"Were the Indian conflicts part of the Civil War?" Topic

Some of you know I visit a lot of battlefields. So I bought a book to use to answer the question "How many Battlefields have I been to?" I would use someone else's list…

So I saw a book at Cold Harborf rom the Conservation Fund and started Hi-Liteing the places I have been.

Well I get into the book and I see battles listed for North Dakota, Minnesota, Colorado and such.

So the question is …Do You Consider things like the attack on Fort Ridgely in the US-Dakota War of 1862 a Civil war Site, I never really gave it much thought. but i did hilite it in the book. I Think i would say No, thewere part of a different conflict not related to the US/CSA fight

As much as the War of Jenkins Ear was part of the War of Austrian Succession.

But I guess it really boils down to if the Dakota were allied to the Confederacy. Stand Waitie and his Cherokee certainly were.

Curiously, I was listening to a podcast (The Napoleonicist)which I believe is indicating the Anglo-US war of 1812 should be considered part of the Napoleonic wars. Coincidence in time and overlap of one protagonist seems to be the justification. I don't see it myself.

Fighting the various tribes on the Western frontier went on before/during/after the Civil War, therefore, I consider them a separate conflict (i.e., Indian Wars).

Unless, as John has pointed out), the battles/participants were related to the overall conduct of the Civil War itself or on the behalf/behest/support of one of the two sides.

And I do consider the War of 1812 to be a smaller piece of the Napoleonic Wars.

The galvanized yankees did not regard them so, one assumes.

Minnesota Sioux uprising. H

If you look into how much Napoleon switched around his trade policies just to provoke antagonism between the British and Americans, and how much events in Europe affected how the British fought the war in North America, I think it was very much part of the Napoleonics wars.

After Gen John Pope behaved so brilliantly at Second Mannassas, he was sent out to command in the Sioux War of 1862.
So there's even overlap of personnel.

I like the reasoning that the Indians who actually made some effort to try to align with the north or south versus the other is probably a good indicator.

It effected the deployment of Union force, So yes

The mistaken effort to try and incorporate the War of 1812 into the Napoleonic Wars helped clarify that the answer to the original question is that while the Indian conflicts from 1861 to 1865 may have been more or less connected with the ACW, only a few are actually part of the ACW.

Many of the 1861-65 Indian conflicts were simply between those on one side of the line of settlement who sought to encroach and those on the other side of the line who sought to prevent encroachment and ideally reverse previous encroachments. Which side those on the 'European' side owed their allegiance to didn't matter much. The most extreme example of this would be in the Southwest where the Confederate advance into and setting up of the Arizona territory caused them to become part of the war with the Apaches.

And the inclusion of the War of 1812 is a 'mistaken effort' why?

The two British 'incursions' at Buenos Aires are included, so why not the War of 1812.

Aooles and oranges. Spain and Britain were active participants in the Napoleonic Wars on opposite sides at the time Britain launched its invasions of the River Plate. Same with the British conquest of the Dutch colonies. The War of 1812 was more akin to the Russo-Persian War.

If the Sioux Uprising was part of the Civil Wat the argument can be made that Manitoba has the northernmost Civil War site:

"The eastern Dakota (Sioux) of Minnesota traditionally built cunkaské (pronounced choonkashkay) — wooden palisades, piles of stones and earthen entrenchments — around their camps and villages for protection against elements, wild animals, and potential enemies. One group was even referred to as the Cunkaskétonwan, Nation of the Forts. In the summer of 1862, many Dakota openly rebelled against the intolerable treatment they had received from American authorities. As a result, several hundred Dakota refugees moved north to the relative safety of the Red River Settlement. In the spring of 1864, following an attack by Chippewa (Anishinabe) bounty hunters from Minnesota, the Dakota constructed fortified camps in the Portage la Prairie district. Each camp was enclosed by a circular trench and embankment behind which armed defenders could position themselves. Inside this circle was a ring of pits where the women and children could take refuge in the event of an attack."

From link

Aooles and oranges.

Disagree.

The War of 1812 was a direct result of British maritime policy instituted during the Napoleonic Wars.

Britain attacked Denmark, a neutral, during the period twice (1801 and 1807), so should that not be considered part of the Napoleonic Wars?

Look at goals. The Confederacy's goal was an independent CSA, the natives did not share that goal. They wanted the US to cease encroaching on their land, something I doubt the CSA would have agreed to if they had succeeded in independence. In fact, the end of the war would probably resulted in a westward land grab contest between the new neighbors at the expense of the native Americans. The Union's goal (a united country) didn't even address the issue of Native Americans.
This is in contrast to the War of 1812, where if the UK's goal of defeating Napoleon is met, the causes belli for the War of 1812 goes away (which is in fact what happened). So while the Civil War goals were completely independent of each other (except a matter of taking advantage) the War of 1812 goals were intertwined with the Napoleonic Wars.

Let's really look at the goals.

Complaints about British impressment of American seamen and interference with American trade made for nice PR. Except for the periods when embargos were in place American trade was increasing during the Napoleonic Wars. Customs receipts increased rapidly enough during the Jefferson administration that even with the purchase of Louisiana the U.S. was able to significantly reduce its debt. This is probably why the region of the U.S. which in theory was most affected by the British practices most strongly opposed the war.

There was a second equally important causes belli, that the British and Spanish North American colonies and the support they were providing to the native nations was limiting American expansion. This problem pre-existed the Napoleonic Wars, and there was no expectation it would change once the Napoleonic Wars ended.

We can discuss the nuances of the War of 1812 elsewhere, but nothing in your post indicates my point that the two pairs wars were dissimilar in their causes is wrong.

Some time later: Would the question turn to some extent on whether troops raised for Civil War service were engaged? Indeed on the government side state volunteer troops had been deployed to relieve regular regiments for Civil war service.

Clearly, war parties attacking Colorado settlements, or confronting the Powder River Expedition, did not see themselves as furthering the Confederate cause, any more than those attacking settlements in Texas were helping put down the Rebellion.