Another American Occupation

June 25, 2007

Blood and Thunder by Hampton Sides was the most enjoyable book I have read in a long time. The genius of the book was its wide angle lens on the history of the west from the 1840s through the 1860s. There are biographies out there of Kit Carson and John C. Fremont, as well as histories of the Navajo, the Mexican-American War, and the Civil War in the West.. but this book manages to work them all onto a single canvas. Themes that would be lost in other, more single-mindedly focused books, here take on a surprising strength because of the multiple story-lines.

The theme I found most compelling was that of American moral blindness. It was difficult not to compare the events of the 19th century to our current situation in Iraq. The book never makes that comparison outright.. but there is a certain parallelism in language that draws one toward it. When Sides talks about the Mexican-American War he calls it our "first war of foreign intervention" (197). And surprise surprise, once America conquers New Mexico it finds itself playing the part of an occupier and trying to mediate between two bitterly divided parties: the New Mexicans and the Navajos. The two following passages, to my ears, sound kind of familiar:

...the real war in New Mexico was not between the Americans and the Mexicans, but rather between the nomadic Indian tribes and everyone else. He had stumbled into an age-old conflict that showed no signs of abating with the American presence. [119]

...the territory was seething with hatred toward the Americans. Bent could feel the spite thickening in the air, could see it in the false grins and narrowed stares of the locals. The Mexicans had failed to fight at first, but they despised these foreigners just as surely as any occupied people must despise their oppressor. [167]

The Americans sent in a series of military commanders and tried out a range of optimistic agendas for putting an end to the low grade war. This effort culminated with the arrival of the American general James Henry Carleton.

There is something about this general that should send chills down our spines. Sides gives an introductory description of him as a perfectionist with a rigid sense of ethics and perfect manners.. an intelligent man (308). He devises a scheme for finally solving the continuing issue with the Navajos. He would round them up and escort them to a (supposedly) fertile area where they can farm and learn to settle down into a civilized life. Of course this final solution will not just keep the Navajos from raiding the New Mexicans.. it will also destroy.. completely destroy.. a way of life. To make matters worse, the settlement was botched. Sides comments:

In a sad way, it represented [Carleton's] life's work. Until his death, in fact, he seemed blind to the horrors he had wrought. Three thousand Navajos—one out of every three captives held there—died at Bosque Redondo. [388]

It is easy to imagine someone else growing old without ever confronting head-on the massive failure of an idealistic policy.. and the sad cost in terms of human life.

What was the problem? Sides includes a sketch of the aftermath of Mountain Meadows Massacre (I did mention that everything gets into this book!). Carleton was involved in the investigation and wrote the report that fingered the Mormons as being guilty of the murders. In the report he also goes on to describe the Mormons as "an ulcer upon the body-politic which needs more than cautery to cure. It must have excision, complete and thorough" (327).

Something is wrong right there with that impulse to "excise". With respect to the Mormons, it would have been the wrong tactic to bring the Mormon leaders to justice by means of some kind of large-scale invasion.. no matter the calls for retribution stemming from the massacre. Sometimes the collateral destruction required for justice is too great.. and itself becomes unjust. But that kind of moral calculus demands a character less self-righteous and more pervious to the complexities of actual life.