Talk:Great Sioux War of 1876

Merger

 * Support - I am in favor of the merger. CosmicPenguin ( talk• WP:WYOHelp! ) 02:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

done --Work permit (talk) 03:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheyenne primary?
Do you not think that undue weight is being given in the article to the theories of Dr. Liberty? AFAIK her theory that it was a war against the Cheyenne is a minority view, and while it probably deserves mentioning, it should not be prominiently in the lede. The body of the text, also, should reflect the mainstream view with Liberty's alternative being given at the end.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  20:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree with you, but User:Parkwells is an experienced editor who has worked extensively on articles about indigenous peoples and I would like to hear their argument for adding the content. I have contacted them.  CosmicPenguin ( talk• WP:WYOHelp! ) 03:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It seemed worthwhile to consider another view, especially one that takes into account more specific detail about the different tribes and their structure. For so long, historians had lumped all the tribes together (in many areas.) Have made changes to identify this as an alternate view, reduced the content in the lead and first paragraphs, and moved a summary as alternative to the end. Do you think that addresses your concerns?  Did not mean to give it undue weight, but it seemed worth introducing, as an example of different views on the events, especially as Marquis had talked with participants an descendants.  Reading the article again, too, makes me think Liberty and Marquis have something useful to say about the Native American perspective.--Parkwells (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that this is worth adding to the article but I am not sure that Liberty is not out on her own on this, and if so, it should be made clear that this view is attributed to Liberty rather than vaguely "some Native Americans". I do not think it should be in the lede either, unless there are peer reviewed references that at least give her theory consideration.  I also think it is undesirable to have facts taken form Liberty's article in the body of our article without specific attribution to Liberty - unless there are other sources which back her up.  An example is her claim that the Cheyenne had a more organised tribal structure.  I do not have the book by Marquis which she claims is the source of her theories, but I do have another of his books, Wooden Leg, which I am in the process of writing a Wikipedia article for in user space (feel free to review contribute etc) so I have just re-read it and it flatly contradicts Liberty on many points.
 * Liberty says the Cheyenne had primacy in the fighting. "Sitting Bull...was recognized as the old man chief of the combined tribes". p.211.
 * On the Reno fight, "More and more of our people kept coming. Almost all of them were Sioux.  There were only a few Cheyenne." p.220.  There are similar statements on all the major battles including the Custer fight.
 * On the claim that the Cheyenne alone operated on a tribal level, Wooden Leg again and again in the book describes the similarity between Cheyenne and Sioux political and organisational structures, with differences being of a minor cosmetic nature.
 *  Sp in ni ng  Spark  17:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments I will work on decreasing the Liberty alternative; will look further to see if there are responses to her (and Marquis' theories).--Parkwells (talk) 18:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Part of this theory, I think, might stem from the sequence of attacks. The first major engagement of the Great Sioux War came from Crook, who insisted (and was echoed through his mouthpiece Bourke) that he had attacked Crazy Horse's village. Of course, from the Native perspective the first blow was stuck against the Cheyenne. After the Custer fight most of the major engagements on the part of Crook's column also came against the Cheyenne. So I could see from their perspective where it might appear that the Cheyenne were the main target when in fact Crook thought he was striking blows against the Sioux. And Crook's hubris prevented him from ever acknowledging his mistaken identification of the first camp.Intothatdarkness (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

past tense in aftermath
do not the "deep divides" continue to this day, what with Russell Means and all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.46.169.246 (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

camps destroyed
The article states: The US Army destroyed seven Cheyenne camps before 1876 and three more that year, more than any other tribes suffered in this period. What does this mean? Is this an euphemism for slaughter or merely the physical destruction of housing? --Markb (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It means that the camps were, in most cases, burned.Intothatdarkness (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Casualty numbers in infobox
The casuality numbers cited in the infobox in this article for both sides of the war are significantly lower than those cited in the Battle of the Little Bighorn article, which doesn't make sense to me because the Battle of Little Bighorn is part of the Great Sioux War of 1876. Can someone explain the discrepency? --Jfruh (talk) 06:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Grant and Custer
I believe more needs to be explained with the break down between Grant and Custer. This had to do with Custer testifying against Grant's brother Orville, concerning investing in Post Traderships. Grant removed Custer from command over the Expedition. Custer had to write to Sherman and Grant to be part of the Mission. Grant had refused to see Custer in person. Behind the Great Sioux war was the "soap opera" of William W. Belknap's impeachment trial over taking kick back money from Fort Sill Profits while Secretary of War. Cmguy777 (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, honestly. There's no real indication that things would have gone much differently had Custer commanded the Montana Column, and it's also a bit of a tangent to the political and military decisions that went into the initial campaign. Intothatdarkness 18:03, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * James Donovan (2008), A Terrible Glory, devotes a whole chapter (5) on the Grant Administration "Belknap's Anaconda", pp. 101-115 on the subject. I would think that this would be enough to be included in the article. Donovan apparently found this information on Grant, Belknap, and Custer relevant enough to be in his book. Cmguy777 (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Donovan isn't the only author to have written on this subject. Utley and others mention the whole Grant/Custer thing, but more in the context of "Sheridan didn't have one of his favorites available for command" than anything else. And if the whole subject reaches that level of importance, it should likely have its own article. Intothatdarkness 22:27, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

You mentioned that Utley and others have mentioned the Grant and Custer controversy. I am not asking for a large edit on this area, but enough for the reader to understand there was politics involved in terms of Custer's arrest in Chicago and demotion in terms of leading the expedition. Custer was replaced by Terry. You are correct that Sheridan wanted Custer to lead the expedition. Grant would have nothing to do with that. I believe this is an important issue because the War Department was shaken up do to the Belknap Scandal. Custer may have been spared from his fate had he not petitioned Grant to be part of the expedition. The Belknap article does cover this issue and I believe the Custer article does to, however, a brief mention of this controversy would improve the article. Cmguy777 (talk) 06:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It could be shortly mentioned, but it doesn't really need any more than that. This article has enough coverage issues, and this is one of the smaller ones, IMO. If you feel it needs to be in there, why don't you add a small section with a "see also" link going to the main article on Belknap's troubles or the Grant administration? Intothatdarkness 13:33, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes. That makes sense. Adding (a) link(s) would be good. I believe the reader needs to know that there was a "family feud" between Grant and Custer and the Custer was involved in testifying in the Belknap investigations. Custer had anonymously written an article that launched the Congressional Investigation. This led to Belknap's impeachment and Custer's dismissal as commander of the Sioux Expedition. Thanks. Cmguy777 (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

pro-Cheyenne bias in the article
The Cheyennes did this, they Cheyennes did that. This is such out of proportion emphasis on this small tribe. They were secondary force, the Lakota-Sioux were the primary player. I have read more than two dozen books about this war and this is the first time I read that it was Cheyenne Great War. The author(s) of this article is simply biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2C21:3060:E165:8DA4:9F54:1562 (talk) 13:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great Sioux War of 1876. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111126131814/http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/sio0998.htm to http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/Vol2/treaties/sio0998.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)