The American Indian as Participant in the Civil War. Annie Heloise Abel

rel="nofollow" href="#ulink_a2c8062f-8390-50e6-82f8-1f6bcbe1d1a2">²⁰² was assigned²⁰³ to the command of a newly-constituted District of Kansas, from which the troops,²⁰⁴ who were guarding the only real danger zone, the southeastern part of the state, were expressly excluded. The hydra-headed evil of the western world then asserted itself, the meddling, particularistic spoils system, with the result that Lane and Pomeroy, unceasingly vigilant whenever and wherever what they regarded as their preserves were likely to be encroached upon, went to President Lincoln and protested against the preferment of Denver.²⁰⁵ Lincoln weakly yielded and wired to Halleck to suspend

Footnote 201: (return)

      Halleck to Stanton, March 28, 1862, Official Records, vol. viii, 647–648.

Footnote 202: (return)

      —Ibid., 612

Footnote 203: (return)

      —Ibid., 832.

Footnote 204: (return)

      Those troops, about five thousand, were left under the command of George W. Deitzler, colonel of the First Kansas (ibid., 614), a man who had become prominent before the war in connection with the Sharpe's rifles episode (Spring, Kansas, 60) and whose appointment as an Indian agent, early in 1861, had been successfully opposed by Lane (Robinson, Kansas Conflict, 458). There will be other occasions to refer to him in this narrative. He is believed to have held the secret that induced Lane to commit suicide in 1866 [ibid., 457–460].

Footnote 205: (return)

      Stanton to Halleck, March 26, 1862 [Official Records, vol. liii, supplement, 516].

      

the order for Denver's assignment to duty until further notice.²⁰⁶ Stanton, to whom Halleck applied²⁰⁷ for an explanation, deprecated²⁰⁸ the political interference of the Kansas senators and the influence it had had with the chief executive, but he, too, had to give way. So effective was the Lane-Pomeroy objection to Denver that even a temporary²⁰⁹ appointment of him, resorted²¹⁰ to by Halleck because of the urgent need of some sort of a commander in Kansas, was deplored by the president.²¹¹ Denver was then sent to the place where his abilities and his experience would be better appreciated, to the southernmost part of the state, the hinterland of the whole Indian country.²¹² Official indecision and personal envy pursued him even there, however, and it was not long before he was called eastward.²¹³ The man who succeeded him in command of the District of Kansas²¹⁴ was one who proved to be his ranking officer²¹⁵ and his rival, Brigadier-general S.D. Sturgis. Blunt succeeded him at Fort Scott.

Footnote 206: (return)

      Lincoln to Halleck, March 21, 1862, Official Records, vol. liii, supplement, 516.

Footnote 207: (return)

      Halleck to Stanton, March 26, 1862, ibid.

Footnote 208: (return)

      "Deprecated" is, perhaps, too mild a word to describe Stanton's feeling in the matter. Adjutant-general Hitchcock is authority for the statement that Stanton threatened "to leave the office" should the "enforcement" of any such order, meaning the non-assignment of Denver and the appointment of a man named Davis [Davies?], believed by Robinson to be a relative of Lane [Kansas Conflict, 446], be attempted [Hitchcock to Halleck, March 22, 1862, Official Records, vol. viii, 832–833].

Footnote 209: (return)

      —Ibid., vol. liii, supplement, 519.

Footnote 210: (return)

      —Ibid., vol. viii, 647–648.

Footnote 211: (return)

      —Ibid., vol. liii, supplement, 519.

Footnote 212: (return)

      Concerning the work, mapped out for Denver, see Halleck to Sturgis, April 6, 1862 [Official Records, vol. viii, 668] and Halleck to Stanton, April 7, 1862 [ibid., 672].

Footnote 213: (return)

      May 14, 1862 [ibid., vol. iii, part i, supplement, 249].

Footnote 214: (return)

      —Ibid., vol. liii, supplement, 520.

Footnote 215: (return)

      "It is stated that the commission of Gen. Sturgis is dated April 10 and that of Gen. Denver Aug. 14 and consequently Gen. Sturgis is the ranking officer in this military District."—Daily Conservative, April 10, 1862.

      

The elimination of Kansas as a separate department marked the revival of interest in an Indian expedition. The cost of supporting so huge a body of refugees had really become a serious proposition and, as Colonel C. R. Jennison²¹⁶ had once remarked, it would be economy to enlist them.²¹⁷ Congress had provided that certain Indian annuity money might be diverted to their maintenance,²¹⁸ but that fund was practically exhausted before the middle of March.²¹⁹ As already observed, the refugees very much wished to assist in the recovery of Indian Territory.²²⁰ In fact they were