USA > California > Misrepresentations of early California history corrected > Part 1
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org.
-
THE ROBERT E. COWAN COLLECTION PRESENTED TO THÉ
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
ITATI
Acc
SIGILL
HLVX
ORNIENSIS
FIAT
N
EX LIBRIS
BANCROFT LIBRARY
PROCEEDINGS
OF
The Society of California Pioneers
In Reference to the Histories OF
HUBERT HOWE BANCROFT
LIBRA OF THE
TIVER
OF
PIONEER
SAN FRANCISCO :
STERETT PRINTING COMPANY FEBRUARY, 1894
MISREPRESENTATIONS
OF
EARLY CALIFORNIA HISTORY
CORRECTED
2
Proceedings of THE SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA PIONEERS in 11 regard to certain misrepresentations of men and events in early California history made in the works of
HUBERT HOWE BANCROFT
AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS
BANCROFT'S HISTORIES
UNIVER
HALL OF
THE SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA PIONEERS
SAN FRANCISCO
FEBRUARY, 1894
INTRODUCTION.
The Society of California Pioneers is composed of men who came to California prior to the first day of January, 1850, and their male descendants.
The proceedings hereinafter recited have been taken there- fore, after due and careful deliberation, by men, who are personally familiar with the true facts of early California his- tory, and who have been actuated by a sense of duty to them- selves and to posterity in correcting certain gross misrepresen- tations in regard to the men and events of that early period.
These misrepresentations have appeared from time to time in the books commonly known as " Bancroft's Histories, " and have heretofore passed unchallenged and found common public acceptance as authority for reviewers, and others who have written upon the subject.
The time has at last arrived when, in the judgment of the now old men who yet compose the majority of members of this Society, the gross mis-statements in regard to men and events which these books contain should be refuted, by the publica- tion of the testimony of living witnesses, so that that testimony may go upon record and be perpetuated, and the real facts and truth of history be vindicated.
In all its proceedings upon this question this Society has vainly sought to find a just motive on the part of the so-called " Historian " Bancroft for the astonishing mis-statements which he has given in his works. No excuse, no circumstance . of palliation has so far been offered by him in the matter.
This Society can do no more, therefore, than to refer the whole subject to the deliberative judgment of a discriminating public, in the belief that the common verdict of that public as well as that of posterity will be that such so-called " history " as that herein considered will forever be held to be unworthy of credence, and will deserve and find no place in the public or private libraries of the world.
LIBRAR
OF TH UNIVERSITY
8
C LIFORNIA
HALL OF 4
The $ ociety of alifornia
ioneers
SAN FRANCISCO, NOVEMBER 1893.
In the matter of the SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA PIONEERS,
VS.
HUBERT HOWE BANCROFT, an Honorary Mem- ber of said Society.
On the second day of October, 1893, at a regular monthly meeting of the Society of California Pioneers, a resolution was introduced by Dr. Washington Ayer, of which the follow- ing is a copy, viz. :
" WHEREAS, statements have been made by an honorary mem- ber of this Society in a quasi-history published by one Hubert Howe Bancroft, which are at variance with historical records, and reflect upon the honor, dignity and integrity of the California Pioneers, and
" WHEREAS, All such statements have no foundation of truth, and are unworthy the labors of an upright historian, and only becoming to one, who in our judgment strayed far from the
5
domain of an honest writer, with the purpose in view to mislead the reader and wrong the founders of a new State upon the extreme western boundary of our country, and by such state- ments did wantonly and maliciously wrong the old Argonauts;" therefore,
" Resolved, That the name of Hubert Howe Bancroft be stric- ken from the list of Honorary Members of this Society, and that the Secretary be requested to send him a copy of this preamble and resolution."
After some debate the foregoing resolution was adopted and Dr. Wm. S. Simpson gave notice that at the next regular monthly meeting of the Society he would move for a recon- sideration of the vote upon the adoption of such resolution.
At the regular monthly meeting of the Society, held on the 6th day of November, 1893, Dr. Simpson, in accordance with the notice so given, moved that the vote upon the before recited resolution be reconsidered, which motion, after debate, was adopted.
The resolution was then referred to a special committee consisting of Dr. Wm. S. Simpson, A. S. Hall, R. Thompson and S. W. Holladay, with instructions to notify Mr. Bancroft of the action that has been taken by the Society, and to request him to appear before such committee-if he desired to do so -- and show cause why his name should not be struck from the roll of Honorary Membership, as proposed in the resolution under consideration.
Herewith are presented the specific charges against Hubert Howe Bancroft, alluded to in the before recited resolution, and which constitute the reasons why it is sought to strike the name of said Bancroft from the roll of Honorary Membership of said Society.
6
First .- Because of the facts stated in the following preamble and resolutions, introduced at the regular monthly meeting of the Society of California Pioneers, on the 7th day of August, 1893, by W. B. Farwell and unanimously adopted at the next regular monthly meeting of the Society, held on the 4th day of September, 1893.
" WHEREAS, In the organization and founding of the Society of California Pioneers, one of its declared and most important purposes was set forth in its constitution as follows, viz .: 'To collect and preserve information connected with the early settlement and subsequent history of the country, and also, in all appropriate matters to advance the interests and perpetuate the memory of those whose sagacity, energy and enterprise induced them to settle in the wilderness and become the founders of a new State, ' and
"WHEREAS, In pursuance of these declared purposes, we, who are yet living witnesses of the more prominent events of early California history, and who were contemporaries of the men whose names are most prominent as actors and participants in these events, deem it our duty not only to 'collect and pre- serve information in regard to the acqusition and settlement of California,' but also to correct misstatements and misrepresen- tations of so-called historians who have written upon the sub- ject, whenever and wherever they may be found, and
" WHEREAS, Hubert Howe Bancroft, in his so-called ' History of California,' has, within the personal knowledge and recol- lection of many of the old Pioneers here present, distorted the- 1
facts and truths of such history, and maligned the memory of many of the men most conspicuous as participants in these early events, more of which misrepresentations as illustrative of the purposes of these resolutions are summarized as follows, viz:
7
" First. Fremont is designated a ' filibuster, ' whose almost every act in California was a wrong from beginning to end. He says (See Vol. 3 of his 'History of California,' pages 747 and 749): ' When the authorities very properly ordered him to leave California, he fortified a position on Gavilan Peak and raised the U. S. flag. This was foolish bravado, as he realized after a day or two of reflection in connection with Consul Larkin's advice and the sight of military preparations at San Juan, so he ran away in the night.'
".And again, speaking of the Bear Flag revolt, he says, ' That most indefensible rising of the settlers which interrupted negotiations for a pacific change of flag, would not have occurred but for Fremont's promise of active support when needed; therefore, he must be held responsible not only for the bloodshed and bitterness of feeling that attended the con- flict of 1846-7, but for the much more disastrous state of affairs which but for sheer good luck must have resulted.'
" And again: 'At Monterey though Commodore Sloat would not adopt his views, Fremont found in Stockton a filibuster after his own heart, willing to incorporate the Gavilan episode and the Bear Flag revolt in the sacred cause of the United States.'
" And again, speaking of the controversy which subsequent- ly arose between Stockton and Kearney, in which Fremont was loyal to Stockton as he was in duty bound to be, Bancroft sneeringly remarks: 'Though technically disobeying military orders, Fremont could not with the honor that should prevail among filibusters as well as thieves, abandon his chief,' etc. And he closes his biographical sketch in these words: ‘Fre- mont did more than any other to prevent or retard the conquest of California. He is to be regarded as an adventurer of mar- velous good fortune, for a man of moderate abilities to be made conspicuous before the world or to enjoy opportunities that cannot be utilized.'
8
" These are but a few of the many false and malicious state- ments made by Bancroft in regard to Fremont, and which we have thus specifically quoted with proper reference to the volume and pages where they may be found. Through his history Fremont is constantly misrepresented, and the part that he played in the acquisition of California is constantly belittled and distorted to suit a seemingly vengeful malice - existing in the mind of the historian, the cause of which it is not our purpose or duty to inquire into.
"Second. Of Commodore Stockton he says (See page 735, Vol. 5 of his 'History of California,'): 'His whole policy of conquest which was to produce such unhappy results, his blustering tirade against imaginary evils, his willingness to identify a criminal revolt of vagabond settlers,' (referring to the men of the Bear Flag party, with a legitimate military occupation, etc.,) ' his whole reputation as conqueror of Cali- fornia, is as unmerited as that of the Pathfinder.'
" Third. 'The acts of the Bear Flag party,' as above referred to, in which during its operations, such men as John Bidwell, Samuel J. Henley, Pearson B. Redding, Robert Semple, and other equally well-known early Californians were participants, 'were,' says he, 'a criminal revolt of vagabond settlers." And he designates the man who was placed first in command of the Bear Flag party, Ezekiel Merritt, whom Fremont says was ' a rugged man, fearless and simple, taking delight in incurring risks, but tractable, and not given to asking questions when there was something he was required to do,' as a 'coarse-grained, loud-mouthed, whisky-drinking, quarrelsome fellow, well adapted to the use that was made of him in promoting the filibuster schemes.' (See page 736 of Vol. 4 of Bancroft's History of California.)
"Fourth. More criminally wicked and more cruel than all, is his denunciation of that gentle and generous-hearted man,
9
the late General John A. Sutter, (see Vol. 5, pages 738 to 740, for what follows), and after stating that he had obtained from him personally at his home in Latiz, Penn., ' the story of his wrongs,' and which was without doubt truthfully told, he turns upon him with wolf-like ferocity and reads him thus: 'He was a German-Swiss trader, compelled by bankruptcy to become an adventurer in America. None of the pioneers have received. so much praise from so many sources, few have deserved so little. He was but an adventurer from the first. entitled to no admiration or sympathy. His career in New Mexico was at. the best discreditable. He came to California in the false character of a captain in the French Army. Of principle or honor, of respect for the rights of others, we find but slight trace in him. There was no side of any controversy he would not adopt at the call of interest. Nationality, religion, friend- ship, 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 anger he did not roundly abuse. His only capital was money borrowed on the way to California, or property obtained on credit from Cali- fornians and Russians after his arrival, all on pretenses 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.'
" Sutter's Fort he designates as ' an isolated rendezvous for the hostile and uncontrollable elements of a vagabond popula- tion in the far interior'-referring here, of course, mainly to the American settlers in the Sacramento Valley. And again; "Though Sutter's establishment did something to promote the influx of American settlers, it was in no sense beneficial to the interests of the United States, merely fomenting filibusterism with all it's unhappy results.'
" That Sutter treated immigrants ' more kindly than a dozen others,' and that he did so 'at a personal sacrifice,' is not true.
10
Neither is it true ' that Sutter in 1845-6 was friendly to the United States, or to the immigrants as Americans.' And
0
" WHEREAS, Without quoting further from this monstrous series of libels upon the memories of departed illustrious Pioneers and monstrous perversion of the facts of history, it is hereby
" Resolved, That Bancroft's denunciation of Fremont, Stock- ton and Sutter. and his designation of the men of the Bear Flag party as vagabond settlers, are plainly the vaporings of a mind distorted by prejudice, or envenomed by malice, and attach a greater degree of disgrace to their author than to the honored names and memories of the men whom he thus maliciously maligns.
" Resolved, That upon the principle of 'false in one thing, false in all,' Bancroft's 'History of California,' so-called, is, in the opinion of this Society, unworthy of credence as authority, or as a source of correct information for present or future generations, and merits the just condemnation of every fair- minded man, whose early personal experiences enable him to form a true estimate of its value."
Second .- Because of the malicious misrepresentations of the characters of some of the men who were among the earlier pioneers of California, and who were also among the founders, and respected members of this Society up to the day of their death; as instance the following:
Of Andrew J. Grayson-a man renowned in the scientific world as an ornithologist, whose contributions to that branch of scientific knowledge are commonly acknowledged as hardly inferior in value and interest to those of Audubon. This man, Mr. Bancroft in his "Pioneer Index and Register" (Vol. 3, page 764) alludes to (after saying that "he was active in raising men for the California Batallion, in which he ranked
11
as lieutenant,") as "a gambler and an associate of Lippincott McDougal and other like characters," which statement, in so far as it accuses Grayson of being a gambler, is wickedly and cruelly false, and known to be so by many pioneers now living, who were honored by being counted among his personal friends. "
Of Benjamin S. Lippincott, alluded to in his remarks upon Grayson, (see Vol. 4, " History of California," page 714,) he says: "He was a gambler by profession and one of the boys;". another equally false and malicious mis-statement, and known to be so by many pioneers still living, who can testify to that fact. Even Bancroft himself, with strange inconsistency, in the same notice of Lippincott, says: "He was active in raising recruits for the war, and served as Lieutenant of Company H., California Batallion, also acting as quarter-master." He says. also: " He was owner of town lots, a candidate for the council, a Member of the Constitutional Convention of '49, representing. San Joaquin county in the first Legislature, and Calaveras in '55 and '61."
Of George McDougal, also alluded to in his notice of Gray- son, he says (See Vol. 4, page 723): "He lived at Santa Cruz and Gilroy; served as a kind of unattached volunteer in the California Batallion in '46 and '47; was a broker, that is a gambler, at San Francisco in '47 and '48, becoming the owner of many town lots in partnership with Lippincott," etc.
I
These men, as has been said, were among the early pioneers of California, and were also among the founders of this Society. Clearly, after the misrepresentations and abuse heaped upon the memories of Fremont, Stockton, Sutter, the men of the Bear Flag party, and all who were active in bring- ing about the acquisition of California as an American posses- sion, it is not difficult to find the motive for this gross aspersion upon their memories, when we consider that each
12
one of them was an active participant in that patriotic work which was so distasteful to Mr. Bancroft.
Third .- Because of willful and malignant misrepresenta- tions of various other Americans, who were among the early settlers in California, of the part which they played in the events that preceded, and transpired during the conquest of the country, as instanced in the following statement of facts:
In 1840, a hundred or more American and other foreign residents were arrested by the Mexican authorities, taken to Monterey under the accusation of having plotted against the government. Among them were such men as Dr. Marsh, who lived upon the San Joaquin river; Livermore, from whom Livermore's pass and valley were named, and others of like prominence. They were imprisoned, maltreated, subjected to great hardships and suffering, and some fifty or more were finally expatriated and sent to Mexico, but were subsequently released and sent back by the Mexican authorities, with a money indemnity for the wrong which had been put upon them.
T. J. Farnham, an American, who chanced to be at Mon- terey while these men were imprisoned there, in his book entitled "Life, Adventures and Travels in California, " (pub- lished in 1852) gives a thrilling account of the matter, in which he says (see page 59): "Mr. Larkin made arrangements with the government to day to furnish the prisoners with food and . drink. Their cells were examined and found destitute of floors. The ground was so wet that the poor fellows sunk into it several inches at every step. On this they stood, sat and slept. From fifty to sixty were crowded into a room eighteen to twenty feet square. They could not all sit at once, even in that vile pool, still less lie down. The cells were so low and tight that the only way of getting air enough to sustain life was to divide themselves into platoons, each of which, in turn, stood at the grate awhile to breathe. Most of them had been in prison seven or eight days, with no food except a trifling
)
13
quantity, clandestinely introduced by a few daring countrymen outside. When I arrived at the prison, some of them were frantic, others in a stupor of exhaustion and appeared to be dying."
Farnham then goes on and gives a detailed narrative of the . events which preceded this cruelty, and as afterwards so clearly shown to the Mexican authorities that they disavowed and disapproved it. He gives the names of the prisoners, - among whom, in addition to those already named, were those of Nathaniel Spear, Peter Storm, afterwards a prominent Bear Flag man: Mark West and other well known men of that time, and he says (page 70): "Forty-one of the prisoners, whose names appear on the concluding pages of the last chapter, furnished me with written accounts of their arrest and subse- quent treatment." Some of which statements he gives in full, and which simply corroborate all that he states concerning the affair.
It is proper to state here, that while all this was done during the time and under the direction of Alvarado, who was then governor, the most brutal treatment of the prisoners and their subsequent deportation to Mexico in chains was carried out by the same Don Jose Castro, who, as we have already seen, ordered Fremont out of the country, and was the leading spirit of every movement against Americans prior to the con- quest of California.
Coming now to Mr. Bancroft's treatment of this matter. In Volume 4, of his " History of California," he gives the story of the arrest and deportation from beginning to end, breathing a spirit of hostility to the prisoners and their historian Farn- ham, and an equally zealous endeavor to apologize for and to explain away the conduct of the Mexican authorities, and Castro in particular.
14
Admitting that the statements were made by some of the prisoners to Farnham, as given in the latter's book, and quoting some of them himself, Bancroft says (Vol. 4, page 15): " The victims and their friends have accused the Californians, not only of having exiled them without cause, but of cruelty at the time of arrest, during their confinement, and on the voyage to San Blas. These charges are, I believe, exaggerated, though from the nature of the case, they cannot be entirely disproved. In considering the evidence to be offered, the reader should bear in mind the character of the exiles, as men whose word could not be trusted, the opportunity to make their stories agree, their interest with a view to indemnity from Mexico in maintaining their wrongs and exaggerating them, and the prevailing spirit of every thing Mexican, which in the following years served as a favorable medium for their complaints."
A statement backed by not one word of evidence to support it, and considering the wantoness of calling a body of fifty or more men, about all of whom he could by no possibility have had adequate knowledge to justify it, as "men whose word could not be trusted;" it is sufficient in itself to justify this Society in condemning him as an historian, and as unworthy of association with them.
But following out his line of policy as an historical writer, and to show how he proceeds to establish his propositions by arrogant and unscrupulous dictum, instead of by presentation of historical facts, attention is drawn to his statements about Farnham, who has already been quoted as the chief narrator . of this episode in the early history of California. Of him, Bancroft says (Vol. 4, page 25): "His remarks on men and events at Monterey are so evidently and absurdly false as to throw more than a doubt upon all that he says." And again, in his biographical notice of him, (Vol. 3, page 734) he says: " His work on California is criticised elsewhere in this work; here it must suffice to say, that in all those parts resting on
1
15
his own observation, it is worthless trash, and in all that relates to the California people, a tissue of falsehood." And yet, nowhere does he attempt to impeach his statements except by this sweeping dictum of his own imperious will, and his apologetic efforts to present the case in the strongest possible pro-Mexican and anti-American spirit.
Illustrative of this latter proposition, it is well to quote here his laudatory praise of Don Jose Castro, who, as has been .shown, was always the most active, influential and effective enemy to Americans in California. Of him, he says (Vol. 2, page 752): " With his acts in the contest with the settlers and the United States little fault can be found. He did not mal- treat the exiles of '40, as charged by Farnham and others. He did not break his pledge to Fremont in the spring of '46, nor did he do any of the absurd things attributed to him in con- nection with the Gavilan affair; but his conduct was far more honorable, dignified and consistent than that of Fremont. He did not threaten to drive the immigrants back into the snows of the interior, but treated them with uniform kindness In the southern negotiations of August, he bore a much more honorable part than did Commodore Stockton," and so on ad nauseam.
Of this same Castro, Commodore Stockton, in his proclama- tion on taking command in July, 1846, at Monterey, said: " The present general of the forces of California is a usurper; - he 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 California and they wish his expulsion from the country. He came into power by rebellion and force, and · by force he must be expelled."
Whose testimony shall prevail, Bancroft, writing from the standpoint of narrow prejudice forty years after the events
16
which he is relating, or Stockton, the active, able and patriotic contemporary of the man whom he knew so well, and with whose every official act he was so thoroughly familiar?
One more witness remains to be heard on this arrest and expatriation of Americans in 1840, which the historian Ban- croft has so assiduously endeavored to explain away and gloss over.
Thomas O. Larkin, in a communication to the Secretary of State, of June 15, 1846, written before he had received the news of the hoisting of the Bear Flag, and Fremont's active operations in the north, said: "The undersigned improves the opportunity of observing that there cannot be brought for- ward by the President against Mexico, any claim or demand so strong and so impetuous as the unjust and cruel arrest, imprisonment and shipment in irons of so many Americans from this port in April, 1840. Californians in California com- · mitted this most outrageous act, and they and their territory should be held responsible for the deed."
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.