Vol. XVI 1 JANUARY, 1913 No. 3
The publication committee and the editors disclaim responsibility for views expressed by contributors to The Quarterly.
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.
Having despatched the above letter to Parraga with orders for the Rio Abajo people to wait for him, no other autos were drawn up by Otermín and no further communication passed between the two divisions until the northern refugees joined those at Fray Cristóbal on September 13. With all the survivors of the province united in one body, Otermín determined to call a council of all the officers and men of experience and prestige in his camp, that they might help to decide what ought to be done in the light of present conditions. 97 Accordingly, on the same day this decision of the governor was made public in the camp by voice of the public crier. 98 After the meeting was assembled, the first to avail themselves of the opportunity which Otermín gave for all to express their opinions, were eight of the missionaries. They stated briefly, though characteristically, that as “liege vassals of his majesty, and as his ministers in those parts for the administration of the Holy Sacrament, and for instructing in the Holy Faith both Spaniards and natives” they were willing “without any repugnance to follow the person of his Excellency and the royal standard in whatever resolution or determination he and the other persons might agree upon.” 99
Following the religious a joint statement was made and signed by the maestres dc campo, Francisco Gómez Robledo, Thome Domínguez de Mendoza, Juan Domínguez de Mendoza, Diego de Trujillo, and the lieutenant-general, Alonso García. After summarizing the events of the retreat, they agreed that because of the miserable condition of all, and especially of so many women and children, and since there was little prospect of any alleviation of their hunger, or any way to avenge or restrain the taunts of the enemy in that desert place, the retreat should be continued; and that after the defenseless ones had been established in a place of safety, a reconquest should be attempted, though they feared this would be difficult, since the enemy was in possession of a great many firearms and other weapons. 100 This opinion having been read, it was agreed to by sixteen sarjentos mayores, captains and soldiers. 101 Lastly, in much the same tone, the Cabildo of Santa Fé went on record as conforming with the decision expressed by the maestres de campo. 102 The main reasons stated by this body had all been stressed by others who had preceded them. But the Cabildo in addition emphasized the fact that for the 2500 persons in the camp, of whom only one hundred were soldiers, there were less than twenty fanegas of corn; and it was pointed out that it would be necessary to send to the jurisdictions of the Mansos Indians to secure provisions, because the enemy was possessed of all the sources of supply within a radius of forty leagues from the camp where it then was. For these and other manifest reasons they were in favor of proceeding to a place of safety. After reaching such a place, they thought, the viceroy should be asked for reënforcements so that the reconquest of the province could be attempted.
Having heard the opinions thus expressed by the principal men in the army, being in great need of supplies, “in a place where the earth was so parched and notched” that no pasture could be found for the cattle, and for many other reasons, Otermín would doubtless have ordered the army to proceed at once but for a letter which he received from Father Ayeta. This letter was written from the “Passo” on September 8. 103 From it Otermín learned that Ayeta, who had not had time to receive his message of September 7 from Sorocco, was in doubt regarding the needs of the refugees, notwithstanding the request for aid which had been sent him through García's letter of September 4. The following is an extract from the letter addressed by Ayeta to the governor:
And I say Sir, that I find myself confused on account of having had no notice of your Excellency's intentions. In order to learn what I should do, and in order to relieve myself of that doubt, I send the bearers in all haste, advising that there be no more delay than what your Excellency may cause. I now have everything ready, and the wagons prepared to move. If your Excellency should decide to remain there, fortifying yourself in some spot, I beg that, protecting your person, you come here in order that we may consult on certain matters pertaining to the service of both majesties, and in order to basten by some time the joy of seeing you, because I am determined, according as it may be proper, to go in person to give notice of what has happened to the viceroy, since all can not be said by writing.
After stating further that he had sent news of the burning of Santa Fé and of the governor's wound to Mexico by Father Nicholás López, Ayeta concluded with the injunction and hope that Otermín would join him at El Paso at once. 104
Immediately upon the receipt of the letter, in order that the least possible delay might follow this already unfortunate doubt, Otermín decided to postpone his decision in regard to the opinions just expressed in the junta, and instead ordered that twelve soldiers should be equipped to go with him on the journey to see Father Ayeta. In company with these, Ayeta's secretary, who had come with Leiva and his men, 105 and another religious, Otermín set out soon afterward, leaving in command in his place the maestres de campo, Francisco Gómez and Alonzo García. 106
Otermín proceeded with all haste down the river, and on September 18 107 met Father Ayeta at the place called La Salineta, four leagues above the monastery of Guadalupe del Paso. Ayeta, it seems, in the interval since he had written to Otermín on September 8 asking him to come to the pass of the Rio del Norte, had received the latter's communication sent from Socorro on September 7, asking that the supply wagons be started to meet the refugees at once. Accordingly Father Ayeta upon the receipt of this request had started from the pass with twenty-four wagons 108 of provisions, raiment, and munitions. He had apparently been unable to cross the river at El Paso, the usual fording place, and so had continued up the west side of the river. The progress of the wagons had been slow, however, for the heavy rains and the melting snow on the mountains had caused the stream to overflow, so that it covered the roads and all the adjacent meadows and lateral valleys (ancones). After proceeding about four leagues from Guadalupe under such difficulties, Ayeta had decided on the morning of September 18, at about 8 o'clock, to brave the dangers involved in an attempt to cross the swollen river. Accordingly six 109 spans of mules were hitched to the first wagon, and Ayeta himself accompanied by a number of skilled Indian swimmers, drove into the river. The water was higher and more dangerous, however, than had been supposed. It rose more than a vara above the bed of the wagon, not only damaging the contents, but endangering Father Ayeta's life. Finally the mules after much difficulty were able to reach a higher place where they secured footing, but the wagon remained fast in the middle of the stream. Seeing the impossibility of proceeding, Ayeta cut loose the half-drowned mules from the wagon. At this juncture Otermín and his escort from Fray Cristóbal arrived opposite the wagon on the east bank of the river. Otermín's men, taking in the situation, and realizing Father Ayeta's danger, hastened to his assistance, and bore him on their shoulders to a place of safety on the east bank. After much difficulty the wagon was extricated at about six o'clock in the evening, some four hours after Otermín's arrival. As soon as convenient Otermín and Ayeta entered into a consultation as to what should be done, and it was decided, since it was impossible to proceed further with the wagons, to have men swim their horses and transport supplies across the river, so that they might be sent to the needy ones that night. This was done, and the next day still another pack-train of supplies was started, both of which in due time reached their destination. These supplies, consisting of corn, hardtack, flour, chocolate, and sugar, the officers were instructed to distribute freely to all the people in both divisions, after which they were to continue the retreat south. 110
Otermín did not accompany the soldiers who went along to guard the supply trains, but at Ayeta's request stayed behind and crossed the river to make an inventory of the provisions in the wagons, as well as of the supplies that had been left at the monastery of Guadalupe, so that in case these should be found to be insufficient, others might be secured before the people arrived. Four days later, after having registered the amount of provisions in the wagons, and having returned from the monastery of Guadalupe where he had gone for the same purpose, Otermín drew up a report to the effect that in those two places there were 400 bushels of shelled corn and 400 head of cattle and sheep, all of which Father Ayeta said might be distributed to the people when they should arrive. But that the supply might not run short, Otermín sent out foraging parties to Casas Grandes, to Taraumares, eighty leagues distant, and to other places, to buy all the corn and meat possible and bring them to El Paso. 111
This was on September 22; nothing more is recorded of the movements either of those at La Salineta or of the main body of refugees until September 29. On that day, however, all the people had reached La Salineta, as is evidenced by an auto drawn up by Otermín 112 on that day ordering a general review of the camp. By this time, practically speaking, New Mexico had been abandoned by the Spaniards. We now come to the story of their settlement in the vicinity of modern El Paso.
(1) The General Muster.—Having assembled at La Salineta, a place within the present limits of Texas, all the survivors of the revolt, with the exception of those who had fled across the Rio Grande, and with their actual needs provided for through the generosity of Father Ayeta, it was now necessary for Otermín to form some permanent plan for the future. Hitherto the condition of the refugees had been such that only the most pressing needs could be considered and only tentative plans formulated. In fact, the situation had been such that time had not been taken to determine accurately their actual numbers and strength. Accordingly, in order that he might be guided in his decision by definite information regarding the number, quality, and equipment of the men capable of military service, and at the same time that a report might be made both of the survivors and those lost in the revolt, Otermín first of all ordered a review of all the people at La Salineta. 113 The order was proclaimed on the 29th of September, and on the same day the review began. As each man passed before the governor, he was accompanied by all the members of his family, and carried with him his personal property, including arms, ammunition, and provisions, a complete inventory being taken down and attested to by the man himself. These muster rolls fill some twelve folios of written matter (making twenty-six typewritten pages), hence it would be impracticable to record them all here. In order that their general character and the pitiful condition of the refugees may be seen, however, a few of the individual records have been selected at random and translated below: 114
At once, after the promulgation of the proclamation, the maestre de campo Francisco Xavier, alcalde ordinario of the first vote, passed muster as follows: with six very lean horses, useless for service; a sword; a dagger; a skin jacket; an arquebus; and a shield. He had been robbed by the enemy of all his goods. In witness whereof he signed it and declared that he had with him a family of four daughters, two sons, and a female servant.
Francisco Xavier. Alcalde Ordinario. (rubric.)
The maestre de campo Pedro de Leiva, now serving in that capacity for the kingdom passed muster, as well as three sons, all of whom serve his majesty, all with their personal arms, and amongst them twenty-five horses, some of them in good condition and some lean. The enemy killed Leiva's wife, two young lady daughters, and two sons, soldiers in the pueblo of Galisteo, three grandsons, and a daughter-in-law. And of thirty servants which he had the enemy left him three, and robbed him and his sons of all their property. And he signed it.
Pedro de Leiva. (rubric.)
Pedro de Cuellar passed muster with four lean horses, a royal arquebuse and its equipment, and a boy who served him. The enemy killed his wife and daughter in the revolt, and robbed him, poor as he was. And he signed it.
Pedro de Cuellar. (rubric.)
Captain Francisco de Anaya passed muster on foot; personal arms; robbed by the enemy. They killed his wife and three [other] persons, children, relatives, and servants. Nothing was left him but that which he has on his back. And he signed it.
Francisco de Anaya. (rubric.)
The sarjento mayor Juan Lucero de Godoy, alcalde ordinario of the second vote, showed a sword, a dagger and an arquebuse; a lean horse; four sons, young men capable of bearing arms, all naked and without weapons; four daughters, young women; and five servants; state, married. And he signed it.
Juan Lucero de Godoy. (rubric.)
The maestre de campo Alonso García, lieutenant of government and war, and captain general of the jurisdictions of Rio Abajo,— state, married—, passed muster with eighty horses and five mules, all of the latter lean, suffering from lock-jaw, and worn out by service. He has three sons, two sons-in-law, all with their personal arms. They are supplied by the lieutenant-general. Two sons and his two sons-in-law are married and have twelve persons in their families, twenty-two servants, and another young man capable of bearing arms. He carries a royal arquebuse and has been robbed by the enemy. And he signed it.
Alonso García. (rubric.)
The sarjento mayor Luis de Quintana passed muster with four very lean horses; all his personal arms; an infant daughter; four servants; robbed of house and goods by the enemy. And he signed it.
Luis de Quintana. (rubric.)
Felipe Montoya, married, passed muster on foot, naked, very poor, with one tired horse and four sons. And he signed it.
Felipe Montoya. (rubric.)
Captain Roque de Madrid passed muster with three lean horses, two lean and tired mules, all his personal arms, his wife, and four small children. His house was robbed by the enemy, and [he is] extremely poor. And he signed it.
Roque de Madrid. (rubric.)
This muster was continued without interruption for three days when on October 1 a temporary halt was occasioned by a number of the people having gone without permission to the monastery of Guadalupe, whence they were scattering into Nueva Vizcaya. As soon as he learned of this, in order that the muster rolls might be completed, and that further delay might not be occasioned in completing the reports that were to be sent to the viceroy, Otermín, on October 1, sent Francisco Xavier to El Paso with a message to Joseph López de Gracia 115 (the lieutenant of Andrés López de Gracia, alcalde mayor of the valley of San Antonio de Casas Grandes), 116 who was at that time at Guadalupe, ordering him or any other officer of Nueva Vizcaya, to arrest and send back to La Salineta any person, no matter what his rank, character, or condition, who might attempt to cross the river into that province. Gracia promptly promised to put the order into effect, and requested Otermín to make this fact publicly known. 117
In thus complying with Otermín's demand, Gracia was acting in harmony with his own governor, Bartolomé de Estrada. Before the main body of refugees reached La Salineta, Otermín had written to Estrada, at Parral, that he feared that when the refugees should reach La Salineta they would be inclined to scatter to Casas Grande, Carretas, and other parts of Nueva Vizcaya, as well as into Sonora, whereas they should all be required to settle together in some designated place until assistance could be secured from the viceroy. Upon the receipt of this letter Estrada at once (September 24, 1680) ordered Captain Andrés López de Gracia, or in case of his absence or incapacity, Captain Alonso Pérez Granillo, alcalde mayor of Carretas y Janos, to go at once to El Paso to prevent any person from crossing into Nueva Viscaya without Otermín's permission, under threat of the death penalty. If any person had already so crossed, and arranged to settle, his arrangements were to be annulled, on the authority of Estrada. Gracia was to leave his lieutenant at El Paso to carry out the order, and any laxity or lack of vigilance on the part of the officers was punishable by a fine of $10,000. 118
It is not recorded when Joseph López de Gracia received Estrada's order, or whether Andrés López de Gracia went to El Paso at all. On October 5, however, Joseph López de Gracia published it “en el Pueblo de nra Señora de Guadalupe de passo Jurisdicion de la nueva Bizcaya,” in the presence of “many people of the pueblo as well as of the provinces of New Mexico.” 119 As we have seen, Gracia had already agreed four days previously to carry out like instructions at Otermín's demand, for on that day Francisco Xavier returned to the Spanish camp at La Salineta with this information. 120 Whether López de Garcia had at that time received Estrada's order I am unable to say, though I presume that he had. Otermín had already threatened with severe punishment any who should be guilty of desertion in the future. 121 Thereby, together with the co-operation of López de Gracia at the pass, the dispersion of the people at La Salineta was checked and the review was continued without further recorded interruption.
The total number of persons who passed this muster, including soldiers, servants, women, children, and Indian allies, was, according to the sworn statement of Otermín, 1946. During the retreat to La Salineta, Otermín, García, and others frequently stated that there were 2500 refugees in the two divisions. Of these it was estimated that there were 1500 in García's division and 1000 in Otermín's. 122 Taking these estimates as being approximately correct, it is seen that at least several hundred of the refugees crossed into Nueva Vizcaya without having been listed at La Salineta. Of the total number of the 1946, only 155 were men capable of bearing arms. The number of horses was 471, though, as the muster rolls showed, these were for the most part so poor and weak that they were unfit for military service. There was only one horse for every fourth person, even if we assume that none of the horses were used to transport the few provisions and other things which the refugees brought with them. The supplies are not listed, but the statement is made that the people were provided with meat, corn, and munitions. For this reason, notwithstanding the fact that a number of the guns were broken and practically useless, and although a great many of the men were entirely destitute of both weapons and horses, Otermín recorded his belief that his force was sufficiently strong to settle at that place, or some more convenient one near by, with a fair degree of safety. 123
The Indian allies who passed in review before the governor were inhabitants of the four Piros pueblos of Senecú, Socorro, Alamillo, and Sevilleta, and numbered 317 persons in all. 124 These Indians, many of whom had already abandoned their pueblos before the revolt because of the ravages of their Apache neighbors, 125 had followed the Spaniards, to whom they had at least outwardly remained friendly, as far as La Salineta.
(2) The Decision to Settle at El Paso.—With the women and children in a place of safety, and with the people and equipment listed, Otermín was brought at last face to face with the question as to whether or not an attempt should be made to reconquer New Mexico. This was no new question. At Isleta it had arisen for García and his advisers to decide in the negative, for such an attempt in their condition, believing as they did that the governor and inhabitants of Santa Fé were all dead, could not be thought of. When Socorro was reached and the testimony of Herrera and Chávez tended to indicate that the inhabitants of Santa Fé were still alive, the question had again come up, but it was almost unanimously agreed that in their weak condition the first thing to consider was the protection of the many women and children with them, hence it was decided to go on to meet the supply-train before even attempting to ascertain the fate of the northern inhabitants. When Otermín himself left Santa Fé, he did so as quickly as possible in order that he might unite his forces with those whom he thought to be at Isleta, there to decide on a plan for subduing the rebellion. However, the two divisions were not joined till Fray Cristóbal was reached, and there the question of a return was again discussed but was tabled until the women and children should be put in a place of safety. Now this had been accomplished, and the fighting strength of the survivors determined. It behooved all, therefore, “as loyal vassals of his majesty” to consider seriously the question of a return to Santa Fé. For this purpose Otermín called a council, composed of the members of the Cabildo of Santa Fé, the military officers, the friars, and all others who might wish to attend, in order that they might help him decide the grave matter, touching as it did both the spiritual and the temporal welfare of the province. 126
This order was published on October 2, and shortly afterward, all the men having assembled in the plaza de armas, the discussion was opened by Father Ayeta. He did not express his opinion as to whether or not an attempt at reconquest should be made, stating that since he had no experience in military matters such a question would have to be decided by the soldiers. If, however, they should decide that their strength was sufficient, then in his opinion the reduction of the apostates should be attempted. In this matter he spoke for the whole body of religious, who were willing to abide by the decision of the council and to assist in whatever was agreed upon. If it was decided to reconquer the province, he would aid the troops with the necessary provisions and munitions, though he could not furnish them with horses. For the use of the soldiers he offered twenty breastplates, four dozen stirrups, fifty bridles, and other necessities, as hats, shoes, and two hundred varas of linen for shirts; he would see that the women and children and the guard left behind were also provided with necessities; in case the council should decide that their means were not sufficient to attempt this reconquest, he would supply the camp in whatever place they might decide to locate it, with ten head of cattle and eight fanegas of corn daily; he called attention to the fact that provisions had to be secured eighty leagues away, and that the wagons should be started as soon as possible after more, so that the supply might not fail; he concluded by stating that he agreed to furnish the refugees with supplies only until the viceroy might be informed of their condition and aid them. 127 After Ayeta had spoken, several of the other religious expressed themselves as agreeing with him, some offering to lose their lives should the attempt to reconquer the province be made. 128
Following the religious, a large number of officers and soldiers went on record as either favoring or opposing an attempt at immediate reconquest. Those who favored it were Thome Domínguez de Mendoza and Juan Domínguez de Mendoza, the former a man of long experience and great influence. Both advised accepting the aid proffered by Father Ayeta, and removing the camp to La Toma del Rio del Norte, whence they might inform the viceroy of events in New Mexico and ask him for provisions, equipment, and a presidio; while awaiting the reply of the viceroy they favored sending a body of troops to New Mexico to capture as many rebels as possible, in order to use them as peace emissaries to the revolted tribes. Juan Domínguez, however, made the proposed entrada conditional on the volition of the men and better equipment for both men and horses. 129 Eight sarjentos mayores, captains, and soldiers supported the arguments of the Mendozas, some on the condition that the people at El Paso were left with sufficient protection and provisions; others on condition that the choicest horses available in the surrounding region be given the soldiers.
The chief opponents of an immediate reconquest were Francisco Gomez Robledo, Alonso García, and Pedro Durán y Chávez. All three based their opposition on the jaded condition of the men and horses and lack of equipment; and favored appealing to the viceroy for aid. Robledo feared the unrest of the Mansos, Sumas, and Sonora Indians; García regarded the building of huts to protect the ill-clad citizens of first importance; Chávez wanted one hundred men for garrison duty and one hundred as settlers before undertaking the conquest. The cabildo of Santa Fé, which supported this faction, also regarded soldiers, arms, and supplies to establish a garrison, as prerequisites to