How Lincoln’s Army 'Liberated' the Indians

LewRockwell.com ^ | February 12, 2003 | Thomas DiLorenzo

[Aurelius]

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.

[Colt .45]

"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.'

There will never be total agreement in a free society. And if flying another flag seems onerous to you, then you should understand the true meaning of that flag. It is only seen as racist because of recent adoption by a racist group of looneys (recent meaning within the last 20 to 40 years), but its actual historical meaning is something entirely different.

'Therefore, the "official" issue over which this war was fought, as defined by the first magistrates on both sides, was whether the several States have a constitutional right to secede from the Union. The struggle was an American Civil War, because it was like the wars etween Israel and Judah after the death of King Soloman. It was also a War Between the States, because it was a war between a Union of Northern States and a Confederacy of Southern States. And it was no less a War for Southern Independence, because it resembled the War for American Independence. But the French seem to have devised the best name of all - "la guerre de secession," because that is what it was in the eyes of both Lincoln and Davis.

From this undeniable fact derives the true meaning of the Confederate battle flag. The regulation flag was square, 51 inches by 51 inches for units of the infantry, somewhat smaller for the artillery and cavalry. It is contained within a white border on all four sides. The central feature is the diagonal cross of St. Andrew, as displayed on the flag of Scotland, only with the colors reversed as now appears on the flag of Nova Scotia. Next was the diagonal cross of St. Patrick, which is part of the current British Union Jack, and appears today as the flag of Alabama, only with the colors reversed and bars broadened so as to fit over the cross of St. Andrew, leaving a narrow white trim to distinguish the two crosses. Then over the bars of the cross of St. Andrew are thirteen States, which signify the thirteen States represented in the Congress of the Southern States.

The Confederate battle flag has been perverted in its meaning by extremists from different parts of the political spectrum, but the truth remains that it is the banner of a Christian civilization, designed from hallowed Celtic symbols to signify the constitutional right of several States to secede from the Union. The right is universal, rooted in natural law and legal tradition, - a right of peaceable and lawful revolution, illustrated by the inexorable constitutional transformation which ushered William and Mary to the throne of England. It is a right necessary in extraordinary circumstances for every free and civilized people, whatever their race or culture, wherever their location in the world, whenever they have entered into federal relations with neighboring peoples in neighboring states for mutual advantage. Without it, federal relations are too dangerous even to consider. With this right, federal relations can be a great blessing to mankind, and can insure peace and friendship among nations.' - 'The Constitutional History of Secession' by John Remington Graham.

In other words, it is a symbol of my right to rebel against opression, tyranny which is guaranteed to me under the 9th, and 10th Amendments, The Declaration of Independence (the cornerstone of American beliefs), and by God who gave me the gift of freedom and life. Granted the spirit of rebellion is not to be used for insignificant things, but when the government tries to trample and encroach on my rights as a citizen, I reserve that right.

[Sam's Army]

"There will never be total agreement in a free society. And if flying another flag seems onerous to you, then you should understand the true meaning of that flag. It is only seen as racist because of recent adoption by a racist group of looneys (recent meaning within the last 20 to 40 years), but its actual historical meaning is something entirely different."

The co-option of the flag by racists is unfortunate.As I said before, the flag is not onerous in terms of a historical sense, but in a perspective of yet another group wanting to put heritage above all else: Identity-politics. I understand that there will never be total agreeement in free society (or even FreeRepublic for that matter). It just seems that so much of our lense is focused backwards instead of forwards.

For all the noble reasons you list for the Civil War, things often turn out the way they should for whatever reason (God working in strange ways?). The ramifications of a southern victory may have meant a united Europe (or worse)under German control in the last century. Ditto for Japanese control in Asia.

I guess I'm getting to that totally un-PC term called "Manifest Destiny"

[Colt .45]

If a person wishes to hold and honor their heritage, it is their right. That is a part of freedom. As for the focusing backwards, a lot of this would've never come about except for the lies and spin by the PC revisionistas and the Yankee whores. They say the war was over slavery, and the Southerners side of it is that the war was over States' Rights. Granted the society of the antebellum South had a lot of faults, but then the Bill of Rights was perceived at that time by the Supreme Court as a prohibition against the Federal Government not the States. So if the truth of the South's reasons for their Right of Secession is to be upheld and not to be perverted by Yankee spin doctors, we of Southern descent must fight the lies and distortions of the truth. Our society was birthed out of a tyrannical government by the right of secession, a natural right recognized by the Founders as the prerogative of the supreme power of the land ... the People. When a government denies you that right, then you must ask yourself ... "Are we truly free?" The great thing about our country is that we can disagree (like family squabbles), but let an outsider try to start some trouble and we all band together. I am an American first and foremost, of Southern descent secondly, and of Irish/Celtic descent. I support GW Bush, I support his efforts to disarm Iraq and against terrorism. I am a Republican voter, and a staunch conservative. But like I said before, I reserve the right to rebel against tyranny. That is supported by the guarantee of the 9th, and 10th Amendments to the Bill of Rights.

[H.Akston]

"And skin color"

You mean you would vote for State legislators who would discriminate on skin color?