Lt. Charles B. Gatewood.

It is often said that the US Government broke every treaty that they signed with the Red Indian. This may or may not be true ( I hope that it isn't), but given that they treated their own soldiers so poorly ( see below), it would be hard to repudiate such a claim. I learned recently how the above officer was so shamefully treated after he had brought Geronimo in to surrender. Putting to one side the fact that the US Government reneged on it's promises to Geronimo, Gatewood's commanding officer ( General Terry ) then constantly posted Gatewood to distant garrisons in order to prevent the press from getting access to this honourable and noble officer. When that didn't work, Terry made Gatewood an aide ( presumably on the basis that it was better to have him in the tent pissing out rather than vice versa). Terry then put Gatewood under insufferable pressures and stresses, especially when Gatewood refused to sign off papers that would have ensured that Terry's thefts and embezzlements might have escaped discovery. What amazes me is that all of this known at the time, but the US Government permitted it to continue !
BG

 

the US government went back on serveral deals.

The problem would seem to be that they took the prairies from the natives for cattle ranching. they left the indians with the hills which was fine till they found gold and silver in the them.

They then took the hills and moved the natives to different land.

Custers attack was all because the US government wanted to shift the natives from the hills they had been given because of Silver that had been found there.

FNG

 

You seem to have quite an interest in the, shall we say, darker side of US history and the US military. If this reveals an interest in US military history in general I eagerly await your posts on positive aspects of US history.


Are you referring to Brig. General Nelson Miles (whom Gatewood served under)? General Alfred Terry was in overall command of the army's Great Plains Forces but had little or no dealings with Gatewood AFAIK.

 

Much like any other country's goverments at the time.

Most Americans still don't the trust government. Or any other government for that matter.

 

.


Some see a treaty as only expedient as long as it serve a purpose ,

the united states government has a long history of " adjustments " to new realities ,
the latest installment being the renegation of the Anti Ballistic Missile treaty , already severely dented by the installation of RAF Fylingdales north york moors england and Globus II in Vardo norway , The latest a X band radar " for space research " :smok:

integrated with the brand new czeck one at Brdy it would make a nuclear first strike option possible to a peace loving U.S. president

The world is safe , sleep well


.

 

.

Bush Reaffirms US First Strike Policy

By VOA News
16 March 2006


In-Depth Coverage
President Bush has reaffirmed that the U.S. may consider pre-emptive military strikes against terrorists and enemy nations.

Outlining his second term national security strategy, Mr. Bush says America prefers using diplomacy to halt the spread of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. But in the report issued Thursday, the president adds the U.S. could launch a first-strike even if there is uncertainty about the time or place of an enemy attack.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan was later asked about international law against pre-emptive strikes. He defended the policy, calling it an "inherent right to self-defense."

In the report, Mr. Bush singles out Iran as perhaps posing the biggest threat by a single country. He argues that diplomacy to get Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions must succeed "if confrontation is to be avoided."

Mr. Bush also points to the threat of North Korea's nuclear program. Iran and North Korea are in a group of seven nations denounced for what the president calls their "despotic systems." Also on the list are Syria, Cuba, Belarus, Burma and Zimbabwe.

Mr. Bush addresses administration's concerns about the Chinese and Russian government's current policies, and their effect on U.S. national and economic security.

He criticizes what he calls "old ways of thinking and acting" by Beijing in its competition for energy resources. He argues that China's leaders are "expanding trade, but acting as if they can somehow 'lock up' energy supplies around the world or seek to direct markets rather than opening them up."

Reflecting rising tensions between Washington and Moscow, the president writes in the report that he is worried that Russia is falling off the path to democracy. He says recent trends "regrettably point toward a diminishing commitment to democratic freedoms and institutions". Mr. Bush says future relations will depend on both Russia's domestic and foreign policies.

 

Also the proposed installation of a silo launch facility in Poland has done nothing for smooth relations with the Kremlin...


While a few ABM's are hardly cause for concern given Russia's claimed arsenal, (and although the facility is purely for defensive purposes of course ), the missile that ths silo is designed to accomodate uses minuteman first stage boosters, so it will almost certainly have the capability to launch (theoretically) any minuteman ICBM...

Cuban Missile Crisis analogy, anyone?

 

.


I was a kid during the missile crisis , Cuba was under blockade by the U.S.Navy with orders to search ships for missiles , a soviet cargo was approaching the line , the scenario was marines rushing on board while the soviet sailors shot back , very hairy , very macho , very convincing
news flash were of the nuclear forces of everybody having gone from amber to red to stand-by, the progress of the ship was tracked with mounting tension ,
there was an air of panic and near hysteria amongst the folks ....this was it !!!!!

reactivating the cold war is a thoroughly stupid idea :evil:

.

 

I remember the Cuban missile crisis also, quite well despite being only 9 years old. There was no panic. People went about their business. We bought extra canned goods, put extra fresh water into empty milk bottles and followed the news on the radio and television.

I'm not sure what any of this has to do with Lt. Gatewood.

 

It got de-railed.

Back on topic please!

 

.

Apologies are indeed in order for the shades of an honorable U.S.Army officer ,
no irony there whatsoever ...let good men stand ,they are the glory of their nation

my plea would be an over wrought mental state following the details of the latest installment of the " more guns for peace " soap opera
being read moscow side as " somebody is painting a target on my back "
while the europeens shuffle their feet and put their heads in the sand or lower parts of their anatomy

I though the show got canned back in the nineties but you can't beat a good rerun .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMQnALZK ... ed&search=


.

 

General Terry was no embezzler; he was highly regarded both as an officer and as a man by his peers and subordinates alike. He also happened to be quite wealthy, so there was no need for him to steal anything. Nelson A. Miles, who is the officer who became Gatewood's nemesis, was ruthlessly ambitious; he eventually became commanding general of the US Army. He also presided over the bloody and totally unnecessary debacle at Wounded Knee, for which he bears much of the blame. To be fair, he was a competent soldier (he defeated the Lakota Sioux in 1877, following Little Bighorn) and his courage under fire was never questioned by even his worst enemies; he was wounded severely in the Civil War. As for his embezzling any monies, I have never read of any such charge being applied to him, and I'd have to see some convincing proof before I'd believe it. Miles was, AFAIK, an honest man overall. Interestingly enough, both Terry and Miles were not West Point graduates. They were both volunteer officer during the Civil War who accepted Regular Army commissions after it was over.

 

Here now, let's not confuse the issue by introducing things like facts. Conspiracy theories and slurs directed at long dead men unable to defend themselves are so much more interesting. :roll:

 

What slurs? All I'm passing along are the conclusions of historians. Miles was ruthlessly ambitious; he was also, as I said, a competent soldier. I also said that he was an honest man overall.

 

You've misunderstood my post. I was jokingly chiding you for introducing actaul facts into the discussion. The slurs I'm referring to were not yours.

 

Sarcasm at it's best.

 

What positive aspects?

It seems that in retrospect, thanks to corpcasselbury's intervention, the subject opened was in fact a rather positive aspect of US history. But besides, should we really divide national history by positive and negative aspects, or should we simply see it as truth, regardless of our own moral judgment? At the time, morally questionable behaviour was considered much more easily acceptable so long as the victims were Native American tribes; at present this is no longer the case, but that modern perspective doesn't help in explaining the actions of men like these. The same goes for Dutch "heroes" like Jan Pieterszoon Coen, who ruthlessly slaughtered tribes in Indonesia to make room for Dutch trading settlements.

 

Ahh ,the certainties of youth
Truth isn't often as objective as that IMO. I agree that sometimes there are "facts" that are relatively objective but the concept of truth is often a more difficult and slippery concept. Truth, according to the settlers of the west would mean one thing and according to the Indians it would mean something else entirely. An WWII Allied soldier's truth would likely differ significantly from the truth according to a German draftee who served in the Heer.
Which is more correct? Depends upon your viewpoint.
Before you say so I do realize that what I'm describing is just perspective and the truth should be objective and independent of either perspective.
In theory this is true however I have not been able to find many examples where the truth, the objective analysis, was arrived at without some bias on the part of the observer.
This sounds suspiciously like moral relativism, I know, which is a philosophy I don't subscribe to however there is a certain amount of validity to the simple idea that the version of the "truth" that we adopt is related to our own bias and philosophical outlook on life.

 

Naturally. My point is not so much that we should only discuss the bare facts, because even the selection of the facts is usually defined by one's own bias. What I'm saying is that even if you admit that your view on the past is biased to some extent, that doesn't mean you have to judge the past; you can leave the judgment to the reader. There is no such thing as a positive or a negative part of a nation's history. Everything that happened, did. Now, of course, if a textbook on Indian Wars were to report only the atrocities it would result in a very negative view of students on these wars, but that is not necessarily because of a deliberate selection. The judgment should always be a conclusion of the reader, if he wants to make one at all.

Bosworth may simply have mentioned these particular events in American history because they caught his attention, with the intention neither to focus on the dark side of American history nor to balance out these subjects with rosier ones.