Page:History of California, Volume 3 (Bancroft).djvu/562

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

544

SAN DIEGO PLAN – ALVARADO AND CARRILLO.

result for California. It was Carrillo's fault, and not Alvarado's. Here as elsewhere, such a quarrel once begun, there is very little room for sympathy or blame for either side.^[1]

↑ Testimony about the events of this period, from printed matter and from statements of Californians, does not as a rule add anything to our knowledge derived from contemporary documents. Most Californians content themselves with stating that Alvarado refused to recognize Carrillo, approving or disapproving his policy according as they lived in the north or south. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 23-32, gives a much fairer and more accurate version of these than of some earlier events, agreeing for the most part with his letters written at the time. Vallejo's statements, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 277-320, are very much less complete and satisfactory than are his original letters. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 382-5, does not indicate, either under his own name or anonymously, what part he took; nor does he give many details; but he seems to have some words of blame both for Alvarado and for J. A. Carrillo. Bandini, Hist. Cal., MS., 97-9, states that Alvarado had no intention of giving up the office, but made a new revolution to avoid it. Carrillo was defeated through bad management on his side. J. J. Vallejo, Reminis., MS., 123-5, seems to regard Carrillo's appointment as the result of southern intrigue, and represents him as having 'raised the standard of revolt'! Botello, Anales, MS., 43-8, tells us that Alvarado and his friends resisted Carrillo on one pretext or another, but really to prevent the abajeños from avenging their past wrongs and to keep them fro a moving the capital and custom-house. He admits that it was the intention of the sureños to clip the wings of the northern clique. In the brief account sent to the Islands, and published in the Honolulu S. I. Gazette, May 5, 1838, and Honolulu Polynesian, ii. 93, Nov. 20, 1841, Alvarado is said to have agreed to give up the command on being shown Carrillo's commission and receiving guaranties from him of protection for the life and property of himself and friends, which Carrillo refused. Mentions more or less accurate, but all incomplete and brief, of Alvarado vs Carrillo, some extending beyond the point to which I have brought my narrative, are as follows: Marsh's Letter, MS., 8; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS, 103-8; Pico, Acont., MS., 47-8; Serrano, Apuntes, MS., 54-9; Valle, Lo Pasado, MS., 19-21; Coronel, Cosas, MS., 24; Janssens, Vida, MS., 122-8; Castro, Rel., MS., 41-2; Galindo, Apuntes, MS., 39-40; Gonzalez, Experiencias, MS., 33; Ávila, Notas, MS., 21. Also the following in print: Belcher's Voyage, i. 137; Mofras, Explor., i. 301-2; Robinson's Life in Cal., 178-9; Laplace, Voyage, vi. 190-1; Greenhow's Hist. Or., 367; Forbes' Hist. Cal., 150; Farnham's Life and Trav., 290; Tuthill's Hist. Cal., 144-5; Los Angeles Hist., 14.

[1] Testimony about the events of this period, from printed matter and from statements of Californians, does not as a rule add anything to our knowledge derived from contemporary documents. Most Californians content themselves with stating that Alvarado refused to recognize Carrillo, approving or disapproving his policy according as they lived in the north or south. Alvarado, Hist. Cal., MS., iv. 23-32, gives a much fairer and more accurate version of these than of some earlier events, agreeing for the most part with his letters written at the time. Vallejo's statements, Hist. Cal., MS., iii. 277-320, are very much less complete and satisfactory than are his original letters. Osio, Hist. Cal., MS., 382-5, does not indicate, either under his own name or anonymously, what part he took; nor does he give many details; but he seems to have some words of blame both for Alvarado and for J. A. Carrillo. Bandini, Hist. Cal., MS., 97-9, states that Alvarado had no intention of giving up the office, but made a new revolution to avoid it. Carrillo was defeated through bad management on his side. J. J. Vallejo, Reminis., MS., 123-5, seems to regard Carrillo's appointment as the result of southern intrigue, and represents him as having 'raised the standard of revolt'! Botello, Anales, MS., 43-8, tells us that Alvarado and his friends resisted Carrillo on one pretext or another, but really to prevent the abajeños from avenging their past wrongs and to keep them fro a moving the capital and custom-house. He admits that it was the intention of the sureños to clip the wings of the northern clique. In the brief account sent to the Islands, and published in the Honolulu S. I. Gazette, May 5, 1838, and Honolulu Polynesian, ii. 93, Nov. 20, 1841, Alvarado is said to have agreed to give up the command on being shown Carrillo's commission and receiving guaranties from him of protection for the life and property of himself and friends, which Carrillo refused. Mentions more or less accurate, but all incomplete and brief, of Alvarado vs Carrillo, some extending beyond the point to which I have brought my narrative, are as follows: Marsh's Letter, MS., 8; Ord, Ocurrencias, MS, 103-8; Pico, Acont., MS., 47-8; Serrano, Apuntes, MS., 54-9; Valle, Lo Pasado, MS., 19-21; Coronel, Cosas, MS., 24; Janssens, Vida, MS., 122-8; Castro, Rel., MS., 41-2; Galindo, Apuntes, MS., 39-40; Gonzalez, Experiencias, MS., 33; Ávila, Notas, MS., 21. Also the following in print: Belcher's Voyage, i. 137; Mofras, Explor., i. 301-2; Robinson's Life in Cal., 178-9; Laplace, Voyage, vi. 190-1; Greenhow's Hist. Or., 367; Forbes' Hist. Cal., 150; Farnham's Life and Trav., 290; Tuthill's Hist. Cal., 144-5; Los Angeles Hist., 14.

[1]