Replies

you explained quite well in your post WHY Indians were removed. With the exception of the Cherokee (and even they screwed up), they wanted war. Their methods of war were horrific, including murder of infants and male children and kidnapping of females for slavery.

The same states Olawacko names: South Carolina, Florida, Alabama, southern Georgia, Mississippi and Louisiana, were either French or Spanish territories. Most of the tribes were aligned with those governments, (or the English) fighting against the US. My very early family lost several to arrows while clearing fields for farming.

Tribal leaders (who we are constantly admonished had no concept of property rights) didn’t want to share ‘their’ land or participate in Enlightenment of the “New World” and the inevitable advancing of human civilization, even after France and Spain abandoned/sold their settlements (leaving both slaves and Indian allies behind). And in spite of the knowledge that there was no way to stop the flood of European settlers, brutality in Indian attacks persisted - amongst themselves and towards colonists. Frontier forts were used as much for protecting local tribes from warring tribes as they were for protecting colonial families.

The Indians, also slaveowners, were given a time period to relocate. It didn’t happen in one day, in fact, several years and several options were offered iirc, and they took their slaves with them when they were relocated, even petitioning the federals to return any runaways. There would have been no way to end slavery in the Deep South if Indians were given an exception to keep slaves. Jackson had good reason for his policy. It was the foundation that built America.

Jackson, may his soul burn in hell, was a cold-blooded son-of-a-bitch who didn't build a damned thing. He stands responsible for thousands of death on the Andrew Jackson Death Marches, some of whom were my relatives and ancestors.

And you're right the Cherokees wanted war. That's what you when you have to in order to protect your lands and your families.

As far as the Cherokees killing men, women, and children, why not explore what the whites did to the Cherokees. Tit-for-Tat seems to work well for white people except when it comes to them. The names of the Western Cherokees include such surnames as Ten Killer, Six Killer, and Mankiller. They're certainly not talking about other Cherokees. They're talking about the white people they killed who came in to take their lands, kill their own families.

No, sir. White people including Andrew Jackson, may his soul burn in hell, don't get a pass on killing Indian people.

And, why do you suppose members of the Five Civilized Tribes owned slaves. They sat down and said, "Hey, let's own slaves." No, they owned slaves because the White People accepted slaves from White and African slave traders who came into to try to barter for Indian lands. White people don't get a pass on trying to blame Indian people for the adoption of slavery, either.

And you're wrong about the concept that Indian leaders didn't have any concept of land ownership. That's soul-soothing balderdash written by white historians to try to assuage their own assumptions that Indian people were unsophisticated and clumsy. Reading of Creek and Cherokee history shows specifically that the Indian tribes fought one another and even intertribally for lands. That's with the Red Sticks wars were all about.

I don't know where you got your concepts of Indian history. They are foolish and silly.