The author of "Washita," James Horsley, has been gracious enough to allow his "work-in-progress " to be posted at the First Nations site so as to generate comments from those who visit here. Washita has a very definite premise - that Custer's massacre (my term) was an act founded in "genocidal calculation " (my phrase).

Readers are encourgaged to comment on what follows. Your input and reaction will prove invaluable to this work

On this page you will find the Introduction and Chapter One.

So...I present to you Washita, Genocide on the Great Plains.


Introduction

On the morning of November 28, 1864, troops commanded by Colonel John M. Chivington attacked a band of Plains Indians of the Cheyenne tribe under Chief Black Kettle while the Indian village was camped on Sand Creek in Colorado Territory. The camp was just outside a reservation established in 1861 by the treaty of Fort Wise. Two months earlier on September 28, 1864, Black Kettle and White Antelope had met with Colorado Governor John Evans and Colonel Chivington at Camp Weld near Denver to discuss peace. While no formal peace arrangement had been made, the Indians had turned in their arms at Fort Lyon, camping along Sand Creek.

When Black Kettle saw the soldiers charging his camp that morning, he raised an American flag plus a white flag in front of his tent to demonstrate his peaceful intent. The United States flag had been given to the Cheyenne by the government during treaty negotiations. White Antelope yelled in English, "Stop! Stop!" then, seeing that they did not stop their charge, stood with his arms folded as the troops galloped toward him, refusing to fight.

The soldiers killed about 150 Indian men, women and children, including White Antelope. It had been an orgy of killing. Many of the victims had been physically mutilated by the soldiers. According to Congressional testimony, White Antelope's scrotum had been cut off, later to be used as a tobacco pouch. Soldiers had cut out the vaginal area from slain Indian women. Clusters of women had been shot trying to surrender. Children had been shot and clubbed to death. Their village was burned and several hundred horses captured. (Hoig, 1981, p. 66) (United States Congress, 1865, p. 96)

On January 10, 1865, the House of Representatives directed the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War to investigate the attack, generating a report that charged Chivington of deliberately planning and executing "a foul and dastardly massacre." (Prucha, 1976, p. 12) The attack on Black Kettle's band was officially recognized by the United States government as "gross and wanton outrages" against the Indians. In the treaty with the Cheyenne and Arapaho of 1865 a number of chiefs, including Black Kettle, were individually granted parcels of land in an attempt to repudiate Chivington's actions. Article VI of the treaty read:

The United States being desirous to express its condemnation of, and, as far as may be, repudiate the gross and wanton outrages perpetrated against certain bands of Cheyenne and Arapaho Indians by Colonel J.M. Chivington, in command of United States troops, on the twenty-night of November, A.D. 1864, at Sand Creek, in Colorado Territory, while the said Indians were at peace with the United States, and under its flag, whose protection they had by lawful authority been promised and induced to seek, and the government being desirous to make some suitable reparation for the injuries then done, will grant three hundred and twenty acres of land by patent to each of the following named chiefs of said bands, viz: Moke-ta-ve-to, or Black Kettle... (Fay, 1971, p. 19)

Almost four years later to the day on November 27, 1868, the 7th Regiment of United State Cavalry, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer, attacked Black Kettle's band again, but this time while the village was camped on the Washita River in Indian Territory, now the state of Oklahoma. The village was about 100 miles from Fort Cobb. Black Kettle and Little Robe had just returned from that fort the day before following a meeting with Colonel W.B. Hazen in an attempt to surrender. However, Hazen refused to accept their surrender and the chiefs were told to discuss peace directly with General Philip Sheridan, who, he informed the chiefs, was in the field at that time.

Immediately following the chiefs' return to their band, Sheridan's troops, under the command of Custer, charged the Cheyenne village at dawn, killing more than a hundred men, women and children of the tribe, including Chiefs Black Kettle and Little Rock. The village was burned and 800 of the Indian horses shot. (Hoig, 1976)

[Quote by Evan S. Connell, inserted by JS Dill:

"The fight in the village lasted only a few minutes, although several hours were required to finish off isolated warriors who hid in gullies and underbrush. Custer's tally listed 103 fighting men killed. In truth, only 11 could be so classified... The other 92 were squaws, children, old men. A New York Tribune story by an unidentified witness compared the devastated camp to a slaughter pen littered with the bodies of animal and Indians smeared with mud, lying one on top of another in holes and ditches. It sounds as though Black Kettle's [Washita] camp lay in the path of Ghengis Khan.

"Custer [then] turned to the herd of mules and ponies. Officers and scouts were allowed to keep any they wanted, after which fifty-three captive women and children were instructed through interpreter Romero - known inevitably as Romeo - to choose mounts so they would not have to walk sixty or seventy miles to the base camp. Custer next detailed Lt. Godfrey with four companies to kill the remaining animals because he did not want the Cheyennes to recover them and it would have been difficult or impossible to drive such a herd. Godfrey's executioners at first tried to cut their throats, but this turned out to be increasingly difficult because they [the horses] could not abide the odor of white men and struggled desperately whenever a soldier approached. After a while, says Godfrey, his men were getting tired, so he sent for reinforcements and the creatures were shot. Even with extra men it took some time because there were about eight hundred ponies and mules, and when the job was done the snowy Oklahoma field bloomed with dark flowers."


Son of the Morning Star, Evan S. Connell]
Traditionally, the attack on Sand Creek has been referred to as the Sand Creek Massacre, while the attack on the Washita River has been known as the Battle of the Washita. At face value, both engagements appear to be unusually similar, yet one is known as a massacre and one as a battle. What caused this difference in terminology? Because a Congressional investigation termed the attack on Sand Creek a massacre, this appellation will not be challenged. In fact, most - if not all - historians accept the Sand Creek incident as a massacre. However, the military strike on the Washita River has been a subject of controversy. Some historians, such as Stan Hoig, say it was, indeed, a massacre, while others, such as Paul Hutton, claim it was not. The task of this investigation will be to attempt to determine whether the attack was a battle, as traditionally portrayed, or a massacre. If it were a battle, the preponderance of evidence must show that the attack was a "hostile encounter between opposing military forces," the definition of a battle according to the Random House Webster's College Dictionary (1991). On the other hand, if the attack was a massacre, evidence must demonstrate that the attack was "the wanton killing of a large number of unresisting human beings."

In order to answer whether the attack was a battle or a massacre, I will not only investigate what has been said about it in primary and secondary sources, such as critical and historical texts, government documents, autobiographies, and newspapers and magazine articles, but also will delineate the context of the attack ideologically, historically and geographically. Since part of the reason for the attack on the Washita grew out of conflicts occurring in Kansas, Nebraska and Colorado, these areas will be specifically examined. Particular attention will be paid to the Sand Creek attack, as it will serve as a basis against which to compare the attack on the Washita. In addition, to establish a pattern or a modus operandi, the backgrounds leading up to the attacks at the Washita and Sand Creek will be studied. This means other attacks, plus treaties, meetings, governmental reports and news reports will be cited to provide a context for a correct perspective of the Washita campaign. Further, the historical setting, especially the status of land ownership, will be reviewed. And, to provide a philosophical or world-view setting, so as to attempt to understand the actions which will be subsequently revealed, a brief overview of the thinking then prevalent will be given.

To produce a historically illuminating story of just what did happen, the various sources of investigation will be arranged chronologically so that one can follow a kind of time line. Much of the documentation is confusing because it is presented out of sequence. Published government documents have correspondence and reports arranged out of order, with such years as 1868 coming before 1867.

When reading various news reports, one looks at each item chronologically, but not as they relate to other newspapers. Books on the subject often span time segments up to the Civil War or after it, but not both before and after together. By placing such primary sources as newspaper accounts, government documents, autobiographies, eye-witness accounts, and private letters together with such secondary sources such as biographies and critical studies, one can achieve a better idea of what happened. One is able to see what followed what, tieing various events to each other, helping one event to explain the other. With respect to the newspaper and magazine research, many of the articles will be given in full, as they often represent documents that have never been published in a secondary work and because they provide valuable historical information whose meaning is easily altered by taking it out of context.

For the 'rest of the story" see http://www.dickshovel.com/was.html

"When Black Kettle saw the soldiers charging his camp that morning, he raised an American flag plus a white flag in front of his tent to demonstrate his peaceful intent. The United States flag had been given to the Cheyenne by the government during treaty negotiations. White Antelope yelled in English, "Stop! Stop!" then, seeing that they did not stop their charge, stood with his arms folded as the troops galloped toward him, refusing to fight.



The soldiers killed about 150 Indian men, women and children, including White Antelope. It had been an orgy of killing. Many of the victims had been physically mutilated by the soldiers. According to Congressional testimony, White Antelope's scrotum had been cut off, later to be used as a tobacco pouch. Soldiers had cut out the vaginal area from slain Indian women. Clusters of women had been shot trying to surrender. Children had been shot and clubbed to death. Their village was burned and several hundred horses captured. (Hoig, 1981, p. 66) (United States Congress, 1865, p. 96)



and WE are the savages

"Just what is it about W.H.I.T.E. F.L.A.G. that you don't understand" said the peacekeeper to the savage, just before he was shot down.