Sherry Chandler

With the notion of Manifest Destiny came the push to extend the United States from sea to sea, but unfortunately we were once again going into land that was already occupied, some of which we had ceded by treaty to the Native American nations.

About two months ago, a reader sent me a link to this editorial from Harper’s Weekly, dated Saturday, March 19, 1870, and I have been cogitating ever since on how best to share it with you here;

On the 24th of May, 1637, before dawn, Captains Mason and Underhill prayed, broke camp, and surprised a Pequot fort upon the Mystic River in Connecticut. Within an hour it was burned to the ground, and of the four hundred Indians not more than five escaped. This fearful blow, says the historian, secured civilization in New England. William Penn secured it differently in Pennsylvania. But without refining too closely upon the necessities of war in the earliest colonial times, is it not evident that what may have been necessary for a band of settlers in a strange and savage country three thousand miles from their own land is hardly justifiable two hundred and fifty years later in a civilized nation of forty millions of people dealing with some thousands of skulking savages?

Yet the recent destruction of the Piegan Indians by United States troops was in pursuance of that policy of Indian warfare which has undoubtedly the general approval. We mean that it is the common opinion that the Indians are a treacherous, cruel, remorseless race, wretched human vermin, who observe no rules of honorable war, and who will ravage and murder the innocent and helpless wherever and whenever they can, and that nothing but striking them “where it hurts,” as General SHERIDAN says, will tend to protect our women and children from their ferocity.

…And, undoubtedly, the feeling which led to the destruction of the Piegans was, at bottom, precisely the same as that which burned the Pequot fort upon the Mystic. Nevertheless, the policy of extermination is inhuman and unworthy of the United States; and it is enormously expensive. It costs the Government, says Mr. Phillips, about a million of dollars to kill a single Indian. Moreover, what must be the moral effect upon an army and its officers of such a system of warfare?

…General PARKER, the Indian agent or superintendent, himself of Indian descent, does not approve the policy of extermination. President GRANT does not approve it. The country, which gives but a languid attention to the subject, and is willing to believe any crime of savages, must yet observe that the Indian question is by no means settled by the present policy; the exposed families are not defended; and, if it inquires, it will discover that in Canada Indian wars are unknown, and that the Indian policy of that country is radically different from ours.

…The British policy aims to place the Indians under the protection of the law of the land. Our plan is to keep them aliens, and to make treaties with them as foreign people living upon our own domain. The result in the first case is unbroken peace; in the second, endless war.

…And if not for the Indians, then for ourselves, let us ascertain who is to blame in these endless quarrels, and whether the force of the army should not rather be directed against our own people, whose endless cheating and lawlessness rouse their victims to revenge.

My reader commented thusly:

It’s interesting to note that there were no Indian wars in Canada at the time of the writing of this Harper’s document.

Also interesting to note that not everyone in the U.S. was in favor of solving problems by killing every redskin. But like today, it didn’t seem to make much of an impact on policy.

See any similarities with how we treat aliens today? Arab policy? What’s this say about the U.S. psyche?

A really good question.

This document and others can be found at the American Indian Genocide Museum.

[Addendum: In a second ditorial dated February 24, 1877, Harper's is still making the same argument.]

A fairy godmother has been good enough to nominate this blog in three categories for the Seventh Annual Weblog Awards. The categories are:

• Best topical weblog
• Best writing of a weblog
• Weblog of the year

That is amazing and I am very pleased that some one would think enough of my blog to make the nominations.

Last year those categories were won by Postsecret (a national phenomenon), Go Fug Yourself, and Postsecret.

These are not blogs with which I can even try, if I wanted, to compete.

Only five blogs in each category are submitted for the vote and selection is based on number of nominations received for each blog.

If you have a few really favorite blogs, I suggest you drop by the site and make some nominations. I’ve nominated my bloglist. You never know. Your favorites might make the running.

Nominations are open until January 10. Voting begins January 22.