Remembrance & Historiography
At
the end of the campaign Albert Peticolas, having just endured the horrid
retreat from New Mexico, noted in his journal that “our operations out here
will all be lost in history, when such great struggles are going on nearer
home…”[1]
The Civil War in the Southwest would indeed be considered a sideshow, though it
would receive a few articles in Battles
and Leaders of the Civil War. One of the writers, Brigadier-General Latham
Anderson, attempted to argue the importance of the campaign. He wrote that if
Sibley’s men had reached California, they would have doubtlessly created a
strong presence in the state and created large implications for the Union war
effort. With California’s coastline added to Confederate territory, the already
strained Union blockade would have lost any effectiveness. However, such grand
ramifications, even when expressed by a Civil War veteran and late 19th
Century general, remain speculative as Sibley’s campaign was done in before it
could ever get out of New Mexico.[2]
Only one Confederate, Teel, provided an article in which he castigated Sibley.
“He did not husband his resources, and was too prone to let the morrow take
care of itself,” he wrote. Teel believed that if Baylor had been given command,
“the result might have been different.”[3]
There was some argument among the Union contributors over Canby’s leadership,
but this failed to spark any great historical inquiry into the campaign.
Some veterans kept memories of the campaign more alive through unit histories or published speeches. Once these survivors had died off, the war for the Far West became a piece of trivia, unknown by many. It often did not garner a mention in general Civil War histories, including Bruce Catton’s centennial trilogy. This is not to say that historians totally forgot about it. Several books were published in the 50s and 60s. Sibley’s campaign was presented in Robert Lee Kerby’s The Confederate Invasion of New Mexico and Arizona (1958), Martin Hardwick Hall’s Sibley’s New Mexico Campaign (1960), and several other works. Hall’s account of the campaign was the expansion of a doctoral dissertation, fleshed out with a wealth of newly discovered sources. Arthur Wright’s The Civil War in the Southwest (1964), is actually oriented around the adventures of James Carleton’s California Column rather than Sibley’s battles with Canby and the Coloradans.
Ironically
it was an Italian film director, Sergio Leone, who brought the Civil War in the
Southwest to the attention of the public with the Spaghetti western The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. The
film is heavily inaccurate, sometimes unintentionally and sometimes
intentionally for the director’s particular semi-cartoonish style. One example
is the presence of a railroad. The armies would certainly have been happy to
have that available. More anachronistic is the weaponry that was not available
in the first year of the Civil War. The most notable of these is the Gatling
gun, which was invented in the Civil War. However production of the gun did not
really begin until the war was pretty much over. If the Gatling gun was
available, it certainly wouldn’t have been used in a secondary theatre. The
battle scene around a bridge, one of the movie’s highlights, owes more to the
Italians’ World War I experience than any actual fighting in the 1860s
Southwest. Finally there is the hellish prison camp. Resources were scarce in
the region and the Federals paroled most of their prisoners rather than share valuable food and medicine.
 |
| A view of the Union trenches from The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly. Notice the anachronistic Gatling gun in the foreground. |
Leone’s
movie does, however, have some nuggets of information that Civil War scholars
might recognize. Both Canby and Sibley are name-dropped, and Sibley appears
(sans his facial hair), sitting in a wagon and looking sick, as he was in real
life. The debris of wagons, corpses, and equipment across the desolate
landscape matches the hard miles-long retreat of the Sibley Brigade. Leone did
amass a collection of Civil War photos and study them for this film. These
inspired him to transplant scenes and images from other parts of the Civil War
into the southwestern setting (again, to what extent he thought these images
accurately reflected Sibley’s campaign is unclear). Of course the purpose of
the film is not its accuracy, but the fun and quirky clash of personalities
among the three main characters. The war is more of a major obstacle and
symbolic backdrop. As Clint Eastwood, Eli Wallach, and Lee Van Cleef violently
contend for treasure, thousands more slaughter each other on a mass scale, for
reasons never adequately explained within the film. Even the violent
gunslingers are taken aback by the scale of slaughter and brutality unfolding
around them.
 |
| Eli Wallach (left) and Clint Eastwood (right) talk to a depressed Union captain. |
Thanks
to this film, the Civil War has been strongly associated with the western genre.
Several other Spaghetti Western films featured anachronistic Civil War
adventures. Outside of film, the German toy company Playmobil has been
influenced by Leone’s vision. Its Western line of toys featured not just
Federal cavalrymen, Indians, frontiersmen, bandits, sheriffs, miners, and other
typical western characters, but also Confederate soldiers.
 |
| One of Playmobil's several Confederate sets. |
Even
then, serious historical inquiry into the event did not boom until the 1990s,
alongside a general growing public interest in the Civil War. Most of these
historians are native Texans or have moved to one of its universities, though
it would not surprise me if a few were inspired to dig deeper after seeing
Leone’s film. Alvin M. Josephy gave the campaign considerable attention in The Civil War in the American West
(1991). This was actually an expansion of his contribution to Time-Life’s
heavily illustrated Civil War series, War
on the Frontier: The Trans-Mississippi West (1986). More of a historian of
American Indians than the Civil War, Josephy was so intrigued by his initial
research that he worked to create a larger work. The end product is arranged
much in the same manner as his initial work, taking a region-by-region rather
than chronological approach. The section on the Southwest opens both books,
fitting as the campaigns here began right at the start of the war and wrapped
up early in 1862.
More
focused is Donald Frazier’s Blood & Treasure: Confederate Empire in the
Southwest (1995). This book explores the Confederacy’s attempts to build
their envisioned empire. Indeed the book gives most of its attention to the
Confederate side and is valuable in exploring not just Sibley’s goals and
failures, but Baylor’s attempts to run the only western Confederate territory.
One author who is prolific on the subject of the Civil War Southwest is Jerry
Thompson, who has written a biography of Sibley and histories of Paddy
Graydon’s Spy Company and the New Mexico Volunteers. He also compiled and
edited veterans’ articles from the Sharpshooter
Bulletin, providing one of the few easily available primary sources for
researchers.
Since
the battles were on a comparatively smaller scale, most historians have simply
created studies of the campaign in its entirety. There are a few specific
battle studies, all of which are short reading (especially when one takes out
the endnotes and statistical appendices). John Taylor’s Bloody Valverde: A Civil War Battle on the Rio Grande (1995) argues
that Valverde was the true turning point of the campaign. Whether or not one
agrees with Taylor’s assessment, his book is valuable for providing a detailed
chronology of the battle, as well as the movements of the troops. The Battle of
Glorieta Pass has garnered two studies, Don Alberts’ The Battle of Glorieta: Union Victory in the West (1998) and Thomas
Edrington’s The Battle of Glorieta Pass:
a Gettysburg in the West, March 26-28, 1862 (2000). In general these
various histories have been very critical of Sibley (though as his biographer
Jerry Thompson understandably shows some sympathy for him). They are more mixed
on Canby. Some are very positive, showing him as a prudent and intelligent
commander. Others don’t doubt his intelligence, but feel that he could have
taken more assertive action and destroyed an army.
The
most notable addition to the historiography since then is Megan Kate Nelson’s The Three-Cornered War: The Union, the
Confederacy, and Native Peoples in the Fight for the West (2020). This book
has gained much attention not just for raising more awareness for an often
overlooked theatre of war, but for throwing more attention on American Indian
involvement. As Nelson’s book title suggests, the Apache and other native
factions were very much active players in the Civil War. The war did not slow
down conflict between whites and Indians, but in fact exacerbated it.
Two-thirds into the book the Confederates have been driven out of the territory
and now many of the Federals who defeated them are testing out the reservation
system on the Navajos while still battling the Apache. Following a recent trend
in historiography, Nelson selects a cast of characters and bounces the
narrative between them. Her cast of seven includes a cross-section of
Unionists, Confederates, Indians, Hispanics, men, and women. I wholeheartedly
recommend this book for a different take on the Civil War Southwest.
My Take
Having gone through the campaign, I will now provide general questions and answer them with my opinions.
Was the New Mexico Campaign important?
The
difficulty of assessing the New Mexico Campaign’s importance is linked to the
fact that the Confederates failed. If Baylor and Sibley and succeeded in their
goals, then the Confederacy would have had access to more resources. The
capture of California, or at least parts of it, would have been the most
significant act. More sea ports would have further strained the Federal
blockade. Any Confederate gains in the West would have been at the very least a
painful thorn in the side of the Union war effort, However, this is ultimately speculative. The Federals defeated the Sibley Brigade before it
could even reach Colorado.
Actually
the most important results of the campaign did not directly concern the Civil
War itself. By ending the Secessionist threat in the Southwest, the US Army and
territorial and state governments in the region were able to focus their
efforts on the American Indians. Once the Texans fell back to their home state,
James Carleton, Kit Carson, and others handed the Apache a severe defeat at the
Battle of Apache Pass and then forcibly relocated the Navajo onto a
reservation. In fact the Federal government was able to get away with numerous
actions in the West, as the Southern bloc was no longer there in Congress to
disagree on how to approach westward expansion. The New Mexico and Arizona
campaigns were the only times that the Confederacy seriously attempted to steer
the future of the West. After them the US Government had a free hand.
Could Sibley have succeeded?
As
said before, much of the importance of the New Mexico campaign is speculative.
In order for the Confederacy to have the gold mines of Colorado and the coast
of California, Sibley had to actually succeed in his scheme. I conclude that his
plan was ultimately far too ambitious to succeed. Sibley somehow expected to
march 2,000 men, joined by Secessionist recruits from the various western
territories, through the deserts of New Mexico, the mountains of Colorado, the
plains of Utah, and all the way to California. His plan required him to collect
new recruits and gather supplies along the way. As seen in New Mexico, Union
commanders were willing to destroy supplies before it fell into Rebel hands.
This is not to mention Indian groups which might raid the Sibley Brigade for
supplies of their own.
Sibley
might have won, but it would have been by slim margins. If he “conquered” the
Far West, there was still the issue of overland routes. Confederate ports in
California, along with that state’s resources, could trade bountifully with
European powers, but getting supplies between the Pacific Coast and the
Confederate states would have been an arduous task (perhaps they would have
traded goods to European traders on the Pacific, and then the Europeans would
deliver their end of the goods to Confederacy proper). Sibley also failed to
take into account the various peoples in the West. He optimistically believed
that regular troops on frontier posts would flock to his cause. This largely
did not happen. He also seemed to believe that Hispanics would support him. If
they were not already indifferent or hostile to the Texans, they certainly were
their enemies after the resource-starved Sibley Brigade ran rampant on their
homesteads, seizing their food and in some cases tearing apart their homes.
So
it is very unlikely that Sibley would have succeeded. Perhaps he should have
taken Baylor’s planning of going directly West, using treaties with Mexico and
the Indians to enable an overland route. Even then the maintenance of a
Confederate empire in the west would have been difficult when factoring in both
Union opposition and hostile native groups such as the Apache and New Mexicans.
Assessments
of Leadership
Robert
Baylor (CSA): Baylor caught the Federals while they were still figuring out how
to deal with secession. He was the only Confederate leader to conquer Federal
territory. His performance afterwards was not as strong. His temper got him
into trouble with both the Mexican and Confederate governments and also with
his fellow citizens of Confederate Arizona. Baylor was an able small-action
commander and may have been better in a more strictly military than political
role.
Henry
Sibley (CSA): Sibley was overly optimistic when drawing out his strategy. Its
success depended too much on everything going to plan. His actual ability to
tactically command is hard to gauge as he was hit with sickness right after his
campaign began in earnest. His solution for his illnesses was whiskey, and this
rendered him unable to take command in stressful situations. It was up to the
likes of Thomas Green and William Scurry to lead the men to victories and they
would go far in further Confederate service. Sibley ended the campaign a hated
and broken down man.
Edward
Canby (USA): Canby has received some criticism for not being more active in
challenging Sibley. However, he knew that he did not have to. He recognized that Sibley would end up in a precarious logistical situation if simply allowed to
march deeper into New Mexico Territory. Tactically he was adequate, though he
may have been responsible for creating the gap that undid his force at
Valverde. Canby’s overall strategy was sound and did not expose his soldiers to
needless danger or deprivation. That so many of the Sibley Brigade survived
their hellish retreat is more a testament to the Texans’ fortitude than any flaw on
Canby’s part. One could attack him on moral grounds. By allowing Sibley to
spend much of his campaign unchallenged, he exposed the New Mexicans to the
Texans’ foraging and the resultant loss in food and wealth.
John
Slough (USA): Slough was much more aggressive than Canby, but not smarter. His
performance at Glorieta Pass was hardly amazing and technically he lost. Slough
was fortunate to be served by competent subordinates such as Samuel Tappan and
John Chivington, as well as hard-hitting, highly durable soldiers. Slough’s
post-Glorieta military career was hardly incredible. After a short stint in the
Shenandoah Valley he served in behind-the-lines roles for the remainder of the
war.
 |
| A speculative map of what a Confederate Empire would have looked like, based on the plans of the Knights of the Golden Circle. |
Concluding
Statement
The
campaigns of the Southwest are an example that the Civil War greatly touched
all parts of the United States’ sphere of influence. Even if they had no
bearing on the war’s direction in general, they still deeply impacted the lives of
its participants. The Indians’ world changed drastically, Hispanics found themselves
embroiled in Anglo-Saxon affairs, and the Union and Confederate soldiers were
hardened for future battles. The Civil War in Mexico helped determine the direction
of the American West after (and during) the war.
Primary
Sources
Anderson,
Latham. “Canby’s Services in the New Mexican Campaign.” in Battles and Leaders of the Civil War Vol. II. Century Company, 1887
Evans,
A.W. “Canby at Valverde” in Battles and
Leaders of the Civil War Vol. II. Century Company, 1887
Peticolas,
A.B. Rebels on the Rio Grande: The Civil
War Journals of A.B. Peticolas. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico
Press, 1984.
Pettis,
George H. “The Confederate Invasion of New Mexico and Arizona” in Battles and Leaders of the Civil War Vol. II.
Century Company, 1887.
Tate, Michael L. (1987) “A Johnny Reb in Sibley’s New Mexico Campaign: Reminiscences of Pvt. Henry C. Wright, 1861-1862, Part I.” East Texas Historical Journal: Vol. 25: Iss. 2, Article 7.
- (1988) “A Johnny Reb in Sibley’s New Mexico Campaign: Reminiscences of Pvt. Henry C. Wright, 1861-1862, Part II.” East Texas Historical Journal: Vol. 26: Iss. 1, Article 7.
Teel,
T.T. “Sibley’s New Mexican Campaign – Its Objects and the Causes of Its
Failure” in Battles and Leaders of the
Civil War Vol. II. Century Company, 1887.
Thompson, Jerry (ed.). Civil War in the Southwest: Recollections of the Sibley Brigade. Texas A & M University Press, 2001.
United States. The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies Vol. I, IV, IX. Washington D.C. 1894.
Secondary
Sources
Alberts,
Don E. The Battle of Glorieta: Union
Victory in the West. Texas A & M University Press, 1998.
Austerman, Wayne. “The South’s Legion of Lancers.” Civil War Times Illustrated (March
1985), pp. 20-25.
“Dodd, Theodore.” Accessed May 30, 2021. http://ozarkscivilwar.org/photographs/dodd-theodore/
Frazier, Donald S. Blood & Treasure: Confederate Empire in the Southwest. Texas A & M University Press, 1995.
Hardin, Tom. “The Confederate Retreat.” Accessed June 16, 2021.
http://socorro-history.org/HISTORY/PH_History/201203_texan_retreat.pdf
Josephy,
Alvin M. The Civil War in the American
West. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1991.
Kiser, William S. “A ‘Charming Name for a Species of Slavery’: Political Debate on Debt Peonage in the Southwest, 1840s-1860s.” Western Historical Quarterly Vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer 2014), pp. 169-189.
- “’We Must Have Chihuahua and Sonora’: Civil War Diplomacy in the U.S.-Mexico Borderlands. Journal of the Civil War Era Vol. 9, No. 2 (June 2019), pp. 196-222
Nelson,
Megan Kate. The Three-Cornered War: The
Union, the Confederacy, and Native Peoples in the Fight for the West. New
York: Scribner, 2020.
Pittman,
Walter E. New Mexico and the Civil War,
The History Press, 2011.
Taylor,
John. Bloody Valverde: A Civil War Battle
on the Rio Grande. University of New Mexico Press, 1995.
Thompson, Jerry. Henry Hopkins Sibley: Confederate General of the West. Natchitoches: Northwestern State University Press, 1987.
- A Civil War History of the New Mexico Volunteers & Militia. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2015.
[1] Peticolas, 153.
[2] Anderson, 697-698.
[3] Teel, 700.
No comments:
Post a Comment