Rives (U. S. and Mexico, ii, 172–3) decides roundly against Frémont, and cites for support a letter from the prefect to Larkin demanding the reason for Frémont’s movements; but it was perfectly in accord with Mexican methods that such a letter should have been written purely to satisfy the authorities at Mexico.
[2.] Gillespie’s mission. Cong. Globe, 30, 1, p. 605. [247]Gillespie to Larkin, May 24. [13]J. A. to A. Forbes, July 9. Polk, Diary, Oct. 30, 1845. [247]Leidesdorff to Larkin, Apr. 25, 1846. Buchanan to Larkin, Oct. 17, 1845. Atlantic Monthly, Oct., 1890, pp. 548, etc. Sen. 33; 30, 1, 373. Ho. Report 817; 30, 1. Sen. Report 75; 30, 1, pp. 12, 30. Frémont, Mems., i, 489. Century Mag., N. S., xix, 923. Calif. Hist. Soc. Papers, i, pt. 1 (1887), pp. 69–72. [52]Larkin, no. 44, June 1. [52]Id. to Stearns et al., Apr. 17. Benton, View, ii, 689. Cooke, Conquest, 203–4. Royce, Bidwell.
Gillespie took to Frémont a letter of introduction from Buchanan and letters from Frémont’s father-in-law, Senator Benton. The former was entirely non-committal; and the latter, while very likely they contained veiled allusions to conversations in which the desire of the administration to acquire California had been mentioned, must have been like it in that respect, else Gillespie would not have dared to carry them through Mexico.
[3.] The evidence on this point, including Frémont’s positive statements made not long after the event, is conclusive (Polk, Diary, March 21, 1848; Senate Report 75; 30, 1, pp. 13, 32; [132]Benton, Feb. 18, 1848; Ho. Report 817; 30, 1, p. 4; [52]Larkin to P. Pico, July 5, 1846. Speaking in the Senate, April 10, 1848 (Cong. Globe, 30, 1, p. 604), Benton, though feeling extremely bitter toward Polk and no doubt fully informed by his son-in-law and client regarding all the facts, did not intimate that any instructions inconsistent with the instructions of Larkin were sent to Frémont. Indeed he stated the contrary. See also his Thirty Years View, ii, 689.
[4.] Frémont stated before a committee of the Senate that he had learned from Bancroft that Polk’s plan, in case of war, contemplated the occupation of California; but Frémont wrote to Capt. Montgomery of the Portsmouth, June 16, 1846, that even in the case of war he was not expected to prosecute “active hostilities.” In 1886 Bancroft stated that Gillespie was to inform Frémont of the President’s intentions.
[5.] First, many of the settlers had ample reasons to feel alarmed: the illegality of their presence; Castro’s sudden and cruel seizure of Americans in 1840; his attack upon Frémont in violation (the Americans believed) of a promise; official notices, issued about May 1, to the effect that the majority of the Americans were liable to be expelled at the convenience of the authorities; Castro’s warlike preparations; his talk of moving against the immigrants with armed forces ([52]Larkin, no. 42, April 17); and reports, more or less authentic and reliable, from various persons regarding what he said or intended. Secondly, the contemporary testimony of Frémont, Gillespie and other Americans—some of it given under oath—that alarm was actually felt is too strong to be rejected (see note 6). Much has been made of Bidwell, a clerk of Sutter’s, who tells us that alarm was not felt. But (1) his [123]Statement was made thirty years after the events; (2) he admits that he was not on good terms with Frémont, and the Statement aims to show that Frémont invented the story of alarm as an excuse for his conduct; (3) his Statement is in other respects clearly inaccurate; (4) it assumes that he knew the sentiments of all the persons on the Sacramento, yet proves that an important fact may have been known to but few; (5) it shows that at the critical time he was absent in the mountains; (6) it says, “Californians were always talking of expelling Americans” [and therefore were talking of it in April, 1846]; (7) his book mentions that in 1845 an attack upon New Helvetia was so confidently expected that he rode day and night to warn Sutter; (8) he undertakes to disprove positive testimony with negative. The legitimate settlers had no direct occasion to feel alarmed; but, as Bidwell himself points out, they could not have held aloof, had an attempt been made to expel their fellow-countrymen. It would be a mistake to suppose that the Americans who joined Frémont in these operations were actuated solely by patriotism and the idea of self-defence.
[6.] The Bear movement. (Starred citations refer, among other facts, to the alarm felt by Americans.) *[12]Blake of Juno to Seymour, July 5. Benton, View, ii, 691. [12]Seymour to admty., Aug. 27, 1846. [75]M. Castro to Calif. govt., Jan. 29. Niles, Nov. 21, 1846, p. 191; Oct. 16, 1847, p. 110. Colton, Three Years, 175. Cooke, Conquest, 204–11. [13]J. A. to A. Forbes, July 9, 14. [13]P. Pico to J. A. Forbes, June 29. [52]M. Castro to —–, [Apr. 30]. [52]Larkin to M. Castro, June 14. *[52]Ide, proclams., June 15, 18. [52]J. Castro, proclams., June 17. [52]P. Pico, proclam., June 23. [52]Id. to Larkin, June 29. Sen. 1; 29, 2, pp. 51–2. Buchanan to Larkin, Oct. 17, 1845. [52]J. Castro to Larkin, undated. [247]Larkin to Stearns, Apr. 17. [52]Larkin to Pico, July 5. [48]Bancroft to Sloat, June 24; Oct. 17, 1845. [123]Bidwell, statement. Royce, Bidwell. Willey, Thirty Years, 10. [256]Marcy to Wetmore, Dec. 5, 12. McGroarty, Calif., 192. Bancroft, Pac. States, xvii, 39–48, 101–86, 199. Apuntes, 353–4. [247]Gillespie to Larkin, May 24; June 7. [247]Larkin to Mott, Talbot & Co., June 18. Peters, Kit Carson, 269. [247]Leidesdorff to Larkin, Mar. 19; June 19. [247]Montgomery to Larkin, July 2. [247]Vallejo to Larkin, Sept. 15; to J. Castro, July 23. [122]Bidwell, Calif., *141–2, 161, etc. *[3]Alvarado, Calif., 184. *Phelps, Fore and Aft, 279, 284, 291. Oakland (Cal.) Tribune, June 30, 1914. *Richman, California, 308–14. [249]Leese, Bear Flag Papers, 9. [105]Baldridge, Days of 1846. Diario, Dec. 27, 1846. *Colton, Deck and Port, 389. [247]Guerrero to Leidesdorff, Apr. 30. [314]Sawyer papers. Polk, Diary, Sept. 1. Niles, Nov. 14, 1846, p. 174; Nov. 21, p. 191 (Frémont to Benton, July “25”); Oct. 16, 1847, p. 110 (Frémont’s declaration of June 6). *Upham, Frémont, 228. Century Mag., N. S., xix, 1917 (Mrs. F.), 780 (Royce), 782. Schafer, Pacific Slope, 258. [263]Mervine to Sloat, July 1. Cong. Globe, 30, 1, p. 606 (Benton). [52]Larkin, Calif, prior to 1846. *Sen. 33; 30, 1, p. 374. Ho. Report, 817, 30, 1, p. 4. Bandini, Calif., 142. Revere, Tour, 64. *Sen. Report, 75; 30, 1, pp. 12, 13, 25–9, 32–4, 38–40. *Sherman, Sloat, xv (Gillespie’s note). *Swasey, Early Days, 49. Nat. Intelligencer, Nov. 11. *Willey, Transition Period, 39, 42. Kelsey, Consulate, 15, 72. Royce, Calif., 132. Atlantic Monthly, Oct., 1890, pp. 548–57. [52]Larkin, nos. *41, Apr. 17; *48, June 18; 53, July 18; 54, July 20, 1846; 63, Jan. 14, 1847. *Californian, i, nos. 3–5. [76]Pico to Relac., June 29. [76]Pico, procl., June 23. [76]M. Castro to Pico, June 19. [76]Alvarado, June 28. [76]Narváez (undated). *Journ. Mil. Serv. Instit., xxxi, 715.
[7.] As Sloat was in personal intercourse with Gillespie about Feb. 20–22, he probably learned from him something more about the intentions of our government.
[8.] [48]Oct. 17, 1845, Bancroft wrote to Sloat, “In the event of actual hostilities between the Mexican Government and our own,” you will carry out “the instructions [of June 24] forwarded to you from the Dept. in view of such a contingency.” Rives (U. S. and Mexico, ii, 168) draws a sharp distinction between the “actual hostilities” of this order and the “declaration of war” of June 24. But (1) Bancroft said, Oct. 17, “actual hostilities” [not between forces in the field but] between the two governments; and (2) in his last quoted words above he indicated that the two orders contemplated precisely the same [not, as Rives holds, a different] contingency. As, therefore, the order of June 24 was the formal and fundamental one, Sloat had a technical ground for falling back upon it, whereas an officer of broad, clear views, decided character and unselfish loyalty would have acted more promptly, even at a slight personal risk. To do him justice, the reader should recall that many Senators refused to believe that the border hostilities were hostilities between the two governments (p. 182); and also that Sloat was old and not robust, and that he had the case of T. A. C. Jones before his eyes.
[9.] We find both July 1 and 2 given as the date of his arrival. The log book of his vessel says that she anchored at Monterey July 1, and that Larkin came aboard July 2. As he would have gone aboard as soon as possible, it seems probable that the vessel arrived July 1 at night.