Did the 1876 campaign have to happen

[Deleted]

All tribes were to report to the reservations by January or be deemed hostile and turned over to the war department. That was the order from Grant. It was an impossible order many of the villages were hundreds of miles away, the winter was harsh, ponies were unable to travel and they had their families. Many of the messenger's didn't make it to the villages until after the deadline. Sitting Bull sent back a message explaining this& they would arrive in the spring. Reynolds attack on He Dogs village in March of 76 didn't change their minds. Messages were sent to the reservations to meet for the annual Sundance as always and one more big buffalo hunt then they were going to report to the agency's. If the government understood how Indians thought it never had to happen. They always met for the Sundance, they were allowed to hunt in the invested territory and they simply thought since they were not violating the treaty they would report later and it would be fine. If anyone was to blame wasn't it Grant? I was told that they knew their way of life was going to change and they were attempting to change. They knew if they fought that everything would be taken from them. The whole thing did not have to happen. The nation needed the gold in the Black Hills. It would of been cheaper in money and lives to buy the hills than to fight that war.

[colt45]

JD,
I think you are correct here. The great sioux war didn't have to happen as it did. The govt knew the Indians couldn't make the reservations by the timeline given. It was just the excuse to go in and take the land by force. If the govt hadn't insisted on an impossible deadline and waited until spring or early summer, there still would have been some holdouts that would have to be dealt with, but it wouldn't have resulted in the prolonged, bloody war it turned out to be.

[dave]

Did not the whole campaign revolve around possession of the Black Hills? The US was doing its best to steal the sacred Paha Sapa, “the heart of everything that is.” from the Lakota, Cheyenne and Omaha regardless of the cost. The 1877 payment offer by the Federal government was refused by the Lakota and today amounts to well over $1 billion. 
Regards
Dave

[Beth]

True, the whole thing didn't have to happen but the US government wanted it to happen--which is why they issued the order in Dec for the NA to return to the agencies by the end of January or be considered hostiles.  They were aware it was an impossible request, and that they chances are many of the tribes wouldn't even take it serious.  The order was the perfect tool to start a war and not appear to be the aggressors, but merely responding to a situation created by the "Hostiles."

The government had been looking for an excuse to grab the Black Hills plus also there was a lot of pressure to open Indian lands to white settlers and the railroad. The common feelings were the NA were just wasting good farm land by not turning it to the plow-of course the real factor was that people wanted the land and would use any justification to get it.

The campaign really wasn't just about the Black Hills, the Black Hills were the trigger point for the endgame of a clash between two cultures who wanted the same land. Of course after LBH, they even had a rally cry and total public support which had been lukewarm beforehand.

[deadwoodgultch]

Grant, was maneuvered into this order. I don't wholly blame him. He had attempted to have a fair Indian policy. Shortly after Grant took office as president in March 1869, he appointed Ely S. Parker as Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Parker served in this office from 1869 to 1871. He was the first Native American to hold the office. Parker became the chief architect of President Grant's Peace Policy in relation to the Native Americans in the West. Under his leadership, the number of military actions against Indians were reduced in the west. He was a Seneca attorney, engineer, and tribal diplomat. He was commissioned a lieutenant colonel during the American Civil War, when he served as adjutant to Lt. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant. After Parker left the office, everything went south. The Indian agents increased their control over the distribution of rations, goods, and lands, tribal leaders were divested of their authority. They further undermined the traditional role of clans and leaders in resolving disputes. Other federal regulations forbade the practice of Indian ceremonies and required Indians to perform manual labor for their rations. The Railroads wanted land and power. The Army wanted control(think Sherman and Sheridan). Everybody was getting greased, except maybe Grant, I am not sure he was in control of his administration, at this point. Graft and political intrigue ruled the day and a downturn in the economy did not help.

Having said the above, we all know where the buck stops.

Regards,
Tom

[Beth]

I agree, grant was played but as you say, the buck stops with him. He had a very moderate indian policy but was surrounded by the likes of Sherman and sheridan.

[deadwoodgultch]

Grant was loyal to a fault.

[Beth]

Aug 18, 2016 18:54:52 GMT deadwoodgultch said:

Grant was loyal to a fault.

if you are loyal to your friends you have to make sure your friends are worth that loyalty.  

[dave]

One comment in support of Grant. He appointed the first Civil Service Commission which recommended establishing regulations for hiring and promoting government employees which was not supported by congress. He evidently was a decent man who did not have the same ability to govern by consent like he did by military commands. Grant was an early advent of the Peter principle by 100 years.
Regards
Dave

[Beth]

I think that there is much to admire with grant the man. he probably wasn't even a really bad president--he always seemed to have tried to do the right thing. i think that in ways that, like custer, by 1876 he was a man being left behind by time.

[dave]

Beth
Grant's flaw was the same most of us have which is believing the best of people especially friends and family. He was betrayed by power which corrupted many of those he appointed or allowed access to him through his 2 administrations.

The fact he appointed Ely Parker to be Commissioner of Indian Affairs in 1869 displayed his innate goodness that he so wanted to turn into a successful tenure as President. He resolved diplomatic difficulties with Great Britain and Spain so he certainly possessed leadership qualities equaled by his naivety.

Grant has been a particular favorite of mine since I started studying the Battle of Shiloh were Grant was struck in his scabbard by Confederate bullet. How would the outcome of the War been changed if Grant were killed or seriously injured at Shiloh? I have been fascinated since first reading about the incident.
Regards
Dave

"A ball had struck the metal scabbard of my sword, just below the hilt, and broken it nearly off; before the battle was over it had broken off entirely. There were three of us: one had lost a horse, killed; one a hat and one a sword-scabbard. All were thankful that it was no worse."
Ulysses S. Grant, Personal Memoirs of U. S. Grant

[quincannon]

I am in general agreement with all said above.

As a practical matter though trying to stop the outbreak of hostilities in 1876, was like trying to stop a speeding freight train by merely stepping onto the tracks in front of it. Had it not been for the reasons that you all accurately and thoughtfully cited, it would have been something else. Westward expansion was not to be denied.

[dave]

It was more a case of Manifest Destiny than Grant's flaws that created the 1876 campaign as well as the rest of the Westward expansion up through and including the Philippines and Panama. Americans in the 19th century, white middle age males, decided the whole continent should be American and they did their best to accomplish that goal examples being the Oregon Territory, Gadsden Purchase, Alaska and Hawaii.

The plight of Native Americans were not considered as important and they were considered savages and unable to fend for themselves. Decisions made in government offices concerning the relocation of the tribes without care or thought of the Indians needs. The Trail of Tears was a foretaste of the future for the plains, southwestern and western nations.
Regards
Dave

[Beth]

the conflict between settlers and na goes back to jamestown. one of the first efforts to totally eradicate a tribe was the pequot war in 1636.

trail of tears was basically a refugee movement with little consideration to those who are being displaced. that is not to be taken as a reflection on current events (or opening that discussion) but as a pattern in history that has existed probably as long as history has been recorded.

[quincannon]

Actually Jamestown and Plymouth Colony, and every other colonization set attitudes in stone.

My personal tipping point though was a person we do and should hold in very high regard, Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson calculated that it would take a hundred years for even a start of westward expansion on a wide scale following the epic explorations of Lewis and Clark, Pike, and others. He thought that plenty of time to establish and cement good relationships with the tribes, and make that inevitable expansion relatively painless.

Jefferson made two grave mistakes in his presidency, that one, and the continuing food fight with Hamilton over the divergent visions they had for the country, a strong Federal system vs. a rural agrarian nation, where the states were the driving force. The case in point here is that the only way such a limitation on westward expansion would have a prayer, is through a strong Federal system. Jefferson's view of the hundred year window of accommodation, was defeated by his own vision of America.

We don't even need to mention that the Louisiana Purchase, was an exercise in unconstitutionality in the first place. So I believe that a thinking rational person must inevitably go back to the actions/inactions/attitude cycle of the Jefferson administration to see how the ball started rolling for 19th Century Manifest Destiny.