The Union Army did the moral and righteous and glorious thing...
Natty
Then they turned west to exterminate the red man.
Hmmmm.
S Witmer
Hmmm indeed. Recall, for example, that neither the north nor south had
a monopoly on mistreatment of the natives. Trail of Tears? Seminole
Wars? Creek War? All southern antebellum wars.
Incidentally, for all that the mistreatment of the Native Americans,
there were people, largely in the Northeast, that advocated for Native
American rights. General George Crook, for example, openly advocated
"Indian Suffrage" - giving them the vote and US citizenship. He also
testified in front of Congress about the injustices against the Native
Americans under the existing Bureau of Indian Affairs and noted the
complication that the wars started when the Native Americans got tired
of the abuse and dared to defend themselves against, at which time all
the abusers got indignant and demanded that the army come in and put
down the uprising. When ordered to arrest members of the Ponca tribe
for leaving their reservation (IIRC, the Omahas had invited them to
come live on their reservation with them and so they were accepted the
invitation and were living peacefully on the Omaha reservation), Crook
carried out his orders but also contacted a lawyer who intervened on
behalf of the Poncas (the case was ultimately lost, if I recall).
So what, exactly, is the point you were trying to make? That human
beings are often hypocrites? The north certainly has no monopoly on
that, as evidenced by the south going to war to preserve their freedom
to own other human beings, or the inclusion of slavery in the
Constitution.
ray o'hara
"Natty" <mcampb...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1156249925....@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> Freeing the black man.
>
> Then they turned west to exterminate the red man.
>
> Hmmmm.
>
eliminating the indians long predated the civil war. the trail of tears
was a southern initiative. before columbus indians lived everywhere coast to
coast.
Brad Meyer
wrote:
Anyone who thinks killing one's fellow man under _any_ circumstances
whatsoever is a "moral and righteous and glorious thing" either hasn't
done combat or is a reall sick individual.
Robert Kolker
Killing evil doers is Good. The idea is to do it from a distance so you
don't get upset. I helped design A-bombs and cruise missle terrain
guidance systems which are know for a fact are responsible for the death
of thousands. I do not have the least regret. Killing one's enemies is
as natural as eating, sleeping and breathing.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert Kolker
> Freeing the black man.
>
> Then they turned west to exterminate the red man.
That wasn't the army. That was the land hungry civillians in the East
and South. The land was there. It was taken by by force. Southrons would
have done the same thing. It was the Southron Andrew Jackson who put the
Cherokee on the Trail of Tears, the American version of the Bata'an
Death March.
Bob Kolker
scott s.
news:IKCdnd_oWYDrgHHZ...@comcast.com:
"Removal" was national policy from about the Louisiana purchase until
the civil war. First, in response to Indian support of the British,
northern removal pushed the Indians into Iowa, Minnisota, and later
Dakota. Then, southern removal to Indian Territory followed. Removal
policy began to break down in the 1840s, as increased migration to the west
coast resulted in a 'second front". After the war, migration to the former
removed Indian lands made the policy impossible to maintain (or at least,
the US was unwilling to enforce the policy), not to mention the problem
of Indians who had occupied the former Mexican states and territories.
scott s.
Brad Meyer
wrote:
>Brad Meyer wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Aug 2006 14:41:25 CST, "Natty" <mcampb...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Anyone who thinks killing one's fellow man under _any_ circumstances
>> whatsoever is a "moral and righteous and glorious thing" either hasn't
>> done combat or is a reall sick individual.
>
>Killing evil doers is Good.
Now you are changing the question or you are unable to distinguish
between that which is good and that which is moral. As to this
question, killing _anyone_ is _not_ good. Never. Sometimes it is
necessary, but the necesity does not make it a good thing. And since
killing is an evil act anyway, killing evil doers is doing evil.
Besides, who the hell dies and left any of us in charge of what is
good and evil?
>Killing one's enemies is
>as natural as eating, sleeping and breathing.
All quite true, but this does not make the activity either "good" or
"moral", just natural.