Little Big Horn

Discussion in 'General Baptist Discussions' started by saturneptune, Jul 23, 2013.

  1. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is probably closely related to the thread on the spiritual aspects of slavery as a sin. As I have related many times on this board, in addition to Scripture, my ideas on this subject from what I observed in Mississippi as a child in the 50s and 60s.

    We are on vacation, and today, we visited the Little Big Horn National Park in Montana. I had studied the battles and the routes of both sides. Today, as I listened to a park ranger explain in detail what happened, and the politics in Washington that lead to the loss of life on June 25, 1876, it brought me back to man's ability to mistreat his fellow man for greed, profit, and power, even to the point of death. Of course, like all other human tragedy, the core cause was sin.

    After hearing the history in detail, we saw the battlefield where Custer and his men fell, the other sites of related battles a few days earlier. Yes, the Indians under Sitting Bull and Crazy Horse treated their enemy brutally, but I got to wondering, what would be do if a foreign army was running us out of our homes and forcing us to a new home somewhere else?

    There was plenty of blame to go around, an inept Grant administration, lack of communication between army units, the arrogance of Custer and some of his officers, and a drive for future power. One cannot help but wonder if the situation could have, should have been handled better. What gave us the right to destroy the Indian culture that was here long before us? Because some expansionist nut case in Washington thought it his God given right to implement a policy of "Manifest Destiny."

    What comes across to me in this situation, where there were no winners, and the results were tragic, is the lack of any consideration for the love of Christ to be exhibited towards these people. Instead of treating them and their culture like trash, maybe the Gospel told to them, and in fact, some of our illustrious leaders, maybe the love of God would have brought about a different outcome.

    Sin is like an infection. It permeates everything on this earth. It is brutal, evil, self centered, and always ends up with death and misery, because Christ was not even considered.

    What makes a difference in this world, one thing and one thing only, a changed heart in men and women by the work of Jesus Christ on the cross. No more vivid picture could be painted of this than the dead corpses laying all across that battlefield. What a sad story, and it just keeps repeating itself.
     
  2. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,458
    Likes Received:
    136
    Great Observation & Point!

    Edmund Burke (1729-1797) is quoted as saying, "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."

    Our government, which under the leadership of supposedly well educated men and women, have fallen victim to this statement, and will continue to do so, until, like you said, they turn their hearts over to Jesus. Of course that would mean allowing God back into our schools, and prayer [by born-again Christians] to be the guide and conscious of those leading America.

    Sadly, this will not happen!
     
  3. blackbird

    blackbird
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    11,898
    Likes Received:
    2
    On the morning of the invasive "skirmish"-----Crazy Horse rises up from his bed on the floor next to his Squaw-------stretches himself----and says to his squaw------TODAY--GOOD DAY TO BE INDIAN!!!!!
     
  4. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    Do the lawless have a legitimate claim to the land?
     
  5. saturneptune

    saturneptune
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    13,977
    Likes Received:
    0
    Probably not, but neither did we. It was lawless to break treaties, it was lawless to slaughter women and children, and it was lawless to believe we had a God given right to Manifest Destiny.

    It was a very good visit for historical reasons.

    The point is Jesus Christ is the only true peacemaker and respecter of human life and dignity.
     
  6. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    So this really wasn't "their" land. They were the trespassers.
     
  7. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    How do you get that the people that were on the land before we got here are trespassers?
     
  8. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    If the sin of slavery wasn't enough to prove we weren't nearly a Christian nation at our inception, the way we devastated the natural inhabitants of this continent should seal the deal.

    The North American Indian tribes were the possessors of this land until the colonialist Western Europeans arrive and began a campaign of systematic robbery, murder, rape, extortion, and genocide that devastated these peoples.

    Little Big Horn was a rare victory for the American Indian tribes against a highly trained and highly corrupt military force. Custer was a terrible general, known for his ravaging of the Indian tribes in the west. Maybe we make too much of the skirmish, maybe we don't make enough of it.

    From our first arrivals in this land to the end of the 19th century we have a long, sinful legacy of destruction against the natural inhabitants of this continent. I simply don't know how we can see it otherwise.
     
  9. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    They were lawless.
     
  10. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    No such thing as "natural" inhabitants. There are only lawful inhabitants.
     
  11. Tom Bryant

    Tom Bryant
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2006
    Messages:
    4,439
    Likes Received:
    0
    wow, just wow.
     
  12. Iconoclast

    Iconoclast
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    13,377
    Likes Received:
    728
    saturneptune

    "Manifest destiny" is a sinful perversion of the Great Commission.Like most things that are God given and Spiritual....man with carnal reasoning sets aside the lawful commands of God for selfish purposes.

    If you get to head south....visit DR.BOB....:wavey:

    Kingdom living under the lawful rules of the King is the only way.
     
  13. pinoybaptist

    pinoybaptist
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2002
    Messages:
    8,123
    Likes Received:
    1
    In the south of my birth country lived a people who had been there waaaaayyy before Spanish conquistadores came with their swords, cannons, crosses, laws and deeds and titles to lands that the original inhabitants commonly tilled and nourished and lived on.
    These "lawless" inhabitants had their own property laws, boundary laws, marriage laws, divorce (yes, divorce) laws, theft, robbery, murder and such laws which were not written in fancy legalese, and which were handed down to the succeeding generations by word of mouth, held high by a system of honor.
    They tried to impose these laws on the g-stringed, betel-chewing, crudely armed inhabitants who had by then been converted to Islam and were practicing their own brand of folk Islam, with some animism thrown in.
    To be honest, some of these tribes converted to the white man's religion, and the reasons were more practical than theological, considering the white man's firepower.
    But the majority chose to say to the Spaniards: you can keep your laws and titles and deeds, we will keep the land.
    lol.
    300 years later, the white man staged a mock battle with another white man in the beautiful Manila Bay, and the result was a Treaty, signed in Paris, where the white man ceded an entire country to another white man for 20 million dollars, the incoming white man unceremoniously dumping a revolutionary general who had been fighting the outgoing white man for quite some time.
    Not only did the incoming white man dump the revolutionary general, he also turned his guns on him and his troops.
    So began a 50 year reign of another white man over the hapless indios.
    Except for the South.
    White man number 2 never got to subjugate those stupid, g-stringed muslims.
    He even modified his .45 revolver into a pistol with improved ammo for knocking power.
    Nope.
    The g-stringed indio still said: keep your laws, we'll keep our land.
    After white man number 2 gallantly "routed" the Japs, he installed his president, and a political system that will ensure that the white man's interests are secure in that country.
    The puppet governments that followed, up to this time, still met the same resistance to having the g-stringed muslims (now dressed more appropriately)
    of the south follow his rules and laws and property definitions and titles.
    He couldn't make those stupid savages bow down to his demands for titling land which had been the "savages" for centuries.
    They still said: keep your homestead rights and papers, we'll keep the land.

    You see, my brother, the "savages" have laws of their own.
    It is us "civilized" folks who think we know better.
     
    #13 pinoybaptist, Jul 23, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jul 23, 2013
  14. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Yes, the savages must be conquered and shown that the white Western European way is clearly better for them.

    Clearly, just because they hadn't formally codified laws in some deliberate assembly, preferably in a large marble governmental building, shows that these savages had no moral law or social laws guiding them. Since they still lived in hut made of the flesh of their hunts, they clearly had no technology. Since they wandered the same land for only 100 generations they clearly weren't God's people to inhabit and control the land.

    Yes, we should have destroyed them. We should have ravaged them. We should have murdered their men, carried off their women, and abandoned their children because that is God's way to handle the savages.

    They got what was coming. White colonial Western Europeans who had never stepped foot on this land in 100 generations were obviously better suited to capture and control this land. Yes, we should destroyed them...I'm surprised we waited so long.

    {sarcasm off}

    I weep at your ignorance.
     
  15. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    And I laugh at yours.
     
  16. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    In short, natural law, or, the law of the land, is basically God's law. They were lawless, and just as the Canaanites lost rights to the land because of their lawlessness, or, their direct, sustained and institutionalized rebellion against God (albeit in ignorance), so do all who are likewise lawless.

    And, yes, they were savage in the true sense of the word.
     
  17. quantumfaith

    quantumfaith
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Messages:
    6,890
    Likes Received:
    0
    :applause::applause::applause:
     
  18. North Carolina Tentmaker

    North Carolina Tentmaker
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2003
    Messages:
    2,355
    Likes Received:
    0
    Wow, did you just equate the treatment of Native Americans with the Jewish conquest of Canaan? I am speechless.
     
  19. robycop3

    robycop3
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2000
    Messages:
    7,573
    Likes Received:
    10
    Actually, Custer was not an inept general. However, he was IMPETUOUS, a trait that has made or broken some generals. During the battle of Gettysburg, Custer impetuously led some 500 Michigan cavalry troops in a charge against Confederate General J. E. B. Stuart's 4,000 mounted soldiers. Custer managed to cause an immense traffic jam in a fairly narrow riding lane that prevented Stuart from attacking the center of the Union line from the rear. had Stuart succeeded, Pickett's Charge woulda overrun the Union center, enabling pickett and the rest of the Reb army to roll up each flank of the Feds. In the chaos which resulted from Custer's charge, Stuart had to order a retreat to re-organize hois troops. Custer wisely made a hasty exit with his men after that charge until more Fed cavalry arrived.

    Custer graduated from west point last in his class of 34, in 1861, and was quickly pressed into service in the Civil War as a lieutenant. At first, he alienated the men under his command with showy uniforms and "fancy" hairstyles, but he soon won them over by his willingness to lead attacks, rather than just sending them forward and then hanging back. He told them his uniforms & hair were so they could easily see him and follow him, & that he was counting on the enemy's poor marksmanship to survive.

    Custer impressed the Army of the Potomac's cavalry commander, Gen. Pleasonton, who brevetted him to brig. general. During the Civil war, his headlong charges were made only after careful planning, so they served him well. And there's no denying Custer was a "publicity hound".

    After the war, he was reverted back to a captain, & considered leaving the Army. But the ongoing battles with Indians, and a lack of civilian jobs that interested him convinced him to stay.

    His "last Stand" was a result of his failure to do a thorough recon job, for once, thus not knowing the size of the Indian force before him, and failing to recognize the fact that the Indians were well-led, well-armed, and were better marksmen than first thought. it's conceivable that Custer's vastly-outnumbered force could've succeeded, if not for Crazy Horse's quick reaction to Custer's attack and skillful leadership in countering it. Custer hadn't believed the Sioux capable of any ORGANIZED counter-attack, and thus was defeated.

    Custer's first big mistake was his last.
     
  20. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,252
    Likes Received:
    184
    This reply is not to be critical of your post, but to use it as a springboard to show how it is the heart of the believer in comparison to that of the heathen that makes the difference.




    Both Pennsylvania and Rhode Island were initially settled by Christians and lived in complete piece with the Native Americans until the heathen Scotch Irish stirred up strife.

    William Penn's father had loaned England a huge sum and even though Will and his father were estranged for many years, they were somewhat reconciled by the time the father died. To settle the debt, the King of England gave the land to Will. It encompassed not only what is now Pennsylvania, but included much of the Ohio area, too.

    When Penn arrived, finding the native folks, he bartered with them and purchased the land. In essence, the Penn family paid for the land twice.

    Rhode Island was "settled" Roger Williams and followers who refused to submit to the "puritan"ical rule of those in Massachusetts. Because of Roger's missionary work and other fervent work with the natives, they gifted him the land and he called the original "Providence Plantation." It is important to note that Roger Williams is considered the founder of the Baptist church in America. He was staunchly independent and a radical theologian (in his day) that considered "state supported" churches were wrong and that folks should express how they were to be ruled through civil liberty and majority rule. Rogers also had major disagreement with any group (especially that from England) who considered that a "kings charter" was warrant to take what did not belong to them, be it home, food, supplies.... He spoke out, often, that the "colonies" should be purchased from the native americans.

    It is important that the thinking of the pilgrims and Roger Williams had profound influence not only on the Declaration of Independence, but the Constitution over a century later. It was a Baptist church pastored by Andrew Tribble, who was a friend of Jefferson, and profoundly influenced his political thinking. Jefferson regularly attended this church (Tates Creek Baptist) near his home.

    Whether one accepts Jefferson as a believer or not does not diminish the huge impact a true believer (Tribble) had upon Jefferson's thinking. True believer's do leave a lasting impression on those around them - Even beyond what they can perceive.


    You are correct that the treatment has a history of brutality. But that is not uncharacteristic of the treatment from the time of Cain slaying Abel.

    The examples given above do show that when Christ is preached, and TRUE believer character is shown, not all treatment is sinful and destructive.

    What I find extremely laughable is that when the Cherokee's were forced into the "Oklahoma territory" the land given was right on top of huge oil deposits. As a result, what the folks didn't get from gas stations they currently get from casinos.

    Has anyone noticed what the middle of casino's is?
     

Share This Page

Loading...