RE: Dispute #2: the Monolithic (less slaves) Unity of Antebellum America around Conquest

["Mark Lause" <MLause@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Louis' correct in citing these things, but is mistaken in slurring the
difference between the ideology of the incoming Republicans under
Lincoln and the policies of "the Lincoln administration."  ... I'd
suggest that what happened in Kansas can be better left at the door of
the administration than Minnesota.

Those familiar with the history of the period know this gap in terms of
the military conduct of the Civil War.  Commander-in-chief Lincoln could
and did issue orders that the military would simply ignored--most
obviously the order in 1863 to start commissioning black army officers.


There was no less a disconnect between Republican intentions and the
policies of the Office of Indian Affairs--which had been shaped by
Southern and Democratic practices for a generation or longer.  Indeed,
as John Brown pointed out, Kansas in the 1850s had only one Indian agent
who wasn't a Southerner--and the U.S. government quickly got rid of him.
Early on, Lincoln sent three special commissioners to report on Indian
relations--John W. Day, Augustus Wattles, and a third fellow (who's name
escapes me at this point).  Each and every one of them turned in damning
reports...but, then again.

The standard recent work on this is David Nichols, _Lincoln and the
Indians_.  It is most stridently and reasonably critical of U.S. Indian
policy during the Lincoln administration, but makes as its centerpiece
the disconnect between intentions and policies.

Solidarity!?!?!?
Mark L.





~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.