I fail to see your point. There was no army in the colonies to enforce the
treaties - in fact the treaties were frequently broken by the colonists who
seem to have been unable to require their citizens to adhere to the law. If
the treaty said that the Indians would be allowed to live "here" as long as
the sun shines and the rivers run, and a year later, some yahoo moved onto
that land, the colonies did not uproot the yahoo, but just sent presents to
the Natives and "negotiated" a new treaty that totally disregarded the fact
that the last one had been broken, and insisted they were still "friends" to
the Natives, who could occupy less and less of their land promised to them
"as long as the sun shines and the rivers flow". It was not the lack of an
army, but a general attitude that promises to the Natives did not have to be
kept. Then, big crocodile tears were shed when the Natives "uprose" and
"massacred" the invaders. The government swore again they were "friends" to
the Natives, but the line between them was pushed further and further back.
I'm reading a book called "Into the Woods" by James H. Merrell, who makes it
pretty clear how the Natives were abused until they pushed back.
Anne
Anne Pemberton
[log in to unmask]
http://www.erols.com/apembert
http://www.educationalsynthesis.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "James Brothers" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 12:59 PM
Subject: Re: Lack of a Standing Army and Indians
> Diplomacy was pointless if the US government could not enforce the
> treaties that were signed. Without the ability to enforce treaties (an
> army), the intent of the treaties (whether or not the US was sincere when
> they signed the treaties) was moot.
>
>
> James Brothers, RPA
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
> On Jun 8, 2007, at 10:20, Anne Pemberton wrote:
>
>> 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/apembert
>> http://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]
|
