Reflection Paper On Smits

Of course, as soon as rumors that the Black Hills contained gold began to circulate, this promise became as empty as any others made by the 'Great White Father' to native peoples. And on May 17th 1876, the breaking of this treaty precipitated the crushing defeat of the 7th Calvary at the hands of the Sioux nation led by the defiant, "You need not bring any guides; you can find me easily. I will not run away" , Sitting Bull (Cooke 136) in the Battle of Little Bighorn (Cooke 133-151). But this battle, though a victory over the Anglo invaders, was temporary and short-lived. By September 5, 1877 Crazy Horse was dead, Sitting Bull was in exile in Canada and "…in all the Great Plains, from Canada south, there was no longer a free tribe or a "wild" Indian. It had not taken long; in 1840 the boundary of the permanent Indian Country had been completed and the Great Plains were to belong forever to Indians. A mere thirty-seven years later every solemn promise had been broken and no bit of ground large enough to be buried in remained to any Indian that could not--and probably would--be arbitrarily taken from him without warning" (Andrist 300). The Westward expansion was on, and the push to break up and the sell the Great Sioux Reservation was supported by a "westward-pushing railroad [and] promoters eager for cheap land to be sold at high profits to immigrants"

4. I do agree with Breen 's point of view and for the most part it agrees with our text. I would probably be more likely to agree with Breen that the people of Virginia did not form a military band and fight back against the Indians especially how the text talks about Indians remaining a strong presence. It wouldn 't make much sense for the Indians to remain a strong presence if they are constantly being attacked by the settlers. I think the reason that the Indians stayed around is because Virginia was not effectively fighting them off because they didn 't have any type of formalized military, or formalized anything for that matter, not even schools.

Your textbook (and most short accounts) depict the war as Indians against English colonists; how is that depiction accurate, and why or why not?

In the Last Stand, written by Nathaniel Philbrick he discusses a big leader in the Civil War, George Armstrong Custer and how he led his troops with reckless courage. Philbrick wrote this book which can be viewed in many ways: a bloody massacre that is a big part of American history, or a tale of crazy arrogance and even unmatched bravery. One way that this book can be viewed as is the Last Stand being viewed as an account of a well-known battle that encapsulates the treatment of Native Americans during the “Indian Wars.” The next option is that the Last Stand is a retelling story of a history that does not glorify the United States Army in the Indian Wars, but shows the hubris and reckless of the leaders and army. Finally, the Last Stand can be viewed as a double meaning, both the last stand for Custer and the Last Stand for the Sitting Bull and the Lakota Sioux. In this essay, I’m going to discuss the ways in which Custer leads his troops and how he was a powerful leader during this time.

The Lakota and Northern Cheyenne Indians along with a few other defiant tribes, joined forces under the Lakota holy man, Sitting Bull, in an active resistance to U.S. expansion (Gregory, 2016). In 1876, federal troops were dispatched to force the noncompliant Indians onto their reservations and to pacify the Great Plains (Powers, 2010).

It gives perspective on the side of the American Indians. The source was limited, because it was very biased towards the side of the American Indians, and does not let the reader come to their own conclusion.

As all authors are undeniably guilty of, James Axtell has a bias, and not one shamefully swept underneath the rug. The enlightening article Axtell has published remains not only as informational; it stands convicting in a sense. Unfortunately, the reader may find themselves lumped into the assemblage of Americans that regard the Native Americans as “pathetic footnotes to the main course of American History” (Axtell 981). Establishing his thesis, Axtell offers plentiful examples of how Native Americans contributed to Colonial America,

One of the weaknesses of this book was the way in which a strong opinion of the author frequently came to the surface. The impression given when reading was one of bias in that the Spanish were wrong to come in and refine everything. This was reflected in the fact that periodically within the book, when the Spanish conquistadors did something to the Indians, it was pointed out how inhumane it was. Yet, when the Indians retaliated in some way, it was quickly pointed out how justified they were. The mentioned advantages that the Indians gained through the Spaniards were infrequent and underdeveloped.

With the whites moving in on the Black Hills in search for gold, they wanted to buy it from the Lakota people. Crazy Horse moved and set up camp around the area and led raids on the miners. With these attacks, the whites decided to build more forts in the Lakota area, and force all of the Lakota people into agencies. Crazy Horse and the people who had followed him believed that they had to drive out the whites, and that the buffalo would return.

The Battle of the Little Bighorn, also known as “Cluster’s Last Stand,” which was fought on June 25, 1976 in Montana, U.S. The outcome was indulged for the Lakota Sioux and Cheyenne tribes, who presumably will defeat the U.S Army under Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer and its 7th Calvary. This trounce defeat by the tribes, will consider Indians bloodthirsty by the demise of their enemy. The Indians overwhelmed the 200 men by a cluster of 3,000 men. This insisted the battle was lost by the west, and will always be known as “Cluster’s Last Sand.” A battle that only lasted shortly, and took part of the “Great Sioux War of 1876,” will consider Indians unpredictable in the battle field.

Threats and attacks on neutral Indians were common among soldiers. Indians lived near the forts in order to trade. Soldiers were constantly afraid and “garrisons spent more time dreading attack than undergoing it”. (130) The soldiers had no way to know if there were spies among them, which made them suspicious of all so sometimes they just killed them all. Even when the killing never happened, the threats, bullying, drinking and bragging by both whites and Indians kept the fear going.

In reading Zenas Leonard’s account of his party’s interaction with the Shoshone and Paiute people, one gets the clear sense that the American fur trappers did not understand, nor trust the natives of the Great Basin. The native’s continued presence and persistence in interacting with the fur trappers is seen as a threat. The fur trapper’s stollen beaver traps further insight some of the American trappers to seek their own revenge and justice on the natives--death. Although, Captain Walker put an immediate stop to the “revenge” the trappers were committing, the effects of the trappers revenge proved to be detrimental to future interactions with the Indians. Now, the fur trappers saw any approach from the the natives as a hostile and aggressive stance against them in revenge for their murdered comrades.

Robert Rogers is one of the most influential figures in military history and tactics. The lessons he passed on are still studied today by the United States Army Rangers, and every Ranger must memorize his Standing Orders. The tactics he used are now what the modern public and historians consider “American style fighting” or Indian warfare. Stephen Brumwell’s book White Devil A True Story of War, Savagery, and Vengeance in Colonial America is not just a

The defeat of the first United States army by a coalition of Native Americans is the focus in Collin Calloway’s The Victory with No Name. In this historical account, Calloway addresses what occurred on November 4th, 1791, when an Indian army consisting of a variety of Indian tribes, led by Little Turtle and Blue Jacket, ambushed the first American army near the Wabash River to protect themselves from American expansion of the Northwest Territory. The American army, led by Revolutionary War veteran Arthur St. Clair, was ill-equipped with men, horses, and weaponry, and ignorant about Indian whereabouts and tactics. Calloway organizes his argument by describing America’s desire for land, the invasion and settlement of Indian land, and the resistance formed by Native Americans. Calloway continues by illustrating the defeat of the American army and the aftermath of the battle between Native Americans and the U.S. By drawing on extensive historical evidence that illustrated the events before, during, and after the battle, Calloway presents a detailed historical narrative that challenges the idea that “winners write the history…even when they lose” and offers a narrative that shows both the Native American and the U.S. perspective, ultimately giving credit to the Indians for their victory. However, Calloway provides information that is irrelevant to his argument and the book, which makes it difficult to follow along throughout the story.

Between 1790 and 1920 it was a tough time for the Indians. During that period Native Americans were forced to convert to the European-American Culture. Their whole life changed, the way of living, religion, and especially their children’s future. It was wrong of Americans to convert natives into a different society that they saw fit and not letting them express their own culture and treating them as an unworthy society.