1937 - a mural for the government that is apparent about: "Indians were not nearly as interested in mail and other valuables in the stage coaches they pillaged, as they were in white women."

In 1935, Frank A. Mechau of Colorado Springs, Co, an up-and-coming talented 31-year old who won the Guggenheim Fellowship the year before, was chosen - out of 142 artist entries - to paint murals for the new Post Office Building at Washington that were to honor the Pony Express. Mechau submitted the two drawings below, with a "Wild West" theme. He said he was attracted to native scenes and native people, after traveling the west in 1932.

The below sketch "shows a massacre by Indians who had attacked one of the stage coaches which traveled the Pony Express road," a quote from St Louis Post Dispatch, Dec 1, 1935.  Mechau claimed he had done a great deal of research to ensure all of the details were historically accurate. "He has also been soaking up the atmosphere of the present West, which retains something of the day when riders of the Pony Express thundered over the Central Overland route." 

1935, Dec 1    St Louis Post Dispatch    

The first article I found on any opposition to Mechau's mural is on September 19th, 1937 in the Argus Leader. Headline read: Mail Dangers Tough on Females. Mural Nude Figures are Puzzling. I've attached it below, but I'm still going to post the actual words in case you can't read the article. It's quite telling:

Washington, Sept 18 - The post office department's new painting - 'Dangers of the Mail' - appears on close inspection to be far tougher on females than on mail or males. 

          For instance:

          The ladies' stagecoach journey has been interrupted by Indians.

          The ladies are being scalped.

          They lost their clothes.

          The males, on the other hand, are fighting. One of them is about to be stabbed in the back, but at least he's running. Another has just winged a tormentor.

          As for the mail, why, it isn't even being touched.

          The mural, painted by Frank Mechau, has gone up in one of the curving corridors above Postmaster General Farley's office and is supposed to depict hardships of early mail deliveries.

          A typewritten explanation glued to the wall near the mural says:    The nudes are justified by historical facts. The daughter of the governor of New Mexico and two friends were captured by Indians, later being rescued while herding sheep in a snowstorm completely unclothed."

          It sounds a little bizarre, but critics grant the nude sheep herding might have happened. What troubles them is what became of the ladies clothes.

          The Indians don't have them.

          They aren't lying around any place.

          And no pillaging squaws are present. 

1937,Sept 19.   Argus Leader. 

Okay, so here we are. Let's examine these first two articles and the explanations given for the mural.

1. First, he said in 1935: "shows a massacre by Indians who had attacked one of the stage coaches which traveled the Pony Express road,"  Now, he was commissioned to honor the Pony Express, which was a short-lived event in history - 19 months exactly. From April 3, 1860 to October 1861 and the first rider who died did so from being thrown off his horse. Another was killed while trying to cross the Platte River in Nebraska. A third was presumed dead when his horse showed up at the destination without him. No one knows what became of the rider. The fourth rider death was also not at the hands of savage Indians, rather he froze to death, and the fifth died in a shootout with Missouri Raiders. These facts are from the Pony Express Museum. There is no mention of a stagecoach or a massacre. And though this first explanation says they were traveling on the Pony Express, I searched from 1859 to 1900 and could not find one story that came even a little close to this one. 

2. In the second explanation, he says: "The nudes are justified by historical facts. The daughter of the governor of New Mexico and two friends were captured by Indians, later being rescued while herding sheep in a snowstorm completely unclothed."  There's a list of governors of New Mexico - from 1846 when it was just territory - to 1912, when it was admitted to the US as its 47th state. There are only one instance of any murder or scalping or violent act involving Native people and a New Mexico Governor or his family, and that is: 

        Charles Bent, in office September 1846 – 19 January 1847, was scalped and killed by Pueblo warriors, during the Taos Revolt. His bio specifically says: "The women and children in the Bent home were not harmed by the insurgents, and the remaining Bents fled to safety next door through a hole in the parlor wall."

                                 

A week later, in the Nevada State Journal (Sept 29, 1937), under the headline "Critics Again Rant Over Murals on Walls of Post Office Building, but Indians Continue to Scalp Women," the mural had been removed. The reason given by the staff was issues with the glue. Most of the newspapers didn't buy that excuse, and they referred to it as a "controversial mural" that "had received many protests." 

This time, the glue on another explanation of the paintings nudity and scalping depiction was given. Hanging on a column near where the mural hung was a note that said the "Indians were not nearly as interested in mail and other valuables in the stage coaches they pillaged, as they were in white women."

The plot thickens.  Now this had nothing to do with the Pony Express, or a Governor's daughter being kidnapped while riding on the Pony Express trail? It was about the scalping Indians going after naked white women. Well isn't that interesting.

Here's another comment about the painting that's worth posting:

1937, Sep 30.   Santa Cruz Evening News 

And of course there's the lone writer that pops up, making statements contrary to everyone else. He starts off pretty much like every Letter to the Editor in today's newspapers, with opinions as to why cultural appropriation is a silly topic, and it's a bunch of hyper-sensitive, P.C.  B.S. These contrary cranks haven't changed much:

         "  At least once a week the vigilant press reports a bitter controversy stirred by a mural painting. The rows have been so frequent that folks who know nothing except what they read in the newspapers may have an idea that the proper definition for a mural is "a controversial painting." Most of the controversies are show-lived and only on rare occasions is the painting destroyed or even edited to the satisfaction of the protesters.....
           This week's controversy concerns a mural in the office of Postmaster General Farley, "The Dangers of the Mail," ..
          The mural depicts Indians scalping nude women after pillaging a stage coach. The nudes occupy the center of the picture and not all of them have been scalped. Artist Mechau defends his mural as based on historical fact.
          The muralist is not content to create a work of photographic accuracy. He introduces either symbolism or art or both and that's when he attracts a yelping pack of critics.
          The very good chance is that if women really were disrobed and scalped by marauding redskins, they did not manage the harmonious tableau painted by Artist Mechau. Also it is highly improbable that the unfortunate women all were blessed with physical proportions that would get them jobs as professional models." - Source: 1937, Sept 23. The Decatur Herald.

Yes ladies and gents, this guy first of all said these muralists who have been commissioned to paint historic moments in history for the US government buildings, paid for, of course, by the US taxpayers, but he also said the women were symbolism or artistic liberties because they were all so damn fine.

Can't make this stuff up even if I tried.

But hold one... it gets better. Click here to read what he says next:

1937, Sept 23. The Decatur Herald.