Posted on 04/10/2002 3:07:33 PM PDT by Legume
Behind them the Mound Builder culture and all their towns had been destroyed - presumably by disease brought North from Mexico at the same time as the horses!
The relocation from the Carolinas to Oklahoma did not involve chaining people up and marching them in winter through the snow.
And the whole business of relocation was not objected to by everyone. Earlier on Thomas Jefferson had made plans to relocate all the Eastern Indians to Indiana. Some actually went there - think the words "Seymour" and "Brown County". John Methoxin (sp?), a Brotherton, or Mohican, or Oneida (however you wish to look at him) was a great proponent of relocation. It was his considered opinion that the Indian could not live in close proximity to the European because the European people seemed to cause Indians to die. The Germ Theory of disease was not developed at the time, but Methoxin, Jefferson and other leading intellectuals of the time worked out separation as a possible solution. Jefferson had also been convinced that Indians should be compensated for their land and other properties in any relocation - and this began to be done the same way it had under the British colonial authorities.
Not all the Indians moved to the Western lands, and not all the relocations were difficult. Try some of the works by Carl Buhley. I'm sorry to say, however, that most of the Methoxin related materials are not well cataloged. At some point in time I will see if I can't discover where they all are and prepare a bibliography for general use. He was a great man who worked to prevent the final biological destruction of the American Indian.
Your right, forgive me.
I assumed that the months november/december/january/february were winter months.
I assumed that the over 13,000 Cherokees that were imprisoned in military stockades (several of which are still standing today, and have historical markers discussing exactly what they were used for) were imprisoned for their own good, not because they didn't want to leave where they had built their homes and plantations.
I assumed the 5000 Cherokees that died either in stockades or along the trail, died out of sheer joy.
I assumed that it was called The Trail of Tears because it was bad, but obviously those tears were tears of happiness at leaving anything they couldn't carry on their backs, leaving the homes and plantations they built, and being forced to march through the winter and being imprisoned if they so much as questioned the military commanders.
And the whole business of relocation was not objected to by everyone.
That doesn't make it okay
Not all the Indians moved to the Western lands, and not all the relocations were difficult.
That doesn't make it okay.
You know, as I mentioned before, there were forts/stockades built expressly for removing the Cherokees. You know what they were called? Cherokee Removal Forts.
Please don't try and revise history, even subtly, or try and justify what was done. It's bad enough when liberals do it, whether it's the Civil War or what the founding fathers really meant. I hate to see it on FR.
Many of them had been sent West because they were initially considered Cherokee in the East.
Then there were the African-American slaves! That begins a whole 'nuther discussion. Our folks freed their slaves in New York before they went West so the former slaves got to stay in New York. They did not take Jackson's invitation to move to Wisconsin so they ended up in Indiana. Most of them wouldn't have been eligible for the Dawes Rolls either, or any of the other rolls because of the blood quantum requirements, or the absence of documentation, or any other number of problems.
The situation involving mixed-race people and slaves has been written almost completely out of the history of the removals to Western lands.
Did you ever wonder why that is?
Did you ever wonder why that is?
Embarassment? Perhaps trying to stem any accusations of hypocrisy(sp) when the US lectures other nations about the treatment of their citizens.
I don't think it should have an impact on the US of today though. Everybody involved is long dead and gone. This country has come an incredibly far war since the 1830s.
But I don't think we should forget either. Much like the Jews erected their monuments and museums to the holocaust, so to should we do so for the relocations/wars, and slavery. But it makes liberals very uncomfortable.
The scabs from the pustules remain viable as a contagion for a good while.As a means of transmission, crude but the jury is still out on the level of effectiveness.
I have no idea what movie you are speaking of.
So sorry you are sick of the past.People with your mentality are the reason the Jews think it imperative the Holocaust is documented repeatedly in museums and in all media forms.So it can never be reduced to a rumor in the ongoing revision of history.
Beware: Victimology can be habit-forming.
I have a recollection of that movie. Did you ever remember the name of it? I would be very grateful to you if you could pass it along to me. It’s something that’s bothered me for decades. Thank you in advance for your courtesy in responding. I can also be reached at gonein1999@yahoo.com
Ha! I wish I could remember. I just remember that the mean, white General who tried to infect the Indians, was infected himself. I’ll find it someday and let you know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.