Jump to content

Talk:First Battle of Adobe Walls

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why would the first battle have been in 1877 and the second in 1874? Rlquall 01:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is said about where Adobe Walls actually is. Also, what exactly does this battle have to do with the Civil War (which ended 12 years earlier)? --Michael K. Smith 17:10, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Result issue

[edit]

The article clearly states that Carson retreated from the main battlefield and fell back to high ground where his force continued to repulse native attacks until morning. Then Carson attacked the native village. Obviously this means the fighting continued long after the initial engagement on the main field. The natives first forced the US soldiers back but when they discontinued thier assaults on Carson's high ground position, they lost the battle. This is when the fighting stopped, not when Carson withdrew to a higher elevation. Therefore the U.S. won because the natives eventually fled, after first forcing the Americans to high ground. Carson was not massacred like Custer, he would have if the natives did'nt retreat. Also look at the casualties, I know there has been plenty of battles where the victor sustained more casualties than the defeated but this is not so in this case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJ13090 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the wording from "fled" to "retreat" because the word "fled" implies "rout", to me. Perhaps it was a rout, I do not know. Still, I thought I'd change it to the more neutral term "retreat". Please add detail if you have it. My main Comanche source book does not have much info on this battle. Pfly (talk) 05:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date confusion

[edit]

Looks like there is a little date confusion on this page. Was this battle fought in 1864 or in 1877? The article contradicts the battlebox, so which is right? Roy Al Blue 21:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Answering my own question, this battle could not have been fought in 1877, because Kit Carson would have already been dead at that point. Roy Al Blue 21:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two battles at Adobe Walls

[edit]

There were two battles at Adobe Walls, the first, the subject of this article, during the Civil War, when the US sent an expedition into winter campgrounds of the Kiowa, Kiowa-Apache and Comanches to punish them for raids against wagon trains and settlers. The second battle at Adobe Walls came during the "Red River War" when a coalition of warriors from all the plains tribes attacked buffalo hunters camping at Adobe Walls. Though there were only two dozen of them against 700 or so warriors, their long distance rifles held them at bay. The battles were less than a decade apart. John1951 21:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

US Victory?

[edit]

To declare this battle a victory for the US army, although that is claimed by many writers, seems a bit strange. The Indians were left in control of the battlefield as Carson retreated. The Indians did not sue for peace after the battle and the US army did not renew its offensive against them for eight years. The only basis by which it can be claimed this was a US victory is by imputing a high number of Indian casualties, but there's little evidence of that, other than the wishful thinking of many authors, that the Indians suffered heavy casualties. And even if the Indians did suffer high casualties, there's no evidence that they were enfeebled after the battle.

I plan to change the sidebar to call this an Indian victory unless somebody can demonstrate to me that it wasn't. I will, of course, provide references to support that view -- just as those who claim it was a US victory can cite references to support their point of view. Judgment seems to be called for here. The facts are that Carson retreated from the battlefield rather than continue to battle a superior Indian force. The guy who possesses the battlefield at the end of the battle is usually declared the victor and the guy who retreats is usually declared the loser. Carson's retreat was skillful and prudent, but that doesn't make it a victory. Smallchief (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There being no objection, I am changing the infobox to call this an Indian victory. Smallchief (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were three sources cited prior which supported the U.S. Army victory. I don't see how one source (the Harvey Carter source does not indicate a clear Indian victory) and an argument stating "the guy who retreats is usually declared the loser" automatically confirms a clear cut victory for the opposing side. I think this should be changed back to U.S. Victory with the previous sources. I would direct you to a previous article in this discussion forum which makes the argument in favor of U.S. Victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.205.106 (talk) 04:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---Here are some thoughts to consider in light of the results of this battle:

In the book Kit Carson: A Pattern for Heroes, Harvey L. Carter & Thelma Guild write that this battle was successfully fought in ‘terms the Natives understood, entering enemy territory, inflict loss and extricate your own force with little damage’ – all of which Carson did successfully. This battle was not fought to conquer large tracts of territory, therefore holding the field meant nothing. If someone is going to make the argument that because a force remains on the field they have automatically won the battle then I would compare this to the battle of the Rosebud (also involving U.S. against Natives) in which the U.S. Army was left in possession of the field but Rosebud is almost always cited as a Native American victory (with less argument than Adobe Walls). The comment was made: “the Indians did not sue for peace after the battle” but Carter & Guild argue that this battle was a “deciding factor in making the Kiowas and Comanches seek peace in the Autumn of 1865” (page 255). The battle casualties may not have been a deciding factor to the Natives but Gregory F. Michno states the destruction of the Native village and food stores was a severe blow at the onset of winter (Encyclopedia of Indian War p.157). I believe there are more grounds for victory than simply holding the field and inflicting higher casualties. In fact the article states that Carson and his men “rested in their camp on November 26 with [the enemy in sight]” and skirmishing continued until the next day when Carson returned to New Mexico. This gives the impression both sides were still viable forces on the field when the fighting ended. I agree Carson did not win a smashing decisive victory but I do not agree that he was defeated in any way at this battle.

Hopefully I have made some sort of convincing argument here. I think the result status should be changed back to U.S. victory but I will wait to see if anyone else wants to make an argument for or against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.205.106 (talk) 09:31, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • I go back to Kit Carson's report to Gen. Carleton on his expedition. (Official Records, Part 1, Vol 41, p. 939-944) Carson never says he won a victory. The closest he said to saying that he won the battle was "I flatter myself that I have taught these Indians a severe lesson." But he also says that to resume the campaign against the Comanche and Kiowa he needs 1,000 mounted men, more artillery, and 4 months supplies. And he adds that "no smaller campaign [than 1,000 men] should go after these Indians with the expectations of chastizing them in a proper manner." Carson seems to me to be saying: "I didn't succeed, but I'll give it another go with much greater resources."
    • Although Carson didn't claim Adobe Walls was a victory, Carleton did. Well, people, including generals, have a habit of putting a positive spin on whatever they may or may not have accomplished. I don't think there's any doubt that the Comanche and Kiowa believed themselves victorious. They drove the invader out of their land. Smallchief (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We should stop looking at this as a European tactics style of battle and instead consider it strictly as an Indian Wars battle. This was a quick jab into enemy territory to inflict damage then return to base. If the roles of this battle were reversed the outcome would be viewed considerably different. Suppose Dohasan and 300 warriors rode 50 miles into enemy territory, attacked a U.S. town, inflicted higher casualties than his own, destroyed several buildings, took a large quantity of coats, killed a high ranking officer, forced the U.S. to redeploy troops to the area, camped outside the fort that same night and left unimpeded the next morning. That would be considered a smashing victory for the Natives. It seems the only argument in favor of a Native American victory is the argument they remained in the vicinity longer than the U.S. army did. This was a punitive expedition in retaliation for attacks on travelers of the Santa Fe Trail. No matter how you look at it, the Native Americans suffered more damage that the U.S.: higher casualties and loss of supplies all at a critical time of year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.141.205.106 (talk) 20:08, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Result was changed to "Inconclusive" which appears to be the most applicable term in this case since there appears to be no clear victor. Left reference tag as is because both sources seem to support this same idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.133.186 (talk) 23:08, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on First Battle of Adobe Walls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the article on the first battle of Adobe Walls. "Carson had decided to march first to Adobe Walls, which he was familiar with from his employment there by Bent more than 20 years earlier.[5]" Although there is a citation, I believe there is an error.

The original Bent St Vrain and Co. trading post at Adobe Walls, in what is now Texas was constructed by the Bents in 1843[1]. Kit Carson was on Fremont's Oregon Trail expedition to South Pass in 1842, leaving in summer and out for five months[2]. Then he was guiding Fremont on his second Oregon Trail expedition to the Columbia River from the summer of 1843 and in March 1844 he was at Sutter's Fort, CaliforniaCite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).</ref>. Carson was not available to be a engaged by the Bents in 1843 in Texas. The confusion, I think, is that Carson was employed by the Bents as a hunter in 1841 at Bents' Old Fort in what is now Colorado[3].

Further information Carson married Josefa Jaramillo in Taos 6 Feb 1843; it is unlikely he was hunting in Texas that year[4].

Oldtandemguy (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adobe_Walls,_Texas
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_C._Fremont
  3. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_Carson
  4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kit_Carson
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Battle of Adobe Walls. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:First_Battle_of_Adobe_Walls&oldid=1200572496"