However, the problem with this article is, continuing with your example, it's ignoring the fact you were shot at all, and simply stating that because you dislike the shooter, it must mean that you totally agree philisophically with the second victim. The article then would be propping you up as "proof" that the shooter is just evil, since if you hate him to when he's done nothing to you, why he has to be a bad guy.
Or, let's use another analogy, albeit a bit of a stretch. Say an Israeli soldier is on trial for a minor offense, say, failure to pay a traffic ticket, and a the jury is full of Hamas terrorists. (And no, I'm not comparing the Cherokee to terrorists nor comparing the Trail of Tears or attempted genocide to a traffic ticket. It's an analogy. Simmer down). If the jury returns a guilty verdict and recommends the death sentence, is it okay to ignore any prejudicial thoughts they may have had which went into the verdict/sentence? That's what the author of this wonderful piece seems to think. "Hey, guys, never mind that the Feds mistreated them for years prior to this and fueled a visceral hatred and mistrust. The truth of the matter is they sided with the Confederates just because the Confederates were right!" Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
As was stated earlier in the thread (post 58, I believe, although I'm too lazy to look back), this was an excuse to make war on the Feds, and this time they had others to help, adding to their strength. My argument is not that the Cherokee had no beef with the Feds, or that the Federal government can do not wrong. Lord knows I'm not saying that. I'm simply saying the author is conveniently leaving out pertinent details which would have the effect of undermining the point he appears to be making, which is that the Confederacy was right because the Cherokee supported them. That's a ridiculously near-sighted argument. Did we support the Soviets and agree philosophically with their system of government simply because we were both fighting the Germans? There's more to this than meets the author's eye.
I take your point that the Cherokee might have been attracted to the Confederate cause more out of grudgefulness and resentment than by the scintillating logic of the Confederate apologists.
But isn't it equally fair to say that, if the Confederates were articulating in the abstract -- their aversion to domination by Northern political factions, the likelihood of abolition, unconstitutional measures of the Lincoln Administration, etc. -- and the Cherokees were operating from concrete experience of the same sort of coercive federal policies, that the Cherokees were indeed attracted to the Confederate cause on policy grounds and from a due consideration of their own best interests?
In that construction, isn't the author of the article more or less correct?