USA > California > History of California, Volume III > Part 25
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 (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19 | Part 20 | Part 21 | Part 22 | Part 23 | Part 24 | Part 25 | Part 26 | Part 27 | Part 28 | Part 29 | Part 30 | Part 31 | Part 32 | Part 33 | Part 34 | Part 35 | Part 36 | Part 37 | Part 38 | Part 39 | Part 40 | Part 41 | Part 42 | Part 43 | Part 44 | Part 45 | Part 46 | Part 47 | Part 48 | Part 49 | Part 50 | Part 51 | Part 52 | Part 53 | Part 54 | Part 55 | Part 56 | Part 57 | Part 58 | Part 59 | Part 60 | Part 61 | Part 62 | Part 63 | Part 64 | Part 65 | Part 66 | Part 67 | Part 68 | Part 69 | Part 70 | Part 71 | Part 72 | Part 73 | Part 74 | Part 75 | Part 76 | Part 77 | Part 78 | Part 79 | Part 80 | Part 81 | Part 82 | Part 83 | Part 84 | Part 85 | Part 86 | Part 87 | Part 88 | Part 89 | Part 90 | Part 91
219
PICO DEFRAUDED OF THE GOVERNORSHIP.
body desired him to come to Los Angeles. Each de- clined to yield, and the controversy may have been more bitter than is indicated in the records. At last, after waiting fifteen days, it was decided that the presence of the gefe provisional could be dispensed with, and on the 27th the oath of office was taken by Pico. Echeandía made no open opposition, but neg- lected to proclaim the change; and later, when the ayuntamiento of Los Angeles, doubtless at his insti- gation, refused on February 12th to recognize any gefe but Echeandía, the latter openly declared Pico incompetent, his election illegal, and the action of the diputacion a wrong to himself. Rather than resort to force, however, he proposed on the 16th to surren- der the gefatura, holding the diputacion responsible for all disorders that might ensue. Echeandía's course can hardly be regarded otherwise than as contempti- ble and treacherous. Led by motives of personal ambition and personal resentment, he made use of his military power against the cause he had pretended to support. He may have been technically right in de- claring the action of the diputacion illegal; for it is doubtful if in a frontier territory like California the civil and military power could be even temporarily separated by the people, but he knew this perfectly when he signed the plan, which was the only law un- der which the revolutionists could pretend to act.
Pico and his associates acted in a moderate and dignified manner at this juncture. The former de-
ment, also in Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 42-3. Feb. 17th, Vallejo and Argüe- llo presented their expediente against Victoria, a long presentment of all the charges, with copies of many documents on the subject, all of which has been utilized in the preceding chapter. Some slight routine business was trans- acted, and then the dip. adjourned for the reasons stated in the session of Feb. 16th. (p. 209 11, 298-350.) On this subject I may note hero that on Feb. 6th, E. had sent to Mexico a full statement of the charges against Vic- toria and tho causes of the revolt. Alaman, Sucesos de Cal. en 1831, MS., p. 23-9. Feb. 24th, at S. Diego the members of the dip., in forwarding to Mexico the expediente above alluded to, prefaced that document with a long statement of their late sessions at Los Angeles, of their efforts in behalf of their country, and of Echeandia's unexpected opposition and ambitious schemes to retain his political power. Their case as presented was a very strong one. (p. 233-68.) Ley. Rec., MS., i. 173-353.
220
AN INTERREGNUM-ECHEANDÍA AND ZAMORANO.
clined to retain the office in opposition to the will of the general and the people of Los Angeles, and the deputies, defenceless and averse to further civil dis- sensions, deemed it best to regard Echeandía's move- ment as a successful contra-pronunciamiento, which relieved them of all further responsibility. They ac- cordingly suspended their sessions on the 17th, ren- dering to the national government a full report of all that had occurred, and holding themselves in readi- ness to meet again when the interests of the country should demand it. Pico made no further claims to the office of gefe político, nor were any such claims made for him. By the five members of the diputacion he had been recognized from January 27th to February 16th, twenty days, and under the plan of revolt he was entitled to the office. Such is the substance of Don Pio's title to be regarded as governor of Cal- ifornia in 1832-3.8
While Echeandía was thus occupied with a revolu- tionary movement against his own friends in the south, another Mexican officer was engaged in devel- oping revolutionary schemes, equally selfish and am- bitious, but far less treacherous, in the north. Captain Agustin V. Zamorano and others pronounced at Monterey against the plan of San Diego, and all who had favored that movement. Zamorano had been Victoria's secretary and friend, but so far as can be known had taken no part in the troubles of 1831, had made no effort to defend his unpopular master in his time of need, but had perhaps promised neutrality. Now that Victoria was out of the country, aware that the popular feeling in favor of Echeandía was by no means so strong as had been that against Victoria, knowing that current disputes must be settled event-
3 On the trouble between Pico and Echeandía, see, in addition to the records already cited, Pico, Hist. Cal., MS., 41-4; Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 189-92; Vallejo, Ilist. Cal., MS., ii. 159-64; Alvarado, Ilist. Cal., MS., ii. 134-90; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 50-1; Machado, Tiempos Pasados, MS., 28-9. There are no variations of statement requiring notice. P. says that E. subsequently recognized him; but such does not appear to have been the fact.
221
ZAMORANO'S REVOLT.
ually in Mexico rather than in California, and being moreover free from all charges of complicity in the late revolt, the ambitious captain shrewdly saw his opportunity to gain favor with the national authori- ties, as well as temporary prominence in territorial affairs, and he acted accordingly.
Zamorano's first step was to secure the cooperation of the foreign residents of Monterey. These foreign- ers, though taking no decided stand, had been inclined to favor Victoria because of his strict preservation of order and administration of justice, caring very little for his sins against the spirit of Mexican institutions. As a rule, they disliked Echeandía, had no confidence in Pio Pico, were opposed to all revolutions not di- rectly in the line of their own interests, and deemed their business prospects threatened by the rumored dissensions in the south. Therefore they were will- ing to act in defence of good order at the capital. They were convened by Zamorano on January 24th, and proceeded to organize a compañia extranjera for the defence of Monterey, during the continuance of 'existing circumstances,' against attack from the in- terior or from any other quarter. Nearly fifty joined the company, and elected Hartnell as their leader.4
Compañia Extrangera de Monterey, su organizacion en 1832, MS. The company was not to be required to leave the town under any circumstances. Juan B. Bonifacio was 2dl officer, or lieutenant, with Luis Vignes as a substi- tute in case of his disability. Such men as had to leave their work for mili- tary service were to receive 50 cents per day. The following mnen attended the meeting and signed the rolls of the company: Agustin V. Zamorano,
Juan B. Bonifacio,
J. L. Vignes,
Win E. Hartnell,
Timothy Murphy,
D. Douglas,
Thos Coulter,
Wm Taylor,
Nathan Spear,
Juan B. Leandry,
James Watson,
Santiago MeKinley,
Geo. Kinlock,
Jolın Rainsford,
Estévan Munras,
J. B. R. Cooper,
John Gorman,
José Iglesias,
José Amesti, Chas Roe,
Walter Duckworth,
Luis Pombert,
Henry Bee,
Thos Raymore,
Samuel Mead,
R. S. Barker,
John Roach,
Wm McCarty,
Edward Watson,
Thos Doak,
John Thompson,
Jolın Miles,
David Littlejohn,
Jas Cook,
Joseph Dixon,
Wm Garner,
Win Johnson,
John Roper,
Pierre J. Chevrette,
Wm Gralbatch,
Guy F. Fling,
Chas R. Smith,
Juan D. Bravo, Daniel Ferguson,
John Burns,
Wm Webb.
I have in my possession the original 'orderly book' of the company, kept
222
AN INTERREGNUM-ECHEANDÍA AND ZAMORANO.
Having thus enlisted the services of the foreign residents, the leaders of whom doubtless understood his plans, Zamorano summoned Asesor Gomez, Lieu- tenant Ibarra, Hartnell, and half a dozen other men of some prominence to a meeting February 1st; and to this junta, after having stated that northern Cali- fornia from Santa Bárbara to San Francisco did not accept the plan of San Diego, he submitted in sub- stance the following questions: Are the acts of the diputacion at Los Angeles legal or illegal? In the latter case, in what person should be vested the civil and military command, Victoria having left the terri- tory? Should a force be sent south for the defence of Santa Barbara, as had been requested? Ought the sub-comisario of revenues at Monterey to obey the orders of Juan Bandini, his superior officer, but a leader in the revolution ? After a thorough discussion, that is, after the members had approved Zamorano's views as previously agreed upon, the junta decided : First, that the acts of the diputacion must be con- sidered illegal and null, since that body had been con- vened by an authority unknown to the laws and ex- isting only by reason of revolution. Consequently no obedience or respect was due to rulers chosen by that body. Second, no gefe político should be chosen until the supreme government should appoint one, but the comandancia general should be filled ad in- terim, according to the military regulations, by the officer of highest rank and seniority who had taken no part in the rebellion, that is, by Zamorano, the two ranking captains Portilla and Argüello having for-
by its captain, from Feb. Sth, when active garrison duty was begun, to April 12th, when the captain resigned. Hartnell, Cuaderno de Ordenes de la Com- pañia L'etrangera de Monterey, 1832, MS. On Feb. 23d, Edward Watson was dismissed for disrespect. March 25th, Hartnell, having to be absent, left Bonifacio in command. April 12th, the alcalde having requested the comandante of the post to dispense with Bonifacio's services, Hartnell took it as an insult to the company, and resigned. This was very likely the end of the organization. On Feb. 18, 1833, Hartnell informed the members that Gov. Figueroa, in his communication to Zamorano on Feb. 15th, had thanked the foreigners for their services, which he promised to make known to the sup. govt. Vallejo, Doc., MS., ii. 12.
223
PRONUNCIAMIENTO OF MONTEREY.
fcited their rights. Third, to remove anxiety, uphold lawful authority, and prevent catastrophe at Santa Bárbara, as large a force as can be spared should be sent there at once, but not to attempt operations against the rebels unless they should attack that place. In case of such attack, the comandante may not only repel the foe, but if circumstances permit, may advance to San Diego and capture the rebel leaders. He must communicate the proceedings of this meeting to the officer in command of the rebels, summoning them all to give up their arms, and suspending all from office. Should they refuse, they are to be warned not to advance beyond the points they now occupy. Fourth, the comisario subalterno, Gomez, will not obey Bandini, but communicate directly with the comisario general in Sonora. Fifth, the garrison at San Fran- cisco having pronounced in favor of the legitimate authority, and arrested their comandante, Sanchez, who had approved the San Diego plan, the retired lieutenant, Ignacio Martinez, shall be placed in com- mand there. Sixth, the acting comandante general must report these proceedings to the supreme govern- ment, with mention of the services rendered by for- cigners, and lists of soldiers and civilians who have remained loyal.5
5 Pronunciamiento de Monterey contra el Plan de San Diego, o sea Acta de la Junta de 10 de Febrero 1832 en favor de la legítima autoridad y contra D. José Maria Echeandia, MS. Copy certified by Zamorano on Feb. 2d, and several other certified copics. The signers were Capt. Agustin V. Zamorano, com- andante of Monterey; Lic. Rafael Gomez, asesor of the territory; José Joa- quin Gomez, comisario subalterno of Monterey; Salvador Espinosa, alcalde; W. E. Hartnell and Juan B. Bonifacio, commanders of the foreign military company; Juan Maria Ibarra, lieut of the Mazatlan company; Juan Malarin, honorary 2d lieut of national navy; Francisco Pacheco, brevet licut; and José María Madrazo, sergt of artillery detachment. Feb. Ist, Zamarano reports the action of the junta to the alcalde of S. José. S. José, Arch., MS., iii. 9. Feb. 2d, sends copies to S. F., S. José, and Branciforte. J'al- lejo, Doc., MS., i. 289. Feb. Gth, Z. announces to comandantes and al- caldes that the garrison and citizens of Sta Bárbara had 'pronounced' in favor of legitimate authority, deposing the comandante, Alf. Domingo Car- rillo, who had adhered to the S. Diego plan. All accomplished in a most happy manner. Id., i. 290. Feb. 12th, Z. to Echeandía, sends copy of the proceedings of Feb. Ist, and the summons required by that document to surrender, promising the clemency of the govt to him and his followers if he accepts. Id., i. 296. April 2d, Alf. Sanchez, having repented, is restored
224
AN INTERREGNUM-ECHEANDÍA AND ZAMORANO.
There are no records of a formal adhesion to Zam- orano's plan at San Francisco, San José, Branciforte, and Santa Bárbara, though there are allusions to such adhesion at some of those places, and there can be no doubt that it took place at all during the month of February. Ibarra started with a military force for Santa Bárbara about February 9th; and in April, the defence of Monterey having been intrusted to the compañia extrangera and to another company of citi- zens organized for the purpose, Zamorano himself marched south with all the force he could raise, hav- ing learned that the so-called rebels were assuming a hostile attitude, and were not disposed to pay much attention to the autoridad legítima.
So far as the south is concerned, we know more of what was said than of what was done. The authors of my original narratives content themselves with the general statement that Zamorano having refused torec- ognize Echeandía, the latter consented to rule in the south, while his rival held sway over the north.6 The earliest notice we have that a knowledge of the con- tra-pronunciamiento had reached the south is when on March 5th Echeandía reported to Pico the news of disturbances at Santa Bárbara, and proposed a meet- ing of the diputacion for consultation, offering to at- tend;7 and next day were communicated more complete details respecting the proceedings at Monterey. There were informal meetings of officials for consultation at
to the command of S. F. Id., i. 305. March 30th, Z. to alcalde of S. José. HIas heard that the rebels of S. Diego have assumed a hostile attitude and are about to occupy Los Angeles, which at the beginning of the month had come out in favor of the legitimate authority. This makes it necessary for him to go to Sta Bárbara and perhaps farther; and he calls on the alcalde for 20 or 25 men, mounted and patriotic, to be sent at once, since by a rapid movement he hopes to secure the tranquillity of the country. S. José, Arch., MS., ii. 60. Feb. 29th, Anastasio Carrillo in a private letter speaks of the force which Lieut Ibarra has at Sta Barbara, with which he will force S. Diego to yield to the proposal of Feb. 2Sth (?). Valle, Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., 25. April Sth, Z. was at S. Antonio on his way to Sta Bárbara. Guerra, Doc., MS., vi. 132. Gonzalez, Experiencias, MS., 30-1, alcalde at the time, gives a few vague particulars about the action at Sta Bárbara.
" The names of authors and narratives are for the most part those given in note 56 of chap. vii.
7 Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 44.
225
RIVAL RULERS.
San Diego on March 7th, 8th, and 13th; and it was probably at these meetings that Juan Bandini opened the batteries of his wrathful eloquence on the leaders of the northern movement, uttering some truths, but trusting largely to personal abuse to maintain his position.8
The 14th of March Echeandía made a formal reply from San Luis Rey to Zamorano's communication of February 12th. He accused the latter of having violated his personal pledges of neutrality, at the instigation of Rafael Gomez and his own personal ambition. He alluded to the facts that Victoria had recognized him as his successor in command, and that the officials at San Diego in recent meetings had ut- terly refused to recognize Zamorano as comandante general. Still Echeandía proposed a truce under con- ditions, which being observed, he would not use force to maintain his rights. Evidently nobody in Califor- nia was thirsting for blood. The conditions were that Zamorano should leave commercial and other commu- nication free between different parts of the territory, withdraw his forces from Santa Bárbara, leave the diputacion and ayuntamientos free to act as they might deem best in civil affairs, and leave also the co- misario and the former comandantes of Santa Bárbara and San Francisco free in the exercise of their duties. On these conditions, by taking the oath prescribed in the constitution, he might regard himself as coman- dante general of the north until the decision from Mexico; but as Ibarra was intriguing with Los Angeles, Zamorano must decide very promptly, or he would begin hostile operations and make real the
" Bandini, Apuntes Políticos de 1832, MS., and another undated document in Id., Doc., 26-31. Zamorano is accused of bad faith in keeping quiet for 12 days after Victoria's defeat to pronounce for him after his departure; Rafael Gomez was an intimate of Victoria, a prevaricator, an associate of unworthy persons, and a rum-seller; José J. Gomez was anxious for disorders in order to hide irregularities in his revenue accounts; Hartnell was a monarchist; Bonifacio, an ignorant foreigner, not naturalized; Espinosa had no authority outside of his municipality; and the other signers were for the most part incapable of understanding the pronunciamiento. There were only one cap- tain and one lieutenant, as against 11 officers in favor of the plan of S. Diego. HIsr. CAL., VOL. III. 15
226
AN INTERREGNUM-ECHEANDÍA AND ZAMORANO.
streams of blood talked of, holding his opponents responsible before God and the world.9
The diputacion, willing to forget for the time its own wrongs at the hands of Echeandia, assembled at his call at San Diego to consider measures for checking the disorders that must result from the new pronun- ciamiento, "this duty devolving on the assembly for want of a gefe político." The members were unan- imous in their condemnation of Zamorano's junta, es- pecially of its attempt to suspend the diputacion, a body with whose acts even the national government had declared itself powerless to interfere, said Argüe- llo, except after reference to congress. At a second meeting, March 22d, Pico expressed sentiments very similar to those of Bandini already cited; and it was resolved to issue a circular to the ayuntamientos, in- viting them to preserve order, to recognize the dipu- tacion, and to proceed with their ordinary municipal duties without paying the slightest attention to the junta which was tempting them into danger. After this rather mild action the assembly adjourned, appar- ently with the intention of meeting again at Los Angeles.10
But the legitimistas succeeded in their intrigues with the fickle ayuntamiento of Los Angeles, which body, on March 22d, laid before the people a commu- nication from Zamorano, explaining the beauties of his system. To this system the assembled citizens "mani- fested themselves addicted;"11 and Ibarra came im- mediately from Santa Bárbara with a part of his force and encamped in the pueblo of the Angels. At San Luis Rey the members of the diputacion en route for
9 March 15, 1832, Echeandía to Pico, transcribing his communication of the 14th to Zamorano. l'allejo, Doc., MS., i. 303.
10 Leg. Rec., MS., i. 211-20. March 18th, Pico to Vallejo, inviting him to attend the meeting of next day. Vallejo, Doc. ITist. Cal., MS., i. 306. March 20th, Echeandía to Pico, reporting resolutions of the council of war at S. Diego March 7th, 8th, 13th, against Zamorano. Argüello and Vallejo had been present. Dept. St. Pap., MS., iii. 44-5. The circular to the ayuntamientos was probably issued but intercepted by Zamorano's officials in the north.
11 Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 59-60.
227
PREPARING FOR WAR.
Los Angeles heard of the defection of that town, and also that Echeandía was engaged in active prepara- tions for war. The most alarming symptom of ap- proaching trouble was the attitude of the neophytes, who, as devoted partisans of Echeandía, were coming into camp from all directions and were being armed and drilled for offensive operations. The deputies now held a meeting at San Luis and devoted all their energies to the preservation of tranquillity and the prevention of bloodshed. It was voted to send a de- spatch to Ibarra, holding him responsible for any mis- fortunes that might result from an outbreak of hos- tilities, warning him of the inquietude of the Indians, and urging some arrangement to avoid a rupture. Similar notes were to be sent to both Echeandía and Zamorano. 12
Echeandía expressed his willingness to make an arrangement for peace, but as no replies were received from Ibarra and Zamorano, he went on with his preparations, and an advance force of soldiers and In- dians under Captain Barroso encamped at Paso de Bartolo on the San Gabriel River.13 Ibarra deemed it best to retire to Santa Bárbara, perhaps by the order of his chief, who was now-early in April- hastening south from Monterey with reinforcements. Los Angeles was in turn occupied by Barroso and Echeandía, who in a day or two removed their forees to San Gabriel.14
12 Leg. Rec., MS., i. 220-2. It may be remarked that Ibarra's occupation of Los Angeles was in a sense a violation of Zamorano's plan of Feb. Ist, ac- cording to which his forces were not to advance beyond Sta Bárbara unless that place should be attacked.
13 Alf. Ignacio del Valle, Lo Pasado de Cal., MS., 6-7, relates that he was with Barroso at the Paso while his father, Lient Antonio del Valle, was with Ibarra at Los Angeles.
14 Many Californians state that Echeandía had over 1,000 Indians at the camp on the river; and Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 196-9, says that he entered Los Angeles at the head of 1,000 mounted Indians, whom, however, he dismissed with presents after retiring to S. Gabriel. Tuthill, Ilist. C'al., 134, following Robinson's Life in Cal., 122, tells us that Echeandia gathered many Indians at S. Juan Capistrano, and inaugurated a series of robberies and murders. A state of anarchy and confusion ensued. There is no foundation for such a statement. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 161-77, narrates the particulars of a personal quarrel that occurred about this time between Echeandia and San-
228
AN INTERREGNUM-ECHEANDÍA AND ZAMORANO.
Zamorano, on arrival at Santa Bárbara, was some- what less warlike than at Monterey, and was induced to consider the propositions for a truce, to which he had previously paid no attention. After some pre- liminary correspondence, not extant, between the two comandantes and the diputacion, an arrangement was concluded on the 8th or 9th of May; but Zamorano seems to have had very much his own way in dictat- ing the conditions15 by which the military command was divided between Echeandía in the south and Zamorano in the north, while the diputacion was left with no authority at all, except such as the southern
tiago Argüello. The matter is also alluded to in Leg. Rec., MS., i. 229-30. Vallejo also gives some details of the stay of the forces at S. Gabriel, where $20,000 were 'borrowed' and supplies were exacted, not much to the satisfac- tion of the padres, who were warm adherents of the other party.
15 Zamorano, Proclama que contiene los Artículos de las Condiciones con- venidas entre él y el Sr Echeandia en Mayo de 1832, MS. This original procla- ination is dated May 9th. I have never seen the original agreement with signatures of the parties, or any copy of it; and I suppose that no such docu- ment was ever signed. The articles were in substance as follows: 1. Until the arrival of a ruler or of express orders from Mexico, California shall remain divided into two parts-one from S. Gabriel south, under command of Lient- col. Echeandía, and the other from. S. Fernando north, under Capt. Zamo- rano. The former could not advance any military force north of San Juan Capistrano; nor the latter south of S. Buenaventura-this, however, not to affect the ordinary mission escoltas of 5 or 7 men. 2, 4. Neither the dip. nor any gefe político named by that body shall issue any orders to the northern ayuntamientos; nor shall the dip. make any innovations in the southern mis- sions. 3, 5. Trade and travel must not be interrupted; and in case of convul- sions either party must afford prompt advice and aid. 6. Neither party can l.ave with Los Angeles any other relations than the military ones heretofore cxisting between that town and the presidial comandantes. 7. Any arined advance contrary to art. 1 to be repelled without incurring responsibility; other faults to be promptly settled by official correspondence. S. Mails to leave Monterey on the 7th, and S. Diego on the 22d of each month. 9. In opening official despatches from Mexico great delicacy to be used, and the responsibility to rest on the southern comandante. 10. Civilians who have taken no part in the contention may live where they please; others where they are (?). 11. Neophytes and gentiles are to be sent back unarmed to their respective homes. 12. For the sake of peace, these articles will remain in force until the chief named by the sup. govt shall have been recognized. Copy of this document also in S. José, Arch., MS., ii. 90. Alvarado, Hist. ('al., MS., ii. 188-9, claims to have been largely instrumental, by his personal intimacy with both leaders, in securing the formation of this treaty. Eche- andía did not admit that he had agreed to these articles except to Nos. 1, 5, and 8. This appears from his letter to Pico of May 22d. Dept. St. Pap., MIS., iii. 47-8, and from Zamorano's proclamation of July 7th. Vallejo, Doc. Ilist. Cal., MS., i. 314. His claim was that the others were suggestions not definitely decided on, or perhaps in some cases not accurately stated in Zamorano's proclamation. The diputacion, however, seems to have agreed with Z.'s version of the articles relating to that body. Leg. Rec., MS., i. 250-2.
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.