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.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,466,576 times
Reputation: 12187
Advertisements
Was reading a book recently that said that over 90% of American Indians who fought in the Civil War fought for the Confederacy. In fact, the last Confederate General to surrender was a full blood Cherokee named Stand Wati. There were many brigades composed entirely of Indians.
A couple questions...
1. Since Confederate states like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, etc had just recently (50 years earlier) removed their Indian populations why did most in Indian Territory (Oklahoma) side with the Confederates?
2. Why wouldn't the Indian soldiers of the 1860s instead side with their brethren in the West and strive to create a new Indian nation rather than fight in a "White man's War"??
Was reading a book recently that said that over 90% of American Indians who fought in the Civil War fought for the Confederacy. In fact, the last Confederate General to surrender was a full blood Cherokee named Stand Wati. There were many brigades composed entirely of Indians.
A couple questions...
1. Since Confederate states like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, etc had just recently (50 years earlier) removed their Indian populations why did most in Indian Territory (Oklahoma) side with the Confederates?
2. Why wouldn't the Indian soldiers of the 1860s instead side with their brethren in the West and strive to create a new Indian nation rather than fight in a "White man's War"??
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!
1. Those states did not remove the Indian population. That was done by way of the federal government policy, not state.
:
That is a little misleading, isn't it? The ultimate process was a Federal one, but that there was a process is a product of unrelenting pressure on the Federal government by the citizens of those Southern states. Georgia was especially active in swindling Indians lands before the removal, and indeed, in the days when the removal act was being debated in Congress, it was most commonly referenced as trying to find a solution to the "Georgia Crisis." When missionaries who were outraged by the naked land grab taking place, arrived to assist tribes in resisting relocation, Georgia's legislature quickly responded with a law which prohibited whites from living on Indian territory.
So, yeah, it was a Federal act, but it was one widely demanded by the citizens of the Southern states.
There are two underlying issues, one is the fact that the US did not treat them particularly well in the years leading up to the war. They were betting that the Confederacy would treat them better. The Confederates offered them representation in Congress and full citizenship. Both of those offers were probably quite enticing. Some tribes had just worked out peace treaties with the US government and essentially remained neutral. A lot were massacred anyway throughout the war.
A second issue was the same as one that sent Texans over the edge: livestock raids. Usually those raids originated from Kansas, thieves would come across the border and steal horses, cattle, mules, and sheep. The federal government largely ignored the problem, and a lot of the partisan violence in Kansas caused it to grow even worse.
However, during the war there were also tribes hostile to both sides. The Apache are a good example of that.
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.
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.
I agree. I'd like to see the name of this book and its sources. From what I can tell it was a mix with Northern tribal nations often fighting for the Union, Southern tribal nations fighting for Confederacy, and several being neutral or mixed. (Some of the tribal nations divided amongst themselves on the issue)
The final draft of surrender terms at Appomattox was done by Union Lt. Colonel Ely S. Parker. Parker was a member of the Seneca nation, an Iroquois people. The Delaware (Lenni Lenape) appear to have sided with the Union. Perhaps more surprising the Pamunkey (part of the Powhatan Confederacy made famous by Pocahontas) appear to have sided with the Union, but were in the North Carolina/Virginia area.
Still many American Indians did feel the Confederacy would be to their advantage. The Union had a poor history with American Indians and many likely distrusted them. The Confederates I think were willing to make promises to the Indians. Whether they would have kept them after the war I don't know. (I know the tribes that sided with the Union would get ripped off afterward or did at least some of the time) Also the Union was possibly more threatening as it had a larger population whose industrial might would later prove difficult for many tribes. Finally, less pleasantly, several tribes who fought for the Confederacy did so because they wanted to continue the practice of slavery. American Indians who had slavery sometimes did it a bit differently than whites, but they didn't necessarily want it ended either.
It might even be possible that, in sheer number, more Indians fought for the Confederacy than the Union. The tribes of the Northeast, and Kansas in the case of the Delaware, that sided with the Union were often small. I think the American Indian population of the former Confederacy might still be equal or greater than that of the Northeast. Also many tribes in the North didn't have any reason to side with the Union as the Union was still doing things like putting down Sioux rebellions or attacking Cheyenne or whatever. Maybe Confederates would have done the same, and judging by their secession documents the Texans felt the Union was too soft/weak on Indians, but I think fighting the Union probably had to take almost all their focus. The Union was big enough they could fight Plains Indians and Confederates roughly at the same time.
Last edited by Thomas R.; 05-16-2011 at 04:26 AM..
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.
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.
