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.
Why is it that the south, already home to the institution of slavery and now the reason that Jackson's plan to forcibly remove the democratic Cherokee nation and cause the ethnic cleansing of a peaceful people based on southern help? This viewpoint on white supremacy and the subjugation, enslavement, murder or forcible relocation of non white people was the predominant viewpoint in the south at that time, leading to the destruction of the cultured and peaceful Cherokee nation.
Why were views on race so polarized din this nation during these times? I cannot understand, from a cultural standpoint, why the nation was completely divided on the subject of race along almost geographical boundaries. The southern views were polar opposite of their New England counterparts in the House and Senate (even if the attitudes on race were often depressingly similar in both north and south).
What was the deal with the South, what caused this ethnocentric willingness to consider other races less than human?
Just going off the top of my head, as I recall, the people of the southern states had no particular problem with the Cherokees, had no strong feelings about them being forced out, and set up enough resistance that the forced march did not take place until well into the Van Buren administration---with Andrew Jackson still lobbying for it with a Jesse Helms-like fixation. Correct me if I'm wrong.
The Indian tribes of much of the Old Northwest were removed at the same time----the Kickapoos, Shawnee, Sauks, most of the Miami, many of the Potawatomi and Winnebagos and others. Those Indians who remained in the Midwest were those who lived far enough north that the Americans didn't particularly covet their land at that time---Ojibwas, Ottawas, Menominees and others in northern Michigan and Wisconsin.
So I think showing Indian removal has some particular southern basis is difficult.
For what it's worth (not much), many of the most profilgate outrages against Indians (Little Big Horn,, Nez-Perce, Wounded Knee, etc.) were carried out by Union soldiers who had nothing else to do after the Civil War.
For what it's worth (not much), many of the most profilgate outrages against Indians (Little Big Horn,, Nez-Perce, Wounded Knee, etc.) were carried out by Union soldiers who had nothing else to do after the Civil War.
Well many of the officers of the Regular Army were veterans of the Civil War, they were professional soldiers and naturally continued to practice their trade. I doubt many of the regular rankers were veterans of that war though, especially by the 1870s.
I wouldn't say they had nothing else to do; they were given a job by the government, to subdue and police the Indians, and they did it.
For what it's worth (not much), many of the most profilgate outrages against Indians (Little Big Horn,, Nez-Perce, Wounded Knee, etc.) were carried out by Union soldiers who had nothing else to do after the Civil War.
Well, duh.... You're joking, right? Your grasp of the obvious is mind-boggling. Since there weren't any Confederate soldiers left since there wasn't any Confederacy left, who else would it have been? I am not condoning the position by the U. S. government, just saying no other government would have had the authority. Isn't this akin to saying American G.I.s had to fight Imperial forces in the South Pacific because they couldn't find any Nazis or Facists there instead?
Last edited by MICoastieMom; 05-06-2009 at 09:15 AM..
Reason: spelling error
For what it's worth (not much), many of the most profilgate outrages against Indians (Little Big Horn,, Nez-Perce, Wounded Knee, etc.) were carried out by Union soldiers who had nothing else to do after the Civil War.
I'd bet my boots that In Texas FAR more Indians were killed by the Texas Rangers than by The United States Army.
I'd bet my boots that In Texas FAR more Indians were killed by the Texas Rangers than by The United States Army.
You'll win a new pair of boots. In Texas the Rangers went after the Commanches pretty hard while the US Army and the Commanches were on somewhat of "leave me alone and I'll leave you alone" terms.
Isn't this akin to saying American G.I.s had to fight Imperial forces in the South Pacific because they couldn't find any Nazis or Facists there instead?
US soldiers disgraced themselves in the Indian wars, just as surely as Japanese soldiers disgraced themselves in the Pacific. Few of them were southerners.
Nobody has any trouble distinguishing between the behavior of US soldiers and Japanese soldiers in the Pacific. Soldiers are all equally bound to prosecute war according to their command, but that does not mean they all do so with an equal measure of humanity.
The US Army, after the civil war, comprised overwhelmingly of northerners, certainly has no right to blame "southern" racial culture for the way Indians were treated in the west. No doubt the Indians were treated badly in the south. But no worse than in the north. In fact, on the Trail of Tears, they place they were treated most brutally was in Illinois.
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.
