December 29, 1890 U.S. Army troops massacred 150 men, women and children at Wounded Knee

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.workdayminnesota.org/index.php?history_9_12_29_2010

December 29, 1890 - U.S. Army troops massacred 150 men, women and children at Wounded Knee, South Dakota. Days earlier, the military had killed Sioux leader Sitting Bull. Thousands of other Indians died from malnutrition and epidemics of measles, whooping cough and influenza.

[knowbody0]

1. our ugly and haunting history

[truedelphi]

2. The thirty to forty million indigenous people of the Northern

and Southern hemispheres faced death and cultural "wipeout" from the first days of Columbus on until that Dec day, one hundred and twenty years ago.

The knowledge held by so many survivors of those tribes is still held inside the memory of the wise elders.

But as some of the elders die, there are no longer people who will carry on that knowledge in the original languages. (Though the English, Spanish and Portugese translations have been made.)

[niyad]

4. every year during the columbus day "celebrations", there actually is a very small amount of

coverage about what columbus really meant for the indigenous population. too bad it freaks out the descendants of the european invaders.

[niyad]

3. k and r--I posted about this earlier, but it is good to keep this in front of people, so they don't

forget.

[happyslug]

5. While Wounded knee can NOT be called a Battle, to call it a Massacre is also extreme

Wounded Knee became known as the Wounded Knee Massacre do to an internal Army fight between Miles Nelson (who had butchered many an Indian over the previous 30 years, his incompetence against Geronimo was legendary, but he was more popular with the supplies or goods to the army then his predecessor against Geronimo Crook, Crooks tactics had been effective but not profitable to the whiskey ring so Crook was relieved and Miles put in charge to waste more Government money) and Colonel Foysthe commander of the 7th Calvary (In the subsequent court of inquiry, Forysth was criticized in some of his tactical decision but generally vindicated in his actions at Wounded knee).

The problem with Wounded Knee was the Indian Agent refused to advice from anyone who knew Indians. He understood Force and the use of Force, and refused to even acknowledge concerns of the Native Americans. The problem started with the Arrest of Sitting Bull. The Agent demanded Sitting Bull be arrested, and under the law of that time period all the Army could do was obey the order of the Agent. The army's plan was to have Buffalo Bill go to Sitting Bull and arrest Sitting Bull. Buffalo Bill was viewed as a Friend by Sitting Bull so tensions would be minimized. The Agent rejected that plan and instead sent in "Indian Police" Dakota men who had agreed to act as a Police Force within the Reservation. The "Indian Police" arrived arrested Sitting Bull on December 15th, 1890. Upon arresting Sitting Bull the Police took Sitting bull outside where other Native American gathered in support of Sitting Bull. This lead to a struggle began between the Police officer who had Sitting Bull (Then 69 years of age) and in the struggle Sitting bull was shot and killed. After Sitting Bull was shot the US Army made its first appearance in this conflict and rode up and in a show of force ended the Struggle, but the Dakota bands left that night.

At that point the Local Band of Dakota literally ran away. It was at this point the Army actually had to act against the Dakota. 13 days later after some hard riding in the snows of a Northern Great Plains the 7th Calvary intercepted the Dakota that had run way. The 7th surrounded the Dakota and fearing the Dakota would run away again (as had the Dakota done at least once in the previous 13 days) put a tight ring around the Dakota. You had 500 Soldiers surrounding about 350 Dakota of which only 120 were men of the age to fight. The Soldiers still had their Single Shot Springfield's carbines, the Dakota having various weapons of various makes, models (anything from repeaters in the form of Winchesters to even then old Fashioned Muzzle loading Rifles). The 7th had attached to it 4 small cannons of questionable military value (Through good against unarmed and ill trained civilians, these were the infamous Hotchkiss guns, the worthlessness of the Hotchkiss guns would have been seen had Dakota been able to move about, but the Soldier surrounding them prevented any such movement providing the mass targets the Hotchkiss was good against).

Anyway that was the situation when the commander of the 7th decided it was time to obey the order of the Indian Agent to disarm the Dakota. This was December 29, 1890. The order was given and one indian (believe to be deaf) cause some problems when the soldiers made an effort to take his rifle away from him. During the Struggle the rifle went off. At that point two things seems to happen at the same time. The remaining Dakota started to fire (or return fire) with their Winchesters. Given the nature of the Winchester, several fast shots then a long time to reload, these are NOT modern box magazine rifles but tubular feed rifles, the magazine having to be re-loaded one bullet at a time. Thus the reports of 10-25 seconds of rapid fire from the Dakotas that had Winchesters. Then all you heard was the slow and steady fire of the Army's single Shot Springfield's, loading a round, firing the round, ejecting the spent round and loading a new round and repeating this action once every 10 seconds.

Now the women and Children tried to get away from the rifle fire, but its slow steady rate was deadly. The Hotchkiss Guns hit many a Dakota as they were piled up together (Killing more women and Children then Actual Warriors) but also killing more Army Soldiers then Dakotas (The real killer of the Indians was the Springfield's).

As one historian wrote of Wounded Knee, no intentions of any massacre. The previous 13 days had built up tensions on both sides. The Soldiers were tired, cold and beat. That is a bad combination when it comes to discipline. When the Fire started, it took almost an hour for the officers to get everyone to stop shooting. Several soldiers broke ranks to run after women and Children who had "Escaped" (and this movement was against orders). It was a general break down in discipline that lead to the death of 150 Dakota and 31 soldiers.

Thus Wounded knee was a debacle but was it a massacre? Native American losses were high, but most Native American caught up in the debacle survived. That is NOT normal of most Massacres. When the Paxton Boys killed 20 out of 22 native Americans, that is a Massacre, that is close to 100 % losses. You do NOT have that with Wounded Knee 150 out of 350 is high but a good bit from 100% (and in the case of the Paxton Boys the two that Survived the massacre had been outside their village when they saw the Paxton boys come to the Village and rather then run back and warm the village they hide from the Paxton boys, so of the Indians in that tribe at the time of the Massacre you had 100% kill rate).

Just a comment that Wounded knee is a debacle, and clearly is NOT a battle, but neither is it a Massacre.


More on Wounded Knee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wounded_Knee_Massacre

More on the Paxton Boys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxton_Boys
http://www.historycarper.com/resources/twobf3/massacre.htm

[niyad]

6. really? not a massacre, when the military used the big hotchkiss guns to mow everyone down?

so because not everyone was killed, it wasn't a massacre? realllllly? I don't recall reading anywhere that massacre means everyone was killed. as a matter of fact, the dictionary does not say that at all:

mas·sa·cre
   /ˈmæsəkər/ Show Spelled Show IPA noun, verb, -cred, -cring.
–noun
1.
the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder.
2.
a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war.
3.
Informal . a crushing defeat, esp. in sports.
–verb (used with object)
4.
to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons.
5.
Informal . to defeat decisively, esp. in sports.
Use massacre in a Sentence
See images of massacre
Search massacre on the Web
Origin:
1575–85; (n.) < MF massacre, n. deriv. of massacrer, OF maçacrer, macecler, prob. < VL *matteūcculāre, v. deriv. of *matteūca mallet ( see mashie, mace1 ); (v.) < MF massacrer

—Related forms
mas·sa·crer  /ˈmæsəkrər/ Show Spelled Show IPA, noun
un·mas·sa·cred, adjective

—Synonyms
1, 2. carnage, extermination, butchery, genocide. 4. slay. See slaughter.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/massacre

[happyslug]

8. Lets look at your definitions

1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder.

While the killings can be viewed as "unnecessary", "indiscriminate killing of a large number" implies what is meant by "large". "Large" can be a high number, the Germans lost over 750,000 soldiers in the Battle of Stalingrad over 2000 times the loss at Wounded Knee, and Stalingrad is NOT considered a "Massacre", thus "large" as used in this definition is NOT a high number. Thus "Large" must mean a high percentage (thus why I gave the Example of the Paxton Boys as a true Massacre, with the Paxton Boys you have almost 100% killed, the Native American losses were less then 50% thus fails this test as to the definition of "Massacre".

More on Stalingrad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad

This also applied to the second and fourth definition given, i.e. :
2.a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war.
4. to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons.
Both again are using large NOT as a high number but a high percentage.

The third and firth definition relates to sport's victories, hopefully you differentiate between Wounded Knee an a little league team that is defeated 20-0, thus I will ignore the third definition you cite.

Thus, once you establish that Large can not mean mere numbers, but something else, Wounded Knee fails on that count. Wounded Knee is NOT the Paxton boys with its almost 100% kill rate, nor the Nazis and their various Massacres where few if anyone survived.

Now, if you want to extend "Massacre" to include Wounded Knee what do you do with the Paxton Boys? Call what they did a "battle"? Terms are important. No one, especially I, have ever called Wounded Knee anything but a disaster, a Debacle, a butchery and even a "mistake" (A famous quote in regards to Napoleon's execution of the last heir to the Conte Branch of the Royal House of Bourbon "It was worse then a crime, it was a mistake" implying not only that what had been done was done badly BUT also should never have even been attempted, caused more harm then it did good even if the heir was guilty).

More on the last heir to the Conte Branch of the Bourbon Royal Family:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Antoine,_Duke_of_Enghien

"Massacre" includes something more then mere bloodshed, it means an almost total desire to wipe out a ground. Now, some of the Soldiers at Wounded Knee had that desire, but as a whole the Soldiers did not (Nor their Officers). It is NOT a Paxton boys level of killings and I reserve the word "Massacre" to something on that level, a total desire by one group or person to wipe out another group or persons regardless of who is being killed and their ability to defend themselves.

There are a lot of "Massacres" during the Indian wars, starting in the 1600s and only ending in the late 1800s. At the same time there were battles, debacles, murders, and other crimes. I reserve the term Massacre to something not only uncalled for, but showing a clear desire by the Massacres to kill off everyone it the Massacre. We do NOT have that at Wounded Knee, it may sound like a fine point but if we want the English language to be understood we have to make sure the words we use are what we agree on.

In 1985 Philadelphia dropped a bomb on a House where some radicals lived, killed everyone in the house. It was a debacle and an mistake (and a salvage butchering of the people killed) but it does NOT appear the police WANTED the Mover personal killed (it was worse, the Police did NOT care if the Move people lived or died do to the bombing). Now, if evidence existed that the Philadelphia Police wanted the MOVE people dead AND that was their intentions (The Police did fire over 10,000 rounds into the house MOVE was in prior to the bombing) then the MOVE debacle would be a Massacre (Everyone died, so it passes the test of almost everyone being killed). The problem is showing the intent, the Police did NOT go into the house shooting everything that moved (as happens in most Massacres) but just dropped a bomb and cared less who was killed by the bomb.

While a good case of Massacre can be made for Dresden (The Western Allies wanted to kill as many Germans as possible by air power so to cool any German attempt at Guerrilla warfare) but Dresden is rarely called a Massacre (And it actually passes both tests, a huge loss of life in terms of Percentage AND it was quite clear the intention was to kill as many Civilians as possible).

Hiroshima and Nagasaki tends to fail the test for Massacre, while huge Civilian losses (and both cities had NEVER been bomb before, kept "safe" so the full affect of the A-bomb could be "judged" whenever their were hit) and almost everyone in the City Center was killed (Thus satisfied the high percentage part of a Massacre). The reason both cities had been picked was that both were places the Military made things, and in Japan that was in the homes people lived in. Japan did, and still does, a lot of work in private homes, where the wives then take the finished product to the Factory for more goods to make AND pay, the Factory is just the final assembly point (And this was the Norm BEFORE the B-29 started to Bomb Japan, became more so as Japan followed Germany's lead and disbursed manufacturing to its residential areas). Thus hitting the homes of the Japanese can be viewed as a Military target NOT just the Killing of Civilians. Thus the US has claim, and continues to claim the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was aimed at Military Targets NOT civilians. Again, no one is called the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as anything but horrific, but does it meet the definition of Massacre? Especially if the INTENT (As claimed by the US Government) is NOT to kill men, women and Children, but to hit the Japanese military manufacturing base?

Like Wounded Knee the people who claim Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "Massacres" have a tough hill to climb, NO ONE is saying what happened in all three places were NOT Horrific (and a Crime as while as a Mistake) but was the INTENT of the people during the killing to kill everyone just to kill them? What the Military says in all three cases may be rationalizations, but unless we have clear evidence of the Intent you can NOT claim any of the above (Except the Paxton Boys) meets the definition of Massacre.

[happyslug]

9. As to the Hotchkiss guns, that is the 42mm light cannon made by Hotchkiss

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotchkiss_gun


http://www.morolandhistory.com/05.PG-Kris-vs-Krag/5.american_mountain_guns.htm

This gun was used for about 20 years by the US Army, replacing the Civil War era horse Howitzer used to support horse units. It was light weight (about 362 pounds, which is light for a cannon), it had NOT recoil mechanism (thus had to be man handled back into position after each shot, restricted rounds to about one a minutes, unlike its successors including the Model 1897 French 75mm, which could fire 14 rounds a minute do having a modern recoil mechanism that permitted the Cannon to recoil after each shot while its carriage stayed still and when the recoil was finished the recoil mechanism return the cannon to "battery" so the gunners could load and fire another round without having to reset up the cannon and its carriage).

While the 42 mm Hotchkiss was effective, it was marginal, providing more noise then actual damage (a modern 60mm mortar round, has longer range, quicker fire AND larger shell and it is considered marginal, 75mm/3 inch is generally considered the low end for effective fire from any piece of Artillery.

Worse, while the Hotchkiss did kill a lot of Native Americans, most rounds also hit Soldiers, for both sides were so close, Given how close the soldiers were to the Native Americans the Hotchkiss guns should NEVER have opened fire (This was one of the findings of the Court of Inquiry into Wounded Knee, the Hotchkiss guns did more harm to the soldiers then the guns provided in fire power).

The general consensus is the 42mm Hotchkiss was to large to be used as a personal weapon and to small to provide any long range fire power. The 42 MM Hotchkiss was removed from service after it became clear how poor it was in Cuba during the Spanish-American war.

[csziggy]

7. Currently watching "The Little Big Horn: The Untold Story" on History International

Very good.