California apparently had no established eastern boundary under the Spanish government. 2 The explorations of Garcés through southern Nevada as shown on Padre Font's map of 1777, 3 and of Domínguez and Escalante through Utah and southeastern Nevada 4 had doubtless given the Spanish officials a vague notion of the interior basin of upper California, as it was called, and the decrees of the viceroys, according to Halleck, included that region in the judicial district of the California territory. 5
Even when Mexico became independent of Spain, the boundaries of her northern provinces, California and New Mexico, were not established with any great degree of precision. There were, for instance, two maps of Upper California published in 1837. Rosa's map, published by order of the Mexican Congress, shows the southern boundary by a line running south of west from the mouth of the Gila river to the vicinity of latitude thirty degrees and thirty minutes on the Pacific coast. The eastern boundary begins at the mouth of the Gila river and runs northeast, joining the 42d parallel at the 108th meridian. The Dufour map, of the same year, indicates no boundary between Upper and Lower California. The eastern boundary, beginning near the 33d parallel, runs northward between 112 and 113 degrees of longitude west from Greenwich, to the vicinity of the 36th parallel of latitude, then turns west of north and joins the 42d degree of north latitude on longitude 116 west. The northern boundary of Upper California, according to Rosa's map, extends from longitude 108, west from Greenwich, westward along the 42d parallel to the Pacific, while on Dufour's, the same boundary includes only the territory along the 42d parallel between 116 degrees west longitude and the Pacific ocean.
Tanner's Map of the United States of Mexico, published in 1846, and Mitchell's Map of Mexico including Yucatan and Upper California, published in the same year, give California similar eastern boundaries but boundaries which differ considerably from the maps published in 1837. The eastern line runs rather irregularly between 30 degrees and 31 degrees 30 minutes of longitude west from Washington from about the 32d to the 42d parallels of latitude. Another map drawn by Charles Preuss from the surveys of John C. Frémont and other authorities (Washington, 1848)—the one which seems to have been used more frequently than any other by the California Convention of 1849,—indicates still different boundaries. 6 The southern line, beginning on the Pacific coast, about one marine league south of San Diego 7, runs almost directly east and west to the Gila river, and along that stream to the vicinity of the present Tempe, Arizona, near the 112th degree of longitude west from Greenwich. The eastern line extends northward through Utah, just west of Bear Lake, to the 42d parallel north latitude. The map used by the United States and Mexico in establishing the boundaries in 1848 was Disturnell's Mapa de los Estados Unidos de Mejico (California, New York, 1847). The edition of this map used by the writer, which seems to have indicated the same boundaries for California as the one just cited, was published in 1850. On it the eastern line begins near latitude 32 degrees 30 minutes north, and longitude 31 degrees west from Washington, and extends northward, at one place coming near longitude 33 degrees, finally joining the 42d parallel near longitude 31 degrees west from Washington. The map accompanying the President's Message to the two Houses of Congress, December 5, 1848, is very similar to the Disturnell map, except that the former follows the Suanca branch of the Gila river instead of the middle branch, thus including in California more territory in the southeast than the latter. The Disturnell map also extends the northwestern boundary of New Mexico slightly more than does the map accompanying the President's message. These maps published at different periods all agree in making the 42d parallel the northern boundary of California,—the line established by United States and Spain in the treaty of 1819—but that is about all they have in common. As we have seen, they show the eastern boundary at the north touching the 42d parallel anywhere between longitude 116 west from Greenwich as indicated on Dufour's map, and 108 as shown by Rosa.
General Riley's proclamation calling a constitutional convention was issued on the third of June, 1849. The eastern boundary of the ten districts into which California was divided by that document was described as formed by the Colorado river and the “Coast” and Sierra Nevada ranges of mountains. Among a majority of the delegates, 8 however, there was a general feeling that the state which they were forming need not be confined to these limits. The Convention, therefore, on September 12, authorized the President to appoint a committee whose duty it should be to propose satisfactory boundaries for the new commonwealth. The members chosen were men supposed to be familiar with the geography of California as it existed under Mexico. They were Hastings and Sutter of Sacramento, Rodríguez of Monterey, La Guerra of Santa Barbara, and Reid of Los Angeles. 9
On Tuesday, September 18, Hastings submitted for the committee the following report:
Your Committee are of the opinion that the present boundary of California comprehends a tract of country entirely too extensive for one state and that there are various other forcible reasons why that boundary should not be adopted by this Convention. The area of the tract of country included within the present boundary is estimated to be four hundred and forty-eight thousand, six hundred and ninety-one (338,691) square miles, which is nearly equal to that of all the non-slaveholding states of the Union, and which, deducting the area of Iowa, is greater than that of the residue of the non-slaveholding states.
Your Committee are of the opinion that a country like this, extending along the coast nearly a thousand miles and more than twelve hundred miles into the interior, cannot be conveniently or fairly represented in a state legislature here, especially as a greater part of the interior is entirely cut off from the country on the coast by the Sierra Nevada, a continuous chain of lofty mountains, which is covered with snow, and is wholly impassable nearly nine months in the year.
Your Committee are also of the opinion that the country included within the boundaries of this territory as now established, must ultimately be divided and sub-divided into several different states, which divisions and sub-divisions (should the present boundary be adopted) would be very likely to divest the state of California of a valuable portion of her sea coast. Your Committee are therefore of the opinion that a boundary should now be fixed upon which will entirely preclude the possibility of such a result in the future. Another important reason which has aided very much in producing the conclusion to which your Committee has arrived, is predicated upon the fact that there is already a vast settlement [the Mormons in Utah] in a remote portion of this territory, the population of which is variously estimated to be from fifteen to thirty thousand human souls, who are not represented in this Convention, and who, perhaps, do not desire to be represented here.
The religious peculiarities of these people, and the very fact of their having selected that remote and isolated region as a permanent home, would seem to warrant a conclusion that they desire no direct political connection with us, and it is possible, and highly probable, in the opinion of your Committee, that measures have been or are now being taken by these people for the establishment of a Territorial Government for themselves.
For the above and foregoing reasons, your Committee are of the opinion that the following should constitute the boundary of the state of California, viz:
Commencing at the northeast corner of the state at the intersection of the parallel of latitude forty-two degrees north with the parallel of longitude one hundred and sixteen west; thence south, upon and along that parallel of longitude to the boundary line between the United States and Mexico, established by the treaty of peace ratified by the said governments at Queretaro, on the thirtieth day of May, 1848; thence west, upon and along said boundary line, to the Pacific ocean; thence in a northerly direction, following the course of the Pacific coast, to the said parallel of forty-two degrees north latitude, extending one marine league into the sea from the southern to the northern boundary, and including all the bays, harbors and islands adjacent to the said coast; and thence, east from the said coast, at latitude forty-two degrees north, upon and along that parallel of latitude to the place of beginning. 10
Immediately after hearing this report the House adjourned, and although the Convention held daily sessions during the interval, the subject of the boundary did not come up again until four days later, the twenty-second of September. 11 McDougal warned the Convention that numerous proposals would be submitted for the establishment of a satisfactory eastern boundary, and suggested that all who intended to place proposals before the House for consideration should do so at once. He did not himself agree with the Committee, but without attempting to explain the one which he considered the proper boundary he would simply offer his amendment, namely:
That the boundary of the state of California shall include all that tract of country from the 105th degree of longitude west from Greenwich to the Pacific coast, and from the 32d to the 42d degree of north latitude, known as the territory of California; also the harbors, islands and bays adjacent and along the Pacific coast; also, to extend three English miles into said Pacific ocean and along the coast thereof from the 32d to the 42d degrees of latitude north; but if Congress should not grant or adopt the boundary herein set forth, then the boundary to be as follows, viz: Commencing at the point of intersection of the 42d degree of north latitude, and of the 120th degree of longitude west from Greenwich, and running south on the line of the said 120th degree of west longitude until it intersects the 38th degree of north latitude; thence running in a straight line in a southeasterly direction to the boundary line between the United States and Mexico as established by the treaty of May 30, 1848, and at a point where the 116th degree of west longitude intersects said boundary line; thence running west and along said boundary line to the Pacific ocean, and extending therein three English miles; thence running in a northeasterly direction and following the direction of the Pacific coast to the 42d degree of north latitude, to the place of beginning; also all the islands, harbors, and bays along and adjacent to the Pacific coast. 12
Semple of Sonoma said that he considered the problem of establishing a satisfactory eastern boundary, if the line did not extend west of the Sierra Nevada mountains, a subject of secondary importance. He thought, therefore, it would be well for the Convention to fix definite boundaries north and south and leave the eastern line to be determined by Congress. Personally he felt that the only portion of the territory which should be included within the boundaries of the new state was that part west of the Sierra Nevada mountains, but that if Congress wished to include the whole of Spanish California, he thought it would be better to accept the desire of that body rather than risk having to remain out of the Union for three or four years. It was “highly desirable,” he thought, to have a regularly organized government, and this could be obtained more quickly by omitting everything from their constitution which would tend to stir up sectional prejudices in Congress. 13
Following the suggestion, made by McDougal, of getting the various proposals before the House as soon as possible, so that each member could understand the different eastern boundaries proposed before beginning the discussion, Gwin of San Francisco submitted the following amendment to the amendment:
The boundary of California shall be as follows: beginning at the point on the Pacific ocean south of San Diego, to be established by the Commissioners of the United States and Mexico, appointed under the treaty of the 2d of February, 1848, for running the boundary line between the territory of the United States and Mexico, and thence running in an easterly direction on the line fixed by said Commissioners as the boundary to the territory of New Mexico: thence northerly on the boundary line between New Mexico and California, as laid down on the Map of Oregon and Upper California from the survey of John C. Fremont, and other authorities, drawn by Charles Preuss, under the order of the Senate of the United States, Washington City, 1848, to the 42d degree of north latitude; thence due west, on the boundary line between Oregon and California, to the Pacific ocean; thence southerly along the coast of the Pacific ocean, including the islands and bays belonging to California, to the place of beginning. 14
Halleck of Monterey offered and Gwin accepted the following proviso clause as a part of the amendment which the latter had submitted:
But the Legislature shall have power by the votes of two-thirds of both Houses 15 to accede to such proposals as may be made by the Congress of the United States, upon the admission of the state of California into the national confederacy and Union (if they shall be deemed just and reasonable), to limit the eastern boundaries of the state to the Sierra Nevada, and a line drawn from some point in that range to some point of the Colorado or Gila rivers, and to organize, by Congress, a territorial government for that portion of California east of these boundaries, or to admit it into the Union as a distinct and separate state. And the Legislature shall make declaration of such assent by law. 16
Gwin said that, believing that many difficulties would arise in connection with the establishment of a satisfactory eastern boundary, he had devoted a good deal of time to a careful study of the subject. He had maps which he had submitted to citizens of California “who were well versed in the matter, and they had informed him that the boundary which he proposed” was the one recognized by the government of Mexico. It had already been recognized by the United States, he said, in official documents and maps published by order of Congress. It was quite essential to state a definite boundary in the constitution, “but as this was a fair subject of negotiation between the two high contracting parties, and as Congress had a right to determine what our boundary should be, . . . then it was fair for Congress and the Legislature, under this proviso, to change it by their joint action.” 17 It was true that his proposition included an immense territory, but the people of California could divide it later into several states if they so desired.
Shannon of Sacramento believed that none of the boundaries proposed would be satisfactory. The line which he would suggest would, he thought, offer many advantages over anything yet submitted to the Convention. It would include every point which was of any real value to the state, taking in the Colorado River, which would be of great importance as a southern “port of entry and depot for trade” between the interior provinces of Mexico and California, and would give the new state a uniform width and bring it within reasonable limits. He therefore recommended as the eastern boundary the 120th degree of west longitude from the 42d to the 38th parallel of north latitude, thence southeast to the point of intersection of the 35th parallel of north latitude with the Colorado river, thence south along the eastern bank of that stream to the boundary line established between the United States and Mexico by the treaty of 1848. 18
About two weeks later, October 8, after the discussion of the above proposals and after the Gwin-Halleck proposal had been accepted, Ellis moved that the report of the Committee of the Whole on the Boundary be taken up, and Hastings of Sacramento immediately offered the following as a substitute for the line adopted: 19
Resolved, that the boundary of the state of California be as follows: Commencing at the intersection of the 42d parallel of north latitude and the 118th meridian line; thence south upon the said meridian to the point where it intersects the 38th parallel of north latitude; thence southeasterly in a direct line, to the point where the 114th meridian line intersects the Rio Colorado; thence southerly down the said river following the main channel thereof to the boundary line between the United States and Mexico, as established by the treaty of peace, ratified by the said governments at Queretaro on the 30th day of May, A. D., 1848; thence west upon said boundary line to the Pacific ocean; thence northerly, bounded by the said ocean, to the said 42d parallel of north latitude, including all the bays, harbors and islands adjacent to, and in the vicinity of the said coast; and thence east upon the said 42d parallel of north latitude to the place of beginning. 20
An attempt was made to discuss the proposal, but Botts interrupted by saying there was an understanding that a vote was to be taken upon the question without debating it. 21 He wanted either no debate or a full discussion of the subject. This demand led to an immediate vote which resulted in the adoption of the substitute offered by Hastings.
But objections were raised immediately. McDougal moved that the article on the boundary be reconsidered, while Sherwood made a long speech favoring such action. 22 Speeches were made by others, and on the following day Hastings's proposal was rejected by a majority of ten in a total vote of forty-four. 23 Shannon then submitted the proposal which he had formerly read, and it was also rejected. The question then reverted to the Gwin-Halleck proposal, which was adopted for the second time. 24
The announcement of this vote led to the only scene of disorder that occurred during the entire session of the Convention. “A dozen members jumped up, speaking and shouting in the most confused and disorderly manner. Some rushed out of the room; others moved an adjournment; others again protested they would sign no constitution embodying such a provision.” 25 Again the subject was reconsidered and various proposals were suggested, only two of which received serious consideration. These were offered in a spirit of compromise by Jones of San Joaquin and Hill of San Diego.
Jones believed that every member of the Convention wanted to avoid raising any question in Congress which might delay the admission of California, and he thought there was also a general feeling that the Sierra Nevada would be the most natural boundary. But there were some who insisted on fixing that as the definite boundary, making no provision for any difficulty in Congress; while others wanted to add a proviso clause so that if Congress did not accept the Sierra Nevada line, they would still have an opportunity to gain admission to statehood without experiencing serious delay. Why not compromise? Why not adopt the Sierra Nevada line with a proviso? That is, why not make it quite clear to Congress that the people of California much prefer the Sierra Nevada line for their eastern boundary, but if Congress should refuse to admit the state into the Union with that line, “if it should prove an insuperable barrier to our admission,” then “we will take a larger.” 26 He then suggested practically the same eastern limit as offered by McDougal and Shannon: the 120th degree of west longitude beginning at the 42d parallel and extending to the 39th, thence in a straight line southeast to the intersection of the 35th degree of north latitude and the Colorado river, thence down the middle of the channel of the river to the boundary line between the United States and Mexico. But if Congress would not accept that line, he suggested as a substitute the eastern limit as indicated on the Preuss Map of Oregon and Upper California. 27 It was the first part of Jones's proposal that was finally adopted by the Convention.
Botts was willing to compromise, but Jones's proposal involved a principle on which he could not yield. He would strenuously oppose any boundary that included the Mormon settlements, because these people had no representatives in the Convention. 28
To meet this objection and to satisfy those who insisted that a single, definite boundary be adopted, Hill submitted as the eastern limit a line following the Colorado from the mouth of the Gila to the 35th parallel, thence north to the 42d degree of north latitude. 29 Jones's proposal was rejected by a vote of thirty-one to thirteen, and Hill's was adopted by a vote of twenty-four to twenty-two. 30 The subject was again reconsidered, however, and for the third time the Convention voted on the Gwin-Halleck proposal. It was voted down by a majority of six in a total of forty-two votes. 31 Jones then offered the first part of his proposal and it was accepted as a final settlement of the boundary question by a vote of thirty-two to seven. 32 The boundary line thus established was as follows:
Commencing at the point of intersection of the 42d degree of north latitude with the 120th degree of longitude west from Greenwich and running south on the line of said 120th degree of west longitude until it intersects the 39th degree of north latitude; thence running in a straight line in a southeasterly direction to the river Colorado at a point where it intersects the 35th degree of north latitude; thence down the middle of the channel of said river to the boundary line between the United States and Mexico, as established by the treaty of May 30, 1848; thence running west and along said boundary line to the Pacific ocean and extending therein three English miles; thence running in a northerly direction and following the direction of the Pacific coast to the 42d degree of north latitude; thence on the line of said 42d degree of north latitude to the place of beginning; also all the islands, harbors and bays along and adjacent to the Pacific coast. 33
The arguments made by the proponents of the different boundaries have already been given. It is now in order to indicate the nature of the discussions which the proposals aroused.
The first part of McDougal's proposal, suggesting the 105th degree of west longitude as the extreme eastern limit for the new state, seems to have been given little or no consideration. The party which favored the adoption of the eastern boundary of California recognized by Mexico urged the acceptance of the Gwin-Halleck proposition, thus declaring themselves in favor of the line laid down on the Preuss map of 1848. The other party wanted to prescribe narrow limits, but at first they could not agree on a satisfactory line. Some spoke in favor of the proposal submitted by the Committee,—the 116th degree of west longitude,—and others for contracting the boundary still more. 34 The principal points of the argument were very similar on both sides: immediate admission to statehood, slavery, the right of the Convention to fix any other eastern boundary than that recognized by Mexico, and the question of including or excluding the Mormon settlements around Salt Lake. The small state party also expressed the fear of division of California by an east and west line. Throughout the entire discussion, both sides were actuated more than all else by a desire to gain quick admission into the Union. The majority of those favoring the extreme eastern boundary seem to have believed that Congress would accept them immediately with that line. The opposition was just as certain that immediate admission could be secured only by bringing the territory of the state within reasonable limits. 35
McCarver of Sacramento said the important thing was to do nothing that would delay their admission into the Union. “We want our two senators in the senate chamber to maintain the interests and supply the wants of California; we want our representatives in Congress” as soon as we can get them there. To accomplish this it was absolutely necessary to fix definite and permanent boundaries north, south, east and west. They should leave no boundary open; they should leave no question open that would be the means of keeping them out of the Union. Furthermore he would like to arrange it so that the Legislature would entertain no proposal from Congress for fixing a boundary. He was afraid Congress might cut the state in two by running a line east and west if the Convention adopted the Gwin-Halleck proposal. 36
Price of San Francisco also asserted that the first object the Convention wished to accomplish was to gain immediate admission into the Union. Could they do it by adopting the extreme eastern boundary offered in the Gwin-Halleck proposition? He did not think so. The southern representatives in Congress would not accept it. He came from a northern state (New Jersey) but he was broad enough to see the injustice of such a measure in so far as it affected the South. 37
Semple wanted to do everything possible to secure the immediate admission of California into the Union 38 and Halleck believed his proviso clause would insure immediate admission to statehood. Semple seems to have felt that Gwin's proposal alone might not be accepted by Congress, but with his provision added to it, he thought there could be no question. He believed Congress would accept it unhesitatingly. 39 Sherwood of Sacramento thought California could not be admitted to statehood very soon if she refused to adopt the extreme eastern limits. To establish the Sierra Nevada or a line of longitude near those mountains as the eastern boundary of the new state would result in one of two things: they would either be left without a government from Congress, or they would have to form a government for themselves independent of Congress. 40
On the other hand Botts of Monterey could hardly keep cool when the subject was broached. He did not believe they stood any chance whatever of becoming a state with the Rocky Mountains as their eastern line. “The gentleman who has last taken his seat (Mr. Sherwood), has made his strongest appeal in behalf of this extreme eastern boundary; that it will be the only means of getting you into the Union. Sir, I can tell you this will not be the means of your admission; you will never get into the Union with this boundary. If you do, it will be only to sit among its ruins, like Marius among the ruins of Carthage.” 41
Halleck did not believe the joint proposal was understood, and wanted to explain it. The first part, that offered by Gwin, included what had always been recognized as Upper California. The object of extending the boundaries of the new state to the extreme limits, was to settle the slavery question in that vast area forever. Another reason was to extend the jurisdiction of the courts of the state to that region for the purpose of protecting the immigrants who were coming from the East in such great numbers. He did not believe it would be possible to get a government for the territory between the Sierra Nevada and Rocky mountains for the next five years if the question of slavery was left unsettled there. Probably a half dozen or a dozen murders had been committed in that section during the past year; where could justice be meted out to the guilty, and to others who would be guilty of similar crimes in the future, if the eastern boundary of California did not include that region? These were the reasons urged for fixing an extreme eastern boundary. But some members had asserted, and perhaps truly, that Congress would not admit California with this boundary. His proviso clause was to meet just that difficulty. If objections were made to admitting a state which included so much territory, the Constitution carried with it provisions for establishing a new eastern boundary anywhere between the Sierra Nevada and the Rocky mountains, the exact location to be determined by Congress and by the Legislature of California. Thus the new state would gain immediate admission with the extreme eastern limit, and if these limits were to be restricted, Congress and the State Legislature could fix a new line later. 42
Botts had been inclined to leave the settlement of the eastern boundary to Congress, but, he said, since a member of the “new firm of Gwin and Halleck” had explained the motives which actuated them in offering the proposal before the House, he had had just and sufficient reasons for changing his mind. Did the gentleman (referring to Halleck) suppose southern men were asleep? Why did he not, upon the same principle, attempt to settle the question for Congress and for the southern people over a still greater extent of territory? Why not indirectly settle it by extending the eastern boundary of California to the Mississippi river? Why not include the island of Cuba, “a future acquisition of territory which we may one day or other attain, and forever settle this question by our action here.”
Slavery, he continued, was a great evil, and for that reason he wanted it excluded from the state in which he lived, but the territory of that state should be confined within “proper” limits. He believed the people of a territory had a perfect right to form a state government and exclude the institution of slavery from their midst; and he was willing to vote for the Rocky mountains as the eastern limit of California if gentlemen could show him that that was the proper boundary for the new state. “But when gentlemen urge upon me as an argument, to adopt that boundary because it excludes slavery from an immense extent of territory; not because it is the proper boundary of California, not because it is desirable to the state of California, but because it will settle the slavery question for the whole of the southern people and that against the will of the inhabitants of that portion of the Union who are not represented here,—the millions of people there who desire to have the institution of slavery amongst them,—when we are told that this may be, and that we here now may adopt that boundary and prevent the people of the South who may come here from exercising their rights and determining the question for themselves—when I am urged to do this, sir, I cannot give my consent.” 43
Sherwood thought the crest of the Sierra Nevada or some line of longitude near it should be the future boundary of the state; and if that were the only question before the House, he would not hesitate to vote for the proposition which established such a boundary. But there were other things which should influence the action of members of the Convention. The most important of these was the slavery question. The fact that Congress had failed to provide a territorial government for California during its last session was due entirely to the controversy over the subject of slavery. That subject, so far as it affected the territory to be included within the new state, had been settled by a unanimous vote of the Convention. Why not complete the good work by extending their eastern boundary to include the whole of California? If this were not done, the discussion of the same question would be open in regard to that portion of California excluded from the limits of the new state. 44 As friends of the Union he appealed to members of the Convention to settle the question for the whole territory and thus relieve Congress of the responsibility. If they did not several years might elapse before a government could be organized in California.
Sherwood then spoke at length upon the excitement which the subject of slavery had created in the eastern states during the preceding year, especially in his native state, New York. In that state opinion had been divided as to whether Congress should pass a proviso prohibiting slavery in all the territory acquired from Mexico. A large party there believed that Congress had no right to pass such a measure. It was a subject, they said, which the people of each territory should determine for themselves. The other party declared that Congress had a right to settle the slavery question for territories. A candidate had been nominated for the Presidency there with the distinct understanding that he would favor the Wilmot proviso. 45 The great excitement which had begun during the presidential election of the preceding year would continue unless members of that Convention settled the slavery question for the whole of the territory of California by extending their eastern boundary to the Rocky mountains. 46
The attitude of the administration and of Congress on the subject, Semple thought, might be of interest to members of the Convention. He was in a position to give this in so far as he could get it from a conversation which he had had with Thomas Butler King, a member of Congress and President Taylor's confidential agent to California. He had asked King what Congress would have them do, and had told him that the people of California did not want to extend their eastern boundary beyond the Sierra Nevada, that they would prefer to exclude from their limits all that desert waste east of the mountains. “For God's sake,” King had replied, “leave us no territory to legislate upon in Congress.” King “went on to state then that the great object in our formation of a state government was to avoid further legislation. There could be no question as to our admission by adopting this course; and that all subjects of minor importance could afterward be settled.” 47
Shannon claimed that the dignity of the new state would not permit it to receive dictation of this character from Thomas Butler King or from any one else. What right had King to tell the members of that Convention that if they adopted such and such boundaries they would be admitted into the Union; if they did not, they would fail to become a sovereign state? He considered it not only an insult but a threat, and he called upon the Convention to have enough regard for their own dignity and for the dignity of the state of California to reject such an offer immediately. He did not believe for a single moment that King expressed the sentiments of the Congress of the United States. No single individual could do that. The truth of the matter was, he thought, that the cabinet was in difficulty over the Wilmot proviso, and that King—perhaps others—was sent there to influence the people of California, first to establish a state government, and second to include the entire territory within their limits. There was a political quarrel at home into which the President and his cabinet wished to bring the new state of California. For his own part he wished to keep as far from such “rocks and breakers” as possible. 48 The letter given above will show that probably Shannon was not far from the truth.
There were others besides Shannon who seemed to think that the question before the House should not be connected with national affairs. Regardless of slavery and regardless of the opinion held by President Taylor's confidential agent, did the Convention have a right to fix boundaries for the new state of California other than those recognized by Mexico as the limits of the territory while it was a part of that government? Norton of San Francisco believed not. He held as a first principle that the Convention was not at liberty “either to take one acre of land more than now belongs to California or to yield one acre that now belongs to it.” No authority had been delegated to them and they had no right to assume power to give up any territory which had been included within the established limits of California. If they were there to form a constitution for California, they were there to form a constitution for the whole of it, not a part. “I insist, sir, that we have no right to say that California is not the California we took her to be when she became part and parcel of the United States.” He thought it might be possible later, if Halleck's proviso were accepted, to divide the territory; but this would have to be done by a joint action of Congress and the State Legislature,—the Convention could not do it. 49
Such arguments were absurd, McCarver exclaimed. Suppose the convention which formed the constitution for Louisiana had, for similar reasons, attempted to include the whole of the Louisiana territory within the limits of the state. The two countries, Louisiana and California, stood upon the same footing. Both had been obtained by treaty, one from France and the other from Mexico. Both contained territory enough for several states. Would it not have been a “monstrous doctrine” for Louisiana to insist that the whole of that vast territory belonged to them, therefore they would include it all within the boundaries of their state? “We occupy a similar position here. We have a tract of country purchased either by the blood or treasure of the United States, known as California.” To imagine that Congress would permit them to include all of it within the boundaries of their state was the most absurd of absurdities. 50
Furthermore, the eastern boundary had already been designated, Botts urged. “General Riley proclaimed the eastern boundary of California in his proclamation, and the people said amen. I say that he, in his proclamation, called upon the people of California in pursuance of instructions, if you please,—California as laid down in certain described lines—to form this Convention, and they, through their representatives, have excluded slavery for themselves; and is it for you, sir, now to reverse that decision?” He did not believe the Convention could do it. Most assuredly the people living within certain limits had no right to make rules for people beyond those limits. Such an act would violate every republican principle of justice; “Why, sir, is it necessary at this day, in this enlightened country, to stand here and argue and prove that people can make laws only for themselves? I am ashamed of the position that I am compelled to occupy.” 51
Lippitt of San Francisco also felt strongly on the subject. The Convention, he said, had no right to extend their government over the inhabitants of the Salt Lake region, comprising some thirty or forty thousand Mormons who had never been consulted in making the constitution. 52
It was a new doctrine, said Gwin, that every man must be represented within the borders of a new state, a doctrine which he believed had never been preached before. Great stress had been laid upon the fact that the Mormons were not represented. There was no proposition to force the Mormons to become a part of the government of California. He did not propose to extend the laws of the state nor of any district in the state to the Mormons. He did not propose to send tax collectors or government officers there. He favored awaiting their own action in the matter. If they wanted the benefit of the government which was being established, they should send a petition to have representatives allotted to them. “If they desire the protection of our laws, let them send to us, and it will then be a matter of inquiry on the part of our state government.” But he thought the Mormons would have no right to complain. The people whose representatives composed the Convention, were the majority, and the majority of the inhabitants of any state had a right to make rules for the minority. As a matter of fact, thousands of immigrants had reached California since delegates were elected to the Convention. They, too, had no representation in that body, but as a minority they were bound to submit to the will of the majority. Would not these people have as much right to complain as the Mormons? 53
Shannon thought not. He did not see how the fact that the Mormons were in the minority would prevent them from offering legitimate objections to being included within the new state. They could justly claim that they had no part in making the constitution which that Convention was framing. But even if they should accept the work of the Convention, he did not think they should be included because of their peculiar religious beliefs. 54 And there was another objection even more serious, said Hastings. The Mormons had already applied to Congress for a territorial government. Suppose both applications should be brought before Congress at the same time—“we apply for a state government and they for a territorial government”—both petitions coming from the same territory. Would it be possible for California to be admitted into the Union claiming the same territory at the same time the Mormons were asking for a territorial government over it? Most assuredly not. 55
In the meantime the Mormons had not been idle. A convention was summoned in Utah early in 1849, and the inhabitants of that part of Upper California lying east of the Sierra Nevada were urged to send representatives. 56 On the fourth of March the delegates assembled at Salt Lake City. A committee was appointed to draw up a constitution under which the people might govern themselves until Congress should provide a government for them 57 “by admitting them into the union.” 58 The name of the new state was to be Deseret, 59 and its boundaries were to be as follows:
Commencing at the 33rd degree of north latitude, where it crosses the 108th degree of longitude, west from Greenwich; thence running south and west to the northern boundary of Mexico; thence west to and down the main channel of the Gila river (on the northern line of Mexico), and on the northern boundary of Lower California to the Pacific Ocean; thence along the coast northwesterly to 118 degrees, 30 minutes of west longitude; thence north to where said line intersects the dividing ridge of the Sierra Nevada mountains; thence north along the summit of the Sierra Nevada mountains, to the dividing range of mountains that separate the waters flowing into the Columbia river from the waters running into the Great Basin; thence easterly along the dividing range of mountains that separate said waters flowing into the Columbia river on the north from the waters flowing into the Great Basin on the south, to the summit of the Wind river chain of mountains; thence southeast and south by the dividing range of mountains that separate the waters flowing into the Gulf of Mexico from the waters flowing into the Gulf of California, to the place of beginning, as set forth in the map drawn by Charles Preuss, and published by the order of the United States in 1848. 60
On the 5th of July, Almon Babbitt was elected delegate to Congress and three days later a memorial asking for admission into the Union as a state was adopted by both houses of the legislature. 61 On the 6th of September, by order of President Taylor, General John Wilson, United States Indian agent, held a consultation with Brigham Young, Heber Kimball, Willard Richards and other Mormons to see if some arrangements could be made for temporarily uniting the whole of the California territory under one government for the purpose of keeping the slavery question out of Congress. 62 At the beginning of 1851 the union was to be dissolved and Deseret and California were to become separate states. 63 As a result of the conference 64 John Wilson and Amasa Lyman were sent as delegates to California. On the 8th of January, 1850, they addressed a communication from San Francisco to Governor Burnett in which they informed him that they had been appointed by the people of the Great Salt Lake Valley and Basin, as representatives to any convention which might assemble in California, west of the Sierra Nevada, to form a constitution. 65 “Our constituents will regret to learn that before their delegates did or could arrive here, the Convention had met, concluded their labors, and adjourned, thereby closing all opportunity, for the time, for their delegates to enter upon the discharge of their duty.” They were communicating with the governor, they said, and through him with the legislature, to see if arrangements could be made for calling another convention in which the delegates of Eastern California might be admitted. The purpose of the second convention would be to form, for the present, a single state out of the territory of California, at the same time to agree on the boundary lines which should ultimately separate California and Deseret, when the latter had sufficient population to form a separate state. 66
The people of Deseret, they continued, would insist on the “summit of the Sierra Nevada as a proper and natural boundary” as far as it went. Some complaint had been made because, by extending their boundary to the Pacific, a large area of country had been included within the limits of Deseret without the consent of the people living in that territory. Deseret was willing to leave this to a vote of the people inhabiting the territory in question. If they should object to coming into the state of Deseret, then a compromise line, excluding those settlements, could be drawn. Deseret especially desired that the boundaries agreed upon should be clearly indicated in the constitution. Upon these terms, and with a most earnest desire to settle all excitement in the Union, and to harmonize the interests of the people on both sides of the Sierra Nevada, Deseret's representatives proposed to the Legislature of California to ask the people to assemble in their election districts and vote for delegates to a new convention. They also added that in case the Convention was called they would cast their vote against slavery. 67
The governor transmitted this communication to the Senate and Assembly the following February, accompanied by a message to both Houses strongly recommending the rejection of the proposal. 68 As a result, the Legislature took no action in the matter. This ended the attempt to establish common boundaries for the two states.
During the discussion of the boundary question the following accusation was made by McDougal against the framers and supporters of the Gwin-Halleck proposal:
If, therefore, we adopt this line I am very sure it will be sent back to us. We will have to call another convention and adopt other lines to suit the views of Congress. In the meantime we have no law. . . . And that is the very thing, Mr. Chairman, if the secret was known, which I apprehend they want to do. They want a constitution presented to Congress so objectionable that it will be thrown back for another Convention. Gentlemen have risen on this floor and stated that they had received letters from the South; and that they knew of many others who want to bring their slaves here, and work them a short period in the mines and then emancipate them. If this Constitution is thrown back upon us for reconsideration, it leaves them the opportunity of bringing their slaves here. It is what they desire to do; to create some strongly objectionable feature in the Constitution in order that they may bring their slaves here and work them three months. 69
More than two weeks later Jones made the following reply to McDougal,—the only notice that seems to have been taken of his charge.
It has been said by a gentleman—I don't know to what wing he belongs 70—that we are favoring the admission of slavery here. How are we doint it? By creating difficulties, says this gentleman, which will prevent our admission by Congress as a state into the Union, for some two or three years to come, and thereby give to the South a chance, while we are a territory, to bring their slaves. How is it then that this proposition [of the extreme eastern boundary] is supported by the North as well as by the South? The argument is not worthy of consideration. 71
Was Jones right or was McDougal's charge true? The latter has been the generally accepted view. 72
Royce, in his California (1886), says the men from southern states formed a separate party under the leadership of Gwin. “Their undoubted object was not so much to give over any part of California at once to slavery, since this hurrying life of the goldseekers wholly forbade any present consideration of such a plan, but to prepare the way for a future overthrow of the now paramount Northern influence in the territory, and so to make possible an ultimate division of the State, in case the southern part should prove to be adapted to slave labor.” 73
A similar opinion is expressed by Bancroft. Giving what he considers to be the views of southern men in the Convention he says, “Let Northern California be a free state; out of the remainder of the territory acquired from Mexico half a dozen slave states might be made.” 74 A little further on he quotes from McDougal's speech, 75 the part given above,—and says what it “lacked in grammar and rhetoric it supplied in facts.” 76
In 1890, the Century Magazine requested Francis Lippitt, who had been a member of the Convention, to contribute any new information he could on the organization of the state government in California. He wrote an article for the September number on The California Boundary Question of 1849. He was informed after the Convention, he said, that the extreme eastern boundary had been supported by men “from the southern states with the view to a subsequent division of California by an east and west line into two large states, each having its share of the Pacific coast; and further, to the future organization of the southern of these two states as a slave state—an event that would be quite certain, in as much as most of the settlers in that part of California had come and would continue to come from the South and Southwest. Thus the new free state would be offset by a new slave state.”
An article in the Overland Monthly for the same month and year, on the Beginnings of California, by F. I. Vassault, contains the following: “The fact behind this animated dispute about the location of the eastern boundary was that the pro-slavery members of the Convention hoped that by making the state so large as to include the whole of the Mexican cession it would be necessary later to divide the state, and a line running east and west might give one state to the South and the other to the North. Extreme bitterness was shown during the discussion, for the slavery element was fighting in the last ditch.”
Dr. Rockwell D. Hunt, in “The Genesis of California's First Constitution,” 77 says, “The design was to make a state so large that division would be necessary,” and the southern part would come in later as a slave state. “It is not surprising . . . that friends of slavery fought with utmost vigor for such vast territory as would necessitate division.”
There was published at San Francisco in 1901, however, a little volume entitled The Transition Period of California written by Dr. Samuel H. Willey, which gives a different view. Dr. Willey lived at Monterey during the eventful year of 1849, was personally interested in the formation of a state government and was Chaplain of the Convention during its entire session. On page 104 of his work occurs the following: “Just here may be as good a place as any to say that nothing whatever was said in the debate indicating that there was a purpose or expectation on the part of the Southern members that the adoption of the larger boundary would result in the introduction of slavery into any part of the territory. Nor was there any appearance, in or out of the Convention, of any secret understanding on the part of any upon the subject. Most of the men who advocated the larger boundary were thorough and pronounced Northern men.”
An examination of the positions of northern and southern men in the Convention as indicated by the leading speakers and especially by the actual votes cast will show that the last writer quoted was correct.
It has been stated already that the extreme eastern limit over which the discussion took place was that indicated in the Gwin-Halleck proposition, proposing practically the 112th degree of west longitude as the boundary. The leading speakers for and against that boundary have been given, together with their arguments. We have seen that Gwin, Sherwood, Halleck and Norton were the principal supporters of the proposal on the floor of the House. Among these Gwin was the only southern man; the other three were from the North. Norton was born in Vermont and emigrated to California from New York. Halleck and Sherwood,—the former the author of the proviso clause in the Gwin-Halleck proposal and a strenuous supporter of the extreme eastern boundary—were both born and raised in New York. Of the seven supporters of the small state who have been quoted above, Price, Shannon, McDougal and Lippitt were from the northern states, while Semple, 78 McCarver and Botts were from the South. No man in the Convention more earnestly urged the narrow boundary than Botts.
The usual supposition has been that the extreme eastern boundary was supported by pro-slavery men for the purpose of making California so large that a subsequent division, by an east-and-west line, would result in the establishment of two large states on the Pacific, one to be dedicated to freedom and the other to slavery. 79 This view, however, is not substantiated by facts. On six different occasions members of the Convention expressed fear that such a division might occur. The first was by the Committee on the Boundary, which was made up of one northern man, two foreigners and two natives. 80 The second expression of fear of such a division was by McCarver, a native of Kentucky; 81 the third by Semple, also a native of that state; 82 the fourth by Snyder of Pennsylvania, 83 the fifth by Sherwood of New York, 84 and the last by Gwin. 85 The last named has usually been considered the arch-villain in the southern plot. Thus three southerners, three northerners, two foreigners and two native delegates clearly expressed a fear of such an event.
But the votes taken on the different proposals show even more clearly that there was no attempt on the part of delegates from Southern states to unite against members from the North for the purpose of forcing the extreme eastern boundary on the House. There were nine votes taken on proposed boundaries in which the names of the voters are recorded. In the case of the first, the Gwin-Halleck proposal, we know that it was adopted by nineteen to four, but we have no way to determine the influence of North and South in that particular case. 86 The substitute offered for that proposal when the subject came up for reconsideration two weeks later, was presented by Hastings. This suggested the 118th degree of west longitude as the eastern limit. Of the twenty-three votes cast in favor of the proposal, fourteen were from northern, eight from southern states and one from Switzerland. 87 Twenty-one votes were registered against the measure, of which nine were northern, seven were native and five from southern states. 88 On the following day a motion was made to reconsider the boundary question and Hastings's proposal was again before the House. Of the seventeen votes cast in its favor on this occasion, eight were by southern men (the same who had supported it on the preceding day), eight by northern and one was by a foreigner. Twenty-seven votes were registered against it, of which fourteen were cast by men from northern states, eight by native delegates and five by men from the South. 89
Shannon's proposal recommending a boundary very much like the one finally adopted was the next to come before the Convention. Nineteen votes were registered in its favor. Eleven of these were cast by men from northern states, seven by men from the South, and one from a foreign country (Sutter). Of the eight southern delegates who voted for the narrow boundary formerly, all but one, Hoppe, voted for Shannon's proposition, and Hoppe evidently was not present, as his vote is not recorded. Of the twenty-five registered against it, thirteen were cast by men from northern states, eight by native delegates and four by men from the South. 90
McDougal withdrew the first clause of his proposal, thus leaving it very similar to Shannon's,—the 120th degree of west longitude.” 91 Thirteen of the twenty-two votes cast in favor of the proposal were by men from northern states, eight by men from southern, and one from a foreign country. Eleven men from northern states, eight native delegates and five men from the South,—twenty-four in all —voted against it. 92
Another vote was then taken on the boundary drawn up by Gwin and Halleck, and it was adopted for the second time. Twenty-four votes were cast in favor of it. Eleven northerners, eight natives and five southerners voted for the measure; thirteen northerners, eight southerners and one foreigner voted against it. 93 A vote was then taken on Jones's proposal, which it will be remembered contained two parts—the first recommending the 120th degree of west longitude, and the second, if Congress would not accept that, offering the 112th degree as the eastern boundary. There were thirteen votes for the proposition and thirty-one against it. Among the former, eight were cast by northern and five by southern men; among the latter, sixteen were cast by northerners, seven by natives, seven by southerners and one by a foreigner. 94 Hill's proposal, making the 115th degree of west longitude the eastern limit, received twenty-four votes in its favor and twenty-two against it. Of the former, ten were cast by northerners, nine by southerners, four by natives and one by a foreigner. Against it were fifteen northerners, four southerners and three natives. 95
One more attempt was made to have the Gwin-Halleck, or extreme eastern boundary adopted, but it was rejected. Of the eighteen votes in favor of it, eight were cast by northern men, six by natives and four by southerners. Fourteen northerners, eight southerners, one native and one foreigner opposed the measure.
The final vote was then taken on the first clause of Jones's proposal, recommending the boundary as it was finally established. It was adopted by thirty-two to seven. Eighteen northerners, ten southerners, three natives and one foreigner voted for it. Three northerners, two southerners and two natives voted against it. 96
It will thus be seen that in every vote cast the majority of the southern delegates favored the smaller boundary. In the first case,—the Hastings proposal, offering the 118th degree of west longitude,—eight voted for, and five against it. The same proposal when it came up the next day received the vote of the eight southern delegates who had formerly supported it, and was opposed by the same southerners, five, who had formerly voted against it. Shannon's proposal was supported by seven southerners and was opposed by four from that section. Practically the same eastern boundary,—the 120th degree of west longitude,—offered by McDougal was supported by eight southerners while five from the South rejected it. The second vote on the Gwin-Halleck proposal had resulted in five for and eight against it. Five were cast for and seven against the double proposal offered by Jones. Up to this point the five southern delegates who had stood out for the extreme eastern boundary were Gwin, Hobson, Hollingsworth, Jones and Moore. Moore did not vote on Shannon's proposition. Jones's proposal, however, was rejected by Gwin. Hoppe, a southern delegate who had voted for the more contracted boundary, supported the proposition. Hill's proposal,—the 115th degree of west longitude,—was supported by nine southern delegates and rejected by four. Gwin voted against it and Jones for it. In the third vote on the Gwin-Halleck proposition four southerners were for it and eight against it. The first clause of Jones's proposal was supported by ten southern votes. The two southerners who voted against it were Hill and Hobson. Hill had formerly voted for the contracted boundary; Hobson, however, had consistently opposed it.
This evidence seems to show conclusively that the debate and the votes had no sectional character. The majority of the delegates who had immigrated to California from southern states were not only not fighting to have the Convention adopt boundaries so extensive that the constitution would be rejected by Congress, but they were actually contending against that very thing. Every time they had a chance to express themselves by their votes—with the possible but not probable exception of the first vote taken on the Gwin-Halleck proposal, where the names of the voters were not given—the majority of them opposed the extreme eastern boundary. Even when Jones submitted his double proposition making the 112th degree of west longitude a proviso clause to be considered by Congress only in case that body should absolutely refuse to accept the new state with contracted limits, the majority of the delegates from southern states voted against it. And the motive which seems to have actuated them, as the rest, was a desire to obtain immediate admission to statehood.
3. Bancroft, History of Nevada, Colorado and Wyoming, 28 et seq.
4. Ibid., 36, and History of Utah, 7 et seq.
5. Browne, Report of the Debates in the Convention of California, 1849, 451-452.
6. For this map see California Message and Correspondence (1850).
7. Compilation of Treaties in Force (Washington, 1904).
8. Historians have generally asserted that the management of the convention was in the hands of the southern minority (see Bancroft, History of California, VI, 286; Royee, California, 262 et seq.). A recent writer goes a step farther and asserts that “more than half the delegates had originated in States below the Mason and Dixon line.” (Coman, Economic Beginnings of the Far West, II, 248.) An examination of the table of delegates as given in Browne, Debates, 478-79, will show that only 15 out of 48 were from southern states.
9. Browne, Debates, 54.
10. Browne, Debates, 123-124.
11. Ibid., 167.
12. Browne, Debates, 168.
13. Ibid.
14. Browne, Debates, 169.
15. This was later changed to a majority vote of the Legislature. See Browne, Debates, 175.
16. Browne, Debates, 169.
17. Browne, Debates, 169.
18. Ibid., 170.
19. Ibid., 417.
20. Browne, Debates, 417.
21. Ibid., 418.
22. Ibid., 418-420.
23. Ibid., 433.
24. Ibid., 440-441.
25. Taylor, Eldorado, 153-154. See also Browne, Debates, 441.
26. Browne, Debates, 441-443.
27. Ibid., 443.
28. Ibid., 447.
29. Ibid., 454.
30. Ibid., 456-457.
31. Browne, Debates, 458.
32. Ibid., 458 and 461.
33. Ibid., 443.
34. Johns Hopkins University Studies, XIII, 405.
35. See Willey, Transition Period of California, 108.
36. Browne, Debates, 170, 177. Other members expressed similar fears regarding the division of the State east and west.
Polk, in his message of December 5, 1848, had recommended the extension of the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific as a means of settling the slavery controversy, and the Senate attempted to get such a measure through Congress, but the House would not accept it. (Rhodes, History of the United States, 1, 96 and 97.) Later Southern men in Congress attempted to save a portion of the newly acquired territory for slavery in another way. On August 1, 1850, when the bill for the admission of California was under discussion in the Senate, Foote of Mississippi offered an amendment to an amendment which had been proposed by Douglass, the latter being in relation to the disposal of public lands in California. Foote's amendment was as follows: “And that the said state of California shall never hereafter claim as within her boundaries, nor attempt to exercise jurisdiction over, any portion of the territory at present claimed by her, except that which is embodied within the following boundaries, towit: Commencing in the Pacific Ocean, three English miles from the shore, at the 42d degree of north latitude; thence with the southern boundary line of the territory of Oregon to the summit of the Sierra Nevada; thence along the crest of that mountain to the point where it intersects the parallel of latitude of 35 degrees 30 minutes; thence with the said parallel of latitude to a point in the Pacific ocean three English miles from the shore, and thence to the beginning, including all the bays, harbors and islands adjacent to or included within the limits hereby assigned to said state. And a new territory is hereby established, to be called Colorado, to consist of the residue of the territory embraced within the limits of the said state of California, specified in the constitution heretofore adopted by the people of California; for the government of which territory, so established, all the provisions of this act relating to the territory of Utah, except the name and boundaries therein specified, are hereby declared to be in force in said territory of Colorado, from and after the day when the consent of the state of California shall have been expressed in some formal manner to the modification of her boundaries.” Congressional Globe, 31st Congress, 1st session, Appendix II, page 1485.
In commenting on this, Butler of South Carolina said: “Thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes is that which has been often indicated as the line; this is arbitrary, and if it becomes a point of honor, I will insist upon it. This proposition, 35 degrees 30 minutes,” has eternal boundaries to indicate it, and for that reason, he said, he would accept it. Ibid., 1489.
37. Browne, Debates, 429-430.
38. Ibid., 168.
39. Ibid., 175.
40. Browne, Debates, 181 and 418-420.
41. Ibid., 420.
42. Browne, Debates, 175.
43. Ibid., 178-179.
44. It will be remembered that the treaty which closed the Mexican War was signed February 2, 1848. On July 13 following, a special committee of eight members, representing equally the North and the South, was appointed by the Senate, and that part of President Polk's message relating to California, Oregon, and New Mexico was referred to them. On July 19, Clayton of Delaware introduced a bill in the name of the committee. In his introductory report, he informed the Senate that the principle of the extension of the idea of the Missouri Compromise to the whole territory had been approved by a vote of 5 to 3 in the committee, but that a motion to treat the part of the newly acquired territory lying south of 36 degrees 30 minutes, as far as related to slavery, in the same way that Louisiana territory had been treated, was lost by 4 to 4. All hope of a compromise disappeared and the committee decided to make only general provisions for the territories and leave the slavery question to itself. Its recommendations were as follows: First, to recognize the provisional laws of Oregon until a law of the territorial legislature should either allow or prohibit slavery; second, to organize California and New Mexico as territories, but to withhold from the territorial legislatures the right to make any decision with regard to slavery. See Von Holst, Political and Constitutional History of the United States, III, 385-386.
45. This was Van Buren. The Democratic party of New York split into two factions—the Barnburners and the Hunkers. In the presidential election of 1848, the former declared for the Wilmot proviso, the latter against it. Van Buren was nominated by the Barnburners, and later by the Free Soil party. See Stanwood, History of the Presidency, Chapter XVIII.
46. Browne, Debates, 180-182.
47. Ibid., 184. In his message to the House of Representatives, January 24, 1850, President Taylor said that while he had recommended the formation of state constitutions and application for admission into the Union in the case of both California and New Mexico, he had not in any way attempted to influence them in the formation of their domestic institutions. “On the contrary, the instructions given by my orders were that all measures of domestic policy adopted by the people of California must originate solely with themselves.” Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, Vol. V. In spite of this message, however, there is some reason to believe that President Taylor's wishes and those of his cabinet were expressed by King in his conversation with Semple, even more than were the wishes of Congress. In Whitney's History of Utah (I, page 408) is a letter written at Great Salt Lake City and dated September 6, 1849. It is addressed to Brother Amasa Lyman and signed by Brigham Young, Heber C. Kimball, Willard Richards. It is in part as follows:
“On the 20th of August, General Wilson arrived here, on his way to California, as general Indian agent, etc. We had an interview with him and gathered from him the following particulars: That the President and Council of the United States are friendly disposed to us, and that he (General Wilson) is commissioned by General Taylor to inform us that he fully appreciates our situation,” etc.
“The main point of the matter, however, is this: The President has his ends to subserve, and as he knows we have been favorable to his election, he wishes further to appeal to our patriotism (so says General Wilson) to help him to carry out another measure, which will deliver him, the cabinet and the nation from a difficulty in which he thinks they are likely to be involved.
“The subject of slavery has become more embarrassing than it ever has been before. The addition of the extensive territories of New Mexico and Upper California increases that difficulty. . . . The subject will be first, probably, broached in Congress, and if some active measures are not adopted, they (the President and Cabinet) fear it will be the last and only question. If it should be made into territories, it will be under the direction of the United States, and the question of slavery will annoy and distract all parties, and General Wilson says they fear will have a tendency to break up the Union.
“To prevent this they have proposed a plan of making the whole territory into one state, leaving it to the power of the people to say whether it shall be a free or a slave state, and thus taking the bone from the Congress of the United States, and leaving them to pursue their course, `peaceably if they can,' undisturbed by this exciting question. They think it ought to be made into two states, but that the sparseness of the population at the present time would preclude the possibility of an act of that kind passing.
“The cabinet think that all parties would agree to a measure of this kind if it should become a free state, and even General Wilson, the President, and other slave holders are anxious that it should take this turn and are willing to make a sacrifice for the public good. He supposes that even southern members would go in for it, but without our help, they think it could not be accomplished. They think that there would be a strong southern influence used on the coast, calculated to place the matter in an embarrassing situation to them and the eastern population on the coast combined, but that by our influence we should be able to counterbalance that of the slave holders, and thus settle the troublesome question. It is therefore their policy to seek our influence, and we need not add it is our policy to use theirs.
“In our communications with General Wilson, we at first rejected altogether the idea of any amalgamation whatever with the government on the coast, but on the subject being presented in another form, we have agreed to the following:
“We are to have a general constitution for two states. The boundaries of the one mentioned by us, before referred to, is our state, the other boundaries to be defined by the people on the coast, to be agreed upon in a general convention; the two states to be consolidated into one and named as the convention shall think proper, but to be dissolved at the commencement of the year 1851, each one having its own constitution, and each becoming a free, sovereign, independent state, without any further action of Congress.
“You will act as our delegate, in conjunction with General Wilson. Brother Pickett is also a delegate.”
That is, they were to serve as delegates to a constitutional convention to be held on the coast. Lyman was instructed to block any attempt to unite Deseret and California on terms other than the ones specified above.
48. Browne, Debates, 191.
49. Browne, Debates, 185-187.
50. Ibid., 187.
51. Browne, Debates, 422-423 and 447.
52. Ibid., 448.
53. Ibid., 194-196.
54. Browne, Debates, 170-171.
55. Ibid., 173.
56. Bancroft, History of Utah, 440.
57. Ibid.
58. Journals of California Legislature, 1st Session, 1850, page 443.
59. Ibid.
60. Journals of California Legislature, 1850, 1st Session, 443-444.
61. Bancroft, Utah, 444.
62. For an account of this conversation see Young's letter given above, page 244, note.
63. Bancroft, Utah, 446.
64. Ibid.
65. Journals of the California Legislature, 1850, 1st Session, 436.
66. Journals of the California Legislature, 1850, 1st Session, 440.
67. Ibid., 441.
68. Ibid., 429-435, and Bancroft, History of Utah, 446-447.
69. Browne, Debates, 180.
70. At the time McDougal made his speech he had a proposal before the House, the first clause of which included more territory than the Gwin-Halleck proposition, and later submitted a second which also provided more extensive boundaries. See Debates, 168 and 437.
71. Browne, Debates, 442.
72. Taylor's Eldorado was published in 1850, the year after the convention was held. He was present during the discussion of the boundary question, and devotes considerable space to it, but there is no indication of a struggle between the Old North and the Old South in the controversy as he gives it. Tuthill says, “there is no doubt that the most comprehensive boundaries were advocated with the hope that the action of the convention would be taken as final, and relieve the administration” of the slavery question (History of California, 274), but he makes no comment on the aim of southern men in the controversy. Hittell, in his brief account of the subject, expresses no opinion as to the aims of those men favoring the extreme eastern boundary. (History of California, II, 766-767.)
73. Royce, California, 262.
74. Bancroft, History of California, VI, 291.
75. Ibid., 293-294.
76. Ibid., 295.
77. Johns Hopkins University Studies, Vol. XIII.
78. Semple, the president of the convention, did not speak very often on the subject. The speech made by him quoting King might lead one to think he favored the extreme boundary, but an examination of the votes cast will show that he supported the more contracted limits on every occasion.
79. Bancroft, History of California, VI, 291 and 294-5; Royce, California, 264-66; Hunt, Genesis of California's first Constitution, 49; Coman, Economic Beginnings of the Far West, II, 248. The last named author also implies that the native delegates were assisting southern men in bringing about such a result.
80. Browne, Debates, 123.
81. Ibid., 170.
82. Ibid., 176.
83. Ibid., 182-83.
84. Ibid., 182 and 184.
85. Ibid., 445.
86. Browne, Debates, 200.
87. Ibid., 418.
88. Ibid.
89. Ibid., 431.
90. Ibid., 443.
91. Ibid, 440.
92. Browne, Debates.
93. Ibid., 440-441.
94. Ibid., 456.
95. Ibid., 457.
96. Ibid., 458.
How to cite:
Goodwin, Cardinal, "THE QUESTION OF THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF CALIFORNIA IN THE CONVENTION OF 1849 ", Volume 016, Number 3, Southwestern Historical Quarterly Online, Page 227 - 258. http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/publications/journals/shq/online/v016/n3/article_1.html
[Accessed Sun Nov 23 12:05:03 CST 2008]
