Indian Removal Act of 1830 and the Southern views on race (Lincoln, Europeans)

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

Not so.Of the European powers,the Spanish were by far the worst,often acting with incredible brutality and cruelty toward the natives.The French had the best relations overall.The Dutch and English were somewhere in the middle.

I do believe that your study of the issue has been inadequate. The above is not the conclusion that the facts sustain. Each group had its good moments, each group had its bad moments and each group, including the Dutch and the English, had their absolutely horrible moments.

You mention the Dutch as though there was never any such person as Governor William Lieft, and that the "Slaughter of Innocents (1643) never took place. I suppose that if you simply pretend that it didn't happen, then it didn't for purposes of your above thesis. The French in the NE did have reasonably good relations with the Indians, but not out of any advanced conception of morality. They were primarily traders rather than farmers, thus they represented less of a land theft threat and avoided the warfare associated with territorial gains. Further, the French needed Indian allies in their struggles against the English. However, before we congratulate France on any advanced racial enlightenment, read the story of French/Indian relations in the SE around the mouth of the Mississippi. That land used to belong to the Chitimacha tribes who were 20,000 strong when the French first arrived. Today there are a few hundred of them living on 270 acres of reservation, a product of those "best" relations you mentioned for the French.

The British used the NW tribes as pawns, first employing them as allies against the French and their Indian allies, and then as a buffer against American designs on Canada. They did not attempt to close off the Ohio River valley lands for exclusive Indian use because they had big hearts and were racially progressive, they did it to try and try and dampen the expansion of America. Once it was clear that this was not going to work, the British hearlessly abandoned the tribes, literally slamming the fort gates shut on them in one case when a defeated tribe sought protection there.

There is an ocean full of guilt to go around in the story of the conquest of America by Europeans. None of the events end with happy natives regardless of which European nation was doing the conquest.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

Not so.Of the European powers,the Spanish were by far the worst,often acting with incredible brutality and cruelty toward the natives.

True but keep in mind that the Spaniards were cruel regardless of their enemy's race or ethnicity, they were just as cruel to Moors, Dutchmen, French (look what Menendez did to the French in Florida), Englishmen and Turks as they were to Indians.

And in their favor the Spaniards never denied the humanity of the Indians; the Spaniards were an imperial people who looked at cruelty as part of the human condition. And the Spaniards were willing to intermarry with Indians and look after their souls. They also recognized the special position of the Tlaxcalan and surviving Mexica aristocracy.

The Spaniards were a complex people who I think get a bum rap, the Black Legend and all that.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by Grandstander

I
Once it was clear that this was not going to work, the British hearlessly abandoned the tribes, literally slamming the fort gates shut on them in one case when a defeated tribe sought protection there.

Ah yes, the commander of Fort Miamis slammin the door on Blue Jacket after Fallen Timbers.

The remains of the fort, an Italian Trace earthwork, are still to be seen in a park, much has fallen into the Maumee River but two bastions, a ravelin and the ditch can still be made out.

[BlackShoe]

All of the European powers attempted to use and influence the various tribes for their own benefit.On the other hand,the tribes were often very skilled at playing the Europeans against each other.Native American/European politics were often quite complex during the colonial era.Almost all of the North American Indian tribes had a warrior culture in which warfare against enemy tribes was a constant way of life.They acted with cruelty and brutality and extermination of an entire enemy tribe not unheard of.To picture them as simple children of nature helpless against European exploitation and aggression is totally untrue.An example of Indian vs Indian total warfare were the so called beaver wars of the 17th century.The Iroquois confederacy engaged in a series of wars for half a century that exterminated several tribes and forced relocation and migration of several others,and influenced tribes as far away as the Mississippi Valley,a thousand miles from their New York state homeland.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

True but keep in mind that the Spaniards were cruel regardless of their enemy's race or ethnicity, they were just as cruel to Moors, Dutchmen, French , Englishmen and Turks as they were to Indians.

.

But this was balanced by their ecumenical and kindly attitude toward their internal non Catholic apostates, especially the Jewish ones.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

Indian total warfare were the so called beaver wars of the 17th century.The Iroquois confederacy engaged in a series of wars for half a century that exterminated several tribes and forced relocation and migration of several others,and influenced tribes as far away as the Mississippi Valley,a thousand miles from their New York state homeland.

Indeed, the Iroquois invaded the valley of the Illinois River, a long walk from upstate New York. They also suffered defeats at the hands of the Chippewas and Ottawas in northern Michigan and in the end the allied Chippewas and Ottawas had the place in the trade the Iroquois wished for themselves when they started the whole shebang.

[Grandstander]

Originally Posted by nightbird47

Someday a real and honest history of the time can perhaps be taught, one that neither idolizes or villifies either side. The Native tribes were not as nobel as we have lately seen them to be, nor the time as romantisized as it was seen before. Maybe then we can look at the details without having to defend illusions.

I think that the dynamic which you reference above has materialized. There is typically a pendulum effect in the presentation of history. The immediate aftermath will tend to feature heroic interpretations written by the winners. After sufficient time has passed to become embarrassed about the one sidedness of the existing presentations, the revisionists become ascendant for a time and roll out the other extreme, where the earlier heroes are now revealed as selfish, greedy, unfeeling or whatever. In correcting the errors of the earlier interpretation, the revisionists swing the pendulum to the other extreme.

Then a more reasonable attitude arises, reflective of what you are saying with your above post. We realize that there was good and bad behavior on all sides and that it is far easier to make non absolutist moral judgments when one is removed from the situation rather than being a participant with a personal stake in the outcome.

It might also be wise to avoid trying to squeeze the entire story into any sort of bumper sticker sized summary. The nature of the white/red conflicts differed depending upon the region and the time. For example, the fate of the SE civilized tribes was the product of central planning and deliberate ideas. It came with rationalization for why it wasn't evil.....we aren't stealing their land, we are trading them other lands for it, lands where they can live and not come into contact with whites. This was an attempt to mask naked land theft, but it did serve to make the thieves feel better about themselves.

In the case of the Plains Indians, there was never a central plan, never any sort of larger goal. Rather, events there unfolded in a chaotic, disorganized manner with good intentions being trampled by misunderstandings, public promises ruined by the actions of private individuals, and government policy being modified by the eccentricities of individual Indian agents, military commanders and tribal chiefs.

In the end the results were always the same, the white man prevailed and the red man was compelled to accept the consequences of defeat.

[Leovigildo]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

True but keep in mind that the Spaniards were cruel regardless of their enemy's race or ethnicity, they were just as cruel to Moors, Dutchmen, French (look what Menendez did to the French in Florida), Englishmen and Turks as they were to Indians.

And in their favor the Spaniards never denied the humanity of the Indians; the Spaniards were an imperial people who looked at cruelty as part of the human condition. And the Spaniards were willing to intermarry with Indians and look after their souls. They also recognized the special position of the Tlaxcalan and surviving Mexica aristocracy.

The Spaniards were a complex people who I think get a bum rap, the Black Legend and all that.

---------

Oh, yes, The Black Legend....still alive in North America.....
The "cruelty" stuff also comes from the Black Legend....
Spanish were not cruel against Indians, they conquered Mexico and Peru helped by Indians.
Spanish behaved the same way that all European did at their time.
It just happens that the Spanish (Castillians) had an Empire in which the sun never set, and the rest of inhabitants of Europe were "starvelings", in the case of English, "heathenish starvelings" and "perfids".
They had to resort to robbery and to illegal expeditions to Spanish territory to survive, after they cut the throath of Mary.
Yes, Irish, Irish are "Spanish without sun and without wine". Spain and France sent countless expeditions to help them against English.
Spain took many Irish refugees and Irish names are common in Spain, we don't consider them foreigners.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by Leovigildo

---------

Spain and France sent countless expeditions to help them against English.
Spain took many Irish refugees and Irish names are common in Spain, we don't consider them foreigners.

Yes, I know that. The Spanish sent an expedition to help O'Neil fight the Tudors and many Irish fled to Spain after the English victory.

The last Irish viceroy of Mexico was O'Donoju and San Jaun Puerto Rico was fortified by O'Riley and O'Daly.

It's also said the Celts who settled in Ireland came from Spain, Galicia perhaps?

It's also well known that in The United States Irish guys have a thing for Mexican women and vice versa; I know of many Irish-Mexican marriages including a couple in my family.

[Leovigildo]

Irish

Ireland, England and Scotland were settled from Spain 6.000 years ago. They sailed there in "currags", flimsy leather boats. They weren't Celts since Celts (their culture) invaded Europe 4.000 years ago. Some historians say that Western Celts (not the Hallstat culture from Germany) originated in Spain.

Quite difficult to ascertain. For example, just from studying archeological artifacts it's very difficult to determine if the region called Gaelecia (Galicia) in Spain during Roman times was really Celtic (belonging to that culture). But yes, they are related to Irish, Wales and Scotland, but not to invaders (Anglo-Saxons, Normans), that are in fact a tiny minoriy there.

But yes, modern Galicia is related to "modern" Celts, they received a very large wave of britons from Brittany (British Isles) on the 4th Century, during the last period of the Roman Empire. They were fleeing the invasion of Angles and Saxons. They celebrate Celtic Festivals with music and pipes every year with people coming from the "Five Celtic Nations" and they get seriously drunk.

So after five centuries of wars against England, now science, through mithocondrial studies, determined that they are our offsprings. Quite curious.

As to the relation of Irish with Mexico and Spanish America, they were better treated there than in Protestant America. The famous "Brigada San Patricio"...