35.Gates had two companies of his own (Third Artillery). The other five were Belton’s. A steamer carrying ordnance and ordnance stores was lost.
36.Perry flew the pennant of a vice commodore (Conner, Home Squadron, 12).
37.Brooke had at first intended to send also four companies of Mounted Rifles; and Taylor, on hearing of this, protested sharply to the government that “a large and efficient force of cavalry,” on which he counted, had been diverted to a place where they were not needed (Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 382, 388), overlooking the fact that this corps had no horses (orders no. 149:ibid., 512). Now that Tampico had been captured by the navy, Taylor said it was of no consequence (Letters (Bixby), 78). These points are mentioned to show his state of mind, which will need to be understood when we come to Scott’s operations. The Alabama regiment was ordered to Tampico by Patterson (Bliss: Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 383).
38.Occupation of Tampico.Eco, June 9; Sept. 12; Oct. 29; Nov. 18, 19, 25.303Juanito del Bosque, Jan. 6, 1847. Apuntes, 78–86.61Gates to Barnard, May 4, 1849.69Prout to Patterson, Oct. 28.164Chase to Conner, June 4. Parrodi, Memoria (including letters to and from S. Anna and others). Ampudia, To Fellow-citizens, July 10.Commerc. Review, 1846, p. 165.47Conner, Oct. 7; Nov. 5, 21; Dec. 1. Polk, Diary, Sept. 19–22.297Mackenzie to Buchanan, July 7. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 480–1 (Jones); 339, 341 (Marcy); 378–9, 387 (Taylor); 252 (Mason); 270 (Conner); 271 (Tattnall and Ingraham); 271 (Cervanteset al.).162Morris to Conner, Sept. 21.162Tattnall to Conner, Nov. 20. Parker, Recolls., 68. Conner, Home Squad, 11 (Conner), 12.48Bancroft to Conner, Aug. 29.48Mason toId., Sept. 22. Balbontín, Estado, 52.Diario, Sept. 22; Oct. 6; Nov. 28. S. Anna, Apelación, 29–31.99S. Anna to Tampico ayunt., Oct. 27.245Beeto Lamar, Dec. 5.99Parrodi to Tamp. ayunt., Oct. 26.99Urrea toId., Oct. 29.99Gov. Tamaul. toId., Oct. 25.99Gov. Tamaul., circular, Nov. 17. Vindicación del Gen. Parrodi.69Worth to Bliss, Dec. 4. Steele, Amer. Camps., 125.226Beauregard to Totten, Nov. 27.69Chase, Dec. 3, 1845.313Id.to Saunders, May 26, 31.Public Ledger, Jan. 7, 1847 (Mrs. Chase).52Mrs. Chase to Conner, Oct. 20.316Judd to Sherman, Feb. 26, 1848. Ballentine, Eng. Sold., i, 267.69Shields to Bliss, Jan. 13, 1847.60Id.to Barnard, Apr. 20, 1849. Meade, Letters, i, 159–60.46Perry to Mason,Nov. 15, 19.46Declaration, Nov. 15. N. Y.Eve. Post, Nov. 18, 1847.165Conner letter book, Nov. 13-Dec. 4. Taylor, Letters (Bixby), 77–8. Negrete, Invasión, iii, 170–3. Balbontín, Invasión, 54. Ho. 1; 30, 2, pp. 1171, 1173 (Conner); 1174–5 (Tattnall). Ho. 4; 29, 2, p. 381.69Perry, memo., [Nov. 16].61Gardner, Dec. 2.61Gates, Nov. 20.61Brooke, Nov. 21.69Gates, Nov. 26.163Perry to Mason, Nov. 16.61Patterson to Marcy, Nov. 23.162Tattnall to alcalde, Nov. 19. Bennett, Steam Navy, 93.Monitor Repub., Dec. 2.166Patterson to Perry, Nov. 22.166Perry to Conner [about Nov. 30].166Tattnall toId., Nov. 22.313Saunders to Taylor, June 5.61Jones to Scott, Nov. 28, 30; to Patterson, Nov. 29; to Taylor, Nov. 30.313Letters from Conner to Saunders, Nov.61Gardner to Taylor, Nov. 17. Smith, Remins., 28.61Shields, Dec. 23.Espía de la Frontera, no. 7.76Gov. Tamaul., address, Nov. 27. Memoria de ... Relaciones, 1846 (circular, Nov. 21).Picayune, Jan. 2, 1847.112Barnard, Dec. 20, notes on the fortifications.112Id.to Gates, Dec. 11; to Shields, Dec. 28.112Beauregard to Totten, Feb. 2, 1847; to Gates, Feb. 24.61Gates to Barnard, May 4, 1849.66Beauregard to Totten, Jan. 9, 1847. The following are from76. Parrodi, Oct. 17. S. Anna to Urrea, Oct. 18. Prefect Huejutla, Nov. 23, 30. Múñoz, Nov. 21, 23, 26; Dec. 1. Order, April 24. Gov. Guanajuato, Nov. 27. Gov. Michoacán, Nov. 26. Múñoz to Gov. Tamaul., Nov. 14. Tampico ayunt. to Conner, Nov. 14. Parrodi, proclam., June 9. To Parrodi, June 3; Aug. 28. Circular, Nov. 21. To Bravo, May 14. Bravo, May 18. Mejía, June 9. To comte. gen. Querétaro, Nov. 21. Parrodi, May 20; June 17; July 8; Sept. 2, 5. Múñoz to Parrodi, Nov. 14. S. Anna to Parrodi, Oct. 12. To S. Anna, Oct. 15; Nov. 8. Ampudia, Sept. 29. S. Anna, Oct. 3, 10, 12; Nov. 4, 12, 21. Affidavit of M. Dorante, Dec. 23. Comte. Nat. Gd., Tampico, to Urrea, Nov. 4. To Ampudia, Aug. 28. When Perry reached Brazos Id. the weather was so bad that he could only leave an officer on an anchored vessel.
39.An estimate of Taylor’s strength on Dec. 9 was 14,000 for the entire field (Picayune, Dec. 27). One of Wool’s companies was still at San Antonio, one on the Rio Grande, and four at Monclova on Dec. 16, he stated; several were left behind when he marched from Parras, and he probably had 200 sick. Dec. 24 he reported about 2000 effectives as with him. At Camargo and doubtless elsewhere in that region there was considerable sickness. See a letter (probably from P. F. Smith) inLittell, no. 141, p. 191. One may doubt whether Taylor had a fighting force of over 12,000 at this time. The lines are reckoned as from Point Isabel or the mouth of the Rio Grande to Camargo, Saltillo and Parras, and from Monterey to Tampico. They were soon longer, because Taylor advanced beyond Saltillo. His advance to Victoria began Dec. 13 (chap. xviii, p. 357).
40.Opinions as to the number of men under Santa Anna at this time differed. Taylor’s report on Dec. 4 (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 441) was 20,000 infantry and a large cavalry force; Meade, Nov. 24, 35,000; Meade, Dec. 8, 30,000.69Wool wrote on Dec. 24 that according to spies sent out from Parras Santa Anna had 12,000 at San Luis Potosí, 30,000 at some distance from there, and 9000 on their way from Guadalajara.69Butler wrote from Saltillo on Dec. 20 that Santa Anna appeared to have 35,000 at S. L. P. and 9000 at Tula.
41.Taylor’s military policy.Taylor, Letter to Gaines, Nov. 5 (and inPicayune, Feb. 2, 1847).169Id.to Crittenden, Oct. 9.370Id.to Davis,April 18, 1848. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 351–4, 377, 379–82, 441, 514–5 (Taylor); 389–91 (Marcy).256Marcy to Wetmore, Jan. 24; Mar. 29, 1847. Scribner, Campaign, 55. Meade, Letters, i, 152, 168–9. Polk, Diary, Jan. 5, 1847.61Wool, Dec. 16.69Id.to Taylor, Dec. 24.Journ. Milit. Serv. Instit., xiv, 443. Taylor, Letters (Bixby), 71–2.330Id.to brother, Dec. 12.256Scott to Marcy, Dec. 27, priv.Morning News, New London, Conn., Dec. 10.267Memo. (probably from Maj. Smith). P. F. Smith, Memoir, Oct. 15.
There was also the difficulty of supervising lines so extended. At this very time Taylor was afraid things were going badly in his rear (330to brother, Dec. 12). It is particularly hard to find any good reason for posting a (necessarily large) force at Victoria, so very far from support. The pass between that point and Tula was not practicable for artillery, and was not the only pass by which infantry and cavalry could cross the mountains. Taylor (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 380) argued that from Victoria he could threaten the Mexican flank, should Santa Anna advance. But he would have had to force the pass, and without artillery he could not have accomplished much. In case of Santa Anna’s advancing and succeeding, this flanking force would have been in great peril, while in case of his failing it would have been useless. Anyhow it would have been more useful with the main army. Not only were the Americans scattered at posts, but they moved about in parties of only 200 or 300 with a carelessness that astounded the Mexicans (Camargo letter: N. Y.Journal of Commerce, Jan. 8, 1847). Taylor could not safely count upon coöperation between Wool and Worth in the case of an advance of the Mexicans, for it was likely that Santa Anna’s first care would be to block the road, as probably he could have done.
1.Independence is ten miles east of Kansas City and about thirty-five from Fort Leavenworth.
2.Conditions in New Mexico; Armijo.13Bankhead, no. 148, 1846. St. LouisWeekly Reveille, May 23. St. LouisRepublican, Aug. 25. Sen. 7; 30, 1 (Emory).60Leitensdorfer, June 7. Sen. Misc. 26; 30, 1 (Wislizenus). Inman, Old S. Fe Trail, 27–54, 67–92.75Armijo, Jan. 12.75Hacienda to Relaciones, Mar. 16.Monitor Repub., Apr. 15. Memoria de ... Guerra, March, 1845.Picayune, March 18. Dublán, Legislación, v, 10.Niles, Sept. 26, p. 52.52Alvarez, Feb. 2, 1842; Sept. 4, 1846.52Jones, Sept. 20, 1837.13Ashburnham, no. 50, 1837. Sen. 90; 22, 1, pp. 30–41. Captain of Vols., Conquest. Pacheco, Exposición. Ruxton, Adventures (London, 1847), 110, 185–6. Cooke, Conquest, 60. Kendall, Narrative, i, 295, 314–5, 346–60.Amigo del Pueblo, Aug. 19, 1845. México á través, iv, 403. Wash.Globe, Sept. 2, 1845. N. Orl.Courier, July 5, 1845. HoustonTelegraph, Jan. 24, 1844.77Arrangóiz, no. 63, res., 1843.77Almonte, no. 4, 1844. Amer. Antiquarian Soc. Proceeds., new series, viii, 324–41. And the following from76. Assembly of N. Méx., Feb., 1846 (petition for comte. gen.). Re-extracto on N. Méx. (Sambrano). Ayunt., Hermosillo, Son., proclam. Comte. gen. N. Méx., May 17, 1845. Tornel, Mar. 10, 1846. To Hacienda, Mar. 6. Trial of Magoffin (testimony). A merchant’s estimate of Santa Fe caravan business for 1846 was that the first cost of the goods amounted to $937,500 (Captain of Vols., Conquest, 11).
3.The text includes two companies of dragoons that joined Kearny on the march. On account of the scarcity of grass at Santa Fe and because he considered infantry the chief reliance, Kearny did not wish so large a proportion of mounted men. Fischer’s company enlisted to serve as horse. The artillery had twelve brass 6-pounders and four 12-pound howitzers. Kearny’s army, being near states abounding in resources, was more readily set in motion than Taylor’s or Wool’s, but on account of its long march 459 horses, 3658 mules, 14,904 oxen, 1556 wagons, and 516 pack mules were required to transport it, its reinforcements, and its supplies. (This account is not complete, but on the other hand it refers not only to Kearny’s expedition but to troops that followed him. Rives’s account in U.S. and Mexico, ii, 214–5, is therefore misleading, and makes the short rations endured on the march seem incredible.) The Indians drove off many of the cattle, robbed trains and killed not a few drivers (Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 545).
4.S. Fe expedition ordered and organized.S. LouisWeekly Reveille, May 11, 23. Polk, Diary, May 13, 14, 16, 30.69Jones to Kearny, May 13.63Marcy to Kearny, May 27.240Kennerly, Narrative. Sen. 7; 30, 1 (Emory).69Kearny, orders, June 19; July 31. Richardson, Journal, 3–6.61Kearny to gov. Mo., June 16; to Cummins, June 20.60Marcy to gov. Mo., May 13. Wash.Union, Sept. 24.Nat. Intelligencer, Oct. 2.Monitor Repub., Mar. 27, 1847. Scharf, St. Louis, i, 369, 372–3. St. LouisRepublican, May 13, 22, 30; June 26. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 545.Niles, July 4, 1846, p. 281; July 3, 1847, p. 279. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 326. Elliott, Notes, 217, 221. Ruxton, Adventures (1849), 312–3. St. LouisNew Era, Aug. 20. Mo. Hist. Soc. Colls., ii, no. 4.212Hastings, diary.256Penn, Jr., [May 23]. Bancroft, Pac. States, xii, 410, note (names of officers). Hughes, Doniphan’s Expedition, 24–7. Cooke, Conquest, 2.
5.The route taken by Kearny was not the shortest but it seemed the best for his purpose (Cooke, Conquest, 13). Distances from Fort Leavenworth: to Council Grove, 126 miles; to the Arkansas River, 393; to Bent’s Fort, 564; to S. Fe, 873 (Ho. 1; 30, 2, p. 236).
6.To and at Bent’s Fort.Mexico in 1842, 128. Sen. 7; 30, 1.63Marcy to Howard, May 13, 1846. Ho. 41; 30, 1.61Kearny, June 5; Aug. 1.61Kearny, orders, June 27; July 31.61Capt. Johnston, diary.201Gibson, diary. Prince, Concise Hist., 164–74, 178.Niles, Aug. 1, 1846, p. 343. Cooke, Conquest, 3–4. Elliott, Notes, 222–3.58Cooke, Map of S. Fe Trace. Captain of Vols., Conquest. Ho. 45; 31, 1. Sen. 23; 30, 1. Mo. Hist. Soc. Colls., ii, no. 4. Richardson, Journal. Sen. Misc. 26; 30, 1, pp. 5–13. Connelley, Doniphan’s Exped., 179–81.212Hastings, diary. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 151, 168. Ruxton, Far West, 189.69Kearny, July 17. Hughes, Doniphan’s Exped., 30–59.76Kearny to Armijo, Aug. 1.76Heredia to S. Anna, Dec. 31, 1846. Bent’s Fort lay about fifteen miles above the mouth of Las Animas River (Cooke, Conquest, 12).
7.Armijo’s motives and preparations.Sen. 7; 30, 1 (Emory). Gibson, diary, Sept. 5.Republicano, Jan. 13; Feb. 5, 1847 (Armijo). Twitchell, Milit. Occup., 60. Read, Guerra, 219. Prince, Concise Hist., 179.52Alvarez, Sept. 4, 1846. From76the following. M. E. to F. Pino. N. to F. Pino. J. F. to J. E. Ortiz. J. F. Ortiz to P. Armendaris. M. Ramírez to Señora Casanoba. N. Quintanar to L. Téllez. D. Vigil to J. F. Zubia. Decision of themesa. Testimony given at the trial ofMagoffin. S. Anna, Dec. 8, 1846. Summary of four packets of letters, and conclusion of themesa. Armijo, Sept. 8, 1846; Jan. 20; Mar. 30, 1847. Tornel, Mar. 10, 1846.Id.to Ugarte, Mar. 10; June 25; July 25. Segundo cabo, Chihuahua, July 10. Armijo to Ugarte, July 1. To Armijo, July 25. Comte. gen. Durango, July 16. Ugarte, July 17; Aug. 23. Letter from El Paso, Aug. 9.
8.The regiment under Price numbered at first about 1000, and the battalion, commanded by Lieut. Col. Willock, about 300. In July a third force (infantry) was ordered to take the same route but it was found unnecessary, and the plans were given up (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 162).
The second (Price’s; Mormons) and third (abortive) expeditions.Polk, Diary, May 30; June 2, 3, 5; July 18, 1846; Apr. 28, 1847.62Marcy to gov. Mo., May 11, 1847.62Jones to Price, May 18, 22, 1847.63Marcy to gov. Mo., Apr. 28; May 6, 11, 1847.69Jones to Scott, Apr. 20, 1847.61Doniphan to Marcy, Oct. 20, 1846.61Shields, Aug. 9, 1846.62Marcy to gov. Mo., July 18, 1846. Wash.Union, Sept. 24, 1846. Scharf, St. Louis, i, 375–6.Niles, July 18, 1846, p. 312.2Allred, recolls. Sen. 439; 29, 1, p. 2. Sen. 1; 29, 2, p. 49. Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 171. Bancroft, Pac. States, xii, 410, note (names of officers). Cooke, Conquest, 2. Hughes, Doniphan’s Exped., 134, 137–8.
9.Kearny’s letter to Armijo, found in the Mexican archives, is stated to have been translated by the American consul from a certified copy of the original. A little later an American trader, who had married a Santa Fe woman, was despatched to distribute the proclamation and sound the people at Taos. A scouting party under Bent went forward to examine the route.
10.Kearny was criticised for undertaking to release the people from their allegiance to Mexico; but since, as our Supreme Court decided in the Castine case, the inhabitants of conquered territories pass under at least a temporary allegiance to the conquering power, they must necessarily be absolved from their former obligations. See WashingtonUnion, August 21, 1847.
11.Kearny returned a conciliatory message by the bearer of Armijo’s letter. See note 13.
12.Estimates of the number of the people in arms vary from about 1800 (76Armijo) to 4–5000 (Cooke). Armijo’s reports minified all his means of defence. Apparently there were about 3000. So Magoffin stated on his76trial, and this was the conclusion of the war department at Mexico. Probably Armijo felt surprised and embarrassed by the response of the people.
13.It was charged by Mexicans that Armijo was bought by American agents. But Kearny had no money to use in this way, and in the absence of substantial evidence there seems to be no good ground to suppose that the merchants had a sufficient reason for buying him. Armijo sent Dr. Henry Connelly back with Cooke to treat in his behalf with Kearny (Cooke, Conquest, 31, 33), but nothing seems to have been accomplished. Kearny probably desired (76Connelly to Armijo, Aug. 19) that Armijo should surrender with his troops, and presumably Armijo asked for impossible concessions. Magoffin went on to Chihuahua, was arrested, tried, and imprisoned until the end of the war, and later was paid $30,000 by the U.S. government for his services and losses (Benton, View, ii, 683). There is little reason to suppose that his services were of much value.
14.The Mexican archives contain many letters from New Mexico bearing upon Armijo’s conduct and motives. Most of the writers called him a traitor; and a war department board (mesa), after reviewing the evidence, decided that he ought to be tried. But of course this was the opportunity for his enemies to turn upon him. The popular party naturally insisted that the people wanted to fight, and were betrayed by him. But he denied this, demanding why, in that case, they did not select some other chief, and hold their ground. Armijo hovered about for a time, pretending to coöperate with Ugarte; but, not being permitted to remain in Chihuahua, he went south with a train of wagons filled with American merchandise and guarded by Missourians, and finally, making his way to the capital under an order to come and answer for his conduct, he repeatedly demanded to be put on trial.
15.The population of Santa Fe was about 3000.
16.Events from Aug. 1 to 18 inclusive.Mexico in 1842, p. 128. Sen. 7; 30, 1. Polk, Diary, June 15, 17, 1846. Sen. Misc. 26; 30, 1, pp. 17–20. Sen. 18; 31, 1, p. 237.61Kearny, Aug. 1.61Capt. Johnston, diary.62Marcy to Kearny, June 18.201Gibson, diary.Republicano, Sept. 10, 1846; Jan. 13; Feb. 5, 1847. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 104. Connelley, Doniphan’s Exped., 181, 184.Anzeiger des Westens, Aug. 6; Sept. 5, 7, 24, 1846. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 168–70. Wash.Union, Sept. 14; Oct. 2, 27, 1846; July 12, 1847.Diario, Sept. 9, 10; Oct. 5. Read, Guerra, 220. Prince, Concise Hist., 179–80.Niles, Oct. 10, pp. 90–2. Robinson, Sketches, 20–1. Elliott, Notes, 225, 231, 234–5, 237, 241.52Alvarez, Sept. 4. Sen. 23; 30, 1. Ruxton, Adventures (London, 1847), 110. Benton, View, ii, 683. Mo. Hist. Soc. Colls., ii, no. 4.212Hastings, diary.268Kearny, letter book.337Capt. Turner, diary. Cutts, Conquest, 44. Cooke, Conquest, 5–43. Richardson, Journal. Hughes, Doniphan’s Exped., 59–87. From76the following. Letters from N. Mex. (undated letters in note 7). Testimony at trial of Magoffin. S. Anna, Dec. 8. Summary of four packets of letters and conclusion of themesa. Armijo, Sept. 8. Armijo to Kearny, Aug. 12. Connelly to Armijo, Aug. 19. Armijo, Jan. 20; Mar. 30, 1847. Re-extracto from statement of Sambrano. Reyes, Aug. 25, 1846. Ugarte, Aug. 23; Sept. 5. Kearny to Armijo, Aug. 1. Estados of troops in Zac., Dur., Chih., and N. Mex.
17.Events from Aug. 19 to Sept. 25 inclusive.61Wooster, Sept. 25. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 169–74 (Kearny). Sen. 7; 30, 1. Sen. Misc. 26; 30, 1, pp. 55, etc.61Kearny, Aug. 30; Sept. 24.69Kearny, orders, Aug. 27; Sept. 12.201Gibson, diary.Anzeiger des Westens, Sept. 26; Nov. 16.243Kribben, home letter, Aug. 28. Wash.Union, Oct. 27. Prince, Concise Hist., 180, 182.Niles, Oct. 10, p. 90. Hastings, diary. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 169–70. Hughes, Doniphan’s Exped., 100–19.76Vigil, reply to Kearny, Aug. 19.76Letter from El Paso, Aug. 9.76Heredia, Oct. 17. Some of the force did not set out until Sept. 26 (Cooke, Conquest, 71).
1.Willock’s battalion was under Price’s command. The Mormons were intended for California. Kearny’s order to Doniphan anticipated a suggestion made independently by Scott and by Benton in November, and forwarded, with Polk’s approval, to Kearny on December 10 by Marcy.Doniphan was anxious to be ordered to Wool, and his men, reacting from the atrocious conditions prevailing at Santa Fe—of which quite enough will be heard in chapter xxxi—were eager to be off.
2.Arriving at Santa Fe without provisions, the soldiers soon ate up what supplies could be obtained there, and as the people were declared to be American citizens, nothing could be taken without the consent of the owners. Besides, Kearny had no adequate funds. By a surprising blunder the contracts for the supplies that followed him called for delivery, not at Santa Fe, but at Bent’s Fort. Doniphan’s setting out for the south was delayed by a lack of provisions. The description of his men is based upon a large number of documents (particularly the diaries of Gibson and Hastings and Ruxton’s Adventures) which will be cited when the occupation of New Mexico comes to be considered (chap.xxxi).
3.Ruxton speaks of tents, but perhaps he was thinking of Clark’s men. Doniphan stated that they marched across the Jornada without tents (St. LouisRepublican, July 3, 1847).
4.December 19 Heredia reported to Santa Anna that there were 108 infantry and 320 cavalry at El Paso. There is no reason to suspect the honesty of this report, and none of the other troops in the state had time to reach that town before Christmas. Some ex-soldiers, however, are said in Apuntes, 141, to have joined the colors, making some 1200 in all, including militia.
5.It is impossible to state positively how many men Ponce de León had. The American accounts run as high as 1300 (Hughes), but evidently they were not based on reliable information, and very likely the writers assumed that all of Vidal’s troops were under Ponce. From the Mexican accounts it would appear that such was not the case. Vidal would naturally keep men back to act as a reserve, hold what he called his “line of defence,” and guard his person; and this probability is strengthened by the fact that three of his four guns were not used in the fight. The figures of several Mexican accounts are about 500. The reports of the details of the skirmish are equally irreconcilable. El Brazito (The Little Arm) was the smaller (eastern) of the two channels into which the river was here divided by an island.
6.Doniphan’s operations to Dec. 25 inclusive; Mex. preparations at the Chihuahua frontier.61Wooster, Sept. 25.268Portrait of Doniphan.240Kennerly, narrative.61Kearny, special orders 11. Sen. 7; 30, 1. Richardson, Journal. Sen. Misc. 26; 30, 1, p. 61.61Kearny, orders, Sept. 23.61Doniphan, Oct. 20.61Price, Feb. 26, 1847.61Scott, Nov. 24 and Marcy’s endorsement, Dec. 9. Cooke, Conquest, 51.201Gibson, diary.Republicano, Jan. 26; Apr. 10, 1847.Picayune, Mar. 6, 18, 1847. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 105.Anzeiger des Westens, Apr. 11, 14; May 17, 18, 1847.243Kribben, letters, Oct. 20, etc., 1846. Wash.Union, Mar. 18, 21, 1847. St. LouisRepublican, July 3, 1847.Niles, Mar. 6, 1847, p. 7; Apr. 3, p. 71; July 3, p. 279. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 496–7 (Don.). Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 171, 1128. Apuntes, 141–3. Elliott, Notes, 227, 229. Sen. 23; 30, 1, pp. 90–6. Sen. 439; 29, 1, p. 2. (Loss) Ho. 24; 31, 1. Ruxton, Adventures (London, 1847), 171–2, 176, 178, 183. StatementreDoniphan from Hon. Champ Clark, Jan. 27, 1906. Benton, View, ii, 686–8. Mo. Hist. Soc. Colls., ii, no. 4.212Hastings, diary. Cooke, Conquest, 39. Hughes, Doniphan’s Exped., 256–67. Connelley, Doniphan’s Exped., 589. From76the following. Trias, proclam., Nov. 19, 1846.Id., Nov. 23; Dec. 18. Balmúdez, ElPaso, Oct. 28. Vidal, proclam., Dec. 21.Id., Dec. 26. Heredia, Dec. 25. Ponce to Vidal, Dec. 26. Gov. Chih. to prefect El Paso, Sept. 19.
7.October 22 Marcy, learning from Kearny that surplus troops might be ordered to report to Wool at Chihuahua, directed Taylor to notify and instruct any such detachment in case he (Taylor) should decide to have Wool join him (Ho. 60; 30, 1, p. 365). It was probably possible to have a Mexican spy go from Parras to Chihuahua and thence north to meet Doniphan, but so far as we are aware no attempt to do this was made.
8.The insurrection will be described in chap.xxxi.
9.During the stay at El Paso some of the traders stole away, went to Chihuahua, and sold ammunition to the enemy.
10.Lieut. Col. Mitchell had been ordered south by Price in December to open communication with Wool, who was believed to be approaching Chihuahua, and Mitchell had organized the Rangers as an escort. Christian Kribben, who commanded one of the two companies, wrote (Nov. 30) that Mitchell selected the best men then at S. Fe. The commander was named Hudson. (See also Richardson, Journal.) Mitchell nearly reached El Paso while Doniphan was engaged with the Indians; but, alarmed by reports of Mexican troops, he returned and joined Doniphan. There was no engineer in Doniphan’s command.
11.Events from Dec. 26 to Feb. 27 inclusive.Sen. Misc. 26; 30, 1, p. 61.61Price, Feb. 26, 1847.61Wooster, Mar. 7. Gibson, diary.Picayune, Mar. 18. Bustamante, Nuevo Bernal, ii, 105. Wash.Union, Mar. 18. Richardson, Journal.228Hughes to Miller, Jan. 26.Id.to war dept., Jan. 25. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 498–9 (Don.), 503 (Gilpin). Apuntes, 143. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 365, 1128. Elliott, Notes, 245. Ruxton, Adventures (London, 1847), 156, 158, 168. Kendall, Narrative, ii, 35. Mo. Hist. Soc. Colls., ii, no. 4. Hastings, diary. Hughes, Doniphan’s Exped., 256, 269, 271–4, 280, 286, 289–95, 301–2. From76the following. García Conde, Apr. 5. Comte. gen. Chih., Oct. 10, 1846. Heredia, Jan. 9, 1847.Id.to S. Anna, Dec. 31, 1846; Jan. 5, 1847. Gov. Sonora to Bustamante, Feb. 28, 1847. Trias, Feb. 7. The artillery arrived on Feb. 1, but the baggage and provision train not until Feb. 5.
12.After the battle the Mexicans represented their forces as small; but, as Trias himself wrote on February 20 that he would set out the next day from Chihuahua City with 2000 troops (it is not probable that he looked upon the rancheros as troops), and García Conde was then north of the Sacramento with about 800 cavalry, it seems impossible to reduce the total given in the text.
13.Mexican preparations to defend Chihuahua; the ground and the fortifications.Sen. Misc. 26; 30, 1, p. 53. Gibson, diary.Republicano, Mar. 25; Apr. 10; June 8.Anzeiger des Westens, May 17, 18.Diario, Nov. 5, 1846. Edwards, Campaign, 127. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 498–513. Apuntes, 143–6. Ruxton, Adventures (London, 1847), 159.47Conner, May 31, 1846. Memoria de ... Guerra, Mar., 1845, p. 28. Kendall, Narrative, ii, 63. Hastings, diary. Hughes, Doniphan’s Exped., 303–5. From76the following. García Conde, Apr. 5, 1847. Martínez, Oct. 10, 1846. Reyes, Oct. 9, 1846. J. M. Conde, Feb. 24; Mar. 15, 1847. S. Anna, Oct. 12; Nov. 11; Dec. 24, 1846; Jan. 4, 1847. Tornel, June 25, 1846. Gov. Durango, July 27; Sept. 3, 1846. Re-extracto of Sambrano letter. Boletín no. 8, Chih. Reyes to Trias, Oct. 7, 1846. Comte. gen. Durango, Aug. 22; Sept. 3; Oct. 30, 1846. To Reyes, Aug. 31; Sept. 9,18, 25, 1846. Reyes, Aug. 25; Sept. 14; Oct. 2, 6, 1846. Memo., Sept 9. To director gen. of artill., Sept. 18. Patriotic junta, plan, July 27, 1846 (reported upon by generals, Sept. 4). Comte. gen. Chih., [Sept.] 15, 1846. Trias, Sept. 19; Dec. 26, 1846; Feb. 20; Oct. 26, 1847. Gov. Chih., July 23, 1846. Comte. gen. Zacatecas, July 31. Segundo cabo, Chih., July 18, res., 21, 25; Aug. 17. Estados of troops in Zac., Dur., Chih. and N. Mex. Heredia to S. Anna, Dec. 31, 1846; Jan. 5; Feb. 13, 20, 1847. To Heredia, Mar. 13, 1847. Memo, on defence of Chih. Heredia, Oct. 10; Nov. 2; Dec. 7, 1846; Jan. 19, 26, 30; Feb. 20; Mar. 2, 22, 1847. Estado of Dur. troops sent to Chih., dated Feb. 20, 1847. To comte. gen. Dur., Sept. 9, 1846. And many others.
14.A letter of May 18, 1847, from Chihuahua said that in the opinion of sensible persons commercial interest in the caravan had much to do with Doniphan’s victories, and that certain extraordinary events could be explained in no other way (Republicano, June 8).76Heredia suspected that Chihuahua merchants were secretly working to bring about the arrival of the caravan.
15.Doniphan might have crossed the cordillera bounding the eastern side of the valley and turned the Mexican position entirely, wrote76García Conde; but he did not say that the wagons could have gone that way. If they could not, the plan was impracticable.
16.Doniphan said later: “There was no particular generalship at the battle. You were marched within the proper distance, when you were turned loose. The enemy first recoiled, then gave way, then fled.” To a great extent this was true. Doniphan knew that he was not a general, and did not try to play the part. For a time at least he merely watched and whittled (Edwards, Campaign, 112). Affairs were mostly in the hands of his subordinates. But he gave some directions. Lieut. Wooster of the Fourth Artillery, who had arrived at Santa Fe on August 28, was on the ground, and according to his own report was mainly responsible for the conduct of the battle.
17.Events of Feb. 28.Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 498 (Doniphan), 502 (Mitchell), 503 (Gilpin), 508 (Clark). (Loss) Ho. 24; 31, 1.201Gibson, diary.212Hastings, diary.American Eagle, V. Cruz, May 26. Richardson, Journal, 61–4. Polk, Diary, May 4.188Edwards, diary. Sen. Misc. 26; 30, 1, p. 53.61Wooster, Mar. 7.Republicano, Mar. 25; Apr. 10. México á través, iv, 644.Anzeiger des Westens, May 18 (Kribben). Wash.Union, July 12.Diario, Mar. 17; Apr. 8. Edwards, Campaign, 111–2, 117.Niles, July 3, 1847, p. 279. Robinson, Sketches, 57–8. Apuntes, 146–9. Elliott, Notes, 245.13Bankhead, no. 29, 1847. Captain of Vols., Conquest, 38. Ruxton, Adventures (1847), 159. Mo. Hist. Soc. Colls., ii, no. 4. Benton, View, ii, 686. Cooke, Conquest, 89.240Kennerly, narrative. Hughes, Doniphan’s Exped., 306–13. Connelley, Doniphan’s Exped., 418, 590. From76the following. García Conde, Apr. 5. J. M. Conde, Mar. 15. Yáñez, Mar. 23. To Heredia, Mar. 2, 13. Heredia, Mar. 2; Apr. 1. Ugarte, Mar. 10. It is hardly necessary to point out that howitzers and cavalry should not ordinarily be used in storming entrenched positions. Ibarra’s list of officers killed during the war (p. 8) mentions but one as falling here. This fact seems to suggest the true character of the battle. Drawing the fire of the Mexican fortifications by sweeping to the left prepared the way for our decisive charge.
18.Trias made active efforts but in vain. Heredia had only 200 men on April 10; and Ugarte on April 15 merely expected to have two smallparties afoot before long. Arlégui, comandante general of Durango, was anxious to protect his own state by recovering Chihuahua, but the governor showed no interest in that project.
19.Sen. Misc. 26; 30, 1, pp. 61–2. Frost, Taylor, 304.61Wooster, Mar. 7. Gibson, diary.Republicano, Apr. 10; June 8. Wash.Union, July 12. Sen. 1; 30, 1, pp. 501 (Doniphan); 503 (Mitchell). Apuntes, 149. Robinson, Sketches, 62. Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1088 (Mora); 1128 (Doniphan). Rondé, Voyage, 136. Hastings, diary. Hughes, Doniphan’s Exped., 316, 327, 335. Richardson, Journal. From76the following. Ugarte, Mar. 15; Apr. 8, 15. To comtes. gen. in Jalisco, Zacat., Guanaj. and Dur., Mar. 13. To Filisola, Apr. 1, 30. Gov. Dur. to comte. gen., Mar. 7; Apr. 3. Arlégui, Mar. 31.Id., proclam., Apr. 11. Heredia, Mar. 2, 18; Apr. 8. Trias, May 26. Olivares and Maceyra to Doniphan, Mar. 5. Gov. Zacatecas, Mar. 18. The news that Mexican forces were coming was not without foundation. Gen. Filisola, a veteran officer, had now been given Heredia’s place, the comandantes general of three states had been ordered to the north, and the governor of Durango was expecting 1000 men.
20.About sixty-five Comanches had raided Parras just before the Americans arrived there, killing eight or ten persons. As the people of the town had been friendly to Wool, Captain Reid with about thirty-five men pursued the Indians, and without losing a life killed seventeen, wounded at least twenty-five, and recaptured nineteen boys and girls besides hundreds of horses and mules. Doniphan’s men were reviewed by Wool at Buena Vista.
21.The return home.Ho. 60; 30, 1, pp. 1127, 1131, 1136, 1143, 1170 (Taylor); 1128 (Doniphan); 1144 (Reid). Richardson, Journal. Hughes, Doniphan’s Exped., 339–51, 359, 363–5, etc. Sen. Misc. 26; 30, 1, pp. 62–82.61Wooster, Mar. 7.65Wool, gen. orders 293. Cutts, Conquest, 89.Republicano, June 8. Richardson, Journal.Independiente, May 29. Wash.Union, July 12. Scharf, St. Louis, i, 379. Connelley, Doniphan’s Exped., 591. Sen. 1; 30, 1, p. 502. Captain of Vols., Conquest, 37, 39. Cooke, Conquest, 90, note.148Chamberlain, recolls.65Taylor, gen. orders 59. S. Anna, Apelación, app., 15–7. Connelley, Doniphan’s Exped., 596. Mo. Hist. Soc. Colls., ii, no. 4. Hastings, diary.Niles, July 3, 1847, p. 279; July 17, p. 316; Aug. 14, p. 372. Robinson, Sketches, 64–71.76Ugarte, May 3.76Relaciones, May 20.76Arlégui, May 7, 14.76Aguirre, May 14.76Jefe político, Mapimi, May 10. The distance from Chihuahua to Saltillo was called 675 miles. Doniphan resumed the practice of law, managed his fine farm, and served in the Missouri senate. When the Civil War broke out, he supported the Union; but apparently he felt too much tenderness for his neighbors to take up arms.
1. In 1845 there entered at Monterey, the only port of entry, twenty-seven American vessels (9435 tons), eighteen Mexican (2620), four British (966), three French (756) and three German (525).
2.Mexico tried to keep the emigrants out with proclamations and orders to the California authorities, but the Americans appealed successfully to the treaty of amity and commerce and (it may be presumed) to the self-interest of local authorities.
3.The Mexican government was urged to buy New Helvetia, and negotiations began; but it was said that the Americans in the valley declared they would not permit Sutter to sell, and it seemed doubtful whether Mexico could hold the place even if she purchased it.
4.California and its population.13Pakenham, nos. 66, 78, 1840; 1, 1842.13Capt. Jones to Pakenham, Nov. 30, 1841.Revue de Paris, Jan., 1849.13Forbes, no. 2, 1846.Nat. Intelligencer, Apr. 26, 1842; Nov. 5, 1844.Madisonian, Dec. 24, 1842.77To gov. Calif., June 1, 1842.77Almonte, no. 84, 1844.13Barron, May 5, 1837; Jan. 20, 1844.Id.to Seymour, Jan. 28, 1845.12Blake to Seymour, July 5, 1846.52Vessels entering at Monterey, 1845. Forbes, Calif., 155, 225, 276. Bulletin de la Soc. de Géog., no. 77, May, 1844, 99–102. Dana, Two Years, 83–8, 90–3, 200. Colton, Three Years, 19–22, 37–8, 45, 68, 111, 118, 155, 158, 172–3, 231. Whittier, “The Crisis.”61R. B. Mason, Sept. 18, 1847. Sherman Letters, 43. Duflot de Mofras, Explor., i, 319, 402; ii, 24. Wise, Gringos, 42, 49. Ho. 70; 30, 1, pp. 7–8.61Kearny, Mar. 15; Apr. 28, 1847.77Covarrubias, Apr. 5, 1846.247March to Larkin.247Sutter to Larkin, Oct. 3, 1845. Bidwell, Calif., 157, 161.Revue des Deux Mondes, Dec. 15, 1845, p. 1039. Sherman, Sloat, xv, xxxix. St. Amant, Voyages, 513. Richman, Calif., 265, 267, 276.13Forbes to Barron, Jan. 27, 1845.13Elliott, July 3, 1845. Royce, Bidwell. BostonPost, Nov. 27, 1845. Jameson, Calhoun Corres., 946.247Sutter to Larkin, Oct. 3, 1845.372Hyde, statement, 6. Farnham, Life, 358–60.Diario, Mar. 21, 1846. Soulé, Annals, 168, 201. Sherman, Home Letters, 114.Niles, June 6, 1846, p. 211. Schafer, Pac. Slope, 231. Simpson, Narrative, i, 287, 297. Sen. 33; 30, 1, p. 97. Revere, Tour, 70. Sen. Rep. 75; 30, 1, p. 50. Sherman, Mems., i, 20. Bryant, What I Saw, 447. Royce, Calif., 31–2, 38–9, 41.123Bidwell, statement. Sen. 7; 30, 1 (Emory). Larkin, Calif. prior to 1846 (52Cons. letters, Monterey, i, 1). Letter from S. Fe, July 29, 1841; Mex. in 1842, p. 128. LondonTimes, June 18, 1841. Phila.No. American, Oct. 31, 1843.52Larkin, nos. 7, June 20; 9, Aug. 18, 1844; 12, Mar. 22; 22, June 6; 26, Sept. 29, 1845.
5.Startled by this affair, the Mexican government now proposed to send 1200 men to California with the idea of establishing them as military colonists; and in May, 1845, Ignacio Iniestra, a Mexican educated at Paris and regarded as a competent officer, was appointed to the chief command. No such number of troops was, however, provided; Iniestra refused to set out until sure his men would be paid and fed; and the requisite money was not supplied. In August U. S. Consul Parrott and theAmigo del Puebloof Mexico stated that a commissioner had come from California to inform the government that the troops would not be admitted. About this time the lack of funds caused a mutiny; but that was suppressed, and the dwindling forces lingered on until, at the end of the year, a large part of them were swept by Paredes into the vortex of his revolution. For nearly two months they were cantoned near Mexico; but finally another sham effort was put forth. Though Iniestra died, the men proceeded under various embarrassments—receiving accessionsen routefrom the prisons of Guadalajara—to the port of Mazatlán, and the arms, munitions and provisions made their way under equal difficulties to Acapulco, where seven small vessels were gathered to receive them. But the restless Juan Alvarez, called “The Tiger of the South,” seized the effects of the expedition, giving his brigandage a color of respectabilityby pronouncing, as we have seen, against Paredes, and three weeks later the troops at Mazatlán, commanded now by Col. Rafael Téllez, took a similar step—being determined on the one hand not to go to California, and quite willing on the other to live riotously on the funds of the expedition and the ample revenues of the customhouse. They pronounced for Santa Anna; and soon after the revolution of the citadel took place, August 4, 1846, the government, promising to make up his command to 1000, ordered Téllez to sail, but the necessary reinforcements were not provided. Téllez advised giving up the expedition, and on Sept. 7 the government expressed its concurrence in this recommendation. Thus ended even the pretence of taking the California situation in hand. Téllez stated that according to documents in his possession Paredes never intended to have the expedition sail; and it is certain that secret instructions were given to Iniestra, which the government was extremely anxious to keep from the knowledge of the public. In all probability the real purpose of proposing the expedition was merely to make people feel that something was to be done. (13Bankhead, nos. 13, 1845; 74, 1846.Diario, May 4, 1846. LondonTimes, Jan. 8, 1846.47Wood to Bancroft, June 4, 1846. Comunicación Circular que ... Peña.Amigo del Pueblo, Aug. 14, 1845. Of the author’s very numerous76documents relating to the expedition the following are enough to cite. Bustamante to Moreno, Mar. 26, 1847. Tornel to gov. Calif., May 13, 1846. N. Flores, Mar. 8, 1846. Yáñez, Mar. 10, 23, 1846. Alvarez, Mar. 17; Apr. 7, 1846. M. Gutiérrez, May 19; June 16, 1846. To J. I. Gutiérrez, May 13, 1846. Téllez to prest. of consejo de gob., July 25, 1846; reply, Aug. 18. J. I. Gutiérrez, May 9, 1846. To Iniestra, Mar. 31; May 9, 1845. Iniestra, July 31; Aug. 24, 29; Sept. 23; Dec. 2, 24, 1845; Jan. 5, 18, 24; Feb. 28, 1846. Castañares, Oct. 27, 1845. To Monterde, Apr. 10, 1846. T. Moreno, Mar. 3, 1846. Baneneli to Téllez, May 7, 1846. Moreno to Gutiérrez, Apr. 16, 24, 1846. Téllez, Feb. 9, 27; Mar. 2; Apr. 11; Aug. 24, 26; Sept. 2, 1846. To Téllez, Sept. 7, 1846. See also chap. xxx,note 27.)
6.Mexico fully warned.LondonTimes, June 18, 1841; Aug. 6; Oct. 6, 1845.77Almonte, no. 84, P., July 16; 153, P., Dec. 12, 1844.13Pakenham, no. 2, Jan. 6, 1842.13Bankhead, nos. 31, Mar. 31, 1845; 42, 1846.77Arrangóiz, Sept. 17, 1842; nos. 64, res., June 28, 1844; 41, res., Feb. 28; 70, res., May 7; 101, res., July 8, 1845. LondonChronicle, Aug. 13, 1845. Castañares, Documentos.75Sánchez, Apr. 2, 1846. Bancroft, Pac. States, xvii, 32.76Mora y Villamil, Nov. 15, 1845.76Bustamante, Nov. 13, 1845.76Mil. comte., Acapulco, July 22, 1845.76J. Castro to Castañares, Oct. 6, 1845.76Id., May 30, 1845.76Bustamante to Moreno, Mar. 26, 1847. In November, 1845, the Mexican minister of relations told Bankhead that Castro could not be punished for revolting (13Bankhead, no. 113).
7.If anyone doubts this, let him look at the present populous, rich, happy state of California, think how much it contributes to the world, and consider what it would now be, had it remained a part of Mexico, and suffered from the anarchy, devastations and massacres of recent years.
8.France had at one time cast longing glances at California. In the early forties Duflot de Mofras made a visit there, and according to the British vice consul in California a formal offer of protection was made by him, Admiral Du Petit Thouars and Capt. Laplace in the name of their government (13Forbes to Barron, Sept. 5, 1844); but the time for such a move was not then ripe, and France, aside from maintaining a consularrepresentative on the ground, became inactive. England was even less responsive. While many British subjects, particularly the correspondent of the LondonTimesat Mexico (e.g.Times, Sept. 9, 1845), felt that England should take California, the British government, though doubtless extremely anxious that the territory should not fall into the possession of the United States, refused to move or countenance any move in that direction. December 31, 1844, the Foreign Office wrote to Consul Barron at Tepic, Mexico, who had charge of Vice Consul Forbes at San Francisco, that in the California agitation the British agents were to be entirely passive, and that the idea of a British protectorate could not be countenanced, adding that the authorities of California “should be clearly made to understand that Great Britain would view with much dissatisfaction the establishment of a protectoral power over California by any other foreign State.” Other documents bearing on the subject are the following.13Forbes to Barron, Sept. 5, 1844. Kennedy in LondonTimes, June 18, 1841.13Pakenham, nos. 91, Aug. 30, 1841; 61, July 21, 1842.13ToId., Dec. 15, 1841. Bankhead, nos. 74, July 30, 1845; 73, May 30, 1846.13To Bankhead (exactly in line with the despatch addressed to Barron on the same day), nos. 53, Dec. 31, 1844; 18, May 31, 1845; 16, June 1; 4, Aug. 15, 1846.108Ashburton to Sturgis, Apr. 2, 1845 (“we certainly do not want colonies, and least of all such as would be unmanageable from this distance, and only serve to embroil us with our neighbours”).13Mora to Palmerston, Dec. 15, 1847. LondonTimes, Oct. 6, 1845.12For. Off. to Admty., June 19, 1846. Webster, Writings, xviii, 192.12Seymour to Admty., Apr. 27, 1846.Monitor Repub., Apr. 16, 1846.52Everett, Mar. 28, 1845. Gordon, Aberdeen, 183. Smith, Annex. of Texas, 155, 230, 417. Mackintosh, Brit. consul at Mex., proposed to place 500,000 European colonists in California in twenty years (13to Bankhead, July 26, 1845) with a view to turning over to England the control of the province (13Bankhead, no. 73, May 30, 1846). Paredes promised to give “every possible facility” for the execution of this plan (13Bankhead, no. 73), but the British government would not take it up.
9.Mexican rule to the end of 1845.13Forbes, nos. 1, Oct. 19, 1843; 2, Jan. 26, 1846. BostonAdvertiser, Sept. 26, 1842.Nat. Intelligencer, May 11, 1844. LondonTimes, Aug. 6; Oct. 6; Nov. 11, 1845; Mar. 13, 1846.Revue de Paris, Jan., 1849.77Almonte, nos. 84, P., July 16; 153, P., Dec. 12, 1844.13Barron, May 5, 1837; Feb. 18, 1845.13Id.to Seymour, Jan. 28, 1845.13Pakenham, nos. 13, 1837; 66, 1840; 91, 1841; 2, 1842.13Doyle, no. 79, 1843.13Bankhead, nos. 108, 1844; 31, 52, 113, 1845; 73, 1846. Paredes, address on opening Cong., June 6, 1846 (Diario). MobileCommercial Register, June 13, 1843.Diario, Mar. 27; June 3; Aug. 21, 1845. Wash.Globe, May 29; Oct. 21, 1845.Amigo del Pueblo, Aug. 14, 1845. St. LouisNew Era, Aug. 20, 1845. MemphisEagle, Oct. 1; Nov. 5, 1845.52Black, Sept. 2, 1845.Britannia, May 15, 1847.52Virmond to Jones, Feb. 4, 1837.52Larkin, nos. 9, Aug. 18; 11, Oct. 30; 12, Dec. 9, 1844; 16, Jan. 1; 1, Mar. 22; 2, Mar. 22; 20, Mar. 24; 25, July 10; 26, Sept. 29, 1845.247Stearns to Larkin, May 14, 1846.52Parrott, Aug. 26, 1845.12Blake to Seymour, July 5, 1846.12Seymour, June 13. Otero, Cuestión Social, 117. Giménez, Memorias, 90. México á través, iv, 404.52Burroughs to Ellis, Jan. 10, 1837.77Castillo, no. 119, 1835. (Simpson)Amer. Hist. Rev., xiv, pp. 88–9. Memoria de ... Relaciones, Mar., 1845. Royce, Calif., 202.Memoria de ... Guerra, Jan., 1844; Mar., 1845. Mateos, Hist. Parl., v, 98. Bandini, Calif., 138.13Jones to Pakenham, Nov. 30, 1841. Löwenstern, Le Mexique, 84.13Diaz to Barron, Sept. 29, 1845. LondonChronicle, Aug. 13, 1845.47Wood to Bancroft, June 4, 1846. St. LouisReveille(weekly), May 18, 1846.77Arrangóiz, Jan. 9; Sept. 17, 1842; nos. 64, res., 1844; 70, res., 76, res., 101, res., 1845. Gordon, Aberdeen, 183. Forbes, Calif., 146–52. Bulletin de la Soc. de Géog., no. 77, p. 186. Castañares, Documentos. Colton, Three Years, 20, 22, 32.Argonaut, Feb. 2, 1878 (Sutter’s diary). Sherman Letters, 43–4.13Forbes to Barron, Aug. 9; Sept. 5, 1844; Jan. 27; Mar. 10, 1845. Ho. 70; 30, 1, pp. 7–8, 42.75P. Pico, July 1, 1845; Feb. 13, 1846.75Covarrubias, Apr. 5, 1846.75Sánchez, Apr. 2, 1846.75Calif. Commission, Aug. 10, 1846.Reforma, Feb. 10, 1846.122Bidwell, Calif., 119, 123.3Alvarado, Calif., v, 129.Revue des Deux Mondes, Dec. 15, 1845, p. 1037. Richman, Calif., 273–9.334Torres, Peripecias, 49. Blackmar, Span. Instits., 10–12. Walpole, Four Years, ii, 205. N. Y.Journ. Commerce, Dec. 30, 1846.11Cyprey to Guizot, no. 58, 1841. Wilkes, Narrative, v, 171.13Aberdeen to Bankhead, no. 53, 1844. Sen. 7; 30, 1.52Larkin, Calif, prior to 1846 (Cons. letters, Monterey, i, 1). Dana, Two Years, 90–1, 200. (Prussia)52Everett, no. 284, confid., Mar. 28, 1845. And from76the following. To gov. Calif., Apr. 1, 1845; May 9, 1846. Téllez, Mar. 23, 1846. Alvarez, Mar. 17, 1846. Guerra, circular, Apr. 1, 1845. Comte. gen. Iguala, Mar. 13, 1846. Mora y Villamil, Nov. 15, 1845. Bustamante, Nov. 13, 1845. J. Castro, memo., undated.Id., Oct. 6, 1845. Castañares, Jan. 27, 1846. Estado, Monterey, June 15, 1845. Castro and Alvarado, May 30, 1845. Sutter to Mex. commr., Nov. 19, 1845. Castañeda to P. Pico, Feb. 10, 1846. Carrera, Apr. 8, 1846.