History of California, Volume IV, Part 34

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe
Publication date: 1885
Publisher: San Francisco, Calif. : The History Company, publishers
Number of Pages: 820

USA > California > History of California, Volume IV > Part 34

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).

46 Jan. 20th, M. to Tornel. Diario del Gob., Feb. 19, 1843, with 6 docu- ments apnexed. Same date, M. sends a similar report of his interview to the prefects. S. Diego, Arch., MS., 293; Vallejo, Doc., MS., xxxiii. 315. Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 314-24, qnotes the letter to Prefect Estrada, and gives some information on the anthority of J. A. Carrillo, which, though amusing, is very inaccurate.

17 Jones' Unpub. Narrative, which gives a parting note sent by Jones to the generals with some congressional documents that had been referred to in their interviews.

323

DEVELOPMENTS IN MEXICO.

Micheltorena's despatches of November 19th by the Trinidad were sent in haste from Tepic on De- cember 7th, and were published at Mexico in the Diario del Gobierno of the 14th, of course accompa- nied by some rather bitter comments.48 Five days later José María de Bocanegra, minister of relations, addressed to the U. S. minister in Mexico, Waddy Thompson, a long letter on the subject, expressing in strong but dignified terms the surprise and grief of his government at having suffered from an officer of the United States-a nation whose protestations of friendly and peaceful feelings had been accepted in good faith-"the greatest outrage that can be done to an independent and sovereign nation." He closed by demanding, in the president's name, "for the conduct of Commodore Jones, due reparation and satisfaction, corresponding to the magnitude of the offence, together with an indemnity equivalent to the damages suffered by the government or people of California, in conse- quence of the aggression aforesaid." 49

Thompson's reply was returned eight days later, he having in the mean time received Jones' explanation of his acts and motives. He declared that the "acts of the American commodore were wholly unauthor- ized by any orders from his government, and that the fullest disclaimer to that effect will be promptly made, with whatever other reparation may be due to the honor of Mexico, and which is not incompatible with that of the United States." He blamed Bocanegra for his insinuations that the act had been authorized; reminded him that the hostile attitude of Mexico in May-an attitude which, as he clearly implies, was assumed in expectation of war between the United States and England-gave Jones much reason to be-

48 Dec. 7th, Castillo Negrete from Tepic to Minister Tornel, forwarding Micheltorena's despatches. Jones at Montercy, 1842, p. 17. The despatches in Id., 18-44, already disposed of, were those published in Diario del Gobierno, Dec. 14, 1842. It was on the same day, Dec. 7th, that Parrott sent Jones' despatches to Mexico.

19 Dec. 19th, B. to T. Jones, Agresion en Californias, p. 87-9; Jones at Monterey, p. 9-12.

324

COMMODORE JONES AT MONTEREY.

lieve that war had been declared; and finally alluded most sarcastically to Micheltorena's conduct, express- ing his regret that the general's "coarse and abusive epithets" applied to Americans, and the "rudeness and gasconade of his note of October 26th-a note which, as there were the strongest reasons to believe, had never been sent, no doubt from inadvertence" -- had not been rebuked by the Mexican government.50 In forwarding this correspondence to Washington, Thompson says: "It would have done no good, you may be assured, to have assumed any lower tone, for the Mexican government are disposed to make the most of this unfortunate affair; and I should not be surprised if they were to attempt to have it consid- ered as a payment of all our claims." 51

With the exception of an interchange of letters on the subject of the Alert's actions at San Diego, as already noted, there was no further official correspondence in Mexico. The papers early in January published a short article, in which was expressed satisfaction at the reply of the U. S. minister, promising in the name of his government all the reparation due to Mexican honor for the unauthorized act of Jones. In February Micheltorena's despatches of January were published in the Diario.52 Soon came the announce- ment that Jones had been relieved of his command and called home for trial; and Bocanegra, in his memoria of 1844, declared that all had been satisfac- torily settled, and Mexican honor vindicated, by the action of the United States, in accordance with the just and firm demands of the nation as expressed through himself.53 Several Mexican or Spanish writers

50 Dec. 27th, Thompson to Bocanegra, Jones at Monterey, 1842, p. 12-14. Jones, Agresion en Californias, p. 89-91. To the letters are attached the docu- ments from Jones and Micheltorena.

51 Dec. 28, 1842, T. to Webster. Jones at Monterey, 1843, p. 9.

62 Diario del Gobierno, Jan. 7, 1843, Feb. 19, 1843; Siglo, xix., Jan. 10, 1843; Bustamante, Diario, MS., Ixvi. 35, 69.

53 Mexico, Mem. Relaciones, 1844, p. 11-12. The annexes lxxxvii .- xcvii., containing the diplomatic correspondence on the subject, bear the following title, under which I have referred to them: Agresion en Californias por el Comodoro de los Estados-Unidos de America, Thomas Ape Jones. It is to be

325

AT WASHINGTON.

have mentioned the American invasion of 1842, gen- erally representing that Jones acted under instruc- tions from Washington, that only fear of Michel- torena's forces impelled him to restore Monterey, and that the U. S. government promised reparation only in consequence of the firm stand taken by Mexico. None admits for a moment that both the commodore and his government acted in good faith, though from all the evidence that seems to have been the truth.54

The first information that reached the United States respecting Jones' movements was apparently contained in a letter from some person on the Dale at Panamá, which was published in December 1842, and contained a conjecture that California was to be saved from English clutches.55 Early in 1843, however, the news came unofficially, before Lieutenant Hartstene had arrived with despatches from Monterey and Mex- ico; and on January 17th, Webster directed Thonip- son to lose no time in assuring the Mexican gov- ernment that Jones' action had been altogether unauthorized, notifying General Almonte, the Mexi-

noted that in nearly all that was printed on the subject in Spanish, the 'Ap C.' of Jones' name is rendered 'Ape'!

54 Gen. Tornel, Mexico, Mem. Guerra, 1844, p. 49, in recording this inau- dito atentado, says: 'Los invasores no hubieran quedado impunes si hubieran persistido en una agresion tan injustificable.' Carlos María Bustamante, Diario, MS., lxv. p. 240-1, speaks of Jones' ' pretesto frivolo y miserable,' and goes on to say, 'Finally, Micheltorena ordered him to surrender, and after much gasconade (!) the commodore retired, saluting the fort of Monte- rey, which he would have kept permanently if he had not encountered unex- pected opposition. Thanks to Sta Anna, who so opportunely sent the said chief with a battalion,' etc. Francisco de Paula de Arrangoiz, Mejico, 1808- 1867, ii. 252-4, criticises with much severity and ridicule this as one of the U. S.' 'most scandalous and aggressive acts toward the Mexican republic.' He cites the fact (erroneous, I suppose) that Jones' proclamation was in print, as a strong point against the good faith of his excuses. 'Pero no obró el como- doro Americano motu proprio; todo lo que él dijo se le dictó por el gobierno, que tenia seguramente el plan de que darse con las Californias.' 'El gobierno de los E. U. desaprobó el proceder de su comodoro; pero no le castigó ni le retiró el mando, á pesar de haberlo pedido el de Méjico, que hubo de con- tentarse con que se le dijera que "no había querido injuriarle ni hacer nada ilícito contra sus ciudadanos." Que burla !' See also Rivera, Hist. Jalapa, iii. 548; Ceballos, Vindicacion Mejicana, 81-2, 148-50.

55 Sept. 23, 1842, to Wm C. Bryaut, editor of N. Y. Post, in Niles' Reg., Ixiii. 243.

326

COMMODORE JONES AT MONTEREY.

can minister at Washington, to the same effect.56 Almonte in his reply demanded the exemplary punish- ment of Jones, whose delinquency was "so serious, so obvious, and so notorious, that it would be superfluous to particularize its enormities." On the same day that this note was written, the secretary of the navy wrote an order recalling Jones and naming Commodore Dal- las as his successor;57 and Webster on January 30th informed Almonte that proper action had been taken, not specifying what action, and assured him that am- ple reparation would be made for all real injuries done; though, while expressing deep regret for what had occurred, he maintained that Jones "intended no in- dignity to Mexico, nor anything unlawful toward her citizens," and that "in the clearly manifest absence of all illegal and improper intent, some allowance may properly be made for acts of indiscretion in a quarter so very remote." Almonte, however, was not disposed to make any such allowance; and he would not admit that Jones had any other motive for restoring Mon- terey than fear of an attack by Micheltorena, and disappointment at finding the Californians neither discontented nor defenceless. Moreover, he insisted in very plain terms on knowing whether Webster's statement that "the president had given directions for the adoption of such a course as in his opinion was due to the circumstances of the case," etc., might be interpreted to mean that Jones had been recalled for

56 Jan. 17, 1843, W. to T .; Jan. 21st, Id. to Almonte; Jan. 24th, A. to W .; Jan. 30th, W.'s reply, in Jones at Monterey, 1842, p. 3-6.

57 Jan. 24th, Upshur to Jones, in Jones at Monterey, 1842, p. 66; Jones, Agre- sion en Cal., 96-7. Official news had not yet arrived, but must have come through Hartstene in a few days. Upshur writes: 'In adopting this course, it is not designed to prejudge the case, nor even to indicate any opinion as to the propriety or impropriety of your conduct in the matter alluded to. This will of course be made the subject of proper inquiry after your return to the U. S. The present order has reference only to the just claims of Mexico on this govt, for such a disavowal of the attack on Monterey as will fully rccog- nize the rights of Mexico, and at the same time place the conduct of the govt in a proper light before the nations of the world. Com. Dallas will relieve you as soon as he can conveniently reach the station; and you will return to the U. S. in such mode as may be most convenient and agreeable to yourself.'

327

THE AFFAIR IN CONGRESS.

trial and punishment, as the Mexican government had a right to demand.53

Webster did not furnish the interpretation desired by the Mexican minister directly; but on February 1st the matter had come up in congress. John Quincy Adams introduced resolutions calling upon the president to state by what authority Commodore Jones had invaded Mexican territory; to furnish all instructions given to Jones, and all communications received from him relative to the Monterey affair; and finally to state whether an order had been sent for his recall.59 The resolutions were adopted, and the re- quired information, that Jones had acted without authority and had been recalled, was furnished Feb- ruary 22d, the president's message and accompanying documents constituting a source of information which I have often quoted.6 The message was forwarded to Almonte the 3d of March, as an answer to his de- mands, and seems to have been satisfactory.61 The general tone of such newspaper articles of the time as I have seen seems to have been determined by politi- cal prejudices rather than by the merits of the case; 62 and neither in American newspapers nor books has there been shown a disposition to do justice to the honorable motives which animated Commodore Jones in his action under circumstances of difficulty. The reason is to be found in the connection of the subject with the complications of Texan affairs and sectional politics in the United States.

As may readily be imagined, no very terrible pun- ishment was ever inflicted on the commodore for his

58 Feb. 7, 1842, Almonte to Webster. Jones at Monterey, 6-8. There was no reply to this argument.

69 U. S. Govt Doc., 27th cong. 3d sess., House Jour., p. 294-8, 433; Con- gressional Globe (same congress), p. 232-5, 330.

60 U. S. Govt Doc., 27th cong. 3d sess., H. Ex. Doc., no. 166, or as already explained, Jones at Monterey, 1842.

61 March 3d, Webster to Almonte. Jones, Agresion en Californias, p. 95-6.

62 In Niles' Reg., Ixiii. 322, 337, 369-70 (Jan .- Feb.) 1843; and Diario del Gobierno, March 31, 1843, are extracts and articles from the National Intelli- gencer; N. O. Bee; N. Y. Courier; N. Y. Express; Madisonian; Pennsylvania Enquirer, etc.

328

COMMODORE JONES AT MONTEREY.

'inaudito atentado.' In August 1843 Dallas was at Callao, but had not yet met Jones, who had sailed for the Islands.63 It is not clear that he ever met him, since Dallas died at Callao in June 1844. Jones had been ordered to return home "in such mode as may be most convenient and agreeable" to himself, and he found it most agreeable to keep out of his successor's way. After a cruise in the Pacific he returned to Valparaiso, and seems to have gone home in the United States before the end of 1844.64 There was never any trial; and on March 1, 1845, the secretary of the navy in an official communication exonerated Jones from all blame, and promised him a new con- mand.65 In later years he again commanded the Pacific squadron.

63 Report sec. navy, Dec. 1843. U. S. Govt Doc., 28th cong. Ist sess., H. Ex. Doc. no. 2, p. 484.

64 I have not found any official narrative of his movements after he sailed for the Islands. Lancey, Cruise of the 'Dale,' 33, says Dallas 'took the old store-ship Erie, and started in search of Jones. Now that wiry little commo- dore was not to be caught with any such chaff. He got wind of the move- ment, and so sailed from one port to another, always keeping a little ahead of the Erie, leaving port ostensibly for one place and steering for another. He visited the Islands, and then returned to Valparaiso, when he told the consul he had brought the ship to the Pacific, and he would be damned if he wouldn't take her home. And so, snapping his fingers at Dallas, he sailed away round the Horn for Old Virginia.' Similar versions are given by Cul- verwell, in Davis' Glimpses, MS., 96; and by Maxwell, Monterey in 1842, MS., 12-13.

65 March 1, 1845, Mason to Jones, in Honolulu Polynesian, Jan. 3, 1846. I have not before me the volume of govt reports containing the original; but I suppose it is in U. S. Govt Doc., 30th cong. Ist sess., H. Ex. Doc. no. S, p. 1304, with perhaps a reply in Id., 30th cong. 2d sess., no. I, p. 67. 'The president has authorized me to say to you, that in those circumstances of your conduct, while in command of the Pacific squadron, which induced your recall, on explanation he perceives evidences of an ardent zeal in the service of your country, and a devotion to what you deemed to be your duty, regardless of personal consequences, which entitle you to anything but cen- sure from your government. Ample atonement having been made to Mexico for your acts complained of, there has been no disposition to visit you with punishment of any description for conduct actuated by such elevated princi- ples of duty. Of this you were apprised immediately after your return. The department has been and still is anxious to give you employment; in this wish the president concurs, and it will give him the greatest pleasure to see you speedily placed in a situation corresponding with your rank and merits.' It is to be noted that in 1843 Mr Adams had attempted in congress unsuccessfully to pass a resolution making provision for the ‘ signal punish- ment' of any officer invading the territory of a nation at peace with the U. S. House Journal, 27th cong. 3d sess., p. 576.

329

CONCLUSIONS.

The occupation of Monterey by the United States for a day was an accident that resulted in nothing good or bad. It involved no taint of dishonor or of sharp practice for either the American commodore or his nation. It was but technically an outrage on Mexico, for which ample reparation was made. Its lessons were not important. It showed clearly what had not been wrapped in mystery before, that the United States was not disposed to be forestalled by any European power in California, at least if it could be prevented by legitimate means. It confirmed what it had never occurred to anybody to doubt, that California was an easy prey for any nation that had only Mexicans to contend with. It gave Michel- torena a splendid chance to write himself an ass; and as to the Californians, while it was too brief to afford any reliable index to their sentiments, so far as it went it indicated a feeling of indifference at least. The leading Californians were more surprised at the restoration than at the capture, though perhaps it can hardly be said that they regretted it more. Most foreigners would have been pleased to see the occupation permanent. Mofras, writing from a French standpoint, declares that Jones should have kept Monterey and seized San Francisco. There was, however, among all classes in California, in Mexico, and in the United States a vague feeling that the whole transaction had a hidden mysterious meaning in politics entirely distinct from that which the com- modore gave it. People were slow to accept a ver- sion which was at the same time plausible, natural, and true.

One of Jones' officers made a sketch of Monterey Bay with the men-of-war at anchor, which was litho- graphed and sent back for Larkin, and now hangs in my Library.

CHAPTER XIII.

MISSIONS, COMMERCE, AND FOREIGNERS.

1842.

MISSION MANAGEMENT-DECREE OF RESTORATION-DURAN AND ALVARADO -LOCAL' ITEMS-BISHOP GARCIA DIEGO AT SANTA BARBARA-GRAND EPISCOPAL PLANS-THE PIOUS FUND IN MEXICO-SANTA ANNA TAKES IT FROM THE BISHOP-INCORPORATED IN THE NATIONAL TREASURY-THE RESULT-INDIAN AFFAIRS-NO HOSTILITIES AND FEW RUMORS-COM- MERCIAL AND MARITIME AFFAIRS-LIST OF VESSELS-FINANCIAL ITEMS- FOREIGNERS-LIST OF PIONEERS AND VISITORS FOR THE YEAR-PART OF THE BARTLESON COMPANY RETURN OVERLAND-MINOR ITEMS-NEW MEXICAN IMMIGRATION-BIBLIOGRAPHY OF 1842-ROBINSON'S LIFE IN CALIFORNIA-VISIT OF THE 'KING'S ORPHAN '-BIDWELL'S JOURNEY- MARSH'S LETTER TO JONES-PEIRCE'S LETTERS.

ON general management of the ex-missions in 1842 there is nothing to be added to my remarks for 1841.1 True, the bishop brought a decree of Novem- ber 17, 1840, issued in conformity with that of No- vember 7, 1835, which required the missions to be restored to their former condition, for the restoration to the friars "without delay or impediment, of the possessions and property used by them under their administration for the conversion of gentiles;" but this decree, not intended to restore the management of temporalities, but only the 'church property,' was not at once enforced in California, nor was there in 1842 any attempt to enforce it, as it was deemed best to wait until a new governor had assumed control.2

I See chap. vii. of this vol.

2 I have not found the original of this decree of Nov. 17, 1840. A trans- lation is given iu Hartman's Brief in Mission Cases, 29-31. See also Hayes' ( 330 )

331

LOCAL ITEMS.

There is to be noted an increasing dissatisfaction on the part of the southern friar-curates because of the governor's grants of mission ranchos to private indi- viduals. In the case of La Puente near San Gabriel, granted to Rowland and Workman, Prefect Duran went so far as to send a complaint and protest to the supreme government.3 This case was selected for the purpose, I suppose, because the grantees were the ob- jects of suspicion in Mexico; but nothing was effected, though Duran had a controversy with Alvarado, whose anger he had excited. The governor used vio- lent language, but apologized on receipt of certain explanations from the friar, so that the old friendship was restored.4 Among local items I may mention the order issued in September for the distribution of lands and other property at San Luis Obispo among such of the neophytes as were most deserving;5 and an alleged attempt of the comandante at Santa Bárbara to prevent the delivery of three hundred head of cat- tle from Santa Inés, which had been ordered by Al- varado.6 A Mexican item of a kind not unusual in Legal Hist. S. Diego, no. 57, 45; Id., Mission Book, i. 17; Mofras, Explor., i. 304; Land Commission, no. 609; Alemany vs U. S., p. 17.

3 Feb. 2Ist, D. to min. of int. Doc. Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 1131-2; Arch. Sta B., MS., vi. 81-3; x. 232-4; Sta Bárbara, Arch., MS., 39.

4 Feb. 5, 1842, Alvarado to Duran: April 26th, D.'s reply, apparently only two of several letters, in Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 181-91; Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 145-64; Id., Doc., MS., xxxiii. 259, 273. The padre is accused of not only having attacked the govt and incited discontent from his pulpit, but of sending a letter to P. Esténega which contained insults to Alvarado, and which was intentionally given a wide circulation. He is also accused of having said that the gov. had orders from Mexico to restore the missions (the decree of Nov. 17th had been published, it seems, but not sent officially to Cal.), which were not obeyed. D. in reply denied that he had done any of the things charged, or anything more offensive than to protest against the grant- ing of mission ranchos, which he continues to do. Says he thought at first of reading the two letters from his pulpit, and then leaving the country; but in case of his departure there was danger of a popular tumult at Sta Bárbara, such as had been threatened once before. Both letters are long, and both Alvarado and Vallejo accord them more space and comment than the subject seems to merit.

5 Sept. 10th, Alvarado to admin. of S. Luis Obispo. Bonilla, Doc., MS., 10-11; Pico, Papeles, MS., 59; S. Luis Ob., Arch., MS., 4. Bonilla was the administrator, and the form of grant is given in the case of the neophyte Odon, who got 75 varas of land, the house occupied by him, a copper pot, and two troughs. The fruit of certain trees on his land, however, was still to belong to the community.

6 Nov. 24, 1842, A. to Valentin Cota. Cota, Doc., MS., 15-16; Guerra, Doc., MS., v. 305-6.

332

MISSIONS, COMMERCE, AND FOREIGNERS-1842.

the annals of earlier times, but of rare occurrence in these years, was the promotion of a friar formerly of California, Padre José Bernardino de Jesus Perez, to be guardian of his college in Zacatecas.7

Two current topics of some importance, closely con- nected with mission affairs and with each other, were the coming of the bishop and the fate of the pious fund. I have already recorded the appointment of Bishop García Diego and his arrival at San Diego at the end of 1841. He had intended to establish his permanent residence at San Diego, but, owing mainly to the poverty of the mission establishment there, which he was authorized to appropriate to his epis- copal uses, he soon changed his plans. On January 11th he arrived at Santa Bárbara, where the mission was in a better state of preservation than elsewhere, where the people were somewhat famous for their re- ligious tendencies, and where he naturally determined to locate his episcopal see. He came up from San Diego on the Guipuzcoana, in company with the bridal party of the proprietor, José Antonio Aguirre. Alfred Robinson, who was an eye-witness, writes: "All was bustle; men, women, and children hastening to the beach, banners flying, drums beating, and sol- diers marching. The whole population of the place turned out to pay homage to this first bishop of Cali- fornia. At eleven o'clock the vessel anchored. He came on shore and was welcomed by the kneeling multitude. All received his benediction; all kissed the pontifical ring. The troops and civic authorities then escorted him to the house of Don José Antonio, where he dined. A carriage had been prepared for his Excellency, with several others occupied by the president and his friends. The females had formed with ornamented canes beautiful arches, through which

7 Perez elected Oct. 21st. Arch. Obispado, MS., 64. Bustamante, Hist. Sta Anna, 40-1, speaks of the reduced state of the other colleges; but says there were still plenty of American friars in that of Guadalupe de Zacatecas.

333

COMING OF THE BISHOP.

the procession moved; and as it marched along, the heavy artillery of the presidio continued to thunder forth its noisy welcome. At four o'clock the bishop was escorted to the mission, the enthusiastic inhabi- tants taking the horses from his carriage and dragging it themselves. Halting at a small bower on the road, he alighted, went into it, and put on his pontifical robes; then resuming his place in the carriage, he continued on, amidst the sound of music and the firing of guns, till he arrived at the church, where he ad- dressed the multitude that followed him." This is the only record extant of his reception, and the for- malities attending his assumption of the office; but Sir George Simpson visited him a few days later, and describes his gorgeous costume and magnificent sur- roundings, in marked contrast with the simplicity of the old padres.9

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 IV, Part 34

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe Publication date: 1885 Publisher: San Francisco, Calif. : The History Company, publishers Number of Pages: 820

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe
Publication date: 1885
Publisher: San Francisco, Calif. : The History Company, publishers
Number of Pages: 820