|
Post by crzhrs on Jul 3, 2007 15:08:30 GMT -6
I believe the amount was $6 million for the Black Hills but the Sioux refused for various reasons.
In the 1970s(?) the US Supreme Court said the US government violated the Sioux Treaty of 1868 and the original land including the Black Hills should be given back or paid in full for.
The Sioux refused saying they wanted the land back, rather than the money. That may be where "They didn't pay us a dime" came from.
I believe the suit is still pending or something or other.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jul 3, 2007 17:05:12 GMT -6
Abby- Just to be a little historically picky with your cashier friend. The government of the United States offered (in the 19th century) several million dollars reimbursement to the Sioux for the Black Hills. The offer was turned down and the Indians have never accepted the check. M Can't say as I blame them. They never wanted to sell the Black Hills, and I don't think they ever intend to. Accepting the check would constitute a sale. I realize that my house could be seized under eminent domain to build a freeway or somesuch, but I wouldn't like it any better than the Lakota, and I would fight it. My understanding is this--somebody please correct or clarify if this is not the case: There was supposed to be a government marker put up for the soldier at Garryowen, but for some reason it got lost in transit. So somebody (was it Kortlander?) put up that rather strange Unknown Soldier monument. Then the marker showed up, and Kortlander now has it in the Garryowen Museum. Is that anything like accurate? I know he's got a marble marker in there; I saw it last week.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jul 3, 2007 17:19:08 GMT -6
Who said anything about the owner of the site being under investigation? In your first post, your source said that the person who made the request was under investigation. I think bloody knife assumed it was the owner of the property.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jul 3, 2007 21:39:09 GMT -6
OK -- now I see the reference.
bloodyknife is playing games on these boards, so I'm a bit suspicious of anything he writes.
|
|
|
Post by mwkeogh on Jul 4, 2007 16:20:48 GMT -6
OK -- now I see the reference. bloodyknife is playing games on these boards, so I'm a bit suspicious of anything he writes. Bloody Knife is a friend of mine and a damn good reenactor. I see no indication of him playing any games on this board and no reason for you to attempt to discredit him. You are still jumping to conclusions about things you know little about Diane, and it does little credit to your perception as a fair and balanced moderator.
|
|
|
Post by surprisewind on Jul 12, 2007 14:54:12 GMT -6
I've just joined this board at the coaxing of a friend who finds it a wonderful, insightful and glorious place to fuel her LBH obsession. I find that she is correct... but this thread bothers me, a bit. I think, in general and I'm not trying to be critical, that the point is being missed. A US soldier is on display at a place probably called Bob's Bait, Beer and Trailer Insurance. A man who suffered, bled and died for his country - and please spare me the rhetoric about what the army was doing at the time, I get it - is now being gawked at next to a gas pump. He deserves, and should have already been awarded, the same decency our other veterans are given. He should lie with his brothers-in-arms. He should be respectfully treated, not have Slurpies dripped on him. We would never dream of treating an Iraq war veteran with such indifference.... or anyone from any war for that matter. It's insulting, degrading...unbelievable. Prior to reading this, I had no idea that such a thing was so close to me. Bickering about who hasn't given what to which tribe is so off topic.... it's not about neutral territory or hostile factions. .... I'm sorry to sound so... I don't know... hostile I'm normally very centered. Seriously. But the idea of this sickens me...
|
|
|
Post by BrokenSword on Jul 12, 2007 16:41:30 GMT -6
suprise-
This thread has gone off on a tangent for certain, but most all of them do.
The point has not been missed at all. The GI in question has not been moved nor has his resting place been violated to date. I have written to my Congressman and my two US Senators. Not phone calls - letters, in long hand - and ones that are VERY CLEAR on the subject, what I think and what I expect them to do about it. Have you written yours?
We can post all of the opinions here that we care too post, but - a letter AND this link, sent to our individual governmental 'servants' will be far more effective.
M
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jul 12, 2007 17:07:02 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Montana Bab on Jul 12, 2007 22:07:07 GMT -6
Melani,
Thanks for the site connection to the memorial. I was surprised that the building was located so close to the memorial site, but I guess it's respectable enough.
Surprisewind's reaction was close to my own when I first heard that someone intended to disinter the remains to get at "artifacts" enclosed . Let's hope that there are some people involved who have the decency to not let this happen.
I can't help but wonder why this individual was not buried on the battlefield in the first place rather than where he lies.
Sincerely, Bab
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jul 13, 2007 0:00:24 GMT -6
I posted the version I seem to remember hearing above, and asked if anyone knew whether or not that is correct. I would very much like to see the actual link to the news story Diane quoted in the first post on this thread; perhaps there is more clarification or background.
|
|
|
Post by Diane Merkel on Jul 13, 2007 9:51:14 GMT -6
Melani, the first post quoted an e-mail, which the writer gave me permission to post, that was sent to a bunch of people in various LBH-related organizations. He personally spoke with the coroner who confirmed that the request to open the crypt was made. I still have not heard anything more about it.
Abby Grace, I'm not sure what was in Garry Owen back in 1926 when the memorial was established. It may be that the museum/gas station/sub shop was built around the memorial.
Personally, I have no objection to the actual remains being reburied in the National Cemetery as an unknown. I do object to the Garry Owen museum taking whatever items may have been buried with the remains and placing them on display for its private gain. I think the monument should stay where it is since it is a part of the history of the place, especially the 1926 ceremony. I generally don't favor replacing monuments of any type (even the spurious markers on the battlefield) because they are now part of the history and lore of that area.
|
|
|
Post by surprisewind on Jul 13, 2007 12:57:23 GMT -6
Broken Sword - I have no problem with his body being moved. In fact, I would seek just that. Reburial with his comrades as befits a veteran of the United States. He's on display for "private gain" right now and that is wrong on many levels. Leave the monument but honor the soldier with a proper resting place. Had I known about this earlier, I would have already written any and all parties. As I just found out, I don't think it is necessary to point out the impotency of my online posts
Abby Grace, I agree, but I think the same could be said of the remains of any foreign national on US soil. If a Rwandan died, just for instance, at the US Embassy you can bet your fig newtons we'd be tripping over ourselves to return the body. ...Abby Grace. Ha. Took me a minute.
Melani, thanks for the link. Quite informative and helpful!!
Diane, I think you are quite right about moving existing monuments. Bodies being dressed with relish by tourists is another matter.
Leave the monument, move the soldier...
|
|
|
Post by Melani on Jul 16, 2007 17:12:50 GMT -6
Abby Grace, I'm not sure what was in Garry Owen back in 1926 when the memorial was established. It may be that the museum/gas station/sub shop was built around the memorial. Not sure what was there in 1926; probably nothing. When I was there with my parents in 1971, there was a grain elevator and a small sort of general store with a screen door. The stone memorial itself seems to me to be much newer than 1926, but I could be mistaken. It has been suggested that Upton's new book on the 50th anniversary ceremonies might supply some answers. Anybody got that one?
|
|
|
Post by harpskiddie on Jul 23, 2007 2:06:51 GMT -6
My recollection, and I haven't checked yet, is that the 1926 discovery [which might have been made by the Wieberts] WAS reinterred in the National Cemetery, with proper and solemn ceremony. The Garryowen "monument" IS much newer, I'm sure. It certainly was not there in 1960 [at least I didn't see it] - I think it came along with, or after, the museum, and commemorates a find from later years - possibly by Jason Pitsch.
Regardless, the comments made by others as to the fitness of a US soldier's remains being buried [and profited by] on private land are pertinent and understandable. As to any monument - it should be placed where the remains were found, and should be of the kind used to mark the death sites of the other soldier dead. The remains should be buried in the National Cemetery.
If someone at Garrryowen, or anywhere else for that matter, wants to erect a respectful memorial to the "burying of the hatchet" or "a handshake between former enemies," I don't see that as a big deal, so long as it is a memorial and not a tourist dollar, for profit, generator. If I have a tasteful memorial to anyone or an event in my front or back yard, it's really nobody's business, unless it violates some law, or infringes on someone else's rights.
Gordie, she came on to him, like a slow-moving cold front.................................................
|
|
TopKick1833
Junior Member
Sherlock the Beagle Dog
Posts: 80
|
Post by TopKick1833 on Jul 25, 2007 8:32:10 GMT -6
This reminds me a bit of the post Topic: Custer's nephew scalp on display.
Is there any evidence that can verify the "unknown" was a soldier that was KIA at LBH? If in fact this can be verified, I believe this would be a Federal issue for the recovery of remains. There is an active duty unit headquartered out of Hawaii that handles this very issue.
TopKick
|
|