John Thesis #3

By John Page

Grant is not often given the credit he deserves as president.  He worked very hard to preserve the gains of the Union victory and to keep the peace. [1]Grant dedicated a large amount of time to ensuring that the South would be reconstructed in a certain way that would guarantee peace for all time.[2]  However, Grant did have some problems stemming from the fact that that the men Grant relied upon to function during the war were not present when he was in office. While he could trust William Sherman with his life, the men who helped him govern, such as the men who led him into the Whiskey Ring scandal, were not as trustworthy. Many historians argue that what worked on the battlefield didn’t work in the halls of government, as the mentality of its members was far too different. [3]

One example of how there was a clash between civilian and military rule was that neither side fully trusted each other. This lack of trust came up often in controversial issues, such as how to deal with Native American tribes. One time where this clash occurred was in the struggle over the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The struggle was over whether or not the military or a civilian agency would be in charge of Native American-U.S relations, “Nathaniel G. Taylor outlined reasons for maintaining Interior Department control of the Bureau of Indian Affairs … Among his reasons was the perpetual Hobbesian state of war that would surely result; the necessity of ‘maintaining a large standing army’ and the political and economic costs thereby incurred”. [4]

How did Grant actually function as a president? One policy that he had a specific plan on was how to deal with relations with Native American tribes. Grant had seemed to want to bring peace to the region but showed some of his characteristic aggressiveness with his willingness to fight if needed. “Ulysses S. Grant laid out his policy toward Native Americans ahead of his inauguration on 4 March 1869. Affirming that the ‘new administration will exert its power from the first until the job is accomplished,’ he promised that ‘all Indians who are disposed to peace will find that the policy of the new administration is a peace-policy.’ Making plain his statement’s subtext, he went on: ‘those who do not accept the policy will find the new administration ready for a sharp and severe war-policy.’” [5]

This statement of intent shows Grant to be both determined and realistic. He hoped to bring peace to the country but was also unwilling to give up any advantages America had over Native American Tribes. He attempts to act on this idea seems confused and contradictory to historians like Sims.[6] Sims argues that Grant’s policy was really more of a war policy and not a peace policy, Grant was more than willing to use military conflict in response to strife. Calling it a peace policy seems to be a case of political doublespeak. At the same time, a firm policy toward Native Americans was presented as a method that would both protect peace and benefit them in the long run. So, perhaps Grant meant something like peace through strength. Though Sims is unsure about how coherent the policy really was and how much credit Grant should get for coming up with it as opposed to simply responding to preexisting forces, Sim explains how this policy affected the other major issues of the day – Reconstruction

Furthermore, Grant’s election campaign was low on policy prescription and high on political mood. Running under the banner “Let Us Have Peace,” public coverage of the General focused on his desire to enforce the law firmly but equitably in all fields. Perceptions of Grant’s Indian policy were framed by the type of candidate that the public believed the General to be: firm, honest, fair. As in his approach to Reconstruction policy, good faith and conciliation were to be put ahead of divisive ideology. It is instructive to note that the appellation “peace policy” was also used to describe Grant’s attitude toward the firm and even enforcement of the law, specifically the Fourteenth Amendment, in the South.[7]

 

While Grant seems to have an overarching goal as president, bring peace to the nation and try to benefit everyone as much as possible, his policies kept meeting with resistance from others and he struggled with given clear directions to his subordinates.[8]  Despite this, there was a general idea of how the government would deal with the situation. The general idea was to remove the Native American peoples to reservations, to control them and protect them from whites.[9] The Dawes Act of 1887 was this plan put into motion.

Sims argues that even though Grant didn’t have complete control over how people put in practice his policy (or lack thereof) it lasted for the rest of the century.[10] This act was designed to promote a white way of life amongst Native Americans. This would be done by transferring control of tribal land to members of the tribe, replacing communal life with an independent capitalist one. A hoped for result of this economic transfer would cause them to become like white farmers and thus lose a culture that was seen as backwards and primitive. The policy of turning Native Americans from a possible threat to dependents upon the American government was the end result of this plan. Similar to his plan for the South, the goal was to turn a domestic threat into a peaceful part of the country and ideally reach a point was everyone was happy to be part of the stronger American Union.[11]

As discussed earlier, one of the major stumbling blocks Grant had keeping full control over his Native American policy was the distrust between the American military and the agents who worked for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Grant argued strongly for military control over this issue. The reason for this stand, according to Sims, came from Grant’s fear that if people who stood to gain financially from any dealings with Native Americans, then some portion of them will cheat the very people they are trying to help.[12]  The military was seen as not as easily corrupted as their pay was not directly connected to the tribes they interacted with, they would have no financial incentive in government policy. The military was also willing to use force as necessary to ensure government control over reluctant tribes.[13]

[1] Ibid 10

[2] Ibid148

[3]  Ibid, 248

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid. 241

[6] Ibid. 242

[7] Ibid

[8]Ibid, 243

[9]Ibid, 244

[10] Ibid

[11], Ibid, 261

[12], Ibid. 247

[13] Ibid