The New York Times is again attacking President Lincoln in a very lengthy April 9, 2020 editorial titled “The America We Need.”

In the second paragraph of the editorial, the Editorial Board of the New York Times appeared to be in agreement with all of the Republican Party legislation that President Abraham Lincoln signed into law in 1862:

“Between May and July 1862, even as Confederate victories in Virginia raised doubts about the future of the Union, Congress and President Abraham Lincoln kept their eyes on the horizon, enacting three landmark laws that shaped the nation’s next chapter: The Homestead Act allowed Western settlers to claim 160 acres of public land apiece; the Morrill Act provided land grants for states to fund universities; and the Pacific Railway Act underwrote the transcontinental railroad.”

But in a paragraph very close to the end of this lengthy editorial, the Editorial Board negated the positive assessment it had made in the second paragraph of its editorial opinion and directly placed blame on President Abraham Lincoln for the Homestead Act legislation:

“The purpose of the federal government, Lincoln wrote to Congress on July 4, 1861, was ‘to elevate the condition of men, to lift artificial burdens from all shoulders, and to give everyone an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life.’ The Homestead Act in particular was a concrete step in that direction: 10 percent of all the land in the United States was ultimately distributed in 160-acre chunks. But Lincoln’s conception of “everyone” did not include everyone: The Homestead Act rested on the expropriation of Native American lands. (Emphasis added.)

In order to learn about Lincoln’s participation in the history of this particular legislative act, I consulted Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book “Team of Rivals.” The book index lists three sources (pages 240, 267, & 461-62) on the topic of the Homestead Act.

The book page 240 entry reads:

“While opposition to the extension of slavery remained as central as it had been 1856, the 1860 platform also called for a Homestead Act, a protective tariff, a railroad to the Pacific, protection for naturalized citizens, and government support for harbor and river improvements – a far broader range of issues designed to attract a larger base.

After much debate, the delegates rejected a provision requiring a two-thirds vote to secure the nomination. Their decision that a simple majority was sufficient to nominate appeared to be a victory for Seward. Coming into the Chicago as the best known of all the contenders, he already had nearly a majority of pledges. . . . Indeed, when business came to a close at the end of the second day, a move was made to proceed directly to the presidential balloting.”

The book page 267 entry reads:

Lincoln knew this election would not be determined by a single issue. While opposition to slavery extension had led to the creation of the Republican Party and dominated the national debate, in many places other issues took precedence. In Pennsylvania, the leading iron producer in the nation, and in New Jersey, the desire for a protective tariff was stronger than hostility to slavery. In the West, especially among immigrant groups, multitudes hoped for homestead legislation providing free or cheap land to new settler, many of whom had been hard hit by the Panic of 1857. “Land for the Landless” was the battle cry. And when, in the mist of the campaign, President Buchanan vetoed a mild Homestead Act, many in Indiana and throughout the West turned to Lincoln. All of these issues had been carefully addressed in the Republican Party platform. Had the election been fought on the single issue of slavery, it is likely that Lincoln would have lost.

And, the book pages 461-62 entry reads:

As was customary on the last day of the session, the president traveled to the Capitol stationing himself in the vice president’s office, where he signed the spate of bills rushed through in the final days of the term. It had been an extraordinarily productive session. Relieved of Southern opposition, the Republican majority was able to pass three historic bills that had been stalled for years: the Homestead Act, which promised 160 acres of free public land largely in the West to settlers who agreed to reside on the property for five years or more; the Morrill Act, providing public lands to states for the establishment of land-grant colleges; and the Pacific Railroad Act, which made the construction of a transcontinental railroad possible. The 37th Congress also laid the economic foundation for the Union war effort with the Legal Tender bill, which created a paper money known as “greenbacks.” A comprehensive tax bill was also enacted, establishing the Internal Revenue Bureau in the Department of the Treasury and levying a federal income tax for the first time in American history.

Lincoln signs Homestead Act

The first Homestead Act claim was filed by a civil war veteran and doctor named Daniel Freeman on January 1, 1863. By the end of the Civil War in 1865, [only] 15,000 people had homestead claims in territories that now make up the states of Kansas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana and Colorado.

Before the Civil War, similar acts had been proposed in 1852, 1854 and 1859, but were defeated by a powerful southern lobby that feared new territories populated by homesteaders would be allowed into the Union as “free states,” thereby giving more power to the abolitionist movement. In addition, many in the northern manufacturing industries feared the Homestead Act would draw large numbers of their labor force away and into farming. In 1860, President James Buchanan vetoed an earlier homestead bill, succumbing to pressure from southern slave-holding interests.

“Unused” Land?: Native Americans, The Homestead Act, and the 1887 Dawes Severalty Act"

As land was claimed and turned into private property, arriving settlers aggressively encroached on Native American territory, and began to agitate for the expansion of territory into sovereign Native land, sometimes with violent results. The Indian Appropriations Act (1851) relegated Indians to reservations in the West. For Indians, reservation life was restraining, and the land Natives were forced to occupy were often too small to raise animals or hunt on and not viable agriculturally. Still, many settlers believed that Indians had gotten the choicest land, and pressed for their availability to claim. The government responded to this crisis in favor of the white settlers and land speculators, stripping Indians of the last semblance of sovereignty they had by abolishing the reservation system as well as their honoring of tribes as separate entities from the United States. The 1871 Dawes Act stated that “hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe, or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty.” It also marked the beginning of increased efforts to integrate Indians into American society rather than cordoning them off into isolated reservations. This was continued to a larger extent with the 1887 Dawes Severalty Act (also called the General Allotment Act), which was a Homestead Act directed at breaking up Indian reservation holdings as well as tribes themselves.

The New York Times wrote in a single paragraph near the end of its editorial:

“The purpose of the federal government, Lincoln wrote to Congress on July 4, 1861, was ‘to elevate the condition of men, to lift artificial burdens from all shoulders, and to give everyone an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life.’ The Homestead Act in particular was a concrete step in that direction: 10 percent of all the land in the United States was ultimately distributed in 160-acre chunks. But Lincoln’s conception of ‘everyone’ did not include everyone: The Homestead Act rested on the expropriation of Native American lands.”

Implicit in this one paragraph statement made by the Editorial Board of the New York Times is that President Abraham Lincoln himself had done something morally wrong. In my opinion, the “cheap shot” denigration of the character and reputation of Abraham Lincoln in the Editorial pages of the New York Times in this manner (without President Abraham Lincoln being able to defend himself) is unwarranted and should not be permitted to go unchallenged.

On May 28, 1830, the Indian Removal Act was signed by President Jackson. The Act allowed the government to divide land west of the Mississippi to give to Indian tribes in exchange for the land they’d lost. The government would pick up the cost of relocating the Indians and helping them resettle.

In 1838, President Martin Van Buren sent federal troops to march the remaining southern Cherokee holdouts 1,200 miles to Indian Territory in the Plains. Disease and starvation were rampant, and thousands died along the way, giving the tortuous journey the nickname “Trail of Tears.”

In 1851, Congress passed the Indian Appropriations Act which created the Indian reservation system and provided funds to move Indian tribes onto farming reservations and hopefully keep them under control. Indians were not allowed to leave the reservations without permission. For Indians, reservation life was restraining, and the land Natives were forced to occupy were often too small to raise animals or hunt on and not viable agriculturally.

In response to Episcopal Bishop Henry Whipple, who lobbied the president to reform the corrupt Indian agency system, Lincoln pledged that "if we get through this war, and if I live, this Indian system shall be reformed." In his December, 1862 annual message to Congress, President Lincoln urged that Congress change the system. (See “President Lincoln and the Sioux Indian uprising in Minnesota in 1862” thread, post #1, dated April 16, 2013.) President Abraham Lincoln died on April 15, 1865.

Before the Civil War, similar legislative acts to the Homestead Act signed by President Lincoln in 1862 had been proposed in 1852, 1854 and 1859, but were defeated by a powerful southern lobby that feared new territories populated by homesteaders would be allowed into the Union as 'free states,' thereby giving more power to the abolitionist movement.

In fact, Homestead Act legislation had been passed by both houses of Congress in 1860 (before Lincoln became President) and only needed the signature of then President Buchanan to become law. However, in 1860, President James Buchanan vetoed this earlier homestead bill, succumbing to pressure from southern slave-holding interests.

Abraham Lincoln was elected to be President of the United States on the basis of promises made in the Republican Party platform of 1860, including the specific call for a Homestead Act.

In fact, in the second paragraph of the same New York Times editorial, the Editorial Board appears to be expressing its own whole-hearted approval of all the legislation signed into law by President Lincoln that day in 1862:

"Between May and July 1862, even as Confederate victories in Virginia raised doubts about the future of the Union, Congress and President Abraham Lincoln kept their eyes on the horizon, enacting three landmark laws that shaped the nation’s next chapter: The Homestead Act allowed Western settlers to claim 160 acres of public land apiece; the Morrill Act provided land grants for states to fund universities; and the Pacific Railway Act underwrote the transcontinental railroad.”

Even if President Lincoln had opposed the legislation it would have easily become law over his veto. The House of Representatives passed the Homestead Act by a vote of 107 to 16 on February 28, 1862. The Senate passed the Homestead Act by a vote of 33 to 7 on May 6, 1862. I am sure Lincoln knew it would be fruitless even if he were inclined to veto the bill (which he wasn't).

(04-11-2020 05:01 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  The House of Representatives passed the Homestead Act by a vote of 107 to 16 on February 28, 1862. The Senate passed the Homestead Act by a vote of 33 to 7 on May 6, 1862.

To impose upon President Abraham Lincoln a failure to do right, as the New York Times editorial implies, is repugnant to my sense of "right and wrong."

(04-11-2020 06:37 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 05:01 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  The House of Representatives passed the Homestead Act by a vote of 107 to 16 on February 28, 1862. The Senate passed the Homestead Act by a vote of 33 to 7 on May 6, 1862.

To impose upon President Abraham Lincoln a failure to do right, as the New York Times editorial implies, is repugnant to my sense of "right and wrong."

The NYT has turned neo progressive, so no surprise. AL was a white man, that's enough for them to point at him. Plus he was born in poverty and managed to raise himself up, so it doesn't go with their "systematic white privilege" mantra.

The Editorial Board of the New York Times wrote in the “Editor’s letter” of its extended opinion titled “The American We Need,” published in today’s (April 19, 2020) edition:

“[A]s our introductory editorial argues, this pandemic offers the same opportunity that Americans have seized during past crises: To recognize national priorities and set to work again creating a more perfect union. We’re launching this initiative in hopes of supporting that national instinct.

In one particular paragraph of the referenced introductory editorial, the Editorial Board implied that President Abraham Lincoln was himself a hypocrite in signing the Homestead Act in 1862:

The purpose of the federal government, Lincoln wrote to Congress on July 4, 1861, was “to elevate the condition of men, to lift artificial burdens from all shoulders, and to give everyone an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life.” The Homestead Act in particular was a concrete step in that direction: 10 percent of all the land in the United States was ultimately distributed in 160-acre chunks. But Lincoln’s conception of “everyone” did not include everyone: The Homestead Act rested on the expropriation of Native American lands.

For the Editorial Board of the New York Times to attack the character and reputation of President Abraham Lincoln in this manner is beyond my comprehension.

I agree, David. On the Abraham Lincoln Online website it says:

As author David Mearns said of Lincoln, "If he belongs to the ages it is because he belonged to his own age, his own fellows, his own environment ... if we would honor him, recognise and understand him we must return to his [age]."

IMO, the New York Times is not doing this.

(04-19-2020 05:45 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  I agree, David. On the Abraham Lincoln Online website it says:

As author David Mearns said of Lincoln, "If he belongs to the ages it is because he belonged to his own age, his own fellows, his own environment ... if we would honor him, recognise and understand him we must return to his [age]."

IMO, the New York Times is not doing this.

I think that the New York Times has its own hidden agenda to revise factual history regarding President Abraham Lincoln and the American history of slavery. The responsible people at the New York Times simply ignored the legitimate criticism offered by respected historians regarding its Project 1619 research and analysis. The New York Times editors control the forum. It's called arrogance of power.

(04-19-2020 05:45 PM)RJNorton Wrote:  As author David Mearns said of Lincoln, "If he belongs to the ages it is because he belonged to his own age, his own fellows, his own environment ... if we would honor him, recognise and understand him we must return to his [age]."

Roger, I think I would substitute the word "time" for the word "age" in brackets.

First person narration is like looking at a scene through the eyes of the author at the "time."

I give the following example from Noah Brooks as published in the Century Monthly Illustrated Magazine – Vol. 18 at page 586 (“Lincoln’s Imagination”):

When we were in Virginia together, just after a fall of snow, I found him standing on the stump of a tree, looking out over the landscape. He called attention to various subtle features of the view, and said, among other things, that he liked the trees best when not in leaf, as their anatomy could then be studied. And he bade me look at the delicate yet firm outline of the leafless tree against the sky. Then, pointing to the fine network of shadows cast on the snow by the branches and twigs, he said that that was the like the profile of the tree.

The very next day, somebody was discussing with him the difference between character and reputation, when he said, -- with a look at me, as if to remind me of what he had been talking about the day before, -- "perhaps a man’s character was like a tree, and his reputation like its shadow; the shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing."

The President was at that time weighed down with anxieties; it was a few weeks before General Hooker’s crossing of the Rappahannock, at Fredericksburg; and he was daily expecting to hear of an attack on Charleston. I remember that it seemed to me a marvelous thing that he could unfix his mind from all these great cares long enough to consider such trifling things.

The point of the story is that the New York Times Editorial Board cannot change the fact of Lincoln’s actual character, but the Editorial Board can distort in the minds of its readers the “shadow” (i.e., the reputation) of President Abraham Lincoln. It is this insidious distortion of President Abraham Lincoln's reputation by the Editorial Board of the New York Times to which I strongly object.

(04-19-2020 10:58 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  

(04-18-2020 03:10 PM)Mylye2222 Wrote:  

(04-11-2020 06:37 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  [quote='RJNorton' pid='80706' dateline='1586642509']
The House of Representatives passed the Homestead Act by a vote of 107 to 16 on February 28, 1862. The Senate passed the Homestead Act by a vote of 33 to 7 on May 6, 1862.

To impose upon President Abraham Lincoln a failure to do right, as the New York Times editorial implies, is repugnant to my sense of "right and wrong."

Lincoln may not have been all white, which would incline the NYT to triple down on their attacks on him. All minorities are supposed to stay in their place and are not allowed to even try to pull themselves up by their bootstraps (which Ocasio-Cortez has reminded us is physically impossible anyway.)

Yeah, I read Lincoln might have been a Melungeon from his mother's side. Yes, today's left is in fact profoundly racist by implying minority people are victims by nature. It treats them like "eternal underage people".

But Lincoln’s conception of “everyone” did not include everyone: The Homestead Act rested on the expropriation of Native American lands.

I am not generally well-read, and I didn't read the whole NYT article, but is that not just what the Homestead Act did?
Is the sentence above not true?

1. The article is about how the US can improve today, so certainly the shadow is cast in today's contemporary light. What are next best steps? What mistakes were made in the past?

2. It seems appropriate that the New York Times qualifies the benefits of the Homestead Act, and at least partially rests (as figurehead for the State) responsibility for the 1863 bill on Lincoln. Lincoln also proudly wrote of it in his Annual Messages.

For one thing, the Office of Indian Affairs was the most corrupt department in the US gov’t, and Lincoln knew this. He said:
“Bishop, a man thought that monkeys could pick cotton better than negroes could because they were quicker and their fingers were smaller. He turned a lot of them into his cotton field, but he found that it took two overseers to watch one monkey. It needs more than one honest man to watch one Indian Agent.”
Although knowing this, Lincoln could have started reforming the broken system, but he simply directed Caleb Smith, “Please make out… blank appointments for all Indian places to service in Wisconsin [and Minnesota] in favor of the persons united recommended by the [State] Congressional Delegation.”

From Lincoln’s 1863 Annual Message -
"The measures provided at your last session for the removal of certain Indian tribes have been carried into effect. [Treaties] contain stipulations for extinguishing the possessory rights of the Indians to large and valuable tracts of land.”
And what is left for the Indians, whose land the settlers simply take, or cunningly con from them? The European Americans made the rules and the game, all to their insatiable advantage.

Lincoln was of the spirit of Manifest Destiny and we now look at those policies and values as self-serving and immoral. The NYT side-comment covers bases.

(04-21-2020 04:30 PM)Amy L. Wrote:  But Lincoln’s conception of “everyone” did not include everyone: The Homestead Act rested on the expropriation of Native American lands.

I am not generally well-read, and I didn't read the whole NYT article, but is that not just what the Homestead Act did?
Is the sentence above not true?

Yes, it is true that the expropriation of Native American lands made the Homestead Act possible.

But what role did President Abraham Lincoln play in the expropriation of the Native American lands?

My post #2 in this thread provides the following information on the subject.

On May 28, 1830, the Indian Removal Act was signed by President Jackson. The Act allowed the government to divide land west of the Mississippi to give to Indian tribes in exchange for the land they’d lost. The government would pick up the cost of relocating the Indians and helping them resettle.

In 1838, President Martin Van Buren sent federal troops to march the remaining southern Cherokee holdouts 1,200 miles to Indian Territory in the Plains. Disease and starvation were rampant, and thousands died along the way, giving the tortuous journey the nickname “Trail of Tears.”

In 1851, Congress passed the Indian Appropriations Act which created the Indian reservation system and provided funds to move Indian tribes onto farming reservations and hopefully keep them under control. Indians were not allowed to leave the reservations without permission. For Indians, reservation life was restraining, and the land Natives were forced to occupy were often too small to raise animals or hunt on and not viable agriculturally.

Abraham Lincoln became President of the United States on March 4, 1861. What do you think that the new President of the United States should have done? Obviously, he did not believe at that moment that he had the constitutional right to emancipate all of the slaves in the United States.

Do you believe that President Lincoln had the right and authority to declare the Indian Appropriations Act of 1851 unconstitutional? I don't think so.

Do you now think that the Editorial Board of the New York Times is under the impression that President Lincoln had the right and authority as President in 1861 or 1862 (when President Lincoln signed the Homestead Act) to return all of the Native American lands to their rightful owners by Executive Order? I don't think so. Do you?

If the Editorial Board of the New York Times actually did think that that was the case, why did they not write this or make a similar statement in their editorial? Believe or not, the Editorial Board of the New York Times control what they write; not me.

Instead, the Editorial Board wrote:

“The purpose of the federal government, Lincoln wrote to Congress on July 4, 1861, was ‘to elevate the condition of men, to lift artificial burdens from all shoulders, and to give everyone an unfettered start and a fair chance in the race of life.’ The Homestead Act in particular was a concrete step in that direction: 10 percent of all the land in the United States was ultimately distributed in 160-acre chunks. But Lincoln’s conception of ‘everyone’ did not include everyone: The Homestead Act rested on the expropriation of Native American lands.”

Implicit in this one paragraph statement made by the Editorial Board of the New York Times is that President Abraham Lincoln himself had done something morally wrong. In my opinion, the “cheap shot” denigration of the character and reputation of Abraham Lincoln in the Editorial pages of the New York Times in this manner (without President Abraham Lincoln being able to defend himself) is unwarranted and should not be permitted to go unchallenged.

See my post #2 on this thread for these last two paragraphs.

What were the reasons that We the People of the United States elected Abraham Lincoln as President of the United States in November, 1860?

According to Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Lincoln historian that I highly respect, the answer is (see my post #1):

Lincoln knew this election would not be determined by a single issue. While opposition to slavery extension had led to the creation of the Republican Party and dominated the national debate, in many places other issues took precedence. In Pennsylvania, the leading iron producer in the nation, and in New Jersey, the desire for a protective tariff was stronger than hostility to slavery. In the West, especially among immigrant groups, multitudes hoped for homestead legislation providing free or cheap land to new settler, many of whom had been hard hit by the Panic of 1857. “Land for the Landless” was the battle cry. And when, in the mist of the campaign, President Buchanan vetoed a mild Homestead Act, many in Indiana and throughout the West turned to Lincoln. All of these issues had been carefully addressed in the Republican Party platform. Had the election been fought on the single issue of slavery, it is likely that Lincoln would have lost.

We the People of the United States elected Abraham Lincoln in November 1860. This is what were the expectations of the voters who elected him to be President of the United States.

(04-21-2020 11:14 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  [quote='Amy L.' pid='80785' dateline='1587504620']
But Lincoln’s conception of “everyone” did not include everyone: The Homestead Act rested on the expropriation of Native American lands.

We the People of the United States elected Abraham Lincoln in November 1860. This is what were the expectations of the voters who elected him to be President of the United States.

Of course, the Native Americans had no vote.

Reservations

Where are the reservations
In Germany and Japan?
Have I somehow missed the slaughter
And the parceling of their land?
For, if spoils to the victor
Is not the way when might makes right,
Why are indians the exception
In this day of endless night?
**************************

Just a thought.

(04-22-2020 04:23 PM)Steve Whitlock Wrote:  

(04-21-2020 11:14 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  [quote='Amy L.' pid='80785' dateline='1587504620']
But Lincoln’s conception of “everyone” did not include everyone: The Homestead Act rested on the expropriation of Native American lands.

We the People of the United States elected Abraham Lincoln in November 1860. This is what were the expectations of the voters who elected him to be President of the United States.

Of course, the Native Americans had no vote.

Reservations

Where are the reservations
In Germany and Japan?
Have I somehow missed the slaughter
And the parceling of their land?
For, if spoils to the victor
Is not the way when might makes right,
Why are indians the exception
In this day of endless night?
**************************

Just a thought.

You left out the actual voter "expectations" to which I made reference.

According to Doris Kearns Goodwin, a Lincoln historian that I highly respect, the answer is (see my post #1):

Lincoln knew this election would not be determined by a single issue. While opposition to slavery extension had led to the creation of the Republican Party and dominated the national debate, in many places other issues took precedence. In Pennsylvania, the leading iron producer in the nation, and in New Jersey, the desire for a protective tariff was stronger than hostility to slavery. In the West, especially among immigrant groups, multitudes hoped for homestead legislation providing free or cheap land to new settler, many of whom had been hard hit by the Panic of 1857. “Land for the Landless” was the battle cry. And when, in the mist of the campaign, President Buchanan vetoed a mild Homestead Act, many in Indiana and throughout the West turned to Lincoln. All of these issues had been carefully addressed in the Republican Party platform. Had the election been fought on the single issue of slavery, it is likely that Lincoln would have lost.

We the People of the United States elected Abraham Lincoln in November 1860. This is what were the expectations of the voters who elected him to be President of the United States.

How about the Palestinians who are having their native lands expropriated by war and legislation in much the same manner as the American Indians in the first half of the nineteenth century (BEFORE Abraham Lincoln became President)? Now, that's something that the Editorial Board of the New York Times could actually do something about right away, instead of unfairly criticizing President Abraham Lincoln - the man who saved the institution of democracy for the world.

Just another thought.

The following is from a post I made to the the thread titled "Re: President Lincoln and the Sioux Indian Uprising in 1862" at post # 112 on June 7, 2017:


Episcopal Bishop Henry B. Whipple lobbied the President to reform the corrupt Indian agency system. In the spring of 1862, the bishop had recommended more humane treatment of the Minnesota Sioux. Lincoln promptly asked the secretary of the Interior to investigate, which he did and suggested numerous reforms.

The President told a friend that Whipple "came here the other day and talked with me about the rascality of this Indian business until I felt it down to my boots."

In reply to Whipple's appeal, Lincoln characteristically recounted a story:

"Bishop, a man thought that monkeys could pick cotton better than Negroes could because they were quicker and their fingers smaller. He turned a lot of them into his cotton field, but he found that it took two overseers to watch one monkey. It needs more than one honest man to watch one Indian agent."

[President Lincoln] pledged to Bishop Whipple that "[i]f we get through this war, and if I live, this Indian system shall be reformed."

(Henry B. Whipple, "Light and Shadows of a Long Episcopate,etc.," pages 136-137.

So, at least two things would have been different had Lincoln lived: Reconstruction and the treatment of native Americans. [emphasis added today April 23, 2020.]

Isn't it amazing how well Abraham Lincoln was able to argue by clear analogy. Lincoln ended his story:

"he found that it took two overseers to watch one monkey. It needs more than one honest man to watch one Indian agent."