I don’t think “yeah his actions kinda sucked but maybe he would have changed if he kept living” is a reasonable argument.
And I said radical reconstruction. Like land seized from slavers and given to the newly freed people (and keep conditions such that the freed people could actually keep that land), former confederates jailed and barred from ever holding office, reparations paid, etc.
Grant was still soft on Confederates, though certainly better in most aspects than Lincoln or Johnson. But a president does not a country make. Perhaps despite Grant the measures taken during his presidency were woefully inadequate and blunted.
As far as his treatment of indigenous peoples, well this quote from his first inaugural address is enough really. “the proper treatment of the original occupants of the land, the Indian, is one deserving of careful study. I will favor any course towards them which tends to their civilization, Christianization and ultimate citizenship”
When it turned out that hey, maybe the destruction of their culture and religion isn’t really what they wanted- Grant’s feelings were quite clear in this 1872 letter to General Schofield: “Indians who will not put themselves under the restraints required will have to be forced, even to the extent of making war upon them, to submit to measures that will insure [sic] security to the white settlers of the Territories,” - this is still absolutely genocide.
He was also the President under which the US stole the Black Hills in what is now South Dakota. First he offered to “buy” them from the Lakota and other tribes, and then when refused he sent the army in to steal them. (Though the tribes put up a damn good fight, repelling the invaders once before Grant sent reinforcements)
I don’t think there’s going to be any common ground between us in this discussion, but as someone with a keen interest in the period, I’ll leave it that I disagree strongly with the main thrust of your argument.
I don’t think “yeah his actions kinda sucked but maybe he would have changed if he kept living” is a reasonable argument.
And I said radical reconstruction. Like land seized from slavers and given to the newly freed people (and keep conditions such that the freed people could actually keep that land), former confederates jailed and barred from ever holding office, reparations paid, etc.
Grant was still soft on Confederates, though certainly better in most aspects than Lincoln or Johnson. But a president does not a country make. Perhaps despite Grant the measures taken during his presidency were woefully inadequate and blunted.
As far as his treatment of indigenous peoples, well this quote from his first inaugural address is enough really. “the proper treatment of the original occupants of the land, the Indian, is one deserving of careful study. I will favor any course towards them which tends to their civilization, Christianization and ultimate citizenship”
When it turned out that hey, maybe the destruction of their culture and religion isn’t really what they wanted- Grant’s feelings were quite clear in this 1872 letter to General Schofield: “Indians who will not put themselves under the restraints required will have to be forced, even to the extent of making war upon them, to submit to measures that will insure [sic] security to the white settlers of the Territories,” - this is still absolutely genocide.
He was also the President under which the US stole the Black Hills in what is now South Dakota. First he offered to “buy” them from the Lakota and other tribes, and then when refused he sent the army in to steal them. (Though the tribes put up a damn good fight, repelling the invaders once before Grant sent reinforcements)
I don’t think there’s going to be any common ground between us in this discussion, but as someone with a keen interest in the period, I’ll leave it that I disagree strongly with the main thrust of your argument.
Points for civility in vehement disagreement.