Rattlesnakes and Mexican Tigers

Rattlesnakes and Mexican Tigers: H How Texans Described the Comanches

By Carol Lipscomb

Comanches entered the pages of Texas history in the spring of 1743 when Fray Benito Fernández de Santa Anna, a prominent leader at Mission Concepción on the San Antonio River, reported their presence to his superiors in Mexico City. The information that he conveyed came from Apaches who occupied the territory north and west of San Antonio. Fray Benito learned that a Comanche war party had invaded Apachería (land occupied by the Apaches) in what was the beginning of an onslaught that would eventually push this well-established tribe from their traditional hunting grounds. The new adversaries were described as a powerful nation that numbered in the thousands.

They were well organized and fought with great courage, never retreating or surrendering. According to Fray Benito, it was obvious that the Apaches greatly feared the Comanches. In a few short years, those new-

16 TEXAS

|

Vo l u m e 4 2 0 1 2

comers dominated the land and altered the balance of power on the Texas frontier, creating an empire that stretched from present Oklahoma into northern Mexico. They remained a force to be reckoned with through the eras of Spanish and Mexican Texas, the Republic, and the early years of statehood. So who were these people called Comanches?

The Apaches’ description of the invaders given to Fray Benito proved to be quite accurate. Through the years, other Texans added their perceptions, and those first-hand accounts provide interesting perspective on the Comanches and their way of life. Depictions left by government officials, soldiers, traders, Indian agents, scientists, captives, and frontier settlers also painted colorful portraits, and if those did not always tell the whole story, they did reveal how Spaniards, Mexicans, and Anglo-Texans perceived that daunting tribe. The

contradictions embodied in those accounts are noteworthy. Some praised the Comanches, many despised and degraded them, and others rendered surprisingly objective opinions given the prevalent Euro-American prejudice against all Indians. While most literature written on the Comanches today benefits from the perspective of time, it can be illuminating to study the words of those who observed these Native Americans with their own eyes.

A few years after Fray Benito told his superiors about the Comanches, another Texas priest provided a vivid eyewitness account of the newcomers. Father Miguel de Molina was assigned to a newly established mission on the San Saba River in March 1758 when the hostile nature of the Comanches became a startling reality.

Some 2,000 of this tribe’s warriors and their allies attacked and destroyed the mission, which was believed to harbor Apache enemies. The armed and mounted indigenous force was unlike any previously encountered by Spaniards in Texas. Having survived the vicious assault, Fray Molina provided a dramatic description of the attackers. He wrote that he was “filled with amazement and fear” when he “saw nothing but Indians on every hand, armed with guns and arrayed in the most horrible attire. Besides the paint on their faces, red and black, they were adorned with the pelts and tails of wild beasts, wrapped around them or hanging down from their heads, as well as deer horns.

Some were disguised as various kinds of animals, and some wore feather headdresses. All were armed with muskets, swords, and lances.”

These fearsome newcomers to Texas had not always been the powerful mounted warriors who destroyed Mission San Sabá. Originally part of the Shoshone Nation, the Comanches left their ancestral homeland in present southwestern Wyoming and northwestern Colorado and ventured onto the plains, possibly as early as 1500. They utilized dog power to haul their fourpole tipis and hunted bison on foot using a communal hunt-and-trap method common to pre-horse Plains Indians. The migrant group had no written language but recorded their exploits with pictographs on tanned hides and rock ledges.

In the late 17th century, pressure from tribes newly armed with European guns and moving west from the area around the Great Lakes forced the former Shoshone bands to begin a southern migration. As they moved, perhaps following bison herds or seeking a warmer climate, their travels brought them into Opposite: This mural depicts the massacre at Mission San Sabá; Fathers Alonso de Terreros and Joseph Santiestaban, who were killed during the attack, are represented. Courtesy of Texas Beyond History, www.texasbeyondhistory.net.

contact with Ute Indians, who occupied the area of present-day southern Colorado. That tribe called these newcomers Kumantsi, meaning “people who are related yet different.” The Ute name was widely applied by outsiders, though the Comanches called themselves Numunu, or simply “The People.” In addition to providing the former Shoshones with a new name, the Utes also introduced them to the horse, an acquisition that would come to define the Comanches as a people.

This powerful animal enhanced the tribe’s nomadic lifestyle by providing the ability to cover vast territory. The plains of Texas and Oklahoma became their adopted homeland, but raids as far south as central Mexico were not uncommon. Never a unified tribe, distinct bands of Comanches with names like Penatekas (honey-eaters), Quahadas (antelopes), and Kotsotekas (buffalo eaters) roamed the region’s expansive grasslands, hunting, raiding, and waging war. The Apaches, occupants of the land that the Comanches intended to claim, became one of those enemies, and The People were relentless in their efforts to destroy them, as evidenced by the destruction of the San Sabá Mission.

After that attack, Spanish-Texans spent the next two decades trying to develop a policy for dealing with the “barbarous hordes.” Success did not come until the early 1770s, when they decided to seek an alliance with the Comanches against the Apaches. Emissaries, usually traders who doubled as diplomats, were sent to negotiate that accord. One of the first to make contact was Athanase de Mézières, a Frenchman employed by the Spanish who had considerable experience with Indians, spoke several of their native languages, and proved to be an able diplomat. His first meeting with Comanches was at a Wichita village on the Brazos River in 1772 (at the time, the tribe was scattered from the Missouri River to the frontier presidios of Mexico). De Mézière wrote, “They are a people so numerous and so haughty that when asked their number, they make no difficulty in comparing it to that of the stars...The Comanches excel all the other nations in breeding, strength, valor and gallantry.”

In 1785 another Frenchman, Pierre Vial, was enlisted to serve as an agent to the Comanche Nation for Texas Governor Domingo Cabello. Vial had picked up bits of the Comanche language when he worked as a trader and gunsmith among the Norteños, a name Spaniards gave to the little known northern native tribes. Like De Mézières, Vial was impressed with Comanche society, noting that they were “courageous and of very rational mind, such that they are quite generous and good-hearted with their enemies, and even with their captives.”

Vo l u m e 4 2 0 1 2 |

TEXAS

17

There were certainly Spanish-Texans who would have considered Vial’s description as grossly inaccurate, particularly those who had witnessed Comanche aggression first-hand. Those Texans would more likely have agreed with the assessment by Juan Antonio Padilla, an army officer stationed at San Antonio in the 1820s, who portrayed the Comanches as “treacherous, revengeful, sly, untrustworthy, ferocious, and cruel, when victorious; cowardly and low, when conquered. They are inconstant in their friendships and break their contracts for any cause. They are perfidious [treacherous] and disloyal. They are not clean.”

Thus, Spanish-and Mexican-Texans held a variety of opinions on the character of Comanches, and later European settlers recorded the same ambiguities. Beginning in the 1820s, an increasing number of AngloAmericans entered Texas from the United States. They fought for and and won independence from Mexico in 1836, creating the Republic of Texas. Almost a hundred years after Spanish-Texans first encountered the Comanches, the tribe still controlled a vast empire that included roughly two-thirds of the present-day Lone Star State. As settlement in the growing new republic pushed further into Comanche land, new descriptions of this powerful tribe were added to those earlier accounts.

David G. Burnet, first president of the Republic of Texas, had personal knowledge of The People. He spent considerable time with Comanches in 1811, after moving west on the advice of his physician. Burnet’s description of the tribe’s society, published in the Cincinnati Literary Gazette in 1824, is one of the earliest by an Anglo-American observer: “As a nation, [Comanches] think themselves the most numerous and powerful on earth . . . Notwithstanding the extreme

18 TEXAS

|

Vo l u m e 4 2 0 1 2

laxity of their whole economy of government, and their entire exemption from legal restraint, they live together with a degree of harmony that would do credit to the most refined and best organized societies.”

Pioneer Texan Noah Smithwick, who in 1837 served as an Indian agent for Sam Houston and spent three months with a band of Penateka Comanches, provided a similar description of tribal society. He wrote, “They were the most peaceable community I ever lived in...I did not hear a single wrangle among the adult members.” Smithwick further noted, “The Comanches were brave, no one who had occasion to test their courage will deny. I never knew a warrior to submit to capture; they fought to the death...and in spite of all that has been told of their treacherous nature, I have good reason for asserting their claim to some noble traits of fidelity.”

In contrast, George W. Bonnell, Commissioner of Indian Affairs for Sam Houston’s government, wrote this description in 1838: “As for honesty and integrity they know not the meaning of the words—they are a nation of robbers, and would at any time murder a man for the value of one farthing provided they could do it without running any risk of danger themselves.”

One must wonder, however, how much stock to put in that assessment by an Indian commissioner who, after returning from a trading expedition to a Comanche village, seemed to reverse course and declared, “From this race of Indians, Texas has nothing to fear: first on account of their inability to do us any injury, and next, it is in their interest to be our friends.” Perhaps that was wishful thinking on Bonnell’s part because in reality Comanches counted Texans among their enemies and continued to wage war against them for another 40 years. Even when Anglo settlers had some success negotiating peace with one band of Comanches, they quickly learned that a treaty signed by that group did not obligate the others to keep the peace.

Preconceptions and prejudices certainly influenced Anglo-Texan views of Comanches. The romanticized idea of the “noble savage” shaped the images envisioned by some Texans, primarily those who did not reside near the frontier. The citizens of Houston seemed quite disillusioned when a delegation of Comanches visited their city in the summer of 1838.

The newspaper reported: All expected to meet a band of fierce, athletic warriors with sinewy limbs and gigantic frames, but what was their astonishment on arriving at the President’s house to behold paraded there about twenty-five diminutive, squalid, half-naked, poverty stricken savages, armed with bows and arrows, and mounted on wretched horses and mules! Every feeling of admira-

tion was dispelled at once, and our citizens viewed them with mingled feelings of pity and contempt.

Beginning in the early years of the Republic, newspapers, the dime novel, and captivity narratives contributed to the widely accepted image of Comanches, who were generally portrayed, and with some truth, as the scourge of the Texas frontier. Ironically, the depiction of the “uncivilized barbarian” was used to justify taking Comanche land, and the more territory that was claimed, the more savage and ferocious Comanches became. Depredations were committed by both sides, and frontier protection became a major issue in the call for annexation to the United States. Texans were confident that their Indian problems would end once the federal government assumed the burden of frontier defense. Texas joined the Union in 1845, but despite the might of the new government, the Comanche threat continued for another 30 years.

Samuel Chamberlain, a soldier in the United States Opposite: The area within the circle indicates the size of Comanche territory, or the “Comancheria,” during the 1800s.

Above: Comanche Indians on the March by George Catlin (1796-1872), one of a series of paintings depicting life among the Plains Indian tribes in the 1830s. Original in color.

Army during the Mexican War, attested to the strength of the Comanches in 1846 as he passed through South Texas bound for Mexico under the command of General John E. Wool. As his troop approached the Rio Grande, Chamberlain recounted, “a force of several hundred savage looking horsemen came charging towards us, uttering frightful yells and brandishing long lances...The main body remained about half a mile off, displaying their daring feats of horsemanship, while a dozen of their principal chiefs dashed up to Gen. Wool, lance in rest until within a few paces, when the points were lowered, their horses pulled back on their haunches, and there they stood as motionless as so many bronze equestrian statues.” The Comanches had come in peace to offer their help killing Mexicans in return for arms, ammunition, and pay for scalps; Wool rejected their offer.

Raiding the country south of the Rio Grande was a lucrative enterprise for Comanches, and they would continue the practice even without additional incentive from the U. S. Army. Evidence of their attacks was visible across northern Mexico. Chamberlain reported on the condition of the village of Mapimi, observing that “inhabitants live in constant dread of the Comanches, who often ride through the place, driving off cattle and horses, killing the men and carrying away the muchaVo l u m e 4 2 0 1 2 |

TEXAS

19

This official flag of the Comanche Nation pays tribute to the tribe’s past with a center seal in the shape of a warrior’s shield; though this image is black and white, the color version of the flag includes blue and red hues that represent the British wool “trade” blanket that Comanches often wore when riding the plains and signify a time when the tribe lived without boundaries.

Image in the public domain and originally in color.

chos and muchachas. Piles of stones, each surmounted by a little wooden cross, on all of the roads leading to town, told of the numerous murders by the savages.”

Cattle, horses, and other booty stolen in Mexico were traded to Comancheros, itinerant traders from New Mexico, who in turn provided the Indians with a variety of goods including food, clothing, guns, and ammunition. That exchange helped the tribe maintain their traditional way of life despite increasing pressure from Anglo-Texans.

By the 1850s, some Comanche bands had signed peace treaties with the United States, but others still roamed the plains of West Texas. An attempt to place the peaceful Penatekas on a Brazos River reservation failed, and in 1859 those Comanches were moved to Indian Territory. Other bands, however, still actively raided, and during the Civil War, when the number of soldiers on duty in Texas was greatly reduced, invasions increased, pushing back the line of frontier settlement. The stereotype of the Comanche as a “ferocious savage” became widely accepted, and the majority of Texans decided there was no longer any reason to tolerate the presence of the fierce tribe. In 1870 an Austin newspaper carried the following editorial statement: The idea of making ‘treaties’ with the Comanches is supremely absurd; just as well make treaties with rattlesnakes and Mexican tigers. Property will be stolen, men murdered, women ravished, and children carried into captivity on our frontier until the Indians are all killed off, or until they are all caught and caged.

20 TEXAS

|

Vo l u m e 4 2 0 1 2

Those Texans got their way. In 1874 the U.S. Army began a relentless campaign, known as the Red River War, to drive the remaining resistant Native American tribes to reservations in Indian Territory. Forces under the command of Colonel Ranald S. Mackenzie led a surprise attack on a Comanche camp in Palo Duro Canyon, destroying the band’s stores and horse herd.

With no provisions to survive the winter, these holdouts had no choice but to join fellow Comanches and other tribes on the reservation. Even the Quahadas, led by the renowned Chief Quanah Parker, saw the futility of continuing the fight, and in June 1875 they, too, surrendered to authorities in Indian Territory. According to an 1875 reservation census, The People, who had once compared their numbers to that of the stars, now numbered only 1,597. The slaughter of the buffalo, epidemic diseases such as smallpox and syphilis, and the Army’s relentless pursuit had finally destroyed their way of life.

In 1871 Indian Agent Lawrie Tatum predicted, “The Kiowas and Comanches are fast passing away, and unless they become civilized and embrace the Christian religion, it is not likely they will last much beyond the present generation.” But despite defeat and acculturation, these Native American tribes have endured. It is a credit to the tenacity of The People that today the Comanche Nation boasts an enrolled population of 10,000 members who are working to provide their own tribal description. M Carol Lipscomb, of Fort Worth, a Texas Historical Foundation director, holds a Ph.D. in history from the University of North Texas.

The Council House Fight The Council House Fight, which occurred in San Antonio on March 19, 1840, was a turning point in Comanche-Texan relations, and one that illustrates the difficulty in forging peace between the two cultures.

Texas Rangers had long skirmished with a band of Penateka Comanches in Central Texas, with the line from Austin, Belton, and San Antonio seeing particular violence. On January 9, 1840, three Penateka chieftains rode into San Antonio claiming that they were ready to negotiate a peace treaty. Ranger Colonel Henry Karnes agreed to the discussion, but only on the condition that the Comanches relinquish all white captives, believed to number about 200.

The chiefs consented and promised to return in 20 days.

Karnes did not trust the Comanches to keep their promise and asked General Albert Sidney Johnston to send troops to San Antonio to ensure that the Penatekas fulfilled their end of the bargain. Johnston dispatched three companies of soldiers under the command of Colonel William S. Fisher.

When the Comanches returned on March 19, they met with three Texas commissioners, who were all soldiers, at the San Antonio courthouse, also referred to as the Council House. The party consisted of 65 Penatekas, including warriors, women and children, and 12 chiefs, as well as the great chieftain Muguara.

However, the tribe had brought only one white captive, 16-year-old Matilda Lockhart, whose appearance horrified those citizens witnessing the Comanches arrival; the fleshy part of the girl’s nose had been burned off. In captivity for two years, Lockhart had picked up some of the tribe’s language and revealed that the Comanches, in order to increase their bargaining power, planned to release prisoners individually and would demand payment for each one. Chief Muguara confirmed Lockhart’s story. The enraged commissioners insisted that the original agreement be honored. When the chiefs refused, Colonel Fisher ordered his troops, who were strategically positioned outside of the building, into the room. The Coman-

ches were told that they would be held there until all white captives were brought to San Antonio.

The stand-off turned violent when one Penateka warrior attempted to escape by stabbing a sentry blocking his exit; others drew weapons, and a melee ensued. All of the attending chiefs were among the 36 Comanches killed, and several Texans lost their lives as well.

The tribe perceived this act as a betrayal by the Texans and retaliated briefly with minor attacks that terrorized the San Antonio area. However, the Comanches were merely biding time while they held council with other groups of Plains Indians who had grievances against the Texans.

In early August 1840, a band of 400-1,000 Comanches, High Plains Indians, and Kiowas sought vengeance upon Texas. The warriors, led by Buffalo Hump, pillaged their way across the state until they reached the coastal town of Linnville. Most citizens made their way to safety on boats, but the Indians were free to loot the area at their leisure. Laden with spoils and almost 3,000 horses, Buffalo Hump and his men felt that they had taken sufficient retribution for the Council House Fight.

Texans, on the other hand, thought that the Comanches and their allies had gone too far. A militia formed and confronted the marauders on August 11 at the Battle of Plum Creek, near present-day Lockhart. Buffalo Hump’s men attempted to delay the confrontation until their newly acquired herd had moved past the enemy force. Texans, recognizing this tactic, responded by forcing the horses to stampede and, in the confusion, routed the Comanches and their allies.

Eighty Indians were slain, while only one Texan died.

In the aftermath of the Council House Fight, Linnville, and the Battle of Plum Creek, the U.S. government launched brutal raids against the Comanches, breaking the tribe’s stronghold in southwest Texas.— Kyle Gregory Above: This plaque adorns a wall in San Antonio marking the location where the Council House stood. Photo by Kay Hindes.

Vo l u m e 4 2 0 1 2 |

TEXAS

21