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.
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.
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.
“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?
“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?