|
|
Post by strange on Sept 19, 2007 18:03:41 GMT -6
Hello and greetings.
I thought I'd fire up something effective for all of you. Hopefully you guys can get into it, and afterwards maybe you'll understand my standing better.
I noticed that economic pressure is one of Grant's very well known plays for victory. Burning farms, etc, are all known to be his handy work.
I feel that many of the misdeeds toward the Indian come directly from similar tactics used by Grant in the civil war, and before we shake any fingers at Custer I think we should discuss what we know of the man feeding the orders.
Stranger's Delight
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Sept 20, 2007 6:25:11 GMT -6
The Indian policy was dictated by Sherman & Sheridan. It was total war, just as in the Civil War, except in most cases southern non-coms were not directly attacked whereas Indian non-coms were.
Grant's Peace Policy was to be commended but was doomed to failure. Indians could not be made into White people overnight . . . the other option--military might--was more effective, albeit with terrible suffering and hardship to the Plains tribes--but once again was run by Sheridan/Sherman with Grant acquiescing to his former CW comrades.
Sheridan/Sherman had made a number of well-known statements regarding Indians:
The only good Indian I've ever seen was dead (twisted to the only good Indian is a dead Indian)
And
The Sioux must be exterminated (after the Fetterman Massacre)
I think Sherman/Sheridan were far more responsible for the policy on the Great Plains than Grant.
|
|
|
|
Post by elisabeth on Sept 20, 2007 6:41:14 GMT -6
Sheridan put great emphasis on attacking "the Indians' commissary", i.e. the buffalo. And I think it was Sherman (might have been Sheridan -- they thought as one on the issue) that the best way to end the Indian wars quickly would be to invite every sportsman from Britain and Europe to come out and slaughter as many buffalo as they could. Those two were the prime exponents of economic warfare against the Indians. Grant's policy, as crzhrs says, was considerably more benign. Or at least tried to be.
|
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 20, 2007 14:59:09 GMT -6
Thats all most peculiar. Everyone's acting ODD, aren't they?
Its funny to see Sherman applying economic pressure considering the fact that he thought Grant was "scary" for doing these sort of things during the civil war! Why is everyone changing their tactics?!
Was Grant really the humane one this time around? AMAZING! ----------- but still something keeps bothering me, the similarities are so ........... so BOLD! There's just so many things that are just so Grant-like in nature. I don't have any grudge against Grant (other than his treatment of Custer) but it just all smells like HIM, for example..............................
- Custer's questionable (or barbaric) discipline of his men, which he did under order, was something that Grant was highly known for. Grant was really hard on his men, especially when they mistreated animals, and the things Custer was ordered to do.............they just seem to click with Grant.
- And once again, why are Sherman and Sheridan being so nasty to the Indians? Really, they seem far worse than Custer ever was and them for it if thats the case then some one needs to call them for it. I keep seeing Custer's actions, many under order, and its not looking like him at all. I really want people to look into these things so that Custer is not the whipping boy for all of this, thats just what I'm saying.
And Custer is not the perfect man, as none of us are, but these tactics aren't his..........so why do so many call him for these things? No one should have to answer for the sins of others.
Please try to look into these things and see who's ordering what, and who's stripping Custer's authority and why he's having it stripped and many of you will be shocked at your findings.
REALLY look into it. I'm not seeing the real terrible things that make Custer such a devil, and I'm seeing REAL DEVILS who are whisking right past many of all of your radars out there.
When I look up Custer's "racism" I see nothing but good for nothing scraps and tidbits that often turn up being a misquote or a desperate researcher's point of view. There are no Ty Cobb antics of Custer beating an innocent man to death or even using any insensitive remarks at all. Of coarse thats another topic, best suited for "Custer's dirty little secrets" or elsewhere since we're discussing Grant here and I want to stay on topic.
Once again, I want this to be a place to expose the more dastardly dealings that some of you may have overlooked in your savage attacks on Custer. I insist that others are responsible for more and that Custer's transgressions should be more attentively watched so we can see who's really responsible, and only bash Custer for WHAT HE IS DIRECTLY ACCOUNTABLE FOR.
Once again, maybe someone should find another whipping boy.
( for the record, "whipping boys" are from the medieval days when instead of striking a prince they'd lay the hands on a perfectly innocent child since no one is allowed to harm a hair on royalty's head)
Stranger of the night, creeping from the bright, slithering past your might!
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Sept 21, 2007 11:38:42 GMT -6
Who's whipping Custer?
What many of us are pointing out (repeatedly) is that Custer was not perfect. He had a brilliant CW career and a mediocre Indian Fighting career (poor if you consider getting your entire command wiped out)
Many CW officers did not fair well in the Indian Fighting careers mostly because they were not fighting Western style armies. Their West Point training was based on large frontal assaults/battle when you knew what they other side was going to do.
Fighting Indians was maddening difficult and more than likely it was all you could do even to get close to them. When you did it was mostly attacks on villages where warriors were more concerned with ensuring the safety of families than counter-attacks (LBH excepted)
The Indians won more battles than the military could account for, but they could not sustain their assaults/success due to lack of resources, loss of manpower, and the lack of a centralized government.
Custer's only success was at the Washita and even that was controversial and against Black Kettle, not really on par with Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Crow King, He Dog, Gall, Low Dog, Lame White Man, etc.
Custer, rightly or wrongly will always be known for his defeat at the LBH. However, that does not discredit his success during the CW and his accomplishments as an individual and service to his country.
PS: How come you got one strike against you? Most of your posts have been civil, although odd at times. Did I miss something?
|
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 21, 2007 12:23:23 GMT -6
Who's whipping Custer? What many of us are pointing out (repeatedly) is that Custer was not perfect. He had a brilliant CW career and a mediocre Indian Fighting career (poor if you consider getting your entire command wiped out) Many CW officers did not fair well in the Indian Fighting careers mostly because they were not fighting Western style armies. Their West Point training was based on large frontal assaults/battle when you knew what they other side was going to do. Fighting Indians was maddening difficult and more than likely it was all you could do even to get close to them. When you did it was mostly attacks on villages where warriors were more concerned with ensuring the safety of families than counter-attacks (LBH excepted) The Indians won more battles than the military could account for, but they could not sustain their assaults/success due to lack of resources, loss of manpower, and the lack of a centralized government. Custer's only success was at the Washita and even that was controversial and against Black Kettle, not really on par with Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Crow King, He Dog, Gall, Low Dog, Lame White Man, etc. Custer, rightly or wrongly will always be known for his defeat at the LBH. However, that does not discredit his success during the CW and his accomplishments as an individual and service to his country. PS: How come you got one strike against you? Most of your posts have been civil, although odd at times. Did I miss something? Ah, yes crzhrs! I always love your stuff (I even enjoy the stuff from my attackers too). I couldn't agree more with you, and I thank you for really listening. What I've been trying to do is eliminate the personifications that Custer is handed. For some reason, every one wraps all these other military figures into a ball until they have this personification through Custer. So I'm trying to nail down what he is and separate him from being conjoined with other generals. Thats why I came up with Grant' s Playbook, because I felt some one needed to separate Custer from others. I do concur, Custer is not perfect. I do have a high regard for him as I do with other great warriors and well...........people don't like energetic storytelling. -to answer your last question.................... my "exhumations!" thread got me in deep water with everybody. People getting disturbed at my fascination for the dead. I work in 'monster movies' and so if my good business deals come through then I was hoping to legally and professionally exhume several great historical figures to give a little toward history and let the children of America have a wealth of information by having a look at some dusty old bones. Then every one started throwing tantrums at me so................I fought back to the best of my means. But the door doesn't swing both ways, so I've found people can throw stuff at me but that I'm about to be kicked out if I retaliate. I'm actually trying to take a break from these boards, but every now and then I'll come to sneak a peek and find people talking about me so...........what do they expect when digging up the Strange One? I deleted one of my posts where I retaliated by throwing out some very morbid bits of history to get back at a few knuckleheads who were out for my blood. I noticed many around here have weak stomachs, so I tried to use that and I almost got thrown out after I went gruesome with what I call the 'Corpse trivia' of the famous deaths. I almost wish i had left it there so that my attackers could lose their lunches. But the door doesn't swing both ways. (ps.................. I also suggest a similar post such as this one called "Custer's boyhood fascination with Indians" on Custeriana. Some really great stuff is being tossed out there and it can get you some even better perspective on his beliefs toward the Indians. Very good stuff from people, even if they don't like me. ) Stranger |
|
|
|
Post by conz on Sept 21, 2007 13:13:17 GMT -6
Grant's attitudes towards the Natives before he became a politician:
"General Grant, still the Commanding General of the Army, said in 1868 that the emigrants would be protected 'even if the extermination of every Indian tribe was necessary to secure such a result." -- printed in the New York Times, 16 Oct 1868 (footnoted from Weigley)
|
|
|
|
Post by crzhrs on Sept 21, 2007 14:31:35 GMT -6
Oh Strange One:
I'm not attacking you. If you took it that way it was not meant. I was countering your statements with mine. I rarely call anyone names who use personal insults and none were aimed at you.
However, if I feel you made misinformed statements or different opinions I will certainly respond but most times in a polite but off-key manner.
One of the best things about a forum on this subject or any other historical board is what you can learn from other, more knowledgeable people. I have here and on other forums.
Keep your ears and mind open . . . there is much to learn with many of us still learning.
|
|
|
|
Post by strange on Sept 21, 2007 14:42:10 GMT -6
Crzhrs! I love your stuff (I was referencing other attackers)! Keep it coming, I never object to different perspectives on Custer, this is how knowledge is deduced. I would really have to hammer out my brains if I started speaking negative on you, you've been a real gent.
You're A#1!
Strange One
|
|
