Talk:Marias Massacre

Infobox
Given that this was an attack on non-combatants, I propose that Infobox civilian attack be used instead of the military conflict infobox. While a few old men may have been armed, this was not a battle. Per conversation at my talk, some other events such as Wounded Knee and Sand Creek would also be suitable. Obviously, it is not suited for all one-sided battles, but for the situations where it fits. Other examples of this infobox include Boston Massacre, My Lai, Qissa Khwani Bazaar massacre, Srebrenica massacre,Myall Creek massacre, Kielce pogrom and so on. It's a versatile infobox, and doesn't preclude evidence that a few of the victims may have fought back. Montanabw (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Pure revisionism. The Baker campaign in December-January 1869-70 was a military operation undertaken by the 2nd Calvalry under orders of Lt General Philip Sheridan.  It was mounted in response to a series of White/Piegan & Crow Indian/Army encounters that left 6 whites dead, 6 dead Piegans, 2 dead Crows, and ~ 50+ stolen livestock.  The fact that Baker’s planned target turned out to be somewhat different than he found is not an unusual circumstance in military conflicts.  Even given all that is known about Baker, Doane and others involved and the information they may or may not have known at the time about the camp, doesn’t make this an intentional “civilian attack”.  It was an engagement as part of a wider military conflict that didn’t go exactly to script.  The best modern, and objective account of the engagement can be found in  .  Chapters Forty-four Below December 1869-January 1870 (pages 241-252) and A Case of Mistaken Identity December 1869-January 1870 (pages 253-259) give a balanced account of the engagement—a military engagement. --Mike Cline (talk) 13:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose partly per Mike Cline. There also a solid (if somewhat dated) account of the incident in Robert Ege's "Tell Baker to Strike Them Hard." Even Paul Hutton doesn't place this in the same category as Sand Creek. There are other factors (the taking of prisoners, for one example) that indicate that this isn't in the same category as the other examples. Intothatdarkness 13:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, would you both support it at Sand Creek and Wounded Knee? Montanabw (talk) 23:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to go down that road the issue needs to be raised at the Military History Project. --Mike Cline (talk) 00:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Frankly, it's usually the editors of individual articles who decide infobox issues on a case by case basis, the infobox arbcom decision was quite clear that projects do not dictate hard and fast rules, though they can present guidelines.  I think that for proper guidance the question better belongs at the Indigenous people's wikiproject.   Montanabw (talk)  04:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly it belongs at both if you're taking it to projects and/or task forces. I would support it at Sand Creek, and would likely support at Wounded Knee. But it doesn't belong on this article. Intothatdarkness 13:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I actually don't need stuff like an infobox discussed to death at the drama boards. When time permits, I'll post this question at the two articles and see if anyone else besides you and Mike wants to weigh in.  I see it as a case-by-case basis sort of thing, and debating where to draw some sort of one-size fits all line as to if it becomes a "one sided battle, not a a massacre" at taking away one old man's gun (Wounded Knee) versus a few guys happened to have guns in their Tepees (Marias), versus flat out genocide (Sand Creek) isn't worth the bandwidth that will ensue by posting on either project, particularly as they are apt to arrive at precisely opposite conclusions.  (Oh dear, have I become cynical about the consensus process?)   Montanabw (talk)  20:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Only when consensus doesn't go your way...;-) In all seriousness, I do think you're trying to wedge the Marias Massacre into a mold that doesn't fit. And I've always seen it as case-by-case, for reasons that are amply demonstrated here. Intothatdarkness 20:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Heh. I am always open to reliable, neutral third-party sources presenting me with evidence I have not yet considered. Based on the article as written and sourced, it does appear to be an attack on peaceful noncombatants. Per your discussion at my talk this article needs editing and expansion if you think there was any actual fighting. I really don't see the military conflict angle in this particular action, and I find it offensive that the infobox lists Heavy Runner as a "belligerent" and "combatants" at 230 when they were mostly noncombatants. So, make the case here for it being a military conflict, I guess. The overall Piegan conflict, yes. This incident, I disagree, but let's see what you have. Montanabw (talk) 22:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem to assume that I want the article to have an infobox, and if the choice comes down to these two I think I'd rather see it without one. I'll let Mike chime in if he wishes, but I'm still concerned that you seem willing to overlook Cobell's actions (as well as the aftermath of the action) in order to fit it into your preferred framework. Neither box is especially satisfactory for the Marias, unfortunately. Based on the historical record, using the massacre box obscures Cobell's role in the entire incident and turns it into something it wasn't, which I find as offensive as listing Heavy Runner as a "belligerent." The Marias could be considered a military conflict right up until Cobell deliberately misidentified Heavy Runner's village, and if you wanted to get all legalistic about it possibly even after that, since Baker appears to have been convinced he was attacking the correct village. Malone's survey account certainly isn't a definitive source on this, whereas Hutton is an authority on both the Frontier Army and the Indian Wars. Ege's book, while dated, is one of the few that focuses on the Marias, and Kim Allen Scott's biography of Doane also discusses the action and draws many of the same conclusions. Intothatdarkness 15:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, any sort of rationalization that says the Marias Massacre wasn’t part of a wider military conflict is pure revisionism. I would commit you to read: Chapter 8-Annihilation of a people: The Indian Fighters from Russell F. Weigley’s The American Way of War: A History of United States Military Strategy and Policy (1973).  It leaves no doubt that whatever the outcome of any given engagement with Indians and the U.S. military in the last half of the 19th century was part and parcel of our military strategy—annihilation of the America Indian as a viable threat to western settlement.  We lost some battles, we won most and we killed a lot of so-called non-combatants in doing so.  It was U.S. policy and military strategy to annihilate Native Americans to the point that they no longer posed any threat to western settlement.  By the 1890s, the strategy was largely successful.  The Marias Massacre may be rightly called a massacre because it was clearly one-sided and many women and children died.  But it was just one of the many engagements the U.S. military fought during its Strategy of Annihilation.  The details of the engagement are essentially irrelevant, especially when they lead to revisionist thinking.  It was by all standards of the time, part of a wider military conflict just as were Sand Creek and Wounded Knee.  --Mike Cline (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Weigley's thesis is no longer considered the one true narrative of this particular policy. I think you'll find that more recent scholarship does not find a single policy of the sort you discuss. And claiming details of an engagement are irrelevant is something I find rather disturbing, actually. And claiming Sand Creek fits into this narrative (when it caused a fair amount of contemporary outcry...not just later 'revisionist' outbursts) is especially disingenuous. Intothatdarkness 22:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Um, guys, chill out. ITD, my sympathies on the infobox issue and I understand your point there, but that horse left this particular barn a long time ago. My point is that THIS particular attack was a civilian attack, not that there wasn't a wider military issue involved. My comparison in point was My Lai, which was a civilian massacre within the wider context of the Vietnam War.  Cobell wasn't a member of Heavy Runner's band, and this event was not a military engagement any more than Srebrenica (which also uses the infobox and another example of a massacre within the context of a wider military conflict) was a military engagement. And let's not throw around insults like "revisionist thinking," we are all colleagues here and know better than to do things like that.   Montanabw (talk)  22:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Again, that's your opinion. You're drawing comparisons that aren't at all appropriate (and if you think this equates with My Lai I'd advise that you read the Peers report and some other accounts). Intent does matter in my view. And if an infobox does have to be on this article I'll continue to oppose based on that intent. Note again that I agree with having the massacre infobox on Sand Creek, which is worthy of comparison with My Lai. Intothatdarkness 14:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I'll move the issue of which infobox to Sand Creek then, as time permits. I must say that I do not understand why you think Cobell's involvement makes this a battle instead of an attack on an essentially unarmed, peaceful civilian population - this article as it sits makes it abundantly clear that Heavy Runner was a peaceful leader.  Cobell, if anything, was kin to a rival band and may have therefore misdirected Baker to attack the wrong camp - misidentification doesn't turn a massacre into a battle, does it?  I'm not sure what precisely you mean by "intent" in this context.   Montanabw (talk)  04:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

How 'bout a fresh take on all of the lovely gobbledy-gook of "revisionism", "military strategy of annihilation", and which "info-box" should be on this page?

After reading the article, the talk section and discussion with my partner, maybe the "info-box" should just be removed from this page.

It appears out of place, and reads almost satirical as its broken down. This a "victory"? A leaderless Indian camp? The "strength" section shows a U.S. breakdown of soldiers and scouts. Where then is the Indian breakdown? Oh, yeah, that's right....that breakdown is within the article. So as we go through the "military info-box", we see repeatedly that the box is incorrect, especially after reading "WITNESSES TO CARNAGE © The 1870 Marias Massacre in Montana" by Stan Gibson & Jack Hayne(That link is at the bottom od the article).

I do not understand the need to repeatedly debate the inclusion of the military box. "Montanabw" is absolutely correct that this should be a civilian attack box. 'His' reasoning is sound, there is support in the pages used as examples for a 'civillian attack' infobox; that there are massacres within a variety of wars and military campaigns-some of the examples are shown as genocide, which were structured into military campaigns. Indians and genocide. That belief in a 'Manifest Destiny'; genocide was a tool used by the United States Military against Native Americans.

In nearly every conflict of this Earth we have seen genocide, hence the use of 'civilian attack' infoboxes.

It seems that a military infobox was kept based upon opinion instead of Wiki's requirement of fact. Wikipedia has provided us with templates, and there should be a change to the correct infobox or have none at all. I would like to see this brought to the attention of those editors who have a final say on this web encyclopedia. --BrattySoul-- 69.249.125.97 (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)


 * completely agree with BrattySoul. the infoBox, with its use of "Belligerents," a "Result" of "victory," the unequal 'listing' under "Strength," and the unequal 'listing' under "Casualties and losses" is why i came to the Talk page.  to find that it was raised nearly TWO years ago, and never adequately addressed, is disgusting.  (a few people arguing over it and no consensus reached, nor valid arguments/reasons stated by both sides, is not "adequate.")Colbey84 (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

And by the way
On "revisionism": note Historical revisionism (negationism) versus Historical revisionism. "The unending quest of historians for understanding the past—that is, "revisionism"—is what makes history vital and meaningful. Without revisionism, we might be stuck with the images of Reconstruction after the American Civil War that were conveyed by D. W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation and Claude Bowers's The Tragic Era. Were the Gilded Age entrepreneurs "Captains of Industry" or "Robber Barons"? Without revisionist historians who have done research in new sources and asked new and nuanced questions, we would remain mired in one or another of these stereotypes." Just saying. Montanabw (talk) 22:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Am I stepping into a minefield?
I can see that folks have strong opinions about this article. But it does need work, so here goes. There are new sources available since the infobox debate^^ and so I propose changes:

-First, for the love of peace, Montanabw is correct. The Baker massacre was not a battle. To use the military infobox, and to imply that Heavy Runner was a belligerent, is ridiculous. It needs changed.

-The background section needs to reflect the rising tensions between the settlers and the Piegans. Clarke's murder was merely the last straw that the army used as an excuse to attack.

-The massacre section needs to take into account the stories of survivors and participants, which are now available in secondary-source literature.

-I propose a new section detailing the army's doctoring of the official reports. Rodger Henderson has published his research on how Baker, Sherman, and Sheridan all distorted facts or outright lied about the massacre to make it appear like a battle and to cast Baker as a hero.

Let me know if you disagree. Otherwise I'm going to wade in. VanillaBean28 (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Addition of cat “History of racism in Montana” — Rationale??
What is the rationale for the inclusion of this article in the above stated category. There is nothing in the article about racism. The encounter was just one encounter during the Montana Territorial period. Are all of them racist?? And, by association are all military/Native American encounters “racist”. Category has been removed from the articleMike Cline (talk) 17:15, 18 August 2023 (UTC)