DEPREDATION and DECEIT Michno - New Mexico Map 2Nd Proof Bill Nelson 4/3/17

DEPREDATION and DECEIT Michno - New Mexico map 2nd proof Bill Nelson 4/3/17 Arkansas Pueblo N Bent’s Fort l S i Northern Boundary AN ra JU T AN e 9th Military Department M F TS Fort Massachusetts ta . n SAN LUIS SPANISH a S S VALLEY A PEAKS N G R E D E C R I S T O O Trail Taos Fe anta Burgwin S Abiquiu Fort Deance JEMEZ MTS. Fort Union Santa Fe Las Vegas Anton Chico Canadian Albuquerque P e c o s . TS M Socorro TIL DA Fort Conrad M O G O Fort Craig L Fort Stanton L O N e M d T S n . a r SIERRA G BLANCA o i Fort Webster R Fort Thorn Mesilla Fort Fillmore El Paso 0 50 100 mi 0 50 100 150 km New Mexico. Map by Bill Nelson. Copyright © 2017 by the University of Oklahoma Press. DEPREDATION and DECEIT The Making of the Jicarilla and Ute Wars in New Mexico Gregory F. Michno UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA PRESS : NORMAN Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Name: Michno, Gregory, 1948– author. Title: Depredation and deceit : the making of the Jicarilla and Ute wars in New Mexico / Gregory F. Michno. Description: Norman : University of Oklahoma Press, 2017. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2017001118 | ISBN 978-0-8061-5769-6 (hardcover : alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Jicarilla Indians—Wars. | Indians of North America—Claims against— New Mexico—History—19th century. | Jicarilla Indians—New Mexico—History—19th century. | Ute Indians—New Mexico—History—19th century. | Ute Indians—Wars. Classification: LCC E99.J5 M53 2017 | DDC 973.6/6—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017001118 The paper in this book meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources, Inc. ∞ Copyright © 2017 by the University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Publishing Division of the University. Manufactured in the U.S.A. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photo- copying, recording, or otherwise—except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the United States Copyright Act—without the prior written permission of the University of Oklahoma Press. To request permission to reproduce selections from this book, write to Permissions, University of Oklahoma Press, 2800 Venture Drive, Norman, OK 73069, or email [email protected]. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 To Robert W. Larson for his inspiration and faith in me Contents Illustrations ix Introduction 3 1. The American Regime 11 2. The First Conflict 36 3. Smoke and Fog 73 4. “State to Me the Scenes of Desolation” 122 5. “The Long Wished for Crisis Is on Us” 173 6. The War of 1855 215 Appendix A. Chronology of Depredation Claims 255 Appendix B. Statehood and Territorial Proponents, with Depredation Claims and Army Contracts 266 Appendix C. Depredation Claims, Tribes, and Treaties 268 Appendix D. Depredation Claims and Troop Strength 269 Appendix E. Presiding Officials, 1846–1855 270 Notes 273 Bibliography 307 Index 315 vii Illustrations Figures Stephen Watts Kearny 110 The high cliffs along a 100-mile stretch of the Canadian River 110 Las Valles (La Liendre) 111 Lucien Maxwell 111 Cerro de la Olla 112 Indian agent James S. Calhoun 112 Anton Chico, a Mexican village on the Pecos River 113 Wagon Mound, on the Santa Fe Trail 114 Lt. Col. Edwin V. Sumner 114 William Carr Lane 115 Cantonment Burgwin 115 David Meriwether 116 The upper reaches of La Cinta Creek 116 Gen. John Garland 117 Southern approach to the village at Cieneguilla 118 View from the Jicarilla village at Cieneguilla 118 Ojo Caliente 119 Fishers Peak 120 Saguache “Pass” 121 Chalk Creek, near the foot of Mt. Princeton 121 ix x Illustrations Maps New Mexico ii Northern New Mexico 63 Cieneguilla, March 30, 1854 187 Ojo Caliente, April 8, 1854 195 Southern Colorado, 1855 227 DEPREDATION and DECEIT Introduction he picturesque Sangre de Cristo Mountains are part of the Rocky Mountains Tand stretch nearly 250 miles from southern Colorado into northern New Mexico. The name is Spanish for “Blood of Christ” and according to legend may refer to the blood-red tints that the mountains take on during some sunrises and sunsets. More than blood, however, the mountains can be notorious for the heavy fall and winter fogs that snake through the valleys and climb the peaks, obscuring the landscape from view. Pathways become deceptive and seemingly well-trodden roads become unreliable. Likewise, the title’s reference to “Depredation and Deceit” has several layers: despoliation, ruin, duplicity, fraud, and perhaps even the fog of war. Depredations and deceit certainly preceded the so-called Jicarilla and Ute Wars from 1849 to 1855. For those conflicts were completely unnecessary. They were caused, in major part, by American and Mexican greed and were bolstered by a depredation claims indemnification system that almost guaranteed war between the Indians and the whites—the salient objective that the system was established to prevent. Enacting a law destined to guarantee war was certainly not the intent of Congress, but it involved a higher “law of unintended consequences” or the droll assessment that “no good deed shall go unpunished.” How colonists could get along with the Indians was a question plaguing them from the early seventeenth century. Americans wanted land, and they viewed the newly discovered territories as uninhabited, regardless of the presence of the “uncivilized” Native peoples that currently occupied it. By the time the colonies became independent many treaties had failed, but both sides realized that some means of amity had to 3 4 Depredation and Deceit be reached to prevent endless war. The new United States made the Treaty of Hopewell with the Cherokees in 1785, which included stipulations that Indians who committed crimes against American citizens would be punished according to U.S. laws, while citizens who committed crimes against Indians would likewise be punished. One article rather sinisterly stated that “punishment of the innocent under the idea of retaliation, is unjust, and shall not be practiced on either side, except” during war, in which case the innocents apparently were fair game.1 To stifle potential conflict, the United States tried to regulate all trade and intercourse with the tribes, limiting who could trade among the Indians and what items were allowed—whiskey and guns being almost universally banned. An Ordinance for the Regulation of Indian Affairs was passed in 1786, and the famous Northwest Ordinance was passed in 1787. Among its tenets were the lines: “The utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians, their lands and property shall never be taken from them without their consent; and in their property rights and liberty, they never shall be invaded or disturbed,” followed by the kicker: “unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress.”2 There always seemed to be contradictory intentions: try to curb white acquisi- tiveness but defend it. Three years after the Treaty of Hopewell, Americans were stealing Cherokee lands. Secretary of war Henry Knox was angered by the “avari- cious desire of obtaining fertile lands possessed by the said Indians” of the whites, “who have so flagitiously stained the American name.” The next year, Knox had the same problem with whites and the Wabash Indians in the Northwest Territory. He knew that the Indians had a right to the land and that it could not be taken from them without their consent or “in case of a just war.” Irrespective of the wishes of the frontier whites, who “have the strongest prejudices against the Indians,” to dispossess them of their land “would be a gross violation of the fundamental laws of nature.” But if the Indians “persist in their depredations, the United States may with propriety inflict such punishment as they shall think proper.”3 In 1789 the War Department was established, with Indian affairs under its jurisdiction. In 1790 and 1793 two Trade and Intercourse Acts were passed, both providing for the punishment of non-Indians who committed crimes against Indians residing in Indian country. In 1795, in his Seventh Annual Message, President George Washington reiterated the ongoing concern that whites “alienating” Indian lands were “the main cause of discontent and war” and that only by assuring justice to the Indians could the United States prevent the “frequent destruction of innocent women and children, who are chiefly the victims of retaliation.” Washington believed that provisions were needed for Introduction 5 “inflicting adequate penalties upon all those who” violated Indian rights and thus endangered the peace of the country.4 It seemed that the founding fathers and their generation understood that the main Indian problem came from white people and that the two groups had to work together to achieve peace. But it was still the Age of Enlightenment, and the founders’ progeny had not yet disassembled that edifice into the coming phase of melancholy Romanticism and virulent racism. Yet it was necessary to prevent whites and Indians from killing each other over real or imagined theft, insult, or injury. A third intercourse act, the strongest yet, was approved on May 19, 1796, with the full title “An Act to Regulate Trade and Intercourse with the Indian Tribes and to Preserve Peace on the Frontiers.” Some old treaty stipulations were rewritten. The issue of white encroachment was addressed in section 4. If any citizen went into Indian country and committed robbery, trespass, or other crime against any friendly Indian, “such offender shall forfeit a sum not exceeding one hundred dollars, and be imprisoned not exceeding twelve months.” The offender must also pay the Indian “a sum equal to twice the just value of the property.” If the offender was financially unable to make the payment, the money “shall be paid out of the treasury of the United States,” provided that the Indians or the nation to which they belonged have not “sought private revenge, or attempted to obtain satisfaction by any force or violence.”5 It was hoped that this would address the problem of white violations, but the settlers also complained about Indian intrusion.

Load more