Re: fwd: How Lincoln's Army 'Liberated' the Indians
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Patrick Griffin" <pgriffin@...> wrote:
>~what little defense could be made was made, and fought honorably so.
> War is Hell. Wheeler's calvary did a number on the Southrons, "impressing" (stealing) anything that quacked, mooed, cackled, or looked tasty. Sherman's troops were a rough set of patriots who, rightfully resented the empty rhetoric of the rebels. As a Union man observed, "I want to see that 'last ditch'." He did, it was probably at Sailor's Creek ( Sayler's Creek), which was the Grand Skedaddle of the Army of Northern Virginia.
> As to your whine about Sherman: A significant portion of the looters, bummers, were Southrons, Shiftless Niggers and their redneck, po white trash companions.~not even half.
Which category are you?
~bet you wouldnt ask that in person, online smack talk is honorable as butlers reign in New Orleans
The American Enterprise Institute has no credibility re the Civil War. They are out of their area of expertise there. Of course, they are out of their area of competence in almost all areas.
> Realistically, what did Dixie expect? You listened to Calhoun and not Houston. Southrons were the equal to their fellow Americans, but woefully inadequate in most ways. Mostly, the Confederacy, by force of circumstances, engaged in defensive battle.~Because the South was defending thier land... and really, mostly? Shiloh..Perryville...malvern hill... chancellorsville...g,burg..shenendoah...Franklin... Chickamuagua... maybe youve heard of some of those?
The 'school' solution was 3-1. Rarely did the Union forces enjoy that ratio. Lee and Hood sought victory by assaults a la Fredricksburg' on prepared positions. Silly boys. The Virginia Corps(?) was reduced to a corporal's guard.
> I guess what I am saying is the discussion group is supposed to be about the War in the Western Theater. You bring in the post-war Indian policy, et al. You can engage in all the rhetoric you want but realize that N. B. Forrest stated that we were "whipped"
- Please Knight Hawk do not promote an arguement that attempts to rewrite the actions of a military organization without explaining to your audience the context in which the actions occured. An army is a killing unit trained to kill and destroy an enemy and that enemy's assests. No more-no less. If you want to explain the actions of an army in any historical context just keep that one thought in mind. A Commander-in-Chief does not send in an army where a well trained police organization should go and vice versa. Sherman was a soldier. His actions, no matter how distasteful to your sensibilities, was fully necessary to end the war. His personal beliefs about his enemy are not relevant. If you don't like what an army can do to to an enemy, don't participate. Better yet as Commander-in-Chief don't start a war in the first place.
We as a nation have not learned any lessons from our past wars. We have maintained the same kind of thinking as Shermand and Grant,but now we are using a highter degree of technology to win. In the context of history, nothing has changed. Your criticism of these soldiers is misplaced unless you work to change that thinking.
--- In email@example.com, Knight Hawk <cherokeeraven@...> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Knight Hawk <cherokeeraven@...>
> Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2012 10:08 PM
> Subject: How Lincoln's Army 'Liberated' the Indians
> How Lincoln's Army 'Liberated' the Indians
> How Lincoln's Army 'Liberated' the Indians
> by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
> In a recent issue of The American Enterprise magazine devoted to the
> War between the States (see my LRC article, "AEI is Still Fighting the
> Civil War") Victor Hanson, a visiting professor at the U.S. Naval
> Academy, defends and makes excuses for Lincoln's intentional waging of
> war on Southern civilians. This included the bombing, pillaging and
> plundering of their cities and towns, the burning of their homes, total
> destruction of farms and livestock, gang rape, and the killing of
> thousands, including women and children of all races. (See Merchant of
> Terror: General Sherman and Total War by John Bennett Walters or The
> Hard Hand of War by Mark Grimsley).
> It was all justified, says Hanson, because General Sherman and his men
> were supposedly motivated by the belief that it was necessary "to
> guarantee the American proposition that each man is as good as
> another." Sherman's "bummers," as they were called, were "political
> avenging angels" who were offended by racial inequalities in the South.
> They were driven by "an ideological furor, to destroy the nature of
> Southern aristocracy." The "tyrannical Southern ruling class" needed to
> be taught a lesson. (Besides, he writes, "rapes during [Sherman's]
> march were almost unknown)."
> In reality, neither Sherman nor his soldiers believed any of these
> things. (And rapes were not as "unknown" to the Southern people as they
> are to Hanson). In the Northern states at the time, myriad Black Codes
> existed that prohibited blacks from migrating into most Northern states
> and kept them from entering into contracts, voting, marrying whites,
> testifying in court against whites (which invited criminal abuse), or
> sending their children to public schools. They were excluded altogether
> from all forms of transportation or required to sit in special "Jim
> Crow sections." They were prohibited from entering hotels, restaurants
> or resorts except as servants, and were segregated in churches,
> prisons, and even cemeteries. Free blacks in the North in the 1860s
> were cruelly discriminated against in every aspect of their existence,
> and were denied the most fundamental of citizenship rights
> Sherman himself certainly did not believe that "each man is as good as
> another." For example, in 1862 Sherman was bothered that "the country"
> was "swarming with dishonest Jews" (see Michael Fellman, Citizen
> Sherman, p. 153). He got his close friend, General Grant, to expel all
> Jews from his army. As Fellman writes, "On December 17, 1862, Grant . .
> . , like a medieval monarch . . . expelled `The Jews, as a class,' from
> his department." Sherman biographer Fellman further writes that to
> Sherman, the Jews were "like niggers" and "like greasers (Mexicans) or
> Indians" in that they were "classes or races permanently inferior to
> his own."
> The notion that Sherman's army was motivated by a belief that all men
> are created equal is belied by the further fact that just three months
> after General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox the very same
> army commenced a campaign of ethnic genocide against the Plains
> Indians. In July of 1865 Sherman was put in charge of the Military
> District of the Missouri (all land west of the Mississippi) and given
> the assignment to eradicate the Plains Indians in order to make way for
> the federally subsidized transcontinental railroad. Like Lincoln,
> Sherman was a friend of Grenville Dodge, the chief engineer of the
> project. He was also a railroad investor and he lobbied his brother,
> Senator John Sherman, to allocate federal funds for the
> transcontinental railroad. "We are not going to let a few thieving,
> ragged Indians stop and check the progress of the railroad," he wrote
> to General Grant in 1867 (Fellman, p. 264). As Fellman writes:
> [T]he great triumvirate of the Union Civil War effort [Grant, Sherman
> and Sheridan] formulated and enacted military Indian policy until
> reaching, by The 1880s, what Sherman sometimes referred to as "the
> final solution of the Indian problem," which he defined as killing
> hostile Indians and segregating their pauperized survivors in remote
> places . . . . These men applied their shared ruthlessness, born of
> their Civil War experiences, against a people all three despised, in
> the name of Civilization and Progress (emphasis added).
> Another Sherman biographer, John F. Marszalek, points out in Sherman: A
> Soldier's Passion for Order, that "Sherman viewed Indians as he viewed
> recalcitrant Southerners during the war and newly freed people after
> the war: resisters to the legitimate forces of an orderly society," by
> which he meant the central government. Moreover, writes Marszalek,
> Sherman's philosophy was that "since the inferior Indians refused to
> step aside so superior American culture could create success and
> progress, they had to be driven out of the way as the Confederates had
> been driven back into the Union."
> "Most of the other generals who took a direct role in the Indian wars,
> writes Marszalek, "were, like Sherman, [Union] Civil War luminaries."
> This included "John Pope, O.O. Howard, Nelson A. Miles, Alfred H.
> Terry, E.O.C. Ord, C.C. Augeur, and R.S. Canby. General Winfield Scott
> Hancock should be added to this list of "luminaries." Among the
> colonels, "George Armstrong Custer and Benjamin Grierson were the most
> Sherman and General Phillip Sheridan were associated with the statement
> that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian." The problem with the
> Indians, Sherman said, was that "they did not make allowance for the
> rapid growth of the white race" (Marszalek, p. 390). And, "both races
> cannot use this country in common" (Fellman, p. 263).
> Sherman's theory of white racial superiority is what led him to the
> policy of waging war against the Indians "till the Indians are all
> killed or taken to a country where they can be watched." As Fellman (p.
> 264) writes:
> Sherman planted a racist tautology: Some Indians are thieving, killing
> rascals fit for death; all Indians look alike; therefore, to get some
> we must eliminate all . . . deduced from this racist tautology . . .
> the less destructive policy would be racial cleansing of the land . . .
> Accordingly, Sherman wrote to Grant: "We must act with vindictive
> earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women
> and children." Writing two days later to his brother John, General
> Sherman said: "I suppose the Sioux must be exterminated . . ."
> (Fellman, p. 264).
> This was Sherman's attitude toward Southerners during the War for
> Southern Independence as well. In a July 31, 1862 letter to his wife
> (from his Collected Works) he wrote that his purpose in the war was:
> "Extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the
> trouble, but the [Southern] people." His charming and nurturing wife
> Ellen wrote back that her fondest wish was for a war "of extermination
> and that all [Southerners] would be driven like the Swine into the
> With this attitude, Sherman issued the following order to his troops at
> the beginning of the Indian Wars: "During an assault, the soldiers
> cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even
> discriminate as to age. As long as resistance is made, death must be
> meted out . . ." (Marszalek, p. 379).
> Most of the raids on Indian camps were conducted in the winter, when
> families would be together and could therefore all be killed at once.
> Sherman gave Sheridan "authorization to slaughter as many women and
> children as well as men Sheridan or his subordinates felt was necessary
> when they attacked Indian villages" (Fellman, p. 271). All livestock
> was also killed so that any survivors would be more likely to starve to
> Sherman was once brought before a congressional committee after federal
> Indian agents, who were supposed to be supervising the Indians who were
> on reservations, witnessed "the horror of women and children under
> military attack." Nothing came of the hearings, however. Sherman
> ordered his subordinates to kill the Indians without restraint to
> achieve what he called "the final solution of the Indian problem," and
> promised that if the newspapers found out about it he would "run
> interference against any complaints about atrocities back East"
> (Fellman, p. 271).
> Eight years into his war of "extermination" Sherman was bursting with
> pride over his accomplishments. "I am charmed at the handsome conduct
> of our troops in the field," he wrote Sheridan in 1874. "They go in
> with the relish that used to make our hearts glad in 1864-5" (Fellman,
> p. 272).
> Another part of Sherman's "final solution" strategy against this
> "inferior race" was the massive slaughter of buffalo, a primary source
> of food for the Indians. If there were no longer any buffalo near where
> the railroad traveled, he reasoned, then the Indians would not go there
> either. By 1882 the American buffalo was essentially extinct.
> Ironically, some ex-slaves took part in the Indian wars. Known as the
> "Buffalo Soldiers," they assisted in the federal army's campaign of
> extermination against another colored race.
> By 1890 Sherman's "final solution" had been achieved: The Plains
> Indians were all either killed or placed on reservations "where they
> can be watched." In a December 18, 1890 letter to the New York Times
> Sherman expressed his deep disappointment over the fact that, were it
> not for "civilian interference," his army would have "gotten rid of
> them all" and killed every last Indian in the U.S. (Marszalek, p. 400).
> To Victor Hanson and the American Enterprise Institute this is the kind
> of man who "deserves a place on the roll call of great liberators in
> human history." Native Americans would undoubtedly disagree.
> February 12, 2003
> Thomas J. DiLorenzo [send him mail] is the author of the LRC #1
> bestseller, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His
> Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Forum/Random House, 2002) and professor
> of economics at Loyola College in Maryland.
> Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com