The intention of the American government/army to starve the “Indians” into submission and the private sector’s desire to make profits from buffalo hides and tongues are not two opposed paradigms. Rather they went together quite nicely. President Grant believed that the extermination of the buffalo would lead to America’s “Indian Problem” being solved. Generals Sherman and Sheridan also viewed the extermination of the buffalo as central to forcing the Indians into a sedentary life on reserves. Thereby “pacifying” them and opening up the west. I assume that Generals Sherman and Sheridan, given their experiences in the American Civil War, were well aware of the importance-or should I say effectiveness-of destroying the enemies’ food supply. General Sheridan believed that killing all the buffalo was the best way to force the Indians to submit. Killing 30 million buffalo was a colossal undertaking. Enter the private sector. Which coveted buffalo robes and tongues was a great mechanism to get rid of the buffalo and starve the “Indians” into submission while securing high profits. The American government did not need to pay or force commercial hunters to kill buffalo as they did so to make money off the hides. A better marriage of convenience could not have been dreamed up. They reaped the rewards of the food crisis that the extermination of the buffalo caused to Native peoples.
Absent commercial hunters could the US army have killed all these buffalo? These counterfactual questions are impossible to answer decisively. . But if Sherman, Sheridan or Grant could have snapped their fingers and made the buffalo vanish they would certainly have done so. Getting rid of the buffalo was seen as the best way of essentially starving the “Indians” into submission. So the intent, on the part of the US government/army to starve the Indians into “compliance” was certainly there.
When you say that revisionist historians condemn Washington and Jefferson over slavery what do you mean by condemn?
