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."

[x]

Yep, the irony that so many liberals still kneel to Sheridan as a hero, just shows what hypocrites they are. They don’t really care about the moral or social causes they supposedly champion, instead it’s about political vendettas and settling scores, with supposed virtue signaling and righteousness as a tool. In American liberals’eyes, Red State whites are the most hated enemy so much that they’ll worship a genocidal killer if he’s identified with “sticking it” to Red States that thwart the social justice warriors.

This was such a mind-blowingly silly comment that I had to come back to it. Most SJWs, BLMs, Occupods, and Antifas have never heard of Sheridan. Most Hillary, Bernie or Barack voters either don't know the name or haven't heard or thought about about Philip Sheridan in years. For most of them, he's not a part of their world.

And those who have? Would they condemn Sheridan for the Indian wars? Of course they would. Of course they do. Some might even condemn him for his conduct in the Civil War. Liberals aren't attached to Grant or Sherman. Leftists don't necessarily like Lincoln that much.

Liberals and leftists don't "worship" Sheridan or "kneel to" him as a hero. How could you ever come up with such an idea? They don't have any use for the unified, strong, capitalist America that came out of the Civil War. It wasn't liberals and it certainly wasn't leftists who put up statues to union soldiers, officers, and generals. They aren't putting wreaths on monuments. I suspect many of them would want the monuments to come down.

The tribes themselves are hardly amused but the libs don’t care, they never really cared about the Indians they’re just tools to the libs. It’s a reason that a number of native American voters I’ve found are surprisingly inclined to vote for real conservatives like Trump, they hate hypocritical liberals who claim to champion them but then turn around to backstab them when it’s convenient.

Some Indians voted for Trump. Some voted for Hillary. She did very well in Sioux counties in South Dakota. Less well in other parts of the country. But I doubt Native Americans have much more love for Confederates than for the bluebellies.

More to the point, those monuments to union soldiers were put up by the ancestors of Trump voters in places like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. You're rewriting history if you ignore the fact that most people in the Northern states weren't "liberals" in the modern sense and were proud of the union army and its sacrifices.

Next time you're tempted to say "It's all because they hate me (or some group that you're a part of) and just want to destroy me (or us)," ask yourself "Is that's the only possibility?", "Is it the most likely possibility?", "Have I done any research at all?", and "Do I really know what I'm talking about?" before posting.

[Altura Ct.]

The Left won’t care. If it’s white, it’s coming down. Period.

That is the bottom line. Only way to fight it is for whites to collectively say FU.

[jmacusa]

I’m still learning Lampster. Life is always about learning. Learning , like life, is a journey, not a destination.You stopped learning a long time ago. Seriously pal, don’t you EVER get tired of being a moral idiot?

[DiogenesLamp]

Seriously pal, don’t you EVER get tired of being a moral idiot?

I do not recognize myself in your description of me. What is the morality behind killing 750,000 people in a war over economic control, with a subsequent 2 million dying from starvation and exposure?

What was the morality in that?

The "Empire State" still controls Washington DC today. That's why our people don't even do our will. Their loyalty is to that great donor class of financial billionaires.

[rockrr]

I do not recognize myself in your description of me.

The rest of us do...

[DiogenesLamp]

The rest of us do...

A lot of people thought Hillary was a good idea. Shared delusions are common enough.

You all would rather believe I am nuts and speaking "crazy talk" than believe me sane and speaking the truth. Were I in your position, I would as well.

[RegulatorCountry]

But I doubt Native Americans have much more love for Confederates than for the bluebellies.

A rather historically ignorant statement. Stand Watie ring a bell? Guess not.

[apocalypto]

You are right. Eventually it wall include everything related to American history that involves whites or the important events: battlefields, Statue of Liberty, etc. Think Red Guards.

[DoodleDawg]

in the south we call him kerosene billy.

In the north we call him General Sherman.

[jmacusa]

Your morality you moron! You're skewered moral compass in defending the South's decision to launch the bloodiest war in American history.Aspergers aside you really are too stupid to be an idiot!

[DiogenesLamp]

Your morality you moron! You're skewered moral compass in defending the South's decision to launch the bloodiest war in American history.

The "South" did not launch that war. The South had nothing to gain by it. The people who gained by it were the corruptocrats who financed Lincoln and then took over the government through money and political influence.

The South was an economic threat to the robber barons in the North, and Lincoln was their tool to stop the potential competition that would have occurred without a war.

There is a reason that the era following Lincoln was plagued by scandals and corruptions. Once the New York power Mafia learned they could control the government, they established this new corruptocracy as the norm. Some of them went so far the public noticed, but this same cartel system of governance has been running Washington DC ever since. Teddy Roosevelt gave them a few hiccups, but other than that they have had little restraint placed upon them.

New York and the billionaires associated with it, run Washington DC today. This is why our own people sent up there to do various things, (Like repeal Obamacare) always fall short. The Billionaire class of influencers do not want these things to be done. We have the Uni-Party, and it is under the control of the financial elite in this Nation.

[combat_boots]

The people behind CWI were in Lincoln’s 2nd cabinet. They were the winners.

[DiogenesLamp]

The people behind CWI were in Lincoln’s 2nd cabinet. They were the winners.

They may be some of the public face of the beast that can be identified, but I believe the real pushers for war were the captains of Northern Industry to whom an independent South would seem a great financial threat to themselves.

Northern Newspapers of the time pointed out just how much financial catastrophe would occur regarding them if the South was allowed to go in peace.

Now that I think about it, I believe every member of Lincoln's cabinet but one urged him not to send his war fleet to Charleston. They all told him it would cause a civil war, and they did not wish such a thing to happen.

Lincoln did it anyway. Apparently he wanted a civil war.

[combat_boots]

“the captains of Northern Industry”

Those are the ones exactly.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: ""Someone else did it too!" is not a rational rebuttal of the point."

So you don't defend the Lees' flip-flop on the subject of rebellion?
Curious.

DiogenesLamp: "Lincoln twice said that people had a right to gain independence if they wanted it, then he did everything he could to prevent people from gaining that independence..."

But you well know that Lincoln & Buchanan both did nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- to prevent Deep South Fire Eaters from declaring secession or their new Confederacy.
Lincoln only said there must be peace and could not be war unless Confederates started it.
Which they soon enough did.

All of which you well know, but continue to propagandize falsehoods anyway.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I'm still learning. Sorry about your situation. "

No, you don't learn anything of real history, only the fake history favored by Lost Causers.
Regardless of how often real history is repeated to you, it flows right off like water on a duck.
Unless it's Lost Causer fake history, you know nothing -- zero, zip, nada -- about it.

[BroJoeK]

x: " But I doubt Native Americans have much more love for Confederates than for the bluebellies."

RegulatorCountry: "A rather historically ignorant statement. Stand Watie ring a bell? Guess not."

There are no numbers for how many Native American served the Confederacy, though the name of Cherokee Stand Watie stands high and his rank as Confederate Brigadier General pretty amazing.

We are given estimates of 20,000 Native Americans serving both sides and 3,530 Native American Union soldiers.
So we are left on our own to draw the conclusion that Native Americans, especially under General Watie, supported the Confederacy more than four to one.
Not sure if that is correct.

For one thing, we are told that Stand Watie's faction among the Cherokees was a minority party, with the majority supporting the Union.
We must also suppose that the vast majority of 1860 Native American tribes lived in Union states & territories, so their active support of Confederates seems unlikely.
We are left to conclude the vast majority of Indians supported neither side, just as x says.

The only numbers I could find for total Native American populations mid-late century are around 300,000 and those did not decline significantly under the alleged genocide of Generals Sherman & Sheridan.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The "South" did not launch that war.
The South had nothing to gain by it."

Of course they did, as you well know, because they had much to gain by war, including independence & glory.
Indeed in his February 1861 Inaugural Address Jefferson Davis promised he would start war, if he felt Confederate "integrity" was "assailed".

In April at Fort Sumter Davis thought Confederate "integrity" was "assailed," and so he did as promised and started war.

All of which DiogenesLamp well knows but refuses to acknowledge.

DiogenesLamp: "The people who gained by it were the corruptocrats who financed Lincoln and then took over the government through money and political influence."

The old Cotton Alliance between Southern Democrat slave-holders and Northern Democrat corruptocrats was temporarily broken by Secession & war.
So Northern Democrats half-heartedly helped in protecting the Union (think Gen. McClellan) during the war, then soon rejoined their former Southern allies after the war.

It's true that Civil War did more-or-less permanently shift leadership amongst Democrats from South to North.
But there's no evidence suggesting that Democrats were ever less corrupt -- pre-war or post-war -- than they are today.

DiogenesLamp: "New York and the billionaires associated with it, run Washington DC today.
This is why our own people sent up there to do various things, (Like repeal Obamacare) always fall short."

Right, Democrats!

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I believe the real pushers for war were the captains of Northern Industry to whom an independent South would seem a great financial threat to themselves."

No, wealthy Northern Democrats -- those close political allies, business associates & personal friends to Southern planters -- those are the Northerners who lost the most from secession & war and whose temporary shift to support the Union made Northern victory possible.
Those are the same people today who exert undue influence, even as the nominal Congressional minority over way-too-timid Republicans.

DiogenesLamp: "...every member of Lincoln's cabinet but one urged him not to send his war fleet to Charleston.
They all told him it would cause a civil war, and they did not wish such a thing to happen."

And as you well know, Jefferson Davis' own Secretary of State warned Davis not to start war at Fort Sumter:

"Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."[14]

But Davis ignored Toombs, as does DiogenesLamp.

[jmacusa]

You didn’t by chance ghost write “Mien Kampf’’ did you? Because I’m trying to read that turgid, basically unreadable tract and Hitler’s tortured logic sounds a lot like yours.