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

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

[Right Wing Puppy]

Psst, the South lost.

[Tax-chick]

Yes, poor General Lee married into debt, if I recall. Mary Custis' father was a famous spendthrift, mortgaged his estate, and dumped the whole thing in R.E. Lee's lap by making him executor of his will ... and that was after he'd grown up scraping for money, since "Lighthorse Harry" was also notably shiftless...

Of course, nobody at the time, even the wealthiest, had running water, central air conditioning, antibiotics, or the basic civilities we take for granted today. I may have my baby at the Volunteer Fire Department (given the traffic around here ...), but at least I'm having it in 2004, not 1854!

[Tax-chick]

Just to quibble, again ... in the absence of other information (and I accept Robertson's research on the subject, to the extent that I really care :-), your highlighted quotes do not specify slaves. All of those terms, including "master," could be used to described hired black workers, either free workers or another owner's slaves. "Master" was the common term in Victorian times for any employer of labor; domestic labor notably, but even for factory employers.

[PJ-Comix]

I gotta ask: Are there any Cherokee Casinos?

[Tax-chick]

Yes, one big one in North Carolina, and at least one in Oklahoma (Owasso). The one in OK has a big expansion underway; my husband applied to do their computer network, before we moved to NC last year! I'm sure the Oklahoma nation has others, at least Bingo halls out in their population centers. There was also a bingo joint opened by a splinter group in OK (United Keetowah Band), but I'm pretty sure the state shut them down, and may also have recalled their license plates.

It was an ugly situation for a while, fistfights on the courthouse lawn in Tahlequah, some unsolved shootings. I don't know if the "Cherokee Phoenix" newspaper is online (chance 33_93 often posts Indian articles, you could ask him about his links).

[carton253]

Just to quibble

When I read your post, all I could hear was Bill Clinton during his deposition quibbling over the meaning of the word is.

For those who do not want to accept the fact that Jackson owned slaves, they could say that the quotes from Anna Jackson's books "describe hired black workers, either free workers or another owner's slaves".

But could one really believe that during the times she is writing about and in the context she uses these words... she is talking about anything other than slaves?

[lentulusgracchus]

[Jokelahoma] The argument put forth, that "the Cherokee fought with the South, so the Feds MUST have been wrong" is tenuous to begin with. "All cows have hair, Bob has hair, so Bob must be a cow", if you will.

Your first statement of his argument (to put a name to your complaint) points out that he is advancing what I think debaters would call a syllogistic error, specifically the error called an "illicit minor": the subject of his major conclusion (about the Civil War) talks about all of the Lincolnian cause, but the premise (about the Cherokee declaration) only mentions one case in point.

Your second statement, of the form of the original poster's error, I think is of the form of a category error, specifically an error of composition, in which specific characteristics (hair) of a part of something (Bob) are sufficient to assign him to a category (cow).

If anything, the obvious omission of pertinent prior events makes the argument even weaker and therefore undermines his position somewhat.

You are now accusing him of an inductive error, either hasty generalization (the experience of the Oklahoma Indians with Federal policy is too narrow to generalize about federal policy) or else unrepresentative sample, i.e. the policies being complained about in the Indian declaration are unrepresentative of the policies of the federal government as a whole.

Picking two whole sources and quoting one document that supports his position while flatly ignoring anything that doesn't support his position or may call it into question in the least smacks of Democratic candidate methodology.

You're describing another inductive fallacy now -- exclusion (picking your data).

Seems you have a few complaints with the post!!

;^)

[carton253]

Your post just brought back the horrors of critical thinking class. LOL!

[lentulusgracchus]

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.

That's an interesting argument. The tension there would have been between Southerners' cultural tendency to defer, inherited from polite colonial society, and their prickly consciousness of their own rights, their own pride, and their self-respect as the heirs of Jefferson and Jackson.

The People described by Alexis DeTocqueville didn't take much off anybody. Insult a man in the Old South, rich or poor, and you might wind up with an Arkansas toothpick or a gentlemanly pistol-ball in your ribs. Being called out under code duello or just getting your ass kicked would have been mostly an accident of the society you were keeping when you screwed up!

[lentulusgracchus]

Sorry about that! May I suggest Alka-Seltzer? Eases the head while calming the tummy! -- LOL!

[lentulusgracchus]

But could one really believe that during the times she is writing about and in the context she uses these words... she is talking about anything other than slaves?

Well, it sounds like his man Lewis was a hireling, either free or bond. Either way, he was paying someone what Tax-Chick pointed out was a wage. That implies he didn't own the man.

I've never seen any data on what proportion of the Southern labor resource was hired labor (I mean, from an agency or an owner, or a free contractor), versus chattel slave, versus employed labor.

Granting that there wasn't much difference, back then, between employed and contract labor, as long as you were talking about free men.

[lentulusgracchus]

Ping. Your doorbell is ringing.

[carton253]

That was one bear of a class... partly because the Prof couldn't make up his mind what he wanted from us...

[carton253]

I'm giving up the fight... I'm throwing in the towel... I'm yielding the field.... yes, I'm taking my ball and going home for the evening!

You all win... I declare you the victor!

Enjoy the spoils! LOL!

[lentulusgracchus]

Could I have the macaroni instead?

[carton253]

One helping or two! LOL!

[Jokelahoma]

But I... I mean... and that... syllogistic... fallacy... Uh... yeah! What you said!

Thank you for reminding me why I was a musician and never studied forensics (as my posts here no doubt prove). Give me notes on a paper and I can understand it. Give me that type a breakdown of what I just said, and I'm left scratching my head. For the sake of my pride, I'll assume "I done good". For the sake of my ego, please don't tell me if I didn't. :-)

You're correct, however, that I don't much care for the article. It did give both sides of the argument all the toehold they needed to launch into the debate, so I guess it served its purpose. And it's fun to watch these threads evolve (some might say devolve) as the topic slowly changes based on the content of replies. Who knew that an article about the Cherokee declaring war on the Union would end up in a debate as to whether or not Stonewall owned slaves? By the way, does Godwin's Law apply on Free Republic, or is that a Usenet only rule? :-)

[carton253]

That's the beauty of Free Republic.... every thread is an adventure.

And you learn alot too!

[capitan_refugio]

Just follow Pete Rose around. If there are any, he'll be there.

[capitan_refugio]

Hi there Stand, how are you doing?

Wasn't "Running Brave" also the name of a movie about Mills, or based on his life?