History of California, Volume III, Part 52

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe
Publication date: 1885-1890
Publisher: San Francisco, Calif. : The History Company, publishers
Number of Pages: 824

USA > California > History of California, Volume III > Part 52

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).

heart, as represented by the ayuntamientos of Los Angeles and San Diego. I proceed with the chrono- logical narrative.

In his letter of November 7th, before cited, Alva- rado stated that commissioners would start next day to submit the new plan for approval in the south.1 There are indications that such agents were despatched about that time, but we have no record of their nego- tiations, and they do not appear to have gone beyond Santa Bárbara. So far as I can learn, the first news of events at Monterey came on the Leonidas, which touched at Santa Bárbara about the 15th. The tidings spread to Los Angeles, where, on the 17th, Alcalde Requena called an extra session of the ayunta- miento. The rumor was that Gutierrez was prisoner, Mexican officials had been banished, and an armed force was en route for this city, to compel adhesion to a plan of unknown purport, but believed to involve a change in the existing order of things. The people were called in, and it was resolved not to recognize any authority not legally established, and to send a committee, headed by Síndico A. M. Osio, to meet the approaching force and learn the objects of its coming.2 Next San Diego heard the news, from Rocha at San Gabriel, and assem- bled its ayuntamiento on the 22d. In the discus- sions great importance was attached to the part taken

1 Alvarado, Carta Confidencial, MS. Buelna and Villavicencio are named. It would seem that the former at least could not have gone, yet some state- ments indicate that he did.

2 Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 197-200. The arrival of the Leonidas with the district judge and Capt. Muñoz (?) on board was mentioned. Regidores Valdés and Herrera were the other members of the committee. Nov. 19th, an account of the meeting was sent to J. J. Rocha, administrator of San Gabriel, who acknowledged receipt on Nov. 20th. Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., ii. 66. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 318-20, mentions the prominent part taken by the síndico, not naming himself, now and later. Osio says the op- position of Los Angeles was, Ist, because it was ridiculous to form a state with only 9,000 inhabitants, 300 of them educated; 2d, because of foreign and American cooperation, savoring too much of annexation; 3d, because greater powers than those of the national congress had been assumed in granting religious tolerance. These and 'other reasons' caused Angeles to hesitate in recognizing a govt whose elevated principles might very likely prove top-heavy.

HIST. CAL., VOL. III. 31

4S2

ALVARADO'S RULE-TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.

by foreigners in the northern outbreak. On the rec- ommendation of Alcalde Argüello and Comandante Salazar, it was decided to send two comisionados to consult with the authorities of Los Angeles and Santa Bárbara on the course to be taken. "The national honor and integrity being at stake, not a moment should be lost." Juan Bandini and Santiago E. Ar- güello were appointed for this commission,3and reached Los Angeles in time to take part in the meetings of the ayuntamiento and people, November 25th-26th. At the first of these meetings a plan was adopted to save the country. By its terms the plan of Monterey was rejected as an act of violence; other ayuntamientos were invited to send each three persons to Los An- geles to elect a provisional gefe político; the law making Los Angeles the capital was to be strictly enforced; military officers not engaged in the Mon- terey movement were to be invited by Comandante Rocha to choose a temporary general; Los Angeles was to await the cooperation of San Diego and Santa Bárbara only, to carry out this plan; and these reso- lutions were to have effect until the national laws should be again in full force. This was approved by the people, and it was voted to place on file a list of adherents, to place under surveillance all who refused to sign it, and to arrest the emissaries said to be com- ing from the north. Next day, besides communica- tions from Monterey, one was read from the alcalde of Santa Bárbara, who represented his municipality as declining to approve the plan of Monterey until a pro- visional congress should meet in a central locality, and

3 Nov. 22, 1836, acta of the ayunt. Letter of Alcalde Argüello to Alcalde Requena, and instructions in 7 articles to the comisionados. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 137-S. The agents were to have an interview with Gutierrez, if possi- ble, to make known the perfect loyalty of S. Diego, and it was understood that one of their duties would be to aid in devising means for the selection of a legitimate temporary ruler. Nov. 22d, Alcalde Argüello orders mission ad- ministrators to furnish all needed aid to the comisionados on their journey, and he tells him of S. Diego mission, 'the national honor demands that you furnish me two horses'! Id., 141.

4S3

SAN DIEGO AND LOS ANGELES LOYAL.

guaranties be offered of protection to lives and prop- erty of Mexicans.4

Bandini and Argüello returned home, and their re- port of what had taken place at Angeles was pre- sented at the ayuntamiento meeting of the 29th, a report which, like the speeches made, was full of loy- alty and brave determination to avenge the insult to the Mexican nation, with expressions of surprise and regret that selfish interests had prompted certain un- principled men to "abuse the candor of the Califor- nians, and compromise them so shamefully." This was simply 'Bandini versus Ramirez.' San Diego of course approved the plan of Los Angeles, and the three electors named in accordance therewith were Bandini, S. E. Argüello, and J. M. Marron, Pio Pico being substituted for Bandini a few days later on ac- count of the latter's illness. Meanwhile the troops at San Diego and San Luis became infected with a rev- olutionary spirit and refused to do duty-that is, they 'struck' for pay or supplies now that there might be urgent need of their services. This delayed the elec- tors, and it is not quite certain that all of them reached Los Angeles at all.5

All seemed favorable now for the establishment of a separate provisional government in the south, which should either defeat the Monterey administration, or at least exact favorable terms of compromise; but ob- stacles began to present themselves. The action of the garrisons at San Diego and San Luis seemed to

4 Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 200-12. Sessions of Nov. 25th-6th. Action of citizens of Sta B. on Nov. 20th, announced by Alcalde Dana on Nov. 23d, also in Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., ii. 67-S. Art. 3 of these Sta Bárbara reso- Intions is unintelligible. The Los Angeles plan, as reported by a committee of the ayunt., is also given in Los Angeles, Arch., MS., i. 106-8, with a pref- ace condemnatory of the people of Monterey, who, 'hallneinated with the idea of ruling all California themselves, have been deceived by adventurers.' " Nov. 28, 1836, report of the comisionados; Nov. 29th-30th, acta of ayunt. of S. Diego; Dee. Ist, notice sent to Angeles; Dec. 3d-4th, Pico's appointment; Dee. 2d, 9th, 11th, corresp. between Arguello, Salazar, and Pico about the revolt of troops; Dee. 16th, Alcalde Arguello complains that communication has ceased with the ayunt. of Los Angeles, and that all his patriotic efforts have been in vain. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 139-43, 147; Los Angeles, Arch., MIS., i. 107-20.

484

ALVARADO'S RULE-TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.

indicate that the soldiers even of the south were not so intensely patriotic as to serve without food. Cas- tillo Negrete was invited to take up his residence at Los Angeles, and give the loyal sureños the benefit of his counsels ; but he declined the honor and the service.6 And finally, at a session of the ayuntami- ento December 10th, a communication was received from Santa Bárbara, the ayuntamiento of which place declined to indorse the Angeles plan, proposing one of its own instead. The Barbareños refused to take part in any sectional election held in the interest of either Monterey or Los Angeles; but favored a gen- eral junta composed of four delegates from each pre- sidio and three from each town, to meet at Santa Inés, to work for the interests of the whole territory, and to choose provisional rulers. The Angelinos were now discouraged, seeing nothing desirable in the plan of Santa Barbara. They voted that nothing could be done, thanked San Diego for its proffered coopera- tion, put on file with approval a protest of Castillo Negrete against the northern iniquity, and ad- journed.7

Such was the situation at the end of December 1886. At the beginning of 1837 new ayuntamientos were installed; a fact which seems to have instilled new life and courage into both Angelinos and Diegui- nos. The result was a new plan of Los Angeles, dated January 3d. Its purport was as follows: 1. The plan of Monterey, so far as it relates to indepen-

G Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 213-14; Dept. St. Pap., Angeles, MS., ii. 5S.

" Los Angeles, Arch., MS., iv. 215-19. Several proclamations of Vallejo and others in the north were also received and put on file. It was even al- lowed that these documents might be shown to such sound-minded and reli- able men as had a curiosity to read them. The plan of Sta Bárbara, appar- ently dated Dec. 9th, was in 4 articles. The Ist approved the preceding resolutions of Nov. 20th (see note 4); the 2d proposed the junta at Sta Ines; 3d, authorities to be provisional until approved by national govt; and, 4th, refusal to take part in a sectional election, or counter-revolt. Dec. 29th, Al- calde Argiiello sends a package of papers to the sup. govt by the Leonidas, amal desires Castillo Negrete to put in a clear light in Mexico the patriotic desires and efforts of himself and of San Diego in this crisis. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 149.

4S5

A NEW PLAN-CORRESPONDENCE.

dence from Mexico, is not recognized. 2. The elec- tors at the proper time will come 'to this capital' and proceed to elect a diputacion according to law. 3, 4. Until the new diputacion meets, the ayuntamiento of this city will be the chief authority, but will turn over the command to the first vocal according to law. 5. All to be submitted for approval to the supreme government. San Diego was filled with joy at the receipt of this plan on the 7th, and gladly promised support, though article 1 was deemed by the ayunta- miento not strong enough, and article 3 was feared to be illegal. The election was to be on the 29th, before which date several things happened, as we shall see.8

I have before me several communications, private letters for the most part, written by prominent men in November and December 1836, which deserve no- tice here, as throwing much light on this southern complication. Three of these papers are from the pen of Castillo Negrete, who, as we have seen, tarried a little in the south on his way to Mexico. The first is a letter of advice, dated at Santa Bárbara Novem- ber 18th to Lieutenant Domingo Carrillo, comandante of the post, respecting his duty in this emergency. After being duly instructed about the Monterey in- iquity, Carrillo was counselled to give his men an un- limited leave of absence until recalled to service in the name of the nation. All arms should be secreted, that they might not fall into rebel hands. The troops might however legally venture to aid the municipal authorities in preserving order, always providing the

8 S. Diego, Arch., MS., 151-3; Los Angeles, Arch., MS., i. 126-7. Gil Ibarra and José Sepúlveda were the new alcaldes of Los Angeles; José .An- tonio Estudillo held the office at S. Diego. On Jan. 2d the former ayunt. had received the 9 decrees of the congreso constituyente, and had even as a matter of courtesy acknowledged the receipt to Juan B. Alvarado. Los _Inge- les, Arch., MS., iv. 225-7. Andrés Pico was the clector of S. Diego. Osio, Ilist. C'al., MS., 320-2, says that Alcalde Ibarra was a nobody, and that the whole opposition to Alvarado was managed by the ex-sindico, that is, by Osio himself, through the 2d alcalde Sepulveda as an obedient agent. I shall have more to say of Osio's course.

486

ALVARADO'S RULE-TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.

said authorities were loyal! Finally the comandante ought to assemble his officers in a council of war to put on record their patriotic purposes. Thus might they hope to escape the terrible consequences of re- volt against Mexico.9

The licenciado's letters had a semi-official charac- ter, as his communication to Carrillo had been written in his capacity of legal adviser of the comandancia, and the other two as district judge of California under the overthrown administration. From on board the Leonidas at San Diego, Don Luis in December directed to the ayuntamiento of Los Angeles a long exposi- tion on the state of affairs. I regret that I have not space to reproduce it nearly in full, for a résumé does it no justice; but I present a few quotations in a note.10

9 Castillo Negrete, Consejos al Comandante de Sta Bárbara, Nov. 1836, MS. Original document. Nov. 20th, the judge certifies that Carrillo has remained true to the legitimate authority. Id., 9-11. Meanwhile Carrillo had per- haps followed the advice given by granting leave of absence to his men, to carn a living as they could. At any rate, I find such a discharge for one pri- vate dated Nov. 19th. Vallejo, Doc., MS., iii. 266. Carrillo was later removed by Alvarado.

10 Castillo Negrete, Exposicion que dirige el Juez de Distrito al Ayuntamiento de Los Angeles sobre el Plan revolucionario de Monterey, Dec. 1836, MS. The day is left blank, but was probably Dec. 5th or 6th. 'A power usurpatory of our rights, disturber of our repose, pretends to take from us at the same time order and liberty ... California's first necessity is to reestablish a legitimate government .. . Californian inexperience may be the victim of revolutionists, who, seducing some incantions ones and favored by foreign smugglers, have set up in Monterey the throne of anarchy, and fixed the focus of a faction which is moved by unnatural men, without God, law, or country, and headed by four hallucinated deputies without skill or foresight, as blind instruments of the former. . . American adventurers and corrupt citizens found their hopes on public calamity, on the ruin of the national treasury, on the protection of smuggling, and on the squandering of mission property. . . Four ill-advised diputados, abusing the name of diputacion, without powers, mission, or facul- ties, without having consulted public opinion, constitute themselves sovereigns and arrogate to themselves perpetually all legislative, executive, and judicial powers .. . It is not our duty to obey a diputacion not legally convoked.' (Yet there is no evidence that the dip. convoked by Chico had ever been perma- nently adjourned.) ... 'They are perjurers, breaking the oaths they took be- fore God and men; traitors to the country, having forgotten the holy princi- ple "against the country there is no right." ... The so-called congreso con- stituyente merely follows the inspirations of a frantic philosopher, an old revolutionist, and a vicious foreign smuggler ... The universal and urgent interest of the territory is to preserve peace, prevent the shedding of blood, and protect life and property, being ruled by our respective ayunt. until the laws are again enforced. . . Let us check that faction which seeks to rule us without our consent, else the country will be covered with laws, the legislators will be loaded with salaries and privileges. With republican phrases they will sow discord, plunder the treasury, and attack private for-

487

CASTILLO NEGRETE'S ELOQUENCE.

The argument is an exhaustive, brilliant, and power- ful one; though the author's denunciations of the revolutionists and their policy are more bitter and violent than there was any need to make them, their animus being somewhat too clearly traceable to a per- sonal dislike of two or three men. The remedy pro- posed was suggested at the end in a series of eight resolutions, on which, with some exaggeration, even of the author's estimate of metropolitan powers, was founded the plan of January 3d already noticed. Don Luis issued also another formal protest against the Monterey movement, embodying more briefly his views as expressed in the exposition, and intended to explain the motives which obliged him to leave the territory, for he did not feel at liberty to remain as invited and help the Angelinos to carry into effect his suggestions. 11

Antonio M. Osio, síndico of Los Angeles, who in later writings claims to have been the chief promoter

tunes, and respect neither God nor men ... Have we not seen them break the compact made on the field of Monterey, imprisoning some, expelling others, and foreing capitulated soldiers into their service?' (This charge had little if any foundation in fact.) He goes on to say that the electors sent to the capital at the time fixed by law to renew the dip. were treated with scorn and not permitted to act. It is true that there was a summons for Nov. 6th, but there is no other evidence that the electors were not allowed, or even attempted to perform their duties. Again, he speaks of 'the blind instru- ments of Ramirez, Peña, and Hinckley, who would make of Cal. another Texas, and tear the national flag. . . Shall we be then like the Texans, victims sacrificed to foreign ambition? God forbid !... There is no ayunt. of higher rank than that of Los Angeles, since it is a city and by law the capital; there- fore it should take the initiative.'

He then suggests the following plan: 1. The ayunt. of Los Angeles to invite the others to form a 'common centre of union' to proteet public wel- fare and avoid the disasters of an impending civil war. 2. The electors already chosen to meet at Los Angeles and elect a new dip. 3. The dip. as soon as formed to have the right to name a gefe politico and com. gen. 4. The appointment of those rulers to be, however, provisional and subject to the decision of the sup. govt. 5. The authorities of Los Angeles to write to the 4 diputados of Monterey, begging them in the name of the country to desist from their fatal purpose and favor the new election 'at the capital.' 6. Angel Ramirez, Cosme Peña, and Wm Hinckley to be sent to Mexico for trial. 7. The new dip. to preserve order, etc., and to declare null the oaths taken in support of independence. 8. The ayunt. to consult the people of the city before acting on this proposition.

11 Castillo Negrete, Protestacion del Juez de Distrito contra el Plan de Mon- terey 6 de Dic. 1836, MS. This and the preceding communications were re- ceived at Los Angeles on Dec. 10th.

4SS

ALVARADO'S RULE-TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.

of the opposition to Alvarado, also wrote some letters which indicate that he had plans of his own, though they do not make quite clear the purport of his schemes. The 25th of November he sent to Antonio del Valle a copy of the Los Angeles plan of that date, with a letter, to be shown also to the Carrillos, in which he says: "Although the plan touches some points that we have not spoken of, I think they"-that is, the Carrillos and Osio's friends-"will agree to what I propose, according to our scheme, the difference being very slight. It is necessary to choose rulers, and we shall play very badly the instrument in our hands if we cannot make Vallejo comandante general. If the political command is separated-which is not expedi- ent in such cases-we can give it to my uncle Don Carlos [Carrillo], who is well known here and en la otra banda, not a bad choice perhaps, whether he wishes it or not. Our friend Don Juan Rocha agrees to meddle in nothing, but merely to keep order with his soldiers. I have told Don Juan Bandini he had better go home and keep quiet, since in this fandango only Californians will be allowed to dance. This did not please him, but it is best that he keep quiet, though a friend. I will do all in my power to fulfil my promises. I have already spoken with some friends, who are ready to follow me. The comisiona- dos from Monterey will be sent by the alcalde out of this jurisdiction. Rocha will not admit them at San Gabriel, and if they go to San Diego the Apostle Andrés [Pico] will send them about their business."12

Next day Osio addressed Vallejo himself in a letter which throws but little light on the preceding. He had been stunned with surprise and sorrow, he wrote, at hearing what had happened at Monterey. He was sure Vallejo had nothing to do with the plan, but that Castro and Alvarado had used his name without per-

12 Osio, Carta sobre Combinaciones políticas, 25 de Nov. 1836, MS. Osio in his history says nothing of these plans, which I do not pretend to understand fully.

4SJ

OSIO'S PROJECT.

mission. It could result in nothing but misfortune, and would make California the laughing-stock of the world. Mexico could reconquer the territory, without expending a dollar, by simply turning loose on its property a horde of Sonoran vagabonds. Vallejo must devise a speedy remedy; organize some kind of a temporary government satisfactory to the people if not strictly legal; and finally, go as a deputy to Mex- ico to explain matters. Independence is a foolish dream at present; and the writer quotes from Vallejo's old conversations with Echeandía, to the effect that California might one day be independent-but only when their great-grandchildren should reach an ad- vanced age! So far as intelligible, Osio's plan would seem to have involved a surrender to Mexico and centralism on condition that Vallejo should be made governor and general.13

Juan Bandini, as a matter of course, had something to say on the subject. In a letter of December 3d to Vallejo he represents himself as delirious with sorrow at what has occurred. The picture has no bright side. He loves California better than the land of his birth, but all his efforts and those of others in behalf of the country are now rendered vain and of no effect just when the prospects seemed fairest. The result cannot fail to be disgrace and shame and vengeance. The Californians were mad to expose their plans without force to support them, to attempt to resuscitate the lost cause of federalism. "It is hard to contend against one's own opinions, but it is harder to see a friend mixed up in so terrible a pre- dicament." Not a word of southern remedial plans.14

13 Osio, Carta & Vallejo, 26 de Nov. 1836, MS. The writer implies that a very extensive rovolt in the south, in which the Indians were to have taken part, had been prevented by prompt measures; and he declares that the ' Yanques' must be taught to let polities alone.

1} Bandini, Carta a Vallejo, sobre revoluciones 3 de Dic. 1836, MS. Pio Pico adds a word of remembrance on the margin of Bandini's letter; and on the same date writes to Vallejo on the subject. He expresses no disapproval of the plan; but doubts that Vallejo is concerned in it, as Alvarado claims. Were it so, surely he, Pico, would have been given a share in the enterprise. Vallejo, Doc., iii. 273.

490

ALVARADO'S RULE-TROUBLES IN THE SOUTH.

On the 7th Don Juan made a long report to the minister of hacienda on his favorite topic, using the revolution as a new weapon against his old foe, An- gel Ramirez, who had caused the outbreak solely to cover up his revenue frauds. The Californians had been led into a trap, and the real intention was to annex the territory to some foreign power. He sends documents to show that the south has disapproved such criminal plans, and that 'I have cooperated' in this holy work.15 Five days later he wrote again to Vallejo, in reply to a defence of the revolution. He reasoned earnestly and eloquently. He was still sure that Mexico would wreak a terrible vengeance on all concerned, and trembled for his friend, who had been so unfortunately misled. The whole matter had in his mind no other phase than the punishment to be expected from Mexico and the agency of An- gel Ramirez.16

Carlos Antonio Carrillo took a more cheerful view of the situation. On the 5th of December he ex- pressed his approval of what Castro and Alvarado had done, though he feared the article on independ- ence could not be sustained for want of force. He attached little importance to the federal phases of the plan, for what had the federal government ever done for California? He hoped much from the proposed junta at Santa Inés, and would do his best to unite the south. He favored giving the civil as well as the military command to Vallejo, as Osio had also urged. In two subsequent letters Don Cárlos de- clared himself to be fully converted by the arguments advanced, and an enthusiastic supporter of the whole scheme, independence and all. He even hoped to induce the south to share his views. He had heard, however, that Bandini, Rocha, and others had sent to Sonora for aid, and wished Vallejo to come south

13 S. Diego, Arch., MS., 145. Bandini to min. of hac., Dec. 7, 1836. 16 Bandini, Carta Particular á Vallejo sobre Cosas Políticas, 13 de Dic. 1836, MS.

491

CARLOS CARRILLO FAVORS ALVARADO.

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.

History of California, Volume III, Part 52

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe Publication date: 1885-1890 Publisher: San Francisco, Calif. : The History Company, publishers Number of Pages: 824

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe
Publication date: 1885-1890
Publisher: San Francisco, Calif. : The History Company, publishers
Number of Pages: 824