How Lincoln’s Army 'Liberated' the Indians

In a recent issue of The American Enterprise magazine devoted to the War between the States (see my LRC article, "AEI is Still Fighting the Civil War") Victor Hanson, a visiting professor at the U.S. Naval Academy, defends and makes excuses for Lincoln’s intentional waging of war on Southern civilians. This included the bombing, pillaging and plundering of their cities and towns, the burning of their homes, total destruction of farms and livestock, gang rape, and the killing of thousands, including women and children of all races. (See Merchant of Terror: General Sherman and Total War by John Bennett Walters or The Hard Hand of War by Mark Grimsley).

It was all justified, says Hanson, because General Sherman and his men were supposedly motivated by the belief that it was necessary "to guarantee the American proposition that each man is as good as another." Sherman’s "bummers," as they were called, were "political avenging angels" who were offended by racial inequalities in the South. They were driven by "an ideological furor, to destroy the nature of Southern aristocracy." The "tyrannical Southern ruling class" needed to be taught a lesson. (Besides, he writes, "rapes during [Sherman’s] march were almost unknown)."

In reality, neither Sherman nor his soldiers believed any of these things. (And rapes were not as "unknown" to the Southern people as they are to Hanson). In the Northern states at the time, myriad Black Codes existed that prohibited blacks from migrating into most Northern states and kept them from entering into contracts, voting, marrying whites, testifying in court against whites (which invited criminal abuse), or sending their children to public schools. They were excluded altogether from all forms of transportation or required to sit in special "Jim Crow sections." They were prohibited from entering hotels, restaurants or resorts except as servants, and were segregated in churches, prisons, and even cemeteries. Free blacks in the North in the 1860s were cruelly discriminated against in every aspect of their existence, and were denied the most fundamental of citizenship rights

Sherman himself certainly did not believe that "each man is as good as another." For example, in 1862 Sherman was bothered that "the country" was "swarming with dishonest Jews" (see Michael Fellman, Citizen Sherman, p. 153). He got his close friend, General Grant, to expel all Jews from his army. As Fellman writes, "On December 17, 1862, Grant . . . , like a medieval monarch . . . expelled ‘The Jews, as a class,’ from his department." Sherman biographer Fellman further writes that to Sherman, the Jews were "like niggers" and "like greasers (Mexicans) or Indians" in that they were "classes or races permanently inferior to his own."

The notion that Sherman’s army was motivated by a belief that all men are created equal is belied by the further fact that just three months after General Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox the very same army commenced a campaign of ethnic genocide against the Plains Indians. In July of 1865 Sherman was put in charge of the Military District of the Missouri (all land west of the Mississippi) and given the assignment to eradicate the Plains Indians in order to make way for the federally subsidized transcontinental railroad. Like Lincoln, Sherman was a friend of Grenville Dodge, the chief engineer of the project. He was also a railroad investor and he lobbied his brother, Senator John Sherman, to allocate federal funds for the transcontinental railroad. "We are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians stop and check the progress of the railroad," he wrote to General Grant in 1867 (Fellman, p. 264). As Fellman writes:

[T]he great triumvirate of the Union Civil War effort [Grant, Sherman and Sheridan] formulated and enacted military Indian policy until reaching, by The 1880s, what Sherman sometimes referred to as "the final solution of the Indian problem," which he defined as killing hostile Indians and segregating their pauperized survivors in remote places . . . . These men applied their shared ruthlessness, born of their Civil War experiences, against a people all three despised, in the name of Civilization and Progress (emphasis added).

Another Sherman biographer, John F. Marszalek, points out in Sherman: A Soldier’s Passion for Order, that "Sherman viewed Indians as he viewed recalcitrant Southerners during the war and newly freed people after the war: resisters to the legitimate forces of an orderly society," by which he meant the central government. Moreover, writes Marszalek, Sherman’s philosophy was that "since the inferior Indians refused to step aside so superior American culture could create success and progress, they had to be driven out of the way as the Confederates had been driven back into the Union."

"Most of the other generals who took a direct role in the Indian wars, writes Marszalek, "were, like Sherman, [Union] Civil War luminaries." This included "John Pope, O.O. Howard, Nelson A. Miles, Alfred H. Terry, E.O.C. Ord, C.C. Augeur, and R.S. Canby. General Winfield Scott Hancock should be added to this list of "luminaries." Among the colonels, "George Armstrong Custer and Benjamin Grierson were the most famous."

Sherman and General Phillip Sheridan were associated with the statement that "the only good Indian is a dead Indian." The problem with the Indians, Sherman said, was that "they did not make allowance for the rapid growth of the white race" (Marszalek, p. 390). And, "both races cannot use this country in common" (Fellman, p. 263).

Sherman’s theory of white racial superiority is what led him to the policy of waging war against the Indians "till the Indians are all killed or taken to a country where they can be watched." As Fellman (p. 264) writes:

Sherman planted a racist tautology: Some Indians are thieving, killing rascals fit for death; all Indians look alike; therefore, to get some we must eliminate all . . . deduced from this racist tautology . . . the less destructive policy would be racial cleansing of the land . . .

Accordingly, Sherman wrote to Grant: "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children." Writing two days later to his brother John, General Sherman said: "I suppose the Sioux must be exterminated . . ." (Fellman, p. 264).

This was Sherman’s attitude toward Southerners during the War for Southern Independence as well. In a July 31, 1862 letter to his wife (from his Collected Works) he wrote that his purpose in the war was: "Extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the [Southern] people." His charming and nurturing wife Ellen wrote back that her fondest wish was for a war "of extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like the Swine into the sea."

With this attitude, Sherman issued the following order to his troops at the beginning of the Indian Wars: "During an assault, the soldiers cannot pause to distinguish between male and female, or even discriminate as to age. As long as resistance is made, death must be meted out . . ." (Marszalek, p. 379).

Most of the raids on Indian camps were conducted in the winter, when families would be together and could therefore all be killed at once. Sherman gave Sheridan "authorization to slaughter as many women and children as well as men Sheridan or his subordinates felt was necessary when they attacked Indian villages" (Fellman, p. 271). All livestock was also killed so that any survivors would be more likely to starve to death.

Sherman was once brought before a congressional committee after federal Indian agents, who were supposed to be supervising the Indians who were on reservations, witnessed "the horror of women and children under military attack." Nothing came of the hearings, however. Sherman ordered his subordinates to kill the Indians without restraint to achieve what he called "the final solution of the Indian problem," and promised that if the newspapers found out about it he would "run interference against any complaints about atrocities back East" (Fellman, p. 271).

Eight years into his war of "extermination" Sherman was bursting with pride over his accomplishments. "I am charmed at the handsome conduct of our troops in the field," he wrote Sheridan in 1874. "They go in with the relish that used to make our hearts glad in 1864-5" (Fellman, p. 272).

Another part of Sherman’s "final solution" strategy against this "inferior race" was the massive slaughter of buffalo, a primary source of food for the Indians. If there were no longer any buffalo near where the railroad traveled, he reasoned, then the Indians would not go there either. By 1882 the American buffalo was essentially extinct.

Ironically, some ex-slaves took part in the Indian wars. Known as the "Buffalo Soldiers," they assisted in the federal army’s campaign of extermination against another colored race.

By 1890 Sherman’s "final solution" had been achieved: The Plains Indians were all either killed or placed on reservations "where they can be watched." In a December 18, 1890 letter to the New York Times Sherman expressed his deep disappointment over the fact that, were it not for "civilian interference," his army would have "gotten rid of them all" and killed every last Indian in the U.S. (Marszalek, p. 400).

To Victor Hanson and the American Enterprise Institute this is the kind of man who "deserves a place on the roll call of great liberators in human history." Native Americans would undoubtedly disagree.

"You may not need to know what post hoc, ergo propter hoc means if you intend to pump gas all your life, but if you think you like debating political issues you might have a look at a logic text sometime. FTR post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a particular type of faulty reasoning. I suppose if you like the conclusion you reached it probably doesn't matter to you how you got there, but it does betray your lack of education."

And your arrogance is betrayed in that post; but that's OK, I Love You just the way you are, don't ever change!

Again you fail to address my point of this country being better off today with the REALITY of the north having won the civil war.

Next time you are filling up at the gas station, be sure to ask for me! (That is if you don't mind being seen with the unwashed masses)

Again you fail to address my point of this country being better off today with the REALITY of the north having won the civil war.

And you are probably only alive because of Adolf Hitler. (I am.) So what?

I would deny your basic premise that one is automatically better off having been born in the country of Abraham Lincoln than in the one of Thomas Jefferson. (They're quite different, you know.)

ML/NJ

"I would deny your basic premise that one is automatically better off having been born in the country of Abraham Lincoln than in the one of Thomas Jefferson. (They're quite different, you know)"

Yet again, you are choosing not to answer the question. I was not asking about Lincoln vs Jefferson. I was asking about a UNITED States Of America as opposed to a CSA and USA existing simultaneously.

We, as a nation, are better off today (although not perfect) since the south lost.

Yet again, you are choosing not to answer the question. I was not asking about Lincoln vs Jefferson. I was asking about a UNITED States Of America as opposed to a CSA and USA existing simultaneously.

I think I answered the question, but that you cannot understand. We are obviously talking about paths not traveled here, but I think it is quite likely that this land would have been better off if Lincoln had never existed, of if he had told the South to go in peace.

Maybe things would have been even better if we had absorbed Canada?

ML/NJ (Lifetime Yankee)

We, as a nation, are better off today (although not perfect) since the south lost.

We would have been better off if the South had never seceded. Then the States would retain the ability to discriminate based on personal responsibility, like they always were able to do before the 14th Amendment by the Yankee Rump Congress overrode the 10th Amendment, unconstitutionally.

A voluntary Union is a more perfect Union.

A house divided can not stand. That's why Lincoln shouldn't have fought the attempt to build two houses side by side, that were united within. This new Union is divided, within.

"I think it is quite likely that this land would have been better off if Lincoln had never existed, of if he had told the South to go in peace."

If either were the case, it surely would have affected our westward expansion in the short run and our worldwide presence in the long run. Think of the ramifications on either world war had one side been in and the other neutral, or worse. You are correct in saying that we are talking about paths not taken here and I for one am thankful that things turned out the way they did.

If I may wryly assert that as far as Canada goes, one of the best things that would have come of that is better tasting domestic beer. (Excepting Sam Adams of course)

If Alberta keeps having tax issues with Ottawa, we may see a provincial admission in our lifetimes.

"...By Jove, I think you've got it. LaBelleDame...

Let me put it another way:

It's astounding to watch the Southern revivalists devour themselves in an attempt to extract "justice' from the court of history.

First they embrace the marxist critique of Lincoln after the failure of reconstruction

Then, when the South became just one more piece of collateral damage on the road to marixst utopia, they decided to pretend that the ante bellum South was the last best hope for small, localized govenment. That myth, of course, is easily disproved as the South was a great believer in Federal power in our wars and filibusters to expand the lands of the US in order to shore up the slave economy; in their use of the Supreme Court to defend their "way of life"; in their love of trampling State law when hunting down fugitive slaves.

And now, in the final throes of self-mutilation, Southern revivalists have embraced the identity politics of the New Left. By some strange process of reasoning--or anti-reasoning--they calculate that if they can demonstrate that ALL white men in American history were racist, hypocritical bigots and mass murderers then, somehow, a new day will dawn and justice will be served. It reminds me of the sorry spectacle of republican activists, in the wake of the Trent Lott afffair, fanning out into the media, to perform post-mortem inquisitions upon dead white Southern populist politicians in order to demonstrate the hypocricy of the attack upon Lott.

The self-destructivenes and myopia, is breath-taking. And the historical method is laughable. No, General William Tecumseh Sherman was not a man in the mold of General Wesley Clark. Contemplate that, if you dare.

But instead of expending their energies excoriating and exorcising contemporary perfumed princes like Clark, Southern revivalists prefer to exhume and mau-mau the dead.

Impotent cowards....

Next time you bitch about "Big Government" just remember the side you supported in that war brought it about. That includes income tax, shrinking individual liberties, etc. Yes, turn a blind eye to the truth, but isn't it amazing how Sherman's "Final Solution to the Indian Problem" and Hitler's "Final Solution to the Jewish Question" had the same answer?! Putting both races in contained areas, and extermination of them whenever the opportunity presented itself. Then that old pesky question of "How can you blame that on Lincoln?" comes along. I'll wager the only difference between Sherman and the Waffen SS were about 80 years, and physical distance between areas of conflict.

Which flag did you pledge alleigance to in the military?

Next time I bitch about big gov't I'll not blame a President or General who have been dead for a couple of generations. I will point the finger to the culprits of today.....crooked politicians and apathetic voters.

Other than the "Big Government" comment, the rest of your paragraph above reads like a shrill treatise from a far-left white-male hating organization like A.N.S.W.E.R.

If you served this country it is a shame that you seek so hard to find what is wrong with it by becoming focused on what was wrong in the past by today's standards, but was acceptable to many at the time (see also: slavery). Should the Indians get reparations too along with the blacks? How about the Indians that were moved off of southern lands well before the Civil War? Should descendants of white southerners now get reparations from the north; who dared as to be so arrogant as to fight a war and win? (And we are better off today for that victory: see WW2)

Sometimes ya just gotta be thankful to God for what you have and where you live and move toward the future. We are not perfect as a nation, and our history has some dark moments (I am part Cherokee), but we can only focus so much on what a bastard Sherman was. It makes no difference in the war on terror.

"Other than the "Big Government" comment, the rest of your paragraph above reads like a shrill treatise from a far-left white-male hating organization like A.N.S.W.E.R."

I don't belong to A.N.S.W.E.R., nor am I left-wing in any of my views. I first enlisted during Viet Nam to defend my country and have spent 20 years on active duty in defense of your freedom and right to speak. I am a Republican, white-Irish American of southern ancestry. My race has known predjudice and oppression, but I am not out looking for handouts. I voted for the current President, hated the last one, and took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign or domestic! We didn't pledge allegiance to a flag, we saluted the colors! One thing you need to do is to stop looking at life through a plexiglass stomach. One needs to acknowledge the wrongs committed in the past to understand today's situation. History isn't about one viewpoint, moron, its about telling both sides of a story! Are we better off today ... in some respects yes, and in some respects no. Reparations? I don't feel that any of the groups you mentioned deserve reparations, but the guilty parties need to own up to their culpability. Whites have owned up to slavery, but the Yankees continue to deny any legitimacy to the South's right of secession, and by diligent study of what the Founders' meant when they set up this country I can tell you that the government we have is a mere shadow of what they envisioned.

"Sometimes ya just gotta be thankful to God for what you have and where you live and move toward the future."

I thank God every day that I live in a country where I have the right to express my views, whether they piss you off or not! Next time you question my patriotism boyo, you better come armed with facts, not with a lot of horse manuer!

You are a good challenge, Colt. Here goes:

"We didn't pledge allegiance to a flag, we saluted the colors!"

True. But let's not split hairs, you know what I was talking about. It is not the confederate flag that represents this United States of America that you served under (and that I am thankful for your service).

"One thing you need to do is to stop looking at life through a plexiglass stomach."

If I had a dollar everytime I heard that one...

"History isn't about one viewpoint, moron, its about telling both sides of a story!"

Nothing wrong with that; and I never suggested otherwise, did I? The issue (in my opinion) is what can be gained today by complaining about something that was the norm at the time and has been acknowledged and settled? It will only serve as ammo to the left for the continued advancement of victimization style legislation.

"Yankees continue to deny any legitimacy to the South's right of secession,"

That argument has been settled.

"I can tell you that the government we have is a mere shadow of what they envisioned."

True, as is the case with all governments. Marx is still spinning in his grave, I imagine.

"Next time you question my patriotism boyo, you better come armed with facts, not with a lot of horse manuer!"

I never questioned your patriotism, only your focus of what your are patriotic towards first. But you are correct, you fought for that right and we are thankful.

"It is not the confederate flag that represents this United States of America that you served under (and that I am thankful for your service)."

The Confederate Battle Flag is a part of this nation's heritage, and I fly it because of my Southern heritage, and because it is a thorn in the side of all who worship the State sponsored thought and speech espoused in Political Correctness. Resistance to tyranny is obedience to God!

"The issue (in my opinion) is what can be gained today by complaining about something that was the norm at the time and has been acknowledged and settled? It will only serve as ammo to the left for the continued advancement of victimization style legislation."

No one is complaining here, but if we bury these events under the covering of time, the true importance of why we are where we are will never be taught. As far as the leftist libretarians go they are nothing more than "usefull idiots" to those who oppose freedom such as Communists, dictators, and tyrants.

"True, as is the case with all governments. Marx is still spinning in his grave, I imagine."

And if we are to remain free, then we must always stand against the silent encroachments of our liberties by governments! All of our rights, and immunities as citizens of the United States are being encroached upon by leftists, and their political hacks (nominally DemocRATS). I continue to fight them and view with a jaundiced eye every "for the good of the people" bill that gets tabled in Congress. Did you realize that more usurpations of Individual Rights stem from the ideas that are tabled under "for the good of the people" than any other purported reason? I feel, as the Founders' felt, that I am capable of determining what is best for myself. And if flying my Confederate Battle flag is my right of expression (which it is), then I can fly it when and where I please. Along with that, if it offends others, then they need to grow a thicker skin because that is what liberty is about, the freedom to do as we want within the law. But we must never forget our history, we must study it, dissect it, learn of it ... all of it. So that we will not be doomed to repeat it.

"The Confederate Battle Flag is a part of this nation's heritage, and I fly it because of my Southern heritage"

I am reticent to that only in seeing so many other flags being flown in this country due to heritage (Mexican, Puerto Rican, Cuban, etc). At some point we have to get on the same page identity-wise. Otherwise we will continually split into smaller and smaller divisions and be (I hate this term) Balkanized.

"No one is complaining here, but if we bury these events under the covering of time, the true importance of why we are where we are will never be taught."

Thoughtful; and thought provoking. I would only say that there has to be a point and reason of where we understand the past, but move ahead to the greater challenge. I think the injustices of the Indian wars have been learned, and they are not that hidden as far as history goes (maybe glossed over, but not suppressed in these PC times). So much of DiLorenzo's writings seem more to divide and incite than anything else.

"And if we are to remain free, then we must always stand against the silent encroachments of our liberties by governments!"

Agreed.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.