History...Politics...The Settling of the West

I am a fan of present day politics and American history. Recently, I read one book and am in the process of another by Mr. T.R. Fehrenbach, San Antonio's village elder.

The first book was on the Comanche people and the second is a history of Texas. But the books cover so much more and are wonderful sources of information. In reading about these two very different people (The early Texicans and the Comanche's) I came to understand them to be much more similar than I might ever have imagined. 

I was delighted to learn a great deal about my own bloodline while studying these two cultures. Although not originally from Texas I do come from the same mixed European blood as the Texas settlers. My ancestors, at least the ones we know about, were of Scot, Irish, German and English decent.

The following is a reading progress note I sent to the fellow who introduced me to the books. I might add it was spontaneous and typed one finger style on an Iphone.

 Gleanings from Mister Fehrenbach's

                          books....

So... what we had in the great plains was the buffalo culture people who just happened to be the finest light cavalry in history. Here was a warrior or I probably should say a war culture ready to take land from other tribes and defend it ruthlessly from any intruder. The Comanche had no peers. They ruled whatever territory they wished. They were so damned tough they kicked the Apache's off these same great plains. However, before the Spanish brought the horse into the America's and the Comanche's acquisition of their new four footed pals, they were just another small kicked around northern mountain tribe. But once upon a horse, look out. They were a totally transformed culture from down trodden to ruler. I guess embracing new technology was a good thing even back then.

The Spanish and their derivatives tried to settle the region for three hundred years only to have their asses kicked at every turn. After all that time the Spanish crown controlled only Sante Fe and San Antonio and nothing in between or around them. When those folks at La Raza say they want their land back I think they would be surprised it would consist of only a couple of square miles. Actually, La Raza (the Race) would have to give up the top half of Mexico. As the U.S. would lose just about everything west of the Mississippi and east of the Rockies all the way up to Canada. In the imaginary reparations "give me my land back" yammer, yammer Mexico would lose almost as much as the United States. A the very, very few remaining true full blood Comanche's and Apaches would inherit twice territory as the Louisiana Purchase. So much for La Raza's claims.

                                Now that is funny ! 

Other Indian nations tried to remove and replace the Commanche but they did no better than the Spanish or the Mexicans.

         At the same time on the other side of the world:

Another culture was getting booted around. From the borders of Scotland and England to Ireland, to France, to Holland, to Germany and on throughout western Europe. Hardworking poor were being deprived and displaced. This sort of treatment has an effect on people.

In the process of developing their "always at war" attitude, an additional personality trait developed among the "border Scots". They became an independent tight knit group suspicious of all who represented power or government at any level. The family clan attitude developed into, "we will stand on our own".

They gathered for war when beneficial but would fight as a family unit at the drop of a hat.

The third and perhaps the longest lasting cultural trait they developed was the absolute desperation for being free, totally free. This was the root cause of the constant need to "see what was over the next hill".The Comanche moved with the seasons and the food supply. The bison needed lots of room therefore so did the Comanche. On the other hand the "Border Scots" and their new found friends moved in search of cheap land and the search for freedom. Even today, with our debates about gun control etc. we see that same stubborn streak from the descendants. We don't give up freedoms or what we consider our rights easily. Ask Lincoln.

By the time they became America's western pioneers, the "Border Scots"  had become fellow travelers with various strains of tough, hard headed Irish, Scotch Irish, Welsh, renegade English, German, Czeck's and a smattering of other's who were more interested new land than the king's politics.

They were rough as a cob and tough as a boot. Men such as "Ole Dan'l" would move amongst whatever Indians were on the frontier borders and somehow, with no help from the more genteel folk back east, build settlements. When coexistence worked they were happy. But if it was to be a fight, then that's  just the way it was.

After the free Appalachian and southern frontier lands became scarce they went south to Texas and west to Oregon and California.

They supplied the tenacity and blood required to settle the West. The Texas Rangers and finally the US Cavalry developed the expertise on how to defeat the Comanche as well as Apache's and other western tribes. It required the tough determined settlers to keep coming back, burying their dead and rebuilding the cabins and huts. Without this resiliency and resolve the west would never have been settled.

                               In summary

When you look up the traits of tenacity and ferocity in the people cultures book you will find two almost equal groups. One is the Border Scotch Irish and the second would be the Comanche. Breed those two and you get the equivalent of the toughness of their animal counterparts, the Spanish mustang and the south Texas longhorns. Think Quanah Parker. But that's another story.

Why did the Euro settlers win where the Spanish Crown and the Catholic church could not ? They acted on their own without and under no authority. They were free men and women who were willing to fight to the end, then come back for another round. The white people trying to settle the west were one or two generations removed from the "clearances" or in many cases right off the boat from whatever impoverished European situation they might have come from. 

They were out there on the frontier with no one to turn to. They fought for their lives and the lives of their children. Why did they keep coming back in the face of such tremendous danger ? It had to have been that stubborn never give up trait that had been handed down from European days. The need to be free and the desire to have their own land. By this time it was in the DNA and I'm not sure how much the settlers could control these built in compulsions. I'm sure glad they didn't.

Later freed slaves and former soldiers escaping the ruins of war continued the trek westward. They came, they built cabins, they plowed new ground, they were attacked, they were brutally tortured, raped and murdered. Their children and women were stolen and taken away to fates worse than death. They fought the Comanche or Apache. They drew back to safety, buried their dead, healed their wounds, then came back for another try. They fought as families from homesteads, as militias with their neighbors and as recruits in the Rangers or Army.

Tenacity and perseverance prevailed. Some came as Austin's colonists. Most came as free men looking for a better life and freedom. The Spanish, the Mexican government and the Church failed to colonize the land not because of the fierce native population. They failed because they had no culture of free men and women who were willing to stake their lives on gaining prosperity through the search for even more freedom.

They failed because of an ineffective brutal centralized government. They failed because they were subservient to the wishes of their religious leaders as well as government. Those who came and answered only to the capitalist's dream succeeded. Those who served others failed.

Again, the settlers role was to occupy land no matter what. The Ranger's and the Cavalry's role was to take the battle to the opposition. They both succeeded. It took both settler and soldier to beat the Comanche. It took just as much warrior culture to occupy the land in the face of certain death as to take it via lance and shield. The Scotch Irish and their partners had all that and enough left over to bring a great civil government to the most bountiful land God ever created. 

That government had to come up from the people not just once in the east with the founders but again and again all across the country as these settlers founded towns and counties. Without that mistrust of kings and overlords the U.S. would never have become the great civilization we know today. 

Now, we must do everything in our power to appreciate those forbearers and continue to honor that pleasant land and peaceful governance they fought so hard to build for us.

Giving up the powers of the people to central government does us no good and gives our forbearers no honor. Stand your ground.

This is a political statement written with the express intent of explaining who we are and why we are the way we are today. Without looking at where and who we came from, people of today and tomorrow won't be able to understand our positions. I would wish my children and grandchildren read these words to better understand the old man view of the world.

           This and other thoughts brought to you by:

                        "The Usual Suspects"

   
                                     at 

                   The Boomer Magazine

                              sponsored by

                              John Boykin

                     "The Hard Hat Photographer"