| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Little White Dove
Private
Status: offline |
 Posted - April 17 2005 : 10:23:22 PM
|
Thankyou again Joseph, You seem like a very nice and knowledgeable gentleman. I appreciate your comments. It means so much to me to have someone answer my questions.
From what little I have read, President Grant was given a choice. He could send the army to enforce the treaty of 1868. Or he could send the army and launch a war against the indians. Sieze their lands as spoils of war and put them on reservations. Because of this decision, I feel, he not only broke the treaty, but declaired war upon a people without just cause. I think that you are right Joseph, this was a senseless war that should never have been. |
Edited by - Little White Dove on April 17 2005 10:24:40 PM |
  |
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 18 2005 : 10:45:54 AM
|
What war in mankind's history should have happened? I do not condone any war but certainly abhore the lack of preparation or organization of a nation to protect one's peoples in the event of another's aggressive actions. Trust is not an operable word in treaties because treaties are merely 'for the meantime' agreements. Do I think they should be that...heavens no. But they are just that, it seems, and the Indians, as a nation, failed to use that 'hold your fire' time to organize and prepare 'in the event of....'.
Wars are because they 'have to be' it seems to me. Whether that be because of greed, jealousy, uncontrollable hatred, wantful need of what someone else has and they don't want to 'negotiate', etc. they have always happened. A true government is responsible to its people---their protection, their well-being and their existence. If two nations---I and U---inhabit one piece of land and nation 'U' is growing at an accelerated rate and has or will soon have five to ten times or more people it becomes not a question of who was here first, and I am not trying to be a bad guy, here. There is only one option that will eventually happen because it has to happen that way, doesn't it? The majority of the people have to be 'satisfied.' The majority population will have more wants, more needs and more greeds. Right or wrong gets pushed aside in the debate and a 'reason for provocation' is looked for to 'burst' the 'balloon' of growth. Once the settlers couldn't be held back from the Black Hills (what are you going to do, throw all your people with gold fever into stockades or onto reservations or go in and protect them)they had to be protected. The 'balloon' and the 'pin' are in place. Nature then takes its course.
Senseless war, maybe. But it would be more senseless to think (downright insane)of our country's western boundary today being the Mississippi River with all the people we have and the Indians having all of their 'land' from the Mississippi River west to the coast. I hope no one believes that no other country, not even counting the two closest ones--Mexico and Canada--would not have taken on the Indians and all their 'hunting' grounds.
I'd like to think it was a senseless war but it was unavoidable and I would have to be 'senseless' to think it wasn't. A more peaceful resolve to the satisfaction of both nations would have looked better in the history books but who wants to give up what they have if they feel they don't have to? The Indian nation was facing the first wave of a 'tsunami' aggressor. The war was over before it was started....a mere series of skirmishs for the most part.
|
|
|
|
Little White Dove
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - April 18 2005 : 12:15:36 PM
|
Ummm.. keh. I'm not too sure what that was all about. Nor do I really care to know.
The facts back then seem to support an ethnic cleansing of Native Americans. It seems like to me that, it wasn't so much a question of survival of the fittest. But mere survival, and the right to one's beliefs and everyone's right to life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness. Was the President right to deny these basics of our system to others? To remove the settlers and gold diggers from the sacred lands of the people who cherished them, was that so difficult? I don't know, but it just seems to me, that it would have been the better choice.
http://dakota-march.50megs.com/onered.html |
Edited by - Little White Dove on April 18 2005 12:17:02 PM |
|
|
|
hunkpapa7
Lieutenant
United Kingdom
Status: offline |
Posted - April 18 2005 : 8:33:25 PM
|
The Black Hills expedition was a stitch up,they should not have been there in the first place,as per treaty.
The government/army knew,that leave the door ajar,every snakebellie from all over would envelope the place and cause aggro.
The country was bankrupt and needed to move on in its colonisation.
Manifest Destiny "For those who have,to rule over those who havn't"
Forget about"the bringing of Civilisation to backward countries"just say "OIL" |
wev'e caught them napping boys
Aye Right ! |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - April 18 2005 : 9:15:06 PM
|
"To remove the settlers and gold diggers from the sacred lands of the people who cherished them."
That statement exemplifies the irony and needlessness of this battle. Were it not for the unmitigated greed of a few, this paltry parcel of earth (particularly when compared to the vastness of the North American Continent)would have and should have been spared for the Godly souls who cherished that land. Had Grant selected the option you proposed, history would have remembered him as a leader in the caliber of Abe Lincoln himself.
Whistling boy's comments that the war was "unavoidable" is the banner of truth proffered by most. While there is no validity to this ideology, it, nevertheless offers a saccharin level of reality that is acceptable to most.
Sadly, history has shown us that Warlord's premise is far more factual and deals with the harsh reality of what actually occurred. The Native American possessed something that others coveted. As a result, the stronger vanquished they who were weaker, militarily that is. Thank you for your e-mail. I hope to be a member of the 2005 walk. Lastly, additional thanks for your honest and, refreshing perspectives. There will be a few who may attempt to denigrate your thoughts, but they will not succeed. Hokey Hey! |
|
|
|
Little White Dove
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - April 18 2005 : 11:58:48 PM
|
I sorry, but I think its so rude the way some people reply here. What have I ever done to deserve this. I am just asking some questions. And I think to learn our mistakes from history is one that should be important to all of us. Some people view conflicts like these with stark harsh realities. Because they don't agree with me, they throw anything at me, to disprove only what I have learned. Please Warlord try to discuss this in a civil manner. That's all I ask.
History has shown, I think, from what I've learned, that the American Indian nations were peaceful at first, not hostile. It was only when their way of life was threatened, their food supplies destroyed, their land taken from them, that they fought back. To me I feel, that's self defense. What else should one expect them to do?
|
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 19 2005 : 2:20:51 PM
|
LWD,
You're right, tribes were generally not hostile. Like the Europeans, they were interested, curious and willing to establish trade. Neither they, you nor I would be very willing to give up our homelands to foreign invaders--particularly Coronado and the Spanish, who took to converting the Zuni by burning them at the stake. Wow, just like back home.
Of course, had the tribes been subject to the jovial diplomacy of, say, Warlord, we most certainly would have seen a lasting peace. |
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 19 2005 : 3:13:38 PM
|
Tribes were generally not hostile to who? At what time? They were all terribly hostile to each other, and they were warrior ethic all the way. Like, in fact, everyone else, everywhere else through most of history. Those aren't Meaningful Kodak Moments or Sensitive Inner Child Recollections emblazoned on pre-Columbian temple walls, but slaughter and death and torture, interspersed with slavery and rape.
That may have been changing when the Euros and their microbes arrived in bulk. Or not. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 19 2005 : 3:58:00 PM
|
Tribes, just as did so many societies around the world, had their friends and they had their enemies. Friendships or allies may most often have been keen to language groups.
I would submit that they were considerably less violent toward one another as, say, medieval Europeans. Here in the Northwest, Salishan tribes have oral histories that cover centuries of peace, intermarriage and trade. Of course, they had considerable natural resources close at hand, so making a living was less difficult than it was for nomadic plains tribes--and less competetive. Elders and historians here say the nearest problem was the Blackfeet, who guarded their own hegemony between the Upland Tribes and the plains.
Hostile, per se, is simply not accurate. Hostile when pissed off? Who isn't?
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
joseph wiggs
Brigadier General
Status: offline |
Posted - April 19 2005 : 5:02:20 PM
|
| Oncer again we are burdened with the slightly slanted view that all Indians, spent all of their time, killing all of the other Indians, until the arrival of the Whites who were then subjected to the same faith. As a result of this mindless killing, the whites were forced to fight an "unavoidable" was against these heathen savages. What a neat and tidy little package. The only thing missing is veracity. The premise that Whites have been killing Whites since Cain slew Able is conveniently forgotten or, somehow, the latter's actions are deemed noble and necessary. History is written by the winners and, to often, blindly followed by the predisposed.. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 19 2005 : 9:07:07 PM
|
Again, Wiggs, learn to read. Saying that American Indians are the same as everyone else is/was is hardly a put down. And, I've never said else. JUST LIKE the Vikings or the Germans or the Huns, the American Indian society was based on a warrior/hunter ethic. There no doubt were exceptions for periods of time - JUST LIKE with the Vikings/Germans/Huns/anyone - but taken all in all it's difficult to interpret societies with high ranking for warriors as anything but dedicated to providing opportunities for their men to demonstrate courage against other tribes. And all that.
No one is contesting the temple graphics. How does such art suggest a more peaceful culture than the Bayeux Tapestry, for example?
Oral tradition is wonderful and sometimes accurate, but to believe it on face value is risky. Oral traditions seldom seem to recall periods of cannibalism, when we killed the newly born for food, or when the babies and elderly were exposed to the elements to save food, or when Chief Hoohoo raped the cow when drunk (he claimed it consensual...), or when the men surrendered without fighting at all. They're thrilling tales of daring do and just punishment and instructive to one degree or another. Recall the Cargo Cults of the Pacific and the Sioux claiming the Black Hills had been theirs forever, by which was meant no one then living could recall living elsewhere.
When the Brothers Grimm collected European tales, they altered them. When Red Riding Hood ended in the original, the wolf ate her. The End. Neither moral nor uplifting conclusion. That went over like a pregnant polevaulter with modern Europe, so they fixed it up, filled it out. I'd find it hard to believe that Native American tales didn't change along similar lines by the time modern America heard them. Being human and all. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 20 2005 : 08:21:17 AM
|
the American Indian society was based on a warrior/hunter ethic.
The armies of settled communities [white European for the sake of this discussion]were comprised of surplus humanity.They were expendable and would fight accordingly.They would stand toe to toe and in ritual formations slug it out until one or other called it a day.
The Indian warrior was not expendable but a vital element in the survival of his tribe/band.This is what determined his manner of warfare.Not for him the ordered ranks slugging it out.Stealth,ambush,surprise,hit and run were his tactics.If he was being worsted he turned tail and ran.The European idea of standing your ground and turning defeat into victory was anathema to him.Of course these tactics resulteed in a very low casualty rate.Tribes lived to fight another day.
The fierce Iroquois were probably on the brink of empire when the Europeans arrived.They had a warrior cast who fought for the sake of fighting.In order to maintain their exalted position in society they developed a system of warfare which spared their opponents from annihilation.They allowed them to recover and then went and clobbered them again.A man's gotta look after his rice bowl.
The reputation of many tribes depended on the kind of press they got from the French or English.The tribes who were allies to the French got terrible press from the English and vice a versa.
But above all else you did not want to taken alive by them.The whole concept of torture was to break a man's medicine and thus strenghten your own.They could keep you alive for days in exquisite agony and when they got pissed off with you screaming they tore out your tongue and handed you over to the women who took out all their frustrations of being subordinate to the male on you.
The fact that there were no bodies of 7th troopers found in the village would seem to indicate there must of been many who feared capture and saved the first bullet for themselves. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 20 2005 : 10:10:14 AM
|
| Little White Dove said she was a college student and that one of her classes was studying the battle at the Little Big horn. It might be interesting to know some of the finer points they are studying about the battle, from what perspective is their approach, if they will be able to proffer conclusions, if the students will be writing a paper on some aspect of the battle, how long the class has been organized and whether or not opinions, perspectives and/or conclusions proffered have changed over the years and, if so, how and why? Colleges classroom material has been known to change over time due to new books written, different government vendettas enacted, new teacher personnel assigned with new and different background views, etc. I would hope that we have not scared off Little White Dove due to our, oft times and not always intentional, coarseness. Maybe she might need some help with some paper ideas while she learns what the 'real' world of the battle's interest is like. May 'Running Bear' be amongst us as our interpreter. Have a nice day whereever you may roam. |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 20 2005 : 11:55:24 AM
|
Warlord, your unique style always makes things 'interesting' and returns to you what you want, I suppose, although your seemingly 'hard line' approach to finding the truth about aspects of the LBH battle and other events is sometimes tantamount to others feelings and opinions. Your knowledgeable background is valuable and can be very useful but not many will claim that you are 'tactful' in offering your findings and opinions. Of course, you know that and may not care but one then has to ask, why wouldn't you care about someone else's feelings when you obviously want to impart some information to them?
I can't hold a candle to you in terms of your data base of information because I have chosen, thus far, to proffer only 'opinion argumentation', or BS, as you put it so bluntly. But time will come, I'm sure, when I will discover something that is not someone else's 'opinion.' All authors have motives and all readers, too. I will discuss a 'fact' from an author but don't need another 'reader' to tell me his or her deducement is the true fact at the point of disrespect. You don't deserve that and neither do I unless one of us was at the event in question.
It is all BS after a HUNDRED AND TWENTY-NINE years---good gracious. I hope you find the truth you are looking for rather than concentrating on those you think are wrong in their thinking about the battle. To me, maybe the truth would be interesting but I want the General dying heroically on the hill where I think he did, I will uphold his honor to the best of my ability, the honor of his dear wife, and the reputation of his unit unless some fact is found and disclosed that settles the arguments 'beyond the shadow of a doubt.' I will not continue to assassinate this American legend on heresay evidence produced 129 years after the fact.....the rhetoric is aimed at destroying the 'man' and I wouldn't join Grant's cause if I was offered a billion dollars and that's how loyal I am to my country. He was no saint, I may not have liked him, he was not above sin and maybe even enjoyed some of it, like we all do. However, he was recognized, lauded and applauded, amid his human faults, as a warrior---meaning he took on the responsibility, without guarantees, to protect other human lives assigned under his command to teach them to survive. The 'luck' ran out and they all perished for reasons we will never know. Had a bad day? Maybe. Betrayed by the government? Maybe. Betrayed by his immediate superiors and/or men? Maybe. Opinion is opinion. Webster's II dictionary defines opinion as...'a belief held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge.'
What you may think is positive knowledge proffered by an author is your 'opinion' that it is and, certainly, does not put someone else's 'opinion' under the table as BS. It is merely offered as a 'bantering' challenge. I do not wish you to be mad at me just because I am not real smart. Outright confrontation, whether verbal or physical, serves no purpose. My response to such confrontation, as when I first came upon this site and was misread by some on this board, is inward reflection...do I deserve this, am I hurting someone's honor, do I need this type of response and does the board care if I have an opinion or not. If someone believes that the board thinks that their opinions aren't good enough or tolerable, why should anyone wish to stay? I just don't understand why 'getting along' is such a hard concept to grasp. Competition shouldn't be the overriding motivation of this forum as it seems to be.
Thus.... and I quote you.."As I often point out I deal in facts, not BS or opinion argumentation."....you may read a book, a page, a sentence that someone has written about the battle and, for some reason or other, deduce the author's opinion to be fact, after a 120-plus years,...well, you only offer your 'opinion' that this fact, in fact to you, is a fact. |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 20 2005 : 12:36:39 PM
|
I would caution against any inclination to lump all Indians into one group--historically or the modern era. There are currently 558 (559?) federally recognized tribes. There were many hundreds more on this continent in 1492.
There are, of course, common threads that continue connecting Indian Country. More importantly, there are vast and complex differences. There always were.
D.C. cautions against accepting oral histories verbatum. Good advice and well taken. At the same time, I think most of us would respect oral histories more than, say, 19th century dime novels or Hollywood's ceaseless presentation of Indians as wagon burners and blood thirsty marauders.
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 20 2005 : 5:20:17 PM
|
Warlord,
If refusing to buy, as historically/socially accurate,19th century dime novels and cheap (or expensive) Hollywood westerns is a "pollyanna" perspective, then call me Hayley Mills.
If you choose to lump all tribes into one basket, that's your mistake. If a Huron scalped a Frenchman, I'm not going to blame the entire Navajo Nation for it. And, by the way, I've spent most of my life--personally and professionally--in Indian Country. The flagrant stereotypes you throw out--blanket condemnations mostly--contribute plenty of hatred, venom and ignorance. That's sad...I'd like to think you're brighter than that.
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 20 2005 : 10:56:36 PM
|
Warlord: Ex-teacher, long past. Science, however. Custer is just a hobby.
I hope you are not unforgiving--that would mean you probably put your pants on different than me.
I'm not sure why LWD came to the board. Maybe she was seeking agreement with her feelings about the material on that web site she posted. I wasn't too tactful myself, I suppose, on her with my opinions.
Your quote "Why are you so interested in making a huge hero about a rather irresponsible commander who likely was responsible for thousands being killed?" is an example of you making a positive statement about something you don't know to be true. "Likely was responsible" substitutes for nothing factual if you are seeking out truth. That's like newsmen alleging something happened just to be able to report it first to beat the competition. No one's really interested in what the facts are just as long as they get it reported first and get the credit. Well, the LBH situation involved the same sleazy reporting by credit seeking individuals, clouding serious facts.
Custer the hero...why not? It was his MOS....people followed him; family followed him. He attracted the adventurous ones and, I don't know, but probably butted heads with those with his same character traits; the jealous and envious ones. It was his calling and he knew it and loved it...we all lose in the end; his ending was premature allowing him to be not a simple hero but a national hero. The true heroes were probably Crazy Horse and Gall, among others.
Worse things have happened then you going to your grave de-meaning the General by what you've read about him and me going to my grave trying to make a hero out of him. It all means nothing but entertainment for us. All generals get people killed; that's their job, choosing who to sacrifice. Isn't that how war is played. It's insane played by insane players...I thought that was understood. Have a good day and keep trying to make something out of us. We might catch up with you one of these days. You offer good stuff; just work on your presentation of it. Ciano.
|
|
|
|
whistlingboy
Lieutenant
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 21 2005 : 09:33:40 AM
|
Warlord: I'm not here to 'best' anyone; join a particular 'club' as you view it or sway anyone's opinion about anything. I'm sorry to hear you won't forgive me for my 'mixed-up' ways but compassion is a strong force in my life. But that's okay because agreeing would mess me up.
You know, I'm not sure what the General is directly responsible for...he had his orders and once he left the headquarters tent with his superiors in it, he was on his own and would not turn back. The orders were not emphatic about not engaging--the orders were 'airy,' if you catch my drift. Personally, Reno was a coward in my eyes and he personally saved no one...he put them into an optional position of running. His orders were to attack the village...he was a cavalry leader...oh, yea, they might have been...'attack the village unless you think you might be killed' but I think not. He didn't do his job. He dismounted with the enemy in his face and you might believe that he could see a 'ton' of Indians coming at him in all the clouds of dust and dirt that had to be kicking up that hot, dry afternoon but I don't buy it. He betrayed his duty, his commander, the plan, his men and himself. Just because many of them escaped the debacle in terms of 'missions' doesn't mean he saved them. He was in the wrong attitude to save anyone except himself. He wasn't half the man Custer was because honor was absent in him. He had nothing to put fear in his enemy's eyes because he was not dedicated to his duty. His duty was to try...dying if need be. Maybe he should have been a parlor owner or something....not an important 'arm' in a swing operation.
You said it '80' charges or so in the Civil War in almost every major battle and yet the General did not have a clear understanding of the true factors he was about to encounter. The clear indication of that to me is two-fold: It is evident to me, and this is the first place you'll read this idea , is that the General was still in a 'scouting' mode. He had no particulars set in his mind yet.....Reno wasn't charging as yet crossing the Little Bighorn into the valley; Custer headed along and up over the ridge to find another place to ford the river---it is obvious that the valley floor was the destination. IF Custer knew what Reno would encounter, Custer himself would have led that assault because that was what he 'thrilled' himself in doing.
He would not have left that vital prong of attack to his subordinate....he knew Reno as he knew Benteen. And I don't think he knew Reno's fate either because sitting on that ridge where he supposedly viewed the skirmish, there would have been so much dust and dirt in the air that he couldn't have seen hardly anything to know if Reno was getting kicked or was prevailing. I think Custer assumed Reno was 'dutiful' and being successful. He proceeded on.
Being a Reno man, these 'words' will sting your ears as your wrangling on Custer's is suppose to sting mine. I'm unfair with Reno and you are with Custer only because, in light of not-knowing, we assume a certain attitude in our opinion.
On ending this fun topic, I realize that you don't usually mean to demean anyone most of the time as I don't either. We just get excited about our views, I guess, and it is hard to understand those opposite. Your 'club' affiliation is no more right than 'mine' is it?
One last thing, I didn't say Custer was a 'great' hero.....I said he was a 'national' hero like a national treasure....anything about him at that time was 'news' and affected people passionately, one way or the other. I'm sure Grant snickered a little..."gotcha." (Shame on me)
Just having fun.....thanks for the reply, Warlord.
|
|
|
|
Heavyrunner
Captain
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 21 2005 : 12:28:40 PM
|
Paul,
First of all, I appreciate your tone..as we "agree to disagree." However, "all Indians were not hostile" tends to paint me into a corner where I certainly don't belong.
As I wrote earlier, tribes had their enemies and they had their allies. Even with only an oral history to share, there are no yarns, to my knowledge, of any great wars or even battles among tribes on this continent. The conquering of central Mexico by the Aztecs over Toltecs, Miztecs, Chapultapecs, ect. may be the one exception.
I don't think we have an example anywhere in history of men not answering the call to defend their families, friends, relatives and way of life. So, yes, warrior "societies" would very naturally have been prevalent. I believe that some-- SOME --not only defended but, on occasion, took part in "war parties." (an anglo term) With the advent of the horse came the common custom of stealing horses whenever the opportunity arose.
Although we read, for example, that the Pawnee and the Sioux never got along and the Crow-Sioux relationship is well known, the Sioux got along just fine with the Cheyenne and Arapaho and dozens more in what is now the U.S. and Canada.
Had ceaseless slaughter been the norm, I can assure you that Lewis and Clark never would have made it past the Dakotas, much less to the mouth of the Columbia and back, losing only one of the entire party (to appendicitis). The only confrontation that came was with the Blackfeet, ralative to what I've already noted. Not only were the scores of tribes non-hostile, their hospitality clearly saved the Corps of Discovery from starvation and death.
From what I've learned over time, tribes here in the Northwest and Inland Northwest have age-old stories not of war parties, but of adventures to the east and, perhaps, a first buffalo hunt. Wary of Blackfeet, Coeur d'Alenes, Spokanes, Nez Perce, Kallispel, Pend Oreille and so many others viewed these trips as rights of passage for the young men.
So, if there were 1,000-plus tribes on the continent, sure they had fights. I would submit to you, however, that they got along with each other far better than did our own European ancestors--and still do.
By the way, Warrior Societies are quite common today--tribal members formerly in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard. In fact, I believe American Indians still serve, per capita, more than any other race/ethnic group.
One request, Paul: Please don't call mine an effort to be politically correct. I dislike both the term and the concept--as do you.
Thanks,
RSB
|
Bob Bostwick |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 21 2005 : 4:37:48 PM
|
Even with only an oral history to share, there are no yarns, to my knowledge, of any great wars or even battles among tribes on this continent.
The reason there were no great wars was because the numbers in a tribe were small and the land was vast.The weapons were primative.The bow and arrow accurate at 50 yards?And they avoided conflict unless they were 110% sure of a favourable outcome.
The nature of warfare was determined by their environment which militated against the type of blood bath seen in Europe. |
|
|
|
Dark Cloud
Brigadier General
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 21 2005 : 6:31:48 PM
|
If by "this continent" you mean North America, that would include Mexico and there certainly were big wars there, noted on the Aztec, Toltec, Mayan temples and monuments they continue to unearth. Mexico City was apparently bigger than anything in Europe even then. Lots of people, lots of warriors. You're assuming current reductionist theories about the Plains Indian Culture applied widely. Maybe, but likely not, given that culture was new and short, having had the horse for less than a century and a half in numbers.
Back East, the Seneca, Mohawks, and others that made up the Iroquois seemed adept at leading large contingents, as were the Hurons, their enemy. Many, many war canoe stories that suggest large numbers of men. The King Philip War suggests there had been experience in fighting with large groups of men from static villages among the Wampanoags, and they almost succeeded in knocking the Brits out of New England. No Indians ever came closer to doing it.
You're assuming the lack of oral history about big wars - however defined - in the past means there were none. There may have been many, and we don't get those stories from people who couldn't write OR why died off from the early pandemics. Also, what thrills us, Euro and Native American today, doesn't seem to meld with what thrilled the Sioux in 1876. Custer's defeat was rarely mentioned as the most important event for that year until they realized the need to keep the buttered side up. I've read stories, perhaps true, of fights between the Crow and Sioux that seem to involve many hundreds of warriors on both sides, bigger and more equal fights than LBH.
Again: current theory holds that there were HUGE numbers of Indians when the Spanish and their livestock and associate microbes arrived. If true, as is likely, then the trauma of civilizations losing 90% of their members over a few decades would likely halt accurate memories, tales, histories. |
Dark Cloud
copyright RL MacLeod
darkcloud@darkendeavors.com
www.darkendeavors.com
www.boulderlout.com |
|
|
|
Little White Dove
Private
Status: offline |
Posted - April 22 2005 : 12:58:09 AM
|
Hi everyone ~ No I didn't leave. :) I have been listening to what has been said. I know that you all would just love to know what I need for my thesis. But i'm afraid that if I told you, that I wouldn't get the responses that I am getting. I chose this website because some of the other sites seem much to hostile for me to post there.
I don't know if I should ask this here or somewhere else, but would you mind if I did? Please, kindly let me know if this is inappropriate, okay?
So much has been said about the orders Terry gave to Custer. And some of the debate has been whether he obeyed the orders given him. In one of the other websites they are sure that he didn't disobey orders. Even when presented with very good evidence that he did, they dismissed this. So I was wondering how you feel about this subject. Did he disobey Terry's orders, or not? |
|
|
|
BJMarkland
Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 22 2005 : 01:49:36 AM
|
"Before the news of this dreadful affair could reach New Berne, the blow had fallen, not only there, but also at Bath and on the Roanoke River. Some hundreds of settlers were massacred, at New Berne 130 within two hours from the signal. No circumstance of horror was wanting. Men were gashed and scorched, children torn in pieces, women impaled on stakes. The slaughter went on for three days."
The above is an excerpt from the web site Paul referenced...BTW Paul, your link did not work...since I grew up and my ancestors were residing in the Roanoke River/Albemarle Sound region when the massacre took place, the above did not overly dramatize the event. My grandma used to tell me stories that had been passed down to her from her mother and father and so on. In all actuality, the massacre was worse, numbers-wise than normally accepted due to the settlers/squatters who lived in isolated cabins with no one even knowing they were there, except the Tuscarora indians.
Best of wishes,
Billy |
|
|
|
wILD I
Brigadier General
Ireland
Status: offline |
Posted - April 22 2005 : 09:33:58 AM
|
So I was wondering how you feel about this subject. Did he disobey Terry's orders, or not
There were two elements to Terry's orders.One was tactical the other strategic.Custer was given carte blanche as regards the tactical situation.In other words he could handle the situation as he thought best when he got within range of the Indians.However strategically it was understood that his approach should conform to the movements of Gibbons force.The intention was that both forces should endeavour to cooperate.Because of Custer's status this was not put in writing.
If Custer did not disobey orders he did at least abuse them.There is no evidence that he did anything other than try to strike the village first. |
|
|
|
movingrobewoman
Lt. Colonel
USA
Status: offline |
Posted - April 22 2005 : 10:45:26 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Little White Dove
Hi everyone ~ No I didn't leave. :) I have been listening to what has been said. I know that you all would just love to know what I need for my thesis. But i'm afraid that if I told you, that I wouldn't get the responses that I am getting. I chose this website because some of the other sites seem much to hostile for me to post there.
I don't know if I should ask this here or somewhere else, but would you mind if I did? Please, kindly let me know if this is inappropriate, okay?
So much has been said about the orders Terry gave to Custer. And some of the debate has been whether he obeyed the orders given him. In one of the other websites they are sure that he didn't disobey orders. Even when presented with very good evidence that he did, they dismissed this. So I was wondering how you feel about this subject. Did he disobey Terry's orders, or not?
Hmmm ... LWD ... lemme tell you. As a relative newcomer to the study of LBH and GAC, when you're studying either subject, there is probably enough material out there to prove any point you need to make. Which means--there are few actual truths! But when you come into the true scholarly aspect of LBH (i.e., Terry's orders to GAC), stick with the primary sources and don't come in with any pre-conceived notions. I always thought that GAC disobeyed orders (I am quite pro-NA) until I read further and engaged in honest discussions with members of this board and others (and yeah, those others are hostile to excess and verrry clubby)--and over time, I've come to believe that specifically GAC didn't actually disobey orders--because Terry's instructions are deliberately quite sketchy. The Tullock's Creek scout probably comes closest to "disobedience" and probably should have been completed, because the time required to do so might have brought GAC's command closer to that of Gibbon's (help), but it might have also seen a separation of the NA bands who were occupying the LBH village (remember, they were preparing to pack up and leave on the 25th), so the objective may have no longer been in existence, making hunting down the individual bands not unlike the situation GAC found himself pursuing in Kansas, 1867--not practical, if not downright impossible. So what could a fading boy general whose goat has recently been gotten by the Grant Administration do?
So maybe if GAC had lived and lost, he woulda been court-martialled. If he won and lived, he woulda been a hero. But instead he lost and died and became a legend ... but I would caution you again to this subject come in as non-biased as possible.
hoka hey! |
movingrobe |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Responsibility At Little Bighorn
