[10.] Capt. Mervine wrote, July 6, to Capt. Montgomery that Larkin believed Castro, Pico and others would meet the following day to deliberate about declaring independence and hoisting the American flag.
[11.] Sloat stated later that he acted on his own responsibility in taking possession of California; and in fact the orders of May 13 did not reach their destination until about August 28 (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 229).
[12.] It has been said (Bancroft, Pacific States, xvii, 250) that Sloat merely pretended to have based his action on Frémont’s operations, so as to have a way of escape should he be blamed; but (1) we should not without evidence accuse him of lying, (2) he showed strong feeling when he learned that Frémont had acted without authority (e.g. Baldridge, Days of 1846; Sen. 33; 30, 1, p. 178), and (3) as a rational man he could not fail to be influenced greatly. Bancroft says (ibid., 227) that Sloat learned from Larkin that Frémont’s coöperation with the insurgents was not certain; but he admits (ibid., 228–9) that on July 5 a launch from the Portsmouth, then lying at San Francisco, brought proof that Frémont was so doing; and the next day Sloat and Larkin, according to the log book of the Savannah, were busy preparing the proclamation, etc. Royce (California, 158) places against Frémont’s testimony (that Sloat said his action had resulted from Frémont’s) the fact that Larkin did not so state; but silence is not equal in strength to assertion, and Frémont is supported by Gillespie (Sen. Report 75; 30, 1, p. 32), by Wilson of the Savannah (ibid., 41), by Sloat’s private secretary (Baldridge, Days of 1846), by Sloat’s anxiety to obtain Frémont’s coöperation, and by the resentment that he exhibited on finding that Frémont had acted without authority (Sen. 33; 30, 1, p. 178). See also Benton, Abr. Deb., xvi, 17.
[13.] August 27, 1846, [12]Seymour wrote to the Admiralty: “My principal object has been, for many months, to be at hand to prevent or retard it [the American occupation of California], if I should be directed to take any proceedings for these purposes.” It was presumably to wait for orders that he placed himself at San Blas. What led him to sail for Monterey, however, as he did on June 14, was not Sloat’s leaving Mazatlán, but news that the Santa Barbara convention was likely to declare for independence ([13]Seymour to Bankhead, June 13). Had that been done, he would have felt that he had a ground on which to oppose American occupation, though he thought that a large body of reliable colonists would be necessary to establish British ascendancy ([12]Id., Aug. 27). When he arrived at Monterey he was aware that the United States and Mexico were at war, and this was in his opinion an additional reason for inaction ([12]Id., Aug. 27); but he wrote to Pico that American occupation should be regarded as merely provisional ([12]to Pico, July 23). Sir Thomas Johnson, commanding a British sloop-of-war off Mazatlán, showed his sympathies by constantly giving the Mexicans information about our vessels ([76]Gutiérrez, Apr. 8, 1846, res.).
[14.] Sloat also guaranteed land titles. This was impracticable. In annexing California he exceeded his authority.
[15.] Sloat’s operations, etc. [47]Sloat, Nov. 19; Dec. 3, 1845; Feb. 25; Mar. 17; Apr. 8, 30; May 31; June 6, 1846. [47]Id. to Howison, Apr. 1, 1846; to Montgomery, Apr. 1. [47]Wood to Bancroft, June 4. Benton, View, ii, 692. Bulletin de la Soc. de Géog., no. 77. [12]Seymour to admty., no. 47, Aug. 27, 1846; to Pico, July 23. Dana, Two Years, 78–9, 90. Sherman, Address. Wise, Gringos, 47. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 258–64. [247]Sloat to Larkin, May 18. [247]Larkin to Stearns, Aug. —. N. Y. Herald, Mar. 4, 1880. Davis, Sixty Years, 196. Hist. Soc. of So. Calif., viii, 77 (Barrows). [47]Conner, Oct. 9, 1846. [13]Seymour to Bankhead, June 13. [13]A. Forbes to Bankhead, Aug. 1. [13]J. A. Forbes to A. Forbes, July 14. [52]J. Parrott, June 4. [13]Letter from Mazatlán, Aug. 4. [13]Seymour to J. A. Forbes, July 22. [52]Larkin to J. Castro, July 8; reply July 9. [52]Id. to Alvarado, July 8; reply, July 9. [142]Carson, recolls. [52]Sloat, gen. orders, July 14. [47]Conner, Aug. 26. 48–9Bancroft to Sloat, June 24; Oct. 17, 1845; May 13, 15; June 8; July 12; Aug. 13 (two), 1846. [108]J. Parrott to Buchanan, private, July 23, 1846. Duflot de Mofras, Explor., i, 400–6. Sen. 1; 29, 2, pp. 378–9. Bancroft, Pac. States, xvii, 204, etc. [247]Larkin to Ten Eyck, Sept. 19. [247]Frazer to Larkin, Aug. 27. [4]Amador, mems., 169. [247]Atherton to Larkin, Dec. 3. [3]Alvarado, Hist., 214–9. Proceeds. U. S. Naval Institute, 1888, pp. 539–40. Bennett, Steam Navy, 91. N. Orl. Picayune, Oct. 23, 1848. Sherman, Sloat, passim. [120]Fauntleroy to Biddle, Mar. 12, 1847. Phelps, Fore and Aft, 291. Richman, Calif., 315. México á través, iv, 643–4. Diario, Aug. 16; Oct. 16, 1846. [106]Lancey, cruise (logbook of Savannah). [105]Baldridge, Days of 1846. Walpole, Four Years, ii, 204. Wash. Union, Sept. 24; Oct. 3, 26. Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 1013–4, 1019–20. Dunbar, Romance, 38. Sherman, Home Letters, 85. Niles, Oct. 10, 1846, p. 87. Sen. Report 75; 30, 1, pp. 13, 32, 40, 44, 70–4. Century Mag., N. S., xviii, 794. N. Y. Nation, xlviii, 141. Hittell, Calif., ii, 466. [295]Pinto, Apuntaciones, 104. Sen. 33; 30, 1, pp. 374, 377. Ho. Rep. 817; 30, 1, pp. 4–5. Ho. 4; 29, 2, pp. 649–67. Revere, Tour, 55, 77. Frémont, Mems., 534, 539. [172]Cyane log book. [263]Mervine, letter book. Swasey, Early Days, 60. Cong. Globe, 30, 1, pp. 606–7. Royce, Calif., 157–61. [52]Larkin, nos. 1 (descript. of Calif.); 52, July 10; 53, July 18; 54 and 55, July 20. [76]Gutiérrez, no. 42, res., Apr. 8. [76]To Castro, May 9; July 25. [76]To comte. gen. Sonora, July 25. [76]To min. of eccles. affrs., July 25. [76]Monterey estado, Apr. 1. [76]S. Anna, Oct. 30.
[16.] Stockton sailed from Norfolk on the Congress in October, 1845. Some mystery has been attached to his sealed orders (Bancroft, Pacific States, xvii, 251); but they were merely to sail via the Sandwich Islands for Monterey, deliver the original of the despatch of October 17 to Larkin, and then join Sloat’s squadron. For his character see e.g. Royce, California, 179; [330]Taylor to brother, January 19, 1848; [108]Appleton to Bancroft, April 27, 1847; Porter, Kearny, 6, 7; Sherman, Home Letters, 108; Quincy, Figures, 230–40.
[17.] One aim of the proclamation was doubtless to provide a way of escape for the United States and its agents in case there should be no war, but even from this point of view it was ridiculous. Sloat repudiated the reasons for his action that were ascribed to him by Stockton.
[18.] Castro and the Californians generally did not believe that war had been declared, and of course Larkin’s letter to Stearns tended to confirm their opinion. Had it proved correct, Stockton would soon have been making apologies like T. A. C. Jones. This may help to explain Castro’s firm attitude. The Life of Stockton attempts to explain his haughty and menacing language as due to Castro’s military preponderance and the necessity of intimidating him. Stockton himself said later that, as Castro had no authority from the central government to make terms, it would have been useless to treat with him; but Castro could have laid down his arms, and that was the vital point just then. Stockton’s other reasons (Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 1041–2) are equally unsatisfactory. Bancroft (Pacific States, xvii, 269) expresses the belief that Stockton did not wish to make terms with Castro and the other officials, but to eliminate them. This is quite possible. Probably temperament and thirst for glory counted. Stockton’s pretence (in his reply to Castro) that since the two countries were at war, he could not suspend hostilities until Castro should raise the American flag, was absurd. Truces have often been made during war, and never during peace. This was enough—especially as it came after Larkin’s overture—to show Castro he could expect nothing from Stockton.
[19.] [76]Later Castro complained bitterly that after forsaking all for Mexico he had to beg for bread.