Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire The Indian slaughter you seldom hear about.

We all have read about the Sand Creek, Washita, and Wounded Knee massacres but few know about the Battle of Bear River in SE Idaho. There were almost as many Indians, including many women and children, killed at Bear river than at those other 3 combined. As had happened before, the attacking 'army' was volunteers, not regular army.


Hidden History: The Battle of Bear River

FRANKLIN � Nearly 151 years ago, the worst single slaughter of American Indians in U.S. history occurred along the Bear River just north of the Utah border.

Franklin is the oldest permanent settlement in Idaho and was settled by 13 Mormon families in 1860. The area was also the winter home of the Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation, led by Chief Sagwitch and War Chief Bear Hunter.

Friction between early settlers and the Shoshone developed and Utah Governor Frank Fuller asked the U.S. Secretary of War to provide a temporary regiment of mounted rangers to protect the settlers along the Utah-Idaho border.

Col. Patrick E. Connor � who was known for his belief that Indians were violent savages who needed to be destroyed at all costs � and his California Volunteers were ordered to Fort Douglas, Utah.

After an incident in which several settlers were killed, Connor sent a small infantry north from the fort with artillery and supply wagons. Four days later, Connor and his cavalry set out in deep snow and freezing temperatures to attack the winter camp the Shoshone called Boa Ogoi, 140 miles away.

As he left the fort, Connor promised to take no prisoners.

The group travelled at night to conceal their approach, but a white friend warned Sagwitch that Connor was coming in search of revenge.

Connor and 200 of his men arrived at the camp at 6 a.m. on Jan. 29, 1863. Sagwitch expected Connor, but the camp was not ready to do battle, said his granddaughter Mae Parry.

�He thought that perhaps this military man was a wise and just man,� said Parry. �He thought the colonel would ask for the guilty men, whom he would immediately have handed over.�

But Connor didn�t ask any questions. His men began firing when the sun rose.

The Boa Ogoi camp sat in a protected ravine above the Bear River and was easily defended. But the well-armed military force was too much for the 400 or 500 Shoshoni.

Some jumped into the freezing river and drowned. Some swam to safety and joined other Shoshone bands.

But most � men, women and children � were killed.

Bear Hunter was tortured and eventually killed. Sagwitch escaped during the four-hour battle and survived.

A small number of children were spared and adopted to by Mormon families.

In all, the Shoshone death toll is estimated at 350. Connor lost two dozen men.

What were the details of the incident where settlers were killed that started the ball rolling?

According to the article, several settlers were killed. Then our infantry attacked and won. Hardly a massacre.

But if we want to blame someone, this might be the earliest recorded instance of Californians showing up in another state and doing damage.

Not a massacre? 350 Indians were killed, most of the tribe, including a large number of women and children. When lots of non-combatants are shot down at random, that's a massacre by definition. The army didn't 'win'. They can only win when it's a battle. When they just shoot down unarmed women and children, that's not a fight. It's murder.

It's the same old story. This started as most other Indian battles did. Settlers pushed the Indians out of their traditional hunting grounds and the Indians started raiding to get food.

Probably most of the blame can be placed squarely on Col. Connor. He said before he left that he would take no prisoners. The Indians weren't prepared for battle thinking they could negotiate it but Connor just shot them down. He went in with the intention of killing them all and he pretty much accomplished it.

"Raiding"? I have no idea about this instance and I have Indian blood in my veins, as does my wife, but...Raiding would seem to indicate a para military action with the primary goal being food gathering in this instance, not killing women and children or raping the former and kidnapping the latter, also killing any who were too weak to keep up or caused trouble. It would also not seem to indicate torture of the most heinous sort as a primary objective. This is what the Indians did in many cases.

I don't condone the slaughter of women and children by the Army nor torture either. However, casualty lists tend to be inflated by both the victors and the victims. It also sounds as if the Shoshone had plenty of time to get ready and just got out-hossed.

So what are the details of the incident where the settlers were murdered?

Were they armed, alerted, and ready for battle?

Were they adult men of fighting age and ability?

That's the way things were done back then, so assigning 'blame' is completely irrelevant.

I killed a really little feral hog the other day (one of five). I looked up at me like Wilber. I actually felt sorry for it just before I shot it in the eyebrow.

Guess I'm just tired of being told "my" ancestors were evil white men. Whatever. The injuns weren't just sitting around holding hands and picking flowers before we got here. They had an extensive history of war and all the atrocities that generally go with it.

Turns out, us "evil" white men were just better at it. I'm not sorry. And yeah, I've got some Kiowa blood. Not much. Dont care. I'm American. And proud of my country and It's history. Regardless of what bleeding hearts (not directed at anyone here) tell me. Least of all some revisionist history that claims the innocent Chief would have just handed over the guilty party. Right.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Bear_River

Immigrant pressures causing Shoshone starvation

The establishment of the California and Oregon trails, as well as the establishment of Salt Lake City in 1847 brought the Shoshone people into regular contact with white colonists moving westward. By 1856, European Americans had established their first permanent settlements and farms in Cache Valley, starting at Wellsville and gradually moving northward. [6]

Brigham Young made the policy that Mormon settlers should establish friendly relations with the surrounding American Indian tribes. He encouraged their helping to "feed them rather than fight them". [7]

Despite the policy, the settlers were consuming significant food resources and taking over areas that pushed the Shoshone increasingly into areas of marginal food production. David II. Burr, Surveyor General of the Territory of Utah reported in 1856 that the local Shoshone Indians complained that the Mormons had so used the Cache Valley that the once abundant game no longer appeared. [8] In addition, the foraging and hunting by settlers traveling on the western migration trails took additional resources away from the Shoshone. As early as 1859 Jacob Forney, the Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Territory of Utah, recognized the impact of migrants, writing, "The Indians...have become impoverished by the introduction of a white population". He recommended that an Indian Reservation be established in Cache Valley to protect essential resources for the Shoshone. His superiors at the U.S. Dept. of Interior did not act on his proposal. [9] Desperate and starving, the Shoshone attacked farms and cattle ranches for food, as a matter not just of revenge but survival. [10]

Not to mention that the "details" of the Indian side of things sound pretty hincky. More of the "poor, noble, redskin" business that is no more of a reality than to say that our military always acted in an honorable way.

Here's another account from the official Utah state website.
BEAR RIVER This battle occurred during the Civil War so it's been largely overlooked by historians.
This account reduces the number of deaths from 350 to 250 but that still includes about 90 women and children. The soldiers committed numerous rapes and atrocities on the survivors.

Thanks for the post, didn't know about this particular killing.

Not really interested in justifiying one side vs. another, enough to say there were good and bad on both sides, and there's always those inclined to kill, just kill, whatever the particular justification.

Not often remembered now but people were generally terrified of Indians, with good reason. Down here, in 1840, there were close to 100,000 Texians. Yet Jack Hays, the pre-emininent Texian Indian fighter of his day, generally operated with a crew of less than fifty, THAT is how unattractive hunting Indians as a profession was. Dangerous work.

What one should keep in mind is that throughout this period the Indians themselves were killing more Indians per capita then the Whites ever did, in a very real sense it often took an Indian to catch an Indian, which is why the services of Indian scouts were so often indispensible.

In terms of White casualties dead at the hands of Indians however, 2,000 from Pennsylvania 1755-1765, prob'ly nearly as many in Kentucky during the Rev. War, that total part of an estimated 7,000 settlers dead at the hands of Indians on all fronts during that conflicts.

The biggest single bloodletting I am aware of was a number possibly as high as 800 settlers dead, mostly women and children, inside a three week period in Minnesota during the Santee Sioux Uprising (1863??).

Hard to find numbers as big as that for Indians, they were much harder to catch and not many were left after the first rounds of epidemics in any given area: A hundred or so massacred here or there, nearly 200 Comanche dead on the San Saba (??)in 1840 by Texian militia and rangers under Moore. I think a total nearly as high among Blackfeet in the 1870's at the Milk River Massacre.

Far more Indians died from Euro diseases, sort of a de-facto germ warfare, than ever got shot by White folks. Same story repeated over and over: Whites show up in numbers, bringing their diseases with 'em, Indians die in droves (which is to say even more than White people did from those same diseases).

Birdwatcher

Life is tough. Life is tougher when someone wants to kill you or take your land. White Americans know this full well. We are in the process of being displaced by other groups and are the avowed target of large bunches of people from several groups that would like to see us dead. I wonder who will mourn our demise or who will try to stir up feelings of guilt among those who buried us? It is more likely they will dance on our graves the way they have done in many foreign places.

I make no apologies for my ancestors because they did nothing that had not been done by just about every group of people in this world who gained and exploited some advantage over another group of people. The Indians did it to each other over and over again, especially when they adopted some of the technology made available by white people. Are they hanging their heads in shame because they slaughtered villages and enslaved the survivors? I doubt it?

If the white people had followed the Indians' example, there would be no Indian tribes left in this country today.

The white people were about the most generous conquerors the world has ever known but are given more grief than any other.

A hunter/gather culture ran smack dab into a agrarian/industrial culture and something had to give. It's the same old story that's been going on since time immemorial.

There were huge differences in the way native Americans fought a war, and the way the white eyes fought a war... The difference in thinking was what nearly made native Americans extinct.

Indians viewed a war as a "battle".
They would attack and do their damage, then go celebrate and wait until the next opportunity of "War".

The Army and the U.S. in general had a much broader, much more 'ongoing' philosophy of war...

Once a campaign was started, it was usually followed through until the problem was in check.

Fighting Indians was vastly viewed in different capacities within the U.S. at the time too. Eastern States frowned upon killing of Indians that was ongoing in the Western States...But, those back East didn't have to bury their mutilated friends bodies, or see scalped children, or take the huge loss to the communities that settled the West when the Indians decided to kill some whites.

The Indians also did not let women and children live. In fact it was their views of killing any white that lent the Army to adopting the same methods when fighting back.

Lots of people back East were shocked by that method. People today are shocked and angered by it. Bu, once again, they didn't have to see the atrocities that preceded it.

"What difference does it make."

Rock Chuck,

thanks for posting that. Have you seen the book "Utahs Blackhawk War"? Pretty good one, lots of history you don't hear much about.

http://www.amazon.com/Utahs-Black-H...;sr=8-1&keywords=utahs+blackhawk+war

And the Russians operating on (what is now) American soil were so different... They have excavated the site since this very old article and it did prove to be the site and they estimated well over 500 were killed in accounts I have read.

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-08-16/local/me-6463_1_alaskan-history




Probable Site of Alaskan Massacre Explored : History: Archeologists seek better understanding of what happened when Russians battled villagers in 1784.

August 16, 1992|JOHN ENDERS | ASSOCIATED PRESS


SITKALIDAK ISLAND, Alaska � In 208 years, a lot of history can be forgotten--the Russian cannon fire, the cries of women and children hurling themselves 100 feet into the sea, the defeat of a proud people.

All of these things happened at a small, raised buttress known as Refuge Rock near the village of Old Harbor. A Russian force, led by fur traders, conquered the Alutiiq of Kodiak Island, leaving hundreds dead.






How many? No one knows. What happened? Accounts differ.

The site of the massacre was lost for two centuries. But now, there is reason to hope that more will be known about this bloody moment in native Alaskan history.

Archeologist Rick Knecht said he discovered the spot two years ago while flying overhead on other business. In July, 10 volunteer archeologists--prompted by native villagers who wanted to know more about their past--began excavation of the site.

"We hope to find some more clues about what happened that afternoon in 1784," said Knecht.

Why delve into this sad chapter?

"The beginning of forgiveness is understanding, and the beginning of understanding is knowledge," Knecht said during a recent trip to the site.

The battle "broke the back" of native Alaskan resistance, Knecht said. "It was the Wounded Knee of Alaska."

In the mid-1700s, Russian fur traders and their hired seamen fought for a foothold in the Aleutian Islands and Kodiak Archipelago. As expeditions moved east, the explorers battled Aleut and Alutiiq warriors intent on repulsing the Russians' landings.

In 1784, trader Grigori Shelikhov moved to end the impasse and impose the Russians' will by force.

After stopping at Three Saints Bay on southeastern Kodiak Island, Shelikhov sent several boats with 2.5-pound cannons and 130 armed men to Refuge Rock.

Villagers traditionally had gathered at the refuge while under threat of attack during the frequent battles between native groups from Kodiak and the Aleutians. They felt safe atop the fortress-like rock connected by a spit at low tide to nearby Sitkalidak Island.

Historical and native oral accounts of what happened that August afternoon vary in detail and tone, although the outcome is largely undisputed: Shelikhov and his men sailed their boats into a hidden inlet behind the rock, a secret route shown to them by an Aleut translator and guide known as Kashpak.

After several days of negotiations and a brief skirmish between the groups, the Russians attacked, using cannons and muskets against spears and arrows.

The village and fortress were destroyed.

Historians note that Shelikhov and his men had prepared for battle before leaving Okhotsk in the Russian Far East. That was unusual. Few Russian merchant ships of that day were armed; Shelikhov had received special permission to equip his party with cannons and muskets.






Shelikhov--as was the common practice--demanded that the natives turn over hostages and trade with him for the highly valuable otter furs then in great demand with buyers in China. The natives refused.

The czar prohibited merchants and traders from using violence against North America's native people, except in extreme cases and only in self-defense. So Shelikhov's description of the day's events were favorable to him.

He insisted in his reports that he had been badly outnumbered, was attacked first and feared a growing concentration of native warrior reinforcements.

Others painted a darker picture.

Ship physician and eyewitness Miron Britiukov, in a scathing account to the czar, cited numerous atrocities and denounced Shelikhov's action.

Eyewitness reports indicate that there were about 2,000 villagers at the refuge. Britiukov estimated that 500 were killed and more drowned, including women, children and elders, when they threw themselves off the 10-story seaside cliffs to escape the onslaught. Others were taken prisoner; some were executed.

Other accounts put the death toll at 200 to 300 villagers.

Lydia T. Black, a Russian-born anthropologist at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, said her studies indicate that neither extreme view is entirely accurate.

Shelikhov overstated the fierceness of the natives, their number and the threat they posed to his party, she said; Britiukov understated them.

There had been a stiff Aleut and Alutiiq resistance for years: Warriors had destroyed four ships and their crews in the years before the landing at Sitkalidak Island, and Shelikhov came looking for a fight, Black said. She describes the attack as a watershed event in the settlement of what became Russian America, and later Alaska.

"This was the beginning of the end for the Alutiiq of Kodiak Island," she said. "Shelikhov really smashed their military might. It was their first major military defeat."

Natives of the Old Harbor and southern Kodiak Island have long heard stories--part of the region's aboriginal oral history--of hundreds dying at Refuge Rock, of bodies lining the shores. But there had been no physical proof.

Knecht said the place that is being excavated fits perfectly the historical description of the site provided by witnesses, and that he is "95% sure" it is the massacre site described in Shelikhov's writings and other accounts. Knecht hopes the metal detectors and painstaking excavation of house pits will turn up evidence such as Russian cannon or musket balls.

Native leaders want to have the site entered on the National Registry of Historic Places. Later this summer, a Russian Orthodox priest from Old Harbor will conduct a memorial service there, and a Russian Orthodox cross will be erected on Refuge Rock.

Oftentimes the Indians did let women and children live. Women were taken as wives and children adopted into the tribe. Many "went native" and didn't want to go back to the whites even when recaptured, to wit: The tale of Cynthia Ann Parker, mother of Quanah Parker, the great Chief amongst the Comanch and son of Peta Nocona. Others were enslaved. The flipside is that they did kill many and others died from the extreme privations of captivity. If a white woman or child was too slow or weak, they simply killed them.