Friday, September 27, 2024

Major Robert Selden Garnett to Senator Robert M. T. Hunter, April 20, 1856

POST AT MUCKLESHUTE PRAIRIE,        
NEAR STEILACOONE, W. T., April 20, 1856.

MY DEAR COUSIN: By the time this reaches you the excitement growing out of the Cincinnati Convention will, I presume, have somewhat subsided. I need not tell how much I hope it may find you the successful man in the struggle that may occur there. Should however this be not the case, I hope you will console yourself with the reflection that there is yet sufficient time ahead for your turn.

It was my intention at an early day after my arrival in this country to post you up thoroughly on the origin and merits of this war going on here with the Indians. But I no sooner landed than I was packed off to this outpost where I have been unable to see any intelligent or disinterested man who could give me the information I wanted. Nor have I been able to meet any hostile Indians in action or otherwise and learn from them their own accounts of their difficulties. Indeed it is in this respect that I conceive one of the greatest blunders of the whole business has been committed, for I have been unable yet to see any one who can give me an intelligent and consistent account of what the Indians regard as the cause of the war, and as its object, and upon what terms &c they desire. We in the Army are campaigning and fighting here in the dark. Without understanding the cause or the object of the war, and consequently without the means of knowing what are the best means to bring about a peace. Most of the whites say it is dissatisfaction with the treaties made by Gov. Stevens. If so instead of going to War on the subject, and, attempting to teach them a lesson on adhering to treaties which will cost us some millions of money, why not send for them and learn what features of the treaty are distasteful to them, and if reasonable why not let them have what they want as long as it does not interfere with the just wants and safety of the settlers. I am told the Indians complain that by these treaties they are required to live upon small reserves incapable of subsisting them and their animals in their mode of life. That the Indians [?] have been located upon lands badly situated, indeed so much so that the whites can't use it, with no prairie or pasture lands for their animals and no clear lands for their potatoes &c; and that if they are all crowded upon such small ill-selected spots they must starve to death.

If there is truth in this, and no one has tried that I know of, to see the hostile Indians to ascertain whether this be so or not, it is in my opinion a just cause not only of dissatisfaction and complaint but of war. We cant expect men to change their habits of life, the habits of their race, or to starve to death quietly merely to satisfy the wild schemes of white men. If this be true I can see no reason why they should not have larger and more suitable reserves given them, particularly too since they have relinquished by these treaties more lands than will be sufficient for the settlers of this country, at present rates, and for the next hundred years. In making this concession to them we should be giving them nothing more than humanity demands us to give them, and which common justice should never have permitted us to take away from them. But you will gather from the enclosed newspaper slips something of the merits of the question at issue between the authorities here. From all that I can learn I am well satisfied that this War has been very unnecessarily brought on by Govr. Stevens' treaties. Not only by the ill judged provisions of the treaties themselves, but especially by entering into treaties with them where the wants of the country (in my judgment) did not require anything of the sort. As bad fortune would have it I am told that this treaty, out of the large number which he made on his Quixotic pilgrimage in the interior of the continent where no white men will settle in the next 300 years perhaps, was the only one which reached Washington City in time to be confirmed by the Senate during the last Congress, and is now the law of the land. I am satisfied that if this were not the case and I had the power from Mr. Pierce to annul and destroy Stevens' treaty I could establish a permanent peace here in six weeks and not fire a rifle, a peace by which the settlers should be safe from danger, and not checked in their settlement of the country. And I would make no concession to the Indians which any practical and reasonable man could find fault with.

SOURCE: Charles Henry Ambler, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1916, in Two Volumes, Vol. II, Correspondence of Robert M. T. Hunter (1826-1876), p. 188-9

No comments: