U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 08-30-2019, 05:15 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
41,972 posts, read 18,803,274 times
Reputation: 18938

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by finalmove View Post
Why do you want to relitigate something that happened 150-years ago? What is the benefit other than causing trouble?
Please identify what portion of anything I have posted which suggests that I wish to relitigate anything. I've made two points. The first was that the information presented in the OP was nothing new, hidden or unknown, the second was that the unique thing about southern slavery was that it was race based and justified on the basis of a theory of inferiority.

Do you have anything to say in relation to those points?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-30-2019, 08:35 PM
 
Location: Iowa
2,814 posts, read 3,105,937 times
Reputation: 3460
The Cherokee were victims of a 19th century version of eminent domain. The land was in a strategic location for a railroad link and the general public, from the settlers to banking/mining/railroad interests, from top to bottom, deemed it necessary to confiscate this land for the economic health of the region. They exercised their will thru Andrew Jackson, who instinctively knew if the supreme court decision was upheld, the Cherokee would be invaded and killed. He avoided the slaughter of the Cherokee by offering them all the land they could use in Oklahoma, and a ridiculous sum of 20 million to pack up and go. If the land itself was not that important to so many people, this huge sum of money would never have been offered. The removal had already been put to pen by Thomas Jefferson in the Georgia Compact of 1802, when Georgia gave up all lands to the west in return for the government's assistance in the removal of all tribes within the remainder of Georgia.

The Cherokee received a 3 year eviction notice, the smart ones took the money and left early for OK and set up their new farms. The ones that waited until the deadline were foolish for doing so, and did not fight the soldiers when they came to evict them, which one would think would be the purpose for such action. The weather contributed the most in making the trip a deadly one for the Cherokee, in fact, the government decided to wait until fall of that year, as they thought the summer heat would cause them more hardship than going in the pleasant winter season (normally) of the south. Those that survived the trip were sore losers, IMO, and ended up killing the ones like Major Ridge who left early and negotiated the best deal imaginable for them. They murdered the ones whom laid the groundwork for the success of the new settlements in OK, which made life easier for the new arrivals (sore losers) who killed them.

Last edited by mofford; 08-30-2019 at 08:44 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:31 AM
 
12,230 posts, read 5,330,842 times
Reputation: 19829
So what is the end game to this? Is it to inform us Blacks were used as slaves by some Native Americans and some American Southerners? We know this already. Is it to tell us that Blacks were singled out as slaves as opposed to other races. We know this already as well as does any 3rd grader.
As soon as something new is discovered regarding slavery, please let me know.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:52 AM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,825 posts, read 6,599,282 times
Reputation: 12358
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
So what is the end game to this? Is it to inform us Blacks were used as slaves by some Native Americans and some American Southerners? We know this already. Is it to tell us that Blacks were singled out as slaves as opposed to other races. We know this already as well as does any 3rd grader.
As soon as something new is discovered regarding slavery, please let me know.
Actually, the role of the Five Civilized Tribes and chattel slavery is not regularly taught in schools. As I mentioned previously, this is merely to bring up a historical fact that is not widely taught in public schools today.

And if you really want to push back on threads that, as you say, talk about things "we know . . . already" then 90% of the history forum threads wouldn't exist.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 05:58 AM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,825 posts, read 6,599,282 times
Reputation: 12358
Quote:
Originally Posted by elan View Post
History is often incomplete, people don't really have time to get into all the details. I knew about the Cherokees and their slaves. When I was doing some intense genealogy research, I ran into all sorts of interesting details about the Trail of Tears. I found old payment requests summited to and by the government. I found where sometimes their own families and neighbors drove or escorted Cherokees to the various forts, ports and so on. Some had numerous wagons and belongings (I don't why, but I had the image of individuals with all their belongings on their backs). I found Cherokees who never left. I found plenty that left early. It was rather strange in a way and not what I had envisioned at all.
All true!

And I don't expect every detail of anything/any society to be taught in history classes.

After centuries of history lessons and legal practices (to include both Indian Removal and Indian child boarding schools) that discriminated against Native Americans, the Trail of Tears was taught in my experience in a manner to acknowledge a great wrong on Indian peoples. The addition of facts on slave holding among some in the Five Civilized Tribes and subsequent Black Codes enacted by the tribal governments certainly would've complicated things/made for a less sympathetic story. And perhaps its best that we talk about these things separately? I don't know, but all interesting things to consider.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:15 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
5,555 posts, read 10,011,786 times
Reputation: 9106
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
All true!

And I don't expect every detail of anything/any society to be taught in history classes.

After centuries of history lessons and legal practices (to include both Indian Removal and Indian child boarding schools) that discriminated against Native Americans, the Trail of Tears was taught in my experience in a manner to acknowledge a great wrong on Indian peoples. The addition of facts on slave holding among some in the Five Civilized Tribes and subsequent Black Codes enacted by the tribal governments certainly would've complicated things/made for a less sympathetic story. And perhaps its best that we talk about these things separately? I don't know, but all interesting things to consider.
I get the point that you are trying to make, but being slaveholders had zero to do with how the Indians were treated, and how the executive branch and state governments were given free reign to ignore a Supreme Court ruling. White slaveholders were not subject to the same treatment. While it may not have been your intention, people (me included) are justified in believing that linking slaveholding to their removal is a device meant to either justify that removal or mitigate American slavery because even Indians engaged in it.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:37 AM
Status: "Proud American, Always and Forever" (set 27 days ago)
 
Location: DMV Area/NYC/Honolulu
12,825 posts, read 6,599,282 times
Reputation: 12358
Quote:
Originally Posted by maf763 View Post
I get the point that you are trying to make, but being slaveholders had zero to do with how the Indians were treated, and how the executive branch and state governments were given free reign to ignore a Supreme Court ruling. White slaveholders were not subject to the same treatment. While it may not have been your intention, people (me included) are justified in believing that linking slaveholding to their removal is a device meant to either justify that removal or mitigate American slavery because even Indians engaged in it.
Its a bit more complicated than that. Remember, the so-called Five Civilized Tribes were under threat of removal and further encroachment from settlers/US government for many decades before forced removal actually took place: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2561972...n_tab_contents. These tribes adopted/mimicked settler/western culture (to include slave holding and plantation lifestyles) to a large extent in order to make such efforts less palatable to the government; the thought was if we became like them, they wouldn't see us as different and seek to remove us or take our lands.

This may arguably have worked for a while, but ultimately part of the reason why removal was instituted was to clear up vast sums of land for settlers, to include those who would engage in plantation style slavery.

Ultimately, though, I don't think you're justified in believing discussing slave holding in the context of removal is "meant to either justify that removal or mitigate American slavery," especially as I've made clear what the purpose of the thread is. You can look for some ulterior motive, but I have touched numerous times on why I posted what I did. Now, I think that acknowledging the slave holding past of the Five Civilized Tribes does have the potential to make many less sympathetic with their cause/rethink some things about history, but that's not why I posted what I did.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:44 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
5,555 posts, read 10,011,786 times
Reputation: 9106
Intent does not equal impact.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:44 PM
 
5,250 posts, read 4,719,750 times
Reputation: 1598
Aboriginal tribes also took captives from the settlers after skirmishes, many of these captives have published accounts that one can read.

Again, these topics may not be currently prominent in terms of thread visibility (I have even been involved in debates dealing with the afrocentric olmec claims) but they do exist.

Since the 15th century in the Americas & during the 19th century globally, more or less, the plantation civilization has had a monopoly over culture & identity; quite frankly in all honesty this is still true to this day.

HIStory is essentially about massah, his settlers (& sometimes slaver sidekicks & descendants of his coloured concubines; that is if they exist at all in his system) & their struggles over time & space to create a global plantation utopia.

It remains to be seen if the up & coming generation continues to ape, imitiate & perpetuate the plantation system.

Last edited by kovert; Yesterday at 02:13 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:25 PM
 
Location: Midwest
4,367 posts, read 7,229,585 times
Reputation: 7627
Quote:
Originally Posted by marino760 View Post
What I find fascinating is how some people are so obsessed with slavery as if it wasn't practiced by nearly every culture and civilization since the beginning of human beings.
That doesn't play for the guilt-riddled you-know-who contingent who hate white Western Civilization and wish to destroy it. To be replaced by...

From what I've read, Jackson had the Indians moved because he knew nothing would turn out well for them in the SE where they were. Encroachments, land thefts, and to-the-death fights for turf were already occurring and it was not going to get better. Europeans were pouring into the NA continent and it was a simple matter of numbers as to how this would turn out in the end. Out west, where nobody lived, was a safe haven. At that time.

Times change.

Also my reading tells me Jackson had empathy and respect for Indians. He and his wife adopted an Indian child, Lyncoya, a Creek child found on a battlefield next to his dead mother. They raised him as their own.

Jackson gets trashed a lot by revisionists with an agenda. EVERY people, every culture practiced slavery. To hear from the know-nothings, though, it was ONLY whites who practiced it. As you and others state, marino, blacks enslaved other blacks. Or sold them. The West gets little credit amongst the guilt-spreaders for abolishing slavery. Which is still widely practiced in the Mideast and underground. Look at Weinstein.

If people were truly interested in slavery rather than in showboating aka virtue-signaling, they'd go after modern sex slavery and the horrible abuses by the drug cartels in human trafficking to bring drugs into our nation from Mexico and China. The Soviets were doing this drug war mission long ago, they know that to destroy an enemy you burrow within. Building a core of drug-addled people and the crime that sends out in waves is one way to undermine. They're slaves too, slaves of drugs and drug lords.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top