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."

[jeffersondem]

“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”?”

Brother Joe, you have put a lot of hay on the ground in your numerous posts. Enough that we can now begin to evaluate your statements one by one and try to determine what you believe.

I understand you defend Sherman from charges of genocide but why exactly did you bring up Cain’s murder of Abel in a discussion of Sherman? Can you explain what you mean?

[jeffersondem]

“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.”

When you speak of the “Sherman to Grant letter” you are referring to when Sherman famously said to Grant: “We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children.”

And you say “the US lost that war” is “strong evidence” Grant did not accept Sherman’s extermination recommendation. In fact, this “strong evidence” is the only evidence you cite.

If, as you contend, the US lost this war because Grant stopped Sherman’s vital extermination plan then we must ask how the US won subsequent Indian wars?

Or is it your contention all subsequent Indian wars were lost by the US?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Brother Joe, you have put a lot of hay on the ground in your numerous posts.
Enough that we can now begin to evaluate your statements one by one and try to determine what you believe."

But what I believe is utterly irrelevant to your ludicrous accusations that Sherman committed "mass murders", "extermination", "genocide" or other such crimes.
The only important question is: what evidence do you have?
I've seen nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- and last time I checked, presumption of innocence is still integral to US law.

You've made accusations, so present your case.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "If, as you contend, the US lost this war because Grant stopped Sherman’s vital extermination plan then we must ask how the US won subsequent Indian wars?
Or is it your contention all subsequent Indian wars were lost by the US?"

Show us your evidence of any crimes of any type committed by Sherman.

[jeffersondem]

“I've seen nothing — zero, zip, nada — and last time I checked, presumption of innocence is still integral to US law.”

When combined with previous posts, your strategy becomes clear: “Sorry, but the burden of proof belongs 100%, no 1,000%, to you jeffersondem. You must prove . . . beyond a reasonable doubt, by providing irrefutable evidence proving they actually happened.”

Not a bad gambit at all - in a court of law. It hearkens back to one of my favorite documents which reads, in part:

“No person shall be held to answer . . . nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself . . .”

Of course, this forum is not a court of law, and this is not a trial. This is just a friendly discussion where a school boy has asked a couple of questions that has driven you to invoke the 5th amendment on behalf of General Sherman - and on behalf of your arguments in favor of Sherman.

Sherman, you recall, said about killing Indians during the Indian wars: “We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children.”

I'm sure there is a good reason you don't want to say anything about Sherman's aspirations to exterminate women and children.

If I were you, I too would hunker down.

If I were you.

[DoodleDawg]

Is this crap still going on? Leave me out of it please.

[jmacusa]

Grant, Sherman and Sheridan were ‘’war criminals’’? Really? Care to point out some evidence of that?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "I'm sure there is a good reason you don't want to say anything about Sherman's aspirations to exterminate women and children."

So that's it?
That's all you have, irrefutable evidence of Sherman's "aspirations"?
No physical evidence, no ground truth, no witness statements, nothing in the way of reports from the time & place of Sherman's alleged crimes?

So you are going to convict Sherman of, in essence, "hate speech"?
Then tell us, jeffersondem, having acted as both prosecutor, judge & jury against Sherman, what sentence do you now impose on him for his alleged crime of "hate speech"?

[jeffersondem]

“Is this **** still going on? Leave me out of it please.”

Of course I will honor your request.

To answer your question, yes it is still going on. It had stopped for a couple of days but Brother Joe has started it again. You know how he is.

To be honest, I feel as you do - ready to head to the exits on this thread. My posts to Brother Joe have been so brutally effective I am concerned I may be penalized 15 yards for unnecessary roughness.

If that happens, I may very well have to plead the fifth amendment myself. My virtual hits have knocked him insensible.

[jeffersondem]

“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.”

This frank admission of yours makes me wonder why you are in this discussion, or any discussion about Indian wars. You have said quite a lot for someone that, in the final analysis, claims “I couldn't say.”

I don't want to put words in your mouth so let me just ask a school boy question: Have you ever heard of Union Army Colonel John Chivington and his actions at the Sand Creek massacre?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "I don't want to put words in your mouth so let me just ask a school boy question: Have you ever heard of Union Army Colonel John Chivington and his actions at the Sand Creek massacre?"

Sure, in 1864, while Sherman was in Georgia.
So Sherman is guilty of the Sand Creek massacre in what way, exactly?

[jeffersondem]

“Sure, in 1864, while Sherman was in Georgia. So Sherman is guilty of the Sand Creek massacre in what way, exactly?”

Your statements in this thread go beyond just Sherman.

Your statements include . . . let's just quote you:

“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.”

Can we just stipulate now that Union Army Colonel Chivington was a murderer or do we need to peel the onion one post at a time?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Your statements in this thread go beyond just Sherman."

But yours didn't.
You specifically accused Sherman of "mass murder", "extermination" or "genocide" depending on definitions.

So far you've produced no evidence -- none, zero, nada evidence -- to support your unwarranted accusation against Sherman.
If you had any decency, which of course you don't, you'd retract your spurious accusation against Sherman and aim your fire elsewhere, toward Chivington for example.

jeffersondem: "Can we just stipulate now that Union Army Colonel Chivington was a murderer or do we need to peel the onion one post at a time?"

We don't have to "stipulate" anything, since that work was already done, in 1865 by the Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War.
The committee report said, in part:

"As to Colonel Chivington, your committee can hardly find fitting terms to describe his conduct.
Wearing the uniform of the United States, which should be the emblem of justice and humanity; holding the important position of commander of a military district, and therefore having the honor of the government to that extent in his keeping, he deliberately planned and executed a foul and dastardly massacre which would have disgraced the veriest savage among those who were the victims of his cruelty.
Having full knowledge of their friendly character, having himself been instrumental to some extent in placing them in their position of fancied security, he took advantage of their in-apprehension and defenceless condition to gratify the worst passions that ever cursed the heart of man.

Whatever influence this may have had upon Colonel Chivington, the truth is that he surprised and murdered, in cold blood, the unsuspecting men, women, and children on Sand creek, who had every reason to believe they were under the protection of the United States authorities, and then returned to Denver and boasted of the brave deed he and the men under his command had performed.

In conclusion, your committee are of the opinion that for the purpose of vindicating the cause of justice and upholding the honor of the nation, prompt and energetic measures should be at once taken to remove from office those who have thus disgraced the government by whom they are employed, and to punish, as their crimes deserve, those who have been guilty of these brutal and cowardly acts."

But a key takeaway from the 1864 Sand Creek Massacre is this: Sherman did not introduce "hard war" tactics out West, they preceded him by many years.
Indeed, the record shows that Sherman did much to restrain more savage impulses among his subordinates.

Anyway, despite the committee's report, Chivington was not punished but did resign his commission, lost his political ambitions and spent the last 30 years of his life largely just wandering around looking for government or private handouts.

Over the years several attempts were made at apologies and reparations or memorials for the Sand Creek Massacre, not clear if any of them were adequate.

Bottom line: nobody defends Chivington, but similar charges are not made regarding Sherman.
Sure, if you wish to discuss Custer's 1868 actions at Washita, we can, but Sherman was not there, did not order it and indeed did order specifically:

"Hazen's October 13 orders from General William Tecumseh Sherman, commander of the Military Division of the Missouri, had charged Hazen with making provision for Indians who wanted to stay out of the war.
The orders stated if General Philip Sheridan had to invade the reservation to pursue hostile Indians, he needed to spare the 'well-disposed'. "

Sherman intended to prevent a repeat of Chivington's actions at Sand Creek.

[jeffersondem]

“But yours didn’t (go beyond just Sherman).”

As careful as you are, I’m surprised to see you write something so easily refuted.

See my post 188 to you.

See my post 197 to you.

See my post 267 to you.

Your responses are beginning to raise more questions than they answer.

[rockrr]

Yea, I’ll stipulate that Chivington was a murderer to the same extent that davis was a traitor.

[BroJoeK]

rockrr: "Yea, I’ll stipulate that Chivington was a murderer to the same extent that davis was a traitor."

Beautiful!

jeffersondem: "Your responses are beginning to raise more questions than they answer."

I'm here to answer questions, reasonable questions always, "trick questions" if possible.
So fire away.

But here's my question for jeffersondem: will you now back off of your accusations of "mass murder", "extermination" or "genocide" against General Sherman?
If not, then what is your evidence to support them?

[jeffersondem]

“I’m here to answer questions, reasonable questions always, “trick questions” if possible. So fire away.”

Fair enough.

Did you read my posts numbers 188, 197, and 267?

If so, what did you mean when you wrote “But yours didn’t” in your post 293?

[jeffersondem]

“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.”

There is no shame in saying in a straightforward manner that you do not have the knowledge to say what was legal and what was not legal . . . what was murder and what was not murder . . . what was genocide and what was not genocide. If you can't say, then you can't say.

Your decision to expand the discussion beyond Sherman, Grant, and Sheridan to include 100 years of warfare against Indians would certainly include John Chivington’s massacre at Sand Creek.

The evidence of Chivington’s atrocities is so clear that your claim of “I can't say” does cause me to question your knowledge base. What additional information would you need in order to speak out against Chivington?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Did you read my posts numbers 188, 197, and 267?"

Will you now withdraw your accusation of "mass murder", "extermination" or "genocide" against General Sherman, or provide evidence to support it?

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "The evidence of Chivington’s atrocities is so clear that your claim of “I can't say” does cause me to question your knowledge base.
What additional information would you need in order to speak out against Chivington? "

Will you now withdraw your accusation of "mass murder", "extermination" or "genocide" against General Sherman, or provide evidence to support it?