1) In spite of all the polls of sailors I am sure were undertaken your rhetoric is unproven and silly. But it is typical of those trying to change the subject and deflect attention from the actions of the Land of the Whip and the Late;
2) My “argument” has nothing to do with the Indians that was a red herring you decided to throw into the melee as a distraction from discussion of the realities of the Land of the Whip and the Lash.
I wasn't changing the subject. My point was that, in the nineteenth century, Earth was pretty much "the planet of the whip and the lash".
2) My “argument” has nothing to do with the Indians that was a red herring you decided to throw into the melee as a distraction from discussion of the realities of the Land of the Whip and the Lash.
Then let it be MY argument that no one championing the nineteenth century United States has the moral authority to challenge the nineteenth century Confederacy on the treatment of minority populations, given their comparative human rights records. It somehow always surprises me a little when someone proceeds as though US history of that period entitles them upbraid Southerners. Place the weight of the victims of both sections on the balance and the scale tips decidedly against the Union.
I named those generals precisely because they had just previously represented the Union cause on the field of battle and then immediately afterward turned those same armies - with the same banners, equipment, uniforms, and body of enlistment - against large numbers of people, supposedly under the rule of American law, on the basis of their race. Union heroes Sherman, Sheridan, and Chivington were genocidal nutcases who fought a real race war. They did it with the necessary support of a triumphant Union government flush with victory over "the land of the whip and the lash". Perhaps it sooths a nostalgic soul to think of these as two separate wars, with different actors from different times with different motives, allowing for divergent narratives. However, in retrospect, it was really two campaigns in a single war conducted by the same principals. The villain in Act II was a villain back in Act I.