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

Many have no doubt heard of the valor of the Cherokee warriors under the command of Brigadier General Stand Watie in the West and of Thomas’ famous North Carolina Legion in the East during the War for Southern Independence from 1861 to 1865. But why did the Cherokees and their brethren, the Creeks, Seminoles, Choctaws, and Chickasaws determine to make common cause with the Confederate South against the Northern Union? To know their reasons is very instructive as to the issues underlying that tragic war. Most Americans have been propagandized rather than educated in the causes of the war, all this to justify the perpetrators and victors. Considering the Cherokee view uncovers much truth buried by decades of politically correct propaganda and allows a broader and truer perspective.

On August 21, 1861, the Cherokee Nation by a General Convention at Tahlequah (in Oklahoma) declared its common cause with the Confederate States against the Northern Union. A treaty was concluded on October 7th between the Confederate States and the Cherokee Nation, and on October 9th, John Ross, the Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation called into session the Cherokee National Committee and National Council to approve and implement that treaty and a future course of action.

The Cherokees had at first considerable consternation over the growing conflict and desired to remain neutral. They had much common economy and contact with their Confederate neighbors, but their treaties were with the government of the United States.

The Northern conduct of the war against their neighbors, strong repression of Northern political dissent, and the roughshod trampling of the U. S Constitution under the new regime and political powers in Washington soon changed their thinking.

The Cherokee were perhaps the best educated and literate of the American Indian Tribes. They were also among the most Christian. Learning and wisdom were highly esteemed. They revered the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution as particularly important guarantors of their rights and freedoms. It is not surprising then that on October 28, 1861, the National Council issued a Declaration by the People of the Cherokee Nation of the Causes Which Have Impelled them to Unite Their Fortunes With Those of the Confederate States of America.

The introductory words of this declaration strongly resembled the 1776 Declaration of Independence:

"When circumstances beyond their control compel one people to sever the ties which have long existed between them and another state or confederacy, and to contract new alliances and establish new relations for the security of their rights and liberties, it is fit that they should publicly declare the reasons by which their action is justified."

In the next paragraphs of their declaration the Cherokee Council noted their faithful adherence to their treaties with the United States in the past and how they had faithfully attempted neutrality until the present. But the seventh paragraph begins to delineate their alarm with Northern aggression and sympathy with the South:

"But Providence rules the destinies of nations, and events, by inexorable necessity, overrule human resolutions."

Comparing the relatively limited objectives and defensive nature of the Southern cause in contrast to the aggressive actions of the North they remarked of the Confederate States:

"Disclaiming any intention to invade the Northern States, they sought only to repel the invaders from their own soil and to secure the right of governing themselves. They claimed only the privilege asserted in the Declaration of American Independence, and on which the right of Northern States themselves to self-government is formed, and altering their form of government when it became no longer tolerable and establishing new forms for the security of their liberties."

The next paragraph noted the orderly and democratic process by which each of the Confederate States seceded. This was without violence or coercion and nowhere were liberties abridged or civilian courts and authorities made subordinate to the military. Also noted was the growing unity and success of the South against Northern aggression. The following or ninth paragraph contrasts this with ruthless and totalitarian trends in the North:

"But in the Northern States the Cherokee people saw with alarm a violated constitution, all civil liberty put in peril, and all rules of civilized warfare and the dictates of common humanity and decency unhesitatingly disregarded. In the states which still adhered to the Union a military despotism had displaced civilian power and the laws became silent with arms. Free speech and almost free thought became a crime. The right of habeas corpus, guaranteed by the constitution, disappeared at the nod of a Secretary of State or a general of the lowest grade. The mandate of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court was at naught by the military power and this outrage on common right approved by a President sworn to support the constitution. War on the largest scale was waged, and the immense bodies of troops called into the field in the absence of any warranting it under the pretense of suppressing unlawful combination of men."

The tenth paragraph continues the indictment of the Northern political party in power and the conduct of the Union Armies:

"The humanities of war, which even barbarians respect, were no longer thought worthy to be observed. Foreign mercenaries and the scum of the cities and the inmates of prisons were enlisted and organized into brigades and sent into Southern States to aid in subjugating a people struggling for freedom, to burn, to plunder, and to commit the basest of outrages on the women; while the heels of armed tyranny trod upon the necks of Maryland and Missouri, and men of the highest character and position were incarcerated upon suspicion without process of law, in jails, forts, and prison ships, and even women were imprisoned by the arbitrary order of a President and Cabinet Ministers; while the press ceased to be free, and the publication of newspapers was suspended and their issues seized and destroyed; the officers and men taken prisoners in the battles were allowed to remain in captivity by the refusal of the Government to consent to an exchange of prisoners; as they had left their dead on more than one field of battle that had witnessed their defeat, to be buried and their wounded to be cared for by southern hands."

The eleventh paragraph of the Cherokee declaration is a fairly concise summary of their grievances against the political powers now presiding over a new U. S. Government:

"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."

The Cherokees felt they had been faithful and loyal to their treaties with the United States, but now perceived that the relationship was not reciprocal and that their very existence as a people was threatened. They had also witnessed the recent exploitation of the properties and rights of Indian tribes in Kansas, Nebraska, and Oregon, and feared that they, too, might soon become victims of Northern rapacity. Therefore, they were compelled to abrogate those treaties in defense of their people, lands, and rights. They felt the Union had already made war on them by their actions.

Finally, appealing to their inalienable right to self-defense and self-determination as a free people, they concluded their declaration with the following words:

"Obeying the dictates of prudence and providing for the general safety and welfare, confident of the rectitude of their intentions and true to their obligations to duty and honor, they accept the issue thus forced upon them, unite their fortunes now and forever with the Confederate States, and take up arms for the common cause, and with entire confidence of the justice of that cause and with a firm reliance upon Divine Providence, will resolutely abide the consequences.

The Cherokees were true to their words. The last shot fired in the war east of the Mississippi was May 6, 1865. This was in an engagement at White Sulphur Springs, near Waynesville, North Carolina, of part of Thomas’ Legion against Kirk’s infamous Union raiders that had wreaked a murderous terrorism and destruction on the civilian population of Western North Carolina. Col. William H. Thomas’ Legion was originally predominantly Cherokee, but had also accrued a large number of North Carolina mountain men. On June 23, 1865, in what was the last land battle of the war, Confederate Brigadier General and Cherokee Chief, Stand Watie, finally surrendered his predominantly Cherokee, Oklahoma Indian force to the Union.

The issues as the Cherokees saw them were 1) self-defense against Northern aggression, both for themselves and their fellow Confederates, 2) the right of self-determination by a free people, 3) protection of their heritage, 4) preservation of their political rights under a constitutional government of law 5) a strong desire to retain the principles of limited government and decentralized power guaranteed by the Constitution, 6) protection of their economic rights and welfare, 7) dismay at the despotism of the party and leaders now in command of the U. S. Government, 8) dismay at the ruthless disregard of commonly accepted rules of warfare by the Union, especially their treatment of civilians and non-combatants, 9) a fear of economic exploitation by corrupt politicians and their supporters based on observed past experience, and 10) alarm at the self-righteous and extreme, punitive, and vengeful pronouncements on the slavery issue voiced by the radical abolitionists and supported by many Northern politicians, journalists, social, and religious (mostly Unitarian) leaders. It should be noted here that some of the Cherokees owned slaves, but the practice was not extensive.

The Cherokee Declaration of October 1861 uncovers a far more complex set of "Civil War" issues than most Americans have been taught. Rediscovered truth is not always welcome. Indeed some of the issues here are so distressing that the general academic, media, and public reaction is to rebury them or shout them down as politically incorrect.

The notion that slavery was the only real or even principal cause of the war is very politically correct and widely held, but historically ignorant. It has served, however, as a convenient ex post facto justification for the war and its conduct. Slavery was an issue, and it was related to many other issues, but it was by no means the only issue, or even the most important underlying issue. It was not even an issue in the way most people think of it. Only about 25% of Southern households owned slaves. For most people, North and South, the slavery issue was not so much whether to keep it or not, but how to phase it out without causing economic and social disruption and disaster. Unfortunately the Southern and Cherokee fear of the radical abolitionists turned out to be well founded.

After the Reconstruction Act was passed in 1867 the radical abolitionists and radical Republicans were able to issue in a shameful era of politically punitive and economically exploitive oppression in the South, the results of which lasted many years, and even today are not yet completely erased.

The Cherokee were and are a remarkable people who have impacted the American heritage far beyond their numbers. We can be especially grateful that they made a well thought out and articulate declaration for supporting and joining the Confederate cause in 1861.

Emmett Starr, History of the Cherokee Indians, published by the Warden Company, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1921. Reprinted by Kraus Reprint Company, Millwood, New York, 1977.

Hattie Caldwell Davis, Civil War Letters and Memories from the Great Smoky Mountains, Second Edition published by the author, Maggie Valley, NC, 1999.

Pocahontas was considered a noble visitor and representative, and was honored as such. She died too young to have done very much else.

I think there are folks around here anxious to ascribe prejudice and stereotypical thinking to others just to posture as defenders. Friend of the Injun.

Frankly, you're trying to defend my own--and I find it condescending in the extreme.

Just as a legal quibble, because I'm that kind of person.

In Falwell's biography of Jackson, he states that the couple owned between 6 and 9 slaves. At least two were owned by Jackson before the marriage. Three slaves, a female and her two teenage children, were brought into the marriage by Mary Anna Morrison. A sixth, a female child, was purchased by Jackson after the marriage as a gift to his bride with the expectations of making a ladies maid out of her. Two or three other slaves were sold shortly after the marriage and the proceeds were used to purchase a house and property for the couple. Whether these slaves were also brought into the marriage by Anna Jackson or whether Jackson himself owned them prior to the marriage is not clear.

The reason they switched was that they believed the lies told to them by each group. That was the Cherokee's downfall eventually - believing the white mans words back then.

Quite possibly true. Was true of many Indian tribes.

Pocahontas was considered a noble visitor and representative, and was honored as such. She died too young to have done very much else.

Yes, but really she was a novelity at the time. The early British nobles did not know what to make of Indians that did not meet their sterotype.

Sorry that you can't take a joke.

I am a new comer to the whole Civil War thing. I got interested in it because Gods and Generals was sold out at the video store. So, I rented the movie Gettysburg instead. What a fantastic movie!

When I was able to get Gods and Generals, I watched it, but I didn't like it. But, I had taped it, so I watched it again. It really impacted me the second time. I was intriqued by the character of Jackson, so I began to read alot about him. I found an honorable and decent man whom I admire greatly.

Since then, I have been on a buying and reading binge, reading everything I can about Jackson, his battles, and Gettysburg. This summer, I am planning a trip to Antietam and Gettysburg (just bought my tickets for the re-enactments). I have so much to learn about him and the war. I have been concentrating on the Battle of Chancellorsville... and have read several books about it.

You should get a hold of the book "We Knew Stonewall" if you can. I think you will like it immensely.

Robertson came to our college campus, but I didn't find out about it until a day later. I am hoping that the history department taped it, and I can get ahold of it that way.

I am hoping to tour the Valley, Lexington, and other places that Jackson went. I have my eye on Dabney's book as well...

Frankly, you're trying to defend my own--and I find it condescending in the extreme.

I think not. I think you may have something against the Cherokee because they fought against your fellow Frenchmen. Not to say that some Indians didn't take French names.

But what do they know, right?

Touche...

Personally, I believe Lewis was a free man. But, I have read enough to accept that among scholars there is enough ambiguity in the matter to throw a smattering of doubt on the subject. That's all I'm saying.

If Anna Jackson says that Lewis was a freeman, to me, that is all the proof I would need. But then again, I believe he was a free man.

I am trying to force my way through Longstreet's book now. The man was no writer. I have laid it aside temporarily to pick-up Joshua Chamberlain's... The Passing of Armies, which I am reading at the same time I'm reading "We Knew Stonewall."

Sometimes, its hard to keep it all straight. LOL!

I highly recommend Farwell's book, he is an excellent historian and gifted writer. He has written a whole host of books on the British and Indian Armies during the Victorian period and the Jackson biography was only his second work on the American Civil War (the first was a book on the battle at Ball's Bluff). He is as impartial on his subject as anyone can be, blowing away a lot of myths about the man and presenting a fair and balanced and well-documented account of Jackson and his life. And the real Jackson was far more impressive than his myths made him out to be. He was, arguably, the best general of the war. Certainly the best on the southern side.

I wouldn't begin to read their (Cherokee) minds, or even attempt to. It's possible, of course, but even if they were attracted to the cause, you have to know that the prior acts against the Cherokee by the Federal government would color their perception as to whom they should throw in with. Having similar reasons for hating someone enough to go to war with them doesn't necessarily imply philosophical agreement between the allied parties, especially when prior historical events could influence the decision making of one of the groups so heavily. To use a more modern analogy, I don't think anyone would say "the Arabs are now pro-West" or even that the Kuwaitis are now pro-West simply because Kuwait allowed us to attack Iraq from there. Both of us wanted Saddam out, for different reasons. Combining those reasons into one cohesive philosophy in the way the author does with the Cherokee and Confederacy is disingenuous, I believe.

My point, which apparently I'm doing a poor job of making, is that the article seems to ignore any fact or relevent history that won't support the author's claims that the Feds were wrong and the Confederates were right and the Cherokee "support" for the Confederacy proves that. As I stated, instead of support for the Confederacy, it could have been more a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". His (the author) failure to write a decent article doesn't disprove any theories he may have, but it certainly doesn't benefit his cause either.

I said in an earlier post that I have read Farwell's book, but didn't like it as well as I did Robertson's book.

And I agree with you... the real Jackson was by far more impressive than his myths made him out to be.

He was, arguably, the best general of the war.

Yes, he was. I would recommend to you the book "Lost Victories - The Military Genius of Stonewall Jackson" by Bevin Alexander.

I'll keep those in mind for my next batch from the library. I have a whole stack of Black Conservative books (Walter Williams, Shelby Steele, etc.) that I can pick up tomorrow after my OB checkup ...

I have to say I'm underwhelmed with Jeff Shaara as a writer, but it's hard to go too far wrong with the material he's got. You just couldn't invent characters like Jackson, Lee, Longstreet, the Hills, etc. Or Grant, Hancock, and McClellan. And then to have the plot already done, too ... what a deal!

I read that "Gods and Generals" relied on letters and memoirs for much of the dialogue and characterization, and I think that's a weakness of the film. It takes a lot of the "zip" out of the characters. Lots of them were fun guys: A.P. was a noted debauche, Longstreet (before his children died) was known as a wit, Gen. Early was famous for his good humor and bad language, Jeb Stuart liked to show off his voice, etc. The movie makes them into talking portraits - Tom Chamberlain is the exception; he's having fun!

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.