:|;iss f=8(^^ 
 iodk -> C 6 <J v^ 
 
 PKKSICNTKI) iri- 
 
THE EARLY SENTIMENT FOR THE ANNEXATION 
 
 OF CALIFORNIA: AN ACCOUNT OF THE 
 
 GROWTH OF AMERICAN INTEREST 
 
 IN CALIFORNIA FROM 1835 
 
 TO 1846 
 
 BY 
 
 ROBERT GLASS CLELAND 
 
 Professor of History in Occidental College 
 
 A dissertation presented to the Faculty of Princeton University 
 in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of 
 Philosophy. 
 
 (Reprinted from The Southwestern Historical Quarterly, XVIII, 
 Nos. 1, 2, and 3.) . 
 
 Texas State Historical Association 
 Austin, Texas 
 

 mt% 
 
 i3)5 
 
p 
 
 THE EAELY SENTIMENT FOR THE ANNEXATION OF 
 CALIFORNIA : AN ACCOUNT OF THE GROWTH 
 OF AMERICAN INTEREST IN CALI- 
 FORNIA, 1835-1846 
 
 robert glass cleland 
 
 Foreword 
 
 For a decade prior to the Mexican War, a well-defined move- 
 ment for the annexation of California was developing in the 
 United States. Varioiis writers have given some attention to 
 isolated incidents properly belonging to this movement, but hith- 
 erto no one has traced its growth in any systematic or connected 
 way. To do this is the aim of the following discussion. In it, 
 after roughly outlining the various ways in which California 
 was first brought to the attention of the American people, I 
 have devoted considerable space to tlie efforts made by Jackson, 
 T}'ler, and Polk to purchase the province from Mexico; to popu- 
 lar interest throughout the United States in its acquisition; 
 and to the growth of emigration from the western states. I 
 have considered it worth while, also, to show the effect of cur- 
 rent rumors that one or more European nations were seeking to 
 secure a foothold in the province; and to add a chapter on the 
 influence of slavery upon the American program. To local affairs 
 in California, I have given only so much attention as seemed 
 necessary for a clear understanding of their relation to the 
 movement for annexation. 
 
 Inevitably, in the treatment of a subject involving so many 
 details, mistakes have arisen and faults can readily be pointed 
 out. Yet I believe the account to be accurate in the main, and 
 trust that it will shed some new light on a most interesting and 
 important phase of westward expansion. Wherever possible I 
 have gotten my material from manuscript sources, finding the 
 official documents on file in the State Department; the Polk, 
 Jackson, and Yan Buren correspondence in the Library of Con- 
 gress; and the Larkin correspondence in the Bancroft Collection 
 of the University of California especially rich in this regard. 
 
2 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 Frequent use has also been made of contemporary writings of 
 the time, whether in book, magazine, or newspaper form. These 
 have been indicated by references throughout the text, as have also 
 the considerable number of secondary authorities and government 
 publications upon which I have been privileged to draw. 
 
 It would be but a poor return on my part if I made no men- 
 tion of the assistance I have received in the preparation of this 
 work. To the Chief Clerk of the State Department; to Mr. 
 Gaillard Hunt, Chief of the Manuscripts Division of the Library 
 of Congress; and to the authorities of the State University of 
 California for permission to use the material of the Bancroft 
 Collection, I am especially grateful. Two men, however, more 
 than any others deserve my warmest thanks. These are Professor 
 Herbert E. Bolton of the University of California, upon whose 
 kindly interest and help I have never counted in vain; and 
 Professor Robert M. McElroy, under whose direction this study 
 was undertaken and whose friendship has been a constant source 
 of inspiration. 
 
Earhj Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 Chapter I 
 
 THE BEGINNING OF INTERCOURSE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES 
 
 AND CALIFORNIA^ AND THE FIRST NEGOTIATIONS FOR 
 
 THE PURCHASE OF THE PROVINCE 
 
 The fur trade. — The interest of the United States in Cal- 
 ifornia began toward the close of the eighteenth century. It was 
 at first due almost entirely to economic causes; and, like many 
 commercial activities of the day, centered chiefly in New England. 
 In 1787, shortly after the opening of the Chinese-American trade 
 by William Shaw, Eobert Gray and John Kendrick, commanding 
 the Lady Washington and the Columbia, sailed for the northwest 
 coast of the Pacific, partly on a voyage of exploration and partly 
 for the discovery of new fields for commercial enterprises.^ 
 
 This venture though of primary interest in the history of the 
 region around the Columbia, was also of great importance from 
 the standpoint of California. In the first place it so aroused the 
 jealousy of the Spanish government that the authorities of Mexico 
 instructed those of California to seize "a ship named Columbia 
 which they say belongs to General Washington of the American 
 States," should it arrive at San Francisco.^ In the second place, 
 it was by this voyage that Gray, having found a ready market 
 at Canton^ for a few hundred sea otter skins procured from the 
 Indians, opened up a profitable fur trade with China* in which 
 ISTew England merchants were eager to participate. 
 
 The arrival of one of these American fur-trading vessels at 
 Monterey on October 29, 1795, marks the beginning of a com- 
 mercial intercourse between New England and California, that, 
 assuming various forms, continued for half a century and did 
 
 ^Robert Greenhow, History of Oregon and California (Boston. Little 
 and Brown. 1844), 179-181. 
 
 ^'Pedro Fages to Josef Arguello, May 13, 1789, in Hubert Howe Ban- 
 croft, Works (San Francisco. A. L. Bancroft & Co. 1882-90), XVIII, 
 445. See also Greenhow, 184-185. 
 
 "China was then the world's greatest fur market. For the relation of 
 the Cantonese fur trade to the settlement of Astoria, see the letter of 
 Astor to Adams, Jan. 4, 1823, in Greenhow, 439. 
 
 ^Gray valued 100 skins at $4,875, exclusive of freight. Gray and 
 Ingraham to Don Juan Francisco, Aug. 3, 1792, in Greenhow, 417. 
 
4 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 much in an indirect way to bring about the acquisition of the latter 
 province by the United States. 
 
 In accordance with Spain's general colonial policy, the inhab- 
 itants of California were forbidden to trade or have any dealings 
 with foreigners. But Spain lay many leagues away, and while 
 some offcials conscientiously tried to enforce the royal commands, 
 they found the prevention of the illicit trade, for which both 
 Americans and Californians were eager, quite impossible.^ On 
 the contrary, within a few years it had grown to a very considerable 
 size, especially as from 1796 to 1814 the direct trade with China 
 from the North Pacific Coast lay almost wholly in American 
 hands.* 
 
 Much of this early fur trade, it is true, was carried on north 
 of the California line, but the most valuable furs — those of the 
 sea otter — were found in greatest abundance along the California 
 coast from San Diego northward. These were sometimes ob- 
 tained, as already indicated, by illicit purchase or barter from the 
 Californians, of whom the mission authorities were the most de- 
 pendable sources of supply. More often, however, they *were 
 poached along the great stretches of unfrequented shore, or from 
 the neighboring channel islands, and at times, indeed, from the 
 waters of the principal harbors, to the great, but helpless indigna- 
 tion of the Spanish authorities, who had neither skiff nor scow in 
 which to pursue the intruders.'^ The skins thus obtained were 
 carried to Canton and there exchanged for tea, lacquered ware, 
 silks, and the various other commodities of the Chinese markets. 
 These in turn were brought back either to the Eussian settlements 
 of Alaska or to California, where they found ready disposal; or 
 quite as frequently they were transported direct to Europe or the 
 United States.^ 
 
 'An American navigator, writing in 1808, said that for several years 
 trading vessels of the United States had left as much as $25,000 in specie 
 annually among the Californians and that the government was powerless 
 to prevent this intercourse (Robert Shaler, in American Register, III, 147 
 et seq. ) . Money, it should be remarked, was never plentiful among the 
 Californians, and such a sum as Shaler mentioned was of material benefit 
 to the financial interests of the country. 
 
 ^Greenhow, 266, quoting from London Quarterly Review, October, 1816. 
 
 ^Bancroft, XIX, 63-64. 
 
 *For a general discussion of the Boston-California-China trade, see 
 William Heath Davis, Sixty Years in California (San Francisco. A. 
 J. Leary. 1889), 295-6. Davis came to California in 1816. 
 
 In 1803 Tliomas O'Cain made a contract with the Russian Baranof to 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 5 
 
 The whale fisheries. — In speaking of these early commercial 
 enterprises, it is also necessary to mention iSTew England's interest 
 in the whale industry, which, like the northwest trade, gave her 
 also a first hand knowledge of California. Edmund Burke's 
 tribute to the men of Nantucket and New Bedford was not mis- 
 placed f and while the Revolutionary War put a temporary stop to 
 their voyages, no sooner was peace declared than they were again 
 '^vexing strange seas" with their fisheries. 
 
 Shortly after 1800, these vessels, oily, ill-smelling, and often 
 sadly in need of repairs, began to touch at the California ports 
 for fresh supplies before beginning the long homeward voyage 
 around the Horn. As the ISTorth Pacific came to furnish a 
 more and more valuable hunting ground,^" these visits increased 
 in frequency and soon a regular trade was established with the 
 inhabitants of Monterey and San Erancisco. This was largely 
 a system of barter, by which, in exchange for some four or five 
 hundred dollars worth of New England manufactured goods, car- 
 ried for the purpose, a returning whaler could secure sufficient 
 fresh provisions for its Journey home. 
 
 Hide and tallow trade. — A third form of commercial intercourse 
 between California and the United States, more direct than the 
 other two, was begun in 1822, after Mexico had achieved her 
 independence.^^ In that year, owing chiefly to the representations 
 of William A. Gale, a former fur trader on the northwest coast, 
 the Boston firm of Bryant and Sturgis, with several business 
 companions, were induced to fit out a vessel to open up a new 
 line of trade with the Pacific, exchanging New England's abundant 
 
 hunt otter in California on shares. The Russians were to supply the 
 Indian hunters, and the Americans agreed to transport the skins and 
 furnish the Alaskan settlements with supplies. The venture was so profit- 
 able that other contracts of a similar nature were entered into, the agree- 
 ments lasting vmtil 1815. The Winships were prominent in these deal- 
 ings. Bancroft, XIX. 63 et seq. For an effort of the Russian Govern- 
 ment to secure the official sanction of the United States to this arrange- 
 ment, see Grreenhow, 275. 
 
 'The Works of Edmund Burhe (Boston. Little and Bro^\Ti. 1839), 
 II, 30. 
 
 "From 1816 to 1822 the industry brought in more than $6,000,000 to 
 Nantucket and New Bedford alone, and employed 129 vessels. Many 
 urged the occupancy of Oregon to supply these American vessels with a 
 port for refitting and provisioning. Annals of Congress, XL, 414 et seq. 
 
 "Bancroft, XIX, 475. 
 
6 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 stock of manufactures for the hides and tallow of the California 
 cattle. From this time on, the "Boston ships," as they were called, 
 plied regularly up and down the California coast, disposing of 
 their cargoes in all harbors from San Diego to San Francisco, and 
 receiving hides and tallow in return. ^^ 
 
 The Russian advance. — By the end of the first quarter of the 
 century a loose connection had thus been established with Cal- 
 ifornia through these various mediums of trade. In addition to 
 this, the progress of the Eussians down the coast from their 
 settlements in Alaska had begun to attract the attention of the 
 United States, even in an official way. As early as 1808, a 
 warning was issued against this advance by an article in the 
 American Register}^ The author. Captain Eobert Shaler, having » 
 
 been engaged in the Chinese trade some years before, had acquired 
 an intimate' knowledge of the conditions in California and of 
 the undeveloped possibilities of the country. After describing 
 these, he went on to point out the feebleness of the government 
 and the ease with which it would become a prey to the attack of any 
 hostile force, dwelling especially upon the unfortified state of the 
 harbors. San Francisco, whose advantages were strikingly por- 
 trayed, was guarded by a battery which made only a "show of 
 defence." At Monterey conditions were no better. Santa Bar- 
 bara "would fall an easy conquest to the smallest ship of war." 
 San Diego, with all its natural facilities, had only a "sorry" 
 defence; while the harbors of Lower California were in an equally 
 forlorn condition. But not only had the Spaniards failed to 
 provide against the encroachments of their northern neighbors; 
 they had rather, according to Shaler, made such encroachment 
 easier by their very attempts at defensive measures, having taken 
 "every obstacle out of the way of an invading enemy," by stocking 
 the province with cattle and colonizing it with a discontented lot 
 
 '"It should be noted that this commercial intercourse brought a num- 
 ber of Americans to the province as permanent residents. Many of these 
 took out naturalization papers, became large land holders, and married 
 wives from prominent California families. Some were of a less desirable 
 character — deserters and broken-down sailors from the whaling and 
 trading ships. Bancroft, XIX-XX, Appendix, Pioneer Register and Index. 
 
 ^^American Register, III, 136-175. The article is entitled "Journal of 
 a voyage between China and the northwestern coast of America made in ^ 
 
 180^." The part dealing with California is on pages 147-161. See also \ 
 
 Bancroft, XIX, 23-24, note. ^ 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 7 
 
 who would welcome the security and kindly treatment of a foreign 
 government.^* 
 
 Exactly how far Shaler aimed to excite an apprehension of 
 Russia's dealings in the Pacific, and how far he desired to em- 
 phasize the desirability of California as an object for American 
 annexation, does not appear. Probably, however, when he wrote, 
 *'The conquest of this country would be absolutely nothing; it 
 would fall without an effort to the most inconsiderable force," 
 he had both purposes in mind, and thus made himself the pioneer 
 of a not inconsiderable body of later writers who advocated 
 annexation to forestall foreign interference. 
 
 However this may be, Shaler's warning against the Eussians 
 was well founded." The hunters of the Eussian- American com- 
 pany had long been coming to California in search of furs; 
 and in 1812 Baranof, the "Little Czar," succeeded in establishing 
 a colony, to which he gave the name of Eoss, not far from 
 Bodega Bay, and some thirty miles north of San Francisco. The 
 object of this settlement, in its commercial aspect, was not merely 
 to secure a larger interest in the California fur trade, but to 
 supply the parent colony of Eussians at ISTew Archangel, or Sitka, 
 with grain and other food-stuffs which could not be produced in 
 the bleaker north. In addition, Baranof had the more important 
 purpose of ultimately extending the Czar's control over a large 
 part of Upper California by means of this colony, and especially 
 of seizing the Bay of San Francisco.^^ 
 
 Against this encroachment the Spanish olftcials protested from 
 time to time at the bidding of their superiors, but probably with 
 no great desire of seeing their protests effective, as the trade 
 conducted by the Eussians proved of material benefit to the prov- 
 ince. And even had it been otherwise, there was no force in 
 California sufficient to expel them.^'^ Before many years, how- 
 
 ^*American Register, III, 160-161. 
 
 ^"California was colonized largely to protect the coast against the Rus- 
 sian advance. This was as early as 1769. Bancroft, XIX, 58. 
 
 "Letter of Rezdnof, Feb. 15, 1806, in Bancroft, XIX, 80, note. 
 
 "For the Russian settlements in California, see Bancroft, XTX, 58-82, 
 294-320; Thomas C. Lancey, Cruise of the Dale (Published in San Josg 
 Pioneer, 1879 (?), and preserved in bound form in the Bancroft Collec- 
 tion), 31 et seq.; Agnes C. Laut, Vikings of the Pacific (New York. 
 Macmillan. 1905), 292, 338; Franklin H. Tuthill, History of California 
 (San Francisco, H. H. Bancroft & Co. 1866), 118-20; Irving B. Rich- 
 
8 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 ever, the presence of the Eussians in California began to excite 
 comment in the United States and to receive a certain amount 
 of official attention. On November 11, 1818, J. B. Prevost, a 
 special commissioner of the United States government to the 
 Pacific Coast, wrote from "Monte Eey, New California," that the 
 Spanish authority was threatened by the Eussian Czar whose 
 colony had already been planted close to San Francisco, a harbor 
 that, ranking among "the most convenient, extensive and safe" 
 ports of the world, was nevertheless "wholly without defense and 
 in the neighborhood of a feeble, diffused and disaffected popu- 
 lation."^'^ 
 
 In the following year a rumor spread that Spain had ceded to 
 Eussia a strip of territory on the Pacific Coast 800 miles long, 
 in return for assistance furnished in the expeditions against the 
 revolutionists of Lima and Buenos Ayres.^® In the St. Louis 
 Enquirer an unknown writer (perhaps Senator Benton) issued 
 a warning against the "Progress of the Russian Eminre." well 
 calculated to arouse the apprehension of those to whom Eussia, 
 as a member of the Holy Alliance and a rival in the northwest 
 trade, was already an object of sufficient distrust. 
 
 "Looking to the east for everything," said the article, "Americans 
 have failed to notice the advance of the Eussians on the Pacific 
 Coast until they have succeeded in pushing their settlements as 
 far south as Bodega. Their policy is merely the extension of the 
 policy of Peter the Great and Catherine. Alexander is occupied 
 with a scheme worthy of his vast ambition. . . . The acqui- 
 sition of the gulf and peninsula of California and the Spanish 
 claim to North America. . . . We learn this not from diplo- 
 matic correspondence, but from American fur traders who learn 
 it from the Eussian traders now protected by the Emperor in 
 carrying off our furs !"^° How strong an influence these public 
 
 man, California under Spain and Mewico (Boston and New York. Hough- 
 ton, Mifflin Company. 1911), 191-201, passim. 
 
 ^'Prevost to Adams, in Documents transmitted to the House of Repre- 
 sentatives, Jan. 24, 1823. American State Papers, Miscellaneous, II, 
 1008-9; Annals of Congress, XL, 1209-10. 
 
 "News brought to Canton bv a Russian frigate. Cruise of the Dale, 
 31 ; reported also in Niles' Register, XVI, 237, May 29, 1819 ; XVII, 232, 
 Dec. 11, 1819. 
 
 ^''Reprinted in Niles' Register, XVI. 361, July 24, 1819. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 9 
 
 rumors and Prevost's official report exerted upon the enunciation 
 of the Monroe Doctrine in 1823 has not yet been accurately 
 determined, but it is certain that the Russian colony at Eoss lent 
 color to the fear of a much farther advance to the south; and 
 served also as a strong argument for the establishment of Ameri- 
 can settlements in Oregon.-^ 
 
 Beginning of overland immigration. — Thus by degrees the far off 
 Spanish province on the Pacific was brought to the attention 
 of the American people not- merely through the agency of com- 
 merce, but, in an equally effective way, through the danger to 
 which it was exposed of passing into the hands of a powerful 
 European nation. A third agency, beginning somewhat later than 
 either of those just named, but operating in a similar manner, 
 was the overland communication with California established by 
 hunters and trappers, and the subsequent immigi-ation that nat- 
 urally followed from the Western states. 
 
 Jedediah Smith. — Two of these early journeys deserve special 
 attention. In August, 1826, Jedediah S. Smith, a native of Con- 
 necticut,^^ who had been for some years associated with Ashley 
 in the fur trade and was at tliis time a partner in the Eocky 
 Mountain Fur Company, left the company's post near the Great 
 Salt Lake and after four months' travel reached San Diego with 
 his band of fifteen men. Here Smith was arrested by the Cal- 
 ifornia authorities, who demanded passports, in accordance with 
 the Mexican law, from all strangers. His imprisonment did not 
 last long, however, as he soon found a sponsor for his good 
 behavior in an American sea captain by the name of Cunning- 
 ham, whose ship, the Courier, chanced to be in the harbor. 
 
 Upon his release. Smith, in spite of the commands of the 
 San Diego authorities that he leave the province, seems to have 
 wandered pretty much as he pleased through the Sacramento and 
 San Joaquin Valleys, being prevented from crossing the Sierra 
 
 ^^Report of the Committee on the Occupation of the Columbia River, 
 Jan. 25, 1821. Annals of Congress, XXXVIT, 955-6. The report men- 
 tioned the military defences of Ross, the dominating position of Russia in 
 Europe and Asia ; and called attention to the fact that Spain's territory 
 in Xorth America lay wholly open to the access of Russia and was ex- 
 posed to her "fearful weight of power." 
 
 "Hiram Martin Chittenden, The American Fur Trade of the Far West 
 (New York. Harper. 1902), I, 252. 
 
10 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 Nevadas by heavy snows and the loss of his animals. Late in 
 May, 1827, however, leaving all but two of his companions, he 
 made the diflfieult passage of the mountains and reached the 
 Great Salt Lake in a destitute condition.-^ In the fall of that 
 year, Smith was again in California, bringing with him a second 
 company of eighteen men, to the rather indignant surprise of 
 the Californians, who, however, while insisting that he leave the 
 country, did pot seriously molest him. After l-emaining for 
 some time, the American intruders continued their journey north- 
 ward to Oregon where they were attacked by Indians. Many of 
 the company were killed and all the furs lost, but Smith and 
 those of his companions who escaped, made their way to Vancouver, 
 where they obtained assistance from the agents of the Hudson's 
 Bay Company. Two years later this pioneer of California ex- 
 plorers was killed in New Mexico.-* 
 
 The Pattie expedition. — Two years after Smith's arrest in San 
 Diego, a second party of Americans, eight in number, with Syl- 
 vester and James Ohio Pattie as leaders, having been found in 
 Lower California without passports, were brought before the Mex- 
 ican governor, Echeandia, and thrown into prison on the charge 
 of being spies of old Spain. The two Patties, father and son, 
 were Kentuckians who had gradually pushed farther and farther 
 west until they reached New Mexico and Arizona where for 
 some years they were alternately miners and trappers. In was 
 on one of their trapping expeditions down the Colorado that they 
 attempted to cross the desert to the Spanish settlements on the 
 coast, succeeding only after the most distressing and unprintable 
 hardships. 
 
 Their reception by the Californians has been noted; nor were 
 they so fortunate as Smith had been in securing a swift release. 
 On the contrary, their prison experience was bitter in the extreme, 
 
 -^Letter of Smith to General Clark published in the Missouri RepuUic, 
 October 11, 1827. Communication from Cunningham announcing Smith's 
 arrival at San Diego. Ibid., Oct. 25, 1827. 
 
 -■'N'o two authorities agree in the account of Smith's adventures. The 
 following, however, are probably the most reliable: Chittenden, Fur 
 Trade, I, 282-7; J. M. Guinn, Captain Jedediah Smith (Historical So- 
 ciety of Southern California Publications, III, 1896, 45-,53). Bancroft 
 (XX, 152-160) bases his account on fragmentary records in the Cali- 
 fornia archives and on a French translation there of the letter from 
 Smith to General Clark cited above. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 11 
 
 if we may judge from the younger Pattie's account. Sylvester 
 Pattie died in his cell unattended by his son, who was forbidden 
 to visit his father, and all the prisoners were treated with great 
 severity. Eventually, however, they were released on condition 
 that Pattie should vaccinate the mission Indians, who were dying 
 in great numbers from an epidemic of smallpox. In fulfillment 
 of this agreement Pattie journeyed as far north as San Fran- 
 cisco, and later reached the Eussian settlement of Eoss. Finally, 
 quitting California, he returned home by way of Mexico, where 
 he vainly hoped to secure an indemnity,^^ and reached Kentucky, 
 a broken and ruined man. The experiences which he underwent, 
 as well as some which he probably did not undergo, were shortly 
 afterwards published under the supervision of Timothy Flint of 
 Cincinnati.^^ 
 
 The bitter and oftentimes extravagant criticism of the Cali- 
 fornians by the writer was well calculated to arouse a prejudice 
 against them, but for the country itself he had only praise. 
 "Those who traverse it," he wrote, "if they have any capability 
 of perceiving and admiring the beautiful and sublime in scenery, 
 must be constantly excited to wonder and praise. It is no less 
 remarkable for uniting the advantage of healthfulness, a good soil, 
 temperate climate and yet one of exceeding mildness, a happy 
 mixture of level and elevated ground and vicinity to the sea."-^ 
 
 Results of the Smith and Pattie expeditions. — The arrival of 
 Smith and the two Patties in California marked a new chapter 
 in the relations of that countr\' and the United States. Follow- 
 
 ^^The American charge d'affaires at Mexico was directed to investigate 
 the arrest of the Pattie Company. He reported that all the prisoners 
 had been freed except Sylvester Pattie, who died in prison; that several of 
 the Americans had remained in California to go into business ; and that 
 the younger Pattie was then on his way to the United States. Van 
 Buren to Butler, Jan. 22, 1830; Butler to Van Buren, June 29, 1830. 
 MSS., State Department. 
 
 ^'The title of the hook is in itself a comprehensive history of Pattie'a 
 entire wanderings. We may be forgiven for writing it simply, James 
 Ohio Pattie, Personal Narrative (Edited by Timothy Flint. Cincinnati. 
 1833). A reprint appears in Reuben G. Thwaites, Early Westey-n Travels 
 (Cleveland. Arthur H. Clark Company. 1905), XVIII. A plagiarized 
 edition under the title "The long hunters of Kentucky," by P. Bilson, 
 was published in New York in 1847. 
 
 "Thwaites, Early Western Travels, XVIII, 306. 
 
12 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 ing them in a surprisingly short time"^ came other bands of 
 trappers under such leaders as Young, Jackson, Wolfskill, Walker, 
 and many others whose names are not known and who left no 
 record of their journeys.^'' Not infrequently members of these 
 early parties gave up their wanderings and became influential and 
 peaceful citizens, while others were a constant menace to the 
 California authorities. As for the rest, coming and going with 
 the seasons, rough, earless of life, contemptuous of law, they 
 wandered up and down the great inland valleys and rivers of 
 California; or by frequent crossing of the Sierras prepared the 
 way for the subsequent flow of immigration. 
 
 "One sees in his pages," says Thwaites in referring to Pattie's 
 narrative, 
 
 the beginnings of the drama to be fought out in the Mexican 
 war — the rich and beautiful country which excited the cupidity 
 of the American pioneer; the indolence and effeminacy of the 
 inhabitants which inspired the backwoodsman's contempt; and 
 the vanguard of the American advance, already touching the 
 Rockies and ready to push on to the Pacific. ... As a part 
 of the vanguard of the American host that was to crowd the 
 Mexican from the fair province of his domain, Pattie's wander- 
 ings are typical and suggestive of more than mere adventure.^" 
 
 Butler's negotiations. — In these three ways, therefore, first, by 
 commercial intercourse, then through fear of the Eussian advance, 
 and lastly by the opening up of the overland routes of communica- 
 tion, California gradually became more than a passing name 
 to the people of the United States. ^^ It was not, however, until 
 1835 that this government, influenced largely by the representa- 
 
 ^^Many of the parties were organized in 1830 and 1831. Bancroft, XX, 
 384-9. 
 
 '"The reason for this is obvious — the trade was against the Mexican 
 law; and in addition those engaged in it were not often given to record- 
 ing their own adventures. 
 
 '"Preface to Pattie's Narrative, 19. 
 
 ^'The first of tliese centered, as has been sliown, in New England : tlie 
 second concerned the whole country; the third was of primary interest to 
 the west. This division held good until the outbreak of the Mexican 
 War. A fourth cause of increased interest in California during this early 
 period was the agitation of the Oregon question by Benton, Linn, and a 
 small, but persistent, coterie of western senators and representatives. 
 Anything attracting attention to any part of the Pacific coast served in- 
 directly to attract attention to California. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 13 
 
 tions of commercial interests, made its first attempt to secure the 
 harbor of San Francisco.^- 
 
 This early negotiation for the purchase of California was closely 
 interwoven with the contemporaneous negotiation for the acquisi- 
 tion of Texas, forming indeed, simply a minor part of the larger 
 project. Anthony Butler, a man eminently unqualified for any 
 position of trust, was sent to Mexico in 1829 to carry out a scheme 
 for the purchase of Texas which he himself had probably sug- 
 gested,^^ succeeding Joel E. Poinsett, the American minister 
 who was recalled at the request of the Mexican government. 
 For six years Butler was left free to work his will, so far as he 
 was able, with the Mexican officials, and to discredit both him- 
 self and his government. 
 
 From the first, Butler^s communications to the State Department 
 began to hint at bribery as the best means of accomplishing his 
 purpose, and soon were openly advocating it.^* Early in June, 
 
 ^-The statement is not infrequently made that the purchase of Cali- 
 fornia was attempted by Clay when Secretary of State under Adams. See, 
 for example, Niles' Register, LXVIII, 211; speech of Charles J. IngersoU, 
 Jan. 19, 1847. Appendix to Congressional Glohe, 29 Cong., 2 sess., 128; 
 Bancroft, XIII, 322-323. Wlioever may have written this volume of Ban- 
 croft could scarcely have known the contents of volume XX, 399-400, of 
 the same series, or of H. Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 1 sess., No. 42, which he 
 cites as authority. The boundaries for which Poinsett was instructed to 
 negotiate included no territory west of the Colorado south of the 42d 
 parallel. Clay to Poinsett, March 25, 1825. H. Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 1 
 sess., No. 42, p. 6; same to same, March 15, 1827, Ibid., 9. See also 
 Memoirs of John Quincy Adams with portions of his diary from 1195 to 
 1848, edited by C. F. Adams (Philadelphia. Lippincott. 1877), XI, 349. 
 
 =^The plan, da-ted August 12, 1829, is in the Van Buren MSS., Library 
 of Congress; see also Jackson to Van Buren, Aug. 12 (Ibid.), and Jack- 
 son's draft of Aug. 13. According to Reeves, the official instructions, 
 dated Aug. 25, were carried by Butler to Poinsett. Jesse S. Reeves, 
 American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk (Baltimore. The Johns Hop- 
 kins Press. 1907), 65-67. For a complete estimate of Butler and his 
 career in Mexico, the reader is referred to George Lockhart Rives, the 
 United States and Mexico, 1821-1848 (New York. Charles Scribner's Sons. 
 1913), I, 235-261. It is perhaps well to add that the present article was 
 in manuscript before Rives's exhaustive work was issued from the press. 
 I have not been able, therefore, to avail myself of its contents as freely 
 as I could have wished. 
 
 ^^Butler has suggested to a Mexican official that the United States is 
 capable of "devising ways and means" of relieving the embarrassment of 
 the treasury (Butler to Jackson, Feb. 23, 1832, Jackson MSS., Library of 
 Congress) ; Jackson tliinks Butler's suggestion "judicious" and one that 
 may "lead to happy results" (Jackson to Butler, April 19, Ibid.). But- 
 ler believes the use of half a million dollars to put certain personages in 
 the "right humor" will bring speedy conclusion of the treaty (Butler to 
 
14 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 1834, he asked to return to the United States on the ground 
 that a personal interview with the President was highly im- 
 portant, and that after it he could return to Mexico to be much 
 more useful to his government.^^ Having finally secured Jackson's 
 consent to his request, Butler landed in New York in the early 
 part of June, 1835, with a still more extensive scheme of bribery 
 in his head than any he had so far suggested, and in his pocket 
 a note signed by Hernandez, a priest standing close to Santa 
 Anna. 
 
 On June 17 the returned Minister addressed a letter to the 
 Secretary of State, John Forsyth, and enclosed the note from 
 the Mexican priest. In this Hernandez had promised to bring 
 about a cession of the desired territory provided $500,000 were 
 placed at his disposal "to be judiciously applied."^^ In the ac- 
 companying letter Butler assured Forsyth that the plan, if fol- 
 lowed, would result not merely in the acquisition of Texas but event- 
 ually in the dominion of the United States '^'^over the whole of that 
 tract of territory known as New Mexico, and higher and lower 
 California, an empire in itself, a paradise in climate . . . 
 rich in minerals and affording a water route to the Pacific through 
 the Arkansas and Colorado rivers."^'^ 
 
 This letter met with cool response from the President.^^ Never- 
 theless, after an interview with Butler he allowed him, at his earn- 
 
 Jackson, Oct. 28, 1833, Ihid.) ; Jackson warns Butler against employing 
 corrupt means (Jackson to Butler, Nov. 27. Ihid.) : Butler insists that 
 "resort must be had to bribery," or "presents if the term is more appro- 
 priate" (Butler to Jackson, Feb. 6, 1834. Ibid.). Later Butler writes 
 McLane that "bribery and corruption" are the sole means of bringing the 
 negotiation to a successful issue. (Butler to McLane, MS., State De- 
 partment.) Some of these letters are mentioned by Rives. 
 
 ^^Butler to Jackson, June 6, 1834. Jackson MSS.; same to same, Oct. 
 20 (Ihid.). It is interesting to note that Butler thought his negotia- 
 tions for Texas had been thwarted by Stephen F. Austin whom he charged 
 in a letter to McLane with being "one of the bitterest foes to our govern- 
 ment and people that is to be found in Mexico." Butler to McLane, July 
 13, 1834. MS., State Department. 
 
 ^''Butler to Forsyth, June 17, 1835 (MS., State Department). See also 
 Rives, as cited, I, 257-258. 
 
 ''Butler to Forsyth, June 17 (quoted also in Reeves, 73-74). 
 
 '^It is endorsed, "... Nothing will be countenanced to bring the 
 government under the remotest imputation of being engaged in corruption 
 or bribery ... A. J." See also Adams, Memoirs, XI, 348; and 
 Rives, I, 258. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 15 
 
 est solicitation, to return to his post in Mexico.^^ Before Butler 
 left, however, the suggestion he had thrown out with regard to 
 'Tiigher California" received additional impulse from another 
 source. On August 1, "William A. Slacum, a purser in the United 
 States Nav}^ wrote a letter to the President which, according to 
 Adams, "kindled the passion of Andrew Jackson for the thirty- 
 seventh line of latitude from the river Arkansas to the South 
 Sea, to include the river and bay of San Francisco, and was 
 the foundation of Forsyth's instruction to Butler of 6 August, 
 1835."" 
 
 These instructions mentioned by Adams give the first official 
 attempt of the United States to secure from Mexico any part 
 of her territory on the Pacific. The chief object, as expressed 
 by Forsyth, was to obtain possession of Saa Francisco Bay 
 which had been "represented to the President"*^ as "a most desir- 
 able place of resort for our numerous vessels engaged in the 
 whaling business in the Pacific, far superior to any to which they 
 now have access."*^ ISTo definite sum which Butler was authorized 
 to offer was specified in the dispatch, but Adams places it as 
 $500,000.*^ It should also be noted that Forsyth expressly dis- 
 claimed any desire to secure territory south of San Francisco.** 
 
 **It may be added that Butler's presence there was desired neither by 
 Mexicans nor American residents. John Baldwin to Forsyth, Vera Cruz, 
 Nov. 14, 18.35. MS., State Department. Miscellaneous Letters. 
 
 *''Adams, Memoirs, XI, 348. The name of the writer here is given as 
 Slocum, but this is plainly an error. This particular letter unfortunately 
 has disappeared from the files of the State Department where Adams saw 
 it in 1843, but from the correspondence still on record there can be no 
 doubt that the name Slacum is correct. See Forsyth to Ellis (mention- 
 ing Slacum's name), April 14, 1836; Ellis to Monasterio, March 8, 1836; 
 &c., &c. ; also Slacum's Report in Reports of Committees, 25 Cong., 3 
 cess.. No. 101, pp. 29-45. Slacum, we learn from the documents cited, 
 was made a special agent of the government to the Pacific coast to in- 
 vestigate conditions there, and especially the progress of the Russians 
 and of the Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 "Perhaps by Slacum, yet Adams's testimony regarding the powerful in- 
 fluence of Slacum's letter of Aug. 1st is somewhat weakened by the fact 
 that Jackson had instructed Forsyth to enlarge the scope of Butler's nego- 
 tiations as early as July 25. Memoirs, XI, 361-362. 
 
 *-H. Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 1 sess., No. 42, pages 18-19. 
 
 "Adams, Memoirs, XI, 348. 
 
 ""We have no desire to interfere with the actual settlements of Mexico 
 on that coast and you may agree to any provision affecting the great ob- 
 ject of securing the bay of San Francisco and excluding Monterey and 
 
16 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 The proposition tlms entrusted to Butler was doubtless never 
 submitted to the Mexican government. On December 27, Butler 
 wrote the Department that it would be useless to push the nego- 
 tiations at that time, though there was a chance of securing cer- 
 tain commercial 2:)rivileges for American vessels at San Fran- 
 cisco.*^ A few months later he received notice of his recall,*** 
 and shortly afterwards left Mexico, carrying off "some of the most 
 important papers of the negotiation."*^ 
 
 Indeed, Butler's whole course was one of consistent dishonor. 
 The most surprising part of it, however, was the ease with which 
 he continually hoodwinked and misled his own government; and 
 after reading his correspondence one is freely willing to agree with 
 Adams, that "for six long years he was mystifying Jackson with 
 the positive assurance that he was within a hair's breadth of the 
 object and sure of success, while Jackson was all the time wriggling 
 along and snapping at the bait, like a mackeral after a red rag."*^ 
 It may be further added that Jackson's estimate of Butler was 
 even lower than that of Adams. An endorsement on Butler's 
 letter of March 7, 1834, declared him a "scamp," and when, in 
 1843, Butler charged Jackson with consenting to his schemes of 
 bribery, the venerable ex-President wrote another endorsement 
 pronouncing him a "liar," in whom there was "neither truth, jus- 
 tice, or gratitude," and whose whole accusation was "a tissue of 
 falsehood and false colourings."*^ 
 
 JacTcson's later attempts. — After Butler's summary dismissal 
 nothing apparently was done toward carrying out the instructions 
 
 the territory in its immediate neighborhood . . ." Forsyth to Butler, 
 as cited. 
 
 ^^Butler to Forsyth (MS., State Department). 
 
 *«Same to same, Jan. 15, 1836, Ihid. Butler claimed that his prospects 
 for bringing the negotiation to a close were exceedingly favorable when 
 cut short by his recall. 
 
 *''Adams, Memoirs, XI, 349. The statement of Adams is corroborated 
 by a letter of Asbury Dickens, Acting Secretary of State, to Butler's suc- 
 cessor, and by one of Butler's o^vn letters to Jackson. Dickens to Pow- 
 hatan Ellis, Aug. 19, 1836. MS., State Department; Butler to Jackson, 
 July 28, 1843. Jackson MSS. 
 
 **Adams, Memoirs, XI, 368. 
 
 ^"Endorsement by Jackson on the back of Butler's letter of July 28, 
 1843. Butler in this letter also stated that Jackson had promised him 
 the governorship of Texas if he procured its annexation. This Jackson 
 hotly denied in his endorsement. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 17 
 
 contained in Forsyth's despatch of August 6. But Jackson before 
 his administration closed made two further tentative efforts to 
 secure California. iVbout the middle of January, 1837,^° Santa 
 Anna arrived in Washington, after his liberation by General 
 Houston, to request the mediation of the United States between 
 Texas and Mexico."^ In expectation of his request, or after it was 
 definitely made, Jackson had drawn up the general terms upon 
 which this government would assume the undertaking. That 
 which concerns us, reads as follows : 
 
 If Mexico will extend the line of the U. States to the Eio Grand — 
 up that stream to latitude 38 north and then to the pacific includ- 
 ing north calafornia we might instruct our minister to give them 
 three millions and a half of dollars and deal then as it respected 
 Texas as a magnanimous nation ought — to wit ( ?) — in the treaty 
 with Mexico secure the Texians in all their just and legal rights 
 and stipulate to admit them into the United States as one of 
 the Union.^^ 
 
 At the time that Jackson was making this proposal to Santa 
 Anna he was also urging upon W. H. Wliarton, the Texan Minister 
 at Washington, the necessity of including California within the 
 limits of Texas in order to reconcile the commercial interests of 
 the north and east to annexation by giving them a harbor on the 
 Pacific. "He is very earnest and anxious on this point of claim- 
 ing the Californias," wrote Wharton to Eusk in reporting Jack- 
 son's suggestion, "and says we must not consent to less. This 
 is in strict confidence. Glory to God in the highest !"^^ 
 
 ^"Wharton to Austin, Jan. 17, 1837. Garrison, Diplomatic Correspond- 
 ence of the Republic of Texas, I, 176-177, in American Historical A*o- 
 ciation Report, 1907, II. 
 
 "Thomas Maitland Marshall, "The southern boundary of Texas 1821- 
 1840," in The Quaetebly, XIV, 285. 
 
 °^Roiigh draft in Jackson's hand on single sheet, unsigned and undated. 
 Jackson MSS. of the year 1836. 
 
 =»Wharton to Rusk, Jan. 24, 1837. Garrison, Dip. Cor. Texas, I, 193- 
 194; also Marshall, as cited. The extension of the Texas boundaries to 
 the Pacific along the 30th parallel had been considered by the Texan gov- 
 ernment and rejected, chiefly because the territory was too large and 
 thinly populated for government by a "young Republic." This decision 
 had been reported to Jackson before he urged upon Wharton the neces- 
 sity of including California as a means of reconciling the north. Report 
 of Jackson's special agent, Henry Morfit, to the President. H. Ex. Docs., 
 24 Cong., 2 sess., No. 35, pages 11-12. 
 
18 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 Chapter II • 
 
 THE GROWTH OF INTEREST DURING THE VAN BUREN AND TYLER 
 ADMINISTRATIONS 
 
 During Van Buren's administration no official action toward the 
 acquisition of California was attempted. The straitened condition 
 of the treasury precluded any idea of purchase, even had Mexico 
 manifested a willingness to sell; while the strained relations exist- 
 ing between the two nations throughout the greater part of this 
 period served as an equally effective barrier.^ Nevertheless the af- 
 fairs of the distant Mexican province were more than once brought 
 to the attention of the United States and interest in its resources 
 i and ultimate destiny grew with every passing year. 
 
 Rebellion of 1836. — The first of these local events to attract 
 attention was the revolution begun in the fall of 1836 by several 
 of the prominent native Californians against the Mexican governor, 
 Nicolas Gutierrez. Without great diflficulty the leaders^ in this 
 movement accomplished their purpose, and after shipping Gutier- 
 rez back to Mexico, placed one of their own number, Juan B. 
 Alvarado, in the governor's chair.^ 
 
 The success of this rebellion against Mexican authority was 
 significant for two reasons. In the first place it was made pos- 
 sible largely through the aid furnished by a company of foreigners, 
 
 'Powhatan Ellis, the American chargg d'affaires to Mexico, had de- 
 manded his passports in December, 1836, following Mexico's failure to 
 adjust the claims of American citizens, and for three years the United 
 States was without a representative at Mexico {Reeves, Diplomacy under 
 Tyler and Polk, etc., 76). The chief source of difficulty between the two 
 nations were the recognition of Texan independence by the United States 
 on the one hand; and the long continued refusal of Mexico to settle the 
 American claims on the other. 
 
 -The leaders in this revolution were Juan B. Alvarado, inspector of the 
 Monterey custom house, holder of certain civil offices and a man of great 
 po23ularity; Jose Castro, governor of California preceding Gutierrez; and 
 Mariano G. Vallejo, who, though taking no active part, lent the weight 
 of his powerful influence to the other leaders. Bancroft, XX, 445-447, 
 passim. 
 
 *The authorities for the revolution of 1836 are numerous. The forego- 
 ing account has been taken chiefly from Bancroft, XX, 445-578; Franklin 
 Tuthill, The History of California, 141-145; and various works of less 
 importance. Full citation of all authorities on the subject are given in 
 • Bancroft. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 19 
 
 mostly American trappers, led by Isaac Graham, a Tenneseean 
 of the typical border ruffian type. And in the second place it 
 gave promise for a time of assuming the characteristics and pro- 
 portions of the Texas movement for independence.'^ But as the 
 California leaders probably had no very great desire for actual 
 separation from Mexico, its net result was merely the substitution 
 of a native governor for one of Mexican appointment. 
 
 Exaggerated rumors of this disturbance soon began to circulate 
 throughout the United States, and it was even reported to the 
 State Department that California, having d;eclared her inde- 
 pendence, was on the eve of asking the protection of the Eussians 
 at Bodega — an event which would mean, said the writer, the United 
 States consul at the Sandwich Islands, the unification of the Eus- 
 sians and Californians and the extension of the Czar's power from 
 the Bay of San Francisco to the Columbia Eiver.^ 
 
 Kelley's Memoir. — iDuring the administration of Van Buren the 
 question of the occupation of Oregon came also to be of critical 
 importance;^ and, as a natural consequence, California received 
 a certain amount of the nation's interest. In a supplemental 
 report on the Oregon territory submitted to Congress, February 
 16, 1839, by the committee of foreign affairs, many of the docu- 
 ments contained references to California. While one of them, a 
 memoir by Hall J. Kelley, the eccentric emigration enthusiast of 
 Massachusetts, devoted more than half its space to a description of 
 that country. "I extend my remarks to this part of California," 
 from San Francisco northward, wrote Kelley in explanation, "be- 
 cause it has been and may again be, made the subject of con- 
 ference and negotiation between Mexico and the United States; 
 and because its future addition to our M^estern possessions is most 
 unquestionably a matter to be desired."'^ 
 
 ^According to Tuthill a lone star flag was prepared, but the Californians 
 were either afraid to substitute it for the Mexican emblem or did not 
 care to do so. Tuthill, 142-143. 
 
 ^United States consul, Sandwich Islands, to the Secretary of State, 
 Semi-annual report. March 12, 1837 (Thomas Savage, Dociimentos para 
 la historia de California, II, 174-176. MS., Bancroft Collection, Univer- 
 sity of California Library). The greater part of this report was devoted 
 to a description of California. 
 
 "Greenhow, 375-376, and United States government documents there 
 cited. 
 
 "'Committee Reports, 25 Cong., 3 sess., No. 101, p. 48. Kelley's com- 
 
20 Early SentUnent for Annexation of Calif orma 
 
 Affairs between 1S3G-1840. — It cannot be said, however, in spite 
 of such efforts as those put forth by Kelley, that the years between 
 1836 and 1840 were distinguished by any marked increase of im- 
 migration from the United States into California.® The early 
 traffic along the coast in furs had materially decreased; and even 
 inland, the business was becoming less remunerative. Yet the 
 great interior valleys still offered lucrative fields for the roving 
 bands of American, English, and French trappers who, when not 
 engaged in their ordinary trade, frequently made additional profit 
 by driving off the horses of the Californians, or by joining thieving 
 expeditions sent out by the Indians for the same purpose.® The 
 hide and tallow trade likewise continued to flourish,^'' and re- 
 mained so completely a monopoly of the New England merchants, 
 so far at least as Americans were concerned,^^ that, on the coast, 
 Boston and the United States became synonymous terms.^^ An 
 occasional vessel from the government's South Pacific squadron 
 touched at California ports ;^' a trade in cattle between Oregon 
 and the region around San Francisco served to bring these two 
 territories into closer relationships;^* the publication of various 
 
 plete memoir, addressed to Caleb Gushing, is on pp. 3-61 ; his description 
 of California occupies pp. 48-53. 
 
 ^Bancroft, XXI, 117. The number of foreign adults residing in Cali- 
 fornia at this time is placed at 380. 
 
 'John Bidwell, California in 18Jfl-8. MS., Bancroft Collection, 99. 
 
 *°The vessels engaged in thig trade, usually of four or five hundred 
 tons burden, with cargoes of shoes, hats, furniture, farming implements, 
 chinaware, iron, hardware, crockery, etc., valued at forty or fifty thousand 
 dollars in California, spent usually three years each on the coast before 
 returning to New England. They sold largely on credit, evaded the 
 Mexican tariflf laws by paying five or six hundred dollars for the privilege 
 of selling goods from place to place, and received from the Californians 
 instead of money, hides, tallow, dried beef, lumber, and soap. See Thomas 
 0. Larkin, Description of California, 99, in his Official Correspondence, 
 Bancroft Collection; same to Secretary of State, Jan. 1, 1845, Ihid., Pt. 
 II, No. 16. 
 
 "Yet see Niles' Register, LVIII, 356, for a St. Louis owned vessel en- 
 gaged in this trade. 
 
 "Richard Henry Dana, Jr., Two Years before the Mast (Boston. 1869), 
 169. 
 
 "The U. S. S. Peacock arrived at Monterey in October, 1836, having 
 been requested to visit the California coast because of the disturbances 
 arising from the revolt of that year. The American merchants of the 
 Sandwich Islands who had large interests at stake in California were the 
 principal petitioners. Bancroft, XXI, 140-2. 
 
 ^^Ibid., 85-87; Slacum'a Report, 39. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of Calijornia SI 
 
 books upon California's resources and political condition tended 
 to attract the attention of the outside worJ 1 ;^^ and, finally, the 
 coming of John A. Sutter in 1839 and Tie establishment of his 
 fort at New Helvetia, the present site of the capital of the State, 
 saved the period under discussion from L oing by any means barren 
 of results for the American interest-^. 
 
 Neither should the reflexive ii'lluence of the events in Texas 
 be omitted in this conneetio'i. \\e have already mentioned the 
 revolution in 1836 and the rp^-iorts that California was preparing 
 to follow the steps of htr sister province. The American mind, 
 especially in the west. i\.d J.ever a high conception of the Mexican 
 people; the ease v/itli which Texas won her independence and the 
 senseless atrocities of the Mexican soldiers he'd served to increase 
 this feeling to a considerable extent; and restless spirits were 
 already advocating a re-enactment of the scenes of Texas in 
 California. Immigration, however, had not furnished sufficient 
 Americans for carrying out such a program, but it was freely 
 prophesied that these would shortly come. 
 
 "To such men as the Back-settlers distance is of little moment," 
 wrote Alexander Forbes in 1838, 
 
 and they are already acquainted with the route. The north 
 American tide of population must roll on southward, and over- 
 whelm not only California but other more important states. This 
 latter event, however, is in the womb of time; but the invasion 
 of California by American settlers is daily talked of; and if 
 Santa Anna had prevailed against Texas a portion of its inhab- 
 itants sufficient to overrun California would now have been its 
 masters.^® 
 
 The Graham affair. — So common had become these rumors by 
 1840 that in April of that year nearly a hundred^^ English and 
 
 ^^The most representative books of this period were Dana's Tivo Years 
 before the Mast, and Alexander Forbes's California: A history of Upper 
 and Lotoer California (London. Smith. Elder and Company. 1839). 
 For a revieAV of this latter work and the interest it aroused see Niles' 
 Register, LVIII, 70. Numerous other books were written by travelers 
 who visited California during this period, but as they were not published 
 until later no mention is made of them in this place. 
 
 ^"Forbes, History of California, 152. 
 
 "Larkin to Secretary of State, April 20, 1844 — one hundred arrested; 
 fifty sent in irons to San Bias, thence overland to Tepic. Larkin, Official 
 Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 6. 
 
22 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 American residents in California, who were without passports, 
 were suddenly arrested for engaging in a plot to overthrow the 
 government and declare the country independent of Mexican con- 
 trol.^'* Chief of these so-called conspirators was Isaac Graham, 
 whose name has already been mentioned in connection with the 
 revolt of the Californians four years before. 
 
 Graham and some fifty of his companions, after undergoing 
 a farcical trial at Santa Barbara and some pretty severe treatment 
 at the hands of the California officials, were shipped doMoi the 
 coast and thence to Tepic. Here the English consul, Barron, and 
 Alexander Forbes secured the release of most of the prisoners and 
 a speedy trial for the remainder, which resulted in their acquittal. 
 Some received immediate indemnity for their losses and ill-treat- 
 ment; others returned to California to secure legal evidence against 
 the government, being aided in this by a vessel of the United 
 States navy.^'' 
 
 The illegal arrest of such a large number of American citizens 
 naturally excited some comment in the United States. Powhatan 
 Ellis, who had returned as Minister to Mexico in 1839, was in- 
 structed to demand satisfaction for the treatment accorded his 
 countrymen and their immediate release if still in captivity.-** 
 
 ^^Commandancia General de California al E. S. Ministro de Guerra y 
 Marina (Mexico), April 25, 1840. In this communication the chief ob- 
 ject of the conspirators was said to be control of the whole stretch of ter- 
 ritory around San Francisco Bay. M. G. Vallejo, Documentos •para la his- 
 toria de California, IX. No. 124. MSS., Bancroft Collection. See also 
 Nos. 108, 110-111, Ibid.; Bancroft. XXI, 11-14, and authorities cited; 
 Alfred Robinson, Life in Calif orma (New York. Wiley & Putnam. 1846), 
 180-184. 
 
 "Albert J. Morris, Diary of a Crazy Man, or An Account of the Graham 
 Affair of IS.'fO (MS., Bancroft Collection). Morris was one of the Eng- 
 lisli prisoners, employed in a distillery at the time of his arrest, by 
 Graham. His picture of the sufferings endured at the hands of the Cali- 
 fornia officials is very vivid and probably but little exaggerated. Most 
 of those arrested, however, were insolent, overbearing, and an altogether 
 undesirable class of citizens. See, also. Bancroft, XXI, 1-41 ; Thomas 
 Jefferson Farnham, Life and Adventures in CaHfoi~nia and Scenes in the 
 Pacific Ocean (New York. W. H. Graham. 1846), 70 et seq. Farnham 
 followed the prisoners from Monterey to Santa Barbara and later to 
 Tepic. His account, however, is too biased to be relied upon. Tuthill, 
 History of California, 145-147. 
 
 ^'Forsyth to Ellis, Aug. 21, 1840; same to same, July 1, 1841. MSS., 
 State Department. 
 
 It should also be noted that this event first called the official atten- 
 tion of the British government to California. See Ephraim Douglass 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of Californ'ia 23 
 
 Eeports of the affair soon found their way into print and for a 
 long time served as proof positive for American readers of the 
 cruelty of the Califomians.^^ Later, also, the non-payment of 
 indemnity by Mexico was made the subject of official protest;-^ 
 while several years afterwards, Polk was assured by his confidential 
 agent that no claim or demand so strong as that of the Graham 
 prisoners could be brought against Mexico to secure a cession of 
 California.-^ 
 
 As a further result of these arbitrary proceedings against for- 
 eigners, a petition was drawn up by the merchants of the Cali- 
 fornia coast, many of whom., however, had little use for Graham 
 and those of his ilk,-* praying that a United States ship might 
 be stationed permanently in California waters because of the 
 insecurity of property, arbitrariness of the authorities, and 
 mockery of justice prevailing in the province.^^ This request 
 met with prompt recognition from the Secretary of the Navy, 
 Abel P. Upshur, who on December 4, 1841 announced in his 
 annual report to Congress that the protection of American 
 interests in California demanded an increase of the government's 
 naval force in the Pacific, and shortly afterwards despatched 
 Commodore Ap Catesby Jones to take command of the enlarged 
 squadron.^* 
 
 Adams, British Interests and Activities in Texas, 1838-18/(6 (Baltimore. 
 The Johns Hopkins Press. 1910), 236-237. 
 
 ^^Niles' Register, LVIII, 371. Farnham's account was especially bitter 
 against the Californians. Earlier editions of this book, under various titles, 
 were published in 1841-3-4. 
 
 "Thompson to Bocanegra, Dec. 31, 1843. MS., State Department. 
 Mexico afterwards paid part of this. Thompson to Secretary of State, 
 February 2, 1844. Ibid. 
 
 ^Larkin to Secretary of State, June 15, 1846. Larkin, Official Corre- 
 spondence, Pt. II, No. 47. 
 
 ^'Bancroft, XXI, 7-8, and notes. 
 
 '''MS., State Department, Mexico, 1840, No. 10. 
 
 =^Report of the Secretary of the Navy. Senate Docs., 27 Cong., 1 sess., 
 I, No. 1, pp. 368-369. Upshur dwelt at considerable length upon the 
 Graham affair, spoke of the increased immigration to California, and said 
 that the insecurity of American interests there demanded the protection 
 of a naval force. The whale fisheries in the Pacific likewise required the 
 presence of several United States vessels in the ocean; and the Gulf of 
 California should be more thoroughly explored and charted. 
 
 For an explanation of this increase by Upshur of the Pacific squadron 
 as a deep laid plot on the part of the slave holders to seize California, 
 see William Jay, A Review of the Causes and Consequences of the Mexi- 
 can War (Boston, Philadelphia, New York. 1849), 81-82. 
 
24 Early tSentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 Immigration lSJ^O-1. — More important, however, for the Ameri- 
 can cause than any of the results that came from the arrest of 
 Graham and his companions, was the beginning of organized 
 emigration to California during the years 1840-1841. The reports 
 spread by trappers, adventurers, travellers, and Americans residing 
 in California, had by this time begun to bear definite fruit. The 
 west, especially, had become interested in the Pacific Coast and 
 looked to Oregon and California as fields for future settlement. 
 So great was the enthusiasm in Platte County, Missouri, for ex- 
 ample, that public meetings were held, committees appointed, and 
 a pledge dravsTi up, to which five hundred names were appended, 
 binding its signers to convert their property into emigrant out- 
 fits and start in the following May-^ from the rendezvous at 
 Sapling Grove, Kansas, for California. Though a number of cir- 
 cumstances served to cool this ardor,-^ and only forty-eight persons 
 left for California at the time agreed upon,-^ the departure of 
 these is significant as foreshadowing a movement that, with occa- 
 sional interruption, was to continue with increasing energy during 
 the next five years. 
 
 John Bidwell, a member of this early party, has left us a typical 
 story of how he and his neighbors and many another family of 
 the west became interested in California between 1840 and the 
 outbreak of the Mexican War. At the time of which we are 
 speaking, BidAvell's neighborhood had become considerably excited 
 over the stories of one whom he described as a "calm, considerate 
 man" 1)y the name of Eubidoux. This story-stelling traveller, 
 
 "Bidwell. California: Josiah Belden, Historical statement (MS., Ban- 
 croft Collection); Bancroft, XXI, 264-75. 
 
 The immediate causes of this enthusiasm for a migration to California 
 were letters received from Dr. John Marsh, an American resident of Cali- 
 fornia, and the stories of Rubidoux. 
 
 ^One cause given both by Bidwell and Bancroft was the eflforts of Mis- 
 souri merchants to discourage the movement, through misrepresentations 
 of California. 
 
 ^'Only one of these, Bidwell, had signed the original pledge. The party 
 left May 19, under the command of John Bartleson, in company with a 
 second band of seventeen persons bound for Oregon under the direction 
 of a noted trapper, Fitzpatrick. They followed the usual route of hunt- 
 ers and traders to the Rocky Mountains — "up the north fork of the 
 Platte, by the Sweetwater through the South Pass, and down and up 
 branches of Green River, to Bear River Valley near Great Salt Lake" 
 Bancroft, XXI, 268-269. Here they separated, some of the California 
 party joining the Oregonians, and the remainder, pressing on, eventually 
 reached Marsh's rancho in November, after considerable hardship. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 35 
 
 whose brother Joseph was a well-known western trader, having 
 recently returned from a trip to California, brought back such 
 marvelous reports of the productiveness of its soil and the genial 
 qualities of its climate, that a public meeting was held "to hear 
 more about this wonderful country on the Pacific Coast." When 
 Eubidoux had finished his address before this gathering, repeating 
 perhaps in a more formal way what he had already told many in 
 private conversation, he became the target of questions from the 
 audience. One easily imagines the form these took, regarding 
 some particular phase of California conditions in which individuals 
 were interested; or in respect to the length and hardships of the 
 overland journey. 
 
 One ague-racked member of the assembly even wanted to know 
 if chills and fever prevailed in that country which Eubidoux 
 had described as a "perfect paradise, a perpetual spring." "There 
 never was but one man in California who had the chills," replied 
 Eubidoux. "He was from Missouri and carried the disease in 
 his system. It was such a curiosity to see a man shake with the 
 chills that the people of Monterey went eighteen miles into the 
 country to see him."^'' Unfortunately Bidwell neglects to state 
 how many of the forty-eight who eventually left Sapling Grove 
 were influenced by this answer to seek an escape from the malaria 
 of the Mississippi Valley and the mournful sufferings to which so 
 many of the early settlers were exposed. 
 
 The growing interest of the United States was not wholly con- 
 fined to the west during these years, however. Notice of the emi- 
 grant parties that were leaving Missouri was printed in the eastern 
 papers. In Eochester, New York, John J. Warner, while advocating 
 the building of a railroad across the continent to tbe Columbia, 
 devoted much of his public lectures to a description of California 
 and the advantages of San Francisco Bay.^^ Harvey Baldwin, 
 from the same neighborhood, perhaps influenced by Warner, ad- 
 dressed a long letter to the president, contrasting the commercial 
 importance and resources of California with the comparative worth- 
 lessness of the Oregon territory and virging him to take immediate 
 
 '"Bidwell, California, 5-6. 
 
 '^Warner's lecture was printed in the New York Journal of Commerce 
 and in the Colonial Magazine, V, 229-236. Bancroft, XXI, 223. 
 
26 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 steps toward its acquisition.^^ It was in the summer of 1841, also, 
 that an exploring expedition of six vessels under command of 
 Lieutenant Charles Wilkes reached San Francisco Bay, with special 
 instructions from the government to make careful surveys of that 
 harbor.^^ And thus in many ways^* the people and government 
 of the United States were kept in touch with California and its 
 affairs during the early part of the decade beginning with 1840. 
 
 Attitude of the Calif ornians. — The feeling among the California 
 officials over the arrival of the immigrant parties of 1841 was one 
 partly of alarm and partly of acquiesence. Early in May, 1841, 
 General Almonte, Mexican Minister of War, wrote ,to Vallejo, 
 the Comandante General of California, concerning tlte reported 
 emigration of fifty-eight families from Missouri, and gave strict 
 orders that every foreigner should be compelled to show a passport 
 or leave the country. In the despatch Almonte had also enclosed 
 a clipping from the National Intelligencer regarding "the con- 
 venience and necessity of the acquisition of the Californias by 
 the United States" and one of similar tenor from the Wash- 
 ington ''Glova."^^ Nor, with such evidence at hand, is it sur- 
 prising that he further warned Vallejo to put but little trust in the 
 alleged claim of the Americans that they were coming with peace- 
 ful intentions. The Texas immigrants had made the same false 
 assertion. 
 
 But in spite of this command from Mexico, the Californians 
 showed little desire to molest the respectable class of settlers from 
 the United States. The members of the Bartleson party were 
 compelled to explain their presence in the country and submit to 
 the formalities of a nominal arrest after which they were free to 
 
 '^Baldwin to Tyler. Jan. 19, 1843. enclosing a copy of a letter to Van 
 Buren, of Sept. 27, 1840. MS., State Department, Miscellaneous Letters. 
 1843. Baldwin perhaps was interested in a personal way in the acquisi- 
 tion of California. He suggested in his communication that the Ameri- 
 can claims might be made the basis for negotiation; while Jay (Mexican 
 War, 37, 40, 43) mentions a Baldwin as one of the claimants. 
 
 ^^Lieutenant Charles Wilkes, 'Narrative of the United States Exploring 
 Expedition during the Years 1838-^2 (Philadelphia. 1845), I, page 
 XXVII; Davis, Sixty Years in California, 127 et seq., says Wilkes stated 
 this was with the view of future acquisition. 
 
 **The rumor of English activities in California was one of the most 
 potent factors at this time. Niles' Register, LVIII, 2, 70. Further men- 
 tion of this is, however, reserved for future discussion. 
 
 "Vallejo, Documentos, No. 146. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 27 
 
 go and come as they pleased. ^^ While the reception of those arriving 
 by the southern route, though tinged somewhat with suspicion, 
 was equally free from any manifestations of hostility.^'^ 
 
 Efforts of Waddy Thotiipson. — A period of renewed activity 
 in the efforts of the United States to gain possession of California, 
 began with the accession of Tyler to the presidency. Shortly be- 
 fore his recall from Mexico, Powhatan Ellis had written to 
 Webster, then Secretary of State, urging the necessity of securing 
 certain ports on the Pacific on account of the increase of American 
 commerce and the growing importance of the whale fisheries. ^^ 
 While with the coming of Waddy Thompson as United States 
 minister, a very definite movement was set on foot looking to the 
 purchase of the territory. ^^ 
 
 In his first despatch to the home government, Thompson showed 
 himself a surprising enthusiast for such an acquisition. Mexico, 
 he thought, would be willing to cede both California and Texas 
 in return for a cancellation of the American claims against her.*** 
 But of the two, Texas was by far the less desirable, having no 
 comparison in value with California — "the richest, the most beau- 
 tiful, and healthiest country in the world." Control of Upper 
 California, continued Thompson, would eventually mean the as- 
 cendency of the United States over the whole Pacific. The bay 
 of San Francisco was "capacious enough to receive the navies of 
 all the world," while the neighboring forests could supply timber 
 suJSicient "to build all the ships of these navies." With this bay 
 in her possession, and the harbors of San Diego and Monterey, 
 the nation would have not only necessary ports for her whaling 
 
 ^^A second party mimbering twenty-five, organized partly in Missouri 
 and partly from Americans in New Mexico, had reached Los Angeles via 
 the Santa Fe Trail about the time the Bartleson company arrived in the 
 north. The Californians at first were afraid that these had been con- 
 cerned in the Texan expedition against Santa Fe (Bancroft, XXI, 276- 
 287). 
 
 ^UUd., 274-275. 
 
 ''Ellis to Webster, .Jan. 22, 1842 (MS., State Department). On March 
 10th, Thomas Carlile was appointed consul at San Francisco by Tyler. 
 Webster to Thompson, April 8, 1842. MS., State Department. 
 
 ^Thompson reached Vera Cruz April 10, 1842. See Waddy Thompson, 
 Recollections of Mexico (New York and London. Wiley and Putnam. 
 1847), 1. 
 
 *"This was the only way in which Thompson saw any hope of Mexican 
 creditors receiving satisfaction. 
 
28 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 vessels; but by opening vq} internal communication with the Ar- 
 kansas and other western streams, could "secure the trade of India 
 and the whole Pacific Ocean." 
 
 In agricultural lines, also, Thompson was assured that California 
 would prove of immense value to the United States, and one 
 day become the "granary of the Pacific." He also believed that, 
 as slavery was not necessary there, the north and south could 
 arrange another compromise. "I am profoundly satisfied," he 
 concluded, after warning Webster against the designs of France 
 and England upon the territory, 
 
 that in its bearing upon all the interests of our country, agri- 
 cultural, political, manufacturing, commercial and fishing, the 
 importance of the acquisition of California cannot be overesti- 
 mated. If I could mingle any selfish feelings with interests to 
 my country so vast, I would desire no higher honor than to be 
 an instrument in securing it.*^ 
 
 Ten days after he had written this despatch to the Secretary 
 of State, Thompson sent one of like tenor to the president. 
 "Since my despatch to Mr. Webster," he began, 
 
 I have had an interview with Gen. Santa Anna and although I 
 did not broacli to him directly the subject of our correspondence 
 I have but little doubt that I shall be able to accomplish your 
 wishes and to add also the acquisition of Upper California. 
 
 This latter, I believe, will be by far the most important event 
 that has occurred to our country. Do me the favor to read my 
 despatch to Mr. Webster in which my views of the matter are 
 briefly sketched — I should be most happy to illustrate your ad- 
 ministration and my own name by an acquisition of such lasting 
 benefit to my own country. 
 
 Upon this subject I beg your special instructions, both as to 
 moving on the matter and the extent to which I am to go in the 
 negotiations and the amount to be paid. The acquisition of Upper 
 California will reconcile the northern people as they have large 
 fishing and commercial interests in the Pacific and we have liter- 
 ally no port there. Be pleased also to have me pretty strongly 
 instructed on the subject of our claims or leave the responsibility 
 
 "Thompson to Webster, April 29, 1842. MS., State Department. Much 
 of the substance of this despatch was afterwards embodied by Thompson 
 in his Recollections (pp. 233-238). A summary is also printed in Reeves, 
 100-101, but the quotations are not verhatim as the text would seem to 
 indicate. See also Rives's The United States and Mexico, II, 46. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 29 
 
 to me. Procrastination, the policy of all weak governments, is 
 peculiarly so with this, and they are very poor and will never 
 pay us one farthing unless pretty strong measures are taicen.*- 
 
 Late in June Webster answered Thompson's despatches, giving 
 him full liberty to sound the Mexican government upon the sub- 
 ject of ceding a portion of her territory on the Pacific in satis- 
 faction of all, or a part of the Am(^rican claims. "Although it 
 is desirable that you should present the Port and Harbor of St. 
 Francisco as the prominent object to be obtained," wrote Webster, 
 "3'et if a cession should be made, the Province would naturally 
 accompany the Port. It may be useful however for divers reasons, 
 that the convenience and benefit of the Port itself, should at least 
 for the present, be spoken of as what is chiefly desired by the 
 United States." In conclusion, Thompson was advised to proceed 
 in a circumspect manner with the negotiations, and especially 
 warned against giving the impression that the United States was 
 eager for the purchase, since it would be far better to convey 
 the idea that she was willing to settle the debt in this way simply 
 for the convenience of Mexico.*^ 
 
 During the summer of 1842 one further communication re- 
 garding California came from Thompson; but this, being in the 
 form of a warning against English encroachments, will be con- 
 sidered in another connection. Toward the close of the year 
 all thought of negotiation was temporarily cut short, as it hap- 
 pened, when Webster was especially anxious to secure Mexico's 
 consent to 'Wie tripartite agreement,^^ by the seizure of the port 
 of Monterey by Commodore Jones, who, as we have seen, had 
 been placed in command of the Pacific squadron by Secretary 
 Upshur nearly a year before. 
 
 The details of this incident have been described so frequently 
 that it would be useless to repeat them here.*^ It may simply 
 
 ■"Thompson to Tyler, May 9, 1842. MS., State Department; mentioned 
 also by Reeves, 101. 
 
 *'Webster to Thompson, .June 27, 1842, in The Writings and Speeches 
 of Daniel Wehster (National Edition. Boston. Little, Brown & Com- 
 pany. 1903), XIV, 611-612. See also Reeves, 102, for different portions 
 of the same letter. 
 
 "See below, pp. 35-7. 
 
 ^'Bancroft, XXI, 298-329; Lyon G. Tyler, Letters and Times of the 
 Tylers (Richmond. Whittet & Shepperson. 1885), II, 265-267; H. Von 
 
30 Early Sentwient for Annexation of California 
 
 be said that the American commander, convinced by various re- 
 ports that the United States and Mexico were at war*^ and that 
 the latter was on the point of ceding California to Great Britain,^* 
 sailed as rapidly as possible from Callao to Monterey, which he 
 took possession of without opposition, beyond a formal protest 
 from the California officials. The next day, realizing that he had 
 made a mistake, Jones surrendered the town to its former owners 
 with formal apology for his error. 
 
 The seizure of Monterey, so far as the Califomians themselves 
 were concerned, seems to have been taken pretty much as a matter 
 of course. A full report was forwarded to the Mexican Govern- 
 ment*® and the authorities at Los Angeles availed themselves of 
 the opportunity to charge the captain of one of Jones's vessels, 
 the Alert, with spiking the artillery at San Diego and injuring 
 the harbor.^** American residents were naturally uneasy for a 
 time lest they should suffer from the ill-will engendered among the 
 Californians by the occ-uiTence,^^ but their fears were entirely 
 groundless. ^^ 
 
 Hoist, The Constitutional and Political History of the United States 
 (Chicago. Callaghan and Company. 1881), II, 615-620; H. Ex. Docs., 
 27 Cong., 3 Sess., No. 166, for official account. Many of the secondary 
 accounts were written with a decided bias against the American com- 
 mander. For example, Jay (pp. 82-86) described it as wholly a move 
 on the part of the slave-holding South. 
 
 *'Jones obtained his information from a letter written by John Parrott, 
 the United States consul at Mazatlan, on .June 22. Enclosed was a copy 
 of El Cosmoplita of .June 4, containing the threatening letters of Boca- 
 negra to Webster concerning the Texas difficulties. Rumors of war were 
 common all along the Pacific coast at the time (Johnson to Larkin, 
 Honolulu, May 26, 1842 — "word received from the United States that 
 war may be declared any day." Larkin MSS., I, No. 276 ; Davis to Lar- 
 kin, May 30, 1842 — -"war declared against Mexico." Ibid.). Larkin's 
 Official Correspondence is designated as such; his private correspondence 
 will hereafter be referred to simply as above — Larkin MSS. 
 
 **A copy of a Boston paper, with an extract from the New Orleans 
 Courier of April 19, stating that Mexico had ceded California to England 
 for $7,000,000, had fallen into his hands. The departure of Admiral 
 Thomas with a British fleet under sealed orders from Callao, lent addi- 
 tional weight to the rumor. 
 
 ^'Bocanegra to Thompson, Dec. 28, 1841. MS., State Department. 
 
 '^"Ibid. 
 
 "I. C. Jones, a resident of Santa Barbara, wrote that he considered the 
 seizure of Monterey the act of a madman, which would be followed by 
 deplorable results for all Americans in California. He was, however, a 
 confirmed pessimist. Jones to Larkin, Larkin MSS., I, No. 357. 
 
 ^-Larkin to Secretary of State, April 16, 1844 — Contrary to expecta- 
 tions Jones's action did not engender any ill-will among the Californians 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 31 
 
 In Mexico^ however, a different spirit prevailed. Jones had re- 
 ported his action both to the authorities at Washington and to 
 Waddy Thompson at Mexico City.^^ Without waiting for instruc- 
 tions from the department, the American minister at once dis- 
 avowed the seizure of the California town and promised satisfaction 
 for any loss thereby sustained.^* Jones was recalled and tem- 
 porarily deprived of his command; while Webster made formal 
 apologies in the name of the government for the proceedings. 
 But beyond this, in the infliction of a far heavier penalty de- 
 manded by the Mexican Minister upon the American commodore, 
 both Webster and Tyler refused to go.^^ 
 
 In the United States, also, the capture of Monterey furnished 
 John Quincy Adams and others of his kind with fresh ammunition 
 for onslaughts against the administration and its policy of an- 
 nexing Mexican territory. ^^ Eeports of these attacks and over- 
 drawn charges made by the Americans against the American 
 president reached Mexico, and served to increase there the spirit 
 of hostility and suspicion already engendered by the incident.^^ 
 So that Thompson was compelled to notify his government that 
 it was "wholly out of the question to do anything as to California 
 and after recent events there it would be imprudent to allude 
 to it in any way," the only possibility of securing territory at all 
 lying in a cession of San Francisco some time in the future when 
 Mexico should find herself unable to pay the awards of the 
 American claims.^^ 
 
 but had rather the reverse effect. Larkin, Official Correspondence, Pt. II, 
 No. 4. 
 
 "Jones to Tliompson, Oct. 22, 1842. MS., State Department. 
 
 '^Reeves. 106. Thompson was not ofReially notified to take this course 
 for some months. Webster to Thompson, Jan. 27, 1843. MS., State De- 
 partment. 
 
 "Tyler to Webster, Jan. — , 1843. Webster MSS., Library of Con- 
 gress; same to same, Feb. 9, 1843. Tyler's Letters and Times of the 
 Tylers, II, 267. 
 
 ""For Adams's attitude, see his Memoirs, XI, 304 et seq. 
 
 "Thompson to Webster, Jan. 5, 1843 — "Tliey are printing in all their 
 newspapers the speech of Mr. Adams made in Massachusetts, and with 
 most injurious effect as it confirms all their unfounded suspicions against 
 us." MS., State Department. 
 
 ''Thompson to Webster, Jan. 30, 1843. Webster MSS. A new scheme 
 connecting California with these unpaid claims had also been suggested 
 to Webster by Brantz Mayer, formerly secretary of legation under Thomp- 
 son, upon his return to Washington. Mayer's plan, instead of requiring 
 
32 Earhj Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 The proposed Tripartite Agreement. — While this correspondence 
 was being carried on with the American minister at Mexico City, 
 Webster was also making tentative efforts to bring about an ar- 
 rangement between Great Britain, Mexico and the United States 
 for the settlement of the three vexed questions of Texas, Oregon, 
 and California. As early as the summer of 1842, when Lord 
 Ashburton was in this country as special commissioner, Webster 
 had approached him with the suggestion of settling the Oregon 
 boundary line by ceding the American claims to territory north 
 of the Columbia to Great Britain, in return for a portion of Cal- 
 ifornia that should be purchased from Mexico by the two nations 
 in common. ^^ 
 
 By the beginning of 1843 this idea had come to assume an im- 
 portant place in the plans of the administration.*^'' Thompson 
 was instructed to sound the Mexican government on the subject, 
 and it was likewise brought to the notice of General Almonte, 
 Mexican minister at Washington.*'^ As England was known to 
 favor it, a rough outline for the basis of negotiations was sent by 
 Webster to Edward Everett, American ambassador at London.*'^ 
 The terms of this were as follows : 
 
 immediate cession on the part of Mexico, substituted a mortgage to be held 
 by the United States chiefly on "such parts of California or such ports in 
 that department as might be serviceable to our trade in the Pacific and 
 useful to us politically." Such a pledge would result in ultimate owner- 
 ship by the United States or punctual payments on the part of Mexico. 
 Mayer to Webster, Dec. 9, 1842, MS., State Department. It may be 
 added that this plan of a mortgage probably originated in the reports 
 that English creditors held such a pledge. Thompson, who had quarreled 
 with Mayer, considered his letter an extreme liberty even for one of 
 Mayer's characteristic "vanity and impertinence." Thompson to Webster, 
 Jan. 30, 1843. MS., State Department. 
 
 "^'Tyler's Letters and Times of the Tylers, II, 260-261; Adams, Memoirs, 
 XI, 347. 
 
 ""Reeves (p. 102) rather infers that the California project received 
 scant attention from Webster and Tyler. The documents quoted in the 
 text, it is believed, will contradict this idea. 
 
 »^Webster to Everett, Jan. 29, 1843. Webster, Works, XVI, 393-396, 
 passim. 
 
 ''^Reeves, in a note, p. 103, says that Webster's instructions to Everett, 
 regarding this tripartite agreement, do not appear on file in the State 
 Department. His account has therefore been based wholly on Everett's 
 note to Calhoun of March 28, 1845, in which mention is made of the in- 
 structions sent by Webster. See also Schaefer's "British Attitude toward 
 the Oregon Question." Amer. Hist. Rev., XVI, 293-294, note. It is signifi- 
 cant that Webster's biographer prints only a part of this letter of Jan. 29, 
 leaving out all portions relating to California or the triparite agreement. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 33 
 
 1. Mexico to cede Upper California to the United States. 
 
 2. The United States to pay millions of dollars for 
 
 the cession. 
 
 3. Of this sum, millions to be paid to American 
 
 claimants against Mexico. 
 
 4. The remainder to English creditors or bondholders of 
 Mexico. 
 
 5. The Oregon boundary to be settled on the line of the 
 Columbia.®^ 
 
 Both Webster and Tyler felt that this tripartite arrangement 
 would prove the means of satisfying all sections of the country.®* 
 Tyler, especially, was anxious to include the admission of California 
 in the terms of any treaty resulting from it, writing to Webster 
 that "Texas might not stand alone, nor . . . the line proposed 
 for Oregon. Texas would reconcile all to the line, while California 
 would reconcile or pacify all to Oregon.'"*^ He was even anxious 
 to send Webster on a special mission to Great Britain,^® and 
 Webster expressed a willingness to go provided he could settle the 
 Oregon question and obtain California, for Webster had as much 
 desire to secure the latter, if not more, as did Tyler.®'^ 
 
 The idea of a special mission was, however, cut short by the 
 adverse action of Congress.®^ Tyler then endeavored to persuade 
 
 George Ticknor Curtis, lAfe of Daniel Wehster (New York. D. Appleton 
 and Company. 1870), 175-177. George Bancroft, as late as March, 1844, 
 wrote to Van Buren as though this discovery that Webster had been try- 
 ing to secure California were a great piece of news. It interested Van 
 Buren so much that he tried to find out the details from Silas Wright, 
 who could give him no information. Bancroft to Van Buren, April 11, 
 1844. Van Buren MSS., Library of Congress. Van Buren's interest 
 doubtless arose from the political value of such information in connec- 
 tion with the question of Texas annexation. 
 
 ^'Webster to Everett, as cited, p. 394. 
 
 "Webster saw in it the means of winning over the two-thirds vote 
 necessary for the ratification of the boundary treaty -wath Great Britain 
 (lUd., 394-395). 
 
 °=Tyler to Webster, undated. Webster MSS. 
 
 °°Same to same, undated. Webster MSS. ". . . what is contem- 
 plated is much more important than what has been done. The mission 
 will be large and imposing" — same to same, Feb. 26, 1843. Itid. See, 
 also, Tyler's Letters and Times of the Tylers, II, 261, for the same letters. 
 
 "For Webster's interest in California, see his letter of Jan. 29, to 
 Everett, already cited so frequently. He afterwards wrote that he con- 
 sidered the bay of San Francisco twenty times more valuable to the 
 United States than all Texas. Curtis, Life of Wehster, II, 250. 
 
 '*Tyler'9 Lett&rs and Times of the Tylers, II, 263. 
 
34 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 Everett to accept the new embassy to China in order that Webster 
 might take his place in London and carry through the measure 
 under discussion. But Everett, preferring the pleasures of the 
 Court of St. James to the uncertainties of the Mandarin ministry, 
 declined the exchange.®^ About this time, also, Thompson's des- 
 patch of January 30 reached Washington, with the information 
 that it would be useless to approach Mexico regarding the cession 
 of any territory; and Webster, whose days of usefulness in the 
 cabinet were over, and who saw no prospects of effecting anything 
 further, either regarding the adjustment of the Oregon difficulties 
 or the acquisition of California, retired to private life.'^"^ 
 
 Following Webster's resignation, and the death of Hugh S. 
 Legare, after only a month's service as Secretary ad interim. 
 the cabinet was reorganized, and in July, Abel P. Upshur, former 
 Secretary of the Navy, became head of the Department of State. 
 
 Effect of Mexican hostility to England. — At this time interest 
 centered primarily in Texas where matters were fast coming to a 
 crisis; but in the fall of 1843 Thompson's despatches began to 
 call attention again to California. On September 28 he wrote 
 that the strong bond of friendship, formerly existing between Mex- 
 ico and England, was fast giving way to a feeling of hostility 
 that had manifested itself openly in an insult to the British 
 flag.'^^ A few days later he reported an interview with Santa 
 Anna in which he had been told that, in the event of a collision 
 with Great Britian, which seemed probable, Mexico would look 
 to the United States to protect California.'^- 
 
 In less than two weeks Thompson again referred to the subject 
 of his conversation with Santa Anna and assured Upshur that 
 if war actually broke out between the two countries, Mexico would 
 certainly cede California to the United States to keep it from 
 falling into English hands. The comparison suggested- in this 
 communication seems worthy of note : "You will remember." 
 wrote Thompson, "that it was the fear of the seizure of Louisiana 
 by England that induced Bonaparte to cede it to us. The ac- 
 quisition of California will be of little less importance . . . 
 
 ^'Ibid. 
 
 '"His resignation came May 8, 1843. 
 
 ■'iThompson to Upshur, Sept. 28, 1843. MS., State Department. 
 
 '*Same to same, Oct. 3. Hid. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 35 
 
 There is no prospect whatever of such a cession but in the event of 
 a war between Mexico and England. Then nothing would be 
 easier."'^^ 
 
 Order against Americans. — In connection with this subject 
 of the ill will of Mexico toward England the American min- 
 ister had earlier reported a less hostile feeling prevailing 
 toward his countrj-men in Mexico and that the government 
 was coming to look upon them with a far more friendly eye.'^* 
 If this were true at all, however, the change was of a purely 
 temporary nature. As far back as July 14, an order had been 
 issued to the governor of California,''^ Manuel Micheltorena, to 
 expel all citizens of the United States from his province and 
 prohibit future immigration.'^® This, however, did not come under 
 Thompson's notice until late in December, when he at once vig- 
 orously protested and demanded its reeission. His communications 
 on the subject remaining unanswered, he threatened next to break 
 off diplomatic relations, and even called for his passports. 
 
 Upon this the Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations assured 
 him that the order was meant to apply to other foreigners as 
 well as to Americans and had been aimed only at "seditious" inhab- 
 itants of the province, to whose governor "very benevolent ex- 
 planations" had been sent. This, though not satisfactory, was 
 sufficient to prevent Thompson from leaving Mexico, especially 
 as he had no great desire to carry his threat into execution; 
 while upon his further remonstrance, the order was entirely 
 countermanded.'^'' In obtaining the withdrawal of a somewhat 
 
 ''Thompson to Upshur. Oct. 14, 1S43. The omission indicated in quo- 
 tation represents requests for instructions concerning California. Same 
 to same, Oct. 29. Fear of war with England alone will enable him to 
 conclude a new convention for the settlement of the American claims ; see 
 also same to same, Nov. 20, and Jan. 16. MSS., State Department. 
 
 '"Thompson to Upshur, Oct. 20, 184.3. MS., State Department. 
 
 "Also to the Governors of Sonora, Sinaloa, and Chihuahua. 
 
 '"Bancroft (XXI, 380-1) says there is no evidence that the order ever 
 reached California. Thompson, on the contrary, wrote, in the despatch 
 cited, that Micheltorena assured the Mexican government he had already 
 taken measures to carry out the command. At least, however, it may 
 be said that the law caused no excitement in California or uneasiness 
 among the American residents. 
 
 "For details regarding this command, see Thompson to Upshur, Jan. 4, 
 1844 (MS., State Department) ; Thompson, Recollections, 227; 'Siles' 
 Register, LXV, 353. 
 
36 Early Sentiment for Annexatmi of California 
 
 similar law, prohibiting foreigners from engaging in retail trade 
 either in Mexico or an}^ of her provinces, Thompson was not, 
 however, by any means so successful.^^ 
 
 On February 28, 1844, Upshnr lost his life by the explosion 
 on board the Princeton, and Calhoun took his place in the cabinet, 
 his appointment, according to Duff Green, having been urged for 
 the three-fold purpose of conducting "the negotiation for the an- 
 nexation of Texas, the purchase of California, and the adjustment 
 of our northwestern boundary."^^ 
 
 Easting's scheme for an independent California. — Ben E. Green, 
 the son of Duff Green, who had been secretary of legation under 
 Thompson, was appointed charge upon the return of the latter 
 to the United States, and entrusted with securing the assent of 
 Mexico to the annexation of Texas.^^" This was no easy task. 
 Whatever ill-will there had been against England had died away, 
 and though in its place some difficulty had arisen with France, 
 the great weight of Mexican hostility was directed toward the 
 government at Washington. But whether with France or with 
 the United States, Santa Anna was openly advocating a foreign 
 war to develop the nation's resources, and Green could see no ben- 
 efit to be gained by this country from becoming a party to such a 
 quarrel, "unless, indeed, we should end by gaining possession of 
 California, and thereby secure a harborage for our shipping on 
 the Pacific and one of the finest countries on the Globe."^^ 
 
 A few days later, having received word of Upshur's death and 
 Calhoun's appointment, Green wrote privately to the latter con- 
 cerning some information in his possession, which he thought 
 
 "Thompson (?) to Larkin, United States Legation, Mexico, March 1, 
 1844. Has continued to hope that order would be rescinded but sees no 
 hope for it now. Clear violation of treaty rijrhts, etc. Larkin MSS., II, 
 No. 66. See, also, Thompson's Recollections, 229-230. 
 
 "Duff Green, Facts and Suggestions (New York. Richardson & Co. 
 1866), 85. 
 
 *°Tyler's Letters and Times of the Tylers. II, 298; statement of Ben- 
 jamin E. Green, Aug. 8, 1889. Ihid., Ill, 174-175. Johnston wrote Polk 
 of a rumor that Green was authorized to offer $10,000,000 to Mexico, and 
 the guaranty to her of the Californias against all other nations. Benton 
 says the treaty when understood is more damnable than the correspond- 
 ence." Johnston to Polk, May 5, 1844. Polk MSS., Library of Congress. 
 
 '^Ben E. Green to Secretary of State, April 8, 1844. MSS., State De- 
 partment. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 37 
 
 might prove important in the Oregon and Texas negotiations.^- 
 The substance of this was derived from a confidential interview 
 about three months before with Lansford W. Hastings, a sometime 
 resident of California, of whom we shall also have occasion to 
 speak hereafter. 
 
 Hastings, on his way from California to New York, had given 
 Green very positive assurance that a movement for independence 
 was on foot in California, and only waited his return, with a 
 party of emigrants as reinforcements, before materializing. There 
 was also talk in Oregon of uniting with California and forming a 
 separate republic; and the movement once begun would speedily 
 be joined by the Mexican provinces bordering upon Texas.®^ 
 The certainty of this was rendered more imminent by Santa 
 Anna's attempt to provoke a war with France, which, if it came 
 and were properly managed, Avould result in the annexation of the 
 disaffected provinces to Texas. With such an addition of territory. 
 Green warned Calhoun, who was already prone to alanns, "that 
 Texas would no longer desire admission to our Union, but on the 
 contrary would prove a dangerous rival both to the cotton interests 
 of the South and the manufactures of the North."^* 
 
 Efforts of Duff Green. — Following this despatch Calhoun re- 
 ceived a more detailed report on California and the whole Mexican 
 situation from a personal interview with Waddy Thompson who 
 returned about this time from Mexico.^^ The rejection of the 
 Texas treaty in the senate on June 9, however, left little place in 
 the plans of the administration for immediate action regarding 
 
 '^Green spoke of Calhoun's appointment as "with a view to the Oregon 
 and Texas questions." It is to be noted that, as in this despatch which 
 spoke of Oregon and Texas only in a subordinate relation to California, 
 California was often included under the general heading of "the Oregon 
 question," or the "Texas question." 
 
 ''As Hastings had given this information to Green three months before, 
 the time for the denouement in California was probably not far away. 
 
 **Green to Calhoun, April 11, 1844. Correspondence of John C. Cal- 
 houn, edited by J. Franklin Jameson in American Historical Association 
 Report, 1899, "ll, 945-947. This will Iftreafter be referred to simply as 
 Calhoun's Correspondence. 
 
 ''Same to same, May 30, 1844. Ihid., 961. Calhoun was also informed 
 of the encroachments of the Hudson's Bay Company in California. Lar- 
 kin to Calhoun, June 20, 1844. MS., State Department. 
 
 Larkin had been appointed consul at Monterey, May 1, 1843. Webster 
 to Thompson, May 5. MS., State Department. 
 
38 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 California.^*' But early in the fall, Calhoun made a further attempt 
 to open negotiations for the acquisition of that province in con- 
 nection with the annexation of Texas. Duii Green, a close friend, 
 was sent to Galveston nominally with the exequatur of consul, but 
 in reality as Calhoun's special agent to join with Ben E. Green, 
 his son, "in conducting the negotiation for the acquisition of Texas, 
 New Mexico, and California." 
 
 Green arrived at Galveston shortly before the second of October,*^ 
 but apparently did not tarry long at his supposed destination as 
 we find him writing Calhoun on the 28th from Mexico City. 
 This communication deserves special mention, not merely because 
 it showed the futility of any immediate attempt to secure a cession 
 of Mexican territory but because the reason given in this particular 
 instance explains very eJEfectually the consistent rejection of sim- 
 ilar proposals made by the United States, from that of Poinsett 
 in 1825 to the final offer of Slidell in 18'46. 
 
 "I am convinced," wrote Green, "that it is impossible to obtain 
 the consent of this Government to the cession to the United States 
 of Texas, California or any part of the public domain of Mexico 
 whatever." Then followed a long dissertation on Santa Anna's 
 hostile policy toward the United States, pursued since 1825 for 
 his own selfish interests; a description of the chaotic state into 
 which the government had fallen; and certain remarks upon the 
 constant factional strife with which the land was cursed. "In 
 such a state of things," he continued, 
 
 in the midst of a civil conflict where each party is seeking pre- 
 tences to murder and confiscate the property of their opponents, 
 and where the principle [is maintained] that it is treason to sell 
 any part of the public domain to the United States, it is worse 
 than folly to suppose that either party can alienate any part of 
 Texas or California.*^ 
 
 ^"During the year 1844 a California representative, by name of Casta- 
 Bares, was in Mexico pleading for aid for the department, warning the 
 government against American designs, and prophesying tlie loss of Cali- 
 fornia unless active measures welte taken to prevent its falling into the 
 hands of the United States. Bancroft, XXI, 413 et seq. 
 
 "Facts and Suggestions, 85. Green says elsewhere that Calhoun told 
 him success in the negotiation would mean a more valuable commerce on 
 the Pacific within a few years than on tlie Atlantic. Tyler's Letters and 
 Times of the Tylers, III, 174-175. 
 
 '^Memucan Hunt to Calhoun, Oct. 2, 1844. Calhoun Correspondence, 
 975. Mention is liere made of Green's consular position. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 39 
 
 Farther along in his despatch, Green again laid emphasis upon 
 the fact — ^which Americans, eager for territory and cognizant of 
 Mexico's need of funds and the easy virtue of some of her officials, 
 were slow to grasp — ^that any party venturing to sell Texas or 
 California would surely be overthrown, its leaders shot and their 
 property taken over by a rival faction. Out of this difficulty only 
 one way lay open to the United States government; and that, 
 though it promised all the administration could ask, Green refused 
 to specify in writing, reserving his explanation for a personal in- 
 terview after visiting Texas. ^^ 
 
 Following Duff Green's departure from Mexico, little concerning 
 California occurs in the correspondence that passed between Wilson 
 Shannon, the American minister who succeeded Thompson, and 
 Calhoun. One important despatch respecting English designs, 
 which will be noticed later, was sent early in January, 1845;^'^ 
 while on the 16th of the same month Shannon wrote that there 
 might be a bare possibility of reopening negotiations with the new 
 government of Paredes and Herrera''^ because of their desperate 
 need of funds.^- But the breaking off of diplomatic relations, fol- 
 lowing the annexation of Texas soon after this, put an effectual 
 stop to all attempts at negotiation for California until Slidell 
 entered the field under Polk's direction. 
 
 It should be noted, however, in any discussion of the diplomacy 
 of this period that it was during Tyler's administration that the 
 first hint of Polk's subsequent policy regarding the internal affairs 
 of California is to be found. Larkin, after his appointment as 
 
 ^'Duff Green to Calhoun, Oct. 28, 1844. lUd., 975-980. It is more than 
 probable that Green had reference to the movement he afterwards en- 
 deavored to stir up in Texas looking to the revolt of several of the Mexi- 
 can provinces, including California. Anson Jones, Republic of Texas, 
 412-414; Donelson to Calhoun^ Jan. 27, 1845, Calhoun Correspondence, 
 1019-1020. 
 
 *°Green also had something to say in his despatches about England's 
 hold on. California. 
 
 "Shannon to Calhoun, Jan. 16, 1845. MS., State Department. Ben 
 Green asserted that the Herrera government was favorably inclined to 
 cede New Mexico and California to the United States, and that he and 
 the United States consul, J. D. Marks, at Matamoras came to Washing- 
 ton to acquaint Tyler with the fact and arrange the negotiation. The 
 appointment of Slidell as minister, according to Green, brought their 
 plans to a standstill (Tylers Letters and Times of the Tylers, III, 
 174-177). 
 
 •''Santa Anna's overthrow took place about the middle of January. 
 
40 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 consul, kept tlie State Department well informed as to events 
 in the province, especially regarding immigration, the attitude of 
 California oflficials, and the proceedings of the Hudson's Bay Com- 
 pany. In this he was encouraged by the authorities at Wash- 
 ington; and, still farther, urged to report anything concerning the 
 political condition of California that could "be made subservient 
 to or may effect {sic) the interest and well being of oiir gov- 
 ernment."^^ It was an enlargement upon this plan, that, as we 
 shall see, Polk made use of about one year later. 
 
 ^^Larkin to Secretary of State, April 16, 1844. Official Correspondence, 
 II, No. 4; same to same, Aug. 18, Ihid., No. 9. Cralle, Acting Secre- 
 tary of State, to Larkin, Oct. 25, 1844. Larkin MSS., VI, No. 223. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California. 41 
 
 Chapter III 
 
 FIRST EFFORTS OF THE POLK ADMINISTRATION 
 
 Having traced the course of the Tyler administration with re- 
 gard to California, we must now turn to the internal affairs of 
 the province and the growth of popular interest throughout the 
 country in its concerns. During 1842 no emigration of any im- 
 portance took place from the United States.^ But the friends of 
 the movement were busy;- and toward the close of the year, Gen- 
 eral Almonte, the Mexican minister at Washington, found it neces- 
 sary to counteract their representations by an article denying the 
 report that California officials extended a ready welcome to for- 
 eigners.^ In this, however, he was giving the views of the Mexi- 
 can government, and not those of the authorities of the prov- 
 ince.* 
 
 Immigration and Commerce. — In 1843 two considerable parties 
 reached California under the direction of leaders who, having al- 
 ready made the journey, had returned to the western states to 
 encourage others of their countrymen to follow their example. 
 One of these companies, numbering perhaps forty individuals, 
 was led by Lansford W. Hastings and came by way of Oregon.^ 
 The other, slightly larger, left Missouri in May under Joseph B. 
 Chiles, a member of the Bartleson company of 1841. Divid- 
 ing at Fort Hall, part of the emigrants completed their journey 
 
 ^Bancroft, XXT. 341. 
 
 ^Niles' Register, LXIII. 242; Larkin to James G. Bennett of the New 
 York Herald, Feb. 2, 1842. Larkin MSS., II, No. 6. 
 
 ^Baltimore American, Dec. 24, 1842, reprinted in Niles' Register, LXIII, 
 277. 
 
 *For the order against foreigners issued by the Mexican government, 
 see above, The Quarterly, XVIII, 35-36. The Californians opposed no 
 obiection or obstacle to the coming of the Americans. Bancroft, XXI, 
 380. 
 
 'Bancroft, XXI, 389-392; Hinckley to Larkin, July 20, 1843, notes the 
 arrival of forty immigrants of respectable character under Hastings. He 
 thought the country would soon be overstocked if the influx continued. 
 Larkin MSS., II, No. 24. 
 
42 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 with Chiles, while the remainder followed Walker over a more 
 difficult southern route.® 
 
 The year 1844 saw still further reinforcement of the American 
 population in California/ accompanied by increased interest 
 throughout the United States. Notice of the repeal of the law 
 against foreigners by the Mexican government was published in 
 the newspapers;^ the state department was assured that Ameri- 
 cans were looked upon with favor in California;^ and numerous 
 books and communications setting forth the advantages of the 
 province were placed in the hands of American leaders.^" Com- 
 mercial relations with the United States showed little change dur- 
 ing this period." The year 1843 was one of hard times, and 
 
 "Bancroft, XXI, 393-395. 
 
 ''Ibid., 444 et seq., notes two considerable parties — one under Andrew 
 Kelsey of thirty-six persons, and the other under Elisha Stevens of nearly 
 one hundred. The latter brought the first wagon ever used in a complete 
 overland trip. See also Sutter to Larkin, July 7 and Aug. 8; Bidwell to 
 Larkin, Dec. 13, 1844; Larkin MSS., II, Nos. 140, 157, 286. 
 
 From this on no attempt is made to follow in detail the arrival of 
 emigrant parties, though note is usually made of the more important. 
 
 ^ISaies' Register, LXV, 353. 
 
 'Larkin to Secretary of State, Aug. 16, 1844. Official Correspondence, 
 Pt. II, No. 4; same to same, Aug. 18, Ihid., No. 9; same to R. J. Walker, 
 Aug. 4, Ihid., No. 11. 
 
 "Among these may be mentioned Thomas Jefferson Farnham's Travels 
 in Calif orma and Scenes in the Pacific Ocean (New York. 1844) ; Charles 
 Wilkes' Narrative of the United States Exploring Expedition (Phila- 
 delphia. Lea and Blanchard. 1844, 1845) ; L. W. Hastings, Emigranfs 
 Guide to Oregon to Oregon and California (Cincinnati. 1845), etc. Most 
 of these gave the usual descriptions of the political conditions of Cali- 
 fornia, and of its commercial and agricultural advantages. All devote 
 considerable space to San Francisco. For the influence exerted in this 
 way, especially by Farnham, see Thwaites, Early Western Travels, XXVIII, 
 14; and McMaster, History of the United States, VII, 297. Hastings's 
 efforts in connection with immigration will be considered later. Wilkes's 
 narrative, only a small part of which dealt with California, ran through 
 several editions. A somewhat scathing review of the contributions made 
 by Wilkes is to be found in the North American Revieiv, XVI, 54-107. 
 
 Larkin also was busy at this time encouraging immigration. Besides 
 his despatches to the State Department, already noted, he collected infor- 
 mation regarding all arrivals and sent communications to the American 
 papers tending to arouse an interest in California. See, for example, 
 Larkin to Sutter, April 29, 1844; Larkin, Official Correspondence, Pt. II, 
 No. 7; Robinson to Larkin, Sept. 24, 1844; Larkin MSS., II, No. 210. 
 
 "For a general description of trading conditions along the coast, see 
 Larkin, Description of California (Commerce). Duties of the principal 
 vessels amounted to sums ranging from $5000 to $25,000. A storage 
 charge of twelve and a half cents (one real) was made for each large 
 bale, and half the amount for wharfage. Tonnage dues were $1.50 per 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California. 43 
 
 tli« trading vessels had difficulty in securing even a fraction of 
 their accustomed cargo of hides.^^ Whaling ships in larger num- 
 bers^^ continued to use the California ports, especially San Fran- 
 cisco, as depots, for reprovisioning and refitting. But until the 
 middle of 1844 nothing of importance occurred to break the or- 
 dinary routine of trade conditions along the coast. 
 
 In that year, however, certain changes were made in the Cali- > 
 fornia tariff laws that benefited one class of American commerce 
 and injured another. The practice had become common for ves- 
 sels flying the Mexican flag to pay duties at Mazatlan; and thus, 
 through the ruling of the Mexican law, to secure free access for 
 their cargoes into California. This custom, however, was playing 
 sad havoc with the profits of the Boston ships and with the revenues 
 of the province, all of which were derived from customs receipts, 
 as well. So, in order to protect the threatened provincial treas- 
 ury and keep the New England trade, the assembly and governor 
 calmly set the Mexican law aside and required all goods, whether 
 paying duties at a port of the home government or not, to abide 
 by the regulation of the custom house at Monterey;^* while a 
 
 ton. There were no health or quarantine regulations, and no further port 
 charges or fees. There were no prohibitions or restrictions as to the 
 class of imports, no bounty or navigation acts and no drawbacks. Smug- 
 gling was common, and the bribery of California customs officials a recog- 
 nized part of the trade. 
 
 The following table of customs receipts shows pretty clearly the relative 
 volume of trade from 1839 to 1845: 
 
 1839 $ 85,613 
 
 1840 72,308 
 
 1841 101,150 
 
 1842 73,729 
 
 1843 52,000 
 
 1844 78,739 
 
 1845 138,360 
 
 Larkin to Secretary of State, Dec. 31, 1845. Larkin, Official Corre- 
 spondence, Pt. II, No. 32. 
 
 "There were only 03,000 hides available for sixteen vessels. Bancroft 
 XXI, 339. 
 
 "Davis, Sixty Years in California (214-215) says that as many as thirty 
 or forty whaling vessels were in the port of San Francisco at one time 
 during 1843, 1844, and 1845. See also Larkin to Calhoun, Aug. 24, 1844. 
 MS., State Department; same to same, Dec. 12 — Thinks there will be six 
 hundred American vessels on northwest coast within three years. Official 
 Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 13. 
 
 '*The Californians claimed they did this because the Mazatlan officials 
 with the hope of lining their own pockets, allowed a lower rate of duty 
 than the law specified, and that a receipt for customs duties was fre- 
 quently given when only a bribe had been paid by the ship owner or captain. 
 
44 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 further disregard for the national authority was shown, as indeed 
 it long had been, by permitting the introduction of various com- 
 modities prohibited by Mexican law, upon the payment of local 
 duties.^" 
 
 The second alteration in the regulations governing trade along 
 the coast, while of advantage to the Boston merchants, worked no 
 slight temporary hardship upon the whaling vessels touching at 
 California ports. This was a prohibition upon the long estab- 
 lished practice of trading a limited amount of goods for needed 
 supplies ;^^ and was doubtless justified, as the privilege had been 
 greatly abused, both to the detriment of the regular trade and the 
 loss of revenue receipts. ^'^ At least one instance, however, is re- 
 corded where, if the captain's complaint be true, the new edict 
 caused much inconvenience if not actual suffering.^® The sub- 
 ject was reported by Larkin to the state department and was con- 
 sidered of sufficient importance to receive the notice of the Presi- 
 dent.^® But, as a matter of fact, the new law seems to have had 
 only a short existence; and whalers found little difficulty, after 
 the first few months, in securing their share of the California 
 trade.20 
 
 Various other occurrences during their period that had some 
 bearing upon the American interests were the arrival of John C. 
 Fremont at Sutter^s Fort early in the spring of 1844 on his 
 second exploring expedition ;^^ the return of Lansford W. Hast- 
 ings to the United States to encourage further emigration to Cali- 
 
 "Larkin to Secretary of State, Sept. 16, 1844. Official Correspondence, 
 Pt. II, No. 10; same to same, Oct. 16; Bancroft, XXI, 376-377. 
 
 "Larkin to Calhoun, Aug. 24, 1844. MS., State Department; same to 
 United States Minister in Mexico, Aug. 14, 1844. Ibid. 
 
 "Bancroft, XXI, 376. 
 
 ^^Thos. A. Norton, captain of the Clias. W. Morgan, to Consul Larkin, 
 Aug. 12, 1844 — Has just put into port after a cruise of thirty-four months. 
 Men down with scurvy — custom of all ports in Pacific to allow Avhalers 
 to sell goods and reprovision — will work a great hardship if denied him 
 at San Francisco (Larkin Official Correspondence, Pt. II;, No. 13). Larkin 
 sent this letter to Governor Micheltorena. 
 
 "Calhoun to Larkin, Dec. 28, 1844. lUd., No. 303. It was brought by 
 the president in turn to the attention of Congress. 
 
 ^Larkin to Calhoun, Aug. 19, 1844. MS., State Department; same to 
 Henry Lindsey, Editor of the New Bedford Whaleman's Shipping List, 
 Dec. 11. Larkin Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 11. 
 
 "Sutter to Larkin, March 28, 1844. Larkin MSS., II, No. 73. Fremont 
 reached New Helvetia March 6. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 45 
 
 fornia, in order to bring about its separation from Mexico; and 
 the revolt of the native Californians against the Mexican gov- 
 ernor, Micheltorena. As all of these incidents receive subsequent 
 mention they need not detain us here, and we shall pass on to a 
 consideration of Polk's diplomatic attempts to secure the province. 
 
 Announcement of Folk's Policy. — When Polk came into office 
 on the 4th of March, 1845, the attention of the American people, 
 as has been shown, had already turned toward California. ^^ Two 
 presidents, Jackson and Tyler, had made earnest efforts to pur- 
 chase it from Mexico, in the name of the United States. It is 
 not surprising, then, to find the annexation of this province figur- 
 ing as one of the four important measures which the new Presi- 
 dent, even before his inauguration, had set his heart upon carry- 
 ing into effect.^^ Polk's intentions, moreover, were not long kept 
 to himself. Official announcement of his desire to acquire Cali- 
 fornia was made to the cabinet on September 16;-* and the day 
 following, the Washington correspondent of the ISTew Orleans 
 Picayune wrote: "It is predicted that Mr. Polk's administration 
 will be signalized by the settlement of the Oregon question satis- 
 factory to the American people; by the peaceful acquisition of the 
 Californias, and by the adjustment of all our claims upon 
 Mexico."25 
 
 For the accomplishment of this plan of annexation, four possi- 
 ble methods presented themselves — (1) By direct purchase from 
 Mexico; (2) by revolt of the Californians, aided by resident 
 Americans, against Mexico, and a request for admission into the 
 United States; (3) by quiet delay, until a stimulated emigra- 
 tion from this country should overrun the province and declare 
 its independence, even against the wishes of the Californians; (4) 
 
 "It was a singular coincidence, if nothing more, that caused the editor 
 of the New York Journal of Commerce to publish in his paper of March 5, 
 directly beneath Polk's inaugural address, an article headed, "California 
 Coming." 
 
 "The remaining three were the settlement of the Oregon boundary line, 
 a reduction of the tariff, and the establishment of a subtreasury. See 
 Edward G. Bourne, Essays in Historical Criticism (Yale bicentennial pub- 
 lications, II), 229; and various other authorities. 
 
 "!^7^e Diary of James K. Polk, edited by Milo M. Quaife, Chicago His- 
 torical Society's Collections, Vol. VI (Chicago. A. C. McClurg & Co. 
 1910), I, 34. 
 
 ^New Orleans Daily Picayune, Sept. 27, 1845. 
 
46 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 by forcible seizure of the territory in case of an outbreak of war, 
 for whatever cause, with Mexico. 
 
 Polk did not lose much time after his accession to office in put- 
 ting the first of these methods to a practical test. On March 6, 
 General Almonte, the Mexican minister, demanded his passports 
 because of the passage of the joint resolution for the admission of 
 Texas; while Wilson Shannon, much to the regret of his own 
 government, assumed the responsibility of breaking off diplomatic 
 relations with Mexico because of his treatment at the hands of 
 the minister of foreign affairs.-" 
 
 Ajypointment of Parrott. — Almonte left New York on April 3, 
 and on the same ship went Polk's confidential agent, William S. 
 Parrott, for the purpose of securing Mexico's consent to the recep- 
 tion of a minister from the United States.^^ The choice of Par- 
 Tott for this mission was ill-advised.^^ He had been a resident of 
 Mexico for some years but apparently had little else to recommend 
 him. On the contrary his record there had been anything but 
 favorable. As one of the creditors against the Mexican govern- 
 ment in 1842, he had put in a claim that Thompson, his own 
 countryman, had characterized as "exaggerated to a disgusting 
 degree."^^ His business dealings had also brought him into some 
 disrepute even with men of his own nationality.^" Furthermore, 
 though this cannot be held wholly to his account, he was sus- 
 pected of bringing with him authority to spend a million dollars 
 in bribing Mexican officials.^^ And altogether he was a person 
 "very much disliked in the southern Eepublic.^^ 
 
 In spite of this handicap, however, and the more serious one 
 
 ^^The Works of James Buchanan (collected and edited by John Bassett 
 Moore. Philadelphia and London. J. B. Lippincott Company. 1909), 
 VI, 134-135. 
 
 "Reeves, American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk, 269. For the full 
 text of Parrott's instructions see Buchanan, Works, VI, 132-134. 
 
 ''^Reeves, 269. 
 
 =^Thompson to Webster, Nov. 30, 1842. MS., State Department. 
 
 ""Larkin-Parrott Correspondence. Larkin MSS., passim. 
 
 »^Black to Buchanan, July 3, 1845. MS., State Department. 
 
 ^^Black to Slidell, Dec. 25, 1845 — "The Mexican ministry positively re- 
 fuse to receive Parrott as Secretary of Legation." MS., State Depart- 
 ment. 
 
 Polk's choice of confidential agent would have been much more suitable 
 had he selected either Black, the American consul at Mexico City, or 
 Dimond, who filled a like position at Vera Cruz. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 47 
 
 that the purpose of his coming was openly proclaimed in Mex- 
 ico,^^ Parrott managed after a fashion to fulfill his mission. On 
 August 26, he wrote Buchanan that an envoy of the United States 
 with proper abilities might "with comparative ease settle over a 
 breakfast the most important national question," and that such a 
 commissioner was almost daily expected.^* As this opinion was 
 confirmed by later dispatches from Dimond and Black,^^ the . 
 American consuls, the President and his cabinet resolved to send 
 John Slidell of Louisiana secretly to Mexico, as the official repre- 
 sentative of this Government. 
 
 Failure of SlidelVs Mission. — The real purpose of Slidell's ap- 
 pointment, as announced at this time by Polk, was the purchase 
 of Upper California and New Mexico. These, the President 
 thought, might be obtained for fifteen or twenty millions of dol- 
 lars; but he was willing to give twice the latter amount, if neces- 
 sary. Indeed, Polk considered the worth of the territory involved, 
 to the United States, as almost beyond reckoning in mere finan- 
 cial terms. With this appraisement the cabinet unanimously 
 agreed."^ 
 
 The day following the decision to attempt the reopening of 
 diplomatic intercourse with Mexico, however, less reassuring re- 
 ports from that country caused a temporary stay in the proceed- 
 ings. And it was deemed best to delay Slidell's departure until 
 the receipt of official assurance from the Mexican government, or 
 at least of very definite information from the administration's 
 agents, regarding his reception.^^ Black, accordingly, was instructed 
 to secure a definite pledge from those in authority that an Ameri- 
 can minister, if sent, should not be rejected, while Slidell was told 
 
 '^Reeves, 270. 
 
 ^Parrott to Buchanan, Aug. 26. MS., State Department; also Reeves, 
 271. 
 
 »=Polk, Biarrj, I, 34. 
 
 '»/6id., I. 34-35. 
 
 The line desired by Polk ran up the Rio Grande to El Paso and thence 
 west to the Pacific' For the instructions to Slidell, however, see below, 
 p. 129. If Jackson's offer, as Adams said, was only $500,000 for the 
 more valuable part of this territory but ten years before, one is tempted 
 to think the present day promoters of California real estate are not with- 
 out historical example for their claims. 
 
 "Ihid., 35-36, entry for Sept. 17. 
 
48 Ea/rly Sentiment for Annexation of Calif ornia 
 
 of his selection for the mission and instrneted to hold himself 
 ready for secret departure at a moment's notice.^^ 
 
 On November 6 despatches were received through Commodore 
 Connor, commanding the United States Squadron in the Gulf 
 of Mexico, that Mexico was ready to renew friendly relations and 
 "receive a Minister from the U. States."^^ The President and 
 secretary of state, therefore, decided to send Slidell at once, and 
 agreed upon the general character of his instructions, which the 
 latter drafted in rough form for cabinet discussion.**' Two days 
 later, Parrott arrived from Mexico with the original note of the 
 secretary of foreign affairs, agreeing to the reception of a diplo- 
 matic agent from the United States; and also with assurances 
 that the question of boundaries could be adjusted with Mexico in 
 a satisfactory manner.*^ That same night a commission as "Envoy 
 Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary to Mexico," and offi- 
 cial instructions were forwarded by special bearer to Slidell at 
 Pensacola.*^ 
 
 These instructions, which had been agreed to unanimously by 
 the cabinet, were of considerable length and, except as they relate 
 to California, need not detain us here.*^ In regard to that terri- 
 tory, however, Buchanan wrote : "There is another subject of vast 
 importance to the United States, which will demand your particu- 
 lar attention,"** . . . 
 
 The government of California is now but nominally dependent 
 on Mexico; and it is more than doubtful whether her authority 
 will ever be reinstated. Under these circumstances, it is the de- 
 
 ^Ihid.: also Buchanan to Black, Sept. 17, Buchanan, Works, VI, 260- 
 261. Slidell was dubious as to his reception in Mexico, but prepared to 
 leave whenever word should reach him from Washington. Slidell to 
 Buchanan, Sept. 25, Ibid., 264-265. 
 
 '"Polk, Diary, I, 91. The quotation is important owing to the subse- 
 quent rejection of Slidell because of the wording of his commission. It is 
 evident that Polk thought the Mexican government, as here stated, had 
 agreed to receive him as minister. But see Tyler's, Tylers, III, 176-177. 
 
 ^''Polk, Diary, I, 91-92, A' partial draft of these had already been pre- 
 pared. Ibid; also entry for Sept. 22. 
 
 y^id., 93. 
 
 *^Ibid. 
 
 ^'"His instructions were chiefly verbal." Schouler, History of the Umted 
 States, V, 525. On the contrary, they were carefully written out and very 
 explicit, filling twelve pages in printed form, of Buchanan's Works. 
 
 "For this omission, see Chapter V. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 49 
 
 sire of the President that you shall use your best efforts to obtain 
 a cession of that Province from Mexico to the United States. 
 . . . Money would be no object when compared with the value 
 of this acquisition. . . . The President would not hesitate to 
 give, in addition to the assumption of the just claims of our citi- 
 zens on Mexico, twenty-five millions of dollars for the cession.^^ 
 
 This offer of twenty-five millions, continued the instructions, 
 was to be made for a line extending west from the southern 
 boundary of New Mexico; or for any line that should include 
 Monterey within the territory ceded to the United States. If this 
 could not be obtained twenty millions were to be offered for a 
 boundary "commencing at any point on the western line of New 
 Mexico, and running due West to the Pacific, so as to include 
 the bay and harbor of San Francisco." Elsewhere the impor- 
 tance attached to the acquisition of San Francisco by the admin- 
 istration was similarly shown. "The possession of the Bay and 
 harbor of San Francisco," Slidell had been told, "is all important 
 to the United States. The advantages to us of its acquisition are 
 so striking that it would be a waste of time to enumerate them 
 here." It is well to remember this in connection with the ques- 
 tion of the influence of slavery upon Polk's determination to pos- 
 sess California. 
 
 The difficulties Slidell met with in Mexico and his final re- 
 jection by the Paredes government are too well known to require 
 mention at this time.*® His despatches to the state department 
 relating to California, also, for the most part belong to a subse- 
 quent discussion. It should be noted, however, that a certain 
 phase of the administration's policy received considerable em- 
 phasis at this time. On December 17, Buchanan sent a communi- 
 cation to Slidell again urging upon him the importance of secur- 
 ing the cession of the California ten-itory specified in his instruc- 
 
 ^"For complete instructions, see Buchanan, Works, VI, 294-306. The 
 part relating to California is on pp. 304-306. 
 
 ^"For Slidell's course in Mexico, see Reeves, 282-287; Schnuler. V, 525- 
 526; Jay, Mexican War, 211-220 (an account biased as usual) ; Rives, The 
 United States and Mexico, II, 53-80 (perhaps the best account.) Slidell's 
 desire to hasten his recognition by the Mexican government can be fairly 
 accounted for on two grounds — his wish to be recognized by the Herrera 
 administration before it should be turned out of office; and the urging of 
 the president, who desired to end the uncertain condition of affairs with 
 Mexico before the adjournment of Congress. Buchanan, Works, VI, 312. 
 
50 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 tions, as it "would secure incalculable advantages" to the United 
 States. At the same time he was authorized to make the pay- 
 ment of six millions of dollars, cash, upon the exchange of treaty 
 ratifications.*'^ 
 
 In February, after Slidell had left Mexico City, there seemed 
 to be some prospect of making good use of this cash payment 
 plan because of the pressing financial needs of the new govern- 
 ment. "Aware that financial embarrassments alone can induce 
 those in power to enter upon negotiations with the United States," 
 wrote Slidell on the 6th, "I took care before leaving the Capital 
 to convey through a person having confidential relations with the 
 President a hint that those embarrassments might be relieved if 
 satisfactory arrangements for boundary should be made."** 
 
 To this Buchanan replied that the United States would readily 
 come to the assistance of Paredes, if he should bring ahout a satis- 
 factory settlement of the boundary question ; and that funds would 
 be available immediately for the Mexican President upon the rati- 
 fication of the treaty by his government.*^ A few days later Polk 
 took preliminary steps to have such funds as might be necessary 
 foT the carrying out of this purpose placed at his disposal by con- 
 fidentially arranging with C. J. Ingersoll, chairman of the house 
 committee on foreign affairs, and with Eepresentative Cullom of 
 Tennessee to introduce a bill authorizing a million dollars for this 
 object, if at any time such method of procedure should be deemed 
 advisable.^^ Here, then, we have the beginning of a policy the 
 administration was to follow pretty consistently throughout the 
 whole course of the Mexican War. It was embodied, it is scarcely 
 necessary to remark, in the "two million" and "three million" bills 
 of Wilmot Proviso fame; and, indirectly, in the return of Santa 
 Anna. 
 
 But before this despatch reached Slidell, he was on his way 
 home, thoroughly disgusted and disgruntled with the tortuous 
 course of Mexican diplomacy. Polk had failed in his attempt to 
 
 ^^Buehanan to Slidell, Ibid., 345; see also Polk, Diary, I, 125. 
 
 *'Slidell to Buchanan, Feb. 6, 1846. MS., State Department. 
 
 "Buchanan to Slidell, March 12. Buchanan, Works, VI, 403. 
 
 ^"Polk, Diary, I, 303, entry for March 25. Polk had probably already 
 interviewed Ingersoll on the subject a week previously. Ibid.; and entry 
 for March 18, page 282. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 51 
 
 purchase California as Jackson and Tyler had failed before him, 
 and for precisely the same reason, namely, the fear of the ruling 
 faction in Mexico that any alienation of territory would be fol- 
 lowed by a revolution before which they would go down in ruin.^^ 
 
 Demoralized situation in California. — Though nothing had come 
 of Slidell's attempt to secure California by negotiation, Polk's 
 line of effort, as has been said, was by no means limited to this 
 one method. Even while his minister was seeking to obtain rec- 
 ognition from the Mexican government, the President was set- 
 ting another agency at work to bring about the desired acquisi- 
 tion. But before considering what may be called Polk's internal 
 policy regarding California, we must devote some space to the con- 
 ditions existing there, especially with respect to the feeling of the 
 inhabitants toward Mexico, and the significance of American im- 
 migration. 
 
 At the time Polk came into office, affairs were in such a state 
 in California that it was generally recognized that the native lead- 
 ers would soon throw off allegiance to Mexico and attempt an in- 
 dependent government or seek the protection of some more power- 
 ful nation, either the United States, England, or France. The 
 hold of Mexico was miserably weak and ineffective. Internal dis- 
 cords and national debility rendered the task of preserving her 
 own autonomy sufficiently difficult, and made the just government 
 or adequate protection of so distant a province impossible. Upon 
 this point there is universal agreement among writers. Sir George 
 Simpson, describing California as it was in 1842, has given an un- 
 exaggerated picture of the lack of intercourse between the parent 
 government and her political offspring. 
 
 "From what has been said," he writes near the close of his book, 
 
 It will not appear strange that the intercourse between California 
 and Mexico has never been active. . . . Mexico has more in- 
 tercourse with China than with California. . . . Advices are 
 not received in Mexico from Monterey above once or twice in a 
 year. The last deputy elected by California to the Mexican Con- 
 
 "President Herrera asserted that the mere willingness to listen to Sli- 
 dell's propositions had served as sufficient pretext for inciting the revo- 
 lution that caused his overthrow. See a letter from Herrera, cited by 
 Cass in the senate, on March 27, 1848. Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 1 sess., 
 page 493. 
 
52 Earltj Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 gress informed me that di^ring the two years he served, he only 
 received two letters from California while in Mexico. ®- 
 
 Wilkes, too, on his voyage of exploration, though ''prepared for 
 anarchy and confusion" was surprised to find "a total absence of 
 all government in California and even its form and ceremonies 
 thrown aside/^^^ 
 
 Nor was the military oversight exercised by Mexico any more 
 efficient than the political. The fort at Monterey, the capital, 
 and port of entry for the whole province, had not sufficient powder 
 to salute the vessel upon which Simpson was a passenger, but had 
 to borrow from the ship itself for the purpose.^* Guarding the 
 long inland reaches of San Francisco Bay, "where all the navies 
 of the world might ride in safety," and through whose gates men 
 thought the commerce of the east would shortly pass, Wilkes found 
 a garrison of a single officer, in charge of a single barefooted pri- 
 vate, and the former was absent when Wilkes arrived.^^ The naval 
 force consisted of but one vessel. That mounted no gun of any 
 kind, and was so poorly manned that it could not make progress 
 beating against the wind.^® 
 
 Further citations might be made, almost ad lihitum, to show 
 the complete neglect of the civil and military needs of California 
 by the home government. But these would be useless. The local 
 officials, continually appealing for aid, were met with nothing more 
 substantial than promises, exhortations to defend the country them- 
 selves from threatened dangers; or, as we shall see presently, with 
 that which was worse than even this utter lack of assistance.^'^ 
 
 Revolution against Micheltorena. — Under such circumstances it 
 is not surprising to find the Californians setting aside Mexican 
 
 "^-Sir George Simpson, 'Narrative of a voyage around the world during 
 the years 18^1 and 1842. (London. 1847), I, 298-299. Simpson was 
 governor of the Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 ='Wilkes, Narrative, V. 163. 
 
 ''^Simpson, Narrative, I, 190. 
 
 ^^Wilkes, Narrative, V, 152. 
 
 "Simpson, Narrative, I, 197. 
 
 "For example: Commandancia General to Ministro de Guerra y Marina, 
 April 25, 1840 (Vallejo, Documentos, IX, No. 124) ; Vallejo to Ministro 
 de Guerra, May 18, 1841 (Ibid., No. 147) ; Alvarado to Vallejo, Nov. 30, 
 1841 {Ihid., No. 369) ; Bustamente to Vallejo, April 25, 1840— Government 
 trusts in his ability to defend the province from invasion. Civil war in 
 Mexico prevents aid being sent immediately {Ibid., No. 122). 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 53 
 
 laws whenever it suited their fancy, and almost as frequently de- 
 posing the governor sent out by the supreme government. ^^ The 
 revolution of 1836, resulting in the overthrow of Gutierrez, has 
 already been mentioned. But this was only one of a numerous 
 series. One writer has remarked that between 1831 and 1841, the 
 government of California changed hands on an average of once a 
 year; while the province not infrequently was "blessed with two 
 governors at a time and once with triplets."^'' 
 
 The period between 1841 and the occupation of Monterey by 
 Commodore Sloat, was scarcely less free than the decade just men- 
 tioned from civil disturbances. In 1842, General Micheltorena 
 was sent from Mexico as governor, with an "army" for the de- 
 fense of the province. The army consisted of some two or three 
 hundred choice spirits picked, for the most part, from the na- 
 tional jails, and was a cause of constant bitterness and annoyance, 
 even of actual fear, to the Califomians.®" 
 
 "Not one individual among them," said Eobinson, who was 
 present in California when the battalion arrived, "possessed a 
 jacket or pantaloons ; but naked and like savage Indians, they con- 
 cealed their nudity with dirty, miserable blankets."^^ And what 
 was even worse, he adds, a drill by daylight was usually followed 
 by thieving expeditions at night. So that the general feeling in 
 California over this latest acquisition from Mexico was similar to 
 that of a former Governor of the province, who wrote respecting 
 the colonists sent by Spain to aid in the settlement of the coun- 
 try, that, to take a charitable view of the subject, their absence 
 
 ^Dana noted the wretched policy pursued by Mexico in the character 
 of men she sent out as officials. "The administradores," he wrote, "are 
 strangers sent from Mexico, having no interest in the country ; not iden- 
 tified in any way with their charge, and for the most part, men of des- 
 perate fortunes — broken down politicians and soldiers, — whose only object 
 is to retrieve their condition as soon as possible. Tico Years before the 
 Mast, 195. 
 
 ^'J. M. Guinn, Capture of Monterey in Historical Society of Southern 
 California, Publications, III, 70. 
 
 One is reminded by this of Houston's declaration that Mexico had seen 
 three revolutions in twelve months, and Benton's interjection, "She has 
 had seventeen in twenty-five years." Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 2 sess., 459. 
 
 '"Larkin to Secretary of State, Sept. 16, 1844. Official Correspondence, 
 Pt. II, No. 10. Jones to Larkin, Oct. 22, 1842 — Thinks Mexico is going 
 to make California the Botany Bay of America. Larkin MSS., I, No. 354. 
 See also Nos. 304-367, for further discussion. 
 
 "Robinson, Life in California, 207. 
 
54 Early Sentim&nt for Annexation of California 
 
 "for a couple of centuries, at a distance of a million of leagues 
 would prove beneficial to the province and redound to the service 
 of God and the glory of the king."*^ 
 
 The presence of Micheltorena's thieving soldiers and the gen- 
 eral character of his rule soon furnished the California leaders, 
 Castro and Alvarado, an excuse for revolt. The first outbreak oc- 
 curred in N^ovember, 1844; and on December 1st, Micheltorena 
 signed a treaty binding himself to ship his undesirable followers 
 out of the country within three months. The agreement, how- 
 ever, was not kept, and the Californians again took up arms. 
 With the details of this revolution we have no concern, except to 
 note the rather curious fact that of the foreigner residents who 
 took any part at all in it, some joined with Micheltorena, and 
 some with Castro and Alvarado. In the single battle of the cam- 
 paign, however, they did no actual fighting on either side, as the 
 list of casualties for the whole day's encounter — two horses killed 
 by the one force and a mule wounded by the other — fully testifies.®^ 
 
 After this slaughter, Micheltorena was ready to capitulate, and 
 in March, 1845, left California with the most of his ragged sol- 
 diery.^'* Although there were rumors at the time that this revolt 
 was aimed to bring about separation from Mexico, these probably 
 contained little truth. The Californians desired freedom in local 
 affairs ; and many of them cherished no great love for Mexico ; but 
 they hesitated to abrogate her authority entirely, not feeling strong 
 enough to stand alone and fearing lest the protection afforded by 
 a stronger power might prove more of a calamity than the neglect 
 of Mexico.^^ In the northern part of the province, nevertheless, 
 men of influence were driven by the desperate condition of affairs 
 into recognizing the necessity of some radical change, either along 
 
 "Blackmar, Spanish Colonisation in the Southwest in Johns Hopkins 
 University Studies, VIII, 183. 
 
 °'For complete description, see Bancroft, XXI, 455-517. 
 
 "I. C. Jones to Larkin, Feb. 26, 1845. Larkin MSS., Ill, No. 37. _ 
 
 Upon his arrival in Mexico, Micheltorena represented his expulsion as 
 an act for which Americans were largely responsible. Bancroft, XXI. 513. 
 This aroused considerable bitterness against the United States. Shannon 
 to Calhoun, April 6, 1845. MS., State Department. 
 
 "^Bidwell {California. 139), speaks of the "anomalous position" of the 
 Californians, "as enemies to the United States as Mexicans, enemies to 
 Mexico as regarded their local government, afraid of the former, not able 
 to rely upon the latter, and not strong enough in themselves for inde- 
 pendence." 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 55 
 
 the lines of complete independence or of coming nnder the pro- 
 tection of a more stable government than that of Mexico. 
 
 This feeling was greatly increased by the internal discord that 
 prevailed even after the departure of the Mexican governor. Pio 
 Pico, one of the southern leaders against Micheltorena., was chosen 
 by vote of the assembly to take his place; while Jose Castro held 
 the office of comandante general. Between these two, the latter 
 representing the party of the north, the former the party of the 
 south, peace was destined to be short lived. The removal of the 
 capital from Monterey to Los Angeles, and the resultant separa- 
 tion of the civil offices by a distance of more than four hundred 
 miles from the military headquarters, custom house, and treas- 
 ury, made harmony among the native authorities still more "un- 
 likely. 
 
 During the summer of 1845 various dissensions arose. Civil 
 war seemed imminent, and especially to foreign residents and Cali- 
 fornians with property at stake the outlook was most discourag- 
 jjjg_66 <"Phe country never was in a more disorderly, miserable 
 condition than at the present moment," wrote a friend to Alfred 
 Eobinson, who was then in New York, "we have no government. 
 Pio Pico who was nominally governor has been arrested and im- 
 prisoned. The people at the north, as usual, are opposed to those 
 of the south, and will be satisfied by none other than Alvarado for 
 chief magistrate."*'^ 
 
 Such disorganization and political uncertainty, together with 
 the lax control exercised by Mexico, and the actual hostility to her 
 interference in local affairs, had a three-fold result. Many of the 
 Californians became reconciled to exchanging their allegiance to 
 Mexico for any form of government that furnished protection and 
 peace; it became generally recognized by those outside of Cali- 
 fornia that the time was near for some such change to take place; 
 and, finally, Polk was led to take active measures to bring the 
 separation, when it came, to good account for the United States. 
 
 ""Jones-Larkin correspondence during: this period (Larkin MSS.) ; Juan 
 B. Alvarado, Historia de California (MSS., Bancroft Collection), IT, 130- 
 131; Bancroft, XXI, 518-543; lUd., XXII, 30 et seq. Prefect Manuel 
 Castro to Andres Castillero, Dec. 10, 1845, concerning measures to pre- 
 vent civil war. Castro, Documentos, J, No. 238. 
 
 "'Robinson, Life in California, 213-214. 
 
56 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 Chapter IV 
 
 EVENTS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE OUTBREAK OF THE MEXICAN 
 
 WAR 
 
 As the political conditions in California were favorable to the 
 American interests during the opening months of Polk's admin- 
 istration, so also was the influx of immigration from across the 
 mountains. From the chance and temporary bands of hunters 
 who followed Jedediah Smith and the Patties, this movement had 
 grown in 1844 to the organized companies of Bartleson and Kel- 
 sey. A year later the tide had come to a full head and the an- 
 nual arrivals were numbered by the hundreds. 
 
 Fremont's report. — Then, as now, California had her publicity 
 agents whose duty it was to attract settlers. By order of the gov- 
 ernment, Fremont, whose second exploring expedition^ had led him 
 across the Sierras,^ published a report of his wanderings during the 
 first part of 1845. His book was immediately seized upon by a 
 public hungering for news of the regions west of the Eoclry 
 Mountains.'^ Written in a terse and interesting style, it at once 
 brought its author into prominence and drew the attention of hun- 
 dreds of readers to the country of which he wrote. 
 
 Though only a portion of the complete report dealt with Cali- 
 forniai,* no other part was equal to this in graphic description. 
 
 'Fremont's first expedition had taken place in 1842 but had gone no 
 farther than the South Pass and Fremont's Peak in the Rocky Mountains. 
 
 ''Report of the Exploring Expedition in the year 1842 and to Oregon and 
 North California in the years ISIfS-^Jf, by Brevet Capt. J. 0. Fremont 
 . . . printed by order of the House of Representatives (Washington, 
 Blair, and Reeves, 1845), 228-229; Larkin to the State Department, April 
 12, 1844, enclosing a letter from Sutter. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, 
 No. 3. 
 
 ^The report ran throvigh four editions within two years. It is interest- 
 ing to note that one of Fremont's chief objects was to discover whether or 
 not the mythical Buenaventura River flowed from the basin east of the 
 Rocky Mountains into the Pacific, thus opening up a waterway for the 
 western outlet of the Mississippi Valley and a transcontinental route for 
 the Chinese trade. Because no such river was found to exist he placed 
 much more importance on obtaining the Columbia for the United States. 
 Report, 255-256. 
 
 *The description of Fremont's passage of the Sierras and his stay in 
 California occupies pages 229-256 of the Report. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 57 
 
 After a month of constant battle with the snows and starvation 
 of the mountains,^ Fremont and his party had reached the valley 
 of the Sacramento at a time of the year when it was to be seen 
 at its best. The contrast between the life and death struggle in 
 the Sierras and this land of grass and flowers, well watered and 
 timbered, full of game, and with the same "deep-blue sky and 
 sunny climate of Smyrna and Palermo," was most dramatic in 
 its appeal to the imagination.^ One does not wonder that visitors, 
 eager to hear more of this new land, so crowded upon the Ameri- 
 can explorer that he was compelled to secure a separate building 
 for his workshop;^ while Webster, still the friend of annexation, 
 invited him to dine and "talk about California."'^ 
 
 Magazine and. newspaper activities. — But Fremont was only one 
 of a numerous band of writers who sang the praises of California, 
 and preached, either directly or indirectly, its acquisition during 
 this period. Alfred Eobinson (whose book has already been 
 quoted in these pages) published his Life in California, during 
 the early part of 1846. The author had been for many years a 
 resident of the country of which he wrote, as agent for the large 
 Boston firm of Bryant and Sturgis, and his work at once found 
 wide popularity. Its influence upon the public — and the same 
 may be said of most of the contemporaneous writings of a sim- 
 ilar nature — is shown by the following extract from a review of 
 that day in Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, which also gives us pretty 
 accurately the spirit of the time regarding California. 
 
 °Two men went temporarily insane; half their mules were killed for 
 food. Report, 229-244. Sutter wrote to Larkin, March 28, 1844, ". . . 
 for a month . . . the company had subsisted entirely on horse or 
 mule flesh — the starvation and fatigue they had endured rendered them 
 truly deplorable objects." Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 3. The 
 passage of the mountains occupied' nearly a month. The party reached 
 Sutter's March 6th. 
 
 «Fr§mont's description of California cannot be given by separate quota- 
 tions. The whole of it must be read to be appreciated. One sentence, 
 written after his departure, may be cited merely as an example. "One 
 might travel the world over," he wrote, "without finding a valley more 
 fresh and verdant — more floral and sylvan — more alive with birds and 
 animals — more bounteously watered — than we had left in the San Joaquin." 
 Report, 256. 
 
 ■John Charles Fremont, Memoirs of My Life (Chicago and New York. 
 Bedford, Clarke and Company, 1887), I, 413. 
 
 ^lUd., 420. 
 
58 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 "When we reflect," said the writer, after speaking of the im- 
 portance of California to the United States, 
 
 that this superb region is adequate to the sustaining of twenty 
 millions of people; has for several hundred years been in the pos- 
 session of an indolent and limited population, incapahle from 
 their character of appreciating its resources — that no improvement 
 can be expected under its present control, we cannot but hope that 
 thousands of our fellow countrymen will pour in and accelerate 
 the happy period (which the work before us assures us cannot be 
 distant) when Alta California will become part and parcel of our 
 great confederation; and the cry of Oregon is only a precursor to 
 the actual settlement of this more southern, more beautiful and 
 far more valuable region.^ 
 
 But California was not compelled to rely altogether upon such 
 formal publications, as we have mentioned, for publicity. Ameri- 
 cans residing there wrote constantly to friends at home or to the 
 newspapers of "the States" in such a vein as was best calculated 
 to attract the attention of future emigrants.^'* Emphasis in these 
 communications, as usual, was laid upon the advantages of Cali- 
 fornia from commercial and agricultural standpoints, San Fran- 
 cisco, especially, being held up as a necessary possession for the 
 welfare of the United States. And, in addition, assurances were 
 given that nothing stood in the way of those desiring to settle in 
 the new region, either in the nature of passports, or of difficulties 
 in securing land. 
 
 "A foreigner," said an authoritative article in the New York 
 Sun, "can become a citizen of California by obtaining two signa- 
 tures to his petition. He then possesses the right to take up 
 vacant land, and may secure as much as eleven square leagues 
 upon the payment of $36 in fees. Many grants held by such 
 owners are 33 miles long and 3 miles wide."" "The fertile 
 plains of Oregon and California," said another communication to 
 the same paper, "are resounding with the busy hum of industry; 
 all around us are the germs of empire, prosperity and wealth. 
 Those who would reap a harvest should come out young, secure 
 their lands, and in ten years they will have their fortunes."^^ 
 
 'Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, April, 1846, 350-353. 
 
 "Larkin, John Marsh, and Hastings were especially active in this respect. 
 "Larkin to N. Y. Sun, May 28, 1845. Larkin MSS., Ill, 168. 
 "N. Y. Sun, Oct. (?), 1845; quoted in the Washington Daily Union, 
 Oct. 11. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 59 
 
 These articles descriptive of California and urging its annexa- 
 tion to the United States, were not confined to the papers of any 
 one locality or party. The New York Journal of Commerce of 
 March 5, contained an article entitled, "California Coming," 
 which declared the advantages to be gained from an acquisition 
 of that territory would prove as great as those derived from the 
 annexation of Texas and asserted that throughout the country 
 there was general agreement as to the advisability of securing it.^^ 
 "Information in regard to this favored portion of the globe," said 
 the New Orleans Courier, in referring to California, "is eagerly 
 sought after by our citizens as it is destined ere long to be an- 
 nexed to the United States.^* And even the American Review, 
 the stanch organ, of the Whigs, in a long and carefully written 
 article urged the importance of securing California for the com- 
 mercial and agricultural advantages that would thereby result to 
 this government; and because of the inability of Mexico to make 
 use of its resources.^^ 
 
 The New York papers, especially the Sun, Herald, and Journal 
 of Commerce, were among the most active of the publications in 
 keeping California before the public eye. They took pains to 
 print any article coming within their notice regarding it; and, in 
 addition, had a regular correspondent living in Monterey in the 
 person of Thomas 0. Larkin.^*' Indeed, it may be said without 
 fear of exaggeration, that most of the communications published 
 in these three papers on the subject of California originated with 
 Larkin. And, owing to the custom of "exchange" prevalent at 
 
 "New York Journal ojf Commerce, March 5, 1845; copied also in Charles- 
 ton Mercury, ]\Iareh 10. 
 
 "Quoted in Niles' Register, LXVIII, 162. 
 
 ^^American Review, Jan., 1846; see also comment upon this in Richmond 
 Enquirer, Jan. 26. 
 
 "Larkin to Journal of Commerce, July 31. 1845 (Larkin MSS., Ill, 
 No. 235). Samv^ to James G. Bennett of " the New York Herald. Mav 26, 
 1846 {Ibid., IV, No. 129); N. Y. Herald to Larkin, Oct. 14, 1845 {Ibid., 
 No. 306) ; Hudson [for Bennett] to Childs [Larkin's brother-in-law in 
 Washington], Dec. 5, 1846 — "When you write to Mr. Larkin . . . 
 please say . . . that so far as we can we will take care of California. 
 We have always been in favor of the acquisition of that territory" {Ibid., 
 No. 337) ; see also Polk's Diary, 1, 126-127. Larkin's communications 
 were likewise sent to the Boston Daily Advertiser. 
 
60 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 the time, most of these found space in other journals throughout 
 the country.^'' 
 
 Proposed railroad to California. — The interest of the Sum, in 
 this subject was rather strikingly shown by a letter from one of 
 its editors, A. E. Beach, to his correspondent mentioned above. 
 After thanking Larkin for the valuable information already fur- 
 nished. Beach continued : 
 
 News from your quarter is looked for with deep interest here. 
 Just now there are strong opinions that California will be joined 
 to the United States. . . . We flatter ourselves that the New 
 York Bun, will, if such a thing be possible, cause the measure to 
 be carried into execution. Texas, owing almost entirely to the in- 
 fluence of this paper, has been annexed, and now, our editors say, 
 "Why not California?" A letter which you wrote us some time 
 since describing Monterey and harbor . . . seemed to have 
 acted strongly on the public mind, and owing to what we have 
 since said, they now look with a longing eye toward California. 
 We have urged the purchase of it and that the contemplated rail- 
 road to Oregon should be turned to Monterey. 
 
 We wish, if convenient, you would give us your opinion of hav- 
 ing a E. E. to Monterey and tell us where would be the best point 
 to have it terminate. 
 
 You may judge what influence we have, from the fact that 
 since we have spoken of Monterey as the terminus several persons 
 are on the eve of starting for that place to purchase lands. ^^ 
 
 This railroad project mentioned by Beach was at that time a 
 subject of considerable speculation throughout the country, and 
 the idea of securing the rich trade of China and the Sandwich 
 Islands, without the long journey around the Horn, appealed to 
 all those interested in commercial ventures. Asa Whitney's plan 
 for a transcontinental line to Oregon received much attention and 
 was laid before Congress near the close of October, 1845.^^ Many, 
 however, who believed in the ultimate success of the undertaking, 
 as in the case of th© editor of the New York paper, advocated 
 
 "For example, Larkin's letter of July 31 to the Journal of Commerce 
 was reprinted from that paper in the Washington Daily Union of Oct. 21, 
 1845, and in the Charleston Mercury of Oct. 22. In how many other papers 
 it appeared cannot be stated. 
 
 "Beach to Larkin, Dec. 24, 1845. Kirkin MSS., Ill, No. 307. 
 
 "Letter of Whitney printed in Washington Daily Union, Feb. 6, 1846. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 61 
 
 Monterey or San Erancisco as the terminus/" thereby making the 
 acquisition of these communities by the United States still more 
 desirable. 
 
 Increased Immigration. — The western papers, in addition to 
 such descriptions as were contained in those of the eastern states, 
 were concerned with the actual organization and departure of emi- 
 grant companies.-^ Any report of the discovery of a shorter route 
 to the new land at once received public notice;-- while not in- 
 frequently such an advertisement as the following made its ap- 
 pearance in a local paper, to be copied by many another western 
 editor : 
 
 "Emigration" (read the headline of this sample notice) 
 
 For California — A large party of settlers propose leaving Ar- 
 kansas for California, next May.^^ The chairman of the Com- 
 mittee of Arrangements gives notice in the Little Eock Gazette 
 that the Californians will rendezvous at Fort Smith, Arkansas, on 
 the first Monday in April next, preparatory to taking up the line 
 of march for the Pacific Coast. Every person starting is expected 
 to be well armed with a rifle or heavy shot-gun, 16 pounds of shot 
 or lead, 4 pounds of powder, etc.^* 
 
 ''"Daily Union, Oct. 16, 1845, giving an outline of transcontinental routes, 
 as follows: 1. Canal across the Isthmus of Darien. 2. Railroad along 
 the Rio del Norte to San Francisco. 3. Line from St. Louis through the 
 Rocky Mts. to Oregon ("California is henceforth to he the promised land 
 to the emigrant seeking a home on the Pacific"). The New Orleans 
 Picayune of Nov. 22 had a statement from Albert M. Gilliam, "late U. S. 
 consul at California" — [Gilliam was appointed for San Francisco but 
 never assumed his duties] — that California would soon fall into Anglo- 
 Saxon hands and a railroad would be needed to terminate at San Francisco. 
 
 ^Extracts upon this subject from the St. Louis Neio Era, the Burlington 
 Hawkeye, the St. Louis Reporter, the Missouri Era, were printed in the 
 single issue of the Daily Union for May 20, 1845. 
 
 "Extract from the Western Expositor stating that Fremont's return 
 from California would probably result in the discovery of a route 300 or 
 400 miles shorter than the one already in use, and the saving of two 
 months' time on the trip. Daily Union, July 31, 1845; New Orleans 
 Picayune, April 22, 1846. 
 
 -'Parties for California always left in the spring in order to cross the 
 mountains during the summer, and arrived in California during the fall. 
 A late passage of the Sierras was accompanied with great danger, as for 
 example, in the case of the Donner party. 
 
 ^*Daily Union, Jan. 9, 1846. This project had been conceived some time 
 before; 1000 persons were to be enlisted, their goods shipped by sea while 
 they themselves went overland. Ibid., Sept. 17, 1845. 
 
63 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 As a result of all this publicity, emigration to California re- 
 ceived a decided impetus. In May, 1845, it was commonly re- 
 ported that 7000 persons had assembled at Independence, Mis- 
 souri, ready to take the road to Oregon and Califomia.^^ In No- 
 vember, Larkin informed the state department that some three 
 hundred or four hundred of this company had arrived at the head- 
 waters of San Francisco Bay.^** From this time on, arrivals con- 
 tinued in a steady stream; while exaggerated rumors of future 
 immigration were flying thickly through the province. 
 
 As early as July 15, Sutter had predicted the arrival of "more 
 as 1000 Souls" within six or eight weeks.-'' Marsh was confident 
 that two thousand immigrants would shortly be in the territory.^^ 
 Stephen Smith, writing to Calhoun from Bodega, placed the num- 
 ber actually on the border at one thousand.-^ And a little later a 
 report reached Larkin that the number would soon be increased 
 by ten or twenty thousand, though the writer added that he him- 
 self did not believe more than two or three thousand would really 
 come.^° 
 
 Mention has been made of the emigration from Oregon to Cali- 
 fornia in the years previous to 1845. The same movement con- 
 tinued to supply the latter territory with much of its American 
 population. Many of these came directly from the northern coun- 
 try; others starting originally for the Columbia, decided en route 
 to change their destination to California. ^^ The usual division 
 point for such parties was at Fort Hall, which still remained in 
 
 -Waily Union, Mav 20, 1845; Eobinson [from N. Y.] to Larkin, May 29. 
 Larkin MSS., TIL No. 170. 
 
 "Larkin to Secretary of State, Nov. 4, 1845 {Official Correspondence, 
 Part II, No. 28) ; also same to same, -June 16, 1846 {Ibid., 94-96) ; same 
 to F. M. Dimond, United States consul at Vera Cruz, March 1, 1846 
 {Ibid., No. 91) ; same to United States minister at Mexico, April 3, 1846 
 {Ibid., No. 78). 
 
 "Sutter to Larkin (Larkin MSS., Ill, No. 220) ; same to same, Oct. 8, 
 1845. Thousands coming within the year. Mexico cannot stem the stream; 
 if she tried they would "fight like Lyons." Ibid., No. 315. 
 
 =*Marsh to Larkin, Aug. 12. Ibid., No. 247. 
 
 -"Jameson, The Correspondence of John C. Calhoun (Washington. Amer- 
 ican Historical Association. 1900), 1069. 
 
 ^''Sutter to Larkin, March 2, 1846 (Larkin MSS., IV, No. 53) ; Hastings 
 to Larkin, March 3, 1846. Ibid., No. 55. 
 
 ^See for example statements of Ide, Swasey, and Clyman in their pub- 
 lished works. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 63 
 
 the hands of the Hudson's Bay Company; and it was reported 
 that British officers at the Fort were taking a hand in this pro- 
 ceeding, persuading Oregon bound settlers to turn off for Cali- 
 fornia in order to preserve the Columbia to England.^- On the 
 other hand, it should be remarked that English papers condemned 
 the so-called emigration to Oregon, which was creating so much 
 excitement throughout the United States, as simply a ruse for the 
 occupation of California. ^^ 
 
 Between the Americans most interested in the respective settle- 
 ment of the two territories, a good deal of rivalry prevailed. 
 Among the Oregon enthusiasts a committee was organized to 
 counteract the representations of the California agents;^* while 
 the latter pursued an even more aggressive campaign in winning 
 recruits for the colonization of the southern country. ^^ 
 
 "The Texas Game." — This emigration to California, during 
 1845 and the first months in 1846, of which we have just been 
 speaking, was prompted by more than a desire for mere settle- 
 ment. "Once let the tide . . . flow toward California," wrote 
 one of Larkin's New York friends, "and the American popula- 
 tion will be sufficiently numerous to play the Texas game."^® 
 "Are there not enough wild Yankees in California to take the 
 management of affairs in their own hands ?" asked another, adding 
 that the United States must eventually spread south of the 42d 
 parallel, "as our territory on the Pacific is too narrow altogether, 
 
 ^^Letter from an Oresfon immigrant to the Ohio Patriot, copied in the 
 Daily Union, Dec. 30, 1845; also extract from Sangamon Journal in the 
 Daily Union, Jan. 1, 1846. 
 
 ''The London Athenaeum, July 11, 1846, in reviewing Robinson's Life in 
 California, said that emigrants leaving ostensibly for the Willamette Val- 
 ley were really bound for California and that the whole country was deter- 
 mined to possess San Francisco; the London Illustrated Netos, Oct. 11, 
 1845, said the majority of emigrants to Oregon leave as soon as possible 
 for California; letter of Sir George Simpson in Niles' Register, LXVIII, 
 393 — 1000 of 5000 Oregon emigrants have left for California; New Or- 
 leans Picayune, Aug. 7, 1845 — statement to same effect. 
 
 "Bancroft, XXIX, 552. n. 
 
 "Marsh to Larkin, Aug. 12, 1845. Has seen the newspaper articles by 
 Oregonians derogatory to California. Will write in defence a reply set- 
 ting forth the merits and advantages of the province. Larkin MSS., Ill, 
 No. 247. 
 
 '"Robinson to Larkin, May 29, 1845. Larkin MSS., Ill, No. 170. Rob- 
 inson added that the papers were filled with such suggestions. 
 
64 Early Sentim&nt for Annexation of Calif orma 
 
 the outlet is not sufficient for the back country."^^ A third be- 
 lieved two or three hundred Yankee riflemen, in conjunction with 
 the Californians, could bring about a separation from Mexico, and 
 suggested that as the thirty Americans taken by the British Gov- 
 ernment in the Canadian revolt and sent to New South Wales, 
 were even then at Honolulu on their way home, they might find 
 more congenial occupation in California than in the States.^® 
 
 "We only want the Flag of the U. S. and a good lot of Yankees 
 and you would soon see the immense natural riches of the country 
 developed, and her commerce in a flourishing condition. To see 
 that Flag planted here would be most acceptable to the Sons of 
 Uncle Sam, and by no means repugnant to the native popula- 
 tion,"^^ wrote Stephen Smith, who had recently been released, for 
 lack of evidence, from a charge of conspiring to declare California 
 independent.*'* It was probably, therefore, with some idea of ful- 
 filling these expectations that many of the immigrants reached the 
 province. 
 
 Proposed union mill Texas. — Aside from the plan of uniting 
 California with the United States after its separation from Mex- 
 ico, the idea also prevailed of making it an independent nation, 
 dominating the commerce of the Pacific and enriching itself from 
 the Asiatic trade. In the early years, as we have seen, the plan 
 had been broached of annexing it to Texas.*^ And as late as 
 1844,*^ Houston wrote to Murphy that a nation embracing Texas, 
 California, Oregon and the two provinces of Chihuahua and So- 
 nera would "not be less than a rival power to any of the nations 
 now in existence. . . . It is impossible to look upon the map 
 of North America and not perceive the rationale of the project."*' 
 A few months later Donelson found him awaiting the action of 
 the United States Congress on annexation, but still revolving a 
 plan for the increase of Texan domain, dwelling with some fond- 
 
 ''Atherton to Larkin, March 4, 1S46. lUd., IV, No. 58. 
 
 '^Hooper to Larkin (from Honohilu), April 29, 1845. Ihid., III. 
 
 '^Smith to Calhoun, Dec. 30, 1845. Calhoun Correspondence, 1060. 
 
 ^"Bancroft, XXI, 601. 
 
 "The Quarterly, XVIII, 17, n. 53. 
 
 *^See also Green's report of Hasting's scheme, The Quarterly, XVIII, 
 36-37. 
 
 ^^William Carev Crane, TAfe and literary remains of ^ani Hotiston of 
 Texas (Philadelphia. J. B. Lippincott & Co., 1884), 366-370. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 65 
 
 ness "upon the capacity of Texas to extend her territory to the 
 Pacific and even detach Oregon from us, because tliere are no 
 Alleghanies to separate them;** while in April, 1845, the Lon- 
 don Times was urging the adoption of a similar measure, so that 
 the territory in question might possess "an original character and 
 an independent existence/'*^ 
 
 California and Oregon as an independent nation. — All of these 
 schemes, however, came to an end with the annexation of Texas 
 by the United States. But the conception of an autonomous na- 
 tion, composed of Oregon and California, still proved very at- 
 tractive to many minds. It was an old idea, tracing its origin 
 back at least to 1812, when the father of American expansionists 
 expressed his conviction that men of his own nationality would 
 one day "spread themselves through the whole length of that coast 
 [the Pacific], covering it with free and independent Americans, 
 unconnected with us but by the ties of blood and interest, and 
 employing like us the rights of self-government."*'' ' 
 
 The attention drawn to the whole Pacific coast by the Oregon 
 controversy and the rapidly growing necessity for a change in the 
 control of California, made Jefferson's prophecy appear to many 
 the best solution for both problems. For it had long been felt 
 that the vast distance separating Oregon and the United States, 
 and the appalling diflficulties of the route, would prevent its ade^ 
 quate government by the authorities at Washington. Nor did it 
 seem possible to some minds that the western boundary of the 
 Republic should extend beyond the Eocky Mountains.*'^ To those 
 who held such views it appeared both natural and expedient that 
 California and Oregon should be united into a strong, independent 
 country, settled by American emigrants, and standing on the Pa- 
 cific as a sort of complementary nation to the United States. 
 
 "The situation of California," said Wilkes in his official report, 
 
 "Donelson to Jackson, Dec. 28, 1844. Jackson MSS. 
 
 ^^-SHles' Register, LXVIII, 205. 
 
 "Thomas Jefferson to John Jacob Astor, May 24, 1812 (The loritings 
 of Thomas Jefferson. Forded. New York. G. P. Putman's Sons. 1898), 
 IX, 351. 
 
 "Armals of Congress, XL, 422-423; 598-599; Thomas H. Benton, Thirty 
 years' vie^o (New York. D. Appleton and Company, 1854). II, 430; 
 McMaster, History of the United States, VII, 296-297; 300-301, and au- 
 thorities quoted. 
 
66 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 "will cause its seioaration from Mexico before many years. It is 
 very probable that the country will become united with Oregon 
 with which it will perhaps form a state that is designed to con- 
 trol the destiny of the P^cific.*^ A year or two later, Waddy 
 Thompson assures us, he was told of a definite plot to separate 
 California from Mexico and asked if the United States would be 
 willing to surrender her title to Oregon so that that territory and 
 California might be made into a Eepublic.*" Benjamin E. Green 
 sent much the same report to Calhoun, adding, however, that the 
 Oregon settlers were not anxious for the plan, provided they could 
 receive aid and encouragement from the United States in main- 
 taining their hold upon Oregon.^*' In England, also, the idea of 
 an independent state on the Pacific seems to have obtained some 
 favor. Lord Ashburton wrote Webster that the power possessing 
 Oregon and California should be independent of Great Britain 
 and the United States, but of the English race;^^ while Louis 
 McLane, when ambassador to England, in one of his despatches 
 to Buchanan, spoke of the plan as having been "suggested simul- 
 taneously by certain classes on both sides of the Atlantic," add- 
 ing, it may be remarked, that such an arrangement would work 
 untold disadvantage to this government.^- 
 
 References to this plan, likewise, were frequently met with in 
 the debates in Congress. As late as March, IS'46, in a discussion 
 of the Oregon question. Senator Evans of Maine declared the 
 union of that territory and California, separated as they were from 
 the United States by an almost impassable barrier of mountains, 
 would promote the interests of this country much more as an in- 
 dependent nation than as a territorial possession. ^^ On the other 
 hand, an opponent of Evans assured the senate that unless some 
 action was speedily taken to settle the status of the region around 
 the Columbia, the settlers there would place themselves under 
 Fl-ench or English protection, be joined by the Californians. and 
 
 ^^Wilkes' Narrative, Y, 182-183. 
 
 ^"Thompson, Recollections, 232. His informant was Lansford W. Has- 
 tings. 
 
 ^"Green to Calhoun, April 11, 1844. Calhoun Correspondence, 946. 
 
 "^George Bancroft to Polk, April 27, 1845. Polk MSS. 
 
 "^McLane to Buchanan, Dec. 1, 1845. MS., State Department. 
 
 °'Co«(7. Glole, 29 Cong., 1 sess., p. 478. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 67 
 
 eventually control the coast from the Isthmus of Darien to the 
 southern boundaries of Alaska.^* 
 
 As a local affair, the proposed union with Oregon aroused con- 
 siderable speculation in California. Lansford W. Hastings had 
 come to the province in 1842 with the express purpose, as we have 
 seen, of bringing about its separation from Mexico and uniting it 
 either with Texas or with Oregon, in the latter event making him- 
 self president of the new Eepublic.^^ 
 
 In the intervening 3^ears his time had been occupied in efforts 
 to encourage emigration throughout the United States, and with 
 the conducting of parties, thus organized, into California.^® By 
 1845 the idea of independence and union with Oregon was fre- 
 quently mentioned in the correspondence of American residents, 
 some of whom favored it above annexation to the United States.^'^ 
 Dr. John Marsh, one of the older settlers, communicated his views 
 at some length to Larkin, but took the ground that California 
 must first become part of the American Union and not attempt a 
 separate existence with Oregon until immigration should render 
 such a step advisable.^* Continuing, Marsh said that the settlers 
 on the Willamette were anxious to unite with the Californians, 
 while some expressed a desire to join with Oregon. Under such 
 circumstances he thought it would be wise if Larkin were to feel 
 the pulse of Alvarado on the subject; and prophesied that, if the 
 union could be accomplished, a new empire would arise on the 
 Pacific, whose capital located on San Francisco Bay, "possibly on 
 the site occupied by the miserable village of Yerba Buena," would 
 "in the next century become one of the great emporii^^ of the 
 world." 
 
 "76/(Z., 350. 
 
 ^'Bidwell, Life in California. 110-112; 116; Calhoun Correspondence, 
 940 et seq.; Bancroft, XXI, 578. 
 
 ^^Hartnell to Wyllie, March 17. 1844. Vallejo Documentos, XXXII, 
 No. 14. 
 
 "Stephen Reynolds (Oahn) to Larkin, April 19, 1845 — Believes if Cali- 
 fornia unites with the United States the nation will be too unwieldlv to 
 last (Larkin MSS., Ill, No. 116) : Atherton to Larkin, Feb. 11, 1845. 
 Ibid., No. 25. 
 
 ^^Marsh to Larkin. Larkin MSS., Ill, No. 247. Marsh included the 
 territory north of the Columbia in his scheme, perhaps as far as the 54th 
 parallel. From the tone of this letter Larkin had evidently expressed 
 himself in favor of the Oregon union. 
 
 ^'Marsh was a Harvard College graduate. 
 
68 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 Rumors of Mormon Hegira. — In addition to this plan of unit- 
 ing Oregon and California, another movement was reported to 
 be on foot in the United States that would result in the separa- 
 tion of the latter from Mexico. "California now offers a field for 
 the prettiest enterprise that has been undertaken in modern times/' 
 Governor Ford is said to have written to Brigham Young, leader 
 of the Mormons, early in 1845. "Why should it not be a pretty 
 operation for your people to go out there, take possession of and 
 capture a portion of that vacant country and establish an inde- 
 pendent government of your own, subject only to the laws of 
 nations ?"«° 
 
 Whether, as appears very doubtful, such a letter were ever writ- 
 ten is immaterial.®^ The fact remains that the conception of a 
 Mormon empire on the Pacific proved so attractive to the leaders 
 of this eect''^ that preparation was made to emigrate as a body to 
 the region around San Francisco. Lansford W. Hastings, who 
 had returned again to the United States to obtain more settlers, 
 was easily prevailed upon to make himself a sort of advance agent 
 for the host and made his way back to California to prepare the 
 ground for their coming.''^ 
 
 Eeports of the design spread throughout the United States and 
 aroused no little opposition,*'* the president, even, being petitioned 
 to prevent the movement, but refusing because "the right of emi- 
 
 ^oFord to Young, April 8, 1845, in Edward W. Tullidge, History of Salt 
 Lale City and Its Founders (Salt Lake City. Edward W. Tullidge), 8. 
 
 ^^Polk, Diary, I, 205-206. 
 
 "-Tullidge claims the plan originated as early as 1842, and that in 1844 
 Brjgham Young instructed the twelve apostles to send out a delegation 
 to investigate Oi'cgon and California. Ibid., 4-6. 
 
 "^He arrived at Sutter's on Dec. 25, 1845. Diary of New Helvetia Events, 
 MS., p. 25; Leese to Larkin, Jan. 12, 1846. Larkin MSS., IV, No. 12. 
 
 "^Editorial in the New York Sun, and a letter from Bennett of the New 
 York Herald, stating that 25 companies of 100 families were bound for 
 San Francisco Bay, and would become troublesome to the United States, 
 either in Oregon or California and the government should look to the 
 matter. Reprinted in the Washington Daily Union, Nov. 20, 1845. 
 
 John H. Everett (Boston) to Larkin, Dec. 12, 1845 — Mormons will be in 
 California next spring and act as the Israelites did toward the nations 
 among whom they came — "kill you all and take your possessions. . . . 
 One of today's papers says . . . 10,000 are to start for California. 
 Look out for an avalanche." Larkin MSS., III. Beach (New York Sun) 
 to Larkin, Dec. 24, 1845 — 100,000 Mormons will be in California by spring. 
 Ibid., No. 407. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 69 
 
 gration or expatriation was one which any citizen possessed/'''^ 
 Plans were made for an overland journey, to include the larger 
 part of the Prophet's followers; while a smaller number were to 
 be sent around by sea. This latter party, numbering nearly two 
 hundred and forty, left New York in the Brooklyn on February 4, 
 1846, under the command of Samuel Brannan; while the main 
 body, under Young, began its slow and toilsome way across the 
 continent. 
 
 With neither of these companies has the present account much 
 further concern. The one reached San Francisco on July 31, 
 three weeks after Commodore Sloat's arrival, and tradition says 
 that Brannan's first remark upon entering the harbor was, "There 
 is that damned flag again."*''^ The other, so it is said, stopped 
 at Salt Lake because messengers from California met them there 
 with word of the American occupation. 
 
 New activities of Lansford W. Hastings. — Hastings, meanwhile, 
 in California was prophesying its speedy independence and claim- 
 ing the connivance of the United States government in his project. 
 As early as November, a friend in Boston had written Larkin to 
 conduct his business as he would have done had he been in Texas 
 ten years before, with a knowledge of the changes that were to 
 occur there. Capital, he went on, was to be spent colonizing Cali- 
 fornia.; and a revolution, backed by American men and money, 
 would soon result. The settlement of Oregon was only a blind 
 for the occupation of the Mexican province. "The egg is already 
 laid not a thousand miles from Yerba Buena and in New York 
 the chicken will be picked. Our men of war are not ordered to 
 California for nothing."®^ . . . 
 
 Hastings, as has been said, was advancing much the same idea 
 of a strong backing in the United States, and even the sanction 
 of the "government. Thousands of people, he wrote Larkin, had 
 their eyes turned to Oregon and California, determined to 
 
 '''Diary, I, 205-206. 
 
 ^'Bancroft, XXII. 550. 
 
 "Samuel J. Hastings to Larkin, Nov. 9. 1845. Larkin MSS.. Ill, No. 
 570. This Hastings had frequently been on the California coast as master 
 of the brig Tasso. Whether he was a kinsman of the Lansford Hastings 
 so frequently mentioned is uncertain; but evidently he had knowledge of 
 his plans. See also Everett (Boston) to Lai'kin, Sept. 15 — "if the plan of 
 a colony succeeds we may soon expect a declaration of independence or a 
 desire of annexation from your part of the world." Ibid., No. 290. 
 
70 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 make a final move and establish a permanent home. The firm of 
 Benson and Company was about to establish a large commercial 
 house somewhere in the territory, and send two ships a year to the 
 coast for the free transportation of colonists. Under pledge of 
 secrecy he concluded, "The arrangement is a confidential govern- 
 ment arrangement. The expense thus incurred is not borne by 
 that house, but by our government, for the promotion of what 
 object you will readily perceive."®^ 
 
 How much ground Hastings had for this statement cannot be 
 known. His project plainly embraced a much wider scope than 
 the single element of the Mormon settlement; and it is probable 
 that the commercial firm mentioned in his letter was actually 
 concerned in a scheme for colonizing certain portions of the coun- 
 try. It is scarcely possible, however, that the government had any 
 hand in it, as he insisted and doubtless believed.^^ 
 
 Native attitude toward the Americans. — Having spoken at 
 length of the conditions existing in California, the feeling of the 
 United States regarding its acquisition, the flow of immigration 
 across the mountains that formed its eastern boundary, and the 
 various rumors of independence current during the period, we 
 come again to a discussion of the president's policy as it was 
 affected by these circumstances. A further word, however, will 
 be necessary to understand the attitude of the native Californians 
 toward the Americans. 
 
 Naturally, the influx of strangers during the year 1845, and 
 the known wish of the United States to possess California, caused 
 
 ='L. W. Hastings to Larkin, March 3, 1846. Larkin MSS., IV, No. 55. 
 Hastings was even then on his way to Oregon after more settlers. He 
 had placed the number expected during the following year at 20,000. 
 
 ""Tullidge insists that Brannan learned that the government was prepar- 
 ing to hinder the emigration of the Mormons (because it was feared they 
 would join with the English or Mexican interests in California, against the 
 United States) and that Amos Kendall and other prominent men in Wash- 
 ington undertook to prevent this, provided Young and his followers would 
 deed to them "through A. G. Benson and Co.," half the lands and town lots 
 they secured in California. It was also said that Polk was a silent partner 
 to the scheme. 
 
 Some interesting light is thrown on this assertion by Polk's Diary. 
 Kendall seems to have taken a pretty active interest in Mormon affairs, 
 as the Salt Lake historian says; and Polk refused, as we have shown, to 
 prevent their emigration. But the president scarcely would have lent 
 himself to any such scheme of petty blackmail. Diary, 1, 444; 449-450; 
 455-456. 
 
Earhj Sentiment for Annexation of California 71 
 
 some apprehension among those of its inhabitants who desired to 
 see the province remain under Mexican control. But on the whole 
 there was little in the treatment accorded the immigrants by the 
 Californians of which they had a right to complain. Frequent 
 orders requiring their expulsion came from Mexico, but they were 
 uniformly set aside by the California officials.^" Though sub- 
 Prefect Guerrero, perhaps with much justification, wrote to 
 Castro : "Friend, the idea these gentlemen have formed for them- 
 selves is, that God made the world and them also, therefore what 
 there is in the world belongs to them as sons of God," he seems 
 to have taken no measures to expel the foreigners from his own 
 district. And while Castro, with some heat, declared before a 
 junta at Monterey, "these Americans are so contriving that some 
 day they will build ladders to touch the sky, and once in the 
 heavens they will change the whole face of the universe and even 
 the color of the stars,"^^ \^^ perhaps thought it useless to en- 
 deavor to keep them from changing the destiny of California. 
 
 Indeed, the only measures that looked toward putting a stop 
 to immigration, aside from juntas and meetings of the assembly 
 (which came to nothing), were a recommendation made by Castro 
 and Vallejo to the central government to purchase the fort at New 
 Helvetia from Sutter;'^" and an abortive expedition from Mexico 
 that was intended to cope with the incoming Americans. The 
 control of New Helvetia, had it been in California hands, could 
 have been made a serious obstacle to the arrival of parties across 
 the Sierras ; but though Sutter encouraged the suggested purchase., 
 the proposition got no further than the Mexican archives. The 
 second expedient met with no better success, ending in charges of 
 extravagance, corruption, and the final revolt of such soldiers as 
 had been assembled, even before they left Mexico, most of them 
 
 "Larkin to State Department, June 5, 1845 — 3 or 4 orders received 
 from Mexico. Commancl^ante General informs liim he is perfectly willing- 
 to lay these aside and allow men to proceed to any place they desire 
 (Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 22) ; also, Castro, Documentos, I. Nos. 
 152, 214; Bancroft, XXT, 604-605. 
 
 "Guerrero to Castro, Jan. 24, 1846. Castro, Documentos, VT, No. 309. 
 
 ^^Alvarado, Historia cle California, II, 133-134. 
 
 "Lancey, Cruise of the Dale, 41; Swasey, Statement (MS., Bancroft 
 Collection); Bancroft, XXI, 614. 
 
72 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 turning from the expedition to aid Parades in his contest with 
 HerreraJ* 
 
 Larkin as Polh's informant. — Of the progress of all these events 
 in California, Polk was well informed. Kot merely did he have 
 the usual channels of news, which, as we have seen, kept the public 
 aware of much that transpired in the province; but in Thomas 0. 
 Larkin he had an additional source of reliable and frequent in- 
 formation. '''' The American consul's despatches, from the time of 
 his appointment, dealt with the four or five broad topics that were 
 of vital interest to the authorities at Washington in forming their 
 California policy. These were, first, the condition of California 
 from a political and military point of view and the strength of its 
 loyalty to Mexico; second, the sentiment among the inhabitants 
 toward the United States; third, the progress of American immi- 
 gration and the reception of American settlers; fourth, the influ- 
 ence of European nations in the afi'airs of the province. 
 
 Omitting his references to the last subject, for the present, we 
 find that on the remaining questions Larkin's communications to 
 the state department gave full and important information. Especi- 
 ally did he emphasize the friendly feeling existing toward the 
 American residents and the lack of attachment to Mexico. The 
 military strength of the province he placed at two hundred and 
 eighty Mexican troops and a smaller number of Californians, with 
 a militia theoretically numbering one thousand, but practically 
 not amounting to one-tenth of that force. The effectiveness of 
 even this small army was decreased by half, he added, as part of 
 it was stationed at San Francisco, in the northern part of the 
 state, and part at San Diego, in the southern. Monterey had no 
 cannon; and, to complete the demoralization, the Californians 
 feared the Mexican troops more tlian those of a foreign nation, 
 
 ^*The rumors of this expedition filled California for many months, the 
 force being reported as numbering from 500 to 18.000. Larkin to New- 
 York Sun, Sept. 30, 1845. Larkin MSS., TIT, No. 305; Pini to Larkin 
 (from Mazatlan) July 3, lUd., No. 211; McKinley to Larkin, July 12. 
 lUd., No. 218; Stearns to Larkin, June 19. lUrh, No. 196. See also 
 Bancroft, XXTT, 33. 
 
 ''See also Parrott to T3ucha.nan, Oct. 11, 1845. MS., State Department. 
 L. W. Hastings had likewise called upon the president and acquainted him 
 with the conditions in California, when in Washington. Hastings to 
 Larkin, Larkin MSS., Ill, No. 13. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 73 
 
 and would gladly welcome the return of an American squadron 
 such as Jones had brought.'^^ 
 
 The revolt against Micheltorena was made the subject of con- 
 siderable comment, Larkin mentioning as an aside that within 
 twelve years four revolutions had occurred, all of which had been 
 won by the Californians ; and that five of the six Mexican gen- 
 erals, arriving during that time, had been sent back, while the 
 remaining one had died. In conclusion he left the impression 
 that the movement had resulted in the independence of the coun- 
 try, de facto, if not de jure.''' 
 
 The effect of this early information is seen in the despatches 
 sent to Commodore Sloat by the secretary of the navy, when, in 
 the summer of 1845, war between this country and Mexico seemed 
 imminent. "The Mexican ports on the Pacific," wrote George 
 Bancroft in these confidential instructions, 
 
 are said to be open and defenceless. If you ascertain with cer- 
 tainty that Mexico has declared war against the United States, 
 you will at once possess yourself of the harbor of San Francisco 
 and blockade or occupy such other ports as your force may per- 
 mit. . . . You will be careful to preserve, if possible, the 
 most friendly relations with the inhabitants, and, where you can 
 do so, you will encourage them to adopt a course of neutrality.''^ 
 
 Two later despatches from Larkin, received in the fall of that 
 year,'^^ simply reiterated the opinions he had expressed in his 
 former communication, laying emphasis in addition upon the de- 
 signs of France and England on the province, a matter, as we 
 shall see, that caused the administration no small anxiety. 
 
 Larkin's instructions. — At this time Polk was making arrange- 
 ments to send Slidell upon the mission already mentioned. On 
 October 17, while the question of the American minister's recep- 
 tion was so much in doubt as to delay his departure, Buchanan 
 
 "Larkin to Calhoun, Aug. 18, 1844. Larkin Official Correspondence, 
 Pt. II, No. 9. Same to same, Sept. 16. Ibid., No. 10. 
 
 "Larkin to Calhoun, March 22, 1845. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, 
 No. 19. 
 
 "ff. Ex. Docs., 29 Cong., 2 sess., No. 19, page 75. These are also printed 
 in whole or in part in most of the secondary works on the period. 
 
 "Larkin to Secretary of State, June 5. 1845. MS., State Department; 
 also Larkin Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 22. Same to same, July 10. 
 MS. State Department; Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 25. 
 
74 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 addressed a long, confidential letter to the consul, who, from Mon- 
 terey, had furnished the government with so much of its valuable 
 information. In this letter to Larkin, the internal policy the 
 administration was determined to pursue regarding California 
 was clearly outlined; and, by the appointment of Larkin as con- 
 fidential agent to carry out the terms, definitely set in motion. 
 
 So much has been written regarding this despatch, since Ban- 
 croft first brought it to light, and it has been printed, either 
 wholly or in part, so frequently that, important as it is, a mere 
 summary of its contents will be sufficient here.^^ Aside from the 
 notification it carried to Larkin of his appointment as confidential 
 agent, it instnicted him to guard against the encroachments and 
 influence of foreign nations in California; to cultivate friendly 
 relations with the inhabitants in every way possible on behalf of 
 this government, and assure them that, if they declared their in- 
 dependence, the United States stood ready to receive tliem under 
 her protection, whenever this could be done "without affording 
 Mexico Just cause of complaint"; and finally, to forward frequent 
 communications to the department regarding the internal condi- 
 tions of the province (with a list of its leading citizens and offi- 
 cials), its trade and commercial affairs, and the amount and char- 
 acter of the American immigration. 
 
 Three copies of this despatch left Washington. One went to 
 Slidell to aid him in his negotiations with Mexico ;^^ one was sent 
 by way of Cape Horn and Honolulu on the U. S. S. Congress; 
 and the third was entrusted to Lieutenant Archibald H. Gillespie 
 of the marine corps. Going overland through Mexico, Gillespie 
 was forced to destroy the written document in his possession, but 
 before doing so memorized its contents. 
 
 Gillespie, however, was much more than a bearer of despatches. 
 To him, as to Larkin, Polk had entrusted the carrying out of his 
 policy in California, and an effort was made to keep his identity 
 a secret. So, travelling as an invalid merchant seeking health, he 
 reached Monterey on April 17, 1846,^^^ delivering to Larkin the 
 
 '"Bancroft, XXT, 596-597; Century Magazine. XIX, 928-929. For the 
 complete despatch see Buchanan, Works. VI, 275-278; Rayner Wickersham 
 Kelsey, The United States Consulate in California. Publications of the 
 Academy of Pacific Coast History. Vol. I, No. 5, June, 1910, pp. 100-103. 
 
 ^Buchanan, Works, VI, 304; Kelsey, 58 n. 
 
 '^Bancroft; XXII; 26-27; Kelsey, 64. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 75 
 
 news of his appointment and writing- out from memory the in- 
 structions Buchanan had drawn up six months before.®^ 
 
 Bear Flag Revolt. — For the most part, the actual proceedings 
 of Larkin and Gillespie in California after this time lie beyond 
 the scope of the present narrative. In connection with the Bear 
 Flag Eevolt, and Fremont's participation therein, however, it will 
 be necessary to go into some detail to determine whether or not 
 it was a part of the president's policy to put such a movement 
 into operation. To understand clearly the situation, we must note 
 again that California's separation from Mexico could be achieved 
 in two ways — by a revolt of the native Californians, aided by 
 American residents; or by an uprising of the American residents 
 against the native Californians. This condition was distinctly 
 different, as will be readily seen, from that which had existed in 
 Texas when Houston led the settlers there in the struggle for in- 
 dependence. 
 
 We have mentioned that Gillespie and Larkin were to serve as 
 Polk's agents in California. The same mission was also entrusted 
 to John C. Fremont, whose first arrival in California has been 
 spoken of, and who had returned on his third exploring tour at 
 the head of sixty-five men, reaching the province early in Decem- 
 ber, 1845.^* It is not our purpose to follow the story of his diffi- 
 culties with the California authorities (after they had given him 
 permission to winter in the territory under their jurisdiction) and 
 the affair at Hawk's Peak.®^ 
 
 It is worth while, however, to add a suggestion to account for 
 the sudden change of front on the part of Prefect Manuel Castro 
 and his peremptory order of March 5 that the American com- 
 mander quit the country. The reasons for this have been vari- 
 ously given as the receipt of orders from Mexico (none of which 
 
 'Ubid., also Larkin MSS., III. No. 337. 
 
 ^Bancroft, XXI, 581-585. It is not considered necessary to go into 
 detail regarding the division of the party. Fremont spent "from .Jan. 27 
 to Feb. 9 at Monterey, upon Larkin's invitation, buying supplies and dis- 
 cussing the political aflfairs of the country with the American consul. 
 Kelsey, 52. 
 
 *'For the permission granted by the California authorities, see Larkin 
 to Manuel Castro (Larkin Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 76) ; Gov. 
 Pio Pico to Castro, Feb. 18, 1846. Castro, Documentos, II, No. 23, copy. 
 For the Hawk's Peak affair see Bancroft, XXII, 5-21, and citations; 
 Kelsey, 98-99. 
 t 
 
76 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 Castro would have obeyed unless he pleased) f^ the violation of a 
 tacit agreement by Fremont to remain at some distance from the 
 California settlements f^ and the mere desire of the prefect to 
 send a report of his zeal to Mexico, without having any hostile 
 intentions whatever toward the strangers.*^ There seems to be 
 sufficient ground, however, for adding as a fourth explanation, the 
 influence of the British vice-consul, Alexander Forbes, who pro- 
 tested formally in the name of his government against the pres- 
 ence of Fremont and his followers in the department.®^ Castro, 
 not only willing to make a show of pleasing Forbes, but fearing 
 the displeasure of the Mexican government if he paid no heed to 
 this remonstrance, had nothing else to do than bid the intruder 
 be gone. 
 
 It was not long after this that Gillespie reached Monterey. In 
 addition to the instructions for Larkin, he carried a note of in- 
 troduction from Buchanan to Fremont and a package of letters 
 to the same individual from Senator Benton, Fremont's father- 
 in-law.^° Without lingering long at Monterey, Gillespie hastened 
 on to Yerba Buena in pursuit of Fremont, who, by this time, was 
 well on his way to Oregon. At Yerba Buena, Gillespie spent some 
 days with the American vice-consul, W. A. Leidesdorff, and then 
 continued his journey, finally overtaking the explorer in the heart 
 of the Oregon woods. 
 
 What passed between Gillespie and Fremont it would be inter- 
 esting to know. No written instructions were sent to the latter 
 by Buchanan, and even those given to Gillespie are not on file. 
 Yet, both from the testimony of Fremont and Gillespie, and the 
 
 ^^This was the reason assi<?necl officially but it was recognized as only a 
 blind. Larkin to Commander of any American ship at Mazatlan, March 9, 
 1846. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 38; same to Secretary of State 
 (Ibid.) Frgmont, Memoirs, I, 461. 
 
 ^'Bancroft, XXI, 596-597. 
 
 ^^Larkin to Secretary of State, April 18. Official Correspondence, Ptl II, 
 No. 41. 
 
 ^'Forbes to Oliveria, Jan. 28, 1846, in Ephraim Douglas Adams, British 
 interests and activities in Texas, 1838-Jt6 [Addendum, English interests 
 in the annexation of California]. (Baltimore. The Johns Hopkins Press. 
 1910), p. 251. See also Guerrero to Castro (from San Francisco), Jan. 24, 
 1846. Castro, Documentos. 
 
 ""Bancroft, XXII, 86, citations from the subseqvient testimony of Gil- 
 lespie and Fremont. Gillespie had also held several private interviews 
 with Polk before leaving Washington. Polk, Diary, I, 84-85. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 77 
 
 nature of the case, these could not have differed in substance from 
 those received by Larkin.^^ Gillespie, however, believed in active 
 measures and was well aware of the probable outbreak of a war with 
 Mexico.^- In addition Fremont had the letters of Benton, which, 
 under guise of family matters, "contained certain passages enig- 
 matical and obscure,"^^ bearing upon the subject of California's 
 destiny. How largely responsible these were for the subsequent 
 course of Fremont, will probably never be known. 
 
 He and Gillespie, returning at once to California, found the 
 settlers on the Sacramento in a fit mood to revolt against the Cali- 
 fornians. By encouraging these, if not actually becoming the 
 leaders of the movement, they gave to it the aspect of having been 
 begun with the sanction of the United States government; when, 
 in reality, it was exactly contrary to the policy Polk had endeav- 
 ored to carry into execution; and, furthermore, distinctly at 
 variance with the course pursued by Larkin, the third of the ad- 
 ministration's agents. 
 
 The consul, it is true, expected Fremont's arrival to result in 
 important changes in the destiny of California.^* And Gillespie 
 had written him from San Francisco, on his way to find Fremont, 
 that the Americans of that region had voluntarily expressed them- 
 selves in favor of a change, while one of them was already circu- 
 lating the constitution of Texas.^^ But he had added that the 
 Californians themselves were dissatisfied, and inferred that they 
 were ready also to join the movement. 
 
 It needs scarcely be said that this latter idea constituted the 
 sum and substance of Larkin's plan.^® Moreover, he was in a 
 
 "Bancroft, XXII, 86. 
 
 '^He had been detained some months in Mexico and hence knew of 
 Slidell's probable rejection. Reeves, American Diplomacy under Tyler 
 and Polk, 282. 
 
 '^Bancroft, XXII, 86 n., quotation from Fremont's later testimony. 
 
 '^Larkin to Stearns, March 19, 1846. Official Correspondenee, Pt. II, 
 No. 90. Marsh to Larkin, Feb. 15 — "The distant rumors of mighty events 
 have made me leave the retirement of my farm . . . and I have come 
 to this place on a visit to Capt. Fremont. It appears that the present 
 year will bring great changes on the face of California." Larkin, MSS., 
 iV, No. 39. 
 
 "'Gillespie to Larkin, April 25, 1846. Hid., No. 144. 
 
 '^Larkin to Secretary of State, April 2, 1846 — "The undersigned believes 
 that a flag if respectfully planted will receive the good will of much of 
 
78 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 fair way of bringing about a unification of the Californians with 
 the American cause when the settlers' revolt completely upset his 
 ■calculations, caused the California leaders to forget their mutual 
 jealousies,"" and joined them in common cause against the United 
 States. 
 
 Larkin's activities, between his appointment as confidential 
 agent and the outbreak of the Bear Flag revolution, had taken 
 various forms. To several of the leading Americans, who had 
 become Mexican citizens, he wrote a circular letter, embodying 
 much of the news contained in the despatch from Buchanan, and 
 "urging them to aid in winning over the Californians.®^ One of 
 these, Abel Stearns, he appointed his confidential assistant in the 
 south."" By personal interviews with the most influential men of 
 the north, with all of whom he was well acquainted, and by prom- 
 ises of future reward to those who advanced the interests of the 
 United States, he sought to bring his plan into favor with the 
 native leaders.^''*' And, finally, he endeavored to influence the 
 action of various juntas by persuading those known to be friendly 
 to the American interests to attend as delegates. ^''^ 
 
 As has been said, these efforts gave promise of succeeding. Sev- 
 eral of the principal Californians had come over definitely to Lar- 
 kin's side.^°^ And General Castro, in the presence of other in- 
 fluential men of the department, had drawn up "a short history 
 of his plans for declaring California independent in 1847-8, as 
 
 the wealth and respectahility of the country." Official Correspondence, 
 Pt. II, No. 40. See also Leidesdorf to Larkin, Mav 7. Larkin MSS., IV, 
 TSTo. 111. 
 
 '^A civil war between Castro and other northern leaders on one side, 
 and Governor Pio Pico on the other was about to break out. Bancroft, 
 XXII, 30-53. 
 
 "^Larkin to Abel Stearns, Los Anorples; John Warner, San Diego, and 
 Jacob Leese, Sonoma, April 17. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 100. 
 
 *»Kelsey, 67-68. 
 
 ""Larkin to Secretary of State. July 20, 1846, "Address to Californians." 
 Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 13. Larkin also advised many of the 
 Californians to take up land before the change came. A copy of a grant 
 of eleven square leasrues along the San Joaquin is among the Larkin papers 
 of this period. MSS., IV, No. 41. 
 
 '"^Larkin to Lease, May 21, 1846. Larkin, MSS., IV, No. 102. Same 
 to Stearns, May 21. Ibid., No. 101. Same to Secretary of State, June 
 1. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 44. 
 
 ^"-See Larkin to Secretary of State, June 1st, Official Correspondence, 
 rt. II, No. 44. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 79 
 
 soon as a sufficient number of foreigners should arrive."^"^ From 
 the southern portion of the province equally encouraging reports 
 were received ;^^'* and it is no wonder that the word of the taking 
 of Sonora and the imprisonment of several of the California 
 leaders, among whom was M. G. Vallejo, the most powerful man 
 of the province, and a chief supporter of American annexation, 
 caused Larkin unwelcome perplexity and surprise.^"^ 
 
 "Why this affair has happened — how or by who[m] I cannot 
 imagine — I am not sure it is true,"^^® he wrote when the report 
 first reached him. Fremont he considered "culpable for moving 
 in the affair of the Bear Party, and perhaps putting the party in 
 motion." "The Bear Party have broke all friendship and good 
 feeling in Cala. towards our government,""'^ was his final judg- 
 ment on the matter. And with this judgment, it would seem, his- 
 toiy must agree. 
 
 Why Gillespie and Fremont pursued the course they did will 
 never be known with certainty. Nor is it our purpose to examine 
 into the possible causes they later claimed in justification of their 
 act."^ Whether, as some insist, it was through a desire to assume 
 the role in California that Houston filled in Texas,^"'' cannot be 
 stated with positiveness ; yet this seems the most reasonable ex- 
 planation. The influence of Benton in the proceedings may also 
 have played an important part. Three years after the event, a 
 former member of Polk's cabinet wrote, "The utter prostration of 
 
 "^Larkin to Secretary of State, July 20, 1846. Official Correspondence, 
 Pt. II, No. 54. 
 
 "^Stearns to Larkin, June 12, 1846. Larkin MSS., IV, No. 151. Warner 
 to Larkin, June 11. Ihid., 156. 
 
 "'For Vallejo's friendliness to the United States see Bancroft, XXII, 758. 
 
 "'Larkin to Mott. Talbot & Co., Mazatlan, June 18. Larkin MSS., IV, 
 No. 165. Neither Leidesdorf nor Sutter had any knowledge of the plans 
 or purposes of the revolt. Leidesdorf to Larkin, June 16, Ihid., No. 159; 
 Sutter to Larkin. Ihid., No. 160. 
 
 "^Larkin to Buchanan, June 30, 1847. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, 
 67. See also Bancroft, XXII, 98, and citations. 
 
 "*Benton, Thirty years' view, II, 688-689; John Bigelow, Memoirs of the 
 Life and Pvhlic kervice of John Charles Fremont (New York. Derby & 
 Jackson, 1856), 141-145. 
 
 "'This is the view taken by Bancroft. The same idea was expressed 
 very positively to me by Dr. Willey, founder of the LTniversity of Cali- 
 fornia, in an interview Nov. 29, 1911. Dr. Willey was personally ac- 
 quainted both with Larkin and Frgmont. See, also, the discussion in 
 Rives, The United States and Mexico, 164-194. 
 
80 Early Senthn&nt for Annexation of California 
 
 Van Buren and of course his [Benton's] own hopes has made him 
 frantic — rumor speaks of his emigration to California and it may 
 be to carry out some such scheme as many attributed to him when 
 Fremont was sent out with his proclamation.""'* 
 
 But whatever the motive — and it may have been entirely patri- 
 otic — Fremont and Gillespie certainly had no official sanction for 
 what they did. Bancroft, Eoyce, and others, have shown how 
 utterly inconsistent it would have been had Polk instructed Lar- 
 kin to do all in his power to conciliate the native inhabitants and 
 assure them of the friendship of the United States; and at the 
 same time advised the two remaining agents to stir up a revolu- 
 tion against those very inhabitants. The whole policy of Polk 
 with regard to California, on the contrary, was one of pacifica- 
 tion. Even after war had been declared against Mexico, those 
 who had the conquest of that province in charge were ordered to 
 follow out this idea, and "to endeavor to establish the supremacy 
 of the American flag without any strife with the people of Cali- 
 fornia.""^ 
 
 PolFs own statement, moreover, clears up any remaining doubt. 
 "A false statement is being attempted by the opposition," reads 
 his diary for March 21, 1848, "to be made to the effect that this 
 letter to Mr. Larkin contained instructions to produce a revolu- 
 tion in California before Mexico commenced the War against the 
 XJ. S., and that Col. Fremont had the authority to make the revo- 
 lution. The publication of the letter will prove the falsehood of 
 such an inference.""^ 
 
 In summing up Polk's policy with regard to California, we may 
 therefore say that it involved no scheme of rebellion on the part 
 of the American settlers against the provincial authorities. It did, 
 however, include a most earnest attempt at purchase; and, in ad- 
 dition, a systematic effort to win over the Californians to a desire 
 for the protection of the United States, and tacit encouragement 
 to separate from Mexico. Whether or i:iot Polk actuallv brought 
 on the Mexican War as a more certain method of securing the 
 
 ""Cave Johnston to Polk, March 20, 1840. Polk MSS. Same to same, 
 March 22. lUd. 
 
 "^Bancroft, XXII, 106-197 (citations from U. S. Gov. Does., containing 
 instructions to Sloat, KearneVj etc.). 
 
 "Tolk, Diary, III, entry for March 21. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 81 
 
 coveted territory (or as Winthrop expressed it, "had there been no 
 California there would have been no Mexican War") we are not 
 now prepared to say. Two remaining topics, however, must re- 
 ceive some attention before we bring this discussion to a close. 
 The one concerns the effect of the rumored attempts of European 
 nations to secure a foothold in California, and the other the part 
 played by the slave holding south in its acquisition. 
 
82 Early Seniiment for Annexation of California 
 
 Chaptee V 
 
 RUMORED EUROPEAN AGGRESSION IN CALIFORNIA; EFFECT UPON 
 AMERICAN POLICY OF ANNEXATION 
 
 The reported designs of England and France to secure control 
 of California before its annexation by the United States have 
 led, first and last, to a vast amount of surmise and historically 
 unprofitable speculation. So far as France is concerned, the 
 actual purposes and plans of the government (if indeed they ex- 
 isted) remain still unknown. But within the last few years an 
 examination of the British Ptiblic Eecord Office has cleared the 
 subJQct of English aggression of most of its mystery.^ 
 
 This investigation has shown that while, indeed, the British 
 government, as such, had no intentions of acquiring California 
 and in fact manifested comparatively little interest in its affairs, 
 yet English officials in Mexico, California, and on board Her 
 Majesty's vessels of the Pacific, on the contrary, were exceedingly 
 anxious to place the province under English control; or, if that 
 could not be, to thwart the ambitions of the United States.^ 
 
 The activities of these British representatives and the occa- 
 sional rumor of French intrigue naturally aroused no little con- 
 cern throughout this country and created a genuine alarm lest 
 one or the other power should endeavor to forestall our own plans 
 regarding the province. The purpose of this chapter is, there- 
 fore, to examine, not the actual designs of France or England, 
 but the effect of reports and rumors regarding these designs upon 
 the government and people of the United States. 
 
 The earliest fears of English aggression seem to have arisen 
 shortly after the publication of the history of California by Alex- 
 ander Forbes in 1839. The book was intended not so much to 
 convey historical information as to encourage the colonization 
 of California by British subjects; and contained a plan, worked 
 
 ^This is due to the efforts of Professor Ephraim D. Adams of Leland 
 Standford Jr. University. The results of this investigation as published 
 in his British Interests and Activities in Texas have already received 
 some notice. 
 
 -Adams, British Interests, 234-264. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 83 
 
 out in some detail, by which a cession of that territory might be 
 made by Mexico in payment of her debt of $50,000,000 to English 
 bondholders. A company, composed of these creditors, was to be 
 formed, and to it were to be given many of the same prerogatives 
 of territorial sovereignty as those enjoyed by the British East 
 India Company.^ 
 
 Forbes's publication had a wide circulation, and,* as its whole 
 tone was frankly a plea for English domination in California, 
 aroused considerable comment throughout this country. It was 
 said that negotiations, such as Forbes had suggested, were already 
 in progress, and that England was taking this method of shutting 
 the United States away from the Pacific and confining her domain 
 to the country east of the Eocky Mountains — thus giving over to 
 British control a monopoly of the East India and China trade.^ 
 
 With the beginning of Tyler's administration the fear of Eng- 
 lish encroachments had become very real. Owing to the strained 
 relations over the Texas, Oregon, and northeastern boundary ques- 
 tions, the faintest rumor of an attempt on the part of Great 
 Britain to gain a foothold in California was sufficient not merely 
 to excite the press of the countrjr but to penetrate even into offi- 
 cial circles. 
 
 Seizure of Monterey. — In 18'42 came the seizure of Monterey by 
 Commodore Jones, who gave as the compelling motive of his 
 action that both he and other high officers of his fleet wished to 
 preserve California from falling into the hands of "our great com- 
 mercial rival," England. "The Creole affair," he wrote, 
 
 the question of the right of search, the mission of Lord Ashbur- 
 
 'Forbes, 153 (the eighth chapter was entitled "Upper California as a 
 field for foreign colonization" ) . The author's brother wrote a preface for 
 the book and, while decling to comment upon the plan of colonization, 
 said it was one worthy the attention of the English laondholders and also 
 of the government. The appendix contained articles on the harbor of 
 California, steam navigation on the Pacific, and a prospectus of the 
 "Pacific Steam Navigation Company." Forbes also laid great emphasis 
 on the importance of constructing an Isthmian Canal under European 
 control. 
 
 ■'See a review upon this work in the Literature of American History, 
 Ed. for the American Library Association (Boston. Houghton, Mifflin & 
 Co. 1902). 
 
 ^Niles' Register, LVIII, 2; Ibid., 70 (quotations from the New York 
 American, New York Express, Baltimore American, and the New Orleans 
 papers). See also Bancroft, XXI, 110-112. 
 
84 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 ton . . . the well founded rumor of a cession of the Cali- 
 fornias^ and lastly the secret movements of the English naval 
 force in this quarter . . . have all occurred since the date of 
 your last despatch. Consequently I am without instructions 
 . . . upon what I consider a vital question to the United 
 States . . . the occupation of California by Great Britain un- 
 der a secret treaty with Mexico.*^ 
 
 Warnings of Waddy Thompson. — "But Jones was not the only 
 one in government employ who looked askance at England's mo- 
 tives. From Mexico City, Waddy Thompson was urging in his 
 despatches to Tyler and Webster British aggression as an impor- 
 tant reason for the acquisition of California by the United States. 
 In the first of these he said: 
 
 France and England both have [had] their eyes upon it [Cali- 
 fornia] ; the latter has yet. — She has already control of the Sand- 
 wich Islands, of the Society Islands, N"ew Zealand, etc., etc., and 
 through the agency of that Embryo East India Monopoly, the 
 Hudson Bay Co. she will ere long have a monopoly of the com- 
 merce of the Pacific, and not an American flag will fly on its 
 Coasts."^ 
 
 Webster, however, appeared to treat this communication as of 
 little moment, writing Thompson on June 27th that he thought 
 England had no present designs upon California or even any ob- 
 jection to its acquisition by the United States.^ But such an as- 
 surance was not sufficient for Thompson. In reply he wrote, 
 
 I have information upon which I can rely that an agent of this 
 government is now in England negotiating for the sale, or what 
 is precisely the same thing, the mortgage of Upper California for 
 the loan of fifteen millions. In my first despatch, I glanced at 
 the advantages which would result to our country from the ac- 
 
 *Jones to Upshur, H. Ex. Docs., 27 Cong., 3 sess.. No. 116. 
 
 'Thompson to Webster, April 29, 1842. MS., State Department. The 
 H. B. C. had but recently established a permanent post in California when. 
 Thompson wrote this. The governor of the company, Sir Greorge Simpson, 
 had left the country on Jan. 27, less than two months before Thompson's 
 despatch, and had sent a long communication, designed for the British gov- 
 ernment, urging the importance and ease of securing California. Simpson 
 to Sir John H. Pelly, Honolulu, March 10, 1842, in American Historical 
 Review, XIV, 86-93, passim. 
 
 ^Webster to Thompson, in Writings and Speeches of Daniel Wehster 
 (National Edition. 1903), XIV, 612. Webster had derived his informa- 
 tion from Ashburton. Ashburton to Webster, April 28, 1842. Ihid., 192. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 85 
 
 quisition. Great as those advantages would be, the^^ sink in com- 
 parison with the evils to our commerce and other interests, even 
 more important, from a cession of that country to England.^ 
 
 Even this seems to have caused Webster no alarm; while with 
 word of the seizure of Monterey, the subject disappears for the 
 time from Thompson's correspondence. In January, however, he 
 began again his refrain of warning, perhaps exaggerating his own 
 fears to arouse the secretary of state whom he considered entirely 
 too indifferent to the danger. After speaking of his earlier de- 
 spatches upon England's purpose, and expressing some resentment 
 that they had been treated so lightly, Thompson went on: 
 
 I know that England has designs on California and has actually 
 made a treaty with Mexico securing to British creditors the right 
 to lands there in payment of their debts and that England will 
 interpose this treaty in the way of a cession of California and that 
 in ten years she will own the country.^" 
 
 To all of this, however, Webster had the assurance of Everett 
 and Ashburton regarding the tripartite agreement as sufficient 
 answer.^^ But the country at large did not possess such reassur- 
 ing evidence. So general became the feeling that Mexico had 
 entered into such a treaty with England that the president was 
 called upon by unanimous consent of the house to furnish any in- 
 formation in his possession as to the truth of the report. ^^ To 
 this he replied that the administration had no knowledge that con- 
 firmed the rumored negotiations.^^ 
 
 Perhaps rebuffed by the reception of his information, Thomp- 
 son had little more to say regarding England and California for 
 some months; when, as we have seen, his views underwent a com- 
 
 •Thompson to Webster, July 30, 1S42. MS., State Department. The 
 remainder of the letter was filled with a report of English assistance to 
 Mexico against Texas, and a statement of the close alliance between the 
 two nations. 
 
 "Thompson to Webster, Jan. 30, 1843. Webster MSS., Library of Con- 
 gress. For any actual foundation for this despatch, see Adams, British 
 Interests, etc., 237-240. Thompson still held his opinion in 1846. Recol- 
 lections, 235. 
 
 "The Quarterly, XVIIT. 32-34. Tyler's biographer, however, gives as 
 chief reason for the president's desire to bring about this tripartite agree- 
 ment the report of the English mortgage. Tyler's Tyler, II, 260. 
 
 iWi7es' Register, LXIII, 366. 
 
 ^"Ibid., 384. 
 
86 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 plete change and for the moment he hoped that an English-Mexi- 
 can Avar might thrown the province into the lap of the United 
 States.^* Following Thompson's resignation as minister, Ben- 
 jamin E. Green, Shannon, and Duff Green, from time to time 
 issued similar Avarnings to those Webster had received, and of 
 <vhich we have just spoken. 
 
 English mortgage. — Mexico, cultivating friendly relations with 
 England,^^ was said to have mortgaged California to that country 
 for $26,000,000. The pledge expired in 1847 and, unless paid 
 before that time, would result in the transfer of the country to 
 Great Britain, whose control in this way would be extended not 
 only over the whole of California, but eventually over Oregon as 
 well.^" Donelson, on his special mission to Texas, was sufficiently 
 interested in this report to inquire directly of Elliot as to its 
 truth; but learned nothing of a satisfactory nature, and came to 
 the conclusion that it rested on insufficient evidence. ^^ 
 
 The Hudson's Bay Company. — Larkin, meanwhile, from Cali- 
 fornia, had been doing his part by calling attention to the rapid 
 encroachments of the Hudson's Bay Company, whose employees 
 were trapping, cultivating land, building mills and establishing 
 themselves in various ways in that country and also in Oregon. 
 The San Francisco agent had asked for extensive grants of land 
 upon which to settle colonists and had no intention of quitting 
 the province when game became scarce. ^^ These statements, suffi- 
 ciently grave in themselves, received further emphasis from a let- 
 
 ■-^The Quarterly, XVIII, 34-35. 
 
 ^^B. E. Green to Secretary of State, April 8, 1844. MS., State Depart- 
 /nent. 
 
 "Duff Green to Calhoun, Oct. 28th. Calhoun Correspondence, 979. 
 Green added that the British consul general in Mexico was agent for the 
 English company, and advised the State Department to secure a copy of 
 the mortgage deed either through the Mexican or London legations. It 
 could be had for $1500 or $2000 in Mexico. It should be remembered that 
 Green was Calhoun's confidential agent. 
 
 "A. J. Donelson to Calhoun, Jan. 30, 1845. Ihid., 1024. 
 
 '^Larkin to Calhoun, June 20, 1844. MS., State Department; same to 
 same, June 24th, and August 18th. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 9. 
 Larkin added he had seen a report in the paper that England might pur- 
 chase California. For the reply to these despatches see Crallg to Larkin, 
 Oct. 25. Larkin MSS., II, No."^ 233. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 87 
 
 ter of Henry A. Pierce, of Boston, read on the floor of the house 
 about this time.^^ 
 
 Report of Santa Anna's dealings with England.— But even more 
 disquieting reports came from Shannon. Santa Anna had been 
 captured but a few days before by the forces of the opposition, and 
 important documents were found on his person. Certain of these 
 had been published by the new administration to discredit him 
 with the people, and the rest laid before the Mexican Congress in 
 secret session. "From a portion of this correspondence," concluded 
 Shannon's despatch, 
 
 the fact has been disclosed that a negotiation was going on be- 
 tween President Santa Anna and the English Minister for the 
 sale and purchase of the two Californias — That portion of the cor- 
 respondence relating to this subject has not been published in the 
 papers, but it has been laid before Congress in secret session and 
 the pendency of such a negotiation may be relied upon as true — 
 The English Minister has no doubt in this matter acted under in- 
 structions from his government; it may therefore be assumed that 
 it is the settled policy of the English government to acquire the 
 two Californias. You are aware that the English creditors have 
 now a mortgage on them for twenty-six millions.-'* 
 
 For the present, however. Shannon thought the designs of Eng- 
 land had received a set back in the overthrow of Santa Anna; and 
 as the hew administration were making political capital out of the 
 disclosures regarding California, they would not themselves dare 
 favor a measure similar to that of their discredited opponent. 
 The report of Santa Anna's secret dealings received considerable 
 publicity, both in this country and in Europe ;^^ but exactly what 
 foundation there was in fact for the rumor is not clear. It was 
 about this time that Forbes, the British vice-consul at IMonterey, 
 was submitting his suggestion for an English protectorate through 
 
 "Ap. Cong. Gloie. 28 Cong., 1 sess., p. 226. 
 
 ^''Shannon to Calhoun. MS., State Department. 
 
 "Raymond (Texas Legation at Washington) to Allen. Feb. 21. 1845. 
 Garrison, Tex. Dip. Cor., II, 364, in Am. His. Ass'n Report. 1908, II. See 
 also extract from Paris Presse asserting that in the capture of Santa Anna 
 had been revealed "one of the vastest projects which the undermining 
 ambition of Great Britain ever conceived," in attempting to secure Cali- 
 fornia. Charleston Mercury, March 10, 1845. The article was copied in 
 the London papers without comment and denied in Parliament by both 
 Peel and Palmerston. Ibid., April 7th and 24th. 
 
88 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 Barron ;^'^ and it may have been that some correspondence passed 
 between the British representatives in Mexico and Santa Anna. 
 
 Polk's suspicions. — It was with such reports, as have already 
 been cited^ from Thompson, Green, Larkin and Shannon in the 
 official files of the state department, and with even wilder rumors 
 in the air, that Polk came to the President's office. Every outside 
 influence, moreover, tended to make the new executive suspicious 
 of England's policy. The unsettled Oregon boundary ; the mutual 
 spirit of animosity shown by the press of the two countries;-' the 
 whole western attitude and his schooling at the hands of Andrew 
 Jackson; above all, the course of Great Britain with regard to 
 Texas ;^* prepared him to accept the stories of English designs 
 upon California with little hesitation. 
 
 McNamarra project. — Fresh reports, also, soon strengthened this 
 belief. On May 13, the confidential agent, Wm. S. Parrott, wrote 
 that the British fleet in the Placific had been reenforced for the 
 rumored purpose of taking and holding California in case of war 
 between Mexico and the United States, using as an excuse for the 
 action, the protection of English citizens in their mortgage claims 
 on that province.^^ Later, Parrott said that the force bound from 
 Mexico to California, to subdue the insurrection against Miehel- 
 torena, was to be commanded by an officer educated in France; 
 and that the influence of this commander in California, according 
 to reliable information, was to be used to the advantage of that 
 nation by the French legation in Mexico. At any rate, said Par- 
 rott, "he certainly takes with him a large number of Frenchmen 
 for some reason or other. "^^ 
 
 "For Forbes's plan and Aberdeen's reply see Adams, British Interests, 
 242-250. 
 
 ^Buchanan, in a speech on the Oregon question, March 12, 1844, said 
 that the whole press of England, irrespective of class or party, had teemed 
 with abuse of all things American for two years, until the mind of the 
 British public was thoroughly inflamed against the United States. Ap. 
 Cong. Glohe, 28 Cong., 1 sess., p. 350. 
 
 "For Polk's fear of English influence in Texas see his private corre- 
 spondence as follows: Yell to Polk, March 26, 1845; same to same, May 
 5th; Donelson to Polk, March 19th; Wickliff"e to Polk, June 3, 4. Polk 
 MSS.; Polk to Jackson. April 27th. Jackson MSS. 
 
 ^Parrott to Buchanan, May 13, 1845. MS., State Department. Also 
 for report that England was creating an unfriendly attitude in Mexico 
 against the United States, see Shannon to Calhoun, March 27th. Ibid. 
 
 ^Parrott to Buchanan, Aug. 5, 1845. MS., State Department. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 89 
 
 A few days afterward, however, the American agent had occa- 
 sion to change his Frenchmen into Irishmen, writing that the ex- 
 pedition had been delayed for lack of funds; while with it, "a 
 young Irish Piriest by the name of McNamarrah" was preparing 
 to leave for California for the purpose of introducing Irish immi- 
 grants.^^ In this, it should be remarked, Parrott was not build- 
 ing wholly on his imagination.^* 
 
 LarJcin's despatch of July 10th. — In the fall, more emphatic de- 
 spatches reached the state department. On October 11, Buchanan 
 received a communication from Parrott which said that the least 
 news coming from California excited great interest in English 
 circles, especially among the members of the British legation.^^ 
 On the same day a despatch, written July 10, reached Washington 
 from the American consul at Monterey. This communication of 
 Larkin's deserves special mention. In it he stated that the Hud- 
 son's Bay Company^** had furnished the native Californians with 
 arma and ammunitions to expel the Mexican governor, General 
 Micheltorena,^^ in the preceding year. At the time his despatch 
 was being written, however, Larkin said. 
 
 There is no doub't in this country, but the troops now expected 
 here in September [from Mexico] are sent at the instigation of 
 the British Government under the plea that the American settlers 
 in California want to revolutionize the country; it is rumored 
 that two English houses in Mexico have become bound to the new 
 general to accept his drafts as funds to pay his troops for eighteen 
 months.^2 
 
 "Same to same, Aug. 16th. Ibid. 
 
 ^McNamarra's project was laid before Bankhead in 1844. He took only 
 a "mild interest" in it at the time. Adams, British Interests, 253. Her- 
 rera, however, approved of it, though Paredes objected to the arrangement. 
 Securing the consent of the Mexican government, McNamarra came to 
 California where the assembly voted him a grant of 3000 leagues on July 
 4 — an act which showed "a new feature in English policy, and a new 
 method of obtaining California." Larkin to State Department, Aug. 18 
 and 24, 1846, Official Correspondence, II, Nos. 54-56. Benton and Fre- 
 mont made much of this "McNamarra Scheme" as justifying the latter's 
 participation in the Bear Flag Revolt. Bancroft devotes considerable 
 space to tliis phase of the project. 
 
 =»Parrott to Buchanan, Sept. 2, 1845. MS., State Department. 
 
 '"See also Larkin to Secretary of State, June 5th. MS., State Depart- 
 ment — received Sept. 16th. 
 
 '^The revolt here referred to was that against Micheltorena. 
 
 '^Larkin to Secretary of State, July 10, 1845. MS., State Department; 
 also Larkin, Official Correspondence, II, No. 25. The apparent inconsis- 
 
90 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 Of even greater importance was the information in the same 
 despatch that both France and England had appointed salaried 
 consuls in California, neither of whom had any apparent commer- 
 cial business. The British representative,^^ especially, was a fit 
 subject for suspicion. His ranch was located forty miles inland; 
 he had permission to carry on his private business, while receiving 
 pay from the government; as there was no English commerce his 
 appointment became a mere blind; and finally, he was concerned 
 in the affairs of the "gigantic" Hudson's Bay Company. 
 
 The effect exerted by tliese despatches upon the policy of the 
 administration will be considered later. It remains for the present 
 to note further communications that were well calculated to arouse 
 a like suspicion against England. 
 
 Slidell, when upon his mission to Mexico, at first was unable 
 to learn "anj^hing that would authorize the belief that attempts 
 are making by any European Power, to obtain a cession of any 
 territory on the Pacific Coast," though the late arrival of a son of 
 Sir Robert Peel, as bearer of despatches, from the British fleet in 
 the Pacific, had caused some comment.^* Some ten or twelve days 
 later, however, Slidell was writing for instructions as to the course 
 he should pursue regarding the British mortgage on Mexican ter- 
 ritory, in case a treaty was negotiated. The same despatch like- 
 
 tency of charging the Hudson's Bay Company with aiding in the expulsion 
 of Micheltorena and the British government with endeavoring to reinstate 
 him is explained by the facts. In 1844 the British vice-consul, Forbes, 
 was approached by the California leaders to know if his government would 
 establish a protectorate over them in case they declared their independence. 
 Forbes forwarded the information to the home government, both he and 
 the consul, Barron, at Tepic, favoring the project. Upon the reply of 
 the home office declining to have anything to do with it, however, "they 
 transferred their support to the Mexican government, believing that Mexi- 
 can control would be more favorable to British interests than an inde- 
 pendent government in California." Adams, British Interests, 251. As 
 early as 1842 Sir Greorge Simpson wrote to Sir John H. Pelly (for the 
 eyes of the government) that a single English cruiser on the coast with 
 assurance of protection from Great Britain, would be sufficient for a 
 declaration of independence on the part of the Californians and the estab- 
 lishment of a British protectorate. Am. Hist. Review, XIV, 89. 
 
 "For the activities of Alexander Forbes, see Adams, British Interests, 
 234-264, passim. On the other hand, Larkin seems to have forgotten that 
 he himself urged a French consul's appointment. Larkin to Monsieur 
 Gauden, Havre de Gras, April 21, 1844. Larkin MSS., II, No. 79. 
 
 »*Slidell to Buchanan, Dec. 17, 1845. MS., State Department. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 91 
 
 wise carried information that England was hindering his recep- 
 tion by the Mexican government.^^ 
 
 The rumored 7n anarchy. — About this time, also, reports came to 
 the administration of a plan to establish a monarchy in Mexico 
 and call in a European prince — an arrangement necessarily fatal 
 to Polk's purpose of securing California. John Black, the Ameri- 
 can consul at Mexico City, first called attention to this danger, 
 saying that it was commonly reported that the revolution then in 
 progress had such an end in view. Eeliable persons had informed 
 him that agents were in Europe soliciting a foreign prince; while 
 France, England and Spain, having countenanced the plan, were 
 being looked to as the backers and sustainers of the new monarch.^^ 
 
 Shortly after the receipt of Black's despatch, a private letter, 
 equally positive in tone, came to Polk from the American am- 
 bassador at London. "It need not surprise you to discover at no 
 distant day," wrote McLane, "that a favorite scheme with the lead- 
 ing Powers of Europe is to compose the Mexican trouble by giving 
 her a Monarchial form of . government and supplying the monarch 
 from one of their own families."^^ 
 
 Slidell soon added his voice to this testimony of Black and Mc- 
 Lane, calling attention to the fact that El Tiempo, the official or- 
 gan of the Paredes administration, had come out openly in favor 
 of the monarchy.^^ Three weeks later, the consul at Vera Cruz 
 wrote that the Mexican government was bent, beyond question, 
 on putting the plan into operation, in order to secure foreign in- 
 tervention against the United States. ^^ These reports later called 
 out a reply from Buchanan to Slidell stating that this report had 
 
 ^Slidell to Buchanan, Dec. 29, 1845. lUd. 
 
 »«Black to Buchanan, Dec. 30. lUd. 
 
 »^McLane to Polk, Jan. 17, 1846. Polk MSS. The plan was expected, 
 McLane added, to arouse opposition in Europe to Polk's message and 
 strengthen England in the Oregon controversy. 
 
 ^^Slidell to Buchanan, Feb. 2, 1846. MS., State Department. 
 
 ^Dimond to Buchanan, Feb. 21. Hid. The following quotation shows 
 the basis upon which these reports rested: "Bankhead's intei-est . . . 
 ivas greatly aroused by proposals . . . unoflBcially made by Mexicans 
 of prominence that a solution of Mexican difficulties might be found in 
 an overthrow of the republic and an establishment of a monarchy under 
 A European prince. Bankhead was much attracted by the idea and Aber- 
 deen expressed friendly interest." E. D. Adams, "English Interest in 
 California," Am. Hist. Review, XIV, 761, note. This note does not appear 
 in the chapter on California in the author's "British Interests and Activi- 
 ties in Texas." 
 
92 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 been corroborated from other sources, but implying a doubt as to 
 its foundation.*** However, Slidell was to ferret the matter out, 
 for it was a thing the American people could by no means permit. 
 Later, Slidell wrote that a feeling favorable to the United States 
 was arising among those in Mexico who opposed the idea; and in 
 a second despatch outlined the difficulties its supporters had to 
 overcome.*^ Still, he advised prompt and decisive measures on 
 the part of the authorities at Washington to forestall its success. 
 Two days after the receipt of this communication, the president 
 consulted with Senator Benton as to what these measures 
 should be.*^ 
 
 Agitation in the press. — While the reports of England's designs 
 upon California, and the establishment of a Mexican monarchy 
 were reaching the state department, the same accounts were find- 
 ing their way into the public prints. Larkin's despatch of July 
 10, in somewhat stronger form, was sent by him to the Nev: York 
 Sun, and from that journal copied by many of the other news- 
 papers.*^ In it only two alternatives were given — either Cali- 
 fornia, with all its resources and the mile-wide bay of San Fran- 
 cisco, must belong to the United States or pass into the hands of 
 France or England. With California also went the possession of 
 Oregon. "Why they are in service," said the published despatch 
 in referring to the recently appointed foreign consuls against 
 which the state department had likewise been warned, "their gov- 
 ernment best knows, and Uncle Sam will know to his cost" 
 
 "The exhaustless wealth of the mines of Mexico, the broad and 
 fertile acres of the Californias will fall a prey to British rapacity 
 should there be none to interpose," was the opinion of the New 
 Orleans Picayune.*'^ And even the staid American Review lifted 
 
 "Buchanan to Slidell, March 13, 1846. MS., State Department. Rumor, 
 eaid Buchanan, had already indicated the Spanish Prince Henry, son of 
 Francisco de Paula, and the rejected suitor of Queen Isabella. 
 
 '"Slidell to Buchanan, March 1 and 18. MS., State Department. See 
 also Bancroft to McLane, March 29 in M. A. D. Howe, Life and Letters of 
 George Bancroft (New York. Charles Scribner & Sons. 1908), I, 282. 
 
 "Polk, Diary, 1, 326. 
 
 "Larkin to New York Sun, July 31, 1845. Larkin MSS.. Ill, No. 235. 
 Keprinted in Niles' Register, LXIX, 204; Daily Union, Oct. 21; Charleston 
 Mercury, Oct. 22. 
 
 ^Picayune, Sept. 27. 1845; see also Daily Union, June 16; Richmond 
 Enquirer, Jan. 26, 1846. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 93 
 
 up a voice of warning against English aggressions and in favor 
 of American occupation.*^ The report of the proposed monarchy 
 likeveise received due publicity and unfavorable comment.*'' While 
 the bitter attacks of the London Times against the United States 
 as a nation of land-grabbers, and the repeated calls it made upon 
 the British government to secure California or at least prevent its 
 acquisition by the Americans, aroused no little indignation.*^ 
 
 Effect upon the policy of the administration. — The importance 
 of the question of foreign interference in California lies not fo 
 much, however, in its effect upon the popular mind as upon the 
 policy pursued by the government. On September 16, when con- 
 sidering the instructions for Slidell, Polk records that even the 
 fact of his mission was to be kept secret, lest British or French 
 influences should thwart its purpose. And from this time on 
 the numerous despatches on the subject of foreign interference, of 
 which mention has been made, figured prominently in the admin- 
 istration's course of action. 
 
 The importance especially of Larkin's communication of July 
 10 in this connection has never been duly appreciated. Three 
 days after its receipt, Buchanan wrote privately to McLane regard- 
 ing the Oregon controversy, mentioning several reasons why the 
 compromise measure would meet defeat in the senate. The chief 
 of these he gave as follows : 
 
 The disposition of the two nations [France and England] to 
 meddle in the concern of this continent, the strong suspicions en- 
 tertained that they are now intriguing both in Mexico and Cali- 
 fornia in relation to the latter : — ^all these have conspired to ex- 
 cite American feeling against Great Britain to a very high pitch. 
 By advices from Monterey of the 10th of July last, we are in- 
 formed of the arrival of a British and French consul in upper 
 California without any ostensible commercial business — [Here fol- 
 lowed the substance of Larkin's despatch, with a considerable por- 
 tion of it in direct quotation] ... I need not say to you 
 what a flame would be kindled throughout the Union should Great 
 
 *^ American Review, Jan., 1846. 
 
 *^Picayune, Jan. 10, 1846; Ihid., March 7 (extract from Baltimore Amer- 
 ican) ; Daily TJnio7i, March 10th and 16th. 
 
 "'SHles' Register, LXVIII, 211; LXIX, 147; Richmond Enquirer, Sept. 
 12, 1845; Daily Union, Sept. 8, Oct. 23; New York Journal of Commerce, 
 March 24, etc. 
 
94 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 Britain obtain a cession of California from Mexico or attempt to 
 take possession of that province.*'-* 
 
 As affairs were in such a state, Buchanan further advised McLane 
 that he himself thought the time too critical for urging the Ore- 
 gon question, although the president was determined to give the 
 year's notice.^" 
 
 It may be mentioned in this connection, simply as a matter of 
 interest, that not long before, Polk had received from Eobert Arm- 
 strong, his close personal friend and newly appointed consul to 
 Liverpool, a letter strongly advising him never to settle the Ore- 
 gon question short of 54° unless England gave up all pretensions 
 to California. "England must never have California," were his 
 words, "and it seems to be advisable to make Oregon the bone of 
 contention to prevent it. The whole country will sustain you on 
 Oregon."^^ 
 
 England and Larlcins appointment. — In addition to Buchanan's 
 letter to McLane, the administration's fear of foreign interference 
 was similarly shown in the instructions sent to Larkin and Slidell. 
 Larkin's appointment as confidential agent has often been con- 
 demned as an act smacking of international dishonor. Yet it 
 should be remembered that Polk had every reason to believe that 
 an English and a French agent were likewise masquerading under 
 the guise of consul for the purpose of influencing the political 
 future of California. 
 
 In the instructions to Larkin, tlierefore, we should naturally 
 expect much space to be devoted to the subject of British and 
 French designs. ^'^- And we are not disappointed. The commer- 
 cial interests of the United States demand that the American con- 
 sul shall "exert the greatest vigilance in discovering and defeating 
 any attempts which may be made by foreign governments to ac- 
 quire a control" over California. The president cannot "view 
 
 ^'Buchanan to McLane, Oct. 14, 1845. Polk MSS., Library of Congress; 
 also a copy in the Polk MSS., of the Lennox Collection of the Library of 
 the City of New York. The letter does not appear in the published writ- 
 ings of Buchanan by Moore. 
 
 "For Buchanan's endeavor to persuade Polk to assume a more moderate 
 attitude, see Polk's Diary, I, 62-65. 
 
 "Armstrong to Polk, Aug. 4. Polk MSS. 
 
 ''-The same instructions were entrusted (probably) to Gillespie and 
 Frgmont. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 95 
 
 with indifference the transfer of California to Great Britain or any 
 other European Power." European colonization on the North 
 American constinent must cease, as it can only work hurt to the 
 United States and equal harm to the nations attempting it. The 
 Californians, therefore, are to be warned of the danger of such 
 domination to their peace and prosperity. They are to let events 
 take their course along political lines unless Mexico endeavors to 
 transfer them to Great Britain or France; then they are to resist 
 with force — and the United States will assist them. Lastly, Lar- 
 kin is not to awaken "the jealousy of the British or French agents" 
 by assuming other than his consular character.^^ 
 
 England and SlidelVs instructions. — ^The instructions to Slidell, 
 first drawn up on September 16, but amended after the receipt of 
 Larkin's 10th of July despatch,"* laid an equally strong emphasis 
 on the matter of foreign interference. One of the new minister's 
 duties was "to counteract the influence of foreign Powers exerted 
 against the United States in Mexico." Also — a point frequently 
 lost sight of — Slidell was expected to accomplish, at that particu- 
 lar time, the object for which he was sent, not merely because of 
 "the wretched condition of the internal affairs of Mexico," but 
 also on account of "the misunderstanding which exists between the 
 Government and the Ministers of France and England."^^ 
 
 The same determination to resist European colonization that 
 had been expressed to Larkin was contained, even in a stronger 
 form, in this document received by Slidell. He was instructed to 
 ascertain whether Mexico proposed ceding California to France or 
 England, and to take steps to prevent any such action, "so fraught 
 with danger to the best interests of the United States." For if 
 all the advantages of San Francisco harbor "should be turned 
 against our country, by the cession of California to Great Britain 
 our principal commercial rival, the consequences would be most 
 disastrous."^^ 
 
 ^'Buchanan to Larkin. Buchanan, Works, VI, 275-278. It should be 
 noted that Bftchanan assigned as his reasons for these warnings, etc. 
 Larkin's despatch of July 10th. 
 
 ^*Tliis despatch was received Oct. 4th. 
 
 ^'For a report of this disagreement, see Parrott to Buchanan, Sept. 29 
 and Oct. 4. MSS., State Department. 
 
 '"Buchanan, Works, VI, 294 et seq. The force of this idea of foreign 
 control in California is still further shown in the opening paragraph of 
 the part of these instructions dealing with California. — "There is another 
 
96 Early Sentiment for Annexation of Calif ornia 
 
 PolTc's re-statement of the Monroe Doctrine. — Polk, however, 
 did not rest content with these secret efforts to thwart European 
 influence in California. On December 2, came his first annual 
 message with its enlarged affirmation of the Monroe Doctrine. 
 California was not specifically mentioned in this document, but 
 the wording was such as to be meaningless if applied to Oregon 
 alone. This was so recognized at the time.^'^ Moreover, Polk 
 told Benton definitely, while the message was in the course of 
 preparation late in October, that he had California in mind as 
 well as Oregon. Great Britain, he said, had her eye upon Cali- 
 fornia, intending to possess it if possible; but the people of the 
 United States would see that she did not. "California and the 
 fine Bay of San Francisco" were to be protected from English 
 aggression as well as Oregon. Like Cuba, California might re- 
 main under its present owners but never pass into the hands of a 
 more powerful nation.^^ 
 
 It has sometimes been held that this application of the Mon- 
 roe Doctrine was merely a bogey used by Polk to alarm the country 
 and justify his subsequent course in the eyes of the nation. 
 Enough, it is believed, has already been said to show the falsity of 
 such a charge. Wh.en he wrote — "the people of this continent 
 alone have the right to decide their own destiny. Should any 
 portion of them, constituting an independent state, propose to 
 unite themselves with our confederacy, this will be a question for 
 them and for us to determine without any foreign interference"^'' — 
 Polk desired to warn England that the United States would brook 
 no interference in case the program entrusted to Larkin in Cali- 
 fornia was a success, and the inhabitants sought annexation to 
 this country. 
 
 Similarly, when he announced that "no future European colony 
 or dominion, shall with our consent, be planted or established on 
 any part of the North American continent,""" he wished to an- 
 
 subject of vast importance to the United States which will demand your 
 particular attention. From information possessed by this department it 
 is seriously to be apprehended that both Great Britain and France have 
 designs upon California." 
 
 ^'Gong. Gloie, 29 Cong., 1 sess., p. 350. 
 
 =«Polk, Diary, I, 71 (Oct. 24th). 
 
 "^ James D. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents (Wash- 
 ington. Gov't Printing Office. 'l896), IV, 398. 
 
 '"Ibid., 399. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 97 
 
 nounce clearly and distinctly to the British government that any 
 attempt she might make to gain control of California would he 
 opposed, with arms if necessar}^, by the United States. 
 
 Did Polk's fear of England hasten the Mexican War? — The 
 foregoing discussion, it is hoped, has shown something of the 
 apprehension that existed in the mind of President Polk and 
 his advisers, lest, either directly or indirectly, European influence 
 should hinder the acquisition of California by the United States. 
 How large a part this played in bringing on the Mexican War, 
 would be interesting, but impossible, to say. In arriving at the 
 effect of this apprehension, however, it should be remembered 
 that Polk's attitude on all great public questions was moulded 
 largely by Andrew Jackson, who had warned him against England 
 both in her relation to Texas and California,^^ and that he had 
 every reason to believe, and did thoroughly believe, from the re- 
 ports that came from Mexico and California that European in- 
 fluence was at work to defeat his purpose. He laid the blame for 
 SlidelFs rejection directly at England's door.^^ And even as late 
 as the outbreak of the war, his secretary of state feared that if 
 England learned of his determination to acquire California, she, 
 and perhaps France, would Join Mexico against the United 
 States.®^ But whatever influence this may have exerted upon 
 Polk's determination to commence hostilities, it surely was not 
 with insincerity that he wrote after the treaty of Guadalupe 
 Hidalgo, "The immense value of ceded territory does not consist 
 alone in the amount of money for which the public lands may be 
 sold . . . the fact that it has become a part of the Union 
 and cannot be subject to European power, constitutes ample in- 
 demnity for the past."*'* 
 
 °^Ap. Cong. Glohe, 28 Cong., 1 sess., p. 445. 
 ''Diary, I, 337 (April 18, 1846). 
 'Wiary, 1, 396-399 (May 13th). 
 •^Richardson, IV, 599. 
 
98 Eafi-Jy Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 Chapter VI 
 
 * 
 
 SLAVERY AND THE EARLY SENTIMENT FOR ANNEXATION 
 
 Before bringing to a close this discussion of American interest 
 in California prior to the Mexican War, a word must be said re- 
 garding the idea that Polk's desire for California was prompted 
 largely by his wish to extend the area of slaver}^, and that the 
 acquisition of the territory itself was brought about chiefly 
 through Southern efforts. Of late years, with the clearing away 
 of much of the historic mist and fog, arising from the bitter con- 
 troversies before the Civil War, the whole subject of slavery in 
 its relation to territorial expansion is seen in a clearer and less 
 distorted light. Even the annexation of Texas is coming to be 
 considered chiefly as a phase of the westward progress of the 
 American people and no longer a mere device of slave holding- 
 states. 
 
 To a much more marked degree, is this true of the new atti- 
 tude toward the acquisition of California. Yet the charge has 
 been made so frequently in one form or another that 'the South- 
 erners were after bigger pens to cram with slaves' — "having ac- 
 quired Texas they longed for New Mexico and California," — it 
 seems well to point out a few salient facts that such writers as 
 Ehodes,^ Henry Wilson,^ Jay,^ H. H. Bancroft,* Henry Cabot 
 Lodge^ and other members of the older^ school of American his- 
 torians, have apparently overlooked. 
 
 One indeed has difficulty in finding any true grounds at all for 
 
 *This does not pretend to be an adequate or exhaustive study of the 
 subject. It is written only to show in a broad way why the acquisition 
 of California cannot be considered a slavery measure. 
 
 Mames Ford Rhodes, History of the United States (New York, Mac- 
 millan. 1894), I. 87. 
 
 ^Henry Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Poioer in America (Boston. 
 Houghton, Mifflin and Company. 1879), II, 9. 
 
 ^Jay, Revieiv of the Causes and Consequences of the Mexicati War, 107. 
 
 'H. H. Bancroft, Works, XIIL 344. 
 
 'Henry Cabot Lrodge, Daniel Webster (American Statesman Series), 289. 
 
 'For a more recent writer taking this view, see H. Addington Bruce, 
 Romance of American Expansion (New York. Moffat, Yard & Co, 1909), 
 139. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexatio-n of California 99 
 
 the opinion of this group. Their argument, however, runs about 
 as follows: The Mexican War had as its object the acquisition 
 of California; it occurred during the administration of a south- 
 em president, and was largely the product of his own devising; 
 it was therefore fought simply to extend the area of slavery. As 
 Henry Wilson expressed it in The Rise and Fall of the Slave 
 Power, the "march into territory inhabited by Mexicans . . . 
 meant more than 'to defend our own and the rights of Texas.' 
 It could only mean, it did mean, the acquisition of more terri- 
 tory, in which to establish slavery, and by which the further ex- 
 tension and development of slave holding institutions could be 
 promoted." 
 
 Those who adopt this course of reasoning, however, leave out 
 of consideration a most essential fact. The movement for the 
 annexation of California, as we have endeavored to show, did not 
 begin with the presidency of James K. Polk, nor with the out- 
 break of the Mexican War. It originated more than a decade be- 
 fore either of these events and by 1846 had developed such 
 strength and headway that its successful culmination was merely 
 a matter of time, as was even then pretty generally recognized. 
 After 1846 the course of the movement was obscured bv the 
 acrimonious debates over the conduct of the war, and the Wilmot 
 Proviso — the latter especially precipitating a conflict of principle 
 in which the south took an active and determined part. It is 
 scarcely possible, however, to maintain, as some have done, that 
 the pro-slavery forces originated and gave vigor to the actual 
 movement for annexation, because they opposed the Wilmot Pro- 
 viso. We shall save ourselves from this error if we remember that 
 the question at issue from 1846 until 1850 was, after all, not so 
 much one of acquisition, per se, as of method and status. We are 
 not concerned at this time with the way in which California was 
 secured nor with the contest as to whether it should be free ter- 
 ritory or slave. Our contention is simply this, that the keen de- 
 sire for Mexican territory on the Pacific, which developed among 
 the American people prior to 1846 and found its gratification in 
 the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, was not inspired by sectional 
 issues, and in no sense deserves to be called a slavery measure. 
 
 California as an off-set to Texas. — There are a number of rea- 
 sons upon which we venture to base this assertion. In the first 
 
100 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 place, contrary to the generally accepted view of the matter, be- 
 fore 1845 the south proposed the acquisition of California as free 
 territory in order to neutralize the opposition of the north to the 
 annexation of Texas. 
 
 We have already seen that Jackson urged upon Wharton the 
 necessity of including California within the limits of Texas in 
 order to reconcile the commercial interests of the north and east 
 to the program of annexation by giving them a harbor on the 
 Pacific.^ Waddy Thompson, Calhoun's friend and political dis- 
 ciple, did not expect to see slavery established in the territory 
 whose acquisition he so strenuously urged, but thought the north 
 would favor his project because of their commercial and fishing 
 interests.^ The same idea was present in Tyler's plan of a tri- 
 partite agreement when early in 1843 he wrote Webster: 
 
 The mere recognition of Texas, would have the effect . . . 
 of separating that question from California . . . and using 
 up all the agitations which you anticipated. Wliereas introduced 
 into the same treaty the three interests would be united and would 
 satisfy all sections of the country. Texas might not stand alone 
 nor would the line proposed for Oregon. Texas would reconcile 
 all to the line, while California would reconcile or pacify all to 
 Oregon.^ 
 
 As late, too, as March 10, 1846, the Charleston Mercury cred- 
 ited the rumored annexation of California to the Whigs as an 
 offset to the annexation of Texas, and congratulated that party 
 on thus endeavoring to regain popular favor. While even that 
 knight errant of the anti-slavery cause, Joshua E. Giddings, seems 
 to have thought of the annexation movement from beginning to 
 end solely as a free soil movement. Speaking on the floor of the 
 house on July 14, 1846, he charged President Polk with seeking 
 the annexation, not of California, but of the Mexican states north 
 of the 22d parallel in order to establish slavery in the territory 
 so secured, "at the moment," as he said, "when our rapidly in- 
 creasing population is flowing into Oregon and California, — when 
 free states are growing up in the former and the latter gives prom- 
 
 'The Qttarterly, XVIII, 17. 
 HUd., 28. 
 "lUd., 33. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 101 
 
 ise of preparation for annexation as a counterpart of Texas 
 
 Favorable attitude in the north. — A second reason for the be- 
 lief that the annexation of California was not a slavery measure, 
 is the fact that the movement found its strongest popular favor 
 in the north. Most of the contemporary newspaper and magazine 
 articles which advocated the acquisition of this portion of Mexi- 
 can territory first appeared in New York or New England. 
 Thomas 0. Larkin and other American residents of California 
 were regular correspondents, not for southern newspapers, but for 
 the Boston Daily Advertiser, the New York Journal of Commerce, 
 and the New York Sun — the editor of the Sun, especially making 
 it the settled policy of his paper to create a sentiment for an- 
 nexation by publishing the most glowing accounts of California 
 obtainable, and seeking to arouse public interest in other ways 
 best known to members of his profession. 
 
 In this connection it may be of passing interest to call atten- 
 tion to articles that appeared in two leading American periodi- 
 cals of January, 1846. One published in the American Review, 
 known to its opponents as the "Text Book of the Whig Party," 
 gave a complete, though somewhat exaggerated picture of the rich 
 resources of California, spoke of the miserable control exercised 
 by Mexico over the province, and urged its immediate annexa- 
 tion to the United States, provided this could be accomplished by 
 peaceful means.^^ In De Bow's Review, afterwards the most in- 
 fluential journal of the south, an important place was also given 
 to a discussion of California. The picture here drawn, however, 
 was, in marked contrast to the glowing description of the north- 
 ern writer, dreary in the extreme. California's soil was hope- 
 lessly sterile and cursed with drought, while its other resources 
 were so limited that the country "would never become of any great 
 importance in the history of the world or advance to any con- 
 
 "Speeches in Congress by Joshua R. Giddings (Boston and Cleveland. 
 Jewett & Co. 18.53), 258-259. 
 
 "Above, p. 242. As early as March 5, 1845, the Journal of Com- 
 merce credited the Whigs with aiming to secure California in order to 
 offset the popularity the Democrats had won in urging the annexation of 
 Texas. See also Richmond Enquirer, Jan. 26, 1846. 
 
102 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 spicuoiis position, either agriculturally, commercially, or politi- 
 cally."i2 
 
 De Bow's article probably did not represent the common opin- 
 ion of the south. Yet the interest with which the commercial 
 states of the north regarded the future of California was unques- 
 tionably greater than that of any other section of the country, with 
 the possible exception of the extreme west. For it was natural 
 that those who had important trade relations not merely with 
 California, but with India, China, and the Sandwich Islands, be- 
 side extensive whale fisheries, should of all others desire most 
 eagerly a harbor and territory on the Pacific. It was for this 
 reason, as much as any other, that Webster, who would scarcely 
 be called the champion of slavery, considered San Francisco as 
 twenty times more valuable than all Texas, and was so desirous 
 of securing California while secretary of state that he even pro- 
 posed to take Everett's place as ambassador to England in order 
 to facilitate the adoption of the tripartite agreement. ^^ 
 
 Character of immigration. — So far, also, as forces were at work 
 locally in California to bring about a cession of the province to 
 the United States, one finds the influence almost wholly of north- 
 ern origin. Indeed, the charge that southern immigrants and 
 southern leaders acted dishonorably in Texan affairs, can be re- 
 turned (if in either case the charges are valid) with good interest 
 against the north in the case of California. Lansford W. Hast- 
 ings, the leader of a very ambitious scheme for independence, 
 came from Connecticut, Marsh, his associate, Alfred Robinson, 
 and J. T. Farnham, whose writings stimulated widespread interest 
 in California throughout the United States, were also natives of 
 New England ; while Abel Stearns, Larkin's confidential advisor in 
 Southern California, and Larkin himself, who played such an im- 
 portant part in the whole annexation movement, were from Massa- 
 chusetts. Indeed it is hard to find more than one or two resident 
 Americans of any prominence in California at this time who were 
 
 "De Bow, Commercial Review, I, 65-66. "It was this article that first 
 broTight De Bow into prominence and that was quoted in debate in the 
 French Chamber of Deputies." H. P. Dart, in Tulane University Maga- 
 zine, bound in copy of above in University of California Library. 
 
 "The Quarterly, XVIII, 33. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 103 
 
 not of New England origin." As for the rank and file of immi- 
 grants who arrived in California up to 1846, it cannot be said that 
 they came from any one section of the Union. Some were from 
 the south and some from New England ; while the great majority 
 were from the frontier states of the west. Many had set out 
 originally for Oregon but for one reason or another had changed 
 their destination to California. They were trappers, farmers, 
 mechanics and laborers who thought as little of establishing slav- 
 ery as of setting up a monarchial government.^'^ 
 
 Proposed boundary lines. — One further point remains to be dis- 
 cussed, which of itself precludes any idea that the desire to estab- 
 lish slavery in California furnished the motive for its annexation. 
 On August 6, 1835, the United States government made its first 
 attempt to purchase California. Forsyth's instructions of that 
 date to Butler placed, the desired line of boundary on the 37th 
 parallel and expressly disclaimed any purpose of securing territory 
 further south, or below the Bay of San Francisco. Something 
 like a year later, Jackson offered the captured president of the 
 Mexican Eepiiblic, who had been sent to Washington by the vic- 
 torious Texans, three and one-half million dollars on behalf of 
 the United States, for a line extending along the 38th parallel 
 from the Eio Grande to the Pacific. On June 17, 1842, Webster 
 instructed Thompson to secure, if possible, territory on the Pacific 
 in return for the American claims against Mexico. The main ob- 
 ject of the negotiations, according to the despatch, was to secure 
 the harbor of San Francisco, although other territory might be 
 added. Later, this same purpose was expressed in the terms of 
 the tripartite agreement forwarded to Edward Everett at London. 
 On Nov. 8, 1845, Secretary of State Buchanan sent to Slidell, 
 Polk's confidential Mexican agent, his official instructions, by 
 which he was empowered to offer the Mexican government some- 
 thing over $25,000,000 for a line extending west from the south- 
 ern boundary of New Mexico, or "for any line that should in- 
 
 "Bancroft, Pioneer Register- and Index. In a list of those of any promi- 
 nence in California prepared by Larkin for the State Department, nine 
 were from NeAv England, two from New York, one from Ohio, one from 
 Maryland, and three unspecified. 
 
 "Larkin to State Department, June 15, 1846 (Description of California 
 in Official Correspondence, Pt. II, 94-96) ; Sutter to Larkin, July 15, 1846. 
 Larkin MSS., Ill, No. 220. 
 
104 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 elude Monterey within the territory ceded to the United States." 
 If this could not be obtained, he was to offer $20,000,000 for a 
 'line commencing at any point on the Western line of New Mex- 
 ico and running due West, so as to include the Bay and Harbor 
 of San Francisco.^" 
 
 It is surely a puzzling problem, why, if the acquisition of Cali- 
 fornia owed its origin to slavery, these official instructions for 
 its purchase, constituting all that were issued between 18'35 and 
 the outbreak of the Mexican War, without exception should have 
 placed the desired line of boundary above, or only slightly below. 
 the 36° 30' parallel, where under no circumstances could slavery 
 hope to exist. 
 
 Southern opposition to President Folic. — Up to 1846, therefore, 
 the matter of acquiring California, both in the province itself and 
 throughout the United States, can scarcely be considered as a slav- 
 ery, or even a sectional measure. With the outbreak of the Mexican 
 War and the bitter controversy arising over the Wilmot Proviso a few 
 months later, the entire aspect of affairs was changed, and 
 the subject becomes too complicated to be susceptible of ade- 
 quate treatment in this place. And yet even from this time on 
 there is certainly no such clear sectional division on the question 
 as many writers of a past generation would have us believe. On 
 the contrary, it found its advocates as well as its opponents both 
 in the north and in the south. It was Alexander Stephens of 
 Georgia who introduced a resolution on January 22, 1847, in the 
 house, that no portion of Mexican territory should be acquired as 
 the result of the war; while Berrien of the same state attempted 
 to secure the passage of a like resolution in the senate as an 
 amendment to the three million bill, some ten days later. ^^ 
 
 "I say in my humble judgment and speaking as a southern 
 senator representing a southern state," said Berrien on this sub- 
 ject, "that the duty of the south — the interests of the south — the 
 safety of the south — demands that we should oppose ourselves to 
 any and every acquisition of territory ."^^ Badger, of North Caro- 
 
 "This despatch to Slidell, as well as the other references to boundary 
 just cited, have received due notice elsewhere in this discussion. 
 
 "Cong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 sess., pp. 240, 310. Ewing of Tennessee intro- 
 duced a similar measure. Ibid., p. 230. 
 
 ^Ibid., p. 330. See also Von Hoist. Political and Constitutional History 
 of the United States, III, 303. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 105 
 
 lina, echoed Berrien's statement and denied that the people of his 
 state desired an addition of territory from Mexico to any consid- 
 erable extent.^^ Butler, of South Carolina, cared only for the 
 port of San Francisco and rejoiced that this lay above the line of 
 the Missouri Compromise.^" Toombs was opposed to taking "an 
 inch" of Mexican territory. ^^ 
 
 In his own party, also, Polk found his strongest opponents to 
 be southern men. Of the twelve Democrats opposing the war 
 resolution in the house, eleven came from the south.^^ Calhoun 
 and his followers were of course against the president, and cared 
 so little for California that they were willing to imperil its ac- 
 quisition for the sake of discrediting the administration.^^ 
 
 Polk's views. — Turning to Polk's own conception of slavery in its 
 relation to California, we shall find it, also, entirely different from 
 what some writers have led us to believe. Though Polk wanted 
 the line of boundary to run somewhat farther south,^* Slidell's 
 instructions laid emphasis only upon the possession of San Fran- 
 cisco; and it was this harbor, and not a new area for slavery, that 
 was considered "all important to the United States."^^ An added 
 proof of the lack of sectional bias in Polk's efforts to sec ure _ the 
 territory is shown by the fact that when he wished to send a regi- 
 ment, whose members should eventually become citizens of Cali- 
 fornia, he chose New York as the field for enrollment and not 
 one of the southern states as he might well have done.^^ 
 
 "Ap. Cong. Olole, 30 Cong., 1 sess., pp. 121-122. See also Glole, 29 
 Cong.. 2 sess., p. 338. 
 
 ^°Globe, 29 Cong., 1 sess., p. 448. 
 
 ^Gloie, 29 Cong., 2 sess., p. 141. 
 
 -'Ap. Globe, Ibid., pp. 412-413. 
 
 "Calhoun's attitude is seen best in his correspondence during the period. 
 He feared lest Polk should attempt to seize the whole of Mexico. Polk 
 asserted that Calhoun was almost indifferent at this time to the estab- 
 lishment of slavery in California. Diary, II, 283-284. For the further 
 division in the south against the president's policy, see the Charleston 
 Mercury of Feb. 10, 1847. 
 
 ^Diary, I, 34-35. The line suggested by Polk ran about on the 32a 
 parallel. 
 
 ^Slidell's instructions already cited. 
 
 ^Marcy to Col. J. D. Stevenson, June 26, 1847. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 sess., 
 
 p. 809. The men were to be of "good habits" and "various pursuits" who 
 
 would remain as citizens when the war was over. Tliey left New York 
 
 October 26, arriving in San Francisco March 6, 1847. Three hundred of 
 
 the regiment were still living in California in 1867. Cronise, Natural 
 Wealth of California, 54-55. 
 
106 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 The president's own words, however, unless we are to believe 
 him absolutely insincere, best explain his position. He regarded 
 the Wilmot proviso as "a, mischievous and foolish amendment"; 
 and believed that slavery should in no way be connected with the 
 peace negotiations with Mexico, or with the war. Those who in- 
 sisted upon joining the two called forth his condemnation, as 
 working ruin to the country. ^^ 
 
 His own plan for the settlement of the question was stated re- 
 peatedly in his Diary, and can in no way be construed as favor- 
 ing the south against the north. In referring to a visit from 
 Senator Crittenden, the Whig senator from Kentucky, to whom 
 he had spoken of securing New Mexico and California as indem- 
 nity, he wrote, 
 
 I told him I deprecated the agitation of the slavery question in 
 Congress, and though a South-Western man and from a slave- 
 holding state as well as himself I did not desire to acquire a more 
 Southern Territory than that which I had indicated, because I did 
 not desire by so doing to give occasion for the agitation of a 
 question which might serve to endanger the Union itself. I told 
 him the question would probably never be a practical one if we 
 acquired New Mexico and California because there would be but 
 a narrow ribbon of territoi-y south of the Missouri Compromise 
 line of 36° 30' and in it slavery would probably never exist. ^^ 
 
 Exactly why Polk should send Slidell to Mexico, appoint a 
 confidential agent in California, offer twenty-five millions of dol- 
 lars, and perhaps go to war for the purpose of securing a "nar- 
 row ribbon of territory" in which to establish an abstract slavery, 
 does not clearly appear. So far from being an ardent champion 
 of the south, on the contrary, the president was far more open 
 to the criticism of his opponents that he was favoring the north. ^^ 
 
 ^'Diary. 11. 75 (August 10, 1846) ; TUd., 305 (Jan. 4. 1847). 
 
 "^Diary, II, 350. Polk had expressed the same idea to David Wilmot 
 ilUd.. 289) and to Calhonn (p. 283). as well as to others. He had 
 favored the extension of the same line in the annexation of Texas (Ctirtis, 
 Buchanan, 1, 580). He thought if this plan were adopted in settling the 
 controversy over California and New Mexico, "harmony would be restored 
 to the Union and the danger of forming geographical parties avoided." 
 Diary, June 24, 1848. 
 
 =*Charleston Mercury, Feb. 17, 1847. A rumor had arisen that Polk 
 would not negotiate for territory south of 36° 30' If this were true, 
 said the writer, the south would do well to face the issue at once "while 
 our men have arms in their hands." 
 
 Calhoun considered Polk as his direct opponent, and classed him with 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of Californi'd 107 
 
 The larger part of the territory, and the only part considered of 
 much value, lay ahove the Missouri Compromise line.^° Though 
 refusing to have anything to do with the Wilmot Proviso, Polk 
 expressed a willingness, even against southern opposition, to sign 
 a bill prohibiting slavery in Oregon.^^ And when urged by Cal- 
 houn to appoint southern men to control the government in Cali- 
 fornia and New Mexico, he declined to commit himself.^^ 
 
 In the complete bewilderment with which the president saw the 
 injection of the slavery question into the debates on the acquisi- 
 tion of California; and in the middle ground he occupied between 
 the extremists both of the north and of the south,^^ one sees how 
 sincerely he regarded the measure as national and not sectional 
 in scope. We may perhaps blame Polk for failing to perceive that 
 his desire for empire would inevitably bring the great issues of 
 slavery before the American people. But we can scarcely say he 
 had anything less than the interest of the whole nation at heart. 
 Like Jackson he was more the product of the west than of the 
 south, and he looked through the eyes neither of Calhoun nor of 
 Adams, but of Jackson. He was not sectional, and if he over- 
 looked the significance of slavery in its bearing upon California, 
 it was because his thoughts ran to national greatness. His ob- 
 ject was not to secure njigger pens to cram with slaves,' but to 
 give to the United States wide boundaries and the mastery of the 
 Pacific. 
 
 the "most rabid of the \Aniigs" when endeavoring to secure the adoption 
 of his "Address of the Southern Delegates ... to their constituents." 
 Calhoun to Mrs. T. G. Clemson, Jan. 24, 1849. Correspondence, p. 761, 
 and note. 
 
 ^"Daily Union, Feb. 19, 1847 (Denial of a charge of sectionalism against 
 Polk). 
 
 ^Diary, III (entry for August 8, 1848). 
 
 ''Ibid, (entry for July 16, 1848). 
 
 ^'On Jan. 22, 1847, he wrote, "Even the question of slavery is thrown 
 into Congress and agitated in the midst of a foreign war for political 
 purposes. It is brought forward at the north by a few ultra Northern 
 members to advance the prospects of their favorite [for president]. No 
 sooner is it introduced than a few ultra Southern members are manifestly 
 well satisfied that it has been brought forward, because by seizing upon 
 it they hope to array a Southern party in favour of their favorite candi- 
 date for the presidency. There is no patriotism on either side, it is a 
 most wicked agitation that can end in no good and must produce infinite 
 mischief." {Ibid., II, 348.) See also page 340 . . . "they are en- 
 gaged in discussing the abstract question of slavery, and gravely consider- 
 ing whether it shall exist in a territory which we have not yet acquired 
 and may never acquire from Mexico. The presidential election of 1848 
 has evidently much to do with this factious state of things." 
 
108 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 BIBLTOGRAPHYi 
 Manuscript Material 
 
 A. Of Major Importance 
 
 Bancroft Collection : 
 
 Larkin, Thomas 0., Official Correspondence, 1844-1846. 
 Larkin, Thomas 0.. Private Correspondence, 1842-1846. 
 
 Department of State : 
 
 Despatches: England, to and from. 1840-1846. 
 
 Despatches : Mexico, to and from, consular and diplomatic, 1829- 
 1846. 
 
 Library of Congress: 
 
 Jackson Manuscripts (chronologically arranged, one portfolio to 
 each year, otherwise unclassified or catalogued). 
 
 Polk Manuscripts, (chronologically arranged, one portfolio to 
 each year, otherwise unclassified or catalogued). 
 
 B. Of Minor Importance 
 
 Bancroft Collection : 
 
 Alvarado, Juan B., Historia de California. 5 vols. 
 
 Belden, Josiah, Historical Statement. 
 
 Bidwell, John, California, 1841-8. 
 
 Castro, Manuel, Documentos para la Historia de California. 2 
 vols. 
 
 Morris, Albert J., Diary of a Crazy Man, or an Account of the 
 Graham Affair. 
 
 Savage, Thomas, Documentos para la Historia de California. 4 
 vols. 
 
 Swasey, W. F., Statement. 
 
 Vallejo, M. G., Documentos para la Historia de California. 35 
 vols. 
 
 Library of Congress : 
 
 Van Buren Manuscripts, 1837-1836. 
 Webster Manuscripts, 1840-1843. 
 
 'Thronorhout the text, wherever reference is made for the first time to 
 any publication, the name of the publisher, together with the date and 
 place of publication will be found in a footnote. It seems inadvisable, 
 therefore, to ?epeat these in the Bibliography. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 109 
 
 Governmental Publications 
 
 American State Papers, Miscellaneous, TI. 
 
 Annals of Congress, XXXVII, XL. 
 
 Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 3<S Congress, 1st session; 
 29 Congress, 2nd session: 30 Congress, ]st session. 
 
 Congressional Globe, 29 Congress, 1st session; 29 Congress, 2nd 
 session; 30 Congress, 1st session. 
 
 House Executive Documents, 24 Congress, 2nd session, no. 35; 
 25 Congress, 1st session, no. 42; 27 Congress, 3d session, no. 166; 
 29 Congress, 2nd session, no. 19. 
 
 Reports of Committees, 25 Congress, 3d session, no. 101. 
 
 Pichardson, James D., A compilation of the Letters and Mes- 
 sages of the Presidents, 1789-1897. 10 vols. 
 
 Diaries, Personal Narratives, Published Correspondence 
 
 Adams, Charles F. (Editor), Memoirs of John Quincy Adams 
 with portions of his Diary from. 1 795 to 1848. 12 vols. 
 
 Benton, Thomas H., Thirty Years' View. 2 vols. 
 
 Dana, Eichard H., Two Years Before the Mast. 
 
 Farnham, Thomas Jefferson, Life and Adventures in California 
 and Scenes in the Pacific. 
 
 Fremont, John C, Memoirs of my Life. 1 vol. 
 
 Fremont, John C, Peport of the Exploring Expedition to the 
 Eockv Mountains in 1842, and to Oregon and California in the 
 jears' 1843-44. 
 
 Garrison, George P., Diplomatic Correspondence of the Eepublic 
 of Texas, I (Annual Eeport of the Ainerican Historical Associa- 
 tion, 1907, II). 
 
 Giddings, Joshua B., Speeches in Congress. 
 
 Hastings, Lansford W., Emigrants' Guide to Oregon and Cali- 
 fornia. 
 
 Howe, M. A. D., Life and Letters of George Bancroft. 2 vols. 
 
 Jameson, J. Franklin (Editor), Correspondence of John C. Cal- 
 houn (Annual Report of the American Historical Association, 
 1899, II). 
 
 Moore, John Bassett (Editor), The Works of James Buchanan, 
 12 vols. 
 
 Pattie, James Ohio, Personal Narrative. 
 
 Quaiffe, Milo M. (Editor), The Diary of James K. Polk during 
 his Presidency, 1845 to 1849. 4 vols. 
 
 Eobinson, Alfred, Life in California. 
 
 Simpson^ Sir George. Narrative of a Voyage around the World 
 during the years 1841 and 1842. 2 vols. 
 
 Thompson, Waddy, Eecollections of Mexico. 
 
110 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 
 
 Tyler, Lyon G., Letters and Times of the Tylers. 3 vols. 
 
 Thwaites, "Reuben Gr. (Editor), Early Western Travels, 1748- 
 1846. 31 vols. 
 
 Webster, Daniel, Writings and Speeches. 18 vols. 
 
 Wilkes, Lieutenant Charles, Narrative of the United States Ex- 
 ploring Expedition during the years 1838-42. 5 vols. 
 
 Newspapers and Periodicals 
 
 A. Contemporary Publications 
 
 American Register, or General Repository of History, Politics, 
 and Science, III. 
 
 American Review, January, 1846. 
 
 Charleston Mercury, 1844-6. 
 
 DeBow, Commercial Review, January, 1846. 
 
 Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, 1846. 
 
 London Athenaeum, 1845-6. 
 
 London Illustrated News, 1845-6. 
 
 Missouri Republic, 1827. 
 
 New Orleans Dailv Picavune, 1844-6. 
 
 New York Herald] 1844-6. 
 
 New York Journal of Commerce, 1844-6. 
 
 New York Sun, 1844-6. 
 
 North American Review, January, 1846. 
 
 Niles' National Register, 1817-46. 
 
 Richmond Enquirer, 1844-6. 
 
 Washington Daily Union, 1844-46. 
 
 B. Later Publications 
 
 American Historical Re\aew, XIV, XVI. 
 Century Magazine, XVIII, XIX. 
 
 Historical Society of Southern California Publications, III. 
 Johns Hopkins L^niversity Studies in Historical and Political 
 Science, VIII. 
 
 Publications of the Academy of Pacific Coast History, I, no. 5. 
 San Jose Pioneer, 1879-1881. 
 Southwestern Historical Quarterl}^, XIV. 
 
 General Works 
 
 Adams, Ephraim Douglas, British Interests and Activities in 
 Texas. 
 
 Bancroft, Hubert Howe, Works. 39 vols. 
 
 Bigelow, John, Memoirs of the Life and Public Service of John 
 Charles Fremont. 
 
Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 111 
 
 Boume, Edward Gaylord, Essays in Historical Criticism. 
 
 "Bnice, H. Addington, Roinance of American Expansion. 
 
 Chittenden, Hiram Martin. The History of the American Fur 
 Trade of the Far West. 3 vols. 
 
 Crane, William Carey, Life and Literary Remains of Sam Hous- 
 ton of Texas. 
 
 Curtis, George Tichnor, Life of Daniel AYebster. 2 vols. 
 
 Davis, William Heath, Sixty Years in California. 
 
 Forbes, Alexander, California : A History of Upper and Lower 
 California. 
 
 Green, Duif, Facts and Suggestions. 
 
 Greenhow, Robert, History of Oregon and California. 
 
 Jav, William, A Review of the Causes and Consequences of the 
 ^AFexican War. 
 
 Jones. Anson, The Republic of Texas. 
 
 Laut, Agnes C, Vikings of the Pacific. 
 
 Lodge, Henry Cabot, Daniel Webster. 
 
 McMaster, John Bach, History of the People of the United 
 States from the Revolution to the Civil War. 7 vols. 
 
 Reeves, Jes^e S.. American Diplomacy under Tyler and Polk. 
 
 Rhodes, James Ford, History of the United States from the 
 Compromise of 1850. 7 vols. 
 
 Richman, Irving B., California under Spain and Mexico. 
 
 Rives, John Loekhart, The United States and Mexico, 1821- 
 18^8. 2 vols. 
 
 Schouler, James, History of the United States. 6 vols. 
 
 Tullidge, Edward W.,' History of Salt Lake City and Its 
 Founders. 
 
 Tuthill, Franklin H., History of California. 
 
 Von Hoist, H., The Constitutional and Political History of the 
 United States. 8 vols. 
 
 Wilson, Henry, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America. 
 3 vols. 
 
•■•:?=> 
 
 LBN 'lb