If Indians are raiding settler's homes and stealing cattle it was because the buffalo herds were being slaughtered by government approved and sanctioned white hunters. The deer, elk, and antelope were also being slaghtered by whites. Then the Indians were forced onto reservations and were promised supplies and rations that were not delivered adequately. The government created the problem of hungry Indians. Whites even slaughtered game animals on reservaton lands,
Of course that docu doesn`t say that the Dakota on Minnesota in 1862 where starving because of corrpupt white indian agents and that was the reason of the riot!!!
That's true Steve the Dakota were hungry. They had legitimate grievances due to incompetence and corruption among the white traders. Also due to bad luck because of crop failures.
So maybe that explains why they broke into the storehouse and obtained food before the uprising began. Does that explain the gratuitous violence of the event though? In many cases these Dakota had killed settlers who were sharing food with them.
Agents didn`t care if the Dakota starved to death. One Agent said: If they are hungry, they can eat grass.
Of course this doesn`t justify the murdering of settlers.
But what had the Dakota Uprising to do with the peaceful Cheyenne at Sand Creek? THere were no Dog Soldiers among that village.
THere is not any excuse for that massacre. It is a warcrime. Racistical motivated massmurderer. 100s of westerns show evil indians attacking innocent whites. But few westerns show massacres like S.C.
I recommend ''Over the Earth I Come'' by Duane Schultz for anyone interested in the Minnesota Massacre of 1862. It doesn't sugarcoat the situation that the Dakota were in before hand nor the subsequent violence.
coloradocav has replied to your comment on Sand Creek Massacre Part 1:
well, I think holding a little girl by the legs and beating her over a log for is wrong, like in the family in Minnesota that was massacred by Indians in 1862. Get real, everybody thinks only us white men commited atrocities. Get away from the elementary school book garbage and read real accounts, journals, diarys from people that were there. Red and White had an equal part back then.
Biological warfare?? LOL!! The fact is the Indians were infected with disease by digging up white graves scalping the corpses and taking anything that the corpse was wrapped in. If the U.S. Government had biological warfare back in the day they could have conquered the world. That's almost as stupid as saying they conquered the Indians with Nuclear Missiles. The Indians were a nomadic race- they would over hunt an area killing everything usually by running whole herds of buffalo over a cliff
I agree someone trying to spread a disease around that they are already infected with would only qualify as biological warfare in the most basic sense. Someone else was calling it ''chemical warfare'' which would be an incorrect designation altogether though so I had to point that out. Even this type of behavior is almost entirely absent from the historical record though.
The only documented case of ''smallpox blankets'' being given to Indians is the one case from Pontiac's rebellion and the Indians they were given to were trying to break into the British fort where the Smallpox was breaking out at anyway! These particular Indians also already had Smallpox breaking out among them for a month or more before the blankets had been handed out.
You mention the digging up of Smallpox victims graves by Indians which is documented. They were also raiding English settlements that were infected with Smallpox.
It's never been demonstrated the United States government ever tried to infect the Indians with anything.
Smallpox and other deadly diseases didn't need any planned help from anyone to spread and kill. They did well enough on their own among Indians and Whites. Though the effects were worse among the Indians.
Show me where you got the information about them digging up bodies to scalp them and broaden your knowledge only a portion were nomadic. Most of the tribes were either just farmers or semi nomadic hunting smaller game when food was running low.
The digging up of graves I was referring to happened in 1757 after the fall of Fort William Henry.
The Indian allies of the French dug up the Forts graves because they didn't get enough scalps from the attack they made on the British who had left the Fort after being promised safe conduct.
I'll post the link at the top of the sidebar. Anytime you want information redvsblue2 you just ask.
and to include u guys in, lincoln signed for black slaves to be freed, and the same year he ordered all buffalo to be slaughtered, and one more thing. remember that all books are written by white man, so no telling how many lies they put in their books, all ndnz know how white man is when paper is involved!
Ah yeah Central America, where the United States isn't located. I thought this video, my channel and coloradocav's comments focused on the settlement of the USA.
I guess I just missed all the references to Cortes, De Soto, and Pizarro in the video and our comments.
Records indicate from Navajo sources that the Ute and Pawnee took children for slavery during the Taos slave trade of 1600s. More consideration to other sources and accounts that contributed to the actions of the Southern Cheyennes. Research at the Colorado History Museum indicates there were not many ranches destroyed. Only one stagecoach was ransacked, a cow was killed, and there were two other incidents like food stolen. The killing of the family was was proven to by the court.
Thank you for the comments. Its very wise of you to ask for citations of sources. All the articles you are referring to are written by historian Gregory Michno. For any one interested in further information and cites from said articles should consult ''The Battle at Sand Creek by Gregory Michno Upton and Sons 2004.
I'm not aware of the ''Colorado Historical Museum'' being the preeminent source on the fight at Sand Creek and surrounding events in 1864. If you feel that there is something important that you would like to post here from organizations in Colorado or elsewhere on this subject feel free to do so.
I don't know what you mean by ''psychological argument.'' If what you mean is that Chivington and the Colorado soldiers were not angered by the death and mutilation of the Hungate family and other settlers then I'm afraid that's just completely wrong.
I don't know of anything in this video or of the articles linked in the side bar that describes John Chivington as ''peaceful'' or ''God fearing.'' Chivington was a soldier involved in a war with the South and Indians so to describe him as being completely peaceful as in a pacifist or something would be ridiculous and I know of no one who would claim such a thing. As to whether he was God fearing I have no clue and make no claim to that effect.
Did Chivington try to prevent Civilian Casualties at Sand Creek? I have no idea. Maybe he didn't. Maybe he ordered everyone killed. There is quite a bit of contradictory information in the record and the investigations. Chivington had political enemies who had an interest in defaming him.
When you start talking about ''Puritans'', ''Dutch'' and ''Quakers'' taking land from the Cheyennes thats just completely historically inaccurate. Are you trying to say the Cheyenne homeland was Pennsylvania, New England and New York?
The Cheyenne movements prior to the 1850's was largely influenced by wars with other Indians not whites and they certainly never had any contact with the groups you mention.
You had better research into the Dine', Hopi, Southern Cheyenne, and Nahuatl languages because the historical accounts would like to disregard activity of interaction. The museums of New Mexico have archaeological evidence on ceramics that predates 1740 indicates the Arapahoe were in contact with New Mexico tribes and Pueblos. Any museum can tell you that.
If Chivington wanted to fight against slavery then Lincoln doesn't get credit for John Chivington's views, Chivington's views good or bad are his own not someone else's.
The Buffalo Soldiers had nothing to do with Chivington's or anyone else's views on slavery. The first regiment that was referred to as ''Buffalo soldiers'' was not formed until 1866 so they had nothing to do with what Chivington or anyone else thinks about anything in 1864.
Lincoln never helped any slaves escape anywhere. Once again the buffalo soldiers were not formed until 1866 as if it matters since they have nothing to do with any of this.
I hate to break it to you but plenty of people were worked up over slavery before the cival war began, the buffalo soldiers didn't inspire the controversy.
When you say ''there were not many ranches destroyed. Only one stagecoach was ransacked, a cow was killed, and there were two other incidents like food stolen'' I'm afraid you're incorrect.
In the Little Blue River Raids August 7-9th 1864 38 settlers were killed, 9 wounded and 5 captured.
In the Plum Creek Massacre 8th of August 1864 13 settlers were killed and 2 were captured.
There were other deaths of settlers in other smaller raids during the summer.
You had better research the Southern Cheyenne becasue the Colorado History Museum has all of the Infomation that took place in the Colorado territory. If you are talking of Nebraska, then you are talking about the Northern Cheyenne, after the separation of Southern Cheyenne. The Northern Cheyenne were the band that still carried on the traditions of the Dog Soldiers and not the Southern. Some great Archaeological books are in the Archives and Western History in Denver Public Library.
you had better know your facts cause there are dogsoldiers in the southern cheyenne tribe, i should know cause im southern cheyenne. books mean nothing, they are written by whiteman
Thats kind of what the video is saying, that all the Cheyenne tribes North and South were responsible for wacking settlers, (not to mention other Indians) which is why the soldiers at Sand Creek were pissed.
The "chemical warfare" talked about above is the fact than when our people were forced into camps and reservations they had to get their food from the army and when the army gave them rancid beef and blankets infested with disease a lot of Natives died and for what ...Greed that's what...
Only recorded instance of someone handing out blankets THEY HOPED were infected with Smallpox was when British Captain Ecuyer who was besieged at Fort Pitt handed out two blankets in 1763.
Thats the only instance, probably didn't even work and had nothing to do with reservations, peaceful Indians, or the United States government for that matter.
Is he kidding! almost every ranch and station between little blue and Sterling Colorado were destroyed. there were many wagons ransacked and destroyed, like you mentioned the wagon train massacres near Plum creek station Nebraska. whole family of innocent people mutilated. I helped locate the mass grave of these people so that they could possibly be moved to the pioneer cemetery just down the road. Check out the ransacking and burning of Julesburg.
since you must have deleted your comment you sent to reply to an older comment, since I cannot find it I'll reply here. Yeah I know there were atrocities on both sides but the "indians" did not wipe out and kill entire towns, maybe a few people but realize that perhaps their family and his Chiefs family and his best friends family's were all killed off by diseases and such. part 2 next comment
I'd like the documents, because I highly doubt a tribe could killed have killed around 500 or so people in a village, maybe force them to relocate but not wipe them out. Whereas entire tribes in some cases would be reduced to a couple familys or less from idk 400 people due to diseases. Please do correct me if im wrong.
I also have some additional bad news for you. Infectious disease was the leading cause of death in the United States and world wide into the beginning of the 20th century.
So if you think the Indians were alone in their ''long painful deaths'' from disease you are quite mistaken.
Europeans, despite some peoples fervent imaginations, don't happen to be gods who control disease and it's spread.
I never did say they were god's who could control diseases, Also diseases were spreading long before the turn of the 20th century. I know that whites too were getting the diseases that the natives were getting. The only difference was that some diseases that seemed minuscule to whites was devastating for native community's plus whites had anti biotics and doctors.
You see though my friend this is another misconception you have.
''Bacterial antagonism of Penicillium spp. were first described in England by John Tyndall in 1875. However, his work went by without much notice from the scientific community until Alexander Fleming's discovery of Penicillin in 1928. Even then the therapeutic potential of penicillin was not pursued."
More than ten years later, Ernst Chain and Howard Florey became interested in Fleming's work following the earlier discovery of another natural antibiotic like substance named gramicidin from B. brevis. In 1939 Rene Dubos isolated gramicidin, one of the first commercially manufactured antibiotics in use during World War II to prove highly effective in treating wounds and ulcers.''
Whites in the 1800's and back did not have antibiotics. People from the early 20th century didn't either.
Also a lot of people seem to think that a family getting killed, scalped and maybe even mutilated is worse then a whole tribe of men women and children suffering a long painful death. Also I wasn't taught about Natives in elementary school.
For more information on the raids one should consult ''Massacre Along the Medicine Road: A Social History of the Indian War of 1864 in Nebraska Territory'' by Ronald Becher.
I'm placing more information on these raids, the murder of the Hungate family and also links to the best books on Sand Creek in the side bar. I encourage everyone to read the primary sources for themselves.
Again, you are talking of the Northern Cheyenne and not the Southern Cheyenne. The two tribes did not unite until after the Sand Creek Massacre. To call the Northern Cheyenne as being Southern Cheyenne, then obviously there may be some type of narrow view for the research. Although there may be no book written about the contact of the Southern Cheyenne, archaeologica evidence in Museums in New Mexico disproves your assumption that there was no contact between plains and peublo tribes.
I'm sure there was plenty of contact between the plains and pueblo tribes and that contact included war, slavery, and mutilation in addition to the mundane events of every day life.
whoa dude, natives never disrespected fallen enemy warrior bodies, the white man is the one who desacrates bodies, the french were the first to scalp!
In this case you have no clue what you are talking about.
Archeology proves scalping (not to mention much worse mutilation) had been practiced in North America a thousand years before the arrival of Europeans in 1492. You can also read the accounts of early explorers. Indians scalping each other is documented in the records of the early French and English explorers from Canada to Florida by 1608.
scalping is done because thats how they gained honour and prestige. To you, a white man, that is gross and dumb, but if you were born a native american of the time, this is just tradition. To them there was nothing wrong with it. Just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean it is.
I didn't say it made them gross or dumb your putting words in my mouth.
I'm just reporting what actually happened.
If you took the time to read the comments here you would see the only reason scalping is being discussed is because an INDIAN posting on this video is saying scalping is horrible and Europeans invented it. Since that is a lie thats why its being discussed.
Alright my bad on the scalping thing, I didn't know a Native American was saying stuff. As for putting words in your mouth, I was meaning white people of the time as a whole, hell even today. If you walked up to a random person and said, "if you seen a man cutting the scalp off of a dead man's head what would you think?" they are going to be grossed out.
No it wasn't. Scalping was documented by early French, English and Dutch explorers as being practiced from Canada to Florida by the year by 1608.
It was first observed by a European in North America being practiced among the Stadaconan tribe by Jacques Cartier when he sailed down the St Lawrence river in 1535.
Scalping is also well documented in the archaeological record as being in North America LONG before Europeans arrived during the colonial age.
Many different tribes had different words for the scalp, the act of scalping and scalping victim. They also had beliefs about what would happen if one lost ones scalp and ceremonies built around it. Many dried them on hoops sometimes painting and decorating them. Many Indians also wore what was known as a scalp lock which was a small braid of hair on the crown of the head.
I'm going to post links about scalping in the side bad for a few days so people can read about it.
For more information on the raids one should consult ''Massacre Along the Medicine Road: A Social History of the Indian War of 1864 in Nebraska Territory'' by Ronald Becher.
I'm placing more information on these raids, the murder of the Hungate family and also links to the best books on Sand Creek in the side bar. I encourage everyone to read the primary sources for themselves.
Trade routes from Central Mexico to Canada, the dreamcatcher of Navajo culture from Eastern Seabord tribes before Europeans indicates the Cheyennes were involved in a trade route. imited information from historian without looking at all information makes the idea that the Cheyennes before being split into two bands by the Arapahoe before any agreement with them indicates more was occuring than these historians have spent time researching. In New Mexico, plains art appears predate the 1700s.
The historians argument has been presented with no knowledge of language, or encompassing research. The Uto- Aztecan languages are not said to include the Navajo or Southern Cheyenne languages but language immersion research into the Navajo and Nahuatl languages including Papago for still existent phonology, more neede to be researched before making some wild thought based argument.The South. Cheyenne dilect has the same x sound that is similar to Nahuatl and the Dine/Navajo language.
. The Southern Cheyenne dialect and Northern dialect also indicate rising and falling tones of spoken language that is similar to the Hopi and more similarity with Navajo - this indicates that there was some type of connection that predates the 1700s, so the historical account that the Cheyenne migrated here to Colorado needs to be rethunk.
Chivington did not stop and talk with Black Kettle to see what he was holding in his hands. Diplomacy is what it has been called but gold, land, and a strange sense of trying to preserve families by taking land after a treaty was made and breaking treaties does not help your argument at all.
Even the video does not look deeper into the reasons surrounding why the Cheyennes left their homeland - which at the time was being taken by French, Dutch, Quakers, Puritans etc. Then there was the issue that Chivington stated that he wanted to fight against slavery as the Sand Creek article indicates? The main influence was obviously Lincoln and how the respect for Africans was increasing because of the Buffalo Soldiers. .
However, the psychological argument that is being developed is contradicted by the Southern Cheyenne being placed on desolate land with no food! He did not speak out about this, nor did he speak out about helping to assimilate them into what has become American culture. Then there is the land issue: Chivington did not say he wanted them to have any land or any rights.
The Psychology argument is very weak and needs more development and right now, with the research I have done - the argument is very strongly against the fact that Chivington was a peaceful, god fearing man and one fact remains: Chivington did not in any account try to stop the men from firing and killing people;
I did read the "Real villans" article and I do not see any literary or documentary references. This article sounds like it is appealing to a false authority and without any Bibliography or Citations, it seems very far fetched. There are two sides to the story but considering racism and bigotry, coupled with the lure of money - it is a very convincing argument.
This is garbage. The main contradiction is not even addressed - that is, settler expansion and annexation of other people's land. Settling is violent. Settlers are inherently thieves.
It seems that you would like to continue the same attitude that all the men had that called themselves American - anyone different that does not see things your way is either a thief, liar, and need to be protrayed as what you would like to believe! There are a lot of facts that you would like to focus on in your comments but I do not see any research about the Kiowa, Arikara, and Crow - subject matter that you are unaware of. There is a psychosis to your comments and it is obvious bigotry!
The only BS are your comments... you don't know history and if you do it's the Hollywood version... If you or any of family owns a house/land they should give it back to the original tribe... If you don't you are a hypocrite
Saw the artice about Black Kettle and I do not see any literary or documentary references. How does anyone know what you are saying is true?? One thing I do not see is any research at the Colorado Historical Museum or any counties. This article sounds like it is appealing to a false authority and without any Bibliography or Citations, it seems very far fetched.
Now, I do agree that it is a good video but information was left out and that could be a reason why they spent time on defining specific facts but less time on others. What happened to your website? I would like to see it but it was disabled when I followed the link.
I don't know what happened to the 7th Cavalry website. I didn't even realize it was down until you said something. It wasn't my site just a good site on the 7th cavalry.
If Indians are raiding settler's homes and stealing cattle it was because the buffalo herds were being slaughtered by government approved and sanctioned white hunters. The deer, elk, and antelope were also being slaghtered by whites. Then the Indians were forced onto reservations and were promised supplies and rations that were not delivered adequately. The government created the problem of hungry Indians. Whites even slaughtered game animals on reservaton lands,
Tatooinedragracer 3 months ago
Of course that docu doesn`t say that the Dakota on Minnesota in 1862 where starving because of corrpupt white indian agents and that was the reason of the riot!!!
Stevenoodlesgrunow 2 years ago 9
That's true Steve the Dakota were hungry. They had legitimate grievances due to incompetence and corruption among the white traders. Also due to bad luck because of crop failures.
So maybe that explains why they broke into the storehouse and obtained food before the uprising began. Does that explain the gratuitous violence of the event though? In many cases these Dakota had killed settlers who were sharing food with them.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Agents didn`t care if the Dakota starved to death. One Agent said: If they are hungry, they can eat grass.
Of course this doesn`t justify the murdering of settlers.
But what had the Dakota Uprising to do with the peaceful Cheyenne at Sand Creek? THere were no Dog Soldiers among that village.
THere is not any excuse for that massacre. It is a warcrime. Racistical motivated massmurderer. 100s of westerns show evil indians attacking innocent whites. But few westerns show massacres like S.C.
Stevenoodlesgrunow 2 years ago 12
I recommend ''Over the Earth I Come'' by Duane Schultz for anyone interested in the Minnesota Massacre of 1862. It doesn't sugarcoat the situation that the Dakota were in before hand nor the subsequent violence.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago 4
coloradocav has replied to your comment on Sand Creek Massacre Part 1:
well, I think holding a little girl by the legs and beating her over a log for is wrong, like in the family in Minnesota that was massacred by Indians in 1862. Get real, everybody thinks only us white men commited atrocities. Get away from the elementary school book garbage and read real accounts, journals, diarys from people that were there. Red and White had an equal part back then.
redvsblue2 2 years ago
Biological warfare?? LOL!! The fact is the Indians were infected with disease by digging up white graves scalping the corpses and taking anything that the corpse was wrapped in. If the U.S. Government had biological warfare back in the day they could have conquered the world. That's almost as stupid as saying they conquered the Indians with Nuclear Missiles. The Indians were a nomadic race- they would over hunt an area killing everything usually by running whole herds of buffalo over a cliff
Aikidobear129 2 years ago
I agree someone trying to spread a disease around that they are already infected with would only qualify as biological warfare in the most basic sense. Someone else was calling it ''chemical warfare'' which would be an incorrect designation altogether though so I had to point that out. Even this type of behavior is almost entirely absent from the historical record though.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
The only documented case of ''smallpox blankets'' being given to Indians is the one case from Pontiac's rebellion and the Indians they were given to were trying to break into the British fort where the Smallpox was breaking out at anyway! These particular Indians also already had Smallpox breaking out among them for a month or more before the blankets had been handed out.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
You mention the digging up of Smallpox victims graves by Indians which is documented. They were also raiding English settlements that were infected with Smallpox.
It's never been demonstrated the United States government ever tried to infect the Indians with anything.
Smallpox and other deadly diseases didn't need any planned help from anyone to spread and kill. They did well enough on their own among Indians and Whites. Though the effects were worse among the Indians.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Show me where you got the information about them digging up bodies to scalp them and broaden your knowledge only a portion were nomadic. Most of the tribes were either just farmers or semi nomadic hunting smaller game when food was running low.
redvsblue2 2 years ago
The digging up of graves I was referring to happened in 1757 after the fall of Fort William Henry.
The Indian allies of the French dug up the Forts graves because they didn't get enough scalps from the attack they made on the British who had left the Fort after being promised safe conduct.
I'll post the link at the top of the sidebar. Anytime you want information redvsblue2 you just ask.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
please do, im interested.
redvsblue2 2 years ago
Eshpev'a'e
cheytea 2 years ago
and to include u guys in, lincoln signed for black slaves to be freed, and the same year he ordered all buffalo to be slaughtered, and one more thing. remember that all books are written by white man, so no telling how many lies they put in their books, all ndnz know how white man is when paper is involved!
greendaddy101 2 years ago 12
Yeah in fact the ''evil'' white man brought you writing kind of makes you wonder why your using it right now.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
all right, atleast one white man admitted that whitemen are evil, you rose one notch in my pole.
greendaddy101 2 years ago
Note the use of quotation marks around evil. Learn what they are used for.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
There was writing previous to first contact, like in central america. So don't take all the credit lol.
redvsblue2 2 years ago
Ah yeah Central America, where the United States isn't located. I thought this video, my channel and coloradocav's comments focused on the settlement of the USA.
I guess I just missed all the references to Cortes, De Soto, and Pizarro in the video and our comments.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
but you said something about bringing writing to the "indians" and not north American natives specifically, if im not mistaken if I am I apologize.
redvsblue2 2 years ago
Writing was brought to all the Indians that the Americans and their colonial forbearer's had contact with.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Records indicate from Navajo sources that the Ute and Pawnee took children for slavery during the Taos slave trade of 1600s. More consideration to other sources and accounts that contributed to the actions of the Southern Cheyennes. Research at the Colorado History Museum indicates there were not many ranches destroyed. Only one stagecoach was ransacked, a cow was killed, and there were two other incidents like food stolen. The killing of the family was was proven to by the court.
lloron74 2 years ago
Hello lloron74,
Thank you for the comments. Its very wise of you to ask for citations of sources. All the articles you are referring to are written by historian Gregory Michno. For any one interested in further information and cites from said articles should consult ''The Battle at Sand Creek by Gregory Michno Upton and Sons 2004.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
I'm not aware of the ''Colorado Historical Museum'' being the preeminent source on the fight at Sand Creek and surrounding events in 1864. If you feel that there is something important that you would like to post here from organizations in Colorado or elsewhere on this subject feel free to do so.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
I don't know what you mean by ''psychological argument.'' If what you mean is that Chivington and the Colorado soldiers were not angered by the death and mutilation of the Hungate family and other settlers then I'm afraid that's just completely wrong.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
I don't know of anything in this video or of the articles linked in the side bar that describes John Chivington as ''peaceful'' or ''God fearing.'' Chivington was a soldier involved in a war with the South and Indians so to describe him as being completely peaceful as in a pacifist or something would be ridiculous and I know of no one who would claim such a thing. As to whether he was God fearing I have no clue and make no claim to that effect.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Did Chivington try to prevent Civilian Casualties at Sand Creek? I have no idea. Maybe he didn't. Maybe he ordered everyone killed. There is quite a bit of contradictory information in the record and the investigations. Chivington had political enemies who had an interest in defaming him.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
When you start talking about ''Puritans'', ''Dutch'' and ''Quakers'' taking land from the Cheyennes thats just completely historically inaccurate. Are you trying to say the Cheyenne homeland was Pennsylvania, New England and New York?
The Cheyenne movements prior to the 1850's was largely influenced by wars with other Indians not whites and they certainly never had any contact with the groups you mention.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
You had better research into the Dine', Hopi, Southern Cheyenne, and Nahuatl languages because the historical accounts would like to disregard activity of interaction. The museums of New Mexico have archaeological evidence on ceramics that predates 1740 indicates the Arapahoe were in contact with New Mexico tribes and Pueblos. Any museum can tell you that.
lloron74 2 years ago 2
Do you think the Puritans were in New Mexico?
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Believe me, not all museums are reliable sources for information.
coloradocav 2 years ago
Thanks for the comments. I hope you will to continue to do so since you seem to have an interest in what went on in Colorado specifically.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
If Chivington wanted to fight against slavery then Lincoln doesn't get credit for John Chivington's views, Chivington's views good or bad are his own not someone else's.
The Buffalo Soldiers had nothing to do with Chivington's or anyone else's views on slavery. The first regiment that was referred to as ''Buffalo soldiers'' was not formed until 1866 so they had nothing to do with what Chivington or anyone else thinks about anything in 1864.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Lincoln himself helped with slaves escaping from the south and at the same time Buffalo Soldiers were being recruited out East.
lloron74 2 years ago
Lincoln never helped any slaves escape anywhere. Once again the buffalo soldiers were not formed until 1866 as if it matters since they have nothing to do with any of this.
I hate to break it to you but plenty of people were worked up over slavery before the cival war began, the buffalo soldiers didn't inspire the controversy.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
When you say ''there were not many ranches destroyed. Only one stagecoach was ransacked, a cow was killed, and there were two other incidents like food stolen'' I'm afraid you're incorrect.
In the Little Blue River Raids August 7-9th 1864 38 settlers were killed, 9 wounded and 5 captured.
In the Plum Creek Massacre 8th of August 1864 13 settlers were killed and 2 were captured.
There were other deaths of settlers in other smaller raids during the summer.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
You had better research the Southern Cheyenne becasue the Colorado History Museum has all of the Infomation that took place in the Colorado territory. If you are talking of Nebraska, then you are talking about the Northern Cheyenne, after the separation of Southern Cheyenne. The Northern Cheyenne were the band that still carried on the traditions of the Dog Soldiers and not the Southern. Some great Archaeological books are in the Archives and Western History in Denver Public Library.
lloron74 2 years ago
you had better know your facts cause there are dogsoldiers in the southern cheyenne tribe, i should know cause im southern cheyenne. books mean nothing, they are written by whiteman
greendaddy101 2 years ago 3
Thats kind of what the video is saying, that all the Cheyenne tribes North and South were responsible for wacking settlers, (not to mention other Indians) which is why the soldiers at Sand Creek were pissed.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
I appreciate you admitting it though thanks.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
You wouldn't even know the names of your chiefs and the people involved in the events if it wasn't for writing.
Need proof? Tell me the names of all your leaders from the 1420's.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
wouldnt need writing if whitemen handt wiped them out, or tried...they are the first to use chemical warfare
greendaddy101 2 years ago 2
So people who are wiped out need writing?
You sure post on youtube quite a bit for someone who's been exterminated
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Tell me more about this ''chemical warfare.'' I'd love to hear what you think you know about that.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
its a shame that u get your information from twisted words that are written on paper
greendaddy101 2 years ago
The "chemical warfare" talked about above is the fact than when our people were forced into camps and reservations they had to get their food from the army and when the army gave them rancid beef and blankets infested with disease a lot of Natives died and for what ...Greed that's what...
rainmic 2 years ago
Well if it was Smallpox and bad beef that would be biological warfare not chemical.
I'm sure sometimes certain Indians did receive bad beef. Was that a plot on them and warfare? I don't believe so.
In terms of the army handing out blankets with diseases to people on reservations I'm going to have to say right now that never happened.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Only recorded instance of someone handing out blankets THEY HOPED were infected with Smallpox was when British Captain Ecuyer who was besieged at Fort Pitt handed out two blankets in 1763.
Thats the only instance, probably didn't even work and had nothing to do with reservations, peaceful Indians, or the United States government for that matter.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
if it were not for writing, we would have to rely on those cartoon like ledgerbook drawings.
coloradocav 2 years ago
Is he kidding! almost every ranch and station between little blue and Sterling Colorado were destroyed. there were many wagons ransacked and destroyed, like you mentioned the wagon train massacres near Plum creek station Nebraska. whole family of innocent people mutilated. I helped locate the mass grave of these people so that they could possibly be moved to the pioneer cemetery just down the road. Check out the ransacking and burning of Julesburg.
coloradocav 2 years ago
since you must have deleted your comment you sent to reply to an older comment, since I cannot find it I'll reply here. Yeah I know there were atrocities on both sides but the "indians" did not wipe out and kill entire towns, maybe a few people but realize that perhaps their family and his Chiefs family and his best friends family's were all killed off by diseases and such. part 2 next comment
redvsblue2 2 years ago 2
Yes the Indians did wipe out entire towns (ie villiges) and tribes and I'll be glad to document it.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
I'd like the documents, because I highly doubt a tribe could killed have killed around 500 or so people in a village, maybe force them to relocate but not wipe them out. Whereas entire tribes in some cases would be reduced to a couple familys or less from idk 400 people due to diseases. Please do correct me if im wrong.
redvsblue2 2 years ago
Apparently you still haven't read any of the information I placed in the sidebar or you wouldn't be saying this.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
I also have some additional bad news for you. Infectious disease was the leading cause of death in the United States and world wide into the beginning of the 20th century.
So if you think the Indians were alone in their ''long painful deaths'' from disease you are quite mistaken.
Europeans, despite some peoples fervent imaginations, don't happen to be gods who control disease and it's spread.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
I never did say they were god's who could control diseases, Also diseases were spreading long before the turn of the 20th century. I know that whites too were getting the diseases that the natives were getting. The only difference was that some diseases that seemed minuscule to whites was devastating for native community's plus whites had anti biotics and doctors.
redvsblue2 2 years ago 3
You see though my friend this is another misconception you have.
''Bacterial antagonism of Penicillium spp. were first described in England by John Tyndall in 1875. However, his work went by without much notice from the scientific community until Alexander Fleming's discovery of Penicillin in 1928. Even then the therapeutic potential of penicillin was not pursued."
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
More than ten years later, Ernst Chain and Howard Florey became interested in Fleming's work following the earlier discovery of another natural antibiotic like substance named gramicidin from B. brevis. In 1939 Rene Dubos isolated gramicidin, one of the first commercially manufactured antibiotics in use during World War II to prove highly effective in treating wounds and ulcers.''
Whites in the 1800's and back did not have antibiotics. People from the early 20th century didn't either.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
well I guess I was wrong about that, and i'm done commenting because i'm tired of responding. Have a nice day.
redvsblue2 2 years ago
Also a lot of people seem to think that a family getting killed, scalped and maybe even mutilated is worse then a whole tribe of men women and children suffering a long painful death. Also I wasn't taught about Natives in elementary school.
redvsblue2 2 years ago
For more information on the raids one should consult ''Massacre Along the Medicine Road: A Social History of the Indian War of 1864 in Nebraska Territory'' by Ronald Becher.
I'm placing more information on these raids, the murder of the Hungate family and also links to the best books on Sand Creek in the side bar. I encourage everyone to read the primary sources for themselves.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Again, you are talking of the Northern Cheyenne and not the Southern Cheyenne. The two tribes did not unite until after the Sand Creek Massacre. To call the Northern Cheyenne as being Southern Cheyenne, then obviously there may be some type of narrow view for the research. Although there may be no book written about the contact of the Southern Cheyenne, archaeologica evidence in Museums in New Mexico disproves your assumption that there was no contact between plains and peublo tribes.
lloron74 2 years ago 2
I'm sure there was plenty of contact between the plains and pueblo tribes and that contact included war, slavery, and mutilation in addition to the mundane events of every day life.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
whoa dude, natives never disrespected fallen enemy warrior bodies, the white man is the one who desacrates bodies, the french were the first to scalp!
greendaddy101 2 years ago 3
In this case you have no clue what you are talking about.
Archeology proves scalping (not to mention much worse mutilation) had been practiced in North America a thousand years before the arrival of Europeans in 1492. You can also read the accounts of early explorers. Indians scalping each other is documented in the records of the early French and English explorers from Canada to Florida by 1608.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
scalping is done because thats how they gained honour and prestige. To you, a white man, that is gross and dumb, but if you were born a native american of the time, this is just tradition. To them there was nothing wrong with it. Just because you think it's wrong doesn't mean it is.
redvsblue2 2 years ago
I didn't say it made them gross or dumb your putting words in my mouth.
I'm just reporting what actually happened.
If you took the time to read the comments here you would see the only reason scalping is being discussed is because an INDIAN posting on this video is saying scalping is horrible and Europeans invented it. Since that is a lie thats why its being discussed.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Alright my bad on the scalping thing, I didn't know a Native American was saying stuff. As for putting words in your mouth, I was meaning white people of the time as a whole, hell even today. If you walked up to a random person and said, "if you seen a man cutting the scalp off of a dead man's head what would you think?" they are going to be grossed out.
redvsblue2 2 years ago
scalping was taught to the native americans by the french.
cogger44 2 years ago
No it wasn't. Scalping was documented by early French, English and Dutch explorers as being practiced from Canada to Florida by the year by 1608.
It was first observed by a European in North America being practiced among the Stadaconan tribe by Jacques Cartier when he sailed down the St Lawrence river in 1535.
Scalping is also well documented in the archaeological record as being in North America LONG before Europeans arrived during the colonial age.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Many different tribes had different words for the scalp, the act of scalping and scalping victim. They also had beliefs about what would happen if one lost ones scalp and ceremonies built around it. Many dried them on hoops sometimes painting and decorating them. Many Indians also wore what was known as a scalp lock which was a small braid of hair on the crown of the head.
I'm going to post links about scalping in the side bad for a few days so people can read about it.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
For more information on the raids one should consult ''Massacre Along the Medicine Road: A Social History of the Indian War of 1864 in Nebraska Territory'' by Ronald Becher.
I'm placing more information on these raids, the murder of the Hungate family and also links to the best books on Sand Creek in the side bar. I encourage everyone to read the primary sources for themselves.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Trade routes from Central Mexico to Canada, the dreamcatcher of Navajo culture from Eastern Seabord tribes before Europeans indicates the Cheyennes were involved in a trade route. imited information from historian without looking at all information makes the idea that the Cheyennes before being split into two bands by the Arapahoe before any agreement with them indicates more was occuring than these historians have spent time researching. In New Mexico, plains art appears predate the 1700s.
lloron74 2 years ago
The historians argument has been presented with no knowledge of language, or encompassing research. The Uto- Aztecan languages are not said to include the Navajo or Southern Cheyenne languages but language immersion research into the Navajo and Nahuatl languages including Papago for still existent phonology, more neede to be researched before making some wild thought based argument.The South. Cheyenne dilect has the same x sound that is similar to Nahuatl and the Dine/Navajo language.
lloron74 2 years ago
. The Southern Cheyenne dialect and Northern dialect also indicate rising and falling tones of spoken language that is similar to the Hopi and more similarity with Navajo - this indicates that there was some type of connection that predates the 1700s, so the historical account that the Cheyenne migrated here to Colorado needs to be rethunk.
lloron74 2 years ago
Chivington did not stop and talk with Black Kettle to see what he was holding in his hands. Diplomacy is what it has been called but gold, land, and a strange sense of trying to preserve families by taking land after a treaty was made and breaking treaties does not help your argument at all.
lloron74 2 years ago
Even the video does not look deeper into the reasons surrounding why the Cheyennes left their homeland - which at the time was being taken by French, Dutch, Quakers, Puritans etc. Then there was the issue that Chivington stated that he wanted to fight against slavery as the Sand Creek article indicates? The main influence was obviously Lincoln and how the respect for Africans was increasing because of the Buffalo Soldiers. .
lloron74 2 years ago
However, the psychological argument that is being developed is contradicted by the Southern Cheyenne being placed on desolate land with no food! He did not speak out about this, nor did he speak out about helping to assimilate them into what has become American culture. Then there is the land issue: Chivington did not say he wanted them to have any land or any rights.
lloron74 2 years ago
The Psychology argument is very weak and needs more development and right now, with the research I have done - the argument is very strongly against the fact that Chivington was a peaceful, god fearing man and one fact remains: Chivington did not in any account try to stop the men from firing and killing people;
lloron74 2 years ago
I did read the "Real villans" article and I do not see any literary or documentary references. This article sounds like it is appealing to a false authority and without any Bibliography or Citations, it seems very far fetched. There are two sides to the story but considering racism and bigotry, coupled with the lure of money - it is a very convincing argument.
lloron74 2 years ago
This is garbage. The main contradiction is not even addressed - that is, settler expansion and annexation of other people's land. Settling is violent. Settlers are inherently thieves.
bankschris82 2 years ago
You're right it's garbage those thief settler Lakota and Cheyenne stole the Black Hills from the Arikara, Kiowa and Crow.
What horrible people they were.
Excellent point.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
It seems that you would like to continue the same attitude that all the men had that called themselves American - anyone different that does not see things your way is either a thief, liar, and need to be protrayed as what you would like to believe! There are a lot of facts that you would like to focus on in your comments but I do not see any research about the Kiowa, Arikara, and Crow - subject matter that you are unaware of. There is a psychosis to your comments and it is obvious bigotry!
lloron74 2 years ago
bankchris82:
The only BS are your comments... you don't know history and if you do it's the Hollywood version... If you or any of family owns a house/land they should give it back to the original tribe... If you don't you are a hypocrite
Like I said, you're the only BS!!! .
lonedove1981 2 years ago
Very good! Much more evenhanded and less judgemental than other documentaries on this subject.
Thank you for the additional information.
kilasandra 2 years ago
You're welcome, thanks for the comment.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Saw the artice about Black Kettle and I do not see any literary or documentary references. How does anyone know what you are saying is true?? One thing I do not see is any research at the Colorado Historical Museum or any counties. This article sounds like it is appealing to a false authority and without any Bibliography or Citations, it seems very far fetched.
lloron74 2 years ago
I do like it but Nebraska is pretty far from Fort Lyon which is what was proven by Archaeological Evidence and the Fort that was there.
lloron74 2 years ago
thanks for making this.......turtlemoutainlostboy
3indians4u 2 years ago
really enjoyed this video. very informative and well done
southerngirl990 3 years ago
Now, I do agree that it is a good video but information was left out and that could be a reason why they spent time on defining specific facts but less time on others. What happened to your website? I would like to see it but it was disabled when I followed the link.
lloron74 2 years ago
I don't know what happened to the 7th Cavalry website. I didn't even realize it was down until you said something. It wasn't my site just a good site on the 7th cavalry.
7thUSCavalryman 2 years ago
Comment removed
southerngirl990 3 years ago
great video, Cavalryman !! enjoyed it...
whiteshore2 3 years ago