Origin of the term "Buffalo Soldier"

by **Light Dragoon** » Sun Apr 14, 2002 10:41 am

Pat; Im sure that as noted, the WWI troops in your photograph are from one of the regiments assigned to the French. It was the 92nd Division, known as the "Dixie Pouilus", i.e. French soldiers from Dixie. They were, as noted, armed with French rifles and helmets, as well as some of the equipment.

Also a note on nick names. The old-time nick name for the infantry was "Doughboy" (later, of course, adopted by the press for almost ALL US troops sent overseas for "The Big One"). In the Mexican War of 1846-48, Dragoons consistently refered to the infantry as Doughboys, due to the covering of fine dust over their uniforms, much like flour. As we all know, a Cavalryman's feet never hit the ground, so the superiority was obvious.

There is a great quote from Samuel Chamberlain's rogueish account of his adventures with the 1st Dragoons in Mexico, in "My Confession", which sort of shows the rivalry. He recalls an action in which an old Sergeant of the 2nd Dragoons is in command of an outlying post, which sees a column of mounted Mexican civilians (all men), and he decides to attack. To justify the audacity, he announces:

"When 20 Dragoons can't whip a hundred Mexicans with the sabre, I'll join the Infantry and carry a fence rail the rest of my life!"

Just thought it would add to the colour of the thread.

BTW, I was fortunate enough to work with a couple of Buffalo Soldier re-enactment groups (as a white officer, of course). It was great, and fun to watch the pro-Indian demonstrator's confused faces during a parade. "Uh, well, we want to show we aren't predjudiced by demonstrating against European Imperialism. But we can't chant bad things at the Black guys portraying the cavalry....hmmm..." It was a hoot. We had fun hanging with the real Indian guys, too.

LD

"After God, we owe our Victory to our Horses"

Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada, 1543

Edited by - Light Dragoon on 04/14/2002 11:45:48

Edited by - Light Dragoon on 04/14/2002 11:47:19

by **Anita** » Sun Apr 14, 2002 1:51 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
This topic may cause some tempers to flare.

I have just seen an American History textbook that says the term "Buffalo Soldier" was given to negro soldiers of the 9th and 10th Cavalry as a term of honor.

It was my understanding that the term was used in reference to their dark curly hair - nothing more than that. When visiting Fort Davis, Texas, in the early 1980s, that was the explaination given by the National Park Service in the museum.

Am I off base, or does this look like revisionist history? And does anyone know when the newer explanation was offered and propogated?

Seems to me the 9th and 10th Cavalry have honor enough in their record of service to this country.

Matter of fact, B/9 Cav re-activated two years ago as part of 3d Brigade, 4th Infantry Division.

I'm interested in everyone's thoughts on the subject.

Stephen P. Wuensche
Captain, US Army
Field Artillery
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Dear Stephen:

I thought I would wade into this discussion. A couple of years ago, I attended a seminar on the Buffalo Soldiers sponsored by the Smithsonian Resident Associate Program here in DC and it was run by Frank Schubert, historian for the
Joint History Office, Office of the Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Washington, DC. He is the author of 3 books on the Buffalo Soldiers; Buffalo Soldiers,
Braves, and the Brass: The Story of Ft. Robinson, Nebraska (1993), On the Trail of the Buffalo Soliders: Biographies of African Americans in the US Army, 1866-1917 (1995) and Black Valor, Buffalo Soldiers and the Medal of Honor 1870-1898 (1997). It was Mr. Schubert's opinion that the term buffalo soldier was given to the black troops serving out west by the Indians as a descriptive, derogatory term as their hair ressembled that of the buffalo and the buffalo was thought by the Indians to be a dumb animal. The Buffalo soldiers according to Schubert embraced the name and made it positive and chose to imbue the name with the positive traits of the buffalo, namely strength and courage.
Regarding historical pc which I can't stand, (sometimes I get a lot of flack from my fellow black Americans for presenting history as I find it! I have two CW reenactment impressions; a mounted CW cavalry bugler for the 1st Ma Cavalry Co. A/4th US Cavalry (got documentation of a black woman serving with the 8th NY Cavalry and that of a free black woman or houseslave who is a cook for the Atlantic Guard Soldiers' Aid Society/16th Va Inf.). Mr. Schubert related a funny story that occurred on a Buffalo Soldier history tour out west. The tour had been made up of lectures, visits to historical sites and transport to and from via bus. A young black man on the tour was telling Mr. Schubert how the blacks and Indians had gotten together and intermarried and cooperated with one another. Frank replied that that was a falsehood and the black soldiers regarded the Indian in virtually the same way the white troops did as enemy combatants and held some of the same sterotypes regarding native Americans that the white troops held. Mr. Idealist basically ignored what he had said and when they visited the Sioux? Indian reservation, he hopped off the bus and walked up to this Indian woman seated in a car. When she inquired what the tour was about, he brightly said it was a Buffalo Soldiers tour. Her response was that "those soldiers killed our people" and rolled up the window. Mr. Schubert said the young man walked back on the bus looking like someone had hit him upside the head with a two by four!! So much for revisionist history!
About the only Indians, blacks intermarried with were the Five Civilized tribes and some of them were enslaved by the tribes! I love history when its' messy!

Anita L. Henderson

by **Anita** » Sun Apr 14, 2002 2:02 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Several years ago I spoke with a very knowledgeable man of African-American descent with the NPS whose grandfather had been one of the first Black officers.
This man also ran Fort Laramie for awhile and was certainly no stranger to the military in the West. My apologies to him because I can not call his name at the moment. He said that the first mention in popular literature that he had come across in his studies of the term "buffalo soldier" came from Francis Roe's book "Army Letters From An Officer's Wife." It happens that her husband was a 3rd Infantry officer posted to Camp Supply in 1872.

"The officers say that the negroes make good soldiers and fight like fiends. They certainly manage to to stick on their horses like monkeys. The Indians call the "buffalo soldiers," because their woolly heads are so much like the matted cushion that is between the horns of the bufalo."

Mind you, the lady was not a Southerner but did harbor some racist views of the men of the 10th Cavalry who were posted to Supply at the same time. Her husband was officer of the guard about every 3rd day at the time which she did not like.

"This is doing duty, and would be all right if there were not a daily mingling of white and colored troops which often brings a colored sergeant over a white corporal and privates."

It seems that the name was probably just one given to the men as a descriptive term such as "Walk A Heaps" was for infantry and not much more. If modern Black historians want to make more of it than that, I can see why. Though I think it is not quite the whole story.

Incidentally, the Cheyenne name for Custer was "Red Nose." If you have seen his nose sun burned I reckon that is what you would have called him also. Scout Ben Clark's name was "Red Neck" because he never wore his hair long like so many, his neck got sun burned.

Texian can you provide a complete citation for the battlefield archeology article that you mentioned?

Bob Rea

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Dear Bob:

I believe the man you are referring to at Ft. Laramie is Bill Gwaltney who is a descendant of a Buffalo Soldier. He also participated as a reenactor in the movie Glory. Bill is quite knowledgeable about Buffalo Soldiers and black Army history in general.

Anita L. Henderosn

by **Joseph Sullivan** » Sun Apr 14, 2002 4:17 pm

Anita:

Your comments are most interesting. The part about the Indians and the Buffalo Soldiers is a perfect illustration of why the diaplay in St Louis bugs me. A REAL buffalo soldier would have been doing his best to do the job in the fact of a hostile climate and hostile Apaches, who were, as you said, enemy combatants, and who would happily kill any soldier on an equal opportunity basis. The display is a fabrication.

As to whether the term was derogotory, who knows? Some tribes had a spiritual/economic relationship with buffalo. On the other hand, most of the names they gave our guys, black or white, were at least derisive -- as were the names they gave to one another. For example, I spend much time in Ojibwa/Chippawa country. Chippawa means puckered toe, and refers to the style of moccasin. The story is that a British officer was being introduced to local dignatories during the fur trading days. An Ojibwa chief got up and made a rather long-winded introduction of himself and his people. The translator was from another not especially fond of Ojibwas. When the officer asked what the chief said he was told "Oh, he says they are the Pucker-Toes from Lake Superior" ANd so it goes. Souix is not a Souix name. it was applied to them by someone else -- Ojibwa, I think, and means poisionous serpents.

To me there is one important thing about Buffalo Soldiers that would not apply to any other troops, is the fact of honorable service in difficult times -- done despite the vast disadvantages these people had as slaves or the free children of slaves. That their spirit rose above all that is inspirational. they were in many ways the true forerunners of the Tuskegee Airman of the following century.

Joe

by **Pat Holscher** » Sun Apr 14, 2002 5:14 pm

Like Joe, I found Anita's comments to be very interesting and enlightening.

It is important to realize that, while there are moral absolutes that trascend all time, that there are also cultural attributes and outlooks that impact a people at any one time. Perhaps there is no more illustrative example than that one being discussed here. The Native Americans were people first, like all people, at all times. And they lived in cultures that were distinct, but not ours. Almost all portrayals of Indians, however, are now westernized. Rare indeed is the portrayal of a 19th Century Sioux, or Cheyenne, or Apache, through their eyes. Frankly, such a portrayal would have aspects that would disturb those who like a tidy history. Not that these people didn't have a tragic history, or that they weren't victums of history, but an honest portrayal would also have some attitudes that modern champions wouldn't like. Defending a persons ground is one thing, having hereditary enemies, or enemies for sport, another.

The same attitudes that impact this type of modern portrayal come into the portrayals of the Buffalo Soldiers as well. The TNT movie, while I enjoyed it, had a similarly hokey ending to the St. Louis portrayal mentioned above. In reality, of course, these men fought for their lives against an enemy so fierce that their memory remains strong, and who didn't actually give up fighting entirely until the 1930s. Indeed, the Apaches are admired for that, and there's no reason to pretend otherwise.

It does no service to a people to inaccurately remember them, and turn them into 21st Century people. A peoples' honor and glory must be taken in the context of their times, whether or not we would fully agree with everything they might hold or do today. Indeed, an honorable people of the past might frankly not approve much of us, and what we think about many things, now.

Anyway, Anita has posted here before, but has given us a view into something we did not have previously. I'm glad she did, and I hope she will continue to. A valuable contribution.

Pat

by **Anita** » Sun Apr 14, 2002 8:08 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Anita:

Your comments are most interesting. The part about the Indians and the Buffalo Soldiers is a perfect illustration of why the diaplay in St Louis bugs me. A REAL buffalo soldier would have been doing his best to do the job in the fact of a hostile climate and hostile Apaches, who were, as you said, enemy combatants, and who would happily kill any soldier on an equal opportunity basis. The display is a fabrication.

As to whether the term was derogotory, who knows? Some tribes had a spiritual/economic relationship with buffalo. On the other hand, most of the names they gave our guys, black or white, were at least derisive -- as were the names they gave to one another. For example, I spend much time in Ojibwa/Chippawa country. Chippawa means puckered toe, and refers to the style of moccasin. The story is that a British officer was being introduced to local dignatories during the fur trading days. An Ojibwa chief got up and made a rather long-winded introduction of himself and his people. The translator was from another not especially fond of Ojibwas. When the officer asked what the chief said he was told "Oh, he says they are the Pucker-Toes from Lake Superior" ANd so it goes. Souix is not a Souix name. it was applied to them by someone else -- Ojibwa, I think, and means poisionous serpents.

To me there is one important thing about Buffalo Soldiers that would not apply to any other troops, is the fact of honorable service in difficult times -- done despite the vast disadvantages these people had as slaves or the free children of slaves. That their spirit rose above all that is inspirational. they were in many ways the true forerunners of the Tuskegee Airman of the following century.

Joe

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Dear Joe:

Telling the truth about a group of people and their history is always daunting.
Most people don't know that most Indian tribes were fighting, raiding and taking prisoners/slaves from each other before Europeans even stepped on American soil.
Some of their habits were prety brutal, examined in the cold light of day in modern terms, something most folks would have a hard time swallowing. There was a BBC documentary about slavery being shown on BBC America on satellite tv and chronicled how black Americans on visiting the slave castle of Goree off the coast of Senegal would starting wailing and beating the walls when they found out the extent to which local African chieftains and their tribes were involved in the slave trade. Sometimes the truth hurt, but we are ultimately the stronger for it, if we learn and grow from it. I sometimes galvanize and portray a black Confederate bugler (have documentation of a free black bugler in the 1st Va Cavalry). I find this is an opportunity to enlighten people beyond the usual "The North was good, the South was bad" oversimplification. When people find out all ethnic groups in this country fought for both sides, it goes beyond the simplistic tale that is taught in schools and reveals an extremely complex, conflict with interesting twists in it. Most people when I tell them this (including most black people) are intrigued and excited about the new information they have learned, realizing their own lives are equally complex and nothing much has changed regarding peoples' complex lives and decisions. Thanks for the kind words about the Buffalo Soldiers and their military descendants as they truly set the standard for excellent service under less than desirable circumstances. My late maternal second cousin, Lawrence Miller was a Tuskegee Airman who survived the war and instilled in his family the honor they earned during their wartime service. His grandson is now in college in California and because of his grandfather, wants to become a flight surgeon and astronaut! Everyone in the family is pulling for him to make it and we think he has a good chance of succeeding.

Anita L. Henderson

by **Anita** » Sun Apr 14, 2002 8:29 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Like Joe, I found Anita's comments to be very interesting and enlightening.

It is important to realize that, while there are moral absolutes that trascend all time, that there are also cultural attributes and outlooks that impact a people at any one time. Perhaps there is no more illustrative example than that one being discussed here. The Native Americans were people first, like all people, at all times. And they lived in cultures that were distinct, but not ours. Almost all portrayals of Indians, however, are now westernized. Rare indeed is the portrayal of a 19th Century Sioux, or Cheyenne, or Apache, through their eyes. Frankly, such a portrayal would have aspects that would disturb those who like a tidy history. Not that these people didn't have a tragic history, or that they weren't victums of history, but an honest portrayal would also have some attitudes that modern champions wouldn't like. Defending a persons ground is one thing, having hereditary enemies, or enemies for sport, another.

The same attitudes that impact this type of modern portrayal come into the portrayals of the Buffalo Soldiers as well. The TNT movie, while I enjoyed it, had a similarly hokey ending to the St. Louis portrayal mentioned above. In reality, of course, these men fought for their lives against an enemy so fierce that their memory remains strong, and who didn't actually give up fighting entirely until the 1930s. Indeed, the Apaches are admired for that, and there's no reason to pretend otherwise.

It does no service to a people to inaccurately remember them, and turn them into 21st Century people. A peoples' honor and glory must be taken in the context of their times, whether or not we would fully agree with everything they might hold or do today. Indeed, an honorable people of the past might frankly not approve much of us, and what we think about many things, now.

Anyway, Anita has posted here before, but has given us a view into something we did not have previously. I'm glad she did, and I hope she will continue to. A valuable contribution.

Pat
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Dear Pat:

Thanks for your compliment regarding my last posting. Like you, Mr. Schubert basically said hogwash on the ending of the TNT Buffalo Soldiers being accurate. There definitely would have been an ambush of the Indians at the water hole, but modern PC sensibilities of the filmmakers dictated otherwise. He liked and thought a more accurate portrayal of the Buffalo Soldiers was John Ford's film "Sgt. Rutledge" with Woody Strode and Jeffrey Hunter. Not to mention the cinematography was better enhanced by it being filmed in Monument Valley!

Anita L. Henderson

by **Bob Rea** » Sun Apr 14, 2002 8:52 pm

Lady and Gentlemen,
"Well Said," to all.
Anita, I thought of Bill's name after I posted (sometime later). OK, I actually had to look it up. If I recall correctly, (might be a stretch)Bill is related to Benjamin O. Davis. He is interesting and articulate man who knows his history.
I remember Mr. Shubert telling the story about the re-education of that young man on the bus tour at Fort Robinson several years (or more)ago.

Bob Rea

by **Light Dragoon** » Sun Apr 14, 2002 11:08 pm

I can safely say that Bill Gwaltney is a good friend of mine, and he told me a great story about his Great-grandfather. He had been in (IIRC) the 9th Cavalry, but deserted, only to enlist in the 25th Infantry, under his own name. Eventually this came to the attention of the authorities, who came to discuss this minor problem with him. When asked why on earth he deserted one regiment only to enlist in another, he replied that he figured that his hemiroids would give him less trouble in the Infantry. I guess this answer was satisfactory!

Strange doings in the Frontier Army!

LD

"After God, we owe our Victory to our Horses"

Gonsalo Jimenez de Quesada, 1543

by **Redhorse** » Mon Apr 15, 2002 12:40 pm

Anita, thank you very much for your educated and insightful response. It is a disservice to alter history. I think there's coming generations of young African-Americans (who are really just AMERICANS if you ask me) that are looking for good examples of the contributions their ancestors made in this country besides tobacco farming and cotton fields. The Buffalo Soldiers had the lowest desertion rate in the Army in some very tough years, and were obviously also very disciplined soldiers, despite whatever colorings white officers might taint their service with.

I have black soldiers who are discovering this part of their Army's history, and they need to hear it told the way it was, mostly so they can see just how far the Army has come since then, and in some ways, at least in my unit, it has come farther than the rest of American society.

But also on that note, I wonder just how much animosity there still exists between Native Americans and the Army as an institution. Whatever degraded images were propogated in the early twentieth century, I think the Army has moved away from that position and now considers the Native American a worthy, respected adversary from our past, and even emulates him in some way. It is interesting to see just how many units have Native nicknames and how many of our weapons systems are called after the names of various tribes.

The Native Americans taught us some valuable lessons in fighting them for neary a century, and to this day those lessons are applied: the ability to fight without established fronts or lines of contact, and how to use speed and technology (from the Morse telegraph then, to the helicopter in Veitnam, to satellite imagery in Afghanistan) to defeat your enemy. The tactics they used to fight us were eventually adopted by those they fought.

I would like to think, that whatever brutality came upon those tribes at the hands of the Army paled in comparison to the abuse and neglect they suffered at the hand of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This is just a formative opinion, and I haven't researched it fully yet to form a more educated one.

It is still unfortunate, that so many years after the Buffalo Soldiers, that we are still treating them like conquered people, as opposed to doing more to make them a part of this country beyond the historical stereotype.

But again, thank you for your great post.

Stephen P. Wuensche
Captain, US Army
Field Artillery

by **Texian** » Mon Apr 15, 2002 1:08 pm

Bob Rea requested citation on Archaeology Magazine article on Buffalo Soldier fight with Apaches.

You can go to "archaeology.org", click on "Back Issues" , Select Nov, Dec 2001.

There is an abstract on the article, "Fire Fight at Hembrillo Basin", by Karl W. Laumbach.

The issue is Volume 54 Number 6 November/December 2001.

by **Texian** » Mon Apr 15, 2002 1:34 pm

Here is one account of difficulties between the Buffalow Soldiers and "townies".

This from "The Handbook of Texas Online"

BROWNSVILLE RAID. The Brownsville Raid of August 13-14, 1906, an alleged attack by soldiers from companies B, C, and D of the black Twenty-fifth United States Infantryqv stationed at Fort Brown, resulted in the largest summary dismissals in the annals of the United States Army. The First Battalion, minus Headquarters and Company A, arrived at Brownsville, a community of 6,000, from recent duty in the Philippines and Fort Niobrara, Nebraska, on July 28. The soldiers immediately confronted racial discrimination from some businesses and suffered several instances of physical abuse from federal customs collectors. A reported attack on a white woman during the night of August 12 so incensed many townspeople that Maj. Charles W. Penrose, after consultation with Mayor Frederick Combe, declared an early curfew the following day to avoid trouble. The evening passed peacefully until around midnight, when a brief shooting spree claimed the life of bartender Frank Natus and destroyed the arm of police lieutenant M. Y. Dominguez. Various residents claimed to observe soldiers running through the streets shooting, despite the darkness of the hour and vantage points of considerable distance.

Several sets of civilian and military investigations presumed the guilt of the soldiers without identifying individual culprits. A citizens' committee, cooperating with Penrose's own inquiry, successfully demanded the removal of the troops but failed to receive white replacements. Maj. Augustus P. Blocksom, of the army's Southwestern Division, deemed the soldiers uncooperative and urged their dismissal if they refused to turn evidence. The men denied any knowledge of the shooting, while officers and a sentry reported hearing pistol fire outside the reservation. Texas Ranger captain William Jesse McDonaldqv pursued the trail to twelve enlisted men, whom he arrested for holding positions key to a conspiracy. However, a Cameron County grand jury failed to return any indictments. Inspector General Ernest A. Garlington charged a "conspiracy of silence" against the companies and urged implementation of Blocksom's suggestion. Accordingly, on November 5 President Theodore Roosevelt summarily discharged "without honor" all 167 enlisted men previously garrisoning Fort Brown.

The action of Roosevelt, who had served with black troops in the Spanish-American War and conspicuously appointed African Americansqv to office, shocked his black constituency and moved the controversy to the national stage. The Constitution League, a civil-rights organization, decried the lack of due process accorded the soldiers and impugned the timing of the order, which followed the congressional elections. Amid signs of alienation that could jeopardize the presidential ambitions of Secretary of War William Howard Taft, Senator Joseph B. Foraker (R-Ohio) urged a Senate investigation.

Foraker, a nemesis of Roosevelt and an aspiring presidential candidate in his own right, kept the issue alive through speeches and writings over the next several years. He and Roosevelt clashed in addresses to the Gridiron Club in 1907 and hired private detectives to enhance their investigations. The Senate Military Affairs Committee, which included Foraker, conducted hearings while courts-martial cleared Penrose and officer-of-the-day Capt. Edgar A. Macklin of alleged negligence. The majority report, issued in March 1908, concurred with the official White House decision, while a minority of four Republicans found the evidence inconclusive. Yet another minority report, submitted by Foraker and Morgan G. Bulkeley (R-Connecticut), asserted the soldiers' innocence. It assailed alleged contradictory, insufficient, and contrived evidence and bias of witnesses and investigators. The report suggested that townspeople or outsiders had staged the raid to banish the black troops or to avenge customs enforcement.

Submitting to pressure, the administration appointed a board of retired army officers to review applications for reenlistment. After interviewing somewhat over half the applicants, the Court of Military Inquiry in 1910 inexplicably approved only fourteen of the men. The decision, in conjunction with Taft's presidential victory, Roosevelt's retirement, and Foraker's failure to win renomination, effectively closed the matter for more than sixty years.

In 1972, convinced by recent research critical of the government's handling of the affair, Representative Augustus Hawkins (D-California) urged justice for the debarred soldiers. The Nixon administration concurred and awarded honorable discharges without back pay. Still maintaining the battalion's innocence, Dorsie Willis, the only surviving veteran, received a $25,000 pension.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Garna L. Christian, "The Brownsville Raid's 168th Man: The Court-Martial of Corporal Knowles," Southwestern Historical Quarterly 93 (July 1989). Ann J. Lane, The Brownsville Affair: National Crisis and Black Reaction (Port Washington, New York: National University Publications, Kennikat Press, 1971). New York Times, September 29, 1972. Vertical Files, Barker Texas History Center, University of Texas at Austin (Brownsville, Texas-Riot). John D. Weaver, The Brownsville Raid (New York: Norton, 1970).

Garna L. Christian

by **Bob Rea** » Mon Apr 15, 2002 3:49 pm

Texian,
Thank you for the citation. As part of my job, I have become involved in battlefield archeology, principally concerning Indian Wars sites in this region. So, I like to see what other people are writing about.

Bob Rea

by **Joseph Sullivan** » Mon Apr 15, 2002 4:09 pm

Steve, be careful that you do not fall into the same historical trap with Indians that some have with Buffalo Soldiers. Anita's comments were right on point. To the Army, certain tribes at various times were armed enemy combatants. Period. They were also enemies who used tactics that horrified people of European (and African) background. There was more than enough bloodshed to go around, and it HAD been going around since long before Europeans got here.

As to the BIA -- there were some pretty corrupt characters involved, especially later on. For years, however, the BIA was run by Quakers -- a policy of the government, bu the way -- and was a virtual Indian Advocacy Agency. They protected raiding bands from the Army and vengeful settlers. This was well enough known to the indians, that at one point a Commanche band raided in Texas and then left a trail to a reservation full of their enemies.

Relations between Americans and the tribes have always been complex. I know dozens of people of all walks of life here in Texas who are descended from Cherokee and Chochtaw, and even Commanche and Kiowa ancestors. None are full bloods. They are not the products of rape. I myself am a Mayflower descendent with Wampanaug women as 9th and 10th great grandmothers on my mother's side. I only exist because the Naragansett Chief known as King Philip sent runners to warn our family in Deerfield to leave AT ONCE, Within the hour, the village was in flames. On the other hand, another entire male portion (3 generations) of a family of my ancestors was killed in a sneak attack in that same war in what is known as the Battle of Bloody Brook. go figure.

As Anita says, history is messy.

Joe

by **Texian** » Mon Apr 15, 2002 4:16 pm

Dear Bob,

As near as I can recall the article, he uses GPS to help map points about the battlefield where numerous piles of cartridge cases are recovered, using standard forensic methods to trace cases to specific weapons.

Apparently Victorio employed his long range Springfield/Sharps rifles as separate squads from squads of shorter range Henry/Winchester type weapons, employing each to best tactical advantage.

Laumbach also emphasizes the difficulties the Apaches had in getting a good supply of ammunition of the types needed, and that the Henry / Winchester ammo often need multiple strikes before it went "bang".

At one point, he finds a lot of revolver cases, suggesting that the soldiers were close to being overrun at that point. Hope you can find the article.

by **Texian** » Mon Apr 15, 2002 4:35 pm

I think the issues can be complex. There were, indeed, many "do gooders" in Congress who actively pursued the "best interests" of the Indians.

There was some militation agaist the slaughter of the buffalo, but ultimately not enough, or "on time".

Buffalo hunting was actually illegal in Colorado before the herds disappeared, but while the politicians dithered, the hide hunters slaughtered.

"The Border and the Buffalo" by John Cook is a great read.

by **Joseph Sullivan** » Mon Apr 15, 2002 8:48 pm

Of course, the buffalo slaughter was in large part ondoned, and even encouraged by the military authorities as a way of controlling the plains tribes.

Joe

by **Pat Holscher** » Mon Apr 15, 2002 10:26 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

I think the issues can be complex. There were, indeed, many "do gooders" in Congress who actively pursued the "best interests" of the Indians.

There was some militation agaist the slaughter of the buffalo, but ultimately not enough, or "on time".

Buffalo hunting was actually illegal in Colorado before the herds disappeared, but while the politicians dithered, the hide hunters slaughtered.

"The Border and the Buffalo" by John Cook is a great read.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

Well I suppose this is perhaps where I get a bit controversial, or perhaps even somewhat revisionist. I hope, in advance, not to offer offense.

The view stated above is the standard one, but I feel it omits large areas of what actually occured, and overemphasizes some of what did.

Joe has already mentioned one item which I would remphasize, the military participated, albeit passively, in the elimination of the herds. This occured in several fashions. It happened directly by some encouragement of state authorities not to prohibit the total slaughter. While I do not have the sources in front of me, I believe that Texas was one of these states, in which some military officers asked the state not to act.

It also participated by providing ammunition very cheaply for purchase. Many, perhaps most, of the hunters used the .45-70 cartridge, which was readily available through the forts. It seems to me that on at least some occasions ammunition may simply have been provided to civilians, although that was probably for defensive purposes.

Let me add that, while the military has been condemned for this, stategically it isn't necessarily a bad idea, nor even inhumane. Better to take away the enemies ability to fight by depriving him of his food source, even if you have to kill it, than kill the enemy himself. The Army knew that depriving the Indian of the buffalo would bring him in, but the thing sometimes missed here is that the Indian was being brought in, not killed, under that thesis.

To add further, however, the idea that the west was flooded by firearms toting buffalo hunters who elminated the herds, which has advanced by many historians, is simply too basic, and therefore quite inaccurate. To start with, Indians were not adverse to mass buffalo slaughter themselves and had been doing it since time inmemorial. I'm not criticizing them for that, they made use of methods at hand. The introduction of the firearm, from the Indian prospective, probably actually reduced direct buffalo kills by eliminating the need for buffalo jumps or firing the prairie, although at least the latter was still done for various purposes on occasion.

Moreover, market hunting of buffalo was not new to the post Civil War era. The Hudson Bay Company had engaged in market buffalo hunts in the 18th Century in the area which is now Montana, and as far south, I think, as the Powder River Basin. These were conducted by parties with wagons, which then engaged the Indians for hunters, along with courier du bois, all of whom hunted from horseback. Must have been quite a site.

So, another explanation must really be found.

That explanation can be found in part by the dramatically increased market for hides provided by the use of hides for belts for industrial machine in the Industrial Revolution, as well as foreign orders for hides for various items, such as military shoe leather. Transportation also improved the ability to send the hides to market. So, these combined, made for an increased take.

This was accompanied by the end of the Civil War causing a large population of men to suddenly be out of work. And this offered work, so many took the opportunity to engage in it. All in all the professionals who suddenly took this up, at least at first, were probably not nearly as experienced at it as many of their predaccessors were, although no doubt many learned frontier skills rapidly.

Nearly as important, however, to my mind is the fact that the grass utilization of the buffalo was dramatically altered by the invasion of the Cheyenne into the prairie, combined with western migration. In the pre horse era, buffalo tended to dominate the cottonwood bottoms in the winter, and migrate to certain other areas in the summer. Use of river bottoms by buffalo was fairly important. After the mounted Cheyenne came on to the prairies, however, they tended to occupy the cottonwood bottoms in the winter themselves, and settlers made use of the bottoms in migration, and for fuel, in the summer. This significantly impacted, the condition of the bottoms, and drove the buffalo off of them, all of which stressed herds already under stress. And horses were introduced, competing with buffalo for forage. Often only the cow is looked upon as a competitor, but it wasn't the only one.

Additionally, I don't know that any realistic thing could have been done in any event. In this era we often think that the federal govenment could have, and therefore should have, stepped in. In that era, however, the powers of the federal government were quite limited, and the traditional common law concept of wild animals belonging to no one was the law. State game laws were recognized as legitimate, but the federal govenment was regarded as having very little power over such things. The federal governments power in this area is still limited, but the 19th Century Courts would never have sanctioned any direct action by the federal government into such things then. Remember the early labor laws were regared, in the first decade of the 20th Century, as a shocking intrusion into the affairs of men, and were widely regarded as a possibly unconstitutional until they were ruled otherwise by the Court. None-the-less the Court was still striking down laws that would easily pass Constitutional muster now into the 1930s. Of course must of the West was organized as federal territories at this time, so perhaps the federal government could have acted. With all that was occuring, however, I do not believe that the buffalo slaughter could realistically have been avoided.

And, I'm not entirely certain that the demise of the Indian can even really be attributed to it, as it often is. Several tribes at least contined to resist well after the buffalo were long gone. The Apache, for example, were not really all the impacted, it seems to me, in terms of their ability to resist. Even the major Plains tribes, such as the Cheyenne and Sioux, contineud to fight on after the buffalo had begun to dramatically decline. This is not to suggest that they were not impacted, they were, but they were more adaptable and resistant than they are sometimes given credit for.

All this is not to pick on poor Texian, to whose post I am replying. But this area, in particular, has been so heavily romanticized, in my opinion, that a realistic look at is has rarely been taken. It is an important topic, but more complex than often imagined.

Pat

by **Pat Holscher** » Mon Apr 15, 2002 10:38 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>

Here is one account of difficulties between the Buffalow Soldiers and "townies".

This from "The Handbook of Texas Online"

BROWNSVILLE RAID. The Brownsville Raid of August 13-14, 1906

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote>

In speaking of Buffalo Soldier, one thing I've noted in recent years is the tendancy to expand the use of the term somewhat. I've seen it used for black soldier in the segregated Army as late as the 30s and 40s.

I feel that the term is improperly used in that fashion. The Ft. Huachuca article, which is very good, uses it in relation to black soldiers serving in the Punative Expedition, and I've also seen it used to this very controversial 1906 event. However, properly, I think it should only really apple to 19th Century black troops.

Keep in mind that those black troops serving in the regular Army in the 19th Century were actually engaged, at least in first, in an experiment which could have failed, but did not. And they were all either freed slaves, or sons of slaves, at first. Their task, therefore, was harder, and the conditions, perhaps more extreme. Also, the term was one specifically given by Indians, and therefore is of that time.

20th Century black troops of the segregated Army were, instead, part of the institution of that period. The experiment was really over, and the black units were part of that shawdow existence which blacks lived in at that time; black cities with poor to rich in the shawdow of white ones with poor to rich, black professional baseball teams in the shawdow of white professional baseball teams, a black army in the shawdow of, and within, the white Army. The back soldiers of that era, while the heirs of the buffalo soldier, have their own story. Of course, some of those affected by the 1906 dismissals no doubt had frontier service, and were, therefore, buffalo soldiers.

Picky on my part, I suppose, but it does seem to me that the black soldiers of the 20th Century segregated Army have another unique story to tell.

Again, I hope I haven't stepped on any toes.

Pat

by **Pat Holscher** » Mon Apr 15, 2002 10:44 pm

While on this topic, I though perhaps mention should be made of the Indian scouts, and Indian policemen, who served the US. Several tribes provided vital scouts in the Plains Indian wars against traditional enemies, and in the Southwest at least one or more provided scouts that were used against their own tribes.

On at least the northern reservations, policemen were recruited from the tribes to be polices, and equipped in a fashion vaguely resembling soldiers.

I feel this story to be much more of a touchy one at the present time. Lots of interesting elements at work. Still, some tribes continued to have scouts in organized fashions until WWI, even though Indians were not citizens until 1913, and we have the legendary example of the Code Talkers in WWII.

Pat


	Board index ‹ Public Discussions ‹ Public Forum - General Topics Change font size Print view


	Who is online Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Origin of the term "Buffalo Soldier"

Who is online