Thesis statement: The Treaty of Fort Laramie is important because of how it led to the loss of a lot of Native American culture. It was part of their culture to live close together, but the treaty separated them by giving the Sioux too much land on each reservation. Not only that, but because the U.S. Government did not keep some of its promises to the Native Americans, it was not even worth the tradeoff. For example, the United States’ “promised annuity goods for fifty years (later amended by the Senate to fifteen years)” (Smallbone, 2006, 42). In spite of the effect it had on the Native Americans, there were many Americans who supported the treaty when …show more content…
Since he found gold, “Indian agents were dispatched to the Black Hills to convince the Sioux to sell their land” (Johnson, 2003, 59). However, they did not accept the proposal, and the conflict “led to the famous Battle of Little Bighorn” (Johnson, 2003, 59). Even though “the U.S. Calvary had attacked first,” the Sioux were blamed for violating the Treaty of Fort Laramie. That in itself shows that the Native Americans were treated …show more content…
Description of historians’ arguments: All of the historian’s arguments focus of different pieces of the Treaty of Fort Laramie, or an effect of the Treaty. For instance, Smallbone examines many events leading to the loss of the West, like the Treaty of Fort Laramie and the battle of Wounded Knee, along with how the events are connected, and what the Treaty promised and didn’t provide. Johnson focuses on what was lost, and the specific parts of the Treaty of Fort Laramie that George Custer violated. Russell focuses on how Elizabeth (Libbie) Custer was able to preserve her husband’s memory after his death, which played a big role in how the public saw the event. Sherman wasn’t a historian, but he was alive when the event took place, and helped right the Treaty of Fort Laramie. He focused on what the Treaty was promising the Indians and what the Indians were promising to the