=247=Gillespie to Larkin, May 24. =13=J. A. to A. Forbes, July
9. Polk, Diary, Oct. 30, 1845. =247=Leidesdorff to Larkin, Apr.
25, 1846. Buchanan to Larkin, Oct. 17, 1845. _Atlantic Monthly_, Oct.,
1890, pp. 548, etc. Sen. 33; 30, 1, 373. Ho. Report 817; 30, 1. Sen.
Report 75; 30, 1, pp. 12, 30. Frémont, Mems., i, 489. _Century Mag._,
N. S., xix, 923. Calif. Hist. Soc. Papers, i, pt. 1 (1887), pp. 69-72.
=52=Larkin, no. 44, June 1. =52=_Id._ to Stearns _et al._,
Apr. 17. Benton, View, ii, 689. Cooke, Conquest, 203-4. Royce, Bidwell.
Gillespie took to Frémont a letter of introduction from Buchanan and
letters from Frémont's father-in-law, Senator Benton. The former
was entirely non-committal; and the latter, while very likely they
contained veiled allusions to conversations in which the desire of the
administration to acquire California had been mentioned, must have been
like it in that respect, else Gillespie would not have dared to carry
them through Mexico.
17.3. The evidence on this point, including Frémont's positive
statements made not long after the event, is conclusive (Polk, Diary,
March 21, 1848; Senate Report 75; 30, 1, pp. 13, 32; =132=Benton,
Feb. 18, 1848; Ho. Report 817; 30, 1, p. 4; =52=Larkin to P. Pico,
July 5, 1846. Speaking in the Senate, April 10, 1848 (_Cong. Globe_,
30, 1, p. 604), Benton, though feeling extremely bitter toward Polk
and no doubt fully informed by his son-in-law and client regarding all
the facts, did not intimate that any instructions inconsistent with
the instructions of Larkin were sent to Frémont. Indeed he stated the
contrary. See also his Thirty Years View, ii, 689.
17.4. Frémont stated before a committee of the Senate that he had
learned from Bancroft that Polk's plan, in case of war, contemplated the
occupation of California; but Frémont wrote to Capt. Montgomery of the
_Portsmouth_, June 16, 1846, that even in the case of war he was not
expected to prosecute "active hostilities." In 1886 Bancroft stated that
Gillespie was to inform Frémont of the President's intentions.
17.5. First, many of the settlers had ample reasons to feel
alarmed: the illegality of their presence; Castro's sudden and cruel
seizure of Americans in 1840; his attack upon Frémont in violation
(the Americans believed) of a promise; official notices, issued about
May 1, to the effect that the majority of the Americans were liable to
be expelled at the convenience of the authorities; Castro's warlike
preparations; his talk of moving against the immigrants with armed
forces (=52=Larkin, no. 42, April 17); and reports, more or less
authentic and reliable, from various persons regarding what he said or
intended. Secondly, the contemporary testimony of Frémont, Gillespie and
other Americans--some of it given under oath--that alarm was actually
felt is too strong to be rejected (see note 6). Much has been made of
Bidwell, a clerk of Sutter's, who tells us that alarm was not felt. But
(1) his =123=Statement was made thirty years after the events; (2)
he admits that he was not on good terms with Frémont, and the Statement
aims to show that Frémont invented the story of alarm as an excuse for
his conduct; (3) his Statement is in other respects clearly inaccurate;
(4) it assumes that he knew the sentiments of all the persons on the
Sacramento, yet proves that an important fact may have been known to
but few; (5) it shows that at the critical time he was absent in the
mountains; (6) it says, "Californians were always talking of expelling
Americans" [and therefore were talking of it in April, 1846]; (7)
his book mentions that in 1845 an attack upon New Helvetia was so
confidently expected that he rode day and night to warn Sutter; (8) he
undertakes to disprove positive testimony with negative. The legitimate
settlers had no direct occasion to feel alarmed; but, as Bidwell himself
points out, they could not have held aloof, had an attempt been made to
expel their fellow-countrymen. It would be a mistake to suppose that the
Americans who joined Frémont in these operations were actuated solely by
patriotism and the idea of self-defence.
17.6. _The Bear movement._ (Starred citations refer, among other
facts, to the alarm felt by Americans.) *=12=Blake of _Juno_ to
Seymour, July 5. Benton, View, ii, 691. =12=Seymour to admty.,
Aug. 27, 1846. =75=M. Castro to Calif. govt., Jan. 29. _Niles_,
Nov. 21, 1846, p. 191; Oct. 16, 1847, p. 110. Colton, Three Years,
175. Cooke, Conquest, 204-11. =13=J. A. to A. Forbes, July 9,
14. =13=P. Pico to J. A. Forbes, June 29. =52=M. Castro to
----, [Apr. 30]. =52=Larkin to M. Castro, June 14. *=52=Ide,
proclams., June 15, 18. =52=J. Castro, proclams., June 17.
=52=P. Pico, proclam., June 23. =52=_Id_. to Larkin, June 29.
Sen. 1; 29, 2, pp. 51-2. Buchanan to Larkin, Oct. 17, 1845. =52=J.
Castro to Larkin, undated. =247=Larkin to Stearns, Apr. 17.
=52=Larkin to Pico, July 5. =48=Bancroft to Sloat, June 24;
Oct. 17, 1845. =123=Bidwell, statement. Royce, Bidwell. Willey,
Thirty Years, 10. =256=Marcy to Wetmore, Dec. 5, 12. McGroarty,
Calif., 192. Bancroft, Pac. States, xvii, 39-48, 101-86, 199. Apuntes,
353-4. =247=Gillespie to Larkin, May 24; June 7. =247=Larkin
to Mott, Talbot & Co., June 18. Peters, Kit Carson, 269.
=247=Leidesdorff to Larkin, Mar. 19; June 19. =247=Montgomery
to Larkin, July 2. =247=Vallejo to Larkin, Sept. 15; to J. Castro,
July 23. =122=Bidwell, Calif., *141-2, 161, etc. *=3=Alvarado,
Calif., 184. *Phelps, Fore and Aft, 279, 284, 291. Oakland (Cal.)
_Tribune_, June 30, 1914. *Richman, California, 308-14. =249=Leese,
Bear Flag Papers, 9. =105=Baldridge, Days of 1846. _Diario_,
Dec. 27, 1846. *Colton, Deck and Port, 389. =247=Guerrero to
Leidesdorff, Apr. 30. =314=Sawyer papers. Polk, Diary, Sept. 1.
_Niles_, Nov. 14, 1846, p. 174; Nov. 21, p. 191 (Frémont to Benton,
July "25"); Oct. 16, 1847, p. 110 (Frémont's declaration of June 6).
*Upham, Frémont, 228. _Century Mag._, N. S., xix, 1917 (Mrs. F.), 780
(Royce), 782. Schafer, Pacific Slope, 258. =263=Mervine to Sloat,
July 1. _Cong. Globe_, 30, 1, p. 606 (Benton). =52=Larkin, Calif,
prior to 1846. *Sen. 33; 30, 1, p. 374. Ho. Report, 817, 30, 1, p. 4.
Bandini, Calif., 142. Revere, Tour, 64. *Sen. Report, 75; 30, 1, pp.
12, 13, 25-9, 32-4, 38-40. *Sherman, Sloat, xv (Gillespie's note).
*Swasey, Early Days, 49. _Nat. Intelligencer_, Nov. 11. *Willey,
Transition Period, 39, 42. Kelsey, Consulate, 15, 72. Royce, Calif.,
132. _Atlantic Monthly_, Oct., 1890, pp. 548-57. =52=Larkin, nos.
*41, Apr. 17; *48, June 18; 53, July 18; 54, July 20, 1846; 63, Jan.
14, 1847. *Californian, i, nos. 3-5. =76=Pico to Relac., June 29.
=76=Pico, procl., June 23. =76=M. Castro to Pico, June 19.
=76=Alvarado, June 28. =76=Narváez (undated). *_Journ. Mil.
Serv. Instit._, xxxi, 715.
17.7. As Sloat was in personal intercourse with Gillespie about Feb.
20-22, he probably learned from him something more about the intentions
of our government.
17.8. =48=Oct. 17, 1845, Bancroft wrote to Sloat, "In the event
of actual hostilities between the Mexican Government and our own," you
will carry out "the instructions [of June 24] forwarded to you from
the Dept. in view of such a contingency." Rives (U. S. and Mexico, ii,
168) draws a sharp distinction between the "actual hostilities" of this
order and the "declaration of war" of June 24. But (1) Bancroft said,
Oct. 17, "actual hostilities" [not between forces in the field but
between the two governments; and (2) in his last quoted words above he
indicated that the two orders contemplated precisely the same [not, as
Rives holds, a different] contingency. As, therefore, the order of June
24 was the formal and fundamental one, Sloat had a technical ground for
falling back upon it, whereas an officer of broad, clear views, decided
character and unselfish loyalty would have acted more promptly, even
at a slight personal risk. To do him justice, the reader should recall
that many Senators refused to believe that the border hostilities were
hostilities between the two governments (p. 182); and also that Sloat
was old and not robust, and that he had the case of T. A. C. Jones
before his eyes.
17.9. We find both July 1 and 2 given as the date of his arrival.
The log book of his vessel says that she anchored at Monterey July 1,
and that Larkin came aboard July 2. As he would have gone aboard as soon
as possible, it seems probable that the vessel arrived July 1 at night.
17.10. Capt. Mervine wrote, July 6, to Capt. Montgomery that Larkin
believed Castro, Pico and others would meet the following day to
deliberate about declaring independence and hoisting the American flag.
17.11. Sloat stated later that he acted on his own responsibility in
taking possession of California; and in fact the orders of May 13 did
not reach their destination until about August 28 (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p.
229).
17.12. It has been said (Bancroft, Pacific States, xvii, 250)
that Sloat merely pretended to have based his action on Frémont's
operations, so as to have a way of escape should he be blamed; but (1)
we should not without evidence accuse him of lying, (2) he showed strong
feeling when he learned that Frémont had acted without authority (_e.g._
Baldridge, Days of 1846; Sen. 33; 30, 1, p. 178), and (3) as a rational
man he could not fail to be influenced greatly. Bancroft says (_ibid._,
227) that Sloat learned from Larkin that Frémont's coöperation with the
insurgents was not certain; but he admits (_ibid._, 228-9) that on July
5 a launch from the _Portsmouth_, then lying at San Francisco, brought
proof that Frémont was so doing; and the next day Sloat and Larkin,
according to the log book of the _Savannah_, were busy preparing the
proclamation, etc. Royce (California, 158) places against Frémont's
testimony (that Sloat said his action had resulted from Frémont's) the
fact that Larkin did not so state; but silence is not equal in strength
to assertion, and Frémont is supported by Gillespie (Sen. Report 75;
30, 1, p. 32), by Wilson of the _Savannah_ (_ibid._, 41), by Sloat's
private secretary (Baldridge, Days of 1846), by Sloat's anxiety to
obtain Frémont's coöperation, and by the resentment that he exhibited
on finding that Frémont had acted without authority (Sen. 33; 30, 1, p.
178). See also Benton, Abr. Deb., xvi, 17.
17.13. August 27, 1846, =12=Seymour wrote to the Admiralty: "My
principal object has been, for many months, to be at hand to prevent
or retard it [the American occupation of California], if I should be
directed to take any proceedings for these purposes." It was presumably
to wait for orders that he placed himself at San Blas. What led him
to sail for Monterey, however, as he did on June 14, was not Sloat's
leaving Mazatlán, but news that the Santa Barbara convention was likely
to declare for independence (=13=Seymour to Bankhead, June 13).
Had that been done, he would have felt that he had a ground on which
to oppose American occupation, though he thought that a large body of
reliable colonists would be necessary to establish British ascendancy
(=12=_Id._, Aug. 27). When he arrived at Monterey he was aware that
the United States and Mexico were at war, and this was in his opinion
an additional reason for inaction (=12=_Id._, Aug. 27); but he
wrote to Pico that American occupation should be regarded as merely
provisional (=12=to Pico, July 23). Sir Thomas Johnson, commanding
a British sloop-of-war off Mazatlán, showed his sympathies by constantly
giving the Mexicans information about our vessels (=76=Gutiérrez,
Apr. 8, 1846, res.).
17.14. Sloat also guaranteed land titles. This was impracticable. In
annexing California he exceeded his authority.
17.15. _Sloat's operations, etc._ =47=Sloat, Nov. 19; Dec. 3, 1845;
Feb. 25; Mar. 17; Apr. 8, 30; May 31; June 6, 1846. =47=_Id._ to
Howison, Apr. 1, 1846; to Montgomery, Apr. 1. =47=Wood to Bancroft,
June 4. Benton, View, ii, 692. Bulletin de la Soc. de Géog., no.
77. =12=Seymour to admty., no. 47, Aug. 27, 1846; to Pico, July 23.
Dana, Two Years, 78-9, 90. Sherman, Address. Wise, Gringos, 47. Ho.
60; 30, 1, pp. 258-64. =247=Sloat to Larkin, May 18. =247=Larkin to
Stearns, Aug. --. N. Y. _Herald_, Mar. 4, 1880. Davis, Sixty Years,
196. Hist. Soc. of So. Calif., viii, 77 (Barrows). =47=Conner, Oct.
9, 1846. =13=Seymour to Bankhead, June 13. =13=A. Forbes to Bankhead,
Aug. 1. =13=J. A. Forbes to A. Forbes, July 14. =52=J. Parrott, June
4. =13=Letter from Mazatlán, Aug. 4. =13=Seymour to J. A. Forbes,
July 22. =52=Larkin to J. Castro, July 8; reply July 9. =52=_Id._
to Alvarado, July 8; reply, July 9. =142=Carson, recolls. =52=Sloat,
gen. orders, July 14. =47=Conner, Aug. 26. =48-9=Bancroft to Sloat,
June 24; Oct. 17, 1845; May 13, 15; June 8; July 12; Aug. 13 (two),
1846. =108=J. Parrott to Buchanan, private, July 23, 1846. Duflot de
Mofras, Explor., i, 400-6. Sen. 1; 29, 2, pp. 378-9. Bancroft, Pac.
States, xvii, 204, etc. =247=Larkin to Ten Eyck, Sept. 19. =247=Frazer
to Larkin, Aug. 27. =4=Amador, mems., 169. =247=Atherton to Larkin,
Dec. 3. =3=Alvarado, Hist., 214-9. Proceeds. U. S. Naval Institute,
1888, pp. 539-40. Bennett, Steam Navy, 91. N. Orl. _Picayune_, Oct.
23, 1848. Sherman, Sloat, _passim_. =120=Fauntleroy to Biddle, Mar.
12, 1847. Phelps, Fore and Aft, 291. Richman, Calif., 315. México á
través, iv, 643-4. _Diario_, Aug. 16; Oct. 16, 1846. =106=Lancey,
cruise (logbook of _Savannah_). =105=Baldridge, Days of 1846. Walpole,
Four Years, ii, 204. Wash. _Union_, Sept. 24; Oct. 3, 26. Ho. 1; 30, 2,
pp. 1013-4, 1019-20. Dunbar, Romance, 38. Sherman, Home Letters, 85.
_Niles_, Oct. 10, 1846, p. 87. Sen. Report 75; 30, 1, pp. 13, 32, 40,
44, 70-4. _Century Mag._, N. S., xviii, 794. N. Y. _Nation_, xlviii,
141. Hittell, Calif., ii, 466. =295=Pinto, Apuntaciones, 104. Sen. 33;
30, 1, pp. 374, 377. Ho. Rep. 817; 30, 1, pp. 4-5. Ho. 4; 29, 2, pp.
649-67. Revere, Tour, 55, 77. Frémont, Mems., 534, 539. =172=_Cyane_
log book. =263=Mervine, letter book. Swasey, Early Days, 60. _Cong.
Globe_, 30, 1, pp. 606-7. Royce, Calif., 157-61. =52=Larkin, nos. 1
(descript. of Calif.); 52, July 10; 53, July 18; 54 and 55, July 20.
=76=Gutiérrez, no. 42, res., Apr. 8. =76=To Castro, May 9; July 25.
=76=To comte. gen. Sonora, July 25. =76=To min. of eccles. affrs., July
25. =76=Monterey estado, Apr. 1. =76=S. Anna, Oct. 30.
17.16. Stockton sailed from Norfolk on the _Congress_ in October,
1845. Some mystery has been attached to his sealed orders (Bancroft,
Pacific States, xvii, 251); but they were merely to sail _via_ the
Sandwich Islands for Monterey, deliver the original of the despatch of
October 17 to Larkin, and then join Sloat's squadron. For his character
see _e.g._ Royce, California, 179; =330=Taylor to brother, January
19, 1848; =108=Appleton to Bancroft, April 27, 1847; Porter,
Kearny, 6, 7; Sherman, Home Letters, 108; Quincy, Figures, 230-40.
17.17. One aim of the proclamation was doubtless to provide a way
of escape for the United States and its agents in case there should
be no war, but even from this point of view it was ridiculous. Sloat
repudiated the reasons for his action that were ascribed to him by
Stockton.
17.18. Castro and the Californians generally did not believe that
war had been declared, and of course Larkin's letter to Stearns tended
to confirm their opinion. Had it proved correct, Stockton would soon
have been making apologies like T. A. C. Jones. This may help to explain
Castro's firm attitude. The Life of Stockton attempts to explain his
haughty and menacing language as due to Castro's military preponderance
and the necessity of intimidating him. Stockton himself said later that,
as Castro had no authority from the central government to make terms, it
would have been useless to treat with him; but Castro could have laid
down his arms, and that was the vital point just then. Stockton's other
reasons (Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 1041-2) are equally unsatisfactory. Bancroft
(Pacific States, xvii, 269) expresses the belief that Stockton did not
wish to make terms with Castro and the other officials, but to eliminate
them. This is quite possible. Probably temperament and thirst for glory
counted. Stockton's pretence (in his reply to Castro) that since the two
countries were at war, he could not suspend hostilities until Castro
should raise the American flag, was absurd. Truces have often been made
during war, and never during peace. This was enough--especially as it
came after Larkin's overture--to show Castro he could expect nothing
from Stockton.
17.19. =76=Later Castro complained bitterly that after
forsaking all for Mexico he had to beg for bread.
17.20. _Stockton's régime to Sept._ 30. Memoria de ... Relaciones,
Dec., 1846. Colton, Three Years, 16, 25, 28-9, 32, 56, 175, 180.
Cooke, Conquest, 213-6. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 265-8. =247=Larkin to
Stearns, Aug.--, 1846. =61=R. B. Mason, Sept. 23, 1847. Sec. navy
to Stockton, Aug. 18, 1846. =13=J. A. to A. Forbes, July 14; Sept.
22, 1846. =13=Seymour to Bankhead, July 22, 1846. _Californian_,
i, no. 1. =47=Stockton, proclam., Aug. 22. =47=_Id._ to
Frémont, July 23; Aug. 24, 1846. =47=Flores to Stockton, Aug. 7.
=47=Stockton to Bancroft, July 25; Aug. 22; Sept. 19; Oct. 1; Nov.
23. _Id._ to Mervine, Sept. 19. Bancroft to Sloat, Aug. 13. Mason to
Stockton, Nov. 5, 1846; Jan. 11, 1847. Bancroft to Stockton, Oct. 17,
1845. =108=Appleton to Bancroft, Apr. 27, 1847. Wise, Gringos,
50, 70. Royce, Bidwell. Sen. 1; 29, 2, pp. 52, 379. Sen. 31; 30, 2,
pp. 1-3. Bancroft, Pacific States, xvii, 143. =4=Amador, mems.,
169. =115=Belden, statement, 48. =3=Alvarado, Calif., v,
239-41. =161=Journal of the _Congress_, 1846. =171=Journal
of the _Cyane_, 1846. Cutts, Conquest, 125. Phelps, Fore and Aft, 299,
300. Richman, Calif., 318. =109=Bandini, documentos. Walpole,
Four Years, ii, 215. Sen. 31; 30, 2, pp. 9-14. Wash. _Union_, Oct. 26;
Dec. 4, 1846. =295=Pinto, Apuntaciones, 104. _Diario_, Oct. 16.
Statement to the author by Asst. Sec. of the navy Roosevelt. Sherman,
Home Letters, 108. Du Pont, Official Despatches, 1. Quincy, Figures,
230, etc. _Proceeds. of U. S. Naval_ _Instit._, xxiv., pt. 1, 270
(Neeser). Sen. 33; 30, 1, pp. 10, 83, 109-10, 118-9, 175, 178-83, 374,
377. Ho. 70; 30, 1, pp. 36-41, 43-5. Ho. 4; 29, 2, pp. 657-8. Ho. 1;
30, 2, pp. 1034-42. Ho. 19; 29, 2, p. 104. McGroarty, Calif., 199.
Bandini, Calif., 143. Revere, Tour, 55, 77-80. Sen. Report 75; 30,
1, pp. 17, 47, 51. Ho. Report 817; 30, 1, p. 9. =263=Mervine to
Stockton, Sept. 16. Swasey, Early Days, 73. Porter, Kearny, 6-7. Life
of Stockton, 120-3, 157-8. Bryant, What I Saw, 330, 366. Royce, Calif.,
177-84. =123=Bidwell, statement. =52=Larkin, nos. 54, 55, 58,
1846. And the following from =76=. J. Castro, July 13; Sept. 9,
1846; June 5, 1847. To comte. gen. Calif., May 9; July 25. To comte.
gen. Sonora, July 25. Stockton to Castro, Aug. 7. Castro to Stockton,
Aug. 7. _Id._, procls., Aug. 9, 10. _Id._ to consuls, Aug. 9. Moreno to
Bustamante, Mar. 20, 1847. Castañeda to Pico, Feb. 10, 1846. Bustamante
to Castro, June 23, 1847.
17.21. In a proclamation of October 1 Flores charged that the
Americans were dictating "arbitrary and despotic laws" and crushing
the people with exactions intended to ruin them. His aim was announced
as the expulsion of the Americans. All Mexicans and Californians
15-60 years old, not joining the insurgents, were declared to be
traitors and under penalty of death. All Americans acting directly
or indirectly against the insurgents were to lose their property
and be sent into Mexico as prisoners. It cannot be denied that many
Californians, especially in the north, had been deprived of their
property--particularly horses and saddles--by Frémont's men in the
name of the United States, and that many had suffered personal abuse
(Sen. 33; 30, 1; pp. 97, etc.; Ho. Report, 817; 30, 1; Sen. Report 75;
30, 1; Colton, Three Years, 155). Colton estimated that in all 1200
Californians were in arms at one time.
17.22. Flores charged that Gillespie violated the terms and
Gillespie denied this vigorously. Gillespie seems to have interpreted
the terms, which were loosely drawn, with a view to the advantage of his
side, and Flores to have judged largely, if not entirely, from what he
supposed to be Gillespie's intentions. We have not sufficient data to
say more. A misunderstanding was very natural, and possibly Gillespie,
since he was dealing with perjured men, thought it right to take every
advantage he could. Flores sent parties to San Diego and Santa Barbara,
and captured those places. Capt. Merritt of the California Battalion,
commanding at the former place, took refuge on a whale-ship. Lieut.
Talbot, commanding at Santa Barbara, refused to surrender, and with his
eight or ten men made an extremely brave escape through the mountains.
17.23. At this point Mervine's log book was extremely bitter with
reference to Stockton, whom it described as vain, selfish, cowardly,
false and ignorant of naval life and duties. The Captain was doubtless
smarting under his repulse, due (he asserted) to Stockton's selfishness
in retaining all his field pieces. Stockton explained his going to San
Diego by saying that San Pedro was not a good base, and there was force
in this view; but it was much nearer to Los Angeles, and certainly he
should have decided whether it was a good base before attempting to
use it as such. San Diego had been recovered by Merritt and others
(_Proceeds. U. S. Naval Instit._, 1888, p. 544). Lieut. Minor of the
navy now commanded there.
17.24. _Kearny's march; battle of S. Pascual._ Colton, Three
Years, 153, 180. Cooke, Conquest, 84-6. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 153, 242.
Hist. Soc. So. Calif., iii, pt. 2, pp. 55-66. =337=Turner, diary.
=61=Kearny to adj. gen., Oct. 3, 11. =62=Marcy to gov. Mo.,
June 3. Ho. 41; 30, 1, pp. 551-63, 567-614. =47=Stockton, Feb. 4,
1847. Polk, Diary, May 25, 30; June 2, 1846. =61=Emory to adj.
gen., Feb. 2, 1847. Hughes, Doniphan's Exped., 204-30. =61=Wooster
to adj. gen., Sept. 25, 1846. Apuntes, 359-60. Bidwell, Calif.,
200. =126=Botello, Anales, 154-6. Phelps, Fore and Aft, 315.
=177=Davis, statement. =290=Pico, documentos, 105, 115. _Nat.
Intelligencer_, Apr. 23, 1847. _Journal U. S. Artillery_, July, 1892, p.
294; Oct., 1892, p. 413. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 513-6. Sen. 33; 30, 1, pp.
31, 41, 46, 64-5, 129-33, 161, 186-9, 204, 272, 331. McGroarty, Calif.,
261. Sen. 7; 30, 1 (Emory). Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 236, 1049-50. Sen. 31; 30,
2, pp. 24-7. (Losses) Ho. 24; 31, 1. Peters, Kit Carson, 281. Porter,
Kearny, 14-23. Life of Stockton, 134-6. =76=Flores, Dec. 11, 1846;
Mar. 31, 1847. =207=Griffin, journal.
Including servants and quartermaster's men, Kearny probably had at
least 150; but precisely how many took part in the fighting one cannot
say--perhaps not more than 80. Some of the men had to guard the baggage
and manage the howitzers, and probably others did not reach the front
in time. The howitzers were tied up with rawhide; when made ready
they could not fire at first because the two parties were mixed in a
hand-to-hand struggle; and when they were preparing to do so later, one
was carried away by frightened mules and captured by the enemy. Botello,
who talked with Pico after the fight, says that Pico was afraid forces
from San Diego would attack him, should he continue to operate against
Kearny, and also that Pico's horses were now too much exhausted to be
serviceable. =207=Griffin thought the Californians drew off to make
sure of keeping the howitzer. It seems clear that Pico did not retire
from fear of Kearny--unless possibly from fear of his guns. Dec. 7
Kearny advanced a short distance, drove some Californians from a rocky
hill near San Bernardo, and occupied it. In the night of Dec. 10-11
Lieut. Gray and about 215 men from San Diego reinforced him. Lieut.
Beale of the navy and the scout Christopher ("Kit") Carson made their
way past the enemy with remarkable courage and endurance, to inform
Stockton of Kearny's desperate situation, and arrived just as Gray was
setting out.