Devils River: Treacherous Twin to the Pecos, 1535–1900 (review)

With this and his other works, Patrick Dearen provides well documented detail about the history of a dry, rugged, and often violent section of Texas defined by the Pecos and Devils Rivers. However, some of his interpretations are problematic.

The book begins with the probable wandering of Cabeza de Vaca through the region and continues through twenty chapters about the hardships and conflicts as Europeans pushed through the region, first the desultory Spanish efforts at conquest, then travelers in quest of gold in California, and finally stock raisers to establish fenced ranches for cattle, sheep, and goats and settlers to form communities served by the railroad. Dearen weaves a readable narrative from somewhat isolated events, although the mass of detail still needs a conceptual thread to hold it together. Nevertheless, the book is a valuable contribution to the literature and will be useful to the serious student of the region.

Dearen provides a wealth of interesting facts. For example, the Spanish named the river San Pedro, but the story goes that the Texas Ranger John C. Hays looked at the river and said “Saint Peter, hell! It looks more like the devil’s river to me” (24). Much of the book documents the efforts of Americans to establish transportation routes across the region. Dearen also graphically documents the difficulties of ranching in the region, including frequent droughts, freezes, disease, stampedes, rustling, and overgrazing. Despite the book’s strengths, there are three bothersome distractions.

The first is the maps. There is one small-scale map of the southwestern quadrant of Texas, including the Pecos and Devils Rivers, with some historic and contemporary place names. There are also fifteen large-scale historic maps of military posts and camps. However, the maps do not help the reader follow the narrative. Readers would benefit from a large-scale map of the Devils River itself, showing both contemporary and historic places mentioned in the narrative.

The second distraction is the exclusive Euro-centric perspective. Indians are consistently referred to as hostiles and marauders, the products of warrior societies. On the other hand, Lieutenant General Philip H. Sheridan’s order to “Let it be a campaign of annihilation, obliteration and complete destruction” (101) receives no judgment. Regarding a statement by Lieutenant Albert J. Myer that the war on the frontier was one of “extermination” (56) and that the army had orders to take no captives and to refuse peace overtures, Dearen states, “Judged by the standards of a civilized society that had no empathy for warrior mentality, the actions of the hostiles seemed to justify such a position” (56). History does not seem to justify Dearen’s position.

The third distraction is the excessive word play on the river’s name. For example, “this was indeed a country ruled by evil” (35), “They could not easily escape the dark angel who ruled it” (36), “Certain stretches in particular seemed to bear witness to perdition’s judgment” (41), and “This river’s insatiable lust for tragedy” (48). These are but a few of the many implications of evil within the river, the land, the weather, the wildlife, the Indians, and the Mexicans—anything that thwarted the ambitions of Americans who wanted the land. Rather than a judgmental perspective, it would have increased the value of the book if Dearen had tried to consider why two aggressive and very different cultures fought so hard over such a difficult landscape.