that is known of him is contained in this chapter. The Californians as a rule have nothing to say in his favor; but the reader knows how far the popular prejudice was founded in justice. I have already expressed the opinion that under ordinary circumstances Victoria would have been one of California's best rulers.[1]
Of political events in the south in 1831, after Victoria's abdication, there is nothing to be recorded, except that Echeandía held the command, both political and military, and all were waiting for the diputacion to assemble early in January. In the north the news of the revolutionary success arrived about the middle of December. San Francisco on the 19th, San José on the 22d, and Monterey on the 26th, went through the forms of adhesion to the San Diego plan.[2]
- ↑ The narratives furnished me by Californians, touching more or less fully on V.'s rule, overthrow, and character — most of which I have already cited on special points — are as follows: Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 160-89; Pico, Hist. Cal., MS., 24-40; Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 136-59; Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS. ii. 161-83; iii. 7-8, 48-50; iv. 81; Bandini, Hist. Cal., MS. 72-7; Amador, Mem., MS., 122-8, 135-6; Ávila, Cosas de Cal., MS., 28-31; Id., Notas, 11-15; Bee, Recoll., MS., 2-3; Boronda, Notas, MS., 16-17; Castro, Rel., MS., 23-9; Fernandez, Cosas, MS., 64-6; Gonzalez, Exper., MS., 29-30; Galindo, Apuntes, MS., 16-21; Larios, Convulsiones, MS., 11-13; Lugo, Vida, MS., 14-16; Machado, Tiempos, MS., 26-8; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 38-50; Perez, Recuerdos, MS., 22; Pico, Acont., MS., 18-23; Pinto, Apunt., MS., 6-9; Rodriguez, Statement, MS., 7; Sanchez, Notas, MS., 7-8; Torre, Reminis., MS., 22-30; Valdés, Mem., MS., 21; Valle, Lo Pasado, MS., 3-5; Vallejo, Reminis., MS., 109-14; Weeks' Reminis., MS., 73-4.
General accounts narrating briefly the events of V.'s rule, in Marsh's Letter to Com. Jones, MS., 4-5; Robinson's Life in Cal., 118-21; Petit-Thouars, Voy., ii. 91; Wilkes' Narr., U.S. Explor. Ex., v. 174; Mofras, Exploration, i. 294; Tuthill's Hist. Cal., 131-4, and Los Angeles, Hist., 13. Mr Warner in the last work makes the revolution a local event of Los Angeles annals. These different writers speak favorably or unfavorably of V. according to the sources of their information, or to their bias for or against the padres and José de la Guerra on one side and the Bandini-Pico Vallejo faction on the other. Tuthill seems to have taken the versions of Spence and Stearns in about equal parts. Mofras speaks very highly of Victoria, because of his dislike for the Vallejo party. The version of Robinson, a son-in-law of Guerra, has been most widely followed.
- ↑ Leg. Rec., MS., i. 348-9; Monterey, Actos del Ayunt., MS., 42-3. Vallejo, Sanchez, and Peña signed at S. F.; Leandro Flores for S. José; and Buelna and Castro for the Monterey ayunt. Juan Higuera and Antonio Castro, of the ayunt., declined on Dec. 25th to approve the plan; but Castro changed his mind next day, Higuera still needing more time to think it over. At Sta Bárbara the plan was signed on Jan. 1, 1832, by Rafael Gonzalez, Miguel Valencia, and José Maria García; and it was approved by the ayunt. of Los
