History of California, Volume XXII, Part 11

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe
Publication date: 1885-1890
Publisher: San Francisco, Calif. : The History Company, publishers
Number of Pages: 816

USA > California > History of California, Volume XXII > Part 11

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).

IDE'S VERSION.

reason. It is that given by William B. Ide in his letter to Senator Wambough, and subsequently con- firmed to some extent by Ide, Grigsby, and Nash in their narrative. According to Ide, the American merchants, Larkin and others of his class, "failed not in the genuine spirit of Yankeedom to direct and profit by those political impositions, change of admin- istration, and continued increase of tariff duties by which during ten years of increasing distress and ruin the main body of the people were made misera- bly poor," therefore refusing support to the oppressed settlers; then "Frémont came among us, who, after having provoked the assumed authorities of the coun- try, left us to experience the wrath and retaliatory vengeance his acts had engendered ;. .. next came Gil- lespie, who failed not to give cautionary advice in relation to a state of preparedness on the part of all of United States origin, but dissuaded from any kind of organization," suggesting, however, that after Fré- mont's return his camp would be the means of tem- porary protection. Finally, after a month of suspense and terror on the part of the settlers in view of Cas- tro's proclamations and military preparations, Fré- inont returned from the north, and soon in writing summoned "every freeman in the valley to come to his camp at the Buttes immediately," announcing at the same time the approach of Castro's forces. To Ide and a few others, not named, Frémont made known his plan of conquest as follows: "First, select a dozen men who have nothing to lose but everything to gain. Second, encourage them to commit depre- dations against General Castro the usurper, and thus supply the camp with horses necessary for a trip to the States. Third, to make prisoners of some of the principal men, and thus provoke Castro to strike the first blow in a war with the United States. This done, finish the conquest by uniting the forces and marching back to the States." This scheme was de- nounced by Ide and his comrades as dishonorable and

CAUSES OF THE SETTLERS' REVOLT.

treacherous, whereupon Frémont in anger broke up the interview. "Thus ended all intercourse on our part with Captain Frémont until June 25th." Sub- sequently, however, King, inviting the visitors to another tent, asked, "Suppose the men succeed in taking the horses, what will you in that case propose to be done?" The reply was, "When the breach is once made that involves us all in its consequences, it is useless to consider the propriety of the measure. We are too few for division. In for it, the whole man! Widen the breach, that none can stand out- side thereof. Down on Sonomal Never flee the country, nor give it up while there is an arm to fight or a voice to cry aloud for Independence. But let truth and honor guide our course."

Ide continues: "Several persons, among whom was Kit Carson, begged of Fremont their discharge from the service of the exploring expedition that they might be at liberty to join us. This was peremptorily refused. Frémont, in my hearing, expressly declared that he was not at liberty to afford us the least aid or assistance; nor would he suffer any of his men to do so; that he had not asked the assistance of the emigrants for his protection; that he was able, of his own party, to fight and whip Castro if he chose, but that he should not do so unless first assaulted by him; and that positively he should wait only for a supply of provisions, two weeks at furthest, when he would, without further reference to what might take place here, be on his march for the States." That same night the captured horses arrived, and next day the expedition to Sonoma began; many embarking iu it with the idea that they were only carrying out Fre- mont's plan of provoking hostilities.6

6 Ide's Biog. Sketch, 107-19, confirmed in the Hist. Bear Flag Revolution, by the statement that at the interview in question Fremont 'advised immediate organization and resistance on the part of the foreigners, but declined any action on his part or that of the men under his command,' stating that he expected to leave for the States in two weeks; and by the further statement that Fremont at Sonoma later declared 'that he had determined to pursue and take José Castro, whom he considered but an

PRECAUTIONS OF FREMONT.

Ide's version will be found on close examination to confirm rather than contradict what I have said re- specting Frémont's policy. That gentleman wrote under a strong feeling, amounting almost to a mania, that he had been robbed by Fremont of the honor of having been at the head of the revolution, a feeling that strongly colored all his remarks, and led to many exaggerations; but though prejudiced and fanatical, Ide was not a man to tell a deliberate falsehood, and I have no doubt that his account of the interview is substantially correct. All goes to show that Fre- mont, though one of the original plotters of the re- volt, had a direct understanding with but few of the leaders, of which number Ide was not one, to whom he promised active cooperation when it should be required. To the rest he spoke guardedly, inciting them indirectly to revolt, but cautiously avoiding re-

usurper in Cal., being unauthorized by the govt of Mexico, .. . that although he could not and would not intermeddle in the internal affairs of Cal.,' yet, if they would make certain pledges, 'he would not only aid them with his advice, but that he would volunteer his whole force against Castro, and that he would stand by them at least until Castro shall have been subdued.' In connection with the last phrase cited, I may note that Folsom, in a letter of Nov. 30, 1847, to Vallejo, speaks of an interview in which Fremont told Prudon that he was merely acting in aid of Pico against Castro. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 321.

Wm Hargrave, Cal. in '46, MS, 4-11, tells us that after much discussion among the settlers of Napa at the writer's camp, he, Kelsey, Swift, and an- other went to consult with Fremont, being joined by others on the way. At the interview on Feather River, Kelsey being spokesman, Fremont seemed very cautious, though willing enough to resume active operations. 'He pre- ferred to see for himself how far the settlers of Napa and Sonoma were ready to go in shaking off the Mexican yoke. At any rate, he peremptorily refused to take any responsibility for sudden action on our part, and endeavored to delay or frustrate our efforts. Whether he expressed himself differently when he spoke to Kelsey alone later in the day I cannot say.' Hargrave says he later heard Fremont ridicule Ide's proclamation. Fowler, Bear Party, 2, also mentions the mission of Hargrave and Kelsey. Both imply that the rising would not have taken place at that time but for a popular belief that Frémont would in some way cooperate. Some favored action with- out regard to the captain's plans, but this was opposed by a majority. Bald- ridge, Days of '46, MS., passim, is confident that the settlers would not have risen but for Frémont's indirect promptings and promises. The writer and Thos W. Bradley were in Berreyesa Valley when John Grigsby and Wm Elliot came up with the news. 'Grigsby says Fremont prompted them to take up arms, telling them that it would not do for him to commence the affair, as he was in the employ of the U. S., but for them to seize on some place which they would be able to hold, and then he would discharge all his men, and with them would join us as volunteers. He also said he wanted to start on an active campaign as soon as it was possible to get men enough together to do so.'

CAUSES OF THE SETTLERS' REVOLT.

marks and promises which might in certain contin- gencies be used to his disadvantage later. There is no reason to doubt that with his men he would have fought bravely, had circumstances required it, in de- fence of the cause he had espoused; though, as we have seen, he was mean enough in the hour of success to appropriate to himself the credit for actions in which he really took no part.

In thus presenting the real causes which led to the revolt of June 1846, I have of course condemned the movement. An armed insurrection involving loss of life is justifiable in the eyes of the civilized world only as a measure of self-defence in resistance to gross oppression. In this case there was no oppression or other than imaginary danger, to say nothing of the fact that the revolutionists, with few exceptions, had entered Mexican territory in defiance of the country's laws. There is, however, much more to be said in condemnation of this revolt. In spite of our theoriz- ing, the world is prone to approve practically, after all is over, a movement, whatever its causes, which leads to beneficial results. Californian affairs under the Mexican régime were in a sad state, and not im- proving. An occupation of the country by a progres- sive nation could not fail to, and did, produce a marked improvement in every respect; and the tend- ency has been, even among those who could not jus- tify the revolt, to give its promoters credit for the good that resulted from the change. They are enti- tled, however, to no such credit. The revolution was in no sense a part of the conquest of California, neither leading to nor in any way promoting that movement. Before the revolt, the government of the United States had ordered the occupation of the country on account of war with Mexico; and the oc- cupation would have been effected in the same man- ner and at the same date had no revolt taken place."

We shall see later that it was claimed in behalf of Frémont that his ac-

CHARACTER OF THE REVOLT.

Two specific claims, closely connected with the gen- eral one of having commenced the conquest, which have been quite generally but very carelessly allowed in favor of the revolutionists, are that their acts kept California from falling into the hands of England, and that they checked Governor Pico in his work of grant- ing the public lands to his own personal friends and to enemies of the United States. The absurdity of the first claim should be apparent. If England had any intention of taking California, she certainly would not have been deterred by the armed settlers of a single section. On the contrary, the revolt would have served as a most plausible pretext for the Cali- fornians to seek and for England to grant a protecto- rate. As to the second claim, I may remark that the McNamara land grant, on which most stress is laid in this connection, did not come up for action in Cal- ifornia, and was probably unknown to every one of the filibusters until after the revolt was far advanced; that theoretically the rising must have tended, not to check, but to hasten Pico in granting lands; that as a matter of fact it did have that effect so far as it had any; and that the United States government did not subsequently make June 14th but July 7th the chron- ologie limit of legitimate grants.

That the revolt was unjustifiable, uncalled for, and not productive of good results, is not by any means all that is to be said against it. Its promoters were morally responsible for all the blood shed in battle, as well as for outrages committed by both sides on per- sons and property before the raising of the stars and stripes; and not only this, but for a bitterness of feel-

tions, presumably in accord with instructions from Washington, by confirm- ing Commodore Sloat in his belief that war had been declared, influenced that officer to raise the United States flag. It is probably true that the some- what irresolute commodore derived much comfort from the reports of Fre- mont's operations, as confirming the news of war obtained at Mazatlan; and that had his exploit proved premature, like that of Jones in 1842, he would have urged those reports in his own defence; hut it is hardly credible that they caused him to perform an act which he had come from Mazatlan ex- pressly to perform in accordance with his orders, and with very positive news that war had beguu.

HIST, CAL., VOL. V. 7

CAUSES OF THE SETTLERS' REVOLT.

ing between the two races in California which lasted for many years. Not only did the insurgents not con- tribute to the American occupation of the country, but they absolutely retarded it, and increased its dif- ficulties. They were largely accountable for all the blood that was spilled throughout the war. The men who had given the subject most attention and were best qualified to understand the true state of affairs believed with some reason that the change of flag might have been accomplished without resistance or bloodshed, had it not been for the outbreak at Sonoma, and the hostility engendered by that affair.8 How- ever this may be, whether or not Larkin, Stearns, and Leese were correct in their expectation of a peaceable occupation, whether or not the land owners with the

§ In a letter of July 20, 1846, Larkin said to the sec. of state in substance that Cal. would iu a few years have come under the U. S. flag of her own ac- cord; that he is inclined to regret the action of the Bear Flag party, and of Com. Sloat, as the people now deemed themselves coerced and injured, espe- cially by the Bear party. Fremont and Gillespie should have consulted with him and others south of the bay before beginning hostilities. Castro had assured him personally that he intended to declare the country independent as soon as there were enough foreigners to insure success. Larkin's Off. Cor- resp., MS., ii. 75-7. Iu another letter of Jan. 7, 1847, L. wrote: 'It has been my object for some years to bring the Californians to look on our countrymen as their best friends. I am satisfied very many were of that way of thinking, and more were becoming so. Gen. Castro from 1842 to 1846 made every dem- onstration in our favor, and opened plans for future operations, granting pass- ports to all the Americans whom I presented to him. At the same time he made some foolish proclamations, supposing they would only be believed in Mexico. The sudden rising of the party on the Sacramento under the Bcar Flag, taking Californians' property to a large amount, and other acts com- pletely frustrated all hopes I had of the friendship of the natives to my coun- trymen, and of Gen. Castro through fear of his people, to come into the ar- rangements I expected. On the arrival of the war squadron this came to my knowledge more and more fully.' Quoted from original in the S. F. Alta Cat., July 7, 1867. And on June 30, 1847, he wrote to the same effect. 'The Bear Flag party have broken all friendship and good feeling in Cal. toward our government.' Larkin's Off. Corresp., MS., ii. 118. The views of Larkin, Stearns, and others on this matter have been more fully cited in an earlier chapter. Leese, Brar Flug Revolt, MS., p. 12, says that Castro, when at No- nonia a few days before the outbreak, said he was in favor of the U. S. taking possession. Alfred Robinson, Statement, MS., 21, tells us that the Bear movement greatly imbittered the hostile feeling aroused by Frémont's pre- vions actions. Capt. Folsom on Nov. 30, 1847, wrote that 'well disposed Californians were driven into hostility by the ill-advised, injudicious, and dis- honest conduct of our own agents, and that the country has been constantly agitated and much of the time in open hostility to the Americau cause in con- sequence.' Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 321. I might multiply evidence in the shape of such opinions. The Californians almost without exception express the same views, sometimes in nost extravagant language.

WHAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN.

cooperation of Vallejo and other influential citizens and officials would have been able so far to control their countrymen as to prevent armed resistance, at least there can be no possible doubt that the revolt did materially intensify the hostility of the natives, and thus prolong the struggle.

We must go yet further, and besides the evils enu- mnerated which were caused by the outbreak, we must hold the participators in that affair responsible for other and far more serious evils that were averted, not by their foresight, but by sheer good luck. Frémont and his companions had, it is true, reasons to believe that war would be declared between the United States and Mexico; but they had no means of knowing the dlate at which hostilities would begin; and some of them did not reckon on or care for the declaration of war at all. Let the reader consider what would have been the result had war not been declared, or had the declaration been made some months later. The fili- busters had no understanding with foreign settlers south of the bay. They would have maintained their position in the north, and would probably have con- quered central California; but meanwhile Americans in the latter region must unquestionably have suffered at the hands of the angry natives before they could have organized and joined the insurgents at some cen- tral point. In the south yet greater disaster could have been avoided only-as it very likely would have been-by southern foreigners joining the Californians, temporarily at least, against the insurgents. In any event, and whatever the ultimate result, the country would have been devastated by a guerilla warfare in which a large amount of property must have been de- stroyed, and much blood have been shed, all to no purpose.º Fortunately, and no thanks to the insur-

" It should be stated here that there are some exceptions among the writers who have approved the revolt of June 1846, and treated it as a part of the conquest. Notably John S. Hittell, both as editor of the Alta California, June 15, 1866, July 7, 1867, and in his History of' S. F., 102-3, has expressed briefly but accurately the true nature of the movement. Some participants,

100

CAUSES OF THE SETTLERS' REVOLT.

gents, these results were averted, and the insurrection was nipped in the bud by the action of the United States.

like Baldridge, Days of '46, MS., 18-20, disapprove the action, and say they only joined in it as a choice of evils. The general tenor of John Bidwell's views, Cal. 1841-8, MS., is against the revolt. Lieut Wise, Los Gringos, 42, denounces the operations of the filibusters in language much too severe. Dun- bar, Romance, 34-6, points out the evil effects of the outbreak. During the political campaign of 1856 much was said against the Bear Flag leaders; but chiefly from a spirit of opposition to Fremont, rather than from any proper understanding of the merits of the case. Of those who have eulogized the insurgents as heroes in books and newspapers, a long list might be presented.

Just as this volume goes to press there appears Royce's ('alifornia, 1846- 56,'an admirable work of the 'American Commonwealths' series, a long chapter of which, on 'The American as conqueror; the secret mission and the Bear Flag,' is devoted to an elaborate study of certain topics here treated. I am pleased that the conclusions of so able a thinker and writer as Dr Royce- founded to some extent on original evidence in my Library, for the use of which the author makes most hearty and satisfactory acknowledgment-do nut differ materially from my own. New data obtained by Royce include a statement from Frémont, which throws light, if not on the general's acts of 1846, on his character as a witness, and shows that I had taken too favorable a view of his veracity, since he now affirms what he had before wisely left to be inferred. It seems proper to state that this volume as now given to the public was in stereotype before the date of Royce's investigations in my Library.

Another book appearing too late for present use is the History of Cal- foruin by Theodore 11. Ilittell. Here I can only note the existence of this work, remarking that it contains nothing to modify any view or record of this or earlier volumes, and expressing a hope that it may prove helpful in later in- vestigations, as I shall have occasion to cite both Royce and Hittell in vol- umes vi. and vii.

CHAPTER V. BEAR FLAG REVOLT-TAKING OF SONOMA.

JUNE, 1846.

FREMONT'S RETURN FROM OREOON-HENSLEY'S MISSION-A SUMMONS TO REVOLT-FREMONT CAUTIOUS-ALL READY-CAMP MOVED TO BEAR RIVER-CASTRO AT SANTA CLARA-HIS VISIT TO SONOMA-ARCE'S CA- BALLADA-MERRITT SENT BY FREMONT TO BEGIN HOSTILITIES-SEIZ. URE OF HORSES ON THE COSUMNES-THE FILIBUSTERS REENFORCED IN NAPA VALLEY-NAMES-OCCUPATION OF SONOMA-VALLEJO A PRISONER OF WAR-NEGOTIATIONS-WRITTEN GUARANTIES-BROKEN BEFORE THE INK WAS DEY-INCIDENTS OF THE MORNING THE INSURGENTS UNMAN- AOEABLE-AGUARDIENTE-A CONTROVERSY-JOHN GRIGSBY DECLINES THE COMMAND-WILLIAM B. IDE CHOSEN-JOURNEY OF THE PRISONERS TO FRÉMONT'S CAMP-LOCKED UP IN SUTTER'S FORT.

IT was on May 24th that Frémont and party, re- turning from the Oregon frontier, reached the region of Lassen's rancho in the upper Sacramento Valley. In a letter to Benton written on that date he an- nounced his intention to proceed directly homeward by way of the Colorado, giving a brief account of his trip northward and return.1 At the same time Gil- lespie wrote to Larkin, narrating his experience since leaving Monterey, asking for news, especially about the men-of-war, enclosing a note for the commodore, if there, but to be carefully locked up if not, announc- ing that Fremont would now proceed homeward, and that the writer would at once start for Yerba Buena in quest of supplies.2 The letters were intrusted . to

1 May 24, 1846, F. to B. Viles' Reg., Ixxi. 191.

2 May 24, 1846, G. to L. Larkin's Doc., MS., iv. 134. F. and G. were at Lassen's; the rest were 15 miles above.

1 101

102

BEAR FLAG REVOLT-TAKING OF SONOMA.

Samuel Neal, who hastened down the valley.3 The explorers camped at Lassen's two days, and one day at the farm of Neal and Dutton on Deer Creek, thence moving down to the Buttes. Before they reached that point Gillespie left the party, reached Sutter's on the 30th, and went down to San Francisco on the launch, arriving on June 7th, and obtaining from Cap- tain Montgomery of the Portsmouth a boat-load of supplies, with which he reached New Helvetia a week later, accompanied by several naval officers.4 Before his return some startling events had happened.

It is not to be believed that Frémont had any in- tention of proceeding immediately homeward, as alt- nounced in the letters cited. It is reasonably certain that revolutionary plans had already been developed to some extent by him and his associate, though it is of course impossible, as it is comparatively unimpor- tant, to fix the exact stage of development at this time. The instructions from Washington which had chiefly caused his return from the north would not permit him now to go east. Gillespie had told him on the frontier not only of the impending war, but of the growing revolutionary spirit among the settlers. On his first arrival at the ranchos he found abundant evidence of discontent. The Indians were said to be on the war-path at Castro's instigation; and Fre- mont was asked to join in a raid upon the foe. He declined, though offering protection to the settlers.5 It is to be presumed that he had already considered

$ Neal reached Sutter's May 25th, and went on, but came back next day on account of high water, starting again on the 27th via Sonoma. New Helvetia Diary, MS., 49.

4 (.'s testimony, in Fremont's Cal. Claims, 26-7; New Helvetia Diary, MS., 50. June 7th, G. to L. Larkin's Doc., MS., iv. 141. He arrived at Sutter's June 12th, and was joined by Fremont on the American Fork next day. Lieut Hunter, Purser Watmough, and Asst Surgeon Duvall accompanied him in the ship's launch.

5 Gillespie's testimony, in Fremont's Cal. Claims, 26, 29. Upham, Life of Frémont, 231-2, tells us that his hero did march against 600 of the savages, routing them, dispersing five villages. and breaking up the great combination against the settlers! June Ist, Sutter writes to Vallejo that Fremont has ar- rived above, and will probably await on the American River orders per the Congress. Vallejo, Doc., MS., xii. 220.

103

PREPARATIONS.

the project, which at any rate he soon fully adopted, of promoting a revolt of the settlers, whose pretext should be imminent danger of an attack from the Cal- ifornians, and in whose behalf he would interfere on pretext of protecting Americans as soon as such inter- ference should be either politic or necessary.

There was a strong element among the settlers, as already explained, ready and eager to meet the fili- buster more than half-way. The news that Frémont was returning fanned into new life the fire that had hardly smouldered. At every hunter's camp the topic was discussed; at every rancho a political junta of neighbors and rovers was in daily session. The revolutionists recognized their opportunity to prevail over what had been a somewhat unmanageable mi- nority. The old rumors of Castro's hostile prepara- tions were revived, and new ones invented; new ap- peals to American patriotism were made; men were urged from love of life, of family, of liberty, from am- bition, from greed of gain, from whatever motive was likely to be most potent with each, to shake off the tyrant's yoke. Especially was Frémont's return pre- sented as a significant and auspicious circumstance. He would not return at all, it was urged, were not an outbreak of hostilities from some cause expected. The settlers' attention was thus turned with anxiety toward the explorer. From all directions delegations were sent to learn his purposes, and soon the roving population of the valley had established itself in con- siderable numbers near the camp at the Buttes.

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 XXII, Part 11

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe Publication date: 1885-1890 Publisher: San Francisco, Calif. : The History Company, publishers Number of Pages: 816

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe
Publication date: 1885-1890
Publisher: San Francisco, Calif. : The History Company, publishers
Number of Pages: 816