Will Attacks on Monuments Include Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan?

Newsmax ^ | 28 Aug 2017 | Larry Bell

[Javeth]

We are witnessing a growing trend of angry attempts to erase past racial injustices through attacks upon Civil War monuments, those symbolically associated with a tragic era of slavery.

Inflamed by violence leading to a death characterized in the media as a "white supremacist rally" protesting removal of a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia hundreds of other statues, markers and other symbols memorializing important Confederate figures and events are now also under siege throughout the nation.

If we are to erase evidence and symbols of historical injustices, where does this end? After all, why stop with Confederate leaders when great blame for racial intolerance and misery can be attributed to Northern leaders for terrible oppressions directed to indigenous Indian populations?

Injustices against people like my great grandmother’s Winnebago tribal members who were forcibly relocated to reservations in Minnesota and Nebraska, for example.

So if we’re really serious about removing public memorials to "white supremacists," shouldn’t those who perpetrated devastating racial assaults upon true Native Americans be included? And why not begin with Grant’s Tomb in New York, N.Y.?

I’m referring, of course, to President Ulysses S. Grant, whose administration transferred vast tribal lands to private pioneers, land speculators, and railroad and mining companies.

If not actual genocide, his solution to the "Indian problem" certainly influenced a cultural genocide. As he explained, "I see no substitute for such a system, except in placing all the Indians on large reservations, as rapidly as it can be done."

As white settlers continued to push Indians off their tribal lands, those on reservations experienced increasing poverty and desperation. Meanwhile, Grant’s administration oversaw the completion of the First Transcontinental Railroad and the great slaughters of the Plains buffalo which destroyed their traditional ways of life.

Rebellions against Grant’s Indian "peace policies" led to tragic massacres and military conflicts. Included were the Modoc War in California, the Red River War in Texas, the Nez Perce conflict in Oregon, and the Black Hills campaign and Battle of the Little Bighorn led by George Armstrong Custer.

Efforts by great chiefs such as Sitting Bull, Chief Joseph, Geronimo and Cochise who led battles to preserve their lands and ways of life were ultimately defeated. They were no match for frontier generals commanding ever-growing armies and devastating weaponry.

As Oglala Chief Red Cloud told Grant upon visiting the White House in 1870, "The riches we have in this world . . . we cannot take with us to the next world. . . . "Then I wish to know why agents are sent out to us who do nothing but rob us and get the riches of this world away from us."

Grant predicted in 1874 that "a few years more will relieve our frontiers from danger of Indian depredations." Assisted by another Union leader, his prediction was provident.

General William Tecumseh Sherman who began his military career under then-General Grant in the first Battle of Bull Run of 1862 worked to bring about a "final Indian solution." In 1865 Sherman assumed command of a campaign against the Plains Indians in support of powerful politically-connected interests, including corporations involved in building the transcontinental railroads.

Following the War Between the States and his 1864 "scorched-earth" torching of Atlanta and pillaging of civilian properties which laid waste to lives and livelihoods along a large swath of Northern Georgia, Sherman renewed his Indian extermination conquest. In 1865 he was given command of the Military District of the Missouri which commenced a 25-year-long war against the Plains Indians.

As Sherman wrote to Grant in 1867, "We are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians check and stop the progress [of the railroads]." He clearly described his assigned Indian extermination objective as being "to prosecute the war with vindictive earnestness . . . till [the Indians] are obliterated or beg for mercy."

Sherman assured his subordinate General Philip H. Sheridan, "I will back you with my whole authority, and stand between you and any efforts that may be attempted in your rear to restrain your purpose or check your troops." This referred to prior authorization to kill as many women and children that Sheridan and his subordinates thought necessary when attacking Indian villages.

Both Sherman and Sheridan are forever associated with the slogan "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." So let’s also schedule the two large Washington, D.C. equestrian monuments dedicated to Sherman and Sheridan for demolition too.

Alternatively, we might heed some advice offered by Texas Governor Greg Abbot in an American Statesman article, "We must remember that our history isn’t perfect. If we do not learn from our history, we are doomed to repeat it . . . instead of trying to bury our past, we must learn from it and ensure it doesn’t happen again." He added that "tearing down" those symbols won’t change the past, nor will it help the nation’s future."

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Brother Joe, your last, on target, post to me was #204. You gallantly, but wrongheadedly, defended Sherman's genocidal aspirations."

As always, a gross mischaracterization from jeffersondem.
Much to your disappointment, I'm sure, nobody defends either "genocide" or "genocidal aspirations".
But what do those words mean, and is that really what Sherman expressed?
So let's consider some examples:
Clearly, Auschwitz was genocide, no dispute over definitions there.
But, on the other extreme, suppose now that when Cain murdered Abel, he cried out, "Take that, you Jew", do those words make it "genocide"?
No, let's not be silly.

Sherman is here talking to Grant about how to defeat the Sioux who knowingly invaded our Crow ally treaty lands.
Sherman's recommendation clearly implies using as much force as is necessary, but Grant rejected Sherman's advice and the results, as Sherman could have predicted, was Sioux victory, US & Crow defeat.

So I don't see "genocidal aspirations" in Sherman's words, only a recommendation on how win Red Cloud's War.
And since Sherman's recommendation was rejected, and the war lost, "genocide" or "extermination" are not part of that picture.

jeffersondem: "Since, you have leveled a personal attack and folded in some references to Shakespeare and roses.
IFF to add distraction to diversion."

All and only in response to jeffersondem's off-topic diversions.

jeffersondem: "have you resigned?"

I never "resign", but am often occupied elsewhere.
And I do occasionally miss responding to a post needing one.
Based on your comments above, though, seems maybe I don't miss enough, right?

jeffersondem: "If you are still in the discussion and have a hankering to defend extermination talk, start with this:"

By some counts the US fought 40 wars, by my count it was 52, against various Indian tribes over ~100 years.
In those wars, thousands of settlers/soldiers and Native Americans died at each others' hands.
So one can imagine that on occasion some of their tempers & words got rather hot.

But the American plan was always reservations, not genocide or extermination.
And census numbers from the time do not show either genocide or extermination.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Bankers? As i've pointed out before, they are merely one group among many that would have been affected negatively by the South trading directly with Europe."

And I have often reminded DiogenesLamp, but he refuses to acknowledge, that those people were all then, and remain today, Democrats -- in 1861 erstwhile political, economic & social friends, allies & partners to the Deep South Planters who first declared their secession and then war on the United States.

In the beginning (late 1860), Northern Democrats, centered then as now in our big cities, remained highly sympathetic to their Deep South planter friends and said, in effect, "depart in peace, wayward sisters".
But as weeks passed, it became clearer and clearer that Northern Democrats would be the first and biggest victims of Southern independence.

The result was not that Northern big-city Democrats "pushed" Republicans to war, but rather that they reluctantly supported Civil War when it came, sort of.
Think of Union General McClellan and his "ilk", typical Democrats, wanted war only to demonstrate enough strength to sign a "peace without victory" treaty.
Once war was won, Northern Democrats quickly rejoined their Southern Democrat allies, restoring "politics as usual" until the great 1960s switcheroo.

[DiogenesLamp]

No "foregone conclusions" because Lincoln's orders were not to land "more troops and arms" if no resistance. In that case, basic supplies only.

Except that's not what the orders sent to the ships said, and those orders went out before the Pickens letter. It also begs the question, why send 300 riflemen and powder and such if you have no intention to off load them? You also forget, the Confederates knew what the ship's orders were, because they had spies and sympathizers all through the Navy at the time. That's why they were expecting those ships, and that's why the sighting of those ships was the trigger for the attack on Sumter.

It further begs the question, if you (the Union) are asserting control over that Fort, then why would you tolerate conditions regarding how you use it? Who's business is it if you want to reinforce as opposed to resupply?

Trigger?? So they were all modern students of psychology concerned with "trigger words", "virtue signaling" & "safe spaces"??

You want to make lame jokes about a choice of words? Would the word "initiate", or "Commence" or "Start", a war, be more satisfactory to you? The point remains. Most of the Cabinet agreed, sending those ships would "cause" a war. It did cause a war, yet slick Lawyer Lincoln made it look like the other guy started it, even though he knew full well he started it.

[DiogenesLamp]

But Americans did not break from the UK in 1776, they merely confirmed the break declared by Britain beginning in 1774 with their abrogation of Massachusetts charter of self government and including Britain's 1775 "Proclamation of Rebellion"

Just stop it. Nobody wants to hear your cockamamie justifications for how the Revolutionary war was good, and the War for Southern independence was bad.

The Congress officially declared (By the Authority of Nature and of Nature's God) the United States to be a separate nation by the Declaration of Independence, and it's given date was July 4, 1776. Just stop with the nonsense.

Those made the US Declaration of Independence a matter of total necessity, which our Founders well understood and supported.

It wasn't a matter of necessity because Canada did not declare independence along with us, as they would have, had it been an actual matter of necessity.

It was "at pleasure", but *YOU* keep trying to claim it was a dire and absolute necessity. It wasn't. That's just the spin you want because you keep trying to drive a wedge in between what happened in 1776, and what happened in 1860.

Founders considered secession "at pleasure" nothing more than rebellion, insurrection and domestic violence, which to a man Founders opposed.

Nowhere did anyone say anything remotely like these words you keep trying to put in their mouths. King George III considered the Colonies secession to be "at pleasure" and absolutely not a matter of necessity.

So since we are taking Abraham Lincoln's position on "at pleasure," we must use the same standard and take King George's position that it was "at pleasure."

You have two choices. Either take the Rebelling sides claims of "necessity", or take the King's side of "at pleasure." You don't get to apply one standard to one war, and the opposite standard to the other war.

[DiogenesLamp]

And I have often reminded DiogenesLamp, but he refuses to acknowledge, that those people were all then, and remain today, Democrats

The term is meaningless between that era and this one. A more accurate way of comparing the different groups is by noting that one side was "Big City Liberals" and the other was "Rural Conservatives."

Hamiltonians vs Jacksonians. That more accurately reflects the great divide in the nation both back then, and today.

The Big City areas are surrounded by blue, and they represent pretty much the same areas and divergence of thought that existed in 1860 as well.

[DiogenesLamp]

Thanks for your essay on "virtue signaling".

You are welcome. It is a very descriptive and useful term, and the liberals hate it. :)

You're right, I'm out of touch, still don't quite "get it".

Nowadays being "out of touch" is actually a badge of merit. Who can keep up with the nonsense we are bombarded with on a daily basis? Being "out of touch" means you haven't been polluted with a bunch of made up nonsense that passes for "awareness" in modern America.

[jeffersondem]

“Clearly, Auschwitz was genocide, no dispute over definitions there.But, on the other extreme, suppose now that when Cain murdered Abel, he cried out, “Take that, you Jew”, do those words make it “genocide”? No, let's not be silly.”

Some experts argue that a single genocidal action does not necessarily equate to genocide. The question then becomes how many genocidal acts does it take to make recognizable genocide?

Cain's action, as you capably argue, was murder, not genocide.

Your point is well taken. Reasonable people can argue that the actions of Sherman and Chivington - in killing Indian men, women, and children - were like Cain's action: just murder not genocide.

Mass murder, for sure, and criminal by any definition, but still not full-on genocide.

I don't necessarily agree with that argument because I know of Sherman's earlier advocacy of exterminating men, women, and children during Lincoln's War.

But to argue Sherman's and Chivington’s actions in killing Indian men, women and children were mass murderer and not genocide - yes, there is a reasonable argument for that position based on order of magnitude.

[x]

In the beginning (late 1860), Northern Democrats, centered then as now in our big cities, remained highly sympathetic to their Deep South planter friends and said, in effect, "depart in peace, wayward sisters".
But as weeks passed, it became clearer and clearer that Northern Democrats would be the first and biggest victims of Southern independence.
The result was not that Northern big-city Democrats "pushed" Republicans to war, but rather that they reluctantly supported Civil War when it came, sort of.
Think of Union General McClellan and his "ilk", typical Democrats, wanted war only to demonstrate enough strength to sign a "peace without victory" treaty.

That might be a great topic for somebody looking for a research project.

Democrats were definitely walking a tight-rope when it came to slavery, secession and war.

There were different factions in the party with views that I'm not really familiar with, but it looks like they coalesced around the idea of a negotiated peace during the 1864 presidential campaign.

Interesting (but long) articles on Horatio Seymour and the New York Democrats.

The idea of just waving goodbye to the rebel states, though, may have been more widely felt in commercial circles in general, not just among Democrats.

Rather than actively pushing for war, many merchants and bankers wanted as little disruption of trade as possible and were willing to accept secession in early 1861.

[x]

No 19th century government would have been willing to let Indians stay on land once gold had been discovered on it.

Or rather, any 19th century government that let Indians keep the gold fields would have found its hand forced by public outcry and an inrush of White settlers, which would leave the government no choice but to quickly evict the natives if office-holders wanted to keep their jobs and prevent settlers from taking matters into their own hands.

Indeed, there was a connection between the smaller Georgia Gold Rush that started in 1829 and the removal of the Indian tribes two years later.

A century later things had changed and Oklahoma Indians were allowed to keep the money from oil discovered on their land.

Then there began a strange series of murders of Indians by gangs who wanted their money.

In any case, nobody was going to let the Dakota keep the Black Mountains once gold had been discovered.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Except that's not what the orders sent to the ships said, and those orders went out before the Pickens letter.
It also begs the question, why send 300 riflemen and powder and such if you have no intention to off load them? "

Yes, Lincoln's final orders to his commanders said exactly what he told SC Governor Pickens: no first use of force, no reinforcements if resupply is not resisted.
A minimum of troops were there to reinforce, but only if required, and Confederates fully understood it.

DiogenesLamp: "You also forget, the Confederates knew what the ship's orders were, because they had spies and sympathizers all through the Navy at the time.
That's why they were expecting those ships, and that's why the sighting of those ships was the trigger for the attack on Sumter. "

In fact, you don't know what Confederates knew or didn't know, you just assume what makes sense.
But Confederates certainly knew Major Anderson refused to surrender so long as his supplies lasted, after that he'd surrender.
So the arrival of new supplies delayed his day of surrender, that's all.
The decision to use that delay as his excuse to launch war was Jefferson Davis', period.

DiogenesLamp: "It further begs the question, if you (the Union) are asserting control over that Fort, then why would you tolerate conditions regarding how you use it?
Who's business is it if you want to reinforce as opposed to resupply? "

Exactly, and that's just what President Buchanan thought when he sent the Star of the West to resupply Sumter in January, a mission aborted when secessionists fired on that Union ship.
So Lincoln's resupply mission was a bit stronger, but still based on the idea that peaceful resupply, if normal & expected, should not be opposed.

DiogenesLamp: "...slick Lawyer Lincoln made it look like the other guy started it, even though he knew full well he started it."

Say that as often as you wish, the fact still remains that Confederates first demanded surrender then launched military assault to force it on Fort Sumter.
That was war, Lincoln's resupply ships were not.

Now let me add, if you read the newspapers of the time, especially the Richmond Dispatch, they were not bashful or embarrassed to say what happened at Fort Sumter.
On April 12, 1861 the Richmond Dispatch reported:

"The war has commenced.
Yesterday morning, at 4½ o'clock, the batteries of the Confederate troops in Charleston harbor opened fire on ← Fort Sumter → "

They didn't say "Lincoln started war at Fort Sumter!", no they accurately reported: Confederate troops opened fire on Fort Sumter.
Only much later did apologists like DiogenesLamp take pains to blame Lincoln for what Confederates did.

And let's add correspondence DiogenesLamp partially posted before, because it's telling:

"Charleston April 8, 1861.
To L. P. Walker
Dear Sir
--An authorized messenger from Lincoln has just informed Gov. Pickens and myself that provisions will be sent to ← Fort Sumter → , "peaceably if they can, forcibly if they must."
G. T. Beauregard.

[no. 2.] reply of the Secretary of War to Gen. Beauregard.
Montgomery April 10, 1861.
To Gen.Beauregard, Charleston:

If you have no doubt of the authorized character of the agent who communicated to you the intention of the Washington Government to supply ← Fort Sumter → by force, you will at once demand its evacuation; and if this is refused, proceed in such a manner as you may determine to reduce it. Answer.
L. P. Walker."

Note that Confederate General Beauregard reported accurately Lincoln's intentions, but was ordered to "reduce" Fort Sumter.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Just stop it.
Nobody wants to hear your cockamamie justifications for how the Revolutionary war was good, and the War for Southern independence was bad. "

Sorry, but it's your cockamamie nonsense equating 1776 Founders to 1861 secessionists which grates against everyone who knows real history.
There's no favorable comparison, and you should just stop trying to draw one.

DiogenesLamp: "The Congress officially declared (By the Authority of Nature and of Nature's God) the United States to be a separate nation by the Declaration of Independence, and it's given date was July 4, 1776.
Just stop with the nonsense. "

But only after Brits had first revoked Americans' charter of self government, imposing direct British rule, then formally declared Americans in rebellion, and began to wage war on Americans.
Nothing remotely resembling those events happened in 1860, and you should just stop with nonsense pretending it did.

DiogenesLamp: "It wasn't a matter of necessity because Canada did not declare independence along with us, as they would have, had it been an actual matter of necessity."

But Canadians did not have their charter of government revoked in 1774, were not declared in rebellion in 1775 and were not waged war against by the British long before July 4, 1776.

DiogenesLamp: "It was 'at pleasure', but *YOU* keep trying to claim it was a dire and absolute necessity. It wasn't.
That's just the spin you want because you keep trying to drive a wedge in between what happened in 1776, and what happened in 1860. "

But it's totally fake history to claim some comparison between 1776 Founders and 1861 secessionists.
The 1776 necessity for Independence was obvious and expressed:

1. "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another"

2. "Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. "

3. "We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."

No similar necessity drove 1861 secessionists.
That's why their declarations of secession were "at pleasure" and as such simple rebellion in our Founders' minds.

DiogenesLamp: "Nowhere did anyone say anything remotely like these words you keep trying to put in their mouths."

No, every Founder in word and deed expressed their opposition to "at pleasure" rebellion.
Consider these examples:

1. The 1787 Constitutional Convention was called, in part, as Founders' response to Shaw's Rebellion.
   They needed government which could put it down.

2. President Washington responded to the Whiskey Rebellion by raising & leading an army to suppress it.
   This army was also lead by RE Lee's Dad, Light Horse Harry Lee.

3. President Jefferson responded to his former VP Burr's attempt to lead the secession of Louisiana by having Burr arrested and tried for treason.

4. President Madison responded to the Hartford Convention's threatened secession by sending US troops from the border with Canada into position to invade New England, if necessary.

So there's no doubt our Founders opposed secession & rebellion "at pleasure" in both word & deed.
For them, "necessity" was a much different matter.

DiogenesLamp: "King George III considered the Colonies secession to be "at pleasure" and absolutely not a matter of necessity. "

That's just more of your cockamamie fake history.
In fact, King George had already imposed his dictatorship, rebellion & war on Americans, beginning years before the 1776 Declaration of Independence.
So it was total necessity, nothing "at pleasure" about it.

DiogenesLamp: "You have two choices. Either take the Rebelling sides claims of "necessity", or take the King's side of "at pleasure."
You don't get to apply one standard to one war, and the opposite standard to the other war."

Total cockamamie nonsense which even DiogenesLamp should be able to clearly see.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The term is meaningless between that era and this one.
A more accurate way of comparing the different groups is by noting that one side was "Big City Liberals" and the other was "Rural Conservatives." "

Far from "meaningless" since, as it happens, Big City Liberals from almost Day One have been Democrats.
Until the 1960s they were allied politically with rural & small town Southern Democrats.
After the 1960s most rural/small town Southerners joined other rural/small town Americans as Republicans, and blacks switched in-mass to join Big City Liberals & immigrants as Democrats.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Reasonable people can argue that the actions of Sherman and Chivington - in killing Indian men, women, and children - were like Cain's action: just murder not genocide.
Mass murder, for sure, and criminal by any definition, but still not full-on genocide."

Your words quoting Sherman's letter to Grant notwithstanding, I've seen no evidence, none, of Sherman committing "mass murder", "extermination", "genocide" or "war crimes".
I'm not saying here that every one of the 52-some wars between the US and Native American tribes was conducted strictly according to Marquees of Queensbury rules, certainly not.
But politically motivated lurid accusations are not the same thing as real history.

And you well know it.

[jeffersondem]

"But politically motivated lurid accusations are not the same thing as real history."

If you do not believe federal troops committed murder instead of genocide, why did you even bring it up?

You are the one that initiated the distinction that Cain did not commit genocide, only murder - this in context of a discussion titled “Will Attacks on Monuments Include Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan?”

Sherman's words were, “We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children.”

[jeffersondem]

“Sir, General Grant, sir, we are getting our butts royally kicked here, the Sioux are way too strong for us and if we don’t do something more serious, we’ll lose this stinking war. Let us loose to make them really hurt, sir.”

Your imaged conversation between Sherman and Grant is the moral basis for federal troops taking extraordinary measures to “make them (Indians) really hurt.”

The phrase “make them really hurt” is defined as exterminating men, women and children.

Your imagined desperate plea from Sherman to Grant is quite different than the confident boast Sherman actually made in 1867: “We are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians check and stop the progress [of the railroads].”

Fresh off of whipping three million southerners and their rifles, cannons, ironclads, blockade runners, railroads and trench warfare Sherman now - according to your telling - faces the Sioux and finds their medicine “way to strong for us.”

Only one thing - according to your telling and perhaps Sherman’s too - will stave off disaster: exterminating men, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN. (emphasis added)

Your explanation is not even superficially plausible.

[jeffersondem]

“And since Sherman’s recommendation was rejected, and the war lost, “genocide” or “extermination” are not part of that picture.”

You say that Sherman’s recommendation to exterminate Indian men, women, and children “was rejected” (by Grant).

What was the date of that rejection? May I see your data relating to Grant’s rejection?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "If you do not believe federal troops committed murder instead of genocide, why did you even bring it up?"

Sorry, this is your topic, your choice of arguments and I've merely responded as best I could, pal.

In 50+ wars over 100+ years many innocents on both sides died.
Which of those were acts of war, which were beyond the bounds of legality at the time, I couldn't say.
But the numbers killed in the seven Sioux Wars, for example, are roughly equal on both sides.
So I would not say that one side committed more atrocities than the other, in that war.

But we should also note that in the past 100+ years many of these old disputes were litigated in courts and many significant awards granted for successful Native American lawsuits.
So one would think that all the low hanging fruit of injustices has already been picked, with any new allegations being higher-up & harder to reach legally.

jeffersondem: "Sherman's words were, “We must act with vindictive earnestness..."

But all you have are words, no actual evidence of Sherman's alleged wrongdoing.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Your explanation is My mischaracterizations & fake history are not even superficially plausible."

There, fixed it for you.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "You say that Sherman’s recommendation to exterminate Indian men, women, and children “was rejected” (by Grant).
What was the date of that rejection?
May I see your data relating to Grant’s rejection?"

Sorry, but the burden of proof belongs 100%, no 1,000%, to you jeffersondem.
You must prove your ludicrous allegations beyond a reasonable doubt, by providing irrefutable evidence proving they actually happened.
In the example of this Sherman to Grant letter, you have no proof Grant accepted Sherman's request and strong evidence he did not, namely the US lost that war.

Of course, providing proof should be quite easy for you, if there was a case brought successfully against Sherman for "mass murder", "extermination", "genocide" or other such crimes.
Just provide us a brief summary and the link.

Case closed, right?

[x]

1860 election results:

Notice the heavy Democrat vote in the New York area you so demonize.

Notice too the solid Republican vote in Northern rual counties, some of which swung the last election to Donald Trump.

Next, consider that for a century after the Civil War, Northern rural areas voted differently from your Southern "Jacksonians."

And then look up what your "Jacksonians" were voting for 80 years ago.