Was It A "Peaceful" Village?

[Tricia]

All--

I was a bit shocked to read in Killing Custer, the Indian encampment along the Little Big Horn was considered, by James Welch, to be a "peaceful" village, not unlike Heavy Runner's camp along the Marias River.

Granted, the Indians at LBH were considered "hostile" by the US government, but at the time of the battle, knowing what the Anglo participants knew about Crook--or didn't know, as the case might have been--is Welch's assertation theoretically correct? And if not, why?

Regards,
Leyton McLean

[crzhrs]

All we have to do is look at who started the fight at the LBH . . . the US Army attacked the Indian village.

Most of the "hostiles" wanted nothing better than to be left alone and continue their way of life AWAY from whites.

However, the "summer roamers" may have had other intentions . . . we may never know.

The village knew the army was out to find them. The hostiles received an ultimatum, attacked He Dog's village in March, which led many to realize the government fully intended to round up all remaining free Indians and force them onto reservations.

Still the hostiles remained peaceful and avoided whites and battles . . . until Crook closed in on their village. The warriors did what any one would have done, protected their families before danger got close.

At the LBH they responded the same . . . defended their familes.

I would consider the village at the LBH "peaceful" but ready to fight if attacked . . . which they did.

[fred]

Miss Diane, Ma'am--

I do believe the village was surprised only in that they felt the soldiers would never attack an encampment that large. They were-- & had been-- set up in a defensive posture, not strung out like at the Washita. To me, it was maybe the biggest factor-- ultimately-- in determining Custer's fate. Too many Indians(!), all crammed into a space that would normally be miles in length.

And...[/b] even w/ all the incidents, i.e., the lost hardtack box that SGT Curtiss reported, the spotting of the column on the Rosebud, the village did not expect this particular column; had not even known of its existence.

So there!

Best wishes,
Fred.

[Tricia]

Fred--

Uhh ... uhh, although I'm - I'm honoured to be called Diane, uhh ... it - it is I who posted the above question. Yes, yes.

But I did want to add a clarifier to it, however. When I am referring to Crook, I am referring to his actions--or lack of such--at the Rosebud, not the Powder River. I tend to agree with Crzhrs and think that if the "hostiles" didn't see the writing on the wall after Powder River, something was wrong. But wouldn't have reporting to the Agencies been just as horrible a circumstance than being out on the plain?

Regards,
Leyton McLean

[crzhrs]

Fred:

Low Dog stated the village being as large as it was they did not think anyone would attack it.

Did he mean anyone who attacked such a large village was a fool . . .

OR

The Indians were so confidant that they did not feel it was necessary to be overly concerned about being attacked.

As it turned out the lower end of the village--hit by Reno--was taken by surprise but the warriors quickly countered, driving Reno's command back and responded even quicker to reinforce warriors who were taking on Custer.

The size, location, fighting spirit (especially the hard core "hostiles") may have given the Indians the feeling of invincibility.

[fred]

Leyton, my boy!

I'm sorry![/b] I was obviously blinded by all those stars. My apologies.

Best wishes,
Fred.

[crzhrs]

For the hostiles (remember the last free Indians under Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, etc. who never signed a treaty or lived on reservations) going to a reservation was worse than death. They must have been told by many summer roamers about conditions there. Besides the hostiles, aka Free Indians, were the most hard core in regards of giving up their culture, lifestyle, and becoming wards of, what they must have thought, an "evil empire".

These were the warriors Crook fought and lost to, and at the LBH they were the leading force, along with reservation warriors, in defeating Custer.

[bubbabod]

I read Welch's book many years ago, and it seems like it was very much pro-Indian slanted, which I have no problem with. But whether this was considered a hostile village or not, how else could it have been characterized by the army? Crazy Horse, et al, had just attacked-maybe a pre-emptive attack??-Crook's army eight days before and had retreated to the area near the lone tepee and then on to the LBH. Was it a hostile village? I wonder what kind of reception a lone uniformed soldier would have gotten had he stumbled upon the village and ridden into it? I know the army declared all Indians not on the reservation by a certain date to be declared hostile, but if we're also using the definition of hostile as being non-friendly, I've got to think it sure was a hostile village. This wasn't Black Kettle's peaceful village on the Washita; this was Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse, the two most anti-army leaders among all the Sioux. Yeah, I think it was hostile. And, by the way, in case this comes out sounding otherwise, I am one who does sympathize with the Indians and their lands being taken and driven onto reservations, but I'm just answering the question as best I can. ;D

[crawdaddo]

i'm interested in any info on the saone bands from the early 1800's,can anyone help please?

[crzhrs]

We have to go back to the ultimatum issued by the government for all non-reservations Indians to surrender and come into reservations. The ultimatum was given with a very short amount of time for Indians to respond. And this was in the dead of winter when it would have been impossible for Indians to come in. I doubt Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull would have come in whether they had time or not.

Most "hostiles" were not bothering whites and just wanted to be left alone.

The only reason the Indians attacked Crook was because he was getting very close to their village and had been discovered. It was better for the Indians to hit first rather than wait for the military to attack a village which contained many non-coms.

At the LBH it was the Army attacking the Indians . . . and the Indians did what anyone would have done if threatened . . . countered.

The term "peaceful" is misleading . . . the Indians wanted nothing better than to be left alone . . . but if threatend would fight.

[michigander]

I don't agree at all with this. I think we would have to present things REALLY in a more balanced way.

[El Crab]

Were any warriors missing from the village because they were making war elsewhere?

The Lakota and Cheyenne weren't exactly pacifists...

[crzhrs]

I think most of the "hostile" Indians were trying to avoid any contact with Whites. Many reservation Indians were leaving to join them just to get away from all the turmoil on reservations regarding the purchase of the Black Hills and the large military presence there.

The "hostiles" did attack Crook only because he was a threat to their village, but overall the majority of Indians were seeking safety in numbers and Sitting Bull & Crazy Horse provided that.

[elisabeth]

I agree that their first choice was to be left alone ... but what about "soldiers falling into camp"?

It may just have been Sitting Bull's clever way of curbing the enthusiasm of the younger warriors who wanted to fight -- the message perhaps being that there was no need to go looking for battle, they should wait till soldiers came to them -- but it does suggest that fighting was on their minds!

[crzhrs]

Elisabeth:

The government had made an ultimatum (unmeetable) to "hostiles" demanding they come into reservations or the military will come for them. It was the government who forced war on the Sioux/Cheyenne in 1876 with the ultimate goal of taking the Black Hills.

He Dog's village was attacked in March which made it perfectly clear that the ultimatum was serious . . . thus the Indians were prepared but not seeking a fight unless threatened. Sitting Bull's "invitation" may have been a way to add more warriors to the hostile forces and provide more protection.

Yes fighting was on their minds . . . they had no choice. They attacked Cooke because he was a threat to the village.