Nathaniel Philbrick : The Last Stand, Another look at Custer

[Delmonico]

I'm aware of the origin of "Gun that won the west", thank you. No one was judging anything. I was just saying you cannot say the indians were "savage" while overlooking what was done to them on occasion too. Yes it should be viewed in context, but in times of war noone comes out blameless.

So when did I say that they were or wern't and white guys either.  You mis-quoted Phil Sheridan and I corrected you.  Rather than thank me you have now made it sound like I said something I didn't.  You two are on your own again, just be sure to double check your facts next time. Have you ever really done a lot of research, I'm guessing not.

[MJN77]

Well, you can take a general statment out of context, act condescending and insulting if you wish, but I was referring to Doc's posting. This is not a private thread between the two of us. Please quit getting your feathers ruffled and assuming I mean things I do not every time I make a post. I would prefer if you didn't turn this into another "Custer" thread.

[Drayton Calhoun]

It does no good for anyone trying to study history to judge the past based on the standards and the ethics of today, plain and simple.  I don't want to be judged that way in the future, no one in the past should be either.  That is the first thing one wants to know and understand before you get serious about studing history. 

I agree one-hundred percent. We are what our society makes us, to a degree. True, our innate sense of right and wrong, which is taught to us, gives us guidance, we cannot know first hand the feelings, the attitudes and motivations of our ancestors without being there, living their existence. Our perception is flawed by separation.

[JimBob]

It never ceases to amaze me that this subject still generates so much "discussion".

[Delmonico]

It never ceases to amaze me that this subject still generates so much "discussion".

It's because one, we really don't know what happened and two, there are mostly only two types of folks, the ones who hate Custer, think he was a bumbling fool about like we saw in the movie Little Big Man, lots won't admit it though, two there are the ones who think he was the greatest Indian fighter in the world.  Not many of those any more, Libby's dead and they made the movie Little Big Man.  The ones that look at the whole thing with an open mind are really very rare, to do this really requires a lot of study of all that was going one with history at the time, the methods the army used, the way the Indians fought and lived and a hundred other things.  Few are willing to do that.

The funny thing is, in the sense of what to do or not to do based on the methods used at the time and what was know about the enemy, Lee sending Pickett up Cematary Ridge on July 3 1863 was far more dumb than what Custer did, yet few hate Lee and call him a bumbling fool.

[Drayton Calhoun]

It's because one, we really don't know what happened and two, there are mostly only two types of folks, the ones who hate Custer, think he was a bumbling fool about like we saw in the movie Little Big Man, lots won't admit it though, two there are the ones who think he was the greatest Indian fighter in the world.  Not many of those any more, Libby's dead and they made the movie Little Big Man.  The ones that look at the whole thing with an open mind are really very rare, to do this really requires a lot of study of all that was going one with history at the time, the methods the army used, the way the Indians fought and lived and a hundred other things.  Few are willing to do that.

The funny thing is, in the sense of what to do or not to do based on the methods used at the time and what was know about the enemy, Lee sending Pickett up Cematary Ridge on July 3 1863 was far more dumb than what Custer did, yet few hate Lee and call him a bumbling fool.

Let's not forget Fetterman. He disobeyed direct orders and look what it got him. Whether glory-seeking meglomaniac or bumbling incompetent, the fact of the matter is he made a grave tactical error against an enemy who for once realized that co-operation was the answer. Custer will be a point of contention for decades, if not centuries to come. We can 'what if?' til the end of time, nothing will change what happened and being as there are no witnesses alive all we have is conjecture, myth and dubious eyewitness accounts, we will be left to come to our own conclusions.

[JimBob]

It's because one, we really don't know what happened and two, there are mostly only two types of folks, the ones who hate Custer, think he was a bumbling fool about like we saw in the movie Little Big Man, lots won't admit it though, two there are the ones who think he was the greatest Indian fighter in the world.  Not many of those any more, Libby's dead and they made the movie Little Big Man.  The ones that look at the whole thing with an open mind are really very rare, to do this really requires a lot of study of all that was going one with history at the time, the methods the army used, the way the Indians fought and lived and a hundred other things.  Few are willing to do that.

The funny thing is, in the sense of what to do or not to do based on the methods used at the time and what was know about the enemy, Lee sending Pickett up Cematary Ridge on July 3 1863 was far more dumb than what Custer did, yet few hate Lee and call him a bumbling fool.

Frankly for me,a lot of the archeological findings that have come to light after the battlefield area burnt off in the early nineties are more telling about what happened there than what is in many of the books that have been published.Especially the fact that the Indians were far better armed with firearms than previously thought.

That is a pretty fair comparison between Lee and Custer given that Lee's assult on the third day generates as much "discussion" as the Little Big Horn.Grant was soundly criticized for the attack at Cold Harbor but Lee is hardly ever treated the same way for his mistakes.

[Fox Creek Kid]

"Let them kill, skin, and sell until the buffalo is exterminated, as it is the only way to bring lasting peace and allow civilization to advance.  These men have done more in the last two years, and will do more in the next year, to settle the vexed Indian question, than the entire regular army has done in the last forty years. They are destroying the Indians' commissary. And it is a well known fact that an army losing its base of supplies is placed at a great disadvantage. Send them powder and lead, if you will; but for a lasting peace, let them kill, skin, and sell until the buffaloes are exterminated. Then your prairies can be covered with speckled cattle."...

Too bad that speech never happened. Old West myth that many have fallen prey to. 

[Doc Cuervo]

Did you really argue that white people never raped or tortured or murdered any indians? You think whites aren't capable of atrocities? I fully understand warfare, but to say no soldier, or settler, or buffalo hunter, or fur trader..etc, in the entire history of the west ever did anything bad to an indian is kind of odd. Whites along with every other race of human being are quite capable of pretty horrible things. They are all humans. Didn't say the indians were peace loving as a whole. Most were very war oriented. But they were just people. You refer to the indians as savage. Do you not think that stomping indian babies to death with boot heels is also savage? Believe me, I'm no liberal. But I also know that a lot of whites in the 1800s didn't consider the indians to be human either. Wasn't it William Sherman who said "The only good indian is a dead indian"? If you want to call me names and say I am sniveling, that is fine, but facts are facts. Whites are kind of brutal to each other too. Look at the Civil War. Lot of atrocities on both sides. You mention the SS. They were white too. All I am saying is, no matter what race you want to talk about ( white, black, indian, asian, hispanic) there are documented atrocities comitted by all of them. I have studied warfare from the F&I all the way to Vietnam. All sides in all wars do things they shouldn't. Not every soldier mind you, but some. War is a terrible thing. You rightfully point out that the PC police are covering up facts about the indian wars, but you paint a picture of moral superiorrty of whites over the "savages". We are ALL capable these things.  Not trying to fight, just pointing out facts.

Ofcourse there were incidents where white soldiers commited atrocities but with the indians it was standard operative procedure and the more barbaric the better.

[MJN77]

You are right. It was common to the indians, but you said whites didn't do those things. Just presenting both sides of the coin. A lot of tribes believed that the condition you left this world in you had the same handicaps in the next world. An example, they cut the tendons in the back of your knees, this way you could not chase them or sit a horse in the next life. So, alot of the mutilation was "religious" for lack of a better term. Some was out of anger too. Or for poops and giggles.

[Delmonico]

Too bad that speech never happened. Old West myth that many have fallen prey to. 

Possible, have never heard that one wasn't till now like the only good Idian one.  But heck if we were really sure of anything what fun would it be.

[GunClick Rick]

Was it not the whites that did the first scalping to proove they got an indian?Was it not Napolian that first beheaded people?


"If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian, he can live in peace.....Treat all men alike. Give them all the same law. Give them all an even chance to live and grow. All men were made by the same Great Spirit Chief. They are all brothers. The Earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it.......Let me be a free man, free to travel, free to stop, free to work, free to trade....where I choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself, and I will obey every law, or submit to the penalty."

[Drayton Calhoun]

 I look at it this way, war is senseless. We sit here and argue about how savage and brutal both sides were. Many times it was tit for tat, that is how wars start to begin with. Were the 'Indian Wars' so different from the 'Vietnam Conflict' as it is so quaintly called? Liberals go on about the atrocities commited by U.S. troops in Southeast Asia, yet seem to overlook the even worse atrocities commited by the Viet Cong, not just against U.S. troops but against their own people. It is easy to sit back in an armchair and say, "Oh, look at how those poor people were treated..." but it is something else again to put them on the prairie or in the jungle and know that at anytime a hostile, be he any color you choose, could come along and end your life quickly if you are lucky. That kind of stress can make a human do some pretty inhumane things after years of life in that enviroment. Doesn't make it right or wrong, just the way it was and still is.

[Trailrider]

Whether the statement about the buffalo hunters is factual or not, in point of fact the destruction of the herds did do much to end the way of life of the Plains tribes, from the Lakota to the Cheyenne and in between.

Today, at least in some form of "conventional" warfare, we send planes, UCAV's, etc., to destroy supply lines and bases.  It's sometimes called "strategic interdiction".  It's just more efficient than "getting a stand", but the effect is the same.  Of course, the enemy can also shoot back, whereas the buffalo couldn't.

[kflach]

Hmmm. It seems we're not too awfully far from a discussion of whether Col. Kurtz (Marlon Brando) was not actually correct in his thinking in the movie "Apocalypse Now."

[Dead I]

Soldiers at Wounded Knee, also ran down and shot women and children that were running for their lives.

This did not happen.  The Indians ran to a bank of the river and took up arms and fought back.  The battle lasted all day long.  The story of a white flag is a myth.  No soldiers who were there saw it.  There may have been some mutilation of Indian dead, but not to the degree that some said. 

The Indians were not a peaceful band.  They had killed all of the settlers in Colorado, stopped the mail and freight wagons.  There was talk of starvation in Denver.  The raids stopped after Sand Creek.  Read of the Hungate family.   

I do not, however; blame you for thinking as you do since it's been the conventional wisdom since the battle.  I suggest you read Blood at Sand Creek by Scott, and I Stand By Sand Creek, by Dunn.  Those two books do a good job of fleshing out the story.  I think Scott's book is still in print.  I bought it not long ago.  I Stand by Sand Creek is excellent, but will be hard to find.  It's not that old either.  Check the Old Army Press. 

[Dead I]

No he said, "The only good Indians I ever saw were dead."  Similar but not the same in anyway.  We study history to learn the facts.  The other quote is like the end of The man who Shot Liberty Valance, "This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."

Sherman uttered that phrase during an inspection of Fort Laramie. He was shown a band of Indian tepees.  He asked, "Who are those Indians?"  He was told by the agent, "Oh, those are good Indians".  To which Sherman replied, "The only good Indian I ever saw was dead".  Did he really believe that?  Did he want all Indians dead?  Seems a little over the top to me, but Sherman, as every good Southerner knows, was a little over the top. 

[Dead I]

Whether the statement about the buffalo hunters is factual or not, in point of fact the destruction of the herds did do much to end the way of life of the Plains tribes, from the Lakota to the Cheyenne and in between.

True.  The motivation of the buffalo hunters is what is in question here.  Were they trying to destroy/starve the Indians or make a quick buck?  I think they were trying to make a quick buck.  Frankly I don't think many of them could give a hoot about the welfare of the Indians and didn't give it a second thought.  The Indians however noticed that the herds were diminishing. I do not know if they put one and one together and blamed the buffalo hunters, but we know that they did attack them, as well as other white settlers as well.
    They call the conflict the "Indian Wars" and so they were.  Custer admired the Indians, and said so many times.  He also bellieved that they were being screwed by the Indians Agents, and gave testimony to that end.

[Dead I]

From the dig of 1984 at the LBH battlefield site. These are findings for the Indians in the Custer battle, not Reno's:
                      cases                       bullets                        guns
Sharps           0                              18 
S&W            4                                9
Henry           202                            252                           108
Win. 73          21                                                              8
73 Springfield    715                          680                            130

So, from the dig the Indians had 108 Henry's, 8 Winchesters and 130 Springfields (45/55)

There were other guns too, 41 different types fired by the Indians.

Custer's men, at his part of the battle had about 300 Springfields and 300 Colt Pistols.  I think we can agree that most of the Indian's Springfields were captured from dead Cavalrymen. Guns were counted from unique marks on cartridge cases. Custer's men carried 100 rounds of carbine ammo and 24 of Pistol ammo.  (according to T.B. Marquis)

[Dead I]

Was it not the whites that did the first scalping to proove they got an indian?Was it not Napolian that first beheaded people?

The first people to scalp other Indians were Indians and the archeological evidence is clear.  Indian skulls have been found fromm 1500 BC that show evidence of being scalped.  The Indian language had a word for the scalp, the person being scalped and the person doing the scalping.  They also had a verb for the act of scalping.  Europeans didn't scalp peolpe, Indians did.  They had a tradition of what to do with the scalp.  They treasured it.  They hung it from their tepee and the bridle of their horse.