personal comfort and on the old customs, and though the people of Monterey liked not the new governor's disposition to fix his residence in the south, yet I find no contemporary evidence of controversy or of contemplated resistance. The records, however, are far from complete, and both Alvarado and Vallejo credit Argüello with a patriotic refusal to listen to the counsels of Montereyans and the troops who urged him to take advantage of Echeandía’s arbitrary order and proclaim revolt.[1] It is not unlikely that there was some clashing of opinion when the two officers met; but there is no record on the subject. Echeandía had remained at San Diego at first because exhausted by his journey; and he continued to reside there chiefly because he deemed the climate favorable to his health, but also that as ruler of both Californias he might be nearer Loreto, and because he found nothing in his instructions which absolutely required him to live at Monterey.[2] No transfer of the capital was made;
- ↑ Vallejo, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 48-51; Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., ii. 105-9. Vallejo states that the padres took advantage of the excitement in the north to create a prejudice against Echeandía. Both imply that there was a sharp correspondence before Argüello went south, which is impossible; and that one cause of the excitement was the transfer of the custom-house to S. Diego, when no such change was made. I suppose that both writers greatly exaggerate the popular feeling, looking at it through the colored glasses of memory, respecting later dissensions between the north and south.
- ↑ Doubtless the persuasions of the southerners had also an influence; and J. J. Vallejo, Reminis., MS., 87-9, implies that a certain lady of S. Diego had more influence than all the rest. General mention of Echeandía's arrival without additional details, or blunders worthy of notice, in Machado, Tiempos Pasados, MS., 21, 23; Amador, Memorias, MS., 85; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS., 19-20; Lugo, Vida, MS., 12-13; Ávila, Cosas de Cal., MS., 25; Petit-Thouars, Voy., ii. 90; Mofras, Explor., i. 293.
The version of one author, who has made claims to be an accurate historian, is worth a record here. I allude to that given in Willson's Mexico and its Religion, 148-50. 'The new republic was at peace, and the surplus soldiery had to be got rid of. It was not safe to disband them at home, where they might take to the roads and become successful robbers; but 1,500 of the worst were selected for a distant expedition, the conquest of the far-off territory of California. And then a general was found who was in all respects worthy of his soldiery. He was pre-eminently the greatest coward in the Mexican army — so great a coward that he subsequently, without striking a blow, surrendered a fort, with a garrison of 500 men, unconditionally, to a party of 50 foreigners. Such was the great General Echandrea, the Mexican conqueror of California; and such was the army that he led to the conquest of unarmed priests and an unarmed province.' 'Had there been 50 resolute persons to oppose them, this valiant army would have absconded, and California would have remained an appanage of the crown of Spain,' etc. 'When the prefect
