No one disputes that Churchill lacked any evidence of intent. That makes his claim bullshit _even if there was a Mandan genocide_ (and according to serious scholars, there wasn't).
-- Luke
^^^^^^ CB:
According to some serious scholars there was.
Given the wellknown, historical context, the burden of proof is on you and T. Brown to prove there was no genocidal intent on the part of soldiers stationed around Indians in that period.
We all have some general , historical evidence of the intents and purposes of whites confronting Indians on the frontier in that period, especially soldiers. Even though all the witnesses are dead, since at the time the whites didn't consider that being anti-Indian was wrong, many openly confessed general, deadly hate of Indians. I doubt that the legend of the motto "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" reflects no reality of the time. That general anti-Indian ideology is conveyed to us through many sources. That general pattern is _some_ evidence of the states of mind, the mens rea ,of the specific soldiers in the area of the Mandan. It gives rise to a presumption of genocidal intent that is your burden to overcome.