How Lincoln’s Army 'Liberated' the Indians

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

[Non-Sequitur]

He didn't blame it on Lincoln, he blamed it on Sherman. It would help if you read the article before posting such inane rantings.

Then why is it called "How Lincoln's Army 'Liberated' the Indians"? Or didn't you read the title before posting your inane response?

[Junior]

Because it was the same army created by Lincoln to fight the War Between the States. The rest of the article, however, focuses on Sherman, Sheridan and Grant and their actions against non-combatants in an effort to eradicate a people. You can hem and haw all you want, but it was the Federal Army which did these things. When Lee invaded the North, he specifically ordered his men not to despoil the land or the people therein. Sherman, however, believed in killing everyone: combatants and non-combatants alike. He burned several Southern cities, allowed his men to rape "contrabands" and pretty much acted like Atilla the Hun. And these attitudes carried over to the Indian Wars.

[LaBelleDameSansMerci]

Yes, yes, yes. Let us smash the icons!! Evil hypocrits!! Liars, murderers, racists all!! Let us hold them up to the righteous indignation and scorn of our enlightened consciences!! Destroy the marble men!! Burn the blue-eyed demon!! Burn them out of our books, out of our hearts, out of our minds and out of the sight of our all-knowing eyes. Smash the statues wherever ye may find them!!!

I know that I will be much happier living in a country where only statues of black muslims and memorials to the Holocaust will be allowed....

[Lee'sGhost]

Hmm, let me answer the way you do: The act provided for 74 delegates, prove that they did not exist. I'm sure the CSA created a fund for phantom Indian delegates in the hopes of one day tricking Southernphobes like you. And, how do you know the blood mix of the Indians involved? What's your source? Go ahead, do some research to answer my questions so I can do this again. It's easy, NS, anybody can do it. You don't have to be especially bright to play three card Monte.

You just can't bring yourself to concede the point, bec in your mind, you're never wrong. I'll not waste my time with you again.

You know that old saying about, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink?"

[Sam's Army]

"You know that old saying about, "you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink?""

Same saying may apply for folks who can't seem to get over a war that's been over for about 138 years. Such is life.

[Non-Sequitur]

Delegates to what? Are you suggesting the delegates in question were members of the confederate legislature? You said that the south had Cherokee representation in their government. Well, where?

I'll not waste my time with you again.

Where have I heard that line before?

[Non-Sequitur]

Because it was the same army created by Lincoln to fight the War Between the States.

Nah, it's because Tommy can't write a think without working Lincoln into it somehow.

Because it was the same army created by Lincoln to fight the War Between the States.

The government treatment of Indians was deplorable before the rebellion and it was deplorable after the rebellion. But are you suggesting that it was all done against the wishes of the good people of the south or that they somehow tried to moderate the government treatment? That is nonsense. Any blood that the government has on its hands concerning the Indians is distributed just as freely below the Mason-Dixon line as above it.

[Lee'sGhost]

"Same saying may apply for folks who can't seem to get over a war that's been over for about 138 years. Such is life."

I know that was supposed to be a slam but it just tells me you miss the point. Life is good.

[Lee'sGhost]

"Where have I heard that line before?"

LOL! My bet would be EVERYWHERE! LMAO.

[ml/nj]

I wonder if DiLusional thinks we should feel guilty for winning WW2? After all, that wouldn't have been possible had the north not won their Unholy War of Protracted Crop Burning and Babykilling on the south.

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?

(Dangerous reasoning from a Liberal?)

ML/NJ

[Sam's Army]

"I know that was supposed to be a slam but it just tells me you miss the point."

My point was made clearly; no miss at all. It's gotta suck to lose a war, but somehow life went on.

[Sam's Army]

"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?"

Not quite; I make no bones about the fact that there are/were atrocities in every conflict. My point is that we are better as a nation today because of the north's victory. So much of history would have been different otherwise and likely we would never have emerged as a world power.

And I strongly refute your question of me being a liberal just because I think differently than the Lincoln-bashers.

[ml/nj]

"Post hoc, ergo propter hoc?"

Not quite; I make no bones about the fact that there are/were atrocities in every conflict. My point is that we are better as a nation today because of the north's victory. So much of history would have been different otherwise and likely we would never have emerged as a world power.

I think you need to look up the meaning of the expression I used.

And I strongly refute your question of me being a liberal just because I think differently than the Lincoln-bashers.

I'm not sure how you refute a question. But if I may guess at your point, saying something doesn't make it a refutation.

ML/NJ

[Sam's Army]

"I think you need to look up the meaning of the expression I used."

Sorry, I guess I'm not as lofty as thee; I have no latin text and have yet to have a need for it while communicating in the real world.

"I'm not sure how you refute a question."

I just did. Is this a debate on an issue or a linguistics class, Dr Chomsky? What about my point of where we would be today had the war turned out different? That seems easily ignored in favor of a critique on fluffier matters.

[Aurelius]

"Yes, yes, yes. Let us smash the icons!! Evil hypocrits!! Liars, murderers, racists all!! Let us hold them up to the righteous indignation and scorn of our enlightened consciences!! Destroy the marble men!!"

By Jove, I think you've got it. LaBelleDame

[Aurelius]

"Snooze"

I'm glad to hear that you are employing your time constructively, for a change.

[Lee'sGhost]

"My point was made clearly, . . ."

Yes, your point was clear -- just not applicable. My point is that people discuss historic matters for many reasons that have nothing to do with "still fighting the war." If it did, we could just quit teaching history all together. You obviously did and do miss that point or you would not have made the comment to someone whom you know nothing about. Either that or you simply chose not to acknowledge such matters because that would require exercising a modicum of intellect and take you out of your comfort zone.

And, yes, I guess it does suck losing a war, though I wouldn't know from personal experience. You would have much more experience with that as witnessed by your daily losing of the war or words.

Good day.

[Sam's Army]

"My point is that people discuss historic matters for many reasons that have nothing to do with "still fighting the war.""

Your screenname makes that statement dubious.

"And, yes, I guess it does suck losing a war, though I wouldn't know from personal experience."

Then thank God that you are an American and that things turned out the way they did in the past, including the Civil War.

"You would have much more experience with that as witnessed by your daily losing of the war or words."

That's your opinion, I guess. My words are always pretty much the same message: The war is over, please get over it."

And a good day to you as well :)

[shuckmaster]

Dixie ping!

[ml/nj]

Sorry, I guess I'm not as lofty as thee; I have no latin text and have yet to have a need for it while communicating in the real world.

You don't need a Latin "text." The expression is in the Merriam-Webster dictionary I have at hand - in the English section!

You may not need to know what post hoc, ergo propter hoc means if you intend to pump gas all your life, but if you think you like debating political issues you might have a look at a logic text sometime. FTR post hoc, ergo propter hoc is a particular type of faulty reasoning. I suppose if you like the conclusion you reached it probably doesn't matter to you how you got there, but it does betray your lack of education.

ML/NJ