The Sergeant Major

It is difficult to determine which of these positions has the greatest prestige: a sergeant major of Spanish Marines [1], or a Governor of Texas.  Martín de Alarcón served in both capacities.  He also served as a Knight of the Order of Santiago and was the founder of present-day San Antonio, Texas.

Before arriving in the Indies, Alarcón served Spain in North Africa as a member of the Armada Española.  In 1691, Alarcón was appointed sargento mayor of a company of naval infantry in Guadalajara, which he commanded for some time.  He was later appointed Alcalde (mayor) and capitán guerra (magistrate empowered to supervise military affairs) of Jacona and Zamora, in the province of Michoacán in New Spain.

Alarcon 001

Martin de Alarcon

In 1696, Viceroy Juan de Ortega y Montañez appointed Alarcón as capitán guerra and protector of Indians in the locale of Mazapil.  Subsequent viceroys continued to employ his services as an agent of pacification on the northern frontier of New Spain, especially in the environs of Saltillo (present-day northern Mexico).

Alarcón was appointed to two terms as governor of the Spanish provinces of Coahuila and Texas, the first being in 1705 when there were no Spanish settlements in Texas.  The last of the original Catholic missions in East Texas were abandoned in 1699 and the French had been busy establishing settlements west of the Mississippi River.  Spanish authorities were rightly concerned that the French intended to expand into Texas and in 1707 the Viceroy of New Spain ordered all provincial governors to prevent the entry of foreigners and their goods.

Alarcón proposed to reestablish one of the missions along the Rio Grande, relocating Misión San Bernardo into Texas and placing it along the Frio River.  Nothing came of his recommendation, however. Later that year, he authorized an expedition into Texas to dissuade the Indians from becoming friendly with the encroaching French.  Spanish troops reached only as far as the Colorado River, but spent some time exploring the area around the San Antonio River.

Early in 1716, the Spanish government expressed a greater interest in the territory of Texas and by way of exercising its authority, authorized a second expedition in order to convert the Hasinai people of East Texas to Christianity.  Four missions and a presidio were established and several of the soldiers assigned to the presidio brought their families; it was the first time Spanish women entered Texas.

On December 9, 1716, Viceroy Marqués de Valero reappointed Alarcón in Mexico City as commander of Presidio San Francisco de Coahuila and as governor of the province of Texas.  As chief executive, Alarcón was to resupply Spaniards who had gone to Texas earlier in 1716 under the command of Domingo Ramón.  He was soon informed that the missions were in dire straits, as there was a paucity of provisions needed to sustain them.  The supplies needed would have to come from the nearest Spanish settlement, which was located some 400 miles away at San Juan Bautista.  Alarcón looked first to the headwaters of the San Antonio River, as it was an area the Spanish had mapped in 1707 —and it was already home to a large community of Coahuiltecans.

Alarcon expedition

Artist’s rendition of the Alarcon expedition

Alarcón journeyed to San Juan Bautista, which was to be the shipping point for any attempt to resupply the missions.  Along the way he received a letter from a Padre by the name of Olivares informing him that a Frenchman named Louis Juchereau de St. Denis had established an illegal trade network along the Rio Grande.

Alarcón arrived at Saltillo de Coahuilain June 1717 where he decided to delay several months while evaluating the activities of St. Denis.  Naturally, during the period of Alarcón’s inquiries, St. Denis was imprisoned.  At the conclusion of Alarcón’s inquiries, he was unable to prove conclusively that St. Denis was guilty of anything beyond being French, nor was there any evidence of collusion or negligence by the soldiers of the presidio. Accordingly, Alarcón released St. Denis, who wasted no time returning to Louisiana.  See also: Spanish Texas —Part II; Spanish America.

By the time Governor Alarcón had completed his inquiries of St. Denis, winter made it impractical for him to proceed into Texas.  However, in April 1718 Alarcón crossed the Rio Grande with ten families consisting of 72 Spanish citizens.  His entourage also included 548 horses, 6 barren of mules, and other livestock.  In the next month he assisted Padre Antonio San Buenaventura y Olivares in the founding of Misión San Antonio de Valero, which everyone today should recognize as the Alamo.  One mile further on, Alarcón founded Presidio San Antonio de Béxar [2].  Adjacent to the presidio Alarcón chartered a new municipality, which he named Béxar from which the City of San Antonio emerged.  San Antonio became important to Texas because at that time, it was the only villa in Texas and the colonists that settled there relied on the cohesion it provided to survive the wilderness of early Texas.

With this new settlement established, Alarcón continued further on to re-provision and inspect the East Texas missions.  Not only was he involved in replenishing much needed supplies, he was also tasked to resettle the Indians —which from everything I have ever read about Native Americans, was analogous to herding cats.

During his travels, Alarcón continued to investigate the activities of the French.  On 28 May 1718, Alarcón wrote to Jean Baptiste Bénard de La Harpe and advised him to withdraw all French trading posts from Spanish territory at once.  In response to this correspondence, de la Harpe invited Alarcón to try to remove the French from their “Texas” territory.  A robust series of letters ensued, but Alarcón took no military action to forcibly remove the French —essentially because the governor did not have sufficient forces to press the issue.

Meanwhile, the missionaries were becoming increasingly desperate as they waited the arrival of Alarcón and much-needed supplies.  The padres appointed two members of their order to carry a message to Spanish authorities in Mexico City and not only did they detail their deprivations and the perceived slowness of Alarcón’s response, they also mentioned their fear that France would soon extend their settlements into Texas.

Zuniga 001

Baltasar de Zúñiga

In May 1719, the Alarcón party began its return trip to the Mexican interior.  Between the Brazos River and Colorado River they encountered what he called the Rancheria Grande.  It was an area peopled by several Native groups.  It was Alarcón’s intention to establish a trade relationship with these people, whose leader was named El Cuilón.  Governor Alarcón preferred to refer to him as Juan Rodriguez. Alarcón appointed Rodriguez Chief of the Rancheria and offered him a baton, the symbol of overall commander.  El Cuilón was no doubt suitably impressed.

As Alarcón made his way back to Coahuila, a group of French soldiers took control of the mission San Miguel de los Adeas from its single Spanish defender.  The French soldiers told this unhappy fellow that hundreds more French soldiers were en route. Alarmed about this invasion, area colonists, missionaries, and soldiers fled to San Antonio.  Upon their arrival, the missionaries sent a scathing letter to Baltasar de Zúñiga, 1st Duke of Ariónthe, Viceroy of New Spain, blaming Alarcón for their difficulties and for the French usurpation of Spanish territory.  Alarcón was relieved of his office on December 19, 1719.  We do not know what happened to him afterwards.

Sources:

  1. Chipman, D. E. Spanish Texas 1519-1821.  Austin: University of Texas Press,1992
  2. Cox, I. J. The Louisiana-Texas Frontier. Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Texas State Historical Association, P. 10, July1906
  3. Weddie, R. S. San Juan Bautista, Mother of Texas Missions, Southwestern Historical Quarterly, Texas State Historical Association, P. 71, July 1967
  4. Weber, D. J. The Spanish Frontier in North America.  New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992

Endnotes:

[1] The Spanish Marine Corps (Infanteria de Marina) is responsible to the Spanish armada for conducting amphibious warfare.  This organization was formed in 1537 by Charles I of Spain (also, Charles V Holy Roman Emperor), which makes it the oldest Marine Corps in existence.  Its model was the Companions of the Sea of Naples (Companias Viejas de Mar de Napoles).

[2] The word Béxar (also, Bejar) (universally mispronounced by Texans as Bear —and I think intentionally so) is the name of a town in the Spanish province of Salamanca, which was founded in pre-Roman times.  Bejar became a Moorish fort during the Eleventh Century, and the name was carried to New Philippines and the Province of Tejas in New Spain and now commonly used to refer to the Presidio San Antonio de Béxar, Misión San Antonio de Valero, the Villa de Béxar and after the arrival of the Canary Islanders, the Villa of San Fernando de Béxar.  These were a group of settlements on the San Antonio River often referred to as San Antonio de Béxar the county of Béxar.

 

Posted in History | 2 Comments

Old Ben

In Texas history, scholars refer to this man as Old Ben Milam.  He wasn’t old at all when he met his fate —just 47 years of age.  Benjamin Rush Milam was born in present-day Frankfort, Kentucky on 20 October 1788.  He was the second youngest child of six born to Moses Milam and Elizabeth Pattie Boyd. Ben had little formal schooling, which was normal in those days.  He was able to achieve early success and self-confidence through his military service affiliation.  At the outset of the War of 1812, he enlisted as a private soldier in the 8thKentucky Regiment, eventually earning a commission as an infantry lieutenant.

Following the war, which ended in 1815, Milam realized that there were trading opportunities among native Americans living along the upper Red River in the Province of Tejas, Mexico.  In 1818, he entered into an arrangement with David G. Burnet [1] to barter goods with the Comanche.  Burnet was then living among the Comanche while recovering from consumption (Tuberculosis).  In New Orleans, around 1819, Milam met Jose Felix Trespalacios [2] and James Long [3], who intended to lead a filibuster [4] to aid Mexico in its war of independence from Spain.  Milam joined the movement and took part in the Long Expedition (alongside Jean Lafitte and James Bowie).  The expedition initially enjoyed some success, such as with the capture of Nacogdoches in the summer of that year, and did help to establish a small independent republic that called itself the Republic of Texas (also known as the Long Republic).  However, the expedition crumbled when Spanish troops vigorously attacked and drove the Americans out of Mexico.  Long reorganized an expeditionary force near Galveston in the following year.  In 1821, Milam withdrew from the expedition to accompany Trespalacios to Veracruz and Mexico City; James Long marched his force to Presidio La Bahia near Goliad.  Both parties encountered a hostile reception and were promptly imprisoned.

James Long was murdered while in prison. Milam, suspecting Trespalacios of arranging the murder, conspired with others to kill Trespalacios.  When friends of Trespalacios discovered the plot, Mexican authorities again imprisoned Milam (and his co-conspirators) in Mexico City where they were held until the fall of 1822.  Joel Poinsett [5], who was then serving the United States as a diplomatic observer in Mexico, arranged for the release of these accused persons.  Except for Milam, all of these men were returned to the United States aboard the warship USS John Adams.

Ben R. Milam

Colonel Benjamin Rush Milam

Milam returned to Mexico in early 1824. Mexico was in the throes of adopting a new republican form of government.  After reconciling with Trespalacios, Milam was granted Mexican citizenship and commissioned as a colonel in the Mexican Army.

In the next year, Colonel Milam and Major General Arthur G. Wavell [6] formed a partnership in a silver mine operation in Nuevo Leon.  Both men obtained empresario grants in Texas.  In 1829, Milam attempted to organize a new mining company in partnership with David G. Burnet, but lacking funds, the enterprise collapsed.  Milam and Wavell’s attempt to establish colonies in Texas also failed; their contracts were cancelled by the Mexican government after they failed to attract new citizens for their colonies [7].

In 1835, Milam traveled to Monclova (the capital of Coahuila y Tejas) to urge the newly seated governor, to send a land commissioner to Texas to provide settlers there with land titles.  Before Milam could leave the city, however, word arrived that President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna had suspended the congress and established a centralist dictatorship. It was an alarming bit of news, prompting federalist Governor Agustin Viesca [8] to flee the city with Milam.  In short order, however, centralist forces captured the men and they were imprisoned at Monterrey.  Then, thanks to sympathetic jailers, who provided him with a horse, Milam escaped.  En route back to Texas, Milam encountered a company of Texian soldiers under the command of George Collinsworth [9], from whom Milam learned of the movement in Texas for independence.  Milam joined Collinsworth’s company in the capture of Goliad on 10 October 1835.

Ed Burleson

MajGen Ed Burleson

With Goliad in the hands of the Texians, Milam joined the Texan Army and participated in efforts to expel all Mexican forces from Texas. The primary focus of these efforts was the capture of San Antonio de Béxar, which involved a siege of the headquarters of General Cos at the Alamo.  On 4 December 1835, having completed a scouting mission, Milam learned that most of the army were considering going into winter quarters rather than attacking San Antonio.  General Edward Burleson [10] and his council of officers were reluctant to assault the city, fearing an entanglement that they could not easily undo. When Milam petitioned Burleson for the right to call volunteers to storm the city, Burleson granted the petition, possibly believing that he had little choice in doing so.  Milam’s concern was that by delaying the assault, Texian volunteers would lose interest in continuing the revolution.  Milam sent out his call in his now famous plea, “Who will go with Old Ben Milam into San Antonio?”  Three hundred men stepped up and the assault began almost immediately.

Milam’s plan called for a two-prong attack with forces assembling at a nearby mill at 0300.  General Burleson would hold the balance of the assembled Texian army in reserve.  Captain James C. Neil would initiate artillery fire directed at the Alamo to distract the Mexican soldiers.  Early in the morning of 5 December 1835, Colonel Milam and Colonel Frank W. Johnson led their separate columns into the heavily fortified city.  After heaving fighting, the Texians obtained a foothold inside the city and began an entrenchment their positions.

The attack continued on the morning of 7thDecember with the Texians achieving additional gains.  Milam was standing with Johnson and Henry Karnes near the Veramendi House; Milam was attempting to observe the San Fernando Church tower through a telescope when he was shot by a Mexican sniper, killing him instantly, and causing him to fall into the arms of Samuel Maverick [11].  Johnson named Major Robert Morris to assume command of Milam’s division.

During this assault, the Mexican Army lost more than 400 men, killed, wounded, or deserted.  Texian losses were twenty to thirty killed.  The Siege of Béxar ended on 9 December when General Cos capitulated. As a matter of chivalry, before the Mexicans withdrew from Béxar Burleson provided them with as many supplies as he could spare.  Mexican wounded were permitted to remain in Béxar for medical treatment.  This was not a courtesy returned to the Texians in early March 1836 when General Santa Anna surrounded the Alamo, or when General Urrea talked Colonel Fannin into surrendering his force at Goliad.

Today, Texans remember Old Ben through several structures named in his honor.  Milam’s grave and a statue of him exists at Milam Park in San Antonio; another statue can be found outside the Milam County courthouse in Cameron, Texas.  It is also possible to stay at the Milam Hotel, travel on Milam Street in Houston, and there is also a Milam Building in San Antonio.

Sources:

  1. Miller, E. L. New Orleans and the Texas Revolution. Texas A&M Press, 2004
  2. Haythornthwaite, P. and Paul Hannon. The Alamo and the War of Texan Independence, 1835-36.  Oxford Press, England, 1986

Endnotes:

[1] David Gouverneur Burnet (1788-1870) served as interim president of Texas (1836, 1841), second vice president of the Republic of Texas (1839-1841), and Secretary of State for the State of Texas (1846).

[2] A member of the militia in Chihuahua-turned-revolutionary.  Arrested and charged with treason, he was sentenced to death in 1814, but his sentence was reduced to ten years in prison. Having escaped from prison on two separate occasions, he made his way to New Orleans where he helped recruit Americans to fight for Mexico.

[3] James Long was a former US Army surgeon who served in the Battle of New Orleans during the War of 1812.  He afterward settled in Natchez, Mississippi practicing medicine near Port Gibson.  In 1817, he purchased a plantation in Vicksburg. Between 1819-1821, Long was involved in creating and employing an expedition to Mexico to help secure Mexican independence from Spain.  The expedition of mercenaries was unsuccessful.

[4] Also “freebooter” is someone who engages in an unauthorized military expedition into a foreign country to foment or support a political revolution.

[5] Poinsett was a widely traveled physician and a diplomat, the first American Agent in South America, the first US Minister to Mexico (1825-1829), and Secretary of War under President James Monroe.  He was also a member of the South Carolina legislature, a member of the US House of Representatives, a unionist leader in South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis, and a co-founder of the National Institute for the Promotion of Science and the Useful Arts (the predecessor of the Smithsonian Institute).

[6] Arthur Goodall Wavell (1785-1860) was a Scottish-born and well-educated soldier of fortune who began his career with service to the Bengal Lancers in 1805. Ill-health forced him to return home, however, but he later joined the Spanish Army, rising to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in 1811.  Between 1811 and 1817, the participated on the side of Spain in the Napoleonic Wars at Cadiz, Barrosa, Tarragona, and Ateca.  In recognition for his distinguished service, he was promoted to full colonel along with the Cross of Distinction, the Military Cross of San Fernando, and the Order of Charles III.  Wavell resigned his commission in 1817, joining with revolutionaries in Chile, where he was promoted to Major General.  While living in Mexico, he met and befriended Stephen F. Austin—later claiming that were it not for his help, Anglo settlers would never have been permitted in Texas.

[7] The real reason these contracts were cancelled involved the Law of 1830, created out of concern by the Mexican government that Texas was in danger of being annexed by the United States and because the Anglo-American population in Texas had exploded over a short period of time.

[8] Viesca (1790-1845) served as governor during a period of some controversy relating to the location of the capital city of Coahuila y Tejas—the question being whether the capital should be located at Saltillo or Monclova.  Viesca ran afoul of General Martin Perfecto de Cos (brother-in-law of Santa Anna), who felt the capital should be located at Saltillo. The state legislature, however, determined that Viesca could move the capital to any location the governor chose, prompting Viesca to select Béxar.  Arriving there, Viesca began to urge Texians to revolt against the Centralist movement.

[9] Collinsworth (1810-1866) was a Mississippi-born farmer, soldier, and politician who, while living in Brazoria, Texas in 1832, participated in the Battle of Velasco. He recruited a company of infantry for service in the Texian Army.

[10] Appointed to command the volunteer army, replacing Stephen F. Austin as major general.

[11] Placed under house arrest by General Cos as a suspected interloper, Maverick kept a journal of events inside the city of San Antonio.  After his release on 1 December, Maverick made his way to Burleson’s camp, urging him to make an immediate attack.  Maverick guided Milam’s division into the city.

Posted in History | 1 Comment

Deadwood Dick

I enjoy researching and writing about the Old West because there is no history quite as colorful or as interesting as that of America’s westward expansion.  Unhappily, very few of our present-day colleges or universities offer courses in American history —the story of how we Americans, as individuals and communities, developed into our present state.  Ignoring our history, or revising it, is no accident, for if it is possible to ignore or reinvent America’s history, then it is also possible to destroy or redefine our national identity and culture.  The reasons for doing this should be self-evident.  History is the story of our past.  It is not good or bad, it just is.  To me, the story is fascinating.

Academic revisionists would have us all believe that white people showed up in America one day from Europe and, because they were freakishly religious, naturally bad, or greedy, intentionally set out to destroy American Indian culture, but the fact is that European settlers tried (quite unsuccessfully) to deal with Indian tribes for nearly four-hundred years.  Eventually, the destruction of Indian culture did become a focus of Spanish and American governments: when these governments realized that the hostiles could not be pacified, and eradication was the only remaining option.  If we modern Americans lament anything at all, it should be that none of these people, Indian or European, were able to discover a pathway to peaceful coexistence. Yet, with that said, we should note that the Neanderthals are no longer with us, either.  In truth, there is no one alive today who participated in the intentional removal or extermination of the Indians, excluding of course the amazingly large percentage of the remaining Indian population that regularly drink themselves to death.

Standing Bear 001

Standing Bear, a Ponca Chieftain

The Ponca Indians are a western tribe of the Sioux language group.  There are two remaining tribes: the Nebraska Ponca, and the Oklahoma Ponca.  They were not always from the plains.  Before the arrival of whites, the Ponca lived in the area just east of the Mississippi River.  Over time, the Iroquois pushed the Ponca westward and to avoid witless banter, we must acknowledge that the Ponca were not themselves benign citizens.  The translation of the word Ponca is “cutthroat.” The term suggests something far beyond being good businessmen.

In 1868, Oglala, Miniconjou, and Brûlé bands of the Lakota Sioux, Yanktonai Dakota, and Arapaho Indians sat down with representatives of the United States government and signed a treaty.  Why any Indian would sign a treaty with the United States after 1624 is baffling, but that is what they did.  The Treaty of Fort Laramie guaranteed to the Lakota ownership of the Black Hills, and in South Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana, vast reservations for hunting.  To these Sioux Indians, the land was sacred.  For a time, at least, the treaty closed the Powder River country to all white settlements.  The treaty included all the Ponca lands in the so-called Great Sioux Reservation.  Ah, but the Cutthroat Indians did not get along well with the Sioux and a lawsuit forced the United States to round up all Ponca bands and remove them to Nebraska or Oklahoma, where they are today living happily ever after.

Within four years, however, whites began trickling into the Black Hills in direct violation of the Fort Laramie Treaty.  The US government did next to nothing to stop this migration.  This particular story did not end well for white settlers whenever the Sioux found them in near proximity to the Black Hills.  Within eight years of the treaty, Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer announced the discovery of gold along French Creek in the Black Hills (near present day Custer, South Dakota).  Ultimately, this story did not end well for Custer, either —but his announcement did have an intended effect: thousands of white people began moving toward the Black Hills.  The discovery of gold has an uncanny effect on people.  Within two years of Custer’s announcement, twelve hundred people were living adjacent to a gulch full of dead trees; they called their small community Deadwood.  The population soon climbed to around 5,000 souls and Deadwood, South Dakota very quickly became one of America’s deadliest cities —somewhat like sections of modern Chicago, only not quite as dangerous.

Dora DuFran 001

Dora DuFran made a good living as a madam in Deadwood, Dakota Territory

Astute businessmen moved into Deadwood.  People looking for gold became consumers of much-needed merchandise: a fortune was made in dry goods, whiskey, and women. Gambling and gunfire followed along behind.  If a prospector wasn’t cut down by an ornery shootist, then he was probably taken by a sexually transmitted disease.  The ladies in Deadwood were right popular —we today remember the names of the madams: Dora DuFran and Mollie Johnson.  Nuttal & Mann’s Saloon was right popular, too —it was where Crooked Nose Jack McCall [1] murdered James Butler (Wild Bill) Hickok by shooting him in the back of the head.  Colorado Charlie Utter had Hickok buried in the Mount Moriah Cemetery.  When Hickok’s paramour Calamity Jane died in 1903, the citizens of Deadwood laid her to rest next to him.

Of course, the citizens of Deadwood were outraged when Jack murdered Hickok, so they held a trial.  The impromptu court was called to order with the prosecution, defense, and a jury made up of local miners and businessmen.  The court was called to order on 3 August in McDaniel’s Theater. McCall claimed that he shot Hickok in retribution for the murder of his brother in Abilene, Kansas.  After two hours of deliberation, McCall was found not guilty and released.  Fearing for his safety, McCall soon departed for the Wyoming Territory.  Lawmen there refused to recognize the Deadwood trial because the town itself was illegal (in violation of the Treaty of Fort Laramie) and without any jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the federal court in Yankton declared that double jeopardy did not apply in this case and McCall was re-arrested and held for trial.  Three months after finding him guilty of the murder of Wild Bill Hickok, McCall joined him in the afterlife.  McCall was about 24-years of age.

1876 was an important year for two additional reasons. In that year, smallpox ravaged the town, causing the death of hundreds of citizens.  It was also the year in which justice came to visit Colonel Custer. But, over time, Deadwood’s economy settled down and the search for gold moved from panning in local streams to deep mining; the city eventually lost its rowdy character and became prosperous.

Deadwood Dick-Beadle & Adams

Beadles Half-Dime Library and Deadwood Dick

For twenty years after 1877, Edward Lytton Wheeler wrote dime novels about a fictional character he called Deadwood Dick.  Deadwood Dick was a fearless frontiersman whose exploits excited the imaginations of young boys.  Was Deadwood Dick a figment of Wheeler’s imagination —or did he pattern his character after a real person?  The fact is that the name became so widely known in its time that it was adopted by several men who resided in that town.  They have an interesting story, as well.

Richard Clarke was born in Yorkshire, England on 15 December 1845.  He migrated to the United States when he was 16 years of age and, motivated by the stories of the discovery of gold, made his way to Illinois where he joined a band of prospectors.  At the very height of the excitement over the discovery of gold in the Black Hills, Clarke made his way to the Dakota territories and was one of the first settlers in the town of Deadwood.  Widely considered a genuine hero of the Old West, folks back then saw him as a fearless frontiersman, prospector, Indian fighter, Pony Express rider, and wilderness guide.  Whether he ever claimed the name Deadwood Dick, or others did it for him, Clarke was said to have been a survivor of the Battle of the Little Big Horn.  My guess is, “Good luck with that stretch.”

One citizen of Deadwood described Richard Clarke as “short in stature, longhaired, and long-winded.”  Mr. Clarke seemed to be a man who was looking to promote himself.  Among his many exploits, he sold rusty guns with fabricated histories, sold homemade horsehair Indian scalps, and it was also possible to purchase an autographed picture of Clark —if the price was right.  Richard Clarke died in 1930.

If Richard Clarke was the real Deadwood Dick, others made that claim as well:

  • Gunman/gambler Frank Palmer [2]
  • Negro cowboy Nat Love
  • Actor Dick Brown
  • Stage Driver Dick Bullock
  • Gunman Richard Palmer
Nat Love 001

Artist’s rendition of Nat Love, a black cowboy of the late 1800s.

I have a few reservations about the claims of Nat Love. There are two sources for this information, the first written by Nat Love himself [3].  The second source is ascribed to Henry Louis Gates in his work, Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African & African-American Experience.  I question veracity of Gates’ claim because I question his academic and personal integrity. This same Dr. Gates made outlandish claims against a white police officer investigating a burglary in progressin Gates’ own neighborhood. When Gates refused to identify himself, Officer James Crowley properly took him into custody.  The incident gave Barack Obama his first opportunity to claim rampant racism within America’s law enforcement organizations.

People who write books about themselves tend to make exaggerated claims to heighten their fame.  In the case of Nat Love, it is a small matter.  It is of no historical consequence whether Mr. Love ever referred to himself as Deadwood Dick.  It does matter, however, when educators perpetuate such claims on the strength a 1907 autobiography, which also included a memory of Nat’s own birth.  If Mr. Love could recount his own birth, then he had a phenomenal memory, indeed.  The problem is not Nat Love, whom we may forgive.  The problem is dishonest Harvard professors who perpetuate embellishments to satisfy their own political agenda.

Sources:

  1. Murdoch, The American West: The Invention of a Myth, 2003
  2. Matheson, The Memoirs of Wild Bill Hickok, 1996

Endnotes:

[1] McCall is believed to have originated in Kentucky, born in the early 1850s.  He eventually drifted west and, for a time, worked as a Buffalo hunter.  By 1876, McCall was living in a gold mining camp outside Deadwood under the name Bill Sutherland.  McCall was drunk at the bar at Nuttal & Mann’s Saloon on 1 August 1876.  When one of the gamblers dropped out of the game, McCall took his place.  A few hands later, McCall was out of money.  Hickok offered him some money for breakfast and advised him not to play poker again until he could cover his losses.  McCall accepted the money but felt insulted by Hickok’s offer.  Early in the morning of 2 August, McCall walked up behind Hickok and shot him with a .45 caliber revolver.

[2] According to Palmer’s obituary on 30 May 1906, he was Deadwood Dick.  Palmer supposedly migrated to Deadwood at around the age of 17 years and made his living as a gun hand and a gambler.  His fellow gamblers gave him the name Deadwood Dick.  Irwin P. Beadle (New York) popularized Palmer in his half-dime novels.  Source: Pueblo Chieftain.

[3] Life and Adventures of Nat Love, Better Known in the Cattle Country as “Deadwood Dick,” by Himself; a True History of Slavery Days, Life on the Great Cattle Ranges and on the Plains of the “Wild and Woolly” West, Based on Facts, and Personal Experiences of the Author. Los Angeles, Cal.: s.n., 1907.

Posted in History, Justice | 4 Comments

The Overland Stage

Stagecoach 001

The Overland Stage under attack

Despite Hollywood depictions of the old west stagecoach, the reality of this venture —the overland stage, was considerably different.  The journey was tough, extremely dangerous, and very short lived.

Stagecoach service existed in England in 1300’s, but the first recorded service occurred in the early 1600’s.  A plethora of such services evolved in England, along with several coaching inns established between Liverpool and London.  By the end of the 17thCentury, stage lines ran up and down the three main roads in England, all of them originating in London. The Royal Mail Service was behind many innovations to stage service in England.  Thus, the concept of overland stage lines was transferred to the English colonies in the Americas.

In 1744, crude wagons were used to transport passengers and cargo between New England towns and villages.  This service was later expanded to include service between New York and Philadelphia. By 1766, improved coaches significantly shortened travel times for passengers and mail.  Demand for travel and shipping services inspired the construction of turnpikes and highways throughout the northeastern United States. In 1827, two men in Concord, New Hampshire developed an improved coach—one that incorporated the use of leather straps for suspension, which gave their vehicles a swaying (rather than rocking) motion.

By 1829, Boston, Massachusetts was the hub of stagecoach services—77 in all, expanding to 102 express companies by 1832.  Despite improvement to the design and construction of stagecoaches, travel remained uncomfortable and dangerous.

John Warren Butterfield [1] was born in Berne, New York in 1801.  By 1820, Butterfield was an experienced stage driver, conveying passengers and freight between Albany and Utica, New York. Within a few years, he began to expand stage routes throughout New York State and branched out to include packet and steamboats operating on Lake Ontario, a street railroad in Utica, and local plank-rail systems, such as the Black River Railroad.

Businessmen and government agencies came to recognize in the 1840’s that demand for travel and shipping would expand into the western territories. There were several proposals —foremost among them being the construction of a railroad system across the continent. Everyone realized that a railroad would take many years, America’s terrain would pose difficult challenges, and this meant that a railroad would be very expensive.  In the meantime, American entrepreneurs would have to rely on a proven method for shipping and transportation.  Overland stage transportation already existed; all that was needed was to expand these services into the western territories.

Urgency for western shipping surged after the discovery of gold in California in 1849.  Gold mania not only affected individuals hoping to strike it rich in the California gold fields, it also created a flurry of activity among capitalists seeking to take advantage of the sudden increase in demand for cross-continental shipping.

Henry Wells founded Wells & Company; William G. Fargo was a partner in the Livingston, Fargo & Company.  Both companies operated express services.  John Butterworth appeared as a rival in 1849.  Wells and Fargo realized that their competition with Butterfield was destructive, wasteful, and unnecessary.  In 1850, Wells, Fargo, and Butterfield joined forces to form the American Express Company.  Soon afterwards, American Express decided to expand its interests in California.  Their most powerful competitor at the time was the Adams Express Company, who operated a monopoly of express services in the western states and territories.  While operating the American Express Company, Wells and Fargo launched their name-sake business on 18 March 1852 —organized as a joint-stock company with around $300,000 in assets.  The board of directors of Wells-Fargo Company included nine-prominent businessmen; three of whom also served as officers of the American Express Company: Wells, Fargo, and financier Edwin B. Morgan, who served as Wells-Fargo’s first President.

In the mid-1850s, the US Congress authorized the Postmaster General of the United States to contract mail services from Missouri to California. Members of congress were convinced that an overland stage would help to facilitate the development of the western territories by increasing the population of American citizens.  Accordingly, the Postmaster General solicited bids for an overland mail service on 20 April 1857.  Bidders were asked to propose routes from the Mississippi River westward.

John W. Butterfield, William B. Dinsmore, William G. Fargo, James V. Gardner, Marcus L. Kinyon, Alexander Holland, and Hamilton Spencer (collectively known as Butterfield & Associates) proposed a southern route from St. Louis, Missouri to California.  Altogether, the United States Postal Department received nine bids. Postmaster General Aaron V. Brown, a gentleman from Tennessee, favored the southern (Butterfield) route.  It was called the Oxbow, which extended westward from Memphis, Tennessee and St. Louis, Missouri converged at Little Rock, Arkansas, and proceeded to Preston, Texas (or the best point of crossing the Rio Grande above El Paso, Texas nearest Fort Fillmore) and thence along a new route to Fort Yuma, California, through the best passes and along the best valleys for safe and expeditious staging, to San Francisco.

Although the Oxbow Route was 600 miles longer than central and northern routes through Denver, Colorado and Salt Lake City, Utah … the southern route was, for the most part, free of snow and ice.  Butterfield & Associates received the contract for a semi-weekly mail service.  The contract intended to pay Butterfield $600,000 annually.

Concord Stage 001The Butterfield Overland Stage began its operations in September 1858. The route was divided into eastern and western sectors.  El Paso, Texas was the mid-point between these two expansions, each further divided into shorter legs: five in the east, and four in the west.  The distance between each leg, and the allotted time for completing it, depended on geography and weather conditions.  As an example, the first eastbound leg extended from San Francisco to Los Angeles (462 miles); stagecoach drivers were allowed 80 hours to make this trip.  The second leg allowed 73 hours to complete the journey between Los Angeles and Fort Yuma (272 miles).

The Post Office granted Butterfield & Associates a 6-year contract to operate a twice-weekly mail service.  Butterfield expanded stage operations to include passenger and freight services from St. Louis, Missouri and Memphis, Tennessee, both routes converging at Fort Smith, Arkansas, into and across Texas to Fort Yuma, Los Angeles, and San Francisco.  The distance was 2,795 miles—perhaps the longest route of any system using horse-drawn conveyances.

Stagecoach 002Each Monday and Thursday morning, a stagecoach would leave Tipton and San Francisco on their cross-continent voyage carrying passengers, freight, and up to 12,000 letters.  Butterfield charged passengers a one-way fare of $200 from Memphis/St. Louis to San Francisco.  On shorter routes, passengers paid fifteen cents per mile.  Most stages arrived at their destinations within 22 days, averaging between 5-9 miles per hour.  To complete his task, Butterfield employed 800 people involving 139 relay stations, 2,000 horses, and 250 Concord stagecoaches (pictured above when owned by Wells Fargo). Butterfield’s drivers were tough frontiersmen; no one of less ability could handle such hardships.  Drivers and assistants had to be excellent riflemen. Each team drove a 120-mile round trip route.  Contrary to popular belief, gold and silver were never shipped via the Overland Stage Company.

With limited routes across the United States, stage routes had to be kept open for settlers, miners, and businessmen. Responsibility for guarding the route fell upon the US Army, which mostly involved infantry units in 1857; the US Cavalry never fully developed until the Civil War.  As the war loomed, a demand for faster communications resulted in the creation of the Pony Express Company across the central and northern routes.  In anticipating the Civil War, and owing to its southern route, the US government revoked its contract with Butterfield in March 1860.  Butterfield had incurred significant debt in setting up the Overland Stage; without a government contract, he was unable to pay his creditors.  This is when the Well-Fargo Company stepped in and took control of the Overland Stage Company.  Butterfield’s assets (along with those of the Pony Express) ended up with Wells-Fargo.  The last Butterfield/Oxbow run began on 21 March 1861.

On 2 March 1861, a central route went into effect from St. Joseph, Missouri to Placerville, California [2].  They called this new route the Central Overland California Route.  Within the framework of the Confederate States of America, George Henry Giddings continued to operate an overland stage through the Oxbow, albeit with limited success through early 1862.  Of interest, there were at least four distinct civil war battles at or near Butterfield mail posts: Stanwix Station, Picacho Pass, Mesilla, and Pea Ridge.  There were also three clashes involving Apache Indian, Confederate, and Union forces: two at Dragoon Springs, and Apache Pass.  Both sides of the war intended these conflicts to disrupt supply routes.

By 1866 Wells Fargo had gained a monopoly over long distance overland stagecoach routes and mail service, using both the original Butterfield Overland Trail and others.  It was a short-lived monopoly, however.  In 1869, the first transcontinental railroad was completed. Faster and more efficient, railroads supplanted the need for an overland stage route.  Stagecoaches did continue to operate into the 1900s, but these were mostly local routes between western towns and cities.  In Arizona, over 129 stagecoach robberies took place between 1875 and 1903.  The worst of these occurred between Tombstone and Benson, and Phoenix and Prescott.  More than 200 desperados engaged in highway robberies, half of which were never solved. Very few robberies occurred by horsemen chasing down a stagecoach and robbing it.  Most robbers approached the stagecoach on foot at locations where the stagecoach had to slow down across difficult terrain.  Seventy-nine men and one woman were identified as stage robbers. The woman was Pearl Hart [3], who in 1898 pulled one of the last stagecoach robberies of the old west.

Sources:

  1. Underwood, Butterfield Overland Stage Route, Frontier Trails of the Old West
  2. N. Richardson, Butterfield Overland Mail, The Handbook of Texas
  3. E. Swensen, The Overland Mail and Passenger Service,1911

Endnotes:

[1] John Butterfield’s son was Brigadier General Daniel Butterfield, United States Army (1831-1901) who after being wounded at the Battle of Gaines Mill, wrote the Bugle Call Taps.  Butterfield’s bugle call was modeled on the Scot Tattoo.  Prior to the Civil War, Dan Butterfield worked for his father in the American Express Company.  He was awarded the Medal of Honor for his gallantry at Gaines Mill.  He later served as the Assistant Treasurer of the United States in the Grant Administration.  He later returned to American Express as an executive.

[2] Originally a mining community, Placerville, California was first known as “Hang Town.”

[3] Pearl Hart was born Pearl Taylor in Lindsay, Ontario, Canada in 1871.  Her parents were religious and affluent, but this wild child eloped with a man twice her 16-years.  His abusive behavior caused Hart to return to her home.  Over several years, Hart reconciled with her husband, eventually giving him two children. While living in Chicago, Pearl developed a fascination with the “western outlaw.”  Hart left her husband again and traveled to Trinidad, Colorado. Eventually she drifted to Phoenix, Arizona.  On 30 May 1899 near Cane Springs Canyon, Hart and an accomplice robbed a stagecoach and its passengers of $431.  Pearl Hart served time in the Yuma Territorial Prison until 1902.  She passed away in 1955.

Posted in History | 6 Comments

James Butler Bonham

A country gentleman

In the old American south, in the years before the Civil War, southern gentlemen wielded every facet of economic and political power.  They also created their own standard of gentility and honor; they not only defined southern white manhood but created the standard for southern womanhood as well.  In so doing, they shaped what we know today as southern culture.  To defend what they had created over three-hundred years, it was necessary to defend the system of slavery that sustained it.  Economic survival in the non-industrialized South depended on slavery, for without the wealth created by field slaves, southern aristocrats could not maintain their genteel lifestyles.

Of course, not every wealthy southern gentleman was a slave owner.  Plantation owners were, of course, but there were also bankers, exporter brokers, lawyers, doctors, tradesmen, and shipbuilders.  If these people owned slaves, they were likely employed as domestic servants and generally well-cared-for.  Nevertheless, one could make the argument that these wealthy city men also benefitted from the labors of enslaved people.

Despite the prevalence of southern plantations, most whites living in the south were themselves poor and not much better off than the slaves that worked the plantation fields.  In fact, one might make the argument that the slaves were better off than most poor whites, for at least the slaves knew where their next meal would come from.  Poor whites didn’t own slaves, but psychologically, even on the edge of genteel society, they did identify with southern cultural traditions —including the ideal of southern manhood— and this was why poor whites flocked to join the Confederacy. They were not seeking to preserve slavery; they wanted to defend their homes and preserve southern culture.

James Butler Bonham, Jr., was one of the affluent southern city boys —and in this context, typical among lads of his own socio-economic class.  He was short-tempered, stubborn, a bit arrogant —and not at all disposed to bend his knee to any man.  Bonham was expelled from South Carolina College [1] for leading a protest of the senior class. He was upset about having to attend class in bad weather, and he didn’t like the food served in the cafeteria. The young lads weren’t the only folks to have an arrogant streak: South Carolina College not only expelled Bonham, they also expelled the entire senior class.  No matter, it was a matter of principal —from both perspectives.  In any case, Bonham took up reading the law and became a practicing attorney in Pendleton, South Carolina in 1830 —the third Texas adventurist with connections to Pendleton, also including Thomas J. Rusk and Samuel A. Maverick.

Bonham JB 1835-001

James Butler Bonham, Jr.

Bonham’s parents were James and Sophia Butler Bonham.  He was born at Red Banks (now Saluda) South Carolina on 20 February 1807, a second cousin of Lieutenant Colonel William Barrett Travis [2], who commanded the Texian garrison at the Alamo on 6 March 1836.

Not long after beginning his law career, an enraged Jim Bonham caned a fellow attorney for having made insulting remarks toward Bonham’s female client.  The magistrate, in deciding that he could not allow such behavior among local jurists, ordered Bonham to apologize.  Not only did Jim Bonham refuse to apologize, he threatened to tweak the judge’s nose.  Bonham spent the next 90 days in jail for “contempt of court.”  Apparently, Bonham’s learning curve resembled the letter “S”.

In 1832, family influence helped Bonham obtain a position as aide to South Carolina governor James Hamilton.  The position brought with it a lieutenant colonel commission in the state militia. Bonham concurrently served as a captain of militia artillery in Charleston.  His service to Hamilton coincided with the nullification crisis, which took place between 1832-1833 during the presidency of Andrew Jackson.  The issue was right of sovereign states to repudiate federal law.  Out of concern for its own economy [3], the South Carolina legislature declared the federal tariff acts of 1828 and 1832 unconstitutional, and therefore, null and void within South Carolina.  Nullification was a contentious issue in those days.

In 1833, Bonham moved to Montgomery, Alabama, where he established a law practice.  Word of the unfolding events in Texas reached the American southwest in 1835, communicated in a manner best framed to elicit the sympathies of men who were most disposed to volunteer their aid.  Bonham was one of these sympathetic men, although unlike most, he was well to do and circulated among society’s elite.  He led a rally in support of Texas at the Shakespeare Theater in Mobile, Alabama.  Three days later, citizens of Mobile elected him to carry their resolution of support to General Sam Houston [4].  Within weeks, Bonham organized a volunteer company for service in Texas.  They called themselves The Mobile Grays.

By the end of that year, Bonham was in Texas familiarizing himself with its political and military affairs. On 1 December 1835, Bonham wrote a letter to Sam Houston volunteering his service for Texas and, coincidently, declining all pay, lands, or rations in return.  Bonham did receive a commission as a Second Lieutenant in the Texas Cavalry, but was never assigned to a specific unit.  While waiting for a military posting, Bonham established a law practice [5] in Brazoria, a business he advertised in the Telegraph and Texas Register in early January 1836.

Bonham and Sam Houston developed a mutually respectful relationship.  On 11 January 1836, in a letter to Texas provisional governor James W. Robinson [6], Houston recommended Bonham for promotion to the rank of major, stating that “His influence in the army is great —more so than some who would be generals.”

Traveling with James Bowie and a detachment of thirty men, Bonham arrived in Béxar on 19 January 1836. It was an intense period for Texians. Colonel James C. Neill, then commanding 78-man garrison at the Alamo, was furious over the fact that his men lacked munitions, clothing, and adequate pay [7].  He spoke of leaving the Alamo.  Meanwhile, with their ear to the ground, Mexican families were evacuating San Antonio de Béxarin droves.

On 26 January, Colonel Neill recruited Bonham to help outline political resolutions on behalf of his garrison in support of Provisional Governor Henry Smith [8].  When the time came to elect delegates to the Texas Constitutional Convention, representing the men at Béxar, Bonham, a candidate for election, was overwhelmingly defeated.

Lieutenant Colonel William B. Travis, who at the time served as Colonel Neill’s deputy commander, assumed command of the Alamo garrison after Neill’s departure to attend to his seriously ill family.  Travis dispatched Bonham to Washington-on-the-Brazos to plea for aid and reinforcement of the garrison.  En route, Bonham rode to Goliad where he learned that Colonel James Fannin was in no position to send any help.  Bonham returned to the Alamo on 3 March.  By then, Santa Anna’s army had surrounded the Alamo with 1,800 regular army troops.  Upon reaching the outskirts of San Antonio, Bonham courageously and cleverly avoided Mexican cavalry pickets.  Arriving at the Alamo, Bonham presented a dispatch from Robert M. Williamson assuring Travis that help was on the way, and encouraging him to hold out at the Alamo.

According to T.R. Fehrenback [9], “At the end [his mission at Washington-on-the-Brazos], the weary Bonham, a lawyer, a Carolinian of exulted family and a friend of Travis, turned his mount around and rode back toward San Antonio. He was told it was useless to throw his life away [by riding back to the Alamo].  He answered back that Buck Travis deserved to know the answer to his appeals, spat upon the ground, and galloped west toward his own immortality.”

James Butler Bonham died at the Alamo on 6 March 1836 [10].    He was a 29-year-old southern gentleman.  Historians believe that he died while manning one of the cannons in the interior of the Alamo chapel.  He did his duty to the end.

Sources:

  1. Fahrenback, T. R. Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans, Boston: Da Capo Press, 1968
  2. Bonham, M. L. James Butler Bonham: A Consistent Rebel, Southwestern Historical Quarterly 35 (October 1931)
  3. Chariton, W. O. 100 Days in Texas: The Alamo Letters, Plano Texas: Wordware, 1990
  4. Lindley, T. R. James Butler Bonham, Alamo Journal, August 1988
  5. Lord, W. A Time to Stand(New York: Harper, 1968)

Endnotes:

[1] Now, the University of South Carolina.

[2] Born in South Carolina, later moved to Alabama at the age of 9 years.

[3] The United States suffered an economic downturn in the 1820s, and South Carolina was particularly affected.  South Carolina politicians argued that the economic decline was a result of federal tariff policy that developed after the War of 1812.  The so-called Tariff of Abominations was actually enacted during the presidency of John Quincy Adams, but the issue quickly shifted to the question whether a state had the right to nullify a federal law.  President Jackson ignored the state’s concerns; Washington politicians were split on this issue, and Vice President Calhoun, a native of South Carolina, became a leader of the Nullification movement.  Eventually, President Jackson threatened South Carolina with military intervention if it refused to comply with federal laws. Nullification, first proposed by Thomas Jefferson, would lead the United States to civil war.

[4] Formerly, the sixth governor of Tennessee, a member of the US House of Representatives from Tennessee’s 7th congressional district, and a US Army first lieutenant with service in the War of 1812.

[5] At this early date, there appeared to be more lawyers in Texas than deer ticks in Minnesota.

[6] Robinson was an Indiana attorney, a partner in law with William Henry Harrison, who after deserting his family in 1828, relocated to Texas in 1833 with a new wife and son, eventually settling in the area of present-day San Jacinto County.  Robinson was elected lieutenant governor at the Consultation of 1835.  When Henry Smith was deposed as governor, the provisional government named Robinson to replace him.  Smith refused to relinquish his office, however, which gave the provisional government two men, each claiming the governorship.  In 1840, Robinson was wounded during the Council House Fight and in 1842, he was taken prisoner by General Adrian Woll.  In 1850, Robinson moved to San Diego, California where he served as district attorney, school commissioner, and a promoter of railroad service in southern California.  He passed away in 1857, but his estate was never settled until 1903.

[7] After the surrender of General Cos at the Alamo, Colonel Frank Johnson and James Grant stripped the garrison of provisions to supply the Matamoros Expedition, leaving Colonel Neill to hold the town with but a hand full of men.  Neill wrote bitter letters to the council condemning these arbitrary measures and called for reinforcement and supply.  Neill departed the Alamo mid-February to attend to his family, leaving William B. Travis in command.

[8] Henry Smith (1788-1851) was the first American governor of Texas.  Smith moved to Texas in 1827, settling in Brazoria where he operated a farm, taught school, and became active in politics.  He was wounded in the Battle of Velasco.  In 1835, he was elected mayor (alcalde) of Brazoria and appointed by the governor of Coahuila y Tejas to serve as the political head of the Tejas Department of the Brazos.  Smith urged independence for Texas.  In November 1835, the General Council of the Texas Consultation elected Smith to serve as provisional governor of Texas.  Smith was no diplomat and his unwillingness to compromise on the issue of Texas Independence worked against him.  In January 1836, the council impeached Smith who, for a time, refused to relinquish his post.

[9] Theodore Reed Fehrenbach, Jr., was a historian, columnist, and former chair of the Texas Historical Commission (1987-1991).

[10] No defender of the Alamo has been more romanticized than James Butler Bonham.  It is often claimed that he was a co-commander at the Alamo, which isn’t true: the only commander at the Alamo was Travis, who agreed to share his command with Bowie for no other reason than to placate Bowie’s men, who in having no confidence in Travis, were threatening to leave the Alamo. Neither was Bonham a colonel in any Texian militia.  His rank was second lieutenant of cavalry, recommended (but not approved) for a commission as a major by Sam Houston.  Travis does refer to Bonham as “Colonel,” but historians suggest that this was only a title of respect owing to his position in the South Carolina militia.  Neither did Bonham bring word from Colonel Fannin that he was not coming to the aid of the Alamo.

Posted in History, Society | 2 Comments

Clay Allison, gunfighter

Allison RC 001

Clay Allison

Robert Clay Allison was the fourth of nine children born to Jeremiah Scotland Allison and Mariah Brown Allison.  Jeremiah was a Presbyterian minister and a subsistence farmer.  Clay may have had a hyperactive disorder, as it appears that he was always restless as a child and had severe mood swings [1] and a quick temper.  Clay helped maintain his father’s farm near Waynesboro, Tennessee until the Civil War broke out.  Clay, then 21-years-old, joined Captain W. H. Jackson’s Confederate artillery on October 15, 1861.  Three months later, the army discharged Allison because he was “… incapable of performing the duties of a soldier.  Emotional or physical excitement produces paroxymals [2] of a mixed character, partly epileptic and partly maniacal.”  Oddly enough, Clay Allison was back in the army a year later, this time serving with the Ninth Tennessee Cavalry under Nathan Bedford Forrest.  Allison surrendered with the regiment on May 4, 1865 at Gainesville, Alabama.  Only briefly held as a prisoner of war, Allison was paroled on May 10, 1865.

Clay had always been ill-disciplined and quick tempered, but after the war he returned to his home with a far-more violent personality.  Not long after his return, he is alleged to have killed a corporal from the Third Illinois Cavalry —an event that prompted he and members of his family to move to Texas.  In fairness, the Reconstruction Era corporal may have had a nefarious intent for visiting the Allison homestead.  Nevertheless, while en route to Texas, the Allison family had an encounter with a man named Zachery Colbert, who operated a Red River ferry.  Colbert demanded that the Allison pay double his fee for ferrying the entire family and their goods.  In the end, Colbert was beaten unconscious and the Allison’s stole the ferry, crossed the river, and moved on into Texas.

For some years after 1866, Clay Allison worked as a cowhand along the famed Goodnight-Living trail.  We next hear of Clay Allison while residing in the towns of Cimarron and Elizabethtown, in the New Mexico territory, where he was known as a dangerous and possibly mentally imbalanced man —someone to avoid whenever possible.

In 1870, authorities arrested a man named Charles Kennedy who was charged with the murder of several men and his own daughter.  Convicted of capital crimes, Kennedy awaited execution in the local jail.  Apparently, Clay Allison concluded that justice was moving too slowly.  One night, he incited a drunken mob to storm the jail, seize Kennedy, and hang him.  This they accomplished after assaulting the deputy on duty.  When Kennedy was judged to be dead, Clay hauled down his body and, with a nearby axe, cut off his head —which was then displayed in front of Lambert’s Saloon in Cimarron.

Reportedly, Clay Allison had several friends, but historians mull over whether these men were his friends, or men too afraid to refuse to do his bidding. He also had enemies.  Allison was a scrapper … someone who was quick with his fists, a knife, or his side arm.  Back in the day, the term “fast gun” didn’t mean a quick draw artist; it meant someone who was quick to resort to violent use of a firearm.  This would appear to be a good description of Clay Allison in the 1870s.  What made Allison dangerous was his willingness to fight —and kill— without much forethought.

One deputy sheriff in Colfax County had no fear of Clay Allison.  His name was Mace (for Mason) Bowman, born as Matthew T. Mason in 1844.  During the Civil War, Mason served with the 11th Texas Cavalry and Graham Rangers. Afterwards, he was involved in the Lee-Peacock feud [3], and then disappeared for a time.  He became a Trinidad, New Mexico lawman in 1873, but two years later he was serving as Colfax County New Mexico Deputy Sheriff Mason T. Bowman.  Mace served as a lawman during the Colfax County War [4] (1873-1888).  He was a man skilled in the art of the quick draw and deadly accurate fire. During a series of friendly “quick draw” competitions with Bowman, Clay Allison learned how slow he was on the draw. Allison could never beat Bowman, either at the draw, or in matching Bowman’s ability to hit his target.

Historians tell us that there was only one “unfriendly” encounter between Bowman and Allison.  The event took place in Lambert’s Saloon in Cimarron.  Allison was not someone who could hold his liquor; the more the drank, the more arrogant he became and his confidence as a gunslinger increased with each shot of rye whiskey.  While inebriated, Allison exchanged harsh words with Bowman.  We don’t know what Allison said to Bowman; we only know that Bowman stepped back from the bar and told Clay Allison “Have at it.”  For once, Allison gave this matter some thought and said, “Hell.  No use in us both dying,” and walked out of the saloon.

Littrell M 001

Sheriff Marion Littrell

Marion Littrell also had no fear of Clay Allison.  Littrell worked as foreman of the Maxell Land Grant and Railroad Company before becoming Colfax County Sheriff.  In unholstering his weapon, Littrell was twice as fast as Allison and did best him on at least one occasion.  A third lawman who would take no guff from Clay Allison was Texas Ranger G. W. (Cap) Arrington, who history remembers as one tough hombre.

One of Allison’s enemies revealed himself in early January 1874. Noted gunman Chunk Colbert had every intention of exacting revenge on Clay Allison for the beating of his Uncle Zachery.  By this time, Chunk was a noted gunslinger, reported to have killed seven men in Texas, New Mexico, and Colorado.  Today, there is no corroboration that Colbert earned this reputation.  The only person killed by Colbert was a fellow named Charles Morris, whom Colbert believed was romantically involved with his wife.

In any case, in some fashion, Colbert and Allison had engaged in a quarter-mile horse race and decided to have dinner together at the Clifton House, a Colfax County Inn.  These men were not friends, and there was a mutual feeling of distrust between them.  Sitting down at the table, Allison unholstered his weapon and set it to the side of the table. Colbert unholstered his pistol and place it in his lap.  While eating, Colbert reached to his lap for his pistol and attempted to draw a bead on Allison.  Colbert’s pistol fired but was diverted from its target when the muzzle bumped against the edge of the table.  Allison had no such difficult and shot Colbert through the head.  Colbert was buried in an unmarked grave behind Clifton House.  Later asked why he had agreed to dine with someone who was trying to kill him, Allison replied, “Because I didn’t want to send a man to hell on an empty stomach.” Having killed a man with a reputation for gunslinging, Allison’s notoriety as a gunfighter increased —but in all likelihood, undeservedly so.

On October 30, 1875, Allison led a lynch mob to detain a man named Cruz Vega.  Vega was suspected of killing the Rev. F. J. Tolby, a Methodist circuit preacher.  The mob hanged Vega from a telegraph pole near Cimarron.  Two days later, Vega’s uncle, Francisco Griego, led family members and confronted Clay Allison at the Lambert Inn.  Words were exchanged; Griego went for his pistol; Clay Allison went for his; Uncle Francisco was soon after reunited with his nephew.  Allison was arrested and charged with murder, but after listening to the testimony of witnesses, the shooting was ruled self-defense.

In December 1876, Clay and his brother John rode into Las Animas, Colorado where they stopped at a local saloon.  Bent County Sheriff Charles Faber informed the Allisons of an ordinance prohibiting firearms inside the town limits.  He asked them to surrender their weapons and the Allisons refused.  Sheriff Farber left the saloon, deputized two men, and returned with them to the Saloon.  When the posse stepped inside the saloon, someone shouted, “Look out!”  Farber and his deputies opened fire, hitting John Allison three times (although not seriously enough to kill him).  Clay returned fire and killed Farber.  The Allison brothers were both arrested and charged with manslaughter, but witnesses testified that Farber had started the fight and the charge was dismissed.  It was this gunfight that raised Clay Allison to the level of an Old West legend.

In March 1877, Clay sold his ranch to his brother John and moved to Sedalia, Missouri.  Shortly after that, he went to Hays City, Kansas where he established himself as a cattle broker.  By the time Allison arrived in Dodge City, everyone knew who he was.  One story holds that several cowhands working for Allison complained to him that the local marshal had mistreated them.

Masterson-Earp 001

Bat Masterson, standing Wyatt Earp, sitting

Allison passed the word that he wanted to have a few words with this marshal.  Eventually the word reached the town marshal, a fellow by the name of Wyatt Earp.  Not long afterwards, Earp confronted Allison and his cowboys in the Long Branch Saloon.  Backing Earp up was his friend Bat Masterson.  According to Earp’s biographer, Allison backed down when cattleman Dick McNulty and Chalk Beeson, who at the time owned the Long Branch, offered the good advice to Allison and his boys to surrender their weapons. There is another account, however: Charlie Siringo, a cowboy at the time but later a well-known Pinkerton’s Detective, said he witnessed the event.  According to Siringo there was a confrontation at the Long Branch, but it involved Chalk Beeson and McNulty opposing Allison —Earp wasn’t present at the time and he recalled that Masterson was out of town.

Between 1880 and 1883, Clay Allison ranched with his brothers John and Jeremiah in Wheeler County, Texas.  On February 15, 1881, Clay Allison married America Medora “Dora” McCulloch in Mobeetie, Texas.  Allison was 39-years old; Dora was just 18.  In 1883, Allison sold his ranch and moved to Pope’s Wells, purchasing another spread near the Pecos River along the Goodnight-Loving Trail.

Clay Allison died as the result of an accident that occurred on July 3, 1887.  While hauling a wagon load of supplies, a sack of grain was about to fall out of the wagon.  As Clay reach out to grab it, he lost his balance and fell from the wagon.  The horse team pulled the wagon wheel over him, breaking his neck.  Clay Allison —the notorious gunfighter— died by wagon wheel at the age of 46 years.  Dora remarried after three years; she passed away in 1926. Clay and Dora had two daughters: Patti passed away at Fort Worth, Texas in 1971, Pearl passed away in Baltimore, Maryland in 1962.

Sources:

  1. Texas State Historical Association/Handbook of Texas
  2. S. Peters, Robert Clay Allison: Requiescat in Pace, 2007
  3. Parsons, Clay Allison: Portrait of a Shootist, 1983

Endnotes:

[1] This may also explain why he was a loyal Democrat.

[2] Sudden recurrence or intensification of erratic symptoms, such as spasms or seizures.

[3] The Lee-Peacock feud took place in the four-corners area of Texas counties Fannin, Grayson, Collin and Hunt.  It was a four-year extension of the American Civil War that lasted from 1867 to 1871. Historians estimate that more than 50 men lost their lives in this conflict.  When the civil war began, Bob Lee joined the Confederate Army, leaving his wife and three children … and his home, in the care of his father Daniel Lee. Toward the end of the war, Lee learned that Union Sympathizer Lewis Peacock had used his home to set up an organization for the protection of blacks, which Peacock named The Union League. By the time Lee and other ex-Confederate soldiers returned to their homes, northeast Texas was already ablaze in conflict, as most residents deeply resented Reconstruction soldiers intruding into their lives.

[4] A range war between settlers and the new owners of the Maxwell Land and Railway Company.  The war began when the new landowners attempted to remove local settlers from the land they had just purchased.  Locals refused to leave, leading to violence lasting several years.

Posted in History, Justice | 4 Comments

When Saints Became Sinners

Massacre in the Meadow

After the original frontiersmen came the pioneers, men, women, and children who set out for the western frontier in family groups.  In some cases, these family groups included “extended” relations.  Generally, the pioneers agreed to meet at a pre-designated location near their homes or communities. Before the main body embarked on their westward journey, late comers might appear and petition the original group to join their wagon train. The idea was to have enough people form a wagon train, each of whom could defend or support one another over the long and difficult westward trail.

One of these was the Baker-Fancher Party that formed in Arkansas Ozarks in April 1857 —a consolidated effort consisting of several local origin trains.  When formed, the Baker-Fancher Train consisted of around 220 people [1], including children.  Who were these people?  Within the Baker-Fancher Party, most members were prosperous farmers with relatives and/or friends already living in California.  Others were successful cattlemen —generally successful men who had the financial resources to pull up stakes and finance the westward journey. John Twitty Baker formed his train out of Carroll County, Arkansas.  Alexander Fancher, an experienced frontiersman, formed his train from Benton County.  There were four others: Huff (Benton County), Mitchell, Dunlapp, and Prewitt (Marion County), and Poteet-Tackitt-Jones and Cameron-Miller (from Johnson County). Others may have joined the train in Missouri.

Collectively, Baker-Fancher was a well-outfitted train with solid wagons and carriages, a large herd of cattle (nearly 1,000 head), oxen, and numerous horses [2].  Some of these people California-bound farmers, others were driving cattle for profit, and some were hoping to strike it rich in the California gold fields. Their plan was to stop at Salt Lake City, Utah territory for rest and replenishment —which they did in early August 1857.  By this time, the cattle losses reduced the herd to 800 head (which was not unusual over far-distant efforts) and everyone was low on food stores and other supplies.

The timing of their cross-continental passage was unfortunate. Baker-Fancher arrived in Salt Lake City a few months after the beginning of the so-called Utah War (May 1857-July 1858). The Utah War (also known as Buchanan’s Blunder, the Mormon War, and the Mormon Rebellion) was an armed confrontation between Mormon settlers in the Utah territory and the United States military.

Brigham Young

Brigham Young

In the summer of 1847, members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (also, LDS Church, Mormons, and Mormon Pioneers) began settling in present-day Utah in the summer of 1847.  What pushed these people out of their homes in Illinois and Missouri were religious conflicts within their communities.  One of these conflicts resulted in the lynching of LDS Church founder Joseph Smith, Jr.  Subsequent leaders of the church, particularly Brigham Young (shown right), believed that isolation within the Utah territory would allow members of the church to settle in relative safety, and guarantee them the right to practice their religion as they saw fit without interference from people holding different religious beliefs. The Mormons themselves were hardly tolerant of other Christians and denounced Catholics and Protestants in equal measure.  Mormon sermons often accused non-Mormon Christians of having strayed from the true path. This, when added to the Mormon practice of plural marriage, did nothing to foster good relationships with other religious groups.

At the end of the Mexican-American War of 1848, the United States gained control of California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, and Utah. Young and other LDS leaders knew that they were not leaving the political sphere of the United States by settling in Utah, nor were they interested in becoming a nation unto themselves.  They simply wanted to isolate themselves and create settlements around their own brand of theology.

The discovery of gold in California in 1846 acted as a magnet for thousands of easterners to move west; many of these trails passed through the Utah territory.  The California gold rush was a mixed blessing to Mormon settlements.  On the one hand, wagon trains brought opportunities for trade and profit; it also ended the Mormon’s short-lived vision for a utopian society based on religious isolation.

In 1849, Mormon political leaders proposed the incorporation of their territory [3] into the United States as a new state called Deseret.  They most wanted men of their own faith to govern them, rather than the governance of unsympathetic politicians appointed by the Washington establishment.  Mormon leaders wanted a theocratic government.

Plural marriage became a political issue in the United States during the mid-1800’s.  Historians tell us that in 1850, only around one-quarter of all Mormon households practiced polygamy [4] but plural marriage is what most non-Mormons thought of whenever the question of Mormonism came up.  Most Americans rejected polygamy, and for some, it was a hot-button issue.  Polygamy was immoral and against the teachings of Christ.  In 1856, one key plank in the newly formed Republican Party pledged to “prohibit” the twin evils of slavery and polygamy.

The larger issue, however, was the concept of popular sovereignty, a key component of the Compromise of 1850.  Initially, Stephen A. Douglas, a leader of the Democratic Party, was a staunch supporter of the LDS community.  He later denounced Mormonism in order to preserve the notion of popular sovereignty as it related to the issue of slavery.  Douglas was an astute politician and he, along with many other East Coast politicians (James Buchanan among them) expressed alarm by the theocratic dominance of the Utah territory under Brigham Young.  In Utah, more than a few LDS leaders received appointments to territorial and federal posts that in many ways coincided with their ecclesiastical positions, including appointments to the judiciary.  These appointments required confirmation by the territorial legislature, of course, but the legislature itself was largely composed of members of the LDS Church.

Over time, increasing numbers of Washington politicians came to believe that an LDS majority in Utah threatened the idea of American republicanism. It didn’t help allay these fears when James Strang, an LDS rival to Brigham Young, proclaimed himself a king on Beaver Island in Lake Michigan after the main body of the LDS members relocated to Utah.  There was some justification for their concerns: Brigham Young maintained his power in Utah by organizing a paramilitary organization called the Danites. Eastern politicians believed that Young kept the Mormon community in line through armed tyranny.  The evidence for this at the time seemed to be rooted in the fact that a considerable number of non-LDS settlers in Utah didn’t remain there very long.

Non-LDS federal appointees embraced the long-held position that as a federal territory, only the President of the United States (with the advice of the Senate) could appoint territorial governors and federal judges —and do so without any input from the general population.  So much for popular sovereignty, but it was a temporary measure pending successful statehood.  Presidential prerogative was a standard applied to all newly acquired US territories. Apparently, however, federal appointment became an issue within the LDS community —even to the extent of causing Mormons to stand in defiance of federal rulings.

In fear for their own safety and that of their families, some federal appointees abandoned their posts and moved back east —circumstances that fueled the notion of armed tyranny, but whether this was true, Mormon communities were in constant dispute with federal appointees and this fact led the President to conclude that the Mormons were approaching a state of rebellion against the lawful authority of the United States.  One federal judge by the name of William W. Drummond, in his letter of resignation, opined that the power wielded by Brigham Young effectively denuded the rule of law in Utah; that the Mormon leadership ignored the laws of Congress and the US Constitution, and that male Mormons acknowledged no law at all beyond the Mormon priesthood.  A Territorial Chief Justice agreed, offering specific examples where Brigham Young had perverted the judicial system in Utah.  Justice Kinney went so far to request that the president permanently assign an army regiment to the Utah territory.

Dr. John M. Bernhisel, a Mormon, served as Utah’s delegate to the US Congress.  As claims and counter-claims went back and forth between Utah and Washington, he twice suggested (1852 and 1857) that Congress convene an impartial committee to evaluate the actual conditions within the Utah territory.  In 1857, newly elected President James Buchanan was under a great deal of political pressure to do something about conditions in Utah; rather than waiting for a committee report, as suggested by Bernhisel, Buchanan decided to act.  He replaced Brigham Young as territorial governor with Alfred Cumming [5] and ordered 2,500 army troops to Utah.  The Army’s mission was to suppress armed lawlessness within the territory when ordered to do so by the new territorial governor.

Under orders from General Winfield Scott, the US Army dispatched soldiers from Fort Leavenworth, Kansas in July 1857.  Ultimately, command of these soldiers fell to Colonel Albert S. Johnson [6].  The Mormons understood that the Army was en route, but they did not have good information about its mission in Utah.  Mormon mail agents in Missouri informed Brigham Young that the US Army was “marching on the Mormons.”  This made the Mormons somewhat apprehensive and led them to begin preparations for the defense of their territory and their rights as citizens.

Whether the Mormons feared annihilation by federal troops is questionable, but what is almost a certainty is that the Mormons believed that they faced renewed persecution for their religious beliefs.  Young, fearing the worst, sent conflicting messages to Mormon communities: prepare for evacuation, stockpile food [7] and livestock, begin the local manufacture of firearms and ammunition.  He recalled LDS missionaries serving outside of the territory and dispatched George A. Smith to supervise the preparation for war among the LDS communities in southern Utah.

Forming an alliance among local Indians was another of Young’s strategies.  In late August 1857, Young met with a delegation of Indians and gave them his permission to take Mormon livestock from Utah into California [8].  He hoped to gain Indian support for an anticipated war with the US Army. Despite these efforts, Indians continued to attack Mormon settlements, including raids near Salt Lake City and along the Salmon River in the Oregon territory.  Subsequently, also in August 1857, Brigham Young activated the so-called Nauvoo Legion, a Mormon militia, which he placed under the command of Daniel H. Wells.  The force consisted of males, aged 16 to 60 years of age.  He ordered Wells to begin a series of skirmishes with approaching Army units to delay their advance.

In late August, Brigham Young declared martial law in the Utah Territory. The written declaration forbade “all armed forces of every description from coming into this Territory under any pretense, whatsoever.”  Important to the Baker-Fancher Party, Young’s order included these instructions: “…no person shall be allowed to pass or repass into, though, or from this territory without a permit from the proper officer.”

These were the circumstance in Utah when the Baker-Fancher Party arrived at Salt Lake City for rest and refit, and, consequently, the Mormons refused all hospitality and ordered Baker-Fancher to move on.  At this juncture, Baker-Fancher departed for the Old Spanish Trail which would take them south and west.  At the same time, Smith (one of the so-called LDS apostles) was traveling in company with Jacob Hamblin (Mormon president of the Santa Clara Indian Mission) and Thales Haskell.  Smith’s mission was to order Mormon settlements to stockpile their grain in the eventuality of a conflict with the US Army.  On their return trip to Salt Lake City, on 25 August, the three men camped at Corn Creek (near present-day Kanosh), not far from the Baker-Fancher party, which by this time, had traveled 165 miles from Salt Lake City.  Hamblin advised the train to continue along the trail and rest their cattle at Mountain Meadows where they would find good pasture and water. Mountain Meadows was not far from his own homestead.  Acting on Hamblin’s advice, the train moved on during the next morning.

Smith, Hamblin, and Haskell continued to Salt Lake City where Hamblin remained for about a week conducting Indian business and searching for a new plural wife.  His Indian business included a meeting with a delegation of Southern Paiute [9] and other LDS Church officials.

Haight

Isaac C. Haight

The wagon train continued 125 miles to Mountain Meadows, passing the Mormon communities at Parowan and Cedar City, led by Stake [10] Presidents William H. Dame and Isaac C. Haight. Dame and Haight were also the leaders of the regional militia.  The approach of the train prompted the Mormon communities to hold meetings.  On 6 September, the question before the town committees was how they might implement Brigham Young’s martial law order.  A plan for an “Indian attack” was discussed, but not everyone agreed that this was a proper response to Young’s order, that “no person shall be allowed to pass.”  The council resolved to take no action until Haight sent a messenger to Young asking for his advice.  The rider was James Haslam.  The trip to Salt Lake City and return would take six days.  After the council adjourned, Haight sent another rider to John D. Lee [11]; we do not know what was in Haight’s message; only that he sent one.

The Baker-Fancher Party arrived at Mountain Meadow as a somewhat dispirited lot.  They anticipated being able to remain at that location for several days to water and feed their livestock.  The next leg of their journey would take them out of Utah.  On 7 September, Mormon militia attacked the Baker-Fancher train dressed as Paiute Indians.  Baker-Fancher circled their wagons and defended themselves by digging trenches and returning fire.  Seven pioneers died during the initial assault, sixteen more received serious wounds. The attack continued for another five days.  The siege prevented members of the Baker-Fancher train from accessing water or hunting for game food.  Ammunition was soon depleted.

Over these five days, the Mormon militia leadership broke down; fear spread among the militia that some of the Baker-Fancher party had caught sight of the “white man.”  They worried that the wagon train party may have discovered who their attackers were. The militia reconciled their situation by resolving to kill everyone in the party, excepting small children.

LEE JD 002

John D. Lee

On 11 September, John D. Lee [12] and two others approached the wagon train under a flag of truce.  Dr. Lee was a federal Indian agent and a militia officer.  Lee informed the battle-weary Baker-Fancher party that he had negotiated a truce with the Paiute Indians and that the Indians would allow the wagon train to return to Cedar City under the protection of the Mormon militia.  Lee further explained that as part of this negotiation, the emigrants would have to give up their cattle and supplies to the Indians.  Baker-Fancher accepted these terms relinquished their fortification.

Mormon militia separated adult men from their women and children.  One militia man took charge of two pioneer men. Then, at a pre-arranged signal, the militia shot the male emigrants from close range.  During stage two, Mormon militia ambushed the defenseless women and children.  In total, Mormon militia murdered 120 men, women, and children.  In the aftermath of the massacre, Mormons blamed local Indians for the carnage.  Because the youngest children could not later tell what happened, the militia farmed them out for adoption by local Mormon families.  The US Army later reclaimed seventeen children and returned them to their relatives in Arkansas.

According to Mormon historians [13], James Haslam delivered his message to Brigham Young on 11 September.  Young answered that Mormon settlements must not molest the Baker-Fancher Party.  Unhappily, Haslam’s return message arrived two days too late.

Local Mormons reported that Indians stole most of the Baker-Fancher property, but this wasn’t true: Southern Utah Mormons, including Dr. Lee, seized most valuables and cattle from the slain pioneers.  Mormons sold or traded the cattle in Salt Lake City, and personal property was auctioned off to local Cedar City Mormons.

Brigham Young conducted one of the earliest investigations of the massacre. Young interviewed Dr. Lee on 29 September.  The next year, Young sent a report to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs asserting that the massacre was the work of native Americans.  The Utah War delayed a federal investigation until 1859.  The primary federal investigators were Jacob Forney and Brevet Major James H. Carleton.  Carleton made a thorough investigation, uncovering forensic evidence that included human remains.  After providing a proper burial of these remains, he interviewed local Mormons and Paiute tribal chiefs.  He concluded that Southern Mormons participated in the massacre.  Carleton forwarded his report to the United States Assistant Adjutant-General; copies of the report went to members of the US Congress. Carleton labeled the killings a “heinous crime” and assigned blame to local and senior church leaders for organizing and carrying out the mass killings.

Jacob Forney, then the Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Utah, retrieved many of the surviving children of the massacred victims.  He concluded that the Paiute did not act alone, and the massacre would not have occurred without the urgings of white settlers.

John H Higbee

John H. Higbee

Federal Judge John Cradlebaugh undertook this case in March 1859; he convened a grand jury in Provo, Utah … but the jury refused to return any indictments.  Mormons refused to hold their brethren accountable.  Undeterred, Cradlebaugh conducted an inspection of the Mountain Meadows region.  A military detachment was necessary to protect him during his investigation.  The judge attempted to arrest Dr. Lee, Isaac Haight, and John Higbee (shown right), but forewarned, these men fled.  Subsequently, Cradlebaugh charged Brigham Young as an instigator to the massacre and therefore, as an accessory before the fact.

Mormon Territorial Probate Court Judge Elias Smith arrested Brigham Young under a territorial warrant.  Historians believe that Smith intended to divert any subsequent trial to a friendly Utah courtroom, but when no federal charges were filed, Smith released Young.

Phillip Klingensmith

Blacksmith Phillip Klingensmith

The American Civil War circumvented any further inquiries, but investigations continued in 1871 when prosecutors obtained an affidavit from militia member Philip Klingensmith —a church bishop and the blacksmith from Cedar City (shown right).  By this time, Klingensmith had left the church and moved to Nevada.  Subsequent to Dr. Lee’s arrest on 7 November 1874, a grand jury issued indictments on the charge of murder, naming Klingensmith, Elliot Wilden, and George Adair, Jr.  The court issued warrants for the arrest of Haight, Higbee, William C. Stewart, and Samuel Jukes —all of whom had gone into hiding.  Klingensmith avoided prosecution by agreeing to testify as a witness to the events of the Mountain Meadows massacre.

John Lee first went to trial on 23 July 1875 in Beaver, Utah.  He appeared before eight Mormons and four non-Mormon jurors.  The trial resulted in a hung jury on 5 August.  A second trial began on 13 September 1876.  The prosecution called seven Mormon witnesses who testified before an all-Mormon jury.  Lee called no witnesses and the jury found him guilty as charged.  At sentencing, the Court permitted Lee to choose the method of his own demise: hanging, firing squad, or beheading.  Lee decided on a firing squad.  Moments before his death, arranged at Mountain Meadows, Lee claimed that he was a scapegoat for others who escaped prosecution.

John D. Lee was the only Mormon convicted of the massacre. Additionally:

  • George A. Smith died in 1875, aged 58 years.
  • Jacob Hamblin died in 1885, aged 67 years.
  • Isaac Haight died in 1886 while living in Arizona.
  • John H. Higbee escaped prosecution.
  • Philip Klingensmith escaped prosecution by turning state’s evidence.
  • Brigham Young died on 29 August 1877. He suffered in death from cholera morbus and inflammation of the bowels, which may have precipitated a ruptured appendix. His pain in the final moments of his life may have been the only justice served as a result of the Mormon massacre at Mountain Meadows.

Sources:

  1. Bagley, W. Blood of the Prophets: Brigham Young and the Massacre at Mountain Meadows, University of Oklahoma Press, 2002.
  2. Krakauer, J.  Under the Banner of Heaven: A Story of Violent Faith, Doubleday, 2003.
  3. Denton, S.  American Massacre: The Tragedy at Mountain Meadows,Alfred A. Knopf., 2003.

Endnotes:

[1] The number of participants cited is an estimate because several families split off from the train, while others joined up along the way.  There is no precise number of participants in this wagon train.

[2] In this sense, it was a westward moving cattle drive, as well.

[3] The Utah territory was part of the Compromise of 1850; Brigham Young its first governor.

[4] Mormons removed polygamy from church dogma in 1890, although some people do continue its covert practice.  Whenever discovered, it becomes an instant press item with sensational headlines.  The fact is that most Islamists living in America’s inner cities also practice polygamy but receives no attention at all.

[5] Brigham Young did not know that the president had replaced him as territorial governor until Cumming arrived in Salt Lake City.

[6] Originally from Washington, Kentucky, Albert Sidney Johnson (1803-1862) served as Adjutant General and Secretary of War in the Republic of Texas.  He served as a general officer in three separate armies: Texian Army, US Army, and Confederate States Army.  He served in combat during the Black Hawk War, Texas War of Independence, Mexican-American War, Utah War, and the American Civil War.  Johnson died at the Battle of Shiloh on 6 April 1862.

[7] Stockpiling food continues to be a Mormon tradition.

[8] Mormons established colonies along the California Trail and Old Spanish Trail.

[9] Paiute Indians consisted of three separate groups of native Americans, all of which were related to the Numic group of Uto-Aztecan languages.  These were the Northern Paiute (Northeastern California, Northwestern Nevada, Eastern Oregon, and Southern Idaho), Southern Paiute (Northern Arizona, Southern Nevada, and Southwestern Utah), and Mono people (East-central California).

[10] An intermediate level in the LDS Church organization which consisted of several congregations of around 3,000 members.

[11] John Doyle Lee was born in Illinois in 1812.  When Lee was 3-years old, his mother died, and his alcoholic father became abusive. Relatives removed him from the home and put him to work on their farm.  Lee became a Mormon while still in his twenties.  In 1833, he married Agatha Ann Woolsey, the first of his nineteen wives. Lee was a member of the Mormon militia and had participated in several incidents of violence against non-Mormons. He relocated to the Utah territory in 1848.

[12] Maj. John D. Lee served the Mormon community as a constable, judge, and Indian Agent.  Having conspired in advance with his immediate commander, Isaac C. Haight, Lee led the initial assault, and falsely offered emigrants safe passage prior to their mile-long march to the field where they were massacred.

[13] John Lee told a different story.  Although he initially claimed that Young was unaware of the massacre until after it took place, he later claimed that the massacre occurred “… by the direct command of Brigham Young.”  See also: Life and Confessions of John D. Leeby his attorney, William W. Bishop (1877).

Posted in History, Justice, Society | Leave a comment

The Origins of Zorro

Zorro 001Most people in my generation grew up reading about or watching film serials and television programs about western heroes.  We saw these heroes in such programs as The Lone Ranger, Lash Larue, The Cisco Kid, The Durango Kid, Roy Rogers, Gunsmoke, Wild Bill Hickok, Billy the Kid, Tales of Wells Fargo, and many others—including, of course, Zorro the Fox.

To young minds, Diego de la Vega (the real identity of Zorro) was how we ought to judge an actual hero.  The man was roguishly handsome, had a tool chest full of skills and talents that thrilled us.  He was a Robin Hood type outlaw, a man with a hefty price on his head, wanted “dead or alive,” but far too skilled and cunning to allow himself capture by bumbling Mexican soldiers or lawmen (in the time of the story (1769-1820), California was part of Mexico).  Sadly (or not), Zorro existed only in the imagination of his creator, author Johnston McCulley (1883-1958).

McCulley’s first account of Zorro appeared in The Curse of Capistrano (1919).  In the following year, Douglas Fairbanks portrayed Zorro in a film titled The Mark of Zorro.  In total, 15 actors played the role of Zorro.  I do not recall the Douglas Fairbanks portrayal, but I do remember the short-lived television series starring Guy Williams (real name Armando Joseph Catalano (1924-1989)) who was born in New York City, but passed away in Buenos Aires, Argentina.  Interesting stuff —made more so by the fact that I’ve discovered that there was an actual character in history that McCulley may have borrowed heavily from in the Zorro stories.  The real-life person was a combination of outlaws, one of whom was named Tiburcio Vásquez(1835-1875).

The Vasquez family arrived in Alta California [1] in the late 1700s as part of the De Anza Expedition [2]Tiburcio’s parents were José Hermenegildo Vásquez and Maria Guadalupe Cantua.  Tiburcio was well-educated, spoke several languages, and was of slight stature, growing to around 5’ 7” tall, and probably weighing around 170 pounds.  Beginning in 1852, Tiburcio fell under the influence of Anastacio Garcia, who was one of California’s more dangerous outlaws [3].  While attending a fandango in Monterey, California, Tiburcio witnessed the shooting of Monterey Constable William Hardmount by Garcia.  Frightened, Tiburcio fled the scene of the shooting, and while he was not involved in the shooting, the fact that witnesses saw him running away fueled the notion that he was a suspect in the crime.  From this time forward, Tiburcio was a wanted man; a man who operated outside the law; an outlaw.

In matters of crime, Monterey, California has hardly changed over the past 170-years.  Crime was out of control in 1850, and it remains so today.  If fighting and shooting people wasn’t enough mayhem in 1850, we can add feuding to the mix. One of these is known as the Belcher-Roach feud.  It began with two friends whose greed led them down the path of self-destruction, taking innocent people with them along the way.  Lewis F. Belcher and William Roach were both fearless in a fight; neither man would back down.  They both defined justice as an eye-for-an-eye, a tooth-for-a-tooth.

What led to their feud was their affections for the same young (and wealthy) widow.  Belcher arrived in California from New York around the age of 22-years.  Belcher acquired wealth and influence by selling meat to the American Army and Navy.  Sergeant William Roach of Company D —an immigrant from Ireland— arrived with the New York Regiment of Volunteers during the Mexican-American War.  After leaving the Army, Roach successfully ran to become the first sheriff of Monterey County.  Both Belcher and Roach relied on Tiburcio Vásquez and Anastacio Garcia as guns for hire during their murderous dispute.  Assassination and mayhem continued until the State of California executed Garcia in 1875.  Note: Today, Monterey, California is among the most crime-ridden/least safe cities in the entire nation [4].

In 1856, authorities arrested and charged Tiburcio with stealing horses.  After conviction, he received a five-year sentence at San Quinton prison.  His time in jail was productive, however; while incarcerated he planned and participated in four bloody prison-break attempts, which left twenty convicts dead in the prison yard.  After his release from prison, Tiburcio returned to a life of crimes involving burglary, cattle rustling, and highway robberies from one end of California to another.  An 1866 conviction sent him back to prison for robbing a general store in Petaluma, California.

After his second release from prison, Tiburcio organized a gang that included Juan Bautista Soto and Procopio Bustamante.  Standing over 6’ tall and weighing in excess of 200 pounds, Soto presented a terrifying figure.  He had wildly crossed-eyes, was heavily bearded, and his face badly pockmarked. Soto’s short temper made him mean and vicious.  He was also quick on his feet and fast with a gun.  Added to this, Soto hated Anglos.

Bustamante was known by several alias.  Born in Sonora, Mexico, Procopio lost his father during an Indian raid and his uncle Joaquin [5] raised him to adulthood, training him as a vaquero.  In 1862, authorities accused Procopio of murdering a local ranger near Rancho Cucamonga. There being no evidence that he murdered anyone, other than the word of a “witness,” who as it turns out was not even present during the shooting, a judged ordered Procopio released.  Deeply angered by the incident, Procopio delved deeper into outlawry.

The Vásquez gang conducted a string of bandit raids, successfully terrorizing white settlers from one end of California to the other.  In 1870, Santa Cruz lawman Robert Liddell seriously wounded Vásquez during a shootout, but despite his wounds, Vásquez escaped capture and returned to the home of his sister, who hid him and nursed him back to health.  He gained state-wide notoriety in 1873 when he held up Snyder’s Store in Tres Pinos (San Benito County).  In the process of robbing the store of $2,200, Vásquez and his gang murdered three innocent bystanders.  The incident so enraged the governor that he placed a bounty of $1,000 on Vásquez’ his head.  San Jose Sheriff John H. Adams led a posse in pursuit of Vásquez into Southern California. Another gunfight ensued, but Vásquez again evaded capture, this time hiding out with his brother Francisco near Lake Elizabeth.

Tiburcio Vasquez 001Despite these depredations, Vásquez remained popular within several Mexican communities, from Santa Rosa to Los Angeles.  There were no shortages of places to hid or people to shield him from the law.  Tiburcio was literate, handsome, and charismatic. He enjoyed dancing, playing the guitar, and fooling about with the ladies —seldom lacking company with the softer side of frontier society.  Much to the thrill of the ladies, Tiburcio was also the writer of poetry.

After several months, Vásquez returned to the San Joaquin Valley where he re-engaged in criminal activity.  After robbing the Jones Store in Fresno County, he and his gang terrorized and sacked the town of Kingston, making off with $2,500 in cash and valuables.  California’s governor increased his bounty to $15,000 and ordered Alameda County Sheriff Harry Morse track him down.  Despite this increased attention from the law, Vasquez raids continued with stagecoach robberies and murder.

On 15 April 1874, Vasquez kidnapped a prominent sheep rancher named Alessandro Repetto and held him for ransom.  Authorities organized several posse comitatus, but he always managed to escape. He hid for a time in the home of Yiorgos Caralambo at Rancho La Brea (near present-day Sunset Strip in West Hollywood).  This was a decision that led to his downfall.  While living in Caralambo’s home, Vásquez seduced and impregnated Yiorgos’ niece.  Someone connected to the Caralambo family, outraged by this behavior, notified Los Angeles County Sheriff William Rowland of the murderer’s whereabouts.  Sheriff Rowland captured Vásquez on 14 May 1874.

While in jail, Vásquez agreed to several press interviews.  He claimed to be an honorable man who simply wanted to return California to Mexican rule.  After several months, he stood trial in San Jose, California, but his pre-trial confinement period made him into a celebrity within Hispanic communities and in the Anglo press.

The Vásquez trial lasted four days; the jury deliberated for just two hours before reaching a guilty verdict.  The presiding judge ordered Tiburcio Vásquez hanged—and it might have been a rapid hanging were it not for the fact that Tiburcio filed an appeal for clemency.  Awaiting a decision, Vásquez entertained scores of visitors in his jail cell, many of these were women, and Señior Vasquez enjoyed his popularity.  He signed autographs, posed for photographs, and sold these from the window in his cell—all proceeds going directly to his attorney, of course.  Ultimately, California governor Romualdo Pacheco denied Vasquez’ request for clemency and on 19 March 1875, Tiburcio Vasquez stepped calmly into the afterlife.  He was 39-years old.

It should surprise no one that Tiburcio Vásquez remains a hero within some California Hispanic communities.  Glorifying a murderer and a thief may have been the intent of Johnson McCulley —but it is not a view that I share.  There is nothing at all romantic or heroic about Tiburcio Vasquez.  If Johnson McCulley based his character Zorro on the life and times of Tiburcio Vasquez, then Zorro can never be a heroic figure.

Sources:

  1. Yenne, B. The Legend of Zorro.  Mallard Press, 1991
  2. Curtis, S. Zorro Unmasked: The official history.  Hyperion Press, 1998

Endnotes:

[1] Also referred to as Upper California, Nueva California, California del Norte, was a province of New Spain from about 1804 (along with the peninsula of Baja California).  Alta California became part of Mexico in 1822, renamed Alta California in 1824, its territory included all present-day California, Nevada, Utah, parts of Arizona, Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico.  It was mostly a paper territory, however, because neither Spain or Mexico colonized the area beyond the southern and central coastal regions of modern-day California and small areas of Arizona.  There was never any effective control in California above the area of Sonoma.

[2] Juan Bautista de Anza (1736-1788) served as the 55th Governor of the Province of New Mexico (1778-1788).  When the Spanish began colonizing Alta California in 1769, Spanish authorities soon realized that they needed a more direct land route and additional colonies, particularly in the area of present-day San Francisco.  They established additional missions in the Salinas Valley.  The de Anza expedition to Alta California, which began on 8 January 1774.

[3] Apparently, few Mexicans living in California enjoyed the idea of being part of the United States after 1850.  Some of these people moved back to Mexico, others channeled their anger through banditry, and of course, there were people of Mexican heritage that adapted to the new order of politics in California after 1850.

[4] Monterey, California Crime Analytics, Neighborhood Scout Organization.  On a scale of 100 (indicating America’s safest cities), Monterey ranks 6.

[5] Juaquin Murrieta (1829-1853) was a dangerous outlaw who migrated to California in 1849.  During the California Gold Rush Murrieta formed several gangs that engaged in murder, armed robbery, and horse theft.  Johnson McCulley likely incorporated Murrieta, Bustamante, and Vásquez to form the character Zorro.

Posted in History | 4 Comments

At San Jacinto, 1836

Mexican Independence 001The Mexican War of Independence was a long and bloody affair … as well as the genesis of much internal strife after 1821.  Texas was part of Mexico, but sparsely populated with fewer than 3,500 residents and only around 200 regular soldiers to provide for their safety. Adding to the danger from hostile Indians, American filibusters complicated the lives of residents even further.  With the hope that an influx of settlers might curb Indian raids, the bankrupt Mexican government liberalized their immigration policy.  Finally, able to settle legally in Texas, thousands of Americans quickly outnumbered the Tejanos.  Most of these people migrated from the southern United States; many were slave-owners, nearly all harbored some prejudice against other races whom they regarded as inferior.  Promising to convert to Catholicism, most never did.  Protestant looked down on “papists” and generally would have nothing to do with them.

The migrants did understand that their loyalty belonged to Mexico; most took their oath of allegiance seriously —a loyalty to the Constitution of 1824, which defined Mexico as a federal republic.  Under federalism, the provinces of Mexico were autonomous; they were able to govern themselves with minimal interference from the central government.  Of course, this question of federalism vs. centralism became the source of much political upheaval in Mexico.  The Anglo settlers pledged their fealty to that Constitution. When centralists sought to suspend or ignore the Constitution of 1824, several provinces rebelled.  Initially, the vast reaches of Texas were a part of Coahuila, known as the State of Coahuila y Tejas.  Its capital was Saltillo, which was hundreds of miles away from San Antonio de Béxar.  Within the provincial legislature, however, Texas had but one representative. Tejanos were outraged about this arrangement and after much grumbling, the governor and legislature agreed to form Texas as a major department within the province.  The capital of Texas was San Antonio de Béxar.

All Anglo settlers watched the political upheaval in Mexico with some concern, most eventually reconciling themselves to continue to support the Constitution of 1824 without voicing objection to the increasingly centralized regime which was taking place under El Presidenté Anastasio Bustamante.  When the Mexican legislature abolished slavery in 1829, the Anglo settlers bridled, teetering on the verge of open revolt.  In response, Bustamante prohibited further immigration to Texas from the United States, increased taxes, and reaffirmed the ban on slavery.  Texians simply ignored the law.

Santa Anna 003

El Presidente General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna

In 1830, General Antonio López de Santa Annawas was a fence-sitter in Mexican politics.  He claimed to support federalism, a stance that won him the support of Texians, but he was simply waiting to see which way the wind was blowing.  In 1832, Santa Anna led a revolt to overthrow Bustamante; the Texians used this uprising as an excuse to take up arms.  By mid-August of that year, the Texians expelled all centralist politicians and the military from East Texas.  Encouraged by their successes, Texians held two conventions, both intending to persuade the Mexican government to repeal the Law of 1830.  By November 1833, the Mexican legislature granted concessions to the Texians, particularly in the area of immigration, and increased representation in the provincial legislature.  Despite these concessions, the Mexican government remained wary of the Texians [1].

El Presidenté General Santa Anna revealed himself as a centralist not long after seizing power from Bustamante.  In 1835, Santa Anna overturned the Constitution of 1824, dismissed state legislatures, disbanded militias, and arrested federalists.  Rebellions broke out in Oaxaca and Zacatecas; Mexicans took up arms and Santa Anna moved against them in a most-brutal fashion.  When he subdued the rebellion in Zacatecas, Santa Anna authorized his troops to sack the city; more than 2,000 Mexican civilians lost their lives.  In Coahuila y Tejas, Governor Agustin Viesca refused to dissolve the legislature, instead ordering the legislature to convene in San Antonio de Béxar.  A prominent citizen by the name of Juan Seguin raised a militia, but the city council ordered him not to interfere. Meanwhile, Santa Anna’s army arrested Viesca before he reached the safety of Texas.

Texians had a divided opinion about these events.  In the United States, editorials began advocating for independence for Texas.  A minor revolt over the issue of customs duties resulted in public meetings to determine whether most settlers favored independence, a return to federalism, or the status quo (centralism under the tyrant Santa Anna).  With few exceptions, most communities agreed to send delegates to the “Consultation” scheduled for October 1835.

Fearing an open revolt, Mexican military commander in Texas called for reinforcements as early as April 1835.  Politically, Mexico was ill-prepared for a large civil war, but continued unrest in Texas posed a greater danger to the power of Santa Anna in Mexico City.  If the citizens of Coahuila took up arms, Mexico could end up losing a large portion of its sovereign territory.  Always in the back of their minds, Mexican officials feared the intentions of the United States.  At risk were the Mexican territories of New Mexico and California. Santa Anna had no wish to tangle with the United States and the best way to ensure that this didn’t happen was to subdue any rebellion in Texas.  In September 1835, Santa Anna ordered his brother-in-law, General Martin Perfecto de Cos, to lead 500 soldiers to Texas and quell any rebellious behavior. When General Cos landed with his men at Copano Bay in late September, Texian Empresario Stephen F. Austin called all municipalities to raise militias in their self-defense.

Twenty-one settlements sent 45 delegates to the Convention of 1836, which convened on 1 March. Within one-hour of the convention’s opening, delegate George C. Childress submitted a proposed declaration of independence.  Delegates overwhelmingly passed this measure on 2 March.  Four days later, 1,800 Mexican soldiers under General Santa Anna destroyed the small garrison at the Alamo; every defender lost his life, including James Bowie, William Travis, and David Crockett.  See also: The Dickinson’s of the Alamo.

While the Texian government worked on the Constitution of the Republic of Texas, Sam Houston received an appointment as Commander-in-Chief of the Texas Army. His army variously numbered 300 or less men.  David G. Burnet was elected president of Texas; on his second day in office, Burnet announced that his government was leaving Washington-on-the Brazos for Harrisburg, a city further removed from Santa Anna’s army.

After the fall of the Alamo, Santa Anna remained in San Antonio with a small force while directing his generals to destroy all Texian opposition.  Meanwhile, Mexico’s acting president, Miguel Barragán died in office. When he received this news, Santa Anna considered returning to Mexico City to solidify his position.  At the same time, he feared that General Urrea’s victories in Texas would undermine his political standing.  Santa Anna decided to remain in Texas.  In late March, Santa Anna departed Béxar to join General Ramírez y Sesma in his East Texas campaign to clean out the Texians.

On 7 April, General Sesma’s scouts captured a Texian soldier, who informed Santa Anna that the Texians planned to retreat in the face of the approaching Mexican army. Then, on 14 April a small company of Texian irregulars prevented Santa Anna from crossing the Brazos River. Frustrated, Santa Anna led his force of 700 men to try to capture the Texian government at Harrisburg, which he nearly did.  Santa Anna dispatched Colonel Juan Almonte with fifty dragoons to intercept their escape, but these officials avoided capture by taking small boats to Galveston Island.

Despite their flight, Santa Anna believed that the Texian government was in disarray and the rebellion in its final stage.  He had forced the delegates off the mainland, the government had no way of communicating with the Texian army, and most settlers had shown little interest in confronting Santa Anna’s army.  Colonel Almonte’s scouts erroneously reported that Houston’s army was en route to Lynchburg, on Buffalo Bayou.  Almonte supposed that Houston would try to join the government at Galveston.  After burning Harrisburg to the ground, Santa Anna pressed on toward Lynchburg.

On 16 April, Houston’s army came to a crossroad.  One road led north toward Nacogdoches, the other toward Harrisburg.  The Texians took the Harrisburg road, arriving there two days later —scant hours after Santa Anna’s army had departed.  On that same day, Deaf Smith and Henry Karnes captured a Mexican courier who was in possession of Santa Anna’s operation plans, his order of battle, and the location of all of Santa Anna’s subordinate commanders. Houston realized that Santa Anna force was small and not far away.  Knowing that the Mexican army was widely displaced, Houston stirred his men to battle. REMEMBER THE ALAMO.  REMEMBER GOLIAD.  Houston and his men raced to Lynchburg.

The area along Buffalo Bayou consisted of thick oak groves and marshes.  It was a terrain familiar to the Texians, less so to the Mexicans. Houston’s army of around 900 men reached Lynch’s Ferry by mid-morning on 20 April.  Santa Anna’s 700-man force arrived a few hours later.  The Texians made camp in a wooded area along the bank of the bayou; their location provided good cover and concealment from the Mexicans. It also left the Texians no room for retreat.  Houston fully realized this; an army fights harder when the only way out is forward. In contrast, Santa Anna made his camp at a vulnerable location, an open field near the San Jacinto River.  Santa Anna’s camp bordered woods on one side, a marsh and a lake on the other.  Colonel Pedro Delgado recorded in his journal that his general’s selection of encampment went against all military rules and logic.

Over several hours, both sides initiated brief skirmishes.  Throughout the night, Santa Anna worked his men to fortify their camp, creating breastworks of logs, brush, and even saddles.  By early morning, the Mexican soldiers were weary from al their work. General Cos arrived with 540 reinforcements at around 9 a.m.  Having marched throughout the night, General Cos’s men were exhausted.  They were new recruits —out of shape, ill-trained, and unfit for battle.  In any case, as the morning passed with no Texian attack, Mexican officers ordered their men to rest.  Santa Anna’s camp grew suddenly quiet.  Meanwhile, Houston ordered Deaf Smith to destroy Vince’s Bridge, six miles from camp, to prevent Santa Anna’s escape and deny any further Mexican reinforcement. At around 4 p.m., the Texians quietly began their advance through the tall grass pulling their cannon behind them. Texian artillery began firing at around 4:30 p.m.  It was the opening salvo of the Battle of San Jacinto.

After a single volley of cannon, the undisciplined Texians broke ranks and swarmed over the Mexican breastworks, engaging their enemy in hand to hand fighting.  The attack surprised the Mexicans and sent them into panic. General Santa Anna, Colonel Castrillón, and Colonel Almonte shouted contradictory commands, which confused the men further.  The only thing these soldiers knew for certain was that Texians were killing them in a fanatical assault.  Many of the Mexican soldiers threw down their weapons and shouted, “Me no Alamo,” but the Texians remembered what General Houston told them.  They remembered the Alamo; they remembered Goliad; they resolved to take no prisoners.  Other Mexican soldiers tried to escape; the Texians killed them, too.

Despite every effort of the Texian officers to stop the slaughter, the killing lasted for hours. The Texian Army, what there was of it, was out of control and there was nothing that Houston or anyone else could do to stop them.  In all, the Texians cut down more than 650 Mexican soldiers; 300 more became prisoners. Eleven Texians died; 30 others, including Houston, received wounds.

The Texians were lucky. They didn’t win this battle because they were well-disciplined troops; they won it because General Santa Anna, in his arrogance, had made tragic mistakes —the sort of things that an inexperienced junior officer might do.  Nor were the troops under Santa Anna the bulk of his army.  Four-thousand additional Mexican troops served under Generals Urrea and Vicente Filisola.  General Santa Anna also tried to escape the Texian onslaught.  He dressed himself in the uniform of a private soldier and headed toward Vince’s Bridge.  Captain Deaf Smith discovered him hiding in nearby marshes and took him to General Houston.

Houston, in great pain from a bullet wound in the ankle, listened to what Santa Anna had to say. He offered Houston peace in exchange for his life.  The Texians, however, wanted to see Santa Anna hanged.  Houston had a bigger fish to fry.  Santa Anna sent dispatches to his subordinates ordering them to return to San Antonio de Béxar.  Filisola was the next senior officer in the chain of command, and General Urrea urged him to continue the campaign.  General Filisola reckoned that Santa Anna had already caused one disaster; he did not want to create another.  The Mexican army was out of food; the rains had ruined their gunpowder; the roads were impassable; and the troops were falling ill with dysentery and malaria. Filisola also guessed that there would be no reinforcements.

Ultimately, there were two treaties, an idea proposed by Santa Anna.  Houston, Rusk, and Burnet foolishly agreed to this.   The first treaty was one designed for public dissemination of the agreements reached between Mexico and the Republic of Texas; the second treaty was private and included Santa Anna’s personal guarantees. Mexico later repudiated both agreements, claiming that a head of state serving as a prisoner of war could not speak on behalf of his country.

As the Mexican army withdrew from Texas, they took with them many Tejanos who did not want to live in the Republic of Texas (they would all change their minds in the 20th-century). They also took with them a number of slaves who preferred living free in Mexico than in bondage in Texas.  The Mexican army departed Texas in late May, but every Mexican senior officer believed that the war was far from over. The government of Mexico steadfastly refused to recognize the independent country of Texas.  In Mexico City, legislators chastised General Filisola for retreating and replaced him with General Urrea.  Within a few months, Urrea had gathered 6,000 troops to re-enter Texas.  However, internal rebellion within other Mexican states required Urrea to abandon his plan for the reconquest of Texas.

Most Texians expected a renewal of fighting.  The assumption prompted many American volunteers to join the Texas army.  There were so many volunteers that the Texas Army could not maintain records of every volunteer.  Out of caution, San Antonio de Béxar remained under martial law through the end of 1836.  For the Tejanos living there It was a heavy-handed occupation; all Tejanos in the area between Guadalupe and Nueces rivers were given this option: either move to east Texas or migrate back to Mexico.  Texas authorities forcibly removed Tejanos who refused to comply with the evacuation order.  Once they were gone, newly arrived settlers from the United States quickly took possession of these properties.  Hundreds of Tejano chose to return to Mexico.

Texas Republic 1826-1839

Republic of Texas Flag, 1836-1839

For many years after Texan independence, Mexican officials used the reconquest of Texas as an excuse for implementing new taxes and spending money on the army rather than on much-needed infrastructure. Sporadic skirmishes did occur inside Texas, but larger expeditions never took place.  The Mexican government also worried about other Mexican states pursuing similar revolutions and the purpose of Mexico’s army was to keep the people in line.

During Santa Anna’s absence from Mexico, the government deposed him, but no one in Mexico’s history had a more prolific pollical career than Antonio López de Santa Anna.  He would ascend to the presidency on several occasions; he would once more confront Anglos —this time in Mexico during the Mexican-American War (1846-1848).  Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna wouldn’t like the result of that war, either.

Sources:

  1. Calore, P. The Texas Revolution and the US-Mexican War: A concise history.  Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2014
  2. Davis, W. C. Lone Star Rising: The Revolutionary Birth of the Texas Republic.  New York: Free Press, 2004
  3. Hardin, S. L.Texian Iliad: A Military History of the Texas Revolution.  Austin: University of Texas Press, 1994

Endnote:

[1] By 1834, an estimated 30,000 Anglo colonists lived in Coahuila y Tejas, compare to less than 8,000 Tejanos.  At the end of 1835, there were 5,000 African slaves living in Texas—about thirteen percent of the non-Indian population.

Posted in History | 2 Comments

Mexican Texas

(Continued from last week)

Filibuster

Noun

An irregular military adventurer, especially one who engages in an unauthorized military expedition into a foreign country to foment or support a revolution.

Philip Nolan 001

Purported to be Philip Nolan but whether this is a true image remains in doubt as it didn’t appear in print until long after Nolan’s execution. Image extracted from the public domain.

The term filibuster derived from the old English word “freebooter,” by which Anglo-Saxons invariably described such men as Sir Henry Morgan and the various other looters of the Spanish Main.  Morgan raided the Caribbean area and plundered Panama with the flimsiest license, but since he served a national purpose, the British turned a blind eye to his activities.  After all, he was only raiding Spanish property and ships.  He wasn’t alone, of course.  There was also Sir Francis Drake, William Dampier, and Woodes Rogers.  Besides, it was a very profitable enterprise.  The freebooters weren’t supposed to raid against their own kind, of course, but it did happen.  As privateers, these men only did what their government lacked the courage to do.

The French had their own group of freebooters who ranged the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico.  They called them boucaniers.  In the 17thand early 18thcentury, French and English buccaneers were often allies.  Eventually, the word ‘freebooter’ in the French language became flibustier, and this word worked itself back into the English language as filibuster.  No matter what they were called, they all had the same purpose.

As their maritime assets were a regular target of the English and French freebooters, the Spanish had a different word to describe the filibuster or buccaneer: piratas(pirates) [1].  When the word filibusterodid come into Spanish usage, it primarily referred to Americans who engaged in insurgencies against the Spanish Crown.  The first of these was a man named Philip Nolan [2].

Nolan, an immigrant from Ireland, was an educated man who loved adventure and risk taking.  He was already well-known in Texas in 1785, where he engaged in the illegal and highly dangerous world of smuggling on the Mississippi River.  If the French permitted Anglo settlement and trade, the Governor of Texas, Manuel Muñozdid not.  Nolan was a mustanger … a man who captured wild horses in Texas and sold them to the ever-increasing population of the American south.  It might be successfully that no white man knew Texas better than Philip Nolan.  He was the first English speaking person to make an accurate map.  He was astute, as well.  In making his map, Nolan saw Spain’s weaknesses and he was overcome with the heady scent of empire.  There was something about Texas’ open space that drew Nolan in.

In 1797, Nolan presented the Baron de Carondelet, Governor of Louisiana, with a copy of his Texas map.  With much gratitude, Carondelet offered him a contract to sell horses to Louisiana.  He did this knowing that Nolan’s operations in Texas were illegal —but, as Carondelet and Muñoz were frequently at odds with one another, the legality of Nolan’s contract may not have mattered. More importantly, however, Philip Nolan entered into a secret arrangement with General James Wilkinson, who was the Senior Officer commanding the U. S. Army.  Wilkinson suggested that Nolan gather a force of reliable men and detach Texas from New Spain.  Wilkinson agreed to provide Nolan with material support.  Thus, in October 1800, Nolan returned to Texas with a party of about twenty armed Americans and a handful of personal slaves.  By the appearance of this band, it was just another mustang raid, but there was a new governor of Texas.  Juan Bautista de Elguezábal had a text-book case of phobia toward all Anglo-Americans.  History tells us, however, that Spain’s fear of Anglo encroachment was not at all an unreasonable one and it was becoming somewhat dominant within New Spain’s northern frontier.

Elguezábal was well-aware that Americans were squatting in parts of East Texas.  He issued an arrest order for all Norte Americanos whose conduct was in the least bit suspicious.  Philip Nolan was fully qualified for arrest.  The Spanish claimed to have solid evidence that Nolan planned to foment a revolution and make himself the king of Texas.  Elguezábal ordered that Nolan be “put out of the way” if he ever again returned to the Spanish frontier.

Philip Nolan met an armed Spanish patrol in East Texas but successfully faced them down.  He got as far as the Brazos River, and had already assembled several hundred head of horses, when a company of soldiers under Lieutenant Miguel Francisco Músquiztracked him down and, in the dead of night, quietly surrounded Nolan’s encampment.  A vicious attack occurred at dawn of the next morning, during which Nolan was shot and killed.

Nolan’s second in command, Peter Ellis Bean [3], took charge of the Nolan party, but outnumbered and nearly out of ammunition, Bean surrendered.  Also factoring into his decision, Bean assumed Spanish officials would return his men to the United States.  Instead, the soldiers marched them to Mexico.  What we know of Nolan’s demise comes from Músquiz’ journal: “Nolan’s negroes begged permission to bury their master’s body, which I granted after causing his ears to be cut off in order to send them to the Governor of Texas.”

Deep inside Mexico, Bean and his mean were held captive in several towns pending a royal decision about their eventual fate.  That decision finally arrived in 1807.  It ordered that every fifth man be hanged as a pirate and that the rest of the men be sentenced to ten years’ hard labor.  By this time, all but nine of the captured Americans had died from illness or other reasons.  Ultimately, only one man was hanged: Ephraim Blackburn, and except for Blackburn and Bean, the names of these other men have been lost in time.

Bean was not a model prisoner.  He was unruly, disrespectful of Spanish priests, and attempted escape on several occasions.  After one of these failed attempts his Spanish masters placed him in stocks and left him there for fifteen days.  Bean remained recalcitrant, but despite this, he received parole in Chihuahua, and he went into business as a hat-maker.  After five years of good behavior, the hapless Bean and several others attempted to escape through New Mexico.  They were recaptured and Bean was marched to Acapulco where he remained in prison until 1811.

The Mexican Revolution broke out in 1810.  When Bean learned of this in 1811, he volunteered to fight for the Crown. Spanish authority released Bean almost immediately, but he just as quickly deserted to the rebel cause, finding his way to the revolutionary General José María Teclo Morelos Pérez y Pavón(a Roman Catholic priest who replaced the executed Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla), who was then besieging Acapulco.  Bean soon rose in rank and stature among the rebels, in large part because of his knowledge of munitions.  He established several powder mills and furnaces for casting cannon.  In time, Bean convinced Morelos to send him back to the United States to win sympathy and material aid to the rebel cause.  Now a colonel, Bean was back in Louisiana by 1814. In New Orleans, Bean encountered Jean Lafitte and soon after, they offered their services to Andrew Jackson during the Battle of New Orleans.  The valiant conduct of both Lafitte and Bean gained the former a pardon for his piracy, and the latter promises for help for the Mexican insurgency.

There can be no question at this part of the narrative that the Spanish were prescient in their concerns for Anglo meddling in Spanish-Mexican affairs.

BEAN 001Meanwhile, Philip Nolan’s sponsor, General Wilkinson, was engaged in what can only be called mind boggling intrigue.  He wore the uniform of a senior American officer, but most of his efforts were for his own benefit.  Wilkinson may not have been a typical American —but he neither was he unusual in the early 1800s.  The emerging United States was short on professional officers and competent diplomats.

Peter Ellis Bean continued his engagement with Mexico.  He married a lady from a respectable family and fully intended to take her to the United States.  In 1816, however, Bean was nearly captured by royalist forces near Veracruz and he only just managed to escape back to New Orleans.  By mutual consent, his Spanish wife agreed to remain in Mexico.  Back in the United States, Bean quartered himself in the Neutral Ground [4] where he was safe from agents of Spain and the United States.  In the next year, he decided to visit his Tennessee relatives.  In 1818, perhaps thinking that his Spanish wife was dead, he married a woman by the name of Candace Midkiff.  He moved with her to Arkansas in 1820.

With news of Mexican independence, Bean moved with his family to Nacogdoches, settling near the Old San Antonio Road, with every intention of seeking a reward for his revolutionary services.  In 1825, Bean returned to Mexico, where he received a grant of land, received a commission as a colonel in the Mexican Army, and appointed as a government agent to the Cherokee Indians in East Texas.  While in Mexico, he renewed his relationship with Magdalena, but retained his home with Candace in Texas.

Nacogdoches TX 001Back in Texas, Bean was instrumental in defusing the so-called Fredonian Rebellion [5] by keeping the Cherokee neutral.  It is likely that Bean sympathized with the Texas Revolution after 1833, but as an officer of the Mexican army, he took no active part in it.  When the fighting began, he volunteered to place himself under arrest.  Initially, Sam Houston granted Bean parole, but later had him detained.  After Texas independence, Bean continued to reside in Nacogdoches until 1843.  He returned to Veracruz and his first wife. He passed away in 1847, aged 63-years. At the time of his passing, he owned considerable property in East Texas, regarded as a wealthy man, and one well thought of by the people who knew him.

As for what happened next in Mexican Texas, see The Dickinson’s of the Alamo.

Sources:

  1. Fehrenbach, T. R. Lone Star: A History of Texas and the Texans, 1968, 2000
  2. Jackson, J. Indian Agent: Peter Ellis Bean in Mexican Texas.  College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2005.
  3. Lay, B. The Lives of Ellis P. Bean.  Austin: University of Texas Press, 1960.
  4. The Handbook of Texas online.
  5. Brown, C. H. Agents of Manifest Destiny: The Lives and Times of the Filibusters.  Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1980.

Endnotes:

[1] As one might expect, given the number of depredations foisted upon the Spanish by English and French buccaneers, the word in Hispanic society is revolting.  Antonio López de Santa Anna referred to the Texian rebels as pirates at the time he issued his “no quarter” order at the Battle of the Alamo and at Goliad in 1836.  Traditionally, the Spanish summarily executed pirates whenever they were captured.

[2] Writer Edward Everett Hale named Philip Nolan as the primary character in his book, “Man Without a Country.”  The story was published in The Atlantic Monthlyin December 1863.  Hale’s story was entirely fiction and had no bearing on the actual life of Philip Nolan.

[3] Bean (1783-1846) was born in Tennessee who settled in Natchez (present-day Mississippi) until joining Nolan’s filibuster to Spanish Texas.

[4] A no-man’s land between Louisiana and Texas where by agreement, neither the United States, nor Mexico exercised any control.  The Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819 finally resolved the issue of control over the Neutral Ground.  Until then, the area provided sanctuary for murderers, rapists, thieves, and brawlers.

[5] The first attempt by Anglo settlers to settle in Texas (1826-1827) and secede from Mexico.  The settlers were led by Haden Edwards, who declared the Republic of Fredonia just outside Nacogdoches.  The rebellion was short lived, resulting in the cancellation of Edwards empresarial contract.  While nearby Cherokee initially agreed to support the new republic, Bean and Stephen F. Austin convinced leading citizens to repudiate the rebellion.  In 1827, a force of one-hundred Mexican soldiers and 275 militia from the Austin colony marched into Nacogdoches and restored Mexican control over this area. The incident, while short lived, convinced Mexico to increase its military footprint in the northern frontier.

Posted in History | 2 Comments