Drexel Mission

[schrack]

I am looking for a complete roster of all who fought at Drexel Mission.

Doug

[schrack]

I am trying to help someone to find out if an Isaac Stevens, Troop D who fought at Drexel Mission also fought on the 29th at Wounded Knee. Trooper Stevens hailed from Benecia, Calf.

Doug

[wolfgang911]

drexel mission last fight with the 7th and, as usual when having no non coms around, won by the outnumbered lakota ;D

[Dark Cloud]

Really? What did the heroic Lakota win?

The Indians won their share of pointless battles and so relentlessly lost the wars. Their failure was a military one as much as a cultural one, because their culture could not sustain a war. Frankly, they didn't actually understand modern war (or modern anything), they could not unite, and they find solace prancing about their very few victories, bragging about how heroic so and so was as if that made any difference whatsoever. That's the solace of losers, deflecting responsibility for their family fate. 'I was brave! What more do you want from me? Foresight? Thought? Responsibility? That's woman talk!'

You can win every battle and still lose the war, and it's the purpose of a society's military to win wars, not necessarily just the battles. Granted, it often makes it easier, but not always. It certainly did not for the American Indian.

[joebb]

Perhaps more relevantly:

1. The Lakota didn't win this skirmish, they got their asses kicked, like they did in pretty much every other battle.

2. The only time the Lakota beat a portion of the 7th Cavalry, under Custer, was when they greatly outnumbered that portion. (They retreated when the rest of the 7th appeared.)

3. The only victories the Lakota generally won were against non-coms -- unarmed white women and children. Sadly, this constituted the bulk of indian "fighting". When facing actual armed soldiers, they were generally defeated, whether or not they had any dependents around. Not surprising, as they generally had inferior technology, and an inadequate understanding of how to utilize the advanced technology they did borrow

There were brave indians, just as there were brave cavalrymen. But nothing is gained by distorting history or pretending the indians were better fighters than they were. Their only major unassisted victory in the 19th century was a fluke due to happenstance and the inadvertent meeting of a small group of calvarymen (Custer's) with a far larger force of Indians.

[quincannon]

joebb: I am wondering, based upon your post above, what catagory you place Rosebud in? Seems to me the result was stalemate and it was the task force under Crook that did the exit from the area. At least they withdrew from the battlespace as a result of logistical contraints brought on by the engagement.

I am also intrigued by your use of the word inadvertent. Seem to me that the word suggests unintentional. I think Custer had every intention of meeting the assembled tribes in battle. I believe he thought himself to be outnumbered from the outset. So if by inadvertent you mean the happenstance of mass I suppose you are correct. Any other meaning is lost on me though.

[benteen]

joebb,

I understand your point not quit sure I agree with it. In addition to the Rosebud, you have the Washita, Yellowstone, and LBH.

Be Well
Dan

[quincannon]

Dan: If you define victory as doing what you set out to do Crook had no victory at Rosebud, Custer had no victory at the Washita or Yellowstone, and LBH speaks for itself. The best that can be said about not fully accomplishing objectives is stalemate or a state of incomplete. Neither of these two amount to much when the books are written. So I join you in your disagreement with the basic premise joebb set forth.

["Hunk" Papa]

Jun 4, 2012 9:28:54 GMT -5 joebb said:

Perhaps more relevantly:

1. The Lakota didn't win this skirmish, they got their asses kicked, like they did in pretty much every other battle.

2. The only time the Lakota beat a portion of the 7th Cavalry, under Custer, was when they greatly outnumbered that portion. (They retreated when the rest of the 7th appeared.)

3. The only victories the Lakota generally won were against non-coms -- unarmed white women and children. Sadly, this constituted the bulk of indian "fighting". When facing actual armed soldiers, they were generally defeated, whether or not they had any dependents around. Not surprising, as they generally had inferior technology, and an inadequate understanding of how to utilize the advanced technology they did borrow

There were brave indians, just as there were brave cavalrymen. But nothing is gained by distorting history or pretending the indians were better fighters than they were. Their only major unassisted victory in the 19th century was a fluke due to happenstance and the inadvertent meeting of a small group of calvarymen (Custer's) with a far larger force of Indians.

joebb, it appears that you have no understanding of the Indian culture you so easily dismiss.

The manner of inter-tribal warfare prior to the arrival of the white soldiers, was mostly on the basis of small band horse raids or revenge attacks. The weaponry was primitive and certainly not geared toward mass killing. The tribes could not afford to lose warriors as there was 18 to 20 years of investment in each man so they were not assets to be lightly dismissed, so counting coup was the bravest act in a fight.

With the coming of whie soldiers who fought to kill as many as they could, the Indians quickly learned that their small band style of fighting could only be effective if they employed hit and run tactics to minimise casualties. Fighting large scale battles was not something they did before the whites came so it is little wonder that they were not about to start using such tactics against a better armed enemy. That is not cowardice but common sense. They were pragmatists, not fools.

Hunk