Talk:Battle of the Washita River/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Battle of the Washita River. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archives

Archive 1 - May 2005 - Jun 2007
Archive 2 - Jul 2007
Archive 3 - Aug 2007 (includes RfC)
Sandbox - for proposed new content

Opinion

Washita was not a battle but a massacre. The article is the point of view of the United States Government which used any excuse to break a treaty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahscorer (talk • contribs) 11:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

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.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.138.40.134 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 20 June 2005 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.214.66 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 27 November 2005

Washita is not considered as a massacre and the US troops did well. Not politically correctness here, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.21.201.179 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

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 ~~being betrayed by Major Reno and Captain Benteen~~ losing the famous battle of the Little Bighorn, where he was killed and scalped along with 256 of his soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.21.202.175 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Word substitution made as unsigned modification by 65.254.156.109 at 18:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.21.202.175 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.40.208.204 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.203.47.76 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 6 May 2006 (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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.6.51.130 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.79.37.103 (talk • contribs) 00:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"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 00:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

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?

User:Lookoo 20:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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 20:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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) (134.21.9.164)

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 (using 210.185.7.90)

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)

My dear little revisionist: CMH is a very serious US Army agency. Send your grievances to:[1] --HanzoHattori 17:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

My God, it's the worse example of ignorance I've ever seen. People are STUDYING the battle with primary sources. Do you know what historian means ? Members of my website are historians and doctors in history. I've written a book myself. I was putting footnotes and original quotes and you deleted all with nonsense like "Comanche campaign". It's totally false. You have but a website, made by people who just gathered what they heard about the battle. It's not a serious work. It's not a work of historian. Where are your footnotes ? Your real work ? Your quotes ? You even didn't say anything about Black Kettle's white captives. Do you know what you're talking about ? Surely no. If Wikipedia editors are like you, the credibility of the whole encyclopedia drops. Custerwest 18:46, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I told you, tell this to Brig. Gen. John S. Brown. According to him, he and his institute "remain mindful of the Center’s responsibility to publish an accurate and objective account," so don't forget to call him "idiot" or "monkey", and to threaten to kick his "damn ass". --HanzoHattori 19:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I've read the holy gospel of the US Center command. Especially the page where it's said that "Custer led his regiment toward the Little Bighorn, no one is certain what his real hopes and ambitions were; but it is clear that his goal, as ever, was personal glory. Unfortunately, he and most of his command were killed to gain that fame." Every Little Bighorn historian can say that for the story of the Little Bighorn, it's ZERO. Custerwest 19:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear "Custerwest":

You can not question the US Army's official history of the US Army. It's their job to document and research their own history. Not yours. They have access to all the archives and documents, because all of these is theirs. You can't whitewash their findings ("accurate and objective"), not to mention the sources like these:
The sources from the XIXth and early XXth century are POV and outdated. Everything by Custer is obviously POV too, and if dissmissed by his own army, untrue.
You can not cite blogs.
Especially your own.
What you can use are the other modern official sources.
You could also make a section about the past deciptions of the event, including outdated official sources, or even modern historians (real, not some blogs in French) if there's controversy in relation to the current government version. But this doesn't matter, because:
I'm not playing edit-warring. As soon as you are banned (and you're going to be), I am reverting, so don't bother.

Also a parting word of advice: don't try to "kick damn asses" of the "idiot monkeys" in uniform, because they will either jail you or shoot you. Or both. --HanzoHattori 20:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure who is right here. But the contradictions between different sources are rather common. Why not represent several alternative versions in the article, if each one of them is supported by sources that satisfy WP:SOURCE? For example, the number of Indian warriers who died may be not known for sure. So, why not indicate the number as 70 to 150 for example? Hanzo, anyone can "question the US Army's official history" in WP, based on appropriate sources. US Army is not an ultimate authority about historical events, just as Russian Army, etc. How about book by General Troshev? Biophys 20:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No, it's kind of source which is critical to the Custer's own account of Custer. "Custerwest"'s sources (his own blog and the outdated sources from 1924 and 1938) are all whitewash to keep with Custer line (which was rejected by his own army later). This including the whitewashing causes (white expansion, Sand Creek) and aims of the war (what US Army now calls "complete destruction of Indian culture", and says even the soldiers and officers were uneasy about this at the time), and results of the battle (causing many more further deaths among the survivors, more than in combat), while at the same time demonising the other side. Compare:[2] and [3]

And yes, he cites the sources of at least 70-80 years ago to write the white men were "murdered" in "massacres", while the Indian men were "killed" after being "ordered to be killed". Capturing white women and children, and killing some of them, was bad, but capturing Indian women and children,and killing some of them, was alright. Outrageous Sand Creek massacre (Black Kettle and his people were survivors, and it was unprovoked and truly horrific - dead unborn children taken as tropheas by the militiamen, for example) is not even mentioned.

To go along the Troshev example: it's like the Russian Army suddenly criticised the exploits of Russian general Troshev in their official history, and some "Troshevsouth" came to dissmiss this as "not serious", citing instead what Troshev said of wrote about Troshev, and what pro-Troshev sources wrote about him (not 70+ years ago, but, say, 12 years in Krasnaya Zvezda articles). --HanzoHattori 21:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for answer. I looked at "Custerwest" web site. Looks indeed as POV and self-promotion in Wikipedia by custerwest. Certainly, we do not want any unreliable information here. If he is trying to dispute generally accepted things (which seems to be the case), he must provide reliable and up-todate sources, and do not curse and conduct edit wars, but try to find consensus at the talk page. Biophys 21:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I took a look too, and I must say love how he calls Washita "anti-terror campaign".[4] Just... wow. Maybe he's so angry it was qualified by the editors as part of Comanche Campaign and not "War on Terrorism". Actually, according to the US Army now, it was more of a terror campaign in order to "completely destroy the Indian culture" (see: cultural genocide). --HanzoHattori 23:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to the US Army now, it was more of a terror campaign in order to "completely destroy the Indian culture" What a joke. It was a military campaign against raiders operating in Kansas... Is extreme leftist ideology accepted on Wikipedia? HanzoHattori don't know a clue about the event, presented no factual evidences, consider primary sources as "outdated" (something to kill an historian from heartbreak)... Who's this clown? Where are the footnotes? Custerwest 15:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

ANI post about edit war & incivility problems

See WP:ANI#Problems between HanzoHattori and Custerwest. --Yksin 00:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Note

After the edit war, and due to extensive pov and or concerns I reverted the page to this revision. This is the version using the Army's sources. --MichaelLinnear 01:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Is anybody here ready for primary sources ?

Every primary source, or even quotes by historians such as Jerome Greene (National Park Service, 2004) have been deleted. Custer's Washita campaign against the Cheyennes has been put in the Comanche campaign. The casualties are false. The causes of the battle are false. Every footnote and primary sources has been deleted. It's a complete disaster.

'generally accepted things (which seems to be the case)'? Who knows here the encounter ? Who has read Jerome Greene's book? Who has read primary sources ? You have deleted original sources and replace them by a flawed article by US center command which isn't made of historians and isn't a relevant source...

And yes, he cites the sources of at least 70-80 years ago to write the white men were "murdered" in "massacres", while the Indian men were "killed" after being "ordered to be killed". Capturing white women and children, and killing some of them, was bad, but capturing Indian women and children,and killing some of them, was alright. Outrageous Sand Creek massacre (Black Kettle and his people were survivors, and it was unprovoked and truly horrific - dead unborn children taken as tropheas by the militiamen, for example) is not even mentioned. This kind of politically correct garbage shouldn't be allowed in a serious encyclopedia (unless Wikipedia isn't seen as a serious one). Causes of Washita come from the 1867 peace treaty and the Indian massacres of settlers that followed it. It's serious history. Facts, with precision, date, facts, quotes. HISTORY.

ADARE, Sierra, Fort Laramie: Getaway to the Far West, dans le Wild West, décembre 1999
AILLIOT, Patrick, La révolte des Sioux du Minnesota, dans le “Courrier de la Guerre d’Amérique”, revue interne du Club Confédéré et Fédéral de France (CCFF), avril 1997
AMBROSE, Stephen E., Crazy Horse and Custer: The Parallel Lives of Two American Warriors, Garden City, Doubleday & Co, 1975
______, Undaunted Courage, Lewis And Clark and the opening of the West, New York, Touchstone Books, 1996
ANDERSON, Ian, Sitting Bull and the Mounties, dans le Wild West, février 1998
BARNARD, Sandy, Shovels and Speculation, Archeology hunts Custer, Billings, Ast Press, 1990
BARNETT, Louise, Touched by Fire: The Life, Death, and Mythic Afterlife of George Armstrong Custer, New York, Henry Holt & Company, 1996
BENNETT, William J., America, the last best hope, Nashville, Nelson Current, 2006
BERGER Yves et DUBOIS, Daniel, Les Indiens des Plaines, Paris, Rocher/Nuage Rouge, rééd. 2000
BERTHONG, Donald J., The Southern Cheyennes, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1979
BIG MAN Jr., Allen, Curley, the sole survivor of Custer’s command, dans le True West Magazine, mai/juin 2001
BRILL, Charles J., Conquest of the Southern Plains, New York, Millwood, 1975
BROWN, Dee, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, New York, Bantam Books, 1972
______, The American West, New York, Touchstone Books, 1994
CARROLL, John M. (éd.) Custer in the Civil War: His Unfinished Memoirs, San Rafael, Presidio Press, 1977
______, Custer in Texas: An Interupted Narrative, New York, Sol Lewis and Liveright, 1975
______, They Rode with Custer: a Biographical Directory of the Men who rode with General Custer, Mattituck, John M. Carroll & Co, 1993
CARROLL John M. et FROST, Lawrence A., Private Theodore Ewert’s Diary of the Black Hills Expedition of 1874, Piscataway, 1976
CATTON, Bruce, The Civil War, New York, American Heritage/Wing Books, 1988
CHIAVENTONE, Frederick J., A Road We Do Not Know, Albuquerque, New Mexico, University of New Mexico Press, rééd. 1998
CONNELL, Evan, S., Son of the Morning Star, General Custer and the Little Bighorn, London, Pimlico Books, rééd. 1999
CORNUT, David, Little Big Horn, autopsie d'une bataille légendaire, Parçay-sur-Vienne, Anovi, 2006

COX, Kurt Hamilton, Custer and his Commands, from West Point to Little Bighorn, London, Greenhill Books, 1999

CUSTER, Général George A., My Life on the Plains or Personal Experiences with Indians, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, rééd. 1962
CUSTER, Elizabeth Bacon, Tenting on the Plains, or General Custer in Texas and Kansas, New York, Charles Webster & Co, rééd. 1960
______, Following the Guidon, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, rééd. 1966
CUTLER, Bruce, The Massacre at Sand Creek: Narratives Voices, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1995
DARLING, Roger, Custer’s Seventh Cavalry Comes to Dakota, El Segundo, Upton & Sons, 1989
______, A Sad and Terrible Blunder: Generals Terry and Custer at Little Bighorn, New Discoveries, Vienna, Potomac/Western Press, 1992
DELANOE, Nelcya, L’Entaille Rouge : des terres indiennes à la démocratie américaine, 1776-1996, Paris, Albin Michel, rééd. 1996
DELORIA Jr., Vine, Custer Died For your Sins, An Indian Manifesto, New York, Avon Books, 1969
DEWAELHEYNS, Georges et PURNELLE, Véronique, La campagne et la bataille de Little Bighorn, dans “AMERICANA”, revue interne du Groupe d’Etude et de Recherche sur l’Histoire de l’Amérique du Nord (GERHAN), été 1996
DOERNER, John A., The Boys of ’76, Seventh cavalry Letters and Recollections of the 1876 Sioux Campaign, dans le True West Magazine, mai/juin 2001
EPPLE, Jess C., Custer’s Battle of the Washita and a history of the Plains Indians tribe, New York, Exposition Press, 1970
EVERITT, David, 1871 War On Terror : unprecedented action to crack down the Ku Klux Klan, dans le “American History Magazine”, juin 2003
FEADER, Gustav, Custer at Gettysburg, dans le “Civil War Magazine”, juin 1990
FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI), dossier 95-3820, 1954
FOX, Richard A., Archeology History and Custer’s Last Battle, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1993
FROST, Lawrence A., The Custer Album, a Pictorial Biography of General George A. Custer, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1964
______, The Court Martial of General George Armstrong Custer, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1968
______, Custer’s Seventh Cavalry and the Campaign of 1873, El Segundo, Upton & Sons, 1986.
______, With Custer in ’74: James Calhoun’s Diary of the Black Hills Expedition, Provo, Young University Press, 1979
GRAY, John S., Centennial Campaign, the Sioux War of 1876, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1988
______, Custer’s Last Campaign: Mitch Bouyer and the Little Bighorn Reconstructed, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1991
GREENE, Jerome A., The Great Sioux War, dans le “True West Magazine”, mai/juin 2001
______, Washita 1868: The Army and the Southern Cheyennes, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 2004
______, Evidence and the Custer Enigma : A Reconstruction of Indian-Military History, Golden, Outbooks, 1986
______, Yellowstone Command : Colonel Nelson A. Miles and the Great Sioux War 1876-1877, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1991
GRINNELL, George Bird, The Fighting Cheyennes, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1956
GUAGE, Duane, Black Kettle : A “Noble Savage” ?, dans les Chronicles of Oklahoma, 1967
HAMMER, Kenneth, Custer in ’76: Walter Camp’s Notes on the Custer Fight, Provo, Bingham Young University Press, 1976
HARDORFF, Richard G., Lakota recollections of the Custer Fight: New Sources of Indian-Military History, Spokane, Clark, 1991
______, Cheyennes Memories of the Custer Fight, Spokane, Clark, 1995
______, Hoka Hey ! The Indian Casualties at the Custer Fight, Spokane, Arthur H. Clarke Company, 1993
HARMON, Dick, SCOTT, Douglas D., FOX, Richard A., et CONNOR, Melissa A., Archeological Perspective on The Battle of Little Bighorn, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1993
HART, Louis et McCUNE B.F., The Fatal Fetterman Fight, dans le Wild West, décembre 1997
HASSRICK, Royal B., The Sioux: Life and Customs of a Warrior Society, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1972
HATCH, Thomas, Custer and the Little Bighorn, Jefferson, McFarland Press, 1997
HOIG, Stanley, The Sand Creek Massacre, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1961
______, The Battle of the Washita, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1976
HOOK, Jason, The American Plains Indians, Wellingborough, Osprey Publishing, 1985
HUTTON, Paul A. (éd.), The Custer reader, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1992
______, Phil Sheridan and His Army, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1985
JACQUIN, Phillipe, Histoire des Indiens d’Amérique du Nord, Paris, Payot, 1976
______, La terre des Peaux-Rouges, Paris, Gallimard, 2000
JENSEN, Richard E., ELI, Paul et CARTER, John E., Eyewitness at Wounded Knee, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1991
JONES, Douglas C., The Treaty of Medicine Lodge, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1966
KATZ, Mark D., Custer in Photographs, A photographic biography of the most intriguing Boy General, Garry Owen, Custer Battlefield Museum Publishing, 2000
KRAFT, Louis, Custer and the Cheyennes: George Armstrong Custer’s Winter Campaign on the Southern Plains, El Segundo, Upton & Sons, 1995
KUHLMAN, Charles, Did Custer Disobey Orders at the Battle of Little Bighorn?,Harrisburg, Stackpole Books, 1957
LANEYRIE-DAGEN, Nadeije, Les grandes batailles, Paris, Larousse, 1997
LANGELIER, John P., Custer: The Man, The Myth, The Movies, New York, Stackpole Books, 2000
LALIRE, Gregory, Lakotas : Feared Fighters of the Plains, dans le Wild West, avril 2001
LECKIE, Shirley A., Elizabeth Bacon Custer and the Making of a Myth, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1993
LEHUNSEC, Mathieu, Moeurs et coutumes des Indiens d’Amérique, document non publié transmis grâce à l’amabilité de son auteur
LITTLE BIGHORN BATTLEFIELD NATIONAL MONUMENT, Reno-Benteen entrenchment Trail, 2002
MALCOLMSON, Scott L., One Droop of Blood, the American Misadventure of Race, New York, Farrar Straus Giroux, 2000
MANGUM, Neil C., The Civil War Custer, dans le True West Magazine, mai/juin 2001
McPHERSON, James M., La guerre de Sécession, Paris, Robert Laffont, 1991
MERINGTON, Marguerite (éd.), The Custer Story, The Life and Intimate Letters of General Custer and His Wife Elizabeth, New York, The Devin-Adair Company, 1950
MICHNO, Gregory F., The Real Villains of Sand Creek, dans le Wild West Magazine, 2004
______, Lakota Noon : The Indian Narrative of Custer’s defeat, Missoula, Mountain Press Company, 1997
MILES, Général Nelson A., Personnal Recollection and Observation of General Nelson A. Miles, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, rééd. 1992
MILLER, David H., Custer’s Fall: The Indian Side of the Story, New York, Duel/Sloan/Pierces, 1957
MONAGHAN, Jay, Custer : The life of General George A. Custer, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, 1971
NICHOLS, Ronald H., In Custer’s Shadow: The life of Major Marcus Reno, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1999
NIGHTENGALE, Robert, Little Big Horn, Edina, FarWest Publishing, 1996
PANZERI, Peter, Little Big Horn, 1876, Wellingborough, Osprey Publishing, 1995
PATRIC, William C., Custer’s Black Hills Expedition, dans le American History Magazine, juin 2003
PEARSON, Jeffrey W., Crazy Horse, dans le True West Magazine, mai/juin 2001
PETERSON, Nancy, Interpreter Phillip Wells : Wounded at Wounded Knee, dans le Wild West, août 2004
PURNELLE, Véronique et CORNELIS, Michel, Prélude à la Little Bighorn, dans “AMERICANA”, revue interne du Groupe d’Etude et de Recherche sur l’Histoire de l’Amérique du Nord (GERHAN), été 1996
REECE, Robert, List of the warriors at the Little Bighorn, Friends of the Little Bighorn Association, 2004
ROBINSON III, Charles, The Death of Tom Custer, dans le Wild West, juin 1996
ROLLAND, Marc, George A. Custer et la Little Bighorn : Avatars d’un héritage mythique, dans le “ Cahier du G.R.E.A.M”, Université du Maine, automne 2001
ROTH, David E., The Civil War 1861-1865, New York, Smithmark, 1998
SAND CREEK MASSACRE HISTORICAL SITE, Conduct Oral History Research for Sand Creek Massacre Historical Site, 1999
______, Historical Research of the location of the Sand Creek Massacre, 1999
SANDOZ, Mari, Cheyenne Autumn, New York, McGraws Hill, 1953
______, The Battle of the Little Bighorn, New York, J.B. Lippincott Company, 1966
SCOTT, Douglas D. et WILLEY P. et CONNOR, Melissa A., They Died with Custer, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, rééd. 2001
SCOTT, Douglas D., et FOX, Richard A., et CONNOR, Melissa A. et HARMON, Dick, Archeological Insights into the Custer Battle: An assessment of the 1984 Field Season, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1989
SHOEMAKER, Arthur, Osage scouts helped George Armstrong Custer track down Cheyennes raiders at the Washita, dans le Wild West, juin 1992
SKLENAR, Larry, To Hell With Honor: Custer and the Little Bighorn, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 2003
SMITH, Sherry L., Sagebrush Soldier, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 2002
STACKPOLE, Edward J., They met at Gettysburg, Mechanicsburg, Stackpole Books, rééd. 1986
STEWART, Edgard I, Custer’s luck, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1955
STOCKWEL, Henrietta, The Arrows that Wounded the West, dans le Wild West, décembre 1998
SVALDI, David, Sand Creek and the Rethoric of Exermination, A Case Study of Indian-White Relations, Lanham, University of America, 1989
UNGER, Arthur, The ABCs of Custer's Last Stand, El Segundo, Upton and Sons, 2004
URWIN, Gregory J., Custer Victorious, The Civil War Battles of General George Armstrong Custer, Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press, rééd. 1990
URWIN, Gregory J. et FANAGAN, Roberta (éd.), Custer and His Times, Book Three, University of Central Arkansas Press, 1987
UTLEY, Robert. M, Custer, Cavalier in buckskin, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, rééd.2001
______, (éd.), Life in Custer’s cavalry: Diaries and Letter of Albert and Jennie Barnitz 1867-1868, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1977
______, The Lance and the Shield: the Life and Times of Sitting Bull, New York, Henry Holt & Co, 1993
VAN DE WATER, Frederick, Glory Hunter: The life of General Custer, Indianapolis, Bob-Merrills, 1934
VEGGEBERG, Vernon T., Laws of War on the American Frontier: General orders 100 and the Cheyenne-White Conflict, Master Thesis, Colorado State University, 1999
VESTAL, Stanley, New Sources of Indian History, Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1934
WARDE, Mary Jane, Final Report: Conduct of Oral History Research for Washita Historical Site, Oklahoma Historical Society/Washita Battlefield National Historic Site, 1999
WASHITA BATTLEFIELD NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE, Act of 1996, 104th CONGRESS, 2d Session, H.R., 3099, March 14 1996
______, Voices : the journey to Washita, document interne transmis grâce à l’amabilité de la cheffe historienne Mary C. Davis, 2005
WELLMAN, Paul I., The Indian Wars of the West, New York, Garden City, 1954
WELCH, James, C’est un beau jour pour mourir, Paris, Albin Michel 1999
WERT, Jeffry, Custer: The controversial life of George Armstrong Custer, New York, Touchstone Books, 1996
______, From Winchester to Cedar Creek, the Shenandoah Campaign of 1864, Carlisle, South Mountain Press, 1987
WITTAKER, Frederick, The Complete Life of George Armstrong Custer, New York, Seldon and Co, rééd. 1962
WITTENBERG, Eric J. (éd.), One of Custer’s Wolverines : The Civil War Letters of Bvt. Brig. General James H. Kidd, 6th Michigan cavalry, Alexandria, Time-Life Books, 1983
WITTENBERG, Eric J. et HUSBY, Karla J. (éd.), Under Custer’s Command : The Civil War Diary of Private James H. Avery, 5th Michigan cavalry, Dulles, Brassey’s, 2000

Custerwest 15:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Custerwest, for future information, please note that even if you use hard returns, a list like this will show up as one long difficult-to-read paragraph unless you put bullets (created in Wikipedia through use of asterisks) at the beginning of each line. I have modified your post just now by providing them (but made no other changes).

Note also that most of these sources aren't primary sources, but rather are secondary sources. It might be helpful in discussing types of sources to know the difference between the two. See WP:ATT#Primary and secondary sources for definitions. Note further the policies stating that Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge and Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible. --Yksin 04:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the battle (with sources): white captives

Sources : Black Kettle’s Last Raid, by Hill P. Wilson, Transactions of Kansas State Historical Society, VIII, pages 110-117

Stan Hoig, The Battle of the Washita, University of Nebraska Press, 1970, page 212

Senate, Letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Communicating in Compliance with the Resolutions of the Senate of the 14th ultimo, Information in Relation to the Late Battle of the Washita, 40th Congress, 3d Session, 1869. Sen Ex. Doc. 13. page 18

articles from the Kansas Daily Tribune and the Hays City Advance (August 1868):

“A band of Cheyennes under command of Black Kettle, a noted chief, was in town (HaysCity) on Thursday. They had a white child with them (…) Some think that (the child) was stolen by Kiowas or Comanches in Kansas or Texas and sold to the Cheyennes.”

In his report after the battle of the Washita, November 27, 1868, Custer stated to have freed “We also secured two white children, held captives by the Indians.”

As Stan Hoig said, we have evidences that these boys were treated at Fort Hays. Stan Hoig says in his “Battle of the Washita) (page 183): “Evidently, there were the two boys Custer had reported he had rescued from the Indians."

Colonel Miles, commander of Fort Hays, issued a report on April 30, 1869:

“I have the honor to report that I have had taken from the Indian prisoners at this Post and placed in the Post Hospital one white child apparently about two years of age. Said child is, in my opinion, the son of white parents. (…) I judge he must have been one of their captives or a child of some settler. His health is much impaired, owing to this improper treatment. (…) While he remained with the Indians he was placed in the most exposed part of their quarters and his food and clothing taken from him and thrown away.” Custerwest 15:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Causes of the battle (with sources) : Indian massacres of settlers

Source: “Report of an interview between E. W. Wynkoop, US Indian Agent, and Little Rock, a Cheyenne Chief Held at Fort Larned, Kansas, August 19, 1868, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Cheyenne and Arapho Indians. Available in Stan Hoig, The Battle of the Washita, University of Nebraska Press, 1970, pages 49-51; George A. Custer, My Life on The Plains, University of Oklahoma Press, pages 153-156; Jerome Greene, Washita, University of Oklahoma Press, 2004, pages 52-53

Fort Larned, August 19, 1868 Interview of Little Rock, second-in-command of Black Kettle’s village By Indian Agent Edward Wynkoop Witnesses: Lieutenant Samuel Robbins, civilian John Smith, scout James Morrisson.

Indian Agent Edward Wynkoop: “Six nights ago, I spoke to you in regard to depredations committed on the Saline. I told you to go and find out by whom theses depredations were committed and to being me straight news. What news do you bring?”

Little Rock, second-in-command of Black Kettle’s village: “I took your advice and went there. I am now here to tell you all I know. This war party of Cheyennes which left the camp of these tribes above the forks of Walnut Creek about the 2d or 3d of August, went out against the Pawnees (…) The Cheyennes numbered about 200; nearly all the young men in the village went (…) A Cheyenne named Oh-e-ah-mo-he-a (…) proceeded to the first hourse; they afterwards returned to the camp with a woman captive. (…) The two Indians had outraged the woman before they brought her to the camp. (…) Big Head’s son knocked (an isolated white man) down with a club. (…) Soon after they killed a white man, and close by, a woman (…) They then went to another house in the same settlement, and there killed two men and took two little girls prisoners. (…) After they had proceeded some distance up thr Saline, the party divided, the majority going north toward thr settlements on the Solomon (…) Another small party returned to Black Kettle’s village, from which party I got this information.”

Indian Agent Edward Wynkoop: “Your told me your nations want peace; will you, in accordance with your treaty stipulations, deliver up the men whom you have named as being the leaders of the party who committed the outrages named?”

Little Rock, second-in-command of Black Kettle’s village: “(…) when I return to (Black Kettle’s) camp and assemble the chiefs and headmen, I think those two men will be delivered up to you.”

Indian Agent Edward Wynkoop: “I consider the whole party guilty; but it being impossible to punish all of them, I hold the principle men, whom you mentioned, responsible for all. (…)”

Little Rock, second-in-command of Black Kettle’s village: “After your explanations, I think your demand for the men is right. I am willing to deliver them up, and will go back to the tribe and use my best endeavours to have them surrendered.”

(Senate, Letter to the Secretary of the Interior, Communicating in Compliance with the Resolutions of the Senate of the 14th ultimo, Information in Relation to the Late Battle of the Washita, 40th Congress, 3d Session, 1869. Sen Ex. Doc. 13. Pages 19-21)

No warrior was ever delivered up. Little Rock was eventually killed during Custer's Battle of the Washita, while fighting with the warriors hidden in Black Kettle's village. Custerwest 15:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Indian Casualties (with sources)

Indian prisoners told Interpreter Richard Curtis that 11 wachiefs and headmen had been killed, Black Kettle and Little Rock not counted. It means that 13 headmen and warchiefs were killed.

Names of the warchiefs and headmen killed: Stan Hoig, The Battle of the Washita, University of Nebraska Press, 1970, pages 140, page 242 (note for page 140)

Buffalo Tongue Tall White Man Tall Owl Poor Black Elk Big Horse White Beaver Bear Tail Running Water Wolf Ear The Man That Hears the Wolf Medicine Walker Black Kettle Little Rock

Civilian casualties are estimated around 20 (15 to George Bent, 17 to George Bird Grinnell). Custer estimated that 102 warriors had been killed. Later, while coming back on the battlefield, he estimated the casualties as "much higher". 7th cavalry officers thought that the casualties could be of 150 warriors killed. Lieutenant Cooke and Custer both marked places where 17 and 38 warriors had been killed. First report to Fort Cobb showed that at least 80 warriors had been killed. A report coming from Fort Cobb, written with statements by fleeing Indians, said that "all the men had been killed." Accounts of the battle tell us that a great killing of warriors occured. Red Bird, a Cheyenne squaw, saw warriors laying with their guns in their hands". Scout Ben Clark remembered that the Indian forces in the village numbered around 150 warriors.

It's obvious that more than 100, almost all the warriors, were killed. Probably 120 to 130 warriors were killed. There is nothing serious in counting 20 or 40 warriors killed. 150 warriors attacked at dawn cannot have escaped. The accounts of the battle showed that they fought or were shot down. Let's be serious. Cheyenne casualties, which were rewritten to make Black Kettle look like an old peaceful fellow, were high. Custerwest 15:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

About the "politically correct garbage" (and also "politically incorrect" too)

In short.

Custer and his men were the soldiers of the American army. The same army now provides "neutral and accurate" account of these events, deigned for both soldiers and civilians (including encouraging teachers and students to use this as a source). As they are the US Army Center of Military History, they are military historians - and their mission is "recording the official history of the Army in both peace and war" since 1874. Wikipedia editors use the archival materials provided by the CMH, as it's all freeware (see: [5]).
As for the Sand Creek massacre just 4 years earlier (very related, because the same people involved on one side), the same again army concluded that the militia "surprised and murdered, in cold blood, the unsuspecting men, women, and children on Sand creek, who had every reason to believe they were under the protection of the United States authorities" - meaning Black Kettle's band, of course.
The same Wikipedia article states: "After this event, many more Cheyenne and Arapaho men joined the Dog Soldiers, and sought revenge on settlers throughout the Platte valley, killing as many as 200 civilians." - maybe this is what you mean by your "depredations"? Btw, I had to check this word - and, predictably enough, "A classic of Texas literature .... harshly condemns the Indians and makes no attempt to consider their point of view."[6]
POV issues like this: In the case of the total war such as this (burned ground tactics, actions "amounting to the total destruction of the Indian culture", which is a direct quote) you don't have civilians on one side "murdered", and these on the other side "killed" in the one article. Same thing, for example, for changing comparably greater further deaths caused by the initial military attacks (obviously mostly among children and elderly) to merely "weakening" - unless you change the alleged "massacres" of whites into the acts of "weakening" or what not. And so on.
Comanche Campaign is the long-standing and appearently official name of the conflic, and I have even nothing to do with it (see: [7]). I wonder how you missed this? No, you can't go and change it for "Anti-terror campaign" or whatever.
The outdated and POV sources are outdated and POV (obviously). If you think the "politically incorrect garbage" ("terror camp destroyed", etc.) is better, sorry. I don't care a little bit for your blog, it's called the freedom of speech, but here it's no pasaran (haha, "extreme leftism"). --HanzoHattori 17:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hanzo. Now I understand better why WP:SOURCE policy asks us to use reliable secondary rather than primary sources. In events controversial like these, it is better to stick to US official military history (most recent edition). Biophys 21:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Custerwest, please tell when you are done with editing, so we could take a final look and discuss. Biophys 21:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For an example how wrong and cofused the old sources are, here's the example by the very Secretary of War of this time:

General Custer reported that it was impracticable to comply with the request contained in the closing sentence "for the gratifying reason that every officer and man belonging to the expedition has performed his full part in rendering the movement against the hostile tribes a complete success."
General Sheridan's order, issued upon the receipt of Custer's despatch written immediately after the battle, understates the loss; two officers and twenty-five men were killed, and three officers and twelve men wounded. Two white boys were rescued from the savages. During the engagement a bloodthirsty squaw was seen to murder a bright lad of about ten years by disemboweling him with a knife. In Satanta's abandoned village the bodies of a young white woman and a child were found cruelly mutilated.
A subsequent visit to the battle-field, and investigation among the prisoners and other Indians who were in the fight, disclosed a much greater Indian loss than was first reported. They acknowledged that one hundred and forty warriors were killed, and the number wounded must have swelled the aggregate loss to nearly four hundred.

Even the (rumors of) alleged captives are completely different from the "4 to 6 white captives murdered by the Cheyennes" alleged by Cw's - according to John Schofield himself, only one in this camp (and two in the other one). He even says 27 soldiers were killed, while everyone agrees only 21 died. And so on.

Now, the Washita Battlefield website[8] says:

Before dawn, the troopers attacked the 51 lodges, killing a number of men, women, and children. Custer reported about 100 killed, though Indian accounts claimed 11 warriors plus 19 women and children lost their lives. More than 50 Cheyennes were captured, mainly women and children. Custer's losses were light: 2 officers and 19 enlisted men killed. Most of the soldier casualties belonged to Major Joel Elliott's detachment, whose eastward foray was overrun by Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Kiowa warriors coming to Black Kettle's aid. Chief Black Kettle and his wife were killed in the attack.[9]

Yes, the Indians said 11 warriors died, not "13 chiefs and 100+ warriors" - it was what "Custer reported" (and Custerwest now promotes). This one was the second most official source nowadays (government's civilian branch this time). EOT from my side, becaue I don't think there's no further discussion needed (and there was never really, but well).

One some more Battlefield quotes (more on the chief of alleged "terror camp" himself):

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site protects and interprets the site of the Southern Cheyenne village of Peace Chief Black Kettle that was attacked by the 7th U.S. Cavalry under Lt. Col. George A. Custer just before dawn on November 27, 1868. The controversial strike was hailed at the time by the military and many civilians as a significant victory aimed at reducing Indian raids on frontier settlements. Washita remains controversial because many Indians and whites labeled Custer's attack a massacre. Black Kettle is still honored as a prominent leader who never ceased striving for peace even though it cost him his life.

and continues thus:

Peace Chief Black Kettle
Seeking a peaceful existence with the U.S. Government, Black Kettle had signed three treaties between 1861-1867. Attacked once before with heavy loss of life at Sand Creek, Black Kettle still sought peace and had just returned to the camp the evening of the 26th after making another peace attempt with the army.[10]

And no word of any white prisoners at all, again. Because it was just rumors, as evidenced by the two completely different versions in the Custer's report and Schofield's review at the time, and no mention now.

The only semi-related thing is:

Cheyenne prisoners from Washita at Fort Hays, Kansas, 1869 Fifty-three women and children were held as captives until the late spring of 1869. They were used as a bargaining chip to gain the release of white women held by other bands of Cheyenne.

Other bands. And yes, it was a hostage taking:

Realizing now that many more Indians were threatening from the east, Custer feigned an attack toward their downriver camps, then quickly retreated to Camp Supply with his hostages.

But I understand the times were different. OK, enough of this already. --HanzoHattori 23:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Also: The village had just 51 ledges (and thus the immediate family units - Cw himself left the number of 200 people), and Schofield absurdly calculates the new number of 140 dead and "nearly" 400 wounded "warriors". He says it's based on what the prisoners "acknowledged", while really they said 11.

Which speaks again about the quality of these outdated (yes) sources. --HanzoHattori 00:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

References cleaned up; commments on sources & POV-pushing

I've gone through the references that Custerwest provided and cleaned them up. It's actually helpful to having a reference list that is properly formatted with complete bibliographic info. Even better, turns out that a few of them are available online for fact-checking against. I was also able to find the complete article by historian Gregory Michno that appeared on Historynet, instead of the mere excerpt of the article that Custerwest had previously linked to on his (her?) blog-style website. Michno is a creditable historian who has written (I discovered) a number of books on western history in the era of the mid-19th century Indian wars, such as the Encyclopedia of Indian Wars: Western Battles and Skirmishes 1850-1890 which Custerwest had listed in his reference list, but unfortunately in an incomplete & poorly-formatted way. The reference for the Letter to the Secretary of the Interior is incomplete -- letter from whom, exactly? Please provide complete info, Custerwest.

Custerwest's website seems essentially to be a collection of passages excerpted from books and articles on subjects related to Custer, the Indian wars, etc. But I would recommend when citing sources to cite from the original books/articles rather than that website, which is certainly far more in keeping with good scholarly practice. HanzoHattori, in spite of Custerwest's deficiencies of communication -- such as his/her numerous personal attacks on you & apparent disinterest in seeking consensus or in working with others including you in a nonantagonistic way (I congratulate you for bringing your own antagonisms into control) -- I wouldn't dismiss those sources out-of-hand. The reference list, at least, is helpful. But then again, I wouldn't dismiss your sources out of hand either. Biophys' suggestion way above, I am not sure who is right here. But the contradictions between different sources are rather common. Why not represent several alternative versions in the article, if each one of them is supported by sources that satisfyWP:SOURCE? seems wise. Otherwise you've got an edit war between two POV-pushers.

There's absolutely no reason why info from the U.S. Army military history account could not be included in this article, with appropriate referencing, even if it is in disagreement with statements based on sources Custerwest used: it's merely a matter of saying "this source says this, & that source says that". It's not either/or proposition. Historians and even primary sources will always be in disagreement about this issue or that issue. But our job on Wikipedia is not to make final judgments on which is the correct account. Per a statement made by Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales, quoted in a note on WP:NOR: "The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks, of which of course there are a number on the Web. The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. So it's quite convenient to avoid judging the credibility of things by simply sticking to things that have been judged credible by people much better equipped to decide. The exact same principle will hold true for history." (Wales, Jimmy. "Original research", December 3, 2004) (emphasis added) So stop arguing based on the basis of "the version of history presented by so & so is more valid than the version presented by whosimwhatsis" & simply say, "this guy says this" (with appropriate sourcing) "& that guy says that" (with appropriate sourcing).

I will add that many of Custerwest's cites are incomplete & hard to check. The first footnote currently reads "Miss Crockers, disputed". She did, did she? Please cite your source. Footnote 2: "Washita prisoners gave the name of each of those headmen to Interpreter Richard Curtis." And where exactly did you find this information? Please provide, so we can have a chance at doublechecking it. I have respect for sourcing, but part of the job of a scholar or historian or even just a plain ol' simple Wikipedian is to learn to cite properly. Given your self-proclaimed respect for proper historical research, you should be a little more vigorous in how you present it.

I hadn't intended to get so involved in this; I'm not an admin (despite both HanzoHattori's & Custerwest's apparent assumptions at various points to the contrary): I'm just plain ol' simple Wikipedian who saw an edit war with two people who were both not averse to personal attacks, and tried to put a stop to it through standard warnings against that kind of behavior on your talk pages that any user can make -- though again, HanzoHattori, congratulations on learning to rein yourself in, to cease from personal attacks, & to keep yourself from 3RR violations -- should you ever indeed have a WP:RFC set up for you, you can count on me to speak up on your behalf. It's because of your self-control that I decided to do more. And gee, I'm even willing to learn a bit more about this battle to help clean up the POV problems, if there are still such problems when I return from a schedule vacation this coming week. --Yksin 04:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this is all clear (now)

First of all, this is article called "Battle of Washita River" and it's not about all these alleged "depredations" (I don't think "depredations" is used at all, it was used by the anti-Native writers in the XIXth century).

Today's official sources:

American Military History says it was a part of the campaign devised by Gen. Sheriden to "completely" destroy the Indian culture in his area (cultural genocide - deliberate destruction of the cultural heritage of a people or nation for political or military reasons).

They don't mention any white civilians in any context.

They say up to 50 warriors were killed and about the same number were wounded - but many more people died afterwards from the burned ground tactics.

Which is today a major war crime called "wanton destruction", not to mention part of definition of the genocide (deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life).

Which all, by today's standards, makes it a war crime in a genocidal campaign (my conclusion, but I don't think you ould disagree).

Washita Battlefield National Historic Site (also by the government, but this time civilian: US Department of Interior) says the following things:

no mention of the any white civilians (beside these taken by the other bands) - Indian hostages[11] taken, instead

the Natives said 11 warriors and 19 civilians were killed (and that Custer said 103 warriors)

clearly says "Peace Chief Black Kettle" was a victim of the government (and so was his wife), while he was "[s]eeking a peaceful existence with the U.S. Government"[12]

actually says "It was part of the total war policy"[13] - I don't know if I can stress enough the today's official account is clear, the whole thing is a shame. It was cultural genocide, involving elements of genocide (aka the crime of extermination), hostage taking by the government, and of course the ethnic cleansing.

An old, outdated, whole-lot-confused account by Secretary of War at this time (John Schofield) said:

3 alleged white hostages (boys, not women), including 1 killed (unnamed and "seen")

completely fantasy numbers of casualties on both sides (appearently official then, but higher even than Custer's then and thus Custerwest's now)

This one also provided by the MCH[14], so you can see how the Army account's knowledge, neutrality and accuracy improved over time.

The simplified account of the whole affair, from The Library of Congress this time, says:

The Great Plains include the land from the Canadian border south to the New Mexico and Texas borders, and from the Missouri River west to the Rocky Mountains. The Indian tribes from this area -- the Plains Indians -- include the Cheyenne, Arapaho, and Kiowa. The Army fought these tribes because they wanted to gain control over the Great Plains. For many years before and after the Civil War, the U.S. government tried to move Indians to an Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma). Some Plains Indians agreed to move to reservations but others, like the Cheyennes, Kiowas, and Comanches, did not. Instead, they continued to live and hunt on traditional lands outside the Indian Territory. After the Civil War, settlers wanted to move into this land, so they attacked. At dawn on November 27, 1868, Lieutenant Colonel George Custer attacked a sleeping Cheyenne village in the Washita Valley, surprising the Cheyenne's leader, Chief Black Kettle. Many Plains Indians were captured or killed during this battle. Chief Magpie, a teenager at the time who lived in Black Kettle's village, shot a soldier and took his horse, then rode off to safety. He lived to fight Custer again at the famous Battle of Little Bighorn in 1876. [15]

And so what Custerwest says is now (2007) just a fringe theory (and also a conspiracy one - blamed on "extreme left" and "crying humanitarians", to cite this page and his blog). The government is clear what happened - all branches, inlcuding Amy itself. I can only agree on the small section on the bottom in few words saying how the perception of the incident evolved over the time. Because, really, the year is 2007.

Also, these were the neutral versions (by the same governemnt which was responsible for this in the first place), plus of course the outdated then-version we now see as being false. Here's an example the pro-Native account:[16] (a book online) --HanzoHattori 09:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I forgot one thing: As the troops were ordered "to kill or hang all warriors" (meaning of course the men - the women were called "squaw" by the white people), this was also an act of gendercide (The systematic killing of men, viricide, happens sometimes during war to reduce an enemy's potential pool of soldiers; this happened for example in the 1988 Anfal campaign against Kurdish men in Iraq and in the 1995 Srebrenica massacre of Bosniak men and boys.). By the supposedly "civilised" forces. During "anti-terror campaign". I'd also add only captured male children were "not over eight years of age" - guess eight years makes one a "terrorist", to use the lingo on the Cw's blog. --HanzoHattori 16:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Pro-Native version (unnecessary really, but one thing there is quite haunting)

Oh, and here are the conclusions[17] of the pro-Native account (the book is quite long, and maybe I'll read it some time):

(skip Sand Creek)

5. that according to government correspondence, tribes--consisting of the Cheyenne (including Black Kettle's band), Arapaho, Kiowa and other--were ordered to go to the Fort Cobb area by the military to keep out of the impending war, designating that region, including up and down the Washita River, as a refuge or sanctuary for Indians wanting peace, and

6. that Black Kettle complied with the order, coming to the Fort Cobb area,

7. that his location, along with the other tribes was recorded and incorporated into correspondence to the high military command,

8. that his offer in behalf of his band to surrender was recorded and refused by the military, and

9. that Hazen had warned Custer that Black Kettle was on the Washita under his orders,

10. that most of the members of this village were subsequently killed in a strike against them by the military shortly after Black Kettle's offer to surrender,

11. that the remaining 8,000 tribal members were forced to flee from their winter camps, subjecting themselves to physical harm and death due to exposure and lack of provisions.

12. that the remaining various bands of Arapaho, Cheyenne and Kiowa attempted to surrender but were not allowed to do so and were pursued to the Wichita Mountains and attacked and killed there.

Actually, I don't think we should take sides - the official government version is enough.

But what I realized looking at the point 11, the Army's short notice that the aftermath "killed or weakened more than did the initial military attack" is now much more sinister. Not only because the scale of suffering is greater, but also because this was exactly what the Army account says was planned. And this is in the legal definition of genocide, so it wasn't only a mere "complete destruction of the culture". --HanzoHattori 10:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, guess I'll continue anyway. What emerges from this account, it was a planned cold-blood murder of the people who attempted to surender - a terror raid indeed.

Moreover, Black Kettle, on arriving at Antelope Hills, had visited General Hazen at Fort Cobb on November 20, 1868, saying that he wanted to surrender: "We all want peace, and I would be glad to move all my people down this way; I could then keep them all quietly near my camp." He also disclosed the location and size of his camp: "My camp is now on the Washita, 40 miles east of the Antelope Hills, and I have about 180 lodges." What was known specifically about Black Kettle's band of Cheyennes was extensive. The army knew the exact location of his camp, the size of his village, that Black Kettle desired to surrender, that he had offered to surrender at Fort Cobb, that he was waiting for permission to come to Fort Cobb to surrender from General Hazen, that if General Sheridan should encounter their tribe, that they were to request permission to surrender from him directly.

Battlefield Washita's account confirms this: "Seeking a peaceful existence with the U.S. Government, Black Kettle .... still sought peace and had just returned to the camp the evening of the 26th after making another peace attempt with the army." All the government accounts preety much agree it was meant as an attempt by Sheridan and his subordinate Custer to terrorize the population into a flee in a disastrous escape, and in the end a complete surrender en masse (these who survived, of course) - and largely succeeded. I think it actually classifies this incident into the the Category: State terrorism (in addition to Ethnic cleansing).

Also still from this book:

To order, as Sherman and Sheridan had done, an attack on a group of people attempting to surrender, should be clearly identifiable as being a crime against humanity. If there is any doubt, one may compare a similar order by Hitler during World War II, the Order of Hitler of October 1942, called the "Commando" Order. It stated in paragraph 3 that:
All enemy troops encountered by German troops during so-called commando operations in Europe or Africa, though they appear to be soldiers in uniform or demolition groups, armed or unarmed, are to be exterminated to the last man, either in combat or in pursuit...(and that) if such men appear to be about to surrender, no quarter should be given them on general principle.
The article concluded that "it is clear that such an Order was manifestly contrary to established principles of international law and humanity." (Dunten, 1951, p. 257)

Yes, it too dwells then into the definitions of the genocide (and into the media at this time too, comparing them to not less but Julius Streicher). Another quote:

The attack by Custer had far greater ramifications than the destruction of Black Kettle's village. Over 8,000 members of various tribes had been camped along the Washita, including women and children. By Custer charging these camps in the dead of winter, with snow knee-deep, many assuredly perished from exposure and starvation as they abandoned the protection of their villages.
However, to make the attack against the peacefully assembled tribes along the Washita look like an act of bravery by the military, not mass killing, Custer talked as though bewildered about the gathering forces of Indians that came against him. He stated that despite the Indians' overwhelming numerical advantage, they were successfully repulsed. The most probable reason that they were "repulsed" was that they were friendly Indians encumbered by their families, had come to the vicinity of Fort Cobb to signify their peaceful status and fled when Custer started his charge down the Washita.

According to Raphael Lemkin in Axis Rule in Occupied Europe: laws of occupation, analysis of government, proposals for redress, genocide has two phases, "destruction of the national pattern of the oppressed group; the other, the imposition of the national pattern of the oppressor." (p. 79) One of the first methods of nationalizing an area is through colonization of that area. (p. 83) Thus settlers were the vanguard for the domination of the land base originally occupied by the Indian. Usurpation of sovereignty is another element associated with genocide. The sovereign status of the Indian nations was eliminated by the United States without the consent of the Indian nations.
Another feature of genocide according to Lemkin is the "destruction of the foundations of the economic existence of a national group." The elimination of the buffalo contributed significantly to the demise of the Native Americans' ability to sustain themselves, as it was both the source of shelter, clothing, utensils and food.
According to Lemkin, genocide also involves "the physical debilitation and even annihilation of national groups in occupied countries" carried out mainly by racial discrimination in feeding, endangering of health and mass killings. Thus, the withholding of rations, the attack on camps in the winter and the mass killing of Indians all contributed to meeting the definition of genocide.
Moreover, Lemkin stated that genocide was the "antithesis of the Rosseau-Portalis Doctrine, which may be regard as implicit in the Hague Regulations," pointing out that the doctrine held that "war is directed against sovereigns and armies, not against subjects and civilians. In its modern application in civilized society, the doctrine means that war is conducted against states and armed forces and not against populations." It was this concept that was verbally celebrated in an 1868 article in Harper's Weekly in its discussion of humanity in war. In practice, however, its celebration was not observed vis-a-vis the Native American.

In all, what emerges is much worse than I initially thought (before the whole controversy, and even just after I was called "idiot monkey"), because I thought it was just an engagement, which possibly involved a rather small massacre of non-combatants. Thanks for opening my eyes, Custerwest.--HanzoHattori 11:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Summary (and back to NPOV)

In 2007, Custerwest's is a fringe theory, and the historical revisionism in a worst meaning of this word. It's quite like (a paraphrase) presenting some controversional (by the point of human rights) incident from the military history of Germany 1939-45 not by what the German government stands for now, but what the German government stood for then (as the superb "primary sources").

The current official account is clear:

the incident was a "total war" attack on a large group of people actively attempting to surrender at the time
the attack was unprovoked and without warning, in the situation involving large number of civilians
men, women, and children were killed by the soldiers, including "Peace Chief Black Kettle" and his wife
number of the men killed was estimated 11-103 then, but now is believed to be "perhaps" 50 by the Army
21 soldiers were also killed, and 13 wounded
there were no white captives rescued nor killed, but 53 Native "hostages" were taken to be swapped
the assault involved wanton (and total) destruction of the village and its livestock
the terror (then offically called "demoralizing") action resulted in the great suffering and many (more than attack) deaths among a large mass of est. 8,000 people
the former was planned since beginning as an offensive meaning to "completely destroy" their culture by the military means
even then many of the soldiers and officers involved knew it was "morally" wrong.

In citation mark the direct quotes All of this I discusussed and linked before.

There's no controversy going on - besides the fringe theories from individual persons such as Custervest. Does this matter? I don't think so - in other case, anyone can argue the Earth is flat, using a "primary sources" from before Copernicus. Outdated sources are outdated (I can't stop saying this), and so wrong are these completely POV (especially Custer on himself), not to mention various racist accounts at the time are conflicting with each other, even these official then. See also: historical revisionism - here, we see revisionism in both good (US gvt) and bad (Custerwest) sense. --HanzoHattori 11:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources ?

This kind of statement "there were no white captives rescued nor killed" is completely wrong. Custer indicated that white captives had been freed and one killed in his official report (see Senate). Black Kettle's own sister admitted that captives had been made (Mah-wis-sa. Clara Blinn's story is true to the core (see Greene, Utley, Frost, Brill etc.). The attack was done because of massacres of settlers, not the destruction of culture or who-knows-else. Again, you have no source, you haven't any clue of what you're talking about. Where are your quotes? Your sources? Your books ? Have you something factual at all? Custerwest 13:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Listen up. I don't need any of this - it's all the work of government, and they have all they need, and more. Custer was a mere soldier in his army, a little man among millions of others who served - and now his army and his governemnt say he was wrong. Maybe you didn't understand yet, but Custer's account was decided to be false, and so was the conflicting one of his chief, and any other differing with the moder one. As i told you more than once, if you have any problems with that, get this to the government (Army and Department of the Interior), not me, because I'm just repeating the official line, and not engaging in the WP:OR. That's all. --HanzoHattori 14:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And further, because you seemingly have troubles to comprehend: This is what the soldiers and civilians are thought. This is what the United States Department of the Interior presents to the tourists who come to this place. The U.S. Army insists their account is "neutral and accurate", and there's no reason to believe otherwise. The Wikipedia editors are actually encouraged to use the materials by the federal agencies of the U.S. Government (not least because it's free to use, while most of other material is copyrighted). And to answer your question of "Sources ?" (which should be "Sources?"), it's American Military History[18] by the U.S. Army Center of Military History and the official websites of the Washita Battlefield National Historic Site[19] (a unit of the National Park Service, which "protects and interprets the site"). Yes, they are building the Cultural Heritage Center there, and guess what it will be about. In addition, the website of the Library of Congress.[20] Yes, it's a simplified version for kids. But this is the only line. They no longer scary the kids with the "savage Injuns" (and "deprivations" or whatever). --HanzoHattori 14:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

That's the government. But if you want the NGO sources, try, for example, the Public Broadcasting Service.[21] And welcome to Wikipedia (and the XXI Century). --HanzoHattori 14:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

And as you thought this this chapter was "extreme left dumb ass monkey humanitarian idiocy", I think you will get now spasm when I cite from the chapter about the Vietnam war:

What happened at My Lai could have occurred in any Army unit in Vietnam in the late 1960's and early 1970's. War crimes were born of a sense of frustration that also contributed to a host of morale and discipline problems, among enlisted men and officers alike. As American forces were withdrawn by a government eager to escape the war, the lack of a clear military objective contributed to a weakened sense of mission and a slackening of discipline. The short-timer syndrome, the reluctance to take risks in combat toward the end of a soldier's one-year tour, was compounded by the "last-casualty" syndrome. Knowing that all U.S. troops would soon leave Vietnam, no soldier wanted to be the last to die. Meanwhile, in the United States harsh criticism of the war, the military, and traditional military values had become widespread. Heightened individualism, growing permissiveness, and a weakening of traditional bonds of authority pervaded American society and affected the Army's rank and file. The Army grappled with problems of drug abuse, racial tensions, weakened discipline, and lapses of leadership. While outright refusals to fight were few in number, incidents of "fragging"— murderous attacks on officers and noncoms—occurred frequently enough to compel commands to institute a host of new security measures within their cantonments. All these problems were symptoms of larger social and political forces and underlined a growing disenchantment with the war among soldiers in the field.

But I call "neutrality and accuracy", instead of the John Wayne crap. --HanzoHattori 15:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Depredations

There were rapes, massacres, scalping, abduction of women and children (see Jerome Greene, "Summer depredations" in "Washita", 2004. Custerwest 14:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Black Kettle at Fort Cobb

"that Hazen had warned Custer that Black Kettle was on the Washita under his orders" False. Hazen asked Black Kettle if he was ready to give the depredators to the army. Black Kettle said no, and left the fort. Hazen was affraid because some chiefs told him of the coming war, with more Cheyennes coming in Indian Territory the following summer. (see Hoig) Custerwest 14:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

White captives at Washita