisco), 1791, lieut in Malaspina’s exped. i. 490. Vice (James), 1846,
sailor on the Dale. Vicente, corp. at Sta B. ’38. iii. 656. Vieh (Chris.),
1845, Amer. at Branciforte, age 20; doubtful name. Vichilman, 1823, mr of the
Buldakcf. ii. 492. Victoria (Manuel), 1830, Mex. lieut-colonel, who came in ’30
as gov. and com. gen. of Cal.—appointment March 8th, arrival Dec.—and held
that office from Jan. 31, ’31, to Dec. 9th, when he yielded to a successful
revolutionary movement, and sailed for Mex. Jan. 17, ’32. He was an honest and
energetic officer, who as general' forgot that he was also governor; ignored
the diputacion and all civil authorities and precedents; and by his well-meant
short cuts to justice by military methods soon provoked a revolution that
overwhelmed him. All that is known, of the man is contained in the narrative of
his rule aud downfall, iii. 181— 212. See also meut. in ii. 549, 551, 594; iii.
26, 54, 216-17, 233, 306-8, 364, 367-8, 374-6, 647, 652, 669-70; iv. 160. Vidal
(Francisco), 1602, corp. in Vizcaino’s exped. i. 98. V. (John A.), 1847, Co. F,
N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); settled at Sta B., where in ’53 he was killed in a fight
over the possession of a rancho. See Sta B. Co. Hist., 82. V. (Mariano), 1776,
purveyor of Anza’s exped. to Cal. i. 258, 266.
Vigil (Francisco
Est6van), 1841, in com. of a trading caravan from N. Mex. ’41-2, and again in ’48.
iv. 207, 343; v. 625. Vignes (Jean), 1834, nephew of Louis, age 22, who came
from Hon. on the D. Quixote to join his relatives at Los Ang. V. (Jean Louis),
1831, Fr. cooper and distiller, who. came from Hon. on the Louisa at the age of
48. iii. 405. His Fr. passp. was dated Bordeaux ’26. He at onee applied for
naturalization; in ’32 joined the comp, extranjera at Mont. iii. 221; but soon
settled at Los Ang., where he was in a sense the pioneer vineyardist and
wine-maker, being joined by his nephew in ’34. His name is occasionally
mentioned in ’36 et seq., he being; one of the vigilantes in ’36, an applicant
for Sta Catalina Isl. in ’40, and riding in the campaign against Micheltorena
’45. iii. 417, 634; iv. 117, 495, 629; v. 49, 283, 365; had a Cal. claim of
about $1,000 ’46-7 (v. 462). He was. founder of the wine-making firm of
Sainsevain & Co.; was the cl. for Temecula—of which he bad been in reality
the grantee in ’45, and of Pauba; and died at Los Ang. ’62 at the age of 79 (or
82). He had no family in Cal., was
an excellent and
popular citizen, and was familiarly known as Don Luis del Aliso, from an
immense sycamore, or cottonwood, on his land at Los Ang. V. (Pierre E.), Fr. at
Branciforte ’45, age 50; at S. Jos<5 ’47.
Vila (Vicente), 1769,
com. of the S. Cdrlosin the lstexped. ’69-70. i. 116, 128-9, 136, 165-8. Villa
(Antonio M.), prob. son of Joaquin; cl. for Te- quepis rancho, Sta B. iv. 643.
V. (Buenaventura), soldier of the Mont. comp. ’36, age 26. V. (Demetrio), at
Los Ang. 39-48. V. (Diego), cole- gial at Sta In6s *44. iv. 426. V.
(Eleuterio), invdlido soldier ’44-5. iv. 468. V. (Francisco), at Los Ang. 19.
ii. 354; in charge of S. Jos6 del Valle ’36.
iii. 612; zanjero>atS. Gabriel ’47. v. 62S;
juez de campo at S. Luis Ob. ’49; still at S. Luis ’51. V. (Joaquin), soldier
at Sta B. before ’37; maj. at Sta. In6s ’39. iii. 664; grantee of Tequcpis ’45.
iv. 643. V. (JosiS), settler at. Los Ang. 1790. i. 461. V. (Luis), at Los Ang.
’46. V. (Maria del Rosario), executed by vigilantes at Los Ang. ’36. iii.
417-19. V. (Manuel), soldier of S.F. comp. ’32-3. V. (Mariano), at Los Ang.
’39, age 22; also in ’46. V. (Mariano), 1842, Mex. lieut of the batallon fijo
’42-5; remained in Cal. ’4G.
iv. 289, 513; v. 41. V. (Miguel), settler for
Los Ang., who deserted before reaching Cal. i. 345. V. (Rafael), cabo
inv&l. 1793 at S. Jos6, wife II- defonsa, child. Pascual, Eleuterio, Rafael
Gertrudis, Maria Ign., and Juaoa. The full name was prob. ‘ Villavicencio,’
q.v. V. (Rafael), son of preceding, at S. Luis Ob. ’42-60. V. (Vicente), at Los
Ang. ’19; regidor in ’27. ii 354, 560.
Villagrana (Jos<5
F6lix), Mex. at S. Jos<5 ’41, age 52, wife Bemardina Martinez, child.
Guadalupe b. ’26, Juana ’31, Lucia ’36, Dolores ’38; d. in ’47. V. (Manuel),
regidor at Branciforte ’32. iii. 696. V. (Miguel), Mex. resid. of Branciforte
from ’28, alcalde ’36, grantee of Aguagito ’37, juez de campo- ’38. ii. 637;
iii. 676, 697. In the padron of ’45 named as 66 years old, wife Francisca
Juarez, child. Carpio b. ’25, Eugenio ’27, Dorotea ’29, Ignacia ’31, Leandro-
’31, Jos6 Ign. ’34, AndriSs ’38, Ponciana ’40. V. (Miguel), at Branciforte ’45,
age 23, wife Concepcion, child. Julian b. ’40, Jos6 ’44. Villalba (Nicolas),
settler o{ the Colorado Riv. pueblos, killed by Ind. 1781. i. 359-62. Villalobos
(Jos£), at Los Ang. ’48. Villapando (Juan de J), mule-thief ’33. iii. 396.
Villarasa (Francis S.), 1848, said to have preached at Stockton. Villaroel
(Francisco), 1777, com. of the S. Antonio, i. 310. Villaverde (Alonso), lieut
for Cal. 1779; did not come. i. 340. V. (JosiS), 1782, chaplain on the
Favorita. i. 378. Villavicencio (F6lix), Span, settler of Los Ang. 1781-6. i.
345, 348. V. (Jos6 Maria), resid. of Mont. ’36, age 36, wife Rafaela Rodriguez,
child. Jos6 Ant. b. ’34, Jos<3 Ramon ’35; being at the time juez de campo.
iii. 675. As capt. in Alvarado’s force, and at times com. at Sta
B., he was
prominent in the operations of ’36-8. iii. 460, 481, 505, 524-5, 546, 550,
552-3, 5G1, 565, 651, 672; also admin, of S. Antonio and S. Fernando ’37-8, ’40-3.
iii. 647-8, 688; iv. 61, 63S; acting prefect at Mont. ’40.
iii. 675; grantee of Corral de Piedra, S. Luis
Ob., ’41, ’46. iv. 655; in ’44 juez. de paz at S. Luis Ob., and capt of
defensores. iv. 407, 462, 658-9; also serving against the U.S. at S. Diego
’46. v. 267. Still at S. Luis ’51-2, and later a, prosperous ranchero. Often
called by himself and others ‘Villa.’ V. (Rafael), weaver at S. Jos<5
1791-1811. i. 716, 718; ii. 378. V. (Rafael), grantee of S. Ger6nimo, S. Luis
Ob., in "42. iv. 655; and cl. in ’52. Villela. (Felipe), soldier at Sta B.
before ’37; at Los Ang. ’39, age ’35. V. (Juan M. M.), settler at S. Jos6 1777;
did not remain, i. 312. V. (Marcos), soldier at. Soledad 1791 et seq.; invdl.
at Branciforte ’99. i. 499, 511.
Viflals (Josei),
1798, Span, friar who served at S. C&rlos, retiring in 1804. Biog. ii.
146-7; ment. i. 577, 6S6; ii. 159-60, 166. Vincent, 1848, mr of the Zach
Taylor, built at Sta Cruz. Fresno Co. Hist., 51. V. (Calvin), 1846,. came to
Sta Clara. Hall. V. (E. C.), 1848, passp. from Hon. V. (Geo. W.), 1826, nat. of
Mass. and mate of the Courier. He came back as mr of the- Monsoon ’39-40; and
in ’44-6 com. the Sterling; owner of a S.F. lot and of a. Cal. claim ’46-7. In
’48 he was mr of the Sabine, and remained at S.F., where- he was killed in the
fire of’51. iii. 146, 176; iv. 105, 568; v. 296, 580. Ason,
N.Y.Vol. v. 504; at
Linn Creek, Mo., ’82. Vincenthaler (L. C.), 1846, in Cal. during the war of
’46-7; prob. went east with Fremont or Stockton, v. 454; one of Fremont’s men
’4S. Vines (Bartlett), 1843, overl. immig. of the Walker-Chiles party with his
wife, who was a daughter of Geo. Yount, iv. 393, 400, 448. He settled in Napa
Val., and still lived there in ’81. A daughter was born in ’45. Vinson (Wm),
1847, Co. E, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499).
Vioget (Jean
Jacques), 1837, Swiss sailor and surveyor who came as mr of the Delmira ’37-9.
iv. 103,117-18. He settled at S.F., where he made the 1st town survey, owned a
lot, and built a house in ’39-40. iii. 706, 710; v. 679. In ’40 he was
naturalized, and from that time appears in various records as a trader, keeping
also a billiard-saloon, and being employed by Sutter in ’41 to make a survey of
his N. Helvetia grant, having of course much trouble to collect bis pay. iv.
179, 229-30, 237, 668. In ’44-5, renting his saloon or hiring a man to keep
it, he was mr of the Clarita; was employed to carry Micheltorena to Mex., and
was grantee of the Blucher rancho, Sonoma Co. iv. 480, 564, 670. In ’46-7 he
made a trip to Hon. and back on the Bon Quixote; and in ’47-8 was mr of the
Euphemia, running to the Islands, being judge of election, and advertising his
hotel—The Portsmouth House—for sale. v. 578, 650, 680. He lived at S. Jos6 ’49,
and in ’54 atS.F.,age 55. I find no later record of him. His wife was
apparently a Benavides. Vioget was a jolly, musical sort of fellow, speaking
several languages, a sailor and surveyor and hotel-keeper of some skill.
Virgen (Leonardo), soldier at Sta B. ’24. ii. 532. Virgin (Thomas), 1827, Amer.
at S. Diego.
Virmond (Henry),
1828, German merchant of Acapulco and the city of Mex., who did a large
business with Cal., where he was well known to nearly everybody before he
visited the country in ’2S-30. He was a skilful intriguer, bad extraordinary
facilities for obtaining the ear of Mox. officials, and was always the man
first sought to solicit any favor, commercial, military, civil, or
ecclesiastical, for bis many Cal. friends. Ho owned the Leonor, Maria Ester,
Catalina, Clarita, and many other vessels well known in the Cal. trade. He was
the tallest man ever seen here till the coming of Dr Semple; was a business man
of great enterprise; had many accomplishments and a Mex. wife; and had, also,
his leg broken by the kick of a mule while in Cal. ii. 594; iii. 58, 141-3,
147, 149, 233, 313, 398, 572; iv. 249, 285. Vischer (Edward), 1842, Ger. clerk
iu Virmond’s employ at Acapulco, who came to Cal. on the schr California. iv.
341, 349. After ’49 he became a resident, being an artist, and his Pictorial of
Cal. was a series of photographs from pencil sketches, with descriptive
matter, published under the title of Missions of Upper Cal. His drawings,
however, were all made after ’65. He died at S.F. after ’70.
Victoria (Marcos
Antonio Saizar de), 1805, nat. of the province of Alava, Spain, b. in 1760;
became a Franciscan in ’76; came to Mex. in 1804. His missionary service was at
Sta B. 1S03-6, S. Buen. 1805-17 and ’20-24, S. Fernando ’18-20, Purisima
’24-35, and Sta Ines ’35-6. His death occurred on July 25, ’36, at Sta In6s.
Padre Vitoria was a most virtuous and exemplary man, always in feeble health,
not accredited by his superiors with great ability, but beloved by his
neophytes. Autobig. Autog. de los Padres, MS.; Arch. Sta B.
iii. 48-50, 128; Sta Inis Lib. Mis., 19-21. See
mention in ii. 109, 121-2, 357, 490, 530, 578-9; iii. 96, 661-2, 664; iv. 63.
Vivaldo (Feliciano), 1842, sub- lieut of the batallon fijo ’42-5. iv. 289.
Vivero, 1800, com. of the Princesa.
i. 546. Vizcaino (Juan), 1769, Span, friar
who served for a brief term at S. Diego; was wounded by the Ind. in Aug.; and
retired on account of illness in’70. i. 127, 136, 138, 164-5. V. (Sebastian),
1602, Span, navigator in com. of an exped. that explored the Cal. coast 1602-3.
See complete record of his visit, and mention of a later one of 1613, in i.
97-105, 111, 151-2, 158, 169;
ii. 1. Vizcarra (Jos6), soldier at Sta Cruz
1795. i. 496.
Vonks (Stephen),
1837, doubtful name of mr of the Baical. iv. 101. Vor- bees (John), 1847, Co.
E, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Vorhies (Wm Van), 1848 (?), postal agent for the govt;
memb. of tbe 1st senate, and sec. of state under Gov. Burnett and his
successors; prominent in later years as politician, law-
year, and editor,
residing many years in Oakland. He died at Eureka in ’84. Vrandenburg (Adna),
1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). Vver (John), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons
(v. 336).
Waccodzy, or Wacoocky
(Basil), 1835, doubtful name of mr of the Sitka 35-6. iii. 384; iv. 106.
Waddell (Archibald), 1847, Co. E, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499). Wade, 1847, at Sutter’s
fort ’47-8, prob. one of the Mormons. W. (Edward W.), 1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat.
(v. 469); at Ogden, Utah, ’82. W. (Isaac), 1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v.
518); d.. before ’64. W. (Moses),
1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). W. (Wm), 1844,
deserter from the U.S. Warren. Wadleigh (Joseph), 1848, maker of pans at
Sutter’s fort ’48-9; went east with a fortune ’49. Grimshaw. Wadsworth (James
C. L.), 1847, came from N.Y. on the Whiton; became sutler’s clerk of N.Y. Vol.
v. 503; alcalde at Stockton ’49; a resident of S.F. in later years to ’85,
being a well- known mining man. He gave me his testimony on matters connected
with the Vigilance Committee. W. (Samuel), 1847, nat. of N.Y. and settler at
Sta Clara; d. at Pleasanton ’82 at the age of 62. Waggoner (P. W.), 1846, Cal.
Bat., Co. B, artill. (v. 358); enlisting at Sta Cruz Oct. Wagner (Thomas),
1848, nat. of Va, who died at Snelling ’77. Waine,
1846, lieut on the Levant. Wainwright (John), 1826, lieut on H. B. M. S.
Blossom ’26-7. iii. 121. W. (J. M.), 1847, acting mr of the U.S. Columbus;
perhaps J. W. Wakefield (Benj.), 1847, act. boatswain on the Preble.
Walcott (Ephraim),
1844, Amer. deserter from a vessel who worked at S. F. for Fink, going into
business for himself as a blacksmith in ’47. iv. 453, 683; also at Sutter’s
fort ’46-7. Wald (Wm), 1840, arrested at Los Ang.
iv. 14. Waldo (Geo.), 1846, officer of the Cal.
Bat. (v. 361). W. (Giles),
1848, passp. from Hon. Waldron, 1846, at Sutter’s
fort from S.F. Jnne. W. (J. W. and R. R.), 1841, brothers and officers on the
U.S. Vincennes. Walker, 1843, mate of the Admittance discharged at S. Diego; in
’45 mr of the John and Elizabeth; perhaps two men. . W. (Edwin), 1847, Co. D,
Morm. Bat. (v. 469); reenl. W. (Henry D.), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v.
336).
Walker (James T.),
1848, nat. of Tenn. and nephew of Capt. Joe W., who came overland, starting in
’47, but being obliged to winter on the way, through having, with the true
family instinct, sought a new route, v. 556-7. Working as teamster,
cattle-trader, and miner in ’48-9, he went east by sea and came baek aeross the
plains in ’50. The next year he went to Mo. via N. Mex., and in ’52 made his 3d
overl. trip to Cal. In ’53 he settled in Contra Costa, where he still lived in
’82, at the age of 57, with wife and 3 children. Portrait iu Contra Costa Co.
Ilist., 88. W. (Joel P.), 1841, nat. of Va, brother of Joseph, Ind. fighter
from ’14 in the Seminole aud other wars, later in the Sta F4 trade, overl.
immig. to Or. ’40, who came to Cal. with his family from Or., accompanying a
detaehment of the U.S. Ex. Ex. After working for Sutter, and later for Yount,
he returned to Or. with a drove of cattle, remaining there for
5 years, though he appears as owner of a S.
F. lot in ’45. iv. 233, 278-9, 347, 377, 390. He came back to Cal. in ’48,
lived at Napa till ’53, being a member of the constit. convention in ’49, and
1st assessor of Napa Co. In ’53 he moved to Sonoma Co., where he still lived in
’78 at the age of 81. His wife, Mary Young of Mo., was the 1st white woman to
arrive in Cal. by land or to settle north of the bay. They had a daughter
Louisa born in Or. ’41; and the other children who came to Cal. in ’41 were
John, Joseph, Newton, and Isabella. The 1st was living at Sebastopol in ’77. A
MS. Narrative furnished by Joel P. to Robt A. Thompson is in my collection.
Walker (Joseph
Reddeford), 1833, nat. of Tenn. who went to Mo. in ’19, where he served as
sheriff, and became one of the most skilful and famous of the guides,
mountaineers, Ind.-fighters, and trappers of the far west. His 1st visit to
Cal. was as eom. of a party of Bonneville’s trappers, spending the winter of
’33-4 at Mont. Walker’s lake, river, and pass were named for his discoveries on
this trip. iii. 389-92, 409, 669; iv. 264, 434. In ’41, nnless there is an
error in archive records, he came to Los Ang., prob. from N. Mex.,
•to buy horses, iv.
278. In ’43 he guided a division of Chiles’ immig. party by a southern route to
Cal., going back in ’44. iv. 393-5, 679. His next visit was in ’45-6 as guide
to Fremont’s party, a portion of which he brought through bis original Walker
pass. iv. 582-5; v. 3, 6. In July ’46 he was met by Bryant at Ft Bridger on his
return from Cal. Capt. W. continued his wauderings, with intervals of ranchero
life and stock-trading experience in Cal., for 20 years, making extensive
explorations in Arizona as well as in other sections; and then in ’66-7 he
settled in Contra Costa Co., living with his nephew James T., and dying in ’76
at the age of 78. Capt. Joe Walker was one of the bravest and most skilful of
the mountain men; none was better acquainted than he with the geography or the
native trihes of the great basin; and he was withal less boastful and
pretentious than most of his class. In his old age he was moved by the absurd
praise accorded to a ‘pathfinder’ who had merely followed the tracks of himself
and his trapper associates, to Bay many bitter and doubtless unjust things
against Frfimont, but his prejudice on this point was natural and merits but
slight censure. W. (R.), 1848, passp. from Hon. W. (W. M.), 1841, lieut in U.S.
Ex. Ex. iv. 241, W. (Wm), 1846, sailor on the Dale. W. (Wm), 1847, Co. B, Morm.
Bat. (v. 469). Walkinshaw (Rohert), 1847, nat. of Scotland and long resid. of
Mex., who came as sup. of the William, and took charge of the N. Almaden
quicksilver mine; cl. for Sta Clara lands ’52. iv. 673; left Cal. in’58 and
died in Scotland ’59. A man of the same name and apparently of the same family
resided at S.F. in ’85.
Wall (Richard), 1847,
Co. B, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. in S. Joaq. Co. after ’50. W. (Wm), 1847, owner of
a S. F. lot. Wallace (Geo.), 1845, Amer. at Mont.; in prison ’47. iv. 587. Wallen
(Edward), 1846, Co. A, Cal. Bat. (v. 358). Wallis (Wm), 1846, Co. F, ditto,
enlisting at S. Juan Oct. Walpole (Fred.), 1846, lieut on the Collingwood, and
author of Four Years in the Pacific, v. 213-14. Walsh (James), 1847, Co. A, N.Y.Vol.
(v. 499). W. (John), 1818 (?), resident of Benicia ’78-84, said to have visited
S.F. in ’18; prob. an error. W. (Robert A.), 1838 (?), priest at Hon. ’39, who
had apparently visited Cal. with his associate, Murphy.
Walter, see ‘Wolter.’
W. (Geo.), 1846, one of the Chino prisoners, v. 314; Co. A, Cal. Bat. (v. 358).
W. (John), 1847, perhaps of N.Y.Vol.; not •on roll. W. (Philip J.), 1832, Engl,
carpenter and naturalized citizen at Mont. ’32-6. iii. 408; perhaps ‘Watson.’
Waltham (Henry), 1848, passp. from Hon. Waltber (Geo.), 1847, Co. K, N.Y.Vol.
(v. 499); at Los Ang. ’71-4. Walton (Ambrose), 1841, overl. immig. of the
Bartleson party, who prob. returned east in ’42. iv. 270, 275, 342. W. (Major),
1841, ditto; or, acc. to some sketches, was drowned in the Sac. Riv.; also
named as one of the Chiles party of ’43. iv. 393. Walz (Geo.), 1847, Co. D,
N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).
Wambough (M. M.),
1846, apparently from Or. in June. v. 526; enlisting at S. Juan Oct. in Co. F,
Cal. Bat., of which he became lieut. v. 361. In ’47 he became the owner of land
in Sta Clara Co.; and in July, while on his way to Stockton’s camp, was robbed
and perhaps wounded near Altgeier’s place in the Sac. Val.; though in later
years, when he attempted to get relief from the govt, some doubt was thrown on
the robbery. I do not know if he was the senator to whom Wm B. Ide directed his
famous letter on the Bear revolt. Wa'nec (Wm), 1845, doubtful name of an Irish
resid. of Branciforte, age 45, single. Warbas (Thos A.), 1840 (?), on roll of Soc.
Cal. Pion. iv. 120; in ’42, acc. to list in the Herald of ’51; at S.F. ’54.
Warbeck (Henry K.), 1847, Co. I, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. at S.F. after ’50.
Warburton (Henry H.), 1847, Engl, physician who came as surgeon on the Corea
(?), and settled at Sta Clara, where he still lived in ’81, with wife,
Catherine Pennell, and 5 •child., Caroline, Ellen, John, Charles, and Henry.
Ward, 1848, of the
ship Confederation at S.F. W. (Andrew J.), 1847, Co. I, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); a
physician at Sutter’s fort ’47-8; at Madison, Wis., ’82. W. (C. L.), 1848, at
S.F. in August. W. (Edward C.), 1847, officer •on the U.S. Preble. W. (Frank),
1846, came from N. Y. on the Brooklyn,
though not a Mormon,
and opened a storeat S.F. as a member of the firm W.
& Smith, which became prominent for several
years; owner of town lota, inspector of election, marshal at the public
reception of Com. Stockton, acting alcalde, etc. v. 295-6, 455, 539, 546-7,
648, 679, 681, 685. In ’48 he testified on the Cal. claims at Wash., D.C., but
came back to Cal. with his wife, Henrietta Zimmerman, who died at S.F. in ’49.
A little later, in business reverses, he shot himself, but not fatally; went
east about ’53; came back soon after ’70, married the widow of Dr Bale, and
some years later started east by sea, drowning himself on the way. He was not a
very dissipated mau, but stylish and extravagant. W. (Geo. R.), 1839, owner of
a S.F. lot (?). W. (Henry), 1847, gunner on the Preble. W. (James C.), 1847,
brother of Frank, who came in March with letters to Larkin; owner of lots at
S.F., and member of the firm W. & Wells; inspector of election; lieut of S.
F. guard, somewhat prominent in polities ’47-8. v. 650-2. It was perhaps he
instead of his brother who shot himself. He lived in Mas3. ’55-78, then returning
to S.F., where he was a notary, and published his Diary of earlier times in the
Argonaut. He had a shock of paralysis, and was taken back to Mass., where he
died in ’S3, leaving a widow. W. (John), 1832 (?), nat. of Va, said to have
been at Los Ang. ’32-3. iii. 408; again in Cal. ’43-6, returning in ’49, and
dying at Los Ang. ’59. Los Ang. Co. Hist., 35. The only original record that I
find is a pass, for Sonora in ’45. W. (John B.), 1840, nat. of Ireland, who
came as a boy on the U.S. St Louis, visiting Mont. and S. F. He came back in
’49 on the steamer California; married Arcadia Concepcion Estudillo; was one of
the founders of S. Leandro; and still lives at S.F. in ’85. W. (0. R.), 1847,
at Mont. from Hon. on the D. Quixote. Wardell (Geo. S.), 1847, left S.F. on the
Chas Drew. Warden (Wm), 1829, mr of the Dhaulle, or Dolly, iii. 146. Wardlow
(Joseph), 1846, overl. immig. with family, v. 328; owner of Sonoma Co. lands in
’47.
Ware, 1847,
blacksmith at S. Buen. W. (T. H.), 1845, purser of the Warren ’45-8. W. (Wm),
1832 (?), Irishman, who prob. came this year from N. Mex., but possibly with
Walker in ’33. iii. 3S8, 391, 408. He worked as distiller, tanner, and
lumberman in the Sta Cruz region, his name often appearing on Larkin’s books
and other records from ’34. In ’40 he was arrested,
iv. 17; but got a license to remain; and in ’44
was naturalized. Wm H. Ware testified in Alameda Co. ’68 that he had been in
Cal. since ’32; and aec. to the newspapers, Uncle Billy lived at his Zayante
farm till his death in Feb. ’68. WTarfield, 1841, one of Lieut
Emmons’ guides from Or., with wife and child; perhaps remained. Wariug
(Richard), 1837, perhaps at Mont. Warley (Alex. F.), 1847, mid. on the U.S.
Independence. Warner (Caroline), 1846, of the Mormon colony, with 3 children,
v. 547; she married at S.F. a man named Thorp, and died some years before ’84.
W. (Cornelius), 1834, Amer. in a Mont. list. W. (John), 1840, Engl, exile, who
returned from S. Bias in ’41. iv. 18, 33, 120.
Warner (Jonathan
Trumbull, known in Cal. as Juan Josd, or John J.), 1831, nat. of Conn., who
went to St Louis and N. Mex. in ’30, was a clerk for Jed. Smith at the time of
the latter’s death, and came to Cal. in Jackson’s party of trappers, iii. 387,
405; iv. 264. He continued his occupation as a trapper in the Cal. valleys
during ’31-3, iii. 357, 393, and settled, ’34, at Los Ang., where he is
occasionally named in records of the following years, taking part with the
vigilantes in ’36, obtaining from the ayunt. a certificate of long residence the
same year, and in ’38 having an arm broken in resisting a search of his house
during the political wars. iii. 566. In ’39 he went east via Acapulco, and
thence overland to V. Cruz; and during his stay he delivered at Rochester,
N.Y., an interesting lecture on the far west, with special reference to a
Pacific railroad, returning to Cal. in ’41 on the Julia Ann. iv. 37, 223, 280,
566. In ’43 he got a license to hunt goats and seals on the Sta B. islands, iv.
642; and in ’44, being naturalized, he was grantee of the Agua Caliente rancho,
S. Diego district, where he lived with his family from ’45 to ’57, the place
being known as Warner’s rancho, and another, Camajal y el Palomar. being
perhaps granted in ’46. iii. 611, 620; v. 619. Here Gen.
Kearny’s force camped
in ’46 just before the fight of S. Pascual. v. 339; also the Mormon battalion
in ’47. v. 486; and here W. had much trouble with the Ind., notably at the time
of the Pauma massacre. Toaeertain extent Warner was a confidential agent of
Larkin for the U.S. in ’46. v. 63. In his Notes of ’45, Larkin described W. as
a man of good information, addicted to politics, with some influence likely to
increase. Since ’57 he has resided at Los Ang., holding at times the positions
of federal assessor and notary public, but much reduced financially. He has
written much for the papers on topics of early history, respecting some phases
of which, involving the trappers’ explorations, he is recognized as one of the
best authorities. He was selected to write the earliest annals for the
centennial Los Ang. Hist.; and he has furnished for my use a brief Biog.
Sketch, and a more extended book of Reminiscences, which I have often had
occasion to cite. He still lives at Los Ang. in ’85, age 78. About ’37 he
married Anita, daughter of Wm A. Gale, who died in ’59, leaving a son. W.
(Richard), 1S36, one of the Los Ang. vigilantes. W. (Wm. H.), 1846, capt. U.S.
top. engineers, who came from N. Mex. with Kearny, and was wounded at S.
Pascual. v. 336, 343-7. In ’47 he came to Mont. and S.P., where he obtained a
lot; and then engaged in trade with Sherman and Bestor at Coloma in ’48, having
previously made a survey of Sacramento City. He was killed in ’49 by the Pit
River Ind.
Warre (John), 1843,
Sutter writes that he is not at N.Helv., but prob. at Sonoma. Warren (James),
1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Warren (Wm), 1828 (?), negro known as ‘ Uncle
Billy,’ who died at S. Jos6 ’75; said in newspaper sketches to have come in
’28. iii. 178. W. (Wm R.), 1836, nat. of Mass. who had lived at Hon. some 10
years or more, being known as ‘Major.’ iv. 118. He signed the memorial to Com.
Kennedy at Mont. in Oct., unless Wm M. may have been another man. iv. 141; his
name appears on Larkin’s books in ’37-42; and he was for some years in eharge
of Spear’s store at Mont. Iu ’40-1 he made a trip to Hon. and back. iv. 100,
567; and his daughter Mary, a quarter-breed Hawaiian, eoming to Cal. about that
time, married W. D. M. ‘Howard,’q.v. Warren went back to Hon. and apparently
died before ’48. Warrington, 1846 (?), connected with the legislature of ’55.
W. (John), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at S. Jos6 ’50; d. in Mendocino
before ’82. W. (John H.), 1848, porter in U.S. naval store at Mont. ’48-9.
Wasden (Stephen J.),
1844, Amer. who got a pass. Washburn (Benjamin), 1844 (?), nat. of N.Y. who
had lived in 111. and Iowa, signed the call to foreigners at S. Jos6 in Mareh
’45, and prob. came overland in ’43 or ’44. iv. 453, 599. In April occurred the
death of his wife, Elizabeth Woodred, at S. Jose; and in Nov. W. was ill at
Perry’s farm near N. Helv. In April ’46 he was at S. Jos6; and in July is named
as one of the prisoners earned south by Castro, v. 136. I have no later rccord,
but W. is thought by Given to have died at S. Josg. W. (J.), 1845, at Sutter’s
fort; also at S. JosiS. Hall; perhaps an error, iv. 578, 587. W. (Lysander
E.), 1847, Co. C, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at N. Helv. and Sonoma ’47, taking part in
a dramatic performance at Sonoma; eapt. of Cal. volunteers in the war of ’61-5;
at S.F. ’71-82. Washington (Geo.), 1844, sailor on the Monmouth.
Watawha, or Wetowah,
1845, Delaware Ind. of Fremont’s party; died in the service, iv. 583. Waterfall
(Christian), 1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518). Waterman, 1841, mr of the
Braganza. iv. 563; perhaps same as the following. W. (Robert H.), 1848, nat. of
N.Y., and for many years a sea- captain; founder of Fairfield, Solano Co.,
where he still lived in ’79. His wife was Cordelia Sterling. Waters (C.), 1848,
from Hon.; clerk for Ross, Benton, & Co. at S.F. W. (James), 1844, nat. of
N.Y. and Roeky Mt trapper, who settled ijj S. Bern. Co., where he lived in ’76.
Watkins (Adolphus),
1846, eame from Hon. on the Elizabeth; owner of a
S.F. lot ’47. W. (B. F.),
1847, from N.Y.; a fruit-grower at Sta Clara ’76. W.
(Francis D.), 1847, owner of a S. F. lot; d. at Mission S. Jos6 ’48, age 33. W.
(James T.), 1832 (?), com. of steamers from about ’55, said to have touched at
S. Diego in ’32; died in China ’67; a nat. of Md age 59. Also ealled James W.,
and accredited to ’44. iv. 453. W. (Richard), 1846, one of the party captured
with
Alcalde Bartlett by
Sanchez; in ’82 a judge in Mono Co. Watmough (James- H.), 1846, pnrser on the
U.S. Portsmouth, who was com. of the Sta Clara garrison in Aug. and made a
successful campaign against the Ind. on ■'.ho
Stanislaus, v. 102, 239-40, 294, 378, 567, 661. He was owner of a S.F. lot. v.
685; and in ’47 bought land in Sonoma Co. from
Vallejo, being in ’53 an unsuccessful
cl. for part of the Petaluma rancho. Iu later years he was a paymaster in the
U.S.N., and in ’77 chief of the dept of provisions and clothing. W. (Pendleton
G.), 1S46, mid. on the Portsmouth, who served in the S. Jos6 garrison nnder
Lieut Pinckney.
Watson (Andrew),
1834, Engl, sailor named in several Mont. records, age 34; at S. Jos6 ’36; on
Larkin’s books ’39-41, and said by Faraham to havo been arrested in ’40. iii.
412; iv. 17. W. (Edward), 1828, Engl, carpenter who joined the comp, extranjera
at Mont. in ’32, and in ’33 was baptized as Jos6 Eduardo Maria, iii. 178, 221.
His name appears in various records from ’34, and in ’36 he is named in the
Mont. padron as 31 years old, with a wife Marla Guadalnpe Castillo, age 16; in
’37 bought land of John Rainsford; in ’40 was arrested but not exiled, iv. 17,
23; in ’41 naturalized, being a trader and memb. of the ayunt. After the
discov. of gold he went to the mines, and died at Dry Creek, near the Cosumnes
in ’48. W. (Francis), son of James, b. at Mont. about ’30; educated at Hon.
from ’40. iii. 180; iv. 103. In the mines '48; married a daughter of Santiago
Estrada; and in ’75 still lived in Mont. Co. with 8 children. I have a brief
Narrative from him. W. (Henry),
1846, Co. G, Cal. Bat. (v. 358), enlisting at S. Jos6
Nov. W. (Henry B.),
1846, lieut of marines on the U.S. Portsmouth, in
com. of S.F. garrison; also with Stockton in the southern campaign of ’46-7. v.
239-40, 295, 392, 436, 659.
Watson (James or
David), 1824 (?), Engl, sailor who left a whaler at Sta
B. or S. F. about this time and settled as a
trader at Mont. His original name seems to have been David, but was prob.
called Santiago at baptism; also called Felipe Santiago, and in one record
James Peter, ii. 495, 526. The 1st original record is in ’30; in ’32 he joined
the comp, extranjera. iii. 221-2; and in ’34 he had a wife, Mariana Escamilla,
and 2 children—a number increased to 4 in ’36, when he was a naturalized
citizen, age 33. A lot was granted him in ’35, and in ’36 he bought a house of
Luis Beltran, afterwards sold to Fuller and bought back. He was often a memb.
of the ayunt. from ’36, being a respected citizen and merchant frequently named
in the records down to ’48.
iii. 675; iv. 117, 136, 218, 403, 653. Sir Geo.
Simpson describes him as a Londoner from Redriff, whose father had been ‘in
the public line,’ keeping the ‘Noah’s Hark between Globe Staire and the ’Orse
Ferry;’ and Larkin, in his Notes of ’45, as an uneducated, unambitious, honest
man, who did not meddle in politics. He acquired a fortune, and is named by
Willey and others in ’49 as a very generous man. About ’50 he bought the S.
Benito rancho, for which he was successful claimant, iv. 655; but he was ruined
by the droughtof ’63, and died the same year. His children were Francis b. abt
’30; Catalina in ’33; Tom&s in ’35 (later sheriff of Mont. where he still
lived in ’75); and Santiago Jr, born in ’36. W. (J. B.), 1848, passp. from Hon.
W. (J. M.), 1847, lieut U.S.N., who brought despatches to Gen. Kearny; later in
com. of the Erie; d. at Vallejo ’73, age 66. W. (Wm), 1836, Engl, lumberman in
Mont. dist, age 30. W. (Wm), 1847, at Benicia, v. 673; at Napa ’48. Watt
(James), 1836, juez de campo at Mont. iii. 675; ‘Santiago Goat,’ prob. ‘Watson,’
q.v.; and Felipe Guati, an Engl, catholic mariner, at Mont. in ’29, age 25, was
also prob. the same ‘Watson.’ Watts (John), 1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469);
reenl.; a man of the same name at S. Jos6 ’50. W. (Wm),
1827, doubtful name of sup. of the Karimoko. iii.
147. W. (Wm), 1841, doubtful name at Mont. Toomes. Watty, 1845, at Larkin’s
soap-factory. Wayne (W.A.), 1845, lieut on the U.S. Savannah.
Weaitz (John), 1846,
Co. B, Cal. Bat. (v. 358), enlisting at Mont. Oct. Weaver, 1831, a trapper,
3aid by Nidever to have been in Young’s party; called Powell W. by Dye. iii.
388; perhaps Pauline W., a noted mountain man of Ariz. later. He was also
possibly the man who served as guide to the Hist,
CaVo;u V. 49
Morm. Bat. v. 483;
and a Paulino W. is named at S. Bern, in ’46, age 40. W. (Daniel), 1846, Co. C,
1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). W. (Franklin), 1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); in
Utah ’81; married Miss R. Reed at S.F. ’48. W. (M.), 1846, doubtful name in a
Los Ang. list. W. (Miles), 1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). W. (Vance), 1846,
Co. E, Cal. Bat. (v. 358), enlisting at Sonoma in Oct.; Cal. claim (v. 462).
W. (Wm E.), 1848, part owner of the S.F. Californian; perhaps same as the
following. W. (Wm J.), 1847, Co. C, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); a printer. Webb (Chas
Y.), 1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); at Parowan, Utah, ’81. W. (Wm), 1832,
memb. of the comp, extranjera. iii. 221; still at Mont. ’33-4.
Weber (Charles M.),
1841, nat. of Germany, who came to N. Orleans in ’36, and iu ’41 was an overl.
immig. of the Bartleson party from St Louis. He worked through the winter for
Sutter, who had signed his bond on arrival. iv. 270, 275, 279; and in ’42
settled at S. Jos6 as trader, miller, baker, and a little later aalt-producer
and shoemaker, also acquiring land and livestock, all in partnership with Wm
Gulnac. In ’43 they obtained, in G.’a name, as W. was not naturalized till ’44,
a grant of the Campo de los Franceses rancho, G.’s share of which was bought
by W. in ’45. Weber was an active business man, and well liked at this time by
the Californians, to whom he afforded valuable support in their movement of ’44
against Michelto- rena’s cholos, raising a comp, of foreign volunteers, being
imprisoned at Sutter’s fort on account of his efforts for his country without
regard to the Swiss adventurer’s personal schemes, being made capt. of militia
in ’45, and taking a prominent part in issuing the call for an assembly of
foreign residents, iv. 462, 468-9, 483, 599, 604-5. His position in all these
matters was consistent and praiseworthy, though his influence at this time and
his prominence in events of the next year have been grossly exaggerated in the
newspapers and eouuty histories of late years. In 46 Weber was in sympathy with
Larkin’s plans rather than with those of the filibusters; but on hearing of the
Bear rising he seems to have taken some steps for the protection of the settlers
south of the bay, and on the discovery of his plans was arrested by Castro, who
carried him south as a prisoner, but released him on leaving Cal. for Mex. I am
inclined to think, however, that Castro did this at the request of W., who,
having made enemies on both sides of the pending troubles, deemed it wise to
absent himself for a time. v. 16, 136-7, 245, 277. He returned in Oct. in time
to engage actively, to the great displeasure of many Californians, in the work
of collecting horses and supplies for the Cal. Bat., in which he declined to
serve on account of hostility to Frdmont; but was made capt. of volunteers and
took part in the final campaign against Sanchez, being ordered to discharge his
men and thanked for past services in Feb. ’47.
v. 294-5, 377-8, 380, 382, 661. In ’47 he
settled on his French Camp rancho, and founded a settlement which he afterwards
had laid out as a town and named Stockton, v. 674-5. Iu ’48-9 he added to his
wealth by successful gold-mining, with the aid of Ind., at Weber Creek and
elsewhere; and his lands were vastly increased in value during the flush times.
He was claimant for Campo de los Franceses and Canada de S. Felipe, iii. 677,
711; iv. 671. He spent the rest of his life at Stockton, where he died in ’81
at the age of 67, leaving a widow, the daughter of Martin Murphy, and 3
children. Weber was an intelligent, energetic, and honorable man of business;
generous in his many gifts to his town and to his friends; but in his later
life eeeentric to the verge of insanity, morbidly sensitive, avoiding his
fellow-men. There is nothing apparent in his record, that of a successful man,
who was neither the author nor vietim of any great wrongs, to account for his
peculiarities. Tinh- ham’s Hist, of Stockton contains a portrait, and is
the best source of information outside of original records. An early MS. copy
of Halleck's Land Laws, to which were appended some of Weber’s correspondence
of considerable interest, was for a short time in my possession. W. (John),
1847, of N.Y. Vol.(?); at S.F. ’74. Webster (Charles A.), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.
Vol. (v. 499); d. at Los Ang. ’47. W. (Ed. C.), 1848, at Mont. W. (John H.)
1847, Co. F, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); notary at Stockton, where he died in ’81,
leaving a family.
Weed (John W.), 1841,
Amer. passenger on the Julia Am, viho came from N.Y. for his health, and went
back in ’42. iv. 566. Weeks (Elbert), 1847, Co. B, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); d.
before ’82. Weeks (James W.), 1831, Engl, sailor who deserted from the whaler
Fanny, at S.F. in Oct., while the erew were occupied in cutting wood at Pt
Quintin. iii. 405. Spending some time at Read’s, and then working for the
Castros at S. Pablo, he lived for some months on tbe beaeh at S.F. trying with
others to repair an old boat, tried a ranchero’s life with Narvaez in Sta Clara
Valley, cooked for a while in the Pulgas redwoods, joined Ewing Young’s
trappers, and returned via Boss to the redwoods. In ’40 he was arrested but
not exiled, having married a native wife,
iv. 9, 17, 23; in ’41-5 lived at Sta Cruz, iv.
280, 356, 663, being named in the padron of ’45, age 32, wife Ramona Pinto,
child. Marla Ana b. ’41, Bias Antonio ’43, Teodoro ’44. He signed tbe S. Jos6
call to foreigners, iv. 599; iu ’46 was coroner in the Naile case. v. 641; was
clerk for Alcalde Stokes and in charge of the arehives, and later member of the
council, v. 664; and in ’47— 8 alcalde of S. Jos6. v. 662; went to the mines in
’48; was see. of the prefecture in ’49; and continued to live in Sta Clara
Co., being cl. for a part of S. Antonio rancho. In ’77 he wrote for me his
Reminiscences, a detailed narrative of his career in early times; and having
fulfilled this part of his destiny, he died in ’81, leaving 4 sons. He was an
intelligent man with but slight education, of good character, though at times
addicted to intemperance. Wehler (Edward), 1847, musician of N.Y. Vol. (v.
499).
. Weidney (Anthony),
1847, Co. K, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499). Weifenback (Philip), 1847, Co. E, ditto.
Weimar, see ‘Wimmer.’ Weir (James), 1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518). W.
(Thomas), 1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); employed by Sutter as a tanner.
Weirick (Wm H.), 1847, lient Co. F, G, N.Y. Vol. v. 504. Weirgen (Christian),
1847, Co. A, ditto. AVeiss (Wm), 1847, Co. B, ditto; at S.F. ’83. Wait (John),
1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. v. 518.
Welburn (Benj.), see
‘Washburn,’ signer of the S. Jose call to foreigners of ’45, the name being
incorrectly given in several county histories. Welch, see ‘Welsh.’ Welder
(Anthony), 1847, Co. C, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499). Weldon (Peter), 1835, Amer.
carpenter, age 24, who came on the Framen (?); an anahaptist who joined Russell
in his exped. from S. Diego to the Colorado in ’36. iii. 613. Weller (C. M.),
1846, Cal. claim $297 (v. 462); prob. an error for ‘Weber.’ W. (Edward H.),
1847, Co. A, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); at S.F. ’71-4. Wells, 1847, married by Sutter
and remarried at Sta Clara. Alexander; prob. ‘West.’ W., 1848, on the
Sagadahocfrom Hon.; perhaps Robert. W. (Benj. F.), 1846, mid. on the U.S.
Congress; acting lieut in Stockton’s Bat. ’46-7. v. 386. W. (David), 1848, came
from Or. and settled in S. Joaq. Co. W. (Robert), 1847, from N.Y. by sea; owner
of S.F. lot; of firm W. & Co., merchants at S.F.; still here in ’54. W.
(Thos J.), 1847, Co. G, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); in N.Y. ’71-82. W. (Wm M.), 1847,
Co. G, ditto. Welsh, 1847, doubtful name or date of a justice at S. Buen. W.
(Charles), 1848, Amer. sea capt. said to have been educated in Spain and to
have served in the Span, mail service; d. at S.F. ’83. He married a sister of
Philip A. Roach. W. (John H.), 1847, Co. E, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); in N.Y. ’71-84.
W. (Wm), 1821, Scotch sailor on the Lady Blackwood discharged at Bodega, ii.
478. He was at Los Ang. ’29-30. ii. 55S; is often named in northern records
from ’30. ii. 616; lived at S. Jos6 from ’32, and in ’44 was grantee of Las
Juntas, Contra Costa, iv. 671. He seems to have been a hrotber-in-law of James
A. Forbes, and to have been living in the S. Jos6 district ’47; but died before
’52, when the rancho was claimed by the admin, of his estate. He left a wife
and 8 children.
Wescott (Joseph F.
R.), 1836, nat. of Conn., baptized at S. Rafael in Oct.
iv. 118. In ’42 Francis Wescott is named as
gunsmith of the S.F. comp.; and in ’48 Conway & W. were proprietors of the
Colonnade House at S.F., W. leaving his debtors in the lurch; perhaps not he
of’36. v. 683. Wesley,
1847, visitor at Sutter’s fort. West (Benj.), 1847,
Co. E, Morm. Bat., recnl. (v. 469). W. (Henry S.), 1843, mr of the Rafak. iv.
568. W. (T.), 1846,
Fauntleroy’s dragoons
(v. 232, 247), enlisting at Mont. July. W. (Thomas),
1846, overl. immig. with Bryant, sometime eapt. of
the party, accompanied by his wife aud 4 sons. v. 528. He settled at S. Jos£,
and acc. to Hittell became wealthy and went east before ’60. His sons Francis
T. and Thomas M. kept a livery-stable at S. Jose in ’47. Another, WmT., served
in Co. B, artill. Cal. Bat. (v. 358); and the 4th was Geo. R. The grave of Ann
W. was passed on the overl. route by Bigler in ’47. W. (Thos J.), 1847, Co. G,
N. Y. Vol. (v. 499); d. before ’82. W. (Wm C.), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons-
(v. 336); killed at S. Pascual. v. 346.
West (Wm Mark), 1832,
Engl, carpenter, lumberman, and farmer, who had lived 7 years in Mex. territory
before coming to Cal. iii. 408. In ’34 he obtained naturalization, having been
baptized at Sta Cruz, and owning property to the value of $1,500. From ’33 he
appears on Larkin’s books, generally as a lumberman working with Trevethan in
the redwoods. In the Mont. padron of ’36 he is named as 40 years old, wife
Guadalupe Vasquez, child Maria Luisa b. ’33. In ’40, being arrested but not
exiled, he was grantee of the S. Miguel rancho, Sonoma, and of Llano de Sta
Rosa in ’44. iii. 713; iv. 17, 23, 673. I have no record of him after ’48, but
he died before ’52, when his widow appears as cl. for the rancho, on which a
stream still bears the name of Mark West Creek. Westfall (Jacob), 1846, Co. C,
1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). Westgatc (Francis J.), 1839, blacksmith and
carpenter at Sonoma and S.F. ’39-42, working for Spear & Hinckley and Salv.
Vallejo, iv. 119; perhaps the man named as having lived at Pt Reyes in ’46. W.
(Obadiab), 1833, gunsmith at S.F.; perhaps same as preceding. Westlake
(Richard), 1840, one of the exiles to S. Bias who did notretnrn. iv. 18. Weston,
1846, mr of the Wm Neilson. v. 581. Wetmarsb, see ‘ Whitmarsh.’ Wetmore (C.
E.), 1848, S.F. merchant of firm W. & Gilman, v. 680; member of the council
’49; settled at Benicia with his wife. Wetowah, see ‘ Watawha.' Wettermark
(Chas P.), 1847, Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Weyland (John),
1848, at S.F., advertising tents for sale.
Whalen (John), 1847,
musician of N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. at Los Ang. ’53. Whally (Scotch), 1840 (?), a
man known only by this name, who lived for several years in the redwoods near
Mont., engaged in making shingles, iv. 120. About ’45 he was killed by the
Tulare Ind. Wheeler (Alfred), 1847 (?), nat. of N.Y., and memb. of 1st Cal.
legislature. Anaheim, Gazette, Oct. 16, ’75. W. (Geo.), 1848, on roll of Soc.
Cal. Pion. W. (Henry), 1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); reenl. W. (John),
1847, Co. K, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499). W. (John L.), 1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v.
469); reenl. W. (Merrill W.), 1847, Co. A, ditto. W. (Wm), 1845, boy on the
Warren, living at S. Jos(S ’77, when he gave me a narrative on the Loss of the
Warren’s Launch in ’46. iv. 587;
v. 384. W. (Wm H. H.), 1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol.
(v. 499); d. in L. Cal. ’48. Wheelock (Lyman), 1847, Co. K, ditto.
Whisman (Andrew),
1847, nat. of Mo., who came overl. with his father, John W. (?), and in ’47-8
kept an inn bet. S. Jos6 and S.F.; later a farmer in Sta Clara and Alameda
counties. He died at Harrishnrg ’79. His 1st wife was Serelda Lynn, by whom he
bad 11 children; the 2d Catherine Smith ’72. W. (John), 1848, cousin of J. W.
at Sta Clara. W. (John W.), 1847, nat. of Va and overl. immig. with wife and
son, settling in Sta Clara. Whistler (Geo. R.), 1846(?), said to have come as a
soldier; later in the mines; murdered in Ariz. ’74; known as Geo. Reese.
Whitaker, 1845, doubtful name of an overl. immig. iv. 578. W. (Amison), 1847,
Co. F, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at Sac. ’82. W. (John Geo.), 1845, mid. on the U.S. Savannah,
Golumbns, and Warren ’45-8. Whitcomb (Wm N.), 1847 (?), said to have come with
Capt. Brackett’s comp, in ’46; committed suicide at Napa in ’71. N. Register.
White, 1845, named as
having come with McDowell and also with Fremont. iv. 578, 583. W., 1847, at
Stockton ’47-8. W. (Arthur F.), 1845, at Mont. fromR.I.; bought goods from the
wreck of the Star of the West. W. (Charles), 1846, overl. immig. who settled
with his wife at S. Jos6, where he was councilman in ’46 and alcalde in ’48-9,
becoming the owner of a large estate and cl. for Arroyo de S.Antonio. He was
killed in the Jenny Lind ex
plosion in ’53; his
widow married Gen. C. Allen, and was the cl. for several ranchos, iii. 678,
711-12; iv. 655; v. 529, 662, 664. His son, Chas E., was a lawyer at S. Jos£
’81. W. (Chris. S.), 1S47, Co. B, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). W. (Henry), 1847, Co. F,
3d U.S. artill. (v. 518); d. before ’82. W. (J.), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v.
358), enlisting at S. Juan in Oct. W. (J.), 1848, passp. from Hon. W. (John),
1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). W. (John
C.), 1847,
Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). W. (Joseph), 1847, Co. A, ditto. W. (Joseph), 1848
(?), trapper in the mines with Brooks who claimed to have come with Capt. Weber
’41 (?).
White (Michael),
1829, Engl, or Irish sailor who came from Hon. on the Dolly or Dhautte. iii.
179; having touched on the L. Cal. coast in ’17, and sailed, sometimes as mate
and mr, on Mex. and Hawaiian vessels from that date according to his own
statement. He settled at Sta B., where he built a schooner in ’30. ii. 573;
iii. 140. Exeept from his own testimony nothing is known of him till ’36, when
his name appears in a Los Ang. list as an Irishman aged 30; though he may have
been the White aecused of smuggling at S.F. in ’33. iii. 393. He says he made a
trip to Mazatlan in the schr Guadalupe, which he had built for S.Gabriel
mission, returning in ’32, marrying Maria ‘<3el Rosario Guillen, daughter of
the famous old woman Eulalia Perez, opening a little store at Los Nietos, and
keeping aloof from polities. In ’38 be signed a petition against Carrillo, iii.
565; and in ’39 went to N. Mex., but returned with the Workman party in ’41.
iv. 278. In ’43 he was grantee of Muscupiabe rancho and a S. Gabriel lot. iv.
635, 637; served in the foreign comp, against Micheltorena ’45. iv. 495, 595;
and was one of the Chino prisoners in ’46. v. 314. In later years he continued
to live at S. Gabriel; was the successful cl. for his lands, which, however, in
one way or another he finally lost; and occasionally indulged in a sea voyage.
In ’77, at the age of 75, somewhat feeble in health and very poor, having a
large family of children and grandchildren, Miguel Blanco gave me his
interesting reminiscences of Cal. All the Way Back to ’28. His memory was good,
and he seemed to be a truthful man. He died in or before ’85. W. (Milton),
1840, one of the exiles to S. Bias, arrested in the south; did not return, iv.
14, 18. W. (Moses), 1847, Co. E, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499). W. (Philander), 1847, Co.
K, ditto. W. {Sam. S.), 1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); in Sutter’s employ
’47-8; at Pleasant Grove, Utah, ’81. W. (Thomas), 1S40, deserter from the St
Louis, who beeame a lumberman, married, and in ’48 lived on the Salinas. He
died about ’50. iv. 120. W. (Wm), 1836, named in Larkin’s books. W. (Wm), 1847,
shoemaker in Sutter’s employ. W. (W.), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v. ■358),
enlisting at S. Juan Nov.; perhaps same as one or both of the preceding.
Whitehouse (Benj.),
1847, Co. B, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); perhaps the ‘Dad’ W. at Stockton ’4S-9; d. at
S.F. after ’50. W. (Geo. W.), 1846, Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336); at Los
Ang. ’79. W. (Joseph), 1840, one of the exiles to S. Bias who did not return,
iv. IS. Whitehurst, 1846, sergt, killed at S. Pascual (?). Frimont
Court-martial, 169. See‘Whitness.’ Whiteman •(Wm), 1846, overl. immig. who
settled at S. Jos6 with his family; drowned in the S. Joaq. River ’48. His
widow lived at S. Jos6 ’77, in the house built by W. in ’46. A daughter was the
wife of Waldo Lowe. A son, John T., who came as a child in ’46, was a farmer in
Sta Clara Co., and died at S. Luis Ob. in ’77, leaving a widow. Whiting (Wm
J.), 1830, trader on the coast ’30-1. Whitloek (Geo. W.), 1847, clerk for Wm H.
Davis ’47-9. v. 651; sergt of S.F. guard ’48; at Sac. about ’74-5. W. (Jacob
H.), 1847, Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d. at S.F. ’49. W. (Mervin R.), 1847,
ditto; drowned in S. Joaq. River ’49. Whitmarsh (James), 1833, Amer. sailor who
came from Mazatlan on the Sta Bdrbara. iii. 409. In ’37 a lumberman near S. Rafael;
passp. in ’40. Called ‘Wctmarsb’ and ‘ YVebmarch,’ but I have his autograph.
Whitness (Wm), 1846, sergt Co. K, 1st U.S. dragoons, killed at S. Pascual. v.
346; perhaps his name was ‘Whitress;’ also called ‘Whitehurst.’ Whitney
(Francis T.), 1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). W. (Wm), 1848, nat. of Engl.,
who came from Or. to the mines, and went back; died at Butterville, Or., ’78.
Whittaker (Robert), 1845, boatswain on the
U.S. Portsmouth;
owner of a S.F. lot’46. v. 685. Whittemore, 1810, mr of the Avon and Charon
’10-14; trader and fur-hunter. ii. 96, 267, 282, 328. Whittle, 1846, named as a
physician at the Mont. hospital. W. (W.), 1815 (?), said to be mentioned in a
doc. of ’35, in the Los Ang. arch., as a resid. for 20 years, doubtless an
error. My copy makes the name ‘Wittle,’ and the time 25 years, perhaps another
error. Whittmer (L. C.), 1847, at Sutter’s fort from Sonoma, Sept. Whitton (1845),
one of Fremont’s men, who perhaps did not come to Cal. iv. 583. W. (Ezekiel or
Jerry), 1834, Amer. named on Larkin’s books at Mont. ’34-6. iii. 412. Whitworth
(Wm), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469).
Widger (Benj.), 1847,
Co. I, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499). Wierzbicki (Felix P.),
1847, Co. H, ditto; a Polish physician and author;
owner of lots and participant in a political meeting at S.F. ’47. v. 455. In
’48 he sends Gen. Vallejo a copy of his work entitled The Ideal Man. He was
also the author of California as It is and as It may be, or A Guide to the
Gold, Region, S.F., 1849, 8vo, 60 pp., published in 2 editions by Washington
Bartlett (mayor of S.F. as I write, in ’85), and the 1st book ever printed in
this city. Dr W. died at S. F. in ’60. Wiggins (Wm), 1840, nat. of N.Y., who
crossed the plains from Mo. to Or. in ’39 and come to Cal. on the Lausanne,
landing at Bodega and proceeding to Sutter’s fort, and thence to Marsh’s
rancho, iv. 120-1,136,173. In ’42-4 he was with Graham at Sta Cruz; served in
Gantt’s comp, to support Micheltorena in ’45. iv. 486; is named in the
Branciforte padron of ’45 as 29 years old and single; went east overland in
’46; returned at the head of &n immig. party in ’47, but taking a cut-off
was obliged, after great dangers, to' go to Or. v. 556; and came down to Cal.
on the Henry in ’48. He was perhaps the man who is named at Benicia in ’48. v.
673; is said to have owned at one time part of the Capitancillos rancho, Sta
Clara Co.; lived at S. Juan
B. ’53-08, and later at Mont., where in ’77
he gave me his Reminiscences. Ho died at S. Jos<5 in ’80, at the age of 63.
He was called ‘doctor,’ had no family,, and was a man of somewhat eccentric
ways. Wight (David), 1847, carpenter and lumberman at Mont. ’47-8. W.
(Randolph H.), 1848, nat. of N.Y.,. who came from Or. on the Sterling, working
in the mines, and going east in ’49. He came back in ’52 to settle in Contra
Costa, where he lived in ’82witl). wife and two daughters. Wigman (Lewis),
1845, blacksmith and trader at Mont., S.F., and butter’s fort ’45-8, serving
also in Fauntleroy’s dragoons ’48.
iv. 578, 587; (v. 232, 247).
Wilber (James H.),
1847, Methodist preacher, touching at S.F. on his way to Or. on the Whiton, who
organized a Sunday-school at S. F. v. 657. W. (Jacob), 1846, Co. C, 1st U. S.
dragoons (v. 336). Wilhur, 1846, mr of the Magnet, v. 579. W., 1848, in charge
of Sutter’s launch. W. (Jeremiah P.), 1846 (?), nat. of Conn.; owner of S. F.
lots ’48; married in ’48 to Amanda Hoit; died at S.F. ’64. Wilcox (Edward),
1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); nat. of Pa who went to the mines, and in
’52-81 was a farmer in Mont. Co. W. (Frank), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358),
enlisting at S. Juan. Oct. W. (Henry), 1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). W.
(James Smith), 1816, Amer. mr of the Caminante, or Traveller, ’16-17, who was
suspected of- revolutionary designs, and wished to marry Concepcion Argiiello.
ii. 78,21617, 285-7, 291, 310, 362, 365, 382, 389. W. (Matthew), 1847, Co. C,
Morm. Bat. (v. 469). Wilder (Peter), 1848, voter at S. Diego, and perhaps the
P.. Wilde of ’44 at S.D., hired by Capt. Peterson of the Admittance to look for
deserters. Wiley (James), 1848, lieut of marines at Mont.; passp. from. Hon.
Wilkes (Charles), 1841, lieut U.S.N. and com. of the U.S. ex. ex., and author
of the Narrative of that exped., a work that, as far as Cal. is concerned,
cannot be very highly praised, iv. 241-8; also iv. 2, 6,20, 191, 208-9,
214,227,434,569,665. W. (E. P.), 1847, owner of S.F. lot. W. (James),
1846, came to S. Josd. Hall; also J.P. W, named at S.
Jos& ’47. W. (John),
1847, Co. K, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).
Wilkin (David), 1847,
sergt Co. C, Morm. Bat. v. 477; at Pioche, Nev., ’82. Wilkius (C. P.), 1848, in
Q. M. dept Los Ang.; prob. same as preceding. W. (Edward), 1847, at Sutter’s
fort. Wilkinson, 1848, went from.
Mont. to the mines
with Colton; said to be a son of a U.S. minister to Russia. W. (James), 1831,
named by Dye and Nidever as one of Young’s trappers; perhaps did not come to
Cal. iii. 388. W. (John), 1845, act. mr of the U.S. Portsmouth. Willard, 1843,
nat. of Mass. and mate under Capt. Cooper, who had been naturalized and got a
land grant in the Sac. Val. Doubtful mention by Thomes. W. (Fannie), 1846 (?),
nat. of Ma.js. Married later to Alfred Baldwin of Sta Cruz. W. (Henry or
Isaac), 1847, Co, A, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); miner in ’48-9; farmer and trader in
Marin Co. to ’56; and later a farmer in Mendocino, living at Sanel in ’SO with
wife and 10 children. Willey (Jeremiah), 1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469).
Willhart (Louis),
1847, Co. C, N.Y.Vol; (v. 499).
William, 1845,
Chinook Ind. of Fremont’s party; in Sta B. garrison, y. 316. Williams, 1846,
with Kearny from N. Mex. (v. 337); perhaps Geo. N. W., 1846, Amer. at S. Luis
Ob. v. 639. W., 1848, arrested at S. Jos<5. v. 663. W. (Aaron W.), 1828, mr
of the Clio. iii. 146, 165. W. (Albert), 1840, one of the exiles to S.Blas, who
did not return, iv. 14, 18. W. (Alonzo), 1S46, applicant for land at S. Josg.
Sta Clara Co. Hist., 331. W. (Alex.), 1836, Engl, sailor who landed at Sta B.
from a whaler. W. (B.), 1837, said to have heen one of the party driving cattle
to Or. iv. 85. W. (Baylis),
1846, one of tho Donner party from III., who died in
the Sierra. His halfsister, Eliza, survived, and in ’49 was living at S. Jos6,
married, but I do not know what became of her. v. 530, 533-4. W. (Benj.), 1847,
owner of a S. F. lot, perhaps at Sutter’s fort ’48, and on the first jury at S.
Jos6 ’48. W. (Charles), 1839, at Mont.; one of the exiles of ’40 who did not
return, v. 18. W. (Edward), 1847, lieut of Co. E, N.Y.Vol. v. 504; in ’82 a
resid. of Oakland. W. (Elonzo), 1846, came from N. Helv. to S. Juan B. in
Jan.; served in Fauntleroy dragoons (v. 232, 247); prob. same as Alonzo above.
W. (Geo.), 1829 (?), Engl, sawyer named in Mont. lists of ’34, who in ’41
claimed a resid. of 12 years; at S.F. ’42, age 39. iii. 179; possihly same as
the following. W. (Geo.), 1832, nat. of Demerara, naturalized in ’41, claiming
a resid. of 9 years, iii. 408. W. (Geo.), 1845, overl. immig., perhaps of the
Grigsby- Ide party, iv. 579; settled at Sta Cruz aud served in the Cal. Bat.
’46. (v. 358). W. (Geo. N.), 1846, Co. C, 1st. U.S. dragoons (v. 336). W.
(Henry
E.), 1846,
Fauntleroy’s dragoons (v. 232, 247).
Williams (Isaac),
1832, nat. of N.Y. and one of Young’s trappers from N. Mex., where he had lived
several years, iii. 388, 408. He settled at Los Ang. as a trader, though
occupied for some years as a hunter; huilt a house in ’34; aided in ’35 iu
removing the Ind. from S. NicoMs Isl. iii. 361, 652; is named in lists of ’36
as 25, 38, and 50 years of age, obtaining that year a certificate of residence
from the ayunt. and joining the vigilance com. (iii. 430). He was generally
known in Cal. as Julian W., often signing in that way. In ’39 he was
naturalized, and about this time married Marla de Jesus, daughter of Antonio M.
Lugo, becoming the owner of the Chino rancho granted to Lugo in ’41, and being
himself the grantee of an addition to the rancho in ’43. iv. 634, 117. His
house in town was sold to the city govt. In ’46 he proposed to build a fort at
the Cajon, v. 37; on the fight at Chino, when W. was taken prisoner, see v.
312-14. He had a Cal. claim for property destroyed for $133,000, which was not
allowed (v. 462). In ’47 he advertised in the Californian for a large no. of
men to build an adobe fence round his rancho; and Col. Coutts says that the men
all ran away to the mines in ’48 just before the work was completed. He died in
’56 at the age of ’57, leaving as heiresses of his large estate two daughters,
Maria Merced, wife of John Rains, and Francisca, wife of Robert Carlisle. His
wife had died in ’42, leaving the 2 daughters and apparently a son. Col.
Williams was one of the typical rancheros of southern Cal., enterprising,
hospitable, and generally of good repute. W. (Isaac), 1843, overl. imming. of
the Chiles-Walker party, iv. 393^1, 400, who settled at Sta Cruz and later
moved to Los Ang., where he died about ’70. W. (James), 1843, brother of Isaac
and memb. of the same party, iv. 393-4, 400. He also settled at Sta Cruz as a
lumberman and blacksmith, being naturalized in ’45, and married by Larkin in
Aug. to Mary Pat
terson. In ’46 he
killed Henry Naile. v. 641; and is often named in records o£ ’47-8, being a
miner in the latter year. In ’52 he was cl. for ranchos in Sta Cruz and the
Sac. Val. iii. 677; iv. 670; and he died at Sta Cruz in ’58 at the age of 45.
W. (James V.), 1847, Co. E, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); reenl.; in Utah ’82. W. (J.
H.), 1848, passp. from Hon. W. (John), 1826, sailor on the Rover. W. (John),
1S46, doubtful name of an overl. immig. v. 529.
Williams (John S.),
1843, brother of Isaac and James, and overl. immig. of the Chiles party, iv.
393-4, 400. He was a tanner by trade, and I find no original record of his
presence till ’45, when he is named in the Branciforte padron as 26 years old
(Isabel and Esculla Williams living with him—prob. the Cal. rendering of Isaac
and Squire !), and is mentioned at Sutter’s fort. In Feb. ’46 he asked for
naturalization, continuing to work for Sutter, but travelling much up and down
the valley, visiting Mont. and Sta Cruz, and perhaps serving with the Bears, v.
167. In ’47, besides buying lots and building at Benicia, v. 672, be took
charge of Larkin’s rancho in Colusa, and was married in June to Maria Louisa,
daughter of Joseph Gordon, at Wm Gordon’s place on Cachc Creek, by Alcalde
Ide. I have many of his original letters. fie went to the mines in ’48; moved
to Butte Co. in ’49; and died in May of that year. His widow married Lindsay
Carson in ’50, was one of the cl. for the Arroyo Chico rancho ’52, and still
lived in Sonoma Co. ’80. A son, John S., Jr, was bom in Cal. ’48, and was also
one of the claimants. He went east, and in’70-80 lived in Texas. W. (N. L.),
1848, passp. from Hon. W. (Richard), 1846, sergt Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v.
336), 341. W. (Robert),
1844, doubtful name of a man who came with his
family. Ariz. Ilist., 268. W. (Squire), 1843, brother of John S. and James, v.
393-4, 400; Co. F, Cal. Bat. (v. 358); died at the Yuba mines ’48; yet named as
a cl. for Arroyo de la Laguna in ’52. iii. 677. W. (S. H.), 1848, of S. H. W.
& Co. at S.F. v. <378. W. (Thomas), 1847, sergt Co. D, Morm. Bat. v.
477, 481; perhaps did not come to Cal. W. (Wm), 1838, Engl, sailor who landed
at S. Diego, iv. 119; in charge of Capt. Fitch’s house ’40; sub-Ind. agent at
S. Luis Rey ’48.
v. 621-2; claimant for Valle de las Viejas
’52. v. 619. W. (Wm H.), 1847, Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at Nyack, N.Y.,
’74-84.
Williamson (Benj.),
1846, Co. B, Cal. Bat. (v. 358), enlisting at Mont. Nov. W. (Daniel or David),
1846, Co. F, ditto, enlisting at S. Juan Oct.; at S. Jos6 ’48; d. in ’49. Swan.
W. (James), 1826, on the Rover. W. (J. C.), 1838 (?), nat. of Mass., said to
have come via N. Mex. iu ’38, iv. 119, and, returning, to have started in ’41
with his family, killed by Ind. on the way. Then he turned Ind.-fighter; was
with Fr&nont in ’46 (?); was a sharpshooter in the war of ’61-5; a scout
under Custer later; then a hunter in Cal. known as Grizzly Dan; at Oroville ’80.
Sac. Union, July 3, ’80. How much truth there may be in all this I do not know.
W. (Thomas), 1833, at Mont. ’33-4. W. (Thomas D.), 1847, Co. K, N.Y.Vol. (v.
499); at Sta Rosa ’71-4; d. before ’80. Willie (Henry), 1847, Co. H, ditto.
Willis (Ira), 1847, Co.
B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); later in Sutter’s service, and at the Coloma mill when
gold was found. W. (Otis W.), 1847, Co. F, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at S. Andres ’74.
W. (Wm), 1827 (?), Englishman, owning cattle and applying for land at S. Jcs6
in ’28. ii. 595, 605; iii. 178. In ’30 Wm With got permission to keep cattle at
Mt Diablo, ii. 602. As Wilk and Villa he is named in ’34, age 31, with wife and
3 children. In ’41 Guillermo Wil is named in the S. Jos6 padron as an Amer.,
age 46, wife Maria Ant. Galindo, child. Guillermo b. ’33, Concepcion ’28, and
Anastasio ’30. There is also a Julian Wil named as a militiaman of S.F. in ’37.
There is a strange lack of definite information about this Wm Willis. W. (W. S.
S.), 1847, known as Sidney W.; Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); in Sutter’s employ
’47-8, and at the Coloma mill when gold was discovered. Wilmot (James), 1845,
perhaps overl. immig. of the Grigsby-Ide party, iv. 579; named at Sutter’s fort
’46. W. (Lewis), 1846, Cal. Bat. (v. 358); also Lewis A. W., sailor on the
Elizabeth ’48. Wilmoth (Geo.), 1845, boatswain on the U.S. Savannah. Wilson,
1845, in Sutter’s employ; went east with Clyman in ’46. v. 526. W., 1847, at
S.F. from Hon., with wife and 2 chil
dren, on the Julia.
W., 1847, owner of land at Benicia. W., 1848, at S.F. from Tahiti. W., 1848, of
Hood & W., carpenters at S.F. v. 084. W. (A.), 1824, sailor on the Rover.
W. (Alfred G.), 1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); at Moab, Utah, ’81. W.
(Amariah), 1847, owner of S.F. lots. W. (Alvin), 1840, nat. of Conn., who
landed from Capt. Hinckley’s_ vessel and became a lumberman in the Sta Cruz
district. He was arrested with the other foreigners, but not exiled; and in ’42
signed an appeal to the U.S. govt. He was killed by Ind. near Gilroy in
July’44. W. (B.), 1848, at Hon. from S.F., on the Julian.
Wilson (Benj. Davis),
1841, known in Cal. as Benito, nat. of Tenn., and iminig. of the Workman party
from N. Mex., where he had resided for 8 years as trapper and trader, iv.
277-9. In ’43 he purchased the Jurupa rancho, iv. 035, and from this frontier
station in the following years engaged in several campaigns against hostile
Indians. In ’45 he was prominent among the southern foreigners who served
against Micheltorena. iv. 495, 504, 500-7. In .’46 he acted as juez for the
district ranchos; commanded a comp, of citizen riflemen intended to resist
Castro; was in com. of the foreigners at the Chino tight; and after the U.S.
occupation served as lieut in the Cal. Bat. v. 50-1, 205,312-14,300,025. He was
the 1st county clerk and 1st mayor of Los Ang.; Ind. agent in ’52, taking pride
in having been the 1st to urge the settling of the Ind. on reservations at the
old missions; cl. for S. J08(3 de Buenos Aires rancho, iv. 035; and was state
senator for two terms. Don Benito was a prosperous ranchero and fruit-raiser,
an influential and respected citizen. In ’77 he dictated for my use his
Observations on early Cal. events, a MS. of considerable value, though on some
points I have found Wilson’s testimony less accurate than I had deemed it at
first. I notice that a copy, left with the family at their request, has been
consulted by some of the county history and newspaper men. W. died at his
rancho of Lake Vineyard in ’78, at the age of 67, leaving a widow—a 2d wife,
the 1st having been Ramona, daughter of Bernardo Yorba, married in ’44—and 3
daughters. W. (Charles),
1848, carpenter at S.F. W. (Dorsey), 1847, owner of
S.F. lot. W. (Henry),
1847, purser on the U.S. Preble. W. (Henry J.), 1847,
sergt Co. D, N.Y. Vol. v. 504. W. (James), 1824, Engl, trader at Mont.; age 25
in ’29; also at Mont. ’30-3. ii. 009. W. (James), 1844 (?), Engl, soldier,
veteran of Waterloo, said to have come to Sta Clara and to have died in ’70. v.
453. W. (James), 1847, Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499).
Wilson (John), 1826,
Scotch shipmaster and trader on the roll of the Soc. Cal. Pion. as having
arrived in April ’26, and who in ’37 claimed a residence of 12 years; the 1st
original record being ’28, when he was master of the Thos Nowlan. iii. 149. In
’31-7 he was mr of the Ayaeueho; of the Index ’38-9, ’41-3; of the Fly ’40; of
the Juanita in ’44-5. iii. 381; iv. 101, 104, 566. Before ’36 he married Ramona
Carrillo de Pacheco, and from that time considered Sta B. his home; naturalized
in ’37, and from ’39 to ’47 a partner of James Scott; about ’41 engaged in
otter-hunting. In ’45 Capt. W. took some part in the troubles with
Micheltorena. iv. 498; and with Scott was the purchaser of the S. Luis Ob.
estate, and grantee of the ranchos Canada del Chorro and Canada de los Osos,
where he spent the rest of his life. iv. 553, 055, 058-9; v. 375, 558, 500. Ho
died in ’00 at the age of 05, leaving a widow, still living in ’85, a son John
who settled in England, and a daughter. There were few of the old pioneers
better known or more respected than Capt. John Wilson. W. (John), 1826, Amer.
trapper, apparently of Jed. Smith’s party,
iii. 155, 190, 176. Ment. in ’27-30; on Larkin’s
books ’38-9; in ’41 permitted to marry Maria F. Mendoza of S. Cdrlos. W.
(John), 1837, grantee of Guilicos rancho, Sonoma, for which he was cl. in 53.
iii. 712; iv. 118; ment. at Sonoma ’43. W. (John), 1841, deserter from the U.S.
Ex. Ex. at N. Helv. July. W. (John), 1844, owner of a lighter on S.F. bay;
perhaps John of ’37, or the captain. W. (John), 1847, wounded at the S. Gabriel
fight,
v. 395; proh. Joseph. W. (John), 1847, Co. D,
N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); perhaps at Stockton ’48-9. W. (J. B.), 1847, carpenter at
Mont. ’47-8; perhaps the initials were E. B. or O. B. YV. (John E.), 1846, on
roll of Soc. Cal.
Pion.; nat. of
Sweden; d. at S.P. ’77, age 63. W. (John Henry), 1826, negro who landed from a
whaler, and was still at Los Ang. ’29 and ’37. iii. 196. W. (John K.), 1845,
mid. on the U.S. Savannah ’45-7; lieut, and later capt., of the artill. comp,
of the Cal. Bat. v. 361, 434, 446; in ’48 a witness at Wash, on the Cal.
claims. W. (J. T.), 1847, owner of a S.F. lot.
Wilson (Joseph),
1845, asst-surg. on the U.S. Savannah ’45-7. W. (Joseph), 1846, seaman wounded
at the S. Gabriel fight ’47. W. (Joseph),
1847, purser on the U.S. Lexington. W. (Julian),
1828, partner of Exter in a trapping project, iii. 172—3, 178; named in the
Branciforte padron of ’28, wife Josefa Arbito (?), child Maria, ii. 627. W.
(Lorenzo), 1830 (?), brother of Julian, said by Vallejo to have had personal
encounters with Pliego and Jos6 Castro. W. (Mariano), 1846, had a Cal. claim
(v. 462). W. (Oliver
C.), 1846,
Co. C, 1st U.S. dragoons (v. 336). W. (Robert), 1847, Co. G, N.Y. Vol. (v.
499); at Vallejo ’82. W. (Thomas), 1832, at Purfsima, a farmer. W. (Thomas A.),
1848, overl. immig., son of Wm D., settler in S. Joaquin Co., where he still
lived with a family in ’84. W. (Wm), 1822, Amer. carpenter at Mont. ’29, aged
27, married; also at Mont. ’34. ii. 478. There way be some confusion between
him and Wm ‘Willis,’ q. v. W. (Wm), 1847, at S.F. from Tahiti. W. (Wm C.), 1845
(?), nat. of Tenn. said to have come from Sonora this year; a well-known
horseman who died at S. Jos6 ’82, leaving a widow and son. iv. 587. W. (Wm D.),
1848, nat. of Ky and overl. immig. who settled on the Cosumnes, where he built
a wire bridge. He was rich at one time, but lost his fortune hy floods and
other misfortunes. He died near Gilroy in ’75 at the age of 65, leaving a widow
and son. Wilt (John), 1847, sergt Co. B, N.Y. Vol. v. 504; d. hefore ’82.
Wimmer (Peter L.)
1846, nat. of Ohio and overl. immig. with his wife, Elizabeth J. Bays. He may
have jerved in the Cal. Bat. (v. 358); and in ’47 was owner of a S.F. lot. v.
685. He worked for Sutter as a millwright in ’47-8, and was one of the men
employed at the Coloma mill when gold was discovered, being perhaps with
Marshall on the eventful morning when ‘they’ picked up the 1st nugget. At any
rate, Mrs W., ranking as cook and laundress of the camp, tested that nugget by
boiling it in her soap-kettle, and still claimed to have it in her possession
in ’85. After the discovery the family kept a boarding-house, having also a
choice assortment of pigs. A child was bom in Aug. ’48; in ’49 W. went to
Calaveras; in ’55 he had 10 children.- In ’78-85 be resided in Southern Cal. W.
(John M.), 1847 (?), perhaps a brother of Peter, teamster at N. Helv. and
Coloma ’47-8. G. W. and family are also ment. in the N. Nelv. Diary; prob.
error.
Winekley (J. F.),
1848, passp. from Hon. Winders (John), 1847, nat. of Va; d. at Stockton ’72,
age 67. Windmeyer (Richard), 1847, Co. F, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499). Wing, 1847, mr
of the Obe.d Mitchell, v. 579; on the Sagadahoc ’48. Winkley, 1847, at S.F.
from Or. on the Henry; at Benicia. Winkworth (Wm), 1836, mr of the Europa
’36-7. iv. 103. Winn (Dennis),
1847, Co. A, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); laborer at Mont.
’48; at Richmond, Utah, ’81. Winner (Geo. K.), 1846, one of the Mormon colony,
with wife and 6 children, v. 547; owner of S.F. lot ’47. v. 679. Winnie
(James), 1847, sergt Co. H, N.Y. Vol. v. 504; sergt of S. JosiS guard ’48; d.
before ’82. W. (Wm), 1847, Co. E, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); carpenter and miner in
Calaveras Co. ’48-56; at Portland, Or., to ’74, and at Oakland, Cal., to ’85.
Winship,
1848, trader in the mines and at S.F. W. (Charles),
1850, mr of the Betsey.
i. 546, 656. W. (Jonathan), 1806, mr of the
O’Cain; a famous trader and smuggler on the coast 1806-12. ii. 25, 39-40, 78-9,
82, 84-5, 92-4, 267, 633. W. (Nathan), 1806, brother of Jonathan, mate of the
O’Cain; mr of the Albatross 1807-12. ii. 39, 82, 84, 92-5, 148, 199, 267, 296.
Winslow, 1848, from Hon. on the Sagadahoc. Winter (Jacob), 1847, Co. B, Morm.
Bat. (v. 469); reenl. W. (John D.), 1848, hotel-keeper at Coloma, of firm W.
& Cromwell, owning an interest in Sutter’s mill; later a resid. of S.
Joaquin. W. (Wm
H.),
I843(?), nat. of Ind. and overl. immig. of the Walker-Chiles party, iv. 393-4,
400; or possibly came to Or. ’43 and to Cal. ’44. He is said to have gone east
in ’45 and returned in ’49, but is named in N. Helv. in ’47. He
made other trips
east, but in ’53 settled in Cal. with his family, living in Colusa and Lake to
’55, in Napa to ’71, and in Shasta until his death in ’79 at the age of 60,
leaving 5 sons, one of them a lawyer at Napa. W., 1843, mr of the whaler Ana
Maria. Peterson.
Wise (Henry A.),
1847, lieut on the U.S. Independence, and author of Los Gringos, pub. in N.Y.
’49, in which his experience is described, v. 100. I have also some MS. Notes
on Cal. by him, but cannot say how or when they were obtained. W. (Marion),
1845, apparently one of Fremont’s men. iv. 583; at N. Helv. ’46, and perhaps
one of the Bears, v. 110, 128, 453; a witness at Wash, in Feb. ’48. He
perished in Frdmont’s exped. of ’48-9. Wis- mon (John), 1846, in Hittell’s
list. Wisner (Geo.), 1845, carpenter on the U.S. Portsmouth ’45-7; owner of a
S.F. lot. v. 683. Wissell (Fred.), 1847, Co. H, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499). Wiswell
(James), 1846, a doctor who became rich and went east. Hittell. Withrell
(Adolphus), 1846, sailor on the Dale. Wittam (Isaac), 1847, Co. I, N.Y. Vol.
(v. 499). Wittmer (Jacob), 1847, Swiss in Sutter’s employ ’47-8, often named in
the N. Helv. Diary. On Feb. 14, ’48, he arrived at the fort with glowing
reports from the gold mines. Wit- marsh (Ben]. H.), 1845, Amer. at Mont.
Wittengstein (David), 1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518).
Wodwarck, 1815, mr of
the Lady. ii. 307. Wohler (Herman), 1848, German who married a daughter of
Capt. Cooper, and was a member of the legislature of ’55. He lived on Mark West
Creek, and later at Sonoma, where he had a vineyard. An accomplished musician,
famous as an entertainer. He died in ’77. Vohlgemouth (Henry J.), 1847, Co. E,
N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); at S.F. ’82. Wolcott, 1845 (?), d. at Hon. ’50; said to
have lived 5 years in Cal.; prob. ‘Walcott.’ Wolfe (James), 1826, mate of the
Blossom ’26-7. iii. 121. W. (John), 1847, Co. D, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); trader at
Mont., Stockton, and in the mines; in N.Y. ’71-82. Wolfinger, 1846, German of
the Donner party, who died before reaching the Sierra. His wife survived and
was married in ’47 at Sutter’s fort to Geo. Zinna. v. 531-2, 534.
Wolfskill (John R.),
1838, nat. of Ky, who came from N. Mex., after some years residence in Mex. iv.
117, 119. After working for several years for his brother Wm in the south, he
came north in ’42 and settled on a rancho on Putah Creek—granted to Francisco
Guerrero and owned by Wm Wolfskill. Here he has lived down to ’85, his name
rarely appearing in any early records that I have seen, possibly serving with
the Bears and Cal. Bat., but not tempted away from his rancho and cattle by the
gold excitement of ’48-9. In the later years he has been one of the best known
fruit-growers of Yolo and Solano, a man of wealth, and a citizen of the most
excellent reputation, now 81 years of age. Portrait in Yolo Co. Hist., 26. By
his first wife, whose name I have not found, he had a son, Edward, who in later
years was his business manager. In ’58 he married Susan, daughter of Stephen
Cooper, by whom he had 3 daughters living iu ’80. I have a brief Biog. Sketch
of ‘Uncle John,’ taken by G. W. Boggs in ’83. W. (Sarchel), 1838(?), nat. of
Mo., brother of John R., who may have come from N. Mex. ’38-41; in Solano Co.
’80. W. (Wm), 1S31, brother of John R., nat. of Ky, and for several years a
trapper and trader in N. Mex., coming to Cal. in com. of a trapping party by a
new route, iii. 386, 405, 630; iv. 263-4. He had been naturalized in N. Mex.
’30; and iu Cal. for several years was engaged in hunting otter on the coast,
building a schooner for that purpose, iii. 363, 393. In ’36 he settled at Los
Ang. as a carpenter, getting a lot, being named as one of the vigilantes, giving
much attention to the raising of vines, and from ’38 devoting himself wholly to
the vineyards which were to make him rich and famous, iv. 117. He married in
’41; in ’42 became the owner of the Putah Creek rancho occupied from that time
by his brother, iv. 673; in ’44 was regidor at Los Ang. iv. 633; and is hardly
mentioned in the political troubles of ’45-7 or in public matters of later
years. He died in ’66 at the age of 68, leaving an enviable reputation as an
honest, enterprising, generous, unassuming, intelligent man. He and Louis
Vignes may be regarded as the pioneers of California’s greatest industry, the
production of wine and fruit. His wife Magdalena, daughter of
Jos6 Ign. Lugo, died
in ’62; a daughter Juana, Mrs Henry D. Barrows, died in ’63, and another
daughter in ’55. The surviving children and heirs of his large estate were
Joseph W. born in ’44, Luis, Madelina (wife of Matias Sabici), and Francisca,
apparently Mrs Cardwell. Wm had 3 brothers, perhaps including Sarchel, who
came after ’48. Wolter (Charles), 1833, German mr of a Mex. vessel, who in
Dec. obtained a certificate of Mex. citizenship, having been for 2 years a
citizen of Peru. iii. 409. It is not unlikely that he visited Cal. before ’33.
He was inr of the Leonor ’36-8, of the Clara or Clarita ’40-3, of the Julia
’44—5, and of El Placer ’48. iii. 383; iv. 102, 104, 403, 563-4; v. 577. Capt.
Wolter married an Estrada, settled at Mont., and was cl. for the Toro rancho,
iii. 679. He died in ’56 at the age of 65.
Wood, 1841, with
Douglas, iv. 212; named at Sutter’s fort. W. 1846, at Sutter’s fort from Or. in
June. v. 526. W., 1846, mr of the Pandora, v. 579. W., 1847, juryman and
constable at Sutter’s fort. y. 542. W., 1848, in the mines; discov. of Wood
Creek; perhaps the man who came from Or. with Capt. Martin, and was killed by
Ind. W., 1848, builder at Benicia,
v. 673. W. (Geo.), 1831, mr of the Louisa,
iii. 383. W. (Geo. T.), 1844, deserter from the U.S. Warren at S.F., who lived
among the Ind. of Marin Co. near Tomales, where Wood Point bears his name. iv.
453. The ex-sailor became an expert horseman, widely known as Tom Vaquero. He
died at S. Rafael in ’79. W. (Henry), 1833, Amer. named in Larkin’s books
’33-7, known as the ‘deacon.’ iii. 409; in the Or. cattle party of ’37. iv. 85;
served in Cal. Bat. ’46 (v. 358), and had a Cal. claim of $30 (v. 462); owner
of S.F. lot’47; a carpenter at S.F. ’51-4; perhaps several different men. W.
(John),
1847, Co. I, N.Y.Vol. (y. 499); at Hanford, Tulare
Co., ’82. W. (Joseph),
1845, overl. immig. of the Grigsby-Ide party, who
probably returned east in ’46. iv. 579; but may have been one of the Woods
named at Sutter’s fort at the beginning of this paragraph. W. (O. R.), 1848, at
Hon. from Mont.; seems to have married a daughter of W. H. Merrill at S.F. W.
(Paul D.),
1846, Co. C, 1st U. S. dragoons (v. 336). W. (Wm),
1840, sup. of the Columbia ’40-1. iv. 102-3, 564. W. (Wm), 1846, Co. E, Cal.
Bat., enlisting at Sutter’s fort Oct. (v. 358). W. (Wm), 1847, Co. C, Morm.
Bat. (v. 469). W. (Wm A.), 1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518). W. (Wm
Maxwell), 1844, fleet-surgeon of the Pacific squadron U.S.N. ’44-6, who, on his
way overland across Mex. in ’46, sent to Com. Sloat at Mazatlan news of the
outbreak of war. He published a narrative of his adventures under the title of
Wandering Sketches, iv. 452-3, 460, 479, 661.
Woodard (John), 1832,
witness at Mont. Wooden (John), 1843, doubtful name of the Chiles-W^ajker
immig. party, iv. 393-4. Woodruff (Wilford),
1848, Mormon, and one of the discov. of gold at
Mormon Isl.; perhaps ‘Wilford.’ Woods (Henry), 1838, in Sta Clara; perhaps
‘Wood.’ W. (Isaiah
C.), 1848,
nat. of Me, who came as sup. of a trader, and from ’49 was prominent as
manager of Adams & Co.’s express and banking business. He went east after
the failure of that aomp. in ’55; among other enterprises established an
overland mail from Texas to S. Diego; served as commissary of transportation
in the war of ’61-5; and returned to Cal. about ’68. He died in 80, leaving a
widow and 3 children. W. (John), 1848, at Sta Cruz’81. Wood- side (Preston K.),
1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); clerk of the naval agency at Mont. ’48; later
clerk of supreme court. In ’81 at Tucson, Ariz. Woodward (E.), 1840, steward
of the schr California. W. (Francis), 1847, Co. C, Morm. Bat. (v. 469).
Woodworth, 1847, a Mormon in Sutter’s employ ’47-8, teaming between the fort
and mill. W. (John), 1834, Engl, at Mont. ’34-5.
Woodworth (Selim E.),
1847, nat. of N.Y., and lieut U.S.N., who came overland to Or. in ’46, and to
Cal. in the winter of ’46-7, taking some part in an exped. for the relief of
the Donner party, v. 539; owning S.F. lots, joining the Warren, and in ’48
acting as mr of the transport Anita, v. 576. In ’49 he resigned his commission,
engaged in trade in comp, with P. A. Roach, and was a member of the 1st state
senate. Later he became a business man at S.
F., being
prominent in the vigilance com. of ’51. In the war of ’61-5 he rejoined the
navy, reaching the rank of commodore, resigning about ’67, and
781
residing for the most
part at S.F., where he died in ’71, at the age of 55, leaving a widow and 5
children. Portrait in Annals of S.F. vVoolard (Henry), 1847, Co. K, N.Y.Vol.
(v. 499); 58 lashes and a month in jail at S. Jos6 ’48 for attempted murder.
Wooldridge, 1846, com. of the Spy. v. 580. Wooley (Wm), 1847, Co. A, N.Y.Vol. (v.
499); at Campo Seco ’71-82. Wooster (Charles W.), 1847, nat. of N. Y., who came
as sup. of the Confederation, having been admiral in the Chilean navy. He
presided at the lat thanksgiving dinner at S.F. ’47, being owner of lots here
and at Benieia. v. 646, 672, 678. Partner of Ward and Fourgeaud in the Yuba
mines; dying at Hock farm Aug. ’48.
Worden (John L.),
1847, lieut on the Southampton. W. (Stepheu), 1844, doubtful name of an Amer.
at S.F., age 25. Work (John), 1833, a trapper applying for supplies, iii. 392.
Workman (Andrew J.), 1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); at Virgin City, Utah,
’82. W., 1809, doubtful record of a hunter, ii. 89. W. (Oliver G.), 1847, Co.
B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); reenl.; at Salt Lake City ’82. W. (Wm), 1841, nat. of
England, who came from N. Mex. in com. of an immig. party with his family, iv.
276-9, 637. He had long been a trader at Taos, and at the time of his coming to
Cal. was somewhat compromised in the eyes of the Mex. govt by his supposed
connection with Texan political or revolutionary schemes. He obtained, with
John Roland, the Puente rancho, confirmed in ’45. iv. 331, 635; was a leader
of the foreigners against Micheltorena in ’45. iv. 495, 505; took some part in
’46-7 in the direction of preventing warfare, v. 50-1, 332-3, 387, 396; and was
the purchaser of S. Gabriel mission, v. 561, 627-9. In ’52 he was cl. for the
Cajon de los Negros and La Puente ranchos. From about ’68 he was a banker in
company with Temple at Los Ang., and in ’76, on the failure of the bank, he committed
suicide, at the age of 76. I know nothing of his family, except that a brother
David died at La Puente in ’55. Wort (Geo.), 1847, Co. G, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); d.
at S.F. ’47. Worth (Caroline), 1848, nat. of Ind., resid. of Sonoma Co. ’74-7.
Wrangell (Baron F.
von), 1833, gov. of the Russian colonies in Alaska, at Ross in ’33, and at Mont
’35 on his way to Mex. iv. 160-9. See also Hist. Alaska. Wright, 1845, doubtful
member of the Grigsby-Ide party, iv. 579. W., 1847, had a hospital on Cooper
St., Mont. W., 1848, from Hon. on the Sagadahoc. W., 1848, at Sta Cruz, buying
C. C. Smith’s interest in a store, which was perhaps in the mines. W., 1848,
partner of Dav. Ray in the Yuba mines. W., 1848, of W. & Owen, liquor
dealers at S.F. W. (Chas),
1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469). W. (David), 1847,
carpenter at Mont.; cl. in ’52 for Roblar de la Miseria rancho, iv. 673. W.
(Harry), 1846, Co.
G, Cal. Bat., enlisting at S. Jos<5 Nov.
(v. 358). W. (J.), 1840, passenger on the Lausanne perhaps, who went to Hon.
iv. 104, 121. W. (Jonathan),
1846, at Mont. ’74, said by McPherson to have come
this year. W. (J. H.),
1848, passp. from Hon. W. (Phineas R.), 1847, sergt
Co. A, Morm. Bat. v. 477. W. (Stephen A.), 1847, prob. overl. immig., perhaps
of ’46; at Mont. ’47-8, of W. & Dickenson, lumber dealers; owner of S.F.
lot ’49. v. 685; and member of S.F. council ’49; later a banker who failed and
went to Ariz. before ’60. W. (Tiery), 1844 (?), perhaps one of Fremont’s men.
iv. 437.
Wiimsen (John), 1823,
appears as a witness at StaB.; prob. a sailor, ii. 495. Wunderlich (F. H.),
1848 (?), biog. in Eurelca Humboldt Times, June 25, ’79. Wyboum (Robert), 1847,
Co. I, N. Y.Vol. (v. 499); in Calaveras ’71-4. Wylie (John), 1847, Co. E,
ditto. VVylis (Richard), 1845, doubtful name of an overl. immig. iv. 578. Wyman
(Gardner), 1847, at Mont. ’47-8. W. (Geo. F.), 1844 (?), sent by Sutter to
raise recruits for the Micheltorena campaign in Dec. iv. 453, 486, 501; often
named in the N. Helv. Diary ’45-8; His wife, ment. in ’47, was America,
daughter of David Kelsey, still living in ’85. In ’78-S4 W. was living at
Spanishtown, S. Mateo Co., and in newspaper sketches and county histories is
said to have left a whaler in ’36. W. (T.W.), 1847, capt. on the U.S. Columbus.
v. 577.
Yame (Bias), 1806,
sailor on the Peacock, ii. 38. Yanonalit, Ind. chief at Sta B. 1782. i. 377.
Yard (Edward M.), 1846, lieut on the U.S. Dale;
at Trenton, N.J.,
’78. Yamall (Mordecai), 1847, prof. of mathematics on the Columbus. Yates
(John), 1842, Engl, sailor who came from Mazatlan and was employed by Sutter as
mr of his launch, iv. 229, 341. In ’43 he was in some trouble at Sonoma, Sutter
furnishing bail; in Nov. ’44 his launch was wrecked at Ross; he is named in the
N. Helv. Diary ’45-7, and seems to have been the owner of land in the Chico
region ’46-7, having also a Cal. claim of $30 (v. 462). In ’51 he went to the
Sandwich Isl., where he was living in ’72, in which year he sent me his Sketch
of a Journey to the Sacramento Valley in 'I/S, including a narrative of earlier
adventures. It is a most interesting and useful MS., though there are
indications that the valley trip may have Ijeen antedated by a year or two. Y.
(John D.), 1847, Co. H, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); in ’82 at Albany, N.Y.; a printer.
Ybarra, etc.# see ‘Iharra,’ etc.
Yeamans (Edward),
1847, Co. E, N. Y. Vol. (v. 499). Yellow Serpent, Or. Ind. at Sutter’s fort
’44-6. v. 300-2. Yems, 1817, sailor at Sta B., doubtful name. ii. 286.
Yergeens (Fred.), 1847, Co. F, 3d U. S. artill. (v. 518); liviug in ’64. Yetch
(August), 1847, perhaps of N. Y. Vol. under another name. Yim (James), 1828,
Amer. pilot at Mont. ’28-9, age 23; name doubtful; prob.‘Jim.’ Yndarte (J.
D.), 1845, mr of the Farid, iv. 565. Ynitia (Camilo), grantee of Olompali ’43.
Yonkins (Wm), 1847, Co. F, 3d U. S. artill. (v. 528); in the S. Jos6 hospital
’64, suffering from an incurablc cancer.
Yorba (Antonio),
1769, one of Fages’ original Catalan volunteers; in 1777 corp. of the S. F.
comp.; in 1782 corp. of the Mont. comp.; and in 1789 of the S. Diego comp. In
1797 he was retired as invdlido sergt; and in 1809-10 grantee of the Santiago
de Sta Ana rancho, Los Ang., which he or a son of the same name occupied down
to ’30, and the family later, i. 647, 663; ii. 104,
112, 172, 353, 565, 664; iii. 634. His wife, from
1782, was Maria Josefa, daughter of Alfgrez Grijalva; and the children named in
early years were Isabel Marfa, Cecilia, Raimunda (who married J. B. Alvarado),
Francisca, and JosiS Domingo who died in 1796. Y. (Bernardo), son of Antonio,
age 35 in ’39, aux. alcalde or juez de campo at St Ana ’33, ’36, ’40, ’44. iii.
635-7;
iv. 633; grantee of Canada de Sta Ana ’34 and
of Sierra ’46. iii. 633; v. 628. His daughter Ramona married B. D. Wilson. Y.
(Isabel), grantee of Guadalasca ’46, and cl. in ’52. iii. 655. Y. (Jos6 Ant.),
son of Antonio, age 27 iu ’39; aux. alcalde and juez de campo at Sta Ana Abajo
’36, ’40. iii. 6367; in ’41 at S. Juan Cap. iv. 626, 628; in ’47 rcgidor at
Los Ang. v. 626. Y. (Jos6 Domingo), son of Jos6 Ant., b. at S. Diego 1795; cl.
of S. Vicente Canada ’52. v. 629. Y. (Ramon), cl. for Las Bolsas ’52. iii. 633.
Y. (Teodosio), son of JosS Ant., age 22 in ’39, aux. alcalde at Sta Ana ’36 and
’47. iii. 636; v. 626; a prisoner in ’38. iii. 554-5; grantee of Arroyo Seco
’40.
iii. 711; at S. Juan Cap. ’41. iv. 626; grantee
of Lomas de Santiago ’46.. v. 627. Y. (Tornds Ant.), son of Joa£ Ant., age 55
in ’39, supl. of the diputa- cion ’30, ’32. iii. 50, 216—18; aux. alcalde at
Sta Ana ’31-2, ’35. iii. 635; ment. in ’39, ’40, ’43. iii. 589, 629, 637.
Yorgens (Joseph),
1828, Amer. trapper of Pattie’s party, iii. 163, 168; age 24 in ’29. Either Y.
and Ferguson were the same, or one of them could not have belonged to this
party. York, 1834, Engl, sailor, age 23, in a Mont. list. Y. (John), 1845, nat.
of Tenn. and overl. immig. of the Grigsby- Ide party, with his wife Lucinda
Hudson and 2 sons, Wm E. and David, the latter being apparently horn on the
trip. iv. 579, 587. He settled at the head of Napa Valley; was at Sonoma during
the Bear revolt; went to the mines in ’48-9; and in ’49—82 lived on his farm in
Napa. There were 9 surviving children in ’82, including those named above.
Portrait in Napa Co. Hist., 62. Y. (Wm), 1846, Co. F, Cal. Bat. v. 358; at S.
JosiS ’48-50.
Young, 1833, at S.
Diego ’33-4, in Ehbetts’ service, called capt. Y., 1647, mr of the Com.
Stockton, at S.F. and Bodega, v. 577. Y. (Alpheus),
1847, Co. D, N.Y.Vol. (v. 499); at S.F. ’82. Y.
(Charles B.), 1847, lieut Co. A,ditto, v. 503. Y. (ChasD.), 1847, musician,
ditto. Y. (Ewing), 1830, capt. of trappers, who came to Cal. from N. Mex., and
again in ’31-2, going to Or. in ’34, returning in ’37, to purchase cattle, and
dying in Or. ’41. ii. 600; iii. 174-5, 180, 357, 387-8, 393-4 , 410, 630; iv.
85-7, 263-4; see also
783
Hist. Or.,
i. 90 et seq. Y. (Francis), 1837, lumberman in the Mont. dist. ’37-44. iv. 118.
He failed in business ’44; and nothing more is known of him unless he was with
Ford at Olompali ’46. v. 166. Y. (John), 1844, on roll of Soc. Cal. Pion.; nat.
of Scotland, and nephew of Capt. John Wilson; perhaps did not come from
Valparaiso till ’45. He was a trader and mr of vessels on the coast; and later
superintendent of the N. Almaden mine. Died at S.F. ’64. Y. (Jonathan), 1847,
mid. on the Columbus. Y. (J. E.), 1848, miner at Mormon Isl., ete.; later a
farmer in Plaeer Co. to ’68. Y. (Lewis or Levi), 1833, mr of the Enriqueta.
iii. 382. Y. (Nathan), 1847, of Morm. Bat. (v. 469); reenl. at Los Ang. Y.
(Rom"), Mex. citizen at N. Helv. Y. (Sam. C.), 1846, nat. of Tenn., and
overl. immig. with his family, v. 528-30. He settled as a farmer at Sta Clara,
where he died in ’78, leaving 3 sons— Leander C., who died in ’82, M. D., at S.
Jos<5 ’81, and E. J., ditto.
Yount (George C.),
1831, nat. of N.C. who came as a trapper in Wolf- skill’s party from N. Mex.
iii. 386, 405, 166, 363. For several years he hunted otter chiefly on S.F. hay
and its tributaries, also making shingles at odd jobs. His name appears on
Larkin's books in ’33. In ’35 he was baptized at S. Rafael as Jorge Concepcion,
and worked for Vallejo at Sonoma. In ’36 he obtained a grant of the Caymus
rancho in Napa Valley, where he built a cabin, or block-house, and for years
was the only representative of the gente de razon in the valley, iii. 711; iv.
117. He still spent much of his time in hunting, and had many encounters with
the Ind., though by his long experience with the natives, his fearless
character, and by his tact iu forming alliances with the strongest rancherias,
he managed to keep all under good control. In ’43 he was grantee of the La Jota
raneho, an extension of Caymus, iv. 671, where he soon built a saw-mill, having
also a flour-mill on his place; and the same year he was joined by two
daughters who eame overland with Chiles, the latter having in his visit of ’41
brought news from the family and been commissioned to bring them. iv. 393. In
several of the old trapper’s experiences, as related by him and embellished by
others, a trace of faith in dreams and omens is shown; but the oft-repeated
story that a dream of his led to the relief of the Donner party has no
foundation in faet. In later years the old pioneer found the squatters and
land-lawyers somewhat more formidable foes than had been the Ind. and grizzlies
of earlier times; but he saved a portion of his land, and died at his Napa
home—called Yountville in his honor—in ’65 at the age of 71. Portraits in
Hesperian, ii.; Napa Co. Hist., 54; Mene- fee’s Sketch-book, 160. Y. (Lot G.),
1844, ranchero named in Larkin’s papers; prob. error for Geo. C. Youin (Juan),
1846, owner of S.F. lot. v. 684.
Zabriskie (Jerome),
1847, Co. B, Morm. Bat. (v. 469); reenl.; in Utah ’82. Zaldibar (Pedro), 1818,
deserter from Bouchard’s insurgents, ii. 241. Zal- videa (Jos6 Maria), 1805,
Span, friar whose missionary service was chiefly at S. Gabriel and S. Juan Cap.
He died at S. Luis Bey in ’46. Biog. v. 620-1; ment. ii. 48-50, 109, 114-15,
159-60, 352, 355-6, 394, 555, 567-8, 655; iii. 91, 96, 102, 317, 358, 625, 627;
iv. 371, 422, 622-4. Zamora (Ignacio), soldier at the Colorado pueblos 1780-1;
killed by Ind. i. 359, 362. Z. (Juan), capt. appointed for Cal.; did not come.
iii. 54. Z. (Manuel), Mex. soldier of the Hidalgo piquete at Mont. ’30, age 26.
Z. (Nicanor), supl. com. de policiaat Mont. ’36. iii. 675. Zamorano (Agustin
Vicente), 1825, Mex. alf^rez who came with Echeandia; nat. of Florida, of
Spanish parentage; capt. of the Mont. comp, from ’31, and of the S. Diego comp,
from ’35. He left Cal. in ’38, but returned in ’42 as lieut-col, and died in that
year at S. Diego. He is named in the Mont. padron of ’36 as 36 years old, wife
Luisa Arguello, child. Dolores b. ’27 (married J. M. Flores), Luis ’29, Gonzalo
’32, Guadalupe ’33 (married Henry Dalton), Josefa ’34, and Agustin ’36. An
Eulalia is also Darned by Hayes as having married Vicente Estudillo. Of the
sons I have no record. Biog. of the capt. iii. 559-61; ment. ii. 543-4, 549,
608, 669, 676; iii. 13-14, 33, 44, 47, 50, 61-2, 81, 84, 91, 99, 102, 205, 214,
220-32, 239, 243, 347, 364, 441, 445, 463, 515-20, 533, 549, 556, 568-9, 608,
614, 669-71; iv. 68, 290, 408, 619; v. 365. Zampay, chief of the Yolo Ind. ’36.
iv. 72.
Zarembo (Dionisio),
1827, mr of the Okhotsk'27-9. iii. 148; and of the Urup ’31-2. iii. 213, 384;
again in Cal.’ 45 as Russian agent, iv. 187-8. Zavaleta (Aniceto Maria), Mex.
artilleryman at S. Diego ’21 and earlier, a somewhat unmanageable fellow,
though a good soldier. He became sergt, and about ’28 was retired as teniente
de premio; serious charges against him in ’31 > had much trouble in
collecting his pay in later years; sec. of the ayunt. at S.
D. ’41. iv. 619; ment. in ’45. iy. 508.
Zavalishin (W.), 1824, Russ, agent who visited Cal.; author of a work on the
Russ, colony, Delo o Koloniy Boss.
ii. 641, 647. Zeballos (Areaco), 1791, Span,
lieut in Malaspiua’s exped. i. 490. Zeilin (Jacob), 1846, lieut of marines on
the Congress; acting capt. in Stockton’s Bat. ’46-7. v. 281, 385, 391-5;
perhaps ‘Zielin.’ Zenon, Ind. leader of a plot at S. Josg ’42. iv. 338. Zerman
(John Napoleon), 1846 (?), Fr. lieut at Waterloo; veteran of many campaigns: in
Mex. war; in Cal. ’49 et seq. and in ’74; possibly in ’46. Zertaje, 1821, mr or
sup. of the S.F. Javier.
ii. 440, 202. Zetch (August), 1847, gen.
accredited to N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); settled at Petaluma; d. at S. F. ’79; prob.
the following. Zetschsky (Charles), 1847, Co. C, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499); at
Petaluma ’83. Clark.
Zimmerman (Bernard),
1847, Co. F, 3d U.S. artill. (v. 518). Z. (W.),
1847, ditto; in Cal. ’64. Zindel (Louis), 1844, one
of Fremont’s party; prob. did not come to Cal. iv. 437. Zinky (D.), 1846,
doubtful name of the Cal. Bat. (v. 358). Zinns (Geo.), 1846, nat. of Lorraine,
and overl. immig.; Cal. Bat. (v. 358); married Mrs Wolfinger at Sutter’s fort
’47, and is said to have built the first brick house at Sac. He was later a
brewer and fruit-grower, but being ruined by fire and again by slickens, he
lived on a chicken ranch from ’72, and died at Oakland in ’85 at the age of
’86. Zittle (Michael),
1847, Co. I, N.Y. Vol. (v. 499). Zorrilla (Francisco),
1842, named as in charge of the Los Ang. gold mines, iv. 630. Ziiniga (Jos6),
1781, lieut of the S. Diego comp., acting as habilitado and com. to 1793. Later
capt. at Tucson, Sonora; lieut-col 1810. He was one of the most efficient of
the old presidio officers. Biog. i. 645-6; ment. i. 335, 340, 343, 372, 396,
398, 400, 441,454, 461-3, 467, 484, 502, 522, 653; ii. 78. Z. (Guillermo),
land-owner at Los Ang. ’39, age 48. Z. (Nicolas), soldier of the Mont. comp.
’36, age ’21. Z. (Pio Quinto), soldier of the S. Juan Cap. escolta 1776—9. i.
303. Z. (Ramon), soldier at Mont. ’36, age 25. Z. (Valentin), at Los Ang. ’39,
age 42. Z. (Ventura), boy at Los Ang. 1802; soldier in ’10. ii. 91. Zurri-
llaga 1824, mr of the Constancia. ii. 519. Zurita (Jos£), murderer at S. Juan
B. ’44. iv. 662.