Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There was one problem: The Black Hills belonged to the Lakota Indians, the most potent Indian power on the Great Plains. They had taken the territory from the Kiowas and the Crows, and they had signed a treaty with the United States guaranteeing their rights to the region.
What crime was Grant guilty of against the Lakotas, which the Lakotas were not guilty of against the Kiowas and Crows?
Property ownership has always been determined by power, not morality. Citing "my ancestors fought for this land" as criteria works only until someone shows up and wants to fight you for it.
There was one problem: The Black Hills belonged to the Lakota Indians, the most potent Indian power on the Great Plains. They had taken the territory from the Kiowas and the Crows, and they had signed a treaty with the United States guaranteeing their rights to the region.
What crime was Grant guilty of against the Lakotas, which the Lakotas were not guilty of against the Kiowas and Crows?
That's hysterical. What do you call it when the assassins accuse the assassins?
And...? Instead of posting a link, which is a lazy way of introducing a topic, let us know what you think about it. What is this, the "White Man's Guilt" post of the week?
Grant was an excellent general but a weak president, no one denies that. Gold was found in the black hills after the original treaty, at first the military actually tried to keep settlers and miners out. It was futile. Equally futile was diplomatic efforts with the Lakota. Next option was military.
So yeah this conflict was terrible and unfair as were all the wars of conquest that occurred in this area. Not only by the US. Before that it was the Cheyene fighting the Kiowa and chasing them out of the northern great plains, then it was the Lakota fighting the Cheyenne. Wars were fought, slaves were taken, alliances were made, and broken, long before the white man came to those lands.
It was a complex situation, evolving in time with changing circumstances, as the Nation grew westward. At various points, Grant, Sherman and some of the key military officers (Custer, Crook) involved in formulating and enforcing the Indian War policies, were both empathetic to the plight of the Indians yet also had to acknowledge that westward expansion of white settlers via Manifest Destiny was inevitable.
Ultimately, Grant's initial plan to find a somewhat peaceful compromise succumbed to greed (not so much of the man himself but others), corruption, Manifest Destiny, the Indian's (mainly Lakota and Kiowa) increasingly violent resistance, and the death knell of the emergence of the railroad as a driving force in the ultimate demise of the Plains Indian's way of life.
In the end, it was like holding back a flood by plugging a weak, leaky dam.
And the Plains Indians were never a united, peacefully coexisting confederate of tribes before the white man's arrival, either. That was why so many, such as the Arikaras and Crows, willingly assisted the US by acting as effective scouts, and sometimes by participating in many of the battles themselves.
What crime was Grant guilty of against the Lakotas, which the Lakotas were not guilty of against the Kiowas and Crows?
Property ownership has always been determined by power, not morality. Citing "my ancestors fought for this land" as criteria works only until someone shows up and wants to fight you for it.
The title says Grant's 'illegal' war, not Grant's immoral war. The point is probably to show that US Presidents have been taking the nation to war under false pretenses through illegal means since the 19th century.
The title says Grant's 'illegal' war, not Grant's immoral war. The point is probably to show that US Presidents have been taking the nation to war under false pretenses through illegal means since the 19th century.
"Grant" is the key phrase here. I read the article again - it's actually not bad on second reading and proposes an alternate case to the prevailing historical belief that Grant, generally a good man and an excellent general, was simply a weak and inept president.
They point of the article, as it should be the point of this topic - which probably even the OP didn't realize (since he or she couldn't bother to do anything more than cut and paste the article title), is not that the US was unfair to the American Indian. We all know that and it's been discussed many time, we don't need yet another topic on that. The point was to put the Grant administration in a new light. Instead of a weak president giving in to his corrupt "handlers", he is exposed as a strategic and scheming president that knew EXACTLY what he was doing.
And that would all make sense except for all the accounts of corruption during his administration, corruption of which he never personally benifited from (he died just about bankrupt) and the accounts of the constant turnover in his administration, his trustful nature, his appointing weak cabinet members who in turn appointed family member and friends into important positions.
So anyways I submit this topic should be an examination of, not US or European handling of Indian affairs, but an examination of the Grant Administration. A much more interesting topic and one that has not been discussed before...
or we can go back to the "white man's guilt thread of the week"
No one can make any one feel "guilty." That is up to the particular person him/herself.
But there is nothing wrong with acknowledging past injustices, learn from it in order to attempt to minimize repeating said injustice. Then move on. All sides.
SO what are you going to about it? Hang Him? History is just that HISTORY bad things happened..............
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
