Talk:Bear River Massacre

Civil War Battle (again)

User:Grant65 revised this article to remove some (but not all) categories related to the American Civil War as it pertains to this article. I have restored those categories, and am making note of it here on this talk page for those who are following the discussion here.

As far as I can tell, neither here between Wikipedia editors nor among historians is there a clear consensus as to "which war" this battle was a part of. It could be argued both ways that it was a campaign of the Indian Wars or the American Civil War. Indeed it seems to fit both of them in a great many ways.

I don't want to engage in an edit war here, and I've taken my time including trying to write to the above user to justify his actions on this issue. As several sources use the terms "Union victory" and have this event listed in events of the Civil War, together with the fact that Connor was under the wartime command of the Department of the Pacific, I believe this to be irresponsible to dismiss this event as completely unrelated to the Civil War. Yes, I'll acknowledge that the Shoshone weren't necessarily allies of the Confederacy (who likely would have done the same thing under the same circumstances), but the Shoshone were considered to be a hostile enemy of the USA at the time, which did happen during the period of the Civil War.

If such a drastic editorial change is to be made to this article, I'd rather discuss it first and try to come to some sort of consensus that also includes 3rd party discussions about this topic. Citations from noted historians would be useful, and I also fail to see how removing categories about this topic makes it any easier to reference this event. The proliferation of categories on this article is something to argue about, but that doesn't appear to be the topic at hand. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

If this massacre doesn't exactly fall neatly into the American civil war or the American Indian wars, then perhaps the massacre may be best labelled as part of the western expansion of the United States territory instead of erroneously labelling the massacre; would such a label satisfy both sides of the editorial/historian debate? Nnoell (talk) 06:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Moving letter to Wikisource

There was a rather lengthy newspaper article that was included with this wikipedia entry that detailed an encounter between some migrants on the Oregon Trail and what seemed to be some native americans that happened in 1859. I say seemed to be "Indians" because there were groups of European-heritage bandits that liked to hang out on the Oregon trail at that time to raid the immigrant trains, often disguised and even acquiring habits to various degrees of the native peoples of the region. A great many of those attacks were falsely attributed to the native peoples of the region when such an accusation was undeserved.

Regardless, such complete sources quoted in their entirety doesn't fit with the narrative flow of this encyclopedia entry and really deserves better treatment in a repository of original sources. It is for this reason I've moved this article to Wikisource, where you can find the contents of this letter at:

s:The Late Massacre near Fort Hall

This incident appears to be in the same general time frame and (give or take a few hundred miles) location as the Van Ornum massacre, and may even be the same incident. It is hard to tell with the information contained in this letter, and it may a different incident that was just coincidental at the time.

If there is a way to work a part of this story into this article, I'm not including at least a mention of this incident. There certainly were a great many problems that happened between the Shoshoni, the Mormon settlers, and the migrants on the Oregon Trail (three very distinctly different groups of people). This incident is another example to throw on the list, but it does need to be condensed and/or have additional sources of information found about the incident. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Metrodyne> Excuse me but it is an iron clad source, published in the Desert News with the US Calvary witnessing it. It is in Brian Madsen's publications and Madsen is probably the most authoritive historian on the Shoshone and Bannock tribes there is today. It was a short story and self explanitory. The most a rewrite could do is rewrite the same story in about as many words. If you want to try and do this with a "narrative flow", go ahead but it is a very important part of the history of the massacre and explains a lot in how hatreds could reach the level that that did and it needs to be in the Bear River messacre article. Many of the statement you make above are false. It has nothing to do with the Van Ornum incident. Where to you come up with this idea? I can add Madsen as a source and I will check if Masen sources the military reports but, at the very least, it is importrant because it was published in the Deseret News, the Mormon Newpaper, and many people in the area read it and believed it. Please put it back.

If you want to rewrite, fine, but I do not think it correct that whole sections are simply removed by someone who deems himself a higher authority. It met the requirements and it is sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.49.186.130 (talk) 20:34, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

If this is in Brian Madsen's publication (which one?), that should be the cited source instead of Deseret News. This is a letter to the editor, written in that form, and it is an original source.

BTW, I dispute that this is a "very important part of the history of the massacre" as it hasn't even been mentioned in several histories of the Bear River Massacre, and certainly wasn't one of the primary triggering incidents that was mentioned in the warrant for the arrest of chiefs Bear Hunter, Sagwitch, or Sanpitch. That this particular letter to the editor illustrates a part of the overall broad competition between American settlers of European ancestry and native peoples of North America is true, and it did take place on the Oregon Trail.

I should note that this event happened nearly three and a half years before the actual Bear River Massacre. A direct correlation certainly can't be made directly, nor can even the identity of what group of individuals that performed this action be made... or even if they were in fact native or simply a rogue group of bandits of European descent themselves. The Bannocks, the Goshute, and other groups including even the Souix were known to travel in that region. I am asserting that it could have been anybody that performed this horrendous action, although it seems certain that the Shoshoni people were implicated in what happened at the time, and assumed to be the perpetrators of this action.

The main reason I removed this section is because it is an original source. As such, it doesn't belong in a scholarly article like an encyclopedia entry. I did include it with a list of sources about the Bear River Massacre, and I certainly don't want this information to be discarded completely. In terms of condensing the information in this letter to the editor, I'll try to do that right now. I do question how important this is to the overall story of the massacre, but I'm not trying to "own" this article... merely trying to keep some minimal standards about what goes in here and to place information where it bets fits. Original sources belong on Wikisource, not Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I just condensed this down to about a paragraph of information. Feel free to expand this as you see fit, but make sure that you wikify the information (put links into other Wikipedia articles, as appropriate), cite sources for additional information, and please maintain a Neutral Point of View when adding material. Fanning "the fires of Indian hatred by even the most compasionate euro-Americans" is not a neutral point of view statement, to use an example of what was written there earlier. Learning how to write with an NPOV approach is not an easy skill to acquire, and does take some time to learn. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, his name is Brigham D. Madsen, his is professor Emeritus of History at the University of Utah. Madsen refers to this story as one of the MAIN causes of the Bear River massecre because, he says, "there they found evidence typical of the kind that caused soldier and citizen to swear vengence on all Indians, hostile or not." It is on pp 117-118 in his book The Bannock of Idaho (1997) and is a leading story in his chapter entitled The Battle of Bear River. I do not know why this story of the torture of a 5-year-old girl is not included in other histories of the Bear River massecre. Perhaps other historians were not as thorough or perhaps they were bias against euro-Americans and thought themselves of a higher intelligence and as having deeper insights into the cultural clashes of the day. Who knows what motivates some people. Madsen does not cite any military documents regarding the torture specifically, only the Deseret News story, but writes that the military, "sent nine men back to investigate the scene of the massacre," indicating that he believes the military indeed investigated. He does cite a letter in the following paragraph, Forney to Commanding Officer Floyd, Utah Terr., Sept 22, 1859, that speaks of several Indian attacks at the time and may speak of this incident amoung others. But Madsen clearly believes the story and believes it had a military investigation.

...and yes, you edited out the most important point of the story which was the torture of the 5-year-old girl that incited hatred of the Indians by the euro-Americans in the area. I do not know why you did this. You seem to have a very, very biased view of the history and the people of the area. The story was in the newspaper, several named and known people died, and it was investigated by the military. What does it take to convince you…videotape? I will rewrite when I get some time but the flow will now be awkward because it will need to be written in an irrefutable manor covering every possible doubt. I don't know why we don't just quote the newspaper story and let it stand. Personally, I think the whole wikipedia article needs a rewrite. Maybe I will delete it and leave a note regarding my opinion. --Metrodyne —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrodyne (talk • contribs) 05:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see some more "evidence" of what happened to this five year old girl. There must be a journal of this "Lieutenant Livingston" that helped to investigate what happened, and perhaps some other reports that may have described this event based upon other eyewitness testimony or others that may have at least seen the after effects of what happened here. Unfortunately, what we have here is but one source about one event. It also does not include any sort of source material that would be from the viewpoint of the Shoshoni people or the "indians" who may have been involved with this attack... or at least those implicated in the affair.

As to why I didn't get into the graphic details of what happened to this girl... first of all, it is covered in the article that is now on Wikisource. I provided a huge link right in the middle of the text for those who really care to go into those details, but they should see it in context and not sensationalized. Frankly, I think that graphic detail of this particular incident does nothing to improve this article nor does it do anything other than to suggest that the person who wrote the account was angry about what happened.

As for my bias of the history and the people of the area... what bias do you think I have? That the only good indian is a dead indian? That the white man is screwed up and needs to be exterminated and sent back to Europe? Both are extremist viewpoints that I hope are not reflected in this article. The viewpoint that I have here is that I am a resident of this area (I live in Cache Valley) and I see an unfortunate incident that happened in part due to poor communications between hugely different cultures and populations pressures encroaching on the lands of a group of nomadic hunter-gatherers whose culture was eventually wiped out by the expanding culture of the United States. The Shoshoni people are still around, and I am very sensitive to their viewpoint and want to honor their ancestors... many of whom died needlessly 146 years ago to this day.

As far as simply deleting this whole article.... yeah, right. I suppose I can't stop you but it isn't a trivial thing to do. There is more work to be done here and I'd like to work with you rather than against you. Seriously. If you have something substantial to add to this article, I'd encourage you to help out. I'd like to expand the section on the Battle of Providence, to give an example of something that is much, much more relevant to the events of the Bear River Massacre than the deaths of some pioneers on the Oregon Trail some two years before Colonel Conner even stepped foot into the American mountain west. It was also hardly the only deliberate deaths on the Oregon Trail, even the part of that trail which went through what is today eastern Idaho. I'm certain that we can find dozens of incidents including massacres of native peoples (including Shoshoni) by white immigrants to the area as well. This was hardly the only such incident, and such things were certainly not one-sided. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

No, we have more than "one source." We have a newspaper story with many names including the names of the people killed, the name of the commanding officer, and the names of other people involved. Do you think that a newspaper could publish big lies about all of these people including including prominent military officers. Do you think there were no libel laws in 1857? And as already stated, Madsen does site the letter of Forny to Commanding Officer Foyd on Sept 22 in reference to this and other incidences at the time. Also, it is not like the Mormon newspaper was hostile to native-Americans. I know anti-Indian newspapers such as the Idaho Statement did published anti-Indian stories that are very questionable but never a big lie involving the military where they named officers. There were laws against prinint lies and you did not mess with the military in those days. Further, if a prominent historian such as Brigham Madsen is writing of it as if it were a leading cause of the Bear River massacre, there is probably very good evidence that it is true. Madsen is probably well aware of all the evidence against and in support of all the alleged atrocities on both sides. And finally, the story, true or not, is part of the history because it certainly incited Indtian hatred. It is important and the torutre of the young girl should not be edited out!

As to the general conflict between euro-American and native-American, there were certainly many atrocities committed by euro-Americans. There were fewer in Mormon areas of Utah and southern Idaho as the Mormons were more compasionate people (my opinion) and because the LDS Church had a well known policy of "feed rather than fight" the Indidans. In western and central Idaho, however, where most of the euro-American culture was associated with mining, there are many well documented atrocities committed by euro-Americans against native-Americans…shooting Indians sitting in the street, wanton killing of women and children, scalping, torture, etc. Further, Madsen indicates that the torture of the 5-year-old girl was mostly likely committed by the Bannock and not the Shoshone, although the surviving victims were unable to identify which tribe was involved. The bigger picture is that the Bannock had clearly turned against the euro-Americans by this time. They sacked the Momon establisment of Fort Lemhi, for example. The Bannock were much more aggressive and would often dominated the Shoshone and there is evidence that the Bannock pushed the Shoshone into their war on the euro-Americans and into depredations on the Oregon Trail and against settlers in the area. It was almost entirely Shoshone, however, that paid the price at the Bear River massacre. It is likely that there were a few Bannock camped at massacre site (there usually were a few Bannock camped with Shoshone) but I have never read of any clear evidence that there were any Bannock killed.

I think it is important to tell the truth so people know what the massacre was about. It was not a clearcut battle of good and evil. It was euro-Americans moving in and taking lands away from Indians. It was agreeable for a time. The Indians liked the trade goods, guns, and other trappings they received from the European culture. But the once friendly relationship broke down over time and degenerated into torture and murder. It is an important story and should be told truthfully with no bias for either side. --Metrodyne

I'm glad that we can agree on a few things here, although I think you have some misconceptions about the era as well. This is only one source, at it is clearly a letter to the editor... not even in the style of typical reportage of the era at that. While it names several people, it was clearly authored by only one individual.... and yes, newspapers then and even now do print such letters verbatim without verifying their accuracy directly. I am not calling it a straight outright fabrication and fictional account, but it certainly is very biased from its viewpoint from an individual who clearly did believe in the philosophy of "the only good indian is a dead indian."

As for the Bannocks and the Shoshone people camping together, I find that highly unlikely. The two groups were not directly associated with each other until after the creation of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation (much, much later than the events of the Bear River Massacre) when they were forced at gunpoint to live together and share provisions provided by the U.S. government. The Bannocks spoke a completely different language (about as different as Chinese is from English), had very different customs, and even had some physical appearances that were different. That they may have had occasional associations with the Shoshoni people may be true as they did live in roughly the same general area, the Bannocks had much more in common with the Goshute on a cultural and linguistic basis than they did with the Shoshoni. They were completely different people, and it would be like calling the French to be identical to the Polish people. Actually more like Germans and Italians or even more different yet.

As for explicitly the Shoshoni people and their actions, not only was land that was taken at gun point and "given" to settlers of European ancestry, but the settlers, pioneers along the major migration routes, and even fur trappers and "mountain men" who took so much food in the form of game and other food supplies that the lives of the Shoshoni people were significantly disrupted... with it clear that the encroachment of these "white" settlers being the ones responsible for the loss of food stocks and game. It is not so clearly marked that these people... even if they had agreed upon boundaries in the form of treaties and clear territorial boundaries to be respected by all parties... that such promises were honored or kept. To answer who was in the wrong here is hard to say, but it is clear who the recent arrivals were and who the traditional inhabitants were.

More to the point, it sounds like you want to write an apologetic piece here being sympathetic to Col. Conner and his soldiers, giving rationale and justification to his actions. Again, please read the Wikipedia guidelines about having a neutral point of view and help me to constructively develop this article. I do want your input here, and I would like to see you help in adding details and content to this article. Find sources (multiple sources.... almost everything in this article I can back with a minimum of three and as many as ten different completely independent sources... both secondary and primary sources at that) and back up what you claim.

BTW, I think you are way over estimating Brigham Madsen, although he certainly is a fine historian. If you look in the bibliography of this article, I referenced at least three of his books extensively in the creation of this article and certainly used the information from his books in detail. Unfortunately not the one that you are citing here. It is surprising, therefore, that he didn't bring up this particular incident in the other books he wrote that also talked about the Bear River Massacre if it was something of such supreme importance and note in the unfolding of the events that later took place as described in this article. --Robert Horning (talk) 00:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

The Bannock and Shoshone didn't camp together you say... you find it highly unlikely you say. The Bannock had more in common with the Goshute you say. You really need to do a little reading Robert. You know nothing about these tribes on which you sound like such an authority. I guess I am going to stop writing into this article and to you because I do not want to deal with the ignorance. So make believe whatever you want the article to be and if anyone comes in with any facts that conflict with your little dream world, just delete it. Why don’t you try reading a few history books on the subject written by educated people who have studied these tribes and who have studied the history. Madsen, for example, in his book on the Bannock, devotes an entire chapter to the ethnicity, the culture, the language, and the origins of the Bannock people. In his book on the Shoshone, Merle W. Wells writes an Introduction and writes of the ethnicity, the culture, the language, and the origins of the Shoshone people. You would be amazed how at what scholars and historians know about them. And these are not just opinions touted by people sounding like authorities on the internet, these are established facts accepted by hundreds of academics, scholars, and historians on which hundreds agree.

For your information Robert, the Goshute or Gosiute are Shoshonean. The Bannock are closely related to the Paiute or Northern Paiute. In fact some anthropologists consider them the most northerly of the Northern Paiute tribe.

Also for your information Robert, the two tribes, although of completely different origins, culture, and even physical appearance, were on peaceful terms and shared much of the same territory. The Bannock were certainly the dominant tribe and allowed the Shoshone to live among them, hunt with them, and groups from both tribes regularly camped together. In his chapter on the messacre, Madsen refers to the camp as the "Shoshone and Bannock camp." It does not matter if you, Robert, find it highly unlikely. It is a well documented a historical fact and, no, I am not going to prove it to you.

The author of the letter quoted in the Deseret News is J. C. Wright the Utah Indian Agent in Brigham City at the time. It wasn't someone writing in and I think it would be very difficutl, even for you, to question it authority. Why don’t you just try reading up on some of this yourself before you start trouble with honest people. And you are no kind of historian or scholar to be questioning Madsen. While I do not want to go back and research where I read it, I believe he is undisputed authority on both the Shoshone and Bannock tribes in academic circles.

Who did you say you thought you were? I find it very unsettling that you write in here like some kind of moderator when you know so little about the subject. It is almost scary!

Are there people in Wikipedia I can complain to? --Metrodyne

Are there "people in Wikipedia" to complain to? Yeah, there are dispute resolution areas and other such folks to help resolve problems of this nature. If you really want to complain about what I'm doing here, there certainly are avenues and approaches to take. See WP:OWN over a policy I think you might be trying to have enforced here if you really don't like what I've done here, including notifying some folks to try and bring in some additional eyeballs to see what is going on here. BTW, I've made that initial contact and have asked for some other editors to at least come by on an informal basis to check out if I've been in the wrong here or not.

Why do I question Madsen? Because I don't necessarily think that any one person has the "right" to be the exclusive authority on any subject. It is healthy to question authority, even very learned and well read authority of nearly any subject and I find it disturbing that you have such unquestioning faith and reliance on such authority as you have mentioned.

I don't have these books immediately at hand, and it has been a little while since I've read them. I do need to brush up on this stuff, and I'll admit that I might be a little bit wrong on some of my background with the Bannocks. Even so, there were some Shoshone that suggested the Bannocks might have been responsible for some of the attacks that lead to the arrest warrant that was issued. I'm not the most exclusive authority on this topic, but I am questioning your motives here or even your willingness to constructively build on this article. I really would like to work with you and not against you, and if there is some way you can help to educate me on some of the background to this story, I really would like to learn more. I am willing to admit that I may be wrong on some things here.

Still, I don't understand why you are demanding this particular incident that is not directly tied to the massacre of a Shoshoni village and took place three and a half years before Col. Connor's attack must have such strong prominence, nor understand why the entire source absolutely must be quoted verbatim and not a scholarly synthesis of that source. The sources provided below can provide additional information about the incident in 1859 that may add additional details to this unfortunate incident on the Oregon Trail, and if more information can be gathered about that incident, it may even be worth creating a separate Wikipedia article about just that one incident. Can we work together here? Can you provide more sources for this incident than this one letter to the editor of the Desert News? Is there enough information about the death of the Miltimore family to be able to build a full article about this topic? --Robert Horning (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I did find another "source" document that described the massacre on the Oregon Trail from at least a slightly different perspective. The actual text of this can be found here, which was in an official report presented by Jacob Thompson to the U.S. Congress on behalf of President James Buchanan in 1860. The numbers and location contradict the letter in the Deseret News, but it seems to match roughly the same description of events, and mentioned Lt. Livingston explicitly by name during the same time period and roughly the same region of the country. BTW, this source reinforces that it is impossible to identify exactly who may have perpetrated the attack... and I stand by my assertion that they may have not even been native americans at all. They couldn't even find a convenient scapegoat to pin the attack on in this case. --Robert Horning (talk) 12:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

It is called the Miltimore Massacre and there are all kinds of documentation for it, including part A and B in the section below (1859 Depredations & Murders of CA & OR Bound Emigrants). Nelson Mitimore, one of the surviving boys, has a sworn affidavit in the Part B where he verifies the torture of his little sister including the part about her legs being cut off at the knee. There is a twist to the story. Nelson claims that the some of attackers spoke fluent English and a couple had beards. Some people even speculated the attackers were Mormons that massacred the Miltimore train similar to that at Mountain Meadows. The odd thing is that the stock and other valuables were found by another party of emigrants and brought to Camp Floyd and returned to the survivors. So robbery was not the motive??? Brigham Young was accused of ordering several of these massacres with Mormons dressed as Indians with the motive of scaring people away from Utah and the West. But there were many accusations in the wake of the Mountain Meadow Massacre and Utah War.

I still believe that the story of the torture of the 5-year-old girls in the Deseret News is important because of its fiendish nature and because it certainly contributed to the hatred of the Indians. Even if this J. C. Wright, the Utah Indian Agent in Brigham City, sensationalized his story for the Deseret news as part of a Mormon conspiracy, it still contributed to the military action at Bear River a few years later. Madsen believes it was Bannock behind the Miltimore massecre. Surely he knows of the Nelson Miltimore affidavit. Some of the attackers could have been half-breeds. There were many in the vicinity of Fort Hall since Fort Hall had been a trading post since 1832 and I have read somewhere of the many half breeds amoung the Shoshone and Bannock. I need to read more and digest all this for awhile. --Metrodyne —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.214.232 (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW, in going through this it seems as though it is more related to the Bear River Expedition and should be added to that article. Until you threw the section about this immigrant train attack into this article, I didn't think there was any connection at all to the Bear River Massacre and this previous expedition to the Bear River area. That article about the Bear River Expedition is in desperate need of additional material, additional sources, and reworking into a serious article. For some time and even based on conversations I had with official Department of Defense military historians, I didn't think the expedition even really happened in the first place... to note how much information about this era has been forgotten. I'm also thinking that Isaac Lynde.... whose name keeps showing up on documents about this incident.... needs to be better documented as well.

You are forcing me to reopen this issue and to take another scholarly look at this material. Thank you for that, and it certainly is something which needs to be reviewed. You even "made" me go out and take some more snapshots of the Bear River Massacre area (I was leaning to do that anyway.... but a little push didn't hurt). --Robert Horning (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

There is certainly something stirring about the history of the West. I heard it said that it is the most written about of all histories in the world. It has its own movie/TV genre and “Western” movies and TV shows are popular in most places on the planet. I’ve not heard the satisfying explanation as to why we are so interested in cowboys, pioneers, minors, Shoshone, or Bannock. The West is a study in contrasts with its desert landscapes and green valleys partitioned by high mountain ranges and snow capped peaks and with its state of the art railroads passing though stone-age hunting grounds offending mighty stone age warriors. The euro-Americans with their Christian culture condemned and even hated the native-American culture but admired their resolve, strength, and bravery at the same time. Unlike other areas and other times, the reality of the West was more shocking and stranger than fiction and it surpassed Hollywood myths rather than vise versa. Growing up, I didn’t think Idaho had that much history. All the “Westerns” took place in Montana, Wyoming, or Arizona. Idaho was about farming potatoes. But the facts are, Idaho has more history than most areas and some of most interesting. It had Fort Hall, the rendezvous, the early migration of the Mormons, the Oregon Trail, the California Trail, the gold rush, Indian wars, and the preservation Yellowstone Park. It seems like Idaho, at least eastern Idaho, does not cherish its history as much as it should. --Metrodyne —Preceding undated comment was added at 08:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

The following 3 volume set provides a great deal of info. Unforunately it is out of print & is expensive to purchase used, but available in many Idaho Libraries.

1. Beal, Merrill D. (1953), History of Idaho, New York: Lewis Historical Pub. Co, OCLC 6565869 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Tinosa (talk) 15:54, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

1859 Depredations & Murders of CA & OR Bound Emigrants

A- Shannon, Donald H. (2004). The Boise Massacre. Caldwell, ID: Snake Country Publishing. ISBN 0-9635828-1-X

1- The Shepherd Massacre Chapter 16.

2- Attack on the Carpenter Train pp 198-200.

3- The Miltimore Massacre Chapter 17.

B- Thompson, Jacob (1860), Message of the President of the United States: communicating, in compliance with a resolution of the Senate, information in relation to the massacre at Mountain Meadows, and other massacres in Utah Territory, 36th Congress, 1st Session, Exec. Doc. No. 42, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior.

C- CA digital newspapers: http://cbsr.tabbec.com/

1- Alta California 1859, Sept 8, Oct 5 & 6

2- Sacremento Union 1859, Sept 19, Oct 27,

D- Utah digital newspapers: http://digitalnewspapers.org/

1- Deseret News 1859: see Bear River Expedition article for partial list.Tinosa (talk) 01:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. We need to be careful here and not get confused with the Mountain Meadow Massacre or have this article turn into something like Depredations along the Oregon and California Trails'. The focus of this article can and should be about the one event that happened on January 29th, 1863 and not substantially about the rest of these incidents. Still, these are some excellent links, and ones worth digging into for additional source material.

Further caution should be done here as noted with WP:PRIMARY, and take extra care that they are not being synthesized to promote a particular point of view. I'm not a hardcore "only use secondary sources" type of guy as I do believe primary sources can and should play a responsible role in even developing something like an encyclopedia article. Still, it is difficult to maintain objectivity even here. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion an historian who doesn't provide verifiable primary sources is writing historical fiction and when sources are provide they should be examined. It seems some cherry pick the sources for catchy phrases and leave out important content. Also, when an editor makes a statement such as "They couldn't even find a convenient scapegoat to pin the attack on in this case", red flags go up.

It seems that the Bannack City minor who was taken to Judge Kinney by the US Marshall, swore that 10 men had been murdered on the Montanna Trail 3 days before the murder of friend. When McGarry gave the order to "to kill every Indian they could see", it was after he had been fired on by the Shoshoni. The attacks on the emigrants and minors, going to and from the mines in OR, in "62 are too many to list here. See Shannon, "Massacre Rocks & City of Rocks". Also in the spring of '62, Supt. of Indian Affairs Doty visited the Indians of Cache Valley, found them starving, purchased food to feed them and wondered why his predecessors (Forney and Young) had never done anything for this tribe.

By the way, The Message of the President... above is from the congressional record.Tinosa (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I love the preface at the beginning by James Buchanan. It really is an interesting record of an even that I have not really seen well documented or discussed.... and likely because it was mixed up with the Mountain Meadows Massacre content as well, not to mention getting dwarfed by the events of the American Civil War in terms of what historians are paying attention to. I have extracted some of this document into Wikisource, and would appreciate any assistance along that line as well. I'm just trying to figure out how to organize that much content and to be able to present it in such a way that it can be used for citation and reference purposes... as well as reviewed for preparation of articles. Yes, I know it can be cited as coming from the one book by page number and so forth, but I'm talking the organization on Wikisource to break it up and provide appropriate links between sections and to be able to link to the content via wiki-syntax.

My discussion above is mainly in reference to a single and incomplete source that is being thrown into this article verbatim without any sort of relation to the rest of the article. The content you have provided here certainly is helpful in terms of providing additional context to the events.... although it is admittedly biased so far as it is only accounts from officers of the U.S. Government and not from other individuals. articles like these are more examples of a substantial bias against the U.S. government. Obviously, writing something with a neutral tone is difficult, and I've tried to keep the tone as neutral as possible avoiding both extremes.

I still am not completely certain, however, what the Bear River Expedition really has to do directly with what happened during the events of January 1863. Isaac Lynde ended up going to New Mexico and lead soldiers in a defeat against the Texas militia during the early days of the Civil War, so there is certainly some interesting history to add here.

Again, thanks for providing this information, and I hope it can be useful. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:27, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Grasshopper Creek route

I am troubled by the passage that indicates that discovery of gold in Grasshopper Creek contributed to this massacre. Grasshopper Creek is about 250 miles north of Preston Idaho and places like Dillon and Butte Montana were much closer and much easier to reach. I believe that this reference is in error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercwyn (talk • contribs) 19:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the information about Grasshopper Creek came from two quite reliable sources on this topic, written by Brigham Madsen who is arguable one of the most noted professional scholars who has studied this event. I would call that something which would need another scholar of a similar stature to try and refute in terms of its relevance to the events that unfolded around the Bear River Massacre. Indeed, it was miners from this gold mine travling along this trail who were killed enroute to Salt Lake City that gave Col. Conner the "authority" to head into the frontier to engage with the Shoshoni. Other references about this trail, if necessary, can be added to this article. Newell Hart has also written about this particular reference to this road, as has nearly every significant commentary about the Bear River Massacre that I've ever read, including contemporary accounts listed in the California newspapers of the era. If it really is necessary on this issue, I suppose I could provide an exhaustive list of references on this topic. I don't think it is really useful or adds more information, however, to be that exhaustive.

I would also note that much of this route is covered in the LOTOJA bicycle race that is held annually... not necessarily to commemorate this event, but it is one of the major north-south routes of the area. You might want to check out the article on U.S. Route 91 that also goes a little bit into the history of this road, although it doesn't go back to the 1860's. Much of this original route has been replaced by Interstate 15, which has bypassed Cache Valley, although I-15 is still passes within about 40 miles of the Bear River Massacre site.

Going back to the 1860's, places like Dillon and Butte, while closer, didn't have the supply base necessary for a major new boom town such as what happened here. They didn't even exist as settlements. In the 1860's, Salt Lake City was a major settlement (compared to other locations in the west) with a population of about 10,000 people, not to mention the surrounding communities numbering about 50,000 (give or take some on the order of magnitude) people in the greater Salt Lake area... with the trade links to the east and well established merchants carrying supplies geared toward establishing new settlements. Butte wasn't even established at all during the era, and in fact the 1870 census lists Butte as having only 241 residents. I don't see how that can possibly compare to Salt Lake City... and why it is clear that a road going through "hostile Indian country" would have been attempted for traveling the 300 or so miles to Salt Lake City instead. Dillon wasn't even established as a town until the 1870's... a little more than a decade after this incident happened and didn't even show up in census tables until 1880. I think it is quite obvious that the Montana Road was certainly a major factor in this event. --Robert Horning (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

This template was added to the article:

Rather than throwing up a template that is all too easy to add and walk away, I thought it would be useful to start a discussion on the lead paragraph in terms of improving its quality. My question to anybody paying attention to this talk page is this: What would be useful to add to the lead paragraph and what should be different. I agree it should be a summary of the article, but it isn't going to be easy to decide what else to throw into this summary. Any thoughts? --Robert Horning (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Force Strength in Infobox

A recent change tried to change the "force strength" of the number of Shoshoni warriors who participated in this military action, and the number was arbitrarily changed from about 300 to about 400 in this edit. The problem is that exact figures really weren't available for the Shoshoni people of the era, and the numbers were rough estimates based upon military reports.

One possible reason for discrepancy of the number killed & wounded and the number of warriors involved in the action is in part because women and children were also killed in the act. In a traditional military context these would have been listed as civilian deaths, but in almost all of the reports and even body counts made by the Cache County Clerk's office made later that year in the summer did not distinguish between male and female deaths or even the age of those who died. This is about people who literally died in their own homes with their families, sort of the reason why it is called a massacre.

I'm open to changing these figures with a reliable source, but I am suggesting that you shouldn't arbitrarily be changing the numbers because it doesn't look right. There is a story to be told even with this numeric discrepancy where more "soldiers" were killed & wounded than existed in that "military force". --Robert Horning (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Lead Paragraph

I removed the following sentence from the article lead paragraph:

The event resulted in the massacre of hundreds of Shoshone, mainly non-combatants, and was characterized by the rape of survivors.

While I appreciate the sentiment, it just seems to be a little bit of a strong point of view statement that violates at least the spirit of WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Yes, hundreds of Shoshone were massacred and it is a deplorable part of American history. That still doesn't justify writing a strongly worded point of view supporting statement in the opening paragraph. That rape happened and can be documented or certainly was chronicled by both descendants of the survivors and official accounts is true, I'm just wondering if there is a better way to word this? --Robert Horning (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Pugweenee

For section Pugweenee: The pangwi (: pangwinna) is "fish" in Tumpisa (Panamint) Shoshone Dictionary by Jon Philip Dayley (1989). And, the nominalizer (-nna) is attested in all of the Numic languages, except for Kawaiisu (< Maziar Toosarvandani, Patterns of nominalization in Numic, IJAL, vol. 76, no. 1, January 2010, pp. 71–100, The University of Chicago)--Kmoksy (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2013 (UTC).

A citation can be helpful for the first paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SISI16 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Sanpitch

If you wish to "red link" Sanpitch, then you have to use a distinct name for this Sanpitch, as the use of plain old "Sanpitch" (as in this article) throws up a disambiguation flag, and it will continue being loaded into DAB-Solver; and will continually pop up to be DABbed by DAB volunteers, of which I am one. I just happened to have recognized this guy's name after disambiguating it sometime prior to today. The current DAB may be in error now, as un-linking was not considered an option due to the prior reversal of the disambiguation of the term. Thanks. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 02:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

That was quite a bit of Wikipedia-ese that you gave above. To be clear, is the current state, with the Sanpitch link going to a disambiguation page acceptable? If not, what is the problem? Sanpitch (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that it shows up on somebody's "list of problems on Wikipedia". If GenQuest or somebody else wants to write this article, they would be encouraged. I suppose some sort of disambiguation should take place in terms of what this future article should be called, but that seems like it may cause more problems than it solves. I certainly don't understand why redlinks are seen as so evil. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

If we created the page Sanpitch (Shoshone Chief) which redirected to Sanpitch, and linked to the Sanpitch (Shoshone Chief) page from the Bear River Massacre, would that solve problems with the DAB solver? Sanpitch (talk) 22:43, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Military conflict infobox?

Isn't the military conflict infobox inappropriate for what was (seems to me) largely a massacre? --213.89.94.101 (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Is the "massacre, not battle" really the only narrative?

The "massacre" section is really short compared to the background/causes and describes what seems like a battle, with no mention of atrocities. The following section mentions captured women and children, who have been not killed and instead they were left some food. While the article's categories are almost all "massacre", "ethnic cleansing", "genocide".

Also the numbers for the unsourced Indian casualties from the infobox dont appear anywhere in the article. --5.173.123.100 (talk) 09:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

I checked the history and the article was originally created under the name "Battle of". --5.173.123.100 (talk) 09:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

It was a massacre. Just because some of the village inhabitants fought back once they were under attack doesn't make it a "battle". "Battle" is the language of 19th and early 20th-century white racism. All modern reliable sources call it a massacre. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

The thing is nothing in the description of the incident mentions any atrocities occurung. The most is a mention that non-com casualties might have been higher then reported (without telling how much higher and even without telling how many were reported). Certainly nothing like the graphic description of a 5 year old white girl tortured to death in an Indian attack as told about earlier in the article, but this incident has no own article at all.

If there were really atrocities, the article needs to tell about them. Instead of only saying how over one hundred Indian non-combatans were captured and spared (just released? it's not even clear from wording), and how maybe more died then have been officially reported. Because right now the article as it is tells a story of a battle (with a preceding section telling of pre-prepared defense) where some or many (no numbers provided) civilians got killed in the fighting which is just typical for any battle in populated area.

If mostly combatants died and there was effort to capture civilians alive as described, in quite large number, then it's not different than to name the fight at Little Bighorn a "massacre" (where no prisoners were taken, despite some soldiers trying to surrender) and not a battle that one side lost decisively after also running out of ammunition. I'm pretty sure it used to be called a "massacre" due to how many soldiers died, but of course it's not what people today think of as a massacre. I too came to this article excepting something like Sand Creek, didn't find it at all. 5.173.123.100 (talk) 17:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Also the first external link in the article is supposed to be to the "national park description of the battle". I tried to check it for any mention of just any atrocities maybe there, but it's not live anymore, and couldn't find it archived, but had the word battle even in the URL: https://www.nps.gov/orgs/2287/battles/id001.htm It might be the case that it is nowadays commonly described as a massacre by mass media and others because Wikipedia calls it so, and now they follow it and then each other. Meanwhile even the battle where perhaps 1 million or even 2 million non-coms died is named Siege of Baghdad (1258) not "Baghdad Massacre (1258)" despite it's very clear description of (very much mass) atrocities that occured as the city fell, because most of all it was really that, a battle (siege). --5.173.123.100 (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Your demand for "atrocities" is baloney. It was a massacre because it involved women, children, and a majority of the encampment was killed. All modern reliable sources call it a "massacre". The definitive academic history of the event is called "The Shoshoni Frontier and the Bear River Massacre" (and it was written BEFORE Wikipedia even existed). That's the end of the story. Your personal definition and your personal opinion are meaningless. The most reliable source calls it a "massacre". --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Not 100% sure what the point of this discussion is. As for the semantics, the terms "battle" and "massacre" are not mutually exclusive. The Shoshone put up a defensive fight in what can be correctly called a battle, but the end result was a massacre. Reliable sources refer to the entire event as a massacre. Additionally, when the site was designated a National Historic Landmark in 1990 it was done so under the title "Bear River Massacre Site," and massacre is the term used on all but the oldest of monuments and markers at the site. (For example, see BearRiverMassacreSign.png on Wikimedia Commons.) Beneathtimp (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

This massacre had nothing whatsoever to do with the Civil War

The Bear River Massacre was not part of the Civil War as it had nothing whatsoever to do with the attempted secession of the Confederate States from the United States. Its origin was in the conflict between the Mormon settlers of Cache Valley and the local Northwestern Band of the Shoshoni nation. It started with cattle thieving and ended with the massacre of the encampment of the Shoshoni just north of Preston, Idaho. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the Civil War other than coincidentally occurring at the same time. The question of whether other Indian massacres and battles have been included in the Civil War in the context of Wikipedia is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFF. The only relevant questions are the causes and participants of this particular massacre. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

• The first definitive reliable source for this massacre: Brigham D. Madsen, 1985, The Shoshoni Frontier and the Bear River Massacre (University of Utah Press). In the Foreward (pg. xi), Prof. Charles S. Peterson, a noted expert on Utah history from Utah State University, states, "In this volume, Madsen lays before us one of America's least known and longest Indian wars." He mentions the Civil War exactly once in the Foreword, in the single sentence, "Its carnage eclipsed by Civil War battles, the Bear River blood-letting silenced Indian resistance along the Oregon Trail and won Connor an advance in rank but otherwise passed largely unnoticed." The sentence doesn't say "other Civil War battles", but simply "Civil War battles" which means that this massacre was not a "Civil War" battle, but something else. In the Preface, Brigham Madsen mentions the Civil War exactly zero times, describing the conflict with the Shoshonis as part of the longer-running Indian Wars (pg. xiv), "As the attacks and counterattacks mounted during the 1840s, and, particularly during the late 1850s and between 1860 and 1862, it seemed inevitable that a climax would be reached and a major engagement between United States troops and an Indian group would occur." "Civil War" doesn't even have an entry in the book's Index (and neither does "War, Civil") although the "Black Hawk War", "Pyramid Lake War", and "Utah War" are all referenced. In other words, the single most reliable source on this massacre definitively places it outside the Civil War and firmly within the context of the Indian Wars as a whole. Just because an event involving the United States military happened between 1861 and 1865 doesn't make it a part of the Civil War. The Bear River Massacre was part of a longer-running conflict between the Shoshonis and the Mormon settlers and was not part of the relatively short-term Civil War. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• There is an older reliable source on the Shoshonis in general: Virginia Cole Trenholm and Maurine Carley, 1964, The Shoshonis: Sentinels of the Rockies (University of Oklahoma Press). The relevant chapter is 11, "Shoshoni Uprisings" (pp. 175-197). In that chapter, which covers the period of Shoshoni wars from 1857 to the massacre (which this older source still calls a "battle") in 1863. In the entirety of the 22 pages of this chapter, the Civil War is mentioned exactly twice, once on page 191 where it mentions that regular army troops were withdrawn from Utah because of the Civil War, and once on page 193 where it mentions that Connor maintained his headquarters at Fort Douglas in Salt Lake City until the end of the Civil War. In other words, it verifies the lack of connection between the Bear River Massacre and the Civil War other than a change of units involved in the Shoshoni conflict as a whole by replacing regular Army troops with militia. At no point does this source, like the Madsen source, link the Civil War to the massacre itself. The massacre was clearly and unequivocally tied to the longer-running Indian Wars, just as in the Madsen source. So now there are two utterly first-rate sources on the topic of the Bear River Massacre and the Shoshoni Wars that make no link whatsoever with the Civil War. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• There is a brief history of just the Northwestern Shoshonis: Anonymous, 1990, "The Northwestern Shoshones", Idaho Indians, Tribal Histories (Native American Committee, Idaho Centennial Commission, pages 55-63). Although the history discusses the causes and events of the massacre over the course of the first several thousand words of the text, not a single mention of the Civil War is made. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
• Robert M. Utley, "Indian-United States Military Situation, 1848-1891", Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 4, History of Indian-White Relations, ed. Wilcomb E. Washburn (Smithsonian Institution, pages 163-184) has a brief, three-paragraph section labeled "Effect of the Civil War" (page 167). In that section he clearly describes the sole relationship between the Civil War and the Indian Wars--regular Army troops in the West were replaced by militia units from 1862 to 1865. He notably calls the section "The effect of", not "as a part of" or "caused by" or any other terms that imply that the Indians Wars he describes were part of the Civil War. That doesn't make the Indian Wars in the West part of the Civil War, it only means that the composition of the troops fighting the Indian Wars changed. The Civil War is not otherwise mentioned anywhere in the entire chapter including in the section labeled "Great Basin" (page 170) where the "Battle of Bear River" is mentioned in a single sentence. Any Civil War context is utterly absent here as it is everywhere else in the chapter besides the very brief section already mentioned. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

These utterly reliable and definitive sources for the Bear River Massacre should put an end to the notion that the Bear River Massacre was part of the Civil War. It was undeniably part of the Indian Wars, specifically the armed conflict between Shoshonis and (mostly) Mormon settlers from the late 1840s until 1862. But it was not part of the Civil War. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 06:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

It is included as a campaign of the Civil War (the Expedition from Camp Douglas, Utah, to Cache Valley, Idaho) by the United States National Park Service, the agency charged with protecting and interpreting Civil War sites, as seen here. The American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP) was established within the National Park Service by the Department of the Interior, to classify the preservation status of historic battlefields. In 1993, the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC) reported to Congress and the ABPP on their extensive analysis of significant battles and battlefields. Of the estimated 8,000 occasions in which hostilities occurred in the American Civil War, 384 battles were classified in CWSAC's Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields, including the Bear River massacre battlefield, which was given preservation priority III. 3 (Class C), as can be seen here on p.28.

It has also been historically treated as part of the American Civil War and included in the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, produced at the direction of Congress from records compiled during and immediately after the Civil War. The Bear River reports are at Series I, Vol. L, Part 1, p. 185 (that 50th volume was published in 1897).

See also the three discussions of this issue previously on this talk page. As mentioned there, the CWSAC report was used as a template when the Wikipedia Civil War articles were created by members of the WP:MILHIST project 15+ years ago. Mojoworker (talk) 07:09, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

These National Park lists are not reliable sources on the causes of the massacre. They are general sources that only report on all battles that occurred from 1861 to 1865, whether those causes were the southern insurrection or not. It is utterly clear from far more reliable sources on the event itself that it was not a part of the Civil War. It's really an open and shut case. I happened to get on Amazon and just ordered a couple of more recent works on the massacre. I'm completely certain that they don't give the Civil War any more importance than the reliable sources that I've already mentioned, but it will prove beyond a doubt that the experts on the massacre do not give it a place in the Civil War. Again, those National Park (and other government) lists are not critical sources drawn up by experts on the individual actions, but are lists of all actions that occurred in the territory of the United States between April 1861 and April 1865 whether those actions were directly related to the Civil War or unrelated events that were part of the longer-lasting Indian Wars. There's a difference in the quality and expertise of sources. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

And unlike every other discussion, I have provided detailed quotes, page numbers, and references to utterly reliable sources on the history of the Shoshoni and the Bear River Massacre. You have to understand that US government lists, whether from the National Park Service or the Department of Defense, are meant to place everything in a neat category. I am a Gulf War vet by categorization because I was in uniform during the period 1990-1992. I have a National Defense Service Medal to prove it. I never left the States and was in the California National Guard during the whole time. But because I was in uniform, I'm a vet of that conflict. I'm not a combat vet, of course, but the military used the calendar to put me neatly in that category. That's what happened with all these military events that are part of the Indian Wars that happened between 1861 and 1865. They got pigeon-holed in the "Civil War" slot where they don't belong. Wikipedia doesn't have to follow the pigeon-holing of US government record keepers. It should honestly categorize as Civil War only those battlefields (there are plenty of them) which are clearly part of the Southern insurrection, not those places which had nothing to do with the Civil War and only happened to occur between April 1861 and April 1865. The mischaracterization can be mentioned as a footnote in the text, but should not stand as a primary marker for this massacre, either in the infobox or in a category (unless that category is specifically labelled "National Park Service Classification of Civil War Battlefields" or something similar). --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Government bureaucrats don't know more about the Bear River Massacre than actual historians of the event. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 07:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with TaivoLinguist's detailed and persuasive analysis of the best sources, and support removing the language describing this massacre as part of the American Civil War. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 19:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The Civil War is much more nuanced than just the "southern insurrection" – some Native American roles were significant. There's a wide spectrum, with the most obvious example being Confederate General Stand Watie and the Cherokee Nation's alliance with the Confederacy. In the southwest, Apache tribes fought battles against both the Union and Confederates who were also fighting one another. In Minnesota, the proximate cause of the Dakota War of 1862 was delayed federal annuity payments caused by money shortages due to the Civil War. In some cases, the Civil War (and the distracted American public) served as an excuse for conquest of Native Americans as in the Sand Creek massacre (which closely parallels the Bear River massacre), as an enlarged Union Army took a larger role in administration of Indian affairs. These battles have all been included by sources as part of the Civil War (in addition to the Indian Wars). I don't know the rationale for Bear River specifically (and the assertion that they just included all battles from 1861 to 1865 could well be true, or could be completely false), but it's not up to us to resort to WP:OR to characterize their motivations in the absence of any declared reasoning. I've provided three WP:RS that include Bear River as a Civil War battle (and I'm sure I could find others), and the characterization of the authors as merely "Government bureaucrats" is patently false. Examining the CWSAC] Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields that I linked previously, on the third page it lists "Dale E. Floyd and David W. Lowe, staff members of the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission and historians with the National Park Service" and "Edwin C. Bearss, Commission member and retired Chief Historian of the National Park Service". They are published professional historians with many books and articles between them, and especially Ed Bearss is a famous Civil War historian, with his own Wikipedia article where his publications are listed. Mojoworker (talk) 08:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

First, the Cherokee situation is clearly Civil War related because the tribe officially and overtly allied themselves with the Confederacy. Several other Oklahoma tribes (Indian Territory at the time) did the same hoping that the Confederacy would treat them better than the US did. That is unequivocally part of the Civil War.

Second, the Cheyenne at Sand Creek had a very different relationship with the US than the Cherokee since Black Kettle was overtly flying a US flag over the camp when Chivington's militia attacked. Sand Creek is questionable as a "Civil War battle" since, like BRM, there was no overt connection between the Cheyennes and the CSA, indeed the opposite was true in Black Kettle's eyes.

Third, are you serious in relating Apache activity to the Civil War when they attacked Confederate and Union forces indiscriminately? That's not Civil War action other than the date. They were not a "third combatant" in the war.

Fourth, lumping all Indian activity between 1861-1865 as somehow identical simply demonstrates ignorance of the Indian situation--that all tribes were different, were governed differently, had different relationships with the US and with the local settlers, etc. The Cherokee were as different from the Shoshoni as North Korea is from Iceland. The Shoshoni, having no formal tribal structure other than local bands and living far from the participants in the Civil War, had no alliance with the Confederacy. (This isn't OR on my part, it's clearly described in the reliable sources listed above.)

Your NPS source says nothing whatsoever about why they listed BRM as a Civil War battle other than the date. The reason for the BRM is simply listed as (page 29) "Shoshoni raids under Chief Bear Hunter during the winter of 1862-63 provoked Federal retaliation." There's nothing about support for the Confederacy on the part of the Shoshoni. There is simply the date. These raids were not organized raids conducted by the band as a whole directed at death and destruction to either support the Confederacy or take advantage of the shift from Federal troops to militia troops in Salt Lake City. It was cattle theft from the Mormons (who were neutral on the issue of the Civil War). Here is the summary from the Idaho Centennial narrative: "...[T]hree members of their tribe, known as trouble makers, stole some horses and cattle from nearby corrals and headed for the Fort Hall, Idaho, area. On the way, they killed a cow and ate the meat and gave some away....At this same time, some miners were killed and some Shoshone-Bannocks [not Northwestern Band] were involved in this incident. The third incident which occurred was the killing of two white boys in southern Idaho and two Indians were also killed at this time. These three incidents led to the Massacre of Battle Creek [translating the Shoshoni name of the BRM]" (pages 55-56). Note that the NPS historians claimed that the "raids" were under Chief Bear Hunter. Chief Bear Hunter had nothing to do with the "raids" and one of them was not even conducted by the Northwestern Band. The NPS historians simply did not know more than the date and the bare minimum of (obviously misleading and incorrect) information about the causes of the massacre.

The Shoshoni conflict was part of a long-lasting conflict with the Mormons beginning in the 1840s and the reliable sources above (read the direct quotes I've provided) all confirm that. When you have a general government source that indiscriminately lists BRM in a list of Civil War battles (without a stated reason) versus half a dozen better sources that are detailed and specific in their discussions, you must go with the more reliable sources. Neither of the professional historians that authored the NPS list are specialists in the Shoshoni Wars or on the BRM. They are generalists. Madsen got his PhD from Berkeley and was a professor at the U of Utah. He spent his career focused on the Shoshoni (he published six books on them). Trenholm and Carley were not professors, but their acknowledgements page is a Who's Who's of Shoshoni and Bannock experts from the 1950s and 1960s. I don't know who wrote the Idaho Centennial history (it is uncredited), but the narrative matches seamlessly with the work by the named scholars. Utley was a specialist on the Indian Wars in general, but his statement clearly indicates that the effect of the Civil War in the western theater was nothing more than the composition of the US forces involved.

In summary, despite their credentials as historians, the authors of the NPS report clearly did not understand what was going on in Cache Valley in January 1863. They looked at the calendar and noticed the presence of US troops and called it a "Civil War battle". They were sloppy (or pressed for time). With hundreds of battles to sift through, I'm not surprised that they didn't bother to sort out the details of an Indian massacre by US forces. But I've presented you with solid evidence, incontrovertible evidence, that the BRM had nothing whatsoever to do with the Civil War. It's not my OR, it's entirely from unimpeachable sources on the battle and the history of the Northwestern Band of Shoshoni. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 09:43, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

So far you have presented no evidence whatsoever that your "reliable sources" did anything more than classify every military action in the territory of the US between April 1861 and April 1865 as a "Civil War battle". Can you point to a single, unequivocal battle that involved Indians and the US military between April 1861 and April 1865 that was NOT included in the list of Civil War battles by government bureaucrats/historians? If not, then you're simply calling this a Civil War battle by the calendar. That seems to be the obvious measure used by the government, and can be mentioned in a footnote or at the bottom of the infobox or (better) in a footnote, but should never have a primary or unqualified focus of any kind in the description of the BRM. It should be clearly and unequivocally stated that the NPS/US government consider the BRM site to be a "Civil War battlefield" subject to the protection of [some law], but it should never be called a "Civil War battle" otherwise because it was not. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed this one: Battle of Canyon de Chelly, January 1864, that involved Indians and the US military between April 1861 and April 1865 that was NOT included in the NPS lists. Mojoworker (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Here are a couple more specific and authoritative references to the BRM and its lack of relevance to the Civil War.

• Darren Parry, 2019, The Bear River Massacre, A Shoshone History (BCC Press). Mr. Parry's narrative is especially important since he is the current chairman of the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation and the direct descendant of survivors of the massacre. He records their testimony along with citing newspaper and official military accounts. His book, from a Native perspective, is well-researched and written. Mr. Parry studied History at the University of Utah and Weber State University and was instrumental in the tribe's purchase of 550 acres of the massacre site and planning for an interpretive center there. Concerning Connor's presence in Utah he writes, "[The posting in Utah] must have been disappointing to Connor, who likely thought that his skills would best be at use fighting in the Civil War and not babysitting the Mormons" (page 35). Notice the wording, "fighting in the Civil War and not babysitting the Mormons". The two were not related, but were distinct enterprises. Other than this single paragraph with its mention of the Civil War and the timing of Connor's posting, the war is not otherwise mentioned except at the end of the chapter on Connor when it notes the timing of his exit from Utah "at the end of the Civil War". Parry also notes that in the lead up to the massacre the third event, the killing of two whites and two Indians, those two Indians were also not Northwestern Band, but he does not identify which band they belonged to.
• Rod Miller, 2008, Massacre at Bear River: First, Worst, Forgotten (Caxton Press). Miller has an excellent chapter on why the US Army was in Utah in the first place and it had nothing to do with slavery or the Civil War. It was about the Mormons. In 1857 the Army invaded Utah as part of the "Mormon (or Utah) War" and established a presence to watch over the Mormons. In 1860 that force was withdrawn and replaced at Fort Douglas by the California militia under the command of Connors. It is a standing joke in Utah that Fort Douglas (which is located on a hillside above Salt Lake City) is the only fort where the guns face the town to protect the world from the town instead of the other way round. Miller details the encroachment of Mormon settlers in Cache Valley beginning in 1859, a situation leading up to increasing hardship on the Northwestern Band as prime winter hunting grounds were being taken by Mormon farmers. The problems culminated in the theft of a cow and a horse in January of 1863, which led to Connor responding to Mormon complaints and finally, at the end of January, the largest Indian massacre in US history.

With these further references, it is crystal clear that BRM was not a part of the Civil War by any interpretation, but part of the Indian Wars. It is also clear from an examination of the US Military and and National Park Service reports that the site of BRM is included in the category of "Civil War Battlefields" solely because the massacre occurred between 1861 and 1865. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not disputing that Bear River is "part of the Indian Wars". I'm not sure why you brought that up, since it's not an either/or proposition (and never has been in this article).

Second, yes, I am "serious in relating Apache activity to the Civil War". See: The Civil War Wasn't Just About the Union and the Confederacy. Native Americans Played a Role Too excerpted from The Three-Cornered War The Union, the Confederacy, and Native Peoples in the Fight for the West. It seems the crux of our difference in view is your assertion that if the Apache "had no alliance with the Confederacy", then they were not part of the Civil War. I see that somewhat akin to saying that (since you mentioned them) Iceland had no part in World War II, because they were "only" invaded by the UK and had nothing to do with the Axis. The situation is not as black and white as you're attempting to paint it.

I grant that the BRM seems to have much less relevance to the Civil War than the events in New Mexico Territory. All I'm saying is that there are RS that include it as part of the Civil War (and I don't know the inclusion criteria used by the sources). I'll repeat that your speculation that they just included all battles from 1861 to 1865 could well be true, or could be completely false. Mojoworker (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone else will have to raise the issue among the Apache War articles, that's not my area of expertise. I only mentioned it because linking every Indian battle from 1861 to 1865 to the Civil War is far more complex than either the National Park Service or the Department of War in the 19th century made it sound. Some of the tribal relations were definitely Civil War related (the Cherokee, for example), some of the tribal relations were only peripherally related to the War because it reduced the number of available troops to defend settlers (the Comenche, for example), and some of the tribal relations were completely unrelated to the War (the Northwestern Shoshoni, for example). The issue on these pages needs to be approached individually with appropriate reliable sources on each page rather than simply following the NPS list. But that is a task for other editors besides me (I live in Northwestern Shoshoni territory about 60 miles from the BRM site so have a special interest in its history). Now that you've been made aware of the distinction between the range of situations, perhaps you will have a better idea of what to look for in each case. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

It's interesting to note that Ed Bearss, the technical advisor on the CWSAC's 1993 Report on the Nation's Civil War Battlefields that I mentioned earlier, actually prepared and filed the application for National Historic Landmark designation for the Bear River massacre site in January 1990. He included in the application an annotated narrative that's an interesting read. Clearly he was knowledgeable on the subject. But that still doesn't explain the rationale behind the inclusion of BRM with the other Civil War battlefields.

Not Bear River, but of the similar Sand Creek massacre, a journal article discusses the massacre's relation to the Civil War. And while not a WP:RS, here are one person's thoughts on why the Sand Creek massacre was part of the Civil War, after listening to a presentation by the author of the journal article at a conference. Mojoworker (talk) 22:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not surprising that Sand Creek is more overtly tied to the CW because the Cheyenne were on the Plains and more closely in contact with settlers who had a vested interest in the war. The Northwestern Shoshoni, however were only in contact with the Mormons who really didn't care about the War. Brigham Young had told his followers, "Be loyal", but they were far more loyal to him than they ever were to the eastern combatants. They had fled the whole USA project after all because they had been equally persecuted in both the North (New York, Ohio, Illinois) and the South (Missouri) before fleeing to Mexico and the Valley of the Great Salt Lake. I'm not familiar with the Canyon de Chelly fight. But in the overview to the NPS study, they mention several hundred fights (presumably most back East) that were too small to be included in the 300 something sites that should be preserved. Perhaps that Indian fight didn't make the cut because the Canyon is already under a high level of preservation by the tribe as well as the NPS. --TaivoLinguist (Taivo) (talk) 23:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Firsr-hand diary source available

The diary account of James Henry Martineau, who was present at this massacre, is published and available. On pages 131-132 of "An Uncommon Common Pioneer, the Journals of James Henry Martineau" there is an account which puts the death toll of Shoshones at around 400, to include 90 "squaws" and children "in cold blood". It also describes the soldiers as raping the women at Bear Creek among the dead and dying, and the murder of a survivng infant. This diary entry was contemporary to the events, and not written years later. 2600:8807:A791:5400:B364:74AD:845A:57BD (talk) 02:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)