VAl t UN IV I MSI 1 ^ I IIIMAIO

3 9002 05423 6105

c

nis: 

2^_—

r~

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

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

C.T35.2

€¦

THE EAELY SENTIMENT FOR THE ANNEXATION OF
CALIFORNIA: AN ACCOUNT OF THE GROWTH
OF AMERICAN INTEREST IN CALI
FORNIA, 1835-1846
BOBEBT GLASS CLELAND
FOEEWOED
For a decade prior to the Mexican War, a well-defined move
ment for the annexation of California was developing in the
United States. Various 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 ta the efforts made by Jackson,
Tyler, 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 Van 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.

Early Sentiment for Annexation of California

Chaptee I
THE BEGINNING OE INTEECOUESE BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES
AND CALIEOENIA, AND THE JTEST NEGOTIATIONS EOE
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, Robert 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.1
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.2 In the second place,
it was by this voyage that Gray, having found a ready market
at Canton3 for a few hundred sea otter skins procured from the \
Indians, opened up a profitable fur trade with China* in which *
New England merchants were eager to participate.
Tbe arrival of one of these American fur-trading vessels at
Monterey on October 29, 1795, marks the beginning of a com- j
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.
2Pedro 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
Aator to Adams, Jan. 4, 1823, in Greenhow, 439.
4Gray valued 100 skins at $4,875, exclusive of freight. Gray and
Ingraham to Bon 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 officials 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.5 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.6 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 nvere
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.7 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 Russian 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.8
"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.
Tor 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 Thomas O'Cain made a contract with the Russian Baranof to

Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 5
The whale ^sAerjgs--— in— speaking of these early commercial
enterprisa-v**"ls also necessary to mention New 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 ;9 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 North Pacific came to furnish a
more and more valuable hunting ground,10 these visits increased
in frequency and soon a regular trade was established with the
inhabitants of Monterey and San Francisco. 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.11 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 sb profit
able that other contracts of a similar nature were entered into, the agree
ments lasting until 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 Greenhow, 275.
'The Works of Edmund Burke (Boston. Little and Brown. 1839),
II, 30.
10From 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
I cattle. From this time on, the "Boston ships," as they were called,
I 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.12
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 Russians 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
f American Register}3 The author, Captain Robert 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
12It 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 Indea>.
^American Register, III, 136-175. The article is entitled "Journal of
a voyage between China and the northwestern coast of America made in
ISOJf." 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.14 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 Russians
was well founded.15 The hunters of the Russian-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 Ross, 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 Russians at New 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.16
Against this encroachment the Spanish officials 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 Russians proved of material benefit to the prov
ince. And even had it been otherwise, there was no force in
California sufficient to expel them.17 Before many years, how-
14 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 Rez&nof, Feb. 15, 1806, in Bancroft, XIX, 80, note.
"For the Russian settlements in California, see Bancroft, XIX, 58-82,
294-320; Thomas C. Lancey, Cruise of the Dale (Published in San JosS
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, Sistory of California
(San Francisco, H. H. Bancroft & Co. 1866), 118-20; Irving B. Rich-

8 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California
i ever, the presence of the Russians in California began to excite
comment in the United States and to receive a certain amount
lof official attention. On November 11, 1818, J. B. Prevost, a
special commissioner of the United States government to the
Pacific Coast, wrote from "Monte Rey, New California," that the
Spanish authority was threatened by the Russian 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."18 In the following year a rumor spread that Spain had ceded to
Russia 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.19 In the St. Louis
| Enquirer an unknown writer (perhaps Senator Benton) issued
a warning against the "Progress of the Russian Empire," well
calculated to arouse the apprehension of those to whom Russia,
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 Russians 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 Russian traders now protected by the Emperor in
carrying off our furs !"20 How strong an influence these public
man, California under Spain and Mexico (Boston and New York. Hough
ton, Mifflin Company. 1911), 191-201, passim.
18Prevost 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 by 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 Niles1 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 Ross 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.21
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 immigration 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,22 who had been for some years associated with Ashley
in the fur trade and was at this time a partner in the Rocky
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
21Eeport of , the Committee on the Occupation of the Columbia River,
Jan. 25, 1821. Annals of Congress, XXXVII, 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 North America lay wholly open to the access of Russia and was ex
posed to her "fearful weight of power."
22Hiram 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 difficult passage of the mountains and reached the
Great Salt Lake in a destitute condition.23 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 ot
the Californians, who, however, while insisting that he leave the
country, did not seriously molest him. After remaining for
some time, the American intruders continued their journey north
ward to Oregon where they were attacked by Indians. Many oi
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.24
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,
28Letter of Smith to General Clark published in the Missouri Republic,
October 11, 1827. Communication from Cunningham announcing Smith's
arrival at San Diego, Ibid., Oct. 25, 1827.
MNo 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 Russian settlement of Ross. Finally,
quitting California, he returned home by way of Mexico, where
he vainly hoped to secure an indemnity,2"5 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.2* 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."27
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 country and the United States. Follow-
25The American ehargS 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.
2eThe title of the book is in itself a comprehensive history of Pattie's
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 Western 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 time28 came other bands oi
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.29 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, carless of life, contemptuous of law, they
' wandered up and down the great inland valleys and rivers oi
California; or by frequent crossing of the Sierras prepared the
i 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.30
Butler's negotiations. — In these three ways, therefore, first, by
. commercial intercourse, then through fear of the Russian advance,
if and lastly by the opening up of the overland routes of communica-
ti tion, California gradually became more than a passing name
' to the people of the United States.31 It was not, however, until
1835 that this government, influenced largely by the representa-
2SMany of the parties were organized in 1830 and 1831. Bancroft, XX,
384-9. 2°The reason for this is obvious — the trade was against the Mexiean
law; and in addition those engaged in it were not often given to record
ing their own adventures.
"Preface to Pattie's Narrative, 19.
aThe first of these centered, as has been shown, in New England; the
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.82
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,33 succeeding Joel R. 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.34 Early in June,
82The 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. Ingersoll,
Jan. 19, 1847. Appendix to Congressional Globe, 29 Cong., 2 sess., 128;
Bancroft, XIII, 322-323. Whoever 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. Does., 25 Cong., 1
sese., 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 1795 to
1848, edited by C. F. Adams (Philadelphia. Lippincott. 1877), XI, 349.
S3The plan, dated 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 eould have wished,.
a4Butler 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 thinks 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
1%34, 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.35 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
i the Mexican priest. In this Hern&ndez had promised to bring
about a cession of the desired territory provided $500,000 were
placed at his disposal "to be judiciously applied."36 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."37
This letter met with cool response from the President.38 Never
theless, after an interview with Butler he allowed him, at his earn-
Jackson, Oct. 28, 1833, Ibid.) ; Jackson warns Butler against employing
corrupt means (Jackson to Butler, Nov. 27, Ibid.) ; 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.
35Butler to Jackson, June 6, 1834. Jackson MSS.; same to same, Oct.
20 (Ibid.). 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).
S8It 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.39 Before Butler
left, however, the suggestion he had thrown out with regard to
"higher California" received additional impulse from another
source. On August 1, William A. Slacum, a purser in the United
States Navy, wrote a letter to the President whieh, 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 San Francisco Bay
whieh had been "represented to the President"*1 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."42 No definite sum which Butler was authorized
to offer was specified in the dispatch, but Adams places it as
$500,000.43 It should also be noted that Forsyth expressly dis
claimed any desire to secure territory south of San Francisco.44
""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, 1835. 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 leaorn 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. Ist 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. ,
KH. Ex. Docs., 25 Cong., 1 sess., No. 42, pages 18-19.
,3Adams, 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 thus 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 privileges for American vessels at San Fran
cisco.45 A few months later he received notice of his recall,4
and shortly afterwards left Mexico, carrying off "some of the most
important papers of the negotiation."47
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
j after reading his correspondence one is freely willing to agree with
j 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."48
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."49
Jackson'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).
J8Same to same, Jan. 15, 1836, Ibid. 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 own letters to Jackson. Dickens to Pow
hatan Ellis, Aug. 19, 1836. MS., State Department; Butler to Jackson,
July 28, 1843. Jackson MSS.
laAdams, 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 j
secure California. About 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.31 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 tbe U. States to the Rio Grand —
up that stream to latitude 38 north and then to the pacific includ
ing north ealafornia 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.62
At the time that Jackson was making this proposal to Santa
Anna he was also urging upon W. H. Wharton, the Texan Minister
at Washing-ton, 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 Rusk 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 !"58
"Wharton to Austin, Jan. 17, 1837. Garrison, Diplomatic Correspond
ence of the Republic of Texas, I, 176-177, in American Historical Asso
ciation Report, 1907, II.
"Thomas Maitland Marshall, "The southern boundary of Texas 1821-
1840," in The Quarterly, XIV, 285.
"•-•Rough 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 TT1ER
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.1 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
and ultimate destiny grew with every passing year.
Rebellion of 18S6. — 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 difficulty the leaders2 in this
\l 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.3
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.
2The leaders in this revolution were Juan B. Alvarado, inspector of the
Monterey custom house, holder of certain civil offices and. a man of. great
popularity; Josg 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,

"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.4 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 thait California, having declared her inde
pendence, was on the eve of asking the protection of the Russians
at Bodega — an event which would mean, said the writer, the United
States consul at the Sandwich Islands, the unification of the Rus
sians and Californians and the extension of the Czar's power from
the Bay of San Francisco to the Columbia River.6
Kelley's Memoir. — During the administration of Van Buren the
question of the occupation of Oregon came also to be of critical
importance;6 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 western possessions is most
unquestionably a matter to be desired."7
'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, Documentos 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 Sentiment for Annexation of California
Affairs between 1836-1840.— -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.8 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.9 The
hide and tallow trade likewise continued to flourish,10 and re
mained so completely a monopoly of the New England merchants,
so far at least as Americans were concerned,11 that, on the coast,
Boston and the United States became synonymous terms.12 An
occasional vessel from the government's South Pacific squadron
touched at California ports;13 a trade in cattle between Oregon
and the region around San Francisco served to bring these two
territories into closer relationships;14 the publication of various
plete memoir, addressed to Caleb Cushing, 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 1841-8. MS., Bancroft Collection, 99.
"The vessels engaged in this 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 tariff 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, Ibid., 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 Tears 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's Report, 39.

Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 21
books upon California's resources and political condition tended
to attract the attention of the outside worJ \ ;10 and, finally, the
coming of John A. Sutter in 1839 and 1'ie establishment of his
fort! at New Helvetia, the present site of the capital of the State,
saved the period under discussion from being by any means barren '
of results for the American interests.
Neither should the reflexive influence of the events in Texas
be omitted in this connection. \\Te have already mentioned the
revolution in 1836 and the reports that California was preparing
to follow the steps of her siiter province. The American mind,
especially in the west, h.-id T;ever a high conception of the Mexican
people; the ease with which Texas won her independence and the
senseless atrocities of the Mexican soldiers had served to increase
this feeling to a considerable extent ; and restless spirits were ,
already advocating a re-enactment of the scenes of Texas in ij
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.16 The Graham affair. — So common had become these rumors by
1840 that in April of that year nearly a hundred17 English and
"The most representative books of this period were Dana's Two Years
before the Mast, and Alexander Forbes's California: A history of Upper
and Lower California (London. Smith, Elder and Company. 1839).
For a review 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 mo 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.18 Chief of these so-called conspirators was Isaac Graham,
i -whose name has already been mentioned in connection with the
j ,. 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 down 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.19
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.20
"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 California (New York. Wiley & Putnam. 1846),
180-184. "Albert J. Morris, Diary of a Crazy Man, or An Account of the Graham
Affair of 1840 (MS., Bancroft Collection). Morris was one of the Eng
lish 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 California 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.
MForsyth 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 California 23
Reports 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 Californians.21 Later, also, the non-payment of
indemnity by Mexico was made the subject of official protest;22
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.28 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,24 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.25 This request
met with prompt recognition from the Secretary of the Navjr,
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.216 Adams, British Interests and Activities in Texas, 1888-1846 (Baltimore.
The Johns Hopkins Press. 1910), 236-237.
aNiles' 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 Sentiment for Annexation of California
Immigration 18Jfi-l. — 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
1 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 drawn up, to which five hundred names were appended,
binding its signers to convert their property into emigrant out
fits and start in the following May27 from the rendezvous at
Sapling Grove, Kansas, for California. Though a number of cir
cumstances served to cool this ardor,28 and only forty-eight persons
left for California at the time agreed upon,29 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, Bidwell's neighborhood had become considerably excited
over the stories of one whom he described as a "calm, considerate
man" by the name of Rubidoux. This story-stelling traveller,
"Bidwell, California; Josiah Beiden, 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 efforts of Mis
souri merchants to discourage the movement, through misrepresentations
of California.
20Only 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 25
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
Rubidoux 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 Rubidoux
had described as a "perfect paradise, a perpetual spring." "There
never was but one man in California who had the chills," replied
Rubidoux. "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."so 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 Rochester, New York, John J. Warner, while advocating
the building of a railroad across the continent to the Columbia,
devoted much of his public lectures to a description of California
and the advantages of San Francisco Bay.31 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 urging him to take immediate
80Bidwell, 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.32 It was in the summer of 1841, also,
that an exploring expedition of six vessels under command oi
Lieutenant Charles Wilkes reached San Francisco Bay, with special
instructions from the government to make careful surveys of that
harbor.33 And thus in many ways34 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 Californians.— The feeling among the California
f 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 the 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."35 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.
8aLieutenant Charles Wilkes, Narrative of the United States Exploring
Expedition during the Years 1838-42 (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.36 While the reception of those arriving
by the southern route, though tinged somewhat with suspicion,
was equally free from any manifestations of hostility.37
Efforts of Waddy Thompson. — 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.38
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.39
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.40
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
sufficient "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
38A second party numbering 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 FS (Bancroft, XXI, 276-
287). mlbid., 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. 1
"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 whieh Thompson saw any hope of Mexican
creditors receiving satisfaction.

28 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California
vessels; but by opening up 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.41
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 broach 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 verbatim 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 taken.42
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 American 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,
"yet 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.43
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 tiie tripartite agreement,45 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.46 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 Webster (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 Sentiment for Annexation of California
,be said that the American commander, convinced 'by various re
ports that the United States and Mexico were at war47 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
I took possession of without opposition, beyond a formal protest
I 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 Californians themselves
were concerned, seems to have been taken pretty much as a matter
of course. A full report was forwarded to the Mexican Govern
ment49 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.50 American residents were naturally uneasy for a
time lest they should suffer from the ill-will engendered among the
Californians by the occurrence,51 but their fears were entirely
groundless.52
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 (Jp. 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 cf 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.). Laxkin'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
E1I. 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.
82Larkin 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.53 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.54 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.55
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.56 Reports 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.57
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.58
but had rather the reverse effect. Larkin, Official Correspondence, Pt. II,
No. 4.
C3Jones to Thompson, Oct. 22, 1842. MS., State Department.
"Reeves, 106. Thompson was not officially 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 — "They 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 Early 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 commissipner, 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.59
By the beginning of 1843 this idea had come to assume an im
portant place in the plans of the administration.60 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.61 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.62
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. 62Reeves, 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.63 Both Webster and Tyler felt that this tripartite arrangement
would prove the means of satisfying all sections of the country.64
Tyler, especially, was anxious to include the admission of California j 'j
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."65 He was even anxious
to send Webster on a special mission to Great Britain,66 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.67
The idea of a special mission was, however, cut short by the
adverse action of Congress.63 Tyler then endeavored to persuade
George Ticknor Curtis, Life of Daniel Webster (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.
e8Webster 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 with Great Britain
(Ibid., 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. Ibid. 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 Webster, II, 250.
,8Tyler's Letters 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 cany 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.69 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.70
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
f f that the strong bond of friendship, formerly existing between Mex-
I ico and England, was fast giving way to a feeling of hostility
that had manifested itself openly in an insult to the British
'flag.71 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.72
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
I 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.
"Thompson to Upshur, Sept. 28, 1843. MS., State Department.
"Same to same, Oct. 3. Ibid.

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."73 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 countrymen in Mexico and that the government
was coming to look upon them with a far more friendly eye.74
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,75 Manuel Micheltorena, to
expel all citizens of the United States from his province and
prohibit future immigration.76 This, however, did not come under
Thompson's notice until late in December, when he at once vig
orously protested and demanded its recission. 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.77 In obtaining the withdrawal of a somewhat
"Thompson to Upshur, Oct. 14, 1843. 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, 1843. 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; Niles1
Register, LXV, 353.

36 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California
similar law, prohibiting foreigners from engaging in retail trade
either in Mexico or any of her provinces, Thompson was not,
however, by any means so successful.78
On February 28, 1844, Upshur 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."79
Hasting '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.80 This was no easy task.
Whatever ill-will there had been against England had died away,
.' : andr though in its place some difficulty had arisen with France,
jj the great weight of Mexican hostility was directed toward the
li 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
s'', efit to be gained by this country from becoming a party to such a
I quarrel, "unless, indeed, we should end by gaining possession of
uCalifornia, and thereby secure a harborage for our shipping on
the Pacific and one of the finest countries on the Globe."81
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 rights, 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, Ibid., 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 ia 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.82
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, aud 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.63
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, would result in the annexation of the
disaffected provinces to Texas. With such an addition of territory,
Green warned Calhoun, who was already prone to alarms, "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."84
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.85 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."
83As Hastings had given this information to Green three months before,
the time for the denouement in California was probably not far away.
S4Green to Calhoun, April 11, 1844. Correspondence of John C. Cal
houn, edited by J. Franklin Jameson in American Historical Association
Report, 1899, II, 945-947. This will hereafter be referred to simply as
Calhoun's Correspondence.
85Same to same, May 30, 1844. Ibid., 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.86 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. Duff 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,87
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 effectually 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 1846.
"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.88
"During the year 1844 a California representative, by name of Casta-
Eares, was in Mexico pleading for aid for the department, warning the
government against American designs, and prophesying the loss of Cali
fornia unless active measures were 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 the Atlantic. Tyler's Letters and
Times of the Tylers, III, 174-175.
¦^Memucan Hunt to Calhoun, Oct. 2, 1844. Calhoun Correspondence,
975. Mention is here 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.89
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 ;90
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 Herrera91 because of their desperate
need of funds.92 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 tbe
first hint of Polk's subsequent policy regarding the internal affairs
of California is to be found. Larkin, after his appointment as
MDuff Green to Calhoun, Oct. 28, 1844. Ibid., 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). "2Santa Anna's overthrow took place about the middle of January.

40 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California
consul, kept the State Department well informed as to events
in the province, especially regarding immigration, the attitude of
California officials, 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 our gov
ernment."93 It was an enlargement upon this plan, that, as we
shall see, Polk made use of about one year later.
33Larkin to Secretary of State, April 16, 1844. Official Correspondence,
II, No. 4; same to same, Aug. 18, Ibid., No. 9. Crall-S, 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.1 But the friends of
the movement were busy;2 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.3 In this, however, he was giving the views of the Mexi
can government, and not those of the authorities of the prov
ince.4 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.6
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, XXI. 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 Quabteblt, XVIII, 35-36. The Californians opposed no
objection 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 rdute.6
The year 1844 saw still further reinforcement of the American
'population in California,7 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;8 the state department was assured that Ameri
cans were looked upon with favor in California;9 and numerous
I 'books and communications setting forth the advantages of the
province were placed in the hands of American leaders.10 Com
mercial relations with the United States showed little change dur
ing this period.11 The year 1843 was one of hard times, and
•Bancroft, XXI, 393-395.
7Ibid., 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.
"Niles1 Register, LXV, 353.
'Larkin to Secretary of State, Aug. 16, 1844. Official Correspondence,
Pt. II, No. 4; same to same, Aug. 18, Ibid., No. 9; same to R. J. Walker,
Aug. 4, Ibid., No. 11.
"Among these may be mentioned Thomas Jefferson Farnham's Travels
in California 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, Emigrants
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 Review, XVI, 54-107.
Larkin also was busy at this time encouraging iTn.TnigTa.tinn 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
the trading vessels had difficulty in securing even a fraction of
their accustomed cargo of hides.12 Whaling ships in larger num
bers13 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 j
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;14 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.
12There were only 63,000 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.15 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;16 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.17 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.18 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.19 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;21 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 Chas. 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 whalers
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. Ibid., 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 Shippinq 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 Polh's Policy. — When Polk came into office ,
on the 4th of March, 1845, the attention of the American people, i
as has been shown, had already turned toward California.22 Two i
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.23 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 ;24 and the day
following, the Washington correspondent of the New 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 I,
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.
"The 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.26
Appointment of Parrott. — Almonte left New York on April 3,
and on the same ship went Polk's confidential agent, William S.
j Parrott, for the purpose of securing Mexico's consent to the recep
tion of a minister from the United States.27 The choice of Par
rott for this mission was ill-advised.2,8 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."29 His business dealings had also brought him into some
disrepute even with men of his own nationality.30 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.31 And altogether he was a person
very much disliked in the southern Eepublic.32
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.
27Reeves, 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.
slBlack to Buchanan, July 3, 1845. MS., State Department.
82Black 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,83 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.34 As this opinion was ,;'
confirmed by later dispatches from Dimond and Black,85 the j!
American consuls, the President and his cabinet resolved to send I
John Slidell of Louisiana secretly to Mexico, as the official repre- ((
sentative of this Government.
Failure of Slidell' s Mission. — The real purpose of Slidell's ap- /J
pointment, as announced at this time by Polk, was the purchase If
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.36 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.37 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. Tolk, Diary, I, 34.
""Ibid., L 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.
"Ibid., 35-36, entry for Sept. 17.

48 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California
of his selection for the mission and instructed to hold himself
ready |or secret departure at a moment's notice.38
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."39 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.40 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.41 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.42 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.43 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."44 . . .
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-
KIbid.; 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 ia
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.
"Ibid., 93.
"Ibid.
""His instructions were chiefly verbal." Schouler, History of the United
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.45
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.46 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 territory 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; Sehouler, 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.47 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."48
To this Buchanan replied that the United States would readily
come to the assistance of Paredes, if he should bring about 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.49 A few days later Polk
took preliminary steps to have such funds as might be necessary
for 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.50 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
i 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
"Buchanan 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.51
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 1
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-
B1President 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 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California
gress informed me that during the two years he served, he only
received two letters from California while in Mexico.52
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."53
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.54 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.55 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.56
Further citations might be made, almost ad libitum, 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.57
Revolution against Micheltorena. — Under such circumstances it
|is not surprising to find the Californians setting aside Mexican
¦"--Sir George Simpson, Narrative of u, voyage around the world during
the years 1841 and 1842. (London. 1847), I, 298-299. Simpson was
governor of the Hudson's Bay Company.
MWilkes, Narrative, V, 163.
"Simpson, Narrative, I, 190.
BWilkes, 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 (Ibid., 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.58 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."59
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 j
was sent from Mexico as governor, with an "army" for the de- 1
fense of the province. The army consisted of some two or three/
hundred choice spirits picked, for the most part, from the na-f
tional jails, and was a cause of constant bitterness and annoyance]
even of actual fear, to the Californians.60
"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."61 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. Two Years before the
Mast, 195.
""J. M. Guinn, Capture of Monterey in Historical Soeiety 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.
60Larkin 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. 364-367, for further discussion.
"Robinson, Life in California, 207.

54 Early Sentiment 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."62
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 November, 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.63
After this slaughter, Micheltorena was ready to capitulate, and
in March, 1845, left California with the most of his ragged sol
diery.04 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.'65 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
62Blackmar, Spanish Colonization in the Southwest in Johns Hopkins
University Studies, VIII, 183.
e3For complete description, see Bancroft, XXI, 455-517.
S4I. 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 under 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
ing.66 "The 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."*7
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), II, 130-
131- Bancroft, XXI, 518-543; Ibid., XXII, 30 et seq. Prefect Manuel
Castro to Andres Castillero, Dec. 10, 1845, concerning measures to pre
vent civil war. Castro, Documentos, L 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 expedition1 had led him
across the Sierras,2 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 Eocky
Mountains.3 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
fornia),4 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 1843-44, by Brevet Capt. J. C. Frgmont
. . . 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 through 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 » 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,5 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.6 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;7 while Webster, still the friend of annexation,
invited him to dine and "talk about California."8
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 during1
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, whieh also gives us pretty
accurately the spirit of the time regarding California.
5Two 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.
"Fremont'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 verdante- 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.
'Ibid., 420. '

58 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California
"WJien 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, incapable 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.9
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.10 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 $26 in fees. Many grants held by such
owners are 33 miles long and 3 miles wide."11 "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."12
"Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, April, 1846, 350-353.
10Larkin, John Marsh, and Hastings were especially active in this respect.
"Larkin to N. Y. Sun, May 28, 1845. Larkin MSS., Ill, 168.
12N. 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.18
"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.14 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.15
Tbe 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.16 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 of Commerce, March 5, 1845; copied also in Charles
ton Mercury, March 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). Same to James G. Bennett of the New York Herald, May 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, I, 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.17
Proposed railroad to California. — The interest of the Sun m
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 Sun, 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.18
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, 1845.19 Many,
however, who believed in the ultimate success of the undertaking,
as in the case of the 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. Larkin 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 Francisco as the terminus,20 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.21 Any report of the discovery of a shorter route
to the new land at once received public notice f2 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.23 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.24
"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 be 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 New 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.
2ZExtract 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.

62 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-
S ported that 7000 persons had assembled at Independence, Mis
souri, ready to take the road to Oregon and California.25 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.26 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.27 Marsh was confident
that two thousand immigrants would shortly be in the territory.28
Stephen Smith, writing to Calhoun from Bodega, placed the num
ber actually on the border at one thousand.29 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.30 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.31 The usual division
point for such parties was at Fort Hall, which still remained in
''Daily Union, May 20, 1845 ; Robinson [from N. Y.] to Larkin, May 29.
Larkin MSS., Ill, No. 170.
2°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).
2rSutter 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.
28Marsh to Larkin, Aug. 12. Ibid., No. 247.
29 Jameson, The Correspondence of John C. Calhoun (Washington. Amer
ican Historical Association. 1900), 1069.
80Sutter 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.32 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.33
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;34 while
the latter pursued an even more aggressive campaign in winning
recruits for the colonization of the southern country.35
"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."36 1 ,
"Are there not enough wild Yankees in California to take the j
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,
82Letter from an Oregon 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.
S3The 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 News, 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.
KMarsh 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 Sentiment for Annexation of California
the outlet is not sufficient for the back country."37 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.38
"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,"39 wrote Stephen Smith, who had recently been released, for
lack of evidence, from a charge of conspiring to declare California
independent.40 It was probably, therefore, with some idea of ful
filling these expectations that many of the immigrants reached the
province. Proposed union with Texas.— Aside from the plan of uniting
\ California with the United States after its separation from Mex-
\co, the idea also prevailed of making it an independent nation,
ominating the commerce of the Pacific and enriching itself from
le Asiatic trade. In the early years, as we have seen, the plan
lad been broached of annexing it to Texas.41 And as late as
1844,42 Houston wrote to Murphy that a nation embracing Texas,
California, Oregon and the two provinces of Chihuahua and So-
nora 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."43
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, 1846. Ibid., IV, No. 58.
'"Hooper to Larkin (from Honolulu), April 29, 1845. Ibid., III.
"Smith to Calhoun, Dec. 30, 1845. Calhoun Correspondence, 1069.
"Bancroft, XXI, 601.
"The Quarterly, XVIII, 17, n. 53.
*^See also Green's report of Easting's scheme, The Quarterly, XVIII,
36-37. "William Carey Crane, Life and literary remains of Sam Houston 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 there are no
AUeghanies to separate them;44 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."45
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
hack 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."46
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 difficulties 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
Eepublic should extend beyond the Eocky Mountains.47 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.
"Niles' Register, LXVIII, 205.
•"Thomas Jefferson to' John Jacob Astor, May 24, 1812 (The writings
of Thomas Jefferson. Forded. New York. G. P. Putman's Sons. 1898),
IX, 351.
"Annals of Congress, XL, 422-423; 598-599; Thomas H. Benton, Thirty
years' view (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 separation 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 Pacific.48 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.49 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.50 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;51 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.52
Eeferences to this plan, likewise, were frequently met with in
the debates in Congress. As late as March, 1846, 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.53 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
French or English protection, be joined by the Californians, and
"Wilkes' Narrative, V, 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.
"Cong. Globe, 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.54
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.55
In the intervening years his time had been occupied in efforts
to encourage emigration throughout the United States, and with
the conducting of parties, thus organized, into California.56 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.57
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.58 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 emporii59 of the
world." "Ibid., 350.
¦"Bidwell, Life in California, 110-112; 116; Calhoun Correspondence,
940 et seq.; Bancroft, XXI, 578.
56Hartnell to Wyllie, March 17, 1844. Vallejo Documentos, XXXII,
No. 14.
¦"Stephen Reynolds (Oahu) to Larkin, April 19, 1845 — Believes if Cali
fornia unites with the United States the nation will be too unwieldly to
last (Larkin MSS., Ill, No. 116) ; Atherton to Larkin, Feb. 11, 1845.
Ibid., No. 25.
68Marsh 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.
MMarsh 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 ?"60
Whether, as appears very doubtful, such a letter were ever writ
ten is immaterial.61 The fact remains that the conception of a
Mormon empire on the Pacific proved so attractive to the leaders
of this sect62 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.63
Eeports of the design spread throughout the United States and
aroused no little opposition,64 the president, even, being petitioned
to prevent the movement, but refusing because "the right of emi-
eoFord to Young, April 8, 1845, in Edward W. Tullidge, History of Salt
Lake City and Its Founders (Salt Lake City. Edward W. Tullidge), 8.
81Polk, Diary, I, 205-206.
"2Tullidge claims the plan originated as early as 1842, and that in 1844
Brigham Young instructed the twelve apostles to send out a, delegation
to investigate Oregon and California. Ibid., 4-6.
5sHe 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, amd 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."65
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 Sloaf s arrival, and tradition says
that Brannan's first remark upon entering the harbor was, "There
is that damned flag again."66 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."67 . . .
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 j
"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 brie 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 Larkin, Sept. 15— "if the plan of
a colonv '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."68
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.69
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
6SL. 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 Polik'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, I, 444; 449-450;
455-456.

Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 11
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.70 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,71 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,"72 he 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;73 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. Commandante General informs him 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, XXI, 604-605.
"Guerrero to Castro, Jan. 24, 1846. Castro, Documentos, VI, No. 309.
72Alvarado, Historia de 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 Paredes in his contest with
Herrera.74 Larkin as Polk's informant.— Oi the progress of all these events
in California, Polk was well informed. Not 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.
Laxkin he had an additional source of reliable and frequent in
formation.75 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 affairs 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 than 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., Ill, No. 305; Pini to Larkin
(from Mazatlan) July 3, Ibid., No. 211; McKinley to Larkin, July 12.
Ibid., No. 218; Stearns to Larkin, June 19. Ibid., No. 196. See also
Bancroft, XXII, 33.
"See also Parrott to Buchanan, 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.76
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.77
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.78
Two later despatches from Larkin, received in the fall of that
year,79 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.
nH. 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.80 Aside from the
notification it carried to Larkin of his appointment as confidential
agent, it instructed 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 them 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-
i tions of the province (with a list of its leading citizens and ofli-
\ cials), its trade and commercial affairs, and the amount and char-
i acter of the American immigration.
Three copies of this despatch left Washington. One went to
Slidell to aid him in his negotiations with Mexico ;81 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 canying 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, 1846,8a delivering to Larkin the
"•Bancroft, XXI, 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.83
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.
1 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. 84 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.85
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
<">Ibid,, also Larkin MSS., Ill, 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 affairs of the country with the American consul.
Kelsey, 52.
S5For 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.

76 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California
Cas'tro would have obeyed unless he pleased) ;86 the violation of a
tacit agreement by Fremont to remain at some distance from the
California settlements;87 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.88 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.89 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.90 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
88This was the reason assigned 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.) Fremont, Memoirs, I, 461.
¦"Bancroft, XXI, 596-597.
""Larkin to Secretary of State, April 18. Official Correspondence, Pt. -II,
No. 41.
""Forbes to Oliveria, Jan. 28, 1846, in Ephraim Douglas Adams, British
interests and activities in Texas, 1838-46 [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 subsequent 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.91 Gillespie, however, believed in active ;
measures and was well aware of the probable outbreak of a war with /
Mexico.92 In addition Fremont had the letters of Benton, which, J
under guise of family matters, "contained certain passages enig
matical and obscure,"93 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.94 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.95 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.96 Moreover, he was in a 1
"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.
»4Lai-kin to Stearns, March 19, 1846. Official Correspondence, 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. Frgmont. It appears that the present
year will bring great changes on the face of California. Larkin, Mbb.,
IV, No. 39.
"¦Gillespie to Larkin, April 25, 1846. Ibid., No. 144.
"Larkin to Secretary of State, April 2, 1846— "The undersigned believes
that a flag it respectfully planted will receive the good will of much of

78 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California
ffair 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
j jealousies,97 and joined them in common cause against the United
States.
C Larkin's activities, between his appointment as confidential
j agent and the outbreak of the Bear Flag revolution, had taken
I various forms. To several of the leading Americans, who had
I 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.98 One of
these, Abel Stearns, he appointed his confidential assistant in the
south.99 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.100 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.101
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.102 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 respectability of the country." Official Correspondence,
Pt. II, No. 40. See also Leidesdorf to Larkin, May 7. Larkin MSS., IV,
No. 111.
orA 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.
'8Larkin to Abel Stearns, Los Angeles; John Warner, San Diego, and
Jacob Leese, Sonoma, April 17. Official Correspondence, Pt. II, No. 100.
"Kelsey, 67-68.
100Larkin 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 leagues along the San Joaquin is among' the Larkin papers
of this period. MSS., IV, No. 41.
l01Larkin 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.
102See Larkin to Secretary of State, June 1st, Official Correspondence,
Pt. II, No. 44.

Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 79
soon as a sufficient number of foreigners should arrive."103 From
the southern portion of the province equally encouraging reports
were received;1014 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.105
"Why this affair has happened— how or by who[m] I cannot
imagine — I am not sure it is true,"106 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,"107 was his final judg
ment on the matter. And with this judgment, it would seem, his
tory 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.108 Whether, as some insist, it was through a desire to assume
the role in California that Houston filled in Texas,109 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.
1MStearns to Larkin, June 12, 1846. Larkin MSS., IV, No. 151. Warner
to Larkin, June 11. Ibid., 156.
105For 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, Ibid., No. 159;
Sutter to Larkin. Ibid., No. 160.
l07Larkin to Buchanan, June 30, 1847. Official Correspondence, Pt. II,
67. See also Bancroft, XXII, 98, and citations.
10SBenton, Thirty years' view, II, 688-689 ; John Bigelow, Memoirs of the
Life and Public Service of John Charles Fremont (New York Derbv &
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 University of Cali
fornia, in an interview Nov. 29, 1911. Dr. Willey was personally ac
quainted both with Larkin and Fremont. See, also, the discussion in
Rives, The United States and Mexico, 164-194.

80 Early Sentiment 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."110
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."111 Polk's 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
U. 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."1121
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 not Polk actually brought
on the Mexican War as a more certain method of securing the
U0Cave Johnston to Polk, March 20, 1849. Polk MSS. Same to same,
March 22. Ibid.
ulBancroft, XXII, 196-197 (citations from U. S. Gov. Docs., containing
instructions to Sloat, Kearney, etc.).
U2Polk, 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 Sentiment for Annexation of California

Chapter 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 Pnblic Eecord Office has cleared the
subject of English aggression of most of its mystery.1
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.2
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.
2Adams, 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.3
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.5
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 country but to penetrate even into offi
cial circles.
Seizure of Monterey. — In 1842 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 bondholders 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).
'NUBS' 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.6
Warnings of Waddy Thompson.— font 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, New 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.7 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.8 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-
6 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 George 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.
8Webster to Thompson, in Writings and Speeches of Daniel Webster
(National Edition. 1903), XIV, 612. Webster had derived his informa
tion from Ashburton. Ashburton to Webster, April 28, 1842. Ibid., 192.

Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 85
quisition. Great as those advantages would be, they sink in com
parison with the evils to our commerce and other interests even
more important, from a cession of that country to* England'9
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.10
To all of this, however, Webster had the assurance of Everett
and Ashburton regarding the tripartite agreement as sufficient
answer.11 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.12 To
this he replied that the administration had no knowledge that con
firmed the rumored negotiations.13
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, 1842. 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 Quabteely, XVIII, 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.
™Niles' 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 war might thrown the province into the lap of the United
States.14 Following Thompson's resignation as minister, Ben
jamin E. Green, Shannon, and Duff Green, from time to time
issued similar warnings to those. Webster had received, and of
which we have just spoken.
English mortgage.— Mexico, cultivating friendly relations with
England,15 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.16 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.17
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.18 These statements, suffi
ciently grave in themselves, received further emphasis from a let-
"-4The Quarterly, XVIII, 34-35.
1SB. E. Green to Secretary of State, April 8, 1844. MS., State Depart
ment. "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.
17A. J. Donelson to Calhoun, Jan. 30, 1845. Ibid., 1024.
"Larkin to Calhoun, June 20, 18-44. 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.19
Report of Santa Anna's dealings with England. — But even moTe
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.20
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 new 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;21 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 Monterey,
was submitting his suggestion for an English protectorate through
"Ap. Cong. Globe. 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 m 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 m
the London papers without comment and denied m Parliament by both
Peel and Palmerston. Ibid., April 7th and 24th.

88 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California
Barron fa' 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 ;23 the
whole western attitude and his schooling at the hands of Andrew
Jackson; above all, the course of Great Britain with regard to
Texas;24 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.25 Later, Parrott said that the force bound from
Mexico to California, to subdue the insurrection against Michel
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."26 f
22For 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. Globe, 28 Cong., 1 sess., p. 350.
MFor 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; Wickliffe 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.
MParrott 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 MclSTamarrah" was preparing
to leave for California for the purpose of introducing Irish immi
grants.27 In this, it should be remarked, Parrott was not build
ing wholly on his imagination.28
Larkin'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.28
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 Company30 had furnished the native Californians with
arms and ammunitions to expel the Mexican governor, General
Micheltorena,31 in the preceding year. At the time his despatch
was being written, however, Larkin said,
There is no doubt 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.32 "Same to same, Aug. I6th. Ibid.
•^McNamarra's project was laid before Bankhead in 1844. He took only
^"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 whieh 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 Frg-
mont made much of this "McNamarra Scheme" as justifying the latter's
participation in the Bear Flag Revolt. Bancroft devotes considerable
space to this 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,33 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 these 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 "anything 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 Eobert Peel, as bearer of despatches, from the British fleet in
the Pacific, had caused some comment.34 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 George 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.
88For 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.
MSlidell 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.35
The rumored monarchy. — About this time, also, reports came to j
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.86
Shortly after the receipt of Black's despatch, a private letter,
equally positive in tone, came to Pjolk 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."37
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.38 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.30 These reports later called
out a reply from Buchanan to Slidell stating that this report had
KSlidell to Buchanan, Dee. 29, 1845. Ibid.
86Black to Buchanan, Dec. 30. Ibid.
S7McLane 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.
89Dimond to Buchanan, Feb. 21. Ibid. The following quotation shows
the basis upon which these reports rested: "Bankhead's interest . . .
was greatly aroused by proposals . . . unofficially 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.*0 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.41 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.421
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 New York
Sun, and from that journal copied by many of the other news
papers.43 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.4i And even the staid American Review lifted
•"Buchanan to Slidell, March 13, 1846. MS., State Department. Humor,
said Buchanan, had already indicated the Spanish Prince Henry, son of
Francisco de Paula, and the rejected suitor of Queen Isabella.
ttSlidell 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, I, 326.
"Larkin to New York Sun, July 31, 1845. Larkin MSS., Ill, No. 235.
Reprinted in Niles1 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.40 The report of the proposed monarchy
likewise received due publicity and unfavorable comment.40 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.47
Effect upon the policy of the administration. — The importance
of the question of foreign interference in California lies not so
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
whieh 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; Ibid., March 7 (extract from Baltimore Amer
ican) ; Daily Union, March 10th and 16th.
"Niles' Reqister, 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.49
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.50
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."51 England and Larkin's 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, therefore, we should naturally
expect much space to be devoted to the subject of British and
French designs.52 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.
Tor 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.
MThe same instructions were entrusted (probably) to Gillespie and
Fremont.

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 forces — 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.53
England and Slidell's instructions. — The instructions to Slidell,
first drawn up on September 16, but amended after the receipt of
Larkin's 10th of July despatch,54 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."55
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."58 ""Buchanan to Larkin. Buchanan, Works, VI, 275-278. It should be
noted that Buchanan assigned as his reasons for these warnings, etc.
Larkin's despatch of July 10th.
"This despatch was received Oct. 4th.
MFor 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 Califorma.-"There is another

96 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California
Polk'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.57 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.58
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. When 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"59 —
» Polk desired to warn England that the United States would brook
[no interference in case the program entrusted to Larkin in Cali-
I fornia was a success, and the inhabitants sought annexation to
jthis 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,"60 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."
mCong. Globe, 29 Cong., 1 sess., p. 350.
MPolk, Diary, I, 71 (Oct. 24th).
"•James D. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents (Wash
ington. Gov't Printing Office. 1896), 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 be
opposed, with arms if necessary, 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,61 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
Slidell's rejection directly at England's door.62 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.63 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 Unioij
and cannot be subject to European power, constitutes ample in^
demnity for the past."64
aAp. Cong. Globe, 28 Cong., 1 sess., p. 445.
"Diary, L 337 (April 18, 1846).
mDiary, I, 396-399 (May 13th).
"Richardson, IV 599.

98 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California

Chapter VI
SLAVERY AND THE EARLY SENTIMENT EOR 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 slavery, 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,1 Henry Wilson,2 Jay,3 H. H. Bancroft,4 Henry Cabot
Lodge5 and other members of the older6 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.
¦'James Ford Ehodes, History of the United States (New York Mac
millan. 1894), I. 87.
2Henry Wilson, Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America (Boston.
Houghton, Mifflin and Company. 1879), II, 9.
May, Review of the Causes and Consequences of the Mexican War, 107.
«H. H. Bancroft, Works, XIII, 344.
"Henry Cabot Lodge, 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),

Early Sentiment for Annexation 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 the1 administration of a south
ern 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 recognised.
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 whieh 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.7 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.8 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. Whereas 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.9 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 P'olk 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-
7The Quarterly, XVIII, 17.
"Ibid., 28.
'Ibid., 33.

Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 101
ise of preparation for annexation as a counterpart of Texas

"10

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 whieh 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.11 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-
MSpeeches in Congress by Joshua R. Giddings (Boston and Cleveland.
Jewett & Co. 1853), 258-259.
"Above p 242. As early as March 5, 1845, the Journal of Com
merce credited the Whigs with aiming to secure California m order to
offset the popularity the Democrats had won m urging the annexation ot
Texas. See also Richmond Enquirer, Jan. 26, 1846.

102 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California
spicuous position, either agriculturally, commercially, or politi
cally."12 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.13
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 Eobinson,
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
KDe Bow, Commercial Review, I, 65-66. "It was this article that first
brought 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.
13The Quarterly, XVIII, 33.

Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 103
not of New England origin.14 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.15
Proposed boundary limes. — 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 Eepublic, 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 New 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.1*
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 1835 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 Polk. — Up to 1846, therefore,
I the matter of acquiring California, both in the province itself and
I 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.17
"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."18 Badger, of North Caro-
MThis despatch to Slidell, as well as the other references to boundary
just cited, have received due notice elsewhere in this discussion.
l7Cong. 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.19 Butler, of South Carolina, cared only for the
port of San Francisco and rejoiced that this lay above the line of
the Missouri Compromise.20 Toombs was opposed to taking "an
inch" of Mexican territory.21
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.22 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.23
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,24 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."25 An added
proof of the lack of sectional bias in Polk's efforts to secure 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.26
"Ap. Cong. Globe, 30 Cong., 1 sess., pp. 121-122. See also Globe, 29
Cong., 2 sess., p. 338.
wGlobe, 29 Cong., 1 sess., p. 448.
^Globe, 29 Cong., 2 sess., p. 141.
"Ap. Glove, 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.
MDiary, I, 34-35. The line suggested by Polk ran about on the 321
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. They 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.27
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 territory south of the Missouri Compromise
line of 36° 30' and in it slavery would probably never exist.28
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.29
"Diary, II, 75 (August 10, 1846) ; Ibid., 305 (Jan. 4, 1847).
"Diary, II, 350. Polk had expressed the same idea to David Wilmot
(Ibid., 289) and to Calhoun (p. 283), as well as to others. He had
favored the extension of the same line in the annexation of Texas (Curtis,
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 California 107
The lai'ger part of the territory, and the only part considered of
much value, lay above the Missouri Compromise line.30 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.81 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.32
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,33 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 digger 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 Whigs" when endeavoring to secure the adoption
of his "Address of the Southern , Delegates ... to their constituents."
Calhoun to Mrs. T. O. Clemsoli," Jan. 24, 1849. Correspondence, p. 761,
and note.
"Daily Union, Feb. 19, 1847 (Denial of a charge of sectionalism against
Polk). •
aDiary, 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
BIBLIOGEAPHY1
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 Mi/nor Importance
Bancroft Collection:
Alvarado, Juan B., Historia de California. 5 vols.
Beiden, 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, 1827-1836.
Webster Manuscripts, 1840-1843.
¦'Throughout 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 "repeat these in the Bibliography.

Early Sentiment for Annexation of California 109
Governmental Publications
American State Papers, Miscellaneous, Tl.
Annals of Congress, XXXVII, XL.
Appendix to the Congressional Globe, 28 Congress, 1st session;
29 Congress, 2nd session; 30 Congress, 1st 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.
Eeports of Committees, 25 Congress, 3d session, no. 101.
Eichardson, 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 1795 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 G, Memoirs of my Life. 1 vol.
Fremont, -John C, Eeport of the Exploring Expedition to the
Eocky Mountains in 1842, and to Oregon and California in the
years" 1843-44.
Garrison, George P., Diplomatic Correspondence of the Eepublic
of Texas, I (Annual Eeport of the American Historical Associa
tion, 1907, II).
Giddings, Joshua E., 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 Eeport 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 thenars 1841 and 1842, 2 vols.
Thompson, Waddy, Becollections of Mexico.

110 Early Sentiment for Annexation of California
Tyler, Lyon G., Letters and Times of the Tylers. 3 vols.
'Thwaites, Eeuben G. (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 Eegister, or General Repository of History, Politics,
and Science, III.
American Eeview, January, 1846.
Charleston Mercury, 1844-6.
DeBow, Commercial Eeview, January, 1846.
Hunt's Merchants' Magazine, 1846.
London Athenaeum, 1845-6.
London Illustrated News, 1845-6.
Missouri Eepublic, 1827.
New Orleans Daily Picayune, 1844-6.
New York Herald, 1844-6.
New York Journal of Commerce, 1844-6.
New York Sun, 1844-6.
North American Eeview, January, 1846.
Niles' National Eegister, 1817-46.
Eichmond Enquirer, 1844-6.
Washington Daily Union, 1844-46.
B. Later Publications
American Historical Review, XIV, XVI.
Century Magazine, XVIII, XIX.
Historical Society of Southern California Publications, III.
Johns Hopkins University 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 Quarterly, 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
Bourne, Edward Gaylord, Essays in Historical Criticism.
Bruce, II. Addington, Bomance 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 Eemains of Sam Hous
ton of Texas.
Curtis, George Tichnor, Life of Daniel Webster. 2 vols.
Davis, William Heath, Sixty Years in California.
Forbes, Alexander, California : A History of Upper and Lower
California. Green, Duff, Facts and Suggestions.
Greenhow, Bobert, Plistory of Oregon and California.
Jay, William, A Eeview of the Causes and Consequences of the
Mexican War.
Jones. Anson, The Republic of Texas.
Laat, 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, Jeswe 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 Lockhart, The United States and Mexico, 1821-
1848. 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.

n