Will Attacks on Monuments Include Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan?

Newsmax ^ | 28 Aug 2017 | Larry Bell

[Javeth]

We are witnessing a growing trend of angry attempts to erase past racial injustices through attacks upon Civil War monuments, those symbolically associated with a tragic era of slavery.

Inflamed by violence leading to a death characterized in the media as a "white supremacist rally" protesting removal of a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee in Charlottesville, Virginia hundreds of other statues, markers and other symbols memorializing important Confederate figures and events are now also under siege throughout the nation.

If we are to erase evidence and symbols of historical injustices, where does this end? After all, why stop with Confederate leaders when great blame for racial intolerance and misery can be attributed to Northern leaders for terrible oppressions directed to indigenous Indian populations?

Injustices against people like my great grandmother’s Winnebago tribal members who were forcibly relocated to reservations in Minnesota and Nebraska, for example.

So if we’re really serious about removing public memorials to "white supremacists," shouldn’t those who perpetrated devastating racial assaults upon true Native Americans be included? And why not begin with Grant’s Tomb in New York, N.Y.?

I’m referring, of course, to President Ulysses S. Grant, whose administration transferred vast tribal lands to private pioneers, land speculators, and railroad and mining companies.

If not actual genocide, his solution to the "Indian problem" certainly influenced a cultural genocide. As he explained, "I see no substitute for such a system, except in placing all the Indians on large reservations, as rapidly as it can be done."

As white settlers continued to push Indians off their tribal lands, those on reservations experienced increasing poverty and desperation. Meanwhile, Grant’s administration oversaw the completion of the First Transcontinental Railroad and the great slaughters of the Plains buffalo which destroyed their traditional ways of life.

Rebellions against Grant’s Indian "peace policies" led to tragic massacres and military conflicts. Included were the Modoc War in California, the Red River War in Texas, the Nez Perce conflict in Oregon, and the Black Hills campaign and Battle of the Little Bighorn led by George Armstrong Custer.

Efforts by great chiefs such as Sitting Bull, Chief Joseph, Geronimo and Cochise who led battles to preserve their lands and ways of life were ultimately defeated. They were no match for frontier generals commanding ever-growing armies and devastating weaponry.

As Oglala Chief Red Cloud told Grant upon visiting the White House in 1870, "The riches we have in this world . . . we cannot take with us to the next world. . . . "Then I wish to know why agents are sent out to us who do nothing but rob us and get the riches of this world away from us."

Grant predicted in 1874 that "a few years more will relieve our frontiers from danger of Indian depredations." Assisted by another Union leader, his prediction was provident.

General William Tecumseh Sherman who began his military career under then-General Grant in the first Battle of Bull Run of 1862 worked to bring about a "final Indian solution." In 1865 Sherman assumed command of a campaign against the Plains Indians in support of powerful politically-connected interests, including corporations involved in building the transcontinental railroads.

Following the War Between the States and his 1864 "scorched-earth" torching of Atlanta and pillaging of civilian properties which laid waste to lives and livelihoods along a large swath of Northern Georgia, Sherman renewed his Indian extermination conquest. In 1865 he was given command of the Military District of the Missouri which commenced a 25-year-long war against the Plains Indians.

As Sherman wrote to Grant in 1867, "We are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians check and stop the progress [of the railroads]." He clearly described his assigned Indian extermination objective as being "to prosecute the war with vindictive earnestness . . . till [the Indians] are obliterated or beg for mercy."

Sherman assured his subordinate General Philip H. Sheridan, "I will back you with my whole authority, and stand between you and any efforts that may be attempted in your rear to restrain your purpose or check your troops." This referred to prior authorization to kill as many women and children that Sheridan and his subordinates thought necessary when attacking Indian villages.

Both Sherman and Sheridan are forever associated with the slogan "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." So let’s also schedule the two large Washington, D.C. equestrian monuments dedicated to Sherman and Sheridan for demolition too.

Alternatively, we might heed some advice offered by Texas Governor Greg Abbot in an American Statesman article, "We must remember that our history isn’t perfect. If we do not learn from our history, we are doomed to repeat it . . . instead of trying to bury our past, we must learn from it and ensure it doesn’t happen again." He added that "tearing down" those symbols won’t change the past, nor will it help the nation’s future."

[DiogenesLamp]

"Of course none of this is justified in today's terms, but you do history a disservice when you chose to tell only one side of the story."

Let that sink in for a moment.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "First of all, where do you get off accepting the premise that the Indians must be confined to "reservations"?
Is this not like "concentration camps"? "

So you tell us, oh wise one, how much of America you truly believe we should "give back" to Native Americans?
And while you're at it, how much Native American blood do I need to qualify for some of your "give backs"?
I mean, if Senator Pocahontas will get some, why can't I?

How about, if I real quick marry off one of my daughters to someone like a Pocahontas, could I be "chained" in, do you think?
And what if my ancestors can be shown to have purchased their land from Native Americans, "fair & square", can we still keep it, or have to give it all back anyway?

And then where do we go, back to Europe?
You know one of my relatives did a DNA test and turns out we have ancestors from all over Europe, who knew?
But no country over 50%, so where would we go?

I know: let's put all us whites in reservations and make us work paying reparations to the descendants of all those poor victims of our ancestors "white privilege".
Sure, that's the ticket...

We'll call it the D.P.P.L.L.G.B.T.Q.X.-S.A..
(Democrat People's Progressive Liberal LGBTQX States of America!)

Go ahead, DiogenesLamp, tell us what you suggest.

</sarcasm>

[BroJoeK]

Rockrr: " Nice post BroJoek. I started one remarkably similar to yours - and then “Why bother?” there’s not much point is casting pearls before swine like demojeff. "

You know, I've never understood what the word "troll" means, yes, it sounds sinister but it can't just be somebody you disagree with.
There's more to it, but what, exactly?
Somebody who puts out deliberately provocative posts, for the purpose of generating responses?
Well, aren't we all a bit "provocative" on occasion?
Maybe it's their post is knowingly dishonest?
But who could prove that -- i.e., if I say, "I think a rose stinks", with apologies to Shakespeare & Stein, who's to say if I'm being truthful?
And does that define a troll?
I don't know.

Point is: now check out jeffersondem's posts 154 and 203.
Notice first, they are identical, the first to me, the 2nd to another poster.
Notice second, they are separated by half a dozen posts where I seriously answered jeffersondem's ludicrous claims.
And yet, soon as the opportunity presents, he starts over, as if he'd learned nothing.

jeffersondem's is a blatant example, but DiogenesLamp does similar-- never learns, never corrects himself, regardless of how wrong.
jmacusa reports he has some mental defect, but I don't "get" that.
Rather suspect they have their scripts, and they stick to them, whatever the occasion or facts or reasons presented.

Up to now we've only dealt with their Civil War scripts, but here they expand into post-war 19th century Indian Wars, doubtless to increase their indictments against Grant, Sherman & others.
***Maybe if they can't win the Civil War, they can at least win the Indian Wars??? ***
Here we see jeffersondem using what he has -- quotes, word definitions & conundrums.
DiogenesLamp supplies some data, but I doubt if either has their scripts fully worked out yet...
I guess we'll see where they go with it, if anywhere...

[rockrr]

I will readily admit that there are many - both on the internet generally and here at FreeRepublic - who fervently believe in the Lost Cause. Posting their opinions in no way automatically makes them trolls.

A troll is someone who comes on a board or visit a thread with the express intent to do mischief. They aren't here to learn, they aren't here to discuss, they aren't here to advocate. They are here to disrupt.

You can tell trolls by their tactics. A troll is full of pretense and misdirection. A troll asks "gotcha" questions, submits lots of red herrings, and non sequiturs. They'll put words in your mouth - if you let them.

You know as well as I do that no one ever "wins" on the internet. I can't tell you how much I've learned about history from these threads. And I'll admit when I'm wrong about something, because that's all part of the learning process. There are many who don't - when someone's position is refuted they just go quiet for a day or two and then come back with the same old tired lines.

But it's the trollish ones who deign to repeat the same crap in the same thread feeeeeeling that no one will notice.

Of course it's all too easy to pretend oneself to being the troll arbiter. So much so that several years ago I began responding to taunts of 'troll!' by saying "Everyone is someone's troll - even you!" Spoken as someone who has been accused of being a troll a time or two... ;'}

[jeffersondem]

“Now I sincerely apologize for saying you aren't that stupid.” “You and Michelle Obama - never missing an opportunity to slander American patriots.” “jeffersondem’s is a blatant example, but DiogenesLamp does similar— never learns, never corrects himself, regardless of how wrong.
jmacusa reports he has some mental defect . . .”

Supposed in-group members influencing each other to arrive at common out-group stereotype.

Professionals say it is combative messaging designed to disqualify opponents.

Grandma said it was name calling.

[rockrr]

Oh, I should also mention that trolls are big on virtue signaling.

[DiogenesLamp]

Supposed in-group members influencing each other to arrive at common out-group stereotype.

Also called "group think." Yes, very astute, and well put. Not many people are even aware of this phenomena. The Nazis called it "Gleichschaltung" and imposed it on everyone else.

The Northern publishers of History books, Northern Society, and the US government itself, has worked to do this very thing on the populace ever since they did what they did.

They are still doing this sort of thing today if you don't have their liberal morality opinions on issues of homosexuality, abortion, or even the free spending of Federal money. Maligning dissenters as kooks or calling them irrational has a long record in human history.

Professionals say it is combative messaging designed to disqualify opponents.

It is in fact part of a "meme war."

Grandma said it was name calling.

Simplified right down to the core.

[jmacusa]

Hey smart guy, by his own admission Diogenes says he has Aspergers Syndrome. Look it up and what it is. I'm beginning to think you suffer from it too.

[jeffersondem]

“Hey smart guy . . . I’m beginning to think you suffer from it too.”

I knew someone would be sent out to defend the indefensible.

I’m sorry it had to be you that drew the short straw. I always look forward to reading your posts.

[jmacusa]

Indefensible? Dude I'm telling you the truth and being kind to you. The others don't bother addressing you because they don't fell you worth the effort. They don't because like your buddy “The Lampster’’ they've got you pegged as a mental midget.

[jeffersondem]

“Indefensible? Dude I’m telling you the truth and being kind to you. The others don’t bother addressing you because they don’t fell you worth the effort.” (sic)

I think I’m starting to see the problem.

[x]

Not many people are even aware of this phenomena. The Nazis called it "Gleichschaltung" and imposed it on everyone else.

Yes, they came up with cockamamie theories and repeated them over and over again until they had people believing them.

Sounds very familiar.

They also hated New York City.

[jmacusa]

Oh wow. What brilliance! A spelling mistake. Ok genius.

[piasa]

Probably because they were going about it in an unlawful, unconstitional way.

[jeffersondem]

“Oh wow. What brilliance! A spelling mistake. Ok genius.”

Nothing wrong with making a spelling error. It's just a little awkward to do it in a post where you level a personal attack.

Next time just dot your "i's" when you decide to lash out in anger.

I always look forward to your posts.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "Supposed in-group members influencing each other to arrive at common out-group stereotype.
Professionals say it is combative messaging designed to disqualify opponents."

rockrr: "Oh, I should also mention that trolls are big on virtue signaling."

I noticed last time when jeffersondem got his panties all twisted over alleged "virtue signaling", which I never heard of until recently, still don't know what it is, or why supposedly a bad thing.
This time he leaves off the name, but gives us a fancy definition.

And before we go further, let's notice that of the many real historical issues jeffersondem might have responded to, this is the one, an apparent sociological non-issue, he chose.

So what is "virtue signaling" and is it a bad thing?
Well, in the military they use codes call "I.F.F." -- Identify Friend or Foe.
From simple pass words (challenge: "Halt! Who goes there, Davy" response: "Crockett, it's me Charlie") to sophisticated radio codes between aircraft, they all say basically the same thing: "don't shoot, I'm your friend".
Now in wide-ranging internet debates over many subjects from different perspectives it can get hard to tell whose opinions we support, and whose we don't.
So, some IFF might be necessary just to prevent debate friendly fire "fratricide".

But of course debate-fratricide is exactly what jeffersondem desires foremost.
Indeed, you may have noticed that jeffersondem is never in his glory so much as when he can quote supposedly opposing opinions of his opponents and say, in effect: you two fight it out.
Now, if debate-fratricide is your goal, then of course, IFF is your enemy.
So, we can well imagine: "I know, let's give it a name that people will naturally shy away from, let's call it 'virtue signaling' and we'll accuse people of it until they quiver and shake with fear, stop doing it and aim their rhetorical guns at each other.
Yeah! 'virtue signaling', that's the ticket!"

Bottom line: I still don't know what "troll" means and so far "virtue signaling" seems to mean, despite jeffersondem's fancy definition, basically little more than IFF.

You disagree?

[DiogenesLamp]

Yes, they came up with cockamamie theories and repeated them over and over again until they had people believing them.

I'm surprised to see you admit it, but yes, that is exactly what happened. They now have the public believing that States didn't have a right to independence, and that they sent invading armies into these states to abolish slavery.

Total nonsense, yet it has been made pervasive by constant repetition from the authorities and their allies.

[DiogenesLamp]

Probably because they were going about it in an unlawful, unconstitional way.

And what did the constitution say about it when the US broke from the United Kingdom back in 1776?

[DiogenesLamp]

I noticed last time when jeffersondem got his panties all twisted over alleged "virtue signaling", which I never heard of until recently, still don't know what it is, or why supposedly a bad thing.

You are out of touch. "Virtue Signaling" has been a term that has been employed for at least the last eight years. It means someone who is making public pronouncements to make their peers aware of how "virtuous" they are. It is not unlike the Pharisees prayer.

"9And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others: 10Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. 11The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. 12I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. 13And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. 14I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."

George Clooney has done all sorts of "Virtue Signaling" about refugees, but he has abandoned his mansion in Italy when it became surrounded by refugees, and now he has made a statement about moving back to LA from London because he now considers the city too dangerous. Of course he hasn't taken in any refugees himself, he just gets on various television shows and demands that governments take them in. He is showing how "virtuous" he is by "caring" about the refugees, so long as it doesn't put him out very much.

It also applies to people who want to argue the civil war was "just", because "slavery was bad." They can show how "virtuous" they are by condemning slavery, based on the lie that "slavery" was the reason the North invaded the South.

Bottom line: I still don't know what "troll" means and so far "virtue signaling" seems to mean, despite jeffersondem's fancy definition, basically little more than IFF.

You disagree?

"Virtue Signaling" goes beyond IFF. Yes, it does that too, but it also spreads propaganda. It reinforces the meme that there are a lot of people who believe this way, and therefore other people should also believe this way because there are so many people who do.

What are known as "logical fallacies" such as "Argumentum ad populum" (I am correct because so many people agree with me) , may be inherently flawed from a reasoning point of view, but they resonate with humans who rely mosly on emotion to decide how they feel about something.

The argument that a lot of people agree with me is a very powerful argument from the perspective of persuading people, even though it is a nonsense argument from the perspective of rational people.

"Virtue Signaling" performs that function as well as helping like minded people identify each other.

[DiogenesLamp]

Hey smart guy, by his own admission Diogenes says he has Aspergers Syndrome.

I didn't exactly say that, but I still get a kick out of it every time you bring it up. It's like you think it's a "thing" or something. Look up the term "weaponized autism." :)

Look it up and what it is. I'm beginning to think you suffer from it too.

Calling your opponents crazy or mentally defective is just another ad hominem. I personally don't really care about what people call me. To paraphrase Will Rogers, "It's not what they call you, it's what you answer to."