MODOC BLOOD UNDER A FLAG OF TRUCE——SEED SOWN
TWENTY YEARS BEFORE A HARVEST.
Since we are now en route to the Modoc country, and since they have taken
a place in modern history as a warlike people, and have enrolled their
names on the record of stirring events, it is well to give them something
more than a passing notice.
In so doing, I shall confine my remarks to such facts as have come under
my own observation, and also those that are well authenticated. In memory
of the late tragedy in the “Lava Beds,” in which I so nearly lost my life,
I approach this subject with a full determination to present the facts
connected therewith in a fair and impartial manner, without fear of
criticism from the enemies of the red man, or a desire to court undue
favor from his friends.
The Modocs are a branch from a once powerful tribe of the Pacific coast,
and known as “La-la-cas,” inhabiting the country drained by Klamath river
and lakes, also including the “Lost-river Basin,” and extending inland
from the coast proper about three hundred miles, covering the territory of
what is now Siskiyou county, Cal., and parts of Jackson and Josephine
counties, of Oregon. They were warlike, as most uncivilized nations are,
when they become powerful. Surrounded with peoples of similar character,
they were often on the “warpath.”
The history of the great battles fought by the La-la-cas of olden time is
a fruitful subject for Indian stories by the descendants of the Klamaths
and Modocs; and from them, years ago, I learned about the rebellion so
nearly cotemporaneous with the American Revolution.
That rebellion sprang from causes so nearly of the same kind as those
which prompted our forefathers to take up arms against Great Britain, that
the coincidence is strange indeed, though it could not have any connection
with the white man’s war. To those who have given the subject of Indian
history a careful study, it is not new, that, while a monarch exercised
arbitrary power across the Atlantic, and dictated government and law to
the American colonies, many petty monarchs, also claiming the hereditary
right to rule on the strength of royalty and blood, were the governing
nations on the continent of America. This kind of royalty seems to have
been acknowledged and disputed by turns, for many generations; and,
perhaps, the La-la-cas may have passed through as many revolutions as
enlightened political organizations, though no other history than
tradition has made a record thereof. At all events it is part of the
history of the Modocs and Klamaths, that feuds and revolutions have been
of common occurrence, growing out of the desire for power. After all,
human nature is pretty much the same in all conditions of society, without
regard to color or race.
The office of chief, among Indians of former times, was to the chieftain
what the crown was to a king. The function of chieftain among
semi-civilized Indians of to-day is to him what the office of President is
to General Grant, or it may be likened to the position of Louis Philippe
a few years ago, half attained through royal right, and half by force or
consent of the governed.
This comparison is apropos according to the status of traditional and
hereditary law.
With the La-la-cas, one hundred years ago, the prerogative of royalty,
though, perhaps, acknowledged in the abstract, was often disputed in the
distribution of honors.
This “bone of contention,” so fruitful of blood with civilized nations,
was one of the principal and moving causes of the separation of a band of
La-la-cas, who are now known as Modocs, from the tribe who are now called
Klamaths.
There is a curious resemblance between the political customs of savage and
civilized nations. The royal house from whence came the hero of the Modoc
war——Captain Jack——was not exempt from the contentions common to royal
households, and it may be said, too, that while the branch to which he
belonged had furnished their quota of braves for many wars, they resisted
the taxes levied on them, and at last openly rebelled, and separated from
their ancient tribe on account of the exactions of tyrannical chiefs.
That my readers may properly understand the subject now under
consideration, it is well to state, in a general way, that Indian nations,
singularly enough, follow in the footsteps of the people of Bible history.
Whether they derive the custom from traditional connection or not, I leave
to antiquarians to answer.
Every nation is divided into tribes, and tribes are divided into bands,
and bands into smaller divisions, even down to families; each nation has,
or is supposed to have, a head chief; each tribe a chief; each band a
sub-chief; and so on, down, until you reach family relations.
Each tribe, band, and even family, has in times of peace an allotted home,
or district of country that they call their own. They claim the privileges
that it affords, and are very jealous of any infringement on their rights.
The Modocs inhabited that portion of country know, as “Lost-river
Basin,”——perhaps forty miles square,——lying east of the foot of “Shasta
Butte,” possessing many natural resources for Indian life. It is doubtful
whether any other country of like extent affords so great and so varied a
supply as this district.
Lost river is a great fishing country, affording those of a kind peculiar
to Tule lake and Lost river, in so great abundance as to be almost beyond
belief.
But to resume the history of this band of Modocs. At or about the time
indicated as cotemporaneous with “the great event” in American civilized
history, the head chief of all the La-la-cas demanded of Mo-a-doc-us, the
chief of the Lost-river band of the La-la-cas, not only braves for the
warpath, but also that supplies of fish from Lost river should be
furnished.
This demand was refused. Following the refusal, war was declared; and
Mo-a-doc-us issued his declaration of independence, throwing off his
allegiance from and to the head chief of the La-la-cas. The war that
followed was one of a character similar in some respects to the American
Revolution; the one party struggling to hold power, the other fighting for
freedom,——for such it was in reality.
[Illustration: CAPTAIN JACK.]
The Modocs and Klamaths tell of many battles fought, and brave men killed;
how the survivors passed their allotted time in mourning; how, at last,
the La-la-cas were defeated; and though no formal acknowledgment or
recognition of the independence of Mo-a-doc-us was ever bulletined to the
world, yet it was, in modern political language, “an accomplished fact.”
The followers of the La-la-cas have since been termed Klamaths.
Without tracing the history of the Mo-a-docs through their many wars, I
pass over the intervening feuds until 1846, at which time they numbered
six hundred warriors, and were subdivided into bands, governed by
“Schonchin,” a head chief, although his authority seems even then to have
been disputed, on the ground that he was not a legitimate descendant of
the great Mo-a-doc-us, and consequently not of royal blood. He won his
position as chief by his great personal bravery in battle.
The father of Captain Jack was the former chief of the Lost-river Modocs.
He was killed in battle with the Warm Spring and Te-ni-no Indians, near
the head-waters of the Des-chutes river, in Oregon, at which time
Ki-en-te-poos (Captain Jack) was a small boy.
I have taken some pains to ascertain reliable data as to the parentage and
birthplace of a man whose name has been on every tongue for the past year,
and state, most positively, that Captain Jack’s parents were both Modocs
of royal blood, and that Captain Jack was born on Lost river, near the
“Natural Bridge,” and very near the ground on which was fought the first
battle of the late Modoc war; and, further, that he never lived with any
white man; that he never has learned to speak any other than the language
of the ancient La-la-cas, or Mo-a-docs, although he may have understood
many words of the English tongue.
You will have observed that the regard for royal honors was not extinct at
the time of the death of Jack’s father, who seems to have left in the
hearts of his people the ambition to restore the ancient order of things,
by re-establishing the hereditary right to the chieftainship. This
sentiment, thus perpetuated, undoubtedly found a lodgment in the heart of
the boy, Ki-en-te-poos.
To resume the review of the first war: As told by white men, it would
appear that a wanton thirst for blood impelled the Modocs to murder
defenceless emigrants. I doubt not that many innocent persons lost their
lives; still, with my knowledge of Indian character, I am not ready to say
that provocation was wanting. While I would be careful in making up my
estimate on the validity of Indian statements, I am still willing that the
Modocs’ side of the causes of the first wars should be heard.
Old Chief Schonchin says that it grew out of a misunderstanding as to the
identity of the _Modocs_, _Snakes_, and _Pitt-river_ Indians. The
emigrants had difficulties with the Snake Indians, through whose country
they passed in reaching Oregon and California; and that he never knew what
was the cause of the first troubles between them. The Snake Indians
captured horses and mules from the emigrants, and sold them, or gambled
them, to the Pitt-river Indians, who in turn transferred them, through the
same process, to the Modocs; and that the animals found by emigrants in
possession of the Modocs were recaptured, and hence war was at last
brought about. The story seems plausible, and is certainly entitled to
some respect, coming, as it does, from a man of the character of old Chief
Schonchin. I know there is a disposition to discredit any statement made
by an Indian, simply because he _is an Indian_, and more particularly when
it comes in conflict with our prejudices to accept it as the truth. Some
white men are entitled to credit; others are not. So it is with Indians,
and, if it were possible, the disparity is even greater among them than
among white men.
Chief Schonchin, of whom I am speaking, commands respect from those who
know him best, and have known him longest. He does not deny that he was in
the early wars; that he did all in his power to exterminate his enemies.
In speaking of the wars with white men, he once remarked, in an evening
talk around a camp-fire: “I thought, if we killed all the white men we
saw, that no more would come. We killed all we could; but they came more
and more, like new grass in the spring. I looked around, and saw that many
of our young men were dead, and could not come back to fight. My heart was
sick. My people were few. I threw down my gun. I said, I will not fight
again. I made friends with the white man. I am an old man; I cannot fight
now. I want to die in peace.” To his credit be it said, that no act of
his, since the treaty of 1864, has deserved censure. He is still in
charge of the loyal Modocs, at Yai-nax station, grieving over the
waywardness of his brother John and Captain Jack.
He was not in the “Ben Wright” affair, although he was near when the
massacre occurred. His reason for not being present was because he
mistrusted that treachery was intended on the part of Wright; and,
further, that a “treaty of peace” was proposed by him, which was to be
accompanied with a feast, given by the white man; but that the talk was
“too good,”——“_promised too much_,”——and that, suspicious of the whole
affair, he kept away; that forty-six Modocs accepted the invitation to
feast with their white brethren, and that but five escaped the wholesale
butchery. Of these five, the last survivor was murdered, June, 1873,
during the cowardly attack on Fairchild’s wagon, containing the Indian
captives, near Lost river, after the surrender of Captain Jack.
Now, whether the Indian version of the Ben Wright affair is correct, or
not, that forty Indians were killed while under a flag of truce in the
hands of white men of the Ben Wright party, in 1852,——_there can be no
doubt_. The effects of this act can be traced all the way down from that
day to this, and have had much to do with making the Modocs a revengeful
people.
The friends of Ben Wright deny that he committed an act of treachery; yet
there are persons in California who state positively that he _purchased
strychnine previous to his visit to the Modoc country, with the avowed
intention of poisoning the Indians_. Others, who were with him at the time
of the massacre, testify that _he made the attempt at poisoning_, and
finally, abandoning it, he resorted to the “peace talk” to accomplish his
purpose. The excuse for this unwarrantable act of treachery was to punish
the Modocs for the murdering of emigrants at Bloody Point, a few days
previous.
This unparalleled slaughter was perpetrated on the shore of Tu-le lake, in
September, 1852. It occurred directly opposite the “Lava Bed,” at a point
where the emigrant road touches the shore of the lake, after crossing a
desert tract of several miles, and where the mountains forced the road to
leave the high plains to effect a passage. For several hundred yards the
route ran along under a stony bluff, and near the waters of the lake. The
place was well-adapted for such hellish purposes.
The emigrant train consisted of sixty-five men, women, and children, and
the whole line of wagons was driven down into this position before the
attack was made. The Indians, secreted in the rocks at either end of the
narrow passage, attacked their hapless victims both in front and rear.
Hemmed in by high rocky bluffs on one side and the lake on the other, they
were butchered indiscriminately. Neither age nor sex were spared, save two
young girls of twelve and fourteen years of age respectively, who were
taken prisoners, and one man, who escaped.
This massacre was attended with all the circumstances of savage warfare.
Men were killed outright and scalped. Women were treated with indignities
_that words may not reveal. Even fiendish torture was surpassed, and human
language is too tame to express the horrible outrages committed on them._
Children were tortured, some of them mutilated and dismembered, while yet
alive, before the eyes of their mothers. No page in all the bloody history
of Indian cruelties exceeds that of the massacre of emigrants at Bloody
Point, by the Modocs, in September, 1852.
The two girls who were taken prisoners were allotted to some of the brave
warriors as wives. They survived for several years, and, according to
Modoc stories, were reconciled to their fate, adopting the manners and
customs of their captors. It is said that they taught the Modocs many
things pertaining to a civilized life, and that they exercised great
influence over them; that the Modoc women became jealous of their power,
and put them to death.
Near the residence of Mr. Dorris, on Cottonwood Creek, is a rocky cliff
overlooking the valley. It was from this cliff the unfortunate captives
were thrown to the rocks below, ending their lives as victims to the
jealousy of the wives and mothers of their savage captors. Evidences of
this tragedy are in existence; human skulls, and, within a few years,
locks of long hair, unlike that of Indians, have been found on the spot
indicated as the place where these captives were destroyed.
Ben Wright was a citizen of Y-re-ka. He was esteemed as a man of good
character and standing among his fellows in that early day. Born a leader,
he was selected by the miners to command a company of volunteers, who were
enlisted without authority of the Government of the United States, the
State of California, or the County of Sys-ki-you.
This company was formed, under the common law of self-protection, in the
early days of California, when Indian outrages were of common occurrence.
In the absence of regular provision for protection, the miners and
settlers, in a spirit of patriotism, volunteered to punish Indians as well
as to guard the peace of the country. Be it remembered that the massacre
at “Bloody Point” was not the only act of savage ferocity committed by the
Modocs. For five years had they been murdering the worn-out emigrants who
were en route to California and Oregon.
It was in harmony with frontier ideas of right, to punish these people for
their crimes, without taking into consideration the causes that may have
impelled them to bloody deeds. The victims were not responsible for the
acts of their predecessors on the line of travellers. However humane and
just we may feel, we cannot object to Ben Wright’s motive, though all men
who possess correct ideas of justice may deprecate the manner of avenging
the wrongs committed. Had he slain the entire tribe in fair battle, no
just condemnation could have been pronounced against him. Had he avenged
their horrible crimes by ambushing them, by his skill and cunning, no man
would have censured him; _but to violate a flag of truce, under pretence
of peace-making_, was a wrong that fair-minded men, everywhere, condemn as
an _outrage against humanity and civilization_.
If the Modocs had first been guilty of such acts of treachery,
“extermination” would justly have been the cry. Savage warfare is unworthy
of any people; but certainly it should never be surpassed by those
professing Christian civilization. Even in war they should endeavor to
teach the savage the higher laws that govern mankind.
Without stopping to moralize further, let us pursue the main facts, as
they come following each other in succession. After the Ben Wright
massacre, hostilities were continued until 1864; at which time Elisha
Steel, Esq., of Y-re-ka, who was then acting superintendent for the
northern district of California, made an informal treaty with the various
bands of Indians, and who seems to have been more an arbitrator than a
government commissioner. At all events the articles of agreement were not
ratified by Congress.
This treaty did not set forth that any consideration would be paid by the
Government for the possession of the Modoc country. Neither did it seek to
alienate the country from the Indians, but referred to the localities
where certain bands of Modocs, Schas-tas, Schas-ta-sco-tons, and Klamaths
should reside. There was also an agreement to keep peace with each other
and the whites.
It was in this council that Captain Jack was first acknowledged as a
chief, and then only after an election was had by the band that had
repudiated Schon-chin; after which Steele declared him a chief, and named
him “Captain Jack,” on account of his resemblance to a miner bearing that
name. That the Steele treaty was somewhat indefinite and unauthorized, was
given as a reason why it never was recognized by the general Government.
There may have been other and more potent reasons, however; for the Modoc
country proper is about equally divided between Oregon and California,
though the home of Captain Jack and Schon-chin was on the Oregon side of
the line. At that time the hearts of our people were much moved in behalf
of the “poor Indian.” Each State was anxious to furnish a home for him.
Whether Steele’s treaty reached Washington before or after, does not
appear. The Superintendent of Oregon was instructed to “negotiate a treaty
with all the Indians in the Klamath country, including the Modocs.”
This council met in October, 1864. The Klamaths, and also the Modocs, were
represented in the council by their chiefs; the latter by Schon-chin and
his brother John, who was afterwards associated with Captain Jack.
Captain Jack was recognized as a sub-chief. He participated in the
council; and, when terms were agreed upon, he signed the articles of
treaty in his Indian name,——Ki-en-te-poos. The idea that he was deceived
in the meaning of the treaty is absurd; though it has been repeated by
good men, without proper knowledge of the facts.
An unwarrantable sympathy for Captain Jack has been the result,——unless,
indeed, all the Indians who were parties to the treaty are to be
commiserated for having sold their birthright for an insufficient
compensation. Old chief Schon-chin has never claimed any other than the
plain meaning of the words of the treaty; which was, substantially, that
what is known as Klamath Reservation was to be the joint home of the
Klamaths and Modocs. All the other country claimed by the two tribes was
ceded to the United States, on condition that certain acts should be
performed by the Government, in a specified time. All of which has been,
and is being done, to the satisfaction of the Indians who have remained on
the Reservation. I assert this to be substantially correct. That they
made a bargain that Captain Jack wished to repudiate is true. I do not
wonder that he should do so, in view of his inherent love of royalty and
his great ambition to be a chief, and the uncertainty of his tenure of
office should he remain on the Reservation, the discipline of which was
humiliating for one whose life had been free from restraint.
The head men of the Klamaths all agree and state positively that the
treaty was fully interpreted and fairly understood by all parties, and
that Captain Jack and the whole Modoc tribe shared in the issue of goods
made at the council-ground by Superintendent Huntington, at the time of
making the treaty. The plea that Captain Jack was deceived, as
before-mentioned, is wholly unfounded. He not only understood and assented
to it, but took up his abode on the Klamath Reservation, where he remained
long enough to realize that Reservation life was not healthy for royalty.
Perhaps he had begun to see that he was to change his mode of life; also
that Schon-chin was recognized as his superior in office; and it may be
that he discovered that Klamath was not as good a country for Indian life
as the Lost-river region. It is equally certain that he raised the
standard of revolt, and finally withdrew from the Reservation, and took up
his abode at his old home on Lost river; soon after which he stated to Mr.
John A. Fairchilds that he had been cheated, and that “the treaty was a
lie;” that he had not sold his country.
He made the same statement to Esquire Steele, of Y-re-ka, who is a man of
a large and charitable heart, and who exercised great power over the
Indians, and, with his former knowledge of Captain Jack, accredited his
story concerning the swindle or cheat, and probably stated to Captain Jack
that he would try to have the matter adjusted for him.
Steele wrote several letters to the department at Washington on this
subject, and also gave letters to Jack and his people, repeating therein
Jack’s story about his being cheated, and commending him to the friendly
consideration of white people with whom he might come in contact.
Some of these letters are still in existence. I myself have read several
of them, the tenor of which was in keeping with the statement already
made,——that Jack still claimed the country, and that he was a
well-disposed Indian, etc.; but there was not _one line_, so far as I
know, that could be construed to mean that the treaty _could or should he
repudiated_.
That Steele had friendship for Jack, there can be no doubt; and that Jack
recognized Steele as his friend and adviser is equally certain; and
whatever influence Steele’s advice may have had, it never was intended to
justify Jack in removing from the Reservation to which he belonged. I have
been thus particular in this matter, because Jack has used the name of
Steele in a way to mislead public opinion in regard to Steele’s connection
with the Modoc rebellion. Jack’s reason for leaving the Reservation in
1864 was, simply and substantially, that he had made a compact with which
he was dissatisfied. He not only misconstrued the friendship of Steele and
others, but misrepresented them in such a way as to rid himself of the
responsibility as much as possible.
Following his career, we find that, in 1865, at the request of the
citizens of Lost-river Basin, Capt. McGreggor, commander of Fort Klamath,
made an unsuccessful attempt to return Jack’s band to the Reservation;
and, also, that sub-agent Lindsay Applegate sought to remove him in 1866;
also, that in 1867 Superintendent Huntington visited the “Modoc country,”
and that Capt. Jack and his warriors took a position on the opposite side
of Lost river, and said to him that, if he attempted to cross over, he
“would fire on him.” Huntington, being unsupported, made no attempt at
crossing. He reported the matter, as others had done, to the department at
Washington; but no action was ordered. It will be seen that this same
rebel chief had eluded and defied the authority of the Government on these
three successive occasions; and yet the clemency and forbearance of the
Government were misconstrued by him and his misinformed sympathizers.
In the latter part of 1869, while on an official visit to Klamath Agency,
the Modocs first engaged my attention; and hearing then the fact above
referred to, as a reason why he had refused to obey the commands of the
government, and believing that his return, without military force, was
possible, a consultation with Agent O. C. Knapp was held. We decided to
make another effort; accordingly a courier was despatched with a message
that we would meet him at Link river. The reply was to the effect that if
we wanted to see him we must come to his country; and, further, that he
did not care to see us.
Notwithstanding this insult, we decided to visit the Modoc country in
person. Believing in the power of the right to accomplish the purpose,
even if force was necessary, we determined to go, “bearing the olive
branch;” and, also, at the same time, recognized the necessity of being
prepared for personal defence should any attack be made. A requisition was
made on Capt. Goodale, commander at Fort Klamath, for a detachment of
troops.
To the first request we received a doubtful answer, because “he had not
the men to spare.” I did not inquire of Capt. Goodale what the duties of
the soldiers were; but from others I learned that they were required for
“police duty,” or sentry duty, which meant, probably, that one-half the
soldiers were needed to guard the other half, and maybe were to wait on
the officers of the fort. A few days previous, a number of enlisted men
had deserted, and those sent in pursuit “had failed to put in an
appearance at roll-call.”
Finally, the Klamath Indians succeeded in arresting the deserters and
bringing them under guard to the fort, receiving therefor a reward for so
doing. This fort was built, and has been kept up at an enormous expense,
to secure the peace of the country. It has been an advantage to both white
men and Indians,——the one finding a market for hay and grain; the other, a
market for the articles manufactured by their women,——moccasins, etc.; and
the men an opportunity to make greenbacks by hunting and arresting
deserters.
Capt. Goodale finally detailed a small squad of men, under command of a
non-commissioned officer, for the purpose requested, as stated heretofore.
We left Klamath Agency on the morning of the third of December, 1869,
destined for the home of the Modocs, accompanied by Agent O. C. Knapp, of
Klamath, I. D. Applegate in charge of Yai-nax, and W. C. McKay, together
with teamsters, guides, and interpreters; also, two Klamath Indian women.
Ordering the soldiers to follow us as far as Link river, there to await
further orders, we pushed on, leaving the teams with our supplies to
follow into the Modoc country on the morning of the twenty-second of
December, 1869.
The route from Link river is through a sage-brush plain, and following
down the west bank of Lost river.
Lost river is the outlet or connecting link between Clear lake and Tule
lake. After leaving the former, it flows under ground several miles, and
again coming to the surface, empties into the latter. For this reason it
was named “Lost river.” It is a deep, narrow stream, with but few
fording-places. In March of each year it is a great fishery. None of the
same species of fish are found elsewhere; it possesses the appearance of a
species of white trout, excepting the head and mouth, which is after the
sucker species. The flesh is rich and nutritious, and so abundant are they
that they are taken with rude implements, such as sharpened sticks and
pitchforks, and are even caught with the hand, when they are running over
the ripples or fords.
A courier sent by the Modoc Peace Commission, with despatches to Yai-nax,
having occasion to cross Lost river while en route, reported, on his
return, having difficulty in crossing this stream on account of the
immense numbers of fish running against the horse’s legs, and frightening
him. A pretty big fish story, but not incredible.
When within a few miles of the Modoc camp, we espied four Indians coming
on ponies. As we approached, they, forming a line across the road,
exclaimed “Kaw-tuk!” (Stop!) They were each armed with a rifle and
revolver. Our party carried, each man, a Henry rifle and a navy
six-shooter. A short parley ensued, they determining to know our business,
and would allow no farther advance until their demand was recognized.
We stated, in substance, that we were anxious to see Captain Jack and his
people on important business.
The Indians replied, “that they did not wish to talk with us; they had no
business with us, and that we had better turn back.” Three times had they
defied, intimidated, or eluded officers of the Government previously, and
were now trying to evade a meeting by bluffing our party.
We had started to visit these people, and, in western parlance, “we were
going.” Pushing past the Indians, we started on a brisk gallop, they
turning around and running ahead of us. After a brisk ride of four miles
we came in sight of the Modoc town, situated on the western bank of the
river about one mile above the “Natural Bridge,” and within sight of the
newly-made mounds of the State line.
The “Natural Bridge” is a ledge of rocks, twenty feet in width, spanning
the river. It was used in early days of emigration, to cross the river. At
the time of our visit it was two feet under water, but on either bank,
approaching the bridge, were unmistakable evidences of wagon travel. On
the western side the old road leads out through the sage-brush plains, and
may be easily traced with the eye for several miles. This “Natural
Bridge” has been gradually sinking. The early emigrants crossed over it
when it was a few feet above the water; then, at a later date, the water
had risen one or two feet above it; and yet neither the river nor the lake
appear to be higher than they were when first visited by white men.