| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 27 2005 : 10:06:58 AM
This in regards to Markland's Research Site thread, which is to be devoid of exchange and just used for research sites. In regards to the Bridger letter......
I have great difficulty with his theory of the Fetterman show, for reasons previously posted. I believe we're to average about 5 people per lodge, with attendent horses. Is this still correct? If so, we're to believe that the Sioux, Cheyenne, and Arapahoe gathered in restricted space about 13k people with what? A pony each? Three? Hell of a lot of quadrapeds. This in deep winter. This is also about the size of the LBH village, which we're told had to move often for sanitation and grass and that in high lush summer. But in winter, food and sanitation aren't a problem, and such huge numbers could gather together in an extended village along the Tongue/Powder. One of these two theories can be correct, but not both as indicative of "typical" Indian behavior.
Planning out the attack that occured would require compliance from the soldiers. Although Red Cloud's team must have stood slack jawed at the soldiers' immediate willingness to comply, they certainly could not have counted on it nor, really, believed it. And they never followed up or did much of anything else except snipe.
Such numbers of Indians could not help but have come to the attention of the fort given the long duration and preparation. To the point, that number of warriors probably could have taken the fort. If there was a plan to take and burn the fort, why didn't they? Why didn't they really even try after killing a large number of soldiers? Wasn't that the point to the gathering? Burning the fort?
Why, given how small Ft. Smith was up north, wouldn't they take a small portion of their warriors and burn that out in an afternoon, then return to FPK?
I don't see any organization about this to suggest there was a "plan" of any sort. More of a wish, and really disorganized, and fortunate that the soldiers granted their every dream under Fetterman. |
| 17 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - March 02 2005 : 3:47:42 PM
I agree with you Wild, but my point was that if indeed "thousands" of Indians were on hand to slaughter - literally - Fetterman's soldiers, they would have had inclination to polish off the greatly reduced and hardly intimidating enemy numbers that remained, destroy the fort and grab the goodies. Mob mentality, lots of warriors without coup, Big Mo and Mojo on their side. But I don't think there were anything like "thousands." What happened to Fetterman didn't require more than a few hundred, maybe five, although more could have been there. Ten Eycks (whatever the spelling) somehow restrained himself from attacking and driving off the Indians from the bodies and the Indians in turn didn't look to attack him or the fort.
I don't scoff at military systems. I scoff at their alleged prissy presence when evidence doesn't support it. |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 02 2005 : 1:39:44 PM
And that the reason the Fort survived is because it was never remotely threatened because the Sioux did not have the numbers
PART II
The Indian forces were not articulated.They were not organised in sections ,platoons,companies.They were in fact a undiciplined force of individuals.Besides a few tricks like decoys their only offensive gambit was the massed attack.Once committed to this all command and controll was lost.They were incapable of coordinated multi unit action.
Further,timing is everything in battle particularly in attack.I doubt if they had anything remotely like a 60 minute hour,a 24 hour day.What did they say about the lenght of the LS---"It took as long as a hungry man took to eat his dinner".
However in spite of their stoneage military system they used it to it's full potential.Their purpose was to maintain the tribe and their military force in tact.Their mobility they used to great advantage.They avoided battle unless on their terms.They waged a war that was extremly economical on their forces.
The reason given by DC for not attacking the fort is rather one dimensionial and simplistic.For a man who time and time again scoffs at military systems he offers the oh so lame civy "they did not have the numbers". |
| whistlingboy |
Posted - March 01 2005 : 11:27:01 AM
Dark Cloud, when your written observations are facetious in nature, a simple 'banter' in your own stylistic way, they are interesting, yet unrevealing of your true thinking. The posts generate much response in different tones. But when you scrutinize in serious and 'practical' tones you usually hit at the 'heart' of the matter. I certainly agree with much of what you have said regarding the different scenarios surrounding circumstances in and around Ft. Phil Kearny back in 1866.
It is difficult to study about a battle such as Fetterman's demise with a modicum of objectivity
when almost everything written-- about Indians-- is anything but pellucid. It is astounding how much credence is given to the abilities of the Indians and to the 'numbers' they have been attributed to have amassed at given battles. And then, at those gatherings of numerous tribes, they what, 'flip a coin 'to see who from what tribe will lead the congregation? I wonder how many Indians were fluent in speaking the many different tribal languages? What constituted a 'plan' of battle to the Indians. In my Indian 'education' it has always appeared to me that one 'endemic' plan was always 'in their hearts,'--namely, a plan of "Surprise, Attack, Riot and Rout."?
Your 'funning' at the exaggerated numbers employed by the Indians is well-targeted and 'on the money' because the 'numbers game' seemed to always favor them. Researchers pursuing the facts often 'buy-in' and 'deal' with the exaggerated figures without explanation and yet try to make everything else about a battle into a 'truth.' Diversions at getting to the 'truth' run rampant.
One writer says 'they' probably had '3000 warriors;' the next writer inadvertedly leaves out the word 'probably.' A history episode is changed, in the casual reader's eyes, from 'probable' to fact.
It must have been too 'shameful' for 50 soldiers to get beat by 30 Indians--at least in 'Washington's' eyes.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - March 01 2005 : 10:05:33 AM
You don't know how to cut and paste, do you, Warlord? You insert a comma in a quote. For someone who excoriated others for their lack of computer skills early on - that was before you were exposed trying to palm off a game site intro as a source - you should start removing the logs from your own eye.
I haven't "dumped much on the military in general" at all, especially compared to what knowledgeable soldiers of actual combat experience have dumped on the military in general, and in any case it is backed by evidence and true. And on this forum, relevant to the topic.
You started out claiming possession of certain firearms, knowledge of men in battle, surety of what Custer's men must have accomplished at the battle, overweaning insistence of the competence of the Army of 1876. (That when it didn't interfere with your other contradictory line of government incompetence and chicanery.) In each and every instance, you've been shown not to know what you're talking about; you've even had to adjust claims about your own supposed carbine as info emerged from Dave and Markland. Stuff you "never noticed" although you'd claimed to have fired it. Exclamation points don't hide that sort of thing.
As I've said, we hold similar opinions of each other. I have my military sources, you claim to have yours, along with your pretend psychologist, to bolster your arguments, if such they can be called. |
| wILD I |
Posted - March 01 2005 : 09:50:07 AM
And that the reason the Fort survived is because it was never remotely threatened because the Sioux did not have the numbers.Only half true DC.
The soldier manning that fort was the manifestation of the surplus produced by a sophisticated settled race.He was in fact expendable.The Indian on the other hand was not expendable.The tribal system did not produce specialist soldiers.The Indian may have been a warrior but he was also vital to the tribe as a hunter,protector and stud.The loss of 20 warriors from a subtribe could mean extinction for that group.To them the survival of the tribe was paramount.
There is another consideration.Who would willing go into battle along side his sons,brothers and father.Look what happened to the Custers.A very bad day for Ma Custer.I n the first world war the Brits raised "pals battalions "from villages and towns.After such battles as the Somme which saw whole divisions annihilated these communities were left bereft of their menfolk.And is there not regulations in the USN about members of the same family serving on the same ship?[Following the death of 5 Sullivan brothers on a war ship]The survival of the tribe was paramount.That fort was not worth the loss of 20 warriors.
What you don't seem to realise DC is that the tribal system could only maintain a guerrilla war.Hit and run.Fetterman and Custer cost the Indians very little.Looking through my company clerk military manuals I see that it states that for an attack to have any chance of success the attacking force should outnumber the defenders by 3 to 1.I doubt very much if the Indian fire power came anywhere near that ratio. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 28 2005 : 9:43:17 PM
If it's the same as everyone else, neither low nor high. They're people like everyone else.
Your descriptions of the Indians fighting corresponds to what I've read, but these aren't examples of genius, tactical or otherwise, but people doing the best they can in situational circumstance. I get irate reading "best cavalry in the world, bar none" from people who often hadn't left their home towns till they hit the plains and had never seen any opposition except rebels. Better than the central Asians, the guys in Argentina, the British, what are they talking about? It was just one of those cliches that people used back then to mean 'really good', like people use 'perfect' just as incorrectly today.
Unfortunately, as we have seen, people on this board (and elsewhere) believe it utterly and without the slightest inclination to question it, generally because a soldier - possibly a soldier of a unit recently clocked before he collected his thoughts - said it. The soldiers that said it had no basis for their conclusion whatsoever except fable and a deep wish for it to be true to excuse their loss or increase the appearence of their bravery in facing such foes.
It could be utterly true, but no way to know. Being better than the 7th or the US Cavalry of 1876 did not emblazon names in the Horseman Hall of Fame, and individual great horsemen do not translate automatically to great cavalry acting as a unit.
That Indians' fights were low casualty before white men appeared to tabulate and record is based upon what? Indians' stories? I don't think they're finding the fights in the Chaco canyon to have been low loss, per capita. The Hurons and Iroquois wars lead one to conclude there were many casualties and deaths. Hard to know, of course. It's fair to assume that those that got the horse first cheerfully chased down and slaughtered those who didn't have them. Why wouldn't they? Multiple coup and an enemy removed from buffalo competition, raise the children as yours, steal the women, become a bigger and better tribe. Hoo-rah.
The blood stains? One stain equals one wounded Indian? Not a horse? Not a wounded soldier? Even then, they were environmentally conscientious and didn't litter or overbleed - that would be bragging - and retained stoic indifference. And this on a field of vivisected men, all body parts accounted for and none carried off dripping........ Strikes me Carrington was trying to sweep together something - anything - to say in praise of the dead. Wonder how many rounds those handy muskets got off in freezing weather in the hands of surprised, cold, and scared troopers? |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - February 28 2005 : 8:47:11 PM
What a day and to come home to this?
quote:
That's not correct, Hunkpapa. My opinion of the Indian is no different than my opinion of anyone else.
Do you really have that low an opinion of your fellow inhabitants of this earthly domain?
quote:
I find the inclination to inflate them to peaceful put-upons who nonetheless retain "strategic" sensibilities and tactical military genius to be ludicrous, but that's true of everyone pretty much.
I halfway agree with you. The plains Indian did not have the "strategic sensibilities" attributed to them as few could grasp the overwhelming numbers facing them. Witness that Red Cloud thought he could starve the soldiers of Forts Phil Kearny and C. F. Smith to the point were they would evacuate the posts. However, I beg to differ regarding the tactical proficiency. When you say "genius", you are obviously being at the best, facetious. The plains Indian tribes had tried and true tactical manuevers which they used to some success, including, yes, the decoy. The Indian (generic) normally fought within the constraints of their heritage. Now having said that, they definitely could adjust, witness the Lava Beds as well as the Nez Perce campaign for two examples. A third example is the reason we are all discussing the Indian wars.
Regarding why the Indians did not take Ft. Phil Kearny? I have two thoughts. First, I agree with you on the numbers originally posted being, errrr..."exaggerated". I feel that there was perhaps 1,000 to 1,200 warriors available, fully concentrated. Since we know that the Indians did not use any type of central command system, figure fully one-third of those feeling like they had better things to do that day, especially since Powell did not bite on the previous attempt.
Secondly, and most important, while archaelogical evidence and on the scene evidence reports few shell casings evident, we must remember that the bulk of troops used muzzle-loading rifles, with cartridges encased in paper, which was used as wadding. The only evidence of prolonged firing would have been numerous percussion caps, which with their size, are easily overlooked, pressed down into the ground or were just not noticed. Carrrington noticed, I recollect from memory, something in the order of sixty-five blood stains implying wounds to Indians. I respectfully suggest that Carrington perhaps did not venture out far enough to see any others. Actually, that is irrelevant as, in my opinion, having sixty-five dead/wounded warriors would have been discouraging to the Indians. Remember that their internal wars historically had few losses of men so having that many men out of commission simultaneously would have been somewhat discouraging, considering the odds.
Just a few random thoughts from a mush-brain Monday.
Billy
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 28 2005 : 6:27:10 PM
That's not correct, Hunkpapa. My opinion of the Indian is no different than my opinion of anyone else. I find the inclination to inflate them to peaceful put-upons who nonetheless retain "strategic" sensibilities and tactical military genius to be ludicrous, but that's true of everyone pretty much. I'm most interested where you find I have a low opinion of "anyone who ever wore a uniform."
I'm surprised that as a military enthusiast you've taken umbrage at my surprise that the Sioux warriors in the thousands - if indeed there was remotely anything like "thousands" of warriors at PK - didn't take the fort. Tally up the perimeter of the fort, numbers being so exciting. Then, how many soldiers were there to cover that yardage? The distance between them? Where would the artillery go, and what choice of shell would be chosen? Where would the "reserves" go to fill in for the wounded? How high, actually, were the walls? Then surround the fort with enthused thousands and have them rush it at once, for example.
Of course, don't forget to consider the muskets and rifles and the reload times.
Carrington was quite sure that was in the cards, and prepared people to put the women and children in the powder room and ignite it if things got bad. No confident commander, there.
My point is that it is entirely unlikely it took "thousands" of Sioux to wipe out Fetterman's crew, and that it is entirely unlikely that "thousands" hidden, or could lay hidden, from the advancing soldiers. And that the reason the Fort survived is because it was never remotely threatened because the Sioux did not have the numbers.
Just as the Custerphiles and the Native American apologists have found common ground and love by suddenly presenting a small village that allows Custer to have been beaten solely by Reno's timidity and Benteen's perfidy (it excuses the warriors for incompetence and being surprised - not enough men!), Fetterman is excused by overwhelming numbers and the Indians get petted for "stategic planning," and we're left to wonder why they left the Fort standing.
I don't buy either of those all too convenient and unevidenced accounts of these battles. |
| hunkpapa7 |
Posted - February 28 2005 : 6:00:55 PM
DC maybe the "War Chiefs"of the Sioux & Cheyenne should have went east and sat on a high vantage point and watched how it should be done,say Gettysburg !
The sheer carnage which they would have witnessed,would have shown them how to do it the civilised way !
For Plains Indians to attack a fort,might be on a similar vein to the Polish Cavalry charging a German Panzer division.
Now if the fort was located in the North/east,the Iroquois,I would suggest might have attempted it [especially after being trained and armed]
I know you have a low opinion of the plains,sorry every Indian,and for that matter anybody who wore a uniform as well,but give them a little credit for not being stupid enough to get killed en-masse.
|
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 28 2005 : 12:27:52 PM
No doubt, but I'd think "thousands" of warriors fresh from slaughter could have worked themselves into a froth over the depleted fort's resources, artillery or no, and just done it. Wouldn't have taken long even with relatively heavy losses. Now, couple of hundred warriors? Naw. |
| Anonymous Poster8169 |
Posted - February 28 2005 : 11:47:27 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Phil Kearney was about the only fort that actually looked like the ones in those tv shows and movies except that its walls were about half the height portrayed. Motivated warriors could vault over them, and I don't understand why they didn't even really try to wipe it out after Fetterman's fiasco severely depleted the fort's resources. They had a lot of wall to cover with too few, and not very good, soldiers.
They were probably afraid of the fort's artillery.
R. Larsen |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 28 2005 : 09:59:52 AM
Well, what was the plan? Motivate "thousands" to wait in hiding everyday in freezing winter to see if that particular day the soldiers would fall for the decoys? That strikes me as pretty situational and coincidental, and totally dependent upon cooperation from the soldiers.
Every day the train went out, was attacked, Indians taunted the soldiers.
Further, after succeeding beyond wildest dreams, they didn't follow up, an illustrative example right there to their 'strategic' incompetence.
Also, it's a little silly to slash away the errors of the sixties, fifties and earlier decades on as if it's a great revelation they got it wrong. Phil Kearney was about the only fort that actually looked like the ones in those tv shows and movies except that its walls were about half the height portrayed. Motivated warriors could vault over them, and I don't understand why they didn't even really try to wipe it out after Fetterman's fiasco severely depleted the fort's resources. They had a lot of wall to cover with too few, and not very good, soldiers. |
| joseph wiggs |
Posted - February 27 2005 : 9:22:54 PM
.
Such numbers of Indians could not help but have come to the attention of the fort given the long duration and preparation. To the point, that number of warriors probably could have taken the fort. If there was a plan to take and burn the fort, why didn't they? Why didn't they really even try after killing a large number of soldiers? Wasn't that the point to the gathering? Burning the fort?
I don't see any organization about this to suggest there was a "plan" of any sort. More of a wish, and really disorganized, and fortunate that the soldiers granted their every dream under Fetterman.
Dark Cloud
Fort Phil Kearny is located at the base of the Bighorn Mountains. As such there was immense acreage blanketed with trees, foilage, and ravines in such numbers as to secrete thousands of warriors. Warriors trained from birth to move through the underbrush without being detected. Red Cloud, indignant over the soldiers intrusion into Lakota land,led a large contingency of Mniconjus, Oglalas, and Sicangu to counter this intrusion. They were alarmed due to the quick construction of three forts in the heart of the best Lakota hunting grounds.
They were also frustrated because their was little they could do unless they lured the soldiers out of the forts. Contrary to media images of the 50's that portrayed painted savages madly charging a fortified position, the reality was they were much to smart to do so in most cases, not all.
High Back Bone devised a plan to ambush the soldiers of Fort Kearny. Most of the fighting men (thousands)would hide themselves and their horses in the ridges and gullies on either side of the wagon trail up from Prairie Dog Creek to Lodge Trail Ridge. Meanwhile, a small group of warriors were selected to attack the wood gatherers who were sent out, every morning, from the fort. The purpose being to entice the soldiers to respond and render aid..
Ten decoys were selected to initiate the action, one of them being Crazy Horse. The ten decoys augment by twenty or so warriors began the attack. Capt. Fetterman was ordered to rescue the woodcutters. Before setting out he was warned, twice, by the Fort commander that he should do nothing except escort the woodcutters back to the fort.
The commanders last words/orders to Fetterman were, "Under no circumstances must you cross Lodge Trail Ridge." As we all know, he crossed it.
The Indians definitely had a plan. Whether it was a good one or a bad one is debatable. It probably would not have worked had it not been for the exuberance of Fetterman. |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 27 2005 : 1:18:46 PM
Clearly, agents had, well, agendas. If only I had a bigger budget (and control of the Army), there would be Peace.
I understand "till", but you aren't focussing on "late." Being out till "late" still includes some portion of "night." Tracking anything at night is a joy, tracking things at night likely to wait in the dark to kill you is even more fullfilling. Continuing to present yourself till late defies comment. If true, of course.
My point about these entirely favorable odds not resulting in much - and hammering on them - is to emphasize that there are no mutual exclusives at work here. Both sides could be and often were entirely incompetent, both sides fibbed to themselves and each other. Those trying to point out the latent military strategic genius of the Sioux have difficulty presenting the Fetterman fiasco as an example of planning, given it was utterly dependent upon some officer getting a burr up his butt coincidental to enough warriors being in the neighborhood. Second, if they could maintain such huge numbers in proximity in winter for a long period, we need to revisit the LBH in summer where somehow it could not be done.
If they had such numbers, then their inability to wipe out all the forts that winter - garnering weapons and food - is most puzzling and hardly testament to their military ability. They had to have had a good idea how many soldiers were in the fort, and after counting the Fetterman dead it's rather surprising they didn't pursue the issue. |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - February 27 2005 : 12:53:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Dark Cloud
Stuff I have difficulty with:
[i}September 23rd, Indians attacked and drove off twenty four head of cattle, the property of a government contractor. Captain Brown, with a few mounted men, a few volunteer citizens, in all twenty three men, pursued the Indians, overtaking them about ten miles from the post. A sharp skirmish ensued in which the Indians, numbering not far from one hundred and fifty, repeatedly charged, and were themselves charged, until compelled to abandon the cattle, all of which were brought back safely to the post.[/i}
Ten miles from the fort, the Sioux could not slaughter 23 men (or kill the cattle, anyway) with positive odds of 6 to 1?
Who knows. I would imagine the numbers of Indians are somewhat inflated in Brown's report, likely doubled. Anyway, it is not unheard of as the incident at Crazy Woman's Fork and Fetterman's defense on December 6 both featured small numbers of troops, albeit in a defensive position, holding off several times their number of Indians.
quote:
The same day at 9 o'clock, the Indians stampeded a government herd near the post, wounding two of the herders. Captain Ten Eyck and Lieutenant Wands pursued them till late at night, without success. Late at night, far from aid, the cavalry pursued Sioux?
TILL, DC, as in, "till late at night." From reading the various reports, it is obvious that the Indians, at that time, had not formed any plan beyond one of harassment and hit-and-run to deal with the troops. I suspect that Red Cloud/Man Afraid got tired of those tactics and also realized that their allies might be getting tired of the maintaining the "status quo."
quote:
All the Sioux, including those that committed the atrocities in Minnesota, are in our neighborhood.....we reached the field just in time to see the last man killed. If I had obeyed my instructions I would have been killed. These poor fellows when killed, the greater number, were in one heap. Hines letters.
Minnesota was well known, then. And there is the strong whiff of literary conventions that appear in these descriptions. Just in time to see the last man fall..... If I had followed my orders, I'd have been killed.....
The Secretary of the Interior's report also poo-poos the report of the Santee among the Lakota. Having said that, I have no doubts that there were individual Santee warriors and families among the Lakota, just not in large numbers. More as refugees from Minnesota than anything.
quote:
Ah! Something I like:
As to the numbers of the Indians thus holding the posts under siege, the 1,500 lodges mentioned by the writer would represent a population of some 9,000, while the "4,000 or 5,000 well mounted and armed warriors" would represent a population of 24,000 to 30,000 Indians, an enormous exaggeration of the number which could by any possibility be in that country, showing the terrible state of demoralization into which the minds of the most intelligent men must have fallen.
Thought you would go into ecstasy over that one. While that is good, this is even funnier.
"...and I find it difficult to account for the tragedy upon any other theory than that heretofore advanced by this office, to wit: that the Indians, almost in a state of starvation having made repeated attempts at a conference, that they might make peace and obtain supplies for their families, and the rescinding of the order prohibiting them from obtaining arms and ammunition, were rendered desperate, and resorted to the stratagem which proved too successful. It seems as if the officer commanding could have avoided the catastrophe;..."
I think Chandler's letter in the report of the Secretary of Interior, excluding the number of warriors, makes as good as sense as anything. His recommendation to disavow the Ft. Laramie treaty was bold.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
| Dark Cloud |
Posted - February 27 2005 : 11:45:17 AM
Stuff I have difficulty with:
September 23rd, Indians attacked and drove off twenty four head of cattle, the property of a government contractor. Captain Brown, with a few mounted men, a few volunteer citizens, in all twenty three men, pursued the Indians, overtaking them about ten miles from the post. A sharp skirmish ensued in which the Indians, numbering not far from one hundred and fifty, repeatedly charged, and were themselves charged, until compelled to abandon the cattle, all of which were brought back safely to the post.
Ten miles from the fort, the Sioux could not slaughter 23 men (or kill the cattle, anyway) with positive odds of 6 to 1?
The same day at 9 o'clock, the Indians stampeded a government herd near the post, wounding two of the herders. Captain Ten Eyck and Lieutenant Wands pursued them till late at night, without success. Late at night, far from aid, the cavalry pursued Sioux?
All the Sioux, including those that committed the atrocities in Minnesota, are in our neighborhood.....we reached the field just in time to see the last man killed. If I had obeyed my instructions I would have been killed. These poor fellows when killed, the greater number, were in one heap. Hines letters.
Minnesota was well known, then. And there is the strong whiff of literary conventions that appear in these descriptions. Just in time to see the last man fall..... If I had followed my orders, I'd have been killed.....
Ah! Something I like:
As to the numbers of the Indians thus holding the posts under siege, the 1,500 lodges mentioned by the writer would represent a population of some 9,000, while the "4,000 or 5,000 well mounted and armed warriors" would represent a population of 24,000 to 30,000 Indians, an enormous exaggeration of the number which could by any possibility be in that country, showing the terrible state of demoralization into which the minds of the most intelligent men must have fallen. |
| BJMarkland |
Posted - February 27 2005 : 10:54:12 AM
quote:
This in regards to Markland's Research Site thread, which is to be devoid of exchange and just used for research sites. In regards to the Bridger letter......
There can be exchange but as we typically get caught up in long and sometimes bewildering changes in topic on the same thread, it simply makes life easier for others to find the relevant research information they are seeking.
The figure Bridger quotes is, I believe, what was given him by the Crows whom Red Cloud and Man Afraid were trying to seduce/awe into joining their war against the Montana Road. Here is the report from Carrington of Bridger's findings (do a search for Bridger to find it quickly). No number of lodges is included in that portion, nor anywhere else in Carrington's testimony.
However, Dr. Hines, in a letter to his brother states the number of lodges was 1,500. I have no idea where that number came from. The Secretary of Interior's report does an admirable job discrediting that number but then falls on its face coming up with the alternate history of why the Indians attacked (search for lodges in the document).
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~familyinformation/fpk/car_2.html
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~familyinformation/fpk/secintrpt.html
Best of wishes,
Billy
|
|
|
