3 credits
Utah State University
UENSS

John D. Barton, Senior Lecturer
Utah State University Uintah Basin Campus
1680 W. Highway 40 suite 101-A
Vernal, UT. 84322
phone (435) 722-1753
fax (435) 789-3916
e-mail johnb@ext.usu.edu.

Hi. My name is John D. Barton, and I am your instructor for this UENSS course of Utah's History. As a native of Utah and an historian here in the state for the past several years, I find this region's past so interesting and hope that you come to share that interest. I want you to succeed in this course of study and also want to make myself available to you. Please write, call, or e-mail me at the above addresses with concerns or questions. Do not assume, due to distance between student and professor, that I am unavailable or uncaring. I will try and make time at the first of and end of each class period for questions. For out-of-class communication e-mail is perhaps the method of communication that I recommend most. I check my e-mail every day that I am in my office and will respond promptly.

Course Description For History 3850 DHA & CI -- Utah's History:

In this course we will cover the history of the State of Utah from its earliest records up to the present. Historical analysis and methodology will also be taught and specific assignments given to assist each student understand methodology from within the context of Utah's History. This course is designed for anyone interested in history and there are no specific prerequisites, but it is expected that upper-level work be done for all materials turned in. Please note that this course also fills a Depth Humanities and Communication Intensive requirement for general education. As you survey the assignments you will notice that there are intensive writing assignments. Do not let this daunt you. The assignments are organized for your learning and success.

1. To study Utah's History and understand how it is unique in western, political, and religious history when compared to the American experience.

2. To assist each student understand what history is, what its role is in academics, and how to improve their critical thinking, research, and writing skills.

Thomas G. Alexander, Utah: The Right Place, (Salt Lake City: Gibbs-Smith Publisher, 2002) 2nd. Edition.

Ted J. Warner, editor, The Escalante Journals, (Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press).

Class Schedule: Monday & Wednesday 3:00 - 4: 15

Aug. 30 Introduction, Syllabus, Thinking History.

Sept. 1 Geography.

Sept. 6 Labor Day, No Class

Sept. 8 Early Peoples

Sept. 13 The Spanish

Sept. 15 The Mountain Men

Sept. 20 The Explorers Essay on Dominguez Escalante due

Sept. 22 Come, Come Ye Saints

Sept. 27 Handcarts to Zion.

Sept. 29 Deseret Map Assignments Due

Oct. 4 Film Utah the Struggle for Statehood part 1.

Oct. 6 The Utes Utah's BlackHawk War

Oct. 11 The Utes

Oct. 13 Territorial Utah

Oct. 18 The Utah War

Oct. 20 At the Meadows

Oct. 25 The Railroad Great Basin Kingdom

Oct. 27 Utah: The Struggle for Statehood part II

Nov. 1 Class Debate on Polygamy

Nov. 3 Class Debate on Polygamy

Nov. 8 Butch Cassidy and the Wild Bunch.

Nov. 10, 20th Century Homesteaders

Nov. 15 The Depression Reading essays due

Nov. 17 World War II. Topaz

Nov. 22 Mining in Utah, Nukes in Utah!

Nov. 24 No Class Thanksgiving

Nov. 29 Land utilization - federal lands and Utah The New v. Old West.

Dec. 1 Essay Journal Due

Dec. 6 Whose Land Class Discussion/Review.

Dec. 8 Last Day of Class.

The study of history is sadly something that many people do not understand. It is, as most assume, a study of the past, but it is more than that. If we only study the past it is academic mind games and of little real value. Many of the people who feel some distaste for history likely had a teacher in their past who taught history only as an endless memorization of boring dates, facts and figures. That is not history! Although it is a part of history. History is examining the past, analyzing and interpreting it, and advancing valid arguments for what occurred, why it occurred, and how it is meaningful (how it may effect us) presently. As societal evolution continues to change how we perceive ourselves and interact with one another, how we interpret what occurred in that past also changes. Not that the facts about what occurred change - but how we explain how it relates to us changes. For example: Consider the former USSR. Their truths of just a few years ago were completely centered in a government directed truth of socialism. Since the USSR broke up would you expect the interpretation of the social contract that seems to have failed the Russian people to be interpreted the same as it was previous to the breakup? Hardly. So have the facts of Marxist doctrine changed? No, but the interpretation of its application and validity have certainly changed.

One of the most significant factors in history then is the ability to critically think about the material that you read and study from. Get familiar with the following questions that should be applied to the books and documents that you read for this class. As you do so you may notice that you start applying the same evaluation to many other things in your life such as the news, or commentary, politics and politicians, even the movies we watch. No longer do we simply take everything at face value. We question and analyze what we see and hear. This leads us to make our own interpretations on life not blindly accepting those that some want to share with you. This doesn't make us jaded and cynical about life, just the opposite. We find life filled with a million questions that need to be answered: Why did that occur? How did that come about? Where did you get that information? Why are you telling me this? What is the real motive here? How does this relate to ...?

Read and re-read these following questions until they become somewhat an automatic part of your thinking.

The major factors in reading and analyzing documents are to question:

How to read Historic Documents: (Primary or secondary documents).

The major factors in reading and analyzing documents is to question:

1. What was the primary purpose or motive of the author in writing this document? Secondary purpose?

2. Who was the intended audience?

3. What are the author's biases?

4. What did this document evidence from the time or era? How is this document relevant to gaining an understanding of the contemporary times and people?

5. What did this document mean in a larger scale of the times? To future generations? To us presently? Does this document assist us in understanding the human experience? How?

6. Often to understand a document we need to gain an understanding of the history of the time and place to evaluate the document fairly and accurately. Then we can assess if it is consistent with what is generally assumed about the time, if it is not, how accurate is it? Why does it contradict what is thought? Remember History is a series of arguments to be debated not merely a body of facts to be memorized, therefore, if a document does not agree with other contemporary documents we do not necessarily throw it out, but carefully analyze it and advance an arguments based on reasonable thought.

7. One of the hardest parts of reading a document is recognizing our own bias. We cannot judge the past by present standards or our own belief and value system. Are we maintaining objectivity or subjecting the document to a view colored by our own experience and thoughts that may not be reflective of the time or place?

As we seek answers to these questions, we then interpret or advance arguments about the significance and relevance of the document. This is the beginning of critical thinking and analysis, which are key elements in understanding history.

Good writing is expected on all assignments and the format for writing and annotation of history should follow Kate L. Turabian's book, A Manual for Writers of Term Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (University of Chicago Press, paperback 6th edition). (Non history majors may use MLA style annotation). Include an introduction with a clearly stated thesis. The body of your paper comes next and should include the narrative of events and your evidence and interpretations of arguments. Your arguments should be based on evidence not merely your opinion. One on the main points of college writing is forming informed arguments based on researched evidence and analysis of that evidence. Use of documents to evidence your arguments is required. The final part of your paper is the conclusion. This is not the place to introduce new evidence or arguments but to sum up those already outlined in the body of your paper. Keep in mind this is formal writing. Avoid contractions, first and second person pronouns, colloquial expressions and slang, etc.

Many students unknowingly plagiarize. ANY IDEA, NUMBERS, RESEARCH, WORDS (PARTS OF OR WHOLE SENTENCES, PARAGRAPHS, PAGES), ETC. THAT DOES NOT ORIGINATE FROM YOUR MIND, IF NOT SITED TO GIVE CREDIT TO THE SOURCE, IS PLAGIARISM.

Editing: What to look for in editing your paper: (This is the criteria used to grade the paper).

1. Clearly stated thesis and arguments. Is their argument logical? Supported with documents?

2. Is the paper in good form with introduction, body, and conclusion?

3. Are the requirements of the paper met? Length? Conventions of writing?

4. Sources: are there sufficient sources, are they annotated correctly, is a works cited page added?

5. Conventions of writing: Punctuation, grammar, spelling, tone, flow, etc.

1. The Dominguez Escalante Journal Read and write a 3 - 4 page interpretative essay on the historical significance of the Dominguez Escalante Expedition and the journal's impact on Utah's History. Use specific page number references and brief quotes from the journal to substantiate your points. The Dominguez Escalante Journal is a primary document that gives us a 1776 window to view Utah through. What do we learn? How was the expedition significant then? How did it impact Utah's history later? Why is it valuable presently? Use the above questions to assist you in defining how to think and write about this topic. Worth 50 Points. Due Sept. 20.

2. Debate: Nov. 1st and 3rd. You are a member of the U.S. Congress in 1889 and the Cullom-Struble Bill has been introduced to finally ban polygamy and impose harsh penalties on the Mormon Church for non-compliance. Each member of the class must prepare a three minute speech defending or defeating some specific aspect of this bill. Remember that it is 1890 and you cannot see the future. You only know that there are deep problems and this is offered to Congress as a solution. Demonstrate understanding of the legal history of the issue. (If you are not able to present your argument when called upon you cannot make it up but you may get ½ credit for sending an outline of your argument and sources). Send a 1 page outline of your argument and the sources you consulted. Minimum 5 sources, internet sources acceptable. 25 points possible.

Mapping and Geography Assignments: Due Sept. 29. Physiography map, trails mapping, historical sites map(s). Prepare maps using any medium: hand drawn, copied and hi-lighted, downloaded from Internet, etc. Make as many maps as you need. 75 points possible, 25 per assignment.

3. Trails and Boundaries of Deseret Mapping: The Mormon Trail from Independence to The Great Salt Lake, The Old Spanish Trail, Pony Express Trail, The State of Deseret (proposed state not what became Utah).

4. Historic Locations Map(s): Fort Bridger, Fort Uintah, Fort Douglas, Cove Fort, Camp Floyd, Mountain Meadows, Hole in the Wall. Make as many maps as you need.

5. Physiography locations: The Great Basin/Colorado Plateau Province Hinge Line, The Uinta Mountains, Wasatch Mountains, Blue Mountain, Henry Mountains, Oquirrh Mountains; Rivers: Bear, Odgen, Weber, Provo, Strawberry, Duchesne, Green, Colorado, Jordan, San Juan, Virgin; Lakes: The Great Salt Lake, Lake Bonneville, Utah, Bear, Strawberry, Powell, Flaming Gorge; Valleys: Cache, Salt Lake, Utah, San Pete, Sevier, Ashley; National Parks: Zions, Arches, Capitol Reef, Bryce Canyon. Make as many maps as you need.

6. Reading Essays: In addition to your texts there are four reading selections written by the instructor included in this syllabus: 100 points total possible, 25 per assignment.

Antoine Robidoux - Buckskin Entrepreneur, (starting on page 11), The Common Touch, (Starting on page 37), Ute Lands and People, (Starting on page 49), and Whose Land. (Starting on page 63). Read and write a 1 - 2 page interpretative commentary on each reading. How does this information fits with your previously held ideas and opinions on these topics. Why is it important. Analyze the essays don't just retell them. In the section Whose Land, please understand that you may not have known anything about the specifics of jurisdiction or some of the other issues, however the concepts of land use, urban verses rural thinking, environmentalism, etc. are of particular significance to all Western states and regions. 25 points possible. Due Nov. 15.

7. Essay Journal: In lieu of exams, below are 10 essay questions that you need to prepare good, insightful answers for. You may use any of the reading information from your assignments or any other source, but most of the information will come from Utah: The Right Place. In an writing an essay answer the recommended method to ensure the most points is to 1) turn the question in to the topic heading/thesis of your answer. For example if the question read: "What caused the Civil War?' Your answer should start: "The Civil War was caused by ..." 2) then go to work on answering the question. After years of reading essay answers by students many times they do not answer the question that I asked or their answer is so general and/or vague that they do not get as good a score as they maybe could have had. Work into your essay answers specific details and examples from history, add interpretations and conclusions. Remember that history is not merely remembering the past but interpreting the past. You must, to get full points, interpret and draw conclusions in addition to showing understanding of the material. Each answer should be 2 - 3 typed pages in length. Each essay is worth 25 points for a total of 250 points. The essays should be turned in as one assignment NOT one at a time. Due Dec. 1st.

1. How has/does the geography of the state impacted its history and economy?

2. Who were the early (prehistoric) peoples of Utah and what were their lives like? What changes did the acquisition of the horse bring for the Ute People?

3. Outline who the significant mountain men in Utah's History were and what impact mountain men had upon the region.

4. Why is an understanding of Mormon History and some of their doctrinal beliefs important and justified for Utah History? Outline the role that polygamy had in Utah, include the various anti-polygamy bills and their effect on the territory.

5. Why was the army sent to Utah in 1857? Outline the events between Buchanan's sending the army and the establishment of Camp Floyd. What impact did the coming of the Army have on Utah? How and why did the Mountain Meadows Massacre occur?

6. What did the Mormons hope for with the State of Deseret, both in political freedom and boundaries. Even though Utah in its territorial era had a large Mormon majority, what non-Mormon interests kept it from Statehood for thirty years? There were at least three distinctive Mormon practices that Washington politicians felt must become 'Americanized' before Utah was ready to be made a state. What were they and how were these concerns addressed.

7. Compare and contrast the settlement of Utah by the Mormons and other Western States' settlement. With the coming of the railroad to Utah in 1869, Brigham Young did his best to change the economic picture of the territory. What steps did he take and what was his rational in doing so?

8. One biographer of Brigham Young describes him as an "American Moses," the Saints called him "Brother Brigham," upon hearing of his many wives great numbers of people in the U.S. thought of him as a harem master, and the federal government thought of him as a "pain-in-the-#@%." How should history view Brigham Young? Defend your answer.

9. What changes occurred in Utah as a result of the Depression, and how did World War II impact Utah?

10. What are at least three present issues in Utah that have historical roots and why should the politicians, society, state and federal agencies, etc. think about historical factors in reaching their decisions? (Use specific examples in your answer.) How does the Federal Government's ownership of 70% of the land in Utah impact the state today? Outline the historic uses in the urban verses rural arguments that are rocking the state concerning public land use.

Grades:

There are 500 points possible from the assignments. At the completion of the assignments grades will then be computed on a percentage breakdown.

100 - 94% A

93 - 90 A-

89 - 88 B+

87 - 83 B

82 - 80 B-

79 - 78 C+

77 - 73 C

72 - 70 C-

69 - 68 D+

67 - 63 D

62 and below F.

Classroom civility: Each student is expected to be considerate of fellow students and the instructor, and assist in making the classroom a non-threatening experience for all. Rude behavior, vulgar expressions, mocking questions and mannerisms, profanity, lack of courtesy, etc. will not be tolerated. Cell phones and beepers or pagers should be turned off during class time except for emergency medical personnel.

Academic Honesty- Each student is expected to maintain high standards of academic honesty. Acts of academic dishonesty which include: cheating of any kind, falsification of work, or plagiarism (trying to pass someone else's work off as your own) will result in a failing grade and potentially further action by the standards office. For further information see the USU undergraduate handbook.

Add/Drop, Incomplete Grades:

Every term students try to change their schedules without completing the necessary paperwork. Entry into any class after the scheduled registration time has passed requires an add card being completed. Adds can only be done through the third week of class. To withdraw from any class you must complete a drop card with the front desk. If you do not do so, you will receive a failing grade and still be financially responsible for the course. The only exceptions after the drop period are medical or family emergencies and a petition for a late drop form must be completed and approved by the Dean of Continuing Education. Incomplete grades are solely up to the instructor and are only considered if there are extenuating circumstances; poor performance in class is not an extenuating circumstance according to the USU Undergraduate Catalogue.

Late Assignments, papers, etc. will not be accepted late unless prior arraignments have been made with the instructor. If there is an unavoidable conflict with an assignment or test date, you must clear it with the instructor prior to the due date to ensure that the assignment will be accepted or an alternative test date may be arraigned. It is important that each student assume responsibility for their own success. The largest single factor in nearly all the failing grades I give is from missed assignment dates and missed exams. If your circumstances make it necessary for you to miss class the day an assignment is due it is your job to clear an alternate date with me. Excused absences for due dates include work, family, or medical emergency. If you just fail to show up for an exam you may be required to document your emergency to be given permission to take the exam. Exceptions to this will only be considered if a genuine emergency has occurred. Documentation of such emergencies may be required. If you learn that you will miss class with little notice call me and leave a voice mail or an e-mail so I know that you are trying to fulfill your responsibility

ADA: If you have any kind of medically documented learning disability that requires special consideration in the class-room or on tests or assignments, it is your responsibility to register with the Student Disability Office on the Logan Campus. They will work out the necessary considerations and accommodations with the instructor.

Selected Bibliography: One of the most important tools that an historian has is knowledge of the published material on a topic. Topical bibliographies are something that should be collected and added to often. Below is a beginning of Utah History sources. This is only a partial list showing some titles in most of the major areas of Utah's History.

One of the sources that I constantly use for Utah History is Utah History Encyclopedia. This is now available in full text on the internet at www.media.utah.edu/ucme/UHEindex. Another good source of general information is the Utah Historical Society's web site at www.history.utah.org. There are several other internet sites that can be of value to you in your research.

Bancroft, Hubert Howe, History of Utah, 1889.

Bolton, Herbert E., Pageant in the Wilderness, 1950.

Bolton, Herbert E., Spanish Explorations in the Southwest, 1542-1706.

Warner, Ted J. editor, The Dominguez-Escalante Journal, 1976.

Fremont, John C. Memoirs of My Life, 1887.

Irving, Washington, The Adventures of Captain Bonneville, 1849.

Morgan, Dale, The Great Salt Lake, 1947.

Morgan, Dale, Jedediah Smith and the Opening of the West, 1953.

Gowans, Fred R. Rocky Mountain Rendezvous, 1985.

Gowans, Fred R. Fort Bridger and Camp Supply, 1980.

Brooks, George R., editor, The Southwest Expedition of Jedediah Smith: His Personal Account of the Journey to California, 1826-27,

Camp, Charles L., editor, James Clyman, Frontiersman: The Adventures of a Trapper and Covered-Wagon Emigrant as Told in His Own Reminiscences and Diaries, 1960.

Russell, Osborne, Journal of a Trapper, Aubrey Haines editor, 1955.

Stewart, George R., Ordeal By Hunger: The Story of the Donner Party, 1960..

Bushman, Richard L., Joseph Smith and the Beginnings of Mormonism, 1985.

Allen, James B. and Leonard, Glen M., The Story of the Latter-Day Saints, 1976.

Arrington, Leonard, Great Basin Kingdom.

Arrington, Leonard, Brigham Young: An American Moses.

Stegner, Wallace, The Gathering of Zion.

Hafen, LeRoy, Handcarts to Zion.

Pratt, Parley P. Autobiography.

Lee, John D. A Mormon Chronicle: The Journals of John D. Lee 2 vols., edited by Jaunita Brooks and Robert Cleland.

Stout, Hosea, On the Mormon Frontier: The Diary of Hosea Stout.

Stenhouse, T.B.H., Rocky Mountain Saints, 1873.

Tyler, Daniel, A Concise History of the March of the Mormon Battalion, 1881.

Burton, Richard F., The City of Saints, 1862.

Conetah, Fred, A History of the Northern Ute People.

Papanikolas, Helen Z., The Peoples of Utah.

Benally, Clyde, et. al. Dineji Nakee Naahane: A Utah Navajo History.

Bailey, Paul, Jacob Hamblin: Buckskin Apostle.

Madsen, Brigham D. The Mormon Frontier and the Bear River Massacre.

Jones, Daniel W. Forty Years Among the Indians.

Gottfredson, Peter, Indian Depredations in Utah. 1919.

Van Wagoner, Richard S., Mormon Polygamy: A History.

Foster, Lawrence, Religion and Sexuality: The Shakers, the Mormons, and the Oneida Community.

Embry, Jessie L., Mormon Polygamous Families: Life in the Principle, 1987.

Larson, Gustive O., The "Americanization" of Utah for Utah Statehood.

Lyman, E. Leo, Political Deliverance: The Mormon Quest for Utah Statehood.

Furniss, Norman F., The Mormon Conflict.

Allen, Edward, Second United Order Among the Mormons.

Taylor, Fred, A Saga of Sugar.

Whitney, Orson F., Popular History of Utah.

Arrington, Leonard, Great Basin Kingdom.

Kelly, Charles, The Outlaw Trail.

Pointer, Larry, In Search of Butch Cassidy.

Warner, Matt, The Last of the Bandit Riders.

Utah Mining Association, Utah's Mining Industry.

Allen, James B. and Cowan, Richard O., Mormonism in the Twentieth Century.

Nelson, ElRoy, Utah Economic Pattens.

Arrington, Leonard, and Alexander, Thomas, A Dependent Commonwealth: Utah's Economy from Statehood to the Great Depression.

Alexander, Thomas, and Allen, James B., Mormons & Gentiles: A History of Salt Lake City.

Lowitt, Richard, The New Deal and the West.

Daniels, Roger, et. al. editors, Japanese Americans: From Relocation to Redress.

Lythgoe, Dennis L., Let 'Em Holler: A Political Biography of J. Bracken Lee.

Matheson, Scott, Out of Balance.

May, Dean L., Utah: A People's History.

Antoine Robidoux -- Buckskin Entrepreneur
by John D. Barton

At the apex of their glory, the mountain men numbered approximately 1,000 and their heyday lasted less than twenty years. But they continue to occupy a significant portion of American legend and folklore. From the time Washington Irving first wrote about them, to present-day Hollywood movies, the mountain men have been depicted in a highly romantic manner. Without doubt the mountain men were among the greatest outdoorsmen of all time. Survival in the harsh conditions of their place of business demanded constant awareness or they would fall prey to hostile Indians, wild animals, or the elements. Some historians have tried to change the way mountain men have been perceived. William H. Goetzman, for example, argues that the mountain men were individualistic entrepreneurs who hoped to make a living, if not a fortune, from the fur trade which was booming between North America and Europe at the time.

Contemporary with the mountain men, a laissez-faire attitude of business dominated America, in both ideology and practice. There was less governmental restraint on business in the early nineteenth century than perhaps at any other time in our nation's history. Of all the business sectors, none were less restricted than the western fur business. Sharp and sometimes vicious competition existed between the various companies involved in the fur trade, but the government made no attempt at regulation. In fact, the American and British fur traders and mountain men were unofficial representatives of their respective nations in the great race for the Pacific Northwest. And in the Southwest American fur traders and mountain men helped establish friendly relations so that when General Stephen Watts Kearny came to take the area during the Mexican War, he was able to do so without bloodshed or battle.

There are examples of mountain men who left civilization and entered the wilderness for adventure. Some, like Kit Carson, who went west to escape an apprenticeship, sought to escape into the mountains and leave past ties behind. But the majority of men who went into the mountains to trap or trade for fur did so in pursuit of economic advancement. In the majority of cases, all other considerations were secondary.

In search of profitable trapping, mountain men and traders entered the Uinta Basin to trap and/or trade with the Indians. The Utes were "keen traders and collected considerable fur," and therefore were desirable as trading partners. Of the several who came, one man stands as the dominant figure in the Uinta Basin fur trade -- Antoine Robidoux. Unlike most mountain men who left former occupations to enter the fur trade, Robidoux was raised in it. His father owned a fur trade business which operated out of St. Louis and gave the Robidoux family moderate wealth, social and political standing. Antoine Robidoux was born in 1794, and was nine when Lewis and Clark left St. Louis on their epic journey. Having been raised in a family of fur traders, he undoubtedly felt the excitement that swept the town upon the return of that exploratory party. Ambitious men then realized the upper Missouri River country was open to fur traders. Manuel Lisa was the first to lead a significant trading party up that great river, but others soon followed; for there were fortunes to be made. When William Ashley advertized for 100 enterprising young men to go into the mountains and trap beaver on the upper Missouri, the Robidouxs had already been in the fur trade for several years. Antoine did not join Ashley, but three years later led a trapping/trading expedition of his own from Taos into the Green River country.

Many Americans went to New Mexico after Mexico won its independence from Spain in 1821. The newly formed Mexican government was willing to trade with non-Mexicans whereas the Spaniards had not. The Santa Fe Trail opened soon after Mexican Independence and trade between St. Louis and Santa Fe flourished. Included in the numbers of Americans who went to Santa Fe in hopes of getting rich were many who sought wealth in the fur trade. Finding the upper Missouri firmly in the grasp of the American Fur Company, many branched out in search of new places to exploit the fur trade, and the southern Rockies became another center of the fur business. Antoine Robidoux as one of the early fur traders of the southwest, he became a prime mover in the Santa Fe trade even before the Santa Fe Trail reached its full potential. He entered the fur trade in Mexican Territory as early as 1824. By 1828, he was operating solely out of New Mexico, but did occasionally travel to St. Louis.

By 1828, and possibly as early as 1826, he established his first trading fort. Located on the Gunnison River of Western Colorado, Fort Uncompahgre was strategically situated to encourage trade with the Ute Indians of Colorado. The selection of the site for a fort was logical not only for its proximity to the Utes but also the good grazing and water for stock and the temperate climate. This fort was likely made of adobe and cottonwood logs because that was the only building material close at hand. Initially the fort would have consisted of a cabin or two and grew with the passing of years and adding on of more and better buildings. But Antoine must have found trapping in the Uintas more profitable than managing the Colorado fort, for he left his brother Louis to operate it for him.

Using Fort Uncompahgre as a base, Robidoux continued to trap the Uinta Basin and the north side of the Uinta Mountains. John Work, a Hudson Bay brigade leader, recorded that he met Robidoux with a group of trappers on the Malad River of southern Idaho in 1830. Robidoux told Work that he planned to spend the winter on the White or Green River.

The next summer Robidoux took his furs to Santa Fe. In August, 1831, he sold to William Sublette, $3806.50 worth of fur. Of all the fur purchases Sublette made in New Mexico that summer, Robidoux's was the largest. This indicates that Robidoux was successful in trapping and trading that year. Robidoux went back to the Uinta Basin that fall or the next spring and purchased the Reed Trading Post on from William Reed; very likely using the money he had received from Sublette.

The Uinta River was a haven for beaver. Before the many irrigation canals were built which now drain off a great part of the water, the river was choked with beaver dam after beaver dam. The early settlers of the Uinta River area claim that the land, for hundreds of yards on either side of the river, was a lush natural meadow watered by backed up beaver dams when the spring run off occurred. Little wonder then that the Reeds built there, or that Robidoux coveted their location and/or their business. The details of the sale of the Reed Trading Post to Robidoux are unknown, except for the time, which was the Fall of 1831 or early 1832.

With anticipation of opening a post in the Uinta Basin, Robidoux had applied to the Mexican Government and was granted a license to operate a fort on September 19, 1831. At that time, Robidoux had already been operating Fort Uncompahgre for at least three years. It is unlikely he would apply for a license to operate a fort that was known by New Mexicans to already have been in business for years. It seems more plausible that Robidoux had purchased, or planned to purchase, the Reed Trading Post and was seeking licensing for his new fort. It is doubtful whether the Reeds ever legally operated within Mexican Territory, but Robidoux, with legal, political, and residential ties in Santa Fe, did not want trouble that he could avoid with licensing.

The Reed Trading Post was a single cabin located at the confluence of the Uinta and Whiterocks rivers. After Robidoux purchased the Reed's post, he built his fort about one-hundred yards to the north and west, to avoid the spring floods which had threatened the old location of the post every year. Fort Robidoux, also called Fort Uinta, Fort Winty, or Twinty, was located about 12 miles northeast of the present-day town of Roosevelt. The fort consisted of a small group of log cabins with dirt roofs and floors, surrounded by a log palisade.

Upon the establishment of Fort Uinta, Robidoux shifted most of his attention there. The fur trade business involved much more than trapping beaver, and Robidoux used all the entrepreneurial skills he had acquired from hard competition to make his fort profitable. His business operation focused in three different areas: 1) trapping, 2) trading with the Indians and free trappers, and 3) horse trading.

Robidoux usually kept about twenty men employed at each fort as trappers. Captain John C. Fremont, while exploring the Great Basin, stopped at Fort Uinta. He referred to Robidoux's men as a "motley collection of Canadian and Mexican engages and hunters." These trappers usually divided into pairs to go out from the fort for the fall and spring hunts to trap. From Fort Uinta they went to the Bear, Green, Grand or Colorado rivers, as well as the rivers and streams of the Uinta Basin to trap primarily beaver but also mink, muskrats, fox, and other fur-bearing animals.

If Robidoux operated his business like others in the West, the engages were under contract to bring their catches back to the fort and sell to Robidoux at a set price. This contrasted with the free trapper who sold his "plews," the mountain men's term for beaver skins, to the highest bidder either at the annual rendezvous or at a trading post. When the fur hunters returned to the fort after a season of trapping, Robidoux reconciled the books for each trapper. Subtracting the goods previously received on credit from the total catch, the remainder was paid to the trapper in cash or credit toward supplies. No records survive to indicate how many pounds of fur Robidoux purchased from his engages over the years, but he maintained engages throughout the existence of his forts. If they were not making sufficient money to justify staying, logic suggests the engages would have gone elsewhere at the expiration of their commitment. Likewise, if Robidoux were not showing a profit, he would not have retained their services.

While maintaining the engages, Robidoux also encouraged the business of free trappers and travelers at his fort and traded with the Indians of the region. Robidoux's prices were comparable to other contemporary mountain prices. He stocked the usual supply of trade goods, food, and supplies that could be expected to be found at a trading post which included guns, powder, traps, blankets, beads, vermillion, cloth, awls, etc. as well as food items such as sugar, coffee, flour, and fresh or jerked meat. A list of goods ordered by Robidoux in 1830 for Fort Uncompahgre gives added insight into the items that could be found at his forts. The list includes:

16 Pieces blanketing in the roll 532 yards

10 pieces cloth 302 yards

7 rolls of same 105 yards

2 Pieces colonial blanketing 280 yards

1 piece blanketing 9 yards

1 Piece ribbed cloth (corduroy) 37 1/2 yards

1 roll black ribbed cloth 3 1/2 yards

2 maroon church robes

2 standard robes

4 robes of cotton

4 woolen robes

4 (Cortes?)

3 Sashes

1 scarf of silk and cotton

4 bandannas

5 satchels or bags

47 cotton scarves

8 pair cotton hose or stockings

18 black scarves

1 piece of silk with stripe 8 yards

1 piece of silk purple 16 yards

1 piece silk and cotton 30 yards

3 hair ribbons

3 white jackets or coats

6 pairs of large scissors

1 Thousand brass tacks

2 large buttons

1 large button

2 dozen knives

8 shaving knives

3 pieces blanketing 124 yards

92 lined paper ledgers

10 pieces bright hairpieces

3 hairpieces

2 trunks

4 women's fine combs

11 combs

2 umbrellas

3 pairs of women's stockings

57 yards of binding lace

1 piece of baking soda

2 fine made knives

6 common knives

1 woolen scarf

2 Jackson peace medals

7 bags.

Robidoux's prices and location encouraged mountain men to trade with him. Kit Carson, for example, sold his furs to Robidoux in 1833 and 1838, and Rufus Sage, a noted traveler and occasional trapper, mentioned that during his ten day stay at Fort Uinta, several free trappers came to the fort. Dr. Marcus Whitman, missionary to the Indians of the Northwest, traveled to New Mexico and enroute stopped at Fort Uinta. While there he too met free trappers, including Miles Goodyear.

When enough fur had been acquired to fill a pack train, Robidoux went to New Mexico or occasionally St. Louis to sell the pelts and purchase more supplies to stock his forts. Robidoux had family connections in St. Louis. His brother, Joseph Robidoux, was a noted fur trader in Missouri and could possibly give Antoine premium prices for fur and offer savings on goods to take back to the mountains. For convenience sake, Robidoux usually traded in New Mexico rather than Missouri for New Mexico was hundreds of miles closer to Robidoux's forts.

The going price for fur in St. Louis or Santa Fe was approximately $5.00 to $5.50 a pound during the late 1820's and early 1830's. Transportation costs were a major factor in the fur trade. The cost of getting fur out of the mountains and goods to the fort had to be subtracted from the gross figure to show the final net gain of the fur trade. In the late 1820's, Ashley charged Smith, Jackson, and Sublette $1.12 per pound to transport furs and goods from St. Louis to the rendezvous and back. Likewise, William Sublette charged The Rocky Mountain Fur Company fifty-cents to transport their fur to St. Louis from the mountains in 1832. Using fifty-cents as a low comparative figure to estimate Robidoux's costs; fifty-cents subtracted from the sale price of $5.50 to $5.00 Robidoux received for furs in Taos, minus the $3.00 paid the trapper, left an approximate net of $1.50 to $2.00 per pound of fur. Robidoux transported his own goods and furs and may have saved some from the fifty-cents that Sublette charged, but the combined cost of horses and wages for his packers would have brought his costs close to that figure.

The mark-up of trade goods, from the cost at Taos or St. Louis to what was charged in the mountains, was 200 to 300 percent, and some items were even greater. For example, gun powder could be purchased in the 1830's, at bulk rates for twenty to thirty-cents per pound, lead bars for bullets cost fifteen to nineteen-cents per pound, and tobacco could be purchased for ten to twenty-cents per pound in major cities. Sage mentions powder selling for $3.00 a pound and tobacco at $5.00 per pound at Fort Uinta, which is a 2,000 percent markup from what these items could be purchased in St. Louis or Santa Fe, but it must be remembered that Robidoux risked both his investment and life in transporting goods hundreds of miles through rugged and wild country to get supplies to his forts. Being an industrious entrepreneur, Robidoux showed profit on both ends of business, buying furs from the trappers and Indians which sold at a profit in Taos, and selling those same trappers and Indians goods at inflated prices. The above figures indicate that Robidoux made more money from the sale of goods at his forts than he obtained from the sale of furs. This was especially true in the late 1830's when beaver prices dropped by as much as 50 percent and the price of goods throughout the mountains remained about the same.

To travel from Fort Uinta to Fort Uncompahgre, Robidoux went south through Willow Creek in the Bookcliff Mountains to about where Grand Junction, Colorado is today, this is evidenced by the famous Robidoux inscription on this ancient route. Crossing the Colorado River, the trail led south. Following the Gunnison River it led to the junction of the Gunnison and Uncompahgre Rivers and the site of Robidoux's other fort. From there Robidoux could travel the Old Spanish Trail back to New Mexico, or go east up the Gunnison River to where Cochetopa Creek merges with the Gunnison, which is about fifteen miles east of the present site of Gunnison, Colorado. Following Cochetopa Creek to Cochetopa Pass, he then dropped into the San Luis Valley of Colorado. From the San Luis Valley, it was only a short trip down the Rio Grande to Taos and then Santa Fe.

Rufus Sage left an account of traveling with one of Robidoux's mule caravans in 1842. The train consisted of eight mules, loaded with two hundred-fifty pounds each. Traveling an average of thirty-five to forty miles a day, it took Robidoux about fourteen days to go from Fort Uinta to Taos. Sage did not mention a visit to Fort Gunnison while traveling with Robidoux. If he had been there, Sage probably would have indicated so in his journal, for he was a careful recorder. This lack of reference may indicate that Robidoux used an entirely different route that trip which bypassed the other fort. By the early part of the 1840's, and possibly years before, Robidoux was using wheeled carts for transportation of goods to the Colorado Fort. Lieutenant, Philip St. George Cooke met Robidoux in the mountains headed toward Fort Uncompahgre on September 6, 1843. He noted, "I find Mr. Robidoux here, with a dozen light horse carts..." The year previous Joseph Williams noted, "August 19th. We could see snow on the mountains. We had a very cold rain. Next day we came to Rubedeau's wagon, which he had left here the year before. He hitched his oxen to it, and took it along."(sic) It is generally thought that Captain Bonneville was the first to take wagons over the continental divide for the 1832 rendezvous, but Robidoux had crossed into the intermountain corridor with wheeled carts possibly as early as the late 1820's. Due to the terrain between Fort Uncompahgre and Fort Uinta it is doubtful that Robidoux used carts or wagons to supply the northern fort. He would have taken the goods to Fort Uncompahgre by wagon and then used pack trains into the Uinta Basin. Although freighting was not his main enterprize, with the constant shipping of goods and furs into and out of the mountains, Robidoux could well be thought of as one of the first freighters to operate west of the continental divide.

Robidoux extended his market for sales of trade goods, and at the same time obtained more furs by trading with the Snake (Shoshone) and Ute Indians of the central Rockies. While waiting at Fort Uinta, Rufus Sage, noted the common articles for which the Indians traded were horses, otter, deer, mountain sheep, and elk skins. These were exchanged for powder, lead, guns, knives, tobacco, beads, awls, and trinkets. Taos Lightning or whiskey was another favorite trade item.

Most fur traders paid the Indians less for their furs than they did non-Indian trappers; and Robidoux seems to have had no hesitation about taking advantage of the Indians. Sage commented of the Indians' trade at Fort Uinta that the Utes and Shoshones brought large and well cured mountain sheep and deer skins to trade. They received in trade "the trifling consideration" of eight or ten loads of ammunition for one skin, which brought from one to two dollars in Santa Fe. Eight to ten charges of ammunition traded for a deer skin worth one dollar equates to two and one-half times the price for powder Robidoux charged non-Indians.

Although it was illegal in Mexican Territory, Robidoux also traded guns to the Indians. Even before the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, it was against Spanish Law to sell firearms to the Indians. This law was repeated by a "Bando" or ban of the sale of guns to Indians in 1735. After Mexican Independence, Mexican Law also forbid it. As early as March 1825, Francis Robidoux, another of Antoine's brothers, had his trade goods confiscated for trading guns to the Indians. Governor Bartolome Baca ordered the merchandise returned, but instructed the alcalde that Robidoux was prohibited from trading arms to the Indians. In 1845, the governor of New Mexico launched an investigation into a charge that Antoine Robidoux was selling guns to the Utes and Shoshones. Though the governor was convinced that he was in fact supplying guns to the Indians, Robidoux was never formally charged. There are at least three probable reasons for this: First, the Utes had already attacked and burned Robidoux's forts by the time the governor initiated the investigation so further investigation would have been moot. Second, during the year of 1845, the governor died and was temporarily replaced by an interim governor who was succeeded, that same year, by a governmental appointee to the office. The charges were either lost during the change of governors, or paled in significance to the new governor because the fort had already been burned. Third, Robidoux was a small operator, working on the peripheries of Mexican territory. Mexican officials were not even able to control the illegal trapping and trading done south of the 42nd parallel by unlicensed Americans and English/Canadians such as the Ashley men, Hudson Bay Brigades, and many individual trappers. Robidoux would have been questioned and possibly charged if the governor(s) had found him; but after his fort was burned, Robidoux spent little time in New Mexico until he returned with the United States army the next year during the War with Mexico. Robidoux had become General Stephen Watts Kearny's interpreter in 1845, and translated the speeches Kearny made in New Mexico during the Mexican War into Spanish and translated Spanish into English for the general. Robidoux remained with Kearny until after the Battle of San Pasqual, where he was wounded by a lance thrust in his back on December 6, 1846.

Whiskey was a trade item which also eventually caused Robidoux trouble. "Taos Lightning" was the liquor most frequently sold to the Indians by the New Mexican traders. Liquor of any kind was the nemesis of the fur trade. Debauchery and senseless mayhem often took place when liquor was sold to Indians. George Ruxton, a mountain man and contemporary of Robidoux's, said of Indians and liquor: "Sometimes, maddened and infuriated by drink, they commit the most horrid atrocities on each other, murdering and mutilating in a barbarous manner, and often attempting the lives of the traders themselves." The most common practice was to pack low grade whiskey or straight grain alcohol into the mountains and then dilute it with water, sometimes by as much as one-third. The more the Indians drank, the more the trader watered his supply. Some traders had unique, and often toxic recipes, for their brew that included a twist of tobacco, rattlesnake heads, and other noxious ingredients determined to give it more kick when mixed with raw alcohol.

Rarely in the history of the fur trade were the Indians who drank modest imbibers. They usually consumed liquor in great gulps and did not stop until the supply was gone or they fell into unconsciousness. During this time, drunken Indians often performed acts of extraordinary aggression which were carried out with enormous energy and continued until they again slipped into unconsciousness or began to sober up, depending upon the supply of liquor available. This state of affairs often lasted for months.

When a dependency for alcohol was created, the Indians often sold all they possessed for a little more "firewater." Unscrupulous traders knowingly plied the Indians with liquor to get them to sell their furs and goods cheaper; also liquor itself was a good trade item. The mountain price of liquor was usually $4.00 a pint. William Wolfskill's ledger shows that liquor could be purchased for .75 a pint in Taos. Even unwatered, $3.25 profit per pint is a substantial markup. Although it was illegal in both the United States and Mexican Territory to trade whiskey to the Indians, agents of both countries rarely stopped traders who bought it to transport into Indian country. Robidoux's substantial bill to Simon Turley, the inventor of Taos Lightening who ran a distillery business in New Mexico, suggests that Robidoux purchased liquor in trade quantities.

As the major means of transportation in the mountains, horses and mules were always a major trade item. Indian wealth was counted in numbers of horses. A young warrior obtained a bride with a gift of horses to his prospective father-in-law. Indian culture placed a good horse thief in high social standing. Cases of horses being stolen from mountain men by Indians are numerous. There was always a good market for horses in the mountains; indeed, some Indians and mountain men, such as Wakara of the Utes and Peg Leg Smith made their living by stealing horses in California and selling them in the mountains or states.

Horses were of greater worth in the mountains than the states because of the greater reliance upon them by mountain men and Indians. As riding and pack animals horses were indispensable. Horses were usually classified into three divisions: Indian ponies, which were worth about $50, Spanish horses were worth $50 to $100, and horses from the states were worth up to $500. The difference in prices was determined by the size, strength, speed, and beauty of the animal. These high prices made horses the most expensive items in the mountains surpassing even guns in cost.

Robidoux had poor luck with horses, as did many traders. In 1824, the Arapaho Indians stole all his goods and horses. In 1833, while traveling from St. Louis toward Santa Fe, Robidoux's group encountered a severe blizzard. Snow piled up as high as the wagons and the cold was so intense that eight of his men, and all of the horses and mules froze to death. Stranded on the plains, the group burned the wagons for firewood and ate the dead horses and mules to keep from starving until Antoine's brother, Joseph, sent a relief party to rescue them. On this trip, Robidoux was accompanied by his wife Carmel. While waiting for help, Carmel and her servant girl slept together for warmth. One especially cold night, the girl froze to death, while Carmel, who slept right next to her, survived.

As a good trade item, Robidoux bought and sold horses at Fort Uinta. The worst financial calamity to befall Robidoux involved horses. In the winter of 1841-42, he and a few drovers left St. Louis driving several hundred head of horses and mules. Upon reaching Cottonwood Creek near Council Groves, they encountered a terrible blizzard. Reminiscent of the 1833 incident, that night two of Robidoux's men and over 400 horses and mules are said to have frozen to death. This was devastating to Robidoux's finances. Valued at a minimum $100 each, the low figure for a horse from the states, Robidoux stood to lose $40,000.

There is some evidence connecting Robidoux with the capture and sale of Indian women and children as slaves. In 1842, Joseph Williams, a Methodist minister from Indianapolis, spent eighteen days at Fort Uinta waiting for Robidoux to return to the fort so he could travel with the pack train to New Mexico. Williams had traveled to the Oregon Territory the year earlier and upon his return trip, he traveled by way of Fort Boise, Fort Hall, and Fort Bridger. At Fort Bridger he found that the company he expected to travel with had left prior to his arrival. He decided to ride over the Uinta Mountains to "Rubedeau's Fort Winty"(sic) and arrived there on July 9. Once there Williams waited eighteen days for Robidoux to return to the fort so he could travel with Robidoux's caravan to New Mexico. Williams recorded:

We had to wait there for Mr. Rubedeau about 18 days, till he and his company and horsedrivers were ready to start with us to the United States. This delay was very disagreeable to me, on account of the wickedness of the people, and the debauchery of the men among the Indian women. They would buy and sell them to one another. One morning I heard a terrible fuss, because two of their women had run away the night before... Mr. Rubedeau had collected several of the Indian squaws and young Indians, to take to New Mexico, and kept some for his own use! The Spaniards would buy them for wives...(sic).

Williams was shocked and disgusted at what he saw at Fort Uinta, and his account is obviously biased. However, his comments about Robidoux and his men capturing Indian women and children for sale in New Mexico, regardless of his opinion of the practice, stands as documentation that Robidoux was involved in Indian slave trade. Many of the Ute People living in the Uinta Basin believe that Robidoux and his men captured Indian women to serve as prostitutes at the forts. While Williams' account does not specifically say as much, it seems to hint that was the case when he said that "Rubedeau kept some for his own use!"

Joe Meek, a mountain man and contemporary of Robidoux's, also links him with trading Indian women. In the winter of 1840, Meek wintered at Fort Davy Crockett. To pass the time, when the streams were too frozen to trap, Meek, Robidoux, and other mountain men gambled by playing hands. Meek remembered that Robidoux lost all his money and even wagered and lost an Indian girl while playing that winter.

Most of the menial work performed in New Mexico's colonial era was done by forced labor. Indian slave trade was not a new thing to the area. Indians had been enslaved in Spanish territories since the time Columbus discovered the New World in 1492. In New Mexico the slave trade was so common that in the early 1700's trade fairs were held to accommodate the transfer of Indians from captors to buyers. Thomas Jefferson Farnham, who passed through the Great Basin in 1839 noted:

The New Mexicans capture them (the Indians) for slaves; and the neighboring Indians do the same; and even the bold and usually high-minded old beaver hunter sometimes descends from his legitimate labor among the mountain streams, to this mean traffic.

Uncle Dick Wootten, a mountain man familiar with the Great Basin region, recorded:

...it was no uncommon thing in those days, to see a party of Mexicans in that country buying Indians, and while we were trapping there I sent a lot of peltries to Taos by a party of those same slave traders."

The period from 1830 to the mid-1840's was the height of the Great Basin slave trade which coincided with the height of Robidoux's career in the Basin region.

When Robidoux arrived in Taos, the New Mexicans would have quickly purchased any captive Indian women and children as servants. Farnham recorded that a boy was worth $50 to $100, and a girl $100 to $200. Whenever Robidoux was taking a pack train out of the mountains, a few captives could greatly increase his profit for the trip. There was no investment or financial risk if Robidoux and his men captured the Indians themselves, or if he traded for his captives, the profit was still great enough to encourage not only Robidoux, but many other New Mexicans, to enter the slave trade. In fact, the main use of the Old Spanish Trail, which connected New Mexico with Los Angeles, was to facilitate Indian slave and horse trading. If the moral question of capturing and selling human beings occurred to Robidoux, it did not stop his participation in it.

Antoine was a hard, shrewd businessman who would do nearly anything to show a profit. He learned in a hard school. Joseph Robidoux II, Antoine's father, was a wizened old frontiersman who could and would cheat a competitor such as Manuel Lisa. On one occasion Lisa was setting out to trade with the Pawnees in rivalry with Robidoux. The latter locked him in a whiskey cellar and went and traded with the Pawnees himself. Another time, Joseph III, Antoine's brother had fallen heir to some building lots in St. Louis that his father coveted. Tricking his son into an empty whiskey cellar, he locked him in until in his thirst, young Joe traded a quit claim deed for a glass of whiskey.

Robidoux employed these business practices in his mountain operation, but having a determination for economic advancement; he utilized love, politics, and investments to further his quest for wealth. From 1824, when Robidoux first left Santa Fe for the Green River country, until 1828, little is recorded about his activities. During this time Robidoux studied the mountains from which he wrested a living for the next two decades, became acquainted with the various Indian tribes, and learned "nearly every Indian idiom in the plains and mountain country."

Ever on the lookout for a way to work with the system and avoid legal entanglements, Robidoux took advantage of love and politics in 1828. That year he married Carmel Benavides, a Spanish girl from Santa Fe, who happened to be the adopted daughter of the governor of New Mexico. Robidoux was not alone in marrying into wealthy and influential Spanish families. Most Anglos who were successful in New Mexico prior to the Mexican Cession married Mexican women. Charles Bent and Kit Carson are but two other examples.

According to Mrs. Orral Robidoux, the Benavides were an old and aristocratic Spanish family. Upon the death of her father, who had been a Captain in the military, Carmel lived with the governor. It was said of her that she was beautiful and brave; daring enough to swim her horse across the Rio Grande when it was swollen during spring run off when many men feared to do so. She was fond of dancing, and before marrying, often rode horseback from Santa Fe to Albuquerque, a distance of sixty miles, to attend a dance.

With the connections of his new bride's family, Robidoux applied for and was granted citizenship in Mexico as a naturalized citizen. The conditions to become a Mexican citizen, which Robidoux had no trouble meeting, were to have lived in Mexican Territory for at least two years, be Roman Catholic, be employed and well-behaved. Some of Robidoux's mountain activities may have excluded him from the last requirement, but he was a respected businessman in Santa Fe. As a citizen of Mexico, Robidoux had many advantages that had been unavailable to him prior to naturalization. License to trap and to operate trading posts within Mexican Territory could only be obtained, except in rare cases, by citizens. Most of those who traded and trapped in Mexican Territory, who were not citizens, did so illegally and were subject to fines and imprisonment if caught. Also as a citizen, Robidoux did not have to pay duty on his sales and transactions in New Mexico as did contemporary traders and mountain men who operated in the Southwest and had not become naturalized.

It is unlikely Robidoux agonized over whether to become a Mexican citizen. Coming from a French family who had lived in Montreal and then moved to St. Louis in the late 1760's or early 1770's, national allegiance had to be compliant. French citizens had suddenly found themselves British citizens after the Peace of Paris, 1763. Moving from Canada to St. Louis, the Robidouxs would have then been in Spanish Territory, until the secret Treaty of San Idlefonso returned the Louisiana region to the French. St. Louis remained a French possession only three years until the United States government gained the area from Napoleon in 1803 with the Louisiana Purchase. Robidoux's concern was probably not over citizenship, but rather, what could advance his opportunities to make money.

Operating out of Santa Fe, Robidoux established a trading house in the main square of town. It was probably more of a warehouse used to store goods and furs than a retail store. Robidoux kept it for several years. His building was broken into two different times during the 1830's. With storage of furs, Robidoux was able to utilize his holdings to his advantage, as is shown when he secured his debt to Charles Bent with 650 pounds of beaver pelts. Such practice was not uncommon among trappers and traders. Beaver pelts were often used as hairy bank notes. In addition to his fur business, both in the mountains and in New Mexico, Robidoux owned a tannery at the northwest corner or Guadalupe and San Francisco Streets, and also invested in mines in New Mexico. In two of these investments, Robidoux lost over eight-thousand dollars. The mines did not turn out to his financial gain, and there is no evidence to indicate if his tannery was profitable, but his purchase of them demonstrates Robidoux's willingness to try all within his means to get ahead financially.

Once married and naturalized as a citizen of Mexico, Robidoux lost little time in establishing stronger political ties in New Mexico. In 1830 he entered Santa Fe politics and was elected alcalde. As president of the "ayunlamento" or town council, Robidoux took advantage of his position to enhance his own business. As alcalde he launched a bitter verbal attack upon foreign trappers; French-Canadians and Americans, many of whom had been his friends and former trapping companions. He charged that they were stripping the streams of New Mexico of a valuable asset -- beaver he hoped to catch.

With his varied interests and business operations, Robidoux presents a multifaceted image that is best understood from a entrepreneurial framework. Of the many and varied actions which can be verified, he was an opportunist to say the least. It is hard to classify Robidoux into a neatly presentable package that fits modern definitions or Hollywood sterotypes. He was not a mountain man in the usual meaning of the term but more a mountain trader. Robidoux was fluent in English, Spanish, French, and several Indian languages. George Gibbon, a soldier with General Kearny, described Robidoux as "tall, slender, and athletic, and had polished manners and possessed a striking personality." Because conduct in dealing with the Ute Indians in the Uinta Basin, they associate the name Robidoux with cruelty. With his political and marital connections, and his background from St. Louis, Robidoux could be seen in tailored clothes, as photos of Robidoux evidence, yet he wore buckskins and moccasins for much of his life. For entertainment he could be the guest of the governor of New Mexico or chase antelope onto the ice of the Green River to watch them drown when they broke through. Many of those who were involved in the mountain fur trade have been described as half wild savages. Others have depicted them as James Fennimore Cooper's, Leatherstockings gone west, but an image of an entrepreneur engaged in unrestricted pursuit of economic advancement fits Robidoux best.

In an era when enterprise and trade were new and feeling their way into untouched territories with the expansion westward by a young nation, Robidoux was, perhaps unknowingly, pioneering trade and settlement. His quest for wealth added to the building up the American interests in the region, just as William Becknell's opening of the Santa Fe Trail did in 1821. Robidoux's entrepreneurship brought about the first settlement for trade on the west slope of the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. He opened new trails for trade goods, and expanded from the shaky beginnings of the Reed Trading Post Utah's dawning of industry.

THE COMMON TOUCH:
WHY BUTCH CASSIDY WAS SUCCESSFUL THEN AND REMEMBERED NOW
by John D. Barton

Outlaw Myths have persisted throughout much of recorded history. Robin Hoods of all generations, those who defied corrupt government and oppression, have always captured the imagination of the less bold and daring and in so doing have gained fame. Usually the fame of such folk-heroes increases with the passing of time. Their acts grow ever more daring with each re-telling of their story; likewise their ever-augmented generosity and goodness endear them to subsequent generations. In Western History there are folk-hero tales of incredible persistence. Outlaws such as Jesse James and Billy the Kid are still, more than a century since their deaths, commonly portrayed as misunderstood or slightly gone astray heroes in motion pictures and novels. Even though historians have established that both were probably back-shooting killers, they had a sizeable following then and remain folk-heroes today.

There are, however, outlaw folk-heroes of epic proportion who were worthy of the name and fame they still command. Butch Cassidy, or, as he was christened, Robert LeRoy Parker, is one such. Cassidy, his best friend, Elzy Lay, and others of the Wild Bunch were outlaws and therefore should not be idolized nor used as patterns for lifestyle. Many thousand hard working, honest Westerners with perhaps less fame or glamour are much more deserving of that honor. But there are valid historical causes that led the likes of Butch, Elzy, and the Wild Bunch to turn to outlawry, retain the sympathy and support of their honest contemporaries, and still command attention and respect from the passing generations.

As the Western Frontier pushed further and further from organized, established law, the West became a place of self-law and/or lawlessness. Each person had to decide for themselves what rules they would abide by and let their conscience guide. The West was too large, space too vast, towns and military forts too far apart, and communication too slow for law enforcement to be effective on the scale that it is today. The result was that citizens often took the law into their own hands, and in extreme conditions, they practiced vigilantism.

As the West "grew up," it was developed by ranchers, miners, timber men, the army, and; perhaps most numerous and least remembered, small farmers and homesteaders. The disparity of wealth between the homesteader and larger interests was great. Those who lived "hand to mouth," uncertain of their next meal, often helped themselves to a small portion of the profits of the more fortunate. Others, though honest themselves, turned a blind eye to those who evened things up a little. Many, if not most, big ranches got their start by branding mavericks, and then, once large and prosperous, they condemned small-time operators who did likewise. This, when coupled with the attempt to keep all new-comers from using rangeland that was public owned, led to range wars, murders and hostility. The large ranchers sanctioned the murders of small-time operators in the attempt to maintain control.

In the 1870-1900 era big business dominated both the economic and political scene of the nation under the spoils system of the Radical Republicans' rule. The railroad enriched a select few and through unfair shipping rates assisted the development of timber and mining, cattle and large scale farming, while hurting small ranchers and farmers. Bankers were also unfair in lending practices and varied rates to favor large businesses with easy credit loans for development while small businessmen, ranchers, miners, and farmers could not get credit; or if they were able to obtain credit, doing so often resulted in the eventual loss of their property through foreclosure. Political graft and corruption rocked the politics of the era while the national economy struggled through two depressions, one in the 1870's and another in the 1890's. Eastern capitalists maintained a near 0% inflation rate throughout these years with gold coinage money policies. When these practices were coupled with the debt-peonage systems that had become entrenched, the result was the rise of the Populist movements that found their champion in William Jennings Bryan who ran against McKinley for the Presidency in 1896.

The combination of corrupt politics, unfair banking and lending policies, Laissez-faire economics, and plying the wealth of established businesses against the small time operators, in most arenas of business including cattle, all served to sharpen the distinction between the rich and those less fortunate. Social Darwinism, or survival of the fittest in the jungle of life, justified the wealthy, in their own minds, and condemned the poor. As social classes based upon wealth were established, small farmers and ranchers learned to distrust and often resent big business and politicians. Many students of Western History question how and why outlaws were allowed to operate within an area where a great majority of the local citizens were law-abiding in nature and often poor themselves; yet rarely did rewards for the capture of these bandit heroes entice locals to turn in the miscreants. Many law-abiding citizens felt that the outlaws were bloodying the nose of the rich who were keeping progress and development in the hands of only a select few. The robbery of a train payroll, bank, or even a large mine had little, if any, effect on the small farmer and rancher. In fact the small farmer probably felt some measure of satisfaction in the woes of big businessmen at the hands of outlaws.

Most Western outlaws came from common backgrounds that identified with the common people. The outlaws were usually careful who they stole from, and sometimes they shared with those in severe need with whom they came in contact. One particular story as told by Butch to his family is worthy of retelling in his own words.

One day I went into a store where I often picked up supplies. It was run by a little widow lady. That day she looked real glum, and I asked her what was the matter. She replied, "The man who holds the mortgage on this store is coming to collect, and I haven't got the money. He'll take my store.

"`How much do you owe?' I asked her.

"`A thousand dollars.' And the tears came to her eyes.

`I just can't make ends meet with my husband dead and gone.'

"`Now you quit your worrying. Just give me a little time and maybe I can help.' I told her.

"`But a thousand dollars. That's a fortune.'

I left the store. When I came back later I gave her ten one hundred dollars bills. Her eyes bugged out. I guess she'd never seen that much before all at once. I warned her. `Now don't you tell that old skinflint where you got your money. But you make sure you have a signed receipt for it and it's marked paid in full.' Of course, the old lady was really in tears now, but for a different reason. "Come on now,' I said `dry you eyes so that old coot won't suspect anything when he comes.'

Then I went a little way out of town where I knew he'd be coming along, and I hid in the bushes by the road. He had the snappiest horses with all the trappings, and he was slicked up fit to kill -- black suit and white starched shirt all right. I could tell he didn't need that ole lady's store any more than I did. And it made my blood boil to think how he was just waiting to turn her out. He had a self-satisfied smirk on his face. That's what always makes me so damned mad. The rich are too rich and the poor are too poor.

Well, it wasn't too long before I heard that buggy rattling back down the road. I peeked through the bushes from my hiding place. I wanted to wipe that greedy look off his face the worst way. His buggy showed down as it got near to my ambush. Now that was mighty convenient. I was surprised when I heard him say `Whoa!' to his team, and they stopped almost in front of my hiding place. There wasn't another soul in anywhere in sight. He peered around suspiciously, and then he pulled out his billfold and counted to make sure it was all there: `Nine hundred -- one thousand,' he counted out loud.

I took my cue and stepped out of the bushes, gun in hand. `I'll take those,' I said. He was so surprised he handed `em over without an argument, and I slipped out of sight. This was so successful that I paid off more than one mortgage in the same way. In fact, I wasn't the only outlaw who salved his conscience in that way.(sic)

Who, upon hearing this story, cannot identify with and silently cheer Butch? But note that one of his motivations was that the "rich were too rich and the poor were too poor." The class struggle of the era was obvious to those who were participants. Butch, not unlike many other "Robin Hood" type outlaws, helped several struggling individuals. One time he played Santa Claus to a large family with many small children who did not have money enough to provide gifts for the holiday. During the escape on horseback after robbing the Winnemucca Bank, Cassidy and the Wild Bunch changed horses some miles out of town. With the posse close behind, Butch left specific instructions that the horse he had ridden was to be given to Vic Button, a youngster who had admired the animal a few days earlier. Butch had promised that the boy would have it someday. An outlaw, or any man for that matter, who remembers a promise made in passing to a boy, when it was much more wise to hurry on and get out of the country before the posse came, is a man with great character that many of his law-abiding contemporaries admired.

A large measure of the success of the Wild Bunch was founded on the support of local people. This common bond with poor, honest, hard-working citizens was essential to elude capture by the law. Exchanging fresh horses for trail weary ones, misleading lawmen with carefully constructed stories, and cooking meals with no questions asked were commonplace services performed for the outlaws. In the Outlaw Trail country, from Canada to Mexico with major hide-outs at Hole-In-The-Wall, Wyoming; Browns Hole where Utah, Colorado and Wyoming join; and Robbers' Roost in south-central Utah; the division between small rancher and outlaw was very thin. Each befriended, protected, and assisted the other. The Wild Bunch sometimes worked as cowboys on ranches or guarded herds of cattle belonging to local ranchers from rustlers, and the ranchers provided timely warnings about lawmen in the region. In Brown's Park, where similar activity between outlaws and small ranchers was common, the outlaws decided to repay their neighbors for their kindness and live-and-let-live attitude by sending out engraved invitations for Thanksgiving Dinner. The Wild Bunch, represented by Butch Cassidy, Elzy Lay, Isom Dart, and the Sundance Kid, along with Billie Bender and Les Megs of the Bender gang, cooked a special feast. They served a several course meal that was attended by nearly all the settlers in the region, dressed in their most formal attire. This was afterwards known as the "Outlaws' Thanksgiving Dinner."

Another time Elzy Lay heard from Matt Warner that a Jewish merchant who had gone broke in Rock Springs was trying to flee the region before the sheriff could confiscate his merchandise for debts owed. Elzy held him up and took all his goods which consisted mostly of clothes. He then took the clothes that were useless to him to John Jarvie's store and told Jarvie to distribute the clothing to anyone who came in and invite all to a masquerade dance. Soon everyone heard of the plan and came to the dance dressed in outlandish styles of mixed and unmatched clothing that amused and entertained all.

Such antics endeared the outlaws to most who heard the stories. Even law officers often respected the Wild Bunch and if they had not disturbed their town or jurisdiction usually left them alone in a live-and-let-live attitude. There was a lawman, Sheriff Farr (also spelled Fare) from Hanksville that had little use for Butch and Matt Warner. On one occasion Farr was leading a posse after the outlaws. Butch and Matt, knowing the San Raphel Swell region as well as, or perhaps better than anyone else, led the posse deeper and deeper into the desert. One by one posse members found excuses to quit and go home until just Farr and two deputies were left. Many miles from commonly known water holes, Butch knew of a small spring up a canyon where he and Matt could water their horses and fill their canteens. Hurrying out of the canyon, they watched their back trail to see if Farr knew of the water-hole. He did not. Knowing that the posse would likely die before they could get back, Butch and Matt snuck back down the trail, pulled their guns on the sheriff and deputies, and told them they had missed the water up the small canyon they passed. Knowing they had likely saved the life of their pursuers, Butch asked if now the sheriff would quit the chase. Upon being told no, Butch and Matt got angry and took Farr's guns, saddle, and britches -- leaving the angry sheriff a forty-mile ride, bareback in his long-red underwear, into Hanksville. The citizens of that community laughed for years over this incident which did little to endear Butch to Farr, but the common people appreciated this rough frontier humor.

In the San Juan country, like much of the region bordering the Outlaw Trail, the majority of the population contemporary with the Outlaws were Mormons. Here the success of the Wild Bunch is especially curious. Mormons, for the most part, tired to avoid violence and abhorred crime; yet the Wild Bunch, especially Cassidy and Lay, were on friendly terms with many local citizens and were respected by most of the communities. Cassidy had been raised a Mormon, and though he did not live most of the tenants of his religion, he did keep a code of his own. His father once asked him, "LeRoy, did you ever kill anyone?"

"No, thank God. But some of my boys had itchy trigger fingers. I tried to control em'. I feel real bad about some posse men who got shot."

But even the Mormons were often frustrated and angry over the economics of the West -- so much so that they had tried to create their own economy independent of the nation's economy. The banks and businesses that were part of the Mormon economy were rarely, if ever, targeted by the Wild Bunch. Therefore the Mormons had little to fear from the outlaws. Also the Mormons were outcasts themselves, who in their short history had been denied their Constitutional Rights of Freedom of Religion by local and state officials from Illinois, Missouri, Ohio, and New York. They had even been denied help from the President of the United States. And, at the time of the Wild Bunch, the Church was just emerging from severe persecutions at the hand of the government over polygamy. Little wonder that the Mormons felt smoldering resentment and distrust towards government and big business and would rarely mind the presence of Cassidy and those of his followers who acted with courtesy and manners while in town. And those of the Wild Bunch and other outlaw bands that inhabited the fringes of Mormon colonization who acted rough were not welcome to the same degree.

Careful examination of the lives of most Western Outlaws reveal a life style of night riding, missed meals, hot pursuits, poorly-tended wounds, broken friendships, and economic deprivation. They were usually broke or unable to spend stolen money while hiding out. Little glamour existed in the real lives of outlaws. They experienced impossible family relations, long trails, and fear of treachery with the ever-present knowledge that, regardless of the cause, they were outlaws and anyone could turn them in for the reward money. But Butch Cassidy and other outlaws of the Wild Bunch were often gentlemen in their mannerisms. Usually outgoing and friendly they posed little threat to the average citizen. And in their selection of targets for robbery they maintained identity with the common people while becoming hated enemies of big business. The Wild Bunch were products of the times and gained if not the respect, at least the tolerance and sometimes friendship of their peers.
 

UTE LANDS AND PEOPLE
by John D. Barton

Pre-History, The Fremont Indians

Humans have occupied the Uinta Basin for many centuries. Rock paintings and archaeological evidence of early Native American cultures are common. The first known and identified group in the Uinta Basin were the Fremont Indians, a variant or sub-group of the Fremont Culture. The term Fremont is a general term that fits, umbrella like, to a variety of adaptations of culture from about A.D. 550 to 1,300. All variations included a predominant farming lifestyle supplemented with foraging and hunting. The Uintah Fremonts were the shortest lived but oldest known culture of the five major known Fremont variants found in the Great Basin. The Uintah Fremont culture started about A.D. 500 and ended as early as A.D. 950 to 1,000. This made them contemporary with the classic era of the Anasazi cliff-dwellers in the four-corners region of Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Arizona. There were phases of the Uintah Fremonts at Whiterocks and Cub Creek, both in Uintah County.

The most significant Fremont Culture in Duchesne County was in Nine-Mile Canyon. This group is thought by most archeologists to be the northernmost part of the San Rafael Fremonts, circa A.D. 700-1,200. First thought to be a sub-group of the Anasazi Culture that dominated the Four-Corners region, the Fremonts have been shown to differ with unique and distinctive three piece pottery, moccasin patterns utilizing untanned leather, trapezoidal bodied figurines that are both fired and unfired, pictographs, and other cultural distinctions. The Fremont peoples who migrated to the Tavaputs Plateau about A.D. 1,000 were likely driven there as a result of the conflict with the Numic speaking ancestors of Shoshonean hunter-gathers. The Fremont's defense orientation with masonry towers on rock outcrops and pinnacles with commanding views found in the Nine Mile region hint at refuge behavior which supports this theory. Also the side notched projectile points dating from A.D. 1,000 found in the Nine Mile region are attributed to Shoshonean peoples.

During the Fremont's stay in the Tavaputs Plateau region, they achieved a relatively high standard of living. They thrived utilizing a combination of agriculture, hunting, and gathering lifestyle. Their simple cultivation included growing of squash and pumpkins, beans, and maise or corn. The Fremonts in Duchesne County developed a simple system of irrigation to water their fields. In some places their irrigation ditches, hand dug with wooden shovels, were several miles long. Sometimes these ditches were chiseled through hardpan and even sandstone.

To store their grains Fremont Indians built small stone granaries. Several of these granaries are found in Nine Mile Canyon. They are usually small structures made of stone and adobe, mortared with mud. Frequently located under a cliff along a slip they are hard to access and easy to defend. Anyone that tried to scale the cliffs to get to these granaries had to use both hands to climb and have their backs exposed while climbing. Once sealed these granaries were impervious to rodents and even insects.

The Fremont Indians lived in small rock structures with ten to twelve individual family dwellings making a village. Ruins in the Basin and elsewhere reveal that they constructed their masonry buildings on the surface as well as stone lined semisubterranean pit houses. When they found a stream with tillable land alongside, such as Minnie Maud Creek at the bottom of Nine Mile Canyon, small villages were established, some spreading along the canyon, sometimes several villages to the mile. For defense and scouting purposes, they built look-out towers on the highest peaks of the canyon walls. It is thought that the clans would share responsibility for manning their look-outs.

For several hundred years the Fremont Indians occupied the region, living a sedentary life, cultivating small plots of land, drawing or carving rock art on the smooth sandstone canyon walls. Painted symbols of their gods, their farming, the animals they hunted, and symbols significant to them are found throughout the county. However, these symbols are still, for the most part, unintelligible to modern scholars. The rock art in Nine Mile Canyon represents some of the finest in the world and scholars from many research institutions have traveled to the area to study, photograph, and marvel.

Archaeologists have identified and investigated nearly three-hundred archeological sites in the Nine Mile Canyon area, with additional sites being discovered and studied. Stone grinders or metates, projectile points, fragmented pottery, and other artifacts and ruins are evidence of earlier cultures found in northeastern Utah.

Why the Fremont people left the region is speculative at best and is still the topic of spirited debate among archaeologists, but the Uintah Fremonts abandoned the Uinta Basin circa A.D. 900, as much as three-hundred years earlier than other Fremont Indians mysteriously left the Great Basin never to be heard of again. The Nine Mile Fremonts disappeared around A.D. 1,200. Perhaps they were driven out by the Numic speaking ancestors of the Utes and Shoshoni. There is some speculation that remnants of the Fremont were absorbed into the Numics. Another theory suggests the Fremont Indians of the Uinta Basin suffered a similar fate as the Anasazi to the South when a long period of severe drought forced them to abandon their homeland of generations and move elsewhere. Contemporary Indian legends of the area tell of a time when there was so little rain or snow that the springs dried up and many of the watercourses nearly did so. Indians in the upper country benches where the Altamont area of the Basin is now located traveled to the junction of the Lake Fork and Yellowstone rivers to obtain water. Another possible explanation about the departure of the Fremont Indians was that they left their farming villages due to droughts and became nomadic hunters and the forefathers of the Shoshonean people who later subdivided into the Shoshoni and Utes of the Great Basin. The fate of the Uintah Fremont remains unclear but archaeologists agree that the Numic-speaking Shoshone and Ute inhabited the Great Basin and the Uinta Basin beginning early in the fourteenth century, less than a century after the Fremont culture fell.

The Shoshonean Stage

The early Shoshonean era in the Uinta Basin, A.D. 1,400 to 1,650, also called the Canalla Phase, evidences a distinctly different culture than the Fremont. These Numic speaking ancestors of the Shoshoni and Ute tribes started entering the Basin region in the late thirteenth century and had developed a lasting culture by the fifteenth century. Numic is acknowledged not as a language but rather a group of related languages that include Shoshone and Ute languages spoken by the early inhabitants of the Uinta Basin, southwestern Wyoming and northeastern Colorado at the time referred to by archaeologists as the late Fremont and early Shoshonean stage. Canalla Phase peoples lived in brush wickiups rather than the stone and masonry building of the Fremonts. A pedestrian hunter-gather food source replaced horticulture as the dominant subsistent strategy, brown ware ceramics became evident, and most significant was the wide range of territory occupied by the Numics; expanding to include much of the Great Basin, the Uinta Basin, Colorado Plateau, the West Slope of the Rocky Mountains and north to the Windriver Mountains of Wyoming. As these Numic speakers settled in their respective locals they became the Ute and Shoshone tribes with their sub-variants including: many different Ute Bands, Piautes, Gosutes, Shoshone, and Western Shoshone. After roughly A.D. 1,650 some of these peoples started acquiring horses and had interaction with Euro-americans which radically altered their lifestyles. Military superiority between these groups and jockeying for position for prime hunting and foraging territories was evident with the coming of the Spaniards.

Early History: The Dominguez and Escalante Expedition

The first historical record of the area comes from the Dominguez Escalante Expedition who traversed the Uinta Basin and parts of Utah in 1776. Fray Francisco Atanasio Dominguez led the party and was assisted by Fray Silvestre Velez de Escalante. Because Father Escalante kept the journal of the expedition his name has gained greater fame than that of Father Dominguez. The small party, consisted of the two Fathers and eight other Spaniards including Don Bernardo Miera y Pacheco, the cartographer (mapmaker) for the expedition. The Dominguez-Escalante Expedition planned to leave Santa Fe, New Mexico on 4 July 1776 but there were delays including the illness of Father Escalante. Weeks later on 29 July 1776 the expedition began its historical trek to Utah and the Great Basin. The expedition's goals were to open a northern route from Santa Fe to the newly settled Monterrey, California, and to contact friendly Ute Indians along the way who might be ready for conversion to Christianity and Spanish ways of life. Other Spaniards had previously attempted to use a direct route westward through Arizona, but deserts and hostile Yuma and Apachie Indians made that route difficult and hazardous at best. The Spanish had traded with the Utes of southern Colorado for over a century by the time of this expedition, and it is likely that enterprising Spanish traders, such as Juan Maira de Rivera's 1765 expedition, had traveled north into Ute homelands of southwestern Colorado and southeastern Utah. With the exception of the Rivera expedition none of these other possible expeditions were documented and leave questions where exactly they traveled.

The Dominguez-Escalante expedition left Santa Fe and traveled north through southwestern Colorado, following the streams and rivers. The expedition eventually found its way to the Black Canyon of the Gunnison River. After becoming lost and discouraged, they found their way to friendly Ute encampments. Here they acquired the services of two Ute boys whom the Padres, unable to pronounce their Ute names, called Silvestre and Joaquin. These youths agreed to guide them to the Lake of Nuestra Senora de la Merced of the Timpanogotzis (Utah Lake) and the home of the Laguna (Uintah) Utes. On 16 September, the expedition crossed the El Rio de San Buenaventura (Green River) near the present-day town of Jensen, Utah. It is interesting to note they killed buffalo on both the Colorado and Utah portion of the Uinta Basin. After crossing the Green River, the party journeyed up the Duchesne River, traveling in a westerly direction. The Padres noted that Silvestre exhibited great fear while in the region, especially in what is today Uintah County. After seeing horse and human tracks, and smoke from fires, Silvestre informed the Padres that enemy Indians, "Comanches" as Escalante called them, were in the area. The "Comanches" were most likely a band of Shoshoni hunting in the area. As the expedition traveled further westward, into today's Duchesne County, Silvestre was less fearful and when wisps of smoke were again seen, he gave the opinion that it could be from either "Comanches or some Lagunas who usually came hunting hereabouts." From this record it appears that the Basin in 1776 was utilized by both Utes and Shoshone tribes and that hostility between the two was frequent. When the Ute and Shoshone's Numic speaking ancestors separated into the distinctive tribes and developed enmity towards each other is speculative at best, but by the first Spanish penetration into the Great Basin and the Western slope of Colorado the Utes were clearly separated from the Shoshone.

While Dominguez and Escalante were traveling up the Duchesne River, after passing the confluence of the Duchesne and Uinta Rivers, they "saw ruins ... of a very ancient pueblo where there were fragments of stones for grinding maize, of jars, and pots of clay. The pueblo's shape was circular ..." Modern researchers of the Dominguez-Escalante Trail have been unable to locate this ancient pueblo which was likely close to the Duchesne River at about the Duchesne Uintah county line. On 17 September 1776, they camped just east of Myton, calling this campsite La Ribera de San Cosme. The next day they traveled west to the junction of the Strawberry and Duchesne rivers (El Rio de Santa Catarina, de Sena, and El Rio de San Cosme) and camped for the night in a meadow about a mile above the town of Duchesne. Reporting on the land seen that day, Escalante wrote: "There is good land along these three rivers that we crossed today, and plenty of it for farming with the aid of irrigation -- beautiful poplar groves, fine pastures, timber and firewood not too far away, for three good settlements." Following the Strawberry River upstream, they camped the next night near Fruitland, and the next day crossed Current Creek and pressed onward. Upon reaching the Strawberry Valley, where the Strawberry and Soldier Creek Reservoirs are now located, Silvestre informed the Padres that some of his people had lived here, but withdrew for fear of the "Comanches."

The expedition left Duchesne County, traveled through Strawberry Valley, descended Diamond Fork to the Spanish Fork River and entered Utah Valley on 23 September 1776. Here expedition members found the Utes very friendly and after visiting for several days, the Padres promised to return the next year and build a settlement. Utah history would likely have been different had the Padres returned. Catholic missions rather than Mormon temples might have dotted Utah's landscape. Being told by the Laguna Utes about the deserts to the west beyond Utah Valley, the expedition turned south. Within a few days travel, near present-day Milford, snow and cold weather settled on the expedition. Discouraged and tired they decided to return to Santa Fe. The expedition was not successful in finding a new route to California, but they did provide us with the first documentation of Europeans visiting Utah and the Uinta Basin. They left us a valuable record of the geography and Indians, along with the first map of the region. (See Miera's Map)

Early Ute History

After the prehistoric Canalla Phase, the next phase of Ute History was the Antero Phase (A.D. 1640-1861). This phase started with the Utes' acquisition of the horse and ended with the Federal Government setting aside part of the Uinta Basin as a reservation for Ute People. In this stage the beginnings of recorded Ute history are found. By the start of this era the former Numic speaking peoples are clearly divided into the Shoshone, Paiute, and Gosute, and the Ute People are sub-divided into several different bands. During the Antero Phase interactions between Utes and Euroamericans eventually resulted in the Utes, both of the Wasatch Front and from the western slope of Colorado, being forcibly removed to a reservation created in the Uinta Basin.

As far back as historical and archeological evidence can determine the Ute People dwelt in small bands that consisted primarily of family groups. These early ancestors of modern-day Utes, at least two centuries before acquiring the horse that radically changed their lifestyle, lived in a hunting-gathering manner. Armed with bows and arrows, they were usually more successful hunters than the archaic Great Basin inhabitants that hunted with atlatls and hand-thrown spears. With the passing of generations they came to inhabit and claim regions of land which eventually led to tribal distinctions. Where each tribe or band settled for territorial holdings eventually resulted in the diversion of cultural and economic adaptations.

Ute Bands

Each Ute band occupied a specific area that the other bands generally recognized. The territory the band lived on determined its specific livelihood, for example: the bands by Utah Lake, historically referred to as the Laguna Utes, relied heavily upon fish, trout and suckers, which they caught in large numbers during the annual spawning runs; the Utes of western Colorado depended on hunting deer and elk for their living; and the Utes who lived along the banks of the Yampa River in northeastern Colorado were called the Sheep eaters, because of their focus on hunting mountain sheep which flourished in the canyons along the rivers of that region. Despite the miles that usually separated the various Ute bands, they maintained as least limited interrelationships and would visit back and forth. This was evidenced by Dominguez and Escalante's Ute guides, Silvestre and Joaquin, who lived in Utah Valley but were visiting their cousins in western Colorado when they joined the expedition in 1776. Generally the visiting would take place in the spring and summer when plentiful food and the warm weather made travel easy. When assembled in large groups, they would often make rabbit or antelope drives for the benefit of all. Some of the bands also came together, from as far away as travel would permit, in the spring for the annual Bear Dance, a celebration of renewal and the promise of summer and times of plenty.

The Utes and the Horse

The Utes' acquisition of the horse was perhaps the single most significant factor that changed their lifestyle in the Antero Phase prior to the coming of non-Indians to settle in their lands. Most historians agree that the Pueblo Revolt of 1680, when the Pueblo Indians of the Rio Grande Valley killed 401 Spaniards and drove the remaining 1,500 from New Mexico, was the first time North American Indians obtained horses in any significant numbers. From Pueblo lands after A.D. 1680 the horse spread rapidly to surrounding tribes and the Plains Culture was born. This culture, based upon horses and buffalo, was the dominant culture of Western Indians at the time of the western expansion of the Euro-Americans in the nineteenth century.

Utes, The First Native Americans To Possess Horses

Of all the tribes in North America, the Utes claim to be the first to get horses. Utes maintain that their ancestors in Colorado stole horses from the Spanish in New Mexico as early as the 1640s. Though plausible, the horses obtained by these early Utes were few and it was not until the next century that Ute lifestyle was radically altered due to obtaining horses and adapting an equestrian culture.

Upon obtaining horses the Utes of Colorado and, one to two generations later, the Utes of Utah and San Pete Valleys quickly adapted a lifestyle similar to the lifestyle and economic structure of the tribes of the Great Plains. Mounted on horses and armed with guns or steel tipped arrows and lances, they could travel much further to hunt, and had greater success in killing large animals. They often traveled to the plains country of Wyoming or eastern Colorado to hunt buffalo. Cultural adaptions that changed after acquisition of horses included: use of the tipi or lodge, trade goods, feather headdresses and other clothing changes, and adaption of the Sundance in their religion. Some of these changes took generations to fully be evident. Before the horse Utes lived in brush shelters called wickiups. When their economy altered to include frequent buffalo hunting they adopted lodges or tipis similar to those used by other Plains Indians, although many Utes as late as the early twentieth century continued building brush shelters for summer use. Formerly their clothing was commonly made from some buckskin, rabbit-skin robes and occasionally woven cedar bark. After acquiring horses they dressed in buckskin shirts and leggings when it was cold, breechcloths for the men in warm seasons. Within a short time of interaction with the Spanish and later the fur traders, Utes wore and adorned themselves with items not of their culture. As their hunting and range increased they could stay together in larger groups and tribal organization strengthened and religious practices soon included the Sundance.

Ute Sundance

Ute adaption of the Sundance was usually not as brutal with self torture compared to other Plains tribes. The most common adaptions of the Sundance included skewering the flesh of the chest and/or back by pushing sharpened sticks or rib-bone through the skin. With rawhide ropes tied to the ends of the sticks, the participant would either be suspended or pull back against the tethered rope attached to a tall upright pole. They then danced, while staring at the sun, until the tortured skin would eventually rip out. With the combination of fasting, dancing, and pain, in delirium the dancer would have visions showing him his life's path. The Utes rarely skewered the flesh, but would fast, dance and chant, sometimes for several days, to obtain the desired result.

Ute Bands and Tribal Development

The political development of the Utes always centered on the family. Each band would have an elder or chief who could speak for himself and because of his wisdom and proven leadership, could usually sway the other band members toward his opinion. Men and women who gained reputations for wisdom, spiritual power, healing ability, or success in hunting or war were respected and consulted. There was, however, no mandate to follow the counsel once given and the leaders had no authority to enforce any decisions. As the Utes' lifestyle changed with the acquisition of the horse, some Ute leaders would have greater followings, but only because more people chose to follow them. At the time of the coming of the Mormons the Utes of Utah and San Pete valleys were led by Wakara (Walker), Sanpitch, Arapeen, Ammon, Tabby-to-kwanah (Tabby), Grospeen, Antenguer (Black Hawk), Kanosh and Antero. These were all referred to by the Utes as brothers, but some were brothers, others half brothers and cousins. Under this family's leadership the Uintah Utes adopted the equestrian lifestyle. Wakara's horse pasture alone ranged from the Sevier River to the Green River in the Uinta Basin. In one of the most successful horse raids in western history, Wakara and a mountain man, Peg Leg Smith, stole over one-thousand horses from California ranchers at San Luis Obisbo and drove them swiftly across the desert to escape all pursuit.

Just prior to the arrival of the Mormons and miners to Ute lands (1847 and 1858) the Utes were at the pinnacle of their strength and power. They had become noted throughout the mountains for their horses and riding ability. George Brewerton, a guide who worked with Kit Carson, said of the Utes in 1848: "The Eutawa are perhaps the most powerful and warlike tribe now remaining of this continent."(sic) By that time they had carved out and maintained their territorial integrity from encroachment from the Navajos, Comanches, Cheyenne, Shoshone and Bannock tribes, with additional occasional encounters with such tribes as the Sioux and even the Blackfeet. Two centuries of interaction with the Spanish, sometimes as the enforcement arm of Spanish domination against other tribes, coupled with their own frequent warfare with neighboring tribes, brought them to this lofty contemporary praise.

At the coming of the whites to Utah there were five western Ute bands in the region: Uintah Timpanogots, who claimed the lands around Utah Lake; Uintah-Ats of the Uinta Basin; Pahvants occupied the Sevier Valley; the Sanpits Band made San Pete Valley their home; and the Moanunts were found on the western Colorado River Plateau. At times each of these bands were subdivided into smaller units with specific names, usually in reference to their band leader. Originally each of the various bands had a different leader, but the Whites generalized them into Utes and when the need arose to differentiate them from the Utes of Colorado, gave them the band name of Uintah Utes. The broad region of the eastern portion of the Great Basin and western Colorado Province Plateau provided the western Ute Bands with a homeland filled with vital foodstuff including deer, elk, pronghorn antelope, buffalo, and smaller game; Utah Lake trout, yarrow; berries in profusion including choke cherry, gooseberry, bull-berry, wild raspberry and service berry; along with varied roots and tubers, herbs and plants of dietary and medicinal use filled the Utes' needs.

Settlers Come to Ute Lands

Prior to 1847, most Euro-Americans who came to Utah came to trap beaver and trade with the Utes. Few, if any, intended on staying in the Great Basin and the West. With the entry of first the Mormons and nearly a decade later the miners of Colorado to lands claimed by the Utes, the native people did not understand that what started as a pitiful few grew to become a flood covering their lands. This flood of settlement eventually resulted in the Utes dispossessed of the land they had lived upon for generations.

The Mormons

When the Mormons first settled the Valley of the Great Salt Lake in 1847 most Utes felt little or no concern. That valley was the unofficial border between their lands and their enemy's, the Shoshone, who lived to the north. Both groups of people occasionally hunted there but neither permanently occupied it. The Mormons did, however, unknowingly bring death to the Utes. Within months of their arrival measles spread through the Indian villages and several died.

Within a short time Brigham Young sent settlers south to San Pete, Utah and Sevier valleys to establish permanent settlements. Young promised the Utes that the Mormons would not drive them from their lands nor interfere with Utes' lifestyle. But within a few short months the Utah Valley settlers had built a fort located on traditional Ute camp grounds. They grazed their cattle where the Utes had grazed their horses. In the fall Mormon fishermen took large numbers of fish out of the Provo and Spanish Fork rivers as the fish swam upstream to spawn. Fish was a dietary mainstay of the Timpanogots Utes of Utah Valley. The Utes felt threatened. The Mormons, though, failed to recognize that their occupation of Utah Valley and other eastern valleys of the Great Basin disrupted the fragile ecology and traditional subsistence patterns of the Ute people. The two cultures did not understand each other. From a settlers point of view the Utes camped for a short time in one place, did not plant or farm the land, hunted or fished and moved on. Little did they understand that the Utes followed the same cycles: camped in the same places, and hunted and fished the same valleys and streams in season year after year. Their use of the land was much different than the Mormons anticipated use of it.

Difficulties Between Utes and the Mormons

By 1850 the Timpanoguts Utes of Utah Valley, in desperate need of food, turned to killing Mormon livestock. This resulted in retaliatory raids by the cattle's owners on Timpanoguts' camps and battles ensued at Rock Canyon and Payson. Several Utes were killed. The hostilities continued for several months until February 1851, when the Utah Territorial Indian Agency was formed and to deal with the Indians.

The clash of economic values between the Utes and Mormons kept tensions high. In 1852 the Utah Territorial Legislature passed a law banning all slave trade within the territory, effectively putting an end to lucrative trade between the Utes and New Mexicans. This angered and frustrated the Utes, especially Chief Walker. Of all the tribes of North America, perhaps none were more deeply involved in the capture and sale of other Indians for slavery than the Utes. The Old Spanish Trail, which connected Santa Fe with the California settlements and passed through Utah along the Sevier River, was used primarily as a trail of commerce, in particular horses and captive Indians. Running through parts of Ute lands, many Utes captured other Indians and traded them to the Mexicans using the trail. Walker was one of the main participants in the Indian slave trade and resented the Mormons stopping the practice.

The Walker War

In the summer of 1853, while Wakara's band was camped on Spring Creek near Springville an ugly incident occurred between Walker and the settlers. An altercation over trading between Mormon settlers James Ivie and some Utes of Walker's Band led to the beginning of the Walker War. Wakara and Arapeen undertook a campaign of raids against Mormon settlements. During the next ten months raids, retaliation, and theft took place between the settlers and the Utes. About twenty Mormons and at least that many Utes were killed. It was, however, a futile attempt by the Utes. The Mormons, at Brigham Young's direction, "forted up" and stopped trading with the Utes, especially trading guns and ammunition to the Utes. A peace agreement was reached between Brigham Young, then acting Indian Superintendent of the territory, and Wakara in May 1854 at Chicken Creek (Nephi). Wakara died just a few months later in January 1855, leaving the leadership of the Utes to his brothers, particularly Arapeen.

Setting Aside a Reservation

Over the next few years, with ever more settlers coming to the Utes homelands as increasing numbers of Mormons moved to Utah, they settled on the fertile, tillable land. This, however, was also the land the Utes claimed. For all its vast acreage Utah has only a few valleys that are highly desirable for farming and these are surrounded by miles of sage, cedar, and mountains. Like San Pete and Utah Valleys, soon Fillmore, Sevier and the southern portions of Ute claimed lands were settled and again the Native Americans were expected to vacate. Brigham Young, after the ending of the Walker War, established several small Indian farms or reservations at Corn Creek, Spanish Fork, Twelve Mile Creek and elsewhere in the territory. The purposes of these Indian farms were to segregate the Utes from the growing number of Mormon settlements, provide the opportunity to teach the Utes farming, and provide a means to feed the Utes. The Indian farms, poorly outfitted, were a failure. In 1855 federal appointee Garland Hurt replaced Brigham Young as Indian agent and took over management of the Indian farms. Just a few years later newly appointed Indian agent T. W. Hatch reported that the Indian farms were in a "destitute condition, stripped of their stock, tools, and moveable fences, and no one [was] living upon either of them." Most of the Utes refused to settle on the farms, preferring to live according to traditional ways and Mormon settlers encroached on the land which was set aside for these Indian farms as it fell into disuse.

Garland Hurt was forced by federal government penury to abandon the Indian farms. The idea of separating the Utes from the Mormons and removing the Utes to some isolated region of the territory remained with Hurt and other federal territorial officials. The search was undertaken to locate such an area in the territory.

The Uinta Basin as a Reservation

In 1861 Brigham Young sent a small expedition to the Uinta Basin to investigate its suitability for settlement. The earlier Bean expedition's report had postponed Mormon entry into the Basin for nine years. Young wanted a second look at that region. Shortly after the 1861 expedition's return to Salt Lake City the Deseret News printed their report:

The fertile vales, extensive meadows, and wide pasture ranges were not to be found; and the country, according to the statements of those sent thither to select a location for a settlement, is entirely unsuitable for farming purposes, and the amount of land at all suitable for cultivation extremely limited.

After becoming thoroughly satisfied that all the sections of country, lying between the Wasatch Mountains and the eastern boundary of the Territory, and south of Green River Country, was one vast 'contiguity of waste,' and measurable valueless excepting for nomadic purposes, hunting grounds for Indians and to hold the world together . . .

This discouraging report reversed Young's plans for settling the Uinta Basin and postponed Mormon entry into the region for another several years. For territorial Indian officials, the expedition had located a place considered of little value, isolated geographically, and thus rendering it, by government standards, an ideal location for an Indian reservation. In 1861 President Lincoln issued an executive order establishing the Uintah Indian Reservation. This new Indian reservation included all of the territory within the drainage of the Duchesne River, mistakenly named in Lincoln's Executive Order as the "Uintah" River.(sic) This included all the land on the south side of the Uinta Mountains to the Tavaputs Plateau, from Strawberry to the confluence of the Duchesne and Green rivers. In 1864 the United States Congress voted to approve President Lincoln's action and make the Uinta Basin the permanent homeland for the Uintah Utes. There was, however, nothing in Lincoln's order to force the removal of the Utes to the Basin.

An Uneasy Decade 1855-1865

The Utah Utes remained living on their traditional homelands but increasingly were forced to give way to growing numbers of Mormon settlers and watch the depletion of their food sources. An uneasy peace existed in the territory in the 1850s. The presence of Johnson's army due to the Utah War reminded the Utes of their inferior position. The removal of the army in 1861 with the beginning of the Civil War renewed the possibilities of further confrontation between the Utes and the Mormon settlers. Squeezed to live on less desirable lands the Utes threatened the uneasy coexistence with the Mormons as well as vital national transportation routes through the territory. Colonel Patrick Conner and a group of volunteers from California were assigned to Utah to keep peace with the Utes and Shoshone Indians, and to protect the overland routes. The 1863 massacre of several hundred Shoshone by Col. Connor and his men on the Bear River in southern Idaho Territory promoted the Ute leaders to enter a formal treaty of peace and removal to the recently established Uinta Basin was in their best interest.

The Spanish Fork Treaty

In 1865, Oliver H. Irish, recently appointed Indian agent for the Uintah Utes fearing an uprising, called a council of Ute leaders at the mouth of Spanish Fork Canyon. In a report to Washington Irish wrote: "Owing to the Indian difficulties in the adjoining territories which were having a bad influence upon our Indians and that they were very uneasy about the reports ... I thought it dangerous to delay negotiations." In council the Utes were asked to abandon their claims to Utah and San Pete valleys and accept permanent settlement in the Uinta Basin. Several Ute chiefs and leaders advised against the treaty. But Brigham Young, holding no official capacity other than the trust that the Utes had for him, advised them to accept the government's offer. He told them that the Indians should take what the government offered and go to the Uinta Valley, otherwise the government would simply take their land and give them nothing for it. When it was voted upon, the majority of Ute leaders agreed to the terms of the treaty. According to the terms of the treaty the Utes were to receive $25,000 a year for ten years, $20,000 for the next twenty years, and $15,000 for the last thirty years. In addition to the monies they were to be supplied with staple goods, homes, and schools.

After the signing of the Spanish Fork Treaty it was the government's understanding that the Utes would move immediately to the Uinta Basin, however, only a few small bands did so. The federal government was also neglectful in complying with the mutually agreed upon terms of the treaty. Congress with all the problems of the ending of the Civil War and the assassination of President Lincoln, just weeks prior to the Spanish Fork Treaty council, failed to ratify the treaty and the expected monies were not delivered to the Utes. By 1866 the Utes were again starving, without assistance, and understandably felt betrayed.

The Black Hawk War

Reacting to the lack of food and the unratified Spanish Fork Treaty, some Utes resumed making raids on Mormon settlements which had occurred intermittently since 1848. This period of raids is known as The Black Hawk War. Outlying towns, ranches, and farms throughout the territory were attacked by a minority of disgruntled and hungry Utes under the leadership of Autenquer or as the whites called him Black Hawk. With only about one-hundred followers, many of whom were Paiutes and Navajos, Black Hawk's band ran off as many as 5,000 head of cattle and killed approximately 90 settlers and territorial militiamen. So effective were these marauders that several small settlements in Central and Southern Utah were abandoned, including such major settlements as Richfield, Circleville, Kanab, and Panguitch. The Mormons' perception of the raids was that the entire Ute tribe was at war. The San Pitch, Elk Mountain, and Uintah Bands did supply and occasionally reinforce the raiders but most of northern Utes were not actively engaged in hostilities. Territorial officials reacted to the raids by mobilizing 2,500 militiamen to combat the Indians. Most saw little action for the wily Utes were rarely found. Due to pressure by the militia Black Hawk surrendered at the Uintah Agency and sued for peace in 1867. Suffering from a debilitating gunshot wound, he had had enough. Several of his followers continued raiding for two more years until most were killed. Considering this small band's successes, it was fortunate for the Mormon settlers that the majority of Utes did not participate in the war.

Ute Agencies

With the ending of the Black Hawk War the Utes started moving to the Uinta Basin in earnest; some willingly, others less so. During the Black Hawk War some Ute families and bands moved to the Uintah Reservation. In 1866 Indian Superintendent F. H. Head, who had replaced Irish, complained bitterly that he had no money and that the Utes were desperately in need of flour and beef, as well as farm implements and provisions. That winter, under Brigham Young's direction, Mormons sent several wagon-loads of food and supplies to feed the starving Utes. In the summer of 1867 a large group of Utes led by Tabby-ToKwana (Tabby) moved to the Uintah Reservation and settled in the Strawberry Valley.

The first agency on the reservation was built by soldiers of the California Volunteers in 1865 at the head of Daniels Canyon. This was to be the Uinta Valley Agency. In the summer of 1865 Irish traveled to the Uinta Basin to review the progress being made. Before work was hardly underway Indian Agent L. B. Kenney was fired for "gross neglect." Due to the heavy winter snows which isolated the Daniel's Canyon site, Special Agent Thomas Carter, newly appointed agent assigned to the Utes, relocated the agency to the upper Duchesne River near present-day Hanna in 1866. Here twenty-five acres of land were cleared and six cabins built to house the agency workers. The next year the agency was moved again, this time to the junction of the Rock Creek and the Duchesne River north of the present-day Starvation Reservoir. In 1868, at the urging of Antero, Indian Agent Pardon Dodds moved the agency a final time to Whiterocks. This location had considerable historical and geographic significance to the Utes. Nearby had stood Antoine Robidoux's Fort Uintah, and most of the major trails and travelways of the early Utes converged here. Whiterocks served as the agency headquarters until Fort Duchesne was built in 1886.

Mismanagement of the Indian agency continued. In 1871 Agent J. J. Critchlow complained in his first annual report that too little had been done for the Utes by his predecessors in procuring the Utes sufficient foodstuffs and clothing. As was the case with other Native Americans the last quarter of the nineteenth-century saw reservation life for the Utes as a period of readjustment of culture, restriction of travel and personal freedoms, and loss of social and personal esteem. Placed in a situation where the Ute People became dependant on the federal government for most of their needs it is little wonder that the Ute population, like other tribes, declined under reservation life. The government's reservation policy forced Indians onto reservation lands which stripped them of the ability to maintain control of their traditional lands. The result was Euro-American occupation of their lands. The reservation policy more than justified, in terms of real dollar value, the cost of feeding and clothing rather than campaigning against warring nations of Indians. All reservation Indians became "wards of the government." The government treated Indians as children unable to care for themselves; the Utes were no exception to this way of thinking.

Removal of the Utes from Colorado

In 1881 the Uintah Utes were forced to share their lands with their Colorado cousins. The Uncompahgre and White River Utes were removed from the western slope of the Rocky Mountains to eastern Utah, after being forced to relocate several times prior to 1881. The shrinking of Colorado Ute land began when gold was discovered on the flood plain of the Rocky Mountains at Cherry Creek, (Denver) Colorado, in 1858. Within the next several months new and additional discoveries were made at Central City and Oro City, later renamed Leadville. New towns sprouted up and thousands of miners sped to the new mine fields. During the next several decades the Colorado Utes land claims, which had initially been from the foothills of the Rocky Mountains on the east to the Colorado Plateau, were pushed westward by four different treaties. The last of these took the southwest corner of Colorado from the Utes when new silver and gold discoveries were found in the San Juan Mountains. Not only did the Utes lose land, they also declined in numbers with the interaction of the miners. Many died from diseases and privation with game growing ever more scarce as the mountains were over-run by miners.

As Colorado became more settled and mine camps developed into towns and cities the problems between Utes and miners and ranchers became more and more pronounced but rarely developed into battles. Although their land had been vastly reduced, their claims still encompassed beautiful lands ripe for grazing cattle and millions of acres of forest land ready for timbering. The Coloradans were determined not to let Indian land claims stand in the way of "progress." By the late 1870s most of the Utes of Colorado were living on either the White River or Los Pinos (Uncompahgre) reservations. As much as possible the Colorado Utes were trying to maintain their traditional lifestyle while adjusting to new ways. Many of the Uncompahgre band had started raising sheep and cattle with some success.

The Meeker Massacre

The main player in the final act of the drama in the removal of the Utes from Colorado was Nathan C. Meeker. A former poet, novelist, newspaperman, and organizer of utopian agrarian cooperative colonies, all of which he had been a virtual failure, Meeker sought through political connections the position of Indian agent for the White River Ute Agency. Meeker arrived in the spring of 1878 to assume his duties at the Whiteriver agency. With missionary-type zeal Meeker set about to transform the Utes into a higher image, which he saw as being like his own. Meeker was confident that he could bring them out of a barbaric and savage stage to one of enlightenment in "five, ten, or twenty years."

Shortly after his arrival Meeker moved the agency fifteen miles downriver to beautiful meadows where he wanted to teach the Whiterivers the use of the plow and start the Utes toward becoming farmers. These meadows were a favored pasture for their many ponies. The Utes refused to plow the ground. When Meeker hired non-Indian plowmen, the determined Utes shot over their heads in warning. Plowing stopped. In a confrontation with Ute leader Johnson (Canalla by his Ute name), Meeker became enraged and told Johnson, owner of hundreds of horses, that he and the Utes had too many horses and ought to kill some of them. Astonished beyond words, Johnson reacted angrily and shoved Meeker against a porch rail and then left.

Meeker was determined to have his way and to punish Johnson and the resisting Utes. In his fury he telegraphed Governor Frederick Pitkin asking for military protection, claiming that he had been assaulted by a leading chief, forced out of his house, and injured badly. Pitkin welcomed Meeker's request. For some time he and newspaperman William B. Vickers had used their combined skills: political persuasion and power of the press, to launch a campaign to remove the unwanted Utes from Colorado. The Denver Tribune in a short editorial outburst reflected the sentiments of Pitkin. It wrote "The Utes Must Go." Meeker's request was the excuse they needed to bring to culmination their goals of evicting the Utes from the state. Meeker received word that cavalry units were ordered to the reservation to maintain peace.

When the Utes learned that an army was coming, they prepared for battle. Thinking themselves at war, they attacked the agency, killed Meeker and all the white men and took three women hostages, including Meeker's wife. In a standoff at Milk Creek the Utes stopped the army's advance for several days. Meanwhile, the Uncompahgre Utes under the leadership of Ouray rode out to get their northern cousins to quit fighting. Hoping reason would halt hostilities they were also prepared to fight on the side of the whites if necessary. Ouray and others knew, having been to Washington, D.C. several times, the futility of fighting the army and if fighting continued the results would be their removal from Colorado. Ouray's message to the Whiterivers was for them to cease fighting. Ouray's intercession and the arrival of reinforcements to the beleaguered cavalry units ended the fighting. The three captive women were released.

The Uintah Utes stayed out of the action in Colorado. Fearing retaliatory raids from the army, they made plans to seek refuge in the Uinta Mountains and urged Agent Critchlow and his family and employees to join them.

Using the Meeker "Massacre" as justification for removal, the campaign of white Coloradans to take over Ute lands occurred during the next three years. Indian agents and state officials, overlooking Ouray's and the Uncompahgres' willingness to fight their own tribal members to avoid war with the whites, ordered both bands, the Whiterivers and the Uncompahgres, removed from Colorado. Beginning in August 1881 the Uinta Basin was to be their new home. Here the Whiteriver band joined the Uintah Band at the Whiterocks agency, and the Uncompahgre band was removed to the new agency at Ouray, named for Chief Ouray. The two Indian agencies remained separated until 1887 when Fort Duchesne was built and the agencies were combined. With the arrival of the Whiteriver band, the Uintah Utes felt they were unfairly having to share their reservation lands. Protesting the overcrowded condition on their agency, over one-hundred Uintah Utes moved to the west end of their reservation at Hanna and Strawberry. Their protest was short lived remaining at the west end for several months before returning to the agency at Whiterocks.

Fort Duchesne

Within five years following the arrival of the Colorado Utes to the Uinta Basin it was decided that the agencies should be combined and the military should be posted on the reservation. On 23 August 1886, Fort Duchesne was established to serve as protectorate of the Utes and to keep peace. Initially the Utes opposed the fort and even planned an attack on the army at Deep Creek as they were coming to establish the fort. After negotiations the Utes soon came to accept the fort and the soldiers who manned it. The fort's roster included two companies of Black cavalrymen, referred to by the Indians as "Buffalo Soldiers." First commander of the newly established fort was Major Frederick Benteen, survivor of the Reno Benteen fortification of the bungled attack on Sioux villages in the valley of the Little Big Horn in July 1876. Stationed at Fort Duchesne were approximately two-hundred fifty men. Although the fort was in Uintah County its existence greatly affected the development of what became Duchesne County. Most significantly was the development of the road to Price through Nine Mile Canyon to supply the fort, and the building of a telegraph to link Fort Duchesne with military command.

Ute Reservation Life

Life on the reservation was hard for the Utes to understand and accept. Within one generation's life-span they had gone from the mountain man days, where these few white intruders posed very little real threat and the Utes lived a life of sovereignty and autonomy, to a lifestyle not of their own choosing where they were restricted on every side. Many tried to live according to the traditions of their fathers but that was now nearly impossible in the arid lands of the Uinta Basin. Many Utes sank into depression and despair. In 1890 a new religion swept through western tribes called the Ghost Dance Religion. Started by a Nevada Paiute, Wovoka (Jack Wilson), who had been raised by Mormon settlers, the religion called for its participants to perform a certain dance called the Ghost Dance. They believed that an Indian Messiah would come and cleanse the land of the whites and nonbelieving Indians, restore the buffalo and game, and resurrect and bring with him the dead Indians of earlier generations. Grass would again grow on the prairies and all would live in the free happy life of days gone by.

With initial enthusiasm for the new religion and the hope it brought to the depressed people it soon waned and died. The Utes had little participation in the Ghost Dance Religion after the first few months, and by the time of the tragedy with the Sioux at Wounded Knee in late 1890 few Utes were still believers. The next new religion to sweep through western tribes was the Peyote Religion. Like the Ghost Dance and the Sun Dance it was an expression of spiritual power to compensate the participant for the loss of political and economic control fostered by the reservation system. This religion emphasized Indian traditions. Within one generation perhaps fifty-percent of the tribe was involved. Presently this religion is called the Native American Church.

In the effort to clean up the scandals and abuses that had occurred on Indian reservations during the Grant administration, there was a move to appoint agents who were affiliated with or a minister of a Protestant church. With the organization of the Uintah Reservation the Episcopalian Church was assigned to look out for the spiritual needs of the Ute People. Although there had been Episcopalian ministers on the reservation prior to 1915, this was the completion date of the first chapel in Randlett. At present there is, in addition to the Episcopalian Churches with a congregations in Randlett and Neola, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with wards in Randlett, Myton, Whiterocks and all the other towns in Duchesne County, and a Baptist Church on Indian Bench.

In the years between removal to the reservation and the opening of the reservation to white homesteading the Utes were bewildered and confused about what would become of them. As early as 1878 the Utes feared a loss of their land. Agent Critchlow's report and the Utes concerns were prophetic:

...they [the Utes] are concerned that this reservation will be thrown open to white settlers, they be removed to some other place, and thus lose all their labor...My own opinion is that any such change would work great injury and injustice to these Indians, yet I know that many in this territory (Utah) would do anything to bring it about.

The Utes' fears were soon realized. Their lands were opened to homesteading and injustice was done to them by the same government that had made them wards and promised their protection.

Whose Land?

By John D. Barton

This was a draft of a chapter for A History of Duchesne County. Even though Duchesne County is not the largest or probably not the most significant county in Utah the issues discussed in this chapter bring to light the problems with modern growth and old time values over land and resources, and urban verses rural views, and how the history of the past causes problems that must be dealt with in modern society such as the land jurisdiction issue. Although these issues are discussed in this chapter about Duchesne County they are the types of issues that are common throughout the state and region that citizens and lawmakers must understand and deal with.

With the complexities of an ever changing society, yesterday's maligned and mistreated are sometimes the winners in today's court battles. Sometimes not. The Ute Tribal members, having been the losers in nineteenth and early twentieth century land disputes, found themselves the victors for a short time in federal court. Those who came and homesteaded at the government's invitation in 1905 had little idea the problems later generations would face over jurisdictional issues. However jurisdictional issues are far from the only ownership and land use concern facing county residents. As the nation's policies have evolved since the Depression, the same agencies that were started with a policy of use, now create polices that seem to many county residents limiting to insure that federal land is used only in specifically mandated and increasingly restrictive ways. As populations increase throughout the region and state so does tension over land use. The differing land users feel that their own opinions and views are correct and others are wrong, archaic, or misinformed.

Battle lines are drawn for the new range wars, and ownership and control over the land and other resources is being challenged on several fronts. Replacing the shootouts of the past century's range wars, the varying parties hire lawyers and fight their battles in courts of law. Many also lobby politicians hoping to sway lawmakers to their point of view. And the trend of the last decade is to form environmental legislation in courtrooms rather than in the capital buildings through the use of court injunctions. There are extreme environmentalists trying to stop ranchers from using public land for grazing, state verses federal control of lands, county verses state and federal controls, wilderness acts, antiquities acts, wetlands acts; people are moving into, or purchasing land in Duchesne County in the belief that society will break down in the next few years and they want to be able to get out of the cities where they can live undisturbed in a survivalist manner. Many want to see the archaeologic wonders of Nine Mile Canyon preserved and protected from vandals but these centuries old remnants of past cultures are, for the most part, on private land. Should a government agency step in and oversee Nine Mile? And what about the lands presently owned by the Ute Tribe? Who controls those lands, the tribe? the BIA? What role does the terminated Utes play in Ute lands and resources? And most significantly of all is the question of who owns and/or controls the land that was once set aside as a reservation for the Ute Indians by President Abraham Lincoln that was later opened for homesteading.

Federal, State, and County Lands

Most county residents have strong feelings about land use issues. With a population of less than 13,000 individuals in the county, and 72 percent of the county owned by the federal government, county residents often feel they have little voice in the direction and management of much of their county. State Legislator Beverly Evans explains: "Most local people are distraught. They have concerns over land use and feel that they haven't had access or input on multiple use issues. The bureaucracy allows little input when federal planners over-ride local concerns."

At present 77 percent of Utah's population is urban. There has been a huge shift from the agricultural foundation of our parents and grandparents to present times. In the last two generations most Utahns moved from the farms to urban centers, the same as the rest of the nation has done. As this has occurred, the traditional Western values and uses of land have come into question by even the Utahn city-dweller who feel that they understand rural land use issues because their grandparents lived in the country.

Nationwide the trend is to preserve public lands for hiking, sight-seeing, camping, catch-and-release fly-fishing, and other non-consumptive uses of those public lands. This greatly effects hunting, grazing, timber, oil exploration an production, and mining in Duchesne County. To an ever greater degree the nation-wide trend is against these old west uses of public land. And much of the problem is not just with Utahns who have become urbanized. With federally owned lands most people throughout the nation feel they should have as much say in what occurs in western lands as the people who live there. And as the population of the state increases, coupled with increasing numbers of tourists who come to the state and county, the use of and debates about land increases significantly. For example in the primitive area of the Uinta Mountains hikers with backpacks are as commonly seen as horsemen with pack animals. In the slickrock country mountain bikers probably outnumber horsemen. The central issue is, "Who will determine how public land in the West and in Duchesne County will be used? Those who have made a living from it for several generations or those who want it preserved to be used only in non-consumptive ways?

No Net Gain of Federal Lands

Duchesne County officials are concerned with these questions and want to have voice in land use issues within the county. After almost two years of meetings and discussions by county officials, involved citizens, and state and federal agency representation, the Duchesne County General Plan has been prepared. In this plan the county's objectives on policy and economic growth are clearly outlined. Of top concern is public land management, recreation, and tourism. On the issue of public lands and the federal and state agencies the county objectives include: Active county participation in the federal and state planning process, county support for maintaining multiple-use public land management practices, participation by county leaders in public land classification and use designations, and finally, strong county support for "no net increase" of public land within the county. These objectives clearly demonstrate county officials and residents desire to have a strong voice in the policies and management of the land within the county and to stop, or at least slow down, the bureaucratic control of county land and resources.

If "No Moo in '92" Fails Then It Will Be 'Cattle Free in '93"

One of the focal points of use and control of federal lands that impacts Duchesne County is grazing. Not only Duchesne County cattlemen voice concerns over this issue but most county residents, with their roots closely tied to the land, believe multiple use concepts include grazing in a well organized plan. Since the 19th century cattle and sheep men have grazed their herds on public lands. In the cowboy days a century ago most of the large ranchers owned only a small portion of the land they controlled. From this era developed the public grazing permits that are common today. The movement of the past few years to rid federal lands of cattle grazing is almost beyond comprehension to most county cattle growers. Although both "No Moo in 92" and "Cattle Free in 93" have failed, the thought behind such political efforts by environmentalists are germane to land control issues. The argument posed by those wanting to rid federal land of stock varies by degrees. Some desire to restore a more pristine land to provide more homeland for natural species. Others move a step further in their arguments claiming that cattle are hard on delicate ranges and destroy many species of flora which negatively impacts natural fauna species. Some think that the cattle destroy the riparian lands, or delicate lands along stream banks and lakes; and others go so far as to believe that the flatulence and belching of cattle are destroying the ozone layer of the earth's atmosphere. Little wonder that cattlemen have a hard time accepting the challenges to their way of life and livelihood.

The Peatross Ranch in Strawberry and Avintaquin is a prime example of modern cattlemen caught in the conflict. When William Peatross started expanding from Strawberry up Avintaquin Creek in 1942, he bought out seven of nine original homesteads. The homesteaders had overgrazed the land so badly that the lower Avintaquin would only support 30 cow/calf units in the summer months. At present William's son Kent Peatross runs about 250 cow/calf units on those former homesteads, cuts over 100 ton of hay each summer, supports 600 to 800 deer for six weeks every spring that graze on sprouting alfalfa, and over 100 elk that pasture there in the fall. In the 1940s and 1950s there were very few deer and almost no elk along Avintaquin Creek, there was too little feed to support them. For over fifty years the Peatross family has worked on the riparian lands along Avintaquin Creek and Strawberry River at their own time and expense knowing it was vital to developing and improving their grazing. Yet they have had their fences cut and stock watering troughs destroyed by those who think cattle on public lands are damaging the forest. Kent Peatross says: "There is so much federal land around us we are dependant upon the multiple use of it. The environmentalists are out of touch with how we use it. We are healing the land from the abuses of the past."

At present there are 60 grazing permits, varying in number of cow/calf units from 15 to 50, given to stockmen in Duchesne County on forest lands. The cost of the permits are two dollars per cow/calf unit per month. To many this seems far below market value -- and it may be. However, Duchesne County cattlemen do not only graze cattle on public lands they also develop grazing lands and springs for watering their cattle which has assisted the habitat allowing expansion of large game such as elk. Prominent cattle rancher and high school science teacher Brent Brotherson explains:

Most of the decisions are made on emotion by those who want to lock-up land for their own use. If they relied on science it allows room for grazing, timber, mining, as well as recreation in the multiple use concept. Lots of grazing lands are in better shape today than 100 years ago. We've had land in the area for three generations now and the range is better now than when my grandparents homesteaded. Wildlife has also benefitted. There are far more deer and elk now because of improved range.

Restricted Use and Regulations

In the last few years the number of laws and restrictions that apply to land use and ownership have greatly increased. Many feel these restrictions are barely sufficient to protect archeological sites as well as flora and fauna species from further destruction. Others see the many laws as simply an effort to restrict freedom and use of the land and its resources.

The Wilderness Act prohibits any motorized vehicle from entering lands designated as Wilderness. The high Uintas were designated as Wilderness Area in 1982, an upgrade from the primitive designation that it had formerly carried. This is, of course, not popular with mining and timber users of the national forest and they too feel restricted by federal laws and mandates. And the restrictive use laws do not apply to only federal lands. As was outlined previously, the Wetlands Act encroaches upon and dictates land use to land owners. The Endangered Species Act is yet another move by the government to protect animals and plants from extinction -- certainly an applaudable motive. Any new construction sites must give one-half mile clearance to a raptor nest. In the oil field south of Myton, drilling was shut down because the Mountain Plovers' (a bird that looks something like a snipe) potential migratory routes may have been disturbed by the drilling rig. Before any site can receive approval for construction, an environmental impact study must be conducted to ensure that it will not harm any endangered species. Some extreme environmentalists think that the dams on Uinta Basin rivers should be removed to restore original river flows for endangered fish species.

Hunting rights (or are they privileges?) are also being challenged by animal rights groups throughout the nation. As one of the best hunting regions of the state, these concerns over land use also impact the county. Presently the hunting portion of the population is a very small percentage nationwide. Again, if the lands are controlled by the voice of the majority, whose concerns and rights should control federal land? the majority of those who live in the region or the majority of the nation as a whole? Another concern of the hunting population of the county is the rapid rise of Wasatch Front hunters coming to the area to hunt. In the last few years the Division of Wildlife Resources has drastically cut down the number of regions for open bull elk hunts. The Uinta Mountains is the best and largest open bull hunt left in the state. This has attracted thousands more hunters which has angered and frustrated many county residents for they have felt that their interests and concerns have not been taken into account.

There are even acts that are federally mandated but not funded by the federal government. This forces the state and county governments to pay for the bills they may not even want. The Clean Air Act and Pure Water Act are but two examples of this. Again the ideas behind both bills are applaudable but they often have negative ramifications on local economies. Environmental Protection Agency regulations, in regard to the Clean Air Act, have succeeded in closing down the Pennziol Refinery in Roosevelt, which was the largest non-government employer in the county. Corporation owners simply could not afford to meet new regulations and keep the refinery profitable. The county lost over 150 of its best paying jobs, yet no one can argue with the desirable concept of clean air. What is the correct and right balance between families' livelihoods and environmental issues?

These many laws and regulations generate great concern by all interested parties. Little wonder that the state and national congresses despair over what to do with these issues. Any legislative attempt to impose new and stricter regulations angers constituents with opposing points of view. To uphold and protect the status quo alienates and angers large numbers of voters who are demanding change. Ignoring the issues and passing no new legislation angers all sides. From a political point of view it is a no-win situation. The radical from both sides of the issues, environmentalists on the one side and ultra-conservatives on the other, both feel that their concerns are correct and legislation should be implemented to protect their individual point of view.

Nine Mile Coalition

In Nine Mile Canyon are found some of the best archeological evidences of the Fremont Culture. The many rock drawings fire the imagination and cause all who see them to wonder more about the people who lived there centuries ago. It has been termed internationally as the longest art gallery in the world. Found within the canyon, in addition to drawings and rock art, are many dwellings, granaries, lookouts, and caves that were used by the Fremonts. Also found within the canyon are many historic sites: the Nutter Ranch, homesteaders' cabins, stage route, telegraph poles and relay station, freighters names on rock walls written in grease from the hubs of their wagons a century ago, and the road the army built to accommodate travel. All these archeological and historic sites are under threat of destruction because Nine Mile Canyon, unlike Mesa Verde, is not protected by any agency of local, state, or federal government. All the marvels of past peoples are on private land. Sadly many of the rock-art murals on smooth rock walls have been used as targets for gun shooters. The number of pottery, tools, arrowheads, and other such items that have already been plundered and carried off is incalculable.

As ever greater numbers of people become aware of Nine Mile Canyon, due largely to the promotion of regional travel councils, the canyon is receiving more visitors each year. At present there are no public facilities of any kind in the canyon. It is still isolated, hard to access due to poor roads that are unpaved, lacks law enforcement, and historic and cultural interpretations are up to the expertise of the visitor. All in all many feel that the canyon should be preserved and developed in a manner that would protect and assist those who want to visit it.

In 1991 discussion was initiated by the Duchesne County Historic Preservation Committee on the future and possible preservation of Nine Mile Canyon. H. Bert Jenson was appointed chairman of the Nine Mile Canyon Committee. The central topic was what could be done for the canyon. In January 1993, the Nine Mile Canyon Coalition was formed with the support of the Moab and Vernal Districts of the BLM, Duchesne County, Carbon County, Utah State University, College of Eastern Utah, the Ute Tribe, historic organizations, tourism councils, chambers of commerce, and private citizens. It was proposed that research into a land trade being offered the private land owners in the canyon for land of similar or greater grazing and ranching value in Argyle Canyon, and the archeological region of the canyon come under the control and protection of the BLM. The present by-word of state and county governments in their interactions with federal agencies that own or control land is no net loss of additional lands. In the proposed plan for the BLM to trade equal number of acres to private citizens for the canyon, this goal will be met. If the Nine Mile Coalition is successful the canyon's scenic and historic past will be better preserved and hopefully businesses will come in to offer concessions and services for the many interested visitors to the canyon. If not, at the present rate of destruction, much will be lost forever, and landowners, angered by abuse and trespass of their property, will make access ever more difficult.

A Nation Divided – Termination

Land questions in Duchesne County are not only restricted to county residents and officials concerns over federal policies and preservation of Nine Mile Canyon. The federal government's policies concerning the Ute Tribe and part-blood Ute people have raised many questions over ownership of land and resources within the region as well. When President Lincoln set aside the Uintah Reservation in 1861, there were originally 2,284,474 acres determined to be the adjacent lands of the Duchesne River drainage. On January 5, 1882, President Chester Arthur signed the bill that created the Uncompahgre Reservation. When the Allotment Act broke up the reservation lands, the federal government under the BIA took 630,000 acres of northern lands (lands at the foothills of the Uinta Mountains) and 430,000 acres of the Hill Creek extension, a total of 1,060,000 acres to be held in trust for the Ute Tribe. Access and control of these lands that spread across both Duchesne and Uintah counties is managed by the tribe.

The Ute Tribe formally organized in 1937, under the Wheeler-Howard (Indian reorganization Act) which stopped the allotment process and provided for Indians to reconstitute themselves into traditional tribes governed by constitutions. Membership eligibility for the Northern Ute Tribe consisted of being born in the tribe and residing on the reservation. By October of that year it was determined that one must be 1/8 Indian to qualify for membership. On 27 May 1953, Resolution Number 600 was passed by the tribe that stipulated that enrollees must be one-half Indian to be a member of the Ute Tribe.

This was the era that the governmental Indian policy included a provision called Termination. Congress, in 1953, attempted to end or terminate federal assistance and involvement with the Indian tribes with the passage of House Concurrent Resolution 108. The plan called for the ending of BIA involvement in the lives and affairs of both tribal members and tribal government. Health, education, and other services once provided by the federal government to Indians were now the responsibility of county and state governments for Indian tribes that accepted termination. This plan was aimed at mainstreaming Indians into the larger society. Although much less harsh than the Allotment Act of 1887, the same problems with integration of Indians brought this policy about. Tribal resources could be divided and distributed to members, or the tribe could form a corporation and divide assets with stock certificates issued to the tribal members. When the Utes met, 1,408 members voted to terminate from tribal rolls all members with one-half or less Ute Blood.

Public Law 671

On 27 August 1954, federal Public Law 671 was adopted that provided for individuals with mixed blood be terminated from tribal rolls. There were 490 mixed blood Utes, and a surprising fifteen full-blood Utes who accepted this termination. This left on tribal rolls 1,514 members after termination. The Ute Tribe then adopted the present 5/8 plus a drop and living on the reservation quota to determine eligibility for tribal membership. This 5/8 and a drop policy remained from 1958 until 1984 when Haskel Chapoose, a full-blood Ute who had married a white woman, sued the tribe over discrimination of his half-blood children. He argued that as a member of the tribe his children should be eligible for any benefit that he, or anyone other tribal member's children ought to have. He won the case and a window opened that allowed 1500 children of non-terminated Utes to become tribal members.

Of the several tribes that accepted termination throughout the United States, only the Ute Tribe adopted a partial termination which consisted of terminating the part-blood and the fifteen full-blooded Utes from Ute Tribal Rolls by meeting the provisions of House Resolution 108. The passage of Public Law 671 made it legal for this to occur. The terminees had seven years to prepare for termination which was to take place in 1961. It was also determined, on a pure percentage basis, that the terminees made up 27.16186 percent of the tribe and the full-bloods constituted the rest of the tribe (72.83814 percent). Using this as the figure to divide the assets, the terminated individuals were to be cashed out of their share of tribal interests.

The Affiliated Ute Citizens (AUC), as they called themselves, were the terminated portion of the tribe, organized with a board of directors to manage their share of land and assets. The AUC organized The Ute Distribution Corporation (UDC) to manage non-dividable assets particularity mineral, water, oil, and natural gas resources on tribal lands. Most of the 27 percent of the land that the AUC members received was in the Rock Creek and Antelope areas. Here they formed the Rock Creek Cattle Corporation and the Antelope Sheep Corporation. These two corporations failed within a few years due to mismanagement. The assets were sold with the proceeds going to the members of the AUC. The Ute Distribution Corporation continued to manage the affairs resulting from the undividable assets. To protect AUC members from being taken advantage of, no shares in the UDC could be sold or traded until 1964. When those rights could be sold the tribe retained the right of first refusal. If the tribe did not buy the shares they then could be sold to anyone.

Little did those who encouraged partial termination of the Utes know the many court cases and battles this would cause. In 1956, just two years after the Termination of Mixed Blood Utes, the U. S. Congress restored to the Utes the mineral, oil, and gas resources for 36,000 acres of land taken from them by Congress in 1905. When extensive oil and gas drilling was done on tribal lands in the 1970s and 1980s; hard feelings and law suits followed as the AUC sued the Ute Tribe over payment for the resources and hunting rights.

Jurisdiction and the 1994 Supreme Court Ruling

National history and Indian reservation policy was reshaped when in 1994 the federal Supreme Court issued a ruling regarding the jurisdiction of the Ute Tribe in the Uinta Basin stating that the reservation that had been set aside by President Abraham Lincoln for the Utes in 1861 had been diminished when Congress opened the lands for homesteading in 1905. Certainly the largest question of the past decade in Duchesne County has been the issues and legal battles over who had jurisdiction; the State of Utah with subordinate powers residing in Duchesne County and the various cities that are situated on former reservation lands or the Ute Tribe. This question was of such monumental weight that the United States Supreme Court finally had to make a ruling on the issue that will likely by the final deciding case for not only the Utes but also all other reservations throughout the nation. This complex question's roots lie in trying to determine what Congress really intended in 1905, when they opened the Ute Lands for homesteading. To begin to understand the many issues of this present situation one must begin at the turn of the century.

In 1905, the Congress of the United States made provision for the Ute Reservation lands not specifically allotted to an Indian, or the lands set aside in holding for the Utes, to be opened for homesteading. This was part of the Indian policy of the day with the Dawes Act and the allotment of Indian lands. This had come about because of the 1902, Lone Wolf Case when it was decided by the federal courts that the government had plenary power, or full power to act for and in behalf of the tribe without their consent. This ruling granting plenary power over Indians was endorsed by Congress with their subsequent actions in forcing allotment on non-consenting tribes. Utilizing their plenary power, Congress decided that it was in the best interests of the Ute Tribe to force them into allotment and then open for homesteading the surplus lands. This decision, which may or may not have been right or fair at the time, is the cardinal issue. The main point of the jurisdiction question was centered in what did Congress really intend when it forced the Utes into compliance with the Dawes Act and then returned the surplus lands to the public domain? For seventy-six years, between 1905 and 1981, the question did not surface in a significant case.

In 1981, the Ute Tribe sued Duchesne County, Duchesne City, and Roosevelt City over jurisdiction of their lands. The Utes argued that although Congress had in fact opened the lands to homesteading in 1905, Congress never intended that the tribe should lose jurisdiction of those lands. The Ute Tribe argued that it should have legal jurisdiction over all of the lands that were established as their reservation in 1861. With that jurisdiction the Ute Tribe maintained that they should retain taxation rights, and privilege status as a nation within a nation. The tribe argued that even with the loss of lands due to homesteading, it should still be the governing body of all lands that were once theirs with full precedence over any other governing body including city, county, and state powers. With this interpretation the tribe wanted governing rights to all the land that had been theirs, including private lands, state lands, and all federal lands.

The case was argued before Judge Bruce Jenkins of the 10th District Court. He ruled that the Uncompahgre Reservation was terminated with allotment but that the Uintah Reservation was not terminated and therefore the tribe did have jurisdictional rights. Duchesne County, Roosevelt, Duchesne, and Ballard cities were the losers in Jenkins' ruling. With some reluctance the State of Utah appealed to the Appellate Court. After reviewing the case Appellate Court, which consisted of a three judge panel, ruled with a two to one decision that with the exception of trust lands, the reservation was terminated and the lands were returned to public domain and therefore governed by the laws of the national government and the State of Utah.

With the Appellate Court ruling most parties thought the matter closed. Then in 1983, the federal Supreme Court ruled on a similar case of Solom v. Bartlett. This opened the door for the Ute Tribe to ask for another hearing based on the Solom v. Bartlett decision that said other factors can be considered in tribal land cases including such questions as: if the land that was put back into public domain does it automatically remove it from the reservation? Were the Indians paid for their land? Did they agree to lose of their lands at the time of allotment? and if they did not, what rights do they now have concerning that land? In other words, what did congress really intend as they terminated the reservation?

The Ute Tribe requested another appeal; this time from the entire Judicial Panel of the 10 Circuit Court of Appeals, based upon the Solom v. Bartlett decision. The 10th Circuit Court ruled that Public Domain was insufficient reason to dis-establish the reservation. This meant that all the land that the Ute Tribe had once owned they still had jurisdiction over -- until the next court decision. The State of Utah asked for an appeal and was denied. They then asked the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which is a petition for the Supreme Court to make a ruling where lower courts have contradicted one another. That too was denied.

The next several months were tense for both the Indian and non-Indian communities on the land in question. The tribe had won a major legal victory but knew that they still had to live with the non-Indian population in the area. Anything rash or hasty could trigger more bad feelings and negative reactions. As is often the case with major court cases a pair of non-related incidents occurred that eventually landed the whole affair in the Supreme Court of the United States.

In 1983, Clinton Perank, a part-blood Ute was arrested in Myton for breaking into the American Legion Building. Perank, whose mother was non-Indian and his father was Ute, was not a member of the Ute Tribe at the time of his arrest. He pled guilty in the Circuit Court and was placed on probation. In 1986, he was again arrested. This time for violation of probation. Between his two arrests he had become a member of the Ute Tribe with the membership window that had opened due to the Haskel Chapoose Case. In his hearing Perank's attorney argued that the circuit court decision that had first found him guilty of breaking into the American Legion building him was wrong due to the fact that did not have the right to try him because he was not tried in Indian Court, therefore, Perank's attorney argued, the circuit court had no jurisdiction over him based upon the 1983, 10th Circuit Court of Appeals Jurisdiction ruling. The 10th Circuit Court's decision was that Perank was in violation of his parole and that 1) the original ruling was correct because his enrollment status was in question at the time of the original ruling, and 2) Myton was not on the reservation. Perank was sent to the state prison for parole violation. Perank appealed in October 1988, and the State Supreme Court of Utah upheld this decision.

About this time, 1988, the second key case came up. Robert Hagen, a member of the Little Shell Band of Chippewa, was caught in a drug bust and arrested on possession and distribution of marijuana. Hagan argued that the Sheriff's department of Duchesne County did not have the right to arrest him because he was an Indian on reservation lands, therefore they had no jurisdiction over him. Hagen was turned over to a U.S. Attorney and was arraigned in a BIA court. Judge George Tabone ruled that Duchesne County had no jurisdiction over Hagen because he was a member of a recognized Indian tribe and on reservation lands at the time of his arrest. However, Duchesne County processed the charges against Hagan and a trial was held. Hagen pled guilty to one count of possession of marijuana. In the sentencing he still claimed that Duchesne County did not have jurisdiction over him.

Hagen appealed and the Utah Court of Appeals reversed the decision, making Duchesne County prove that Hagen was not an Indian. The State of Utah appealed the case for Duchesne County to the Utah Supreme Court. The Utah Supreme Court agreed to hear the case which focused on to important factors: was Hagan an Indian, and a clear determination had to be made regarding the meaning of tribal lands. With all the questions of the Hagen Case, Perank's attorneys appealed his case on the jurisdiction questions once again.

On the same day that the Perank Case was decided, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that the reservation had been diminished and therefore Hagen's status of whether he was an Indian or not was immaterial. This then resulted in the federal court and the Utah Supreme Court having made contradictory rulings with one another. With this contradiction the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the Hagen Case and rule on the issue of jurisdiction. The federal Supreme Court agreed to use the records of the Perank Case in deciding the Hagan Case. The decision of the Supreme Court for Hagen would also determine the jurisdictional arguments in the Perank Case.

On 2 November 1993, Jan Graham, Attorney General for the State of Utah, and Martin Seneca and Daniel Israel represented Hagen and the Ute Tribe, presented their case to the Supreme Court. At issue before the court what was the intent of Congress when it returned surplus reservation lands to public domain in 1905. Did Congress intend the land to be returned to public domain and leave jurisdiction to the tribe, or had jurisdiction over the land also diminished? To determine this, after the court heard the arguments from both sides, they needed to determine if the reservation was diminished by congress in 1905 based upon 1) the statutory language used to open the Indian lands to homesteading, 2) the contemporaneous understanding of the action, and 3) the identity of the persons who moved onto the reservation lands once they were returned to public domain.

On 23 February 1994, the Supreme Court handed down its decision that the reservation was in fact diminished and that was the intent of Congress in 1905. In the decision the court quoted the Act of 27 May 1902, which provided for allotments of some Uintah Reservation land to Indians, and that "all [of] the unallotted lands within said reservation shall be restored to the public domain." This decision was based upon three specific arguments that bore consideration. The first was Congress' intent to eliminate the Ute Reservation through allotment of Tribal lands. Second, since the homesteaders who moved onto the former reservation lands in 1905 were non-Indian, and the population that presently (1994) occupies lands from the terminated reservation are "approximately 85 percent non-Indian and 93 percent non-Indian in the area's largest city (Roosevelt); by the fact that the seat of local tribal government is on Indian trust lands, not opened lands," and third, by the State of Utah's assumption of jurisdiction over the opened lands from 1905 until the Tenth Circuit decision over the jurisdiction issue.

The problems and misconceptions over jurisdiction have led to flair-ups of old prejudices and misunderstandings between the Indian and non-Indian communities. On 21 September 1994 the Ute students of Union High School walked out in protest over what they voiced as unfair and prejudicial treatment. District officials met with Ute Tribal leaders to hear their concerns and school resumed with no further incident.

On the up-side of the situation, as a result of the jurisdictional issues, tribal leaders and elected officials from Duchesne and Uintah Counties have much better dialogue and a mutual desire to arbitrate issues and concerns before they get to the courtroom than they have in the past. For the first time ever the Ute Tribal Business Council invited anyone interested to attend and give input in one of their meetings on 22 March 1994. The leaders of both communities hope that a new era of mutual trust and understanding can evolve. Dialogue has led to two proposed bills in the state legislature by Beverly Ann Evans. Passage of these bills will return the state's severance tax to the county where it is taken. The net gain for the tribe would be about $2 million and nearly one-half million for Duchesne County. The partnership between the State of Utah, Duchesne County, Uintah County, and the Ute Tribe; in this manner would be a first since the jurisdiction issue came up in 1981.

With the depletion of tribal monies due to the decrease in oil and gas revenues since 1985, and the doubling of enrolled members in that same year, the Ute Tribe needs additional funds. One of their proposed measures was for the tribe to tax businesses and charge business licenses for those on tribal lands. Another strategy involved sending the Central Utah Project offices the bill for 33 million dollars, mentioned in chapter 9, for Ute water taken out of the Stillwater Dam in the past decade that they claim was not paid for. The CUP did not pay the bill and the tribe is looking to market their water to the thirsty desert states of California or Arizona if they can prove that they own unpaid for water.

The combined governments working in partnership with new levels of cooperation for the good of the Ute community is a positive step forward. As individuals of both the white and Indian communities follow this lead, the fears and frustrations of the past can be quelled.

Conclusion

Duchesne County's history is a microcosm of the history of the American West. There have been pre-historic Indians, Spanish explorers, lost Spanish mines, mountain men and fur trade forts, an Indian reservation, near-by was a military fort complete with cavalry troops; there were sooners and settlers, land rushes and homesteaders, droughts, boom-bust cycles in an extractive-based economy, and legal battles between individuals, the Ute Tribe, county, state, and federal governments. These each have their own story and are unique in Duchesne County's history, but they are representative of most issues in Western History. Each of these groups in turn have sought control and ownership of the land in the county. Ownership and control of land and resources is one of the surest and oldest measures of wealth and power. Beginning with the displacement of the early Fremont cultures by the Numics, to the jurisdictional and federal mandated policies and issues of today -- the central issue is not whose land was it, but, whose land is it?

As the county moves into the 21st Century, these land ownership and/or control questions will be solved; perhaps fairly, certainly not to the liking of all parties, and quite likely some solutions will be viewed by some county residents as unfair. Some matters have already been concluded. New concerns will certainly arise. But the issues outlined in this chapter have their beginnings and origins with historical events that predate the problems themselves. The seeds of tomorrow's ownership and control battles have already been sown, just as this chapter outlines the harvest of historical-based concerns and our attempts to solve them. The next historian to write the county's history, twenty-five or fifty years from now, can address these issues again with the truest and best perspective of all -- time.

Notes for Ute Indians: