|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 31, 2014 11:14:46 GMT -6
Not sure if this has been discussed in the past but just exactly what was the government/military's goal in the 1876 campaign? Was it to kill as many Indians as possible; was it to defeat the Free Indians (aka Hostiles) and limit their hold on Reservation Indians or was it to reduce the Indians to paupers. From late winter to early Fall the military failed more times than not in defeating and/or convincing Indians to give up. Eventually it was non-stop harassment and the onset of winter which force the majority of Indians to come, except the hard-case Sitting Bull who would rather go to Canada than submit to US authority.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Mar 31, 2014 11:47:50 GMT -6
Not sure if this has been discussed in the past but just exactly what was the government/military's goal in the 1876 campaign? Was it to kill as many Indians as possible; was it to defeat the Free Indians (aka Hostiles) and limit their hold on Reservation Indians or was it to reduce the Indians to paupers. From late winter to early Fall the military failed more times than not in defeating and/or convincing Indians to give up. Eventually it was non-stop harassment and the onset of winter which force the majority of Indians to come, except the hard-case Sitting Bull who would rather go to Canada than submit to US authority. The goal was to obtain the Black Hills in a formally legal (and/or politically acceptable) way. Those miners were there illegally according to the 1868 treaty, but forcefully evicting them wasn't politically acceptable. Asking them politely to leave hadn't worked either. The first attempt to persuade the Indians to sell them had failed in 1875, at least as much due to incompetency of the negotiators as due to the influence of the "Hostiles" on the Treaty Indians. So a casus belli had to be constructed and the propaganda machine went to work ("Indian Depredations", Sitting Bull et al. were demonized, finally the ultimatum never intended to be obeyed) By "Punishing" the Winter Roamers, it was hoped to intimidate the Treaty Indians into signing away the Black Hills. Probably it was "Plan B" from the beginning that failing that, it could be argued that the Hills would be spoils of victory after a "just war". See the beginning of "Centennial Campaign" for more details, and references. Of course, after the Custer desaster, the legalistic stuff was sidelined. But still the Black Hills were ultimately signed away almost literally at gunpoint, in such a blatant violation of the 1868 treaty that ultimately (many decades later) the US Supreme Court ruled that cessation as illegal and awarded a monetary compensation to the Sioux. BTW most Indians stayed in the north until spring 1877. Only after quite a bit of negotiations, and lots of (partly empty) promises did most of them come in.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 31, 2014 12:34:48 GMT -6
Agree with most everything you stated. The government did want the Black Hills and that was the cause of the Sioux War of 1876. It wasn't about bringing in the hostiles it was the natural resources that were ripe for the picking. The Reservation Indians were intimidated by the Free Roamers about selling the Black Hills and after Red Cloud demanded six million dollars for the Hills the government said forget it and conspired a war against the Free Roamers by spreading false reports and rumors of Hostile depredations. Odd the six million was a drop in the bucket when you consider one gold mining company made billions! So the government cried wolf about savage Indian attacks and the military fumbled their way from the onset to the the debacle at the LBH. It wasn't until Sept. that a small military victory occurred then MacKenzie hitting Dull Knife's village in Nov. 1876 that the military could claim some success. Still the majority of the Free Indians stayed out until the Spring of 1877 when Crazy Horse finally relented to the pressure put on him by his own people to come in. Sitting Bull who would have nothing to do with the Whites went to Canada and held out until 1881. Maybe we should start a thread on what was Custer's mission rather than the military's.
|
|
|
Post by fred on Mar 31, 2014 18:37:45 GMT -6
Not sure if this has been discussed in the past but just exactly what was the government/military's goal in the 1876 campaign? November 3, 1875—At a secret White House meeting, President Grant and a few selected cabinet members and army generals made a decision to launch a war against the so-called Northern Sioux, those Indians not considered Agency Indians. LG Philip Henry Sheridan, commanding general of the Military Division of the Missouri, headquartered in Chicago, was assigned to command the military operation. George Crook was there. December 1, 1875—From Z. Chandler, Secretary of the Interior, to Belknap, Secretary of War: “I have the honor to inform you that I have this day directed the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to notify said Indian, Sitting Bull, and the others outside their reservations, that they must return to their reservations before January 31, 1876; and that if they neglect or refuse so to move, they will be reported to the War Department as hostile Indians, and that a military Force will be sent to compel them to obey the order of the Indian Department.” (The Commissioner of Indian Affairs was Edward P. Smith, but Chandler’s actual order to Smith was dated December 3, 1875.) February 7, 1876—Authority was received to commence operations against the hostile Indians. Despite the fact both Terry and Crook realized and calculated Indians would slip off the reservations during the spring, “military leaders… assumed that any one of the three columns could defeat any force of the enemy that it might encounter. The main difficulty… would be to catch the Indians and force them to fight or surrender” (Stewart, Custer’s Luck, p. 83). February 10, 1876—Terry receives his official orders to commence operations against the hostile Sioux. ➢ COL John Gibbon was ordered, “to move eastward with all the troops that could be spared from the various garrisons in Montana… Gibbon was not to seek to destroy the power of the Sioux Nation unless an unusually favorable opportunity should present itself, but was to attempt to hold the Indians south of the Yellowstone and prevent them from crossing over to the north bank…” [Stewart, Custer’s Luck, p. 84]. ➢ “These instructions to Gibbon constitute a further illustration of a policy which was to be in evidence again and again throughout the subsequent months, to surround the Indians and keep them from running away. But, despite the fact that the white man did not seem to be able to comprehend it, the Sioux and the Cheyennes… had not the slightest intention of running away” [Stewart, Custer’s Luck, p. 85]. ➢ According to Gibbon, the original plan called for his column to move “directly on Fort C. F. Smith by what was called the Bozeman wagon-road, then to cross the Big Horn River and move eastward, with the expectation of striking any hostile camps which might be located in that vast region watered by the Little Big Horn, Tongue, and Rosebud….” (Gibbon, “Last Summer’s Expedition…” American Catholic Quarterly Review, April 1877). March 31, 1876—Friday—Terry wires Gibbon, telling him not to go south of the Yellowstone, but also telling him Sitting Bull was not on Dry Creek, but in all likelihood, on the Powder. Wants Gibbon to move to the mouth of the Big Horn. Also tells him he can strike any Indian force he finds. “... be careful not to neglect the great object of keeping between the Indians and the Missouri.” ➢ The original plan had been for Gibbon to march east and destroy any Sioux camps to be found in the valleys of the Little Big Horn, the Rosebud, or the Tongue rivers. The news of Reynolds’ fight on the Powder River, however, changed things. It was now thought that the hostiles were not out in large numbers and it was felt they would flee northward as Crook pressed them. Gibbon was now to press forward, as rapidly as possible, on the north side of the Yellowstone. The Indians’ two principal crossing places of the high-rising Yellowstone, “were just above and just below the mouth of the Rosebud…” (Stewart, Custer’s Luck, p. 104). Best wishes, Fred.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Mar 31, 2014 18:52:06 GMT -6
You have given us perception and partial method Fred, but not goal.
In his question Horse is asking what was the strategic objective.
The strategic objective was to stabilize the situation in the northern great plaines and remove the Indian problem once and for all. The strategic method was to accomplish this was to return or force the return of all Indians to the reservation that had left, and to use equal forceful measures to either convince those who had never been confined to do so or be destroyed. The overarching strategic reason was to open this area for westward expansion, and provided for a continued stability in the region. All very nicely stated in strategic terms but meaning submit or die.
From these strategic objectives operational direction is derived.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 1, 2014 9:50:26 GMT -6
I think a very short and to the point answer to my own question would be:
To remove all Free Roaming Indians from the Northern Plains and to stop all Reservation Indians from leaving said Reservations and to stay out of the way of the Great White Race's hurry to alter the Northern Plains as they were known, to build towns, cities, have ranches, farms, gold mines, etc. and to top it off create likenesses of 4 White President's in the Black Hills, just to rub it in.
|
|
|
Post by Yan Taylor on Apr 1, 2014 10:49:59 GMT -6
Would it be correct in saying that the Indians who inhabited North America did exactly the same as what the white settlers did hundreds of years later, and that was to expand and multiply, and if anyone got in their way they fought with them, the only difference I suppose is that the whites did it on an industrial scale.
|
|
|
Post by fuchs on Apr 1, 2014 11:09:59 GMT -6
Would it be correct in saying that the Indians who inhabited North America did exactly the same as what the white settlers did hundreds of years later, and that was to expand and multiply, and if anyone got in their way they fought with them, the only difference I suppose is that the whites did it on an industrial scale. As has been mentioned sometimes here, quantity has a quality of its own. But the main difference apart from numbers and technology is the mindset, which is probably even more important. The conviction that it was/is their god given right, even duty, to subjugate nature as well as anyone not "White" or Christian (enough). Oh, and to make a tidy profit while we are at it. Valid not only for the Americas. Though to be fair, shades of that attitude were not entirely unknown among the "savages", but nowhere near that intensity.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 1, 2014 11:28:59 GMT -6
The Indians of North America, a region that extends from the Arctic to South America, were a diverse lot and no more united than Europeans. Actually, less so, and that's saying something. After all, the seeming 7456 Irish kings, the 6798 Scottish royal heirs (with contracts! in writing!), and 22k German princes actually got organized better and increasingly willingly as time puttered forward. Osceola, Tecumseh, Metacom, and various Delaware holy men intent on seeing bigger things in a future that was not going to repeat were betrayed and denied by their own early enough to remove them as threats.
Further, the mindset fuchs references was indeed very different, but he of course - as a Heroic Defender of the Indians - neglects a few aspects of both the European and Indian mindsets. First, Native Americans had almost no interest in each other beyond immediate benefit to a conqueror. They did not keep records or have regard for the culture, religion, music, or stories of each other. Nor for the languages, nor for much beyond women, cool stuff in clothing, and perhaps food and gold or something of value to them. The defeated were potential slaves or concubines and the smart ones likely survived as everywhere, but the embarrassing facts are that what Indians know about themselves today certainly isn't due to Indians.
For every vicious northman and Chivington, there were scholars and religious compassionates, and some very good people who - however condescendingly - protected and studied the aboriginal population. That was then an alien mindset to near EVERY aborigine here. It was not fun, but what we know about tribes and the people is because of that.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 1, 2014 11:37:11 GMT -6
Indian on Indian warfare did not include trying to make the "others" into your own likeness. More times than not anyone captured was submitted to horrible enslavement unless you were a very young child then you were assimilated into the tribe especially if a young child had recently died to replace the loved one. The government's aim was to rid the Western Plains of all Free Roaming Indians regardless of how far away they stayed from Whites. Any Free Roaming Indian would be in the way. Better to either force them onto concentration camps (Oops, Reservations) rather than kill them, but more times than not many were killed, especially when a village was attacked. Whether there were specific orders to refrain from killing non-coms can be debated. Someone like Chivington who was not part of the Federal military but rather State Militia had ulterior motives, Kill All . . . Nits Make Lice as opposed to Federal Officers who tried to avoid non-com casualties. However, when a village was attacked one could not make out the difference between individuals, especially when some of the women and younger adults were fully capable of fighting. In the end it was not a good situation for an Indian.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Cloud on Apr 1, 2014 12:18:38 GMT -6
"....unless you were a very young child then you were assimilated into the tribe especially if a young child had recently died to replace the loved one." Absent the Shoshone infants whose hands composed a charming necklace for Cheyennes in Dull Knife's camp. That.
The theory is that, far from gruesome, it proved the warrior who obtained them was 'all that' because the Shoshone would have relentlessly defended their own. Because, Indians. Something. Just accepted.
That the Sioux bolted in world class fashion and abandoned family and their children at the Washita and some other battles does nothing to wobble true believers in Indian Perpetual Nobility Not Subject To Human Failings. There is nothing about them unique or spiritually superior to anyone else. They lost, and their refuge to this day is white man's law, not their own traditions. If subject to those horrors, we'd know nothing of the native Americans. They'd actually be gone, raped into the gene pool, and as if they'd never been here. Just genetic markers under slide glass.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 1, 2014 12:29:05 GMT -6
I often times view all this, Indian nobility, White Mans greed, Social Darwinism, who was struck by john, and who struck him as just so much useless twaddle, promulgated by those who feel some unnatural guilt about the past. History, no matter whose, is what it is. It cannot be changed or altered in any way (except of course by denial). We serve the past best, by learning from it, and that knowledge governing our actions in the present and especially the future.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 1, 2014 12:45:29 GMT -6
DC: I was generalizing . . . let's not be pedantic. Many captured young or even infants were taken into tribes. Yes, some infants had their heads bashed against a tree or fingers cut off to use as a necklace or other unspeakable acts or it could be the ultimate insult that your enemy could not even protect their women & children. We can also say the same about Chivington's "men" at Sand Creek or other acts of cruelty by Whites vs. Indians. But the fact is there were many children willingly accepted into a tribe for a variety of reasons.
Nowhere did I say Indians were nobler than any other race . . . but they were fully capable of loving or hating just like you, me, Fred, Swiss Boy (where the heck is he now?) QC, et al.
By the way it was a Cheyenne village attacked at the Washita with many Kiowa villages down river.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Apr 1, 2014 12:49:29 GMT -6
I have no guilt about the past . . . and you are right we should be learning from the past. But as I see it we're still doing stupid things (Iraq) and Vlad over in the Crimea or the Jews & the Palestinians, Hindus/Muslins in India/Pakistan, etc. Can't see anyone learning from what has taken place in the past just perpetuating it.
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Apr 1, 2014 12:57:11 GMT -6
So what you are saying is that they were human. Today it is generally accepted that human dignity is universal (well some don't, probably never will, but that too is mankind) When we speak of these things though, we must constantly remind ourselves, that you cannot apply the values of today on a time past. What you can say is that those values of the past were wrong, and cannot either endure or be repeated.
When you Horse find a way of stopping man's coveting his neighbors wife or his neighbor's farm, you be sure to tell us all. Here is the difference. Today people such as yourself speak out about these things. A hundred years ago it was business as usual.
|
|