"November 27, 1868, Washita River, battle or massacre?" Topic

Hello everyone,

November 27, 1868,Oklahoma Washita River, battle or massacre?

My inclination is "battle" but I could understand the contrary opinion. Serious losses among the cavalry, so battle. No question Indian women and children dead, which argues for massacre--but it's hard to catch warriors at their homes and not have civilian casualties. Undoubtedly the camp was a support base for raiders, who, if they didn't live there, traded off loot for supplies there. Looked at the other way, I don't think by this time anyone in the cavalry cared too much about losses among Indian civilians. Race wars are like that, and America's Indian wars had a strong race wars element.

That said, I'd be willing to game the Washita, but I'd draw the line at Sand Creek.

Good analysis – and conclusion – Robert.

Well, from the moment the soldiers have losses, it's no longer a massacre and as for the "Indian civilians" of all ages and sexes, squaws and children apart from the papooses also fought ?

But did the Indians differentiate in the sex or age of those they killed, scalped and tortured?

The answer is no. It did go both ways.

"Serious losses among the cavalry, so battle"

Apart from Major Elliot's unsupported foray a mile downstream with the loss of the whole contingent to warriors approaching from the lower camps, the U.S. losses were negligible.

"U.S. losses were negligible"

They are not negligible if they are your friend, or relative. And you don't have losses in a massacre.

Indians killed men, women, children, and old people without compunction for 400 years against each other and the Americans.

And women would fight if they had to, Indian and white, and yes even children. How old do you have to be to shoot someone?

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

The native tribes of North America certainly viewed enemy civilians as legitimate targets. Not always: kidnapping and adopting into the tribe happened as well. But, as they say, turn-about is fair play. Or unfair play, but still turnabout.

42nd, most battles have negligible losses apart from the casualties.

As far as "massacre" goes, the definitions tend to be a little slippery. Does it have to be everyone? Do they have to be unable to resist? (Merriam-Webster says "usually" unable to resist, which is not helpful. Dictionary.com says "unnecessary" killing, which is a hole big enough to drive a genocide through. Who gets to decide?) No one I found said the perpetrators can't take losses, but someone I didn't find may. So I seldom use the term.

35th is right that for the Indians too this was often a race war. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. But it's also true that the tribes were (sometimes) more open to white or mixed-race people. Not a lot of Red Sticks or Quanah Parkers among commissioned officers in the 19th Century.

This seems to lead to a political lecture. I'm not going there.

In fact when the "Indians" are attacked in one of their camps and they have more losses than the whites, it is a massacre and when they have fewer losses it is a battle.

For example the white people don't call the Little Big Horn battle "the massacre of Little Big Horn" but "the battle of Little Big Horn "or "Custer's Last Stand".

But According to Gregory F. Michno, the "Indians" had fewer civilian losses than their adversaries, but more combatant losses. (Encyclopedia of Indian Wars – Western Battles and Skirmishes, 1850 – 1890).

Would the "Indians" have behaved less well with white civilians than the whites with "Indian civilians"?

"Would the "Indians" have behaved less well with white civilians than the whites with "Indian civilians"?"

Again no. In most cases the Indians did not differentiate between sexes or age when killing. Both sides committed what today would be termed atrocities.

My goodness, did I strike I nerve back there?

I considered that the term 'losses' might reasonably be understood to signify fatal casualties- as opposed to wounded or missing. My apologies for not making that sufficiently obvious.

The word 'negligible' was used in relation to the OP's reference to 'serious casualties.'

Perhaps I ought to acknowledge every fatal casualty mentioned or implied in each communication on this forum dedicated to toy soldiers and wargaming, and perhaps also indicate my condolences to every friend or relative affected, living or dead. However, odd as it might seem, I thought we could generally gave each other the benefit of the doubt in that regard.

For those not aquainted with the facts of the Washita fight, as stated previously 18 men were killed in Major Joel Elliot's contingent, surrounded and wiped out a mile beyond the village under attack. Reports of total US dead vary. U.S. Army Information centre states 21, including Captain Louis Hamilton, grandson of Alexander "I will not throw my shot away" Hamiilton, fatally shot as the attack began. I would suggest that the 7th Cavalry's loss of three men in the main attack did not represent 'serious losses.'

42nd, you're the first person I ever ran into who thought "losses" in a military engagement meant fatalities only, much less thought it "obvious." And to make your point, you're treating a distance which might be within sight, and practically within rifle range as though it were on another planet. Certainly the 7th lost fewer men in the initial attack than they did once their enemies got organized. No big surprise there.

Well, I am not going to argue with your experience or your aquaintance.

At Washita, the distance in question was not 'in sight,' as you put it, since it was a dark winter's night (It seems you aren't too familiar with this battle). The key question hanging over the fate of Elliot and his ad hoc contingent, was that no-one knew what had happened to him after he spontaneously headed off downstream and Custer made no effort to find out. His attention was fixed on events within the perimeter of Black Kettle's burning camp where the fighting was dying down and the command was engaged in gathering captives and killing most of the horse herd. A burst of shooting had been heard that ended as suddenly as it had begun. Only when the battlefield was revisited a fortnight later, it became clear this been the sound of Elliot and co being overrun. This debâcle had no effect on events in the village, however.

Only when it was reported that warriors from downstream were beginning to gather on the bluffs did Custer accept he had stirred up the proverbial hornets nest, and that Black Kettle's village had been at the far end of a series encampments stretching for miles along the Washita. This prompted his ordering the force to withdraw, without checking on the fate of Elliot and his men – including the Sergeant Major by the way- an omission that created a major cause resentment among the officers of the 7th that was still festering in 1876.

It was of course too late for Elliot by then, and too late to risk making the gesture (although Custer did feint towards the next villages before retreating causing the warriors to hold off. It seems pretty clear though that if the Major had not made his his rash sally into the dark, he and those with him would have survived the battle and Custer's losses that day would therefore have been negligible.

In fact when the "Indians" are attacked in one of their camps and they have more losses than the whites, it is a massacre and when they have fewer losses it is a battle.

For example the white people don't call the Little Big Horn battle "the massacre of Little Big Horn" but "the battle of Little Big Horn "or "Custer's Last Stand".

But According to Gregory F. Michno, the "Indians" had fewer civilian losses than their adversaries, but more combatant losses. (Encyclopedia of Indian Wars – Western Battles and Skirmishes, 1850 – 1890).

Would the "Indians" have behaved less well with white civilians than the whites with "Indian civilians"?

Thought I would finally weigh in on this.
I think people are too quick to judge the past on the basis of modern morality.
Also, although I have never been in combat (just a peacetime "weekend warrior"), I can't imagine how difficult it must be to face an opponent who engages in what we call unconventional warfare.
Much like Viet Nam, Afghanistan and a zillion other conflicts, it must have been extremely frustrating (not to mention demoralizing) to fight a foe that comes out of nowhere to attack you when you least expect it, and then melts into a crowd and disappears. It then being very difficult to know who was friendly and who was hostile. The same goes for the village in which they take refuge. Are they being coerced? Are they actively helping, then playing a victim? How do you distill one from the other.
The Army is often criticized for attacking villages (hostile or otherwise). Well, what else are they supposed to do? It's not like the Indians had barracks or other obvious military targets.
I think it is a more complicated issue than modern day zealots would have you believe.

I say that in these Indian wars in particular, everyone should have had the excellent behavior of Captain Frederick William Benteen at the Battle of the Washita River.

I tried tracking down individual estimates of Indian losses, and especially those which counted warriors, women and children separately. (Custer is, of course, useless for this.) The numbers of warriors killed mostly fall between 11 and 20, and the total women and children killed between 17 and 40, with another 53 women and children taken prisoner. (The Center for Military History says 50 dead warriors, but I can't find out how they arrived at the number.)

Not the slaughter of women and children I remembered from long-ago reading on the Plains Indian Wars, but probably about "right" for a daybreak attack against a village with hostiles, women and children intermingled. And--setting aside Major Elliot--one dead and 13 wounded cavalrymen. Given Sheridan's orders not to give quarter to warriors and the cavalry's Indian scouts reluctance to do so anyway, those cavalry losses feel high relative to the dead warriors.

"The Army is often criticized for attacking villages (hostile or otherwise). Well, what else are they supposed to do?"

Well,first off not attack the village of a leader who has been actively negotiating with the Americans since the outbreak of hostilites four years before, survivor of a previous attack on his 'friendly' camp, and recently returned from discussions with the local US commander to mak clear his compliance with army instructions. The Custer column had supposedly been following the trail of individual warriors, a handful, who had taken part in attacks in Kansas
That some of these returned to Black Kettle's camp was supposedly confirmed by artefacts found in the debris of the destroyed camp and by the bodies of white captives said to have been killed by their captors in the camp although I gather this was not necessarily the case.
It seems Sheridan's policy was to 'punish' any or all Indians in a 'free fire zone' that was sketchily designated with boundaries that were not commonly agreed, and ignorant or indifferent to the fact that social organisation among the Plains tribes could never guarantee a neat distinction between 'friendlies' and 'hostiles.' In the end the aim was to make clear to all that there was no safe haven, even in the depths of winter unless the tribes agreed to 'come in' and settle on government reservations- which most Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho duly did in the spring. However, many Kiowa and Commanche bands did not and it would take another five or six years of campaigning for the last of these to be subdued.

An important thing worth bearing in mind also is that critical discussion on the subject is not merely a question of judging the past from the point of view of modern morality, there was considerable condemnation of the army policy at the time- mainly by 'folks back east,'of course, and not so much on the frontier.

In all wars against this type of people, this is what happens, these wars are like colonial wars.

TMP link