The Trial of Don Pedro León: Politics, Prejudice, and Pragmatism

Stereotypical drawing of a "New Mexican Trader" from George D. Brewerton's Overland with Kit Carson (1930).

The Trial of Don Pedro León: Politics, Prejudice, and Pragmatism

BY SONDRA JONES

IN DECEMBER 1851 AUTHORITIES FROM MANTI, UTAH , arrested eight "Spanish"1 traders from New Mexico, including their leader, Pedro León, and eventually brought them to trial in the FirstJudicial Court of Utah Territory in Great Salt Lake City. They were accused of violating the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1834, having allegedly traded without a license with the Ute Indians for nine Indian captives They were found guilty, fined, and, despite appeals and counter suits, eventually returned, disgruntled, to New Mexico where they continued their appeals as high as the commissioner of Indian Affairs in Washington, D.C.

The Pedro León incident has all but faded into short references or footnotes in Utah's history—if it is noted at all. Yet its resulting legislation would have lasting effects on Utah and New Mexico and would play a major role in causing one Indian war in Utah and contributing to another Indian war in New Mexico.2 It is unfortunate that our current histories of the event have become so telescoped and garbled that the truth—let alone the Mexican perception of the incident—has long since faded from view.

United States v. Pedro León et al. became something of a cause celebre for a time in Utah and forced the examination and crystallization into formal legislation of policies concerning the legality of Mormon settlement among and trade with the Indians. It also focused attention on the legality of Negro and Indian slavery and raised the question of what to do with the prevalent, though sometimes repugnant, Indian slave trade in which Mormons found themselves active participants.

Thus, although Brigham Young used his influence during the Mexicans' trial to ensure that it was fair, impartial, and just, the political expediency of a guilty verdict to curtail the Mexican trade, combined with a widespread prejudice against Catholic Hispanics in general, almost certainly influenced the results of the trial.

It is not surprising in our age of concern for human rights that this "child-slaver," Pedro León, has come down to us through history painted in the black hues of villainy, his defense referred to sneeringly as the excuses of an unscrupulous trader in flagrant disregard for authority and morality, his punishment the just desserts of a sordid dealer in human flesh.3 Nor is it surprising that modern Utah histories, perpetuating the often ethnocentric and Mormon-biased reports of contemporary sources and early historians, have portrayed this incident as the righteous triumph of Mormon officials over the immoral traditions of Mexicans and Indians, clearing the way for colonization and expansion of white settlers—civilization—in Utah.4

Also helping to justify the need to arrest León's party has been the inadvertent wedding of the 1851-52 judicial incident with a second, decidedly belligerent and retaliatory, confrontation with New Mexican traders that took place a year later and resulted in military orders against all Mexican trading parties in the territory Because of this historical telescoping of events, Utah historians have been able to vilify the Mexican traders as having been perpetually antagonistic and defiant toward the Mormon settlers and of inciting and arming the Indians against them from the beginning.

But prior to 1853 Mexican traders had peacefully and unobtrusively plied their trade. They became angry and hostile only after the expulsion of León and the subsequent passing of laws against non-Mormons trafficking in Indian captives

Indian slavery in Utah was a problem. The Mormon settlers observed firsthand the rank cruelty of Ute slavers who consistently mistreated their captives and who destroyed families and bands to obtain them. They could not understand the Mexican traders who perpetuated a custom as unsavory as Indian slavery

But the New Mexicans had grown up in a culture in which the trade in Indian menials and the fostering of Indian children "ransomed" from captors (or captured during Indian wars) was an accepted tradition. Spanish missionaries had found that most Indian adults were resistant to attempts at either conversion or acculturation by the Spanish but that raising Indian children within the Spanish culture and Catholic religion was an effective tool to "civilize" and Christianize Indians. It also provided a great pool of inexpensive menials and children for frontier families.

Although the market for captives led to increased Indian warfare to facilitate and legitimize the acquisition of additional captives, most Mexicans chose to close their eyes to its inherent immorality and the misery it caused. Justified in cultural and ecclesiastical terms as "the exercise of ajust and pious doctrine against pagans and heathens," the practice of obtaining Indian children had become accepted as "the only practical method of civilizing and Christianizing wild Indians."5

As a result, throughout New Mexico and southern Colorado thousands of Indian children, captured or bartered for, were being raised in a twilight realm between indentured menials working off the cost of their "ransom" and upkeep and foster/adopted children.6

Don Pedro León was one of many who catered to this market for menials and foster children. Such children were not slaves, he would later argue in justifying himself, but were raised as members of Mexican households where they were taught homemaking or ranching skills and indoctrinated with the Christian religion and were freed upon their majority. Although there were notable exceptions in the treatment of these captives, once placed in homes Indian children were usually treated as well as other children fostered in the family Indeed, León himself was probably a descendent of such Hispanicized

Indians, and he raised or stood godfather to several Paiute boys himself.7

Thus both the Mexicans and the Mormon settlers believed their own perspectives on Indian "slavery" were justified and were at a loss to understand the position of the other As a consequence, the trial of Pedro León and his companions became an example of racial, cultural, and religious bias accompanied by the clashing of cultural perspectives.

In addition to the Mormons' concerns about the slave trade's immorality and cruelty, they believed that it perpetuated the intertribal warfare that interfered with their settlements. Thus the political necessity of stopping the trade was every bit as important as the moral imperatives against it.

By 1847 the staple trade item and a major source of wealth for many Ute warriors had become the selling of Indian captives. For over fifty years the primary market for this trade had been the Mexican traders who yearly traveled on the Spanish Trail to rendezvous with the Utes in central Utah. Within weeks of their entrance into the valley of the Great Salt Lake, Mormon pioneers found themselves embroiled in this trade as well. Ute slave traders were soon blackmailing the new settlers into purchasing captives by threatening to kill—or actually killing—captives the Mormons did not buy. At the same time, many destitute, non-equestrian tribes were offering their children for sale to acquire goods for themselves, divest themselves of another mouth to feed, and perhaps to provide better homes for these children.

But the slave raiding perpetuated by the New Mexican "slave" market caused intertribal rivalries that endangered Mormon colonization In 1851, when the Trade and Intercourse Act of 1834 regulating Indian relations was extended over the newly created territories, Mormon officials found in it the tool they needed to combat the Mexican-Indian trade

During the summer of 1851 Don Pedro León Lujan, 8 a fifty-seven-year-old, moderately well-to-do part-time farmer, militia commander, and Indian trader from Abiquiu, New Mexico, went to the new governor and superintendent of Indian Affairs of New Mexico Territory, James Calhoun, to secure a license to trade with the Ute (Yuta) Nation of Indians. The license was issued August 14, 1851, good to November 14, 1851, upon the posting of a thousand dollar bond. Pedro León agreed that he and his "aids, assistants, and servants" would comply with "all the rules and regulations, adopted or that may be adopted" by the United States for regulating trade and intercourse with the Utah Indians. He was authorized to trade with the Ute Nation "in their own localities" but only on his own private and individual account.9 However, congressional housekeeping and the Compromise of 1850 had recently formed Utah out of the area between California and the Continental Divide and north of the 37th parallel. Thus, the Ute's "own localities" lay almost completely within Utah Territory, not New Mexico.

Regardless, the trader and his company set out from New Mexico in September 1851, stopping to exchange trade goods on "the other side" (east) of the Rio Grande (likely the San Luis Valley), where a number of other traders were likewise engaged. There León traded for horses, mules, and highly valued Ute-tanned buckskins.10

Heading a loosely confederated company of traders, León then turned north and westward to take their horses and mules to barter with the Utes of central Utah.11 There is no question that their intention was to trade for captive Indian children since this was the major item of western Ute trade, and horses (and arms) were what Utes traded for.12 After reaching the Green River, a half dozen of the traders left with León to locate the governor and acting superintendent of Indian Affairs, Brigham Young, to display their license to trade and "if it was good to trade with the whites and Indians also, and if the license was not good, to endeavor to get one from the Governor."13

Don Pedro, his license due to expire soon, may have hoped to simply renew it, but the traders did not grasp the significance of the new territorial borders They would later testify that they had a license from an officer in New Mexico giving them "permission to trade with the Utah Indians, [but they] did not know there was any line in the Territories to restrict him from going anywhere."14 This is not surprising since the year before there had been no "line."

Mormons would maintain, and historians continue to write, that Brigham Young's officers stumbled upon the traders in the Sanpete Valley as they pursued their "nefarious traffic" and took the opportunity to "strictly prohibit further traffic." But this is inaccurate, since León and his companions had specifically sought out Brigham Young in order to follow legal form for their trade.

At the Provo River, while on his way to Great Salt Lake City, León learned that Young was on a tour of the southern counties Young, concerned with the political and civil organization of the young territory, had just established Nephi, chosen the location for the new territorial capitol at Fillmore, and was proceeding toward Manti where his companion, the Honorable Zerubbabel Snow, judge of the First District Court of Utah, was to set up the Second Judicial Court of Utah.

Turning southward, León followed the governor as far as the Sevier River, where he discovered that Young was already on his way to Manti. León turned back and rendezvoused with his company— twenty-one Mexican traders and their seven servants, along with packs of buckskins and nearly a hundred horses—in Sanpete Valley. Conveniently, this was near where they had expected to trade anyway. 15

On November 3 León approached Brigham Young with his license and the request that they be allowed to trade with both whites and Indians.16 Unfortunately, the New Mexicans spoke no English and the Mormons spoke no Spanish. The only interpreter available was Daniel Jones, a well-known Indian interpreter but only a fair speaker of Spanish. In Brigham Young's words, "there not being a good Spanish Interpreter present it was difficult to find out the real design or extent of their mission." Nevertheless, he determined that the goal of the New Mexicans was to trade horses and mules for Indian children, a trade that had "been carried on for many years back." At this point, Young as both governor and superintendent of Indian Affairs "pointedly forbade" them trading with the Indians—for anything. He instructed them in the evils of the Indian slave trade and told them that their license was not valid in Utah Territory to conduct any kind of trade with the Indians. Without a new and valid license—which he refused to issue—they would be violating the Trade and Intercourse Act regulating trade with the Indians within the United States. They were permitted to trade with the white settlers and to obtain provisions for their return trip. The New Mexicans, all "employed by Mr. Pedro León, as Clerks, Servants, traders etc.," promised to return home. León would later complain, perhaps rightly, that he was refused the license "on the grounds that he was not a Mormon."17

At this point (perhaps because his thousand-dollar bond was at stake), León and his traders prepared to return to New Mexico and abandoned their plans to trade with the Indians. But the Indians had different ideas.

While the Mexicans were still near Manti following Young's refusal, they were approached by at least one party of Ute traders with whom they refused to trade. Angry at this rejection, these Indians stole five or six horses. The traders complained to Stephen B. Rose, the Mormon Indian sub-agent for the area (also on Young's southern tour). He ordered George Bean, another Mormon Indian interpreter, to see if he could recover the horses and mules from the Indians and return them to the New Mexicans, but Bean was unsuccessful. Fearful

of more such occurrences, León moved the company north to the Spanish Fork River, off the normal trade routes, and let this loss go. 18

Leaving the majority of the party to guard the remaining horses, León and a few companions went to Great Salt Lake City to purchase provisions. Upon his return, about November 11 or 12, he discovered that Indians had stolen another six animals three days earlier. León immediately told the majority of the party to pack up and leave for Santa Fe by way of the northerly Spanish Fork route, taking with them most of the stock and provisions. He kept only enough horses, mules, and provisions to outfit himself and seven companions in the hope of locating the missing stock and then catching up with the main company by following the shorter trail through Sanpete Valley.19

León testified that he sought and received permission from "Mormon authorities" to look for the lost animals,20 and for the next three weeks he and his companions tried to recover their stock. Their first discovery yielded only the hides of two horses, the Indians having apparently butchered and eaten them These Indians gave Vicente Chaves, the owner, a thirty-year-old Indian woman captive as compensation. Subsequently, Miguel Archuleta would also be forced to accept a child in payment for one of his horses, likewise devoured. Sometime later, Arapeen, brother of Wakara, rode abruptly into the New Mexican's camp, caught five horses belonging to Miguel Archuleta and threw down two Indian children, stating that "if he [Archuleta] had a mood to trade he would trade and if he had not he would trade any how." Another Indian caught a horse belonging to Albino Mestes, threw down a child, and rode off without comment

The Mexicans tracked down another band of Indians, but they pointedly refused to return the stolen horses and insisted León take a boy and girl in their place as payment. León would later claim there had been nearly three hundred Indians in the band against his eight men, though this is probably an exaggeration. León would also assert later that his intention was to take the captives back to New Mexico where he would present his case to Governor Calhoun, ask for indemnity for his lost horses, and leave the disposal of the captives to the government.21

Pedro León's claims were certainly not new. Mormons themselves had already experienced coercive sales of Indian children from Ute slavers,22 and León's experiences were reminiscent of earlier Spanish traders who had reported Indian captives being forced upon them.23

But precedents would not excuse León's company On December 5 or 6, while the Spaniards were camped on Salt Creek north of Manti, local Indians informed officials that the Mexican traders were still around and had Indian captives in their possession. These Indians may have been from rival bands to Wakara's raiders (not all Utes were slavers) or simply currying favor with the local officials from whom they received favors—or both. In any case, the result was that a warrant for the Mexicans' arrest was issued by a local justice of the peace. León and his companions were taken into custody by a posse of some forty men; their horses, mules, tack, and Indian captives were confiscated; and the Mexicans were thrown into jail. Here they were unsuccessfully represented by a sympathetic budding attorney, Andrew Siler.

From the beginning the Mexicans feared that they would have a difficult time receiving a fair trial in Utah. The traders voiced concern that local enmity was already affecting their trial: Juan Antonio Baldineros complained to Siler that James T. S. Allred, the Manti prosecutor, was their enemy, and that he was trying "to injure them by getting the Indians to Testify against them." Siler would later write to the new attorneys in Great Salt Lake City: "I want to see justice between man & man and Pedro León & Co want me to do all I can for them," and he sent Francis Pomeroy as an interpreter whom both the new attorneys and the Spaniards could trust, "as he is an Amigo to them."24

Siler wrote that he was particularly concerned with the subpoenaing of Indian witnesses. Not only were the Indians, as parties to the transactions, equally guilty under the law, but they were also interested parties who stood to gain if the Mexicans were found guilty. He feared they may have thought (or had been led to believe) that they could reclaim the forfeited children if the traders were found guilty. Arapeen was already boasting that he had traded a child for the Spanish horse he was riding around the community at the time of the Manti trial, but Baldineros contended that the horse in question had actually been stolen "out of the corell at this place after the Spaniards were in jail & their horses in the custody of the sheriff."25

On December 9 the Manti court notified Judge Snow in Great Salt Lake City that they had found the traders guilty of "the crime of trading with the Indians of this County 8c Territory without license."26 Stephen B. Rose was sent to investigate. Upon his return he filed an affidavit in the First District Court, and the clerk issued a warrant for the arrest of Pedro León and the members of his company. 27 Marshal Joseph L. Heywood was sent to bring the Mexicans and their confiscated property (now "officially" seized by an officer of the court) to Great Salt Lake City to be tried before the First District Court.28

The political climate had a significant impact on the trial In 1851 Utah and New Mexico territories were in the midst of the national turmoil over slavery, and the legality of slavery in Utah Territory was a significant issue Further militating against the Mexicans, only two months earlier a conflict between Mormons and Utah's new federal appointees had left the Utah courts controlled by Mormons and with no Supreme Court to which to appeal when two of the three district courtjudges and the Indian agent fled the territory as part of the exodus of Utah's "run-away" federal officials.29

On December 29 a special court session was convened to try the case of United States v. Pedro León et al. The witnesses subpoenaed included Brigham Young and other Mormons, Mexicans, and Indians, including the wily Arapeen. 30 Judge Zerrubbabel Snow, one of the original three district court judges and a Mormon, presided, and Seth M Blair, U.S attorney for the territory, was the prosecutor Blair, the first U.S. attorney appointed for the new Utah Territory, was a southerner, a former major in the Texas Rangers, and a veteran of the Mexican-American War. He has been characterized as wise, tactful, and "knowing all about the Mexican character, having been in the Texan war [for independence]," but he was also a man of decided prejudices against blacks and Mexicans.31

The defense attorneys for the Spanish traders were Josiah Slayton and George A. Smith. Smith had only recently returned from helping to found settlements in southern Utah where he and his neighbors were, at this time, all actively purchasing Indian children He was acquainted with the notorious slaver Wakara from whom settlers frequently purchased children. Smith's own first encounter with the southern Utah Indians had occurred earlier in the year when he took a twelve-year-old Paiute boy in compensation for a slaughtered ox. Within a year, one traveler would note that almost every Mormon family in Santa Clara (southern Utah) had one or two Indian children they had purchased from the Indians.32

The court also called ajury of "good and lawful men" from Great Salt Lake City. William McBride, a forty-five-year-old blacksmith, acted as foreman. Others included men ranging from common laborers to a shoemaker and a stonecutter to a doctor.33 George Bean served as the Indian interpreter, and Francis Pomeroy was the Spanish interpreter.34

The main issue of the trial was the traffic in Indian slaves, and much of the testimony concerned its evil influence. The Mexicans' moral and political offense was possessing Indian slaves. Since slavery itself was not illegal in Utah, the Mexicans could not be tried simply for having slaves in their possession. Consequently, the Mexicans were accused and tried for the only law that they had violated, the federal act regulating trade with Indians.

The Trade and Intercourse Act of 1834 had originally been passed by Congress to regulate commerce in the newly created Indian Country. If found guilty, a trader would be fined a mandatory $500 and his merchandise confiscated. At the time of the Mexicans' trial the court had in its possession, and the United States claimed forfeiture of, ten mules, six horses, a "squaw" (thirty years old), eight Indian children (ages seven to twelve), and some miscellaneous "goods,wares, [and] merchandise"— but, notably, no firearms.35

For a verdict of guilty, the jury would have to determine that the defendants had knowingly, and willingly, traded with the Indians without holding a valid license to trade in Utah Territory.36 If the jury found that the Mexicans' claim of a forced trade was merely a "device to evade the law," they would be guilty of having traded without a license.

The court found that León had the only license and that it was invalid for trade in Utah. The jury also concluded that the traders were lying about being coerced into trade. On January 1, 1852, after a three-day trial and without a lengthy deliberation, the Jury returned a verdict of guilty. Pedro León was found to be indebted to the United States in the sum of $500, and the Mexicans' horses, mules, tack and buckskins were turned over to Marshal Heywood for sale, the proceeds of which were to go toward paying the fine.37

Seth Blair then petitioned the court to sell the "confiscated" Indian captives to help pay court costs. Since slavery was legal in the United States in 1851, and since it had not been prohibited in Utah, nor had any laws specifically against Indian slavery been passed, Blair argued that the "slaves" confiscated with the rest of the Mexicans' merchandise were property, along with the buckskins and mules, and could be disposed of for value by the court the same as black slaves could have been.38

But Slayton, acting as attorney

for the Indian captives, petitioned the court to free them. Although a law passed earlier had already established the proprietary and ownership rights of black slave owners, the legal status of Indian slaves in Utah had yet to be determined.39

Judge Snow would make this determination in the aftermath of the León trial, concluding that Utah had never passed an act allowing Indian slavery and did not recognize Indian "tradition" as binding upon territorial law; therefore, the Indian captives were ordered released.

However, since the children were essentially orphans, with parents unknown, they were "placed" in Mormon homes to be fostered— and indentured—as was customary whenever Indian children were acquired.40 An irate León would claim that after confiscating the Indian children from him, they had been "sold to the Mormons as servants, by the Mormon Authorities."41 From León's perspective the "Mormon Authorities" had done precisely what he had been tried and convicted of trying to do—taking Indian children to be sold into informal indentures and raised in homes as acculturated menials.

With Snow's decision a precedent had been set. Within a month the Utah Territorial Legislature would pass an act making Indian slavery specifically illegal, but setting out the procedure for purchasing Indian children as indentured servants, the indenture to last not longer than twenty years 42—ironically, an indenture longer than was traditionally prescribed for Indians purchased in New Mexico.43

In determining the legality of Mexicans trading without license in the territory, the court necessarily called into question the legality of Mormon settlements and their own trade and missionary work among the Indians in "Indian Country" as well—for none of them had trade licenses either ButJudge Snow determined that when Congress had extended all U. S. laws regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes {not country) over Utah and New Mexico on February 27, 1851, the word tribe was understood to mean the people themselves. Thus, constitutional intention gave the territory the right to regulate trade between whites and Indians, whether or not they resided in an exclusively Indian "country."

Thus Pedro León—and all other New Mexican traders—faced arrest, confiscation of property, and summary expulsion for trading with the Indians, while at the same time Mormon settlements were legally expanding and having commercial "trade and intercourse" with the Indians not only for food, stock, or clothing but also for Indian children as well—all without a license and without fear of arrest or seizure of goods Ironically, a few years later non-Mormon Indian agents would point to Mormon trade and missionary work among the Indians as being carried on without a license within "Indian Country" and use it as a means of attacking the Mormons and trying to sever their relations with the Indians.44

Over the next few weeks Pedro León continued his appeals for a new trial and a reexamination of evidence. The first appeal sought to reverse the verdict and set a new trial based on irregularities in the arrest and seizure procedures.45 When this was not successful, Smith and Slayton filed petitions to recover their clients' confiscated riding horses and pack mules on the basis that property liable to seizure by the 1834 act did not include riding and pack animals within its definition of "merchandise." However, the court found that since horses and mules were the usual merchandise brought to trade (and for which the Indians had traded), these animals did fall within the definitions of "merchandise" and were liable to forfeiture (despite these particular animals being the New Mexicans' only means of transportation home.) 4 6

León also filed a petition for retrial, claiming a prejudicial jury.47 This was a valid claim. Dan Jones remarked on the intensity of the feelings prevalent against the Mexicans before and during the trial, writing that "a great deal of prejudice and bitter feeling was manifested

toward the Mexicans." Indeed, in the mid-nineteenth century Americans typically looked down on Mexicans. Brigham Young declared Mexicans to be "little better than the Indians," while another contemporary described them as "swarthy" and "ignoble" and with "brutish faces."48 Americans had only recently fought a major war against the Mexicans—including a battalion of Mormons who had marched through New Mexico before returning to Utah

In mid-November the Deseret News Weekly had printed an editorial in which it called León a liar, a traitor, and a kidnapper. The editorial accused him of lying about having a license signed by Governor Calhoun, claimed he was traitorous for supplying weapons to warring Navajos through their Ute liaisons, and contended that he was a kidnapper for attempting to carry Indian children away from Utah.49 If the newspaper had had its way, León and company would have been fined, jailed, and then hanged!

The most damning complaint about the trial, however, was that at least one of the jurors had already declared the defendants guilty nearly a week before the trial began. James Ferguson filed a deposition stating that about a week before the trial, he had heard George D. Grant, a juror, at the home of Seth M. Blair, the prosecutor, declare that Pedro León and others of the Spanish company were guilty and ought to be punished. The possession of the Indian children was "sufficient evidence" of their having traded with the Indians.50 The court gave this complaint no serious consideration.

On January 9, Slayton filed one of the most interesting petitions in the record. He asked for a retrial on the basis of having just discovered material evidence unknown to him during the first trial. Around December 1—a month after Young had denied León a license to trade and nearly two weeks after León had sent his main company back to Santa Fe—Pedro León "did Procure a License of Stephen B Rose an Indian Agent for said Territory authorizing and Permitting said León to Trade and Traffic with the Indian Tribes."51 Since Rose was the complainant and "arresting" officer, it is difficult to imagine how or why he would have thought to issue a license to trade to a man whom he knew from personal knowledge had been denied such a license by his superior. Did León actually have such a license? Some type of document must have existed since Slayton was willing to offer it as evidence. Was the "license" a document allowing the Mexicans to pursue and recover their stolen stock or recompense for it? Unfortunately, the court refused the petition, and the mysterious document, having never been made a part of the record, has been lost

Nevertheless, the implication that such a document did exist raises a number of intriguing questions. Why would León ask for a license when he was ostensibly preparing to go home? Why would Rose even think to give him such a license when Brigham Young had already refused to do so? Could there have been collusion between León and Rose, which Rose would deny when he was called upon to investigate the charges of León trading without a license? Who prepared the document for León since he was illiterate? If he were planning to go home without trading, why would he have tried to obtain a license behind Young's back? Would Slayton have filed a petition if he had not personally seen the purported license? Notwithstanding, the petition was ignored, and León was not granted a retrial León's final attempt in the Mormon-dominated courts would be an attempt to sue the Mormons for his lost property and false imprisonment, but Brigham Young simply referred him to Washington At last, after having exhausted all legal resorts, the New Mexicans "paid" their fine. The court records indicate León was fined the mandatory $500, "which was at once remitted" through the confiscation of their property.52

Brigham Young—who was described as "treating the whole party with the greatest kindness, while they were in the Country" and as having tried to use his influence to provide a "fair and impartial trial"— provided provisions sufficient for the Mexicans' return home.53 The provisions did not, however, include transportation as their stock had been confiscated by the court León and his companions were forced to return to Santa Fe on foot, through the mountains, in mid-winter. They left February 6 and arrived in Abiquiu on April 4, having "suffered a great deal from being caught in the snows in the Mountains—

sometimes being compelled to wade in the snow to their armpits."

54 Within several weeks León had collected depositions, complained to New Mexican authorities, and sent letters of complaint to Washington,55 but the disgruntled traders found little satisfaction there, either. Don Pedro's financial losses from this expedition must have been substantial; although we do not know if he lost his $1,000 bond (probably not, the New Mexico officials were sympathetic). He did lose all of his trade goods and merchandise—at the least, that year's profit. Most telling is that when next we find León, he is listed as a "peon" traveling with—not leading—a New Mexican trade expedition into central Utah.

It was this new caravan that would instigate trouble between the Indians and the Mormon settlements. The spring of 1853 brought a large company of New Mexican traders to the Sanpete Valley, determined to revive the slave trade with the Indians.

A truculent Dr. C. A. W. Bowman led the traders and peon auxiliaries. A former native of New York, Bowman had lived in New Mexico for some years and was then residing in León's home village of Abiquiu. Mormon records all agree that the trading party, and Bowman in particular, was especially and actively belligerent. They made no secret of their presence and indeed sought out Utah officials to whom they made open threats of forcibly resisting the edicts against the Mexican trade. Bowman cursed one interpreter for "being a Mormon" and boasted that he had "power at his back to use all the Mormons up."

Despite warnings to be "more careful," the buckskin-clad Bowman traveled to Utah Valley where at Provo he "accosted" Brigham Young "in a very abrupt manner" and acted "in an insulting and threatening manner." Boasting that he had four hundre d Mexicans on the Sevier River awaiting his orders (he did not), Bowman told Young that the traders "feared nothing for law, and would not be restrained from any pursuit which they chose to follow."56

Young's response was quick and decisive. After refusing to speak to Bowman, he issued a proclamation declaring that "there is in this territory, a horde of Mexicans, and outlandish men who are infesting the settlements, stirring up the Indians with guns, ammunition, etc., contrary to the laws of this territory" and ordered a thirty-man detachment of the militia to head south to reconnoiter, warn the settlers to be "on guard" against Mexicans or Indians, and "arrest, and keep in close custody, every strolling Mexican party; and those associating with them, and other suspicious persons or parties, that they may encounter and leave them safely guarded" in local settlements All Mexicans in the territory were to "remain quiet in the settlements and not to attempt to leave under any consideration, until further advised."57

Young's fear that the Mexicans might stir up the Indians proved justified. In December he noted that the Indians who had visited the settlements in the spring and summer of 1853 "manifested a turbulent spirit; and although evidently aiming to conceal it, plainly showed that they had been tampered with, and that their feelings were very different than upon former visits."Wakara was described as "surly in his feelings and expressions" and reportedly he had "repeatedly endeavored to raise an excitement and open war out of small pretexts."58

The new Indian agitation was attributed directly to Bowman's Mexican traders. They had hoped to incite the Indians to support them against the Mormon interlopers by telling the Utes that the settlers had not paid them sufficiently for the lands they were usurping and that the Indians had the right to take Mormon cattle as recompense. 59 Since such an action was certain to lead to reprisals and open warfare; the traders stood to gain if Indian hostilities drove the Mormons from the land.60 —-

Bowman's threats came to nothing, however, and the militia met no resistance. Some Mexicans were harassed, and a few were jailed in southern settlements. The latter complained that they had been "badly treated by the Mormons" who were "threaten[ing] to shoot or imprison all Americans passing through their country," but their bluster was recognized for what it was, frustration at being thwarted in their Indian slave trade.61 Bowman's traders were placed in informal custody by Utah officials, but after Bowman was killed by Indians who suspected he had cheated them, they were released and left the territory without incident.62

Young's direct action successfully drove the traders out of Utah— and underground for a while—but heightened Indian hostility. Wakara's attitude was that he did not care to whom he sold his human merchandise and that Mormons would suffice as well as Mexicans, as long as they were willing to trade him the guns and ammunition he needed.63 But Utah officials had declared that no arms were to be further traded to Indians.

Thus, while the trade in Indian children continued to limp along for a while—underground to gentiles and legally with Mormons—the Utah laws on Indian slavery and Mexican trade placed a stranglehold on an old and profitable way of life for the Utes Their hostility would erupt in the spring of 1853 in what has been called the Walker War,64 a "war" that most Utah historians recognize as having been caused as much by anger over the now-defunct Spanish-Indian slave trade as by encroaching white settlements or friction between cultures.65

In New Mexico the effect of the Mormons' curtailing the slave trade was to increase slave raids on Navajo settlements to replace the lost Yuta captives, exacerbating an already hostile situation. As animosities escalated, both Ute Indian and white raiders took advantage of the ongoing war to continue to supply expanding markets with Navajo captives These increased slave raids were one of many factors in the spiraling aggression of the Navajo wars that ultimately resulted

in American military intervention that crushed Navajo resistance once and for all.66

There is some justice in León's complaint that Brigham Young denied him a license to trade because he was not a Mormon.67 León and company were tried for trading with the Indians for Indian children, a practice in which the Mormon populace was actively engaged and which their governor and church president had only recently advised them to do "as quickly as possible."68 Yet the court found Mormon commerce in Indian children to be legal while the Mexican trade was not. The only difference León could perceive was racial and religious: he was a Catholic Mexican, not a Mormon Utahn. He was probably right.

What León could not have seen or understood, particularly given the New Mexican history of ignoring the Indian problems caused by slaving practices, was that the political difficulties caused by Indian slavery had to be stopped. That could only be done by stopping Mexican trade expeditions like his from coming to Utah. Although the purchase and raising of Indian captives among Mormons and Mexicans were actually very similar in practice, the real difference lay in its extent and the pernicious effects of the traditional Mexican trade in maintaining the Indian hostilities.69 The New Mexicans who utilized Indian menials in large numbers were willing to put up with occasional Indian raids as the price for having Indian tribes available from which to "harvest" servants. The Utahns did not have the luxury of, or desire to, accept Indian hostilities. Their communities were thinly spread out and vulnerable. They accepted voluntary placement of Indian children as frequently as possible for acculturation purposes, but having a peaceful setting conducive to both Indian missionary and settlement efforts was uppermost in their thoughts.

Pedro León, and all other Mexican traders of his ilk, endangered that peaceful settlement process They stirred up hostilities between tribes and provided arms, ammunition, and horses that helped to perpetuate conflict. Most important, they created the market that kept alive the slave trade and its viciously cruel Indian slave raids. The Mormons saw themselves not as creating a market for slaves but as absorbing and emancipating the captives already taken, or, providing homes for Indian children whose families were too destitute to provide for them.

Still, the bottom line of the court proceeding was the legality of trading with Indians, particularly for their captive children. Despite the inherent hypocrisy of convicting the Mexican traders of a "crime" that the Mormon population was blatantly and actively participating in, the court action gave Utah officials the precedent upon which they could base future regulatory andjudicial action aimed at stopping the trade. Outsider—New Mexican—trade with Indians was forbidden, while local, Utah trade was allowed. Indians could not be enslaved, but Indian children could be purchased for a sometimes slave-like indenture from which they could be emancipated upon reaching their majority.

By managing the meaning of the very carefully chosen terms to be used, the Utahns were successfully able to manipulate the political necessities of Indian trade and slavery into an acceptable form of bonded servitude, while precluding the outside trade they felt endangered their own enclaves.

NOTES

Sondra Jones, an independent researcher and writer living in Provo, recently completed a master's program in history at Brigham Young University.

1 Court documents consistently refer to the traders as Spanish, while other documents and most historians refer to them as Mexican; however, by 1851 they were all American citizens following the creation of New Mexico Territory by the United States To remain consistent with most historical references, they will generally be referred to here as "Mexican" traders.

2 The curtailment of the Mexican-Indian slave trade led directly to the Walker War and was a major contributing factor to the Indian wars in New Mexico/Arizona when slave raiding increased dramatically against Navajos to make up for the loss of captives from Utah See David M Brugge, "Navajos in the Catholic Church Records of New Mexico, 1694-1875." Research Report No 1, Window Rock, Arizona, Navajo Tribe Parks and Recreation Department, 1968, frontispiece, pp 35-38, 147.

3 For example, see the treatmen t by L. R. Bailey, Indian Slave Trade in the Southwest (Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1966), pp 101, 159.

4 Standar d original sources include: Brigham Young's "Manuscript History, 1853-1862" (hereinafter BYMH) an d the "Journal History of the Church," bot h in LDS Church Archives, Salt Lake City; Young's addresses to the legislature; an editorial in the DeseretNews Weekly by Willard Richards, Novembe r 15, 1851; the cour t findings, published in the Deseret News Weekly, March 6, 1852; an d Daniel W.Jones , Forty Years among the Indians (Salt Lake City: Juvenile Instructor Office, 1890), pp 47-58.

5 As quoted in Almon Wheeler Lauber, Indian Slavery in Colonial Times within the Present Limits of the United States (New York: Columbia University, 1913), pp 49-50.

6 See a more extensive discussion of this in Sondra Jones, "History of the Indian Slave Trade in New Mexico," chap 3 in "Pedro León: Indian-Slavery, Mexican Traders, and the Mormon Judiciary" (M.A thesis, Brigham Young University, 1995) See also, Brugge, "Navajos in the Catholic Churc h Records," pp 99-116.

7 Christening records indicate that at least on e of his parents was a "child of the pueblo " of Abiquiu, that is, a genizaro or Christianized Indian Th e same records show him as godfather to two Paiutes, and census records reveal two more Paiute boys in his household and bearing his name. His arguments about treatment of Indian children in New Mexico can be seen in an affidavit submitted in New Mexico: Lafayette Head, "Statement of Mr Hea d of Abiquiu in Regard of the Buying an d Selling of Payutahs—April 30, 1852," Doc #2150, Rich Collection of Papers pertaining to New Mexico, Huntington Library, San Marino, California See Brugge, "Navajos in the Catholic Church Records," pp 99-116; and Frances León Swadesh, Los Primeros Pobladores (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 1974), pp 23, 60, 153, 218 n 36.

s A search of Abiquiu records shows a relatively prominent Don Pedro León Lujan active in civic, farming, and Indian trading activities There are no Leóns in Abiquiu presently and few in all of New Mexico (Census, christening, military, and Indian agency records).

9 Copy of the license issued to Pedro León, attached to the Testimony of Brigham Young, Utah Territory, FirstJudicial Court of Utah, United States v. Pedro León et al., Doc #1533 [microfiche], Utah State Archives, Salt Lake City The legal requirements for a license were that the applicant be "a citizen of the United States, produce satisfactory testimonials of good character, and give bon d in a penal sum not exceeding five thousand dollars, with one or more sureties, that he will faithfully observe all the laws and regulations made for the government of trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes of the United States, and in no respect violate the same, an d that they will not trade in fire-arms, powder, lead, or other munitions of war Applicants will distinctly state what tribe they wish to trade with, and under a license granted, they will not be authorized to trade with others." James S Calhoun, Indian Agent, November 21, 1849, NMIS RG 75, Letters Received, National Archives, Washington, D.C.

10 Deposition of Phillipe Santiago Archuleta, January 16, 1852, U.S. v Pedro León et al., p 325 Phillipe was a resident of Taos traveling with his uncle, Miguel Archuleta, and under León's leadership.

" León must have known his license would expire sooner than he could complete his trading; yet the trip must have been planned, for Chief Wakara told George A Smith in March that he expected to meet Spanish traders on the north fork of the Sevier River later that year León was one of the Mexican traders who had been trading there annually for years. Arapeen "says that Pedro León has been trading with him for years, and Siapand says that Pedro León traded with Arapeen's father years ago." Andrew Siler to George A Smith, December 18, 1851, George A Smith Collection, LDS Church Archives It may have been with León that Wakara expected to trade See George A Smith, March 18, 1851, "Journal of George Albert Smith (1817-1875), Principal Residence during this Period (1850-1851) Parowan, Utah," typescript, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Special Collections, Provo, Utah.

12 While eastern Utes sold children to the Mexicans, they did not practice the more institutionalized slave raiding and trading that was epitomized by the Utes in central Utah Children sold by eastern Utes appear to have been incidental to regular warfare with other strong tribes or their own children Ome r Stewart, "The Eastern Ute" and "The Western Ute," notes prepared (1973) for his co-authored article, "Ute," in Handbook of the North American Indians, Vol. 11, Great Basin, ed. Warren L. D'Azevedo (Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution, 1986).

13 Archuleta deposition; "Information," published in Deseret News Weekly, March 6, 1852, hereinafter referred to as Court "Information." See also "Journal History of the Church," February 10, 1852.

14 Archuleta deposition.

15 G A Smith, "Journal," March 18, 1851.

16 Brigham Young testified that this took place on November 1, but other court records and newspaper reports say the meeting took place on the 3rd There may have been more than one meeting.

17 Jones, Forty Years, p. 51. Jones claimed to have been the interpreter for the Spaniards. However, some of his recollection of the event is garbled when compared to the official court records See also Deseret News Weekly, December 13 and November 15, 1851; Young testimony, First Judicial Court, "Minutes," January 15, 1852; BYMH, November 7, 1851; León's report to John Greiner, acting superintendent of Indian Affairs, New Mexico, and forwarded to Luke Lea, commissioner of Indian Affairs, May 19, 1852, in Anne H. Abel, ed., Official Correspondence offames S. Calhoun (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1915), pp 536-37.

18 Archuleta deposition; Court "Information"; Testimony of F A Pomeroy, January 16, 1852, U.S. v Pedro León et al, p 329.

19 Pomeroy testimony; Court "Information." León's route would undoubtedly have been the traditional Old Spanish Trail normally traveled by the New Mexican traders into central Utah The northern route for the rest of the company may have been chosen to reduce chances of running into more central Utah Utes.

20 Greiner to Lea.

21 Archuleta deposition; Court "Information"; Greiner to Lea By the time León returned to New Mexico and lodged his complaint about his treatment in Utah, the number of lost horses had increased from the original twelve to eighteen Also, his "intention" of yielding up his captives seems a bit too altruistic given his years as a slave trader.

22 For example, see William J Snow, "Utah Indians and Spanish Slave Trade" and "Some Source Documents on Utah Indian Slavery," Utah Historical Quarterly 2 (1929): 67-76, 76-90.

23 In 1813 Mauricio Arze and Lagos Garcia had entered Utah Valley hoping to trade for furs The Utes there refused to trade for furs, demanding instead that they trade for captive children When they refused, several of their horses were killed O n the Green River they were met again by Indian traders who brought children, not furs, to trade; in fear of a repeat attack, they traded for them Testimony, Rio Arriba, September 1813 in R E Twitchell, ed., Spanish Archives of New Mexico (Cedar Rapids, 1914), vol 2, p 478, document #1881 no 7 See also LeRoy R Hafen and Ann W Hafen, Old Spanish Trail: Santa Fe to Los Angeles (Glendale, Calif: Arthur H Clark Co., 1954), pp 85-86.

24 Siler to G A Smith.

25 Ibid.

26 Elijah Averett, JP, and Titus Billings, JP, to Zerubbabel Snow, December 9, 1851, Brigham Young Collection, box 47, fd. 36, LDS Church Archives.

27 The members of the remaining company were: Phillip Santiago Chaves (Archuleta), Miguel Archuleta, Jose Samuel Gomes, Juan Antonio Baldineros, Jose Albustos (or Albino) Mestes, and Vicente Chaves. The names of the Spanish traders are a little difficult to decipher from the records inasmuch as they were recorded by men who obviously did not speak Spanish and rendered the names in various phonetic spellings..

28 Greiner to Lea; Court "Information"; Affidavit of S B Rose, Indian subagent, December 13, 1851, U.S.v. Pedro León et al., pp.161-62; Warrant of arrest, December 13, 1851, and December 29, 1851, ibid., pp 157-58; Archuleta deposition.

29 Edwin B Firmage and Richard Collin Mangum, Zion in the Courts: A Legal History of the Church of fesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1988), pp 264-65, 214-15 Shortly after the creation of the territory the control of the Utah civil judiciary had been shifted to a supreme court made up of the federally appointed justices who were to preside over the territory's three judicial districts These civil courts were to adjudicate non-Mormon cases or criminal actions (Mormons were expected to have their misunderstandings arbitrated by ecclesiastical courts) However, some federally appointed gentile officials found themselves almost immediately embroiled in conflicts with Mormo n leaders, and they left to make complaints in Washington (They included Judges Perry E Brocchus and Lemuel G Brandebury.) Shortly thereafter the legislature extended broad jurisdiction to local probate courts, and Judge Snow was authorized to serve in all three districts until newjudges could be appointed by the president.

30 U.S. v Pedro León et al, misc docs., pp 159-76, 323-24 Witnesses included James Allred, Antonio Jose Gallegos, Brigham Young, Isaac Morley, Albert Carrington, Daniel Jones, George Bean, Francis Pomeroy, and the Indians Arapeen and Sequite.

31 "Seth M. Blair," Kate B. Carter, comp., Our Pioneer Heritage, vol. 2 (Salt Lake City: Daughter of Utah Pioneers, 1959), pp 48-49; Seth Millington Blair, obituary, copy with "Reminiscences and Journals, 1851-1868," MSS (microfilm), LDS Church Archives Blair was ardently pro-Confederacy during the Civil War In a letter to a friend he referred to the North as "the old negro worshiping government of Uncle Sam alias (Devil) ."; Jones, Forty Years, 52.

32 G A Smith, "Journal," December 1850, pp 10-12; and March 12, 21, and 25, 1851, pp 46-47, 49-50; "History of Zilpha Stark Smith," in G A Smith, "Journal," p 85; Gwinn Harris Heap, Central Route to the Pacific (Philadelphia, 1854), p 91.

33 William McBride, Darwin Richardson, George D. Grant, Daniel Allen, Jacob Houtz, James A. Cheney, Stephen Law, Guy Keysor, Joseph E Book, Joseph G Hovey, and William Jones U.S. v Pedro León et al, pp 239-40 According to 1850 U.S Census records, McBride, the foreman, was related to Manti residents where the original arrests took place.

34 George Bean, "Diaries,"January 2, 1852, MSS (microfilm 920 #10), Special Collections, Harold B Lee Library, BYU Francis Pomeroy was recommended to George A Smith by Andrew Siler, and his testimony appears in his deposition in U.S. v Pedro León et al., pp 329-30.

35 Seth Blair, "Information in Libel," December 1851, U.S. v Pedro León et al., pp 167-70.

36 Court "Information." Unless otherwise noted, the discussion of the trial comes from this newspaper account of the proceedings.

37 January 1, 1851, U.S. v Pedro León et al., pp 239-40 León told Greiner that each trader was fined $50, which they promptly paid (Greiner to Lea,), but the court recorded only the $500 fine against Pedro León.

38 Blair's arguments were based on the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which authorized the extension of existing laws over the new territories created from the acquisition of Mexican lands; Blair erroneously assumed that Indian slavery had bee n legal in Mexico and thus in New Mexico and Utah Actually, Indian Defense attorney George A. Smith. slavery and the trade in Indian captives had been specifically prohibited by Spain and Mexico as early as the sixteenth century, making Indian slavery specifically illegal in both New Mexico and Utah, although the laws were generally flouted and judicially ignored. See September 13, 1778, bando (edict) issued to control flow of contraband to borde r tribes by prohibiting unlicensed trade with Indians (generally ignored); 1812 bando prohibiting purchasing or trade in captives from Utes (again, generally ignored).

Reviewed in L R Bailey, Indian Slave Trade in the Southwest (Los Angeles: Westernlore Press, 1966), pp 141-44; #740; R E Twitchell, ed., Spanish Archives of New Mexico, vol 2 (Cedar Rapids, 1914), p 263; Hafen and Hafen, Spanish Trail, pp 262-64 Even James Calhoun, who signed León's license, had been attempting to control the slave trade, calling it "exceedingly pernicious" and "the greatest curse" upon the Indians of the territory, recommending the extension of the Trade and Intercourse Act be applied there and issuing his own regulations in the meantime forbidding the trade See James Calhoun to Orlando Brown, November 2, 1849, New Mexico Indian Superintendency, as quoted in Bailey, Indian Slave Trade, pp 100-101.

39 Territory of Utah, "Act in Relation to Service,"Acts, Resolutions, and Memorials, Passed at the Several Sessions of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah (Salt Lake City, 1855), p. 160.

40 Utes had been selling children to Mormons since 1847; the children were acquired as the result of military skirmishes when parents were killed Indian children were also distributed to be raised in Mormon homes.

41 Greiner to Lea.

42 Territory of Utah, "An Act for the Relief of Indian Slaves and Prisoners," Acts, Resolutions, and Memorials, Passed at the Several Sessions of the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of Utah (Salt Lake City, 1855), chap 24 The act was passed January 31, 1852, and approved March 7, 1852 Shortly thereafter, legislation would also be passed defining the care of legally owned black slaves—making Utah the only "slave territory" in the West, since New Mexico would ban all slavery as part of its political posturing against neighboring slave state Texas.

43 Traditionally, Indian captives were not "sold" but "ransomed" in New Mexico; the cost of their ransoming to be worked off like an indenture—though without the formal legislative definitions of such—theoretically to be ended at adulthood (about age fifteen to sixteen) or marriage. The market for captive labor was large—most families who could afford it owned a slave The demand was met through Indian trade and Mexican slave raids on "hostile" tribes The church sanctioned such indentures in the name of heathen conversion However, the system of "indenturing" in New Mexico could be, and often was, abused Nevertheless, three of its chief features were church sanction in the name of religious indoctrination, limited indentures, and the extensive fostering of Indian children.

44 For example, Garland Hur t wrote on May 2, 1855, that he "recommended Acts to regulate Trade and Intercourse be rigidly enforced, because Saints have perpetuated a distinction between Mormons and Americans prejudicial to U.S. citizens," giving the Gunnison Massacre as an example. (The Indians did maintain a difference between the two white, warring, tribes of Mericats and Mormonees.)

45 Appeals filed, January 14, 1852, U.S. v. Pedro León, et al, pp. 317-22, and Court "Information."

46 Court "Information."

47 Application for new trial, January 9, 1852, U.S. v Pedro León, et al, pp 292-93.

48 Brigham Young, Legislative Address published January 10, 1852, Deseret News; Frances Parkman, The Oregon Trail (New York: Grosset & Dunlap, 1927), p 60.

49 Jones, Forty Years, p 52; Deseret News Weekly, November 15, 1851.

50 Deposition of James Ferguson, January 9, 1852, U. S. v Pedro León et al, pp 292-93 It would be interesting to see how Grant justified the "possession" of Indian children by men such as George A Smith who had also recently traded with the Utes without a license in an almost identical situation in which an Indian child was bartered for a stolen and butchered animal.

51 Application for new trial and deposition of Joshua Slayton, January 9, 1851, U.S. v Pedro León et al, pp 294-95.

52 It is not clear whether each trader was also fined $500 León reported to Greiner that each trader was fined only $50—an error in transcription?

53 Greiner to Lea; Jones, Forty Years, p 52.

54 Greiner to Lea.

55 Head, "Statement." Lafayette Head, then in Abiquiu, would later serve as Ute Indian agent in Conejos, become a resident of the predominantly Hispanic San Luis Valley in Ute territory, marr y into the New Mexican culture, an d be a "foster" parent of several Indian children U.S Census, 1870, Conejos County, Colorado Territory, p 166, family 260 (microfilm FHL #545,593) See also Greiner to Lea.

56 No large group of Mexicans was ever seen, although a ban d of 150 Yampa Utes from norther n Colorado that had joined Wakara's camp shortly thereafter sent peace overtures to Young Deseret News, December 15, 1853; Journal History of the Church, April 23, 1853 (JH hereinafter); Deseret News, April 30; 1853; Brigham Young, May 2, 1853, J H (quoting from BYMH, 1853-1862); Jones , Forty Years, pp 54-55; Orson F Whitney, History of Utah, vol I (Salt Lake City: George Q Cannon and Sons, 1892-1904), pp 510-12.

57 The Mormons were, however, advised to treat them "with kindness, and [supply] their necessary wants." See "Proclamation by the Governor," April 23, 1853, J H (quoting from Deseret News, April 30, 1853).

58 DeseretNews, December 15, 1853; and December 13, 1853, JH.

59 May 2, 1853, J H (quoting from BYMH); Deseret News, December 15, 1853.

60 Mormons also suspected that mountain men like Jim Bridger had added to the problem with similar arguments against the Utah settlers since 1850 The Mormons were encroaching on or impeding the commercial ventures of both groups as they absorbed the Oregon / California Trail business to which many mountain men had turned (trading posts and ferries) and the Mexican trade in Indian slaves along the Old Spanish Trail Both groups stood to gain if Indian hostilities drove the Mormons out However, in 1853 the Mormons moved to solve the problem of outside intervention in Indian affairs by buying out the old traders at Fort Bridger and driving out the Mexican traders See for example Whitney, History of Utah, 1:515, and BYMH, May 13, 1849, pp 76, 77.

61 Gwinn Harris Heap, Central Route to the Pacific (Philadelphia, 1854), pp 79-80.

62 Jones, Forty Years, pp 55-56 Because of the earlier disagreements with Mormon officials rumors persisted that he had been murdered by the Mormons and the Indians blamed.

63 May 11, 1853, JH, quoting from Capt Walls Report published May 28, 1853, in the Deseret News. Although the Mormons considered this desire for guns and ammunition to be strictly military, "to enable him to continue his robberies," no one seemed to grasp the concept that the Indians needed the weapons for hunting and survival as well.

64 So called because it was carried on by members of Wakara's (Walker's) war bands; during much of the "war" Wakara was absent in Arizona among the Navajos See an in-depth discussion in Howard A Christy, "The Walker War: Defense and Conciliation as Strategy," Utah Historical Quarterly 47 (1979): 216-35.

65 For example, B H Roberts, A Comprehensive History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vol 4 (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1930), pp 36-40;'Bailey, Indian Slave Trade, pp 163-64; Milton R. Hunter, Utah in Her Western Setting (Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1943), pp. 305-6. m See Brugge, "Navajos in Catholic Church Records, 1694-1875," p 35.

67 Greiner to Lea, Official Correspondence.

68 Brigham Young, May 13, 1851, BYMH, p 846, as quoted in Juanita Brooks, "Indian Relations on the Mormon Frontier," Utah Historical Quarterly 12 (1944): 6.

69 Mormons also differed in that they never carried out their own raids to obtain their Indian menials as Mexicans frequently did.