|
Post by stuart on Mar 8, 2009 14:40:27 GMT -5
Absolutely splendid book by Brian DeLay, published by Yale on the subject of Comanche raiding into Mexico up to and during the Texas Revolution and Mexican War period. Its a very readable book in its own right and convincingly argues that American success in the war and the consequent anbnexation of half of Mexico was down to the way northern Mexico had been utterly devastated by Comanche raiding. There's far too much to go into here and all I can do is unreservedly recommend it.
On a specific note, there is a substantial appendix at the back listing all known Comanche raids and giving details where known. One of them is of particular interest to me. On November 21 1842 the Hacienda de Hornos in Coahuila was hit by an estimated 400 Comanche. Looking at the table, this may be the same 500+ reported in the Saltillo District on November 19, but otherwise there are no details given as to what happened.
Anybody out there know anything about this one?
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 8, 2009 15:42:07 GMT -5
Stuart, thanks for your assessment of the book; I'm going to have to get that one. Aside from the appendices listing Comanche raids, is there much in the text by way of accounts of specific raids? I'm interested in the ones that were going on in 1847-48 around Saltillo, Parras, Mazapil/Cedros, and Agua Nueva.
I'm away from my books until tomorrow evening, but if I can find more on the November 19, 1842, raid, I'll post it.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 9, 2009 1:32:32 GMT -5
There's some detail on individual raids, but only if anybody survived to write those details - which is one reason I'm trying to track down anything on the Haciende de Hornos.
The real value of the book is the way that while providing enough detail to illustrate what was happening on the ground, DeLay steps back far enough to look at the underlying reasons behind what was going on.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 9, 2009 14:56:52 GMT -5
Hamalainen's Comanche Empire makes a very similar argument for American success in the Mexican War.
It's a very different book, the main thesis is that the Comanche were the dominant empire of the Southwest, and that it's collapse was primarily due to factors within Comancheria and not external pressure form the Americans/Texans, and Spanish/Mexicans. It's dry and perhaps overly scholarly - definitely not an easy read, but it is well documented and thought provoking.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 9, 2009 15:23:24 GMT -5
Well DeLay as I say is very readable in spite of all the scholarship that's gone into his book. I'm not sure that he and Hamalainen are very far apart. DeLay, if I read him aright ascribes the collapse of the Comanche "empire" to a combination or drought, over-hunting, cholera and ultimately perhaps to an unsustainable cummulative loss or warriors. By that time of course Northern Mexico was ruined - literally as well as figuratively
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Mar 9, 2009 17:46:17 GMT -5
They sound very similiar.
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 10, 2009 8:58:16 GMT -5
War of a Thousand Deserts would be good for me, since I'm used to looking at these things through a microscope, often at the expense of the big picture; just watch:
First, I was mistaken: Hacienda de los Hornos was not part of the former Sanchez Navarro estates; early on it belonged to the Jesuit College of Parras, and by the time of the 1842 raid, Leonardo Zuloaga owned the hacienda. Thus, there is very little on Hornos in Charles Harris' comprehensive history of the Sanchez Navarros and their estates, A Mexican Family Empire. Likewise, there is scant mention of Hornos, and nothing about the raid, in Alessio Robles' massive history of Coahuila. Pablo M. Cuellar Valdes did mention the raid, however, in his Historia del Estado de Coahuila (Saltillo: 1979), 122: he notes that by 1840, Comanche raids had rendered the situation in Coahuila "unsustainable." These included one by 400 braves on the capital, Saltillo, on Jan. 10, 1841. Cuellar continues, "The settlement of Hornos was also destroyed on November 22, 1842. The situation became so desperate that the military commander of the northeast region of Mexico, don Mariano Arista, was accused by don Ignacio Arizpe, governor of Coahuila, of inefficiency in the discharge of his functions an failure to protect these towns."
I have a reel of microfilm for El Voto de Coahuila, the official state newspaper, published in Saltillo, for 1842-43. A few years I went through it, making copies of anything I could find on military topics and Indian raids. That file includes only three items on raids:
On July 30, 1842, it is noted that the state government is taking measures to defend against raids by "los indios bárbaros" and that the Gen. Francisco Mejia had detached "100 caballos" (presumably 100 cavalrymen as well) "to cover the points where the barbarians are making their incursions."
The issue of August 20, 1842, reported that a few days ago, a small party of hostile Indians raided the vicinity of Parras, and among other depredations, stole 40 horses from the Hacienda de San Lorenzo, a few miles north of town. The superior government of the state was outfitting the Presidial Company del Alamo, "the only [company] that the state has under its orders," as well as various auxiliary companies (auxiliares), to guard the passes and routes the Comanches traditionally used in their raids.
On October 29, 1842, El Voto published a one-page official circular from Gral. Mejia to the political and military authorities of the state, directing measures for a "general plan of defense" against the Comanche raids. This included some generic guff about the necessity of the military and the citizenry to be on guard, but also some specific orders as to where particular units were to be stationed, and what routes or locations were to be periodically reconnoitered. (e.g., "The 1st Active Company of Saltillo will position itself at Alamo de Parras, submitting to the care of its commander to cover with one detachment the punto de las Habas [Navas?], and reconnoiter every day the passes of de la Pena and el Sobaco."]
I didn't copy anything in El Voto about a raid on Los Hornos in November 1842, but will try to revisit the microfilm time permitting, to see if I missed it.
|
|
|
Post by stuart on Mar 10, 2009 11:56:15 GMT -5
Thanks, that actually tells me what I wanted to know. Los Hornos originally belonged to James Grant, not the Sanchez Navarros. He left it to Guadalupe Reyes and his children, but I wasn't sure whether they managed to hold on to it. The fact it was owned by Zuluoaga when the Comanche destroyed it in 1842 is therefore comforting in a way
|
|
|
Post by TRK on Mar 10, 2009 12:59:59 GMT -5
At the expense of going off topic, this may interest you, Stuart: Below is a link to an article on Leonardo Zuloaga and Los Hornos that gives some background on the prior owners. It says that Zuloaga bought the hacienda, including the main hacienda house, in March 1841. It also divulges that in 1833, a prior owner, Pilar Flores, had sold "some portions of the lands" of the hacienda to James Grant and Juan de Dios Pradel. This article is not documented, but the author, Gildardo Contreras Palacios, is a historian who has published several book-length histories on the Laguna district of Coahuila. www.elsiglodetorreon.com.mx/noticia/115729.rumbo-al-centenario-leonardo-zuloaga-su-llega.html
|
|
|
Post by kenny on Jun 12, 2011 11:53:49 GMT -5
Hamalainen's Comanche Empire makes a very similar argument for American success in the Mexican War. It's a very different book, the main thesis is that the Comanche were the dominant empire of the Southwest, and that it's collapse was primarily due to factors within Comancheria and not external pressure form the Americans/Texans, and Spanish/Mexicans. It's dry and perhaps overly scholarly - definitely not an easy read, but it is well documented and thought provoking. Did the book go into exactly what those factors within Comancheria were?? How about the effects of raids of other plains indian tribes such as the Apaches. Texans were constantly being raided by Indians also. Were the raids into Mexico more devastating than they were in Texas?? I always thought the citizenry of Mexico for the most part were unarmed. That's why the US army could ride all the way to Mexico City. Sorry for all the questions, but for the last couple of months I've been in Morelos and my books are back in Texas.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Jun 13, 2011 8:08:57 GMT -5
Our book club read "Comanche Empire" several months ago and, frankly, I was not able to get through it. However, I did keep it on the shelf as a reference as it is loaded with detailed information about the Comanche. My impression (from the portion I did read) is that the Comanche were a holy terror and everyone in the area, including other tribes, were continually vicitimized by them. Even the Apache were afraid of them. They raided, raped, kidnapped, took slaves, which they traded and sold, and were especially adept at stealing, capturing, training and using horses. Their mastery of horsemanship had a lot to do with their dominance in the region. They seemed to have no specific fixed base and did not practice agriculture. Instead, they took crops from tribes that did cultivate land, tending not to beat up on them too badly as they wanted them to keep growing so they could continue to benefit from it themselves. I didn't get that far into the book, but my understanding is that the only thing that brought down the Comanche was the repeating firearm; six-shooters and repeating rifles.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jun 13, 2011 11:44:54 GMT -5
I think the Mexican Army being unable to defeat the Americans in any of the major battles was a contributing factor...but Mexican illregulars did a fair job at keeping up the fight behind the lines and on supply trails...
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 13, 2011 11:53:48 GMT -5
Did the book go into exactly what those factors within Comancheria were?? How about the effects of raids of other plains indian tribes such as the Apaches. Texans were constantly being raided by Indians also. Were the raids into Mexico more devastating than they were in Texas?? I always thought the citizenry of Mexico for the most part were unarmed. That's why the US army could ride all the way to Mexico City. Sorry for all the questions, but for the last couple of months I've been in Morelos and my books are back in Texas. Its been a while since I read the book, but the impressions I've been left with is that the raids into Mexico were much more devasating - though this may have been more of a factor of a more stagnant population in Northern Mexico vs Texas where there was an almost constantly growing immigration from the US. Though Hamalinen asserts the Comanche were the dominat power, I think he conveniently minimizes the fact that Texian settlement during the Texas Republic 1836 - 1845 did effectivily push the eastern fronitier of Comancheria (or at least its dependencies) back a hundred miles or more. He asserts that the power of the Comanche was already diminishing due to thier own success. As Allen says they relied on raiding or trading with more agraian tribes. Though most don't realize it the Apache were largely settled and agrain - and this was one of the key reasons the Comanche defeated them and drove them from Texas and the better part of New Mexico. They, also however drove away one of their sources of food. Another point he makes is that as Comanche power grew (as most know the Comanche measured wealth and power by the number of horses a man owned) the horse herds grew so immense that they were stripping the plains and effectivily competing with the buffalo herds. The other source of food for the Comanche. In fact Hamalien that this competition, and the increasing Comance population was already causing the gradual elimination of the buffalo (and a resulting loss of Comanche power) even before the white buffalo hunters destroyed the great southern herds.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Jun 13, 2011 11:59:57 GMT -5
but Mexican illregulars did a fair job at keeping up the fight behind the lines and on supply trails... That's another point that I think Hamalinen overlooks in his assertion about the Comanche so demoralizing the population of North Mexico. The conventional battles were still hard fought, and as the US Army advanced their rear area was anything but secure.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Jun 13, 2011 13:31:07 GMT -5
Herb-are you talking about the Mexican illregulars or the Polk Administration? ;D
Also, how can you defeat an advancing enemy force when you are also still fighting among yourselves...polkas, puros, and all that?
|
|