Talk:Kit Carson/Archive 1

This Kit Carson archive page contains material from the discussion page, dated from 2003 - 2006.

Sibley error?
I'm a lurking editor claiming no expertise on Kit Carson. However, I am from Minnesota, a state riddled with the name Sibley. The Sibley link caught my eye and I was trying to reconcile how it was possible for the first governor of Minnesota to lead a confederate expedition in Texas.

After some quick research it appears the link in this article goes to the very northern Henry Hastings Sibley rather than the very southern Henry Hopkins Sibley. Interesting coincidence. I'll attempt to correct it.

Through an apparent error, this material appeared on a page called Christopher Houston which were simply the man's first and middle name. Moved here and will make the CH page a redirect for whatever value that will have. Found by randomizing. Ortolan88

Civil war material
The American Civil War material on this page is pretty good, but wouldn't there be a better place for it than this biographical page? Sdp 00:54, 29 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Source?
Can someone verify that indeed "Carson ran for Governor of California but was defeated because of his anti-slavery views." as the article now says? - Murcielago 22:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Newly added -- and not in any of my source material. WBardwin 01:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nor in mine; no mention of it in a cursory google search, either. -- Murcielago 05:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Totally false, Kit Carson never ran for Governor of anything. Cazedessus (talk) 18:02, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Unbalanced
Cazedessus has expressed a belief that this article is unbalanced. He claims he is a history teacher that has spent several years studying the life of Kit Carson. After reading the article I agree that it seems somewhat biased. Alot of negative stuff is said against him without much being being said in favor for him, and some of the wording about his career could be written in a more neutral style. I've directed him to this talk page and he will hopefully be here shortly to discuss his views. --  Karafias  Talk &bull; Contributions 19:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The bulk of the negative quotes were added by Cazedessus in this edit. He wanted to label those sources as "lies" and his sources as "the truth", which is just not the way Wikipedia does things. Nareek 19:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll confirm that Cazedessus initiated the current unbalance in the article. I would urge him to read/review Wikipedia's NPOV policy.  I've tried to moderate his POV with a few edits, and so removed the most vague negative item.  I also believe all of Cazedessus's information should be double checked and verified.  From a historian's point of view, the balance would be improved with the addition of a positive statement from a book/article more recent than the turn of the Twentieth Century.  WBardwin 07:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Kit Carson never ran for gov. of any state. ////   The problem I'm having with the Kit Carson entry on Wiki is the refusal to recognize that the dozens of documented facts from "reliable published sources" TRUMP the dime-novel Indian slaughtering maniac "legend." Where are the "reliable published sources" for the maniac legend? Cazedessus 10:19,5 October 2006

Let me quote from USA Today: Plaintiff says she wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. "I'm sure Defendant doesn't have $1 million, let alone $11 million, but the message is strong and clear," Plaintiff says. "People are using the Internet to destroy people they don't like, and you can't do that." =======Even if they are long dead, like Kit Carson. Cazedessus 05:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No one's trying to destroy anyone, Caz. We're trying to make an encyclopedia that includes all points of view, including those we disagree with.  Nareek 11:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "all points of view" Really?  You mean all 315 million American citizens "points of view" on Kit Carson?

How absurd! I doubt anyone in the entire 315 million knowws as much about Kit as I do. But some "kinglet" in Wiki continues to delete my corrections and WILL NOT REVEAL HIMSELF!!!! COWARD !!!

with GREAT pleasure
There is a book titled KIT CARSON, INDIAN FIGHTER OR INDIAN KILLER?, edited by R. C. Gordon-McCutcheon (U.Press of Colorado, 1996). It is based on a symposium held in Taos, New Mexico that was attended by several professional historians (which I am not): Darlis A. Miller (on Kit Carson Dime novels), R. C. Gordon-McCutchan (author of a book on the Taos Indians), Lawrence C. Kelly (author of Navajo Roundup, the premier book on Carson's part in the last Navajo War of 1862-1864, containing 40 or 50 original letters between Carson and Gen. Carleton), Marc S. Simmons ( THE premier historian of the American Southwest, knighted by the Spanish government for his awesome research into early Spanish documents, and author of KIT CARSON AND THIS THREE WIVES, A Family History, 2003, Univ. of N. Mex)), and Robert M. Utely (well known author of several books on the early American West). "Dear Old Kit", a carefully annotated book reprinting the original 1856 Kit Carson auto-biography, by Harvey Carter (A first class historian of the early  American West) must be added to ANY discussion of Kit Carson's life and legacy. It was Mr. Carter who said: "Our devotion it not to Kit Carson, right or wrong, our devotion is to truth; ascertainable factual truth, without which history become mere opinion or deliberate propaganda." I stand firmly with Mr. Carter. WITHOUT QUESTION, much of the current biographical, especially the "Legacy and Reputation" portion, of the Wikipedia entry on Kit Carson IS mere opinion and deliberate propaganda. So Mr. W. Bardwin, you be very, very sure that you "double check and verify" everything I say 'cause I have no interest in seeing you, or anyone else of right mind, with their foot in their mouth.

I may be guilty of "not following the Wikipedia 'rules' of posting; and I apologize for that. BUT when I find several absolutely false statements about Kit Carson, post them on Wikipedia with the note that they ARE "false and misleading" statements, AND THEN WIKI DELETES THE NOTE THAT THEY ARE "false and misleading", but leaves them on Wiki and instead attributes them to "less benign" opinions, I know I am dealing with vile censors on Wikipedia. Stop the BS. === I have determined to rewrite the entire Kit Carson entry for Wiki, with every effort to utilize the existing general format (I've been an editor for nearly 50 years) but to be precise and careful in EVERY sentence. There will be no hearsay, no opinions gleaned from bar talk in Gallup, or inflamatory comments from political figures of the American Soutwest or extremist teachers at the University of New Mexico, etc. It will be based on "ASERTAINABLE FACTUAL TRUTH. In addition, the English language will be respected and written with words to be found in The American Heritage Dictionary, where, for instance, the difference between "Legacy, Legend, Opinion, Propaganda" is clearly available. As the premier and self-appointed "point man" for Christopher "Kit" Carson for the 21st century, I invite any and all questions. My home is just a few miles from where Kit lived most of his life, I know his great grand-son personally, I have personally spoken to several Carson historians, I have visited his home and museum in Taos, and I am determined that the TRUTH on Kit Carson will be available from me, and maybe on Wiki. -Caz


 * This is a hard thing for some people to accept, but Wikipedia is not aimed at establishing the "TRUTH". It is an encyclopedia that is meant to summarize the various substantive points of view on the topic at hand. That does not include "bar talk in Gallup," but it certainly does include the views of "extremist teachers at the University of New Mexico."  If some people who study Carson for a living think he was a great guy and some think he was a genocidal monster, we need to include both points of view, regardless of which one we personally find more persuasive.  We should include the best arguments for him being a great guy and the best arguments for him being a genocidal monster that we can find.  This is a core principle of how Wikipedia works--if you can accept that, Caz, I think you have the potential to make a great contribution to this article. Nareek 20:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * potential for contribution, yes. But NPOV is one of the few unyielding Wikipedia standards, and editors here must try to maintain a neutral stance in articles.  Although hearing other's POV is sometimes inconvenient or unpleasant, any editor's assertion of the TRUTH suggests at least three or four other opinions are out there somewhere.  As  Nareek pointed out, "extremist teachers at the University of New Mexico" are just as valid a source for Wiki as any other academic teacher, biographer or publication.  Although I am old enough to question modern revisionist methodogy in history, historical perspectives on human relationships, human value, bigotry, Western expansion and Native American history have changed in the last half century.  How those changes impact the biographies of individuals like Carson can be debated, as only the rare individual is not a creation of the common perspectives, opinions and mores of his time and place.  I always try and keep this in mind when I visit Wiki articles about the 19th century.  So, please let us use the talk page for debate before substantive revisions, although I would not object to deleting all the material Caz introduced until it can be researched, placed in context and explained.  And, please keep in mind, that when I edited Caz's material I was acting out of respect for a new, apparently uninformed, editor.  As the material was so was strongly POV, I and others could have reverted it entirely.  Instead, I tried to respect Caz's research and sources and kept the material in the article with modest revisions.  And Caz, please, look over WIKI policies on NPOV and perhaps original research.  Best wishes.  WBardwin 20:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Caz, the "these quotes are false and misleading" bit was deleted because that is an opinion - one that doesn't conform to NPOV. The list was left in because it seemed factual, and the editors were trying to accommodate you. Wikipedia is a reference - not a personal opinion on events.  If all those quotes are real, then it's possible that they should be listed here - because they were made by notable people, and the opinions of such people is notable can be something of a reference.  However, you shouldn't put your own personal opinion of them here.  This is supposed to be a neutral reference, not your personal website to post your views.  Of course, those quotes shouldn't stand by themselves.  We strive to maintain balance here, and all notable sides of the argument deserve - and WILL HAVE - a listing here.  Naturally, all sides should have representation, and references backing them up.  If those quotes remain, a balanced number of quotes praising him should be included.  In my mind, I don't think those quotes, or even quotes of the opposite nature, should be here in that format.  IMO, it's too much opinion with too little encyclopedic value.  I say we remove the whole section entirely.


 * Wikipedia is about consensus. To maintain neutrality and ensure that the article isn't biased one way or the other, everyone has a say, and consensus must be reached before major changes are implemented.  This is why I don't think you should write a whole new article on Kit. You feel very passionately about this issue, and that is understandable.  But because of this, it's unlikely that everyone here will agree that your new revisions conforms to our NPOV policy.  Some editors might also be offended that your are invalidating all of their work.  Why don't you try going through the different sections of our wiki article, and suggesting changes in the talk page?  Say what you think should be changed, what should be added, etc.  If you believe a new section is needed, bring it up on this talk page and discuss it.  We'll all discuss it and reach consensus on how it should be implemented.  You need to be a team player here.  You'll have to make concessions & compromises on what is in the article, and how it is worded.  This is how wiki works. If you simply can't accept this, then perhaps you should write an article of your own, and host it on your own web site.  I do hope you decide to work with us, because it seems like you have a lot of valuable, insightful opinions, and wiki would be a poorer place without them.   However, if you want to edit wiki, you have to play by our rules.  Work with us, and  your ideas will be heard.  And please, please, stop with the hostile attitude, "propaganda" accusations, and claims of censorship.  Everyone here has good intentions, and is working to make wiki a better place.  We want your contributions, but they need to be in line with our policies and  guidelines.


 * In summary, please try to work with us. A lot of smart, helpful people frequent this place.  You aren't familiar with wiki guidelines, so allow us to guide you.  Trying to do everything yourself and removing ideas you disagree with simply won't work.  Consensus is the backbone of wiki, and your edits will simply be reverted if don't make an attempt towards this.  Well, it seems I've gone and typed far more than I should have again, which is one of my many faults.  I'll be quiet for now.  --  Karafias   Talk &bull; Contributions 01:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

REPLY: Ok Karafias...I read every word and I understand the words and your POV. But you KNOW the list of anti-Carson quotes was a breach of fair play. None of those people know what they are talking about, and none of them are important people as you say. They are radicals and children. But rather than take you on sentence by sentence, I will revert to the specific first 182 words of what Wiki says about Mr. Carson, and show you how much is left out, and what is wrong.

Date and place of birth correct (tho Richmond is unfamiar to me). Wiki mentions him being a “trader and trapper in the American Southwest and California,” BUT Wiki leaves out that he became so fully fluent in Spanish he was frequently hired as a translator, and had he not known that language, he and his entire party would have been ambushed and massacred in central Arizona in 1830. AND He spent 9 years in the environs of Colorado, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana and Utah (5 huge states!) became a full blown expert on all their Indian tribes, valleys, passes, ranges, deserts, waterholes, meadows, river crossings with only one arrow wound. Lucky Kit! He married Arapahoe Waa-nibe in 1834, had two kids, his wife died, he resuced hundreds of horses stolen by Indians, killed a few Indians who attacked the trapping brigades he was with, peacefully traded for mules from the Navajo, attended the Rendezvous from 1834 to 1840, became a hunter for Bents Fort, Colorado, got married again, but NEVER LIVED AMONG ANY INDIAN TRIBES. He met J. C. Fremont after he brought his daughter to Missouri to be cared for by members of his family and educated in an American school --buckskins to dresses for little Adaline. Now I would presume you’d agree that was a lot for Wiki to leave out of a man’s first 37 years? He only lives 22 more years! Balance is good, and I know you agree. Shall I continue? -Caz


 * Caz, thanks for coming to the talk page. In brief response, even those who are "radicals and children", in your opinion at least, deserve a voice.  That is part of Wiki's function, giving a voice to all the varied members of society.  In practice, however, editing here is fairly simple.  In my time here, I've come up with a few practices I try and follow.  Read the article before doing anything and then reread any relevant material at hand.  Edit/tweek/reformat current information and only then add new material.  Discuss new sections and potential controversies on the talk page.  Work in relatively small blocks on articles where there are other active editors.  Encourage new editors by retaining as much of their material as possible.  Accomodate other opinions, however diverse from your own.  Keep the amount of detail manageable -- length of individual articles is sometimes a computer system concern.  Major assertions, opinions or rewrites should be accompanied by sources, usually more than one for each major assertion.  List the references in a reference section.  Formal footnotes are preferred by some editors -- there are varied note styles in use here, so look around and take your pick.  Then, we all have to try not to get defensive when others start editing, tweeking, and deleting "our" material.  Sometimes giving up "ownership" of the written word is the hardest part.  Hope these are helpful to you.  Your summary material looks interesting, giving detail to Carson's life.  I look forward to your contributions.  WBardwin 08:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

First, make that Carson's "first 32 years". Next, no "radicals and children" do not "deserve a voice" in an adult discussion. I know this is not the Constitutional Convention, but the basic aim of Wiki is to reveal facts from which truth is asertained, and permitting the Flat Earth Society and some drunken jerks from a bar in Gallup to challenge whether or not we landed on the moon is, sir, ludicrous. There are fundamental facts in dozens of descriptive letters in the National Archives, all dated in the 1860's, from and to Kit Carson. None of them can be demeaned, diminished or dismissed, and they ALL contradict the rediculous and trashy comments exhibited by the radicals and the children that I quoted. They, and a dozen contemporary comments and descriptions of the CHARACTER of Mr. Christopher Carson, all fit into a single and remarkable truth : Kit Carson was an extraordinary person, and certainly never a genocidal Indian-murdering maniac! And so Mr. Bardwin, I appreciate this opportunity to enlighten Wiki readers with what I have learned in re. Kit Carson, and request that you assist me in my effrot to follow the "rules of Wiki" and get the facts out. From the facts, most people can arrive at "truth", which is my goal.

Back to Carson: Spring, 1842, he meets J. C. Fremont. He agrees to guide him westard. Off they go, June 10-Sept. 3, he takes Fremont to South Pass, Wyoming and back to Bent's Fort, sort of preliminary practice journey. In 1843, Kit's life divides into two threads: A) the national figure, first guiding Fremont, then involvement in the war with Mexico in California under Gen. Kearny, his wife witnesses the Taos Indian Revolt of Jan. 1847, then his assignment to be agent for the Utes, employed in keeping peace with Cheyenne, Arapahoe, and Navajo tribes, guides several Army units to punish Indians for depredations, dictates his memoirs, sees the first Dime Novel that features him as the great Indian killer, survives an assasination attempt, and at Lincoln's election, he quits as Indian agent and joins the Union to fight Confederates, leads his New Mexico Volunteers to a little victory in the Battle of Valverde, and tries to resign from the Army, saying "I joined to fight Rebels, not Indians." HOWEVER, he is ordered to chastize the Mescalero Apache and bring them to Ft. Stanton (Bosque Redondo) reservation, and in 1862 is ordered to invade Navajoland and force all Indians to quit fighting and go to the rez at Bosque. In Jan. 1864, he escorts 240 Navajo to an Army Fort on the Rio Grande and then goes home his wife and children. Kit takes NO Indians to the rez, so he is NOT part of the Long Walk that so devestated the Navajo. He is comandant of the Bosque rez for a few months, but is again ordered to take troops Eastward to deal with troublesome Indians, participates in the first Battle of Adobe Walls, where he and his men are almost wiped out. He is breveted a brigadier general in 1865, the ONLY person ever given such a high U. S. Army position who could not read or write!!! [an outstanding accomplisment, you bet!] He is appointed commander of Ft. Garland, Colo. in 1866, entertains General W. T. Sherman there on Indian business, finally resigns from the Army in 1867, but appointed Superintendent of Indian affairs for Colorado, and in spite of deteriorating health from a horse accident in 1860, he, as he promised, in 1868, takes several Ute Indians to Washington D.C to negotiate a treaty with the government, and barely makes it back to his wife and new home in Boggsville, Colo where she dies on April 27 and he dies on May 23. B) the other thread of Kit Carson's life is his private one, with his wife Josefa whom he married in 1843, and with his many children, at his home in Taos, his efforts to farm the Rayado (current Boy Scout retreat), a last beaver hunting trip into the Rocky Mountans in 1852, successfully driving a herd of Sheep from Taos to California to sell in 1853, and complaining that he'd rather be home than fighting Indians. Those are facts. Can you see the truth?  His dictated autobiography is found in a trunk in Paris, France in 1926, first published that year, but not until 1968 does the fine historian Harvey L. Carter edit the mss. into a 98% accurate picture of his life. Subsequent books have added the 2%, and now we know the truth of who he was and what he did. His legacy is huge: towns, counties, rivers, valleys, a mountain, a pass, a National Forest, over 100 false and inaccurate books, movies, and comics. Kit Carson is cleary THE dominant figure in America west of the Miss-Missouri between Lewis & Clark and the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869. No one else comes close, except his friend and most ardent supporter: J. C. Fremont, who was only on that stage for a brief period during the middle 1840's. As we Carson fans say over and over: He Led the Way! Children, radicals and nay-sayers....tell me where I’m wrong. You cannot do it. Best wishes to all that seek the truth! -Caz


 * Children no, radicals yes--that's exactly what WP:NPOV is about.


 * Here's a different take on Carson's relationship to the Long Walk: Nareek 16:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Different outlook
Nareek's "different take on Carson" is indicated by the paragraphs begining +++++

+++++The Long Walk of the Navajos - When the Navajos tried to take advantage of the military slack caused by the outbreak of the Civil War, the US government sent Colonel Kit Carson to settle the uprising.

Hmm...in fact the Navajos HAD BEEN “taking advantage” of their suprise style ‘raid, steal and murder’ ability since the early 1700’s in regards ALL OTHER PEOPLE who lived in the New Mexico area whether Indian (Pueblo), Spanish, Mexican or, American since 1846). This is easly proved by a reading Frank McNitt’s NAVAJO WARS (Univ. N.Mex., 1972), 477 pages of superb and very thorough research on the Navajo from 1626 to 1861. And, actually, not “the U. S. government...” but Gen. James H. Carleton, U. S. Army, who became Commander of the Dept. of New Mex. in Sept. 1862, and was following the idea of Col. Ed. R. S. Canby who had “commanded the most recent punitive expedition against the Navajos during the fall and winter of 1860-61. In Feb. 1861, he (Canby) succeeded in obtaining the promises of 24 Navajo headmen to control thier lawless members and to confine the movement of all their people to an area far to the west of white settlement.” NAVAJO ROUNDUP, Lawrence Kelly (Pruett Pub. Co., Boulder Colo, 1970)

And perhaps you’re not familiar with Dwight L Clarke’s STEPHEN WATTS KEARNY (Univ. Ok. 1961), the U. S. Genereal who marched into Santa Fe in 1846, took possession of the area, and continued Westward (meeting with Kit Carson who was coming back from California to report J. C. Fremont’s exploits there). Let me quote the opening sentences of paragraph 2, from Chap. 13, just before he meets Carson. Kearny is down the river past Albuquerque, about to turn westward to Calif...”A worse problem was the Navajo menace. On Kearny’s previous march through this region these savages had boldly attacked [Pueblo} villages close to the soldiers. Now the raiders caused widespread ruin a few miles ahead of the expedition....Kearny authorized the injured Pueblos to send a punitive expedition after the Navajos. However, with characteristic compassion he warned the villagers not to harm any of the aged or women and children of the enemy.” This was in 1846...long before the Civil War, and the raiding and murders by Navajo ladrones would continue for the next 16 years; inspite of TWO treaties worked out with them by the U. S. Army, one in 1849 and one in 1858.

And certainly you are not familiar with INDIAN DEPREDATIONS IN NEW MEXICO by John S. Watts, first publised in 1858 (yes 1858), and incredible 66 page book written by a contemporary (lawyer?) who was petitioning the U. S. Gov. for reparations for hundreds of thousand of dollars of stock, grain. etc. stolen or destroyed by the Navajo; not to mention children captured and taken into Navajo land to never be seen by their parents again.

I note these three books to make sure that you know that it was NOT just because “of military slack caused by the outbreak of the Civil War”. No, it was a 200+ year pattern of Navajo raids on peaceful Pueblos, Spanish, Mexican and (from 1846 onwards) Americans. So “your” original sentence is quite misleading, and clearly censors the two treaties of 1849 and 1858, both of which were very lax; telling the Navajo “stay out of the settlements and we (USA) will not permit anyone from the settlements to invade your land and raid you back” As usual, the whole truth puts a new light on the situation....too many of the Navajo would not stop raiding. As Gen. J. H. Carleton said to a Navajo delegation (18 men, including the important chiefs Barboncito and Delgadito)) who came to Santa Fe in Dec. 1862: “ (your) promises of peace (are) no longer satisfactory and that they (the Navajo) should prepare themselves for emigration to the Bosque Redeondo, if they were serious in the protestations of peace.” (p. 17, Navajo Roundup, Kelly). Gen. Carleton’s entire letter of June 23, 1863 is on p. 20-21 of Navajo Roundup, wherein he says the Navajo “have until the 20th of July of this year to come in -- thay and all those who belong to what they call the peace party. That after that day every Navajoe that is seen will be considered as hostile, and treated accordingly.” On Feb. 3, 1863, Kit Carson had tried to resign from the U. S. Army, but was turned down. (p. 15, Navajo Roundup, his entire letter.) He tried to resign two more times.

THEREFORE, the entire sentence you give is is thoroughly domolished with historical facts.

Another thought
Next “you” say: ++++++++His mission was to gather the Navajo together and move them to Fort Sumner on the Bosque Redondo Reservation. When the Indians refused to move and hid in the Canyon de Chelly, he began a merciless economic campaign destroying crops and lifestock, burning villages and killing people.

In historical fact, Carson arrived at Ft. Defiance where the Navajo were to assemble, on July 20, and none were there. Carson and his men spent the rest of 1862 and the first month of 1863 in 4 general scouts through the Navajo country, with not a single major confrontation. They did suceed in capturing some Indians, killing others and rounding up several hundred by Jan. For example, the Utes under Carson’ command had killed 12 Navajo by June 24 (Kelly, p. 28)

On Aug. 18, 1863, Carleton told Carson “all prisoners which are captured by the troops will be sent to Santa Fe....There must be no exception to this rule.” That is, NONE are to be turned over to Utes as slaves! Carleton added that all horses, mules and sheep “will be turned over to the Chief Commisary of your expedition” and “all other property captured from the Indians will be reported...” Wanton slaughter was prohibited.

On Aug. 5, 1863, Carson left for his first extensive scount in to the Navajo country... little was accomplished, a few Navajo were killed, some pisoners and stock were captured, and several fields were destroyed.” (Kelly,p 37) Carson’s second scout began Sep. 9, lasted until Oct. 5. Sgt. Campbell, who was on this scout, said he saw Carson “reeling in his saddle from fatigure and loss of sleep, pushing forward and hoping to come upon” the Navajo. This was caused by Carson’ severe injury of 1860, and which would cause his death in early 1868. On Sept 6, 1863, Gen. Carleton said he was sending captured Navajo (51 men, women and children) to Ft. Sumner...that is, they would no longer be sent to Santa Fe. On Oct. 23, 1863, Gen. Carleton writes to Col. Carson: “all Navajos (who) come in of their own accord -- can bring with them, and take with them to the Bosque Redondo, all stock and other property of which they may be possessed. Stock will only be taken from those whom your parties may fall upon. Not from those who voluntarily surrender.” (Kelly, p. 60-61) Carson remained in Camp Oct. and Nov. 1863, and the scouting parties he sent out were unable to find the Navajo. On Nov. 1, Carson petitioned Gen. Carelton for 2 months leave to go to Taos and be with his pregnant (6th child) wife Josefa. He was turned down. On Dec. 5, Gen. Carleton told Carson by letter” “as soon as you have secured one hundred captive Navajo men, women and children...you will come with those captives” and be granted leave. By late Dec. “sizeable groups of Navajo were beginning to surrender at Ft. Wingate... (including) the headman Delgadito. By Jan. 1864, Delgatido has persuaded so many Navajos to surrender that he was permitted to take his family to Ft. Wingate and to remain in the field until such time as he chose to return to the Bosque” rez. (Kelly, p. 70-71.) Carson’s third sojurn into Navajo land began in Nov., ended on Dec. 5th. Again, few Indians were killed, some captured, some stock and grains confiscated. No big battles. On Jan. 6, 1864, Carson went into Navajo land, reported 23 Indians killed, 34 prisoners captured, 200 voluntary prisoners and on Jan. 26, Carson took 240 Indians to an Army Ft. on the Rio Grande and finally permitted to do so, went home to his wife and family in Taos.

To describe these events, 6 months, as a “merciless campaign” is a bit extreme. Again, “your” version is demolished with historical facts. Read all of Kelly, to page 102.

+++++++By destroying their food supplies, eventually he convinced the Navajos that going to the reservation was the only way to survive. In 1864, the Navajos, among with some other tribes, a total of 8-9,000 people, began their move to Fort Sumner.

This is generally OK.....but more correct to say “the U. S. Army convinced the Navajos” etc., not just Kit Carson, as there were several other officers scouting the Navajo country and rounding up Navajos during these six months, and they also “convinced the Navajo.” So not just “he” (Carson). About 7000 more Navajo escaped into the Arizona hinterlands and NEVER saw Bosque Redondo...almost half the Navajo, therefore, did not go on Long Walk!!!!

Then “your” different take says” +++++Along the 300 miles trip to the camp, about 200 people died of cold and starvation. Many more people died after they arrived at the barren reservation. The original idea was that the Navajos would engage in agriculture at the reservation but because the land was unsuitable for raising crops and the people had no farming experience, the plan failed. Four years later, in 1868, partly as a recognition of their mistake, the US government allowed the people to return to their homeland.

Gen. Carleton’s big mistake was thinking that the Bosque Redondo area could grow crops. It did the first year, but the land soon became unsuitable, and Navajos starved. The U. S. built a Hospital there...not generally available at "concentration camps." Nonetheless, Navajo young men were able to leave the rez and actually captured several hundred horses from the Comanche Indians to the East of the Rez.

And how utterly dumb to say the Navajo “had no farming experience.” Rubbish, sir!

Once again, I reveal historical facts that demolish and dismiss the description you submitted. Clearly, what you give is not “another take”, but a false accounting...a contrived lie! These facts I submit are 36 years old, found in books dated 1970 and 1972, readily available for those who seek the facts, but avoided by those who ignore facts and merely push their agenda(s).

Finally, let me say I admire and respect all Indians, and the Navajo have much to be proud of -- weaving (Navajo blankets are TOP of the line), sandpainting, property mgmt, and as a WW II buff, I am so very pleased with their job as code talkers for the U. S. Marines in battles with the Japanese, who I also admire and respect. But the Navajo elders and their lackies must STOP telling lies about Kit Carson, and Wiki too.

There is no “neutral point of view” re Kit Carson...he was the great man of his times, and Americans should be proud of his accomplisments, courage, loyalty, skills, character. "Facts are stubborn things" said John Adams. I give you facts!

=
===========WHEN WILL WIKI CATCH UP TO THE TRUTH re Kit Carson? -Caz

One of my old professors read most of what I've written here, and again chided me for being too enthusiastic about my subject. He suggested I tell you to just "Be fair about Kit Carson." Is that, in this day, radical enough for you gentlemen, you heirs of Ben Franklin? -Caz


 * Your professor sounds like a wise fellow. Tell him we're all more than ready to do that.


 * Why don't you just start adding the information you think is important to the article, citing your sources, in a just-the-facts sort of style? I'm sure a lot of what you add will be uncontroversial, and whatever needs to be hammered out we'll hammer out. Nareek 03:18, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Question
AND STILL TODAY, after many days of DEOMONSRATING/PROVING my knowledge of the real Kit... You continue to use the 3 false and misleading statements about Kit Carson that I SUPPLIED, but WITHOUT THE NOTE THAT THEY ARE LIES!!! I told you that is ABSOLUTELY UNFAIR to use the negative and incorrect statements about Kit Carson that I found TO POINT OUT that they were WRONG.. What sort of people are you...really? And that absolutely INANE song that says Kit Carson brought "flame & poison" and about his wandering ghost.


 * Your knowledge of the "REAL KIT" is based on reading and research. Supply that information in a logical, rational presentation, with sources, and it will probably be acceptable in the article.  The other material, which you introduced to the article and this discussion, are not LIES.  They are apparently contrasting OPINIONS held by many people.  All opinions, yours and others, are welcome at Wikipedia and should be reflected in the article.  I would suggest again that your need for ultimate TRUTH in this article is unrealistic.  Please shift instead to the use of standard research methods on historical topics which, from your self description as a history teacher, you should find very comfortable.  Use those methods to present your opinion and, perhaps, to amiably debate the opinions of others.  I hope you decide to contribute productively.  WBardwin 19:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you -- a much better edit. In response, I copyedited your material, placing selected material in different sections and softening some remaining POV.  I also placed your references in a basic, but often accepted, format.  You might want to either find the quote for the word "bucks" or replace the word.  Editors here would take great offense at what is today considered a racial slur.  We should also have a source for the orders on the Apache.  The poem/song (below), either by you or a relative (?) has been placed here.  Has the song been published?  If so, what is the source?  If it is your original work, I'm afraid Wiki policy on original research would not allow it to be placed or referred to in the article.  Hope to see additional constructive edits.  Best wishes  WBardwin 00:10, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In the 2006 song “Kid Carsten”, poet Camille Cazedessus begins: Carson was his name, and he fell into some fame.

But narry-sayers with string plunk layers did desecrate, and make him lame. But facts will out, and I will shout from Rocky top, and valley floor, from Gila desert and river Green, if er’ there was a Tarzan, Kit Carson was his name.

Request for editing help
I approve of most of your editing, but as you say, I will have to hammer out some more changes for the sake of accuracy and fairness. HOWEVER.... The sentence in the first paragraph on Carson should read that he "established himself as a trader and trapper in New Mexico, Arizona, California, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Montana and Idaho." Why leave out these last 5 states? Also, Kit Carson DID NOT LIVE WITH ANY INDIANS, but spent 10 years living in the wilderness with other trappers and traders. Finally, the name "Roper Thrower" was a name given him by some Navajo AFTER he rounded them up in 1863-1864...or "roped them in". The Utes did not call him that, nor did the Pueblos. I have finally been able to make these changes...I found the "edit" click at the top of the page, finally!


 * Is the above info what you wrote me about? Will be happy to weave it into the article as time permits -- but my week looks very busy.  If there is no "edit" opportunity, it does sound like you are having a system problem.  I'm no techie, but describe what happens and I'll either figure it out or contact one of the system people here for advice.  Moving this "thread of conversation"  to a new discussion section.  Best wishes.  WBardwin 22:08, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
To present all positive statements about Carson as fact and include rebuttals to all negative statements is not NPOV. Nareek 20:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What about presenting ANY statements about Kit Carson one can find, AND THEN determining if there are FACTS that back them up, or FACTS that reveal them as FALSE ? Cazedessus 14:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Caz

I showed the Wiki editors that the song about Daniel Boone is tagged by Wiki like this; "The song did not describe the real Daniel Boone, who was not a big man and did not wear a coonskin cap." So why not tag the song about Kit Carson in a similar fashion? Cockburn's song about Kit Carson "does not describe the real Kit Carson." Why use it? I say remove it, it's false, negative and misleading...certainly Carson NEVER used any poison at any time, anywhere! Thus, I have removed Cockburn's song lyrics, it should stay removed. Cazedessus 14:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You know there's no such thing as ghosts--so the song is clearly not meant to be read as a literal account of Carson's life. (If you read the lyrics in full, you'll see that Cockburn uses the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse as a metaphor--and Carson was not really one of the Four Horsemen!)


 * But the fact is that Carson has indeed been accused of using poison. Here's an example (emphasis added):


 * The dutiful Kit Carson, a naturally modest man now suffering from failing health, took up the cudgel against the Navajos in the late summer of 1863, launching a scorched earth campaign in the Dinetah. As fall came on, he sent forces from Fort Defiance to burn the Navajos’ crops, destroy their food caches, raze their hogans, poison their water, and shoot their horses and sheep. As the first snows fell, he dispatched patrols to harass Navajo bands, preventing them from hunting game or gathering wild food plants. "There is hardly a Navajo family that cannot remember tales of an aged grandfather, a pregnant mother or a lame child that had to be left behind when a camp had to be quickly deserted…" said Locke. "Mothers were sometimes forced to suffocate their hungry, crying babies to keep the family from being discovered and butchered by an army patrol or taken captive by the slave raiders."


 * The point of adding the Cockburn lyric was to balance the article's reference to heroic pop cultural depictions of Carson. Not all such depictions of Carson are benign, and the article should reflect that. The section now mixes in scholarly assessments of Carson, which is a different subject; I'm going to try to split the pop culture stuff off again. Nareek 00:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Richiar 23:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)==== Cockburn's song must be removed. Five reasons.Cazedessus 22:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

1. It's cynical. What the opening line of the concluding verse says is "those who think of him as a hero do so because of his poison and flame." To the average person, no one can be a hero using poison and flame...so this is a cynical blantanly anti-Carson statement, and infers that Carson's ghost wanders in some sort of guilt for being a hero that used poison and flame. Buffalo dung.

2. It's a lie. I have just spent a few hours reading every letter that Carson wrote to his commanding officer while he was in the field during his part of the Navajo war (July 20, 1863- Jan. 24, 864). There is not a single reference to "flame, fire, burning or lighting" ANYTHING! The word "destroy" is used 5 or 6 times in 7 letters dated: July 24, Aug. 19, Aug. 31, Oct. 5, Dec. 6, Dec. 20 and Jan. 24, and refers to corn fields and villages. In these letters and others, there is repeated mention of "lack of water" causing great hard- ship to stock and troops, several of muddy water holes, and complaint of dry conditions. The details of such particulars and the absence of any mention of "poison" or any word like that make it 99% certain that, as I said, "Kit Carson never used any poison at any time during the Navajo war." Period.

3. The rest of Cocburn's song is also a lie. Wiki refers the reader to another website where the first three of the four verses are. The first begins with the claim that the President told Carson to "ride out... make my great lands barren for me." ("make barren"? - nonsense) No President told Carson that. Second verse quotes Carson "...my fall's not yet complete" What "fall"? Nonsense! Third verse, Cockburn says Carson has "made the grade, he learned to trade in famine, pestilence, and war." Now what the hell is that about? That's garbage. There is not a single shred of any "famine or pestilence" involved with Kit Carson, and he joined the Army to fight for the Union, NOT to fight Indians, and tried three times to resign from the Army if they wanted him to fight Indians.

4. At the website that Wiki offers a direct link to, are the following 2 statements by Bruck Cockburn: 1990: "when you actually look at what he did, he was a genocidal maniac, and a lot of terrible things were done by him,,," Clearly, Mr. Cockburn did NOT ACTUALLY LOOK at any good biography of Kit Carson, for there is no record of him being such a person, in fact, there are records to the exact opposite. 1992: Cockburn says " I grew up with the Western hero, who was thought to be basically a good guy, saving maidens is distress on the railroad tracks. When you hear the real story, he was sort of an unsavory character. He befriended the Navajo long enough to learn their ways and learn where they all were. He then offered himself to the U.S. Cavalry to drive the Navajos off their land and betrayed the people who were good to and accepted him. He was responsible for a large number of the deaths, including burning their villages, poisoning their waterholes and the general dislocation of their culture."

Hilarious! There were no railroads anywhere in New Mexico or Colorado for any maidens to be on to be rescued by Kit Carson or anyone else. The first railroad west of Missouri was 1869, after Carson died. Be sure of it, Cockburn has NO IDEA WHO KIT CARSON WAS. The historical record shows no "befriending the Navajo just to betray them" (Navajo Roundup, Kelly, first 100 pages), historical record shows Carson wanting to resign from U. S. Army because they want to fight Indians (3 times). And no documented "village burning" or "waterhole poisoning." Finally, Carson letters of this period have several examples of a sympathetic and very concerned view for the Navajo as well as the Hopi and Zuni and Ute.

5. The Wiki entry on Kit Carson should be FAIR. He should be on a level with Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett, and perhaps George Rogers Clark, Stephen Decatur, even George Washington who also fought Indians. Carson descendants still live in Colorado, they (& 50 good historians) know their great,great grand-pa was no "genocidal maniac with poison, flame, pestilence, etc." I told one of his descendants, John Carson, he ought to sue Bruce Cockburn for "intent to defame and destroy the name of Kit Carson." If Wiki has any honor, any sense of being a responsible site for information, they should not be a party to spreading falsehoods and defamatory exaggerations about one of America's greatest frontiersmen. Why do that? The only reason for Wiki editors to insist including "less benign views" of Kit Carson is to: A) Assuage the Amercan Indian history revisionists with their coninuing lies about Kit Carson, B) Promote the songs of folksinger Bruce Cockburn, C) Demonstrate that once accused, he's (somehow) guilty. Rubbish! Cazedessus 22:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm on vacation, noticed that someone had AGAIN put Bruce Cockburn's ignorant song back up, and I removed it AGAIN for the above 5 reasons. Cazedessus 13:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Who keeps putting Cocklrburns stupid song back on Kit Carson's biography? This is buffalo dung! This MUST CEASE. Who is doing this? This Cazedessus writing this, but on vacation and can not recall my password for Wiki. WHY spread falsehoods about Kit Carson??? GIVE ME AN ANSWER OH WIKI SECRET EDITOR!


 * There's no secret--it's me, Nareek. The reason I keep putting it back is because WP is committed to including a variety of points of view in its articles, and as far as popular culture is concerned, there is a darker image of Kit Carson than the folksy mountain man archetype.


 * WP is never going to give you what you're looking for, Caz, which is a 100 percent pro-Carson article. Nareek 18:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

+++ OK Nareek. Then you force me to investigate IF INDEED WP includes "a variety of points of view" on at least 10, and perhaps 25 "American notables" of the past two centuries. In other words, is Kit being singled out with negatives, or are the rest of the old American heros ALSO being dengrated with rhyming bullshit by Canadian guitar players? But you know what Narreek, you're a bigot and a nut, and Cockleburn's song is HATE SPEECH and not just "another point of view." Connecting Kit Carson with "pestilence, famine, war, poison and flame" and making it rhyme to a good melody is WP version of providing "another point of view" = damn the facts, IT RHYMES!!! What sort of idiocy is that? And, reason #6 it should be removed. People who know Kit Carson facts will blame Bruck Cocklerburn for writing a stupid song, while in reality, he was just a Canadian guitar player repeating some bar talk he heard in Arizona from a guy named....hmmm, Nighthawk, er? . I was going to finish my research on the Barbary Pirates and complete the entry that I began. But with such as you to ignore my research on Kit Carson, delete it and post hippie songs instead.....screw you and screw WP. You are acting like a Nazi tyrant, but I ain't in your cage. The WP entry on Kit Carson is UNBALANCED if it includes BC's stupid song.Cazedessus 03:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I take offense at being called a Nazi, particularly by someone who wants to eliminate all points of view he disagrees with. Nareek 20:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

In reviewing this article, I think the song should go. Not because of Caz's reasons (not that I read them all...), but because a song should not be taken as a historical depiction or as a reference. There's got to be better resources than that to show all sides of the coin. References should be historians, not songwriters in the 1990s. Civil Engineer III 14:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to Wikipedia, and have a hearty interest in the Southwest (where I live, along with numerous other yahoos) :) As Kit Carson had something to do with the settling of the Southwest, I looked him up, and alas, came across this conflicted dialogue. I hope we can all work this out, and not antagonize each other, because the more I learn about Kit Carson, the more I learn about people and myself included.

Let me make a couple of points: Cazedessus has lots of good material. As I read it, the more I want to hear about K. Carson. I have a resource "The Book of the Navajo" by Raymond F. Locke, and it seems he uses the name "Ropethrower" in a misleading way, which Cazedessus helped clarify in his comments above. Caz has a lot of research, it seems, and I hope we all can benefit from him. Obviously, I notice the unfortunate direction the above discussion is going, and I would offer myself as a mediator if it will move the whole discussion forward in a positive direction.

About Bruce Cockburn: I don't have anything against him personally, or that he wrote a song, about K. Carson. Look at other Wikipedia articles, and there are references to entertainment references, but they are usually mentioned as pop cultur at the bottom of the article. As an example, if someone felt the urge to mention the Phil Collins music video which features Ron and Nancy in a ridiculous puppet show, ok, but it would not be appropriate as a main content in the article of President Ron Reagan. Put it in a notation at the bottom. Agreed? User:Richiar/Richiar 14:57, 3 December, 2006 (UTC)


 * It is at the bottom of the article, in a section labeled "Popular culture". Carson is a fairly important figure in popular culture--if anything, that section should be expanded, not cut. Nareek 12:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. What I was thinking of was using a different format, that's all. I'm still trying to find out how to navigate around in here. This is like a maze. Richiar 17:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Sacramento River Massacre
I wondered, when reading the article, where was the information related to the almost forgotten Sacramento River Massacre (Spring, 1846), first discussed at any length by David Roberts in A Newer World. It seems that this article is intent on portraying Carson as a white, American folk hero, and I couldn't help but notice the general tone of settlers' "rights."