Posted on 08/18/2013 4:48:36 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
The 16-year-old girl’s once-beautiful face was grotesque. She had been disfigured beyond all recognition in the 18 months she had been held captive by the Comanche Indians.
Now, she was being offered back to the Texan authorities by Indian chiefs as part of a peace negotiation.
To gasps of horror from the watching crowds, the Indians presented her at the Council House in the ranching town of San Antonio in 1840, the year Queen Victoria married Prince Albert.
‘Her head, arms and face were full of bruises and sores,’ wrote one witness, Mary Maverick. ‘And her nose was actually burnt off to the bone. Both nostrils were wide open and denuded of flesh.’
Once handed over, Matilda Lockhart broke down as she described the horrors she had endured — the rape, the relentless sexual humiliation and the way Comanche squaws had tortured her with fire. It wasn’t just her nose, her thin body was hideously scarred all over with burns.
When she mentioned she thought there were 15 other white captives at the Indians’ camp, all of them being subjected to a similar fate, the Texan lawmakers and officials said they were detaining the Comanche chiefs while they rescued the others.
It was a decision that prompted one of the most brutal slaughters in the history of the Wild West — and showed just how bloodthirsty the Comanche could be in revenge....
S C Gwynne, author of Empire Of The Summer Moon about the rise and fall of the Comanche, says simply: ‘No tribe in the history of the Spanish, French, Mexican, Texan, and American occupations of this land had ever caused so much havoc and death. None was even a close second.’.....
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
My point was just like other people around the world, the American Indians had tribes who were warlike and conquered other tribes, and peaceful tribes who just wanted to be left alone. In short, American Indians were like everybody else of the planet.... a mix of good and bad.
“...He was interested in glory and money, and he achieved a measure of the first. ...”
He was “a man of his age”, so to speak. No less than a Phil Sheridan, or a William T. Sherman, or Nelson Bearcoat Miles. They were Americans first, and everything else second, and believed in expanding (and protecting) the borders of our nation to the best of their abilities.
“...Custer’s battle plans were not unsound...”
I read that he had two Gatlings available to him for use, but he left them behind, fearing they would slow him down.
And as for Reno and Benteen, yeah, they had no for each other OR for Custer. I get the impression, though, that even if both of their respective columns would have been able to get to him, all that would resulted would be a pile of MORE blue-clad bodies. There were one hell of a lot of Indian warriors there.
Would the Gatlings have been game-changers??? I don’t know; i think the indians were savvy enough by that time that they would simply targeted the crew-served weapons immediately and taken them out of the fight.
Who knows... one of the great “What Ifs” of American history...
But for now, as long as the muzzies hate America and everything we stand for, it's good enough!
There’s a reason Lenin and Co. referred to liberals as “Useful Idiots”.
The muzz learned that lesson too.
If they’d had a bigger defense budget, the Indians would still own this continent. < /sarc >
Would Benteen and Reno arriving in time to help Custer meant success of the expedition? We’ll never know. Utley was merely pointing out that past, similar expeditions and tactics had always worked. Custer had no reason to believe it wouldn’t have worked again. Maybe there were too many Indians for the army plan to work. But some historians do believe Custer was not necessarily reckless.
Would Benteen and Reno arriving in time to help Custer meant success of the expedition? We’ll never know. Utley was merely pointing out that past, similar expeditions and tactics had always worked. Custer had no reason to believe it wouldn’t have worked again. Maybe there were too many Indians for the army plan to work. But some historians do believe Custer was not necessarily reckless.
“...Back in the days of the Cold War, I respected Soviet capabilities but never admired or wanted to be like them as a nation or society. ...”
Yeah, there’s a difference between respecting the foe, and his abilities / capabilities, versus wishing to BE like them. Some folks amongst us never understood that difference.
Hell, even Patton respected Rommel, and vice-versa.
“Rommel, you magnificent bastard I READ YOUR BOOK!!!” Hahah!
(It was actually Guderian’s book, if I’m not mistaken...but it made a GREAT Hollywood movie line!! And let’s face it - WHO else but George C. Scott could have played Patton??? Or Ebenezer Scrooge for that matter!)
“...But some historians do believe Custer was not necessarily reckless...”
Agreed, it’s just that you won’t hear that viewpoint in too many forums. They love to portray him as an idiot.
Like they denigrate all of our American historical figures.
The “They” in this case meaning the left/libtards, obviously.... sorry, should have been clearer. It’s Monday...
“The Comanches differed from the Apaches in that they were fully nomadic, and they would always respond to an attack with a counter-attack. And there were ...”
Nomadic people have always raided the sedentary agriculture people for food if nothing else. They tend to be very good horseman so better mobile raiding force and able to shoot guns and arrows from a moving horse
Warriors of the Steppe-— about the nomadic Mongol way of war on horses is very informative. They invented the cursive bow.
http://www.amazon.com/Warriors-Of-The-Steppe-Military/dp/1885119437
There are some very cruel female “destroyer of worlds” (Kali) figures in Hindu mythology. For a man, spend a minute or two ruining a kiler then then put a bullet through his head. Be done! Delight in extended torture is gay and depraved. More of a female thing like you say
THIS IS WHY THEY WERE CALLED “SAVAGES”!
Yep. People are like that, overall, no matter what their origins.
Some Indians were peaceful and readily accepted the whites into their areas. Others were like the murderous Comanches.
This thread and the book you recommended reminds me of some old family history that I had long forgotten about until now. Contact with the Indians was not unusual in Texas back then. One of my great-great-grandmothers was captured by the Comanches about the same time and area as Cynthia Ann Parker. Her story was similar to Parker’s. My mom, who told me the story, thought it might have been the same raiding party. Rather than at a fort, these children were caught in open country. Being a young girl, my ancestor was adapted and was apparently not as mistreated as some were. She was later rescued as a young adult and reintegrated into white society. My mom saw old pictures of her and asked why her skin looked dark and splotchy. The Comanches had tried to darken her skin like theirs, using walnut oil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.