Talk:Battle of the Washita River

The last evidence

Both Native American and Federal testimonies show that Washita was a great battle and that soldiers took good measures to prevent the killing of women and children. Several soldiers (reported by soldier Spotts of 19th Kansas) said that it was Custer's orders to protect civilians. (read Jerome Greene's book "Washita")

There's no controversy about this battle. It's only bad anti-US propaganda.

Battle

The military engagement on Washita River, 27 November 1868, was a battle as combatants on both sides were killed. Major Elliott may have believed he was in a desperate battle but since all in his command were killed maybe it was a massacre. The warriors who killed them were proud of their victory in battle. Warriors of the period usually killed all of their opponents, combatant or not. It was the way they waged war. To say that the federal government used any excuse to break a treaty is rather naive. Unsigned comment by 66.138.40.134

General Custer

General Custer, a Civil War Medal of Honor recipient, did good. It was a victorious battle for the great United States. The 7th Cavalry was a strong unit that helped bring the attention of the dangers of the frontier to the United States.

Correction

For information, General Custer wasn't a Medal of Honor recipient, but his brother Thomas Ward Custer was. Custer did indeed a very good job during the Civil War before losing the famous battle of the Little Bighorn.

Custer's Cruelty

Custer was noted as being extremely depressed and saw his military career coming to an end. He craved the attention he had earned as a general in the Civil War, but the glory was fading away. He found a way to put himself back into the American spotlight as the most famous "Indian fighter". He surprise attacked Chief Black Kettle inside of Indian Territory, territory set aside for Native Americans. The Cheyenne chief even flew an American flag over his TP. Colonel Custer achieved his only military victory over Native American's that day and did not achieve any more victories.

The statement above is full of lies

According to Historian Jerome Greene's "Washita 1868", Black Kettle's Indians were guilty of numerous massacres against civilians in Kansas, Oklahoma and Colorado. Black Kettle never held any American flag near his teepee. Custer won two others victories against Sitting Bull in Yellowstone (Wyoming) in 1873. Jerome Greene stated that the Washita encounter was done by the soldiers with "measures to avoid the killing of women and children."

Further Reading on the Washita and other frontier campaigns

"INDIAN FIGHTS AND FIGHTERS" by Cyrus Townsend Brady, LL.D.; with an introduction by James T King
1971 Bison Book Edition, BB538, University of Nebraska Press.Lincoln/London
ISBN 0-8032-5743-0 pbk.
Library of Congress Catolog Card Number 74-156373
Original first edition published by McClure, Phillips & Co. in 1904

The book contains accounts from participants in The Battle of the Washita: officers & enlisted men. It has first hand accounts of many major battles and campaigns between the US Army and Native American Indians. The accounts are graphic and interesting, with thoughts and details from those who were there. It also contains accounts of some battles as told by Native American Indians who were participants. The book also contains maps of battle sites, drawn by participants; including a map of the Little Bighorn Battle, drawn by Rain-In-The-Face(also his account of the battle).Ratzamatatza 21:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

NPOV dispute: As a scientist, I find it difficult to believe a scholar would use Custer's own journal as evidence to incriminate Indians. This reference, mistaken as factual, is given undue attention and space compared to others. I recommend: Wikipedia:NPOV tutorial#Space and balance.

Historian Jerome Greene's analysis

Jerome Greene's latest book on the Washita denies the "massacre" charges and put Indian testimonies which agree that it was a fierce battle. Indian prisoners told interpreter Dick Curtis that as many as 11 WARCHIEFS were killed during the fight, which suggest large warriors casualties. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.21.9.178 (talk) 14:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Major overhaul necessary

I think this article requires a major overhaul. As noted before, basing the depiction chiefly on Custer's own account must necessarily create a biased viewpoint. In my view the section "The cause: Black Kettle's war against Kansas" is grossly distortive: 1.)Black Kettle was no war chief, 2.) He was not present with any war party in Kansas, 3.) He didn't send any warriors on the warpath, 4.) He was the chief man of the "peace faction" among the Cheyennes, he even signed peace treaties which gave away 90% of Cheyenne land to avoid further bloodshed. As a consequence his standing among the Indians suffered greatly. That was the reason why his camp had to stay at the Washita river several miles downstream from the other camps. It is true that Black Kettle was unable to stop young men from his cmap to join war parties. Making "Black Kettle's war against Kansas" out of this is not worthy of Wikipedia's standards.

Likewise, the casualty figures are manifestly wrong. Greene's book has a good overview on this question. The Cheyennes named every victim by name. Custer just added body counts of different soldiers (each of them counting the same killed indians again and again) and upped them at will. Most likely 11 Cheyenne men, 2 Arapaho men, 9 Cheyenne women, 2 Sioux women and 5 children were killed, altogether under 30, not more than 130 as Custer claimed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lookoo (talk • contribs) 11:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

False

Black Kettle WAS a chief of tribe, his tribe WAS at war in 1868 according to Little Rock, second-in-command in the village, who testified on November 19, 1868, about the depredations commited by bands. Indian prisoners gave to Interpreter Dick Curtis the name of eleven warchiefs killed, not the overall number. More : http://custer.over-blog.com/categorie-10017999.html

"The troops burst into the village, cutting down the Indians as they fled their lodges. The soldiers were also hit: one captain was killed by a bullet in the chest, and another was severely wounded in the abdomen. Maj. Elliot cut loose with 18 men of various companies to chase some Indianswho had escaped to the east, reportedly calling out, "Here goes for a brevet or a coffin". Elliot was cut off and his party killed. During the battle, the Cheyennes killed two of four white captives. It is uncertain whether Custer was able to rescue the other two. After soldiers killed Chiefs Black Kettle and Little Rock, Custer captured the camp, burned tipis and supplies, and shot 875 Indian ponies. As more Indians gathered from other camps downriver, Custer made a feint downstream, sending them back to protect their villages. Doubling back in the gathering darkness, Custer returned to his supply train and headed home, reaching Camp supply on 1 December. Custer captured 53 women and children during the mission and reported 103 Indians killed"

Gregory F. Michno, ENCYCLOPEDIA of Indian Wars 1850-1890, pages 226-227

Custerwest

False?

"Black Kettle WAS a chief of tribe", yes, he was one of 44 peace chiefs of the Cheyenne nation, one of four peace chiefs of his band. You should make yourself a little bit more aquainted with his policy and what impact this had on his standing within the tribe. Already in 1867 he was much ridiculed for his peace stance and commanded little authority in wider Cheyenne circles (Greene, page 45).

"his tribe WAS at war in 1868 according to Little Rock". Who exactly was at war? When a couple of young men from his band joined the dog soldiers against his express will, this doesn't mean Black kettle was at war with the whites.

"Indian prisoners gave to Interpreter Dick Curtis the name of eleven warchiefs killed, not the overall number." Instead of linking to your own blog I would like to have some meaningful source here. Which chiefs then? This is easily verifiable. You won't find 11 Cheyenne chiefs present at Black Kettle's band and even less so all killed in the battle.

Jerome Greene writes: "Custer's prisoners later reported that thirteen men, besides two sioux and an arapaho, had been killed at the Washita, but evidentl they gave no figure for noncombatant losses. George Bent revised the tribal testimony over several years and arrived at 13 men killed, 12 women and five children, thus 30 Indian casualties overall, finally revised to 29, "a number that does not appear unreasonable"(Greene p.136)

Concerning those white captives, isn't it strange that we learn so very little about them, their names and their fate? Where were they buried? What happened to the surviving ones if they were really present What were their names?

Overhaul started

I have started the overhaul now since I can't see who would do it otherwise. The entire approach in presenting the issue seems substandard to me and rather an appendix to some Custer glorification. It is unacceptable to take the clearly propagandistic accounts of only one side as the facts material as has happened in this article. I will revamp the article to a more balanced depiction in several increments as time permits. I kindly request all those who disagree to dicuss ad not engage in undue edit wars. Thank you!

User:Lookoo

White captives

I won't accept a complete rewriting of the article without other evidences than George Bent, whose bias towards Native Americans is well known. Colonel Nelson Miles wrote a letter about the two white boys being freed. He wrote that the two boys were in poor condition, because they were probably starving during their custody. Miss Blinn and her child were discovered by the men of 19th Kansas near the location where Black Kettle had been killed, according to 7th cavalry members. An autopsy of both bodies was performed by Dr Lippincott, who said that Willie Blinn, two-years-old boy, had been smashed against a tree by the Cheyennes. General Custer stated about a white child being killed in the village and a white woman, captive, being killed too.

I wonder if the "more balanced" view will ne bot a complete rewriting of history in favor of Indians.

Indian prisoners told Dick Curtis that 13 warchiefs (including Little Rock and Black Kettle) were killed at the battle. Black Kettle himself said that his warriors were killing settlers. A "peaceful" chief isn't in a village full of warriors who are killing settlers.

It's not because Hollywood have decided to rewrite every historical fact in Indian favor that it's true. Black Kettle's involvment in the massacres was well-known.

Evidences - http://www.custerwest.org

Custerwest 17:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ, it is well known that indian tribal behaviour was not always unitary. The younger warriors frequently took a lead of their own in what might be called military matters. They did not simply follow the lead of Village chiefs. it is quite within the bounds of probability that younger more aggressive men were dissatisfied with what was occurring and took it uppon themselves to go off and make war on their enemies, if you look at entries about leaders such as about Chief Joseph or Rain in the Face this is clearly what was happening, The Young warriors decided war policy not the chiefs. Read up about the dog soldiers. I have made some changes to bring this article more into line with other Wiki Articles on related areas.

If you want to suggest that this is all down to the fault of naughty Indians who refused to keep to agreements, or to suggest that this was simply a massacre, you really ought to go and search out and change a lot of articles on the Indian Wars. And not just this one otherwise you are being inconsistent, and making Wikipedia inconsistent too. Don't forget for example to change the entry where Custer says he has sympathies towards the Indians who resisted.

I also suggest that looking at why the indians may have acted as they did, is a lot more NPOV then simply looking at it from an American determination of their actions. - Anton Mon/25/Jun/2007

Modern US Army version

I actually don't really know if "the Indians lost perhaps 50 killed and as many wounded" covers the civilians or not. --HanzoHattori 17:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

So I decided "up to 75" total (maybe an overstimate, but well). --HanzoHattori 16:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Who is editing this page?

I wonder who's the idiot who's editing the page and taking the footnotes off. Gosh, is it an encyclopedia or not? FOOTNOTES are history. Modern accounts of the battle doesn't put any 75 dead etc. What's wrong with you? Account of the battle put Cheyennes casualties to more than 100, or closer to 100 warriors killed (historian Jeffry Wert). The "modern US army version" is a simple website, it's not serious... Is anyone here doing some researchs?

http://www.custerwest.org Custerwest 16:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)