One of my kids just read a book about Red Hugh. This one, specifically...
Red Hugh, Prince of Donegal
Posted on 08/20/2017 6:28:10 AM PDT by Antoninus
It’s wrong to pre-judge a human being based on their racial characteristics. Beyond that, it’s stupid. Any marginally intelligent person knows this. A Christian, certainly, has no excuse for treating someone badly simply because they are of a different racial category. For a Catholic, it's a sin to do so.
At the same time, as we watch political agitators wantonly destroying symbols of our country’s history in vigilante mobs, one can not help but be struck by their profound ignorance of said history. For these simpletons, the Confederacy equals racism, and everything having to do with it equals racism, and anyone who casts a wistful glance at the sacrifices of their ancestors in support of the Confederacy is, de facto, a racist. But one doesn’t have to dig too deeply into the history to find that the situation was often far more complicated than this snap judgment will afford.
Take, for example, the case of Confederate brigadier general Stand Watie. Of course, you’ve never heard of him because your schooling in American history, like mine, was deeply defective. Stand Watie was a chief of the Cherokee Nation. Born in 1806, he had been among the Cherokees who were forced off their native lands in Georgia to “Indian Territory” in present day Oklahoma. Watie moved in 1835, three years before the rest of the tribe were forcibly relocated as part of the Trail of Tears.
When the Civil War erupted, it is perhaps not surprising that Watie and many of the Cherokees were drawn to the Confederate cause. They had no love for the federal government in Washington, and besides that, slavery was practiced by many American Indian tribes from before contact with Europeans. Watie himself owned slaves. Though divided, the Cherokee eventually threw their lot with the rebels and Stand Watie soon became a colonel in the Confederate army, eventually rising to the rank of brigadier general. Well into his 50s, he was an active fighter in the western theater, taking part in battles throughout the Indian Territories. He would become famous as the last Confederate general to surrender, which he did on June 23, 1865.
The war had been hard on the Cherokee. They lost nearly a third of their number and their territory had been devastated by Union soldiers. After the war, Stand Watie tried to rebuild his home and his fortunes. He died six years later, predeceased by all of his three sons. His two daughters died shortly after him, leaving his widowed wife, Sarah, to carry on until 1883.
Stand Watie was not a paragon of virtue. He had many faults. His cause was wrong and his methods in combat could be unorthodox. He did not always have control of his men, who sometimes reverted to the old Indian practice of scalping their enemies. But was he racist? Our friends on the Left tell us that oppressed minorities can not be racist by definition—that only Whites can be racist. So where does that leave someone like Stand Watie in their postmodern hierarchy of sins?
Before you judge Stand Watie, however, at least give a read to this excerpt from a letter he wrote to his wife in 1864 where he examines his conscience:
"Sometimes I examine myself thoroughly and I will always come to the conclusion that I am not such a bad man at last as I am looked upon. God will give me justice. If I am to be punished for the opinions of other people, who do not know my heart I can’t help it. If I commit an error I do it without bad intention. My great crime in the world is blunder. I will get into scrapes without intention or any bad motive. I call upon God to judge me, he knows that I love my friends and above all others, my wife and children, the opinion of the world to contrary notwithstanding." [Taken from Chronicles of Oklahoma, Volume 1, page 47.]
You can read more of his correspondence at the above source. It's a fascinating look into the mind of a man in the process of losing a war, despite his best efforts, who was deeply affected by the slanders spread about him by his enemies.
As a Pennsylvania boy born and raised, I have little sympathy for the Confederate cause. But I do recognize that people fought in the Civil War for a variety of reasons that often had little to do with defending or destroying the hideous institution of slavery. Many of those who fought on the wrong side were brave men who sacrificed all. In the not-too-distant past, men could fight one day, be reconciled the next, and be best friends the day after. They could also honor each other years later—call it courtesy, nostalgia, chivalry or what have you. That sense of chivalry seems to be something our society has been sadly lacking for some time now.
Our modern arbiters of morality in media and the mask-wearing mob insist on judging our ancestors based on their own ill-informed, hyper-politicized 21st century views. These same folks vehemently deny anyone else the privilege of judging them or their actions. But their day will come. I am confident that future generations will judge the lives of men like Stand Watie a good deal more sympathetically than those of the cowardly rioters who pull down the effigies of brave men.
If they eventually deem Stand Watie unfit for a memorial of this kind, they should probably also find and burn all copies of the 1976 movie, The Outlaw Josie Wales, as it includes a character called "Lone Watie" played brilliantly by Chief Dan George. If you've never seen the film, Lone Watie is a likable character and his backstory will sound awfully familiar if you have read this post. In this clip, he explains his rationale for declaring war on the Union.
And a tip of the hat to you for a small, edifying piece of Oklahoma history.
***They should replace the statues with statues of abolitionists.***
How about the twenty Staunch Abolitionists who each gave $5000 ($100,000 total) to bail out Jefferson Davis from Prison. Top two were Horace Greeley and Cornelius Vanderbilt.
” Hell is coming to breakfast”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZX56rbqZhto
@ 1:45
The whole link is sweeeet!
Those statues have been standing there for decades, in some cases over 100 years. Now all of a sudden they’re offensive. The vandals must be told that if they don’t like a statue, be tolerant (like they’re always telling US to be tolerant) and just walk past it. They’re like little two-year-olds saying, “I don’t like it, take it down!” I hate the fact there’s a statue to a plagiarizer, womanizer, and communist in D.C., but if I saw it I wouldn’t deface it. These people tearing down statues should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. This crap has to stop.
One of many problems the Indians had was their tendency to pick the losing side when the whites around them went to war. During the French and Indian War, they picked the French. During the Revolution, most tribes backed British and during the Civil War, the tribes that got involved tended to go with the Confederates. I understand why they chose as they did, but backing the loser in a bitter war doesn’t make you many friends on the winning side.
Excellent. I haven’t seen that book before—I’ll have to check it out.
Went and checked my files. It appears John Ross, Chief of the pro-Union Cherokees, sent word that the following tribes had treated or joined with the Confederacy.
Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws, Osages, Seminoles, Senecas, Shawnees, Quapaws, Comanches, Wachitas, Kiowas, and Pottawatamies.
None of these tribes regained friendly relations with the Union until the Treaty of Sept 21, 1865. The five tribes in Oklahoma, which had reservations stretching from Arkansas to the Texas line, gave up the western portions of their reservations in 1866 for the much smaller reservation areas they have today.
Just so everyone knows about the “Indian Land” on the Washita, Black Kettle, after Sand Creek, was given a reservation in the former Cherokee Strip, but he had his tribe go to the former Chocktaw-Chickasaw lands, when they decided to attack farms and ranches in Kansas until Custer raided the village. They were NOT on their assigned lands.
Blah blah blah
Same old white excuses and pandering while under attack
Like half of this forum
About fifty posters who’s names are on my homepage are as guilty as the professional left
When I was a girl in the 70s, the school libraries were full of biographies of historical figures of every persuasion, all quite positive about that person’s accomplishments, no matter which side of whatever he/she was on.
I mean, what about “Red Hugh of Donegal”? What is the “right side” (for American elementary school students) of the Elizabethan Era conflict between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.
I have that very one on the shelf. It was also the source for the movie.
There’s a movie? Do tell! I was not aware of that.
Yes, “The Fighting Prince of Donegal,” a Disney movie from the 1960s.
Ugggh. You said the “D” word. Although the 1960s Disney movies were definitely a mixed bag.
Oh, well. I didn’t make it. We used to watch them in school when it was raining and we couldn’t go out. Also the nature movies, like the one with the river otters.
It’s been a long time since I’ve seen it. I recall that it had a great escape scene, reminiscent of Errol Flynn’s “Robin Hood,” and a rousing finish. Also some romantic digression.
I think you’d probably find it silly.
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.