A Whole Bunch of Dead Indians! Wow!

[conz]

gocav76 said:

ConZ, I would imagine it goes both ways. General George Washington and General George B. McClellan had every right to distrust politicians. In more recent times the Government has had every right to distrust Generals like McArthur in Korea and Curtis Lemay in the Cuban missle crisis.

Aye...it certainly goes both ways, and exacerbates the problems we study as "Civil-Military Relations" in all military schools, from LT to LT General!

Clair

[conz]

crzhrs said:

And that's why the military is commanded by a civilian (right or wrong as it may be)

Oh, I think it is definitely right, and I'm no fan of former generals being President or Supreme Court Justices, either. I am all for Soldiers being Legislators, though, and vice-versa.

Professional American Soldiers, of course, will follow their civilian bosses regardless, but they sure can cause them a lot of flack! Just look at how some Army generals scoured Rumsfeld...or how Custer scoured Grant's brother...

Clair

[crzhrs]

And look what happened to officers who told a President something they didn't want to hear or became "uppity" towards the President:

MacArthur Fired--
McClellan Fired--
Who were those generals who said they needed more manpower for Iraq? Fired--

Custer got the shaft from Grant for his accusations and inneundos

In the end it's the civilians who rule--except when they need soldiers to die for their ludicrous decisions.

[conz]

Aye...hence the no love lost from Soldiers for politicians...

[zak]

Here is a question, I apologize if it has been addressed. During the civil war, most of the men died of infections caused by wounds, not the wounds themselves. At these ranges, only a few years later, is it possible that more warriors died after the battle concluded, even a long while after the battle concluded. A gut wound could take days to kill someone, a likely place for a mounted warrior to be hit, since a soldier should fire for the middle or horse, not head or shoulders, so that they don't fire high or wide. So instead of a single place of burial, which seems to be what people are looking for, or near by burial, there may be more dead, spread out over some wider distances. And with thousands of warriors leaving, in a hurry to my understanding, is it possible for any one person to get an accurate estimate, if many warriors are dying days later? Just a thought. I understand the rifles Custer is using are not muskets like the civil war, but you get my idea. I don't think it is possible to get an accurate estimate for how warriors were killed by either side, this battle stretched out over a large area, lasted several days, was fairly chaotic. Again, just a thought.

[clw]

Very solid thoughs, Zak. With the bands scattering after the battle, I think it likely the figures mentioned in NDN accounts refer to those who died that day, later deaths not being included in their counts.

Conversely, another thing to consider is there are many white accounts during the period of warriors recovering from wounds that would have killed a white man. While most would scoff NDN medicine, it's food for thought.

[elisabeth]

When Capt. Ball scouted along the Indians' trail shortly after the battle, he came back with accounts of numerous bodies on scaffolds, in ravines, etc. So it looks as if quite a few may have died of wounds even within the first few days.

True, Indian medicine was pretty good as a rule. Probably worked better if the sufferer was able to remain static, though; these poor chaps were being bumped along on travois, with no real chance to rest and recover the way they would after a normal fight. It wouldn't be surprising if the death-toll among the wounded was higher than usual.

In Ricker, The Settler and Soldier Interviews, p. 141-142, there are some almost mind-bogglingly high figures given. "Mr. F. E. Server, Crow Agency, says that 310 dead Indians were left buried by the Indians" and "Capt. Ball of Troop H, 2nd Cavalry, followed the Indians up river a day and a half .... He found over 100 dead Indians in this pursuit." Even applying the habitual pinch of salt, it seems you're on the right track here, Zak.

[Dark Cloud]

Right. Rather than start a discussion on how many Indian casualties there might have been based on other comparable fights, start with tidbits of supposition and theoreticals from distant times and wars where men marched towards you on foot, arrive at agreement, and build on it. Custerland, thy name is surreal.

How did the US Army in general do against the Indians? Or, more specific, how did the 7th do against Indians pre-LBH? Not much to go on, but at the Washita, when they had 'better' weapons, outnumbered the camp, hit them in winter at sunrise by surprise, how many did these Natty Bumpo's in uniform get? Custer claimed a little over 100 men, but the reality is that they got few warriors, and most were women, children, ancients.

Men, women, children, arthritic old men, cholera victims, all near starving, it took them hours and even then most warriors escaped. Depending who you believe, it's possible the 7th lost more warriors than the Cheyenne. In any event, a pathetic showing in the cold light of history, is it not?

How did they do after the LBH? Look at Wounded Knee. With artillery and a surround over an enemy that could be called Pathos, Inc. they managed to kill some of their own but don't seem to have hit at first shot many slow moving dark figures against white snow. Crack outfit, the 19th century 7th.

But at the LBH, we're to believe that even worse trained soldiers with less rapid firepower at ranges they did not train at (as if they can be said to have 'trained' at all with their two weapons) in a life and death situation snapped to and improved their hit ratio over not only their norm but the Army's in general? And this because Indians could have concealed their dead over a wide area for days after.

And the cry of the Custerphile rises: it coulda happened. Prove it didn't.

What difference if the Indians were leechers or Ben Caseys with complete MASH units at beck and call? If they weren't hit, it mattered not.

In any case, it's a safe bet many hits on both sides were from fire friendly or distant unaimed at them.

[elisabeth]

They'd still be just as dead, friendly fire or not.

Just out of curiosity, what's your source for "cholera victims" and "all near starving" at Washita? The inventory of stuff burned included quite a bit of food, as I recall (even Clara Blinn was allegedly clutching some when killed), and I'd not heard that the 1867 cholera epidemic had (a) spread to the Indians or (b) remained rampant into the winter of 1868. Interesting, if so, so most grateful for any references.

You're doing a valuable job in waging war against Custerphile gung-ho assumptions, and your scepticism does you credit. However ... this was a very different sort of fight from any that either the 7th or the Indians had entered into before. Even in the Barnitz fight (something like 40 or 45 men against 200+ Indians) the 7th accounted for a few. In that fight, both the 7th and the Indians had somewhere to retreat to when the going got too tough. In subsequent actions -- e.g. both Yellowstone fights -- the Indians could and did break off once they'd sustained more casualties than they felt the game was worth. (Same at the Rosebud, for that matter.) At LBH, that wasn't an option. The cavalry was on the Indians' doorsteps; they had nowhere to go, and everything to lose. It has, surely, to make sense that they'd risk more when their hearths and homes were threatened than when they were just on a merry jaunt for fun and glory. I don't myself find it incredible that they'd keep at it until they'd killed all the soldiers, almost regardless of how many they'd lost themselves.

We're without a true parallel. Had Custer genuinely marched on the other villages at Washita, instead of just pretending, we might have a comparable defence-of-hearth-and-home situation to judge by. Can't be sure, obviously ... but I wouldn't mind betting that the Indian casualties in such a case would have been pretty high. (OK, Custer then had 11 companies and repeaters rather than 5 companies and single-shots, so they'd probably have been far greater than at LBH. But the same motivations would apply.)

Personally, I just don't see what is lost by accepting, for instance, Ball's report. (He had no particular axe to grind. The reverse, if anything, since the 2nd Cavalry had been left out of he proceedings.) The 7th were still defeated; we surely don't need to reduce the Indian casualty numbers to a risible level to poke fun at their abilities. So, they weren't the crack regiment claimed. Doesn't mean they had to be farcically bad. Your average railroad worker, stagecoach driver, or farmer at the time could most likely hit one Indian in ten; seems extreme to assume soldiers were 50 times worse. Correction of myths is a good thing, of course. But not at the expense of probability.

[markland]

May 17, 2008 0:04:16 GMT -6 zak said:

Here is a question, I apologize if it has been addressed. During the civil war, most of the men died of infections caused by wounds, not the wounds themselves. At these ranges, only a few years later, is it possible that more warriors died after the battle concluded, even a long while after the battle concluded. A gut wound could take days to kill someone, a likely place for a mounted warrior to be hit, since a soldier should fire for the middle or horse, not head or shoulders, so that they don't fire high or wide. So instead of a single place of burial, which seems to be what people are looking for, or near by burial, there may be more dead, spread out over some wider distances. And with thousands of warriors leaving, in a hurry to my understanding, is it possible for any one person to get an accurate estimate, if many warriors are dying days later? Just a thought. I understand the rifles Custer is using are not muskets like the civil war, but you get my idea. I don't think it is possible to get an accurate estimate for how warriors were killed by either side, this battle stretched out over a large area, lasted several days, was fairly chaotic. Again, just a thought.

DC, give it a break! Zak is asking an honest question which deserves an answer, not smart-ass skepticism (which I appreciate when a Custer Love Fest occurs.)

Zak, wounds during the CW often resulted in amputation due to bones being shattered by the .58 caliber balls being used. In my own family we had such an occurrence. Without amputation or penicillin, I am sure that more Indians who were wounded did die after the battle, as did whites. Is it possible to get a fix on the actual number? I don't believe so unless someone, family perhaps, kept up the oral history.

Be good,

Billy

[crzhrs]

Yes, there may have been wounded Indians who later died from complications, but we'll never know the number, or how long any lingered.

Infections may have been treated differently by Indians with herbs and other natural remedies. How effective they were is not none, but for anyone who believes in herbal medicine there were probably some good potions available.

As for Ball, did he give any specific number? If we go be the accepted accounts of 30-50 dead Indians then that could certainly seem like a lot of burial scaffolds or tepees with a dead warrior or two in it.

Again the Indian casualties will never be known.

[biggordie]

Many take comfort, for various reasons, in the refuge of "will never be known" or 'can never be known." [This is not directed to you, specifically, horse, so don't get all huffy]. Were we all to adopt such an attitude, we might as well cease all further research, embrace Dustin and Graham without questions, and be done with it.

The Old Searcher After

[Dark Cloud]

1. "They'd still be just as dead, friendly fire or not." Yes, they would. A near point, if one isn't thinking. But it wouldn't be due to the 7th's skill, would it, if it were friendly fire, and so shouldn't be offered as supposition of great shooting or, rather, even hysterical incompetence. While not as disgusting as the noted friendly fire casualties at Wounded Knee being buffed up as examples of an arguable battle and not an intended slaughter of revenge, it's a sourceless contention and fabrication.

You understand the current campaign to retake western history from the revisionist (and less patriarchal but more accurate) types? Feign acceptance of errors and build up support for dubious evidence on the notional key issues. They cannot let go of a Last Stand, which requires a certain competence level in the 7th not actually apparent. The hope is they can inflame enough people who find metaphor relief within the traditional tale to withstand both fact and lack of fact in their cause.

2. Cholera was a near constant, doesn't need to be epidemic or "rampant", and safe bet that some in the camp had it or had had it (meaning they were victims), just as an equally safe bet is the elderly were arthritic, to which you do not object. As for food, the assumption in the winter is that, like the horses, they didn't eat well, mostly pemmican and the like, and food and energy were hoarded. For definite proof, read page 62 of your beloved Mr. Donovan, where he says much the same. It's the chapter entitled in cold objectivity "The Boy General of the Golden Lock." Although - and this a great mystery - Donovan doesn't note his source for that. Given it sometimes seems he notes prepositions, he doesn't note some surprising contentions whatsoever. You noticed this in your complete reading, right? He also contends that they'd been living not far from the home fires for "several months" at the time of Sheridan's November campaign, also unsourced. So, my obvious (but likely true) hyperbole is no worse than Donovan's (in some cases obviously untrue, with text conflicting with his notes), whom you fail to flail.

3. The Indians most certainly could have but did not have run for it at the LBH. But why would they? They outnumbered greatly the enemy. It wasn't much different than at Kildeer Mt.

4. "....the Indians could and did break off once they'd sustained more casualties than they felt the game was worth." That supposed truism is sourced by you from what Indian participant correctly obtained? Else, how is it known? They left when they felt like it, out of boredom sometimes.

5. "I don't myself find it incredible that they'd keep at it until they'd killed all the soldiers, almost regardless of how many they'd lost themselves." Well, good for you. Except, that isn't what happened, is it? They didn't fight till they killed all the soldiers. Some they let go. Only the plurality under Custer's direct, and no doubt heroically virile, control, were all killed.

6. No, Washita in winter with starved horses and Indians without the energy to actually place sentries, cannot ever be parallel to the LBH based on the actions of either party, since weather and location and metabolism realities preclude it. If you want to play pretend and what if, fine.

7. Ball's report doesn't distinguish between those killed by the Rosebud or LBH (or other) and combats some of the Indian accounts as well as the overall success level of the Army, where shooting results were pretty grim in general, and this even including stats obtained aiming down at cringing women and children and wounded men.

[markland]

2. Cholera was a near constant, doesn't need to be epidemic or "rampant", and safe bet that some in the camp had it or had had it (meaning they were victims), just as an equally safe bet is the elderly were arthritic, to which you do not object. As for food, the assumption in the winter is that, like the horses, they didn't eat well, mostly pemmican and the like, and food and energy were hoarded. For definite proof, read page 62 of your beloved Mr. Donovan, where he says much the same. It's the chapter entitled in cold objectivity "The Boy General of the Golden Lock." Although - and this a great mystery - Donovan doesn't note his source for that. Given it sometimes seems he notes prepositions, he doesn't note some surprising contentions whatsoever. You noticed this in your complete reading, right? He also contends that they'd been living not far from the home fires for "several months" at the time of Sheridan's November campaign, also unsourced. So, my obvious (but likely true) hyperbole is no worse than Donovan's (in some cases obviously untrue, with text conflicting with his notes), whom you fail to flail.

I have never heard of any cases of cholera among the Indians of Wounded Knee. Dysentery and acute diarrhea or perhaps typhoid fever were more likely culprits if there were any intestinal illnesses. If Asiatic cholera was present, the soldiers would not have had to shoot any Indians, only bury them.

What's this crud with Donovan you keep bringing up. Did he spill your cup of Starbuck's coffee or something? At least I have a better understanding of why we will never see a book authored by you as the nit-picking of said future non-event should be entertaining.

Gordie, very good point regarding "never know" and research. However, in this case, I really don't think we will ever know. The only evidence, unless someone finds a cave full of perfectly preserved Indian corpses with indubitable proof that they died as a result of the action at LBH, is to depend upon oral history. Personally, I am willing to assign more weight upon that than most having dabbled in genealogy and with the understanding that deaths of family members are more easily remembered. But another thing, shouldn't winter counts supply information on the dead or were the dead not mentioned due to cultural beliefs?

Zak, perhaps I wasn't clear. Amputation was necessitated by the fragmentation of the bones in wounds to the extremities; however in the majority of the cases of death, infection after the amputation was the primary cause of death. There were some types of amputations, high thigh comes to mind, were the patient usually did not survive the amputation. Of course, wounds to the stomach and digestive system usually resulted in infection and death. Somewhere I have a Surgeon General's report on various wounds, post-CW which does mention survival rates. There is also at Google Books a Surgeon General's statistical report on deaths and wounds during the ACW. As well at Google Books is the Surgeon General's Report on the 1867 Cholera and Yellow Fever epidemics. DC would be advised to read that one.

Be good,

Billy

[Dark Cloud]

Read the book, Markland, and I'd be happy to discuss it. See, if you read it you'd have a clue to those numerous points I've made over several threads and which nobody has rebutted or addressed. Not that I feel slighted. Those few who have actually physically held the book probably cannot yet provide a majority of themselves who have read it all. I have. They look at the numerous end notes and whistle, search the index for their fetish subject and hope for quotes, and that's it.

You, Boy Scout honest as ever, haven't read it yet. So, you know, hush up till you do, Kansan. No.....no.....that.....hush......zip.......ZIP......nope.......no........zip it. You haven't read it.

As I said, I'll wait because (....I'm a superior person....) I know you'll agree with me. It will be painful for you, of course. Interventions inevitably will be necessary, sharp objects removed from your study, and tapioca no doubt replacing beef in your diet, due to worn teeth from gnashing. So, no aspirin bottles either. Mental note. But the eventual "oh, crap, he's right" (yet again....) will make it all worthwhile.

For me. You, on the other hand, will be, by community franchise, hustled off to the gentle green vistas from the Passaic, New Jersey Home for Kansans. It's a vista painting, yes, but the intent is there and it blocks view of the fish canning plant next door. The artist was 64 and wore a forage cap, though, when he died by way of unexpected arboreal stop while skateboarding. See endnote.

As I said, my mention of cholera was hyperbole, although a safe bet some there had surivived it as they undoubtedly dealt with arthritis. If you read what I actually originally wrote, the intent and tone are clear.

You're going to agree with me. Accept it. Embrace the inevitable.

Meanwhile, my book will be far too above the average Custerland fanatic, perhaps only able to be appreciated by Thomas Pynchon if he gets a bigger dictionary or Anatole France if he could read Mandarin and was still alive. Rumors that it's just a series of predictable cut and pastes and translated through Babel Fish through four languages to elude copyright laws are possibly true, given the European vanity press that's putting it out and my disinterest in writing it.