Reading some histories of the Wild West, Native Americans, the Dakotas and the like, I came across several references to a "transfer question" and a debate over whether Indian affairs ought to be controlled by civilians or the military. Ultimately, in OTL, the proponents of civilian control won out, and the Office of Indian affairs remained a civilian organization. WI, then, the military proponents (mainly westerners and Democrats) had won the day, and Indian affairs were handed off to the military sometime in the 1860s or '70s?
Military control of the Office of Indian affairs?
- Thread starter Ofaloaf
- Start date
First off I NEED my War of the Classes fix. So hurry up already
. This is the first time I have heard of a "transfer question." I don't know how Indian Affairs would have been handled differently if it were under the Army's control. I think what you would see is more open warfare then total warfare, by this I mean that instead of killing the buffalo and smallpox blankets you would probably see more battles like Little Big Horn or Wounded Knee; meaning basically bigger engagments and a much more openly violent confrontation between the two sides.
Remember that the Dawes Commission wasn't started until the 1920s way after the end of the frontier (around 1900), so the christanizing of the Indians isn't going to start for 30-60 yrs from your POD. This is enough time for people to re think there approach to Indian policy. Lets say for argument's sake (obviously butterflies are gonna be big) that Nelson Miles wins the election of 1920 or 1924, then we will mostly likely see Dawes done away with and much more liberal approach to I think with direct army control you would have a much cleaner fight and possibly much more respect for Indian culture as a whole. I doubt that it would have any significant impacts in the long term but in the short term (1860-80s/90s) it would be far bloodier and a lot more on edge experience in the West. I think you might see more respect for guerilla fighting which may play a role in how the army deals with the Phillipine occupation (if it happens) and possibly with Vietnam (if that happens).
As far as turing the tide, demographics say it all. There was no way the Native Americans were going to be throwing the Americans out of the West in the 19th century.
AmIndHistoryAuthor
Banned
Your timeline is off. Dawes Act was in the 1870s, though some tribes successfully resist it as late as the 1900s. Miles was a general in the 1860-70s.
To the POD, Indian Affairs were already under military control prior to the 1870s, under the War Dept. Essentially it was handed over to the control of Christian missionaries in the hope it'd put an end to corruption rampant on reservations, with only limited success.
The main difference you'd see is there'd be a lot fewer Christian Indians. A lot would depend on whose in charge of the Office. Some generals like Miles were very much in favor of cultural preservation. You might see less of an effort to "Kill the Indian Save the Man", forced assimilation.
OTH, if someone like Pratt were in charge...
thanks. Instead of Miles, what about Leonard Wood? I read some of his journals for a class and he had a lot of respect for the Apache. Who is Pratt?
AmIndHistoryAuthor
Banned
Wood also would've supported cultural preservation I think. Pratt was an assimilationist and founded the Indian boarding schools, where Indian students were barred from speaking their languages, forced to give up their faith and culture.