|
Post by quincannon on Jul 9, 2015 16:42:46 GMT -6
If trained soldiers thought like that then they were soldier idiots, unskilled in their profession.
If you had to generally classify Indians they would be classified as raiders. A raid seeks no ground or place, and the only purpose of a raid is to hit, destroy as much as possible and withdraw. Most of these clodhoppers gained their first experience in the ACW where the cavalry raid was brought to an art form, and if they could not recognize a raid, and the aftermath of a raid, a withdrawal then they were not fit to shovel crap in Louisiana, much less call themselves soldiers
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 9, 2015 16:49:50 GMT -6
Jodak: That too was my point, an after the fact exercise in excuse making, fostered and promulgated by the Goldilocks fan club Oh gee the Indians always run and they didn't this time, so you can't blame Custer for being an idiot. Beth it is a fundamental military fact, that killing as many as you can gets your enemies attention, AND, Never make peace with someone you have not kicked the crap out of beforehand. Peace lasts longer that way. Not politically correct I suppose, but nonetheless as true as the sun that shineth above. When does killing the enemy cross the line toward genocide? Sheridan and Sherman were intent on eradicating entire cultures. I know I view the Indian Wars with modern eyes but in the end it's what the policy boiled down to. Beth
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 9, 2015 16:54:13 GMT -6
Killing stops when they surrender and submit Beth. Genocide starts when the killing continues after submission.
If you want pretty and pristine, do not study war, tend to your garden. War stinks.
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jul 9, 2015 17:44:33 GMT -6
The thinking among many was that the real enemy was not the Indians themselves but the blood in their veins. The perception was that, as long as that blood continued to flow, the Indians would continue to be a problem and have to be dealt with repeatedly. Better to kill as many as possible, including the children that carried that blood, and eliminate the problem once and for all. As you will recall, when viewing the village from the bluffs, Custer said "there will be a great killing today" - not "we have a great opportunity to round the Indians up" or "we have a great opportunity to destroy the Indians' ability to survive off of the reservation", but "there will be a great killing". That indicates to me that was foremost in Custer's (and others' ?) minds as to what the real intent of the campaign was. In that respect, although it is unpleasant to admit it, the Americans in the west were not that much different from the Germans in Europe just a few decades later, and Hitler supposedly even said that he admired the way that the Americans had dealt with the Indians. When the Americans did it in the west, that was just part of the manifest destiny that was taught to us with pride in grade school, but, when the German's did it in Eastern Europe, it was crimes against humanity. Many will take issue with this and say that the American's didn't do it to the scale that the Germans did, which is true, but I would argue that was only because they did not have the technology and capabilities that the Germans did, but the intent was the same. Another factor was the rank and file troopers. One reason that is often put forth for the mistreatment of Allied prisoners by the Japanese in WW2 is that the Japanese common soldier came from the lower rungs of society, where he had been mistreated and held down for his entire life, and, when he suddenly found himself in a position of life and death power over others, he took advantage of the opportunity to feel important by abusing and killing the prisoners. Likewise, the soldiers in the frontier army generally came from the lower rungs of society, with a dog eat dog existence, and many likely had many of the same attributes of the WW2 Japanese and had little remorse or even took pleasure in killing the Indians. Recall that when Custer said "We've caught them napping" a great cheer went up, and Martin was almost giddy as he was telling his fellow troopers in Benteen's command how Reno was killing them all, including children.
This is all a long winded way of answering the question as to when genocide began by saying that it occurred much more often and to a greater degree than we would like to think or admit
|
|
|
Post by jodak on Jul 9, 2015 18:01:17 GMT -6
I'm not convinced that anyone, including Custer, thought that. That was the point of my post - to say that I've never seen anything in the historical record to indicate that anyone that mattered thought any such thing. Instead I surmise that it is one of those things that someone said, then someone else repeated, then 1000 other people repeated until it has entered our consciousness as being indisputable truth, although it may not be at all. I guess it would require digging into reports and writing from then to find out. I've glanced through a Department of War Report from 1867 and there are quite a number of reports of Indians attacking a target then running, pages of them. However the other way to look at it is they (Indians) were making targeted strikes and departing. I could see where any Cavalry would view it as Indians always running to avoid battles/fighting. Beth I would characterize the situations you mention as hit and run or harassing tactics, not running as such. I did not mean to imply that I did not think that the Indians generally avoided combat with the army when possible, but I guess I take exception to the words 'always' and 'run away'. The first connotes, well, always, as in it always happened, which it didn't, and the second carries a stigma of cowardice, which the majority of the Indians decidedly were not. Better, in my mind, to say that they avoided contact than to say that they ran away. My real issue, as I indicated, is the constant parroting of the phrase of "the Indians always ran", without the speaker really knowing if that was true or not.
|
|
|
Post by mac on Jul 9, 2015 19:04:30 GMT -6
The thinking among many was that the real enemy was not the Indians themselves but the blood in their veins. The perception was that, as long as that blood continued to flow, the Indians would continue to be a problem and have to be dealt with repeatedly. Better to kill as many as possible, including the children that carried that blood, and eliminate the problem once and for all. As you will recall, when viewing the village from the bluffs, Custer said "there will be a great killing today" - not "we have a great opportunity to round the Indians up" or "we have a great opportunity to destroy the Indians' ability to survive off of the reservation", but "there will be a great killing". That indicates to me that was foremost in Custer's (and others' ?) minds as to what the real intent of the campaign was. In that respect, although it is unpleasant to admit it, the Americans in the west were not that much different from the Germans in Europe just a few decades later, and Hitler supposedly even said that he admired the way that the Americans had dealt with the Indians. When the Americans did it in the west, that was just part of the manifest destiny that was taught to us with pride in grade school, but, when the German's did it in Eastern Europe, it was crimes against humanity. Many will take issue with this and say that the American's didn't do it to the scale that the Germans did, which is true, but I would argue that was only because they did not have the technology and capabilities that the Germans did, but the intent was the same. Another factor was the rank and file troopers. One reason that is often put forth for the mistreatment of Allied prisoners by the Japanese in WW2 is that the Japanese common soldier came from the lower rungs of society, where he had been mistreated and held down for his entire life, and, when he suddenly found himself in a position of life and death power over others, he took advantage of the opportunity to feel important by abusing and killing the prisoners. Likewise, the soldiers in the frontier army generally came from the lower rungs of society, with a dog eat dog existence, and many likely had many of the same attributes of the WW2 Japanese and had little remorse or even took pleasure in killing the Indians. Recall that when Custer said "We've caught them napping" a great cheer went up, and Martin was almost giddy as he was telling his fellow troopers in Benteen's command how Reno was killing them all, including children. This is all a long winded way of answering the question as to when genocide began by saying that it occurred much more often and to a greater degree than we would like to think or admit Agree. The main thing is the Germans lost. History is written by the winners. Americans are just humans like the rest of us. No worse no better. At least in a true democracy the loosers sometimes get to tell their story. Cheers
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 19:10:24 GMT -6
Killing stops when they surrender and submit Beth. Genocide starts when the killing continues after submission. If you want pretty and pristine, do not study war, tend to your garden. War stinks. Wrong on so many levels. By definition, genocide is the systematic elimination of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious, or national group. We attempted to eradicate their way of life. Compile or die. It was most certainly genocide. Only an idiot would attempt to sell it as anything less. A sad stain on our history, and one we are still trying to make amends for. Your denial is shameful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 19:14:19 GMT -6
That's the point that I was trying to make - that all of this "The Indians always ran" nonsense is just that, nonsense and a red herring. Jodak,
I wonder what the widows and orphans of the Fetterman massacre thought of the "Indians always ran" theory.....?
WO
Apples and oranges to fit your twisted agenda. Fetterman the NAs launched a surprise attack/ambush. At LBH, the 7th had the element of surprise. GAC had it drilled into him that they would run if attacked. Enough with the spin.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2015 19:31:30 GMT -6
The thinking among many was that the real enemy was not the Indians themselves but the blood in their veins. The perception was that, as long as that blood continued to flow, the Indians would continue to be a problem and have to be dealt with repeatedly. Better to kill as many as possible, including the children that carried that blood, and eliminate the problem once and for all. As you will recall, when viewing the village from the bluffs, Custer said "there will be a great killing today" - not "we have a great opportunity to round the Indians up" or "we have a great opportunity to destroy the Indians' ability to survive off of the reservation", but "there will be a great killing". That indicates to me that was foremost in Custer's (and others' ?) minds as to what the real intent of the campaign was. In that respect, although it is unpleasant to admit it, the Americans in the west were not that much different from the Germans in Europe just a few decades later, and Hitler supposedly even said that he admired the way that the Americans had dealt with the Indians. When the Americans did it in the west, that was just part of the manifest destiny that was taught to us with pride in grade school, but, when the German's did it in Eastern Europe, it was crimes against humanity. Many will take issue with this and say that the American's didn't do it to the scale that the Germans did, which is true, but I would argue that was only because they did not have the technology and capabilities that the Germans did, but the intent was the same. Another factor was the rank and file troopers. One reason that is often put forth for the mistreatment of Allied prisoners by the Japanese in WW2 is that the Japanese common soldier came from the lower rungs of society, where he had been mistreated and held down for his entire life, and, when he suddenly found himself in a position of life and death power over others, he took advantage of the opportunity to feel important by abusing and killing the prisoners. Likewise, the soldiers in the frontier army generally came from the lower rungs of society, with a dog eat dog existence, and many likely had many of the same attributes of the WW2 Japanese and had little remorse or even took pleasure in killing the Indians. Recall that when Custer said "We've caught them napping" a great cheer went up, and Martin was almost giddy as he was telling his fellow troopers in Benteen's command how Reno was killing them all, including children. This is all a long winded way of answering the question as to when genocide began by saying that it occurred much more often and to a greater degree than we would like to think or admit Excellent post. You could also include our awful treatment of African-Americans, which is still rampant in many parts of the country. Witnessed by how law enforcement handles and treats them. Or how we treated Iraqi prisoners of war. At times some of us are no better than the lowest of the low.
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 9, 2015 20:19:00 GMT -6
AZ: If you emptied your saddle bags of any personal gear you might have, and loaded it with nothing but ammo, approximately how much of that period ammo could be carried in those saddle bags? You are the horse expert around these parts. If it became a matter of weight, I am sure there were a few other things that could be left behind to compensate. Actually a basic load of a 100 per carbine was probably adequate had those companies been employed together. It becomes problematic when your force is deployed in small packets that you do not have adequate numbers for meaningful cross leveling. The idea of having the pack train close up for during battle resupply is moronic. Good point. If for simple math we have 600 soldiers with 100 rounds that would be 60,000 rounds. If there was only 24,000 with the pack train that would be an addition 40 rounds per trooper. Easy to do. But you would have to hold your horses with the ammunition. Regards Steve
|
|
|
Post by Beth on Jul 9, 2015 20:32:19 GMT -6
AZ: If you emptied your saddle bags of any personal gear you might have, and loaded it with nothing but ammo, approximately how much of that period ammo could be carried in those saddle bags? You are the horse expert around these parts. If it became a matter of weight, I am sure there were a few other things that could be left behind to compensate. Actually a basic load of a 100 per carbine was probably adequate had those companies been employed together. It becomes problematic when your force is deployed in small packets that you do not have adequate numbers for meaningful cross leveling. The idea of having the pack train close up for during battle resupply is moronic. Good point. If for simple math we have 600 soldiers with 100 rounds that would be 60,000 rounds. If there was only 24,000 with the pack train that would be an addition 40 rounds per trooper. Easy to do. But you would have to hold your horses with the ammunition. Regards Steve Which unfortunately for the 7th their horses were sort of a weak link. As I recall a lot of members of the 7th found it was very easy to become separated from their horses. Beth
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Jul 9, 2015 20:38:55 GMT -6
Beth
I think that goes to a factor of why the troopers in the valley went to their horses hastily when told the Indians were getting the horses. Wouldn't matter if true or not. Transportation and ammunition are a concern especially with individual transportation vehicles such as a horse. It is one thing to have your horse behind you but in sight an another when it is out of sight with lots of Indians all around.
Steve
|
|
|
Post by quincannon on Jul 9, 2015 21:08:02 GMT -6
Steve: The mortal enemy of spreading the butter too thin is collective security.
Six hundred in a body would not have much of a problem tending to the horses were all of those six hundred to dismount, which best practices and doctrine would caution against. It ain't so easy though for forty men to secure forty horses.
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jul 10, 2015 0:10:47 GMT -6
AZ: If you emptied your saddle bags of any personal gear you might have, and loaded it with nothing but ammo, approximately how much of that period ammo could be carried in those saddle bags? You are the horse expert around these parts. If it became a matter of weight, I am sure there were a few other things that could be left behind to compensate. Actually a basic load of a 100 per carbine was probably adequate had those companies been employed together. It becomes problematic when your force is deployed in small packets that you do not have adequate numbers for meaningful cross leveling. The idea of having the pack train close up for during battle resupply is moronic. Good point. If for simple math we have 600 soldiers with 100 rounds that would be 60,000 rounds. If there was only 24,000 with the pack train that would be an addition 40 rounds per trooper. Easy to do. But you would have to hold your horses with the ammunition. Regards Steve AZ,
But it is certainly a trade-off to avoid having that cumbersome pack train in tactical tow, when all it short-term provides is ammunition?
WO
|
|
|
Post by welshofficer on Jul 10, 2015 0:13:13 GMT -6
Steve: The mortal enemy of spreading the butter too thin is collective security. Six hundred in a body would not have much of a problem tending to the horses were all of those six hundred to dismount, which best practices and doctrine would caution against. It ain't so easy though for forty men to secure forty horses. QC,
That takes us back to the piecemeal disposition. GAC might have got away with splitting in half, if he knew the hostile strength and the terrain.
But that regiment was split in 8 by the end...
WO
|
|