No. I was referring to the one immediately after the civil war where the military leaders waged an open campaign of genocide against entire groups of native peoples. The one you refer to did not involve that, only land-grabbing and relocation with compensation, not genocide. Sherman and many other union "heroes", flush with "victory", were sent west after the civil war and they wasted no time in staining Old Glory with the blood of genocidal conduct. Sherman et al were the proto-Nazis of their time, no doubt. Golly, according to the "logic" of many posters on here, that means the US Flag should be banned. Glad I'm smart enough to understand that there's a bigger picture involved. Think about it before you answer, you might grow a bit.
Wow, I’m so glad that we connected slavery to the North and genocide with that wisp of the keyboard...
"Proto-Nazis"?? Not even close.
By that standard, President George Washington was a "proto-Nazi" for sending troops to to defeat Indians in Ohio. H*ll, anyone who lived before 1933 could be called a "proto-Nazi," and that's just ridiculous.
From the beginning of the American Republic, Indian wars all had the same purpose: to get Indians moving onto treaty-enforced reservations allowing more room for white settlers. There was never an exterminationist ideology behind these wars, except in the sense of making life very difficult for Indians off their reservations.
So, I would argue that overall, American treatment of Indians was no worse than, and in many cases much better than, other European countries in similar circumstances treated other native populations.
Certainly no comparison with Hitler's treatment of Jews and Slavs who fell under his control.