Discussion in 'Other Notable Biographies' started by major bill, Dec 29, 2016.
Too many 'Smart' Indians.
your post is disgusting - how about
too many poles*, armenians or just chose a genocide of your liking and be done with it
* the idea was to push them behind the ural with all the other slaves, enslave or simply kill them
Tongue in cheek. You cannot let a little thing like basic human rights cloud your thinking about Manifest Destiny. We won't even get into Germany and it's history of genocide now will we?
that part of our history is exactly what makes me thin skinned when i read 'stuff' like that. btw, who do you think wanted to push the slaves past the ural?
Just following orders..... wasn't that still a war crime to hang enemy soldiers for being enemy soldiers? ..... Yes, Mosby following orders, hung five in retaliation, but that was apparently seen as the only way to stop the hangings, and only after asking and receiving orders to do so.
Since one of Mosby's men that was hung was a relative of mine, (William Thomas Overby), I have done quite a thorough examination of the events. I am not a Custer fan to say the least. However, I am unsure if Custer was even responsible. There are conflicting report that he wasn't even near the area.
That's what clearing the Plains was about and why Sheridan did in the buffalo. Like every other conquest - get rid of the food, steal the women and kids, kill all the men. Anybody anywhere would die fighting. I think this is why Custer is important in Indian history - he represented the crushing military might of the United States. The CW made the US army like the Borg - resistance is futile!
As for why he lost...Crazy Horse was a better general than he was!
It was a conquest. The native Americans may have been more intelligent than the Europeans but they were, technologically, thousands of years behind. The Indians continued to try and bargain with the Unites States Government but they really didn't have anything to bargain with. We wanted their land and we took it. It was inevitable. Right or wrong.
I heard a socio-anthropologist claim the Native Americans may have been smarter because their day to day life required them to solve complex problems just to survive where as Europeans were using technology so that their day to day problems were less likely to be "Life or Death" issues. It sounded good but I'm no socio-anthropologist.
But Custer did not establish the policy, he executed policy. The U.S. Indian policy was pursued before and after the Civil War, both by Northern leaders and Southern leaders.
The man in command carries the can. He is ultimately responsible. If he had sub-standard officers he should have removed them. Ways & means can be found to do this. Also basic military doctrine is 'don't divide your forces'. Look I'm not trying to beat Custer down, but he certainly wasn't as good a soldier as he believed himself to be. He had to be kept on a tight rain, all his previous battles with the plains tribes resulted in a charge & slaughter. No finesse involved.
An officer can't just remove his subordinate officers... especially not in a rather political army like the union army during and after the civil war.
They did & do in the Army I was a member of. Post them on a course, give them bad confidential reports, leave them behind. I do take your point, but ultimately a Commander commands & takes responsibility for both officers & men.
hermann balck got a johann schottke shot for being drunk on duty (without even a drumhead court) - okay, he got 3 years for it after the war (served 18 months)
Don't agree with the premise that 'Native Americans were smarter, I would however concede that they had an age old understanding of their environment which the Europeans didn't have to the same degree. I could always argue the point that it takes a certain degree of intelligence to invent and utilise technology. Every other nation on the planet had the same opportunities to create and invent, some were just better at figuring it out.
Perhaps it was western reliance on technology that undid the 7th. The Zulu's at Isandlwhana taught us Brits a very severe lesson with assegais
Custer was viewed as a heroic figure when my dad was growing up. While there was a major reassessment in response to Native American criticism and the film Little Big Man in the 1960s, my dad's World War II buddies tended to also view him as a model for the glory-hound officers they all hated to serve under. So I think he got demolished from two sides.
Well the Brits were badly led in that battle.
Is the theory that much of the problem was an inability to get ammunition to the firing lines still given credence? I first read that theory in "The Washing of the Spears" many (too many ) years ago. I used to read much about the Zulu War; the Abraham Lincoln Bookshop in Chicago stocked the latest books on the Zulu War and on Custer as well as on the Civil War. Being a Chicago guy I used to go there often.
The much neglected Battle of the Wabash is instructive. The Indians had no superiority in numbers but were on the attack. They negated the American artillery with small arms fire and wore the infantry down with fluid tactics of advance and retreat. Little Turtle and Blue Jacket should be as famous as Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull.
I think Little Turtle and Red Cloud would've gotten along--both were pragmatic men who initially defeated the Americans but were astute enough the abandon hostility to the United States while they could still gain some advantage from the peace.
Separate names with a comma.