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]

having the scalawag/turncoat/traitor to his state, 'ole WP, "after you" is like being nibbled to death by nits.

N-S is far smarter than the scalawag.

free dixie,sw

[Tax-chick]

Johnston is of my favorites

I'll make sure there's a biography in my next library order. Thanks!

[stand watie]

GOOD PLAN!

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

perhaps because they were owned by her father??????

free dixie,sw

[stand watie]

FYI, this country is NOT a democracy. it is a REPUBLIC!

free the southland,sw

[southland]

ping

[lentulusgracchus]

Gee, rustbucket, if you extended the indictment of slavery to all of 18th- and 19th-century America, you might begin to conclude that the country was founded on deeply compromised premises, don't you think? And that the country might need to be refounded on new bases that were more modern and less.....bourgeois, don't you think?

I'm sure glad we are so wealthy in vanguard thinkers who will be willing to help take us there. I bellyfeel doubleplusgood newthinkers, don't you, 'bucket?

[rustbucket]

The new refounded country would have to be based on European sensibilities (European countries have done so well), and our tax rates would have to be increased to match theirs so as not to give us an economic advantage.

Sandra Day O'Connor has already started the process.

[lentulusgracchus]

Sandra Day O'Connor has already started the process.

What was her contribution?

BTW, any takers for the idea of moving the Supreme Court out of Washington and away from the social wiles of the successors of the late Pamela Harriman? Seems that Justice Souter found the advantages of liberalism at her parties.......

Move them all to Cheyenne Mountain, and let them rule from there!

[4CJ]

Bump.

[rustbucket]

What was her contribution?

She's headed down the slippery slope of the "Living Constitution", where the Constitution is subject to fads and changes in public opinion. (O'Connor and European Law). This type of thinking will ultimately erode our freedoms and form of government. Our Constitution doesn't need to be interpreted based on European law. Nor do we need judicial activists writing laws from the bench.

The fact that some of the authors of the Constitution and Bill of Rights owned slaves doesn't mean these documents themselves are flawed. If they need changing, there is a process to change them, and it does not involve judicial activists.

[4CJ]

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.

Judah P. Benjamin once challenged Jefferson Davis to a duel (both were Senators at the time). Davis did admit that he was wrong, and the duel avoided.

[4CJ]

Lee, Jackson, Stand Watie all owned slaves.

Even if they did, EVERY single founding father in the federal and state conventions that agreed to ratification - signed off on slavery as being legal.

Every single one.

[4CJ]

Turns out his hero John Marshall owned ten slaves: (Marshall, evil slave holder).

ROTF! Thank you much, I'm sure it will his delight!

[lentulusgracchus]

Every single one.

Which IMHO is the Red-Diaper Revisionists' point. They're using an interpretation of Lincoln's revolution to attack the Framers.

Which they'd have to do, to lay the groundwork for an eventual Marxist revolution in the States, the way Lenin and Iskra had to attack first the Imperial Russian government, and then Kerensky's.

[Agnes Heep]

southerners wanted to be FREE from a government that they believed no longer was interested in their rights & best interests ...

Exactly right. For "rights and best interests" read negro servitude. If it had been any other issue it wouldn't have taken a century for the southern black man to acquire the same civil rights as everyone else ... and that at the hands of the hated "federal" government.

If the average southerner (for whom slavery wasn't an issue) had had any sense he would have liberated himself from the southern aristocracy before tackling the bigger projects.

[4CJ]

Which they'd have to do, to lay the groundwork for an eventual Marxist revolution in the States, the way Lenin and Iskra had to attack first the Imperial Russian government, and then Kerensky's.

Lincoln DEFENDED a slave owner.

[Non-Sequitur]

perhaps because they were owned by her father??????

No, because that would not explain the two to five slaves owned by Jackson prior to his marriage or the one he bought after the marriage.

[capitan_refugio]

Mills winning in Tokyo was a day of pride for any real American. It is one of the great American Olympic moments. It is just too bad the technology did not exist to fully record Jim Thorpe's 1912 heroics.

[Non-Sequitur]

Lee, Jackson, Stand Watie all owned slaves.

Just a simple statement of fact. No judgment, no condemnation, no criticism expressed or implied. Just the incontrovertible truth that each of these men was a slave owner, a fact supported by incontrovertible evidence. But there is one among you who continues to deny these facts and other facts when presented to him. That was the individual the statement was addressed to.