|
Post by Jim on Mar 23, 2006 17:04:00 GMT -6
crzhrs,
Didn't they attack CROOK? Well, you may be right also, because they did attack Cooke a week later!?!?
Jim
|
|
|
Post by El Crab on Mar 23, 2006 22:40:21 GMT -6
I'm not trying to make them out to be villains here. But the fact remains that the idea of a peaceful village just wasn't very accurate. Did they not want to fight the whites? Sure, probably not. Maybe they really wanted to be left alone. But they were a warrior society. They made war for pleasure and sport. And I'm 100% certain that there were war parties all throughout the summer. Maybe they didn't want to fight the wasichus, but I'm certain they had no qualms about fighting the Crow or others.
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Mar 24, 2006 4:41:07 GMT -6
An ultimatum unmeetable, but that they would have never wanted to respect: here indians are more honest than their supporters, because they tell it. They wanted fight the white men. Right or wrong that this was. Also with the delegation of white, the September 1875, if was not for Young men of the Fear, the warriors would have trucidated the camped white - that was there to talk. Not to fight. Unmeetable...when whites started to go bringing indians the ultimatum, sitting bull was camped near the Powder mouth. He answered that he would have considered the matter and maybe would have moved in the future. The same Crazy Horse, camped less than 100 miles from Red Cloud Agency. He left talk Black Twin that explained the agency was "too far" and that the village could have not been moved with all that snow and that freezy temperature - yes, and then they suddenly moved North long a road that was twice long the road they would have made to go back to red Cloud agency. Sitting Bull, in february, sent several messengers to the various agencies asking the indians to join with him in the North, in order to "fight a great battle against the whites". Same thing made Crazy Horse. (Stewart, Olson, Hyde) So, please! Right or wrong, they WANTED to fight. That was just a strategy, not a peaceful behavior. Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse wanted white to come in their territory, to fight, cause they knew that they had much more possibilities to win in that way.
|
|
jjm
Junior Member
Posts: 70
|
Post by jjm on Mar 24, 2006 11:56:21 GMT -6
"Right or wrong, they WANTED to fight. That was just a strategy, not a peaceful behavior. Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse wanted white to come in their territory, to fight, cause they knew that they had much more possibilities to win in that way."
Ah, a cunning plan...
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Mar 24, 2006 12:03:51 GMT -6
why? do you think the indians were stupid? Not able to make a plan? They was warriors, and they exactly knew what was better for the fight.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 24, 2006 12:06:05 GMT -6
There is a story that when Reno attacked, SB said to his adopted son/nephew One Bull, to go out and try to talk peace to them . . . the soldiers were firing rapidly and OB decided it was not peace the soldiers wanted.
PS: The village was located as far from reservations as possible and was set up more for a defensive position than an offensive one. This was because of Crook's approach to the village earlier that resulted in the Rosebud Fight. The Indians knew it would only be a matter of time before more soldiers came.
The amazing thing is they knew about Crook's approach but not Custer's . . . so Custer did have surprise on his side but failed to take advantage of it.
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Mar 24, 2006 12:40:22 GMT -6
the first is just a story, and it is proven by facts I wrote in the other posts. I however agree with your last 2 lines.
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 27, 2006 9:27:03 GMT -6
The Indians wanted to be left alone. There was a protective screen of akicita around the camp at night. They were not out there to provide an early warning of an enemies' approach but to keep overeager younger warriors from slipping out and provoking a fight with the soldiers. The extra aggressive behavior on this day was based on a good reason. In the past, when a camp was attacked, the warriors fought a rearguard action while the women and children gathered what they could and fled. At that point the warriors broke off contact and escaped. The homeless band could always count on another band to take them in and help them. At the LBH the situation was different. Almost all of the roaming bands had united and there was no place to run except the reservation. These Indians fought hard because they had no other choice.
Read some of the Indian primary accounts done by Hardorff, Greene, Ricker, Stands in Timber, Camp, Marquis, Black Elk and Hyde. These accounts provide evidence that this group was more interested in gathering provisions than they were in making war. The akicita ringed the camp at night to keep the younger warriors from provoking the soldiers that were known to be prowling along the Rosebud. If these warriors were so warlike, why did they not go out and attack Custer? You also need to keep in mind that when the Indians attacked Crook the village had not yet located in the LBH valley and was much closer to the Rosebud.
|
|
|
Post by custerstillstands on Mar 27, 2006 13:21:38 GMT -6
Yes, it was a peaceful village !
In fact, most settlers in Nebraska rested in peace since Sitting Bull was on the road again
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 27, 2006 17:29:40 GMT -6
custerstillstands,
Yep, only about 180 Miles from Sand Creek AND about 400 miles from Washita!!!
Jim
|
|
|
Post by AZ Ranger on Mar 27, 2006 23:15:50 GMT -6
What is a peaceful village? One that doesn't want to fight or one that avoids a fight? How would a non-peaceful village have reacted?
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Mar 28, 2006 9:21:24 GMT -6
azranger:
Again . . . good point abouting wanting a fight and avoiding one.
The LBH village consisted of the same warriors that aggressively attacked Crook at the Rosebud one week prior to the LBH. They did so because Crook was a threat to the village and also because many younger warriors were planning to slip away from the village to fight soldiers which may not have been much of a threat to the soldiers. The elders decided the best thing to do was to organize a large force and hit Crook before he hit them.
At the LBH there is some suggestion that the akicita (Indian police) was more forceful in keeping young warriors from attacking the advancing 7th . . . which may have been one reason why the warriors did not respond to Custer's approach until he hit them.
Either way the village was like a grizzly . . . if you didn't bother or suprise it it wouldn't bother you. Custer attacked and the warriors responded.
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Mar 28, 2006 13:14:18 GMT -6
Okay Crhrs, I guess it's useless to goes on with this. We showed both our ideas. People who read will likely make their own. I however repeat that my final point is: it was not a peaceful village at all. For what concern Jim, what the hell means Sand Creek with custer? Sand Creek and Washita are different things and, Custer, was even not there.
|
|
|
Post by Jim on Mar 28, 2006 13:17:13 GMT -6
michigander,
I am aware that Custer had nothing to do with SAND CREEK. My reply was to CSS who made the statement , "In fact, most settlers in Nebraska rested in peace since Sitting Bull was on the road again."
Jim
|
|
|
Post by michigander on Mar 28, 2006 18:22:58 GMT -6
Understood Jim!
|
|