History of Arizona and New Mexico, 1530-1888, Volume XVII, Part 72

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe, 1832-1918; Oak, Henry Lebbeus, 1844-1905
Publication date: 1889
Publisher: San Francisco : The History Company
Number of Pages: 890

USA > Arizona > History of Arizona and New Mexico, 1530-1888, Volume XVII > Part 72
USA > New Mexico > History of Arizona and New Mexico, 1530-1888, Volume XVII > Part 72

Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).

20 Gorman, Sam., Address before the Historical Society of N. Mex., N. Y., 1860, Svo, 25 p. This treats of the early history, manners, and customs, etc., of the Pueblos; and the same is true of most reports and other writings of the period in which they are mentioned. With this subject my readers are al- ready fully acquainted. Meline, 2,000 Miles, 222, gives a table for 1863, showing that the Pueblos had 671 horses, 64 mules, 818 asses, 2, 143 cows, and 783 oxen. See also, in U. S. Land Of. Rept, 1861, p. 125-6, list of pueblos, with location, population, extent, and wealth. The total of personal property in 18 pueblos was $518,496. Most of them had about 17,500 acres of land; Picurí had 34,766, Pecos 18,763, Cochití 24,256, Sto Domingo 74,743, Pujua- que 13,520, Sandía 24,187, Isleta 110,080, and Nambé 13,586.

673

THE PUEBLO INDIANS.

own way, but as Indians the people were, to a certain extent, under control of the department, and there was some clashing with territorial authority. The legis- lature about 1855 declared the pueblos corporate bodies, capable of suing and being sued, which led to much vexatious litigation, and to the danger of all property being eaten up in legal expenses. The In- dians in some cases voted for delegate to congress, but their votes were rejected. Indeed, in not being citi- zens to be ruled by the civil laws, or Indians in the sense of adaptability to regulations of the interior department, or hostiles to be taken in hand by the military, their position was anomalous and perplexing. Yet in many respects they were the best people in the territory. They were jealous of interference, es- pecially with their lands, sometimes even declining to receive gifts from the government for fear of incurring a debt that might lead to a loss of their titles. In this matter, however, the government acted with com- parative promptness and wisdom, and most of the pueblo titles-some of them resting on written grants, and others on testimony of long possession, with loss of papers-being examined and approved by the sur- veyor-general, were confirmed by congress in 1858, and many of them surveyed for patent before 1863. The grants contained generally about 17,500 acres, some being much larger, and a few smaller. The necessity of schools, and especially of industrial education, was often urged, but nothing was practically accomplished till a later period.

Of all the New Mexican tribes, the Navajos-Na- vajóes in the original form-caused the most trouble and expense to people and government during these thirteen years; but in their case, also, was finally made the greatest progress toward a final settlement. The Navajos, about 10,000 in number, occupying a broad tract in the north-west in this territory and what be- came Arizona, were somewhat similar to the Apaches HIST. ARIZ. AND N. MEX. 43

674

INDIAN AND MILITARY AFFAIRS.

in their predatory habits, though superior to them in every respect except the immorality of their women, but also like the Pueblos in their stock-raising, culti- vation of the soil, and manufacture of blankets. Con- scious of their strength, they paid little heed to the rights of other tribes, by all of whom they were hated. For many years plundering raids on the Mexican flocks and herds had been their leading though not their only industry. In this warfare they had lost more captives-to become slaves of the New Mexicans- than they had taken, but in the taking of live-stock the advantage had been largely in their favor. On the merits of the long struggle, except that it had originated in the predatory instincts of the Indians, each party was about equally to blame, instances of treachery and outrage being frequent on both sides for a century past. To the Americans, on their tak- ing possession of the territory, the Navajos professed friendship, but, as we have seen, could hardly under- stand why that should interfere with their warfare on the Mexicans; and presently they came to class the Americans with their old foes, and to regard chronic war with the United States as their normal occupa- tion for the future. Having no realization of their new enemy's power, they deemed the conditions of the struggle about equal. Regarding the proffer of peace as an indication of weakness or fear, they were willing when hard pressed at any point to make a treaty, which they broke just as soon as their interest seemed to require it. Treaty-making was simply an incidental feature of their business, like treaty-break- ing; and had plausible pretexts been deemed essential, the New Mexicans, continuing like the Indians their raids as of old, rarely failed to furnish them. Another complicating circumstance was the fact that the Na- vajos were much less completely than other tribes under the control of their chiefs, so that one portion of the nation often made war when the rest deemed it not wrong but unwise. No tribe was more in need

675

THE NAVAJOS.'

of or likely to be so much benefited by a sound whip- ping.

The Navajos having broken, not only the treaty made by Washington in 1849, but a new one made at Jemes by Calhoun and Sumner in confirmation of the former, Colonel Sumner in the winter of 1851-2 made an expedition with his dragoons, and even penetrated eight or ten miles into the famous Chelly Cañon strong- hold, but was obliged to retire without having accom- plished anything. Fort Defiance, however, was established about this time, just across the later Ari- zona line, and not without some restraining effect.21 H. L. Dodge was put in charge as agent at the fort, holding the position until his death in 1856; and some distributions of goods were made; but only by a por- tion of the tribe were depredations suspended. In 1853, on their refusal to surrender a murderer, Sum- ner prepared for a campaign; but by the new com- mander and governor these preparations were sus- pended, and all past offences were pardoned, including the murder. Presently, in 1854, a soldier being killed, the Navajo chiefs gained much credit by hang- ing the murderer in presence of the troops. It was known later that they had hanged a Mexican captive instead of the real culprit! In 1855 Governor Merri- wether formed a treaty with this as with other tribes, respecting which not much is known, except that, like the rest, it was never approved. The distribution of goods continued, and though no successor to Dodge was immediately appointed, comparative peace lasted through 1857.22

In July 1858 occurred another murder, that of a negro servant at Fort Defiance. A prominent Navajo killed him simply because he had trouble with his wife,

21 Carson, Carleton, and Allison, in Ind. Aff. Rept, Joint Spec. Com., 1867, 97, 323-4, 335; Brackett's U. S. Cav., 129-30; Hayes' Scraps, Angeles, vii. 39. The legislature protested against any treaty not providing for restitution (by the Navajos!) of captives and payment of indemnity for past wrongs.

22 Collins, in Ind. Aff. Rept, 1858, p. 189 et seq. One band under the chief Sandoval remained faithful to the Americans now and later, and the wealthier Navajos were often apparently in favor of peace; but there was always an element that could not be controlled./

676

INDIAN AND MILITARY AFFAIRS.

and the usages of his tribe required that somebody must die. In order to force the Indians to surrender the murderer-which they never did-a constant warfare was waged from August by Colonel D. S. Miles, the new commander at the fort; captains McLane, Hatch, and Lindsay, with Major Brooks, being the officers prominent in the campaigns. The Navajos did not fight so well as usual, a fact due, it was thought, to their use of fire-arms instead of the customary bows and arrows. It was alleged, with some show of sup- porting testimony, that the guns had been supplied by the Mormons of Utah. There were several fights, re- sulting in the death of some fifty Indians and seven or eight soldiers, with the serious wounding of Cap- tain McLane; but the Indians lost a large amount of sheep and other live-stock, and in December were suing for peace. An armistice was made on the 4th, and a treaty of peace, involving indemnification in live- stock for all depredations committed since August, the liberation of all captives who might desire it, and the fixing of bounds beyond which the Indians were not to pass, was signed on the 25th.23

As usual, the Indians failed to comply with the con- ditions of this treaty, which had been made by Colonel Bonneville, the successor of General Garland; and in 1859 Major Simonson made an unsuccessful expe- dition to enforce compliance, depredations continuing as before. Alexander Baker was this year put in charge of the agency, and was succeeded in September by Silas F. Kendrick.24

23 Reports of the campaigns, in U. S. Govt Doc., 35th cong. 2d sess., H. Ex. Doc., ii., pt ii., 293-399; 36th cong. Ist sess., Sen. Ex. Doc., ii. 256-354; Gov. Renchero's reports, disapproving the war and also the armistice. Id., 36th cong. 2d sess., H. Ex. Doc., vi., no. 24. Capt. Elliott and Lieut. Averill are also named; and Capt. Blas Lucero with his native company of spies did good service. Dunn, Massacres of the Mountains, chap. ix., gives an excellent ac- count of the Navajos, and a narrative of this war of 1858. See also testimony of Collins and Kennon, in Ind. Aff. Rept, Joint Spec. Com., 1867, p. 330-4. Kennon thinks the killing of the negro to have been only a pretext of Gen. Garland for yielding to the great pressure from citizens for a war for plunder and captives; or at least he says that Gen. G. resisted that pressure until the killing of the boy.

24 Ind. Aff. Rept, 1859-60. The agents and the citizens regarded the treaty -

677

WAR SUSPENDED.

In 1860 the Navajos became so bold as to attack Fort Defiance in April, though they were repulsed without serious loss on either side.25 An active cam- paign was ordered from Washington, and was made by Colonel Canby in the winter of 1860-1, the regu- lar troops being aided by a large force of volunteers, including many Pueblo and Ute Indians.26 So far as fighting was concerned, not much was effected by Canby, but by losses of live-stock the Indians were led to sue for peace in February 1861, when an ar- mistice of three months, later extended to twelve, was agreed upon. In July all the troops were withdrawn, except two companies at Fort Fauntleroy. Depreda- tions were by no means suspended, and in September the Navajos were rendered still more hostile by an outrage at Fort Fauntleroy, where, in a dispute about a horse-race, the Indians were fired upon, and a dozen or more killed, the rest, with many wounded, tak- ing to flight.27 The confederate invasion made it impossible to send regular troops to the north-west, and the governor's call on the militia for a campaign

as a blunder. The legislature passed resolutions asking the gov. for infor- mation about the treaty, especially desiring to know if the Navajos had com- plied with the conditions; also urging the organization of volunteers and a new post in the Navajo country.

25 Report of Capt. Shepherd, in U. S. Govt Doc., 36th cong. 2d sess., Sen. Doc., ii. 51-63 et seq., with mention of many hostile acts.

26 There was rauch confusion and controversy about the employment of this volunteer force. At the beginning of the year Gov. Rencher called on Col Fauntleroy for arms, etc., for volunteer companies organized under an act of the legislature for raids on the Navajos; but F. declined. Later, when troops had come from Utah, and the expedition was being organized, the peo- ple, in a meeting at Sta Fé, called on the gov. to raise a regiment of volun- teers. He refused, and at another meeting they resolved to take the matter into their own hands, and did so, in spite of a warning proclamation issued by the gov. in August. Gov. R. disapproved this independent action, and blamed the delegate in congress for having in a silly speech declared the N. Mexicans fully capable of taking care of themselves. U. S. Gout Doc., 36th cong. 2d sess., H. Ex. Doc., vi., no. 24.

27 Testimony of Capt. Hodt, in Ind. Aff. Rept, Joint Spec. Com., 1867, p. 313-14. Lieut .- col Chavez was in command, and gave the order to open fire with the artillery. Some women and children were killed with the bayonet. Supt Collins, in Ind. Aff. Rept, 1861, p. 124, says that nearly 300 citizens had been killed in the past 18 months, which is doubtless an exaggeration. Agent Head, in Id., p. 162, says that the Navajos had compelled the aban- donment of the S. Juan and Rio Animas mines, killing 40 Americans and 15 Mexicans on the road.

678

INDIAN AND MILITARY AFFAIRS.

in October had no effect, though the governor, gen- eral, and superintendent had a talk with the Navajo chiefs, and obtained many assurances of friendly inten- tions. 28

There was no change in 1862, except that the Na- vajos became somewhat bolder in their raids, which extended to all parts of the country. There were no campaigns by regular troops, though the establish- ment of Fort Wingate moved the Indians in Decem- ber to send in one of their petitions for peace. Some raids were made by New Mexican companies, but all efforts to organize a general movement by the militia were unsuccessful. General Carleton took command in September, but his attention for the rest of the year was devoted mainly to the Apaches. In 1863 operations were carried on by Colonel Carson in the north-west, the plan of removing all the Indians to Fort Sumner on the Pecos was developed, July 20th was fixed as the date after which every Navajo was to be treated as hostile, and orders were repeat- edly issued to kill every male Indian capable of bear- ·ing arms. While there were no great fights or victories from a military point of view, and while there was but slight diminution in the frequency and extent of depredations, yet, by continuous and active operations in all parts of the country, and by prompt refusal to entertain any proposition of peace or the old-time treaties, very great progress was made in the essen- tial task of showing the Indians that their foe was at last in earnest, and that they must yield or be exter- minated. A beginning was also made at the Bosque Redondo, where over 200 Navajo prisoners were gath- ered, or were at least en route at the end of the year. At the beginning of 1864 Carson and his forces marched to the Chelly Canon, and while the direct result of the campaign was only 23 killed, 34 cap- tured, and 200 surrendered, and while there were con- tinued hostilities in other regions, yet from this time

28 N. Mex., Governor's Message, 1862; Dunn's Massacres, 451.

679

SURRENDER OF THE NAVAJOS.

the Indians began to surrender in large numbers, and before the end of the year the Navajo wars were prac- tically at an end, and over 7,000 of the tribe were living at Bosque Redondo. Their reservation life, and the controversies arising from their transfer, will be recorded in a later chapter.29

29 Carleton's Correspondence, ; Dunn's Massacres, 447-64, including some details from Carson's MS. report, which has not been printed; Ind. Aff. Repts, 1862-4.

CHAPTER XXVII.

CONFEDERATE INVASION OF NEW MEXICO.

1861-1862.

SOUTHERN SYMPATHIES-SLAVERY IN THE TERRITORY- PEONAGE-INDIAN SERVANTS-LAWS ON SERVITUDE-IN CONGRESS-NEW MEXICANS NOT SECESSIONISTS- HATRED OF TEXANS- SOUTHERN PLANS-CAUSES OF FAILURE-AUTHORITIES-PLOTS OF LORING AND CRITTENDEN-FLIGHT OF SOUTHERN OFFICERS-BAYLOR AT MESILLA-LYNDE'S SURRENDER- SIBLEY'S EXPEDITION-CANBY'S EFFORTS-OPPOSING FORCES-HUNTER'S ARIZONA CAMPAIGN-TEXAN ADVANCE-DEFEAT OF THE FEDERALS AT VALVERDE-CONFEDERATE OCCUPATION OF ALBURQUERQUE AND SANTA FÉ-ARRIVAL OF COLORADO VOLUNTEERS AT FORT UNION-TWO BATTLES IN APACHE CANON-PIKE'S PEAKERS AGAINST TEXANS-RETREAT OF THE CONFEDERATES-FIGHT AT PERALTA-FLIGHT OF SIBLEY-ARRIVAL OF THE CALIFORNIANS-END OF THE WAR.

IN a general way, so far as they had any knowledge or feeling at all in the matter, the New Mexicans were somewhat in sympathy with the southern states as against those of the north in the questions growing out of the institution of slavery. Their commercial relations in early times had been chiefly with southern men; the army officers with whom they had come in contact later had been largely from the south; and the territorial officials appointed for the territory had been in most cases politicians of strong southern sym- pathies. Therefore most of the popular leaders, with the masses controlled politically by them, fancied them- selves democrats, and felt no admiration for republi- cans and abolitionists. Yet only a few exhibited any enthusiasm in national politics, apathy being the lead- ing characteristic, with a slight leaning on general principles to southern views.

(680)

681

THE SLAVERY QUESTION.

There were no negro slaves in the territory, except a few body servants, brought in from time to time by military and other officials. Yet two other forms of slavery were prevalent; namely, that of peonage, or voluntary servitude for debt, involving no loss of civil rights, no sale or transfer of service, and no legal obligation on the part of the children of peons;1 and that of the practical enslavement of Indian captives, who were bought and sold, one or more serving in the family of each citizen of the wealthier class. There were few military or civil officials who did not own captive slaves, and they were found even in the service of the Indian agents.2 This enslavement of Indians seems to have rested alone on long custom, and not on law, except that no laws were invoked to prevent it. It was abolished by the president's emancipation procla- mation of 1865, and orders issued in consequence of that measure. The actual freeing of the servants, whose condition had been in most instances bettered by their servitude, which was in a sense largely volun- tary, was probably effected very slowly, but I have no definite records.3

1 Emory, Notes, 52, mentions an instance which clearly shows the nature of peon slavery; that of an arriero serving a sutler in Kearny's army of 1846. He owed his master $60, and was paying the debt by serving at $2 per month, out of which he had to feed and clothe himself. Thus $60 was the price of a man's labor for life, without any expense of maintenance on the part of the employer. Davis, El Gringo, 231-3, gives a good account of the system, showing that the negro slave's only practical disadvantage, as compared with the peon, is in his being bought and sold; otherwise he has the advantage of maintenance and better care. The peon's master is required by law to treat him well and furnish food, etc., at reasonable prices; but the law is generally disregarded. Practically, his family is also reduced to servitude, the sons in all Mexican provinces feeling themselves under obligation to pay their father's debts.

2 Benedict, in Ind. Aff. Rept, Joint Spec. Com., 1867, p. 326, testifies on this subject, noting that besides captives, orphans and children of the desti- tute were also sold into slavery by their relatives. A healthy, intelligent girl of 8 years was worth $400 or more. Their children were not regarded as salable property, but treated as citizens. The number of these servants was estimated at from 1,500 to 3,000. Under the laws these Ind. were en- titled to their freedom, there being several decisions in their favor; but the Ind. did not seek the aid of the courts. "Those who hold them are exceed- ingly sensitive of their supposed interest in them, and easily alarmed at any movements in the civil courts, or otherwise, to dispossess them of their imagined property."

3 N. Mex., Message of Gov., 1862, 1866. In 1862 the gov. thinks that con- gress should pay for the freedom of the captives, estimated at 600; since the

682

CONFEDERATE INVASION OF NEW MEXICO.

Peonage, on the contrary, was sanctioned by terri- torial law, as well as by the usage of Mexican prov- inces. An act of 1851 regulated contracts between masters and servants, preventing the latter from quit- ting the former's service while in debt; an amend- ment of 1853 made the regulations yet more stringent, authorizing the sheriff in certain cases to contract the debtor's services to the highest bidder; and in 1859 an act provided for the arrest of fugitive servants, and prohibited the courts from interfering in the correc- tion of servants by their masters, unless administered "in a cruel manner with clubs or stripes."4 This system was not affected by the emancipation procla- mation, not being regarded as 'involuntary servitude;' but it was abolished by act of congress in 1867.5

The New Mexicans, as I have said, had no negro slaves, and they desired none. As Mexicans they had a strong feeling against the institution; and it was well understood, not only by the natives, but by all'acquainted with the territory, that it was not a promising field for the introduction of slave labor. The organic act, however, as an enforced concession to the south, had provided that New Mexico should eventually be admitted as a slave or free state, as its people in their constitution might decide, thus permit- ting, in the view of all but partisan northerners, the holding of slaves under the territorial organization; at least, until congress and the courts should definitely decide the great national question of slavery in the territories. Thus, New Mexico was more or less a thorn in the flesh of northern politicians, and was often

people could hardly be expected to lose their value, and at the same time add them to the unmanageable Ind, population. And in 1866 he thinks there is a question if their servitude is not really voluntary, and that it would be in- human to remove them from the protection of the families for whom they have worked. At any rate, N. Mex. cannot afford to stand the expense of their release.

AN. Mex., Acts, etc., 1851-2, 1852-3, 1858-9.

5 Act of March 2, 1867. Cong. Globe, 1866-7, appen. 238. In 1868 the gov. reports that the law has been very generally and successfully enforced. The penalty was a fine of $1,000 to $5,000, and imprisonment of one to five years. The same penalty, with dismissal from service by court-martial, was prescribed for military officers obstructing the execution of the law.

683

SLAVERY AND PEONAGE.

mentioned in the endless congressional debates on slavery. This, perhaps, had some reflex influence in the territory on the politicians if not on the people, and a kind of mild southern partisanship was devel- oped. In 1857 a law was enacted, prohibiting, under penalty of fine and hard labor in the penitentiary, the residence of free negroes or mulattoes in the territory for a period exceeding thirty days.6 And in 1859 was passed an act "to provide for the protection of property in slaves in this territory." It punished the enticing-away or aiding to escape of a slave, like steal- ing him, with imprisonment from four to ten years; prohibited the furnishing or sale of arms to slaves, and all trade with them except with the masters' written consent; provided stringent and detailed reg- ulations for the return of fugitive slaves, including his sale if not claimed; forbade masters giving their slaves the use of their time; permitted stripes for in- solence and disorderly conduct, and branding for crime ; declared that slaves could not testify in court against free persons; prohibited and annulled all marriages between whites and blacks; forbade emancipation ; required slaves to have passports when absent from their inasters' premises; and expressly provided that this law should not apply to peonage, but only to Af- rican slavery.7 There was no need of any such ultra pro-slavery measure, and its enactment was brought about for political effect by a few men. In congress it brought out a resolution to annul all acts of the New Mexican legislature authorizing involuntary ser- vitude except for crime, which passed the house, but not the senate. On the governor's suggestion that it was too severe in some respects, however, the act was repealed in December 1861. In 1865-6 the act of 1857 against free negroes was repealed; and in 1866-7

6 Act of Jan. 29, '57. N. Mex., Revised Laws, 456. The act did not apply to actual residents, except in requiring them to give bonds for good behavior. The marriage of a negro or mulatto, free or slave, to a white woman was prohibited. Any owner of a slave who might free him was required to transport him beyond the territory within 30 days.

1 N. Mexico, Acts, 1858-9.

684

CONFEDERATE INVASION OF NEW MEXICO.

an act was passed abolishing all involuntary servitude in the territory.8

In view of the circumstances that have been noted, and of the facts that New Mexico had so recently been added by conquest to the United States, and that the territory had not received from the government at Washington the protection that had been promised, it might naturally have been expected, as indeed it was expected by the south, that the people would favor the secession movement. But when the test came, even in the height of apparent confederate suc- cess, they did nothing of the kind, the masses favoring the union cause, and furnishing five or six thousand troops, volunteers and militia, to resist the invasion. A few prominent natives, including some branches of the Armijo family and even the delegate in congress, used their influence and money against the union, but without avail, most of the wealthy and influential families being pronounced union men.9 While this sentiment of loyalty was undoubtedly real, reflecting credit on the New Mexicans, yet its fervor should not be exaggerated, apathy in national questions being a characteristic of the people; and it should be under- stood that their sentiment resulted largely from the fact that the confederate invasion came from Texas, the old hatred of the Texans being the strongest popular feeling of the natives, far outweighing their devotion to either the south or north.

Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.

History of Arizona and New Mexico, 1530-1888, Volume XVII, Part 72

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe, 1832-1918; Oak, Henry Lebbeus, 1844-1905 Publication date: 1889 Publisher: San Francisco : The History Company Number of Pages: 890

Author: Bancroft, Hubert Howe, 1832-1918; Oak, Henry Lebbeus, 1844-1905
Publication date: 1889
Publisher: San Francisco : The History Company
Number of Pages: 890