Why did American Indians overwhelmingly fight for the Confederacy? (United States, government, political)

[Nighteyes]

Originally Posted by NJGOAT

... those Native Americans fighting on the American or Union side, were often simply integrated into units as regular troops, not necessarily kept as bands independent warriors.

Those NDN units that aligned with the Confederacy, generally,were retained as tribal and/or NDN units. I know of some Choctaw, for example, who were "attached" to Cherokee units as multi-language interpreters. Recall my earlier statement that the Choctaw and Chickasaw languages are VERY similar.

-- Nighteyes

[BlackShoe]

Originally Posted by EdwardA

True but in the example of the Revolutionary War most tribes, the overwhelming majority favored the Brits.

The American Revolution was a disaster for the Iroquois Confederacy, it split them and broke their power and influence. The Oneidas and Tuscaroras generally sided with the colonists while the other four tribes allied with the English. An invasion of their homeland in 1778 by American forces was a major defeat. After the Revolution, the center of Indian power shifted to the tribes of the Ohio Valley.

[Irishtom29]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

After the Revolution, the center of Indian power shifted to the tribes of the Ohio Valley.

One could argue that after the defeat of the Iroquois by the Chippewa-Ottawa-Potawatami alliance in the Beaver Wars actual Indian power shifted to the Pays d'en Haut with the Iroquois being accorded more respect by the English than their actual power warranted; the English evidently seeing them as able to control the client states they claimed in the Ohio Country. And those client tribes grew more and more restive and independant before the Revolution, making thier own policies and ignoring the Iroquois.

And the upper Great Lakes Indians didn't give a damn what the Iroquois wanted anyway and provided the bulk of the Indians who fought with the French and a considerable number of those the Brits led against the western American settlements. And with the Illinois Country Indians the bulk of those who fought the Americans in the wars in the Old Northwest.

Of course there's a gray area where an Ohio Country Indian becomes a Lakes Indian, especially as pressure from the Kentuckians moved the Shawnees farther north onto rivers that flowed into the Great Lakes. And there were the Miamis who lived in the watersheds of both the Lakes and the Ohio, the same with the Delawares.

[Nighteyes]

Rhett_Butler,

Just re-read your excerpt from Wiki. They missed an entire tribe -- one-fifth of the so-called Five Civilized Tribes. Seems they somehow managed to leave the Chickasaw Nation standing on the street corner...

[Rhett_Butler]

Originally Posted by Nighteyes

Rhett_Butler,

Just re-read your excerpt from Wiki. They missed an entire tribe -- one-fifth of the so-called Five Civilized Tribes. Seems they somehow managed to leave the Chickasaw Nation standing on the street corner...

I may not be following what you're saying. What I cited does mention the Chickasaw.....

(At least the second part does....)

[Nighteyes]

Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler

I may not be following what you're saying. What I cited does mention the Chickasaw.....

(At least the second part does....)

The part you posted says (and you highlighted the specific citation in red as I have shown) The Cherokee, Choctaw, Seminole, Catawba, and Creek tribes were the only tribes to fight on the Confederate side. There is no mention of my brothers and sisters the Chickasaw in this statement.

My purpose is NOT to start an argument, friend, only to point out an error or oversight in the source document (or in the way you cited it). Okay?

-- Nighteyes

[selopp]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

1. Those states did not remove the Indian population. That was done by way of the federal government policy, not state.

2. See above. Since those tribes had been forcibly removed by the federal government, they felt/hoped they would get better treatment by the Confederate government. And they did...far as that goes!

Indeed, it was a federal policy to remove indians out of their homeland. But we must remember that this (Trail of Tears-1830) was done when most of the congressmen were southerners who stood for the Slave Power. Both the Confederacy and the Union fought for the white men interests.

[theoldnorthstate]

Originally Posted by selopp

Indeed, it was a federal policy to remove indians out of their homeland. But we must remember that this (Trail of Tears-1830) was done when most of the congressmen were southerners who stood for the Slave Power. Both the Confederacy and the Union fought for the white men interests.

don't think that was so.

The removal was by the personal order of Pres Andrew Jackson (from SC to TN) and against the order of the Supreme Court. To which Pres Jackson said "Let them (the court) enforce it". The orders were carried out by professional Army officers following the direct orders of their commander in chief.

Pres Jackson was by no means a pro slavery or future Confederate. He was for a strong centralized federal gov't

Any southern congressmen were interested in one thing. GOLD found on Cherokee land which could become their districts.

[Pi64]

Originally Posted by Irishtom29

First I'd like to see it demonstrated that more Indians actually did fight for the rebellion than for The United States. This entire thread may be based on a false premise.

Ditto. Indians fought for both sides. If more fought for the Confederacy, I would think it would probably just means more lived in the South. I find it hard to believe 90% fought for the Confederates.

[Kafkaesque]

The lesser of 2 evils from their point of view I suppose.