I think you misunderstood the term stand by as I intended it. It has more to do with what is about to happen next. Maybe it was just used when I was in the Marine Corps but it was a forewarning yet not stating what would happen.
Stand by= You tell them that I'm coming and hells coming with me
No single individual or regiment caused the Indians to pack it in, It was the policy of the US Army that did that.Steve made an excellent point, the Indians felt if they beat you enough you would stop they didn't understand the Army's relentless pursuit.When they realized the Army would never stop,and would continue to kill their women and children they surrendered.
I agree with you, big picture. I mean, if you really want to denigrate any individual's effort, you simply say he/she was part of a big cog, and didn't do it on their own. But that's too easy, and not very instructive, seems to me. Sure, we are "all one village." <g>
But we are learning how to be great =individuals=. And how to create great units. For the "state" to succeed, its individuals and units have to succeed at the lowest levels. When they do, you should encourage and glorify this.
It was Custer's direct leadership at Washita that allowed the U.S. Government to destroy the Southern Nation. It was Custer's direct leadership that allowed the Army to destroy the Northern Nation in the LBH campaign. Had Custer not done what he did, neither would have probably happened...at the very least, he was the catalyst that broke both campaigns open to allow success...the "critical point." We want all our individual leaders and combat units to find and get results at the "critical point" wherever they serve our government/nation.
But more directly, the Lakota were NOT the evolutionary descendants of the Eastern Nation. They were the back-woods illiterate relatives, as far back in evolution from the Eastern Tribes as the Eastern Indians were from the Europeans, or nearly so.
So you're saying that they were two separate descent lines? Where did the Eastern Nations come from, if not from the northwest?
Actually, the Sioux line is unclear, but best guess are that they originated farther east than west. The word "Sioux" is a truncation of the French, Nadouessioux, pronounced, na-du-see-you, literally. That is derived from the Chippewa word meaning snake or enemy. The Chippewa were from the Great Lakes region, so the word pertains to enemies east rather than west.
There were three main groupings of Sioux. The Isanti were the more eastern one, but even then only as far east as modern-day Wisconsin-- and the Sioux as a whole formed the largest group of tribes in the Siouan family. The Yanktonnais (probably the smallest) were the central group and the Teton Sioux (by far the largest), the western-most.
All three were represented at the LBH, one fighting with Custer, and the other two against. There was only one known member of the third group fighting with the warriors and he was killed.
You will learn more in March or April... hopefully.
... and despite what you may think, there was no relation between the Sioux and the Cheyenne, other than a long-standing alliance.
The Cheyenne split into two groups some time around 1825, but unlike other tribes, e. g., the Crow, the split was friendly. Like the Sioux, their origins can be traced back to the Minnesota area. Their name probably derives from a word meaning "red talkers." They belonged to the Algonquian linguistic family, one of six tribes on the Prairie, including the Arapaho, another ally.
Fred, waiting not very patiently for March or April.
My belief is that they all came across the bering strait and then separated into the distinctly different groups. Could even have been some Vikings thrown in there from the northeast.
Yeah, me too!, I'll tell you! I feel like a kid in a candy shop waiting for his mother to stop messin' around with her nickels and dimes.
I agree with you about the original peoples coming across the Bering. That, I most wholeheartedly endorse. There was a really interesting book that came out a number of years ago-- in think in the 1980s-- that went over the origins of various "phases" of North America. I have the darned thing, but it is packed away and I remember neither its title, nor its author.
If I can remember to dig through my boxes stored in my wife's mother's attic, I will see if I can find it. It was a very easy read... and absolutely fascinating. There have also been a couple-- or maybe just one-- program on the History Channel or some such channel, about the same thing. Some anthropologists have found serious connections between peoples in the eastern U. S. and Western Europe, and of course that throws everything into befuddlement. Fascinating stuff!