How exactly did we "Tame the West" or did we even do that?

What exactly does it even mean. Does it mean we killed all them bars and lions off so we are safe or does it mean gun violence was quelled? Were those Sheriffs of Dodge City and Abilene and Tombstone doing the right thing by disallowing guns within their towns? Did America do the right thing by prohibiting the sales of guns to the Native Americans? If as some here claim "we need less gun laws not more" then all those things would have been proved to be completely wrong and the "West" would not have ever needed any "taming" There would not have been any outlaws because they would have been so frightened of everyone carrying a gun they would never have ventured out. There probably would not have been any need for the sheriffs for that matter either. The same goes for the Native Americans. If they knew all the farmers had guns they would never have attacked anyone and there would have not been any need of a US Cavalry. Nope gun laws just flat out don't work so we need to just eliminate them....:shrug:

Then stole their land.

racists would say tamed

War Against The Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create A Master Race

...

From small pox infected blankets given purposely to the tribes, to straight up murder of the natives, the white man has ALWAYS hated brown people, unless he could find a use for them (slaves)

bison. It wasn't guns or diaease that lead to the native americans defeat, it was starvation that did them in.

impossible for native americans to continue the fight. Remember, native americans that survived the small pox epidemic had children that were less likely to catch small pox because they had an immunity to small pox. Thats why small pox killed so many at once, they had never been exposed to the disease. Your also missing other factors of the bison slaughter, it forced native americans onto reservations were starvation continued under government agents who would steal the best from the people and give them less or spoiled food.

Almost full circle? Some corporations seem to want US off their land. Was thinking about bad food and pox infected blankets the other day.

Lots of big money wants people in my state off the land so they can make 'wildlife preserves' but some want to import animals from Africa. Seriously, there are some who talk about brining elephants to Montana!

Can you say canned hunts for rich chicken hawks.

Yep, us pallid paddies in the west are the new Indians and somebody in power wants us dead or on reservations of service industry jobs tending the pampered at resorts.

I've been thinking the same things lately....

Damn savages.

fact. Think about the Custer Myth that most believe, Custer and his men made a last stand and native americans accounts of the battle of the Little Big Horn said that Custer and his men run from battle. A few years ago historains went to the battle feild and found prooof that Custers men had cut and run, they found unfired rounds scattered all over the battle feild and no edvidence of a last stand. Another well known fact that seems to be over looked is the fact that most of the famous law men of the west were also law breakers in their pasts. Then theres the cow boy myth, most cowboys were black, cow boying was dirty stinky low wage work. Btw, most cowboys that did bother carrying side arms also had another problem, the side arms would offten rust from being out in the weather. Then theres the gun fighter myth, most didn't face their enemy face to face, they tended to shoot them from ambush or in the back.

and those leather belts must've been hell to wear in western summers. I imagine few men swaggered around with guns stuck permanently to their hips.

The few who did is why bad men got persuaded to put on stars, collect wages, and run off or shoot any other swaggering idiot who came into town.

Those face to face shootouts were one of the sillier myths, adapted from the "gentlemanly" east and the silly tradition of facing an enemy with dueling pistols at ten paces.

it was big and heavy!

Don't forget that there was wholesale slaughter of buffalo herds--they were skinned and the carcasses left to rot by the railroad tracks. The First Americans were left to starve and if they protested, they were killed. Many don't know it was ILLEGAL for the First Americans to openly practice their religion until the 1970s. You read that right. So much for freedom of religion. Native children were drug away from their families and put into Indian Schools where they were punished if they spoke their native language. Many were forced to become Christians and to deny their own heritage. The Lakota People even had the US Government take away their Sacred Pipe (Chanupe) that was given to them by the White Buffalo Calf Maiden some 5,000 years ago, and to which all chanupe given are connected.

Yes, the US Government wanted the Chanupe so they could "test it" for some reason. They came to the home of Arvel Lookinghorse, who is the Keeper of the Chanupe. He warned them, but they took it away. And then they started dying. Suddenly and mysteriously. No, no one was murdered. They just died. Arvel Lookinghorse was asked to come get the Chanupe. He walked to the place, and walked back with it, because this was a way of honoring this most sacred of pipes. By the time he got it back home, in its own special house, all those who were connected with wanting to take the Chanupe were dead.

And the White Buffalo Calf Maiden has sent signs of the rise of the First Americans once again via the birth of 4 white buffalo calves. I have seen one--Miracle--in Janesville WI. Ya wakahne lai wakahne lo--all things are sacred. Ho Metaquiatsun!

Just like Cortez and the Mexicans around 1518. And other incidents that can be found before and after that moment of history.

Humans will never advance. Those that do are simply called inferior.

relocated out that way along with the "settler" population, and reproduced like rabbits as well as relied on European immigraton to populate the region.

That's "taming the West."

As for gun laws, that's a much more complex issue. It's not just the gun, it's the talent of the person holding said weapon.

If you know that farmer with the fancy gun can't hit the broad side of a barn, well, he's a different sort of fellow than the one who can shoot the zit off a fly's ass at a hundred yards.

theres many stories about that, often the farmer sent the son off with just a few rounds and the kid was supposed to have a kill for each round he used. What farmers didn't bother with was hand guns, they considered them expensive, wasteful and unrealiable for an acurate shot. The prefered weapon was a double barrled 10 gauage shot gun, it was more efficient and back when there were only single shot riffles, it gave the farmer an advantage of having another round to fire. And your buying into the gun fighter myth, most people killed in gun fights were shot in the back from ambush.

What I'm saying, and ALL I'm saying, is that the utility of the gun depends on the ability of the person wielding it.

The fellow, farmer, miner, or horsetrader, who could should someone "in the back, from ambush" has got to be able to aim and fire accurately, after all.

after all up close and from behind with a 10 gauage shot gun doesn't require much skill or aim. Remember Wild Bill was shot in the back of the head playing poker at close range with a hand gun. Btw, Wild Bill was one of the few true gun fighters of the period, he prefered facing his enemies face to face in a shoot out.

Politically astute manouevers via treaties did well. Executive Order 13007 (under Clinton, but still) echoes exactly how we did that by illustrating this key concept: the US wanted a delineated, well-defined piece of land on the ground that belonged to the American Indians. For some tribes, that's *completely* understandable, because even with the French and Spanish, a number of tribes were codifying into a more sedentary existence. But, for the ones we think of in the Indian Wars, it was not understandable. In Deadwood, SD, a preacher was killed by being shot in the back. The Nakota (I believe) were blamed for his death, so Anglo-Indian violence increased. Vigilante justice was the key.

But, please remember, there were people that did not agree with this (Preacher Smith didn't)! The general that captured Chief Joseph (peacefully mind you) wanted him to stay in Oregon/Washington. But was overruled. Chief Joseph was sent to Oklahoma. Ten years later the general, now higher up, filled his promise to him. This was few and far between of course.

However, the most applicable way to the taming of the west was the governmental programmes that turned Native children into Christians and educated them in the process (this was done by telling them that everything they were taught by their families was wrong). The children would never be with their parents again, their names changed and their lives gone into the American consciousness. I can continue on for pages, but I think I'll end with this: when the Soviets wanted to tame Siberia, they used our model (Rethmann 2000).

ON EDIT: It wasn't until the 1980s or so that my profession began taking the native population seriously. Then, the government forced us with NAGPRA. The American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) is the first time that traditional religion was recognized as practicable by the US government.

ON EDIT 2: I keep thinking of stuff to add to this! I think a more applicable way to look at this question is through the lens of post-colonialism. Imperial power subjugates the native populous, 150 years later they amazingly have rights. If there is anyone in the country that has the right to say anything about the American government, it's the American Indian population. Here's to the hope that once my days as a MA student are over and I'm in a job, I will do everything I can do to build a working relationship built on trust with them.

The Spanish warrior Cortez and his Conquistadores did the same thing to the Mexicans; forcing them to convert to Christianity and slaughtering the ones who hadn't.

It's everybody's model - conquer by might; assimilate the weak-minded and destroy the nonconformists/malcontents.

And that was almost 500 years ago.

Times haven't changed and I doubt they will.

At some point, I have to wonder if we will be living history and asked the same question: Assimilate or be exterminated; if we're so lucky?

The Spanish failed because they were never able to keep down revolts. They stretched too far. The British had their problems too. But, we completely erased and rewrote American Indian history, in OUR voice. Amazingly chilling when you think of it. That's what the Soviets wanted too.

Not to discredit anything you wrote, but I feel that we need to accept the job to the American Indians. But, I take exception with the weak-minded comment. People assimilate to just stay alive. Nothing weak or bad about that. The ones assimilated were killed too.

Actually it was the movement of Women and Families into the West that put an end to the lawlessness. Caused towns with ordered governments to be built etc.

You could say men made a godd living off the West. Women and Families tamed/civilized the West.

I take it your point was about gun control. Not a single poster even mentioned that aspect. If they don't believe in gun control then they would have no problems with selling guns to the Indians or getting rid of the local sheriffs. Their philosophy of "if everyone was armed then gun crime would drop" didn't seem to fare so well back in the days when everyone really was armed. There sure didn't seem to be a lot of opposition to the gun laws created back then anyway. It is tough trying to use logic around here these days I guess. Keep trying though eventually some will sink in I bet...:shrug:

Some towns outlawed carrying handguns, but that only stopped the big guns. Colt Army and Navy revolvers were easy to spot, so that increased the business for Derringers and Smith .22 revolvers.

Plenty of people in town owned guns and could lay their hands on them easily. It wasn't "law enforcement" who stopped the James Gang in Minnesota, it was just folks with guns willing to step up.

Sales prohibited to Native Americans? Ask Custer about the "disarmed natives" who managed to conjure up some Henry repeating rifles to massacre the troops who were only armed with single-shot Springfield trap-door rifles.

The West never really got tamed. The natives were marginalized due to Army persistence and buffalo hunters removing a food supply. The peace was more-or-less maintained by warlords: Cattle barons, mining companies, etc. Water may be the cause of the next "war". It's an uneasy truce at best.

Gun laws (such as they were) didn't have much impact in the 19th century. In the west or anywhere else.