A Misplaced Massacre

[JPK Huson 1863]

We were in Vietnam to kill communists. We killed Chinese communist and a couple of Cuban communist. The ROK stated that some North Koreans were killed there also. We didn't shoot down any Bear bombers but I did get my gun sights on a Russian piloted MIG 21 on the runway at Atapo Cambodia. The problem was is that his partner had my Covey pilot in his gun sights and I was told to back off. The Russian fighter was on a photo run and they knew about it. Maybe you were in the intel community and can dispute me but kill communist was the real agenda. This might be considered modern politics, but I don't know?

Maybe, but it's an incredible, curl-your toes story. Hopefully Vietnam isn't modern any more? My uncle doesn't think so- he wasn't in intel or on a runway, but he and his dogs were there for 2 long tours he signed up for. He doesn't talk about it much except to say he isn't at all sorry he went.

 

[cash]

It was a "battle" that happened during the Civil War. Apollo 11 was not exactly a battle. Nor was the taking of the Pueblo in any way connected with the Vietnam War.

I'm with you. Neither the Minnesota Uprising nor the Sand Creek Massacre were part of the Civil War, but they are listed as such by our infallible government. Argue with it.

Our infallible government isn't partaking of our discussions, but you are.

 

[cash]

We were in Vietnam to kill communists. We killed Chinese communist and a couple of Cuban communist. The ROK stated that some North Koreans were killed there also. We didn't shoot down any Bear bombers but I did get my gun sights on a Russian piloted MIG 21 on the runway at Atapo Cambodia. The problem was is that his partner had my Covey pilot in his gun sights and I was told to back off. The Russian fighter was on a photo run and they knew about it. Maybe you were in the intel community and can dispute me but kill communist was the real agenda. This might be considered modern politics, but I don't know?

We were shooting communists in Vietnam to keep them from taking over South Vietnam. We were in Cambodia specifically because the N.Vietnamese and VC were using it as a staging area and sanctuary for their attacks on South Vietnam. We weren't there to stop the Russians from doing anything in Europe or anywhere else. We weren't there to stop the Chinese from taking over Taiwan. Anything not related to protecting South Vietnam wasn't part of the Vietnam War.

 

[KLSDAD]

I tend to agree, though as I said some historians I greatly respect agree with placing it within the Civil War. I'm not convinced yet.

Al: As you know I've been interested in seeing your take ever since you posted on the author's presentation at the recent Gettysburg conference. What struck me when I watched that presentation wasn't that he considered Sand Creek as part of the Civil War. Various factors can be pointed to on both sides of that argument. I'm not sure what difference it makes anyway.

Instead I was interested in his point that the Civil War should be considered a "war of empire" and, I presume, be considered fully together with the Mexican War and the Indian Wars before, during and after the 1861-1865 period. That position has wide ranging impact.

Was his argument stated or fleshed out at all in the book or during your discussions with him?

 

[cash]

Al: As you know I've been interested in seeing your take ever since you posted on the author's presentation at the recent Gettysburg conference. What struck me when I watched that presentation wasn't that he considered Sand Creek as part of the Civil War. Various factors can be pointed to on both sides of that argument. I'm not sure what difference it makes anyway.

Instead I was interested in his point that the Civil War should be considered a "war of empire" and, I presume, be considered fully together with the Mexican War and the Indian Wars before, during and after the 1861-1865 period. That position has wide ranging impact.

Was his argument stated or fleshed out at all in the book or during your discussions with him?

No, the war of empire argument wasn't fleshed out in the book. I can understand his use of the term. For the Federals, it was a war to maintain the Union, and later it also became a war to determine what that Union would look like, at least from the standpoint of slavery and freedom. So it was for them a war to determine what the US empire would be and later in the war whether or not it would be an empire of freedom. For the confederates, it was a war to establish their empire of slavery.

 

[ole]

http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/bystate.htm

 

[ForeverFree]

It depends on how wide one wants to throw a blanket over things. Nothing develops in a vacuum.

Good questions to ask are, if there had not been a Civil War, what would Sandy Creek have looked like? Would it have occurred sooner, or later, or not at all? What would US armed forces have looked like if there was no war?

Aside from that, did contemporary Americans see it as part of the Civil War? On the face of it, it's hard to see how this event is related to the goal of battling with secessionists to "preserve the Union." On the other hand, it's not hard to imagine how the War might affect the nature, conduct, and timing of the military attack.

- Alan

 

[diane]

For that matter one might ask how Indian affairs would have gone had there been no Civil War. I think there would have been little difference, just maybe a longer time frame. With a small army and vague militias with varying degrees of training - still small forces - the people might have held out longer or gotten better deals. The eastern tribes had a better chance of that, not the 'wild' Indians. There would have just been more Removals, Trail of Tears, Long Walks and so on. Once the military build-up occurred, there was no doubt that it would be used, once freed to do so, against the tribes. Impeding progress!

 

[huskerblitz]

Good questions to ask are, if there had not been a Civil War, what would Sandy Creek have looked like? Would it have occurred sooner, or later, or not at all? What would US armed forces have looked like if there was no war?

Aside from that, did contemporary Americans see it as part of the Civil War? On the face of it, it's hard to see how this event is related to the goal of battling with secessionists to "preserve the Union." On the other hand, it's not hard to imagine how the War might affect the nature, conduct, and timing of the military attack.

- Alan

I haven't read this book in its entirety, but used it for a source some time ago. Could be used for a primer of sorts if you want.
https://archive.org/details/indianwarof1864b00ware

From Nebraska's standpoint, the Indians waited until they were sure the army wasn't going to have the forts at full strength. Then they began raiding areas in central and western Nebraska and into Colorado and Wyoming. They did this because they knew they could get away with it most of the time. That was when a number of Nebraska troops were recalled back home (the volunteers thought they would remain just for this reason) and they began chasing the tribes into Minnesota.

Would have conflicts erupted without the Civil War? Yes, I believe it would have. Probably in a different set of circumstances and what that may be I'm not sure. The Indians at some point would have needed to stand up to the encroachment and protected their land and food stores. But like I said earlier, nothing happens in a vacuum. This is why I think one can place Sand Creek in the context of the Civil War even though it's not directly related to the secession issues.

 

[KLSDAD]

http://www.nps.gov/hps/abpp/battles/bystate.htm

I use that site alot .....for those who haven't recently, note that the recent addition of the links to the Battlefield Preservation Reports for each state. Those reports include maps that define the extent of the battlefields for touring purposes.

 

[rpkennedy]

For that matter one might ask how Indian affairs would have gone had there been no Civil War. I think there would have been little difference, just maybe a longer time frame. With a small army and vague militias with varying degrees of training - still small forces - the people might have held out longer or gotten better deals. The eastern tribes had a better chance of that, not the 'wild' Indians. There would have just been more Removals, Trail of Tears, Long Walks and so on. Once the military build-up occurred, there was no doubt that it would be used, once freed to do so, against the tribes. Impeding progress!

I believe that, without the war, the frontier would have been much more violent on both sides. The settlers and natives had few reservations (pun not intended) about wiping each other out when possible. If left to the locals, there would have been a lot more small unit violence.

R

 

[ErnieMac]

I find it difficult to compartmentalize history. Too many interactions and cross currents to pile things in their neat little cubby holes. That being said, if I had to choose a slot for Sand Creek and the Colorado War it would be in the context of the Indian Wars. The US Army, including Volunteer units, battled the Apache, Navajo, Southern Plains Tribes and the Dakota in addition the Cheyenne, Arapaho and Lakota in Colorado. None of this fighting involved or was intended to get a leg up on the Confederates. Nor IMO did Confederate fighting with the Comanche and Kickapoo in Texas relate to any Union Army activities. The only Indian fighting that I would place squarely within the confines of the Civil War was that relating to the Trans-Mississippi in or near the Indian Territory.

 

[diane]

I believe that, without the war, the frontier would have been much more violent on both sides. The settlers and natives had few reservations (pun not intended) about wiping each other out when possible. If left to the locals, there would have been a lot more small unit violence.

R

Absolutely. A locally famous Shasta chief here, Tipsu Tyee, worked hard to gin up a Modoc-like uprising and his intention was to kill everything white - period. There were many others who believed that, too. They had their counterparts with the miners and ranchers who wanted to kill everything brown - period. That's why I tend to cut the US army slack in the Northwest/Upper California wars. Yes, O O Howard went after Joseph, there was Bloody Island and so on, but the American soldiers weren't all that into running the Indians onto reservations or into extinction and often commiserated with them. Even Sheridan, who did one the best jobs of cultural genocide in history, commented whites would do the same in Indian positions. I catch flak from other Indians because I don't hate the US army - the Northern California Indians were annihilated by miners, not the army. Government policies...well, wish Grant had bothered to try to talk to some Indians like Lincoln did! And, today, maybe some bright guy should think about tweaking 19th century Indian policies into the 21st century...!

 

[Nathanb1]

Been reading comments with interest. I'm sort of with Diane on this....as well as several others. The Sand Creek Massacre, in particular, took place in a vacuum created by the absence of the 2nd Cavalry on that part of the plains. What was left was, as we call them in Texas, "flop-eared" militia with absolutely no qualms about wiping out every man, woman, and child. The "setup" for the massacre comes about with attacks and increased belligerance by Cheyenne (and other) warriors, then retaliation by the militia at Smoky Hill, then the gathering of the tribes for protection, the massacre, the burning of Julesburg, and all heck breaking loose. Whee! Just one cluster thingy to another. If that makes it a part of the civil war....

 

[John Winn]

Really sticking my neck out here but I'm with those who just see it as something that happened at the same time and not necessarily part of the war. Why ? Just 'cause that's the way it seems to me. Indian "troubles" were going on before the war and continued after it. I imagine the Indians didn't really care if we all shot each other and conflict just continued while we tried to do so.

I, too, think the outcome of the white/native "problem" would have been the same eventually had there been no war but it might have taken a bit longer. Technology, disease, and numbers would just have had their effect eventually.

Locally things had played out mostly before the war and, I think, largely because of the big three factors. Before it was over it had been mostly a series of small group actions in a very Hatfield-McCoy type of chain of events. The regular army had some role but, as diane pointed out, mostly it was small bands fighting self-appointed (mostly) miner militia units and groups of individuals on both "sides" just being ruthless and taking blind revenge on anybody of the wrong persuasion they happened to encounter.

I think some of the larger, warlike tribes with more horses would have held out longer but in the end it would have been a war of attrition that ended much as it did anyway. Like slavery, it's a chapter we've not really closed in some ways.

This is an interesting thread.

 

[ErnieMac]

I've been thinking about this over lunch and I agree with the longer time, same result scenario. IMO it was secession and the withdrawal of Southern representation in Congress that resulted in two Acts of Congress that sped up the demise of Indian nations. These two acts were the Homestead Act and the Pacific Railroad Act, both passed in 1862 after years of being opposed by Southern congressmen. Their passage led to a relatively swift 'opening' of west - 30 years later it was all over.

Had the south not seceded settlement would have likely been at a snail's pace for years until a compromise or resolution was reached. We all are aware of how interested Congress was in compromise in 1860. The small scale conflicts would have proceeded as many of you have noted above with minimal interest or intervention from Washington.

 

[John Winn]

I've been thinking about this over lunch and I agree with the longer time, same result scenario. IMO it was secession and the withdrawal of Southern representation in Congress that resulted in two Acts of Congress that sped up the demise of Indian nations. These two acts were the Homestead Act and the Pacific Railroad Act, both passed in 1862 after years of being opposed by Southern congressmen. Their passage led to a relatively swift 'opening' of west - 30 years later it was all over.

Had the south not seceded settlement would have likely been at a snail's pace for years until a compromise or resolution was reached. We all are aware of how interested Congress was in compromise in 1860. The small scale conflicts would have proceeded as many of you have noted above with minimal interest or intervention from Washington.

I'm mit Ernie !

 

[rpkennedy]

I've been thinking about this over lunch and I agree with the longer time, same result scenario. IMO it was secession and the withdrawal of Southern representation in Congress that resulted in two Acts of Congress that sped up the demise of Indian nations. These two acts were the Homestead Act and the Pacific Railroad Act, both passed in 1862 after years of being opposed by Southern congressmen. Their passage led to a relatively swift 'opening' of west - 30 years later it was all over.

Had the south not seceded settlement would have likely been at a snail's pace for years until a compromise or resolution was reached. We all are aware of how interested Congress was in compromise in 1860. The small scale conflicts would have proceeded as many of you have noted above with minimal interest or intervention from Washington.

I'm not so sure that settlement would have slowed. After all, with or without government endorsement, there was a lot of land that was open and I believe that settlers would be drawn to this land. I see a lot of settlers flocking to the West and all but going to war with the natives there. There would have been no quarter with the natives being ultimately wiped out but with a lot more death among the settlers as well.

R

 

[diane]

I'm not so sure that settlement would have slowed. After all, with or without government endorsement, there was a lot of land that was open and I believe that settlers would be drawn to this land. I see a lot of settlers flocking to the West and all but going to war with the natives there. There would have been no quarter with the natives being ultimately wiped out but with a lot more death among the settlers as well.

R

The US army would have been involved heavily either way because the settlers always demanded protection. Forts all over the place. Curiously, or not so curiously, many rancherias and Indian settlements were close to the forts - for protection. That put the military in a very weird position, to say the least!

 

[rpkennedy]

The US army would have been involved heavily either way because the settlers always demanded protection. Forts all over the place. Curiously, or not so curiously, many rancherias and Indian settlements were close to the forts - for protection. That put the military in a very weird position, to say the least!

Although, if the government didn't endorse the settlements, would they respond to the settlers, at least in the short term?

R