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.
1) No, it was not. Whether you admit it or not the United States was one of the islands of freedom scattered about the globe. That is an important factor in the desire of so many to come here, still is.
2) “Southerners” are not being upbraided by me. They were terribly afflicted by their ruling class’ insane policies. Non-slave owners in the South were enslaved by the requirements of slavery, not the least of which was being dragooned into Slave Patrols. Nor was it possible for whites to speak against the Slaver system without great danger to their lives and livelihoods.
There is no question that there was more freedom for blacks and whites outside the Land of the Whip and the Lash. It is not even a debatable point. Any freedom Southerners had was easily available to Northerners but not vice-versa.
Most of the elements of non-freedom were the results of enforcing such abominations as the Fugitive Slave laws enacted, of course, by the Slaver politicians North and South.
Union armies were mostly disbanded after the war other than those necessary to prevent the wholesale slaughter of the Freedmen. The small armies sent West mainly occupied posts.
It was the Republican administrations which mostly treated the Indian properly while the Democrats proceeded in a questionable fashion.
The Indian Wars were not related to the Civil War in any important fashion unless one is trying to hide the facts about the Slaver Revolt. Additionally, it is undeniable that the conflict between Indian and American was primarily the result of irreconcilable cultures and pretty much inevitable. It isn’t as though white people treated other white people all that well in the 19th century to start with.