Why the Cherokee Nation Allied Themselves With the Confederate States of America in 1861

Lew Rockwell.com ^ | January 7, 2004 | Leonard M. Scruggs

[stainlessbanner]

Thanks Snippy - I love the Foxhole - there is always something to learn and ya'll do a great job. Even though I'm silent on most of them, I read all the Foxhole threads (even the non-WBTS ones)

Great minds and all!

[2banana]

My great grandmother and grandfather came across the Trail of Tears from North Carolina into Oklahoma Territory.

Was the Trail of Tears "payback" for the Cherokee Nation in supporting the Confederates?

[Jokelahoma]

So through the referencing of a whopping two published items (two whole works! The research must have taken minutes, if not even a few hours!), the author concludes that there is some sort of evil conspiracy which can only be exposed if we harp on the fact that Indian nations were anti-Union? That's remarkable work! How nice it must be for Mr. Scruggs to feel only he can enlighten us to the inner workings of the Cherokee mind. And of course, the Cherokee dislike and distrust of the Feds had nothing to do with the fact the Feds marched them from Carolina to Oklahoma. It was all because the Cherokee were true Libertarians and just didn't like Republicans.

It IS nice, however, to know that should I ever suffer a debilitating brain injury, I can still either play bass in a country band or submit articles to Lew Rockwell. Look for the Rockwellians to secede from the Web any day now.

[4CJ]

"Whatever causes the Cherokee people may have had in the past to complain of some of the southern states, they cannot but feel that their interests and destiny are inseparably connected to those of the south. The war now waging is a war of Northern cupidity and fanaticism against the institution of African servitude; against the commercial freedom of the south, and against the political freedom of the states, and its objects are to annihilate the sovereignty of those states and utterly change the nature of the general government."

Cherokee/Creek bump.

[Tax-chick]

Thanks! I just read an excellent book about the War in North Carolina, "Bushwhackers!" by William R. Trotter. His main source on the Cherokees' participation was "Storm in the Mountains," by Vernon H. Crow (reference-only in my library system, unfortunately!).

Trotter suggests that the Eastern Band participated on the Confederate side almost entirely because it was the policy of their Chief, "Little Will" Thomas, who was, oddly enough, white. Until things got personal with the guerilla fighting and atrocities in Western NC, the Cherokees seem to have fought largely because it was the only fight available!

It's an interesting situation, very different from that of the tribes resettled in Oklahoma, and a reminder that generalizing about "Indians" is just as historically worthless as generalizing about "whites" or "blacks."

[Tax-chick]

Trail of Tears, 1830's. Civil War, 1860's.

[Jokelahoma]

The Trail of Tears occurred before the Civil War. Around and about 1838/39.

[thulldud]

Was the Trail of Tears "payback" for the Cherokee Nation in supporting the Confederates?

If so, it was a payment considerably in advance.

[stainlessbanner]

The Seminoles decended from Creeks and were continually pushed into the swamps of Florida. Anyone who is familiar with the Sem-Indian Wars in FLA will know why there is a distrust of Feds by the natives.

I recall how Col. Jesup of the Federal Army met with Osceola under a white flag of truce and then captured him, a move that discredited Jesup, worsened relations, and ultimately led to Osceola' imprisionment at St. Aug and later his death.

[HELLRAISER II]

I'm not quite sure how to take your statement, however I am of Southern Cherokee descent and I do support the Confederate flag so perhaps you're right.

[Happy2BMe]

Payback?

I recall going to a fire dance in 1964 somewhere around Drumright, OK.

I remember seeing the Cherokee warriors dancing around the fires with their long hair gong all the way down their backs in their deerkins.

I can still recall the loud chanting and beating of drums and seeing the bright colors painted on their faces and the feathered head oranments they wore.

I was introduced to Jim Thorpe, a national hero at that time for his Olympic Gold Medal.

I asked my grandmother to interpret for me what the men were saying as they danced.

Here is what she said:

"Son. This is something you must always remember about the Cherokee. Until we learned to speak the white man's language, our language was pure and we did not curse each other with our tongues."

[Aurelius]

...should I ever suffer a debilitating brain injury,...

You haven't already?

[Mamzelle]

I think it boils down to -- human beings are just all the same. There's some intent to attach a romance to the American Indian--and this is nice enough as far as it goes. Hollywood has in recent years made lovable pacifists of Indians (Little Big Man) and what I consider more realistic portrayals-- Last of the Mohicans. Except for that club that Chingachook carried--it is a tool for crushing hickory nuts and walnuts. It was a hoot to see it hurled with this sticker on it as a weapon...

When I host liberals in my area, and they make their derision of the rebel flag display known, I always remeind them that those they sneer at are the descendents of a politically-protected ethnic group that relished the taking of federal scalps in the Civil War.

And, they don't know how to take that statement.

[Triple]

Based on your #23, I take it there are factual errors in the article, please point them out.

TIA

[Jokelahoma]

...should I ever suffer a debilitating brain injury,...

You haven't already?

Nah, not yet. My bass gathers dust in the corner, and I haven't yet had the urge to submit anything to Rockwell, so I know I'm okay. I am, however, currently reading two Curious George books, and am extrapolating that into an article proving that monkeys are Libertarians who were right to tear down the Statue Of Liberty and why one, named Cornelious, would have supported the Confederacy. I'll be sure to cite the books extensively. I'll let you know when it's published.

[Jokelahoma]

Your inference is incorrect. The article, as posted, is likely quite factual, since it simply posts one document from the Cherokee with the author's opinions wrapped around it. My contention is that using two sources and then leaping to the conclusions that he does (notably number 7 on his list, "dismay at the despotism of the party and leaders now in command of the U. S. Government") is a tad on the "not exactly scholarly" side. I've no doubt the dosument is accurately copied and pasted. It's what is done with it that strikes me as goofy.

[HeadOn]

It never ceases to amaze me how people can totally ignore the plain language of a historical document. The Cherokee declaration quoted is very plain. True enough, there may have been other underlying motives, but how can you absolutely discount the official declaration of a nation of people?

Oh, I'm sorry, Jokelahoma - perhaps you are a Supreme Court Justice or a Democratic Congressman/Senator. Now I understand.

Stop letting your pre-determined attitude towards the Civil War keep you from honest dialogue.

[Jokelahoma]

True enough, there may have been other underlying motives...

And therein is my point. The author disregards any other motivation that may have existed for the Cherokee (or any other Indian nation at the time) to have a beef with the Federal government in order to attempt to strengthen his argument that the Cherokee supported the Confederacy. Was it truly a case of support for the Confederacy, or a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Were that the case, the argument against the federal government mad ein the article would lose any "oomph" it has, so it is ignored.

Oh, I'm sorry, Jokelahoma - perhaps you are a Supreme Court Justice or a Democratic Congressman/Senator. Now I understand.

Nice. It's a shame, however, that snarky comments don't do much to bolster arguments. Now, what are my pre-determined attitudes, exactly? And what is the point I'm missing? That Indians didn't like the Feds?

[Aurelius]

Looking forward to it.

[dixierat22]

At that time, much of the POLITICAL leadership of the South consisted of slave owners. Most of the PEOPLE did not own slaves. Couldn't afford them and didn't want them.

The idea of expanding slavery into the new territories was not directly addressed in the Constitution and slavery was not abolished in the U.S. until December of 1865.