The Battle of the Wabash, the Battle of Wabash River, St. Clair's Defeat or the Battle of a Thousand Slain, was a battle fought on 4 November 1791 in the Northwest Territory of the United States of America. The U.S. Army faced the Western Confederacy of Native Americans, as part of the Northwest Indian War.

The Native Americans were led by Little Turtle of the Miamis, Blue Jacket of the Shawnees, and Buckongahelas of the Delawares (Lenape). The war party numbered more than 1,000 warriors, including many Potawatomis from eastern Michigan and the Saint Joseph. The opposing force of about 1,000 Americans was led by General Arthur St. Clair. The forces of the American Indian confederacy attacked at dawn, taking St. Clair's men by surprise. Of the 1,000 officers and men that St. Clair led into battle, only 24 escaped unharmed. As a result, President George Washington forced St. Clair to resign his post, and Congress initiated its first investigation of the executive branch.

The casualty rate was the highest percentage ever suffered by a United States Army unit and included St. Clair's second in command, Richard Butler. Of the 52 officers engaged, 39 were killed and 7 wounded; around 88% of all officers had become casualties. After two hours St. Clair ordered a retreat, which quickly turned into a rout. "It was, in fact, a flight," St. Clair described a few days later in a letter to the Secretary of War. The American casualty rate among the soldiers, was 97.4 percent, including 632 of 920 killed (69%) and 264 wounded. Nearly all of the 200 camp followers were slaughtered, for a total of 832 Americans killed. Approximately one-quarter of the entire U.S. Army had been wiped out. Only 24 of the 920 officers and men engaged came out of it unscathed. The survivors included Benjamin Van Cleve and his uncle Robert Benham; van Cleve was one the few who were unharmed. Native casualties were about 61, with at least 21 killed.

The number of U.S. soldiers killed during this engagement was more than three times the number the Sioux would kill 85 years later at the Battle of Little Big Horn. Historian William Hogeland calls it "the high-water mark in resistance to white expansion. No comparable Indian victory would follow."

Comprehensive list of resources for those in need of an abortion :feminism:

Resources for Palestine :palestine-heart:

Here are some resourses on Prison Abolition :brick-police:

Foundations of Leninism :USSR:

:lenin-shining: :unity: :kropotkin-shining:

Anarchism and Other Essays :ancom:

Remember, sort by new you :LIB:

Follow the Hexbear twitter account :comrade-birdie:

THEORY; it’s good for what ails you (all kinds of tendencies inside!) :RIchard-D-Wolff:

COMMUNITY CALENDAR - AN EXPERIMENT IN PROMOTING USER ORGANIZING EFFORTS :af:

Come listen to music with your fellow Hexbears in Cy.tube :og-hex-bear:

Queer stuff? Come talk in the Queer version of the megathread ! :sicko-queer:

Monthly Neurodiverse Megathread and Monthly ND Venting Thread :Care-Comrade:

Join the fresh and beautiful batch of new comms:

!worldbuilding@hexbear.net :european-soviet:

!labour@hexbear.net :iww:

!emoji@hexbear.net :meow-anarchist: :meow-tankie:

!cars@hexbear.net :no-police:

  • Good_Username [they/them,e/em/eir]
    ·
    3 years ago

    The God Delusion (Richard Dawkins) is shaping up to be such a fun hate read! I'm still in the preface and it's just full of out-of-touch gems. He says on page one that in a world without religion, there would be "no suicide bombers, no 9/11, ..., no Indian partition, no Israeli/Palestinian wars, ..., no Northern Ireland troubles, ..." It's just laughably bad to say religion is single-handedly to blame for these things, but he certainly does so! Hilarious.

    Then, 4 pages later, we get this gem: "The status of atheists in America today is on a par with that of homosexuals fifty years ago." Keep in mind, he wrote this in 2006. I had no trouble whatsoever being open about being an atheist in 2006, but we were still using "gay" as an insult then. So no, atheists aren't persecuted in any way that's remotely similar to gay people and the only reason Dawkins could say so is because he's never experienced anything but intense privilege.

    I haven't even gotten into any of his arguments, but I've been assured by my sister that they're hilariously terrible. I'm looking forward to it.

      • Good_Username [they/them,e/em/eir]
        ·
        3 years ago

        Fucking right?! Like, way to ignore everything real about that conflict Dawkins. Good for you. I wonder if he's an idiot who seriously believes his own shit or if he's a lying grifter saying what he knows people want to hear. I really can't tell.

        • thethirdgracchi [he/him, they/them]
          ·
          3 years ago

          Definitely the former. Guy spits out the worst possible takes on Twitter all day. And some of them are so unhinged it's impossible to imagine somebody just making them up because he thinks that's what people want to hear.

      • Good_Username [they/them,e/em/eir]
        ·
        3 years ago

        It's a real puzzle to me how anyone in a position to be writing a whole ass "academic" book can make a claim like that with a straight face. It's just so obviously wrong it's hard to believe anyone interested in truth would even write it. Which suggests, of course, that Dawkins isn't actually interested in truth, which is something to keep in mind as I read more of it.

    • SteamedHamberder [he/him]
      ·
      3 years ago

      Its actually kind of unfortunate that Dawkins turned into such a raging CHUD. "The Selfish Gene" was a good book about evolutionary biology. Dawkins just swore vengeance on religion because he kept getting trolled by creationists.