In this vicinity on Oct.20, 1804, Private Pete Cruzatte from the expedition of American heroes Meriwether Lewis and William Clark became the first white man to encounter a grizzly bear. They had heard of the enormity & ferocious nature the grizzly from indians downstream.

This place is boring as fuck!!! All of N.D. is boring as fuck!!!

the state didn't have 120,000 to buy it out or before the guy bought it ,, what dumb a north dakotans are and cheap to

I like the added touch of having a housing development overlooking the national cemetary and the guy who built his modern home next to the fort playing music and mowing the grass,,,,, geeezzzz why didn't the state but the land around the fort, well the ranger said with a laugh ,,, we don't have money to protect sacred , sites like that , cost to much money!! well I guess the guy in the crappy 8o,ooo dollar house had more money than the stupid citizens of north Dakota huh

I grew up near Thunderhawk SD, didn't know it was South of Morristown, in fact it is due west of Morristown. The only thing North of Thunderhawk is North Dakota!

wow, 7000 warriors, never heard that number

I always come away from your videos with a much clearer understanding of your subjects, as with this one, Thank you My Friend

Trivial information : Custer was armed with 2 British Bulldog revolvers,not Colts. His hair had been cut short a few days earlier. Custer graduated from West Point 34th out of a class of 34. He was court-martialled in 1867 for disobeying orders,treating his men cruelly and abandoning two of them to the Indians.Reinstated the following year,he massacred 103 Cheyenne (including women and children) and earned from the Indians the epithet "Squaw-killer". (The Guiness Book of military Blunders).

Custer didn't discover the gold. He was a soldier, not a prosepector.

Is it not true that Custer- the great indian fighter- only had one "victory" on the plains? That one being a route of women and children and old people at Washita river?

Thank you, I would have thought that wild Game would have been common fare, But now that i consider it, it would not have been a reliable source for a large contingent,, Thank you,

I can almost imagine being there from hearing your words...

There is truth there, but who knows what would have happened once they opened up. The Indians could have continued attacking hoping for a jam, or could have called off their attack, in an attempt to hold off the cavalry until the rest of the encampment could get away.

There was a very good reason why Custer did not want to take the Gatlings. The .45-70 ammunition that was available used soft copper cases. The rims tore off in both the Springfield rifles and the Gatling guns causing the guns to jam. With the Springfield, you could pry the case out with the tip of a knife. With the Gatling, an armorer had to disassemble it to clear the jam. Custer tried to get the new brass cased cartridges from Frankford Arsenal, but couldn't get any.

It is also important to note that Custer had, in his testimony to the Senate, opposed the Grant administration Indian policy, so much so that he was almost not permitted to take part in the campaign. He was eventually permitted to take part, because of the expectation that if he was not part of it, the Grant Administration would be blamed for keeping him out if there were any reverses.

He knew the indians well, and knew that there were severe limitations on how many could congregate together for any length of time. The indians were about to leave, because of that. Death in battle due to one's own, or others miscalculations was an occupational hazard of the career that Custer had chosen. The brave thing that military men do is sign up, the rest is following through. He followed through, which is all we can can do sometimes.

Custer had previously gotten the Indians to return to their reservations, at some personal risk, and with honor. He was a complex man with a brilliant war record in the Civil War, and an excellent record subsequent to that. You dishonor yourself, for Custer is beyond your reach..

I recommend a small book available on the internet: by a Lieutenant Parker---> With the Gatlings in Cuba... Lt Parker used Gatlings to support the attack of the Cavalry Division in Cuba against the dug in Spanish. If used like cannon, which they much resembled, they could have provided suppressive fire during the cavalry attack, perhaps from the bluffs above the Indian encampment, or perhaps from across the river where Reno attacked.

Last of the Mohicans written before the Civil War expressed great respect for the native Americans, and further, and suggested that we had more in common with the Natives that with the British colonial masters.

Actually, the Sand Creek Massacre is called a massacre.

I think that the Gatlings that were left behind may have resolved matters in Custer's favor. Other than that...there were no happy endings for the 7th Cavalry that day.

interesting,, Im surprised the white populaton acted in such a hospitable fashion,, its nice to know that with so many injustices there was some kindness,,

Thank you for the narritive from the native side, As you know i recently visited the battle site,, we visit many historical locations,,this site is among the most moving,,Thanks again

Read the book and found it excellent reporting and well written. Highly recommended

Great job guys. This was very well done.

Battle of the Washita River! yes, it was a glorious victory, wasn't it?

Historian Stafford Poole wrote: "There are other terms to describe what happened in the Western Hemisphere, but genocide is not one of them. It is a good propaganda term in an age where slogans and shouting have replaced reflection and learning, but to use it in this context is to cheapen both the word itself and the appalling experiences of the Jews and Armenians, to mention but two of the major victims of this century.

Robert Koch was the first scientist to devise a series of proofs used to verify the germ theory of disease. Koch's Postulates were published in 1890, and derived from his work demonstrating that anthrax was caused by the bacterium Bacillus anthracis. These postulates are still used today to help determine if a newly discovered disease is caused by a microorganism.

Certainly the US consitution was written by white men. Rights so afforded have been extended to men and woman of every race. Still, you can't suggest that the Indians who run the Casinos in California were exterminated, nor assert that there was a serious effort to do so. Nor can you assert that the money they make in their Casinos is stolen. You win, you keep. Stolen is different.

Custer was very familiar with the Indians, and was sure that no great force could be assembled against him. He didn't think he would need the Gatling guns, and left them behind (each weighed about 300 lbs, and would have slowed his advance). He dispersed his forces into three columns. The Indians had assembled a large group, some 15,000 and would soon have to disperse to pursue food. Custer was aggressive, and on this case, unlucky.

Wrong. Custer and his men died because of scum sucking traitors and cowards.

Actually, they were respected, their land was normally purchased. There is a vast difference between elimination and assimilation. Of course we could have forced them to stay in little reservations, and to suffer the pains associated with stone age level of civilization, denied them books, running water, food and medicine, but that would have been wrong. Rape occured on both sides. Murder occured on both sides. War occured on both sides.

Again, look up when the germ theory of disease became known and accepted, and compare it to the time frame of the "blanket" story. Then you have to assume that a fellow responsible for the blankets was completely aware of the their history, and their potential. I haven't seen such a trail. No doubt that many died. So did many colonists, of diseases carried by Amerinds. In no case was the intent of genocide clear.The Rolf family, part English, and part Amerind, were highly honored in Virginia.

Unlike the Germans/Soviet courts, US military courts tried and sentenced for rape, which cut it back.

Genocide implies volition. Most died from exposure to disease. Disease was not understood well enough (colonization being far in advance of germ theory) to permit deliberate acts. Ergo, using the term genocide is wrong.

well Columbus put in a journal thing that there were around 3 million people (estimate) on the first little island he "discovered", also it doesn't matter if they were stone aged, they knew what they needed to know to survive. Also the Maya, Inca, Aztec ect.. may have been stone aged but they rivaled European countries in their intelligence and craftsmanship.

It is unlikely that there were as many as 60 million, (More than modern France!) given a stone age technology. The history of the Cheyenne, Apache, Sioux, Iroquois, and Aztec, as well as the Blackfoot, the Algonquin reveals incompetent attempts at exterminating.

there is most certainly not more natives now than there were before, it was estimated that over 60 million native americans roamed and lived in the Americas. They weren't also "Happily exterminating" each other, they did however war just like any other European country in the time. Also, yes Natives intermarried because the elders thought that if they intermarried there was a smaller chance of their camps being attacked by whites. Have a good day.

Wow.. there is more information and more UNBIAS information here than in most documentaries that only paint Whites as evil, bloodthirsty demons. Very informative thanks!

Because there are more native americans now than there were when Columbus landed. Because the natives were were happily exterminating each other before the Europeans arrived. Because the Native Americans were heavily intermarried with the Europeans (look up the Rolf family in Virginia).

custer had it coming!

With all of the gaming money some tribes are making now, why haven't they opened a NATIONAL NATIVE AMERICAN HOLOCAUST MUSEAM in Washington DC.

The Southron people who raped women in the slave cabins?

WOW How interesting was that!!!! Until now I would never have known this history of Red Tomahawk.... My only understanding was a 'betrayal' through watching many documentaries of Sitting Bull and Indians etc. None of what is presented here have I ever seen or been told about, from the 'other side of the coin' so to speak. This was done very well. thanks... jager.....

awesome thank you for sharing Keep up the great work folks need to learn the past

Chuck Luna -Tennessee -United States Of America. To my Country The U.S.A. Please give the Black Hills back to its original owners,this place is so sacred we know it does not belong to us and we know in our hearts who the rightfull owners are. God bless us all !

Very good information

Good timing on this video!

Excellent Narration, Excellent Video, A Tragedy Witnessed,,Thank you

hoka hey