CHEROKEE SLAVE REVOLT OF 1842: American Indians as Slave Owners

CHEROKEE SLAVE REVOLT OF 1842 ^ | 1996 | Art T. Burton

[breakem]

The Indians can bill each other.

I got this info from BookTV C-SPAN 2 on the weekends. An author wrote a book about the spread of small pox in the Americas. One of the routes of the pox was from the western plains down into the southwest via this slave trade. Interesting stuff.

[Vast Buffalo Wing Conspiracy]

Cool, I'm part Chocktaw...like maybe 1/7th.

How exactly could you be 1/7th anything? That would make for an interesting family tree...

[FormerLib]

...I wonder if any of these tribes...have any Casinos that the "Reparations for Slavery" lawsuit lawyers would be interested in?

I hadn't even gotten through the first paragraph when I thought of that.

Man, what some folks will do to avoid having to work for a living!

[Ranger]

Black Seminole slaves would later become excellent scouts for the U.S. calvary and buffalo soldiers in their hunt for renegade Comanche tribes (Parker et al) in the 1870s. The issues of american history during the period are far from black & white so to speak.

[Dead Dog]

Never really thought about it that hard. What ever a pure blooded g-grandmother would be.

[blam]

"The issues of american history during the period are far from black & white so to speak."

An anthropologist's nightmare to be sure. These 'mixings' must have ocurred a million times in human history.

[RushLake]

What a shockeroo! I thought the Indians (nativehyphenamericans if you prefer) were gentle souls that were the original stewards of the environment and lived as one in harmony with the beasts of the forest. They held slaves???? Oh no. Some evil right wing historian once told me that they also made cruel war on one another, burned large tracts of woodland in order to drive game to cliffs (jumps) in order to visciously slaughter it, and had no concept of private property. I didn't believe him of course because my liberal friends corrected my views quickly.

[Alas Babylon!]

The Poarch Indians of the Creek Nation have just opened a casino on their burial gorunds in Wetumpka, Alabama. Now note that the Poarch band have a reservation in southwest Alabama, near Mobile, but own a few dozen acres in downtown Wetumpka, as this was their ancient burial grounds deeded to them before the Trail of Tears and never taken since.

Interesting that they chose this "sacred ground" for a bingo hall and slot machines, but there it is. The State of Alabama fought it tooth and nail, but the Feds backed it up via treaties. Anyway, the Poarch are making money hand-over-fist, and the sleepy town of Wetumpka is a rush hour nightmare on weekends.

[THEUPMAN]

Is slavery still legal in indian nations?

If not , why?

[stainlessbanner]

Yes - Florida has a very "colorful" history. My little town was actually settled by some Russians. There are some legendary black cowboys and ranchers. Seminoles, Spanish, Mexican, British, Floridian....they were all here. I doubt we can ever sort our reparations. I don't think there is anyone that deserves it today.

[WhiskeyPapa]

I thought you'd enjoy. Also, do you agree with me that since Thomas Jefferson, George Washington (both Southerners) along with many other founding fathers owned slaves we should take their faces off of our currency, desecrate their graves and remove their names from the many schools named after them?

I don't see why.

It's silly to judge historical people by modern day standards.

On the other hand, by 1860 slavery was being called an abomination. The slave holders threw down Old Glory because they didn't like having their sin rubbed in their noses.

Walt

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

It's silly to judge historical people by modern day standards.

Really, aren't you the one who posted something about Jim Crowe laws in Georgia and laws from 1806?

[VOA]

bump

[Seti 1]

This is a very interesting article. One of the most contentious problems after the 13th Amendment was what to do with the freed slaves of the Indians. Congress finally made them members of the tribes for whom they had been slaves.

Another long-forgotten problem (since I'm on the subject) was the big boost in representation the South got by losing the war. Slaves had been counted at 3/5th their numbers for purposes of apportioning Representatives. After freedom they had to be counted in full--the result was the South got a lot more members in the HOR.

[WhiskeyPapa]

It's silly to judge historical people by modern day standards.

Really, aren't you the one who posted something about Jim Crowe laws in Georgia and laws from 1806?

That's different. :)

I asked, and I'll ask again, which do you think is worse, segregation or being forbidden to read? In that sense, I will ask you to apply modern day values.

People of the day in 1806 were obviously not seriously up in arms over it being forbidden for blacks to be taught to read.

By 1860, there was a small body of opinion who DID take exception to slavery and the slave holders took the bitterest exception to THAT.

Walt

[one2many]

Good post;

check this out.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

"That's different." :)

No, it's not. :)

Obviously slavery is a terrible thing. However, don't act as though the evil southerners were holding the poor slaves down while the saints in the rest of the country wanted them free. The north and south were simply arguing over economics for the most part...

[WhiskeyPapa]

Obviously slavery is a terrible thing. However, don't act as though the evil southerners were holding the poor slaves down while the saints in the rest of the country wanted them free. The north and south were simply arguing over economics for the most part...

Well, the only economics that mattered was maintaining slavery.

And no one, to my knowledge, in this forum has EVER said that the norhereners were saints. Racism was just as rampant up there as in the south and as few wanted blacks to move into their areas and take jobs and what not, so that is a straw man argument. What the northerners WERE adamant about was maintaining the union, which is what they did.

Walt

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

they maintained the Union and used the south as their slaves. Only unlike before they could use the whites as slaves too. Good thing those days are gone and now the South is the region that holds the cards...

[tvanc7236]

This is to everyone........PAY THE INDIANS FOR STEALING THEIR WHOLE COUNTRY & THEN TELL ME HOW MUCH MONEY IS LEFT FOR DESCENDENTS OF X-SLAVES!!!!!!! Show me just one living WHITE-BLACK or INDIAN SLAVE HOLDER & the Gov't can take the money out of his pocket! And that money is to go only to an actual SLAVE.
Less than 5% of White Southerners (1860) were slave holders, & of those the largest percentage never owned more than 1 to 5 Slaves. In fact, of the FREED SLAVES who remained in the south, there was a far bigger percentage of them who OWNED SLAVES. New Orleans in 1860 had around 3,000 Freed Slaves. Of those 29% were themselves SLAVE HOLDERS!! A black widow & her son in south Louisiana owned 152 slaves in 1860! Could go on but I think I GOT MY POINT STATED.
Considering all the races of people....world wide who has had relatives at some time in history, held as SLAVES it looks like we can all rise up to sue someone for their wrong doing! WWWWRRRROOOONNNNGGGG!!!!!