|
Post by conz on May 3, 2009 19:22:25 GMT -6
Okay...here is the arena. We have several people with a current interest as to what went on at Wounded Knee, especially with regard to "war crimes," "atrocities," and/or immoral activity.
Can we first define what it is we are looking for? Let me throw out and you can agree, disagree, or modify:
Illegal act: Something against orders of your superior.
Immoral act: Maybe not illegal, but still morally reprehensible that they should not have done, legal or no.
Atrocity: Something that may be quasi-legal and sanctioned or overlooked, coming short of a legal war crime, but still somebody should have paid for their mistakes here.
War Crime: Something clearly illegal and immoral, that any nation, having caught those responsible, would have tried them, found them guilty, and given them appropriate punishment.
Did anything go on at Wounded Knee to warrant any of these judgments?
Clair
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 4, 2009 9:54:40 GMT -6
I seem to recall reading about Godfrey chasing down some women and children and killing them some way away from the village, but don't have time to ransack my library right now. Anybody know that story?
|
|
|
Post by wolfgang911 on May 5, 2009 16:55:29 GMT -6
is this a debate :oor do you already have your conclusion and you just want to count coup on words.
in my opinion wounded knee was an atrocious illegal immoral war crime, if the subject was no so damn serious i would have put a smiley in there but i'm not.
|
|
|
Post by Melani on May 5, 2009 21:34:23 GMT -6
Well, sending the 7th into that situation was almost a guarantee of bloodshed, that's for sure. There is a picture of a group of officers taken a few weeks later, which includes Edgerly, Varnum, Moylan and Godfrey. I am struck by the haunted expressions on their faces, while most of the other officers have the standard tough-guy look of soldiers being photographed. I am also intrigued to see Godfrey apparently holding Moylan's hand, which strikes me as a trifle odd.
I would rather have a discussion than a debate--do you think we could pull that off?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 6, 2009 7:20:41 GMT -6
The worse thing the military could have done at Wounded Knee was ordered the Indians to disarm.
At that point the Indians had been suffering from lack of food and cold. Big Foot was seriously ill. They were not a threat to the military and the rough treatment of Indian woman while ransacking belongings added to the humiliation of the warriors.
The Indians were fully aware of the arsenal against them, saw the numbers of soldiers, the cannons on the hill aimed at them and basically were goaded into resisting.
That's not to say the Indians were not innocent. The Medicine Man was urging the warriors to stand strong and telling them about the protection of their Ghost Dance Shirts.
I don't believe the military intended to start a fight . . . but they surely handled the whole affair poorly which resulted in the massacre.
I'm not sure how "incompetency" would be judged in the military . . . but I believe was the cause for Wounded Knee . . . of course failure to understand the Indians (which may have been the biggest reason of ALL Indian/White conflict) should not be overlooked.
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 6, 2009 8:45:57 GMT -6
I agree with the above synopsis...Wounded Knee was a powder keg just waiting for the slightest spark to ignite a great bloodletting.
Both sides contributed to this condition, but the Natives, being the surrendered party, had the onus on THEM to prevent any provocation from starting violence.
I lay all the deaths, morally, at Wounded Knee on the Native tribesmen.
When you surrender, you offer NO...NONE...NOT EVEN A SHADOW...of resistance. If you do, the consequences can be overpowering and get out of control as the winning party feels betrayed, shocked, suspicious, angry, and scared. They'll shoot everything in sight before anyone can think to ask questions or give orders.
That's how you can EXPECT captors to act...it is normal human behavior, and far short of any acts of criminality or even immorality.
If anyone is immoral here, it is in the party who said they would not offer resistance, but betrayed their word and did. Hard to ask for any understanding, after that.
I think that is close to the Army's unofficial position on this.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on May 6, 2009 8:55:03 GMT -6
I agree Conz. It may not be what they wanted to do but the alternative was not good either. Since the fighting started over an alleged deaf Indian not hearing, who knew that he could not hear? It was meant to be an excuse on the Indian side but if they knew he was deaf they could have assisted.
I prefer to pick my own engagements and I would have done everything to comply given the circumstances. It was sad it happened but predictable once the first shot was fired intentionally or not.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 6, 2009 10:53:54 GMT -6
<but the Natives, being the surrendered party>
Who said the Indians surrounded?
They had not done anything . . . they were on their reservation . . . they had not threatened Whites . . . they were only doing what ALL AMERICANS had the right to do . . . practice a religion.
The Indians & military were in negotiations when the Indians came back from the Stronghold. They had not "given up" anything. The Indians gave up guns when told to do so, but the military didn't believe all guns were turned over. They then started rummaging through tepees, pushing women around who then started wailing. The military rather than stopping and trying to get control continued which then caused the Sioux Medicine Man to encourage warriors to stand strong.
Things got out of hand which should have been the responsibility of the military.
PS: Gen. Miles believed it was the military's fault and ordered court marshalls.
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 6, 2009 11:10:56 GMT -6
<but the Natives, being the surrendered party> Who said the Indians surrounded? The Indians were either surrendered, or hostile. If they were hostile, they could be shot on site. Since they weren't initially, I presume, and the Army assumed, that they had surrendered. They were "under arrest" in civilian vernacular, but the Army doesn't arrest people...they capture them and they become prisoners of war. That is what the Native Americans were to them here...POWs. This isn't a police action...it is the Army and it is war. If it wasn't, it would be policemen searching that village. You are acting naive, and should know better. They were poking a finger in "the man's" eye, and the man was not amused. They called the Army to come in and ensure the Natives were disarmed. The Natives surrendered to the Army forces and agreed to allow themselves to be disarmed and searched. The slightest violation of this agreement will have dire consequences, and everyone was ready for that. That's what the Army does. If they are going through your village, and women and children are around, do NOTHING, NOTHING, to provoke them or give them ANY excuse to use deadly force. Because if you do, they will. That is Army training; it is not police training. I disagree...just the opposite. The Natives had the responsibility to not provoke their captors. But the military did not agree with him. Gen'l Miles is a fine officer, too, and it would be interesting to see why he presented such a report, and why others disagreed with him. It would also be important to see exactly what activity, or lack thereof, the General disagreed with. Note that there is a difference between the Troops acting the best way possible, and there being war crimes done. The Troops and officers making tactical mistakes does not equate to them committing war crimes. Clair
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on May 6, 2009 12:56:52 GMT -6
The was no war. There were no Whites killed on or off the reservation.
The Indians had not surrendered or were under arrest.
They were escorted back to the main reservation center to discuss the issue.
There were woman & children so there was no hostile intent on the Indians' part, until the soldiers became overly aggressive in searching for weapons, even looking under women's clothing . . . any man would have been offended by that.
Let's not forget what command was doing the search: the re-made 7th.
|
|
|
Post by markland on May 6, 2009 23:28:29 GMT -6
I seem to recall reading about Godfrey chasing down some women and children and killing them some way away from the village, but don't have time to ransack my library right now. Anybody know that story? Mel, the way I recall the situation from Godfrey's article is that he chased that group containing one or two men with the women and children and ended up killing the men and sending the women and children to the prisoner pen. He did not murder any women although being winter and everyone wearing bulky garments made of fur, accidents could happen. Billy
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 7, 2009 10:09:58 GMT -6
The Indians had not surrendered or were under arrest. They were escorted back to the main reservation center to discuss the issue. That is rather the definition of being a prisoner of war, or at least a prisoner, and "under arrest," to use the policing term. They were under arrest. They were ordered to give up all their weapons. The did agree to be searched, personally and through their village, to find hidden weapons. They did violate that agreement with deadly force against the arresters. I don't agree with the assumption that the nearness of the village means they didn't have hostile intent...at least some individuals were prepared for hostilities. I don't care if they were offended...that doesn't justify using deadly force against your arresters. As fine an organization as the U.S. Army has ever fielded. Patriots, every one of them. And proud to do their duty, professionally. Unless you can prove otherwise... Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 7, 2009 13:22:17 GMT -6
The council between officers and Indian Head Men was botched by the military who goaded them into a rash act of defiance. People who are so easily drawn into violence usually get what they deserve...live by the sword, die by the sword, we say. The ones who didn't deserve this fate were the women and children...and the Warriors that were "goaded" are the ones responsible for what happened to them. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 8, 2009 4:59:08 GMT -6
The Army's report at Wounded Knee indicates that the Natives had concealed weapons under their robes they brought with them to the initial negotiations for the tribes surrender and disarmament.
They drew them and shot down Soldiers first, drawing first blood. They also killed the priest who was the neutral party in the negotiation, stabbing him to death, I believe 27 times. This certainly indicates premeditated murder and vengeance.
Is the evidence more clear that it was the Native Americans at Wounded Knee that committed a war crime, rather than the Army, who was just reacting to a premeditated ambush?
Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on May 8, 2009 16:17:52 GMT -6
Here's a different person's perspective...historian Robert Ultey. I consider him to be, if not anti-military, at least militarily naive, so he doesn't have a bone to pick here, I think. He is very sympathetic to the plight of the Native Americans during our wars, but this is what he says about Wounded Knee in Frontier Regulars...
"The appearance of troops separated the Indians into two groups that the whites called 'friendlies' and 'hostiles.' Those who wanted no part of a test of arms with the soldiers gathered at the agencies. Those intent on further defiance withdrew to remote points of the reservation and continued to dance..."
"One of Miles' officers succeeded in pacifying Hump, and Big Foot retired to his village near the forks of Cheyenne River. Miles issued orders for the arrest of both Sitting Bull and Big Foot...."
Sitting Bull was arrested, and was killed by Sioux policemen while his men resisted.
"The assignment to arrest Big Foot fell to LTC Sumner, who commanded a 'camp of observation' at the forks of Cheyenne River...Sumner judged his arrest unnecessary and certain to provoke a fight. Since his orders left the timing to him, he delayed in carrying them out..."
"Big Foot's escape infuriated General Miles [head of the Department], who had assumed personal control of field operations...in his view, the appearance of the Miniconjous on the Pine Ridge Reservation could have explosive consequences...."
"To Custer's old regiment fell the distinction of intercepting Big Foot. On December 28 MAJ Whiteside and four troops of the Seventh Cavalry, scouting eastward from Pine Ridge Agency, came face to face with the Miniconjous. After a few apprehensive moments, the Indians consented to a military escort..."
The Natives went into camp at Wounded Knee creek.
"That night COL Forsyth arrived on the scene with the rest of the Seventh, Light Battery E of the First Artillery, and some Oglala scouts. Forsyth carried orders from General Brooke to disarm Big Foot's people and march them to the railroad in Nebraska for movement to Omaha..."
"The Indians awoke on the morning of December 29, 1890, to find themselves closely surrounded by 500 Soldiers...Forsyth's demand for their guns upset the Indians. But they were so plainly outnumbered, outgunned, and boxed in on all sides that no one, soldier or Indian, seems to have regarded a fight as possible..."
"The Indians refused to produce the Winchester repeaters so much in evidence the day before, and the soldiers had to search for them in the lodges and beneath the blankets of both men and women..."
"In a scuffle between a soldier and an Indian, a rifle went off. Instantly the young men threw off their blankets, leveled their rifles, and sent a volley crashing into the nearest formation of soldiers..."
"The close-range action ended abruptly, and the combatants broke from the council square...A storm of exploding shells leveled the village, sought out fleeing knots of Sioux, and filled a ravine where many took shelter with deadly flying shrapnel. Gradually the fighting subsided as the surviving Indians fled the battlefield..."
"The testimony showed conclusively that the troops, with several exceptions, had made every possible effort to avoid harming noncombatants..."
"Forsyth's disposition do invite criticism. He deployed his units to disarm the Indians, not to fight a battle. But the possibility of a battle, no matter how remote, should have been considered and his troops kept at a greater distance from the Indians..."
"A more fundamental error, chargeable to Miles and Brooke, was the order to disarm the Indians. This stemmed form a misapprehension, by all the military chieftains save Sumner, of the true temper of Big Foot. Had he and his people simply been escorted to Pine Ridge, bloodshed would have been avoided and, it may well be, a helpful, or at least not a harmful, influence injected into the situation there."
I, for one, am not convinced though, that this judgment is correct. Miles may have had very good information and judgment in deciding that Big Foot must not be allowed on the Agency, and that his people would have to be disarmed and moved to Nebraska. Utley doesn't give a good argument in his book here...perhaps elsewhere.
At any rate, I don't see any intimation that Army war crimes are involved here, and the evidence seems to indicate that the Warriors committed war crimes at Wounded Knee against the Army.
So I do believe war crimes happened at Wounded Knee...I just think that many have accused the wrong side!
Clair
|
|