Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Comancheria

More on mobility, back to Texas again but backing up a bit to the 18th Century, re: early Texas cattle drives....

http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/Spain.htm#ranching

The first official cattle drive out of Texas was authorized on June 20, 1779 by General G�lvez to feed Spanish forces in Louisiana. Over 9000 documented and more than 15000 estimated head of Texas Longhorns herded by Texas cattlemen and vaqueros (both Tejano and Indian) left Texas ranchos between San Antonio de Bexar and La Bahia (Goliad) between 1779 and 1782.

The Guadalupe River valley in the heart of future DeWitt Colony was the staging area for these cattle drives that preceded the more well-known drives north from Texas to Kansas, Missouri and Colorado by nearly 100 years and equaled them in magnitude. The area supplied Spanish forces on the Gulf Coast front in the successful fight for American Independence from Britain.

Although seldom mentioned in American history books, Spanish forces supplied with Texas beef kept British forces occupied on a vast second front in addition to the American northeast coast, which was believed to be instrumental in defeat of the British and resultant American Independence.

Birdwatcher

More on the topic of long cattle drives.

Shouldn't surprise me as much as it does, after all its not like people were walking without stock when they travelled these trails, so some oxen, mules and/or horses were always involved, hauling loads yet.

Longest single drives? Found mention of at least one herd of longhorns to New York, and cattlemen live Oliver Loving were driving cows up the Shawnee Trail to Ohio and Illinois by 1850.

The longest single drive I have heard of was from St Louis to California, 2,000 miles, by an Italian...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_drives_in_the_United_States

In 1853 the Italian aristocrat Leonetto Cipriani undertook a drive from St. Louis to San Francisco along the California Trail; he returned to Europe in 1855 with large profits.

Now THAT must have been a cattle drive, funny it escaped becoming a legend in popular lore.

What aint recalled much either in those years is the driving of cattle from the San Antonio area to California in the Gold Rush years.

Fortunately, that travelling Yankee, Frederick Law Olmstead, lefdt us a detailed description circa 1856 or thereabouts....

A California cattle-train.... consisted of four hundred head of oxen, generally in fine, moderately fat condition. There were only twenty-five men to guard and drive them. Only a few of these, old frontier men and drovers, who had before been over the road, and could act as guides, were paid wages.

The remainder were young menwho wished to emigrate to California, and who were glad to have their expenses paid for their services by the proprietors of the drove. They were all mounted on mules, and supplied with the short government rifle [BW note: Mississippi Rifles?]and Colt's repeaters.

Two large wagons and a cart, loaded with stores, cooking utensils and ammunition, followed the herd... The driving of cattle to California from Texas, as long as the market prices permit, is likely to be of increasing importance, as the hazard of much loss is small, and the profits often large.

Four men for a hundred head, where the herd is a large one, is considered a sufficient number. Five or six months are usually spent on the road. If the market is overstocked, and prices unsatisfactory on arrival of the herd in California, it costs but a trifle, in wages to herdsmen, to keep the cattle at pasture, where they fatten and improve in actual value. When importations have been checked, and the demand increases, the herd can again be brought into market.

The cattle were costing here, this year, not more than $14 a head, while those driven out last year brought $100 a head in California. A Texas drover, we were informed, the previous year made $100,000 by purchasing shgeep in Mexico at $1 a head, and selling them in California at $20 a head.

Prob'ly notable that Mr Olmstead had never BEEN on a cattle drive. Hard to believe that driving a herd across Texas, New Mexico and maybe Arizona was as easy as he claims.

No word on the route either, did they take the long route up the Rio Grande to Santa Fe, and from there along the Old Spanish Trail?

Birdwatcher

"Ranald S. Mackenzie on the Texas Frontier, by Ernest Wallace"

Anybody read this book yet?

Sycamore

Thanks for the heads-up, I look fer it.

OK, to nudge this thread along some more, one thing that should be apparent is that folks was all over the Texas Plains long before, and during, the Texas period. Except perhaps for many Texans.

No slam on Texans, but even Hay's best work in the '40's was all within about a hundred miles form the then line of settlement. Seems like Texans were primarily settlers, not explorers or long-distance traders. Hay's and his men were defending these srttlements. In fact, you could make the case that there was more bloodshed and strife BEHIND the settlement line than there was in front of it.

The few expeditions Texans did send out across the vast expanses of West Texas met with mixed success.

Gregg in his journals however, does give us and example of Texan Adventurers far out on the Plains and wrote about them aqt length. Said Texans ostensibly for the purpose of carrying the war to Mexicans, but certainly also acting from a profit motive...

http://www.kancoll.org/books/gregg/gr_ch09_2.htm

It had been reported in Santa Fe as early as November, 1842, that a party of Texans were upon the Prairies, prepared to attack any Mexican traders who should cross the Plains the succeeding spring; and as some Americans were accused of being spies, and in collusion with the Texans, many were ordered to Santa Fe for examination, occasioning a deal of trouble to several innocent persons.

Than this, however, but little further attention was paid to the report, many believing it but another of those minors of Texan invasion which had so often spread useless consternation through the country.

So little apprehension appeared to exist, that in February, 1843, Don Antonio Jose Chavez, of New Mexico, left Santa Fe for Independence, with but five servants, two wagons, and fifty-five mules. He had with him some ten or twelve thousand dollars in specie and gold bullion, besides a small lot of furs.

Note: Said Chavez was setting out to cross the heart of Comancheria at a time when the power of that tribe was still at its peak, with a party of perhaps less than ten men.

As the month of March was extremely inclement, the little party suffered inconceivably from cold and privations. Most of them were frost-bitten, and all their animals, except five perished from the extreme severity of the season; on which account Chavez was compelled to leave one of his wagons upon the Prairies. He had worried along, however, with his remaining wagon and valuables, till about the tenth of April, when he found himself near the Little Arkansas; at least a hundred miles within the territory of the United States.

He was there met by fifteen men from the border of Missouri professing to be Texan troops under the command of one John M'Daniel. This party had been collected, for the most part, on the frontier, by their leader, who was recently from Texas, from which government he professed to hold a captain�s commission.

They started no doubt with the intention of joining one Col. Warfield (also said to hold a Texan commission), who had been upon the Plains near the Mountains, with a small party, for several months � with the avowed intention of attacking the Mexican traders.

If legalisms count here, it should be noted that said Texans were operating illegally within the territory of the United States, on behalf of what was then technically a foriegn country (Texas).

Upon meeting Chavez, however, the party of M�Daniel at once determined to make sure of the prize he was possessed of rather than take their chances of a similar booty beyond the U. S. boundary. The unfortunate Mexican was therefore taken a few miles south of the road, and his baggage rifled. Seven of the party then left for the settlements with their share of the booty, amounting to some four or five hundred dollars apiece; making the journey on foot, as their horses had taken
a stampede and escaped.

The remaining eight, soon after the departure of their comrades, determined to put Chavez to death, � for what cause it would seem difficult to conjecture, as he had been, for two days, their unresisting prisoner. Lots were accordingly cast to determine which four of the party should be the cruel executioners; and their wretched victim was taken off a few rods and shot down in cold blood.

After his murder a considerable amount of gold was found about his person, and in his trunk. The body of the unfortunate man, together with his wagon and baggage, was thrown into a neighboring ravine; and a few of the lost animals of the marauders having been found, their booty was packed upon them and borne away to the frontier of Missouri.

Great exertions had been made to intercept this lawless band at the outset; but they escaped the vigilance even of a detachment of dragoons that had followed them over a hundred miles. Yet the honest citizens of the border were too much on the alert to permit them to return to the interior with impunity. However, five of the whole number (including three of the party that killed the man) effected their escape, but the other ten were arrested, committed, and sent to St. Louis for trial before the United States Court.

It appears that those who were engaged in the killing of Chavez have since been convicted of murder; and the others, who were only concerned in the robbery, were found guilty of larceny, and sentenced to fine and imprisonment.

About the first of May of the same year, a company of a hundred and seventy-five men, under one Col. Snively, was organized in the north of Texas, and set out from the settlements for the Santa Fe trace. It was at first reported that they contemplated a descent upon Santa Fe; but their force was evidently too weak to attempt an invasion at that crisis.

Their prime object, therefore, seems to have been to attack and make reprisals upon the Mexicans engaged in the Santa Fe trade, who were expected to cross the Prairies during the months of May and June.

After the arrival of the Texans upon the Arkansas, they were joined by Col. Warfield with a few followers. This officer, with about twenty men, had some time previously attacked the village of Mora, on the Mexican frontier, killing five men (as was reported) and driving off a number of horses.

They were afterwards followed by a party of Mexicans, however, who stampeded and carried away, not only their own horses, but those of the Texans. Being left afoot, the latter burned their saddles, and walked to Bent�s Fort, where they were disbanded; whence Warfield passed to Snively�s camp, as before mentioned.

The Texans now advanced along the Santa Fe road, beyond the sand hills south of the Arkansas, when they discovered that a party of Mexicans had passed towards the river. They soon came upon them, and a skirmish ensuing, eighteen Mexicans were killed, and as many wounded, five of whom afterwards died. The Texans suffered no injury, though the Mexicans were a hundred in number. The rest were all taken prisoners except two, who escaped and bore the news to Gen. Armijo, encamped with a large force at the Cold Spring, 140 miles beyond.

As soon as the General received notice of the defeat of his vanguard, he broke up his camp most precipitately, and retreated to Santa Fe. A gentleman of the caravan which passed shortly afterward, informed me that spurs, lareats and other scraps of equipage, were found scattered in every direction about Armijo�s camp � left by his troops in the hurly-burly of their precipitate retreat.

Keeping beyond the territory of the United States, the right of the Texans to harass the commerce of Mexicans will hardly be denied, as they were at open war: yet another consideration, it would seem, should have restrained them from aggressions in that quarter. They could not have been ignorant that but a portion of the traders were Mexicans � that many American citizens were connected in the same caravans.

The Texans assert, it is true, that the lives and property of Americans were to be respected, provided they abandoned the Mexicans. But did they reflect upon the baseness of the terms they were imposing? What American, worthy of the name, to save his own interests, or even his life, could deliver up his travelling companions to be sacrificed? Then, after having abandoned the Mexicans, or betrayed them to their enemy � for such an act would have been accounted treachery � where would they have gone? They could not then have continued on into Mexico; and to have returned to the United States with their merchandise, would have been the ruin of most of them.

The inhuman outrages suffered by those who were captured in New Mexico in 1841, among whom were many of the present party, have been pleaded in justification of this second Texan expedition. When we take their grievances into consideration, we must admit that they palliate, and indeed justify almost any species of revenge consistent with the laws of Nature and of nations : yet whether, under the existing circumstances, this invasion of the Prairies was proper or otherwise, I will leave for others to determine, as there seems to be a difference of opinion on the subject.

The following considerations, however, will go to demonstrate the unpropitious consequences which are apt to result from a system of indiscriminate revenge.

The unfortunate Chavez (whose murder, I suppose, was perpetrated under pretext of the cruelties suffered by the Texans, in the name of whom the party of M�Daniel was organized) was of the most wealthy and influential family of New Mexico; and one that was anything but friendly to the ruling governor, Gen. Armijo.

Don Mariano Chavez, a brother to the deceased, is a gentleman of very amiable character, such as is rarely to be met with in that unfortunate land. It is asserted that he furnished a considerable quantity of provisions, blankets, etc., to Col. Cooke�s division of Texan prisoners. Senora Chavez (the wife of Don Mariano), as is told, crossed the river from the village of Padillas, the place of their residence, and administered comforts to the unfortunate band of Texans. Though the murder of young Chavez was evidently not sanctioned by the Texans generally, it will, notwithstanding, have greatly embittered this powerful family against them � a family whose liberal principles could not otherwise have been very unfavorable to Texas.*

The attack upon the village of Mora, though of less important results, was nevertheless an unpropitiatory movement. The inhabitants of that place are generally very simple and innocent rancheros and hunters, and, being separated by the snowy mountains from the principal settlements of New Mexico, their hearts seem ever to have been inclined to the Texans. In fact, the village having been founded by some American denizens, the Mexican inhabitants appear in some degree to have imitated their character.

The defeat of Armijo�s vanguard was attended by still more disastrous consequences, both to the American and Texan interest. That division was composed of the militia of
the North � from about Taos � many of them Taos Pueblos. These people had not only remained embittered against Gov. Armijo since the revolution of 1837, but had always been notably in favor of Texas.

So loth were they to fight the Texans, that, as I have been assured, the governor found it necessary to bind a number of them upon their horses, to prevent their escape, till he got them fairly upon the Prairies. And yet the poor fellows were compelled to suffer the vengeance which was due to their guilty general!

When the news of their defeat reached Taos, the friends and relatives of the slain � the whole population indeed, were incensed beyond measure; and two or three naturalized foreigners who were supposed to favor the cause of Texas, and who were in good standing before, were now compelled to flee for their lives; leaving their houses and property a prey to the incensed rabble. Such appears to have been the reaction of public sentiment resulting from the catastrophe upon the Prairies!

Had the Texans proceeded differently � had they induced the Mexicans to surrender without battle, which they might no doubt easily have accomplished, they could have secured their services, without question, as guides to Gen. Armijo�s camp, and that unmitigated tyrant might himself have fallen into their hands. The difficulty of maintaining order among the Texans was perhaps the cause of many of their unfortunate proceedings. And no information of the caravan having been obtained, a detachment of seventy or eighty men left, to return to Texas.

The traders arrived soon after, escorted by about two hundred U. S. Dragoons under the command of Capt. Cook.

Col. Snively with a hundred men being then encamped on the south side of the Arkansas river, some ten to fifteen miles below the point called the �Caches,� he crossed the river and met Capt. Cook, who soon made known his intention of disarming him and his companions, � an intention which he at once proceeded to put into execution.

A portion of the Texans, however, deceived the American captain in this wise. Having concealed their own rifles, which were mostly Colt�s repeaters, they delivered to Capt. Cook the worthless fusils they had taken from the Mexicans; so that, when they were afterwards released, they still had their own valuable arms; of which, however, so far as the caravan in question was concerned, they appear to have had no opportunity of availing themselves.

I'll find the source again on these confiscated arms, it was mostly flintlocks collected. OTOH we know that Colt's revolvers in thise years were both very expensive ($200, more than ten times the cost of a "regular" gun) and fragile.

These facts are mentioned merely as they are said to have occurred. Capt. Cook has been much abused by the Texans, and accused of having violated a friendly flag � of having taken Col. Snively prisoner while on a friendly visit. This is denied by Capt. Cook, and by other persons who were in company at the time. But apart from the means employed by the American commander (the propriety or impropriety of which I shall not attempt to discuss), the act was evidently the salvation of the Santa Fe caravan, of which a considerable portion were Americans. Had he left the Texans with their arms, he would doubtless have been accused by the traders of escorting them to the threshold of danger, and then delivering them over to certain destruction, when he had it in his power to secure their safety.

Capt. Cook with his command soon after returned to the United States,* and with him some forty of the disarmed Texans, many of whom. have been represented as gentlemen worthy of a better destiny.

A large portion of the Texans steered directly home from the Arkansas river; while from sixty to seventy men, who elected Warfield their commander, were organized for the pursuit and capture of the caravan, which had already passed on some days in advance towards Santa Fe.

They pursued in the wake of the traders, it is said, as far as the Point of Rocks (twenty miles east of the crossing of the Colorado or Canadian), but made no attempt upon them � whence they returned direct to Texas. Thus terminated the �Second Texan Santa Fe Expedition,� as it has been styled; and though not so disastrous as the first, it turned out about as unprofitable.

Although this expedition was composed wholly of Texans, or persons not claiming to be citizens of the United States, and organized entirely in Texas � and, notwithstanding the active measures adopted by the United States government to defend the caravans, as well of Mexicans as of Americans, against their enemy � Senor Bocanegra, Mexican Minister of Foreign Relations, made a formal demand upon the United States (as will be remembered), for damages resulting from this invasion.

In a rejoinder to Gen. Thompson (alluding to Snively�s company), he says, that �Independence, in Missouri, was the starting point of these men.� The preceding narrative will show the error under which the honorable secretary labored.

And finally, from "the more things change the more they remain the same" department...

A portion of the party who killed Chavez was from the frontier of Missouri; but witness the active exertions on the border to �bring these depredators to justice � and then let the contrast be noted betwixt this affair and the impunity with which robberies are every day committed throughout Mexico, where well-known highwaymen often run at large, unmolested either by the citizens or by the authorities.

What would Senor Bocanegra say if every other government were to demand indemnity for all the robberies committed upon their citizens in Mexico?

Birdwatcher

No slam at all, sir. Rather, I think it's high praise indeed! The conquest of Comancheria by Americans/Texans was very much slow rolling tide of settlement, farming, and ranching, rather than a military takeover.

I was re-reading Joaquin Jackson's autobiography, "One Ranger" last night before bed and came across the following passage, which I think is pertinent. Jackson is hardly what one would call a scholar, but he does have a better-than-average grasp of the scope of history and as such his commentary is, I think, worth reading.


"The ranger tradition was over 500 years old before it took root in Texas in 1823. Rangers were generally understood to be members of a military force that patrolled a large, often hostile territory. They were typically citizens, often mobile, usually volunteers, involvedin an offensive strike deep into enemy territory or retaliatoin against an enemy that had struck their homes and villages. They were partisans out for blood for as long as it took to get it or die trying.

"The ranger concept followed my ancestors from Scotland and Ireland to the wilderness of the New World, which presented new hazards and threats--largely from the INdian nations that called the eastern seaboard home. The contest would be long and bloodin, and its rules would be vastly different from what the colonials had known in Old Europe. The Indians were more likely to attack in quicke, slashing raids than in a pitched battle. The European immigrants learned hard lessons coping with Indian tactics in an alien terrain. Those who survived adjusted their battle strategy.

"There was almost always a professional military presence in the American colonies, but volunteer forces were also active on the frontier. Colonial farmers not only warred with their Indian neighbors, they learned from them, and in the process they transformed themselves in pioneers, or frontiersmen--something far different from what their European born parents had been. Descended from a long line of border warriors, born in blood in a contested country, hardened and brutalized by their violent wilderness environment, they bore countless worries and many fears...

"In 1670, Captain Benjamin Church organized a company of rangers to fight against the Wampanoag chief Metocomet... Almost a hundred years later, during the French & Indian War, Maj. Robert Rogers of New Hampshire formed an effective detachment of frontiersmen and Indian scouts ("Rogers' Rangers")...

"After the American Revolution, the frontiersmen, who had mastered Indian warfare, saw no obstacles between them and the West... These people considered themselves democratic, but no government ruled them. At best, constituted authority tried to keep up with them. When it came to protection, the frontiersmen looked after themselves. They called up their husbands, fathers, and sons to serve as their rangers...

"Soon the settlers confronted the western borders of America. Largely economic hardships pressured them to emigrate to another country... The Mexican province of Coahuila y Tejas beckoned. They forded the Sabine River with their wives and children, slaves if they had them, everything they needed to farm land the Mexicans sold to them for only a few cents an acre.

"The young Mexican Republic welcomed our ancestors, mostly because she was desperate to pacify her northern frontier. In the eyes of the Mexicans and the Spanish before them, the warlike nomadic horse Indians were largely to blame for the slaughter of their citizens. All attempts by Spain to subdue the plains tribes by the Bible and by the sword over the previous two centuries had failed. After 1821, the Indians were Mexico's problem, and Mexico decided to se loose some American settlers and see what happened.

"The Mexicans sanctioned the Emprasario system, allowing Stephen F. Austin to settle a few hundred Americans between the Brazos and Colorado Rivers. Despite her best intentions, the young Mexican Republic was ill-prepared to administer the astonishing growth of the Texas colonies, let alone protect them. Stephen Austin became acquainted with a mounted cavalry unit of Meixcan soldiers, vaqueros, and horsemen who occupied a failed,c rimbling mission across the river from San Antonio de Bexar.

"These were rangers in the bes European and American traditions, local men who were adapted to their environment and skilled in war on the plains, willing to protect their families and friends at all costs, usually by preemptive strikes against the Comanche, Kiowa, and Lipan Apache deep in their sanctuary of grass, the llano estacado. These guerilla fighters rode fast horses and carried lances, smoothbore shotguns, and sharp knives. They terrified the Comanche and Lipan Apaches when few men could.

"In 1823, adopting the Mexican methods for his own colonists, Austin offered to 'employ ten men in addition to those employed by the government to act as rangers for the common defense.' In 1826, Austin proposed a force of 'twenty to thirty Rangers in service at all times.'"

DocRocket

These were rangers in the bes European and American traditions, local men who were adapted to their environment and skilled in war on the plains, willing to protect their families and friends at all costs, usually by preemptive strikes against the Comanche, Kiowa, and Lipan Apache deep in their sanctuary of grass, the llano estacado. These guerilla fighters rode fast horses and carried lances, smoothbore shotguns, and sharp knives. They terrified the Comanche and Lipan Apaches when few men could.


Hang on Doc, if yer gonna partake of hyperbole ya gotta back it up.

Throughout the ENTIRE North American Frontier period the "kill ratio" was heavily in favor of the Natives, Indian warfare routinely involving feats of hardship to which only a handfull of Euros ever aspired.

In the Texas period the Comanches and Kiowas were routinely faced with enemies on the scale of Placido and his Tonkawas, who would RUN to the fight, planning on equipping themselves with the mounts of dead Comanches, and did.

In the Texas period the Comanches were being absolutely hammered by a variety of Native enemies, who inflicted a collective Comanche death toll far exceeding the best efforts of the Texas Rangers. Ya Captains Moore, Hays, Ford and their ilk were remarkable men who succeeded in inflicting losses, but so was a Placido of the Tonkawas, or a Wildcat of the Seminoles, or any number of Cherokee, Shawnee, Pawnee or Delaware enemies, to name just some.

Worth noting too that most times, when the Rangers DID connect, most often it was when following Native guides. Those expeditions WITHOUT such guides were most often a swing-and-a-miss.

Likewise you'll be hard pressed to come up with unusual Comanche slaughter even after the vaunted introduction of the revolver. Before ya can shoot someone, ya gotta get within range. All through even the Hays period, Comanches were raiding at will all along the Texas Frontier in general, and within the city limts of Austin (even small as it was back then) in particular.

Why did the Texans prevail? Same old story; disease, and population demographics, the majority of Indians died without ever seeing a White man, and all the time the country was filling up with a veritable flood of Euros.

Read Smithwick concerning the sad and sordid murder by White horse thieves of Flacco, the Lipan Apache who rode with the Rangers, for his horse, and the subsequent abandonment of the country by Castro's band of Lipans. Typical, and they weren't "terror stricken", rather there were so many hostile Whites moving in it just weren't safe, is all.

During and after the War Between the States, that remnant of Comanches that were still alive and raiding were driving off THOUSANDS of stolen cattle from Texas with impunity, and if ya cant even catch a stolen cattle drive it means you ain't offering much opposition at all.

Birdwatcher

Damn impressive right there.

Agreed. I'm not the one engagin' in hyperbole, I'm just quotin' one author, and we've been over this ground over the last 57 pages or so that I concede you've made a pretty strong argument and I'm more'n halfways convinced you're right.

I quoted Jackson, in support of your earlier post, to the effect that Texas was settled, not conquered.

Sorry.

Whats that nerve called that triggers that knee jerk reaction?

The notably tall and swift Omahas were also famous for that. Fehrenbach has it that the Comanches tied up their horses tails in battle to forstall a favored Omaha tactic.

They would sprint out from cover and pull over the Comanche's horse by the tail, thus throwing the rider to the ground.

Birdwatcher

One of the notable figures of the West, tho' of the sort rarely acknowldged in popular history. Aint too often you get a face and a name like this on these guys.

I had read years ago of Delawares reaching the Pacific ahead of our more famous fur trappers, if so, it musta been guys like Black Beaver. Delawares were frequently hired on as scouts in Texas.

The painting was painted in 1850, worth noting that by the time RIP Ford hisself came back to Austin from a surveying and exploring trip to El Paso (guided by Delawares) in '49 ('50??), he was reduced to wearing clout and stockings, about like this guy, having worn out his regular clothes on the trip.



http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/B/BL001.html
Black Beaver (Suck-tum-mah-kway), a Delaware Indian scout, interpreter, and chief, was born in 1806 at the present location of Belleville, Illinois. A onetime employee of the American Fur Company, he reportedly reached the Pacific Ocean on seven occasions and spoke English, French, Spanish, and eight Indian languages. He accompanied the Dodge-Leavenworth Expedition of 1834 and served in the U.S. Army during the Mexican War as a captain of Indian volunteers.

In 1849 Black Beaver led Capt. Randolph B. Marcy and California-bound emigrants westward from near Edwards's Post in Indian Territory to Santa Fe via the California Road. Black Beaver subsequently occupied Camp Arbuckle, where he became chief of a Delaware settlement called Beaversville. First Lt. Amiel Weeks Whipple visited him there in 1853, but Black Beaver refused to guide Whipple's railroad survey across the Southwest.

Prior to the Civil War Black Beaver settled in the Leased District, where he built a home and farmed in present Caddo County. Once the war began, he escorted Col. William H. Emory's Federal troops from Fort Cobb to Kansas in April 1861. Confederates destroyed Black Beaver's property in retaliation.

Black Beaver witnessed the Medicine Lodge treaty negotiations in 1867 and attended intertribal councils throughout the 1870s. He had three, perhaps four, wives and four daughters. Black Beaver became a Baptist minister after converting to Christianity in 1876. He died May 8, 1880, and was buried near Anadarko.


Birdwatcher

Meandering casually through Texas history here, more on Black Beaver, from wiki...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Beaver

During 1849, 1852 and 1854, Black Beaver guided Randolph B. Marcy's exploration expeditions throughout Texas.[3]

In his 1859 guide book The Prairie Traveler, Marcy wrote that Black Beaver


�had visited nearly every point of interest within the limits of our unsettled territory. He had set his traps and spread his blanket upon the head waters of the Missouri and Columbia; and his wanderings had led him south to the Colorado and Gila, and thence to the shores of the Pacific in Southern California. His life had been that of a veritable cosmopolite, filled with scenes of intense and startling interest, bold and reckless adventure.

He was with me two seasons in the capacity of guide, and I always found him perfectly reliable, brave, and competent. His reputation as a resolute, determined, and fearless warrior did not admit of question, yet I have never seen a man who wore his laurels with less vanity. The truth is my friend Beaver was one of those few heroes who never sounded his own trumpet; yet no one that knows him ever presumed to question his courage....

By 1860 Black Beaver was the wealthiest and most well-known Lenape in America. He had settled in present-day Caddo County, Oklahoma and lived at Anadarko, where the Lenape had been removed. In May 1861, with the outbreak of the American Civil War, General William H. Emory, stationed at Fort Arbuckle, learned that 6,000 Confederate troops were advancing toward him from Texas and Arkansas. He gathered the soldiers from forts Washita, Cobb and Arbuckle near Minco, but to escape to Kansas across the open prairie he needed a guide.[2]

Other Indian guides turned him down for fear of reprisal by the Confederates. Emory guaranteed Black Beaver the government would reimburse him for any losses, so he agreed to help.

He scouted the approaching Confederate troops and provided information for Emory to capture their advance guard, who became the first prisoners captured during the Civil War. Black Beaver guided over 800 Union soldiers, their prisoners, and 200 teamsters managing 80 wagons and 600 horses and mules in a mile-long train across 500 miles of open prairie to safety at Fort Leavenworth in eastern Kansas....

After the [Civil] war, Black Beaver and his friend Jesse Chisholm returned and converted part of the Native American path used by the Union Army into what became the Chisholm Trail. They collected and herded thousands of stray Texas longhorn cattle by the Trail to railheads in Kansas, from where the cattle were shipped East, where beef sold for ten times the price in the West. Black Beaver resettled at Anadarko, where he built the first brick home in the area.

Western trapper through the heyday of the fur trade, seven times to the Pacific, likely familiar with the whole west from Oregon to Northern Mexico. Active in the War Between the States, an interpreter at the Sioux Fort Laramie treaty of '67, and later a prominent and successful cattleman instrumental in establishing the Chisholm Trail.

Surely a guy who oughtta be better known than he is.

And towards the end of his life, a conversion to Christianity and an active Minister. Sounds like a home run to me

Birdwatcher

Birdwatcher,

I had lost this link. So glad you posted again, so I can catch up.

DF

Col. William H. Emory was quite an explorer in his own right.

My maternal great great great grandfather was a U.S. Senator from Arkansas. I have the original copy of a book that was presented to him and all members of Congress at that time, regarding an incredible trip made by (then) Major Emory. He led the Army exploration and surveying exposition in 1854, from San Diego, Calif., all along the U.S. and Mexican border, across what today is Calif., Arizona, New Mexico, and to the eastern boundary on the Gulf Coast of Texas.

The expedition was to survey and establish the exact border between the U.S. and Mexico.

It's a fascinating read plus there are many amazing water color plates depicting the various Indians they encountered, the flora and fuana, tools, geologic features, etc. Also it has the personal observations by Major Emory of the men involved in the expedition and the adventures they encountered on the very difficult trip.

One of the interesting things about several of the large fold out maps of the great southwest are the notations over gigantic swathes of the U.S. marked, "Unknown Territory," "Indian Territory," and "Unexplored Territory."

If you ever run across a copy at one of the Universities, or in the Library of Congress, you won't go wrong reading it, although you won't do it in one night. It's over 400 pages long.

It is called:

"Report on the UNITED STATES AND MEXICAN BOUNDAY SURVEY made under The Direction Of The Secretary Of The Interior by William H. Emory, Major First Cavalry And United States Commissioner, Washington, A.O.F. Nicholson, Printer, 1857."

L.W.

"I quoted Jackson, in support of your earlier post, to the effect that Texas was settled, not conquered."

Lest anyone get the idea that "settling" is somehow safer than "conqureing",I invite them to spend time on the ground in "Comancheria" and envision it as it was during the time in question.

One would do well to remember that historions - professional and amatuer - are restricted to written accounts from the period.Many of the settlers were illitierate and their stories never made the "news".

Our back roads and trails are dotted with markers,many of them private,noting graves of families wiped out by indians,and Comanches are by far credited with the majority of them.At least,among those I've encountered.

The single biggest problem faced by the settlers was the need to locate near a water source,which made them easy targets for raids.Finding old dugouts built into the side of a ravine a mile or more from water gave me a new respect for the kinds of people who ventured west of the frontier.

This thread was inspired by "Empire of the Summer Moon" and as I've said earlier,the guy should have got his ass out of the libraries and onto the ground and he wouldn't have written so much "revisionist and regurgitated bullshit".

The Eastern tribes were used as trackers because they had been civilized.

"Our back roads and trails are dotted with markers,many of them private,noting graves of families wiped out by indians,and Comanches are by far credited with the majority of them.At least,among those I've encountered"

Yep, just in my local case. The Griggs family. Moving west in 1841 were crossing Rogers prairie when they were ambushed crossing a creek that the Rogers family lived on. Man wife five kids all killed and scalped within sight of the Rogers homestead. Only a few of us know where it was and that sort of stuff don't make the history books. Aunt Bett's brother Steven Rogers was ambushed, killed and scalped two weeks later in the same general area.
Comanches.

The "settled rather than conquered" comment is a phrase I've come across in one form or another quite a lot in Texas history books and articles. It's not to be taken out of context to mean that there was no warfare with the Indians.

The phrase is used to contrast the way Americans took over Texas with the way other territories were taken over. Texas was unique in that settlers preceded the Army, rather than the other way around. In all the other Western territories, the first whites were trappers and traders, mountain men; farmers & ranchers were exceptions rather than the rule. Buffalo hunters and the Army entered the picture more or less at the same time, and the Indians were fought and beaten and then herded off onto reservations before the settlers started to move in.

Texas' history was very different. The settlers moved in first, long before the Army. Austin's colony, which as previously noted was a quasi-feudal organization more Spanish in origin and nature than American. There was no Army. Austin's people found themselves in armed conflict with the Indians within the first months of crossing the Sabine. Falling back on the traditions of the frontier colonies of the eastern seaboard from 100-200 years previously, they found themselves fighting the Indians from their homes, farms, and villages. Hence the periodic raising of Ranger companies to take the fight to the Indians.

No one is saying there wasn't fighting, or that people weren't killed, raped, tortured, mutilated by the Indians (and Indians, by rangers). It was just a different pattern of conquest than other regions.

I always get a laugh when I read someone claim an author has "regurgitated" his work. What does that mean, exactly? That the author developed his book on a foundation of others' writings, I suppose? If so, how is this "regurgitation"? How is this different than any other scholarly historical work ever written?

It's been my experience that most of the people who write things like "revisionist and regurgitated bullshit" have little or no experience in historical research, and have written even less.

I have really enjoyed this thread because a lot of folks, most notably Birdwatcher, have dug up some really good sources for us all to read that give a different perspective. Moreover, Birdy has put forth arguments that have built a logical and consistent alternative position that I find very compelling. You may note that Birdwatcher has quoted, or as some might say, "regurgitated", many lengthy passages from others' writings.

Guinn's book, whether you like it or not, was a very readable and very popular book that opened a lot of people's eyes to Texas and plains Indian history. If you have read Guinn's book, and particularly his afterword, you'll know that he did indeed spend a lot of time outside of libraries, exploring Texas historical sites and travelling the roads and byways to get a sense of the geography about which he was writing. Inspired by his experience and his book (and by some of Birdwatcher's travelogues and photos of 150-year-old battle sites in the present day) I have made a point over the past year of getting into my car or onto my motorcycle and visiting these same places, so that I can get a better grasp of the history, to take it out of the books and into my larger mind, as it were. But to accuse Guinn of being a bookworm in a library suggests you haven't read his book, or if you did, you only read it to confirm a preconceived prejudice against him and his views.

I started this thread because I was one of those people who was intrigued and even inspired by "Empire of the Summer Moon". Since then I've read a lot more about that period, and while I may not hold to some of Guinn's versions of the history here and there, I think the book he wrote was a valid historical perspective and as such worthy of my respect. Whether you care to respect it is entirely your business, of course.

As I stated in the beginning, I thought the book was well done and yes a bit of literary license was taken. Like Doc though it picked and interest and I have since read a few that Boggy Creek Ranger suggested including "Rip" Fords tale. Good stuff all, Hell I even read Michener's "Texas" again with a new perspective.

Rereading "Savage Frontier Vol.1" right now. Thanks to all of you for keeping this thread running.