Custer and Little Bighorn: 135 years ago and questions remain

Substitute Chivington for Fetterman in first line of #200.

***What did Black Kettle’s village have to with the Fetterman massacre???***

Birds of a feather. In the north, the Blackfoot, Sioux, cheyenne, Arapaho against the whites. Read your history. a large contingent of Arapaho warriors joined the Black Kettle’s band at Ft Lyons just before going to Sand Creek.

In the South, the Kiowa and Comanches allied against the whites.

In the middle they double teamed against the Whites and their allies the Pawnee, Crow and many smaller tribes who looked to the US Army for protection.

It appears you have bought into the myth that all the men at Sand Creek were out hunting buffalo when the attack occured. Maybe you need to learn about how the indian hunt buffalo.

In the summer was buffalo hunting time. The men killed them and the women cut them up. Men did not go hunting without the women to do the dirty work.

In the fall, the supplies were laid in and then they would make peace (till spring) with the whites so they could get coffee, sugar and other things they liked beside buf meat.

At Sand Creek, the larders would have been full with no need to go hunting as any indian worth his salt knew the buffalo would be wintering down in the Palo Verde area of Texas. Besides, no indian would have gone out in a snow storm as happened at the time of Sand Creek.

I find it funny that about every time the whites whupped the Indians the apologists claim all the men were out hunting, clear back to the time of British rule in America.

Lest it be forgotten that it was possible to be a leader of the US Army in the Indian Wars AND simultaneously a non-genocidal decent human being, there was General O. O. Howard who fought the Apache in the Southwest and the Nez Perce in the Northwest. The purpose of the orders issued to him was shameful but he always conducted himself honorably and never joined in the genocidal techniques which earned Chivington his reputation. Nor did he ever express himself as shamefully as Sherman. Nor did he refer to all Indians as "birds of a feather." Nor did he go out of his way to attack villages containing only women, infants, children, old folks and cripples. Unlike Chivington, Howard was a man's man. Unlike Fetterman, he was a successful commander.

The Arapahos, Sioux and Cheyenne were allied. I had thought that the Blackfoot were allied with the Crow and the Pawnee against them, but, hey, maybe you are right about though that would obviously make you wrong about all Indians being "birds of a feather. " The Iroquois certainly committed atrocities against whites and against other Indians. If all else fails, maybe that justifies killing Black Kettle and the Cheyenne women, infants, children, old folks and cripples.

Challenge: Name five Arapaho warriors killed at Sand Creek and who were at Fort Lyons. Document.

If Cheyenne women went on the hunt to butcher the meat (perfectly plausible and probable) it did not take a woman for each warrior and does not change the fact that the Sand Creek victims were the women, infants, children, old folks and cripples.

I am no Methodist but I'll take their word for what happened at Sand Creek as they apologized for Chivington's atrocities committed in spite of his being a Methodist minister. In courts, this is regarded as a highly credible "admission against interest." Likewise the conclusions of the Congressional Committee on the Conduct of the War. Against those two items and the physical evidence, we have a contemporary local account from one who may have been a participant in the Chivington atrocities or a beneficiary thereof.If Eichmann had written claims that Hitler was a pillar of virtue would such writings not tend to prove the opposite, considering the source and the blatant non-credibility of the claim itself????

If you had a first cousin who robbed a bank and killed a teller, would it be OK with you if the Arkansas State Troopers broke into your house, killed you and your wife and your kids or grandkids because, though you were no friend or supporter of your cousin much less a participant or beneficiary of his crimes? Aren't you "birds of a feather???" I did not think so either.

***If all else fails, maybe that justifies killing Black Kettle and the Cheyenne women, infants, children, old folks and cripples.****

Remember the Hungate family, slaughtered by these very Cheyennes. And over 200 other settlers in Colorado murdered by these same “peaceful” Indians.

I read a book many years ago on the Comanches. When Chivington smashed Black Kettle’s band it sent reberbrations all across the plains. The Sioux took notice and even the Comanches in the south realized that, now, the whites were engaging in war using the Indian’s own rules of engagement. They didn’t like it as they could dish it out to the whites, but they couldn’t take it. Furthermore, the power to make peace rested not with Black Kettle, but with the warrior societies in his tribe. Each society had to make peace with the whites, and many of them said that they DID NOT want peace.

It became a joke among Indians that if you wanted to get presents from the whites, first you had to kill some whites, then others would give you presents to make “peace”.

****If you had a first cousin who robbed a bank and killed a teller, would it be OK with you if the Arkansas State Troopers broke into your house, killed you and your wife and your kids or grandkids because,******

I wouldn’t like it but if they were involved in the robbery in the first place the troopers might have a good reason to do so especially if they find the money, bank bags, gun tied to the robbery, plus personal items taken from the bank teller (like his scalp) in the house. And especially if the family had made claims that by doing the robbery it would enhance their standing in the criminal community.

Among Plains indians it was necessary for them to go on raids as scalps, captured enemy goods and horses to show the tribe that they had status in the tribe.

Case in point. George Catlin tells how the Mandan chief Two Bears was spoken against as he had not proven his status as a chief.

Two Bears then went on a one man war raid against the Cree, caught two unarmed Cree women getting water. He murdered them both in full view of the camp, scalped them, then hi-tailed it back home where he was hailed a hero, with two women’s scalps to prove it.

Why do we have a double standard for Indian wars? the indians fought the most brutal wars against each other and this carried over to their attacks on the whites.

Think about it this way...Suppose someone attacks YOU, using all the force and methods they can. You are allowed to respond with one arm tied behind your back. THAT is the way the US government wanted to fight the Indians.

"The indians fought the most brutal wars against each other and this carried over to their attacks on the whites."

They had a long history of that: Crow Creek Massacre circa 1325

And if anyone still clings to the myth that whites taught the indians to scalp:

"A conservative estimate of villagers who suffered scalping is 90%, but the actual amount could be as high as 100%. This is based on skeletal remains that exhibit cuts on their skulls that were indicative of scalping, (Willey and Emerson 1993). Men, women, and children were indiscriminately scalped with the only difference being that younger children were cut higher on the skull than other groups (Willey and Emerson 1993)."

The indians unhesitatingly killed white women and children, so I'm not sure why people act surprised when the same thing happened to the indians. I imagine women and children have been victims in nearly every war that has ever been fought since time began.

Here is another...

http://www.dickshovel.com/scalp.html

"Swanton (1946) goes a step further and states that among the Creek, the taking of a woman's or child's scalp was considered a sign of even greater valor than the taking of a scalp on the battlefield, because it indicated that the warrior had penetrated all the way into the enemy's village, a feat which required great skill."

Well, that's one way to look at it...

Cheers. Well, there was a report of Custer ordering a farmer near Harrisonburg, VA in the Shenandoah Valley tied to a horse before he fired a pistol to get that horse moving; the farmer would not give Custer any information on recent Confederate movements near Harrisonburg (if I’m not mistaken, this was in late 1864). So, as far as Custer’s lack of professionalism out west after the Civil War, as a commander, there’s precedence for that from the Civil War. The farmer died, of course, after the horse ran wild all day.

"So, as far as Custer’s lack of professionalism out west after the Civil War, as a commander, there’s precedence for that from the Civil War."

Custer was an amateur:

"Federal retaliation swiftly came on October 13, when Union colonel William Powell ordered the execution of Ranger A.C. 'Ag' Willis. A small tree was forced over double, and a noose was put over young Willis's head. Then methodically attached to the tree, the tree was released. Willis's body shot up into the sky; he was dead before he returned to earth." Link

The article also mentions a 17-year-old boy who was deliberately dragged and then shot to death by some of Custer's men. I don't know if that's the same story that you mentioned.

I'm not surprised about Custer's brutality towards his enemies; what confuses me is how many of his own men, who formerly loved him during the Civil War, ultimately hated his guts out west. What was he doing differently and why was he doing it?

Here is an interesting take on the great American General..

http://lamecherry.blogspot.com/2011/09/mass-assassination-of-gen-george.html