History of California, Volume XXII, Part 47

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 47

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).

volunteers engaged in our cause. It is not necessary to inquire if these com- plaints are well founded or not. The fact that the people have been un- friendly and opposed to us is sufficient to make it onr duty to reconcile and make friends of them, aud this most desirable object may be effected by a mild, courteous, and just treatment of them in future.' Id., 140-1.

" Testimony and documents in Frémont's Court-martial, 13-16, 148-9, 420 et seq .; Cooke's Conquest, 284-6. Fremont claimed that the order to Alex- ander was merely a repetition in writing of one given earlier verbally, and was given to protect A. The traders who bought up the claims at a large discount and paid them as duties at par evidently made a good speculation. Rept Court Claims, 229, p. 20. On the Huttmann bills, see U. S. Gout Doc., 36th cong. Ist sess.

442

FRÉMONT'S CONTROVERSY WITH KEARNY.

There were rumors in these days of impending revolt among the Californians, though there is no evi- dence that these rumors had the slightest foundation beyond the imagination, or rather the pretensions, of Frémont and his partisans. Says the former, after dwelling on the tranquillity of his past rule: "Sud- denly, and in the beginning of March, all this was changed. Men armed to the teeth were galloping about the country. Groups of armed men were con- stantly seen. The whole population was in commo- tion, and everything verged toward violence and bloodshed. For what cause? The approach of the Mormons, the proclamations incompatible with the capitulation of Cowenga, the prospect that I was to be deposed by violence, the anticipated non-payment of government liabilities, and the general insecurity which such events inspired. Such was the cause;" and the effect was that Fremont went to Monterey to lay the alarming state of things before General Kearny. Or rather these alarms were invented later as an excuse for disobeying Kearny's orders.º It is true, however, that the Missouri volunteers had suc- ceeded in arousing some feeling against the Mormons; and that there was a degree of uneasiness among both Americans and Californians about the recogni- tion of Frémont's debts by the U. S. government.

Frémont's real motive for visiting the north at this time was probably a wish to learn whether the late orders were founded on new instructions from Wash- ington or were but a reopening of the old controversy, and also to ascertain if the general was disposed as governor to assume the debts of the past administra-

9 Frémont's defence, in Court-martial, 422. Hensley in his testimony, Id., 232-3, slightly confirms the rumors of impending troubles, but he alludes chiefly to the end of March and to April, when there were reports of an ap- proaching Mexican force. Indeed, in order to furnish any foundation what- ever for Frémont's statements, it would be necessary to group all alarming symptoms of the entire year, apply them to the month of March, and then greatly to magnify the sum total. Murray, Narr., MS., 76-7, mentions the rumors of revolt as heard at Sta Bárbara. Similar reports at S. José in the north in March. Unb. Doc., MS., 169-70.

443

FREMONT'S RIDE TO MONTEREY.

tion.10 He started from Los Angeles early on March 22d, with Jesus Pico and Jacob Dodson, on his 'famous ride,' reaching Monterey at nightfall of the fourth day, or the 25th.11 The same evening, with Larkin, he called on Kearny as a matter of etiquette; and next morning, by a request through Larkin, he obtained an interview with the general. According to the latter's statement-and there is no other defi- nite information about the interview-Frémont made known his desire for a conversation, but objected to the presence of Colonel Mason, and when Kearny insisted that the colonel, as the officer who would suc- ceed to the command, might properly listen to any conversation on public affairs, Frémont made an offensive reply, to the effect that Mason was perhaps there intentionally to take advantage of some un- guarded expression of his. Then the general, deeming the last remark an insult, referred to his orders of March 1st, and asked Fremont to state distinctly, before the conversation could proceed, whether he in- tended to obey those orders or not. The lieutenant-col- onel hesitated, was given an hour or a day for consider-

10 Cooke, Conquest, 287, says that Turner had returned to Los Angeles and started for Monterey, being convinced that F. did not intend to obey Kear- ny's orders; whereupon F., as soon as he kuew T.'s sudden departure, started to overtake him, but failed, reaching Monterey several hours after T.'s arri- val. Gen. Sherman, Mem., i. 25, gives the same version. This may be true, though unsupported by other evidence.

Il On his ride F. and Pico rode Cal. mustangs, driving six unsaddled to be caught with the lasso for frequent changes by Dodson, Fremont's servant and a skilful vaquero. They slept the first night at Capt. Robbins' rancho near Sta Bárbara, and the second at S. Luis Obispo, where the 9 horses were changed for & fresh ones from Pico's caballada. The third camp was in the upper Salinas valley, where they were threatened and kept from sleep by grizzly bears. Starting on the return in the afternoon of the 26th, Fremont rode one horse-a gift from Pico-to within 30 miles of S. Luis, as a test of his endurance. At San Luis they took the original horses, and having slept again at Sta Bárbara, they arrived at the city early in the afternoon of the 29th. They had been absent 83 days, had ridden over 800 miles, and had been actually in the saddle probably about 100 hours. Accounts of this ride were published in the Washington National Intelligencer, N. Y. Herald, and N. Y. Times; from which they were reproduced in Bigelow's Mem., 152-6; N. Y. Herald, May 29, 1876; Sta B. Press, June 3, 1876; Watsonville Paja- ronian, May 15, 1879; S. F. Belletin, May 31, 1876; S. F. Call, Jan. 21, 1879; and many other newspapers. Pico, in his Acontecimientos, MS., 76-7, gives a brief account of the ride. He says Dodson gave out on the last day of the return.

444

FREMONT'S CONTROVERSY WITH KEARNY.

ation, and left the room. He had meanwhile tendered his resignation from the army, which offer was de- clined. He came back about an hour later and prom- ised obedience. Kearny expressed great satisfaction at this conclusion, and repeated verbally the substance of past orders, requiring him to report at Monterey at the earliest possible date, but permitting him to come by land after embarking the volunteers at San Pedro.12

I think it probable that the manner and words of Fremont at this interview were the turning-point of the controversy, and determined the general's later course and accusations; but it is also likely that the tone assumed by Kearny was most annoying to the younger officer's pride. Fremont left Monterey the same day, and two days later Colonel Mason was sent to the south as inspector of troops, " clothed with full authority to give such orders and instructions in that country upon all matters whatever, both civil and

12 Frémont's Court-martial, 17, 34, 104-7, 423, 427. Frémont gives no particulars of the interview; but ridicules the idea that he should have come so far merely to insult the general and offer to resign his commission; and he implies that he asked K. about the claims, and was told that they would not be recognized, also that he disclaimed any intention to insult the general. Doubtless his final promise to obey was founded on information from Larkin as to the nature of the late instructions from Washington. Lieut Sherman, Memoirs, i. 25, says: 'All the troops and the navy (?) regarded Gen. K. as the rightful commander, though Fremont still remained at Los Angeles, styl- ing himself as governor, issuing orders, and holding his battalion of Cal. vol- unteers in apparent defiance of Gen. K. Col. Mason and Maj. Turner were sent down by sea with a paymaster, with muster-rolls and orders to muster this battalion into the service of the U. S., to pay, and then to muster them out; but on their reaching Los Angeles F. would not consent to it, and the controversy became so angry that a challenge was believed to have passed between M. and F ... . Turner rode up by land in 4 or 5 days, and F. becom- ing alarmed, followed him, as we supposed, to overtake him, but he did not succeed. On F.'s arrival at Monterey he camped in a tent about a mile out of town and called on Gen K., and it was reported that the latter threatened him very severely, and ordered him back to Los Angeles, immediately to dis- band his volunteers, and to cease the exercise of authority of any kind in the country. Feeling a natural curiosity to see F. . . . I rode out to his camp and found him in a conical tent with one Capt. Owens. . . I spent an hour or so with F. in his tent, took some tea with him, and left without being much impressed with him.' Sherman has evidently confounded two different visits of F. to Monterey. In Id., p. 23, he represents F. as claiming his position 'by virtue of a letter he had received from Col. Benton'! and on p. 27, 'all agreed that if any one else than Fremont had put on such airs, K. would have shown him no mercy, for he was regarded as the strictest kind of a dis- ciplinarian.'

445

COOKE AND OWENS.

military, as you may think conducive to the public in- terest,"13 and bearing an order requiring Frémont to obey Mason, to authenticate and complete any un- settled accounts against the government, and to report at Monterey in twelve days after embarking the vol- unteers, bringing with him the members of his original exploring party.14

On March 23d, the day after Fremont's departure from Los Angeles, Secretary Russell started east with despatches understood to include a petition from Cali- fornians for Frémont's appointment as governor.15 On the same day, after Russell's departure, Cooke arrived from San Luis with the dragoon company and four companies of the Mormon battalion, which troops were posted in and near the town. Gillespie rode out to receive Cooke in a friendly manner, but exercised no authority, having obeyed Kearny's order relieving him of his command. Captain Owens was in com- mand of the battalion at San Gabriel, and when Cooke called on him the 24th he professed to have no knowl- edge of the orders issued by Kearny and Shubrick, nor would he obey the commandant's order to turn over a part of the artillery to the dragoons. He based his refusal on Frémont's written order already cited, and he urged Cooke to await Frémont's return. There was no quarrel or unfriendly feeling. In his report of the 25th the commandant, while professing amazement at the prevailing ignorance of military law, and denouncing " this treason or mutiny which jeopardizes the safety of the country, and defies me in my legal command and duties," yet deemed it best to " sacrifice all feeling or pride to duty, which I think plainly forbids any attempt to crush this resistance of

13 March 29, 1847, Kearny to Mason. Cal. and N. Mex., Mess. and Doc., 1850, p. 307. Mason doubtless had verbal instructions respecting his prospec- tive dealings with Frémont.

14 March 28, 1847, Kearny to Fremont. Court-martial, 17-18, 34, 424. March 31st, Biddle orders Gillespie to report for duty. Id., 221.

13 Testimony of Cooke and Russell, in Fremont's Court-martial, 125, 266, 268. Russell seems to have gone overland, but there is no information about his party or journey. He reached Washington in July.

446

FRÉMONT'S CONTROVERSY WITH KEARNY.

misguided men. It would be a signal of revolt. The general's orders are not obeyed!"16 Doubtless he acted wisely in preventing a rupture between the Mormons and the Missourians.

Frémont arrived at Los Angeles on the 29th; but nothing is known of what occurred during the follow- ing days. With Cooke he had no intercourse what- ever. Mason arrived on the 7th of April or earlier.17 He had some interviews with Frémont, Cooke being present at Mason's request, but nothing is known of details, except that their relations were not friendly, and that Fremont deemed himself insulted by Cooke's presence as a witness. 18 On the 12th the colonel called for a list of Fremont's civil appointments, and for all records, civil and military. The list and a few papers were furnished next day, with an explanation that the main record had been sent to Washington,19

16 Testimony of Cooke, Gillespie, and Loker, in Fremont's Court-martial, 14, 122-7, 134-7, 201-3, 273, including: March 25th, Capt. J. K. Wilson's note to Cooke declining to turn over artillery; Owens' order to Wilson to same effect; and Cooke's report to C'apt. Turner; Cooke says Wilson was at first inclined to obey. He was shown, but not permitted to copy, Frémont's order to Owens. Dr Sanderson and Lieut Davidson accompanied Cooke to S. Ga- briel. C. expresses doubt that the proposition for being mustered had ever been properly presented to the volunteers. One of the howitzers which Owens was ordered to give up had been captured from Kearny at S. Pascual, and given up to Fremont at Cahuenga. There were frequent attempts to in- troduce this gun in the court-martial, apparently for no other purpose than to ventilate Kearny's misfortune at S. Pascual. An extract from Cooke's original diary on these happenings at Los Angeles is given in his Conquest of Cal., 288, etc. Cooke's report to Turner was sent by express to Monterey, but could not have arrived in time to affect the instructions to Mason.

17 April 7, 1847, Gillespie to Larkin, mentioning the arrival of M. 'at this moment' as very fortunate. Speaks highly of M., though his measures are harsh according to orders. Savage, Doc., MS., ii. 76. At this time Fremont hoped to start 'next week.'

18 Cooke, in Fremont's Court-martial, 142 et seq. C. and F. were intro- duced by M., but F.'s manner did not indicate a desire for further acquaint- ance, and they did not speak to cach other later at Angeles or on the march east. A report of M. to Turner dated April 10th aud narrating his official acts down to date, I have not found.

19 April 12, 1847, Mason to Fremont. April 13th, F. to M. Cal. and N. Mex., Mess. and Doc., 1850, p. 308. 'My position here having been de- nounced as usurpation by Gen. K., I could not anticipate from him any call for these papers; and in requiring, myself, from the general govt, means and authority to comply with my engagement, it became necessary that these and other objects should be thoroughly made known.' The only civil ap- pointments had been Santiago Argüello and Pedro Carrillo as collectors of the ports of S. Diego and S. Pedro.

447

MASON CHALLENGED BY FRÉMONT.

doubtless carried by Russell. Fremont was annoyed by the matter and manner of an order to bring in a band of horses that had been sent to graze in the country in preparation for later use by the explorers. On the 14th Mason had to send two messengers be- fore Frémont would come to his quarters to answer questions about the horses; and when he did come, he used language which caused the colonel to reply, "None of your insolence, or I will put you in irons." On being informed that Mason would hold himself personally responsible for these words, the ex-govern- or returned to his quarters, and at once sent Major Reading with a demand for an apology, followed on refusal by a challenge. This was accepted the same evening by a verbal arrangement with Reading, double-barrelled shot-guns being chosen as the weap- ons; but in a note of the 15th the colonel announced the necessity of postponing the duel until the parties should meet at Monterey, for which place Mason started a few days later.20

The affair, however, became known to General Kearny, whose positive orders prevented a hostile meeting. There is no reason to doubt that both officers were willing enough to butcher each other; but perhaps neither much regretted that superior orders and circumstances prevented a duel. In sev- eral respects Frémont shows to better advantage in this affair than his rival.21

20 I find no record of the exact date; but his general report to Kearny is dated at Monterey, April 26th. It is a general statement of the condition of affairs in the south, containing nothing to be noted. Cal. and N. Mex., Mess. and Doc., 1850, p. 309.

21 The best account of the whole matter is that in Bigelow's Memoir, 203- 13, probably from Benton's Speech, including the following correspondence: April 14th, Fremont to Mason, demand for an apology; M. to F., declining to apologize; F. to M., challenge; May 27th, Reading to F., testifying to M.'s verbal acceptauce and choice of weapons; April 15th, M. to F., postponing the meeting; F. to M., consenting to a meeting at Monterey; May 4th, Kearny to F., order to proceed no further in the matter; May 19th, M. to F., thinks that K.'s orders make a postponement proper; May 4th, Biddle to M., urging a postponement; May 22d, F. to M., consents to postponement, but wishes to be apprised of the earliest moment when the mecting can take place 'con- sistently with your convenience and sense of propriety;' May 24th, M. to F., will inform him when 'peculiar official obligations' are 'so far removed as to

44S

FREMONT'S CONTROVERSY WITH KEARNY.

For three weeks after the rupture between Mason and Frémont the latter showed no haste to obey or- ders and depart, though it appears that the last of the volunteers were discharged on April 19th.22 The ex- governor was doubtless somewhat occupied with finan- cial matters pertaining to his late administration, and on April 26th he tried to put one of these matters on a better footing by certifying the receipt of cattle from Célis.23 His later excuses for delaying his depart- ure were the danger of travelling in those days, and the fact that the orders did not seem to him urgent!

enable me to meet you.' On his arrival at Monterey, F. is said to have vis- ited M.'s quarters without accepting an invitation to sit, for the purpose of making his presence known. Finally, in 1850, Senator Fremont, at Washing- ton, received a letter from Mason, informing him that he could have satisfac- tion by coming to St Louis. F. paid no attention to this, and M.'s death occurred a little later. An unsuccessful attempt was made to bring up this matter in testimony at the court-martial. Foster, Los Angeles in 1847, MS., 19-21, gives a brief account of the affair, claiming to have been present at Pryor's house when the quarrel took place. He says, and others imply, that there was a 'woman in the case,' an appointment with whom prevented F. coming at M.'s first and second summonses. The affair is mentioned by Har- grave, C'al. in 1846, MS., 9-10, who was with Fremont. Boggs, in Napa Register, May 18, 1872, besides other blunders, says the challenge was sent to Kearny. Mollhansen, T'agebuch, 289-92, says the duel was fought.

While I cannot accept Bigelow's theory that Mason deliberately by re- peated insults drew out a challenge from F. with a view of killing him, yet the choice of an unusual weapon, for his skill in the use of which M. was famous, reflects in my opinion no credit on the colonel; and it would appear that there was nothing to prevent M. fighting at Los Angeles if he had wished to fight. Without adopting the opinion of Bentou and others that the letters of Kearny, Mason, and Biddle were collusive and designed to extricate M. from the affair, it may be noted that K.'s duty by the rules of war was to arrest both parties, and his act of postponing the duel in a written order was a strange proceeding; though his failure to arrest and bring to trial was in one sense as favorable to F. as to M., and in another sense not so, since F. was to be arrested on another charge.

22 Official statement. U. S. Govt Doc., 31st cong. Ist sess., H. Ex. Doc., 24, p. 22 h, by which it appears that the men were discharged April 1-19. There are no details, but most of the men soon found their way northward.

23 See note 34 of chap. xvi. In a letter to Snyder of Dec. 11, 1849, F. explains this transaction. He says that when Kearny's order came (March 11th) Andrés Pico had gone to S. Luis Obispo (?) to bring the cattle. On F.'s return from Monterey, where K. had refused to accept the contract, Pico had arrived at S. Fernando with 400 or 500 of the cattle, and it was resolved to put them in the keeping of Stearns on the usual terms, to await the action of the govt. Accordingly F. gave Celis a receipt for all the cattle, only part of which had been delivered. C. was trusted to deliver the rest, and F. signed the receipt, as he claims a right to do, to bind the govt, as he had to leave the country immediately. Bigelow's Mem., 394-6. Stearns received 481 head (those at S. Fernando probably) on May Ist from Celis. Perhaps there had been some kind of a theoretical transfer to Hensley, and back to Célis for safe keeping. It was in February that F. through Larkin had purchased the Mari- posas estate from Alvarado for $3,000.

449

RUMORS OF MEXICAN INVASION.

Meanwhile, in addition to increasing Indian depreda- tions, there came alarming rumors that a Mexican army under General Bustamante was coming to re- conquer California. Captain Moreno and other refu- gees returning from Sonora were supposed to have brought the reports; and it was also said that Liman- tour had landed artillery on the frontier, and brought commissions for leading Californians. A message was sent in haste to the general, Captain Stockton sent a vessel down the coast, scouts were despatched to watch the Colorado route, fortifications were strengthened at Los Angeles, and a close watch was kept on the crowd assembled at a horse-race at Santa Ana; but it was a false alarm, wholly without founda- tion so far as can be known.24

The rest of the New York volunteers having arrived, and a company of volunteer cavalrymen un- der Lieutenant Burton having been mustered in on April 22d, Kearny left Monterey for the south on the Lexington. Accompanied by Colonel Stevenson and two companies of his regiment, he landed at San Pedro and arrived on May 9th at Los Angeles, to "find the people of this part of California quiet, not- withstanding some rumors to the contrary, circulated, and I fear originated, by some of our own officers to further their own wicked purposes." One of the gen- eral's motives in visiting the south was doubtless to hasten Frémont's motions. Of their interviews at this time we know only that Frémont asked permis- sion to go with his exploring party to join his regi- ment in Mexico, or to go directly east from Los

24 The reports began on April 20th. A good account of the whole affair is given in Cooke's Conquest, 299-303. The writer thinks the active prepara- tions and arrival of reinforcements caused Bustamante's expedition to mis- carry. In his report of April 28th, Cal. and N. Mex., Mess. and Doc., 1850, p. 286, Kearny says: 'I do not place much credit in the latter part of the above (Bustamante's approach), but it has much excited these excitable Cali- fornians; and it becomes necessary to reenforce the command at Los Angeles.' May Ist he sent to Wash. copies of all papers relating to his civil adminis- tration. Id., 287; and May 3d he announced his intention of going south. Id., 303. Stockton's Report contains a mention of his trip down the coast.

HIST. CAL., VOL. V. 29

450

FREMONT'S CONTROVERSY WITH KEARNY.

Angeles, both requests being denied,23 and that he was finally induced to obey orders and start by land for Monterey on May 12th. Lieutenant Sherman, who was serving as Kearny's aid, had started a day or two earlier with a detachment of Mormons. On the 13th the general, in reporting Frémont's departure, said: "His conduct in California has been such that I shall be compelled on arriving in Missouri to arrest him and send him under charges to report to you ;"26 though this intention was not made known to the offending offi- cer. Cooke's resignation was accepted both as com- mandant of the southern district and of the Mormon battalion, Colonel Stevenson assuming the former command. Kearny left town on the 14th, embarked at San Pedro, and arrived at Monterey on the 27th, Frémont and his explorers making their appearance two days later. Gillespie had in the mean time re- ported to Commodore Biddle. The topographical party being paraded before the general's quarters, those who wished to remain in the country separated themselves from the main party, and Fremont was ordered to discharge them. He was required to re- main in town instead of camping with his men out- side, was not permitted to send for Kern and King who were absent, or to visit Yerba Buena as he de- sired, and was ordered to turn over his surveying instruments to Lieutenant Halleck.27

I have expressed my opinion that Fremont's tech- nical disobedience in January was justified by his duty to Stockton. His continued disobedience in March, before the visit to Monterey, may, I think, to a certain extent, be regarded as a part or continua- tion of the same acts, covered more or less fully by

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 47

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