Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Comancheria

I'm pretty sure that Dobie debunked the "Tonks as cannibals" deal , but I don't know the particular book.It seems he said the Kronks were the only tribe that routinely practiced it.

Then again,it might have been Goodnight instead of Dobie that said it.

I'm enjoying the postings by Birdwatcher,but I never lose sight of the fact that "somebody" chose what went into the history books.

The Tonkawa were initially settled on a reservation in Young County along the Brazos.The area is still called "Tonk Valley".They were moved up to Oklahoma without much,if any, resistance on their part.

Good observation Birdy. Got to remember to that we are looking backward at a concentration of events through the lenses of 21 century society.

Those we are looking at were in a situation where raiding and so fourth was all around them in a random manner and unpredictiable pattern.

This neighbor summed it up pretty well back in October.

The means of transportation and methods of information sharing during this period in history had not advanced one iota from the days the O.T. was written.

But,God didn't edit the history books here !

Kind of what I was pointing out CD. Reading Wilbarger time after time you read about folks going out berry picking or hunting cows and not even carrying a gun.
While we look at the concentration of Indian raids and say to ourselves we wouldn't go to the outhouse without being armed to the teeth.

One must wonder how dangerous it even was back then. Dodge, Abilene, Hays, Tombstone, Bisbee, Deadwood, El Paso...all supposedly dangerous towns. I've read of people doing statistical studies though and saying they were actually less dangerous than modern day Detroit or LA.

I expect it was pretty much the same back then as it is now. I can't pack a gun all the time, even a small handgun, because it gets in the way if you are doing hard, manual labor. Plus, it gets messed up. I've got both my Grandpa's main rifles...a Winchester 1906 and a Remington model 12. Both .22's show hard use. The former was carried in a hayrack on a baler for use killing jackrabbits back in the 20's and 30's. I don't know what my Grandpa's model 12 was used for in Texas mainly. Probably shooting hogs they were fixin' to butcher. Frontier guns are mainly the same way, hard-used. I can't imagine most laborers carrying one all the time though. The Indians were a hit-and-miss proposition with only those settlers way out probably on constant alert. If anything, Birdwatcher's stories here relate how the Comanch were capable of long-range, tactical type raids. Raids where lesser targets were bypassed in order to get richer, fatter prizes that would normally be alerted if the poorer ones were hit first. The poorest people would generally live the farthest out too. Ironic that they were probably the least able to afford the weapons needed to defend themselves when they were the most apt to really need them. Same as today. Lots of good, po folks live in the ghetto and don't have enough money to get a decent gun. Sterlings, RG's, Phoenix Ravens, old Iver Johnson's...You go up to Kansas City or down to Dallas and some of the best folks are old colored folks that live in the worst areas.

I figure that by the late frontier period, when good Winchesters and Spencers were available, there were still a lot of homesteads out on the edge, that relied on stuff like 1842 US Model Muskets or 1861 Springfields. I owned a Sharps Conversion Carbine. Lots of these guns were evidently given to settlers in Arizona, for defense against Apaches. These aren't a real good gun either, despite the Sharps name. They have poor ejectors and will stick a shell at an inopportune time. I don't think the troops liked them.

Anyway, my guess is that the guys Birdy is talking about were armed with mainly fowling pieces, muskets and poor-boy Tennessee type rifles. Probably the McCullochs and some of the better heeled ones had a brace of military single shot pistols to augment their long guns.

...and I wouldn't suggest, as Smithwick seems to, that cannibalism among the Tonks was just another menu option. I suspect it was done for occultic reasons, and that even the likes of a Placido didn't kill a Comanche every day, or maybe even every year.

But we have a number of references to Tonkawas engaging in the practice, including two more than thirty years apart.

Robert Hall, wounded in the thigh by a Comanche rifle at Plum Creek, gives us a particularly lucid description....

http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/plumcreek.htm#halldescrip

The Tonkaways brought in the dead body of a Comanche warrior, and they built a big fire not far from where I was lying. My wound had begun to pain me considerably, and I did not pay much attention to them for some time.

After awhile they began to sing and dance, and I thought that I detected the odor of burning flesh. I raised up and looked around, and, sure enough, our allies were cooking the Comanche warrior. They cut him into slices and broiled him on sticks.

Curiously enough the eating of the flesh acted upon them as liquor does upon other men. After a few mouthfuls they began to act as if they were very drunk, and I don't think there was much pretense or sham about it.

They danced, raved, howled and sang, and invited me to get up and eat a slice of Comanche. They said it would make me brave. I was very hungry, but not sufficiently so to become a cannibal.

And in the 1870's Comanche captive Herman Lehmann ("Nine Years Among the Indians") described the almost hysterical Comanche response to finding partially consumed Comanche remains at the campsite of a Tonkawa war party.

Upon detecting the Comanches on their trail, the small party of Tonkawas, armed with rifles, took refuge in a ravine. Whereupon the Comanches, heedless of their own further losses to rifle fire, overran and wiped them out.

Speaking of Comanches being heedless of their own losses, those three other notable Texan victories over Comanches (John Bird at Bird's Creek '39, Jack Hays on the Guadalupe in '41 and at Walker's Creek in '44) all occurred when mounted Comanches repeatedly attacked in the face of accurate gunfire.

These were anomalies, the Comanche norm was something more akin to successful fighter pilot doctrine: 1) "Fair" fights can get you killed. 2) Always seek surprise and overwhelming advantage and 3) if surprise and advantage are not present, always disengage.

At Plum Creek the Comanches did turn to confront the pursuing Texans under conditions that conferred neither surprise nor advantage, and if 4-500 Comanches was an enormous force, so in context must 200 rifle-armed Texans have been to the Comanches. What then one wonders was the reason that caused them to take a stand? After all, immediately subsequent to this action they would effectively disengage once again.

The reason may have been the big pile-up of laden mules in a swampy area of the Clear Fork. It would appear that in their haste to escape pitched battle, the Comanches had inadvertently driven part of their herd into this wet ground, such that witnesses later reported the mired animals were so jammed together it would have been possible to cross the area on their backs. More than the mules and plunder, it seems likely that there would have been associated Comanches, including women and children, working to free these animals. Thirty Comanche women and children were captured during the running chase following the intitial fight.

Huston obligingly dismounted his force for about thirty minutes rather than charge the Comanche blocking force. Although in hindsight this was obviously the wrong thing to do, it appears that the majority of Texans certainly FELT like they were in a fight for that thirty minutes, and they were steadily whittling down the Comanches during that time. Both Huston and Robert Hall, neither of whom participated directly in the prolonged running fight afterwards, estimated forty Comanche warriors killed against slight Texan losses.

These deaths probably occurred during this thirty-minute interval and at the beginning of the charge after the Texans mounted up again.

Birdwatcher

I'm not an expert on Cannibalism, but from what I've read, most who engage in it, do so because they believe that they are gaining the strength of the enemy by eating him. There may be other things, such as making him their slave forever in the Happy Hunting Grounds or some such. But that seems to be a common thread amongst cannibals.

As to the intoxication, that may not be just amongst the Tonks. Although it is fiction, the movie Ravenous, coincidentally set in roughly the same time-frame as this fight, portrays similar behavior changes due to consumption of human flesh.

"Speaking of Comanches being heedless of their own losses, those three other notable Texan victories over Comanches (John Bird at Bird's Creek '39, Jack Hays on the Guadalupe in '41 and at Walker's Creek in '44) all occurred when mounted Comanches repeatedly attacked in the face of accurate gunfire."


Birdy there is no way for us to second guess why Huston dismounted but the above gives me a clue. I suspect he wanted the Comanche to charge into accurate fire delivered from the ground instead of horseback. He was trying to tempt them into a charge. Unless he was a complete fool and I don't think he was, he knew that job one for the Indians was to protect the loot they were driving off so one charge was about all they could afford. There were more Texans coming up. If he could get them to charge there would be that many less to deal with when they broke off to hurry after the retreating horse herd.


As to cannibalism ALL native Texas indians, Comanche were not native, engaged in cannibalism to some extent or the other. Even the Caddo. Mostly ritualistic and only the Kronks were suspected of doing so for a food source.

Where did the Kiowas come from? I know the Comanche came from the Great Lakes region, but where did the Comanche come from? Did the Wichitas engage in cannibalism?

It had never occurred to me to even wonder where the Kiowas were from.

Cole I'll do the best I can and give you a much condensed version:

Kiowa can really be called only marginal Texas indians. Their principal homeland was to the north and east of the Texas panhandle in the Wichita mountains of OK. Where they origianlly came from God alone knows. Their own tradition says they came from the Yellowstone and upper Missouri country of Montana. @1780 they were in the Black Hills of SD. They and their confederates, Kiowa Apache, got driven out by the Dakota and Cheyenne and drifted south to the Wichitas.

Comanches came from the Northern Shoshones in the Rockies. Around 1700 they broke out into the plains of eastern Colorado when they acquired horses. By 1705 they were in NM and by @1750 they were in control of most of the southern plains having split the plains apache it two. Those that they didn't kill that is.

Did the Wichita engage in cannibalism?
Depends on which bunch of wichita people you are talking about. Kitchi did but it is arguable whether or not they were Wichita or Caddo. Waco and Tehuacana did. I don't know about the Wichita proper which were in Kansas mostly.

That is about the best thumb nail I can give w/o doing a whole lot more research than I want to do at the moment. Even for you buddy.

Cole:
My great grandfather got to pottowatomi county around manhatten in the 1850's, farmed there. Got to get there some day.
A few years ago i wandered into my favorite gun store, right after the owner bought from a 90 something year old woman a double barrel cap and ball shotgun, and a stevens lil favorite .22 She was moving into a rest home and couldn't take the guns with her. She was worried that they would go to a good home. She told the owner to take of the shotgun, as it "kept kansas free" during the civil war. She stated it was in the covered wagon when her family went west. Now it is pretty cool, the stock had been broken, and fixed with the iron wheel flattened out from a wagon wheel, and screws put in the wood. A pretty cool piece of history. Who knows what it was used for during those years.

another small item to this discussion. My wife has obvious signs of cherokee in her, and there was a number or generations ago certainly a cherokee in the wood pile. Her family moved from arkansas to texas in the 1820's or 1830's without me asking her specifically. I know they were there in time for the alamo, as a relative died there, one of mine too for that matter.
Where the cherokee came into the picture i don't know, but i am going to have to tell her about the arkansas connection.

Also another little bit of info i got out of the book, summer moon. Elizabeth crosby, the woman tied to a tree and used for target practice was the granddaughter of Daniel Boone. But it doesn't say which of his kids. Interest to me as a relative of mine married daniel boones daughter, elizabeth boone. My family and the boone family came over on the same boat, and are intertwined at various points in the move west.

Thanks for the info Boggy. I was wrong about the origins of the Comanche as I now remember what you are saying is true. The Osage were originally from up in that area I was talking about and were moved down into Missouri and then Kansas before finally being told they had to live on that beautiful pile of rocks called Osage County. Too bad for the white man it had an ocean of oil underneath. I had completely forgotten about the origins of the Kiowa but what you are saying sounds right. It seems that where the Kiowa are concerned, a lot of people can't get their territory right as some put them in northern Mexico, just below the Comanches and others put them above the Comanches in southern Kansas-Oklahoma. I've always leaned towards the northern explanation, since there are a lot of place names in western Kansas with "Kiowa" in them.

Fascinating piece of history Ron. My direct descendants were back east during the War Between the States, with the exception of my Great Grandmother whose people were already in the Kansas City, Missouri area before the war. We had some offshoots that were west of the area you speak of. Two of them were killed as they were out haying, by a huge band of mixed Indians, Pawnees and other such, out in the Salina area during the war. I believe there is a crick named for my family in the area out there, but I seldom go that far north and west.

I had a gun supposedly used in the Border War here in our area, west of Fort Scott. I never could document it properly and finally traded it off. It was manufactured in 1852 and had a three-digit or four-digit serial number, IIRC.

You have Berlandier and Teran confused with the french deserter Jean Gery and the Spanish Governor Alonzo de Leon. Berlandier expedition w/Teran = 1835, Gery guides De Leon to the ruins of FSL in 1690.....

Berlandier's report; faunal, flora, and demographic has been translated to English. Smithsonian offered it back about 25 or so years ago.....

Sources are less kind. This is what the Texas State historical association has to say...

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fhu46
Huston arrived at Plum Creek on the evening of August 11, 1840, and took command of the gathering troops. The following day he formed his troops for battle, dismounted his men, and began firing at random. As the Comanches fled with their plunder, Huston, at the urging of Benjamin McCulloch and other old Indian fighters, ordered a charge....

Historian Eugene C. Barker characterized Huston as "a typical military adventurer" whose "actual personal service in Texas was more obstreperous than effective

(Obstreperous = "noisy and difficult to control", I hadda look it up )

And two sources on the field that day, both given in Moore's book. The first, Hamilton Bee of La Grange, was among the approximately 200 men hurrying to Plum Creek that day but who arrived after the fight was over.

General Felix Huston of course makes it out to sound like a second Waterloo. I am glad that he was in it. being the first fight he has been in, although it was general opinion that if Burleson had been in command much more execution would have been made.

Turns out as per the link given earlier, Huston never did command again, and had not commanded a force in battle before. He HAD been removed from command a couple of years earlier.

John Harvey, one of of Burleson's Batrop men who was in on the fighting at Plum Creek had this to say....

We had two old Indian fighters along, viz., Ed Burleson and Paint Caldwell, and I thing if either one had commanded, we would have done more execution. But Huston was commander of the Texan forces in that battle, and hearing of their vast numbers supposed that the Indians would halt and give us battle in a regular way and made his arrangements accordingly.

But the Indians were too smart for us, and made their own arrangement as to fight. They out-generalled us, but we whipped the red man.

With his hollow square against cavalry, I'm guessing Huston WAS channelling Napoleon, or at least Waterloo (where IIRC, it was the Brits who formed hollow squares). EVERYBODY looked to the French in those days, including our own Jefferson Davis. Fifteen years later the archtypical western cavalry unit, the 2nd US Cavalry (AKA "Jeff Davis's Own") would be formed on the model of the French experience in North Africa, Davis even brung camels over. Then tbere's the whole minie technology thing.

Even so, I believe we can give Huston a pass. He did hit the Comanches hard enough that they never came back like that again and, more to the point, almost nobody on the Texan side got killed for the loss of, at minimum, forty Comanches dead. If it had been a closer fight, the toll on our side would have doubtless been higher.

Only about twenty dead Comanches were found on the field, them placing a very high value on recovering bodies, especially when Tonkawas were present one might suppose. But ballparking off of Huston's and Hall's estimates of forty dead, perhaps we can guess another forty Comanches wounded.

Hard to know, seems like people under the stress of combat tend to over-estimate their own success (the Battle of Britain imeidately comes to mind). On the Washita for example, after conferring with his officers Custer estimated more than 100 Cheyennes dead. Different groups of Indians that were present in that camp that morning afterwards estimated the number of Indian dead as less than twenty.

For the most part, at Plum Creek the Comanches hovered at the far end of effective rifle range. The rate of fire among the Texans weren't recorded. Nobody mentions running out of bullets but, OTOH, it would presumably have been difficult to stand there and NOT take potshots at the swirling foe.

IMHO the effect on combat of the time required to reload muzzleloaders, even rifles, has been somewhat exaggerated. This especially true where the fighting involves aimed fire at a distance rather than close combat. Recently I've been shooting frontloaders fairly regular, and if I could do it in my sleep like these guy undoubtedly could, I could have a rifle reloaded right quick. The consensus seems to be that people used less tight-fitting loads in their rifles back then. IIRC the "bullet-starter", a short rod used to start a tight-fitting ball, is entirely a modern implement.

If we ballpark one aimed shot every two minutes overall (which is considerably less than what a muzzleloading rifle can do and which would seem like a conservative estimate for hyped-up guys under stress looking to kill Comanches), in thirty minutes 200 Texans could have easily sent 3,000 rifle balls downrange.

Whatever the actual figure, I believe the Texans must have flung a lot of lead, as Felix Huston hisself wrote "a handsome fire".

Eighty Comanches actually getting hit seems like a reasonably conservative estimate. The surprising thing is there ain't that much mention of wounded or dead horses. Just one in fact, where a Comanche was killed when, in one of them Indian machisimo things, he made a point of theatrically pausing to retreive his bridle from his fallen mount.

Birdwatcher

Birdy the John Harvey quote is what I was talking about viz Huston. That is what the book said to do so that is what he did.
He wasn't so much an idiot as unskilled and unknowing about Indian warfare.

Yepper, and I believe even the likes of a Caldwell or Burleson had followed that learning curve themselves.

And I was wrong about one dead horse mentioned, there were at least two, a Comanche shot through the leg, the horse being dropped by the shot, said Comanche being hit again as he hobbled away.

Birdwatcher

As it turns out, not all the Texans dismounted with Huston..

From John Henry Brown...

"From the timber a steady fire was kept up with muskets and some long range rifles, while about thirty of our men, still mounted, were dashing to and fro among the mounted Indians, illustrating a series of personal heroisms worthy of all praise.

In one of these Reed of Bastrop had an arrow driven though his body, piercing his lungs, though he lived long afterwards.

And an excellent description of the fight at this point from the good Reverend Morril, the guy who drove the ox cart thirty miles before riding through the early hours of the morning to alert Burleson.

The enemy was disposed to keep at a distance, and delay the fight, in order that the packed mules might be driven ahead with the spoils. During this delay several of their chiefs performed some daring feats. According to a previous understanding, our men waited for the Indians, in the retreat, to get beyond the timber, before the general charge was made.

One of these daring chiefs attracted my attention specially. He was riding a very fine horse, held in by a fine American bridle, with a red ribbon eight or ten feet long tied to the tail of the horse. He was dressed in elegant style, from the goods stolen at Linnville, with a high-top silk hat, fine pair of boots and leather gloves, an elegant broadcloth coat, hind part before, with brass buttons shining brightly right up and down his back. When he first made his appearance he was carrying a large umbrella stretched. This Indian and others would charge towards us and shoot their arrows, then wheel and run away, doing no damage. This was done several times, in range of some of our guns.

Soon the discovery was made that he wore a shield, and although our men took good aim, the balls glanced. An old Texan, living on, Lavacca, asked me to hold his horse, and getting as near the place where they wheeled as was safe, waited patiently till they came; and as the Indian checked his horse and the shield flew up, lie fired and brought him to the ground.

Several had fallen before, but without checking their demonstrations. Now, although several of them lost their lives in carrying him away, yet they did not cease their efforts till be was carried to the rear.

I'm wondering if the Comanches were the loudest Plains Indians there was in a fight. Ford (in "RIP Ford's Texas") comments upon this...

In the commencement of a fight, the yell of defiance is borne to you loud, long and startling. The war whoop has no romance in it. It thrills even a stout heart with an indescribable sensation. The excitement of battle is quite as evident among these people as it is among others.

That part is to be expected, the paralyzing war whoop goes clear back to before our frontier and back east would be accompanies by a volley of ball, shot or arrows from cover, perhaps followed by thrown 'hawks before the rush, with which the Indians were known to be remarkably dexterous.

Here's the different part....

Let the tide turn against them, send lead messengers through some of their warriors and then the mournful wail is heard: its lubrigous notes are borne back to you with uncouth cadences, betokening sorrow, anger, and a determinnation to revenge.

We here in the Western culture can understand war whoops on attack, I have heard the Rebel yell may have been copied from an Indian call, where it diverges from our culture is the concept of setting up a mournful dirge or howl right there on the field if one of our own side got hit.

But, Ford reports it was so, and we have similar reports from Plum Creek. This from Moore, on the occasion of the wounding or killing of the prominent Comanche...

John Henry Brown felt that the chief was either dead or dying, for the Indians set up a peculiar howl, a loud mournful wail. At this instant, "Old Paint" Caldwell shouted to Felix Huston, "Now, General is your time to charge them! They are whipped!"

Birdwatcher