The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1873-04-23
THE MoDoC WAR OUR INDIAN
POLICY.

The recent massacre of Gen
Canbv and DR.. Thomas by the
Modoc Indians has directed public
attention to the Indian policy O
our. Government, and our ex
changes are discussing in all its
bearings the true course to be pur'
sued not only to the Modocs but tc
all the Indian tribes. Some would
urge o war of determination no'
against the Modocs only but against
the whole race, md indeed 1T would
seem that war which would in
volve the women aud children OF
the offending race-the innocent as
well as the guilty-might be as lit
tie justitiabIe as one against the
peaceful and unoffending tribes. If
punishment is inflicted it shonld
only be upon the guilty, and it fails
of its true purpose when it Is meas
urcd out to the innocent as we'll as
the guilty, it matters little whether
of the same or Of different tribes.
That there is an irrepressible
conflict between the white man it
would be idle to deny, and we sup
pose that there is very little differ
cnce Of opinion among US at least
as to the question whether the In
dian should be allowed to prove an
obstacle to the progress of .Amerl-
can civilization. The wild man of
the forest was entitled to his hunt
ing grounds only so long as a wor-
thier occupant was not on hand to
possess them, but when the white
man came to hew down the forests,
to build cities, and to extend every
where the arts Of civilized life, he
preferred a claim as potent as that
which turned over ancient Pales-
tine to Joshua and his successors.
The Indians had scarcely a better
title to this rich Western domin-
ion than the wild animals that
roamed over its plains, or sought
shelter in its forests. The only
tenure by which the gifts of Provi-
dcnce are held IS their proper use,
and when one proves unworthy of
their possession he must give way
to a worthier occupant-barbarism
must yield to ciyiIization-the In-
dian to the white man.
But dispossession is not exter-
mination, and the necessity which
would justify the one may rot jus,
tify the other. The s'peace policy"
of the Governments is no doubt the
true policy, and is based upon the
cardinal idea to civillze rather than
to extermiuate. There can be no
doubt as to the correctness of the
policy, whatever difference of oein~
ion there may be as to the eficlen
cy with which it has been. carried
out. To carry out the work Of civ
ilization, the Government has un-
dertaken tc place the Indians upon
certain reservations, using negotla-
ton when it is practicable and
force when it is necessary. When
once upon the reservations, it an
structs them in peaceful arts, and
furnishes them the maans of living.
Doubtless the humane policy OF
the Government has been abused
and the Indians have been as much
"sinned against as sinning,'
through the bad conduct Of faith
less agents !; but abuses are incident
to all systems and form no argu-
ment against the policy itself.
The recent massacre has taught US
if such a lesson were necessary,
how little reliance can be reposed
in the faithless Indian, but it fur
nishes no argument for abandoning
the humane policy which has been
adopted-caution is compatible
with humanity, and force itself is
provided for in the present peace
policy
As the Meu York. Times remarks,
"Gen. Candy, at the moment Of his
death, was in command OF troops,
disposed in a way to enforce what
ever terms he might yield to the
Indians. How much force was
or when it could wisely
be used, were questions left to his
discretion. He was dealing with
barbarous foe. 1t was his purpose
to save the lives Of his mea, if he
could, as we'll as those OF his ene-
nv. He was recognized as a brave,
experienced, resoIute, and
efficient officer. He had reason
s},te drrree Of confidence in the