Comanches All Around
This edition of History Spaghetti comes from Ryan Booth, a Ph.D. student in history. Here, Ryan reviews two recent works that demonstrate the significant impact of Native Americans in the history of the American Southwest. The first, Pekka Hämäläinen’s The Comanche Empire (2008), challenges us to re-consider our conceptions of Indian political, economic, and military power in the Southwest by seeing the Comanches as an imperial power. Just like the Spanish and American empires in the Southwest, between 1700 and 1850 the Comanche empire “imposed their will upon neighboring polities, harnessed the economic potential of other societies for their own use, and persuaded their rivals to adopt and accept their customs and norms” (pg.4). Hämäläinen, Rhodes Professor of American History at Oxford University, avoids the “cameo-appearance” narrative of American history, where Indians only show up for a moment before disappearing, by centering Indians in our understanding of the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Southwest.
The second book reviewed, Brian DeLay’s War of a Thousand Deserts (2008) looks at issues covered by Hämäläinen—the role of Indians in the lead-up, duration, and aftermath U.S.-Mexican War of 1846-1848—but broadens his scope to discuss other tribes in the Southwest including the Apache, Kiowa, and Navajo. In doing so, DeLay challenges modern understandings of the comings of that war. Previous historians of the U.S.-Mexican War often see the conflict as an extension of mid-nineteenth century’s Americans obsession with manifest destiny, or slaveholders hopes for the expansion of territory below the line of the Missouri Compromise. In contrast, Delay—an Associate Professor of History at UC Berkeley—examines the area where the conflict actually took place to highlight issues in the Southwest borderlands before, during, and after the war—particularly those caused by Indians resisting the expansion of American, Spanish, and Mexican imperial powers. Indians in the Southwest adapted to and resisted the onslaught of expansionism and changed their traditional agricultural, environmental, animal, and military practices. In doing so, they created problems for the Mexican and American governments and fueled the fires that led the two countries to war.
The Comanche Empire. By Pekka Hämäläinen. Lamar Series in Western History. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press in association with the William P. Clements Center for Southwestern Studies, Southern Methodist University, 2008). Viii + 500 pp.
The Comanches came, saw and conquered. Sadly, they never received the credit that they deserved for dominating the political, military and social scene in Texas and the Southwest. Pekka Hämäläinen’s The Comanche Empire attempts to revive that crucial period of time between 1700 and 1850. The colonial powers did not direct their own affairs; quite the opposite, the Comanche Nation dictated the terms of Southwest empire. The Southwest, as we know it, might not look the same without this powerful Indian force.
The story follows the political aspects of borderland/frontier history between various nations. Hämäläinen clearly sees these Native tribes as more than marauding bands; they were autonomous, active political and malleable nations. The Comanches held onto some core cultural beliefs, but were willing to adapt to each situation. Like the Mongols, the Comanches did not want integration – they wanted goods taken by “trade, theft, or tribute” (pg. 352). Since this particular Indian nation wielded this much power, Hämäläinen argues that they constituted an empire. For those 150 years, the Comanches in their domain rivaled the Spanish, French and Americans as an imperial power.
The fatal flaw for this empire rests on the horse. The tribe quickly adopted the use of the horse and learned the many benefits of horseback travel and hunting. As they adapted, a group of hunters fired upon and killed between 200-300 bison in an hour. Clearly, this practice could not continue infinitely. As the same horses competed for grasslands that the bison also subsisted on, the death knell tolled in the distance.
As the colonial Spanish and French empires fell, the Comanches gathered more powerful alliances with surrounding tribes and worked with the marginalized in each community to gather much needed resources. As the Comanche Empire grew at the turn of the nineteenth century, it needed more and more resources to keep it running. This necessitated further ranging raids into Northern Mexico and their ranches. This cycle of violence of raids for horses and slaves crippled the northern frontier of Mexico. As this occurred, some Anglo-Americans desperately wanted to settle Texas, which they did and wrestled it away from Mexico.
When this occurred, the Comanche began a death spiral. As their natural resources dwindled from overgrazing, they relied more heavily on raiding. The new American pioneers, largely hailing from the U.S. South, held very racist views about anyone who did not appear Anglo. The Comanche became the prime target for the new pioneers to subdue this nation as quickly as possible. In a period of twenty-five years, they managed to get the last band of Comanches onto a reservation in the Indian Territory. Government support, local settlers and a divinely ordained racism all worked together to quickly and harshly subdue the once powerful Indian nation.
This book presents an overlooked aspect of American history in a highly readable and engaging manner. It draws heavily on the most current historical trends of world systems theory and attempts to place this history within a global framework. The author misses a few minor details along the way such as the U.S. Centennial being 1876, not 1875. Overall, it is an excellent work of lasting importance for all American and borderlands scholars.
War of a Thousand Deserts: Indian Raids and the U.S.-Mexican War. By Brian DeLay. Lamar Series in Western History. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press in association with the William P. Clements Center for Southwestern Studies, Southern Methodist University, 2008). xxii + 473 pp.
The Comanches killed the hopes of the Mexican government’s claims to its northernmost territories such as Texas and New Mexico. This Indian nation brought about an international conflict between the U.S. and Mexico which culminated in the U.S.-Mexico War of 1846-1848. Brian DeLay’s careful examination of these events is chronicled in War of a Thousand Deserts. His shrewd analysis provides a new way to view this largely overlooked chapter in borderlands history.
After Mexico’s independence movement in 1821, the fledgling country encountered problems with its northern border due to Indian raiding. DeLay points out that this was a parallel experience to the U.S. experience in its early tangles with the Shawnee. The young Mexican nation attempted to master its borders, but the fragile government and dramatic swings in power prevented the national government from focusing on anything beyond itself. This left the northern Mexican states to fend for themselves against the Comanche, Apache, Kiowa and Navajo tribes.
These tribes had completely changed their way of life by pursuing animal husbandry and the mass hunting of bison. They hunted in the summer and raided in the winter. It provided them with more horses, more supplies and captives who could perform a variety of social roles. The environment changed over time, the tribes penetrated further into Mexico with little to no resistance, and raiding became a way of life.
The raids left northern Mexico impoverished, wrecked and depopulated. The national government’s inability to provide adequate resources, despite the fact that almost 60% of its national budget went to the army, left the states vulnerable. Furthermore, Mexican land grants to Americans in Texas also changed the character of the land. The new immigrants proved to be ferocious Indian fighters and shifted the raiding almost exclusively to Mexican territory. The Comanche preferred easier prey.
The U.S. government watched all of this more earnestly after Texas declared independence in 1835. Newspaper editors encouraged the Texans and began to cover more stories related to that region. The politicians in Washington, D.C. groused about Mexican incompetence and their lack of control over their border. Recognizing the Indian problem, Washington saw the regression of civilization to barbarism as unnatural.
As more and more stories trickled into Mexico City about the barbarians at the gate, the national government instructed that the states put more effort into defending Mexico. These instructions fell on deaf ears since the states were largely broke and the citizenry preferred to protect their own property and livelihoods than protect an unsympathetic Mexico City. At one point, Indian raids reached so deeply in Mexico that they were mere miles away from the capital city. The Mexican government began to believe that the Texans and the U.S. government were behind these raids. When the U.S. annexed Texas as its newest territory, the Mexican government had all of the proof it needed to retaliate. As General Mariano Arista marched north, General Zachary Taylor waited on the Rio Grande River in an effort to provoke an attack which worked.
The U.S.-Mexico War that followed took shape over a wide range from eastern Texas to the Californian coast. President James Polk had instructed his generals to claim all territory in between those territories and make peace with the tribes therein. This proved to be easier said than done. The tribal raiding continued alongside the U.S. invasion, which prompted Mexico to focus its limited resources on fighting the American aggressor. Eventually, the U.S. wrested territorial control from the Mexican authorities, claimed the land as war booty, but still had to contend with Native Americans within the new U.S. boundaries. U.S. officials instructed their tribal allies that they could no longer raid or they would face punishment. Native raiding was fine when it came to war measures directed towards Mexico, but in peacetime it was no longer tolerable. The government vacillated between a carrot and a stick policy until they gained total control.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the Comanche and the other plains tribes helped construct their own decline. By adopting horse culture, they used up much of the pastureland that the bison relied on as well. Due to over hunting and loss of pastures, the bison began a sharp population decline. This led to greater dependence on the U.S. government and reservation life to survive.
In the end, the combination of issues led to the transfer of half of Mexican territory to the U.S. in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. All of the issues in one way or another focused on the Comanche. The failure of the Mexican government to protect its weak borderlands from raiding provided a vision of bumbling, hopelessness and even the welcoming of the Americans. The American forces believed in their racial superiority and their ability to deal with Indians, mainly through violence, which blinded them to some of the realities of life in this territory. Finally, it showed that Native people persisted and drove national priorities nearly to the end of the nineteenth century.
About the author: Ryan Booth is a Ph.D. student studying with Dr. Peter Boag. His areas of historical interest are the American West and Native Americans. His dissertation topic explores the U.S. Army Indian Scouts from 1866 to 1942. He has a B.A. in history and philosophy from Loyola University Chicago and an MA in history from Central Washington University
Image 1: http://www.nowtopians.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/comanche-trading-empire-early-19th-century.jpg
Image 2: https://frontierpartisans.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/war-desertds.jpg
The second book reviewed, Brian DeLay’s War of a Thousand Deserts (2008) looks at issues covered by Hämäläinen—the role of Indians in the lead-up, duration, and aftermath U.S.-Mexican War of 1846-1848—but broadens his scope to discuss other tribes in the Southwest including the Apache, Kiowa, and Navajo. In doing so, DeLay challenges modern understandings of the comings of that war. Previous historians of the U.S.-Mexican War often see the conflict as an extension of mid-nineteenth century’s Americans obsession with manifest destiny, or slaveholders hopes for the expansion of territory below the line of the Missouri Compromise. In contrast, Delay—an Associate Professor of History at UC Berkeley—examines the area where the conflict actually took place to highlight issues in the Southwest borderlands before, during, and after the war—particularly those caused by Indians resisting the expansion of American, Spanish, and Mexican imperial powers. Indians in the Southwest adapted to and resisted the onslaught of expansionism and changed their traditional agricultural, environmental, animal, and military practices. In doing so, they created problems for the Mexican and American governments and fueled the fires that led the two countries to war.
The Comanche Empire. By Pekka Hämäläinen. Lamar Series in Western History. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press in association with the William P. Clements Center for Southwestern Studies, Southern Methodist University, 2008). Viii + 500 pp.
The Comanches came, saw and conquered. Sadly, they never received the credit that they deserved for dominating the political, military and social scene in Texas and the Southwest. Pekka Hämäläinen’s The Comanche Empire attempts to revive that crucial period of time between 1700 and 1850. The colonial powers did not direct their own affairs; quite the opposite, the Comanche Nation dictated the terms of Southwest empire. The Southwest, as we know it, might not look the same without this powerful Indian force.
The story follows the political aspects of borderland/frontier history between various nations. Hämäläinen clearly sees these Native tribes as more than marauding bands; they were autonomous, active political and malleable nations. The Comanches held onto some core cultural beliefs, but were willing to adapt to each situation. Like the Mongols, the Comanches did not want integration – they wanted goods taken by “trade, theft, or tribute” (pg. 352). Since this particular Indian nation wielded this much power, Hämäläinen argues that they constituted an empire. For those 150 years, the Comanches in their domain rivaled the Spanish, French and Americans as an imperial power.
The fatal flaw for this empire rests on the horse. The tribe quickly adopted the use of the horse and learned the many benefits of horseback travel and hunting. As they adapted, a group of hunters fired upon and killed between 200-300 bison in an hour. Clearly, this practice could not continue infinitely. As the same horses competed for grasslands that the bison also subsisted on, the death knell tolled in the distance.
 |
| Image 1 |
When this occurred, the Comanche began a death spiral. As their natural resources dwindled from overgrazing, they relied more heavily on raiding. The new American pioneers, largely hailing from the U.S. South, held very racist views about anyone who did not appear Anglo. The Comanche became the prime target for the new pioneers to subdue this nation as quickly as possible. In a period of twenty-five years, they managed to get the last band of Comanches onto a reservation in the Indian Territory. Government support, local settlers and a divinely ordained racism all worked together to quickly and harshly subdue the once powerful Indian nation.
This book presents an overlooked aspect of American history in a highly readable and engaging manner. It draws heavily on the most current historical trends of world systems theory and attempts to place this history within a global framework. The author misses a few minor details along the way such as the U.S. Centennial being 1876, not 1875. Overall, it is an excellent work of lasting importance for all American and borderlands scholars.
War of a Thousand Deserts: Indian Raids and the U.S.-Mexican War. By Brian DeLay. Lamar Series in Western History. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press in association with the William P. Clements Center for Southwestern Studies, Southern Methodist University, 2008). xxii + 473 pp.
The Comanches killed the hopes of the Mexican government’s claims to its northernmost territories such as Texas and New Mexico. This Indian nation brought about an international conflict between the U.S. and Mexico which culminated in the U.S.-Mexico War of 1846-1848. Brian DeLay’s careful examination of these events is chronicled in War of a Thousand Deserts. His shrewd analysis provides a new way to view this largely overlooked chapter in borderlands history.
After Mexico’s independence movement in 1821, the fledgling country encountered problems with its northern border due to Indian raiding. DeLay points out that this was a parallel experience to the U.S. experience in its early tangles with the Shawnee. The young Mexican nation attempted to master its borders, but the fragile government and dramatic swings in power prevented the national government from focusing on anything beyond itself. This left the northern Mexican states to fend for themselves against the Comanche, Apache, Kiowa and Navajo tribes.
These tribes had completely changed their way of life by pursuing animal husbandry and the mass hunting of bison. They hunted in the summer and raided in the winter. It provided them with more horses, more supplies and captives who could perform a variety of social roles. The environment changed over time, the tribes penetrated further into Mexico with little to no resistance, and raiding became a way of life.
 |
| Image 2 |
The U.S. government watched all of this more earnestly after Texas declared independence in 1835. Newspaper editors encouraged the Texans and began to cover more stories related to that region. The politicians in Washington, D.C. groused about Mexican incompetence and their lack of control over their border. Recognizing the Indian problem, Washington saw the regression of civilization to barbarism as unnatural.
As more and more stories trickled into Mexico City about the barbarians at the gate, the national government instructed that the states put more effort into defending Mexico. These instructions fell on deaf ears since the states were largely broke and the citizenry preferred to protect their own property and livelihoods than protect an unsympathetic Mexico City. At one point, Indian raids reached so deeply in Mexico that they were mere miles away from the capital city. The Mexican government began to believe that the Texans and the U.S. government were behind these raids. When the U.S. annexed Texas as its newest territory, the Mexican government had all of the proof it needed to retaliate. As General Mariano Arista marched north, General Zachary Taylor waited on the Rio Grande River in an effort to provoke an attack which worked.
The U.S.-Mexico War that followed took shape over a wide range from eastern Texas to the Californian coast. President James Polk had instructed his generals to claim all territory in between those territories and make peace with the tribes therein. This proved to be easier said than done. The tribal raiding continued alongside the U.S. invasion, which prompted Mexico to focus its limited resources on fighting the American aggressor. Eventually, the U.S. wrested territorial control from the Mexican authorities, claimed the land as war booty, but still had to contend with Native Americans within the new U.S. boundaries. U.S. officials instructed their tribal allies that they could no longer raid or they would face punishment. Native raiding was fine when it came to war measures directed towards Mexico, but in peacetime it was no longer tolerable. The government vacillated between a carrot and a stick policy until they gained total control.
By the end of the nineteenth century, the Comanche and the other plains tribes helped construct their own decline. By adopting horse culture, they used up much of the pastureland that the bison relied on as well. Due to over hunting and loss of pastures, the bison began a sharp population decline. This led to greater dependence on the U.S. government and reservation life to survive.
In the end, the combination of issues led to the transfer of half of Mexican territory to the U.S. in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. All of the issues in one way or another focused on the Comanche. The failure of the Mexican government to protect its weak borderlands from raiding provided a vision of bumbling, hopelessness and even the welcoming of the Americans. The American forces believed in their racial superiority and their ability to deal with Indians, mainly through violence, which blinded them to some of the realities of life in this territory. Finally, it showed that Native people persisted and drove national priorities nearly to the end of the nineteenth century.
About the author: Ryan Booth is a Ph.D. student studying with Dr. Peter Boag. His areas of historical interest are the American West and Native Americans. His dissertation topic explores the U.S. Army Indian Scouts from 1866 to 1942. He has a B.A. in history and philosophy from Loyola University Chicago and an MA in history from Central Washington University
Image 1: http://www.nowtopians.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/comanche-trading-empire-early-19th-century.jpg
Image 2: https://frontierpartisans.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/war-desertds.jpg
Ryan,
ReplyDeleteI had read Comanche Empire but not War of a Thousand Deserts. Thanks for giving us your take on these important contributions to borderland historiography. One thing I see both books doing is expanding imperial theory further into the 19th century. I notice American scholars of the 18th century heavily using this framework (Gould's Among the Powers of the Earth, Jasanoff's Liberty's Exiles, and Griffin's American Leviathan). Richter's Looking East from Indian Country (2001) probably helped set off much of this literature.It's powerful to consider how southwestern tribes extended their empires in the North American Southwest.
One common theme I see in this framework is the idea that tribal empires thrived when they could play European empires off of one another, which they did to great effect. But, tribal power waned in the face of one monolithic empire, usually represented by the U.S. (Griffin calls that monolith the American Leviathan). I'm curious how resistance may have remained, albeit more subtly. Do you see any evidence of that in your own research? Could an argument be made that tribal empires continued covert resistance even into the twentieth century--perhaps borrowing insights from scholars like James Scott?
Dear Greg, Yes, I do. Indian Scouts have often been overlooked as race traitors. However, it dawned on me after my research this summer that this is probably not true, or maybe not as significant as previously imagined. The scouts used the U.S. Army to provide a steady salary, clothing in the form of uniforms, and other benefits that came from being a soldier. But they were also sometimes surreptitiously and sometimes in the open able to be fully Indian. This is the Indian part of the scouts. They had greater freedom, ventured far from their reservations across the American West, practiced their traditional tracking skills, and even spoke their language in the field and at the fort. The older Native historiography only accounted for Red Clouds or Sitting Bulls. You were either on the reservation or off the reservation in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. I see the Indian Scouts as a third way. Furthermore, I also see them not as traitors but perhaps as real tribal preservationists. Due to their freedoms in the U.S. Army, they could freely practice their traditions in ways that Native peoples on the reservations had greater difficulty doing. Gerald Vizenor coined a phrase survivance to describe this sort of phenomenon. It's a combination of survival and resistance. They did what they had to do in order to persist, which meant even working the U.S. Army. The U.S. Indian Scouts account for one small part of tribal survivance during the period, but I'm sure there are others. However, we have not been looking for them.
DeleteIndians, Indians, Indians, let me tell you about Indians... Sup Ryan.
ReplyDelete