Telling New Stories

1. What were the two versions of the Camp Grant attack that existed among the U.S. public, and who supported each view?

Version One of the Event: The attackers were lead by U.S. settler William Oury and Mexican- American brothers Juan and Jesus, their version of the attack on the Apache at Camp grant is that the "Apaches from this settlement had stoeln cattle and killed local settlers" and it was a form of retribution. Some supporting the version of the event didn't call it an attack, rather an affair.
Who supported Version One? This first version was supported by local settlers

Version Two of the Event: In this version "the attack was not a form of retribution but was a violation of the U.S. Army's peace agreement with the Apache near the fort, and a slaughter of innocent women and children." Some even began to call this attack a massacre because of the extreme levels of violence.

Who supported Version Two? The second version was supported by the U.S. government and reformers.

2. Why was the trial that took place after the attack significant? The trial that took place after the attack was significant because, even though many crimes had been commited against the Apache in the past by many different groups, there was one key detail that changed everything; the fact the the Apache has been under the protection of the U.S. government when they were attacked. Therefore, for the first time ever ( in the history of the Arizona Territory ) non- Apaches had been put on trial for killing Apaches, however the accused were found innocent.

3. Whose views were absent in the accounts of this attack that were told in the United States?
All views except the perspectives of the U.S. settlers or "Anglo Americans" had been absent. The views that had been absent were limited to the Mexican Americans, the Apache, and the O'odham.

4. Why have Native American views been excluded from the story of U.S. expansion that is told in the United States?
Native American views have been excluded from the story of the U.S. ecpansion that is told in the United States because Anglo Americans "wanted to remember and tell the history of the West in a way that portrayed them favorably and justified their claims to land and resources" Often, the contributions of other groups/ people were down played, indirectly meaning to make the U.S. seem better by comparison. As a result, stories exclude Native American views, fights, or any contributions they made into creating the West. The U.S. didn't want it to seem like they had done anything wrong and "preferred to see itself as a benevolent force that spread its lofty ideals across the continent."

5. What were the two parts of the U.S. government's assiimilation plan in the late nineteenth century?

a. One part of the U.S. government's assimilation plan in the late nineteenth century was to get all indian groups onto reservations. ( They believed this would make getting rid of their culture a lot easier. )

b. Another part of the U.S. government's assimilation plan in the late nineteenth century was to get the Native Americans to speak English and farm small plots of land so they could be cultured like an average settler. One way of doing this was banning the Native Americans from "practicing their religions and cultural ceremonies", also Native American children were often sent to boarding schools were their hair would be cut short, their names would be changed and they would be forced to speak English.

6. Give two examples of how U.S. policy makers forced Indian groups to give up their cultures?


a. One example of how U.S. policy makers forced Indian groups to give up their cultures is (as I said before) banning their religion and cultural ceremonies.

b. Another example of how U.S. policy makers forced Indian groups to give up their cultures is by sending the children to boarding schools, where they would have their hair cut, their names changed, and would be forced to speak English to better fit in with the settlers culture rather then their native ways.

7. What effect did the railroad have on U.S. settlement of the West?
The effect the railroad had on U.S. settlements of the West is that it largly increased the population, as the reading says "settlers were pouring into the West" The railroad also made it easy to get supplies and other manufactured goods from around the country. Lastly, the killing of Buffalo increased due to the easy transportation of their hides, along side of the necessity of Buffalo for food, clothing, tools, etc.
8. How did westward expansion fuel U.S. industrialization?
Westward expansion fueled U.S. industrialization for many reasons. One reason is because of the railroad, good were easily transported from one side of the continent to the other, making the production of goods a goal for people. Also, the large population made it easy for goods to get made/ grown because so many people were in the buisness. Along side that, "Food grown on western farms became critical for feeding populations in the East" which was obviously a benefit for the West seeing as their good were needed. Overall, because "The railroads brought goods and people westward, and they also linked western industries to markets in the East" westward expansion fueled U.S. industrialization.