Summary

One Case Where Carl Schurz Was Not on the Side of Human Liberty

Back in 1879 a pitiful procession wended its slow way northward from Indian Territory, bound for the prairies of Nebraska. There were thirty Indians on foot and one old wagon, drawn by two wornout horses. In the wagon was the dead body of a child — an Indian boy. The leader of the little party was the father of the dead child; the famous Ponca Indian chief, Standing Bear, a few years later to be the best-known Indian in the entire world — and to speak in every city in the country in behalf of his people.
Source: Wikisource

One Case Where Carl Schurz Was Not on the Side of Human Liberty

Still standing, half-facing the audience, he looked past the Judge out of a window as if gazing upon something far in the distance, and continued:
“ ‘I seem to be standing on the high bank of a great river, with my wife and little girl by my side. I cannot cross the river, and impassable cliffs arise behind me. I hear the noise of great waters; I look and see a flood coming. The waters rise to our feet and then to our knees.
Source: Wikisource

One Case Where Carl Schurz Was Not on the Side of Human Liberty

That night Crook came into Omaha and had an all-night's conference with Tibbles, then an editorial writer on a newspaper. A campaign of Indians' rights was mapped out, and both men started out the next day to carry out their parts.
Crook was to delay returning the Indians to Indian Territory until a writ of habeas corpus could be asked for from the United States Court on the ground that the Constitution, in the Fourteenth Amendment, guaranteed to all persons born in the United States equal protection of the law.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature