Winfield Scott Hancock, Peter Cousins, Fetterman discussed on Rudy Giuliani


And work for graft. He's the three war leaders who won the civil war. They remain close comrades, but they're in command of what becomes the American Indian wars and the Fetterman massacre is when these Of unformed American Calvary. Men and infantrymen believe they can build forts in sight of about 1,502,000 Indians commanded by Red Cloud. It's foolishness. The Indians attack. We're using decoys that the American Army falls for Peter. They leave Fetterman with 165 arrows into him after they've killed him. Why? What did that mean to them? The mist coming in that the whites both civilians, and the military, never, for the most part, never fully understood the music, extreme mutilation of dead by virtually every Indian tribe in the West. They looked. They saw it as a indication savagery. I can't even begin to I could, but I'll refrain. The book is explicit. But that method that the Indians use and mutilation of the dead are as extreme as your imagination can imagine. On D course that the Army found that repellent. But the Plains Indians, particularly easily in Northern Plains, Indians, did not. Torture did not mutilate. Live. Enemies. They would not capture a soldier and then mutilate him. The mutilation always occurred after death, and in fact, it was a normal practice of looking for the coach of friendships. If they if they encountered a wounded soldiers in the course of the fight was Fetterman. If they had found a handful of soldiers badly wounded more we wanted whatever they would dispatch them quickly with a war club one blow to the head and killed them. And then the mutilation begin the purpose of mutilation Woz. It was a religious at the Indians believed that the souls of the enemies would follow them into the after life. Um and that, in whatever condition they were. Upon death. And immediately after death. So the Indians would Frenchness among some of the the the less revolting to the whites, at least Practices worth of safe slash the scene news. You know the muscles in their legs and their arms or toe, poke their eyes out so that when their enemies filed them to the afterlife, they would be blind. They would be lame. They would not be able to pose a threat to Indians who were enjoying eternity. And that was that was the purpose of mutilation. The dead it was not active. Of quote savagely unquote with no purpose except shit brutality, as most whites interpreted to be. It was it wasn't in the Indians. Um, way of thinking in terms of their religion, a quite rational thing to do, And I'm gonna stay with the logic and the reason because they're instances, Peter's book is sweeping. You understand? There's an enormous amount of history detail here. We'll go to a conversation once between Roman knows Roman knows the preach approaches The General Winfield Scott Hancock, a hero of the Civil war who is cruel and ignorant and believes that he can intimidate the Indians, Roman nose approaches him and for a parley in which if it ends badly, Roman nose is ready to kill his enemy. And he says to the general, we we don't want war. If we did, we would not come close to your big guns. Very sensible. Peter. Did they not believe the Indians when they told him the truth, did they not did did Winfield Scott Hancock, who is one of many generals who doesn't listen, did they not believe the Indians were telling them the truth? Hancock was one of the one of the more pathetic cases he was indeed a true civil war hero and in the eyes of many, he was equal to, if not superior, to shared in in terms of his his status as a hero of the Civil War. If you may be called it. Subsequently, he ran for president on the Democratic ticket. It was nearly defeated. So he was quite and it was a national hero, and he was a tremendous soul is tremendous, competent general in the Civil war, and I in particular was struck. By his agree GIs not only ignorance by his Unwillingness to take the time to learn their first thing about the Indians when he came west and is believed that he could bluster and intimidate his way it through any situation. And he had he had. He was surrounded by for the most part, other officers who were as naive as him, but he did have with him. A ninny in agent who understood who had witnessed sand Creek and tries his own way to prevent it. Who is cautioning him? They look, General Hancock, the Indians don't wanna fight you if they wanted to fight you. Religious wouldn't be standing here so close by that that the last thing they want to do is his fight. They they want to talk. The Hancock Um Really couldn't see that. And more importantly, he although he announced that his Republican assumption that his purpose was to go out into the southern Plains and make peace, he was quite ready, and he fully instructed his subordinates that look, we we come in peace, but we come fully prepared to make war as well. And I think he was looking for Any excuse to to show off U. S military might There He was. He was he was he had Roman knows. Essentially, we're has happened so much in the West. They were talking past one another. There are number of Indians who tell very flatly to the army what they believe and what they know. And when we come back, we'll meet two of them. One is a Kiowa chief Santana to Called Order Order of the Plains. Another one is a Cheyenne chief, Buffalo chip who speaks very candidly. You understand exactly what he means. And he's not listen to Peter Cousins. Is the author of the Wonderful new book, The Earth is weeping. It's very sad, but it is deep history deep American history that we did not have in the 20th Century, the epic story of the Indian wars for the American West on John bench..

Coming up next