| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
 Posted - February 02 2005 : 3:35:40 PM
|
| Why? It's correct. You've misread the UN's own publishings, you're not much aware of American history, and you're continuing attempts to apply half statements incorrectly speaks to the weakness of your arguments. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
  |
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 02 2005 : 4:42:55 PM
|
Because
Your knowledge falls in the ignorant range, and to know more than you on the subject does not elevate anyone to expert.
And
and it looks pretty convincing, we really don't know squat about pre-Columbian America,
Its a bit rich to critize me when you state that you know squat about the subject.
The example you quote of mine says the United States had nil intent - no intent - to kill all the Indians. What are you talking
about?
You posted contradictary statements
That's not true. Intent is the key and stated as such.
Ihave no idea what that's an answer to.
I didn't offer Armenia and Rwanda.
You used them to make a point.
You're also now creating new groupings like "functioning group" as meaningful to argue.
"Genocide" is dedived from the Greek meaning killing of a tribe.
A non functioning individual is usually dead or comatose.Same goes for the tribe.If it is non functioning it is dead.The dynamics of groups are in the common bond of their way of life.Destroy that and you kill the group.Artical 2c covers it.
Of course, the UN didn't find the US guilty of genocide against the Indians, either.
The law on genocide is not retrospective'
Enjoy your coffee
|
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 02 2005 : 8:03:52 PM
|
Lorenzo, you did an outstanding job in your presentation and it is a pursuasive argument against the "Genocide" theory alleged to have been perpatrated against the Native Americans. I have a few issues I would like to discuss further:
"Violent collision between Whites and American native population was probably unavoidable."
Every treaty, discussion, and promise ever issued to the American Indian, by the U.S. Government, was flagrantly violated within moments of ratification. The process wherein the Native American grew to distrust the U.S. Government was a long and convoluted trail. It was augmented by the idiscriminate killing of peaceful Indians exemplified by the Sand Creek Massacre.
"The Cheyennes will have to be roundly wipped-or completely wiped out before they will be quit. I say that if any of them are caught in your vicinity, the only thing to do is kill them. It simply is not possible for the Indians to obey or even understand any treaty. I am fully satisfied gentlemen, that to kill them is the only way we will ever have peace and quiet in Colorado."
Col. Chivington-August and September, 1864
Several months later, during the morning hours of November 29, 1864, he led his regiment of Colorado Volunteers where Black Kettle a well known "PEACE" Chief was encamped. When the troopers struck, Black Kettle was flying an American Flag and a white flag of truce over his lodge. Is it possible that a few "guilty" Indians were in this encampment? Of course. Does this factor justify the killing and subsequent multilation of women and children that took place?
This black lagacy of dishonesty, retribution against the innocent, and failure to punish the guilty by the government instilled a hatred and desire for revenge. Thus, an understandable distrust against white "promises" became natural state of affairs.
The Indians were not stupid. Their sense of what was valuable did differ from the Whites,however, they understood "what" was valuable to the Whites. Had the U.S. made a sincere effort to treat them with dignity and honesty, a negotiated settlement founded in mutual respect and trust, may have been finalized to everone's satisfaction.
"The U. S. Government could not have prevented westward movement even if it had wanted to."
I am in complete accord with this statement. The westward expansion was as predictable and inevitable as the rising sun.
Such an expansion committed in a cautious manner with consideration of the life styles of others would have produced far less rankle, rancor, and hostility then the vicious ill-will that "Manifest Destiny" procured. This ideology was a rationalization for a westard push done quickly, regardless of who was hurt in the process. To think that a people actually believed that "God" ordained the right to confiscate land that belonged to another! This act is not a benevolent gesture from above, it was a human trait of avarice.
"To fling the charge of Genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history."
True, the entire American society was not guilty of this crime. The entire German society were also not guilty. Many honorable, Indian advocates did much to turn the tide but, did not succeed. It was never U.S. Policy to wantonly murder Indians, yet, the cases where those who did and were punished are rare indeed. Such an attitude in permeated with "implied" consent. Chivington was never punished for his role at Sand Creek. He was merely forced to resign from the Colorado Militia.
I have often wondered why such an odious word, concept, and act such as "Genocide" has been reserved for the nazi's only. Does the world truly belive that this horrible act was not attempted elsewhere, over and over again.
Finally, other than the right of "force" what right did the American people have that validated the forced removal of an entire people. Land, gold, riches, and industry are not rights, they are desires. Once again, thanks for your heartfelt posts. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on February 02 2005 8:27:01 PM |
|
|
|
Anonymous Poster8169
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 02:21:06 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by joseph wiggs
Several months later, during the morning hours of November 29, 1864, he led his regiment of Colorado Volunteers where Black Kettle a well known "PEACE" Chief was encamped. When the troopers struck, Black Kettle was flying an American Flag and a white flag of truce over his lodge. Is it possible that a few "guilty" Indians were in this encampment? Of course. Does this factor justify the killing and subsequent multilation of women and children that took place?
Except for Chivington and crew, nobody ever claimed that the killings and mutilation were justified. The man was roundly condemned in Congress, the government, newspapers, all good people nationally. Few had any stomach for the type of stuff Chivington did.
quote:
This black lagacy of dishonesty, retribution against the innocent, and failure to punish the guilty by the government instilled a hatred and desire for revenge. Thus, an understandable distrust against white "promises" became natural state of affairs.
I doubt anything would have changed even if Chivington had been strappadoed and then put to death in all kinds of colorful ways. Indians and whites were killing each other before he came along, they were killing each other after. Read Stan Hoig's book on the subject and look at all the stuff the Indians were doing before they ever heard of Chivington. It's the same stuff they were doing in the years after. To credit Chivington for this seems delusive. It was just one thing among many.
quote:
The Indians were not stupid. Their sense of what was valuable did differ from the Whites,however, they understood "what" was valuable to the Whites. Had the U.S. made a sincere effort to treat them with dignity and honesty, a negotiated settlement founded in mutual respect and trust, may have been finalized to everone's satisfaction.
The government couldn't control their young men, and the chiefs couldn't control theirs. In most cases, that's what all these wars come down to. Somebody (usually between the ages of 15 and 25) getting drunk, or feeling in the mood to cause a ruckus, and then riding out into the other guy's territory and starting something. Granted, that's not how everything started, but it's the way it was often enough. It was always a problem with the Indians, since the chiefs who signed a treaty couldn't speak for anyone but themselves, and there were always people in a tribe who didn't consider themselves bound by anything their elders had agreed to.
quote:
I am in complete accord with this statement. The westward expansion was as predictable and inevitable as the rising sun.
Such an expansion committed in a cautious manner with consideration of the life styles of others would have produced far less rankle, rancor, and hostility then the vicious ill-will that "Manifest Destiny" procured. This ideology was a rationalization for a westard push done quickly, regardless of who was hurt in the process. To think that a people actually believed that "God" ordained the right to confiscate land that belonged to another! This act is not a benevolent gesture from above, it was a human trait of avarice.
The people moving west were no more acting under an ideology than the people from Mexico moving north today are. In both cases, people are/were just going where the jobs and opportunities are. "Manifest Destiny" is just something a few eggheads of the time dreamed up while staring at their navels; a modern variant is "Aztlan". Individuals don't move with national goals in mind, regardless of what the intellectuals and political quacks (of that time and ours) kid themselves into thinking.
quote:
I have often wondered why such an odious word, concept, and act such as "Genocide" has been reserved for the nazi's only. Does the world truly belive that this horrible act was not attempted elsewhere, over and over again.
It's not reserved for them only. I hear it bandied about all the time.
R. Larsen |
Edited by - Anonymous Poster8169 on February 03 2005 02:24:42 AM |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 03:32:48 AM
|
"To fling the charge of Genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history."
Perhaps the above is adressed to me.If so let me say I have not just "flung" the charge at an entire society.I have debated it over a great number of posts in a calm rational manner and my fellow debater has failed to refute or find any weakness in my position.
The voilent approach to the "Indian problem" owes much to the fact that there were a number of European states competing for the lion's share.Were the Brits going to sign or keep a treaty with the Indian which allowed the French/Spanish/Dutch some advantage?Is one jackel going to hold back while the others gorge themselves? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 10:24:26 AM
|
It's not addressed to you. It's an article in Commentary, that doesn't know you exist, as the first sentence in Lorenzo's post states.
Again, you bounce back and forth from a restricted micro debate on Plains Indians to the macro of all Indians, from specific times to a vague time where the Dutch after New Amsterdam became New York had some sort of sway.
But for the record, you accused the United States of genocide against the Indians, and the UN and every evidenced post here defies it. Smugly pretending you've won by not reading the posts - as evidenced by your missing Lorenzo's first sentence - or accepting what any objective reader can only conclude is pretty weak.
Wiggs congratulates Lorenzo for something Lorenzo didn't write nor claim to have written. Yikes. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 11:21:11 AM
|
It's not addressed to you. It's an article in Commentary, that doesn't know you exist, as the first sentence in Lorenzo's post states.
Then of course Wiggs has my apologies .As to the rest of your post it only contains unsubstantiated claims best kept for punch and Judy type debates of "oh yes you did" "oh no I didn't . |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 4:40:26 PM
|
| I thanked Lorenzo for his efforts in contributing, I believe, valuable information to the forum. It was obvious that he utilized his time and efforts to enhance our discussion. You, of course, could never understand such a sentiment. Enamored with your own self worth to an unimaginable height, there can only be room for one in your world who is worthy of you; you. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on February 03 2005 4:44:12 PM |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 03 2005 : 7:26:12 PM
|
| By the way, the last time I remeber the term "yikes" being used, it was being emitted from a giddy school girl, or written in a cartoon balloon, and last but not least, uttered by a man of ambiguous and confusing sexual orientation. In which contex are you using it? |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 26 2005 : 9:34:43 PM
|
Ahem, returing to the original subject matter, I would like to further address Custer's orders, motivation, and rationale for doing what he did. Having come to a general conclusion that he did not disobey Terry's orders, let us consider what factors motivated him in other areas of his decision making. For example, Reno's left flank consisted of the "Ree" scouts. Why would these non-military elements be assigned to form the left flank of a military formation? The answer is that they were not assigned that task.
As General Sheridan says in one of his reports, "A Sioux on foot is a Sioux warrior no longer." Thus, the purpose of the Ree scouts stationed to the left of Reno becomes crystal clear. Their purpose was to scatter the immense Sioux pony herd feeding in pasture lands west of the village in hopes of rendering the warriors helpless.
According to the "Arikara Narrative, page 81" Custer says through the interpreter Gerard, "My only intention in bringing these people to battle is to have them go into battle and take many horses away from the Sioux."
Ironically, as the battle unfolded, it appears that many Indians infiltrated soldier positions on foot leaving their mounts behind. Only a minority of "Bravehearts" galloped towards the soldier skirmish lines. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 27 2005 : 06:59:22 AM
|
Reno's left flank consisted of the "Ree" scouts. Why would these non-military elements be assigned to form the left flank of a military formation?
Because you could not put auxiliiliaries in the center.It would mess up the unit's cohesion.Reno's right flank was covered by the wood/river.So best place for them was the left flank where they would act as sandbags for the troopers also left them free to attack targets of opportunity. |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 27 2005 : 2:14:49 PM
|
| Excellent point Wild, as it turned out Reno's left flank did consist of the Ree's. However, I don't think that it was ever intended that they serve in that capacity. There simply were not enough of them to do so. Custer's orders to Reno was to choose as rapid a gait as he deemed best and, bring the Indians to battle. When in close proximity, Reno was expected to "charge" the village. This shock attack would, hopefully, send the village in a northern flight away from Reno. His going into skirmish ended any possibility of that occurring. This maneuver left the Ree's hanging, as they were rushing towards the pony herd pastured to the west of the village;in compliance with Custer's orders. Seeing Reno's men falling back, the Sioux warriors became encouraged and shook off their initial consternation and rushed towards Reno and the Ree scouts. |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - February 27 2005 : 3:00:43 PM
|
I doubt very much that Custer had a clue where the pony herd was.The positioning of the Indian auxiliaries was just a tactical ploy by Reno.
As regards forcing the Indians Northward could I just point out that a little coordination was required.Like for example Custer being in position to receive the fugitives.Reno was actually moving faster than Custer.What was the point of it all without timing? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - February 27 2005 : 4:09:29 PM
|
The pony herd was seen from the Crow's Nest and again by the scouts from the high point by the lone funeral lodge as they got closer.
And to your horror, I agree. Timing played no role in any of this because, as is widely accepted, Custer assumed there was a handy crossing when there was not. Sending Reno in against an enemy of unknown size with only a notional idea of how to support him (when there was no need to send him in at all at that time) does not speak to a commander operating on more than preconceptions, wishful thinking, and no clue. In fact, given it was an hour later that Custer made whatever effort there was at MTC, if Reno had kept going he'd have been dead with all his crew by then. One hour in the midst of that village with how many men?
Of course, at least Reno - the coward - actually went on the attack, however briefly. There's no evidence Custer did and Benteen did not. Although officers there two days after were pretty united, looking at the field, that Custer was driven to where they died, this rubs Custerphiles wrong. Their hero has to be always on the attack. And this shell casing proves it.
Reno's the coward, didn't you read the script? Reno's the coward, Benteen's the sneaky bastard, and Custer's the hero, betrayed and left to die. Even then, if he'd had a 4.5% heavier throw weight of lead powered by a lever action repeater with 76 and not 75 grains of power, plus a correctly spaced firing line by manual, Our Untrained and Terrified Troopers could have won on open ground with no cover. Get with it, will ya? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - February 27 2005 : 7:36:14 PM
|
Reno's the coward, didn't you read the script? Reno's the coward, Benteen's the sneaky bastard, and Custer's the hero, betrayed and left to die. Even then, if he'd had a 4.5% heavier throw weight of lead powered by a lever action repeater with 76 and not 75 grains of power, plus a correctly spaced firing line by manual, Our Untrained and Terrified Troopers could have won on open ground with no cover. Get with it, will ya?
It was not my intent to chastise Reno for forming the skirmish line. Doing so does not make him, or anyone else a coward. Disobeying an order does not a bastard make either. You had best be prepared to justfy such actions down the road. I was merely addressing a misconception regarding the Ree scouts. Whether Reno should or should not have "skirmished" has been hotly debated for decades and, will continue to be so. The only action performed by him in which I would take issue is his "charge" to the bluffs. |
Edited by - joseph wiggs on February 27 2005 7:52:32 PM |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 28 2006 : 4:33:23 PM
|
| Here is thread that started as Custer's orders. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2006 : 09:22:41 AM
|
Let me point out also that when Custer departed the mouth of the Rosebud, he was operating under oral, not written orders. The written order was sent after him. Custer therefore was obviously privy to Terry's thinking (as Hughes says). And Terry clearly wanted a rendezvous at the mouth of the Little Big Horn on the 26th of June. And Custer knew it. In Kuhlman the map shows Gibbon's cavalry camped near the mouth of the LBH. Custer never reached the mouth of the LBH. From the battle site to the mouth of the LBH was still a days ride. So if the indians hadn't been in the way they could have met on the 26th and Gibbons would have arrived first.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2006 : 09:37:30 AM
|
It seems to me that the change doesn't change the meaning a whole lot. It seems to me that Custer could not change those orders unless it was absolutely necessary! And to me I can see no reason why Custer would have found anything absolutely necessary to depart from Terry's orders, do you? I do. He was in close contact with the village which turned out to be at least one day further travel for Gibbon's and one day sooner for Custer. If the village had been at the mouth of the LBH then the plan might have worked as discussed by Terry, Custer, and Gibbon.
|
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2006 : 09:56:46 AM
|
| This copy book must not have been a duplicate book?And the change could only be made before the original was dispatched to Custer and why would it have been changed? " Then they accused him of disobedience while his body still lay unburied where it had fallen, long before they could have possessed the necessary data on which to base so grave a charge. Had Custer possessed the power to read the future he might have foreseen that someone then near the person of General Terry would change the words "sufficient reason" in his orders, to "absolutely necessity" in the copy made in Terry's copy-book!" Kuhlman page 25 LIH and DCDOATBOTLBH |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2006 : 11:31:55 AM
|
| "I do. He was in close contact with the village...." How would the Army define 'close'? Custer was about a day's journey when he hung a right towards the Crow's nest. In fact, going down the Rosebud, you're always about a day's journey to the LBH, the Wolf's not being a huge barrier without break. If they thought the camp on the LBH, then at some point they'd be that close roughly no matter what, and Custer was to ignore that level of proximity and continue south. Isn't that correct? |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
AZ Ranger
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2006 : 2:31:39 PM
|
"How would the Army define 'close'? Custer was about a day's journey when he hung a right towards the Crow's nest. In fact, going down the Rosebud, you're always about a day's journey to the LBH, the Wolf's not being a huge barrier without break. If they thought the camp on the LBH, then at some point they'd be that close roughly no matter what, and Custer was to ignore that level of proximity and continue south. Isn't that correct?"
I don't know how the Army would define close but one day's striking distance would be close to me. On the 24th whether Custer obeyed or disobeyed later he was in the correct location. Terry's order to continue down the Rosebud was to prevent the Indians from escaping to the south. If Custer continues along Davis Creek he would know whether a large village had crossed or not. Once he reached the LBH he could check the other side of the river to see if the Indians went south. If they had gone south Gibbon would be way behind and Custer would have to wait or proceed on his own. The level of proximity that Terry, Custer and Gibbons discussed was the mouth of the LBH. If the village had been there Gibbon would be the one fighting Indians first and not Custer. To me the discrepancy is that the LBH is not a fixed point rather a stretch that could take days to cover. There finding the village somewhere on the LBH could have meant Gibbon rather than Custer got there first. Unfortunately for Custer and fortunately for Gibbon the village was south of the mouth of the LBH.
If Custer didn't turn at Davis Creek and continued south along the Rosebud while the Indains were moving along Davis Creek he could have missed them. They didn't but that would have been Custer's fault if they escaped passed him. |
“ An officer's first duty is to his horses.”
SEMPER FI |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 29 2006 : 2:46:26 PM
|
| I'm just suggesting that without a knowledge of what "close" might mean - I don't, and I agree with you and Custer - any discussion of whether Custer violated in spirit or fact Terry's suggestions is rather pointless. Being "close" is the tripwire to the escape clause, as it were. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 30 2006 : 09:25:31 AM
|
How would the Army define 'close'?
Well as the army never used the word "close" why would it have to define it? |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - January 30 2006 : 10:32:01 AM
|
I'd suspect in the days of horse and foot, the Army might have definite distances and times in mind for lay terms. Whether using "close" or "nearly in contact with" or whatever, surely there would be an understanding as to what that would mean. After a long march, being 'nearly in contact' might be considered at a greater distance than if it'd been a morning's march.
"If Custer didn't turn at Davis Creek and continued south along the Rosebud while the Indains were moving along Davis Creek he could have missed them. They didn't but that would have been Custer's fault if they escaped passed him." Exactly. And not just Davis Creek, but any place people could move between the notional peaks of the Wolf Mountains. There was no certainty that the camp would stay put even if they didn't know the soldiers were about.
Along with the packtrain, the use of the scouts seems pretty vague and haphazard to me. There were a lot of them, and someone could have gone to the CN or some peak right off to scout the LBH valley as they went south. What they learned at the CN was info arguably obtainable a day earlier. Then, flensing off Benteen rather than two Crows strikes me as odd as well. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - January 30 2006 : 2:32:22 PM
|
I'd suspect in the days of horse and foot, the Army might have definite distances and times in mind for lay terms. Whether using "close" or "nearly in contact with" or whatever, surely there would be an understanding as to what that would mean. After a long march, being 'nearly in contact' might be considered at a greater distance than if it'd been a morning's march.
No need to worry about close DC it was not used in Custer's orders.
Contact means the positioning of the forces such as one reacts to the other's presence.The term nearly is meaningless,rather like saying someone is nearly alive or nearly a virgin.
If Custer didn't turn at Davis Creek and continued south along the Rosebud while the Indains were moving along Davis Creek he could have missed them. They didn't but that would have been Custer's fault if they escaped passed him." Exactly. And not just Davis Creek, but any place people could move between the notional peaks of the Wolf Mountains. There was no certainty that the camp would stay put even if they didn't know the soldiers were about.If the Indians were moving along Davis Creek they were moving into the trap set for them in Terry's plan and they were moving at a leasurely pace spending at least 3 days at each camp site so Custer was under no time pressure in any of the scenarios suggested here.
And not just Davis Creek, but any place people could move between the notional peaks of the Wolf Mountains. No they were tied to the rivers.
It was the rivers Rosebud,Tongue,Tulock,and the LBH which held the key to the success of the plan.Custer could ,at first glance be forgiven for ignoring the Tullock as the Indians were heading South but this was critical information which should have been relayed to Terry.On finding the trail turning West off the RB there was only one place it was headed and that was the LBH.And the indians were oblivious to Custer's presence.If ever a plan screamed out to be obeyed this was it but Custer had his own agenda. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Custer's Orders
