A Misplaced Massacre

[cash]

http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/a-misplaced-massacre/

 

[dlofting]

Definitely a book worth reading.

 

[chellers]

Sounds very interesting, Cash. Thanks.

 

[godofredus]

http://studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2014/07/20/a-misplaced-massacre/

Thank you Mr. Cash. After three posts that made me nothing but mad, finally a post worth noting.

 

[matthew mckeon]

A very good book.

 

[Bob Owen]

I will order one today. Thanks Cash!

 

[ole]

I will order one today. Thanks Cash!

I won't. I know that humans have unforgivable flaws. I don't need to see more evidence.

 

[dlofting]

I won't. I know that humans have unforgivable flaws. I don't need to see more evidence.

As Cash noted in his article this book is more about how the massacre is remembered than it is the massacre itself. It's interesting, to say the least, to follow the"negotiations" with the landowner(s), local citizens, three (IIRC) Native American bands, the NPS and various special interest groups. Needless to say the establishment of a National Historic Site administered by the NPS was not a foregone conclusion.

 

[diane]

This sounds interesting. I do have a problem with connecting it, or any other battle/massacre/incident, directly with the Civil War. There were several bills and laws passed once the Southern representatives and senators were gone that directly impacted Native peoples, several wars and uprisings erupted in the West - sometimes because the army's protection was either gone or weakened. But I still think the Indian wars are separate from the Civil War and only ran parallel to it. The fights were largely over decisions being made in Washington affecting people who had no representation or any voice at all, not what was happening on battlefields east of the Mississippi.

 

[cash]

As Cash noted in his article this book is more about how the massacre is remembered than it is the massacre itself. It's interesting, to say the least, to follow the"negotiations" with the landowner(s), local citizens, three (IIRC) Native American bands, the NPS and various special interest groups. Needless to say the establishment of a National Historic Site administered by the NPS was not a foregone conclusion.

And, like Waterloo, was "the nearest-run thing you ever saw in your life" [apologies to Wellington].

 

[cash]

This sounds interesting. I do have a problem with connecting it, or any other battle/massacre/incident, directly with the Civil War. There were several bills and laws passed once the Southern representatives and senators were gone that directly impacted Native peoples, several wars and uprisings erupted in the West - sometimes because the army's protection was either gone or weakened. But I still think the Indian wars are separate from the Civil War and only ran parallel to it. The fights were largely over decisions being made in Washington affecting people who had no representation or any voice at all, not what was happening on battlefields east of the Mississippi.

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.

 

[ole]

If it happened between 1861 and 1865, it is officially listed as part of the USCW. The Minnesota uprising is equally unrelated, but it is also listed among the battles of that time.

 

[cash]

If it happened between 1861 and 1865, it is officially listed as part of the USCW. The Minnesota uprising is equally unrelated, but it is also listed among the battles of that time.

Not everything that happened between 1861 and 1865 was part of the Civil War.

The Apollo 11 landing happened during the years of the Vietnam War, but it wasn't part of the Vietnam War.

The taking of the USS Pueblo by North Koreans happened during the Vietnam War but wasn't part of the Vietnam War.

 

[diane]

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.

Hmm. It is certainly something to think on, and I been chawin' it awhile here! Perhaps it's because it required use of army troops who would otherwise have been elsewhere. I still don't agree. In California a holocaust took place because the US army was withdrawn for the CW and state militias, volunteers and assorted vigilantes took over their job. The forts remained manned but not enough to really help anybody, Indian or white, a whole lot. Ft Klamath over here marched out every so often to kick some Modocs or Klamaths or a stray Cayuse around and then marched back inside the fort. Oregon state militia and the US army both got hammered at Hungry Hill by the Rogues and their assorted allies - and their woman general. But that was before the Civil War. Just saying they weren't in huge evidence in the first place because there wasn't much of a United States army until the Civil War made one. That army was nice and big when the war ended, too, and mighty toughened up - they came West with a vengeance then and it was curtains for the tribes.

 

[Bob Owen]

I'm not sure that the North Koreans taking the USS Pueblo was not related to the Vietnam War. We were at odds with the communists during the war and the communist all over the world were at odds with us. I see it as a US vs Communism event.

 

[huskerblitz]

It depends on how wide one wants to throw a blanket over things. Nothing develops in a vacuum. The Space Race and the Vietnam War both fall easily under the Cold War Era. At the same time Indians began attacking settlers and settlements in Nebraska during the CW because most of the troops had been called east, then south into Missouri and Arkansas.

 

[cash]

I'm not sure that the North Koreans taking the USS Pueblo was not related to the Vietnam War. We were at odds with the communists during the war and the communist all over the world were at odds with us. I see it as a US vs Communism event.

Specifically in Vietnam we were ostensibly fighting to keep the North Vietnamese from controlling South Vietnam. The Pueblo incident had no effect on that. US vs. Communism also includes the Soviet Union. So if a flight of F-4s intercept a Bear Bomber over Alaska, is that part of the Vietnam War also? I don't think so. Events of different conflicts can happen in parallel.

 

[Bob Owen]

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?

 

[ole]

Not everything that happened between 1861 and 1865 was part of the Civil War.

The Apollo 11 landing happened during the years of the Vietnam War, but it wasn't part of the Vietnam War.

The taking of the USS Pueblo by North Koreans happened during the Vietnam War but wasn't part of the Vietnam War.

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.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Sounds to me like smoke and mirrors, and if you feel otherwise there are experts. Full stop. Not ' experts WHO', just ' experts', because plain, old people tend to be kind disallowed getting an oar in without credentials. That isn't meant to sound disgruntled coming from a dreary old Liberal Arts degree ( the 70's huh? Who knew? ), it's that THING where one is incapable of following facts unless they belong to the inside circle of professors and intials. Admittedly- put in long, arduous, tough years to be able to say what they say- still, this doesn't seem that tough. One, more Native American massacre is one, more awful blight in our History- the sooner we look it in the eye the better. Calling it part of the Civil War? Bleah. Sounds excusatory to me, but no, I'm no expert.

I've always been outraged myself, this thing where we go ahead and help ourselves to Native American graves- what in H**L is THAT? Every time I hear archeologists have ' discovered' another ancient one, get so wound up seriously can't sleep at night, then we see pics of the skeleton IN the excavated grave, always makes me think of someone laying there naked. If someone did that to the grave of an early settler there'd be heck to pay! I know where there are some Native American graves- huge ones, not here, somewhere else. I'd rather eat a live chicken than tell anyone. If I ever do, hope I get well and truly haunted. It's a despicable thing to do, dig up someone's body, poke around in it just because they didn't have a Christian funeral, how odd of them?