The 1890 Incident at Wounded Knee Was No "Massacre"

[mikegriffith1]

Do you have the numbers proving the Indians massacred more people than did the US army and whites?

Are you kidding? Is this a serious question? I recommend you read four books to get some idea of just how many thousands of people were massacred by Indians:

The Earth Is Weeping: The Epic Story of the Indian Wars for the American West, by Peter Cozzens.

Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, by Thomas Goodrich

The Wild Frontier: Atrocities During the American-Indian War, by William M. Osborn

A Fate Worse than Death, by Greg Michno (who also wrote one of the best books on the Custer fight: Lakota Noon: The Indian Narrative of Custer's Defeat)

The books by Cozzens, Osborn, and Michno can be read online in Kindle format.

Most authors nowadays ignore, or don't know, the fact that a big reason that so many Americans in the mid- and late 1800s held a negative view of the Indians was that most Indians had sided with the British in the War of 1812 and had massacred numerous entire settlements during the war. Read Ronald Drez's book The War of 1812, Conflict and Deception, and Mark Zuehlke's book For Honour's Sake: The War of 1812 and the Brokering of an Uneasy Peace, for starters.

And, of course, five major Indian tribes--the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole tribes--sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War, a fact that most Americans were acutely aware of. The Confederacy had an entire Indian regiment led by a full-blooded Indian general named Stand Watie.

 

[gipper]

Are you kidding? Is this a serious question? I recommend you read four books to get some idea of just how many thousands of people were massacred by Indians:

The Earth Is Weeping: The Epic Story of the Indian Wars for the American West, by Peter Cozzens.

Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, by Thomas Goodrich

The Wild Frontier: Atrocities During the American-Indian War, by William M. Osborn

A Fate Worse than Death, by Greg Michno (who also wrote one of the best books on the Custer fight: Lakota Noon: The Indian Narrative of Custer's Defeat)

The books by Cozzens, Osborn, and Michno can be read online in Kindle format.

Most authors nowadays ignore, or don't know, the fact that a big reason that so many Americans in the mid- and late 1800s held a negative view of the Indians was that most Indians had sided with the British in the War of 1812 and had massacred numerous entire settlements during the war. Read Ronald Drez's book The War of 1812, Conflict and Deception, and Mark Zuehlke's book For Honour's Sake: The War of 1812 and the Brokering of an Uneasy Peace, for starters.

And, of course, five major Indian tribes--the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole tribes--sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War, a fact that most Americans were acutely aware of. The Confederacy had an entire Indian regiment led by a full-blooded Indian general named Stand Watie.

I didn’t dispute they massacred many. Of course they did, but where are the numbers to compare?

The US military and white settlers massacred many Indians. How many?

Do you hate those tribes that sided with the Confederacy? Do you think they deserve to be massacred for it? I side with the Confederacy. Do you want me executed?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Are you kidding? Is this a serious question? I recommend you read four books to get some idea of just how many thousands of people were massacred by Indians:

The Earth Is Weeping: The Epic Story of the Indian Wars for the American West, by Peter Cozzens.

Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, by Thomas Goodrich

The Wild Frontier: Atrocities During the American-Indian War, by William M. Osborn

A Fate Worse than Death, by Greg Michno (who also wrote one of the best books on the Custer fight: Lakota Noon: The Indian Narrative of Custer's Defeat)

The books by Cozzens, Osborn, and Michno can be read online in Kindle format.

Most authors nowadays ignore, or don't know, the fact that a big reason that so many Americans in the mid- and late 1800s held a negative view of the Indians was that most Indians had sided with the British in the War of 1812 and had massacred numerous entire settlements during the war. Read Ronald Drez's book The War of 1812, Conflict and Deception, and Mark Zuehlke's book For Honour's Sake: The War of 1812 and the Brokering of an Uneasy Peace, for starters.

And, of course, five major Indian tribes--the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole tribes--sided with the Confederacy during the Civil War, a fact that most Americans were acutely aware of. The Confederacy had an entire Indian regiment led by a full-blooded Indian general named Stand Watie.

You can be sure that the north and the American revolutionaries would have used Indian support had the enemy’s-enemy thing worked in that direction.
Like US arming Bin Laden’s crew in 1980.

 

[mikegriffith1]

You can be sure that the north and the American revolutionaries would have used Indian support had the enemy’s-enemy thing worked in that direction.
Like US arming Bin Laden’s crew in 1980.

Washington and Madison never would have approved of the barbaric form of warfare that the Indians waged, which included the slaughter of entire settlements. Washington and Madison were both furious at the brutal attacks on civilians carried out by the Indians.

During the Revolutionary War, Washington was so enraged over Indian tactics that he ordered the destruction of 40 Iroquois villages in New York in reprisal--he did not have all the inhabitants killed, but he had the villages burned to the ground and their property destroyed or confiscated.

The Union had to deal with a Dakota Sioux uprising in Minnesota in 1862. The Dakota attacked numerous settlements in southwestern Minnesota, killing over 500 settlers and taking hundreds of biracial and white hostages. It took the Union several weeks to respond since the Civil War was in full swing.

The Confederate Indian brigade did great damage to Union forces in the western theater. Indeed, they were actually winning in their area of operations when the war ended, which is why their commanding general, Stand Watie, was the last Confederate general to surrender.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Washington and Madison never would have approved of the barbaric form of warfare that the Indians waged, which included the slaughter of entire settlements. Washington and Madison were both furious at the brutal attacks on civilians carried out by the Indians.

During the Revolutionary War, Washington was so enraged over Indian tactics that he ordered the destruction of 40 Iroquois villages in New York in reprisal--he did not have all the inhabitants killed, but he had the villages burned to the ground and their property destroyed or confiscated.

The Union had to deal with a Dakota Sioux uprising in Minnesota in 1862. The Dakota attacked numerous settlements in southwestern Minnesota, killing over 500 settlers and taking hundreds of biracial and white hostages. It took the Union several weeks to respond since the Civil War was in full swing.

The Confederate Indian brigade did great damage to Union forces in the western theater. Indeed, they were actually winning in their area of operations when the war ended, which is why their commanding general, Stand Watie, was the last Confederate general to surrender.

When opportunity and necessity meet…
I refer to US aid to bin laden during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

 

[mikegriffith1]

When opportunity and necessity meet…
I refer to US aid to bin laden during the Russian invasion of Afghanistan.

But that is really beside the point. The point is that the Indians massacred far more people than the U.S. Army did, and that Americans in the 1800s viewed the Indians negatively partly because they had committed numerous atrocities against American civilians during the War of 1812. The British were the invaders in the War of 1812, by the way.

Plus, Americans in the 1800s were also aware that many Indian tribes sided with the British during the War of Independence.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

But that is really beside the point. The point is that the Indians massacred far more people than the U.S. Army did, and that Americans in the 1800s viewed the Indians negatively partly because they had committed numerous atrocities against American civilians during the War of 1812. The British were the invaders in the War of 1812, by the way.

Plus, Americans in the 1800s were also aware that many Indian tribes sided with the British during the War of Independence.

But the strategy is nondenominational. It comes down to opportunity, necessity and circumstance.

 

[mikegriffith1]

But the strategy is nondenominational. It comes down to opportunity, necessity and circumstance.

That's just silly. There was no "necessity" for the Indians to side with the British in the War of 1812. They could have just stayed out of it. Same for the Revolutionary War. Same for the Civil War.

And the fact remains that the Indians' barbaric conduct against civilians in those wars was a perfectly valid, logical reason for 1800s Americans to view them negatively.

Finally, let's remember that this is a thread about Wounded Knee, and that the point of the OP is that it was no "massacre," that the Indians fired first, that the warriors killed many of their own women and children when they fired at the soldiers in the council area, that some women and teen boys fired at the soldiers with rifles or bows and arrow, and that in many cases the warriors had women and children around them while firing at the soldiers in the ravine fighting.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

That's just silly. There was no "necessity" for the Indians to side with the British in the War of 1812. They could have just stayed out of it. Same for the Revolutionary War. Same for the Civil War.

And the fact remains that the Indians' barbaric conduct against civilians in those wars was a perfectly valid, logical reason for 1800s Americans to view them negatively.

Finally, let's remember that this is a thread about Wounded Knee, and that the point of the OP is that it was no "massacre," that the Indians fired first, that the warriors killed many of their own women and children when they fired at the soldiers in the council area, that some women and teen boys fired at the soldiers with rifles or bows and arrow, and that in many cases the warriors had women and children around them while firing at the soldiers in the ravine fighting.

I’m not arguing at all with your take on the wounded knee issue. I find your posts informative. The entire issue is an illustration of anti-American-culture propaganda that has been festering over the past sixty years.
But the British would have plenty of reason to incorporate the help of Indians during the 18th century, the most likely being that they were already here. No need to ship them across the Atlantic Ocean.

 

[mikegriffith1]

I’m not arguing at all with your take on the wounded knee issue. I find your posts informative. The entire issue is an illustration of anti-American-culture propaganda that has been festering over the past sixty years.
But the British would have plenty of reason to incorporate the help of Indians during the 18th century, the most likely being that they were already here. No need to ship them across the Atlantic Ocean.

Is someone else using your account to post here?! I'm glad you clarified your views. Your previous replies contained no clue that you held such views.

Yes, the British had lots of reasons to seek Indian help in the 18th century, but that does not mean that the Indians had to help them. The Indians' decision to side twice with the British caused most Americans to view them very negatively.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Is someone else using your account to post here?! I'm glad you clarified your views. Your previous replies contained no clue that you held such views.

Yes, the British had lots of reasons to seek Indian help in the 18th century, but that does not mean that the Indians had to help them. The Indians' decision to side twice with the British caused most Americans to view them very negatively.

My posts have been consistent.