I have not digested all the comments on this topic, so please pardon any omissions. However, from the postings I have read a couple of things strike me. First, about the possible crossing places of the Salt River. Interesting info, but I am not sure of its relevance. Where they could have crossed the Salt River, and where they did cross it are not the same. They were on foot and as much as one may want to play the what-if game based on this crossing or that what’s the point. As far as I know nowhere in the stories of the two soldiers is a possible river crossing even mentioned. For foot traffic the Rocky Shallows was certainly/probably the best-accepted route. And, it is not simply a question of crossing the river, but the associated trail system, the desirability of the route to several days of foot travel, the security of the route – including not only from Apaches, but also from whites and Mexicans. Remember, they were supposedly carrying their savings in gold. But, the story does not start at the river. It starts in the mountains.
Joe, you say: “The principle tellers of this story did not give us the whole truth. The first question that comes to mind is, how much of the story is not true? It would be a good bet, that if they lied, the directions would be a fine place to do it.”
First, not having the whole truth of a story and the story not being true are different. You could have only parts of a story, but the parts you had could all be true. Or, you could have the whole story, but not a shred of truth in any of it. Crazy Jake was a master at this. The second thing is why would the two soldiers lie? Apparently Aaron Mason and others thought that their story was a bit over the top. Besides they were going to partner with Mason if the mine they found really amounted to anything. The bits and pieces we have of the story come from sources that seem to have little reason to lie. I don’t believe that the sources mentioned by Bark or Ely or Storm (Jones, Bowen, and Frazer) took active interest in the two soldiers mine. The only mistake the two soldiers made seems to be the same one Ruth made – they talked too openly. But, trying to fit their story into one of where they were slyly trying to mislead others just does not fit what is known. And in this case there are at least three independent second hand sources, not as good as three independent first hand sources true; but, many a court case has been won on less.
Joe, maybe you want to argue that Bark or Ely lied. (I won't even go there with Storm.) I believe that within this question lies the heart of understanding the story and where they went.
Deering Comments
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Does it Matter?
Hi Rosebud,
If you feel that the Rocky Shallows was the way for them to go, I assume if we could throw in hostile indians and put you on foot in the 1800s, you would still pick the same route to the Silver King. Your choice would not consider taking a "short cut" through the Superstitions, as they decided to do that at the last minute. That means they were planing on continuing east which was not an easy hike either, nor was it a shorter distance than what I have suggested would be a shorter and much easier walk. Considering the habits of the Apache, two men walking could be ambushed anywhere.
Pure logic dictates that they would skirt the Superstitions and any other mountain routes, if they could walk on the desert floor. They were not out for an adventure, but trying to get from point A to point B and find a job. Is it important? Only if you are interested in examining this story from more than one perspective. If you are satisfied, as many Dutch Hunters have been, with the "facts" as they have been related over the years, than another possibility is not important. If you are using the stories as they have been told, than you are in good company. Those who follow this story/trail today, are walking in 119 years of history.
A river crossing does not have to be mentioned in the story, for us to know they had to cross the Verde and the Salt. If there was a Salt River crossing west of it's immediate junction with the Verde, which I doubt, they had to, at least, cross the Salt.
You mention the "security of the route". What exactly was established on the route we have been told was the "only" way they could have gone? Were there towns or ranches in the Supes that we don't know of? If they crossed south of the fort, were there towns or communities as they made their way to the Silver King? I assume you have considered that in your safe trail investigation.
Do you believe they would have been safer, if they did not carry their savings on them? Perhaps the Apache would not kill them if they suspected they were broke? 
I am not saying that you should not follow this well traveled trail, but that you may want consider others. If you are looking for the LDM you might want to look where others have not.
Good to see you posting your opinions again.
Joe
If you feel that the Rocky Shallows was the way for them to go, I assume if we could throw in hostile indians and put you on foot in the 1800s, you would still pick the same route to the Silver King. Your choice would not consider taking a "short cut" through the Superstitions, as they decided to do that at the last minute. That means they were planing on continuing east which was not an easy hike either, nor was it a shorter distance than what I have suggested would be a shorter and much easier walk. Considering the habits of the Apache, two men walking could be ambushed anywhere.
Pure logic dictates that they would skirt the Superstitions and any other mountain routes, if they could walk on the desert floor. They were not out for an adventure, but trying to get from point A to point B and find a job. Is it important? Only if you are interested in examining this story from more than one perspective. If you are satisfied, as many Dutch Hunters have been, with the "facts" as they have been related over the years, than another possibility is not important. If you are using the stories as they have been told, than you are in good company. Those who follow this story/trail today, are walking in 119 years of history.
A river crossing does not have to be mentioned in the story, for us to know they had to cross the Verde and the Salt. If there was a Salt River crossing west of it's immediate junction with the Verde, which I doubt, they had to, at least, cross the Salt.
You mention the "security of the route". What exactly was established on the route we have been told was the "only" way they could have gone? Were there towns or ranches in the Supes that we don't know of? If they crossed south of the fort, were there towns or communities as they made their way to the Silver King? I assume you have considered that in your safe trail investigation.
Do you believe they would have been safer, if they did not carry their savings on them? Perhaps the Apache would not kill them if they suspected they were broke? I am not saying that you should not follow this well traveled trail, but that you may want consider others. If you are looking for the LDM you might want to look where others have not.
Good to see you posting your opinions again.
Joe
Joe
The Apache problem in the Superstitions was simply not a great concern
in 1884. By that time the Yavapais and Tontos had been living peacefully on a reservation for some years. Most of the Chiricahuas were at San Carlos..while the hostile bands were down south being chased by the army.
Could a stray renegade hide out and raid out of the mountains? Of course.
But to think that the 1884 time frame and what went on 10-15 years earlier was one and the same... is simply folly.
The Apache problem in the Superstitions was simply not a great concern
in 1884. By that time the Yavapais and Tontos had been living peacefully on a reservation for some years. Most of the Chiricahuas were at San Carlos..while the hostile bands were down south being chased by the army.
Could a stray renegade hide out and raid out of the mountains? Of course.
But to think that the 1884 time frame and what went on 10-15 years earlier was one and the same... is simply folly.
What about other factors that they might consider when choosing the route to take? The story as commonly told seems to imply that the soldiers were not necessary that familiar with the route between McDowell and the Silver King..."they followed the trail they were told was the correct one to take" or something to that effect.
So, before you set out on a multi-day trip on foot, you would want to know (or have someone tell you) where to get water, fuel for fires, whether there was game to be had, etc. So on the desert route, maybe it would be as easy as saying "walk south on the road to Florence about 30 miles and take a left at Queen Creek", but were there sources of water and camp sites along the way? Or would you have to backtrack into unnamed side canyons for water?
On the other route, you are following watercourses. Salt River east to Tortilla creek (or take your pick), follow it upstream, etc. Assuming that you aren't in any hurry to start your new career as a hard-rock miner, you can camp anywhere, have access to water, game, etc. And maybe you feel more protected from being spotted than you would out on the desert flats with a campfire at night.
So, before you set out on a multi-day trip on foot, you would want to know (or have someone tell you) where to get water, fuel for fires, whether there was game to be had, etc. So on the desert route, maybe it would be as easy as saying "walk south on the road to Florence about 30 miles and take a left at Queen Creek", but were there sources of water and camp sites along the way? Or would you have to backtrack into unnamed side canyons for water?
On the other route, you are following watercourses. Salt River east to Tortilla creek (or take your pick), follow it upstream, etc. Assuming that you aren't in any hurry to start your new career as a hard-rock miner, you can camp anywhere, have access to water, game, etc. And maybe you feel more protected from being spotted than you would out on the desert flats with a campfire at night.
I do not want to get entangled in a mares nest. However, having said that I will wade in again. After all, its raining today (finally?) and this is a pleasant way to stay dry. Joe, first you have to consider that Apaches were only part of the problem two young men would face on their journey. They also had to consider white, Mexicans and maybe even Chinese desperados. This is no joke. Being out on the open desert on foot carrying a good sum of gold is not where many would choose to be. And then there is water. Going south from the Salt if they were skirting the Superstitions was Government Well, then south-southeast on an old trail around the Superstitions, but with little water (yes there is Hieroglyphic Spring, but only if one knew about it). Government Well is just south of today’s northern Goldfield Mountains, which were a reported haunt of outlaws. After all, even an outlaw has to make a living and to do so you need to be where people travel so you can rob them, right? Hiding out in the Goldfield Mountains with good water near by where you can cover the routes between Phoenix and McDowell or between Phoenix and Pinal is not a bad place to be. Isolated, yet close by horse to “the office” with good water. Interestingly the newspaper accounts of the day show even a white mans reticence to the Superstitions, but not to other mountains.
You ask if there were ranches in the Superstitions in the 1880s? Good question, one that Tom Kollenborn could best answer. But, I seem to remember that yes, sometime in the 1880s (or sooner) either Charlebois or La Barge started trying to run cattle in that country.
As for crossing the Superstitions, they apparently had intended to follow a trail they were told of, or knew of. Today we think that the Superstitions are “big” country and covering distances on foot of a few miles an accomplishment. But, the truth is if one only wants to cross the mountains and one is in good shape from Tortilla Flat to the Quarter Circle-U is at most a one night journey – and I have know men today that could do it on foot in a day with much of the time on high ground. Also, do not fail to take into consideration the simple arrogance and immortality of youth. Just a few passing thoughts….
You ask if there were ranches in the Superstitions in the 1880s? Good question, one that Tom Kollenborn could best answer. But, I seem to remember that yes, sometime in the 1880s (or sooner) either Charlebois or La Barge started trying to run cattle in that country.
As for crossing the Superstitions, they apparently had intended to follow a trail they were told of, or knew of. Today we think that the Superstitions are “big” country and covering distances on foot of a few miles an accomplishment. But, the truth is if one only wants to cross the mountains and one is in good shape from Tortilla Flat to the Quarter Circle-U is at most a one night journey – and I have know men today that could do it on foot in a day with much of the time on high ground. Also, do not fail to take into consideration the simple arrogance and immortality of youth. Just a few passing thoughts….
Kollenborn's Chronicles
Did anyone get a chance to read Tom's latest article "The Story of Joe Deering, Part I"? In his article he states that a prospector (no name given) approached Bark and Chuning and told them both the tale of Joe Deering. A definite twist on the "traditional" story.
Reply
Well.... Tom Kollenborn's story implies that Chuning (Chunning) was at Bark's and this "mysterious" person shows up and then tells him (Chunning) and Bark about Deering's story.
In what we now refer to as the Holmes manuscript that was written circa 1933 through 1944, Brownie Holmes indicates from conversations with Chunning that Chunning KNEW Deering - and KNEW him at the Silver King. He did not say he heard about Deering from someone. Thus, it is unlikely that the mysterious person that showed up at Bark's place was illuminating either Bark or Chunning with something new.
I think Tom simply wrote an article on the fly and simply confused a few details. A honest mistake we all can make.
In what we now refer to as the Holmes manuscript that was written circa 1933 through 1944, Brownie Holmes indicates from conversations with Chunning that Chunning KNEW Deering - and KNEW him at the Silver King. He did not say he heard about Deering from someone. Thus, it is unlikely that the mysterious person that showed up at Bark's place was illuminating either Bark or Chunning with something new.
I think Tom simply wrote an article on the fly and simply confused a few details. A honest mistake we all can make.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
GONE?
Peter,
I am back from a week in the Supes and glad to be home. It was beautiful in the mountains and there was a lot of running water. Five days of up and down is plenty for an old man. I will tell the forum the details (what I can) soon.
Martha Summerhays made her last trip down McDowell Canyon and accross the Salt in 1878. That would be only six years, or five depending on your own guess, prior to the Two Soldiers. The route from Fort McDowell to Florence was South to the Salt crossing at Whitlows ferry and southeast to Florence. During her time at the fort the Apache were a continuing problem. A few would leave the reservations on a regular basis and do what the Apache always did when not under white control.
From the time that the Spanish first encountered them, eating the flesh of other humans, until well into the 1900s, the Apache killed and robbed everyone who came into their hands. This continued until the last free wild Apache walked into the small Mexican towns close to their mountain hideouts and for all intents and purpose, became Mexican. While true that the Apache problem in 1884 was "not a great concern", it was still a problem for small parties. The Two Soldiers would have found the southeastern route better traveled and thus safer.
Joe
I am back from a week in the Supes and glad to be home. It was beautiful in the mountains and there was a lot of running water. Five days of up and down is plenty for an old man. I will tell the forum the details (what I can) soon.
Martha Summerhays made her last trip down McDowell Canyon and accross the Salt in 1878. That would be only six years, or five depending on your own guess, prior to the Two Soldiers. The route from Fort McDowell to Florence was South to the Salt crossing at Whitlows ferry and southeast to Florence. During her time at the fort the Apache were a continuing problem. A few would leave the reservations on a regular basis and do what the Apache always did when not under white control.
From the time that the Spanish first encountered them, eating the flesh of other humans, until well into the 1900s, the Apache killed and robbed everyone who came into their hands. This continued until the last free wild Apache walked into the small Mexican towns close to their mountain hideouts and for all intents and purpose, became Mexican. While true that the Apache problem in 1884 was "not a great concern", it was still a problem for small parties. The Two Soldiers would have found the southeastern route better traveled and thus safer.
Joe
Re: GONE?
Jeez, Joe, what an insensitive, oafish thing to say! To the Apaches, the whites were the continuing problem, doing what white people always do when not killed in time.Joe Ribaudo wrote: ...During her time at the fort the Apache were a continuing problem. A few would leave the reservations on a regular basis and do what the Apache always did when not under white control.
I assume you can document this claim.Joe Ribaudo wrote:From the time that the Spanish first encountered them, eating the flesh of other humans...
You should think more about what you're saying before actually saying it.
Might as well weigh in on this.....I knew things would get hoppin once Joe returned.
As to the "white control" comment.
One has to realize that there are two sides to this equation. Neither Apache nor Anglo/Mex being entirely without guilt as far as frontier depredations go. The Apache fought for their land and families with all the fury that the "tiger of the human species" could muster. Whites, coming on the remains of what might have been a ranch or homestead after an Apache raid, were similarly outraged by the condition of the slain settlers
or soldiers, sometimes numbering women and children amongst them.
The whites in turn had their own atrocities, Camp Grant and the betrayal of Mangus Colorados comes readily to mind. It was a different, brutal time, and difficult to look at and understand in the context of our modern world.
As to the "cannibalism" comments. I do know for a fact that certain tribes of the Old Northwest Frontier (Chippewa, Huron, Ottawa, Miami, Wyandot ...and Shawnee and Delaware to a lesser extent) did practice a form of ritualized cannibalism. They would partake in this grim repast in order to obtain some of the slain persons strength or power. There were also incidents of cannibalism to obtain meat when one was hungry..butchering an odd prisoner here or there.
However. In all my research on tribes west of the Mississippi, I have not come across this practice. That includes Lakota, Cheyenne, Commanche and of course, Apache. I'd be interested to know what source Joe is using for his information.
As to the "white control" comment.
One has to realize that there are two sides to this equation. Neither Apache nor Anglo/Mex being entirely without guilt as far as frontier depredations go. The Apache fought for their land and families with all the fury that the "tiger of the human species" could muster. Whites, coming on the remains of what might have been a ranch or homestead after an Apache raid, were similarly outraged by the condition of the slain settlers
or soldiers, sometimes numbering women and children amongst them.
The whites in turn had their own atrocities, Camp Grant and the betrayal of Mangus Colorados comes readily to mind. It was a different, brutal time, and difficult to look at and understand in the context of our modern world.
As to the "cannibalism" comments. I do know for a fact that certain tribes of the Old Northwest Frontier (Chippewa, Huron, Ottawa, Miami, Wyandot ...and Shawnee and Delaware to a lesser extent) did practice a form of ritualized cannibalism. They would partake in this grim repast in order to obtain some of the slain persons strength or power. There were also incidents of cannibalism to obtain meat when one was hungry..butchering an odd prisoner here or there.
However. In all my research on tribes west of the Mississippi, I have not come across this practice. That includes Lakota, Cheyenne, Commanche and of course, Apache. I'd be interested to know what source Joe is using for his information.
Deering's comments
Peter,
Was that Fort West, where Mangas was Killed?
Was that Fort West, where Mangas was Killed?
Ron
David Roberts in ONCE THEY MOVED LIKE THE WIND (one of my favorite books on the Chiricahua) says Mangus the Elder was tricked by white prospectors at Pinos Altos in January of 1863 and then murdered.
Donald Worcester in EAGLES OF THE SOUTHWEST says the Joseph Walker party of prospectors took Mangus captive near Ft McLane in January 1863. Mangus was then turned over to Gen. Carleton and the California Column.
He was tortured and killed on January 18 1863, he was beheaded, the head boiled in a pot and the body tossed in a gully.
A Brigadier General named Joseph West was involved in the escapade. Am not certain if Ft McLane was renamed in his honor after this heroic deed.
David Roberts in ONCE THEY MOVED LIKE THE WIND (one of my favorite books on the Chiricahua) says Mangus the Elder was tricked by white prospectors at Pinos Altos in January of 1863 and then murdered.
Donald Worcester in EAGLES OF THE SOUTHWEST says the Joseph Walker party of prospectors took Mangus captive near Ft McLane in January 1863. Mangus was then turned over to Gen. Carleton and the California Column.
He was tortured and killed on January 18 1863, he was beheaded, the head boiled in a pot and the body tossed in a gully.
A Brigadier General named Joseph West was involved in the escapade. Am not certain if Ft McLane was renamed in his honor after this heroic deed.
Deering comments
Peter,
I think that may be the circumstance. Fort Mclane , in the recesses of my mind, maybe was renamed Fort West.
I think that may be the circumstance. Fort Mclane , in the recesses of my mind, maybe was renamed Fort West.
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
MANGAS COLORADAS
Ron and Peter,
Mangas, not Mangus is who you are discussing. Mangas Coloradas, father of Mangus was killed on January 18, 1863. The following comes from Warrior Woman, by Peter Aleshire: "Mangas Coloradas was killed on January 18, 1863, after he approached a group of whites under the leadership of mountain man Joseph Walker at Pinos Altos under a flag of truce. Conflicting accounts of the incident exist, but the most reliable comes from Daniel Connor, who was in Walker's party. According to Connor, Walker seized Mangas Coloradas to guarantee his party's safe passage across Chihenne territory. His party then encountered soldiers who took control of their prisoner. Colonel West, who had been ordered by Carleton to destroy Mangas Coloradas's band, in a conversation with the guards implied he wanted Mangas Coloradas killed. Connor, walking sentry for Walker's group, later reported that he saw the guards heating their bayonets and holding them against the chief's feet. They shot him when he protested. The soldiers later cut off his head, boiled it, and sent the head to the Smithsonian Institute....." I have read various versions of this story, but believe this source is the best available. At least Connor was there.
Joe
Mangas, not Mangus is who you are discussing. Mangas Coloradas, father of Mangus was killed on January 18, 1863. The following comes from Warrior Woman, by Peter Aleshire: "Mangas Coloradas was killed on January 18, 1863, after he approached a group of whites under the leadership of mountain man Joseph Walker at Pinos Altos under a flag of truce. Conflicting accounts of the incident exist, but the most reliable comes from Daniel Connor, who was in Walker's party. According to Connor, Walker seized Mangas Coloradas to guarantee his party's safe passage across Chihenne territory. His party then encountered soldiers who took control of their prisoner. Colonel West, who had been ordered by Carleton to destroy Mangas Coloradas's band, in a conversation with the guards implied he wanted Mangas Coloradas killed. Connor, walking sentry for Walker's group, later reported that he saw the guards heating their bayonets and holding them against the chief's feet. They shot him when he protested. The soldiers later cut off his head, boiled it, and sent the head to the Smithsonian Institute....." I have read various versions of this story, but believe this source is the best available. At least Connor was there.
Joe
Regarding Cannabalism
And...Your Point.
Society has continually noted canabalism noted in society when dealing with defeated enemies. "SKOAL" would be the toast as a Norseman drank a toast from the skull of a defeated enemy.
The blood or heart of an enemy was thought to give your enemies' powers to the victor.
I am not surprised that Indians may have had such a canabalistic culture dealing with enemies.
Also, when dealing with the meeting of two significantly different cultures/societies, misunderstandings often erupt because what one society may view as a greeting, the other may mis-interpret as an insult.
In modern-day society acceptance of those different than yourself is always hard. In the past acceptance was seldom contemplated.
It was a different time with survival being critical.
Society has continually noted canabalism noted in society when dealing with defeated enemies. "SKOAL" would be the toast as a Norseman drank a toast from the skull of a defeated enemy.
The blood or heart of an enemy was thought to give your enemies' powers to the victor.
I am not surprised that Indians may have had such a canabalistic culture dealing with enemies.
Also, when dealing with the meeting of two significantly different cultures/societies, misunderstandings often erupt because what one society may view as a greeting, the other may mis-interpret as an insult.
In modern-day society acceptance of those different than yourself is always hard. In the past acceptance was seldom contemplated.
It was a different time with survival being critical.
Charlie
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Word for Word
Peter,
I guess I just didn't read your post. Sorry I didn't add anything to what you said. You are the expert on the Apaches, no argument here. I could have included what they determined at the Smithsonian, but thought I was rambling on a little long there. Nice to see you are paying attention.
Your friend,
Joe
I guess I just didn't read your post. Sorry I didn't add anything to what you said. You are the expert on the Apaches, no argument here. I could have included what they determined at the Smithsonian, but thought I was rambling on a little long there. Nice to see you are paying attention.
Your friend,
Joe
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
-
Joe Ribaudo
- Expert
- Posts: 5453
- Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 10:36 pm
Peter,
Is this virulent attack over my correcting you on the accepted spelling of Mangas? I had no such reaction to your correcting my spelling. Thought I took it with good humor. I take it the broken pencils did not help. 
We may just have to agree to disagree on the noble nature of the early Apaches. I will resist correcting your spelling and other peculiarities in the future even though you seem to enjoy making yourself a target of opportunity. I will also reassess my belief that every post deserves a reply. Since the UFO thing, I have been giving it some serious thought.
Joe
Is this virulent attack over my correcting you on the accepted spelling of Mangas?
I had no such reaction to your correcting my spelling. Thought I took it with good humor. I take it the broken pencils did not help. We may just have to agree to disagree on the noble nature of the early Apaches. I will resist correcting your spelling and other peculiarities in the future even though you seem to enjoy making yourself a target of opportunity. I will also reassess my belief that every post deserves a reply. Since the UFO thing, I have been giving it some serious thought. Joe