A Whole Bunch of Dead Indians! Wow!

[conz]

I think it counts as long as you are talking about "Americans," in general. But that isn't the American Army.

So to characterize some of the Western citizens...that is one thing. They were rather undisciplined and could let their emotions get out of control, much like the Indians they often fought.

But the U.S. Regular Army is an entirely different animal, and we need to recognize that, if you want to talk about the military.

Clair

[AZ Ranger]

I think revenge inflated the state militia ranks. Without discipline atrocities happen and proportionate to the ability to do so. There was no political correctness in the west at that time. That is the luxury of a people protected from dangers.

[markland]

If Wolfie & Horsie would be so kind as not to hijack this thread, perhaps we can go back to the original discussion of how many Indians were killed at LBH.

This thread is not about: buffalo hunting, genocide (in some persons' eyes) or anything else but the casualties incurred by the Indians at LBH.

But, political correctness wins out nowadays.

Billy

[Reddirt]

I believe that the amount of Indians killed was negligible when compared with the amount of soldiers killed. The Indians hulked, and sulked, and crept among the ravines and coulees until such time that they were able to loft thousands of arrows into the hapless soldiers who stood upon the ridges.

Only when the numbers of soldiers were decimated by this assault, did the Indians rush in for the final kill with clubs and axes.

The poor soldier had to expose himself every time he fired his rifle. Each shot fired was marked by an easily identified puff of black smoke signaling his position.

Were it not for the terrain in which Custer was forced to fight, the Indians would not have fared so well.

[AZ Ranger]

Does anyone have any updated data on the cairns on the battlefield?

[stevewilk]

Jul 14, 2009 21:10:12 GMT -6 AZ Ranger said:

Does anyone have any updated data on the carns on the battlefield?

Don War Eagle, one of Crazy Horse's descendants, spoke at the CBHMA symposium in Hardin last month. He mentioned something about identifying 214 sites; can't recall if he was referring to cairns. But if so, this would lean toward a higher casualty count than the currently accepted 30-60.

[AZ Ranger]

Thanks Steve Did he say how and when they were placed? Was there names attached to them? The Park Service was investigating it awhile back and then it went quiet.

[crzhrs]

<If Wolfie & Horsie would be so kind as not to hijack this thread, perhaps we can go back to the original discussion of how many Indians were killed at LBH>

Have you ever heard the saying "Let a sleeping dog lie"?

[wolfgang911]

same for me, if general conz was not hijacking our posts, I would be sound asleep

anyway you're right buffalo extermination and other 'side' subjects are too important for the understanding the loss of the NDN wars to be mingled down here in this post and deserve their own thread
pretty soon coming to your billboard screens ;D

[AZ Ranger]

As far as I can find out only 16 Indian sites have been identified by name with an additional 3 sites for Indians serving with the 7th. I looked at the picture of Lame White Man's cairn and it seems strange to me they call that river rock in other explanations. Here the river rocks are rounded and smoothed from water action.

Indians marked the spot of the fallen with a pile of stones, (and this is not a new revelation, but dates at least as far back as Powell's investigations) and that during the excavations river stones were discovered where they could not have been unless placed there by someone.

Campers or picnickers would be unlikely to carry stones from the river up to Battle Ridge or Reno Battlefield in order to make a fire ring, when you can dig a safe pit with the heel of your boot.

www.friendslittlebighorn.com/Lamewhitemancairnps2.jpg

I find piles of rocks everywhere that are not campfires:

markers for trails
markers for specific artifact locations
markers for mining claims
boundary markers

I would hope there is some significant way to distinguish markers placed to recognize brave warriors from a multitude of other reasons to place stones for a marker. The Army couldn't get it right with the marble markers for the 7th even though the day of the burials was used to mark locations.

My curiosity goes to when they would have been placed. Was it when the dead were picked up? Also one article I read stated that markers could indicate a wounded warrior. Is there only one person designated to place a particular cairn?


AZ Ranger

[crzhrs]

Were cairns ever left at other battle sites?

When were the cairns first noticed at the LBH?

How many descendants have claimed they are sites where a ancestor fell?

From a source the NPS is refusing to confirm the cairns as places where an Indian may have fallen due to lack of any evidence.

[Dark Cloud]

This is an absurd contention by cynics and the willing believers. It's probably become more in the nature of social climbing. "What did your ancestors do in the (newly re-branded) Great Sioux War, Daddy?" "He died with shampoo still in his hair defending....."

It's been mentioned before how the NA's and the Custerphiles ironically found love when they mutually discovered they wished the tale was different, and different in much the same way.

The NA's had to explain how the Battle of the LBH occured at ALL given their osmotic understanding of the Land and Nature itself, intricate Intelligence system, and advantages. Worse, how did civvies get killed while the Great Warriors All were putting on, er, makeup and clothing, alerted to the Army hours previous in some versions? This was not as one with the then current PC machine weeping over white man's garbage, or Indian self image. They look like a bunch of clods sleeping off a drunk reacting too late and winning by numbers. Not entirely inaccurate, by the way.....

The Custerphiles have always hoped to explain away the non event, or at at least non effective event, at MTCF. If Custer was on the attack, supporting Reno, how come he didn't? And why the ridiculously low number of Indian dead by the Man of Missing Chin and his Men at Arms? What gives? Doesn't make the Army look good, know what I mean? Eh?

Essentially over time, what happened is that the Custerphiles traded away contentions of overpowering Indian numbers (which casts Reno and Benteen poorly: Hurrah!) and made Custer's moves seem less puzzling and still on the offensive with time to select from a menu of Correct Options, approved by West Point Graduates for the sole historical benefit of current West Point Graduates. If battle against the untrained but highly motivated cannot be guaranteed by Firing Lines, crisp uniform, and Irish song at need, what good are they?

Having lots of new markers on the field (not all claiming death at LBH or even participation) does two things not chatted up: it shows the Heroic Warriors of the Plains died aplenty defending Mom and Child and weren't gazing adoringly in mirrors hoping the hair streaks would dry while Gall's family was reduced. It also provides "proof" that Custer killed more than previously credited so highly dubious claims of participation and death there are encouraged.

That evidence for these template exchanges and alterations cannot with a straight face be said to exist beyond wishful thinking ("See Ed? River rock, obviously an old cairn and proof that....") is merely an annoyance when both sides need things different.

Be it said, were there a way to prove where warriors fell or if they actually participated, they have every right to be there by marker as the soldiers' badly placed markers, indicating as they do not what they claim nor providing much surety to anything.

[lew]

In the early 1980's, I was good friends with a Superintendent of a Civil War battlefield. A well known historian had spent about 2 years at the park doing research for a book he wrote about the battle. Several maps had been discovered as well of sketches made after the event. The exact position of the Confederate line was unknown.The Superintendent using survey tools started searching the field. He started finding rocks (that he felt important) all over the place. It got to be a joke to most of us, but he was dead serious. I feel the same way about the supposed rock cairns as I did about the Superintendent "rocks'! I have always felt the 40-50 Indian dead was about correct.

[conz]

What evidence exists for 40-50 dead Warriors (I presume you aren't counting women and children), other than different lists, with different names provided by different members of the tribes themselves?

The number might be as low as 30, and it might be as high as 300, but I don't understand how you can "feel" that 40 is any more accurate than 300, unless it is an emotional response.

Clair

[lew]

My "feel" or as you say "emotional response" comes from using good old common sense. As a student of American military history for over 40 years, common sense does come in handy at times. Why do I doubt the 300 Casualties? Lets look at some other battles--American Revolution- Jan. 3, 1777 Princeton 4000 Americans engaged 30 killed. Jan. 28, 1778 Monmouth Court House 13,142 Americans engaged 152 killed. Jan. 17, 1781 Cowpens 1,025 Americans engaged 12 killed. Civil War 20th Maine at Little Round Top, Gettysburg 136 killed. Hoods Texas Brigade at the Cornfield, Antietam 69 killed. WW2 Utah Beach June 6th 1944 there were under 200 U.S. estimated casualties. By looking at all those different battles and casualties, it just isn't possible for 300 Indians to be lost at the Little Bighorn. Benteen states that he located only 3 dead Indian ponies on Custer's field. Doesn't seem like any grand mounted charges taking place. Everything I've read indicated Indians using concealment, taking few risks.