Cavalry Training

["Hunk" Papa]

May 12, 2009 10:49:49 GMT -6 @conz said:

War is not glorious and it brings out the worse in human nature.

Wholeheartedly agree...let's avoid it as much as possible.

Clair

[/quote][/blockquote]

But presumably if it is deemed necessary you subscribe to the view that, In starting and waging war it is not right that matters, but victory?

Hunk

["Hunk" Papa]

May 11, 2009 10:30:42 GMT -6 @conz said:

But most Soldiers, and nearly all officers, I think, held to a strong moral code of Christian charity, goodness, honor, and dealing well with all people. That would be your "normal" Soldier and officer, I think.

Clair

And as good Christian men they are, of course, fully prepared to abide by the teachings of the Bible, in particular "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew, 26:52)

Hunk

["Hunk" Papa]

May 11, 2009 10:30:42 GMT -6 @conz said:

More to the point, the Army campaigns were always in response to Indian depredations...killings of American civilians, always. Any Native tribe knew that if it killed too many white people, the Army was sure to show up on their doorstep, eventually.

Clair

Dear me, you are such a poor student of history. Always in response to Indian depredations? The very campaign of 1876 that you purport to have such an interest in was nothing whatsoever to do with Indian depredations.

I can do no better than cite the words of that greatly respected Custer historian, John S. Gray in "Centennial Campaign" - 'It was an aggressive war launched by the executive branch of the Government, with neither consulation nor consent of the legislative branch. It was a violation of a solemn treaty designed to permit further violations of the same treaty.'

Now before you launch into your usual meaningless Niagara of words, bear in mind that in 1978 I believe, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Government had been wrong to annex the Black Hills, a verdict that would not have been reached if the Indians had precipitated the 1876 conflict.

The 1876 campaign is the most obvious example but not the only one, the slaughter of the Navahos in September 1861 being another. In future, before you operate your computer make sure that your brain is engaged.

Hunk

[conz]

But presumably if it is deemed necessary you subscribe to the view that, In starting and waging war it is not right that matters, but victory?

Both the goals of your war, and the manner in which you pursue them, must be moral for it to be called a "just" war, is my opinion, and the Army's training on the matter.

And as good Christian men they are, of course, fully prepared to abide by the teachings of the Bible, in particular "All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword" (Matthew, 26:52)

Of course...we wouldn't be in the Army if we weren't prepared to "perish by the sword." Of course, we try very hard to make the other guy perish on the sword, first...as many and as rapidly as possible. We do it very well.

Dear me, you are such a poor student of history. Always in response to Indian depredations? The very campaign of 1876 that you purport to have such an interest in was nothing whatsoever to do with Indian depredations.

The first basis for that campaign was the Sioux invading Crow reservation lands and murdering Crows. Is this proof enough? Let me find a book...do you find Utley to be "credible?"...

"The breakdown of negotiations for the Black Hills capped seven years of mounting frustration with the Sioux hunting bands. They raided all around the periphery of the unceded territory. They terrorized friendly tribes. They contested the advance of the Northern Pacific Railroad. They disrupted the management of the reservation Indians while obtaining recruits, supplies, and munitions at the agencies for these hostile activities...Almost from the ratification of the Treaty of 1868, military leaders had seen in the repeated aggressions of the hunting bands justification for extinguishing their right to range the unceded territory. 'Inasmuch as the Sioux have not lived at peace,' declared General Sherman in 1873, 'I think Congress has a perfect right to abrogate teh whole of that treaty, or any part of it;...I would like to see the Sioux forced to live near the Missouri River..."

That is the start of the 1876 campaign. Fact?

I can do no better than cite the words of that greatly respected Custer historian, John S. Gray in "Centennial Campaign" - 'It was an aggressive war launched by the executive branch of the Government, with neither consulation nor consent of the legislative branch. It was a violation of a solemn treaty designed to permit further violations of the same treaty.'

Do you believe Utley and Gray are at odds with each other? What does Gray say about the depredations of the Sioux "wild bands?"

Do you agree that my evidence here is more specific, so trumps your evidence? Have I won my point that Sioux violence begat the 1876 punitive expeditions into their unceded lands?

Now before you launch into your usual meaningless Niagara of words, bear in mind that in 1978 I believe, the Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Government had been wrong to annex the Black Hills, a verdict that would not have been reached if the Indians had precipitated the 1876 conflict.

I disagree with this assumption of yours. Unless we lay out the reasoning of the court, it still could have made that decision even if hostile Sioux activity "precipitated" the conflict. Maybe the court didn't care about Sioux activity in its verdict.

Does one Sioux killing one Crow on Crow land constitute "precipitating" a conflict and an abrogation of the 1868 treaty?

The 1876 campaign is the most obvious example but not the only one, the slaughter of the Navahos in September 1861 being another. In future, before you operate your computer make sure that your brain is engaged.

Are you this nasty and offensive a person in person?! Have a beer...

What slaughter of Navahos in '61? Fort Fauntleroy? Here is Michno's brief:

"Occasionally, Navajos gathered at Fort Fauntleroy, a Union post established in August 1860 at Ojo del Oso, to wager money and goods on horse races. On 13 September 1861, a race degenerated into a fight when the soldiers' horse won and the Indians cried foul. A warrior scuffled with a sentry, and soldiers fired their muskets. [The New Mexico Volunteer troops commander], believing the place was being attacked, brought out his howitzers. Five shell bursts killed about a dozen Navajos, causing the enraged Indians to withdraw."

You call that a "slaughter?" It wasn't even a war crime...it was a fight that got out of control. Probably everyone was drunk. Howitzers broke it up.

What's your point? Maybe you need to "engage" one.

Clair

[crzhrs]

<That is the start of the 1876 campaign. Fact?>

FICTION!

Custer's 1873 "exploration" of the Black Hills as the country was in the depths of a depression to find natural resources (GOLD) resulted in the stampede of miners ILLEGALLY onto Sioux lands that were supposed to be PROTECTED by the US Military . . . which they failed to do . . . was the main cause the Sioux War of 1876.

The Reservation Indians offered to sell the BH for $6 million but the government refused (too much they said, however one gold company made more than $6 billion over the years, not to mention the billions in other resources). The government had a chance and blew it by continuing to short change the Indians.

When the Free Indians heard of the negotiations they did threaten Reservation Indians, but I doubt Red Cloud and other Headmen were worried about that.

Once again Conz blames the Indians for starting wars with his blanket generalizations and cherry picking reasons.

<Do you agree that my evidence here is more specific, so trumps your evidence? Have I won my point that Sioux violence begat the 1876 punitive expeditions into their unceded lands?

PS: Please refrain from these types of comments . . . you make it sound like you are self-congratulating yourself when in fact you have not swayed many people.

[crzhrs]

Conz:

Thought you might like to read this about the cause of the Sioux War of 1876 by some of your peers:

Combat Studies Institute
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

"Rationalizing an EXCUSE (my caps) for war with the Sioux seemed to be Grant's only choice to resolve the matter. If the government fought the Sioux and won, the Black Hills would be ceded as a spoil of war. But Grant chose not to fight the Sioux who remained on the reservations. Rather, he was determined to attack that portion of the Sioux roaming in the unceded land on the PRETEXT (my caps) that they were committing atrocities on settlers beyond the Indians' borders."

Seems your fellow military men know exactly why the Sioux War of 1876 took place.

[conz]

Crzhrs...

Custer's 1873 "exploration" of the Black Hills as the country was in the depths of a depression to find natural resources (GOLD) resulted in the stampede of miners ILLEGALLY onto Sioux lands that were supposed to be PROTECTED by the US Military . . . which they failed to do . . . was the main cause the Sioux War of 1876.

Why do you believe this was the "main cause?" Are you saying that the Army would NOT have been sent out after the hostile tribes if the Black Hills didn't have gold? If the Sioux continued to raid and kill other tribes and white settlers inside, and outside, the unceded territory, there would have been no Army campaign?

If you believe this, please explain why that is no sufficient reason to bring in the hostiles.

Actually, we might say that there was no "main cause." Everyone has their own personal cause. The White House just wanted the Indian hostiles gone, no matter what. The New Englanders wanted the hostiles to live in peace. The Army wanted security problems solved. The miners wanted gold; the settlers wanted land; the immigrants wanted safe passage to the west; the railroad wanted safe routes to the west. Like most wars, there are MANY reasons for them. Why do you choose to pick out one?

You'll note that our recent Iraq war was the same way...are you one of those that believe it was all about oil?

Maybe its really always about values, no matter the specific incidents involved.

The Reservation Indians offered to sell the BH for $6 million but the government refused (too much they said, however one gold company made more than $6 billion over the years, not to mention the billions in other resources). The government had a chance and blew it by continuing to short change the Indians.

When the Free Indians heard of the negotiations they did threaten Reservation Indians, but I doubt Red Cloud and other Headmen were worried about that.

I agree, but it does not negate my facts...that Sioux depredations were sufficient to start the 1876 war, regardless of any other factors.

Once again Conz blames the Indians for starting wars with his blanket generalizations and cherry picking reasons.

Yes, Sitting Bull handed the White House a real prize...a moral and just reason for going after the hostiles. Had the Sioux not been murdering and attacking outside their borders, the Americans would have had a hard time justifying any campaign...even to their own constiuents, especially in New England. But SB and CH handed them justification on a silver platter, just when the mining interests wanted them the most...not very smart.

PS: Please refrain from these types of comments . . . you make it sound like you are self-congratulating yourself when in fact you have not swayed many people.

You are the one saying that it is all about facts...are my facts above not better?

Should you now change your mind? Why not? Or....show me facts better than mine. Isn't it all about the "facts?"

Or is it about something else? Are there people that won't change their minds, no matter how long a list of facts that I show?

Maybe the facts are irrelevant in forming our opinions here...maybe it is more about VALUES.

Clair

[conz]

May 14, 2009 6:57:15 GMT -6 crzhrs said:

Conz:

Thought you might like to read this about the cause of the Sioux War of 1876 by some of your peers:

Combat Studies Institute
U.S. Army Command and General Staff College
Fort Leavenworth, Kansas

"Rationalizing an EXCUSE (my caps) for war with the Sioux seemed to be Grant's only choice to resolve the matter. If the government fought the Sioux and won, the Black Hills would be ceded as a spoil of war. But Grant chose not to fight the Sioux who remained on the reservations. Rather, he was determined to attack that portion of the Sioux roaming in the unceded land on the PRETEXT (my caps) that they were committing atrocities on settlers beyond the Indians' borders."

Seems your fellow military men know exactly why the Sioux War of 1876 took place.

I know many take this spin on the facts. But the facts remain...the Sioux WERE committing atrocities on settlers and other Natives beyond their borders. This historian doesn't think that is important, but I do think it is important.

Those atrocities, alone, are enough to cause a war. I agree that the government and most whites in the west were more concerned with gold than with atrocities against the Crow. That is racism. But it doesn't erase the depredations of the Sioux that DESERVED to be punished.

Anyway, the premise was that most Indian campaigns began with Warrior depredations, and I trust everyone agrees with me on this, now that they know the FACTS, even if you believe that those depredations weren't the main reason for the war. Maybe for some they are just an excuse...but they are still there, and are STILL a valid, moral and just, reason for the Army campaign.

Clair

[crzhrs]

<Sioux continued to raid and kill other tribes and white settlers inside, and outside, the unceded territory, there would have been no Army campaign?>

I agree the Sioux AND Crow were still attacking EACH OTHER but the Sioux were doing very little raiding against Whites, mostly because there were few Whites in the area OTHER THAN MINERS who were illegally trespassing on their land. The US government/military turned their backs on doing their LEGAL duty to keep Whites out, leaving the Sioux no other option but to defend their lands.

Why do I pick out only one reason? Because it was AFTER gold was discovered that the US stepped up efforts to get the Sioux off their lands.


As for the Iraq War . . . what does "one of those" refer to? I have nothing against you or your values or beliefs.

[crzhrs]

Again I refute your facts that Sioux depredations were the main cause of the Sioux War of 1876.

After the Treaty of 1868 there was relative peace on the Northern Plains. Yes there were skirmishes between Indians. And some with Whites, but few and far between and mostly trappers, traders, hunters, gold seekers.

Settlers were not going to go anywhere near Sioux lands.

It was the Reservation Indians who refused to sign away the Black Hills. It was there fault not the Free Indians.

The US government used the Free Indians as scapegoats, had to come up with a conspiracy (according to John Gray) to start a war for the Black Hills which the US knew it would win and take the Hills as spoils of war . . . except the military made a number blunders and couldn't win the Hills by war.

What did the government then do to "win" the Hills. They threatened Reservation Indians with starvation if they didn't sign a new treaty.

All-in-all this episode in Sioux/US government relations smells to high heavens of a poorly laid out scheme to swindle the Sioux out of the Black Hills and blatant abuse of power over Red Cloud who you say did the right thing by surrendering (appeasing) only to find out he made a big mistake.

Again, I believe Indian "depredations" was a ploy to start a War for the Black Hills.

[conz]

Crzhrs...

May 14, 2009 16:06:52 GMT -6 crzhrs said:

Again I refute your facts that Sioux depredations were the main cause of the Sioux War of 1876.

Okay...I understand your position to be that if it weren't for the gold, the Army would not come after the Sioux. I disagree with this opinion, but we can't prove it, and I do sense your values focus on the greed aspect of American-Native relations, and not the more sensible peace making aspects.

I continue to maintain that it was Sioux violence that caused the Army to come after them, gold or no gold. Perhaps gold sped up the Army's invasion by one year, but maybe not...depends upon how well the "peace faction" of New England could hold the President's hand in letting loose the Army.

But I think the Army was coming, sooner or later, anyway, because of Sioux violence. The Army doesn't care about gold, or railroads, or settlers...it cares only about "security." When there is no killing, the Army will stay away. When Americans are being killed, the Army will swoop in at the President's word...no matter what else is going on.

Settlers were not going to go anywhere near Sioux lands.

Let's examine the facts of Sioux violence between the 1868 treaty and the 1876 campaign that extinguished their presence in the wild. Since I have Bray already open...

1873: "Imagine a council tipi packed with upwards of 250 Miniconjou and Oglala chiefs and warriors, with Crazy Horse and Lame Deer at the honor place. In a terse sentence or two, Crazy Horse announced his decision: war against the intruders on the Lakota domain...War meant not simply military action, but unraveling the tentative accords established since the treaty of 1868, dismantling the policy of conciliation enshrined in the whole reservation system...News of Crazy Horse's declaration startled the agency Oglalas. As tribal war chief, he targeted his words as much at Red Cloud's people as at his immediate audience."

"About March 27 Hunkpapa souts spotted a train of twenty-two wagons and two artillery pieces trekking east toward the lower Rosebud. The civilian Yellowstone Wagon Road and Prospecting Expedition had left Bozeman, Montana, six weeks earlier to assess rumors of gold deposits in the Powder River country...On April 4 Sitting Bull's warriors launched an assault on the train as it ascended Rosebud Creek, only to be repulsed by the expedition's devastating firepower."

"During midsummer, raiders had targeted the Shoshone reservation. Crazy Horse's people, Cheyennes, and Arapahos had all participated in the cycle of raids. Sheridan, arriving at Camp Brown on an inspection tour, ordered a determined pursuit. Guided by Washakie and his eager Shoshone warriors, Captain Bates and a single company of the Second Cavalry struck the northern Arapaho village on July 4. In the battle, fought in the southern Bighorn mountains not far from where High Backbone had been killed in 1870, about twenty Indians were killed, including an old Oglala visiting from the agency. Although the defending warriors mounted a stiff counterattack, the Arapahos fled toward the sanctuary of Red Cloud."

That settled things for a while, as Crazy Horse's families became demoralized and most went back to the reservation, too.

"On April 7 fighting erupted at the Darlington Agency over the shackling of surrendered warriors. A core of irreconcilable Cheyennes broke away, scattering north toward refuge with the northern Cheyennes. Halfway home, as they crossed the old buffalo range of the Republican River country, now dotted with ranch and homestead buildings, one band was surprised along Sappa Creek on April 23. Half the party managed to escape, but some twenty-seven people were caught afoot and trapped in a dry gully. Under slow sniping attrition, every one - all but seven of them women and children - was killed."

Spring of '74...Crazy Horse leads a raiding party against Ft Belknap, deep inside Crow territory, "...square north lay their objective. Around the log buildings of the Fort Belknap Agency clustered hundreds of Atsina, Assiniboin, and River Crow tipis. Horse herds grazed far out over the flat."

Council of '75: "Sitting Bull ordered Grouard directly to tell the wasicu at Red Cloud that he would fight any Americans in his country from this time on. As long as the game remained, his people would never visit the agencies."

Let's review Michno's list to see what Bray did not mention:

1 Jun 1870: North Fork of the Solomon River: 7th Cavalry chased off 75 Cheyenne raiders who attacked a train of settlers outside the Lakota lands.

26 Apr 1872: Loup River: Miniconjou Lakotas steal horses from the Union Pacific Railroad station near FT McPherson...the 3rd Cavalry drove them off.

14 August 1872: Pryor's Fork (near Billings, MT)...Lakotas and Cheyennes attack the Northern Pacific Railroad survey party, defended by the 2nd Cavalry. Several killed on both sides, but the Warriors were repulsed.

4 August 1873: Tongue River fight between the 7th Cavalry and Lakotas escorting another Northern Pacific Railroad survey team. Couple days worth of major fighting with hundreds of Warriors. Several killed on both sides.

4 July 1874: Snake Mountain, WY...the Cavalry and Shoshone battle against Lakotas on the Shoshone reservation. Dozens killed on both sides.

Here is a table Michno has for the violence in Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and Nebraska:

1869............31 fights.........188 casualties
1870............12 fights.........392
1871............ 4 fights......... 62
1872............ 8 fights......... 47
1873............ 9 fights......... 76
1874............ 3 fights......... 60
1875............ 2 fights......... 12

So with all this major activity, not mentioning all the smaller raids that went on unmentioned, do you think the Army considered the area to be "peaceful," and compliant with the non-violence clauses in the 1868 treaty?

The US government used the Free Indians as scapegoats, had to come up with a conspiracy (according to John Gray) to start a war for the Black Hills which the US knew it would win and take the Hills as spoils of war . . . except the military made a number blunders and couldn't win the Hills by war.

Odd synopsis. First, I'm sure some miners and their political friends were just looking for an excuse to bring in the hostile "wild" tribes to the reservations. Those tribes gave them plenty of reason, as listed above, don't you think? Who cares WHY they wanted the tribes in...the tribes DESERVED to be brought in by force.

And it was the Army's war that brought them in, and forced them to give up the Black Hills and everything outside the reservation.

All-in-all this episode in Sioux/US government relations smells to high heavens of a poorly laid out scheme to swindle the Sioux out of the Black Hills and blatant abuse of power over Red Cloud who you say did the right thing by surrendering (appeasing) only to find out he made a big mistake.

But who cares, if the hostiles were breaking the treaty with continuing violence, anyway? Black Hills or no, those tribes HAD to be pacified.

Again, I believe Indian "depredations" was a ploy to start a War for the Black Hills.

And I'm sure you are right for many people. But not all, or even the majority, of Americans. Most Americans just wanted the hostiles to stop being hostile.

But did some persons manipulate the situation to their personal advantage? Sure. But it was not the moral justification for the campaign.

Clair

[crzhrs]

Most of the raiding against Whites was mostly non-settlers: railroad, military, miners, etc. who were on what the Free Indians believed their land.

Since the government was so vague about boundaries on the "unceded" lands it became an issue as to who owned what and where Indians could roam. And more importantly the government's failure to keep Whites out. Sorta like today when we know the police can't be everywhere so it's up to each and every one of us to protect ourselves and belongings or to keep weapons just in case the police can't come to the rescue.

The Indian-on-Indian raiding was an age-old fact with both all sides willingly going after one another.

Eventually the Free Indians were going to have to be dealt with but it should never been about taking the Black Hills, which was the main reason for the military's action of 1876.

In Nov. 1875 President Grant met with officials of his administration and military leaders. The facts of the meeting were explained by Gray in his CENTENNIAL CAMPAIGN to stop military action to keep Whites (miners) out of the Black Hills and to give an ultimatum to the Free Indians to come in or the military would come after them.

This could have been done years earlier but it wasn't done until the discovery of gold and the thousands of miners invading Sioux land became an issue.

In addition it wasn't just the Free Indians who were an issue but many Reservation Indians who caused problems. In Crook's report of 1875 he stated much of the livestock stolen was led back to the Reservations and NOT north to the Free Indians.

[conz]

May 15, 2009 6:40:21 GMT -6 crzhrs said:

The Indian-on-Indian raiding was an age-old fact with both all sides willingly going after one another.

I agree...they were a very violent people. But this specifically violates the 1868 treaty, which says the Sioux will not attack the Crow or Shoshone. So they have no protection, legally or morally, I must judge.

Eventually the Free Indians were going to have to be dealt with but it should never been about taking the Black Hills, which was the main reason for the military's action of 1876.

We agree on this...it should never have been about the Black Hills...that was immoral and illegal. And it also eventually would have to be done, due to the natural and inevitable violence of the wild bands. So we agree that it could have been done better, and that it eventually would have to be done in some way.

The cavalry, of course, was just doing what it was ordered and trained to do, and I think they went about this in the most moral way possible, and their actions were certainly "legal."

In addition it wasn't just the Free Indians who were an issue but many Reservation Indians who caused problems. In Crook's report of 1875 he stated much of the livestock stolen was led back to the Reservations and NOT north to the Free Indians.

I agree, and during this time the American government gave the Army more control over the reservations, and took away a lot of the power of the Indian agents. When this happened, in most every case, care of the Indians improved, as did their attitude towards the reservations, even though control over their arms and ponies and leadership was tighter.

Clair

[conz]

Crzhrs...

I've been thinking about that harsh quote on the motivation for the '76 campaign in the Army history. I think it reveals the resentment the Army has over being put into a hard place due to political machinations.

Soldiers often feel, then and today, that they have to move in and clean up messes that the White House, Congress, and State Department screw up. When it gets way out of hand due to greed or incompetence, and there is no other way to solve it, they send in the Army, and we almost always "clean it up," but perhaps not in the best way possible had the government or citizens handled things better in the first place.

This is a common theme in American "civil-military relations," and your postings reflect upon this very well.

Clair

[wild]

It was the policy of the US government from the foundation of the state to remove the Indian from his lands.
The war of 1876 is but one episode of that policy and should not be judged in isolaion,rather one should consider the fate of the peaceful tribes.
The Cherokee did everything possible to come to terms with the whiteman's world.Living in peace,accepting education from missionaries,adopting agriculture and establishing constitutional government.But all to no avail.The government passes the removal act.Even winning an appeal in the supreme court availed them nothing with General Winfield Scott arriving with an army of 7000 bayonets to force their expulsion and deportation west of the Missippi.18000 Thousand Cherokee were expelled from their lands with 4000 dying on the 6 month march to what was to be known as Indian Territory.
Here they were persecuted with tribal councils being outlawed and the terrority being opened to white settlements.And this land which was given to the Indian for as long as the grass grows and rivers run became the new State of Oklahoma.
To attempt to blame the Sioux resistance for what befell them is disingenuous.Their fate was sealed from the moment the new government used Indian lands to pay off the revolutionary army.