"Indians will fight . . ."

[crzhrs]

See "The American Revolution in Indian Country" (Colin Calloway)

At the time of the American Revolution many Indian tribes in the East did not want to get involved with the "White Man's War", even though various tribes had alliances with the Colonists or England via trade and agreements. However, both the English and Americans were fearful of the other using their allies in warfare and made demands of the Indians to join their sides.

Some tribes did, but only half-heartedly with just a few who actually were involved in the fighting.

At the end of the Revolution the Indians, regardless of whose side they supported, ended up as usual on the short end of the stick with the "new" Americans either forcing them off lands or inflicting warfare on them.

[clw]

crzhrs said:

And I believe the Colonial government even sent emissaries to various Indian tribes to fight on their side rather than the British even though the Colonists' record with Indians had not been very good. Surprisingly very few Indians took sides . . . maybe they were hoping the Whites would kill each other off!

As late as 1779, most Haudenousaunee were still trying to hang on to neutrality. Then came Sullivan who thought he could beat them into an alliance with the Patriots. That plan completely backfired and allied them with the British. Another 'what was he thinking' moment.

[AZ Ranger]

During the French and Indian War, the Iroquois sided with the British against the French and their Algonquin allies, both traditional enemies of the Iroquois. The Iroquois hoped that aiding the British would also bring favors after the war.

During the American Revolution, many Tuscarora and the Oneida sided with the Americans, while the Mohawk, Seneca, Onondaga and Cayuga remained loyal to Great Britain. This marked the first major split among the Six Nations. After a series of successful operations against frontier settlements, led by the Mohawk leader Joseph Brant and his British allies, the United States reacted with vengeance. In 1779, George Washington ordered Col. Daniel Brodhead and General John Sullivan to lead expeditions against the Iroquois nations to "not merely overun, but destroy," the British-Indian alliance. The campaign successfully ended the ability of the British and Iroquois to mount any further significant attacks on American settlements.

[Scout]

You read one book and arrived at that conclusion concerning all the tribes? Must be a brilliant book.

[AZ Ranger]

I am going to sue my teachers in Wappingers Falls, New York for teaching incorrect history or is it politically incorrect history. Just wish there was a Mohigan around that I could ask about these issues.

[douglas]

The Cherokee alliance with the British was more than half hearted.

[clw]

Sarcasm aside, there is some accuracy in everyone's contribution on this subject. I think everyone is just looking at a different piece of the puzzle. Obviously the various tribes were part of the American Revolution. Ultimately, they had no other choice. The Mohawk found themselves on ground zero and their close ties with Brant tipped the balance. As the war moved west, the Oneida became the buffer zone of the Six Nations. With closer ties to the patriots and under great pressure, they tried to assist us without engaging their brothers -- an almost impossible task -- while continueing to work for neutrality. As so often happened with the plains tribes, the Six Nation's elders were counseling peace while the young warriors were hungry for war honors and found opportunities with the British. The Oneida took British prisoners to exchange for captured Onondaga, Cayuga, Tuscarora, Seneca.... desparately trying to prevent the first split in the Six Nations in hundreds of years. When Sullivan unleashed his scorched earth policy on the western Homelands, the voices for neutrality were silenced and the rest, as they say, is history. As Horse says, "....at the end of the Revolution the Indians, regardless of whose side they supported, ended up as usual on the short end of the stick". The only remembrance of the great contribution the Oneida made to our independence is a little stone in a forgotten churchyard that reads.... " This plaque honors six indian scouts who died in battle May 1778."

[Realbird]

Overconfidence, arrogance, and racism has led to many defeats . . .

The wisdom in this statement is monumental, historically speaking.

General Terry, in attempting to carry out Sheridan's plan for a three-way "pincer" movement sent orders to Col. Gibbon advising him to "not seek to destroy the power of the Sioux Nation unless an unusually favorable opportunity should present itself.

The fatal outcome of this battle deprives this statement of any comedy value when one compares Gibbon's relatively puny command to that of Custer's. Unfortunately, for the soldier of this era, U.S. military leadership was hopelessly embedded in the false perception that indigenous opponents were not to be treated in the same manner an an European styled army. Thus, the totally incorrect perception that, at all costs, steps must be taken to prevent the Indians from running away.. As they subsequently proved, the Cheyenne and Sioux had no intention of "running away."

It is a sad commentary upon past, governmental polices such as this that resulted in needless injuries and death on both sides. A policy fraught with the arrogance, shortsightedness, and racism so eloquently pointed out by CRZHRS.

The fiasco at the Little Big Horn was not the consequence of any single individuals actions. It was the result of the completely blind and ignorant polices of the governing body of the United States. It was this arrogance and failure to view the enemy more than a "savage" that ultimately placed Custer, Benteen, Reno and subordinates into an untenable position.

[Dark Cloud]

I'm sorry, Realbird, but I cannot let that fly.

"Most of the high command of Western armies felt indigenous foes were inferior, not just racially, but militarily." I don't know what 'racial' inferiority would actually be (although it's probably true most whites considered them overall inferior), but they were thought militarily inferior because they were.

They were not remotely capable of waging a war against the American military. What took about 100% of their effort and thought didn't rattle the brains of 99% of Americans, who'd never see an Indian.

Custer's defeat was due solely to Custer, as opposed to the immediate failure of the campaign due to the incompetence of Reynolds and then Custer. But you're left with the fact that the campaign worked, in the end.

The painful truth is, after dropping the army to ludicrous numbers and underfunding it, the US still walloped the Sioux, Cheyenne and everyone else among the aborigines in the west even after sustaining a world class fiasco at the Little Bighorn and lesser ones before and after. It did so by miniscule effort and expense given the amount of land to be covered. Per Indian killed, it seemed like a lot but it wasn't a big part of the President's day, or Congress', worrying about the Indian threat, because they barely were. If we'd kept the Civil War Armies and pointed them west and told them to kill every Indian till they reached the Pacific, it could have been done in about six months. Hideous likelihood? From that date to this with reservations and all, the cost would have been far, far less.

Except, of course, we'd have been genocidal thugs and roundly and deservedly damned by everyone with a shred of decency or brains. Western armies are not defeated militarily by insurgents; they're defeated by their own hypocrisy and guilt. We could, but will not, apply full force. As Powder River, as Iraq. Our stupidity is in putting ourselves unnecessarily in that position, and some day someone is going to say 'screw this' and vaporize millions. We're learning that 'war' is not JUST military action. You have to win the peace unless you vaporize the enemy, an action that will generate new enemies and lose current friends.

Native Americans were 'inferior' civilizations in that:

1. they could not protect themselves; it would require real longevity in the field to wage a war against Western Armies. Ironically, Indians were Asian in mindset, and therefore Eastern.

2. they could not unite

3. their life styles could not survive competition for their own young to that offered by their conquerors.

I'm Scot, in part. I understand this, to a degree, although Scots and English were not that far apart. One of the reasons Indians and Canadians hit it off so much better is that all of western Canada is named for, and was run by and discovered by, ex-patriot Scots, who felt the indigenous pain.

It hurts, but it's true.

[wild]

Native Americans were 'inferior' civilizations in that
Are civilizations rated on military prowess?

Western armies are not defeated militarily by insurgents; they're defeated by their own hypocrisy and guilt..
Ahem perhaps Dien Bien Phu might just qualify as a defeat of a Western army by an Eastern insurgents?

We could, but will not, apply full force
The nature of insurgency is not to present a target.Full force will not defeat an insurgency because an insurgency only requires the minimum of force.

[crzhrs]

We need to remember that warriors were fighting with their families almost at their sides as compared to "professional" US soldiers with nothing to worry about except getting killed. The warriors not only had to fight, but hunt, they did not have the resource base that whites did, nor could they quickly replace a fallen warrior.

If we go by army vs. army, use the US military could defeat their indigenous foe more times than not. If we go by man-for-man, then the US soldier was sadly lacking. It was only organization, discipline, endless supply of resources, and manpower that eventually wore down the Indians.

Once US military command broke down then routs resulted . . . Fetterman and LBH being the most obvious. Once organization and discipline broke down then the warriors way of fighting was superior.

It wasn't so much US military might but also lack of food, disease, constantly being harrassed and the lack of unity that resulted in Native American defeat.

If we go by cultures . . . Native American culture, in my mind, with all its imagery and closeness to the earth, was/is far more appealing than our current money & materialistic values overriding everything else.

[Dark Cloud]

But the point, Crzhrs, is that to fight a war you have to have the infrastructure and the organization of supply, and the industry and agriculture and transportation to do it. War is not simply our guys vs. them guys. That, in fact, IS what military might is: the ability to service the units in the field and to absorb or govern those you've beaten to mutual benefit.

Sitting in warmth with varied food and entertainment available, access to the web and the world, makes it easy to say "Native American culture, in my mind, with all its imagery and closeness to the earth, was/is far more appealing than our current money & materialistic values overriding everything else." Really? Even though Indians were as materialistic and status conscious as we are today? Machismo and most horses and wives. Potlatch and taking care of the poor was, in their society, no better than in ours at Christmas: it's all about how wonderful the giver is, and we're to applaud the giver for their generosity and the giver's greatness to possess so much he can give so much.

To return to that wasn't the choice anyone has really made. If you want to sit in a lodge all winter with the damp and smell and burning buffalo dung to feel close to the earth, you can. You just don't. Nor do I want to sit in the damp and filth of a stone and wattle hut in the Highlands eating revolting haggis and hear nothing but bagpipes while everyone bitches about the British and pretend our filthy wet wool doesn't smell because we're spiritually superior, don't you know.

[crzhrs]

Judging another culture by one's own has always led to reducing it to less-than-human. If you were brought up in a different culture eating haggis you probably loved it. Or if you spent most of your live outdoors you would appreciate the sights and sounds around you. Not that it was an easy life but it was yours.

Obviously I and most others would have a difficult time acclimated to living like Indians once did and probably wouldn't last very long . . . that does not mean it is inferior or offensive and we should ridicule their diets or the smells of their homes.

I've seen many modern day Americans eating junk food and some of the smells emanating from their bodies and homes are enough to turn one's stomach.

If all you can think about is Haggis and odors you feel are offensive . . . then you don't get my meaning . . .

[markland]

clw said:

Speaking of guerilla warfare and the subject of the American Revolution, I'd like to recommend a book I just finished..... It just came out and is called Forgotten Allies, The Oneida Indians and the American Revolution, by Joseph T Glatthaar and James Kirby Martin. Excellent read!

Thanks for the recommendation. I had picked it up last week and was saving it to read after Year of the Hangman: George Washington's Campaign Against the Iroquois by Glenn F. Williams which is about the Sullivan campaign.

Another relevant book to this topic may be The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier, 1607-1814 by John Grenier.

Best of wishes,

Billy

[Dark Cloud]

See, this is the sort of stuff that drives me batty. "Judging another culture by one's own has always led to reducing it to less-than-human." That sweeping conclusion sounds valid at first blush, and it seems to be a perfect smackdown of my point, and despite its attempt to damn the conclusions of anyone from outside a culture right off, it also seems to have all sorts of good will and compassion on its side. It's just not remotely true in general.

The attractions of Indian culture to the whites was immediate and long lasting and from the first the very notion of Indians became a romantic repository of western European myth and Edenic wish fullfillment. Not only did significant numbers of Europeans judge Indian culture by their own and find it way preferable, some thought it idyllic, and in comparsion with the cess pit cities of Europe, it was. Imagine! The young and attractive could hang out and hunt and not listen to demented clerics and sadistic conquistadors and spouses they hated......ever again. Also? Food tasted damned good.

Colonial governments through Franklin's time and after worried big time about their young running off and joining the tribes. Barrie did not totally invent the issues in Peter Pan.

Nobody is lusting for the past, complete with the discomforts, so of course it's inferior if nobody prefers it when threatened with the opportunity. And nobody would prefer Haggis to hamburgers. McDonalds isn't forcing the Japanese and the French and everywhere else to eat them. American aborigines today have only the sketchiest shared culture with their own past (nobody does, being honest) and there's not a real ground swell of demand to return to it.