I really do no think that a standing or larger army was the solution to the
Indian problem. It required diplomacy and the outright trade/purchase of the
desired lands from the Indians. It is to our shame that we took so much land
without purchasing it, and decimated the Indian population for doing nothing
more than enjoying the lands they had "owned" since times ancestoral.
Think how you would feel is an Indian took a shine to your house and
property and came with arms to force you out and take it over without
compensating you in any way for it?
The only reason the US had an "Indian problem" was because we refused to
assimilate to the Indian culture and share in what they had. We were selfish
and wanted it all to ourselves.
Anne
Anne Pemberton
[log in to unmask]http://www.erols.com/apemberthttp://www.educationalsynthesis.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Brothers" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 10:53 PM
Subject: Lack of a Standing Army and Indians
> Author Eric Flint (admittedly of fiction) postulates in two alternate
> history books - 1812: the Rivers of War and 1824- The Arkansas War, that
> the only solution to many of the problems the American Indian had with
> White Americans could only have been solved by a much larger standing
> Army than the early Republic was willing to maintain. He makes a pretty
> good argument that the tiny professional military was totally incapable
> of keeping White Americans from encroaching on Indian land. But when the
> Indians reasonably objected to defacto abrogation of treaties by land
> hungry settlers, the Army could defeat the Indians in battle and force
> them to move.
>
> James Brothers, RPA
> James Brothers
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> James Brothers, RPA
> [log in to unmask]
