I’m not sure that’s the very best argument, and here’s why I would say that The tribes across the country knew we were in a civil war and so the raids and massacres upon settlers, men women and children, exploded during that period. One could argue that the actions of the army against certain tribes after the civil war were reactionary and provoked.

You should research how imaginative, creative and brutal many North American tribes were at torturing their captives and how much they enjoyed raping, plundering, murdering and slave trading.

I’m not defending the genocide that did in fact take place, but in a world of guns, germs and steel you can’t claim victim and innocence after you take up arms and are/were defeated in battle. Warlords of a country got conquered by the invading warlords of another. Does it make it right, I guess that’s debatable, to me it just means that the settlers who the Indians began waging war upon were backed by bigger stronger warlords than the Indians and the Indians lost.

Bringing it back to the North and the South The problem lies in the obfuscation and fog of war where we find high ranking characters within both sides, who would seem to be playing for the same team and it wasn’t “we the people”.