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

Lew Rockwell.com ^ | January 7, 2004 | Leonard M. Scruggs

[stand watie]

sorry, but according to the curator of VMI, GEN Jackson was never well-to-do.

i am NOT an expert on Jackson-my expertise, such as it is, is in American Indian history/lore & partisan warfare in the LA/AR/MO/KS/IT/NM/TX areas, prior to & during TWBTS.

also, FYI, i am NOT a historian. my degrees are in Public Administration & Political Science. (essentally i'm a policy wonk, rather than a traditional academic, though i do teach at a local college.)

free dixie,sw

[carton253]

Well... let's leave it up to the word of the curator at VMI then... everyone choses who they are going to believe. You have the curator at VMI... I'll take James Robertson, who says that, while Jackson wasn't rich..rich...rich, he was by no means the pauper you are trying to portray him to be.

Proof will be coming this afternoon.

[Happy2BMe]

"Jim Thorpe died in Lomita, CA, in 1953. He was possibly the greatest all-around American athlete of the 20th century. If you met him in 1964, you met his ghost."

I stand humbly corrected and thank you very much for pointing this out.

Could it have been Jim's brother I met?

[stand watie]

i don't think the GEN was a pauper, but i also don't think he could have afforded slaves. the GREAT MAJORITY of southerners couldn't; only 5-6 percent of southerners owned even ONE slave, despite what the damnyankee apologists say.

also, >95 percent of dixie's grayclads had personal assets of LESS than $ 25.00!

TWBTS was a PEASANT REVOLT, led by a handfull of intellectuals & former professional officers like GENs Lee & Jackson (i suspect that's on great reason that we lost our war for freedom-peasant revolts SELDOM succeed. the only one i can think of offhand that did was the Indochinese War against the French.)

as for my family, we had no money then & darn little now. as my late father said: "we didn't know that there was a depression on in Delaware County, OK, as we had nothing before & nothing in the 1930s except a 40 acre dirt farm."

free dixie,sw

[Tax-chick]

According to Robertson, Jackson started out pretty darn poor, not to mention effectively orphaned, and ended up middling. Both of his wives brought some money and property into the marriages. He and Anna owned their house, some agricultural land, and other property. His VMI salary was pretty good for the day, although Army pay wasn't much.

Of course, by the end of the War, practically everyone except war materiel speculators was poor! No full-replacement-cost coverage when the Yankees burned your house down, cut down your orchard, and stole your livestock.

[carton253]

Yes... I'm not stating that Jackson was wealthy (like plantation wealthy)... I'm just saying he wasn't the pauper that Stand Watie is portraying him to be.

Not only did Jackson own the properties you mentioned, he was an investor in some of the businesses in Lexington and sat on the board of directors of others. Plus, as you stated, his wives (especially Anna) did bring some money and property into the marriages.

At the end of the war...the Jackson's money would have been worthless since he (probably) turned it into confederate money.

[carton253]

Regarding Jackson's ownership of slaves. I will present my proof... you are free to accept or reject it.

But your argument is based on what you think Jackson could or could not have done. That's hardly a strong foundation.

You are arguing that 95% of Confederate soldiers had less than $25.00. Well... that's all good and well, but what does that have to do with Jackson's finances.

The South lost the war because it is hard for an agrarian society to win against an industrialized one. The South lost the war because it could not sustain its war since it could not replace the men lost in battle, did not have the industry to make the necessary supplies, did not have strong supply lines, and could not feed the men in the field.

Again...this is not a smear on the Southern men who fought valiantly against great odds for 4 years. They "were a noble set of men" and great Americans.

[stand watie]

for the FIVE to SIX PERCENT (5-6%) of southerners who actually owned a slave/slaves, extension of slavery into the west was VERY IMPORTANT. BUT for the other 94 percent who did NOT/could NOT own any slaves, it was NOT important.

TWBTS was a PEASANT REVOLT, against a damnyankee controlled federal government, which had ceased to serve the average southerner.

had we southrons won, the "plantation elites" might well been next on the "list of enemies" after the damnyankee elites, the railroads, the robber barons, etc.

peasants have never been particuliarly fond of their "betters" in any country or time period!

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

my main "proof", if that's what you wish to call it, is the complete Personal Property Tax records of GEN & Mrs Jackson for 1850-1861.

i never said he was a pauper, just not of the "well to do" plantation aristocracy.

GEN Lee was also NOT well to do. in point of fact, her family did NOT want him as a son-in-law because they feared they would have to support the couple! and they DID!

the records of frequent "CARE packages from home" still exist at Fortress Monroe. her family sent the cornmeal,flour,salt,dried meats/fish,sugar,spices & 100# sacks of dried beans, so that they wouldn't go hungry when REL was a 2LT.

free dixie,sw

[Kenny Bunk]

had we southrons won, the "plantation elites" might well been next on the "list of enemies" after the damnyankee elites, the railroads, the robber barons, etc.

This newly unearthed Marxist Dialectical interpretation of TWBTS, is all your damn fault, Aurelius. First darn time I have ever heard the rank-and-file confederates described as proletarian heroes.

However, I must say that thanks to the Aurelian provocation, I now know:
(a) how you, Stand Watie, derived your freeper handle,
(b)that the Cherokee were interested in TWBTS, of which, locked away in New England institutions during my formative years, I had no clue, and,
(c) had it been left to Renee Zellweger, TWBTS would have had an outcome entirely other than that due to Colonel Chamberlain and the 20th Maine. (and several other obscure Federal Units reported to have been allegedly involved in TWBTS, in some way or other.)

[capitan_refugio]

I don't know if Thorpe had brothers still alive then or not. Indian athlete and 1964 = Billy Mills. If you ever get a chance, a local library might have a audio cd with Bob Costas as narrator, entitled "And the Crowd Goes Wild." One of the excerpts is the televison audio of the announcers calling the race. It is thrilling to listen to, even forty years later. No one expect Mills to be anywhere near the leaders (his personal best wasn't even close to the top flight distance runners of the day). On the last turn of the last lap, Mills comes roaring in from behind, like Secretariat at the Kentucky Derby. Great stuff. Mills was and is a true hero.

I would have liked to have met either one of these men, but Thorpe was gone before I was born.

[stand watie]

FUNNY!

nonetheless i think there was SOME hated/resentment of the "plantation aristocracy" among the southland's common folk, especially since FEW of them actually fought for the TRUE CAUSE & MANY (sadly) collaborated with the damnyankees.

may i gently remind you that we folks of the "new world" regardless of ethnic group/race/ancestry were all immigrants? (yep, us AIs too!) AND that we as a group were NOT wealthy or of the "upper classes"???

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

WELL SAID!

i support RUNNING BRAVE, Billy's charity.

free dixie,sw

[Agnes Heep]

for the FIVE to SIX PERCENT (5-6%) of southerners who actually owned a slave/slaves, extension of slavery into the west was VERY IMPORTANT. BUT for the other 94 percent who did NOT/could NOT own any slaves, it was NOT important.
TWBTS was a PEASANT REVOLT, against a damnyankee controlled federal government, which had ceased to serve the average southerner.

I suppose then you must assume that state legislatures completely lorded it over their constituencies, to the extent that they could start a civil war over an issue that didn't concern those constituencies in the least. Unless you can explain to me what particular grievance those "peasants" had against the federal government, to the extent that they were willing to fight such a war based on the aforesaid issue.

[carton253]

I know what your main proof is... you have spelled it out IN CAPITAL LETTERS every chance you get.

[spodefly]

Bookmark.

[carton253]

As promised, here is my proof regarding whether or not Stonewall Jackson owned slaves.

It comes from Anna Jackson’s book “Memoirs of Stonewall Jackson.” Published in 1895 by The Prentice Press in 1895. Prentice Press in located in Louisville, KY.

I quote from the book:

"… “…under his methodical management his household soon became a regular and well-ordered as it was possible for it to be with Negro servants…”

Still quoting… “His early training upon his uncle’s farm had instilled into him a love for rural pursuits, and it was not long until he gratified his desire to possess a little farm of his own, which embraced twenty acres near town. Here, with the aid of his Negroes he raised wheat, corn, and other products…

Still quoting… “He was a very strict, but kind master, giving to his servants ‘that which was just and equal,’ but exacting of them prompt obedience…

Here is Anna writing about his views on slavery. Quoting Anna… “I am very confident that he would never have fought for the sole object of perpetuating slavery. It was for her constitutional rights that the South resisted the North, and slavery was only comprehended among those rights.

”He (Jackson) found the institution of slavery a responsible and troublesome one, and I have heard him say that he would prefer to see the Negroes free, but he believed that the Bible taught that slavery was sanctioned by the Creator Himself, who maketh men to differ and instituted law for the bond and the free. He therefore accepted slavery, as it existed in the Southern States, not as a thing desirable in itself but as allowed by Providence for ends which it was not his business to determine.”

[spodefly]

So through the referencing of a whopping two published items ... the author concludes that there is some sort of evil conspiracy which can only be exposed if we harp on the fact that Indian nations were anti-Union?

The Cherokee Declaration presents their case very clearly, or have you already suffered debilitating brain injury?

[lentulusgracchus]

Thanks for the quote in extenso. One of the better articulations of a contemporary view, and a benchmark in discussing Jackson's character.

Other readers of this post will notice that Jackson didn't lend himself to trendy, specious theories then being spun out -- and argued to us in this forum as "prevalent" among the slaveholding classes -- about the inevitability of Negro slavery, by double-domed apologists for the peculiar institution who were reacting to the Abolitionist argument.

Jackson himself cites Scripture alone as his "theory" for holding other men at labor.

[Right Wing Puppy]

Psst, the South lost.