The Spanish did look on the Natives as potential slaves. It created a moral examination back home. The Crown declared a three year moratorium on slavery while they decided the issue of whether or not the Indians had souls and whether they were entitled to the full rights of man. The answer was yes to both questions. It was not always followed but it was another major crack in the foundations of slavery.
In the broad scope of English colonization there was comerce and coexistance with Indians and there were conflicts. The calls for extermination were a frequent response to Indian outrages. The English were as quick to ally themselves with Indians as they were to fight them. The "bilogical warfare" charge hangs on a slim thread, based exclusively on two letters, one from and one to Lord Amherst. It may or may not have happened. These people didn't know what a germ was. If it happened it was a singular incident.
But that was the colonial period. From the constitution's ratification in 1786 is what we are responsible for. George Washington's attitude can be seen in his fifth State of the Union address:
After they shall have provided for the present emergency, it will merit their most serious labors to render tranquillity with the savages permanent by creating ties of interest. Next to a rigorous execution of justice on the violators of peace, the establishment of commerce with the Indian nations in behalf of the United States is most likely to conciliate their attachment. But it ought to be conducted without fraud, without extortion, with constant and plentiful supplies, with a ready market for the commodities of the Indians and a stated price for what they give in payment and receive in exchange.
The U.S. sought peace but those that committed barbarous acts would be hunted down and killed.
Jackson comes closest to your preconception but even he sought expulsion, not extermination. The Supreme Court ruled that his actions were illegal and unconstitutional but had no power to enforce the decision. The long term benefit was that subsequent actions by the executve would be held to judicial review but that did not save the Cherokee.
During the conflicts in Arizona the MOH was generally regarded as a good conduct award. Often they were given for general bravery over a period of time. At that time they were given out rather freely, in fact so freely that later close to 1000 would be rescinded by Congress. I think that about 10 or 12 were awarded to Apache scouts.
The majority of Indian engagements were light skirmishes or ambushes involving few combatants. At the time Indian depradations were so numerous that it was said that there was no white in Arizona that had not had a friend or relative killed by Apaches. To stop the murders the army declared that the reservations (Camp Verde, San Carlos and Fort Apache) were refuges but that any Apache caught off the reservations would be presumed to be hostile. The army held the bulk of the Apaches on the reservations and could have killed them at will. Even known hostiles and murderers were safe on the reservations.
Around Denver in 1863 there were hundreds of murders of innocent whites. At one time the city was completely cut off and no one could enter or leave. This was the prelude to the Sand Creek Massacre. Black Kettle's band was not innocent although it was the innocents that would eventually pay. There were few men in the camp and at the same time there were dozens of murders up and down the eastern slope. The men from that camp weren't down at the sports bar.
In Arizona there were calls for the extermination of the Indians. The murders were so frequent and so numerous that it is quite understandable that the people were calling for revenge. But the extermination never happened. Even Geronimo, when he was captured in 1886, had to be whisked to Holbrook and put on a train to keep him out of the hands of the Pima County sheriff, who had an indictment for the murder of a man and his eight year old son. The old drunk should have hanged.
post #35
ward churchill.