Talk:Fort Mims massacre

Casualty estimates

Casualty estimates from the Adams and Leckie are 400-500 whites and 400 Creek Warriors. Rootsweb reports 250 whites (the number scalps reported in other sources) and 100 Creek

Date contradiction

When was the real date of this battle? This article gives three different dates, and they are far apart. Could somebody fix this? Roy Al Blue 01:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Done!! --Brian 20:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of this, how is it that the massacre comes before the battle of Burnt Corn on the chronology listing at the bottom of the factfile box thingy (sorry, don't know wiki technical terms so good :S)? Burnt Corn was the battle which persuaded the Red Sticks to attack Fort Mims in the first place, according to that article. I wonder if, perhaps, the prevailing view among American historians is that the Creek War started with the massacre, and thus this is given precedence in the usual jingoistic manner, rather than the battle which the Red Sticks themselves regarded as a '"declaration of war" by the American settlers'? Seems that this aspect might do with looking into. 172.206.122.190 19:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008

Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest rules

Members of the Mimms family are attempting to edit this article for the benefit of their family history, as one editor admitted. That violates WP:COI which states: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. COI editing is strongly discouraged." Furthermore edits have to be explicitly based on reliable secondary sources -- and certainly not on family traditions handed down over the centuries. Rjensen (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a clear violation of Wikipedia and although the editor has been informed of this he refuses to stop. Dwalrus (talk) 12:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Source Request

Would it be possible to reference a source for the statement that indicates Weatherford attempted to stop the massacre once the fort was effectively taken? Otherwise, it sounds like politically-correct editorial commentary. If Weatherford actually did attempt to stop the massacre, then there should be legitimate sources stating so. If not, the sentence, "The warriors forced their way into the inner enclosure and, despite the attempts of Weatherford, massacred most of the mixed-blood Creek and white settlers." should be amended to eliminate the clause describing Weatherford's attempts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.189.21.155 (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Ref supplied, also rewrites & refs to establish that there is first: a battle (in particular a storm of the fort) and following the battle: a massacre - not just a massacre. Sources show that the defenders resisted throughout the action.Tttom1 (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fort Mims massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530232613/http://www.preserveala.org/fortmims.aspx?sm=g_f to http://www.preserveala.org/fortmims.aspx?sm=g_f
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111004085800/http://preserveala.org/fortmims.aspx?sm=g_f to http://preserveala.org/fortmims.aspx?sm=g_f

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

How Battle started from stories of Red Eagle’s descendant.

Chief Red Eagle (William Weatherford, Aka Lamochattee) is my paternal Great-Great-Great-GreatGrandfather (4x). I was told by my paternal Great-Grandmother, who was born on the Reservation in Indian Territory before it became Oklahoma and lived with my parents and I from the day I was born until I was in the 3rd grade. She and her brother (my Great-Great-Uncle), and later my grandmother and father, told me that this is how the battle of Fort Mim’s began. This is my best recollection of their words as all of them have been in the Spirit World for some time now:

“The Creek (like the related Cherokee) frequently played a very brutal lacrosse type game that was/is called "Chung-he", people were frequently wounded in this intense sport, broken bones were common and accidental deaths were not unheard of in the game. Apparently, the fort's troops and local settlers appreciated watching this game. So, the day of the raid the Redsticks set up a Chung-he game just outside of the fort's main gate. This made sense as the area surrounding the fort, especially the area of the main gate, were kept neatly cleared for security reasons making sneaking up to the fort virtually impossible. Also, since the game was such an appreciated spectacle, the forts troops allowed it to be played in close proximity so the game could be viewed from the safety of the fort (and where troops would be doing daily tasks). Anyway, the Redsticks commenced to playing the game and in the course of the game the ball was "accidentally" overthrown to within the fort's gate, when all the warriors rushed the gate it was assumed that they were just going after the ball as it was still in play, they got within the fort then the surprise attack began with reinforcements who were acting as spectators rushing in from the sidelines to support the lead attack. Then more of warriors followed from the woods.”

Like all of my family’s Native Oral history” I have only the words of my Elders and Ancestors to substantiate my claims; so, I’m not posting this on the article. But, if someone would have the ability and time to research this for the main article that’d be great. Thanks Paulsprecker (talk) 05:15, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, I acknowledge the value of the oral history of indigenous peoples. Secondly, I’m writing this comment with respect, drawing on my own knowledge and not judging anyone else’s ideas. So, when I read this interesting description of the ruse de guerre used by the red sticks to attack the fort, I wondered if I had mixed up the articles I was reading. The same stratagem is described in the attack on Fort Michilimackinac! I have a vague recollection of another instance in the Great Lakes region, but haven’t been able to dredge it up from my memory or find a reference. It is quite possible for the tactic to have been used by indigenous peoples in widely separated locations. It is also possible that one group learned of the strategy from another, through trade or intermarriage. No action is needed. I just want to point out the similarity. If sources for these histories can be found, they could be combined in an interesting article about the tactics of indigenous peoples. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 21:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

To add to article

To add to this article: of the 252 American civilian settlers who were killed, how many were women and children? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

métis

I question the use of the term métis in this article. Perhaps intentionally, it is not capitalized, and is defined as “people of mixed American Indian and Euro-American ancestry”. However, the link is to the article Métis which describes the indigenous group usually associated with Canada. The term is not used in the article about the Muskogee people.

I have never come across the use of any variant of the term for people south of the Great Lakes and northern prairie regions. Nevertheless, Wikipedia tells me that in the modern United States, some Métis people live in Michigan, Illinois, Ohio, Minnesota, North Dakota and Montana. That is a considerable distance from modern Alabama. They are the descendants from marriages of French, Scottish, and English men with Algonquian, Ojibwe and Cree women. The Muskogee people aren’t mentioned. (Is it possible an editor confused Creek with Cree?)

To gain a sense of common usage, I checked Wiktionary. Most of the variations (capitalized or not, accent or not) of métis do not mention United States at all. The closest is the form metis, defined: - A person of mixed-race ancestry. - (chiefly Canada, US) Alternative letter-case form of Metis (“a member of one of three Canadian Aboriginal peoples; any person of mixed European and Indigenous descent”) - (US) A person of one-eighth black ancestry; an octoroon.

I am aware that definitions of Métis, métis, and metis are disputed. However, I think it is used incorrectly in this article. In the absence of references to support the usage in this article, I am being bold and editing it accordingly.

Furthermore, it doesn’t seem accurate to describe people in conflict with the United States as “Native Americans“. I doubt they considered themselves American except in the most general sense. So I have modified that wording too. Humphrey Tribble (talk) 07:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)