Talk:Red Cloud's War

Start

Feel free to add to this, as this is the extent of my current knowledge of 19th century U.S history! Ben, 15 England.

Deadliest?

“One of the deadliest enemies the American military ever faced” I feel very uncomfortable with this statement. Highly debatable, to say the least. I do not mean to diminish his accomplishments, but was he comparable to Japanese naval commanders in WWII? The German commanders of both world wars. The North Koreans and Chinese of the Korean War, or even of any number of Confederate Generals? How many American military personnel died in Red Cloud’s War? Surely less than in many naval disasters involving a single boat.

I think something along the lines of “One of the most effective and deadly Native American tribal war leaders ever to face the American military” would be less clouded and biased. prior comment by Eebmore

I think the community agrees; that line was deleted from the article rewinn 06:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment

• Added by Special:Contributions/71.222.224.154 to the main page, moved here by CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC):

Although an Indian side is often taken to this massacre we must look at it from a US standpoint! In fact the main cause of the Fetterman massacre in history was in fact the Indians.

scapegoated?

in the Fetterman massacre section it claims that Col. Carrington was scapegoated, wouldn't a better term be blamed? Scapegoated seems like it violates NPOV. 4.239.249.127 21:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I made the change; also took the quotes off the section title since they had no function. rewinn 21:46, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Date of Fetterman Massacre?

I am unable to glean from the article when the Fetterman Massacre took place. This should be obvious within the first ¶ of that section. Rychach (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

"Fetterman massacre" needs its own article

--Captain Obvious and his crime-fighting dog (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

POV?

I'm new to this, but I can't help but feel the majority of this article is intended to praise Red Cloud. Almost the entire aftermath section is about how great a guy Red Cloud was. And while the article states that the US changed policy from open war to less hostility, it's a result of a change in leadership and a desire not to waste effort protecting less desirable trails. It doesn't seem like US motives or views are at all taken into account as with other Indian Wars resulting in treaties, and instead just boasts in the introduction and infobox about the Indians' "complete victory" (despite saying right after that there was only a temporary preservation of their control of the Powder River country).

Shouldn't this be a little more balanced? Cobalt Agent (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The temporary nature of their control was not the result of red clouds war. That fact is mentioned in the articles of the wars and treaties that followed.--71.239.120.235 (talk) 13:21, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Details about Indians taunting Fetterman

Since every person in Fetterman's command was killed exactly how do we know the details about the Indians taunting him by shaking their bare buttocks, Seriously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.201.89.193 (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, from the testimony of Lakota participants in the battle, many of whom spoke to historians after the armed conflict had ended. Interestingly, most of them admiringly attributed the buttock-baring stratagem and in fact the whole entrapment scheme to Crazy Horse. Sensei48 (talk) 16:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Edits, 71/1/10

Previous edits have given undue weight to a single and recent article propounding a theory of "Cheyenne Primacy" in the Plains wars on the late 19th century. Dr. Margot Liberty, author of the monograph, titled her piece "Cheyenne Primacy: The Tribes' Perspective As Opposed To That Of The United States Army; A Possible Alternative To "The Great Sioux War Of 1876". (boldface mine) Dr. Liberty's work deserves recognition and acknowledgment, but it has been interpolated into a number of Plains wars articles as the definitive and exclusive way to understand the conflicts - which is clearly far out of proportion to what even Dr. Liberty contended. Edits here reflect correct proportionality. Sensei48 (talk) 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Proper Title?

I know Dee Brown calls it the "Fetterman Massacre" (and that title comes up most commonly in Amazon due in no small part to the number of editions of Brown's work out there), but Frontier Army specialists (Paul Hutton, Robert Utley, and Paul Hedren, to name a few) usually call it the Fetterman Fight. Massacre implies a purely one-sided event, and the Battle of the Hundred in the Hand was not that. Thoughts?Intothatdarkness (talk) 19:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is very inaccurate and biased, particular in its history articles, and it needs to stay that way... If the Native Americans hadn't picked on the European immigrants as violently as they did, the US would be a very different place. Stevenmitchell (talk) 02:57, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Fight is a better term than massacre because it is more neutral. I have great respect for Brown's seminal contributions to popular history, but we don't talk of the "Massacre of Hastings". Let me see if I can reword this article. rewinn (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm! Not wanting to intrude on American grief, but perhaps 'Massacre' might be an appropriate term after all. Although there are some who believe that the word implies a one-side affair, that is indeed what a reading of this and the Fetterman article seems to suggest. How many braves were lost as a result of the action - anywhere from 1.5 to about 15% of participants, although many disregard such a high upper estimate. How many whites were killed - everyone. Totalled. That's 100%. My dictionaries include a definition of a massacre as "an act of complete destruction"; "complete defeat or destruction". That's exactly what was brought down upon the heads of Capt. Fetterman and his unfortunate companions. It may well have been a one-sided affair, and it may well not have had a neutral outcome, but that's the nature of war. A 'fight', by the way, is the sort of nonsense one occasionally sees in or around pubs at chucking-out time. And Hastings certainly wasn't a 'massacre', but there again it wasn't a 'fight' either - that's why it's called the Battle of Hastings. Have a great day y'all.VapourGhost (talk) 18:21, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Red Cloud’s War. Is edit correct?

My formulation of the Territorial changes resulting from Red Cloud’s War was “Lakota and Cheyenne ownership of a large territory confimed by peace treaty.” User:Sensei48 made the addition “other claimed lands ceded to Federal government.” And commented “Let’s not rewrite history.”

Looking at the Treaty of Laramie I don’t believe Sensei's formulation is accurate. I don’t see anything in the treaty about the Indians ceding any land to the Federal government. What I see in article 11 is the following: "ARTICLE 11. In consideration of the advantages and benefits conferred by this treaty, and the many pledges of friendship by the United States, the tribes who are parties to this agreement hereby stipulate that they will relinquish all right to occupy permanently the territory outside their reservation as herein defined, but yet reserve the right to hunt on any lands north of North Platte, and on the Republican Fork of the Smoky Hill River, so long as the buffalo may range thereon in such numbers as to justify the chase...."

Nomadic hunters giving up the right to “occupy permanently” but retaining hunting rights doesn’t seem the same to me as ceding land -- especially in the minds of the Lakota/Cheyenne who probably saw this clause as affirming, rather than limiting, their hunting rights.

I believe we should consider an alternate formulation. “Lakota and Cheyenne ownership of a large territory and hunting rights on other lands confirmed by treaty.”

I fully agree that we shouldn’t “rewrite history.” Smallchief (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Re-posting from my Talk page - this is probably ther best place to discuss:

Hi Smallchief - Thanks for the lucid explanation. We are looking at the same passage in the treaty but seeing something different. I took literally "they will relinquish all right to occupy permanently the territory outside their reservation" as ceding land, and that was the point of the treaty for the govt - to confine the previously free-roaming bands to a specific set of boundaries, on land that at the time the govt deemed worthless. Recall that the treaty was flagrantly abrogated immediately after gold was discovered in the Black Hills in 1874, after a "peace commission" attempted to buy off headmen deemed malleable by the Interior people, thereby accomplishing the cession of even more land.

I see some problems here. The infobox should indeed indicate that this war was a victory for the Lakota, especially since it was the only protracted conflict between the whites and the native peoples that could be termed so. But at the same time, and it has been argued that differing perceptions of land ownership were at the root of a colossal misunderstanding, the native peoples are for the first time in the eyes of the whites agreeing to a kind of confinement that they had never agreed to before. For the whites, that fact was the operative outcome of the war and the whole point of the Laramie treaty. Further, I'm not sure that we can base what is supposed to be a factual notation on what we think might have been in the minds of the nomadic people - or the government commissioners, for that matter. That would by more of the same WP:OR that currently afflicts the article. Note, though, that the article identifies the Powder River country as "unceded territory," which means that other lands were indeed ceded.

So - if there remains a "territorial changes" line in the infobox (and there is no requirement that there be) - I can't see it as asserting an unqualified triumph for the native peoples because it was not. Ditto the article itself - that "as long as the grass shall grow" line in the Laramie document has long and universally been cited by historians as a bitter irony given the abrogation of the treaty and the loss of all those lands within a decade.

How about just dropping the territorial changes? regards,Sensei48 (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that seems a reasonable suggestion. I'll make the change.

I see the treaty differently than you. It appears to me the Indians got what they wanted -- freedom to hunt buffalo anywhere from western Kansas to the Canadian border. While the US did not legally "cede" the Powder River country to the Indians, the treaty prohibited Whites from entering that territory and thus gave the Indians possession -- and possession is 9/10 of the law (so the old saying goes.) (Not that it mattered in the long run, but at the time the U.S. chose to back off rather than expend the resources it would have taken to subdue the Lakota/Cheyenne.) Smallchief (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, I agree with you that this article needs some work. I've acquired a couple of good books on the war, so will undertake some improvements. Smallchief (talk) 22:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Just a little cheering here. I like the map and the correction to number of warriors. It occurs to me, though - only the Fetterman fight/100 Slain battle has any developed attention in an article about a war. I think that Wagon Box and Hayfield deserve at least a bit of amplification. Your thoughts? Sensei48 (talk) 10:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking that the Fetterman fight deserves an article all its own. Arguably, it was the second most important engagement of the U.S. army with the Plains Indians and lesser battles have their own article. So, I might write a more detailed article on Fetterman fight and shorten slightly the Fetterman section of Red Cloud's War article. What do we title the article? Fetterman massacre is misleading and 100 slain battle may be a bit obscure. Fetterman Battle?

I agree the Wagon Box and Hayfield battle articles should be amplified. Also, the Red Cloud's War article is somewhat misleading in that it gives the impression that the whole war consisted of the Fetterman, Wagon Box, and Hayfield engagements. As I read it, the country near Fort Kearny was under nearly continuous attack for months. For example, I've encountered one source which lists 15 engagements between July 16 and Sept 27, 1866 in which six soldiers and 28 civilians were killed and more than 300 hundred head of livestock were lost to the Indians.

Plus the article doesn't mention the famous ride of Portugee Phillips. That should be in there. Smallchief (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Coming in somewhat late here, but Fetterman Fight is a term seen in Indian Wars literature so would be acceptable for an article title (IMO). Fort Phil Kearny was under siege according to most accounts I've seen, with almost constant attacks on woodcutting parties and livestock herds in the vicinity of the fort. All the Powder River forts had the same issue, but since Carrington's garrison was the largest it came under most frequent attack. It might be worthwhile to add a cite of some sort when discussing Metzger and the deaths of Brown and Fetterman. If their causes of death are listed as "debated," we should show where the debate has taken place. Intothatdarkness 17:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and guidance. By coincidence, I had just finished some major revisions of Red Cloud's War and am now researching a separate article on the Fetterman Fight. But what should the article be titled? Fetterman massacre is the most common term -- but hardly accurate. Battle of the Hundred Dead is too obscure, in my view. That leaves Fetterman fight or Fetterman battle. I think I prefer Fetterman battle. What do you think?

I believe the Fetterman battle deserves a good, long article. It is the most famous battle, after the Little Big Horn, of the American West. Once a separate Fetterman article is completed, then the Battle of the Hundred Dead section in the Red Cloud's War article can be revised and shortened somewhat. I agree we should cover the controversies and disagreements among scholars about the battle in the article. Smallchief 17:24, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Utley, I believe, uses Fetterman Fight. I'm actually ok with either one, but agree that massacre shouldn't be used. Fetterman Fight has the advantage of alliteration in the title, and also seems consistent with the number of soldiers engaged and the fact that the fighting by all accounts didn't last very long. But again, I'm ok with either fight or battle.

Fetterman fight then it will be. It does have a better sound. Smallchief 17:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

MilHist B Class Notes

I just finished the B-Class review for this article. It's very close, with only a few bits of information needing citations (the comments about the US casualties, Red Cloud's death, those marked by need cite tags, and so on). It may be worth noting that the Sioux and their allies burned all the Powder River posts as soon as they were evacuated, but I didn't mark the article down for completeness because of this. Intothatdarkness 19:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Appearance of WP:SYNTH - Does This Passage Need an Inline Citation?

The otherwise well-written paragraph beginning

"Historians have estimated that Red Cloud's warriors numbered up to 4,000 men.[18] That estimate seems exaggerated. The total number of Lakota in 1865 was about 13,860.[19] The Northern Cheyenne and Arapaho numbered about 3,000 adding up to a total of about 17,000 Indian men, women, and children. If one in four were adult males, the total number of warriors would be about 4,000, but thousands of people in all three of those tribes were not in the Powder River country with Red Cloud. Many who were stayed aloof from the war. Thus, it seems likely that Red Cloud had no more than 2,000 warriors and unlikely that he could put even that many men in the field at any given time."

appears on the surface to be WP:SYNTH, from the phrase I boldfaced, "That estimate seems exaggerated," through what looks like analysis on the part of the editor who wrote it.

If this analysis is from a secondary source, an inline citation would be very helpful in establishing the fact.

A reading of the text indicates to me that such an analysis may have been made by the author of reference 20. I do not have access to that source. Could someone who does have access to it read the source to see whether or not the analysis in this paragraph exists there?

The alternative would be to delete the entire analysis as WP:SYNTH, which I don't wish to do if it can be avoided. loupgarous (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Good catch. As it happens and courtesy of The Nebraska State Historical Society, the entire article cited as note 19 is available as a .pdf here. [1] The passage that you quote is OR as well as SYNTH, and author Bray's summary conclusions do not tend in the direction of the edit. 2/3 of the paragraph, starting with "If one in four..." needs to be deleted as inference, though early in the article Bray makes some generalizations about possible number of warriors between 1785 and 1881 that might be integrated into that paragraph instead. Sensei48 (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! loupgarous (talk) 21:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Minor editing needed in References section?

I've just noticed that there are three citations to a work by Colson (45-47), but no previous mention of this author. There IS a work by Olson (8, 9 and 36) - I guess the former are simply typos? Could someone with access to Mr Olson's book please check these former reference pages and correct the text if appropriate? Thanks.VapourGhost (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Additions related to Crow people

These additions are good, but there do not need to be so many direct quotes in the Lead, and I think it is now too long, with too many details about historic context, relations among Indians. This section is supposed to be a summary of material from the article.Parkwells (talk) 14:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

You pointed me to more sources, and I think it's worthwhile to add content about intertribal warfare preceding this period. It was not only the Crow who lost territory to the Lakota, and not only the Crow whom the US abandoned.Parkwells (talk) 16:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Red Cloud's War. 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/20131029195448/http://www.bozemantrail.org/index.html to http://www.bozemantrail.org/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120618235915/http://www.hackman-adams.com/guns/58musket.htm to http://www.hackman-adams.com/guns/58musket.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927070903/http://philkearny.vcn.com/fortphilkearny.htm to http://philkearny.vcn.com/fortphilkearny.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.philkearny.vcn.com/crazywomanbattle.htmlCrazy

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) 20:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism?

A user had been making minor changes concerning casualties of wars, and I see they edited this page. The change was from ~200 to 200+, it might be worth checking. Cxbrx (talk) 05:28, 9 February 2021 (UTC)