Since we are now en route to the Modoc country, and since they have taken a place in modern history as a warlike people, and have enrolled their names on the record of stirring events, it is well to give them something more than a passing notice.

In so doing, I shall confine my remarks to such facts as have come under my own observation, and also those that are well authenticated. In memory of the late tragedy in the “Lava Beds,” in which I so nearly lost my life, I approach this subject with a full determination to present the facts connected therewith in a fair and impartial manner, without fear of criticism from the enemies of the red man, or a desire to court undue favor from his friends.

The Modocs are a branch from a once powerful tribe of the Pacific coast, and known as “La-la-cas,” inhabiting the country drained by Klamath river and lakes, also including the “Lost-river Basin,” and extending inland from the coast proper about three hundred miles, covering the territory of what is now Siskiyou county, Cal., and parts of Jackson and Josephine counties, of Oregon. They were warlike, as most uncivilized nations are, when they become powerful. Surrounded with peoples of similar character, they were often on the “warpath.”

The history of the great battles fought by the La-la-cas of olden time is a fruitful subject for Indian stories by the descendants of the Klamaths and Modocs; and from them, years ago, I learned about the rebellion so nearly cotemporaneous with the American Revolution.

That rebellion sprang from causes so nearly of the same kind as those which prompted our forefathers to take up arms against Great Britain, that the coincidence is strange indeed, though it could not have any connection with the white man’s war. To those who have given the subject of Indian history a careful study, it is not new, that, while a monarch exercised arbitrary power across the Atlantic, and dictated government and law to the American colonies, many petty monarchs, also claiming the hereditary right to rule on the strength of royalty and blood, were the governing nations on the continent of America. This kind of royalty seems to have been acknowledged and disputed by turns, for many generations; and, perhaps, the La-la-cas may have passed through as many revolutions as enlightened political organizations, though no other history than tradition has made a record thereof. At all events it is part of the history of the Modocs and Klamaths, that feuds and revolutions have been of common occurrence, growing out of the desire for power. After all, human nature is pretty much the same in all conditions of society, without regard to color or race.

The office of chief, among Indians of former times, was to the chieftain what the crown was to a king. The function of chieftain among semi-civilized Indians of to-day is to him what the office of President is to General Grant, or it may be likened to the position of Louis Philippe a few years ago, half attained through royal right, and half by force or consent of the governed.

This comparison is apropos according to the status of traditional and hereditary law.

With the La-la-cas, one hundred years ago, the prerogative of royalty, though, perhaps, acknowledged in the abstract, was often disputed in the distribution of honors.

This “bone of contention,” so fruitful of blood with civilized nations, was one of the principal and moving causes of the separation of a band of La-la-cas, who are now known as Modocs, from the tribe who are now called Klamaths.

There is a curious resemblance between the political customs of savage and civilized nations. The royal house from whence came the hero of the Modoc war—Captain Jack—was not exempt from the contentions common to royal households, and it may be said, too, that while the branch to which he belonged had furnished their quota of braves for many wars, they resisted the taxes levied on them, and at last openly rebelled, and separated from their ancient tribe on account of the exactions of tyrannical chiefs.

That my readers may properly understand the subject now under consideration, it is well to state, in a general way, that Indian nations, singularly enough, follow in the footsteps of the people of Bible history. Whether they derive the custom from traditional connection or not, I leave to antiquarians to answer.

Every nation is divided into tribes, and tribes are divided into bands, and bands into smaller divisions, even down to families; each nation has, or is supposed to have, a head chief; each tribe a chief; each band a sub-chief; and so on, down, until you reach family relations.

Each tribe, band, and even family, has in times of peace an allotted home, or district of country that they call their own. They claim the privileges that it affords, and are very jealous of any infringement on their rights.

The Modocs inhabited that portion of country know, as “Lost-river Basin,”—perhaps forty miles square,—lying east of the foot of “Shasta Butte,” possessing many natural resources for Indian life. It is doubtful whether any other country of like extent affords so great and so varied a supply as this district.

Lost river is a great fishing country, affording those of a kind peculiar to Tule lake and Lost river, in so great abundance as to be almost beyond belief.

But to resume the history of this band of Modocs. At or about the time indicated as cotemporaneous with “the great event” in American civilized history, the head chief of all the La-la-cas demanded of Mo-a-doc-us, the chief of the Lost-river band of the La-la-cas, not only braves for the warpath, but also that supplies of fish from Lost river should be furnished.

This demand was refused. Following the refusal, war was declared; and Mo-a-doc-us issued his declaration of independence, throwing off his allegiance from and to the head chief of the La-la-cas. The war that followed was one of a character similar in some respects to the American Revolution; the one party struggling to hold power, the other fighting for freedom,—for such it was in reality.

The Modocs and Klamaths tell of many battles fought, and brave men killed; how the survivors passed their allotted time in mourning; how, at last, the La-la-cas were defeated; and though no formal acknowledgment or recognition of the independence of Mo-a-doc-us was ever bulletined to the world, yet it was, in modern political language, “an accomplished fact.”

The followers of the La-la-cas have since been termed Klamaths.

Without tracing the history of the Mo-a-docs through their many wars, I pass over the intervening feuds until 1846, at which time they numbered six hundred warriors, and were subdivided into bands, governed by “Schonchin,” a head chief, although his authority seems even then to have been disputed, on the ground that he was not a legitimate descendant of the great Mo-a-doc-us, and consequently not of royal blood. He won his position as chief by his great personal bravery in battle.

The father of Captain Jack was the former chief of the Lost-river Modocs. He was killed in battle with the Warm Spring and Te-ni-no Indians, near the head-waters of the Des-chutes river, in Oregon, at which time Ki-en-te-poos (Captain Jack) was a small boy.

I have taken some pains to ascertain reliable data as to the parentage and birthplace of a man whose name has been on every tongue for the past year, and state, most positively, that Captain Jack’s parents were both Modocs of royal blood, and that Captain Jack was born on Lost river, near the “Natural Bridge,” and very near the ground on which was fought the first battle of the late Modoc war; and, further, that he never lived with any white man; that he never has learned to speak any other than the language of the ancient La-la-cas, or Mo-a-docs, although he may have understood many words of the English tongue.

You will have observed that the regard for royal honors was not extinct at the time of the death of Jack’s father, who seems to have left in the hearts of his people the ambition to restore the ancient order of things, by re-establishing the hereditary right to the chieftainship. This sentiment, thus perpetuated, undoubtedly found a lodgment in the heart of the boy, Ki-en-te-poos.

To resume the review of the first war: As told by white men, it would appear that a wanton thirst for blood impelled the Modocs to murder defenceless emigrants. I doubt not that many innocent persons lost their lives; still, with my knowledge of Indian character, I am not ready to say that provocation was wanting. While I would be careful in making up my estimate on the validity of Indian statements, I am still willing that the Modocs’ side of the causes of the first wars should be heard.

Old Chief Schonchin says that it grew out of a misunderstanding as to the identity of the Modocs, Snakes, and Pitt-river Indians. The emigrants had difficulties with the Snake Indians, through whose country they passed in reaching Oregon and California; and that he never knew what was the cause of the first troubles between them. The Snake Indians captured horses and mules from the emigrants, and sold them, or gambled them, to the Pitt-river Indians, who in turn transferred them, through the same process, to the Modocs; and that the animals found by emigrants in possession of the Modocs were recaptured, and hence war was at last brought about. The story seems plausible, and is certainly entitled to some respect, coming, as it does, from a man of the character of old Chief Schonchin. I know there is a disposition to discredit any statement made by an Indian, simply because he is an Indian, and more particularly when it comes in conflict with our prejudices to accept it as the truth. Some white men are entitled to credit; others are not. So it is with Indians, and, if it were possible, the disparity is even greater among them than among white men.

Chief Schonchin, of whom I am speaking, commands respect from those who know him best, and have known him longest. He does not deny that he was in the early wars; that he did all in his power to exterminate his enemies. In speaking of the wars with white men, he once remarked, in an evening talk around a camp-fire: “I thought, if we killed all the white men we saw, that no more would come. We killed all we could; but they came more and more, like new grass in the spring. I looked around, and saw that many of our young men were dead, and could not come back to fight. My heart was sick. My people were few. I threw down my gun. I said, I will not fight again. I made friends with the white man. I am an old man; I cannot fight now. I want to die in peace.” To his credit be it said, that no act of his, since the treaty of 1864, has deserved censure. He is still in charge of the loyal Modocs, at Yai-nax station, grieving over the waywardness of his brother John and Captain Jack.

He was not in the “Ben Wright” affair, although he was near when the massacre occurred. His reason for not being present was because he mistrusted that treachery was intended on the part of Wright; and, further, that a “treaty of peace” was proposed by him, which was to be accompanied with a feast, given by the white man; but that the talk was “too good,”—“promised too much,”—and that, suspicious of the whole affair, he kept away; that forty-six Modocs accepted the invitation to feast with their white brethren, and that but five escaped the wholesale butchery. Of these five, the last survivor was murdered, June, 1873, during the cowardly attack on Fairchild’s wagon, containing the Indian captives, near Lost river, after the surrender of Captain Jack.

Now, whether the Indian version of the Ben Wright affair is correct, or not, that forty Indians were killed while under a flag of truce in the hands of white men of the Ben Wright party, in 1852,—there can be no doubt. The effects of this act can be traced all the way down from that day to this, and have had much to do with making the Modocs a revengeful people.

The friends of Ben Wright deny that he committed an act of treachery; yet there are persons in California who state positively that he purchased strychnine previous to his visit to the Modoc country, with the avowed intention of poisoning the Indians. Others, who were with him at the time of the massacre, testify that he made the attempt at poisoning, and finally, abandoning it, he resorted to the “peace talk” to accomplish his purpose. The excuse for this unwarrantable act of treachery was to punish the Modocs for the murdering of emigrants at Bloody Point, a few days previous.

This unparalleled slaughter was perpetrated on the shore of Tu-le lake, in September, 1852. It occurred directly opposite the “Lava Bed,” at a point where the emigrant road touches the shore of the lake, after crossing a desert tract of several miles, and where the mountains forced the road to leave the high plains to effect a passage. For several hundred yards the route ran along under a stony bluff, and near the waters of the lake. The place was well-adapted for such hellish purposes.

The emigrant train consisted of sixty-five men, women, and children, and the whole line of wagons was driven down into this position before the attack was made. The Indians, secreted in the rocks at either end of the narrow passage, attacked their hapless victims both in front and rear. Hemmed in by high rocky bluffs on one side and the lake on the other, they were butchered indiscriminately. Neither age nor sex were spared, save two young girls of twelve and fourteen years of age respectively, who were taken prisoners, and one man, who escaped.

This massacre was attended with all the circumstances of savage warfare. Men were killed outright and scalped. Women were treated with indignities that words may not reveal. Even fiendish torture was surpassed, and human language is too tame to express the horrible outrages committed on them. Children were tortured, some of them mutilated and dismembered, while yet alive, before the eyes of their mothers. No page in all the bloody history of Indian cruelties exceeds that of the massacre of emigrants at Bloody Point, by the Modocs, in September, 1852.

The two girls who were taken prisoners were allotted to some of the brave warriors as wives. They survived for several years, and, according to Modoc stories, were reconciled to their fate, adopting the manners and customs of their captors. It is said that they taught the Modocs many things pertaining to a civilized life, and that they exercised great influence over them; that the Modoc women became jealous of their power, and put them to death.

Near the residence of Mr. Dorris, on Cottonwood Creek, is a rocky cliff overlooking the valley. It was from this cliff the unfortunate captives were thrown to the rocks below, ending their lives as victims to the jealousy of the wives and mothers of their savage captors. Evidences of this tragedy are in existence; human skulls, and, within a few years, locks of long hair, unlike that of Indians, have been found on the spot indicated as the place where these captives were destroyed.

Ben Wright was a citizen of Y-re-ka. He was esteemed as a man of good character and standing among his fellows in that early day. Born a leader, he was selected by the miners to command a company of volunteers, who were enlisted without authority of the Government of the United States, the State of California, or the County of Sys-ki-you.

This company was formed, under the common law of self-protection, in the early days of California, when Indian outrages were of common occurrence. In the absence of regular provision for protection, the miners and settlers, in a spirit of patriotism, volunteered to punish Indians as well as to guard the peace of the country. Be it remembered that the massacre at “Bloody Point” was not the only act of savage ferocity committed by the Modocs. For five years had they been murdering the worn-out emigrants who were en route to California and Oregon.

It was in harmony with frontier ideas of right, to punish these people for their crimes, without taking into consideration the causes that may have impelled them to bloody deeds. The victims were not responsible for the acts of their predecessors on the line of travellers. However humane and just we may feel, we cannot object to Ben Wright’s motive, though all men who possess correct ideas of justice may deprecate the manner of avenging the wrongs committed. Had he slain the entire tribe in fair battle, no just condemnation could have been pronounced against him. Had he avenged their horrible crimes by ambushing them, by his skill and cunning, no man would have censured him; but to violate a flag of truce, under pretence of peace-making, was a wrong that fair-minded men, everywhere, condemn as an outrage against humanity and civilization.

If the Modocs had first been guilty of such acts of treachery, “extermination” would justly have been the cry. Savage warfare is unworthy of any people; but certainly it should never be surpassed by those professing Christian civilization. Even in war they should endeavor to teach the savage the higher laws that govern mankind.

Without stopping to moralize further, let us pursue the main facts, as they come following each other in succession. After the Ben Wright massacre, hostilities were continued until 1864; at which time Elisha Steel, Esq., of Y-re-ka, who was then acting superintendent for the northern district of California, made an informal treaty with the various bands of Indians, and who seems to have been more an arbitrator than a government commissioner. At all events the articles of agreement were not ratified by Congress.

This treaty did not set forth that any consideration would be paid by the Government for the possession of the Modoc country. Neither did it seek to alienate the country from the Indians, but referred to the localities where certain bands of Modocs, Schas-tas, Schas-ta-sco-tons, and Klamaths should reside. There was also an agreement to keep peace with each other and the whites.

It was in this council that Captain Jack was first acknowledged as a chief, and then only after an election was had by the band that had repudiated Schon-chin; after which Steele declared him a chief, and named him “Captain Jack,” on account of his resemblance to a miner bearing that name. That the Steele treaty was somewhat indefinite and unauthorized, was given as a reason why it never was recognized by the general Government.

There may have been other and more potent reasons, however; for the Modoc country proper is about equally divided between Oregon and California, though the home of Captain Jack and Schon-chin was on the Oregon side of the line. At that time the hearts of our people were much moved in behalf of the “poor Indian.” Each State was anxious to furnish a home for him. Whether Steele’s treaty reached Washington before or after, does not appear. The Superintendent of Oregon was instructed to “negotiate a treaty with all the Indians in the Klamath country, including the Modocs.”

This council met in October, 1864. The Klamaths, and also the Modocs, were represented in the council by their chiefs; the latter by Schon-chin and his brother John, who was afterwards associated with Captain Jack.

Captain Jack was recognized as a sub-chief. He participated in the council; and, when terms were agreed upon, he signed the articles of treaty in his Indian name,—Ki-en-te-poos. The idea that he was deceived in the meaning of the treaty is absurd; though it has been repeated by good men, without proper knowledge of the facts.

An unwarrantable sympathy for Captain Jack has been the result,—unless, indeed, all the Indians who were parties to the treaty are to be commiserated for having sold their birthright for an insufficient compensation. Old chief Schon-chin has never claimed any other than the plain meaning of the words of the treaty; which was, substantially, that what is known as Klamath Reservation was to be the joint home of the Klamaths and Modocs. All the other country claimed by the two tribes was ceded to the United States, on condition that certain acts should be performed by the Government, in a specified time. All of which has been, and is being done, to the satisfaction of the Indians who have remained on the Reservation. I assert this to be substantially correct. That they made a bargain that Captain Jack wished to repudiate is true. I do not wonder that he should do so, in view of his inherent love of royalty and his great ambition to be a chief, and the uncertainty of his tenure of office should he remain on the Reservation, the discipline of which was humiliating for one whose life had been free from restraint.

The head men of the Klamaths all agree and state positively that the treaty was fully interpreted and fairly understood by all parties, and that Captain Jack and the whole Modoc tribe shared in the issue of goods made at the council-ground by Superintendent Huntington, at the time of making the treaty. The plea that Captain Jack was deceived, as before-mentioned, is wholly unfounded. He not only understood and assented to it, but took up his abode on the Klamath Reservation, where he remained long enough to realize that Reservation life was not healthy for royalty.

Perhaps he had begun to see that he was to change his mode of life; also that Schon-chin was recognized as his superior in office; and it may be that he discovered that Klamath was not as good a country for Indian life as the Lost-river region. It is equally certain that he raised the standard of revolt, and finally withdrew from the Reservation, and took up his abode at his old home on Lost river; soon after which he stated to Mr. John A. Fairchilds that he had been cheated, and that “the treaty was a lie;” that he had not sold his country.

He made the same statement to Esquire Steele, of Y-re-ka, who is a man of a large and charitable heart, and who exercised great power over the Indians, and, with his former knowledge of Captain Jack, accredited his story concerning the swindle or cheat, and probably stated to Captain Jack that he would try to have the matter adjusted for him.

Steele wrote several letters to the department at Washington on this subject, and also gave letters to Jack and his people, repeating therein Jack’s story about his being cheated, and commending him to the friendly consideration of white people with whom he might come in contact.

Some of these letters are still in existence. I myself have read several of them, the tenor of which was in keeping with the statement already made,—that Jack still claimed the country, and that he was a well-disposed Indian, etc.; but there was not one line, so far as I know, that could be construed to mean that the treaty could or should he repudiated.

That Steele had friendship for Jack, there can be no doubt; and that Jack recognized Steele as his friend and adviser is equally certain; and whatever influence Steele’s advice may have had, it never was intended to justify Jack in removing from the Reservation to which he belonged. I have been thus particular in this matter, because Jack has used the name of Steele in a way to mislead public opinion in regard to Steele’s connection with the Modoc rebellion. Jack’s reason for leaving the Reservation in 1864 was, simply and substantially, that he had made a compact with which he was dissatisfied. He not only misconstrued the friendship of Steele and others, but misrepresented them in such a way as to rid himself of the responsibility as much as possible.

Following his career, we find that, in 1865, at the request of the citizens of Lost-river Basin, Capt. McGreggor, commander of Fort Klamath, made an unsuccessful attempt to return Jack’s band to the Reservation; and, also, that sub-agent Lindsay Applegate sought to remove him in 1866; also, that in 1867 Superintendent Huntington visited the “Modoc country,” and that Capt. Jack and his warriors took a position on the opposite side of Lost river, and said to him that, if he attempted to cross over, he “would fire on him.” Huntington, being unsupported, made no attempt at crossing. He reported the matter, as others had done, to the department at Washington; but no action was ordered. It will be seen that this same rebel chief had eluded and defied the authority of the Government on these three successive occasions; and yet the clemency and forbearance of the Government were misconstrued by him and his misinformed sympathizers.

In the latter part of 1869, while on an official visit to Klamath Agency, the Modocs first engaged my attention; and hearing then the fact above referred to, as a reason why he had refused to obey the commands of the government, and believing that his return, without military force, was possible, a consultation with Agent O. C. Knapp was held. We decided to make another effort; accordingly a courier was despatched with a message that we would meet him at Link river. The reply was to the effect that if we wanted to see him we must come to his country; and, further, that he did not care to see us.

Notwithstanding this insult, we decided to visit the Modoc country in person. Believing in the power of the right to accomplish the purpose, even if force was necessary, we determined to go, “bearing the olive branch;” and, also, at the same time, recognized the necessity of being prepared for personal defence should any attack be made. A requisition was made on Capt. Goodale, commander at Fort Klamath, for a detachment of troops.

To the first request we received a doubtful answer, because “he had not the men to spare.” I did not inquire of Capt. Goodale what the duties of the soldiers were; but from others I learned that they were required for “police duty,” or sentry duty, which meant, probably, that one-half the soldiers were needed to guard the other half, and maybe were to wait on the officers of the fort. A few days previous, a number of enlisted men had deserted, and those sent in pursuit “had failed to put in an appearance at roll-call.”

Finally, the Klamath Indians succeeded in arresting the deserters and bringing them under guard to the fort, receiving therefor a reward for so doing. This fort was built, and has been kept up at an enormous expense, to secure the peace of the country. It has been an advantage to both white men and Indians,—the one finding a market for hay and grain; the other, a market for the articles manufactured by their women,—moccasins, etc.; and the men an opportunity to make greenbacks by hunting and arresting deserters.

Capt. Goodale finally detailed a small squad of men, under command of a non-commissioned officer, for the purpose requested, as stated heretofore.

We left Klamath Agency on the morning of the third of December, 1869, destined for the home of the Modocs, accompanied by Agent O. C. Knapp, of Klamath, I. D. Applegate in charge of Yai-nax, and W. C. McKay, together with teamsters, guides, and interpreters; also, two Klamath Indian women. Ordering the soldiers to follow us as far as Link river, there to await further orders, we pushed on, leaving the teams with our supplies to follow into the Modoc country on the morning of the twenty-second of December, 1869.

The route from Link river is through a sage-brush plain, and following down the west bank of Lost river.

Lost river is the outlet or connecting link between Clear lake and Tule lake. After leaving the former, it flows under ground several miles, and again coming to the surface, empties into the latter. For this reason it was named “Lost river.” It is a deep, narrow stream, with but few fording-places. In March of each year it is a great fishery. None of the same species of fish are found elsewhere; it possesses the appearance of a species of white trout, excepting the head and mouth, which is after the sucker species. The flesh is rich and nutritious, and so abundant are they that they are taken with rude implements, such as sharpened sticks and pitchforks, and are even caught with the hand, when they are running over the ripples or fords.

A courier sent by the Modoc Peace Commission, with despatches to Yai-nax, having occasion to cross Lost river while en route, reported, on his return, having difficulty in crossing this stream on account of the immense numbers of fish running against the horse’s legs, and frightening him. A pretty big fish story, but not incredible.

When within a few miles of the Modoc camp, we espied four Indians coming on ponies. As we approached, they, forming a line across the road, exclaimed “Kaw-tuk!” (Stop!) They were each armed with a rifle and revolver. Our party carried, each man, a Henry rifle and a navy six-shooter. A short parley ensued, they determining to know our business, and would allow no farther advance until their demand was recognized.

We stated, in substance, that we were anxious to see Captain Jack and his people on important business.

The Indians replied, “that they did not wish to talk with us; they had no business with us, and that we had better turn back.” Three times had they defied, intimidated, or eluded officers of the Government previously, and were now trying to evade a meeting by bluffing our party.

We had started to visit these people, and, in western parlance, “we were going.” Pushing past the Indians, we started on a brisk gallop, they turning around and running ahead of us. After a brisk ride of four miles we came in sight of the Modoc town, situated on the western bank of the river about one mile above the “Natural Bridge,” and within sight of the newly-made mounds of the State line.

The “Natural Bridge” is a ledge of rocks, twenty feet in width, spanning the river. It was used in early days of emigration, to cross the river. At the time of our visit it was two feet under water, but on either bank, approaching the bridge, were unmistakable evidences of wagon travel. On the western side the old road leads out through the sage-brush plains, and may be easily traced with the eye for several miles. This “Natural Bridge” has been gradually sinking. The early emigrants crossed over it when it was a few feet above the water; then, at a later date, the water had risen one or two feet above it; and yet neither the river nor the lake appear to be higher than they were when first visited by white men.