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]