XVI. THE CALIFORNIA QUESTION
[1]. In 1845 there entered at Monterey, the only port of entry, twenty-seven American vessels (9435 tons), eighteen Mexican (2620), four British (966), three French (756) and three German (525).
[2.] Mexico tried to keep the emigrants out with proclamations and orders to the California authorities, but the Americans appealed successfully to the treaty of amity and commerce and (it may be presumed) to the self-interest of local authorities.
[3.] The Mexican government was urged to buy New Helvetia, and negotiations began; but it was said that the Americans in the valley declared they would not permit Sutter to sell, and it seemed doubtful whether Mexico could hold the place even if she purchased it.
[4.] California and its population. [13]Pakenham, nos. 66, 78, 1840; 1, 1842. [13]Capt. Jones to Pakenham, Nov. 30, 1841. Revue de Paris, Jan., 1849. [13]Forbes, no. 2, 1846. Nat. Intelligencer, Apr. 26, 1842; Nov. 5, 1844. Madisonian, Dec. 24, 1842. [77]To gov. Calif., June 1, 1842. [77]Almonte, no. 84, 1844. [13]Barron, May 5, 1837; Jan. 20, 1844. Id. to Seymour, Jan. 28, 1845. [12]Blake to Seymour, July 5, 1846. [52]Vessels entering at Monterey, 1845. Forbes, Calif., 155, 225, 276. Bulletin de la Soc. de Géog., no. 77, May, 1844, 99–102. Dana, Two Years, 83–8, 90–3, 200. Colton, Three Years, 19–22, 37–8, 45, 68, 111, 118, 155, 158, 172–3, 231. Whittier, “The Crisis.” [61]R. B. Mason, Sept. 18, 1847. Sherman Letters, 43. Duflot de Mofras, Explor., i, 319, 402; ii, 24. Wise, Gringos, 42, 49. Ho. 70; 30, 1, pp. 7–8. [61]Kearny, Mar. 15; Apr. 28, 1847. [77]Covarrubias, Apr. 5, 1846. [247]March to Larkin. [247]Sutter to Larkin, Oct. 3, 1845. Bidwell, Calif., 157, 161. Revue des Deux Mondes, Dec. 15, 1845, p. 1039. Sherman, Sloat, xv, xxxix. St. Amant, Voyages, 513. Richman, Calif., 265, 267, 276. [13]Forbes to Barron, Jan. 27, 1845. [13]Elliott, July 3, 1845. Royce, Bidwell. Boston Post, Nov. 27, 1845. Jameson, Calhoun Corres., 946. [247]Sutter to Larkin, Oct. 3, 1845. [372]Hyde, statement, 6. Farnham, Life, 358–60. Diario, Mar. 21, 1846. Soulé, Annals, 168, 201. Sherman, Home Letters, 114. Niles, June 6, 1846, p. 211. Schafer, Pac. Slope, 231. Simpson, Narrative, i, 287, 297. Sen. 33; 30, 1, p. 97. Revere, Tour, 70. Sen. Rep. 75; 30, 1, p. 50. Sherman, Mems., i, 20. Bryant, What I Saw, 447. Royce, Calif., 31–2, 38–9, 41. [123]Bidwell, statement. Sen. 7; 30, 1 (Emory). Larkin, Calif. prior to 1846 ([52]Cons. letters, Monterey, i, 1). Letter from S. Fe, July 29, 1841; Mex. in 1842, p. 128. London Times, June 18, 1841. Phila. No. American, Oct. 31, 1843. [52]Larkin, nos. 7, June 20; 9, Aug. 18, 1844; 12, Mar. 22; 22, June 6; 26, Sept. 29, 1845.
[5.] Startled by this affair, the Mexican government now proposed to send 1200 men to California with the idea of establishing them as military colonists; and in May, 1845, Ignacio Iniestra, a Mexican educated at Paris and regarded as a competent officer, was appointed to the chief command. No such number of troops was, however, provided; Iniestra refused to set out until sure his men would be paid and fed; and the requisite money was not supplied. In August U. S. Consul Parrott and the Amigo del Pueblo of Mexico stated that a commissioner had come from California to inform the government that the troops would not be admitted. About this time the lack of funds caused a mutiny; but that was suppressed, and the dwindling forces lingered on until, at the end of the year, a large part of them were swept by Paredes into the vortex of his revolution. For nearly two months they were cantoned near Mexico; but finally another sham effort was put forth. Though Iniestra died, the men proceeded under various embarrassments—receiving accessions en route from the prisons of Guadalajara—to the port of Mazatlán, and the arms, munitions and provisions made their way under equal difficulties to Acapulco, where seven small vessels were gathered to receive them. But the restless Juan Alvarez, called “The Tiger of the South,” seized the effects of the expedition, giving his brigandage a color of respectability by pronouncing, as we have seen, against Paredes, and three weeks later the troops at Mazatlán, commanded now by Col. Rafael Téllez, took a similar step—being determined on the one hand not to go to California, and quite willing on the other to live riotously on the funds of the expedition and the ample revenues of the customhouse. They pronounced for Santa Anna; and soon after the revolution of the citadel took place, August 4, 1846, the government, promising to make up his command to 1000, ordered Téllez to sail, but the necessary reinforcements were not provided. Téllez advised giving up the expedition, and on Sept. 7 the government expressed its concurrence in this recommendation. Thus ended even the pretence of taking the California situation in hand. Téllez stated that according to documents in his possession Paredes never intended to have the expedition sail; and it is certain that secret instructions were given to Iniestra, which the government was extremely anxious to keep from the knowledge of the public. In all probability the real purpose of proposing the expedition was merely to make people feel that something was to be done. ([13]Bankhead, nos. 13, 1845; 74, 1846. Diario, May 4, 1846. London Times, Jan. 8, 1846. [47]Wood to Bancroft, June 4, 1846. Comunicación Circular que ... Peña. Amigo del Pueblo, Aug. 14, 1845. Of the author’s very numerous [76]documents relating to the expedition the following are enough to cite. Bustamante to Moreno, Mar. 26, 1847. Tornel to gov. Calif., May 13, 1846. N. Flores, Mar. 8, 1846. Yáñez, Mar. 10, 23, 1846. Alvarez, Mar. 17; Apr. 7, 1846. M. Gutiérrez, May 19; June 16, 1846. To J. I. Gutiérrez, May 13, 1846. Téllez to prest. of consejo de gob., July 25, 1846; reply, Aug. 18. J. I. Gutiérrez, May 9, 1846. To Iniestra, Mar. 31; May 9, 1845. Iniestra, July 31; Aug. 24, 29; Sept. 23; Dec. 2, 24, 1845; Jan. 5, 18, 24; Feb. 28, 1846. Castañares, Oct. 27, 1845. To Monterde, Apr. 10, 1846. T. Moreno, Mar. 3, 1846. Baneneli to Téllez, May 7, 1846. Moreno to Gutiérrez, Apr. 16, 24, 1846. Téllez, Feb. 9, 27; Mar. 2; Apr. 11; Aug. 24, 26; Sept. 2, 1846. To Téllez, Sept. 7, 1846. See also chap. xxx, [note 27].)
[6.] Mexico fully warned. London Times, June 18, 1841; Aug. 6; Oct. 6, 1845. [77]Almonte, no. 84, P., July 16; 153, P., Dec. 12, 1844. [13]Pakenham, no. 2, Jan. 6, 1842. [13]Bankhead, nos. 31, Mar. 31, 1845; 42, 1846. [77]Arrangóiz, Sept. 17, 1842; nos. 64, res., June 28, 1844; 41, res., Feb. 28; 70, res., May 7; 101, res., July 8, 1845. London Chronicle, Aug. 13, 1845. Castañares, Documentos. [75]Sánchez, Apr. 2, 1846. Bancroft, Pac. States, xvii, 32. [76]Mora y Villamil, Nov. 15, 1845. [76]Bustamante, Nov. 13, 1845. [76]Mil. comte., Acapulco, July 22, 1845. [76]J. Castro to Castañares, Oct. 6, 1845. [76]Id., May 30, 1845. [76]Bustamante to Moreno, Mar. 26, 1847. In November, 1845, the Mexican minister of relations told Bankhead that Castro could not be punished for revolting ([13]Bankhead, no. 113).
[7.] If anyone doubts this, let him look at the present populous, rich, happy state of California, think how much it contributes to the world, and consider what it would now be, had it remained a part of Mexico, and suffered from the anarchy, devastations and massacres of recent years.
[8.] France had at one time cast longing glances at California. In the early forties Duflot de Mofras made a visit there, and according to the British vice consul in California a formal offer of protection was made by him, Admiral Du Petit Thouars and Capt. Laplace in the name of their government ([13]Forbes to Barron, Sept. 5, 1844); but the time for such a move was not then ripe, and France, aside from maintaining a consular representative on the ground, became inactive. England was even less responsive. While many British subjects, particularly the correspondent of the London Times at Mexico (e.g. Times, Sept. 9, 1845), felt that England should take California, the British government, though doubtless extremely anxious that the territory should not fall into the possession of the United States, refused to move or countenance any move in that direction. December 31, 1844, the Foreign Office wrote to Consul Barron at Tepic, Mexico, who had charge of Vice Consul Forbes at San Francisco, that in the California agitation the British agents were to be entirely passive, and that the idea of a British protectorate could not be countenanced, adding that the authorities of California “should be clearly made to understand that Great Britain would view with much dissatisfaction the establishment of a protectoral power over California by any other foreign State.” Other documents bearing on the subject are the following. [13]Forbes to Barron, Sept. 5, 1844. Kennedy in London Times, June 18, 1841. [13]Pakenham, nos. 91, Aug. 30, 1841; 61, July 21, 1842. [13]To Id., Dec. 15, 1841. Bankhead, nos. 74, July 30, 1845; 73, May 30, 1846. [13]To Bankhead (exactly in line with the despatch addressed to Barron on the same day), nos. 53, Dec. 31, 1844; 18, May 31, 1845; 16, June 1; 4, Aug. 15, 1846. [108]Ashburton to Sturgis, Apr. 2, 1845 (“we certainly do not want colonies, and least of all such as would be unmanageable from this distance, and only serve to embroil us with our neighbours”). [13]Mora to Palmerston, Dec. 15, 1847. London Times, Oct. 6, 1845. [12]For. Off. to Admty., June 19, 1846. Webster, Writings, xviii, 192. [12]Seymour to Admty., Apr. 27, 1846. Monitor Repub., Apr. 16, 1846. [52]Everett, Mar. 28, 1845. Gordon, Aberdeen, 183. Smith, Annex. of Texas, 155, 230, 417. Mackintosh, Brit. consul at Mex., proposed to place 500,000 European colonists in California in twenty years ([13]to Bankhead, July 26, 1845) with a view to turning over to England the control of the province ([13]Bankhead, no. 73, May 30, 1846). Paredes promised to give “every possible facility” for the execution of this plan ([13]Bankhead, no. 73), but the British government would not take it up.