5 ms·

> In the mid-1800s, the United States had thousands of miles of open land in the middle of the country and almost nobody who wanted to live there. > Then, in 1

> In the mid-1800s, the United States had thousands of miles of open land in the middle of the country and almost nobody who wanted to live there. > Then, in 1862, Abraham Lincoln pulled the ultimate Manifest Destiny power move with the Homestead Act. That's… not how my history book says it happened. Wikipedia seems to agree, though it doesn't go into much detail: > The act depleted the Native Americans in the United States of much of their land and natural resources as a result of it being allocated and sold to settlers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts#Homestead_Act_of_1862 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_Acts#Homestead_Act_o... I'm no history buff, but I'm pretty sure the Homestead Act of 1862 violated some treaties in a major way, and soldiers were involved.

pirate787 5y ago
It was a populist law passed in the middle of the Civil War. The entire continent was on fire. And the Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole, Catawba, and Creek tribes sided with the Confederacy against the United States.
- Naga 5y ago
  I don't remember a lot of impact in the top half of the continent, other than fear of invasion spurring the British colonies towards confederation.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  > And the Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole, Catawba, and Creek tribes sided with the Confederacy against the United States. I knew they were opposing the United States (at the time, an aggressively-expansionist neighbour with an order of magnitude more arms manufacturing), but were they all definitely allied with the Confederacy? Your enemies aren't necessarily friends with each other. (Also, keep in mind: Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole, Catawba and Creek weren't countries. I vaguely remember that internal Cherokee politics was complicated, and that the US acted as though certain people were representatives when they weren't.)
  - jcranmer 5y ago
    You can read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Territory_in_the_American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Territory_in_the_Americ... for more information, but yes, several of the tribes in the Indian Territory did in fact make alliances with the Confederacy and fought on the side of the Confederacy against the Union.
    - wizzwizz4 5y ago
      Ah, the US civil war was three decades after the Indian Removal Act, so most of them were in modern-day Oklahoma (bordering Texas, Arkansas and Missouri). That makes sense. For some reason I placed the US civil war about 50 years earlier.
    - pseudalopex 5y ago
      The article said leaders from several tribes acted without the consensus of their councils. The Cherokee were split.[1] A Confederate source said just the Choctaw weren't.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_in_the_American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_in_the_American_Civil... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choctaw_Nation_of_Oklahoma#American_Civil_War_in_Indian_Territory_(1861-65) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choctaw_Nation_of_Oklahoma#Ame...
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - pkdpic 5y ago
      Wow, really glad this got in the thread and the link is much appreciated. I seriously had no idea. Mikey Foucault was right history is a hot mess.
      - ethbr0 5y ago
        History is best viewed from the perspective of the individuals or groups with substantial power, because outcomes are their acting in their own best interests. Or what they perceived to be their best interests. In the context of the Cherokee (which I'm more familiar with than other tribes), you initially have a group of mostly-independent city states, surrounded by neighboring tribes (with which there is good and bad history), dealing with substantial population decrease (due to smallpox), trying to negotiate with a fundamentally different culture (colonies/US) encroaching on their lands. Think 10th century Europe. There were a diversity of opinions on how to move forward, and so a diversity of approaches, as groups jostled for personal advantage. Fundamentally though, it was a delaying action, fought (economically, politically, and militarily) until ceaseless European migration made coexistence as equals untenable. The Cherokee have a somewhat unique history in that, by the late 1700s, they were moving to colonial style economics (land ownership, farming), politics (central government), language (invention and dissemination of written language in the 1820s), and religion [0]. Unfortunately, 1829 also saw gold discovered in northwest Georgia, at which point there was too much money to be made by seizing and exploiting land, and any burgeoning cultural similarities and human rights were conveniently ignored so fortunes could be made. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Echota#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Echota#History See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee#19th_century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee#19th_century
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
beerandt 5y ago
If you can get past "north good, south bad" in studying the politics surrounding the war, and look at/ include things other than just slavery, you'll realize pretty quickly that Lincoln was more about centralizing and solidifying national power at any cost than he was concerned with any moral crusade. He is due his credit for maintaining the Union, but the sainthood often bestowed on him is misplaced, especially in regards to race. The politics and power dynamics of building the transcontinental railroad might be the historical lens where it's easiest to see the bigger picture, that isn't clouded by and doesn't automatically collapse into a battle over the slavery narrative. (Especially given the labor used in its construction.)
- Lammy 5y ago
  > Lincoln was more about centralizing and solidifying national power Hence why the Lincoln Memorial rests his arms on two fasces: https://www.nps.gov/articles/secret-symbol-of-the-lincoln-memorial.htm https://www.nps.gov/articles/secret-symbol-of-the-lincoln-me... In fact the secession of the Southern states was what finally gave Republicans the congressional majority necessary to pass the Pacific Railway Act and the Homestead Act in the first place: https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2012/01/06/secession-congress-and-a-civil-war-awakening-at-the-archives/ https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2012/01/06/secession-con... The South was still reeling from tariffs introduced a few decades earlier which favored the industrial Northern states and hurt the agricultural South, so they tended to be against westward expansion that would open up even more agricultural competition: https://www.thoughtco.com/tariff-of-abominations-1773349 https://www.thoughtco.com/tariff-of-abominations-1773349 Disclaimer: this is not intended to be any kind of defense for the hereditary chattel slavery system which comprised much of the southern agricultural workforce, which is horrific and basically indefensible. I just regret all those times I snidely asked “States’ right to what?” without really getting it lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > I just regret all those times I snidely asked “States’ right to what?” without really getting it All those other things you enumerate were not the central focus. It was centrally and foundationally about slavery, which Confederate leaders were quite eloquent in expressing: “The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. [...] “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornersto...
halpert 5y ago
Manifest Destiny was basically the belief that the US was destined to span coast to coast, regardless of the Native Americans or Mexicans that stood in the way. It’s a very imperial mindset.
- Turing_Machine 5y ago
  Do not forget that Mexico was itself a colonialist entity, and Spanish is a colonialist language. That is often overlooked.
  - Ourgon 5y ago
    Why stop there? Don't forget that the Aztec empire was just that, an empire. They conquered land, sacrificed their enemies to their gods and were an altogether unpleasant bunch which explains why the Spanish conquistadores got help from natives in bringing down the empire. Before the Aztecs came the Chichimeca who conquered their predecessors, the Toltecs. Before the Toltecs came the Otomi, etcetera. Nahuatl, Itza’, Mixtec, Zapotec, Totonac, Otomi, Pame, Purépecha are all colonialist languages - and that covers only the last few thousands of years of history in meso-America.
    - nathanaldensr 5y ago
      That's because the story of humanity over its course is one of conquering.
      - Ourgon 5y ago
        Indeed it is, something to keep in mind when confronted with accusations of "colonialism" towards specific nations, peoples or cultures. Conquest and colonisation are part of all our histories, no matter our background.
        wizzwizz4 5y ago
        That doesn't make them good, or justifiable. We are all descended from murderers; that doesn't make murder good. It's always happened, it's currently happening, and we need to stop it.

pirate787 5y ago

It was a populist law passed in the middle of the Civil War. The entire continent was on fire. And the Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole, Catawba, and Creek tribes sided with the Confederacy against the United States.

Naga 5y ago
I don't remember a lot of impact in the top half of the continent, other than fear of invasion spurring the British colonies towards confederation.
wizzwizz4 5y ago
> And the Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole, Catawba, and Creek tribes sided with the Confederacy against the United States. I knew they were opposing the United States (at the time, an aggressively-expansionist neighbour with an order of magnitude more arms manufacturing), but were they all definitely allied with the Confederacy? Your enemies aren't necessarily friends with each other. (Also, keep in mind: Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole, Catawba and Creek weren't countries. I vaguely remember that internal Cherokee politics was complicated, and that the US acted as though certain people were representatives when they weren't.)
- jcranmer 5y ago
  You can read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Territory_in_the_American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Territory_in_the_Americ... for more information, but yes, several of the tribes in the Indian Territory did in fact make alliances with the Confederacy and fought on the side of the Confederacy against the Union.
  - wizzwizz4 5y ago
    Ah, the US civil war was three decades after the Indian Removal Act, so most of them were in modern-day Oklahoma (bordering Texas, Arkansas and Missouri). That makes sense. For some reason I placed the US civil war about 50 years earlier.
  - pseudalopex 5y ago
    The article said leaders from several tribes acted without the consensus of their councils. The Cherokee were split.[1] A Confederate source said just the Choctaw weren't.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_in_the_American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_in_the_American_Civil... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choctaw_Nation_of_Oklahoma#American_Civil_War_in_Indian_Territory_(1861-65) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choctaw_Nation_of_Oklahoma#Ame...
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - pkdpic 5y ago
    Wow, really glad this got in the thread and the link is much appreciated. I seriously had no idea. Mikey Foucault was right history is a hot mess.
    - ethbr0 5y ago
      History is best viewed from the perspective of the individuals or groups with substantial power, because outcomes are their acting in their own best interests. Or what they perceived to be their best interests. In the context of the Cherokee (which I'm more familiar with than other tribes), you initially have a group of mostly-independent city states, surrounded by neighboring tribes (with which there is good and bad history), dealing with substantial population decrease (due to smallpox), trying to negotiate with a fundamentally different culture (colonies/US) encroaching on their lands. Think 10th century Europe. There were a diversity of opinions on how to move forward, and so a diversity of approaches, as groups jostled for personal advantage. Fundamentally though, it was a delaying action, fought (economically, politically, and militarily) until ceaseless European migration made coexistence as equals untenable. The Cherokee have a somewhat unique history in that, by the late 1700s, they were moving to colonial style economics (land ownership, farming), politics (central government), language (invention and dissemination of written language in the 1820s), and religion [0]. Unfortunately, 1829 also saw gold discovered in northwest Georgia, at which point there was too much money to be made by seizing and exploiting land, and any burgeoning cultural similarities and human rights were conveniently ignored so fortunes could be made. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Echota#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Echota#History See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee#19th_century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee#19th_century

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

beerandt 5y ago

If you can get past "north good, south bad" in studying the politics surrounding the war, and look at/ include things other than just slavery, you'll realize pretty quickly that Lincoln was more about centralizing and solidifying national power at any cost than he was concerned with any moral crusade. He is due his credit for maintaining the Union, but the sainthood often bestowed on him is misplaced, especially in regards to race. The politics and power dynamics of building the transcontinental railroad might be the historical lens where it's easiest to see the bigger picture, that isn't clouded by and doesn't automatically collapse into a battle over the slavery narrative. (Especially given the labor used in its construction.)

Lammy 5y ago
> Lincoln was more about centralizing and solidifying national power Hence why the Lincoln Memorial rests his arms on two fasces: https://www.nps.gov/articles/secret-symbol-of-the-lincoln-memorial.htm https://www.nps.gov/articles/secret-symbol-of-the-lincoln-me... In fact the secession of the Southern states was what finally gave Republicans the congressional majority necessary to pass the Pacific Railway Act and the Homestead Act in the first place: https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2012/01/06/secession-congress-and-a-civil-war-awakening-at-the-archives/ https://prologue.blogs.archives.gov/2012/01/06/secession-con... The South was still reeling from tariffs introduced a few decades earlier which favored the industrial Northern states and hurt the agricultural South, so they tended to be against westward expansion that would open up even more agricultural competition: https://www.thoughtco.com/tariff-of-abominations-1773349 https://www.thoughtco.com/tariff-of-abominations-1773349 Disclaimer: this is not intended to be any kind of defense for the hereditary chattel slavery system which comprised much of the southern agricultural workforce, which is horrific and basically indefensible. I just regret all those times I snidely asked “States’ right to what?” without really getting it lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_crisis
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > I just regret all those times I snidely asked “States’ right to what?” without really getting it All those other things you enumerate were not the central focus. It was centrally and foundationally about slavery, which Confederate leaders were quite eloquent in expressing: “The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. [...] “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornerstone-speech https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornersto...

halpert 5y ago

Manifest Destiny was basically the belief that the US was destined to span coast to coast, regardless of the Native Americans or Mexicans that stood in the way. It’s a very imperial mindset.

Turing_Machine 5y ago
Do not forget that Mexico was itself a colonialist entity, and Spanish is a colonialist language. That is often overlooked.
- Ourgon 5y ago
  Why stop there? Don't forget that the Aztec empire was just that, an empire. They conquered land, sacrificed their enemies to their gods and were an altogether unpleasant bunch which explains why the Spanish conquistadores got help from natives in bringing down the empire. Before the Aztecs came the Chichimeca who conquered their predecessors, the Toltecs. Before the Toltecs came the Otomi, etcetera. Nahuatl, Itza’, Mixtec, Zapotec, Totonac, Otomi, Pame, Purépecha are all colonialist languages - and that covers only the last few thousands of years of history in meso-America.
  - nathanaldensr 5y ago
    That's because the story of humanity over its course is one of conquering.
    - Ourgon 5y ago
      Indeed it is, something to keep in mind when confronted with accusations of "colonialism" towards specific nations, peoples or cultures. Conquest and colonisation are part of all our histories, no matter our background.
      - wizzwizz4 5y ago
        That doesn't make them good, or justifiable. We are all descended from murderers; that doesn't make murder good. It's always happened, it's currently happening, and we need to stop it.