5 ms·

> represented Lincoln’s resolve to preserve the west as a place of freedom and opportunity I don't see how stealing native land and exterminating native americ

> represented Lincoln’s resolve to preserve the west as a place of freedom and opportunity I don't see how stealing native land and exterminating native americans can be equated with "freedom and opportunity". But I guess the victors write the history. > Signing the act essentially removed any hope of southern control of the west South never had any hope of controlling the west. It was a demographic impossibility. There were nearly 20 million white northerners and 5 million southern whites. It was why they ultimately seceded. > It also galvanized numerous factions in the North to support the idea of total victory when they might have otherwise agreed to a compromise. The civil war ultimately ended in a compromise. The north did everything they could to make the south feel welcomed back to the union. And those who fought against the north were welcomed back to the military and together, the north and the south, waged extermination wars against the natives in the west. Nothing like a common enemy to bring a divided nation back together.

thaumasiotes 7y ago
> South never had any hope of controlling the west. It was a demographic impossibility. There were nearly 20 million white northerners and 5 million southern whites. That's not really how controlling territory works. The Manchus established control of around 100,000,000 Chinese when there were less than 300,000 of them. By that ratio, the south would have had no trouble controlling the north with a population of just 50,000 -- 5 million is absurd overkill. (Is there more to it than a ratio of rulers to ruled? Yes, of course, that's the point.)
- mattrp 7y ago
  Exactly- southern plantation owners envisioned massive tracts of land sold to plantation owners who would extend slavery to the west.
mistrial9 7y ago
Andrew Jackson was the military General that led Indian Wars, not at all President Abe Lincoln, who was dead by an assassin's bullet.
- mattrp 7y ago
  That depends on which Indian war you’re referring to - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars There were literally more than a hundred dating from the 1600s until the twentieth century.

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> South never had any hope of controlling the west. It was a demographic impossibility. There were nearly 20 million white northerners and 5 million southern whites. That's not really how controlling territory works. The Manchus established control of around 100,000,000 Chinese when there were less than 300,000 of them. By that ratio, the south would have had no trouble controlling the north with a population of just 50,000 -- 5 million is absurd overkill. (Is there more to it than a ratio of rulers to ruled? Yes, of course, that's the point.)

mattrp 7y ago
Exactly- southern plantation owners envisioned massive tracts of land sold to plantation owners who would extend slavery to the west.

mistrial9 7y ago

Andrew Jackson was the military General that led Indian Wars, not at all President Abe Lincoln, who was dead by an assassin's bullet.

mattrp 7y ago
That depends on which Indian war you’re referring to - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars There were literally more than a hundred dating from the 1600s until the twentieth century.