Misrepresentations of early California history corrected

THE ROBERT H COWAN COLLECTION

I'KKSKNTKI. TO Till:

UNIVERSITY OF CflLJFO

mm

PROCEEDINGS

OF

Tne

of

In Inference to the Histories

OF

HUBERT HOWE BANCROFT

J~ ^»
^^^1

SAN FRANCISCO:

STERETT PRINTING COMPANY

FEBRUARY, 1894

MISREPRESENTATIONS

OF

EflRLY CfliilFOWIfl HISTORY

COIKIESIBCTDEID

Proceedings of THK SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA PIONEERS in

regard to certain misrepresentations of men and

events in early California history made

in the works of

HUBERT HOWE BANCROFT

AND COMMONLY KNOWN AS
BANCROFT'S HISTORIES

HALL OF

THE SOCIETY Op CflLIFORfUfl PIONEERS

SAN FRANCISCO
FEBRUARY, 1894

INTRODUCTION.

The Society of California Pioneers is composed of men who
came to California prior to the first day of January, 1850, and
their male descendants.

The proceedings hereinafter recited have been taken there
fore, after due and careful deliberation, by men, who are
personally familiar with the true facts of early California his
tory, and who have bsen actuated by a sense of duty to them
selves and to posterity in correcting certain gross misrepresen
tations in regard to the men and events of that early period.

These misrepresentations have appeared from time to time
in the books commonly known as " Bancroft's Histories," and
have heretofore passed unchallenged and found common public
acceptance as authority for reviewers, and others who have
written upon the subject.

The time has at last arrived when, in the judgment of the
now old men who yet compose the majority of members of this
Society, the gross mis-statements in regard to men and events
which these books contain should be refuted, by the publica
tion of the testimony of living witnesses, so that that testimony
may go upon record and be perpetuated, and the real facts and
truth of history be vindicated.

In all its proceedings upon this question this Society has
vainly sought to find a just motive on the part of the so-called
" Historian " Bancroft for the astonishing mis-statements
which he has given in his works. No excuse, no circumstance
of palliation has so far been offered by him in the matter.

This Society can do no more, therefore, than to refer the
whole subject to the deliberative judgment of a discriminating
public, in the belief that the common verdict of that public as
well as that of posterity will be that such so-called " history "
as that herein considered will forever be held to be unworthy
of credence, and will deserve and find no place in the public
or private libraries of the world.

OF

SAN FRANCISCO, NOVEMBER 1893.

In the matter of the SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA
PIONEEES,

YS.

HUBERT HOWE BANCROFT, an Honorary Mem
ber of said Society.

On the second day of October, 1893, at a regular monthly
meeting of the Society of California Pioneers, a resolution
was introduced by Dr. Washington Ayer, of which the follow
ing is a copy, viz. :

" WHEREAS, statements have been made by an honorary mem
ber of this Society in a quasi-history published by one Hubert
Howe Bancroft, which are at variance with historical records,
and reflect upon the honor, dignity and integrity of the
California Pioneers, and

" WHEREAS, All such statements have no foundation of truth,
and are unworthy the labors of an upright historian, and only
becoming to one, who in our judgment strayed far from the

5

domain of an honest writer, with the purpose in view to mislead
the reader and wrong the founders of a new State upon the
extreme western boundary of our country, and by such state
ments did wantonly and maliciously wrong the old Argonauts;
therefore,

"Resolved, That the name of Hubert Howe Bancroft be stric
ken from the list of Honorary Members of this Society, and
that the Secretary be requested to send him a copy of this
preamble and resolution."

After some debate the foregoing resolution was adopted and
Dr. Wm. S. Simpson gave notice that at the next regular
monthly meeting of the Society he would move for a recon
sideration of the vote upon the adoption of such resolution.

At the regular monthly meeting of the Society, held on the
6th day of November, 1893, Dr. Simpson, in accordance with
the notice so given, moved that the vote upon the before
recited resolution be reconsidered, which motion, after debate,
was adopted.

The resolution was then referred to a special committee
consisting of Dr. Wm. S. Simpson, A. S. Hall, E. Thompson
and S. W. Holladay, with instructions to notify Mr. Bancroft
of the action that has been taken by the Society, and to
request him to appear before such committee — if he desired to
do so — and show cause why his name should not be struck
from the roll of Honorary Membership, as proposed in the
resolution under consideration.

Herewith are presented the specific charges against Hubert
Howe Bancroft, alluded to in the before recited resolution, and
which constitute the reasons why it is sought to strike the
•name of said Bancroft from the roll of Honorary Membership
of said Society.

6

First. — Because of the facts stated in the following preamble
and resolutions, introduced at the regular monthly meeting of
the Society of California Pioneers, on the 7th day of August,
1893, by W. B. Farwell and unanimously adopted at the next
regular monthly meeting of the Society, held on the 4th day of
September, 1893.

" WHEREAS, In the organization and founding of the Society
of California Pioneers, one of its declared and most important
purposes was set forth in its constitution as follows, viz. : * To
collect and preserve information connected with the early
settlement and subsequent history of the country, and also, in
,all appropriate matters to advance the interests and perpetuate
the memory of those whose sagacity, energy and enterprise
induced them to settle in the wilderness and become the
founders of a new State, ' and

"WHEREAS, In pursuance of these declared purposes, we, who
are yet living witnesses of the more prominent events of early
•California history, and who were contemporaries of the men
whose names are most prominent as actors and participants in
these events, deem it our duty not only to ' collect and pre
serve information in regard to the acqusition and settlement of
California,' but also to correct misstatements and misrepresen
tations of so-called historians who have written upon the sub
ject, whenever and wherever they may be found, and

" WHEREAS, Hubert Howe Bancroft, in his so-called ' History
of California, ' has, within the personal knowledge and recol
lection of many of the old Pioneers here present, distorted the

facts and truths of such history, and maligned the memory of
many of the men most conspicuous as participants in these
early events, more of which misrepresentations as illustrative
of the purposes of these resolutions are summarized as follows,
viz:

" First. Fremont is designated a ' filibuster,* whose almost
every act in California was a wrong from beginning to end.
He says (See Vol. 3 of his * History of California/ pages 747
and 749) : ' When the authorities very properly ordered him to
leave California, he fortified a position on Gavilan Peak and
raised the U. S. flag. This was foolish bravado, as he realized
after a day or two of reflection in connection with Consul
Larkin's advice and the sight of military preparations at San
Juan, so he ran away in the night. '

"And again, speaking of the Bear Flag revolt, he says,
' That most indefensible rising of the settlers which interrupted
negotiations for a pacific change of flag, would not have
occurred but for Fremont's promise of active support when
needed; therefore, he must be held responsible not only for
the bloodshed and bitterness of feeling that attended the con
flict of 1846-7, but for the much more disastrous state of affairs
which but for sheer good luck must have resulted.'

"And again: 'At Monterey though Commodore Sloat would
not adopt his views, Fremont found in Stockton a filibuster
after his own heart, willing to incorporate the Gavilan episode
and^the Bear Flag revolt in the sacred cause of the United
States/

" And again, speaking of the controversy which subsequent
ly arose between Stockton and Kearney, in which Fremont
was loyal to Stockton as he was in duty bound to be, Bancroft
sneeringly remarks : ' Though technically disobeying military
orders, Fremont could not with the honor that should prevail
among filibusters as well as thieves, abandon his chief,' etc.
And he closes his biographical sketch in these words: f Fre
mont did more than any other to prevent or retard the conquest
of California. He is to be regarded as an adventurer of mar
velous good fortune, for a man of moderate abilities to be
made conspicuous before the world or to enjoy opportunities
that cannot be utilized. '

8
p

" These are but a few of the many false and malicious state
ments made by Bancroft in regard to Fremont, and which we
have thus specifically quoted with proper reference to the
volume and pages where they may be found. Through his
history Fremont is constantly misrepresented, and the part
that he played in the acquisition of California is constantly
belittled and distorted to suit a seemingly vengeful malice
existing in the mind of the historian, the cause of which it is
not our purpose or duty to inquire into.

" Second. Of Commodore Stockton he says (See page 735,
Yol. 5 of his * History of California,'): 'His whole policy of
conquest which was to produce such unhappy results, his
blustering tirade against imaginary evils, his willingness to
identify a criminal revolt of vagabond settlers, ' (referring to
the men of the Bear Flag party, with a legitimate military
occupation, etc.,) * his whole reputation as conqueror of Cali
fornia, is as unmerited as that of the Pathfinder.'

"Third. 'The acts of the Bear Flag party,' as above
referred to, in which during its operations, such men as John
Bidwell, Samuel J. Henley, Pearson B. Bedding, Bobert
Semple, and other equally well-known early Calif ornians were
participants, 'were,' says he, ' a criminal revolt of vagabond
settlers." And he designates the man who was placed first in
command of the Bear Flag party, Ezekiel Merritt, whom
Fremont says was ' a rugged man, fearless and simple, taking
delight in incurring risks, but tractable, and not given to
asking questions when there was something he was required to
do,' as a 'coarse-grained, loud-mouthed, whisky-drinking,
quarrelsome fellow, well adapted to the use that was made of
him in promoting the filibuster schemes.' (See page 736 of
Vol. 4 of Bancroft's History of California.)

"Fourth. More criminally wicked and more cruel than all,
is his denunciation of that gentle and generous-hearted man,

9

•

the late General John A. Sutter, (see Vol. 5, pages 738 to 740,
for what follows), and after stating that he had obtained from
him personally at his home in Latiz, Penn., * the story of his
wrongs, ' and which was without doubfc truthfully told, he turns
upon him with wolf -like ferocity and reads him thus : ' He was
a German-Swiss trader, compelled by bankruptcy to become
an adventurer in America. None of the pioneers have received
so much praise from so many sources, few have deserved so
little. He was but an adventurer from the first, entitled to no
admiration or sympathy. His career in New Mexico was at
the best discreditable. He came to California in the false
character of a captain in the French Army. Of principle or
honor, of respect for the rights of others, we find but slight
trace in him. There was no side of any controversy he would
not adopt at the call of interest. Nationality, religion, friend
ship, obligation, consistency counted for little or nothing.
There were no classes of his associates, hardly an individual,
with whom he did not quarrel or whom in his anger he did not
roundly abuse. His only capital was money borrowed on the
way to California, or property obtained on credit from Cali-
fornians and Bussians after his arrival, all on pretenses more
or less false. He never hesitated to assume any obligation
for the future, without regard to his ability to meet it. He
rarely if ever paid a debt when due.'

" Butter's Fort he designates as ' an isolated rendezvous for
the hostile and uncontrollable elements of a vagabond popula
tion in the far interior ' — referring here, of course, mainly to the
American settlers in the Sacramento Valley. And again:
'Though Sutter's establishment did something to promote the
influx of American settlers, it was in no sense beneficial to the
interests of the United States, merely fomenting filibusterism
with all it's unhappy results. '

" That Sutter treated immigrants ' more kindly than a dozen
others,' and that he did so ( at a personal sacrifice,' is not true.

10

Neither is it true ' that Sutter in 1845-6 was friendly to the
United States, or to the immigrants as Americans. ' And

""WHEREAS, Without quoting further from this monstrous
series of libels upon the memories of departed illustrious
Pioneers and monstrous perversion of the facts of history, it is
hereby

" Resolved, That Bancroft's denunciation of Fremont, Stock
ton and Sutter. and his designation of the men of the Bear
Flag party as vagabond settlers, are plainly the vaporings of a
mind distorted by prejudice, or envenomed by malice, and
attach a greater degree of disgrace to their author than to the
honored names and memories of the men whom he thus
maliciously maligns.

"Resolved, That upon the principle pf 'false in one thing,
false in all,' Bancroft's ' History of California,' so-called, is, in
the opinion of this Society, unworthy of credence as authority,
or as a source of correct information for present or future
generations, and merits the just condemnation of every fair-
minded man, whose early personal experiences enable him to
form a true estimate of its value. "

Second. — Because of the malicious misrepresentations of the
characters of some of the men who were among the earlier
pioneers of California, and who were also among the founders,
and respected members of this Society up to the day of their
death; as instance the following:

Of Andrew J. Gray son — a man renowned in the scientific
world as an ornithologist, whose contributions to that branch
of scientific knowledge are commonly acknowledged as hardly
inferior in value and interest to those of Audubon. This man,
Mr. Bancroft in his "Pioneer Index and Eegister" (Yol. 3,
page 764) alludes to (after saying that "he was active in
raising men for the California Batallion, in which he ranked

11

as lieutenant,") as " a gambler and an associate of Lippineott>
McDougal and other like characters," which statement, in so-
far as it accuses Grayson of being a gambler, is wickedly and
cruelly false, and kwown to be so by many pioneers now living,
who were honored by being counted among his personal friends.

Of Benjamin S. Lippincott, alluded to in his remarks upon
Grayson, (seeYol. 4, "History of California," page 714,) he
says: " He was a gambler by profession and one of the boys;"-
another equally false and malicious mis-statement, and known
to be so by many pioneers still living, who can testify to that
fact. Even Bancroft himself, with strange inconsistency, in
the same notice of Lippincott, says: "He was active in raising
recruits for the war, and served as Lieutenant of Company H.,
California Batallion, also acting as quarter-master." He says
also : " He was owner of town lots, a candidate for the council,
a Member of the Constitutional Convention of '49, representing
San Joaquin county in the first Legislature, and Calaveras in
'55 and '61."

Of George McDougal, also alluded to in his notice of Gray-
son, he says (See Yol. 4, page 723): " He lived nt Santa Cruz
and Gilroy; served as a kind of unattached volunteer in the
California Batallion in '46 and '47; was a broker, that is a
gambler, at San Francisco in '47 and '48, becoming the owner
of many town lots in partnership with Lippincott," etc.

These men, as has been said, were among the early pioneers
of California, and were also among the founders of this
Society. Clearly, after the misrepresentations and abuse
heaped upon the memories of Fremont, Stockton, Sutter, the
men of the Bear Flag party, and all who were active in bring
ing about the acquisition of California as an American posses
sion, it is not difficult to find the motive for this gross
aspersion upon their memories, when we consider that each

12

/

one of them was an active participant in that patriotic work

which was so distasteful to Mr. Bancroft.

Third. — Because of willful and malignant misrepresenta,-
tions of various other Americans, who were among the early
settlers in California, of the part which they played in the
events that preceded, and transpired during the conquest of
the country, as instanced in the following statement of facts :

In 1840, a hundred or more American and other foreign
residents were arrested by the Mexican authorities, taken to
Monterey under the accusation of having plotted against the
government. Among them* were such men as Dr. Marsh, who
lived upon the San Joaquin river; Livermore, from whom
Livermore's pass and valley were named, and others of like
prominence. They were imprisoned, maltreated, subjected to
great hardships and suffering, and some fifty or more were
finally expatriated and sent to Mexico, but were subsequently
released and sent back by the Mexican authorities, with a
money indemnity for the wrong which had been put upon them.

T. J. Farnham, an American, who chanced to be at Mon
terey while these men were imprisoned there, in his book
entitled "Life, Adventures and Travels in California," (pub
lished in 1852) gives a thrilling account of the matter, in which
he says (see page 59): "Mr. Larkin made arrangements with
the government to day to furnish the prisoners with food and
drink. Their cells were examined and found destitute of
floors. The ground was so wet that the poor fellows sunk into
it several inches at every step. On this they stood, sat and
slept. From fifty to sixty were crowded into a room eighteen
to twenty feet square. They could not all sit at once, even in
that vile pool, still less lie down. The cells were so low and
tight that the only way of getting air enough to sustain life
was to divide themselves into platoons, each of which, in turn,
stood at the grate awhile to breathe. Most of them had been
in prison seven or eight days, with no food except a trifling

13

quantity, clandestinely introduce c£by a few daring count^men
outside. When I arrived at the prison, some of them were
frantic, others in a stupor of exhaustion and appeared to be
dying."

Farnham then goes on and gives a detailed narrative of the
events which preceded this cruelty, and as afterwards so
clearly shown to the Mexican authorities that they disavowed
and disapproved it. He gives the names of the prisoners,
among whom, in addition to those already named, were those
of Nathaniel Spear, Peter Storm, afterwards a prominent Bear
Flag man : Mark West and other well known men of that time,
and he says (page 70): "Forty-one of the prisoners, whose
names appear on the concluding pages of the last chapter,
furnished me with written accounts of their arrest and subse
quent treatment." Some of which statements he gives in full,
and which simply corroborate all that he states concerning the
affair.

It is proper to state here, that while all this was done during
the time and under the direction of Alvarado, who was ihen
governor, the most brutal treatment of the prisoners and their
subsequent deportation to Mexico in chains was carried out by
the same Don Jose Castro, who, as we have already seen,
ordered Fremont out of the country, and was the leading
spirit of every movement against Americans prior to the con
quest of California.

Coming now to Mr. Bancroft's treatment of this matter. In
Volume 4, of his "History of California," he gives the story
of the arrest and deportation from beginning to end, breathing
a spirit of hostility to the prisoners and their historian Farn
ham, and an equally zealous endeavor to apologize for and to
explain away the conduct of the Mexican authorities, and
Castro in particular.

14

Admitting that the ' statements were made by some of the
prisoners to Farnham, as given in the latter's book, and quoting
some of them himself, Bancroft says (Vol. 4, page 15): " The
victims and their friends have accused the Californians, not
only of having exiled them without cause, but of cruelty at the
time of arrest, during their confinement, and on the voyage to
San Bias. These charges are, I believe, exaggerated, though
from the nature of the case, they cannot be entirelv disproved.
In considering the evidence to be offered, the reader should bear in
mind the character of the exiles, as men ivhose word could not be
trusted, the opportunity to make their stories agree, their interest
with a view to indemnity from Mexico in maintaining their
wrongs and. exaggerating them, and the prevailing spirit of every
thing Mexican, which in the following years served as a favorable
medium for their complaints ."

A statement backed by not one word of evidence to support
it, and considering the wantoness of calling a body of fifty or
more men, about all of whom he could by no possibility have
had adequate knowledge to justify it, as "men whose word
could not be trusted*" it is sufficient in itself to justify this
Society in condemning him as an historian, and as unworthy
of association with them.

But following out his line of policy as an historical writer,
and to show how he proceeds to establish his propositions by
arrogant and unscrupulous dictum, instead of by presentation
of historical facts, attention is drawn to his statements about
Farnham, who has already been quoted as the chief narrator
of this episode in the early history of California. Of him,
Bancroft says (Vol. 4, page 25): "His remarks on men and
events at Monterey are so evidently and absurdly false as to
throw more than a doubt upon all that he says." And again,
in his biographical notice of him, (Vol. 3, page 734) he says :
"His work on California is criticised elsewhere in this work;
here it must suffice to say, that in all those parts resting on

15

his own observation, it is worthless trash, and in all
relates to the California people, a tissue of falsehood." And
yet, nowhere does he attempt to impeach his statements except
by this sweeping dictum of his own imperious will, and his
apologetic efforts to present the case in the strongest possible
pro -Mexican and anti-American spirit.

Illustrative of this latter proposition, it is well to quote here
his laudatory praise of Don Jose Castro, who, as has been
shown, was always the most active, influential and effective
enemy to Americans in California. Of him, he says (Vol. 2,
page 752): " With his acts in the contest with the settlers and
the United States little fault can be found. He did not mal
treat the exiles of '40, as charged by Farnham and others. He
did not break his pledge to Fremont in the spring of '46, nor
did he do any of the absurd things attributed to him in con
nection with the Gavilan affair; but his conduct was far more
honorable, dignified and consistent than that of Fremont. He
did not threaten to drive the immigrants back into the snows
of the interior, but treated them with uniform kindness
In the southern negotiations of August, he bore a much more
honorable part than did Commodore Stockton," and so on ad
nauseam.

Of this same Castro, Commodore Stockton, in his proclama
tion on taking command in July, 1846, at Monterey, said:
" The present general of the forces of California is a usurper;
he has been guilty of great offences; has impoverished and
drained the country of almost its last dollar, and has deserted
his post now when most needed. He has deluded and deceived
the inhabitants of California and they wish his expulsion from
the country. He came into powor by rebellion and force, and
by force he must be expelled."

Whose testimony shall prevail, Bancroft, writing from the
standpoint of narrow prejudice forty years after the ev ents

1G

which he is relating, or Stockton, the active, able and patriotic
contemporary of the man whom he knew so well, and with
whose every official act he was so thoroughly familiar?

One more witness remains to be heard on this arrest and
expatriation of Americans in 1840, which the historian Ban
croft has so assiduously endeavored tj explain away and gloss
over.

Thomas O. Larkin, in a communication to the Secretary
of State, of June 15, 1846, written before he had received the
news of the hoisting of the Bear Flag, and Fremont's active
operations in the north, said: "The undersigned improves
the opportunity of observing that there cannot be brought for
ward by the President against Mexico, any claim or demand
so strong and so impetuous as the unjust and cruel arrest,
imprisonment and shipment in irons of so many Americans
from this port in April, 1840. Californians in California com
mitted this most outrageous act, and they and their territory
shoald bs held responsible for the deed."

Fourth. — Because of the following facts which speak for
themselves. In his "History of Oregon," volume 2, (first
edition) page 97, in relating the story of the trial of certain
Cay use Indians for murder before Judge O. C. Pratt, a former
member of this Society, now deceased, he says: The solemnity
and quiet of religious services characterized the trial, at which
between two or three hundred persons were present. At its
close, when the jury had returned a verdict of guilty, there
was no unseemly approval, only a long drawn sigh of relief
that the dreadful business was drawing to a close. Attending
the episode were the usual hypocrisies of society. It was pre
determined by the people that these Indians should die. For
myself, I think they were guilty and ought fco have died. But,
I would not, on that account, as a narrator of facts, indulge in
divers little fictions to make the affair more pathetic. Nor

17

was it at all necessary for the^spectator to pat the judge on tKs
back for being * so firm and fearless. ' There was not the
slightest danger that Pratt would go against the people in this
matter. But he ruled as he did, not so much from any just and
noble sentiments, as, first, because there was present no induce
ment for him to do otherwise, the fifty horses not going to the
judge j and secondly he well knew the country would be too hot to
hold him should he do otherwise."

In the second edition of the same volume of the * ' History of
Oregon," at the same page, all this is stricken out, and in its
place appears the following: " The solemnity of religious ser
vices characterized the entire trial, at which between four and
five hundred persons were present, who watched the proceed
ings with intense anxiety. Counsel appointed by the judge
made vigorous effort to clear their clients. No one unfamiliar
with the condition of affairs in the territory of Oregon at the
time of which I am writing, can realize the interest displayed
by the people of the entire country in this important and never
to be forgotten trial. The bare thought that the five wretches,
that had assassinated Dr. Whitman, Mrs. Whitman, Mr.
Saunders, and a large number of immigrants, might by any
technicality of the law, be allowed to go unpunished, was
sufficient to distract every man, woman and child throughout
the length and breadth of the territorial limits.

"The judge appreciated in all its seriousness the responsi
bility of his position. He seemed to realize that upon his
decision hung the lives of thousands of the whites inhabiting
the Willamette V7alley. He proved, however, equal to the
emergency. His knowledge of the law was not only thorough,
but during his early life, and before having been called to the
bench in Oregon, he had become familiar with all the ques
tions involving territorial boundaries and treaty stipulations.
His position was dignified, firm and fearless. His charge was
full, logical and concise. His judicialjaction in this and many

18

other trials of a criminal and civil nature in the territory
during his judgeship, made it manifest to the great body of
the early settlers that he was not only thoroughly versed in all
the needed learning required in his position, but in addition
to the unswerving determination that the law.should be upheld
and enforced, created general confidence and reliance that he
would be equal to his position in all emergencies."

Clearly, one or the other of these statements is false.
Clearly, Mr. Bancroft must of a necessity be well aware of the
iact. Clearly, no true and impartial historian could have
written both and published them to the world. Clearly, any
one calling himself an historian, who would be guilty of doing
so, and who occupies the position of an *' Honorary Member"
of this Society, should, by reason of this fact alone, separate
and apart from any other consideration, ba dropped from its
roll.

It remains to be added, that since the first edition of this
volume was issued, it has been surreptitiously withdrawn from
the library of this Society and from other public libraries, and
the new edition substituted therefor. But the crime remains
unpunished.

Fifth. — Because, in the second volume of his History of
Oregon, in a foot note originally prepared and printed for that
volume, at page 246, appeared the following malignant and
cruel attack upon the name of one, whose name and memory
any true American reveres: "Among these soldiers was U.
S. Grant, a man of mediocre abilities and somewhat loose
habits, subsequently elevated by accident to the head of the
Army, and twice to the Presidency of the United States. Not
-satisfied to rest upon the world's highest honors, he turned
and took a downward course; asked again to be President, was
refused; begged from poor Mexico important concessions and
was refused, and finally engaged in a business, which was
-disreputably managed and resulted in ignominious failure.
So the end of the man was as bad as the beginning."

19

It was only by the earnest intercession of those who had
become acquainted with the fact that this monstrous wrong^
was about to be perpetrated, that Mr. Bancroft was finally
induced to have this cruel slander stricken out and a new page
printed in its place. For this mean, cowardly and unpatriotic
attack also, the name of Hubert Howe Bancroft deserves to be
stricken from the roll of Honorary Membership of this Society.
But still, in matters of this kind, the utter want of patriotism
on the part of this " historian " would in some similar way
find expression. And of that other great hero of the Civil
War, " Farragut," he would have his fling, and that still
remains on record in his works. In Volume 2 of his "Popular
Tribunals," at page 417, occurs the following: "Farragut's
mind seeins to have undergone a change. Evidently, he bad
made up his mind, as some years later was the case, with
regard to fighting for or against his countrymen, that in case
of a conflict, right or wrong, he must be found on the side of
the strongest, which unquestionably would be that of the
Federal authorities. "

Sixth. — Because, throughout this never-ending series of
books known as "Bancroft's Histories," there runs such a
monstrous perversion of facts, such glaring contradictions,
such a spirit of prejudice and seemingly malignant dislikes
and hatreds of the men of whom he has written, and such a
willful distortion of .events concerning which they claim to be
a faithful record, that it would be a public wrong, if not a
public crime for this Society to give countenance to them, by
permitting further association with Mr. Bancroft in the relation
of " Honorary Membership." In illustration and proof of this
assertion, sweeping as it miy be, instance the following
summary:

In his Pioneer Register and Index, Volume 4, (first edition)
page 730, he says of Dr. John Marsb : " He received the first
immigration party, Bartelson's, at his rancho, and afforded
them much assistance, though he made the new comers pay

20

well for his services, and grievously offended many of them
by his meanness. " And again, he says, in the same volume,
pages 730-731 : " Dr. Marsh was a peculiar and generally dis
agreeable man, whose notorious parsimony kept him con
stantly in trouble with most that came in contact with him."

In the second edition of the same volume, these passages
were modified as follows, viz. : "He received the first immigra
tion party, Bartelson's, at his rancho, and offered them much
assistance. Dr. Marsh was a man of great intelligence, varied
accomplishments, and of singular experience of life."

In his " History of California," (Volume 6, pages 10 and 11,
first edition,) he says: Dr. John Marsh, the said doctor being
a kind of crank from Harvard College, who settled here in
1837, in an adobe hut, and achieved distinction as a misan
thrope and miner, sympathetic with the spirit at whose moun
tain's feet (Mt. Diablo) he crouched."

The second edition, same volume, same pages, reads as
follows: " Dr. John Marsh, the said doctor being a graduate
of Harvard College, who settled here in 1837, building a sub
stantial stone house, where he lived in the retirement he so
loved. He was a highly individualized and intellectual man,
whose letters to Secretary Marcy' and other officials contain
valuable information about California."

In his California Inter Pocula, first edition, page 342, he
says: "Augustin Haraszthy, melter and refiner of the San
Francisco branch mint, on the 19th of September, was indicted
by the United States grand jury upon the charge of embezzling
gold to the amount of $151,550. He was arrested and released
on $20,000 bail. Afterwards, he was tried and sentenced to
six years in the State prison and to pay a fine of $2000."

In the second edition of the same volume, appears the
following in place of the foregoing statement. " During the
administration of President Pierce, Augustin Haraszthy was
appointed assayer, and later melter and refiner of the San

21

Francisco branch mint, resigning these positions in 1857. He
afterwards built the metallurgical works, which have been of
much service to the community, and are still in operation,
receiving also patents for improved processes in the refining of
gold."

In his " Popular Tribunals," (first edition) Volume 2, page
388, in treating of the stabbing of Hopkins by Judge Terry,
during the Vigilance Committee excitement of 1856, the
following passage occurs : ' ' That villainous stab of the
Supreme Court Justice struck the death-blow of his party.
Now let Johnson proclaim until he is hoarse; let Howard rage
until he bursts! The city in ashes, forsooth! Its gutters run
ning red with the blood of its citizens! Better down on your
knees most learned and puissant assassin, and pray your God,
if you have one, that your victim may live; for if Hopkins
dies, you hang ! "

In the second edition of the same volume, on the same page,
this passage is stricken out and the following substituted in
its place: "The open and violent collision with the Vigilant
forces was the deathblow to the opposing party, and there is-
no question now that, in the event of Hopkin's death, a Justice
of the Supreme Court will be executed by the Vigilance Com
mittee. This presents nothing new in the popular tribunal
principle, but if it happens it adds greatly to the cause of th&
Committee. "

Again, on pages 420, 421 and 423, in the first issue, occur
the following passages in regard to Terry. " A Texan border
man with Texan border principles, he recognized fully pistol
persuasion, bowie-knife justice and duello chivalry. He was
a man of remarkable ability in certain directions, with a proud,
impetuous nature, and an indomitable will, as ready to die for
a friend, or make others die for him, as to hunt an enemy to
death. * * * It is a character glaring with inconsisten
cies and contradictions, a character which must needs gratify

22

all its own unjust, immoral, law-breaking propensities, but
denies under the statute any such right to others. * ' * *
His instincts seem to have been atrocious. In Texas he is
said to have hunted the natives with remorseless cruelty,
killing them as Nero killed flies, for the fun of it. * * *"
Blood and chivalry ! Criminality and cowardice ! How many
attempts to kill unarmed men make a murderer? But the
catalogue of his crimes, black enough to consign him to eternal
infamy, is not half told. "

In the corrected later issue, these and many other like
denunciations of Terry are stricken out and words of pallia
tion and praise are substituted in their place.

Again, at page 483 of the same volume, in the first issue, he
said of Terry: "Though this unrighteous and blood-thirsty
judge richly deserved hanging, it was beyond the line of duty
and policy marked out for themselves by the committee to so-
punish him. For had they hanged all who really deserved it,
their hands would indeed have been full."

In the corrected later issue, the following passage took the
place of the foregoing: " If the tribunal erred it was always
on the side of leniency, in this matter following the example
and the law, as may well be imagined, with a thousand un
punished murderers in the country. Had they hanged all wha
really deserved it, their hands would indeed have been full."

Again, at page 437 of the same volume, he says, in the first
issue of that volume, in alluding to Terry : * ' And now that
the writer of this history has placed the great prime minister
of disorderly law back upon his bench, there once more to
deal fist, pistol and bowie-knife justice, as in days past, etc."'

In the new issue of the same volume, at the same page, this
passage is modified to read as follows: "And now that the
writer of this history has placed the great prime minister of
disorderly law back upon his bench, there once more to deal
high and holy justice, as in days past, etc."

23

But the ease with which Mr. Bancroft can shuffle out of
responsibility, as an historian, is best illustrated in another
passage from Yol. 2, page 368, where, in the first issue, in
alluding to Volney E. Howard and Terry, he said: "What
was Howard's patriotism? Self-glorification; pompous dis
play; blood-and-thunder greatness. What was Terry's patri
otism? Partisan jealousy; malignant passion; blood-thirsty
revenge."

In the new issue, of the same volume, this passage was
modified by simply substituting other names for those of
Howard and Terry, so that it reads as follows now: " What
was McGo wan' s patriotism? Self-glorification; pompous dis
play; blood-and-thunder greatness. What was Casey's patri
otism? Partisan jealousy; malignant passion; blood-thirsty
revenge."

As these changes were made during the lifetime of Terry
and in an apparent disinclination to face the consequences of
his first utterances, the sharp comments of a San Francisco
journal, which recently published these extracts, would seem
to be fully justified. It said, " Bancroft appreciates the
difference in danger of criticising the living, and defaming the
dead."

Seventh. — Throughout the innumerable books known as
"Bancroft's Histories," there were constant and sweeping
assertions that all men who ever wrote upon California, in an
historical and other way, who have reached conclusions that
are contrary to those which Mr. Bancroft maintains, are
" liars," as the briefest way of disposing of their narratives.
And this, too, usually without the support of evidence to sus
tain his arrogant and ill-bred dictum, taking it for granted
that such dictum will be held by tbe general public as an
imperial edict, not to be gainsaid or disputed corning from so
high an authority as himself, as the historian of historians of
the ag-e we live in. One fact stands out with singular promi-

nence throughout these cowardly assertions, and that is, that
every one of the men whom he thus denounces as "liars, ""
have long since passed over to the great majority, and can
make no answer to these cruel attacks upon their memories.
It is the dut}^ of the Society of California Pioneers to vindi
cate their names and their memories from these wanton
slanders, in so far as it may be in their power to do so.

Beginning with Chaplain Fletcher, who accompanied Sir
Francis Drake on his famous voyage in 1578-79, and who
visited California in July of the latter year, Bancroft says
(volume 1, " History of California, " pages 85-91) : "It should
be noted that no regular diary or log of this voyage is extant
or is known to have been extant. Of the three narratives
which I have cited one was perhaps written from memory by
a companion of Drake. The others are compilations from
notes of the chaplain, Fletcher, written under circumstances of
which we know but little, by a man not noted for his veracity y
and from the reminiscences probably of others." Again, on
page 91, he says: "Few have been sufficiently impressed
with the fundamental truth that Chaplain Fletcher was a liar."

In view of the fact that at the present writing a memorial
cross and monument are being erected in our own "Golden
Gate Park, " in commemoration of the first Christian religious-
services ever held on California soil, and that such services
were performed by this same " Chaplain Fletcher— Bancroft's
colossal liar — there would seem to be a clear cut issue thus
presented for a public verdict, and that is that such com
memorative tribute to Christian advancement of more than
three centuries ago, and to the humble minister of God, who
was the instrument of its performance, is either as grotesque
homage to a man utterly unworthy of being thus immortalized,
or Bancroft and his books are worthy only of the contempt
of his felllow men.

It would be more than wearisome to follow Mr. Bancroft
in his endless denunciations of other writers upon California,.

25

whom lie stigmatizes in a similar manner when their views
and their writings fail to be in unison with his own desires
and purposes. Some few examples will suffice

L. W. Hastings, who came to California in 1843, he says,
{See Yol. 3, page 778) " went back in '44 by sea, and across
Mexico, to publish a worthless book called an ' Emigrant's
-Guide," and te attract settlers and prospective revolutionists."
He was "not overburdened with conscientious scruples, but
never getting caught in anything disreputable."

And this of a man who was a member of the Constitu
tional Convention of 1849, and against whom there is noth
ing of public record that would in any degree justify this
•cruel innuendo.

At page 257 of Yolume 5, of his ' ' History of California, "
alluding to the proclamation of Commodore Stockton, issued
on taking command in California as the successor of Com
modore Sloat, he says : * * The paper was made up of false
hood, of irrelevant issues, and bombastic ranting in about
equal parts," and again, at page 258, he says: "The third
paragraph, describing Castro's outrageous treatment of
Fremont, is false from beginning to end."

At page 280, of the same volume, speaking of language attri
buted to Commodore Stockton in reply to an embassy, which
had been sent to warn him against entering Los Angeles
with his forces, " Have the bells ready to toll at eight o'clock,
as I shall be there at that time." He says, that this and
other preceding statements ' ' may very safely be designated as
falsehoods, pure and simple." In a foot note on the same
page, alluding to the last quoted statement of Stockton, he
says, " This last lie was taken by this writer, as it has been
by others, from Colton's three years in California, '56," thus
adding the name of Colton to his list of " liars."

So in a foot note at page 316 of the same volume, he
quotes from the account of the retreat from Santa Barbara of
Talbot and his little command, who had been left in charge

there, as given by Captain Phelps in his narrative of events
of that time, entitled " Fore and Aft," as follows: " Finding
they (the Californians) would not fight, Talbot marched off
in a hollow square, followed by the ' caballeros,' who reviled
tne brave squad, but dare not attack them." "All this," says
Bancroft, " is purely imaginary." And, while he admits that
Phelps' statement was confirmed by Talbot' s men on their
arrival at Monterey, yet he does not hesitate to pillory them
all in his catalogue of falsifiers, by saying, that evidently
Talbot's men "indulged in the trapper's propensity for story
telling."

At page 16 of volume 6, he groups as falsifiers a quartette of
American writers — Revere, Phelps, Tuthill and Lancey — who,
in their historical writings have dared to denounce Castro, for
endeavoring to drive Fremont out of the country in March, 1846,
and sets up his own unsupported dictum to the contrary, as
sufficient answer to them all.

At page 61 of Volume 6, of his "History of California,"
after giving an account of the junta held at the house of Thos.
O. Larkin, at Monterey in March, 1846, as related by General
M. G. Yallejo, in which Vallejo spoke in favor of annexation
to the United States, according to his own written statement
of the facts — Bancroft cooly gives him the lie in this wise :
"No such meeting was ever held, and no such speeches were
ever made, " and he adds, "but in thus recording a formal
meeting, with deliberate discussions of propositions to deliver
their country to a foreign power, I am very sure that General
Vallejo's memory has been greatly aided by his imagination."

Again, at page 151 of same volume, in treating of the Ide's
proclamation at the time of the Bear Flag episode, he says:
" This proclamation consisted, first, of a statement of the in
ducements under which the revolutionists had settled in
California — false from beginning to end; second, charges of
deception and oppression by the authorities— equally false,"
etc. * *' *' " As-a whole, in truthfulness and consistency,

27

as in orthography and literary merit, it was below the plane of
Castro's and Pico's proclamations."

Lancey, author of a manuscript record preserved, as Ban
croft says in his library, entitled " Lancey 's cruise of the
Dale." is let down without being stigmatized as a falsifier, but
still, according to Mr. Bancroft, (see page 704, Yol. 4, of his
4< History of California,") "in my opinion, excessively Ameri
can in his views, " the same idea being prevalent throughout
Mr. Bancroft's works, that to write from an American stand
point is an unpardonable offence.

Even the name of Thomas O. Larkin — from whose documents,
obtained from his family and now in Mr. Bancroft's library, he
has drawn so largely for material for his historical writing —
does not escape from being written down as a falsifier, by
innuendo sufficiently direct to lead to no other conclusion on
the part of any intelligent reader.

Alluding to a letter from Mr. Buchanan, then Secretary of
State, to Mr. Larkin, at page 597 of Volume 4, of his " History
of California," and quoting from such letter as follows:
" Whilst I repeat that this government does not, under exist
ing circumstances, intend to interfere between Mexico and
California," Bancroft says, " there was, as my reader knows no
present controversy between the two, though it had suited
Larkiris purposes to represent the contrary. "

At page 706, of the same volume, he has another fling at
this well remembered and much respected deceased member
of this Society, where he says he had " the proverbial Yankee
shrewdness in trade, with no inconvenient veneration for the
revenue laws."

These are but a few of the examples of reckless, random
writing, which characterize the remarkable works known as
* • Bancroft's Histories. "

They need not be referred to in extenso — further, as they are
sufficient testimbny in themselves to convince every intelligent
and fair-minded man, that he who can thus wantonly reflect

28

upon the names and memories of the dead, against whom no
word of detraction has ever before been uttered, convicts him
self as a falsifier, and is therefore unworthy of belief as an
historical writer, and, among California Pioneers, is unworthy
of association in the quality of an " Honorary Membership.'*

(Signed) W. B. FAKWELL.

(For the Society of California Pioneers.)

Your Committee caused a copy of these charges to be pre
pared for service upon Mr. Bancroft, together with a written
notification from them, of which the following is a copy, viz. :

HALL OF THE SOCIETY OF CALIFORNIA PIONEERS,
San Francisco, December 5, 1893.

HUBERT H. BANCROFT, ESQ.,

Dear Sir: The undersigned, a committee of the Society of
California Pioneers, appointed to investigate and report upon
certain charges of misconduct against you as an Honorary
Member of this Society, hereby notify you that Tuesday
evening, December 12, 1893, at 7:30 p. M., afc the Committee
room of Pioneer Hall, has been fixed as the time and place
for the hearing of said charges; and that the type-written
document of pages one to twenty-four, both inclusive of this
date, signed by Willard B. Farwell, Esq., as the prosecutor on
behalf of the Society, is a true copy of the charges against you
for investigation; and that you are respectfully invited to
attend at said time and place (with counsel if you please) for
the purpose of said investigation.

(Signed) WM. SIMPSON,

E. THOMPSON,
A. S. HALT,,

S. W. HOLLADAY.

This notification, together with a copy of the charges, was,
at the request of the Committee, placed in the hands of the

29

Marshal of the Society, by the Secretary, for service upon Mr.
Bancroft, who made the following return upon the same.

SAN FRANCISCO, December 6th, 1893.

I hereby certify that this is a true copy of a paper which
was enclosed in a sealed envelope, directed to Mr. Hubert H.
Bancroft.

JOHN F. PINKHAM,
Marshal Society of California Pioneers.

In accordance with this notification, your Committee met on
the 12th day of December, 1893, for the purpose therein stated.
Mr. Bancroft not appearing before them, either in person or
by representative, your committee requested Mr. Holladay to
ascertain Bancroft's post office address and to forward to him
by registered letter another copy of the charges, together with
a further notification, fixing the 26th day of December upon
which the Committee would again meet, and give him another
opportunity to be heard, if he desired to do so. Your Com
mittee met again, on the date and at the hour mentioned in
said last named notification, but Mr. Bancroft not appearing,
and no response having been received from him, adjourned
until the 9th day of January, 1894. Mr. Bancroft not then
appearing and no response having been received from him,
your Committee adjourned until the 16th of January, 1894, at
which time Mr. Bancroft still having failed to appear, and
making no response, your Committee deemed it unnecessary
to delay the investigation further and, therefore, proceeded to
hear and consider the charges, which had been formulated by
Mr. Farwell and so served upon Mr. Bancroft.

This indictment — if we may so term it — is divided into seven
counts, each one of which is made up of a group of specific
charges, each of which charges your Committee proceeded to
carefully and patiently investigate by reference to, and com
parison with, the several volumes of " Bancroft's Histories,"
at the several pages therein specifically referred to. As the

30

result of such investigation and comparison, your Committee
£nd as follows:

First — The charges, set forth in the first count of said
"indictment," touching Mr. Bancroft's treatment of the names
of Fremont, Stockton, Sutler and the men of the "Bear Flag
Party," and which are covered by the preamble and resolutions
Introduced by Mr. Farwell and adopted by the Society, as
Jiereinbefore set forth, your Committee find, are fully sustained.

Second — The charges, grouped in the second count of the
indictment, and which consist of instances of unjust and cruel
attacks upon the names and memories of early Pioneers, who
were among the originators and early members of this Society,
and none of whom are now living, your Committee also find,
fully sustained.

Third — The charges, of misrepresentation of the facts of
history and of maligning the memories of those Americans and
others who were unjustly arrested and expatriated to Mexico
in 1840, under circumstances of extreme cruelty and injustice,
and of abuse and vilification of T. J. Farnham who was an eye
witness of the affair, and who wrote an account of the same in
his book, (published in 1852) entitled "Life, Adventures and
Travels in California, "your Committee find are fully sustained,
and comprise in themselves an act unworthy of any fair-minded
historian, and abhorrent to every unprejudiced and patriotic
American citizen.

Fourth — The extraordinary charge, of having in his. first
edition of Volume 2, of the "History of Oregon, " published
an account of a trial of certain Cayuse Indian murderers, held
many years ago before a judge who was then, and up to the
time of his death remained a member in good standing of this
Society, in which the said judge was made the subject of
attack in terms, which, if they had been true, would have con
signed his name and memory to lasting infamy; and of striking
all this out and publishing in the second edition of the same

31

volume, fin exactly opposite statement of eulogy and praise, as
shown in the fourth count of said indictment, your Committee
not only find fully sustained, but regard it as a shameful act,
sufficient in itself to render the works of any so-called " histo
rian " unworthy of credence.

Fifth — The apparently malignant, .and certainly cruel and
unjust, attack upon the name and memory of General Grant,
who, while living, was an honored, as well as an "Honorary
Member " of this Society, as set forlh in the fifth count of this
indictment, jrour Committee find fully sustained, and cannot
refrain from expressing the opinion, that to retain the name of
General Grant in its list of "Honorary Members, " together
with that of his maligner, Hubert Howe Bancroft, would be
an act of inconsistency unworthy of the name and fame of the
" Society of California Pioneers."

Sixth — The group of charges comprised in the sixth count of
this indictment, wherein contradictory statements, in regard
to early Pioneers, appear in the different editions of the same
volumes, and the pusillanimous treatment of the late Judge
Terry's conflict with the "Vigilance Committee " of 1856, as
related and exposed, we find fully sustained.

Seventh — The closing, or seventh count of this already more
than severe indictment, wherein it is shown that Mr. Bancroft's
methods of writing history are, to assert certain conclusions of
his own, in regard to the men and events of the period of
which he has written and to denounce all who differ with him
as "liars," no matter what part they may have played in these
events, how much better may have been their opportunities of
knowing the true facts of history, how upright may hare been
their lives, or how unsullied their reputations while living, we
find fully sustained.

Finally, the case, as presented against Mr. Bancroft, as a
whole, constitutes, in the opiuion of your Special Committee,
valid reasons why the name of Hubert Howe Bancroft should

32

no longer be permitted to remain upon the roll of this Society
as an "Honorary Member." The indifference, not to say the
contempt, with which he has treated the Society, in not
appearing before your Committee or making any reply to its
communications, renders it unnecessary for us to give the
matter any further consideration, than to report back the reso
lution and recommend its adoption.

We may be permitted to add, that, in vindication of the
truth of early California history, and of the real facts relating
to the conquest and acquisition of the country by the United
States, as well as in vindication of the memories of the many
early Pioneers who have been maligned and misrepresented in
these so-called " Bancroft's Histories," your Committee recom
mend that the " Board of Directors" be requested to have all
the proceedings heretofore had, as well as those which may be
had, upon the subject matter here under consideration, com
piled and printed in proper form for general distribution
among the Public Libraries of the United States and elsewhere,
as may be deemed desirable and proper.

(Signed) WILLIAM SIMPSON,

B. THOMPSON, f ^

__ TT V Committee.

S. W. HOLLADAY,

A. S. HALL.

The following resolution was offered by Dr. Win. Simpson in
regard to the Bear Flag Revolt :

Resolved, That since Bancroft in his " History of California,"
while dealing with the Bear Flag Eevolt, has misrepresented
the purposes and aims of that uprising, mistaken the condi
tions which brought it about, and has made it the opportunity
of many severe attacks upon pioneer characters, we therefore
offer the following brief review of that episode, in the interest
of truth, and in justice to the memories of the men engaged
in it.

It will be found that at the time of this event, there were
about 1000 Americans (in a population, including Indians, of
16,000) residing in California, every one of whom had enjoyed
the blessings and advantages of our system of government,
and who hoped and expected at some future time to see our
flag waving over the territory upon which their new homes
were built. This wish was intensified by the unhappy condi
tion of things surrrounding them, and which were gradually
growing worse, as their numbers increased, by the aroused
jealousy and suspicion of the Mexican and California officials.
It was not only the weakness and instability of the government
to which they were obliged to submit, or the insecurity of
property, and discouragements to industry which the Mexican
system imposed, that caused ihe few Americans living here at
that time to wish ardently for a change. A greater and far
more serious inteiruption in the ordinary pursuits of life was
impending, and growing more threatening from day to day.
Texas had recently been annexed against the remonstrance of
Mexico. The mission of Mr. Slidel to that country had been
without a peaceful result, and had only produced new animos
ity. A large American iorce had been ordered near the Mexican
border, and by these signs, as well as others, the coming war
was easily predicted. It required no more than ordinary
intelligence to foresee, in the expected hostilities, the loss of
California to Mexico, and its probable conquest by either the
United States or England. A peaceful cession to the latter
country had been discussed by the California authorities, and
was growing more popular among the native Californians as
the rumors of war increased, and as their animosities against
the Americans became excited by the critical condition of
their mother country. While it remains to this day a matter
of conjecture how far England was willing to proceed in
securing to herself this territory, its peaceful surrender to her
by the California authorities was not likely to be refused, and
the whole American colony was in suspense and excitement in
dread of such an occurrence. Their fortunes were not only

34

dangerously involved in the outcome, but, during the period
of expected hostilities between the United States and Mexico,
the}7 could easily anticipate the great danger and distress
awaiting them. American residents within the seaports and
vicinities were assured of protection by their country's war
ships, of which a number were already on the coast, but those
of the interior had no other treatment to expect, in the event
of war, than the well known Mexican methods of retaliation
and punishment, and among these one quite likely to . be
invoked, and actually attempted later on, was the setting upon
them of the Indians, who had not yet lost their sense of
obedience to the California officials, so lately holding them in
authority by the influence of the Missions. The necessity of
an organization among the Americans living in the interior
was apparent, and while [considering] it an event occurred,
which greatly aggravated the situation, and led to an imme
diate coming together of a number of settlers, not for defense
only, but with the further purpose of assisting to secure the
territory to the United States. The event spoken of was the
accidental arrival within the borders of California, of Fremont
with his band of explorers. Fremont's difficulty with Castro,
the details of which are too well known to require mention
here, aroused that Mexican military commander to immediately
issue proclamations of a warlike character, and to begin the
organization of a military force.

There were a number of threatening rumors afloat besides,
which, even admitting the extravagance of some of them, we
know to have been generally believed. Bancroft himself
furnishes evidence of this in the publication of the testimony,
in a foot note, of no less than seventeen persons living at the
time. These witnesses, among whom are a committee of citi
zens, in a report published in 1847 — W. B. Ide, H. L. Ford,
Wm. Hargrave, Benj. Dowell, Marshal, Semple, Hensley,
Owens, Loker, Sutter and Fremont — all of whom agreed and
believed that the Mexican government had determined upon

35

the expulsion of the Americans from the country, and that
Castro was inciting the Indians against them, and threatening
to burn their crops, and that they would have to leave the
country or fight for their homes. Although this strong array
of evidence WHS set forth by Bancroft for the purpose of dis-
proval, and, as we believe, to lay the foundation of a bitter
attack upon a famous Pioneer, its impeachment, under his
examination, can have no effect whatever to impugn the
motives of the settlers in organizing the " Bear Flag Revolt, "
since it cannot be denied they believed the rumors and were
sincerely acting under the impressions they created.

The Bear insurrection was essentially a movement of defense,
The grand possibilities of the country under a better adminis
tration, which time has so fully verified, were apparent to its
movers, and furnished an additional motive to assist, either by
direct or remote methods, to bring the territory under the
dominion of the United States. The threatened misfortune of
being placed under English, instead of Americen rule, had its
effect also to promote and excuse that severity and promptness
of action, so necessary to success in such an undertaking.

In the condemnation of the " Bear Flag Revolt," Bancroft
lays great stress on what he terms its embarassment to a peace
ful conquest of the country. Some later events ought to have
proved to his mind that a ready submission, by the mere
raising of American flags in the seaports, was not likely to
have taken place. Whoever has reckoned on such a result,
has made too low an estimate of the patriotism and bravery of
the people with whom we had to deal. It is reasonable to
conclude that their early submission was as much due to
Fremont's ever-ready opposing force at hand, interrupting the
progress of their concentration and unity of action, as it was
to any measured hopelessness of their situation. We have a
taste of what may have occurred, in the bloody engagements
of San Pasquale, Natividad and elsewhere. An invitation of
departure to the Americans must have come in due time under

36

the usages of war, and by an early successful skirmish or two,
unopposed by a thoroughly organized American force, arousing
thus the hopes of the natives, and stimulating their patriotism
to the bitter extremity perhaps of enlisting the Indians in
their behalf; the comparatively small amount of bloodshed, of
which Bancroft makes such virtuous complaint, would have
been but as a drop in the bucket compared with that likely to
have been spilt.

The intermediary stage of independence proposed by the
" Bear Revolt " was a forced extremity, owing to the position,
and suggested by the then recent example of Texas. At the
time of its organization, there was no way at hand to place it
under the authority of the United States, and no military offi
cer within a thousand miles to muster it into service. Its
proclamation of independence cuts but a small figure in its
history, because of the willing abandonment of its flag, and
the substitution of the "Stars and Stripes" within less than
a month of its independent organization. Its ready mergence
into the California Battalion, under the flag of the United
States, and the heartfelt and genuine enthusiasm expressed by
its members on the raising of the American flags at San
Francisco, Monterey, Los Angeles and elsewhere, leaves no
doubt of their loyalty and patriotism. Their individual
careers, down to the present time, exhibit more than an
average of usefulness and prominence in society.

We are therefore of the opinion that Bancroft has neither
fairly nor truthfully set forth the motives and character of the
" Bear Flag Revolt," in his " History of California," and his
allusion to it as the " criminal outbreak of vagabond settlers "
is flagrantly and maliciously untrue.

(Signed) WILLIAM SIMPSON.

37

PIONEER HALL, San Francisco.

At the regular monthly meeting of the members of "The
Society of California Pioneers," held at Pioneer Hall on
Monday, February 5th, 1894,— -there being eighty members
present per register — the Special Committee appointed to
investigate the charges made by Dr. Washington Ayer against
Hubert Howe Bancroft, submitted their final report, which
was read by the Secretary; and also the resolution offered by
Dr. Win. Simpson, in relation to the "Bear Flag Party."

The following action was then taken by the Society :

Dr. Wm. Simpson moved the adoption of the report of the
Committee. On being duly seconded the question was called,
and on being put to a vote the Chair declared it carried
unanimously, and the report of the Committee adopted.

W. B. Farwell moved that the resolution offered by Dr.
Washington Ayer, proposing that the name of Hubert Howe
Bancroft be stricken from the roll of Honorary Membership in
this Society, be formally adopted. On being duly seconded,
the question was called, and on being put to a vote the Chair
declared it carried unanimously, and that Hubert Howe Ban
croft was no longer an Honorary Member of this "The
Society of California Pioneers.' '

Dr. Wm. Simpson, after the reading of his resolution, in
relation to the " Bear Flag Party," moved its adoption. On
being duly seconded the Chair declared it carried unanimously.

(Signed) C. V. S GIBBS,

President.

[SEAL.] JOHN I. SPEAR,

Secretary.