"'The Greatest of Wrongs': A Rhetorical Analysis of Narratives on the Death of Mangas Coloradas"

 

Miner Party

There is only one account from a miner, Daniel Elias Conner, but his is a unique case as he actually told two versions of the story of Mangas Coloradas’s death. For this reason, Conner merits his own section as to fully explore the implications of telling two differing narratives over time.

The “first” version, according to historian Lee Myers, was published in Conner’s manuscripts entitled Joseph Reddeford Walker and the Arizona Adventure in 1956, over 20 years after Conner died. When Conner actually wrote that account, whether it was right after the event or later in his life, does not seem to be known. Myers dubs the “second” account as one that was published in McClintock’s Arizona Historical Review, sent in as a “letter lately received by the Editor” where Conner asks that “history be put straight” (176). This historical review was published in 1916, but this letter could have been written earlier, making it extremely unclear as to the time difference between when Coloradas died, when Conner wrote his narrative about the Walker party, and when he sent this version as a letter to the editor. It could even be that the letter was written before the other account, and that the story Conner was setting straight was not his own, but the military record. With no definitive evidence to change the timeline, I will stick with Myers’ claim of calling the manuscript version one, and the letter version two.

It is also important to note with Conner’s accounts that he often misspells names, and he gives the wrong date for Coloradas’s death in both narratives. While Conner’s misspelling of names and incorrect dates would generally be indicative of a lack of coherence, historians working on his writings note in the introduction to Joseph Reddeford Walker and the Arizona Adventure that Conner had consistently poor spelling and grammar, and often recorded the wrong dates for events that he certainly was present for. Of course, this does indicate some level of a lack of credibility throughout, simply due to the possibility of unreliable narration, but it also means that his incorrect dates and spelling may not indicate a lack of coherence in the sense that they are not likely due to conscious misrepresentation of information. This also could lend credibility to the idea that The Arizona Adventure was written closer to his death, as he might have had trouble remembering dates.

Conner 1

Conner’s “first” version of this story claims that the Walker party was camped out at Fort McLane trying to decide how to get through Apache Pass. He says it was Walker who came up with the idea to capture Mangas Coloradas and hold him as a hostage for safe passage, putting Jack Swilling, one of the party members on the job. This is when West’s advanced guard, led by Captain Shirland, showed up and were invited to join the search expedition with Swilling. The combined party moved out to Pinos Altos and hoisted a white flag to draw out Coloradas. The next day Swilling and Coloradas talked, and Coloradas came into camp, only to be held at gunpoint and then taken back to Fort McLane. Coloradas then supposedly spent the night under charge of the Walker party before being handed over to West. That night Conner describes the soldiers pressing their heated bayonet ends against Coloradas’s feet until he jumped and was promptly shot for “trying to escape.” Conner does also describe the mutilation of Coloradas’s body here, and to a more detailed degree than any other story, discussing how the skull was sent to a museum in New York (40-41).

Conner 2

The “second” version of Conner’s story is relatively similar to the first, the primary difference being that in this version they actually track down Coloradas rather than raising a white flag and waiting for him to approach and levelling their guns at Coloradas’s whole party to convince him to come with them. Conner describes some additional events on the night of Coloradas’s death, i.e., that West demanded to speak with Coloradas in private, that Conner robbed Coloradas’s body, that Coloradas’s skull was sent to Orson Fowler, and that West was brought up on charges of brutality years later by acting New Mexican Governor William Arny. There is also no mention of Coloradas being under guard by the Walker party before the Volunteer infantry (McClintock 176-77).

Evaluation

The fact that Conner told two different versions of this story already severely reduces his coherence. While it might be reasonable to tell a story in a slightly different way if time has passed, these stories have some significant differences, meaning that one of them contains a lie, which calls into question the credibility of Conner as a narrator, and therefore the credibility of both stories.

In addition to that fact, both of these stories have other problems. Conner first states that Coloradas spent a night with the Walker party before being in the charge of West where he died. This detail does not coincide with any of the other stories (including Conner’s second account), almost all of which say Coloradas was killed the same night he came into Fort McLane. This account by Conner lacks coherence when compared to the rest of the narratives of Coloradas’s death. The first account also shows corruption of Connor’s values, which affect the credibility of his stories. Tricking Coloradas to come with them by hanging a white flag when there were obviously no intentions of peace talks is a duplicitous action. Regardless of the morality of this action, which could be debated, offering something that the party never intended to give is a form of deception. Fisher’s quality of coherence deals with the believability of narrators, and he claims that narrators lying reduces the coherence and credibility of the other things they say as well (47). However, Conner was not in a position of power or authority among the Walker party, and so it is likely he had no say in the matter. Though he went along with and helped carry out this plan, we cannot know if Conner had any disagreements about these actions because he does not make mention of it either way in his account.

Conner’s second account is no more credible than the first. While the story itself reveals less about Conner’s character, the circumstances of its telling call into question his values. While it is unclear when this letter was sent, the 1916 historical review claims it was “just sent” in, so it was likely not written any earlier than 1914 if published in 1916. According to the introductory material of Conner’s manuscript, he had been unsuccessfully trying to publish his writing for years. Writing a letter to “set the story straight” (McClintock 176) about a controversial topic could have been a publicity stunt, making him biased towards swaying the story to make it more interesting. Unfortunately, without conclusive dates for the writing of each narrative, that is only speculation.