DBWI: Custer hadn't defeated the Sioux at Little Bighorn?

What if the Great Sitting Bull hadn't been defeated at Little Bighorn?
What if the Sioux and other Natives were able to continue to slip off their reservations?
What impact would it have in the number and quickness of territories gaining statehood?
etc. etc.
 
That's bordering on ASB there. Sure they might have held them off through guerilla raids but in a set piece battle the US Cavalry simply had far too much firepower for any Native American Tribe to last for long.
 
what the Sioux are going defeat one of the greatest military (7th calvary) units in American History and beat the great Six-Star-General (later president) George Armstrong Custer? ya right.
 
Gentlemen, one thing you must remember, and I'm not sure that anyone really wanted to bring this up, but these whole Indian Wars was the result of a deliberate campaign of deportation and genocide. Little Bighorn might have been a military victory, but Custer and his men finished the attack and burned their tents, killed many of their women and children and, to put it simply, crushed the Sioux so that they would never recover. THERE WOULD BE NO PRESIDENT CUSTER--He was only a colonel at the time of the fighting, to suggest just how ASB this whole six star thing would be. There has, to this day, not been a six star general.

Now that we have this straightened up--the answer is no. The Reservation System was abusive and mean-spirited to be sure, but even that concession was only made under FDR in the early 1930s. Recall, that in the Spanish War, the USA deployed Chain Guns against Spain, which quickly folded against the US Army. The Sioux might have a few guns and many skilled warriors, but try taking on machine guns. The US Army didn't even treat the natives like humans--they can and will shoot prisoners, or kill non-combatants.

So Little Bighorn, even if it doesn't draw a massive US response, is likely to one victory in a saga of destruction for the natives. The Sioux have no way out in the long term--Recall that Chief Joseph attempted to flee from the United States but was intercepted by Federal Cavalry. How ASB are we getting here? The USA, far back in its history, used biological weapons against the Natives. If the USA gets chemical weapons they'd use them too. Don't forget that whole tribes of natives were killed over small bounties. To put it bluntly, Hitler didn't invent the idea of Living Space, or his deportation or extermination of "lesser races".

Seriously, the Sioux are doomed as soon as Richmond Falls. Whether that takes machine guns or chemical weapons might be a testament to their resilience and the fact that should they loose they can expect a hangmans noosing or a death squad should they fail. Regrettably, I think they are going to do exactly that.

The USA has done its share of depraved, evil things and the whole treatment of Indians is pretty National Socialist. It pains me to think about it but its worse to deny it happened.
 
The USA has done its share of depraved, evil
things and the whole treatment of Indians is pretty National Socialist. It
pains me to think about it but its worse to deny it happened.

No Denial Here
More trying to see how strong we could get the Natives in the NW.
It is assumed we steamroll through, so we take that assumtion and WI it doesn't happen.
 
the massacre did result in one positive affect: the US public developed a level of sympathy for the Native Americans (finally), and called for no more slaughter of their women and children (although some US officers chose to ignore that)... a victory by the Sioux at Little Bighorn would likely have negated even that tiny gain... and if (hard to imagine though it is) Custer himself would have been killed, well, the army would have been turned loose to do whatever it pleased...
 
the massacre did result in one positive affect: the US public developed a level of sympathy for the Native Americans (finally), and called for no more slaughter of their women and children (although some US officers chose to ignore that)... a victory by the Sioux at Little Bighorn would likely have negated even that tiny gain... and if (hard to imagine though it is) Custer himself would have been killed, well, the army would have been turned loose to do whatever it pleased...

Better late than Never, I suppose. However, the damage had largely been done. With the Sioux broken, most of the Natives had either been murdered, slowly starving on barren wasteland, or forced in assimilation by Christian Missionaries (who, while perhaps well intentioned, left the natives without any real means of external support.)

Frankly, I think it was a very good thing that the New York Times ran those photographs--most people didn't think of Fredricksburg when they hard about native fighting, nor were they aware that many of the dead were clearly women and children. Of course, Custer's court Martial was a slap on the wrist that essentially came after the fact.

President Grant, of course, professed to be shocked and appalled over the massacres, but we all know that he was a negligent president in general and had at a minimum ignored the situation. Fortunately, the Indian Rights Acts actually put some teeth into laws protecting Indians--FINALLY.

It was still a dark and terrible deed done that month. The US Army must have killed over a thousand in cold blood. Thanks to the quick response there are still Sioux alive today, but I really wonder whether history will ever forgive this.

If the Sioux continued to resist, it wouldn't be Custer who lead the final attack, but the outcome would be the same--sooner or later there would be another massacre, be it with Chain Guns or Chemicals. I wonder, though, if the Times would run the photos though...
 
Top