|
Post by conz on Aug 3, 2009 20:37:40 GMT -5
First impressions are usually the most lasting ones, between people or peoples. Here are some notes out of Stephen Ambrose's engaging history of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, Undaunted Courage (language/spelling in direct quotes retained as original):
"If the Shoshones were fascinated by the men and equipment of the expedition, Lewis was no less fascinated by them. The first Indians he had seen since the Mandans, they were about as close to being untouched by contact with white men as it was possible for any tribe to be at the beginning of the nineteenth century."
"As Cameahwait [this bands leader] so movingly noted, the arms trade with the enemies of the Shoshones put his people at a terrible disadvantage and regulated their lives. They had to sneak onto the Plains, make their hunt as fast as possible, and retreat into their mountain hideaway..."
"The civilized world knew nothing about the Shoshones...their complexion was darker than that of the Hidatsas or the Mandans."
"Comeahwait's band numbered about one hundred warriors, three hundred women and children. There were few old people among them, and so far as Lewis could tell the elderly were not treated with much tenderness or respect. As to relations between the sexes, 'the man is the sole propyetor of his wives and daughters, and can barter or dispose of either as he thinks proper.' Most men had two or three wives, usually purchased as infant girls for horses or mules. At age thirteen or fourteen, the girls were surrendered to their 'soverign lord and husband."
"Lewis noted, with disapproval, that the Shoshones 'treat their women but with little rispect, and compel thme to perform every species of drudgery...in short the man dose little else except attend his horses hunt and fish'...Lewis failed to note that the warriors had to be always prepared to defend the village, which required them to be constantly on the alert, with their hands free. He did point out that each man had his best war horse tied to a stake near his lodge at night."
"One of the oldest questions in medical history, still a subject of debate today, was whether syphilis originated in the Americas and spread to Europe after 1492, or was native to Europe and spread to the North American Indians by Europeans."
Sacagawea verified that the village was full of syphilis..."But it was not conclusive, as Lewis realized, because the Shoshones had suffered much from the smallpox, 'which is known to be imported,' so they must have contracted it from other tribes that did have intercourse with white men."
"The Shoshones were so desperately poor that they had almost no economy to speak of. In the spring and summer, they lived on salmon; in the fall and winter, on buffalo. That they could successfully hunt buffalo was thanks to their horses, the sole source of wealth among them. Having few to no rifles, without horse they would have been indifferent hunters at best."
"What the Shoshones valued above all else, and depended on absolutely, was the bravery of their young men. Their childbearing system was designed to produce brave warriors."
"In politics, they followed not the oldest or wisest or the best talker, but the bravest man. They had customs, but no laws or regulations. 'Each individual man is his own sovereign master,' Lewis wrote, 'and acts from the dictates of his own mind."
"From this fact sprang the principle of political leadership: 'The authority of the Chief is nothing more than mere admonition supported by the influence which the propiety of his own examplery conduct may have acquited him in the minds of the individuals who compose the band...in fact every man is a chief, but all have not an equal influence on the minds of the other members of the community, and he who happens to enjoy the greatest share of confidence is the principal chief."
From an earlier discussion with the Hidatsa on changing Indian ways and become peaceable with their neighboring tribes...
"The old men agreed with him, but only because they 'had already geathered their havest of larals, and having forceably felt in many instances some of those inconveniences attending a state of war.' But a young warrior put to Lewis a question that Lewis could not answer: '[He] asked me if they were in a state of peace with all their neighbours what the nation would do for Cheifs?'
"The warrior went on to make a fundamental point: 'The chiefs were now oald and must shortly die and the nation could not exist without chiefs.'
"In two sentences, the Hidatsa brave had exposed the hopelessness of the American policy of inducing the Missouri River and Rocky Mountain Indians to become trappers and traders. They would have to be conquered and cowed before they could be made to abandon war. Jefferson's dream of establishing through persuasion and trade a peaceable kingdom among the western Indians was as much an illusion as his dream of an all-water route to the Pacific."
As good a summary as I've heard, and this by the very first Americans to meet the Mandans, Sioux, Hidatsas, and Shosone.
In that first voyage, the Crow and Shoshone revealed themselves to be future allies of the Americans, and the Sioux bitter enemies. It was that way in the beginning, and it was still this same way at the end of the "Plains Indian Wars" of America.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by grahamew on Aug 4, 2009 2:54:22 GMT -5
Things were never that black and white. The Sioux were fur trade allies to the British, as were the Blackfoot. This has a lot to do with the views of L & C towards them - see James P. Ronda's Lewis and Clark Among the Indians and Jeffrey Ostler's The Plains Sioux and U.S. Colonialism from Lewis and Clark to Wounded Knee. A few years later, the Sioux fought alongside the Americans against the Arikara and they remained on good terms until the 1850s.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 6, 2009 8:40:39 GMT -5
Certainly agree nothing was black and white out on the Plains, or with American and Indian relationships...or even among native tribal relationships (or even within each tribe itself <g>).
These were always shifting, according to local circumstances, or by decisions made off in Washington, far from the scene.
Lewis and Clark tried to establish friendly contact with the Sioux on the American's maiden exploration of the new U.S. territory. They succeeded initially with the Osage, Mandans, Hitatsas, Shoshoni, Nez Perce, and Chinooks.
They failed with the Sioux and Blackfeet, who were hostile at first contact, and set the tone for the remainder of their relationship with the Americans. It didn't help that the Sioux were the "big bad" on the Plains and the most hostile threats to these other tribes that were helping the Americans along their travels. These "helpful" tribes mainly saw the Americans as a way to defend themselves against the Sioux.
What is startling, as you read Lewis and Clark, is that even with the ebbs and tides of various American and Indian relationships, the tone set by this expedition's first contacts set the basis for our relationships for the next 100+ years.
Moral of this story: Always make a good first impression!
Clair
|
|
|
Post by grahamew on Aug 6, 2009 13:24:57 GMT -5
Man, it's like I'm talking to myself. Far from being at loggerheads with the US from Lewis and Clark onwards, the Sioux generally got on with the Americans until the mid 1850s. Read Ostler and Ronda.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 6, 2009 21:07:22 GMT -5
Graham,
Sorry...is it your contention, then, that until 1850 the Sioux and Americans were on friendly terms...as friendly as other tribes were with the Americans? Not much difference?
I'll certainly look into Ostler and Ronda...thanks for the reference.
Until then, I have this, though...
Ambrose: "Those tribes that they [CPTs Lewis and Clark] knew they did not hesitate to characterize, often in a heartfelt fashion. They wrote of their friends the Mandans, 'These are the most friendly, well disposed Indians inhabiting the Missouri. They are brave, humane and hospitable.' Of the Teton Sioux, the opposite: 'These are the vilest miscreants of the savage race, and must ever remain the pirates of the Missouri, until such measures are pursued, by our government, as will make them feel a dependence on its will for their supply of merchandise."
Now those measures began about 1850, which I think is your reference date. But all is friendly and like the other tribes before that? Not that I've seen...is this what Ostler and Ronda believe, then?
The Mandans, Hitatsas and Crows were, of course, the bitterest of enemies with the Sioux and Cheyenne, and they were the best friends of the Americans on the Plains. I don't think we can ever say that the Sioux had as good a relationship with the Americans as these tribes did, but can we say that at least they were not so Anti-American, or the Americans so Anti-Sioux, before 1850 as they were after? That may be best case for your argument.
Hyde, in Red Cloud's Folk, says on this topic:
"With the exception of a few French traders whom they regarded as their friends, the Tetons did not welcome any of the whites who came up the Missouri after 1804; indeed, from a variety of circumstances, they showed a growing disposition to treat all white men as enemies. The French traders from St. Louis had learned to accept with as good a grace as they could muster the pleasant Teton custom of stopping traders and either robbing them outright or forcing them to remain and trade their goods at rates which the chiefs themselves often set; but the Americans who now began to come up the river were of a starker breed, and any attempt of the Tetons to rob or mistreat them was likely to be met with grim looks and a prompt handling of rifles.
"In 1807 Ensign Pryoer was sent to escort home the Mandan chief who had been induced by Lewis and Clark to go to Washington. At the Arikara villages Pryor's party was attacked by that tribe and some Tetons who were present, and after a sharp fight he was forced to retreat down the river. In this affair an Oglala chief named Red Shirt was killed by the American fire. The killing angered the Tetons greatly, and in 1810 they attempted to stop and rob the American traders Crooks and McClellan at a point below the Great Bend. Six hundred Oglala and Saone warriors took part in this affair, but the traders eluded them, slipping into their boats after nightfall and dropping back down the river. In this same year Carson, a trapper, fired across the river from teh Arikara villages where he was stopping and killed a famous Teton chief, evidently Blue Blanket. In revenge the Oglalas and Saones killed three whites, and in 1811 they made a bold attempt to halt and rob the very strong Astorian party."
And so the game was on...did your picture of early relations between the Americans and Lakota differ from this, then?
There was a brief period of reconciliation, with a treaty in 1825 calling a truce between the Oglalas and Americans. By now the Americans were displacing the French traders the Lakota had relied upon for their eastern supplies and equipments, as the United States slowly asserted control over its newly acquired territory from the French.
This also began the time when the Rocky Mountain Company began sending brigades of white fur trappers deep into the Indian lands for furs. They could trap fur far more efficiently than the natives, so the old practice of buying furs from the Indians was giving way to the mass production trapping of furs by whites who lived in the Black Hills and on the slopes of the Rockies all year around. For the next twenty years, various fur companies would play native tribes off on one another trying to gain an advantage in the lucrative fur trade.
It looks to me like during these two decades, about 1825-1845, the great wars between the Sioux, Crow, Pawnee, Arapaho, Cheyenne and others (almost all tribes got involved...it was aking to "WWII on the Plains") distracted the Indians from dealing with the invasion of white fur traders, upon whom they depended for ammunition, weapons, and other wares. Any tribe without a white trader to supply it was at the mercy of hostile tribes, and this was a very violent period of Plains Indian history.
Now at the end of this period, about 1840, Hyde says the fur trade became unprofitable, and the traders left or settled to do other things (mining, land speculation, horses, buffalo, etc.). Hyde says MOST of these whites settled with the more friendly Crow and Snakes, and the Oglalas attacking these tribes saw many white men fighting with them and supplying their enemies. This began to break down the uneasy truce that had existed between the Sioux and Americans in general...the old prejudices were returning.
Hyde: "This feeling of hostility toward the whites, at first directed toward the trappers who were taking sides with the Snakes and Crows, quickly spread among the Oglalas and other Indians of the Upper Platte, who were soon talking of killing or driving out of their country all the whites except a few favored traders."
The U.S. Army finally enters the fray in 1845, when CPT Kearny's dragoons march up the Platte to quiet threats against the increasing number of wagon trains trying to get through Lakota lands to California.
Clair
|
|
|
Post by jinlian on Aug 7, 2009 2:10:58 GMT -5
In that first voyage, the Crow and Shoshone revealed themselves to be future allies of the Americans... In fact, Lewis and Clark's only "meeting" with the Crows (or better, Clark and Pryor's only meeting, since Lewis was then scouting the Marias River) in 1806 ended with them having a good amount of their horses stolen by an Apsaalooke band near the Fly Creek, Montana. Not exactly a "good first impression".
|
|
|
Post by grahamew on Aug 7, 2009 3:35:48 GMT -5
Ambrose is populist history that needs to be put in a broader context. Hyde's important, but so much more work has been done since his books were published. The Americans used their Lakota allies to attack the Arikara in 1823. Lewis and Clark (who, let's face it, weren't merely on a meet and greet) wanted Lakota compliance for trade. They were already involved with the British, so, at this time, it was a non-starter - the same reason they didn't hit it off with the Blackfoot. Their views were clearly coloured by this. A lot of what we know about the Lakota comes from friendly contact between them and the Americans. Many relied on trading at Laramie and mingled openly with the soldiers; in fact, some bands continued doing this while their relatives were fighting in the Powder River country. When the Sioux killed upward of 50 Pawnee at Skeleton Canyon in 1873, they were Indians friendly to the US - doubtless many of the same people who had been on the buffalo hunt with Custer a few years earlier - and were with a US agent (as were the Pawnee, of course). Read Parkman. How did he manage to survive amongst the hostile Sioux? Denig? Bodmer? De Trobriand?
The Sioux and the Americans were not bitter enemies from Lewis and Clark onwards and some Sioux remained on good terms throughout.
All tribes played the Americans politically - and vice versa of course. Everyone wanted something. The 'peaceful' Mandan welcomed Lewis and Clark and Catlin and Bodmer, but were rather less peaceful to their neighbours. The same cultural factors that influenced Sioux raiding influenced the other tribes. The Sioux, of course, managed to get off reasonably lightly when the various epidemics hit the Plains and remained a larger, more powerful tribe, even more so when allied with Cheyenne and Arapaho.
Nothing was black and white. It never is. In 1863, over 300 Shoshone were killed on the Bear River by men under Colonel Patrick E. Connor. First impressions, indeed.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 7, 2009 9:00:26 GMT -5
Ambrose is populist history that needs to be put in a broader context. Hyde's important, but so much more work has been done since his books were published. The Americans used their Lakota allies to attack the Arikara in 1823. Lewis and Clark (who, let's face it, weren't merely on a meet and greet) wanted Lakota compliance for trade. They were already involved with the British, so, at this time, it was a non-starter - the same reason they didn't hit it off with the Blackfoot. Their views were clearly coloured by this. A lot of what we know about the Lakota comes from friendly contact between them and the Americans. Many relied on trading at Laramie and mingled openly with the soldiers; in fact, some bands continued doing this while their relatives were fighting in the Powder River country. When the Sioux killed upward of 50 Pawnee at Skeleton Canyon in 1873, they were Indians friendly to the US - doubtless many of the same people who had been on the buffalo hunt with Custer a few years earlier - and were with a US agent (as were the Pawnee, of course). Read Parkman. How did he manage to survive amongst the hostile Sioux? Denig? Bodmer? De Trobriand? The Sioux and the Americans were not bitter enemies from Lewis and Clark onwards and some Sioux remained on good terms throughout. All tribes played the Americans politically - and vice versa of course. Everyone wanted something. The 'peaceful' Mandan welcomed Lewis and Clark and Catlin and Bodmer, but were rather less peaceful to their neighbours. The same cultural factors that influenced Sioux raiding influenced the other tribes. The Sioux, of course, managed to get off reasonably lightly when the various epidemics hit the Plains and remained a larger, more powerful tribe, even more so when allied with Cheyenne and Arapaho. Nothing was black and white. It never is. In 1863, over 300 Shoshone were killed on the Bear River by men under Colonel Patrick E. Connor. First impressions, indeed. I have no argument with this, Graham. I agree that nothing is black and white, and how we characterize relations, generally, is very subjective. As an army officer, we have to know who are the "bad guys" and the "good guys" for any situation, and we are smart enough to know that not all Sioux, or Iraqis, or Afghanis, are hostile. We understand that while we may be hostile to one faction, we may be friendly to another faction of the same tribe. But it is still important that generalities be made, for they form your understanding going into a situaiton...just don't go in with blinders on, and be looking for exceptions the general rule. I think you well reflected the more amicable period of Sioux/American relations...during the Plains Wars among the natives between 1825 and 1845, when there wasn't much pressure from American immigrants and white traders were widely welcomed. I would still hesitate to call relations between Americans and Lakota as "friendly," though...at least not as friendly as with the Crow and Mandan. With the Sioux, as long as relations were not actively hostile (they weren't killing every white in sight), I guess we can characterize them as "generally friendly." And some Americans and other whites were true friends to some Lakota. Some married Indian wives, and lived with the Sioux. Not many...of this class, as indicated above, most lived with other more friendly tribes. So while I accept your guarded statements to not paint too broad a brush, I wouldn't gloss over the almost natural, and persistent, non-violent hostility that was built up from the very beginning between the Sioux and the Americans (and with the Apache as well), that wasn't the same as with the other tribes. Can we single out the Sioux/Lakota as being exceptionally hostile to the Americans, and that the attitudes between these groups had =generally= more difficulties than with most of the other tribes out west? To be sure, the Americans fought with some elements of most of the tribes out west, for good reasons on both sides...it was not the Indians fault that Americans were flooding their territories. But we had many allies out there, too... So I think that we can. And not just between the Americans and the Sioux...I think we can say the same thing between most all other tribes and the Sioux/Blackfoot/N.Cheyenne grouping. It wasn't just the Americans that were having problems with them, especially. Clair
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 7, 2009 9:02:28 GMT -5
In that first voyage, the Crow and Shoshone revealed themselves to be future allies of the Americans... In fact, Lewis and Clark's only "meeting" with the Crows (or better, Clark and Pryor's only meeting, since Lewis was then scouting the Marias River) in 1806 ended with them having a good amount of their horses stolen by an Apsaalooke band near the Fly Creek, Montana. Not exactly a "good first impression". Yes...very good point! Although did the expedition know who they were? Yet the Crow did become valuable allies of the Americans as contact evolved. I understand the Mandans and Hitatsas merged with the Crow...if true, did that give the Crow an advantage in dealing with the Americans, since they were already established friends? Clair
|
|
|
Post by Dietmar on Aug 7, 2009 9:44:27 GMT -5
I´m still trying to understand what conz is trying to tell us… but it could be just me. Perhaps he needs a clear concept of the enemy and therefore tries to simplify matters.
As a Lakota friend taught me a while ago: hostiles and friendlies… these are only white man´s terms.
…almost natural hostility?? pffffff
There never was a Sioux/Blackfoot/Cheyenne grouping.
Anyway, as we know from other message boards this debate with conz will go on and on and on, no matter what you will say, Grahame.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 7, 2009 10:58:05 GMT -5
Sorry Dietmar...I'm not trying to be "hostile" at all. <g> See how these attitudes spring up?
I'm trying to be friendly, and to understand the relationships between the Americans and the various tribes, in particular the U.S. Army with them.
There are no bad guys to us...not the Americans, not the U.S. Army, and not any tribe. They are each doing what they think is right.
I am merely trying to understand what happened, and why, in each of these relationships. This would lead to an understanding of how it could have been done better. I have a very "cause and effect" focus, and am not interested in assigning blame to ANY party.
Nor do I want to unnecessarily hurt anyone's feelings in the process...and there's the real rub...
Clair
|
|
|
Post by jinlian on Aug 7, 2009 11:06:35 GMT -5
Yes...very good point! Although did the expedition know who they were? Oh, yes, they did; they expected to meet with the "Ravin" Indians. There's a whole book on that matter, by A. Heidenreich: Smoke Signals in Crow (Apsáalooke) Country: Beyond the Capture of Horses from the Lewis & Clark ExpeditionThe Mandan and Hidatsa acted for a while as mediators between the Apsáalooke and the first traders, yet it took little to these last ones to establish independent dealings; and yet these delings were not always smooth. Remember the siege laid by Crow Chief Rotten Belly to Fort McKenzie in 1834? The Crows were enraged because they felt that the American Fur Company was trading with their enemies the Blackfoot and selling them guns and other goods which would put them in a better position in intertribal warfare. Also, in the Bozeman war, the Crows weren't so quick in establish an alliance with the US army: in fact, they even considered taking sides with the Lakotas. A good article, published by the Montana Historical Society, can be found here: www.his.state.mt.us/education/cirguides/transrzeczkowski.aspAnd, speaking of "friendship", the Apsáalooke tribe, like the Lakotas, has a long history of broken treaties and unfair treatment; a good reference is F. Hoxie's Parading through History. History, as Grahame said, is not black and white and for sure, as Chief Plenty Coups said, the Apsáalooke didn't choose warfare against whites "not because we loved the white man who was already crowding other tribes into our country or because we hated the Sioux, the Cheyenne and the Arapaho but because we plainly saw that this course was the only one which might save our beautiful country for us"
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 8, 2009 9:10:38 GMT -5
Thanks, and a very well focused article going into some depth on the nuances of the Crow relationships with the Sioux and Americans, well summed up by:
An examination of the Crow response to the Bozeman Trail reveals a much more complex story than traditional narratives, which emphasize Crow-white friendship and Crow-Sioux enmity. The Crow response to both warring parties ran the gamut from friendship and cooperation to suspicion and outright hostility. Though in the end the Crows refused to cooperate with the Sioux against the whites, this decision did not push the Crows to the opposite extreme of unconditional allegiance to the United States. Whatever cooperation the whites did receive from the Crows came about because the Crows perceived it as serving their best interests.
I don't think even the Americans have "unconditional allegiance" to themselves, so I completely agree with the synopsis. And when I use the term "friendly" in this historical context, I mean not shooting at each other for the moment, not necessarily that anyone actually likes each other. We are "friendly" with many Iraqis and Afghanis now, too...
Still, it is important to note the difference in relations with the different tribes and the Americans, and the American Army, and why those occurred. Some were more positive and had potential for a more peaceful resolution of their differences, and some had very little chance of coming to a resolution without some serious violence involved.
You raise the other good issue of the major split between the Lakota people between what we called the "hostiles" and the "reservation" Indians. Even these groups were not distinct, and many Warriors and families would switch status as conditions demanded. Experienced Soldiers recognized this, but that still didn't make it easy to distinguish friend from foe on the Plains, just as it is difficult in Afghanistan today.
In Afghanistan the Army is facing a whole new scenario of dealing with a wild country full of independent tribes. Many differences, and many similarities, to our situation here. But if we can't understand what happened in our relations on the American Plains, what chance to we have to attempt an understanding of the Afghani highlands?
Clair
|
|
|
Post by jinlian on Aug 8, 2009 10:44:09 GMT -5
Now I'm lost too. What are we talking about? International politics? If so, well, sorry, but I'm not interested -- I didn't join these boards to discuss such topics.
|
|
|
Post by conz on Aug 8, 2009 14:09:58 GMT -5
Now I'm lost too. What are we talking about? International politics? If so, well, sorry, but I'm not interested -- I didn't join these boards to discuss such topics. I understand...I'm not interested in talking about modern topics, either. I don't study history for entertainment, though...I study it to learn lessons for today and tomorrow. So that was the only reason I mentioned it. Back to history, I get it that there were divisions within larger groups, and that attitudes of these groups changed with the circumstances. I am wary, though, of ignoring any rules of human engagement that we can learn here...that no "rules" or lessons can be drawn, because if we try, then we are guilty of "generalizations." I hope that we can find causes and effects that resulted in the relationships we find in our history of the Indian peoples. Relationships within tribes, between different tribes, and with outsiders. The Crows are a great example, but I should probably bring that up in their tribal section...I've strayed from the Shoshoni a bit here, although these examples do put the Shoshoni-American relationship in context. One rule that keeps coming up is the danger that any trouble between two individuals of two human groups can quickly become trouble between the two larger groups overall, and lead to violent relations. Some group relationships can overcome individual differences, and they stay relatively peaceful. This happens when two groups are "relatively friendly." But weak group relationships quickly flame into violence at small sparks created by rogue individuals from the "less friendly" groups. So some American and Shoshoni, or Crow, individuals can have a fight, but it doesn't have to flare up into open warfare...it can be resolved. But one stolen cow by a Cheyenne or Sioux can start a whole war between tribes or with Americans. Just a reflection on the importance of tribal/large group relationships, and how they may have impacted life on the Plains. Clair
|
|