Page:Vol 5 History of Mexico by H H Bancroft.djvu/705

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
RAOUSSET DE BOULBON.
685

August, 1855, the committee on military affairs having reported adversely to their confirmation, excepting only promotions by seniority, or for some other good reason.[1] The commissions were annulled, excepting those conferred for the defeat of the French invaders under Raousset de Boulbon at Guaymas.

The French count, Raousset de Boulbon, had been some time in 1853 engaged in fitting out at San Francisco, California, an expedition to invade Sonora. Upon the news reaching Mexico, requisite orders were issued to the governors of Sonora, Sinaloa, and Chihuahua, and to the commandant of Lower California, to meet the invasion. President Santa Anna himself at once prepared a division of troops for the same purpose. Raousset landed and had some successful encounters with Mexican troops, but through the intervention of the French minister, desisted from his purpose for the time being and visited Mexico, and Santa Anna received him as a friend. Not having succeeded, after considerable delay, in obtaining from Santa Anna a command in the Mexican army, he returned to California with the view of carrying out his projects.

The Mexican government had encouraged the colonization of a tract of country in Sonora by some Frenchmen from California, the colonists binding themselves to take up arms in defence of the Mexican nation. They came to Guaymas and were well received; everything was going on smoothly until the 1st of July, 1854, when Raousset landed with about 400 Frenchmen and Germans, with whom he attempted to capture Guaymas, together with the comandante general, Yañez, and the garrison. But his plan failed; he was defeated and taken prisoner with all his men. Raousset was sentenced to death, and shot on the

  1. Montes, the minister of justice, spoke in favor of confirmation, on the ground that the dictatorial government had been a legitimate one; but his proposition was rejected. The whole discussion is given in Zarco, Hist. Cong. Constituy., i. 211-40, 296-310, 328-35, 421-4.