|
Post by crzhrs on Dec 13, 2016 12:05:58 GMT -6
Another issue of who the Indians were fighting: More than likely the Indians didn't know who was fighting . . . however, once the battle was over many Indians recognized a number of the attackers: Isiah Dorman was well-known among the Lakota, even married a Lakota woman. Isiah was singled out for special "treatment" by Indians. Bloody Knife who had a Lakota mother was also singled out for a grisly outcome. Mitch Boyer was well-known among the Lakota, so was Billy Jackson who survived, Fred Girard who Sitting Bull had a "bounty" out for, Tom Custer who was horribly mutilated may have been targeted for his mistreatment of Cheyenne women. Then we come to GAC, who it was said fathered a child with the Cheyenne woman Meotzi. It was said that after the battle Cheyenne recognized him and told others not to molest his body. The Cheyenne may have agreed to that but I doubt the Lakota did.
There was a number of players involved in the LBH who were familiar with the other side, especially reservation Indians who had dealings with soldiers including the Custers.
I agree that during the fight the Indians didn't know who they were fighting but once the battle was over and Indians went over the battlefield they surely recognized those who attacked them and took out the revenge on them in some of the most hideously manner.
One has to realize that revenge was a major factor in Native American culture . . . to get back at those who killed or mistreated a loved-one "made the heart good!"
|
|
|
Post by elkcharm on Jan 29, 2017 20:39:18 GMT -6
Nice board been reading for awhile. The simple fact is alot of Indians knew of GAC. His reputation as a indian fighter and killer of women and children among plains tribes was well known. As far as his body. Let me explain that bravery in battle was the most admired trait among indians. I know of times when a brave white man was killed there body was not mutilated instead covered with a buffalo robe or if captured let go because he showed bravery.
I am a member of the Crow Tribe and this has always been taught. So i dont belive at all GAC wasnt recognized.
|
|
|
Post by tubman13 on Jan 30, 2017 5:00:03 GMT -6
Thank you and welcome elkcharm.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 30, 2017 9:20:29 GMT -6
I am a member of the Crow Tribe and this has always been taught. So i dont belive at all GAC wasnt recognized. Elk charm, Welcome to these boards. It is very nice to see you here. I do not, however, agree with you about Custer's body. Sorry, but I do not buy it, not for a single second, Crow tribal lore or not. When a big name gets killed, everybody wants in on the act, some how, some way, whether they were responsible or not, friend or not. It only enhances legends and participation. First of all, I do not believe Custer was recognized. His appearance on the campaign had changed. He cut his hair short—and long, flowing yellow hair was his trademark—and he probably had several days’ growth of beard. Custer was fair-skinned and thus susceptible to sunburn and we know for sure Dr. DeWolf had treated him earlier with glycerin for sunburn. Keeping a week’s beard helped protect white men from the sun and we know as well that was SOP on this campaign. Next, anyone who may have known him at all was probably Cheyenne, and Southern Cheyenne women at that. There were very few Southern Cheyenne at the Little Big Horn. Plus, those who may have gotten a good look at him did so in late-1868, early-1869, and that was any number of years before the Little Big Horn: appearances change and memories fade. Next, there was so much dust and smoke no one could see who they were even shooting at, and again, we have any number of accounts of Sioux and Cheyenne shooting one another, simply because they could not see through all the dust. In addition, the Reno-Benteen command was seen, probably even before the last of the Custer fighters was dead, and that prompted—as everyone… or almost everyone… knows—an immediate southward exodus from the Custer-Keogh field. I tend to doubt too many Sioux or Cheyenne wandered back to see if they could ID dead troops!!!, though, according to the Oglala, Foolish Elk, one Indian—a Hunkpapa—claimed he recognized Custer a day later. Take that for what it’s worth. We keep going. Let us also remember, none of the Crow scouts—including Curley—ever saw Custer’s dead body, so anything they may say is strictly hearsay and since the Crow and Sioux were not the closest of friends until who knows when, the hearsay was probably not until many, many years after the fight. Continuing… while we have any number of accounts claiming they saw Custer’s body—and helped bury it—very few of them actually describe its condition other than remarking about the wounds. Times were different in 1876, as well, and the sensitivities of relatives—especially a wife who was greatly respected—were considerably more respected than today. The general routine was to snip a lock of hair and give it to the grieving widow (Dr. Porter admitted doing this for Libbie). So it is not surprising few ever made public comments on the condition of Custer’s body, only ever alluding to the (probably) apocryphal awl-in-the-ear business and the arrow in the pecker. One trooper (PVT Jacob Adams [H]) spoke of a severe gash up Custer’s leg, something normal for the Sioux (… or was it Cheyenne?) as a mark of who did it (note the mutilated body of SGT Wyllyams a couple years before). While Will Logan (the messenger/scout-son, not the officer-father) was one of the really great prevaricators when it came to his own exploits, he claimed Custer was “stripped naked, scalped, mutilated, and with more arrows sticking in him than in the body of any other man on the battlefield, with the possible exception of that of his brother.” That can be taken with a grain of salt, but it also tends to make one wonder why those who commented on burying Custer were not more descriptive as to his body’s condition. Private Adams was probably closer to the mark than those claiming a “peaceful smile was on his face.” Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 30, 2017 12:37:33 GMT -6
As stated in my earlier posts I do believe there were Indians in the camp who recognized soldiers/scouts AFTER the battle. We know of what happened to Isaiha Dorman, Bloody Knife, possibly Mitch Boyer, and maybe even Tom Custer who had "dealings" with Cheyenne women. Custer may have been known to the Southern Cheyenne, but as Fred pointed out it was years earlier, but like the old saying: "Elephants Never Forget", I can not believe the Indians in the camp would forget what happened months/years earlier as they were treated by the military. Sitting Bull had a grudge with Fred Girard and would have recognized him if he was killed (he wasn't). Billy Jackson (Scout) was known to the Indians. Charley Reynolds was also known by the Indians. He was killed during the Reno Fight, but I don't know what the condition of his body was after being found.
No one can say for sure, but I believe there were enough Indians in the camps, whether non-treaty or treaty Indians who had contact with soldiers/scouts that didn't factor in what happened after the battle.
|
|
|
Post by elkcharm on Jan 30, 2017 12:50:31 GMT -6
Mr. Fred I agree with alot your saying your very intelligent on this matter. Let me throw a few things at you and see what your thoughts are.
On two seperate occassions GAC had ashes from a peace pipe spread over his boots. This meaning if he broke a treaty he would turn to ashes. This happened at a big council with several cheyenne and other leaders there. In those days it was common for a cheyenne to go camp with the Sioux and other tribes. As far as when the battle was going on... I think your spot on it would be hard to recognize anybody. After the battle is a different story. Also remember all the plains tribes had names for GAC. I think they knew who he was. I dont think this can be summed up as "Crow Lore" Thanks for the welcome Aho ElkCharm
|
|
|
Post by elkcharm on Jan 30, 2017 12:56:33 GMT -6
Also may I add.. I dont believe every single indian present recognized GAC. However strongly believe he was recognized by some. He had spoke to them face to face. Fought in battles against them. ElkCharm
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 30, 2017 13:45:11 GMT -6
Elk Charm,
Please do not get upset if I say, "Crow lore." I mean no disrespect by that; in fact, I admire your people very much. Every time I have been to the battlefield, Crow Indians I meet have been very kind and very polite: they have treated me exactly the way good people treat one another. Even Joe Medicine Crow was as kind as he could be and answered every question I asked him.
I have no doubt George Custer was recognized by some-- that nameless Hunkpapa for example-- and quite possibly by one or two others. There are indications he was recognized by some. My point is twofold: (1) he was not recognized during the battle and not recognized immediately after; and (2) because he was not immediately recognized I see no reason why he was treated differently from other dead soldiers.
That does not mean he was utterly butchered like some, but I think his body suffered depredations considerably greater than what we have been led to believe over the years. The comment by Private Adams leads me in that direction. Also, the fury visited on many of the dead troops by some of the women in the battle's immediate aftermath leads me to believe George Custer was not spared... though Libbie was.
Again... and we all seem to forget about how violent and fast-moving this battle was... the entire scene was engulfed in smoke and dust and while much of it had to have settled by the time the women employed their post-battle tactics, this was still a consideration, especially adding in the blood and distortion from fear etched and engraved on faces of men dying suddenly.
Again, I welcome you here and I hope you stay and contribute. A person like you, with your heritage and background, has invaluable information to contribute. We can all learn from you and I hope you can learn some from us.
Best wishes, Fred.
PS-- And "crzhrs," those you mention all had day-to-day interaction with Indians and some-- Dorman, Gerard, Boyer-- were married to Indian women, while others-- McIntosh was part-Indian. I would suspect therefore, they would be quite well-known among their extended brethren.
Hope you are doing well, FCWIII
|
|
|
Post by elkcharm on Jan 30, 2017 14:24:17 GMT -6
Thank you Mr. Fred I have learned alot from this board as I have been " Lurking" for some time. Also thank you for youre comment of the Crow.
I cannot argue the fact about condition of GAC's body after the battle. However my point was to show bravery among Indians was a great honor. Was GAC 's body mutilated ?? No one really knows. I wanted to share the practice of some warriors honoring there foes. As far as recognizing GAC I strongly feel he was recognized. ElkCharm
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Jan 30, 2017 14:55:08 GMT -6
I am the last person to disagree with much of Fred's research and in-depth study of the LBH which leaves most of us in the dust, including me.
Godfrey's letter year's after the battle to a "private collection" holder which states that Custer had a arrow shoved up his penis speaks volumes to what Indians (warriors or non-coms) did to soldiers after the battle.
Whether any Indian recognized the dead soldiers may have no bearing to their feelings for the dead it does speak volumes of the Indians' resentment of the constant harrassment, chasing after, threats and ultimatums given by the US government to mostly peaceful winter roamers (non-signers of treaties, non-reservation Indians, and hard-ass believers in their culture and way of life, aka Hostiles) who only wanted to be left alone on land that was granted to them by treaty.
When attacked . . . they responded . . . and responded in ways they have done for decades, whether against other Indians or Whites.
After the battle when non-coms roamed the battlefield there was certainly recognition of some of those who came to kill them. Once found they were dealt with in an age-old manner, not really much different than what modern-day soldiers did and continue to do to those they are fighting.
Civilized or savages doesn't make a difference once the shooting starts. People react in the most barbaric of manner whether modern-man or uncivilized savage. Sometimes it hard to tell the difference.
|
|
dgfred
Junior Member
Posts: 69
|
Post by dgfred on Jan 30, 2017 15:43:01 GMT -6
What are the thoughts on Keogh not being mutilated?
|
|
|
Post by fred on Jan 30, 2017 16:06:40 GMT -6
What are the thoughts on Keough not being mutilated? Who knows? We haven't much on Keogh one way or the other. Henry Freeman said all the bodies except GAC’s were mutilated, all were stripped. He also claimed, “Capt. Keogh had an Agnus Dei attached to a gold chain about his neck, it was left there." At the battlefield, Marker 178 is inscribed as that of Keogh and is near several other markers including Marker 181. During the '84-'85 dig, both human remains and battle related artifacts were found, including bone fragments indicating a person about 20 – 40 years of age. There was evidence of massive blunt-force trauma. In addition, they found cobbles and deteriorated wood and small bones: skull fragment with some postmortem blunt-force trauma indications; one rib; wrist fragment; ankle fragment; one toe; also, one trouser button. Was that Keogh? Could be. Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by benteen on Jan 30, 2017 16:08:22 GMT -6
What are the thoughts on Keough not being mutilated? dgfred, I have read Capt Keogh fought in the Papal Army and was awarded a medal from the Pope. He wore it around his neck, when he was killed the warriors saw it and thought it bad medicine to mess with him. Dont know if it is true, but as good a reason as any. Be Well Dan
|
|
|
Post by elkcharm on Jan 30, 2017 16:29:47 GMT -6
What are the thoughts on Keough not being mutilated? dgfred, I have read Capt Keogh fought in the Papal Army and was awarded a medal from the Pope. He wore it around his neck, when he was killed the warriors saw it and thought it bad medicine to mess with him. Dont know if it is true, but as good a reason as any. Be Well Dan Benteen you are on to something there. Indians by nature are very superstitious. I can buy the fact that Keough body was spared due to his necklace. Also I think GAC fought bravely and this was highly respected by the Indians. Was his body mutilated? I dont know but I think thewarriors who fought custer realized he was a brave man and could have very well not mutilated him for this. Indians by nature are very superstitious that is a fact.
|
|
|
Post by elkcharm on Jan 30, 2017 16:33:32 GMT -6
Protection medicine for a warrior is very complex. I will not go into detail but that is why I brought up the story of GAC having ashes from a peace pipe spread on his boots.
|
|