Dying of Thirst

As you could probably guess from the photograph at the top of my blog page, one of my favorite places is the Grand Canyon.  From the rim, the Colorado River is a small tranquil green thread.

When you get down to the riverside, especially at the river's entrance to the canyon, you see a much different river.  And this is below the dam that contains the mighty river at Lake Powell.

Imagine what the river was like before the dam.  The photo above was taken during one of the Park Service's releases of water at the dam, in order to mimic the river's pre-dam flow and rebuild the beaches in the canyon.  Early explorers described the river as "too thick to drink, too thin to farm."  The stretch through the canyon had some of the most dangerous rapids in America.

Today, rafting into the Grand Canyon from Lee's Ferry is a daily adventure taken by amateurs, from pre-teens to octogenarians, with a professional guide of course.  They raft the river in large inflatable rafts, holding 6 to 10 passengers.  These rafts are next to impossible to overturn, making the journey an adventure that seems dangerous, but is actually only minimally so.  

Now, imagine taking the voyage through the canyon in a wooden boat!  And the river is at pre-dam levels, with class IV rapids.  The year is 1867.  There are no towns along the river, so all your food and supplies must be carried on the boats.  There is no bridge at Lee's Ferry, so the entrance to this epic adventure is actually in Green River, Utah.  You will float for a little more than six weeks before even reaching Lee's Ferry and the entrance to the Grand Canyon. The land around the river is inhospitable high desert, sparsely inhabited.  Where there is any human settlement, it is generally Paiute or Ute tribes that really don't welcome white travelers.  Unless you are the lucky sort and you come across a Mormon settlement.  But then again, after their years of persecution in the East, they don't exactly welcome visitors with open arms.  So, once you are on the river, you stay on the river, come Hell or high water.  Chances are, you will experience both on this trip.  

The leader of the expedition is a Civil War veteran named John Wesley Powell.  He has no experience on this stretch of the Colorado, but then again, no one does.  He did explore the Mississippi and Ohio rivers as a young man, but that didn't prepare him for the rapids, extreme heat, dangerous Indians, and isolation he  experienced on this trip.  His crew had little or no experience on this or any other river.  They were, a journalist, two hunters, an editor, the editor's son, a cook, a Civil War captain, a Scotsman, and an English adventurer.  Oh, and Powell had lost most of his left arm to a minie ball in the battle of Shiloh in the Civil War (the photo below is Powell with a native American on one of his later trips in the area.  Old photographs are reversed when printed, so Powell is actually gesturing with his right arm). 

The inexperience of the men and their leader was evident almost immediately.  They loaded all their food and supplies into two boats, one of which broke apart in their first encounter with rapids only days into the trip.  A second boat was heavily damaged, but the men were able to repair it well enough to be used until they reached the real rapids weeks later.  They salvaged what food and supplies they could and spread them out amongst their remaining boats for the remainder of their expedition.  The men learned and adapted quickly and avoided any further disasters on the water.

They were not prepared for the desolate landscape surrounding them on the high desert though.  After the loss of half their food, they were more dependent on game they could hunt along the way.  Unfortunately, for most of the journey, there was no game.  Powell's diary describe scraping mold off their bacon before eating it; a scene I think of each time I check an expiration on the sliced turkey that has sat in my refrigerator for a week.   Three of the men lost confidence in their leader's ability to get them through the canyon in Utah.  They left the expedition and climbed out of the canyon to walk to one of the settlements they were sure was only days away on foot.  They were never heard from again.  Speculation is that they were killed by Paiute Indians who had earlier been attacked by settlers crossing their territory; or possibly massacred by a rogue band of Mormon settlers.

Powell and his remaining men successfully completed their journey through the canyon, mapping areas previously unknown by European settlers.  They also had numerous peaceful encounters with native Paiutes, many of whom shared corn and antelope with the travelers.  Powell, in this and later extensive travels in the area, completed an important anthropological study of tribes of the American southwest.  But his most important and lasting work concerned the land itself and its possible use.

As he learned through firsthand experience, water is the key to surviving and thriving in the American west.  He presented numerous recommendations to Washington D.C. on how farming techniques must be modified to be practical in the arid west.  He warned that farming techniques used successfully in Ohio and Mississippi would lead to massive erosion during the droughts that were common in the west.  Of course his recommendations were largely ignored until after the Dust Bowl days of the early 20th century.  He also advised that population growth be discouraged in the area.  The entire southwest from western Wyoming, through western Colorado, Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and southern California all depended on one river - the Colorado.  Use of its water would necessarily be rationed for life in the area to survive.  Once again, he was, and is still ignored.  Las Vegas, with its dancing fountains and population of near a million; Phoenix with its green desert golf courses and population of well over a million; and Los Angeles with all its excesses and population of close to two million all depend on the now tame Colorado for their water.

How long will that last?

Why Did Davy Crockett Surrender 140 Years After the Alamo Fell?

It was a Sunday afternoon at my Grandma Lucille's house.  I was sitting in the recliner, reading the Wichita Falls newspaper when I found a story about one of my favorite historical figures - Davy Crockett.  Like most boys, especially Texans, I was fascinated by Crockett.  I remember driving Mrs. Armstrong crazy at the Gruver Public Library finding books about Crockett when I was in second grade.  Oddly enough, I don't remember ever seeing the Disney movies starring Fess Parker.  They were released before my time.  I did see the movie starring John Wayne as Crockett several times.  If only he had made it to the armory with the torch!
Most of my knowledge about the siege of the Alamo came from books.  I read everything I could find from the time I was able to read through now.  I even read Crockett's autobiography when I was in Jr. High.  So I knew about Davy Crockett.  He lived in a log cabin, first in Kentucky, and later in Tennessee.  He became famous as a hunter, explorer, and especially as a storyteller.  Even though he wasn't born Texan, he definitely mastered the art of the tall tale.  My favorite was his claim that he could stare at a raccoon until it would just give up and come out of a tree.  Once he mistook a knothole for a raccoon's eyes.  He stared at it for hours before realizing his mistake.  In fact, he stared at it for so long that the edges of the knothole were worn smooth.

I knew that he had been elected to Congress by Tennessee voters and was a follower of fellow Tennessean,  President Andrew Jackson.  Only recently did learn about his falling out with Jackson over Jackson's Indian Removal Act.  He left Tennessee for Texas after losing his bid for reelection.  He led a group of Tennessee volunteers to the Alamo, where they joined Texas revolutionaries in the defense of the old mission.  Of course, I knew that there were no Texan survivors of the siege at the Alamo.  And that they died fighting.  The story of the battle and the defender's fall came from history texts that referred to newspaper stories from the time of the battle and diaries of Mexican soldiers and the few civilian survivors of the Alamo.  All told the same story.  The defenders knew that Santa Anna had ordered that all the Texans be killed - "no quarter" would be given.  Numerous accounts told of seeing Crockett's body in the plaza surrounded by dead Mexican soldiers.

So, you can imagine how surprised and outraged I was to read the newspaper article saying that Crockett and a few other Texan soldiers surrendered and were executed by Santa Anna's officers.  Where did the newspaper get this information that contradicted all the other accounts of the battle?  Now, I was only about 12 years old and inclined not to believe the new account anyway.  But even a 12 year old was suspicious of a newly discovered diary of a Mexican officer who was not only at the Alamo, but almost every other major event of the Texas revolution.  Then I read that the "diary" had never been authenticated.  It was written on at least five different types of paper, some dating years after Texas' war for independence, all cut to the same size to fit into the bound diary.  Later I read that the officer, Jose Enrique de la Pena, was not mentioned in any other account of the battle of the Alamo or any other battle mentioned in his "diary."

Now 35 years after the translation of the diary and its publication under the title, With Santa Anna in Texas:  A Personal Narrative of the Revolution, this is the accepted version of the events at the Alamo.  Why would respected historians change the story based on a very questionable document that contradicts accounts written at the time of the battle?

I think there are a couple of possibilities.  The first is to further demonize Santa Anna.  He was incompetent, both as a military leader and as president of Mexico.  His cruelty was demonstrated in his orders to take no prisoners, not only at the Alamo, but at other battles such as Goliad.  Taking no prisoners in battle is cruel enough, but to execute survivors of a 13 day siege goes beyond cruel.  I'm not sure what purpose would be served by adding more evidence supporting Santa Anna's already wretched reputation.

So, how does the revised history change the view of Crockett?  Even while still alive, he was bigger than life.  He was the epitome of the American ideal of self-reliance and integrity.  He was elected to Congress because his story (both the real story and the tall tales) was already known by almost everyone in America.  As a congressman, he showed his true character.  His first speech mentioned in records of Congress concern an appeal for aid to farmers in Georgia that suffered through a long drought.  His response, "We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right so to appropriate a dollar of the public money."  He then donated his own money to help the farmers.  What would happen today if members of Congress followed Crockett's lead?

As I mentioned before, one of Crockett's biggest supporters was President Andrew Jackson, a fellow Tennessean.  As president, Jackson advocated some very questionable policies, especially those affecting American Indians.  One of the most controversial was the Indian Removal Act that would move the so-called civilized tribes from their land in Florida and Georgia to reservations further west.  Jackson expected Crockett's support, but Crockett refused to support his president in an action that he believed was wrong.  "I was also a supporter of this administration after it came into power, and until the Chief Magistrate changed the principles which he professed before his election. When he quitted those principles, I quit him. I am yet a Jackson man in principles, but not in name... I shall insist upon it that I am still a Jackson man, but General Jackson is not; he has become a Van Buren man."  His refusal to go against his principles cost him Jackson's support in his reelection campaign in Tennessee and he lost his bid.  His most famous quote came after his defeat, directed to Jackson and Jackson's followers in Congress, "You all may go to hell.  I am going to Texas."   

According to several accounts, Crockett and his Tennessee volunteers had numerous opportunities to escape during the siege of the Alamo.  He and a couple of the volunteers actually did leave one night and led a group of volunteers back into the compound.  So Crockett and the others had the chance to save their own lives, but committed their lives to their cause and actually followed through on their commitment.  I really liked Billy Bob Thornton's interpretation of Crockett.  He portrayed Crockett as being trapped by his reputation.  He says to Bowie, "I would like to drop over that wall and just disappear.  But those boys are watching me.  What would they do if I left?"  He led by example and felt responsible for his volunteers.  The last entry in his diary says it all.  "Pop, pop, pop! Bom, bom, bom! throughout the day. No time for memorandums now. Go ahead! Liberty and Independence forever." 5 March 1836.

I think it's obvious from his quotes and his actions why current politicians and leaders would try to diminish Crockett's image.  In fact one of the sites I looked at in my research was from Texas A&M university.  They said that Crockett was one of the country's first celebrities.  "Sort of an 1800's Paris Hilton."  Would any of our current leaders compare favorably to Crockett?  As I said in yesterday's post, only by knowing what others have done, will we know what we are capable of doing.

It's History Now

About a month ago I watched a television show on the network Animal Planet with my teenage daughter.  She is generally an above average student, at least when she is interested.  She loves anything related to animals, especially dogs and cats.  The show we watched was a survival type show.  The subject of the episode was a young man who was exploring the Amazon with his dog.  His dog's name was Livingstone.  I made the comment to my wife that most kids today wouldn't know why an explorer would name his dog "Livingstone," as in, "Dr. Livingstone, I presume."  I asked my daughter if she knew the story of Dr. Livingstone and Sir Stanley in Africa.  She had never heard of either.  That made me start to wonder about her knowledge of explorers in general.

I asked if she knew who Daniel Boone was.  No.  John Fremont?  No.  Lewis and Clarke?  Heard the names, but not sure, although I think she really does know their story if really pressed.  Sir Edmund Hillary?  Nope.  Admiral Peary?  Blank look.  I decided to explore her knowledge a little closer to present-day.  Know what John Glenn did?  Not a clue.  How about Neill Armstrong?  Finally the light came on!  "Yeah, I know him!  He sells those yellow bracelets!  He did something with bikes too, didn't he?"  Close.  That's Lance Armstrong.  He beat cancer and won the Tour de France bike race four straight times.  And started a foundation to raise money for cancer research with yellow (color of Tour d' France winner's jersey) bracelets.  Admirable, and one of the best athletes of my lifetime, but  I don't think his accomplishments quite reach the level of those of the first man to walk on the moon.

In school, I always enjoyed history, but didn't necessarily think it was one of the more important subjects taught.  What does a kid get out of history?  Nothing but a bunch of dates and names to memorize, right?  Now, I realize it is one of the more important subjects in school.  Not only do we need to know where we've been and where we came from, but we also need to know what we are capable of.  Both good and bad.  I've written before about how our view of history shapes our view of ourselves, and how changing history changes our present view.  Now, at least here in Colorado, history is not taught at all.  The upside to this discovery has been that it has renewed my interest in history.  The majority of the books on my Kindle are biographies, or historical novels.  My next posts will be history related, maybe with some views on why the subject is important, or why it is being changed.  Of course, as my wife will tell you, all, or at least the majority of the subjects will be from Texas or the American west.


By the way, in the Animal Planet show we watched, the explorer killed and ate his dog, Livingstone.  Made him sick.  Served him right.