Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why the Cherokee Nation Allied Themselves With the Confederate States of America in 1861
Lew Rockwell.com ^ | January 7, 2004 | Leonard M. Scruggs

Posted on 01/07/2004 7:12:30 AM PST by Aurelius

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.

PRINCIPAL REFERENCES:

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.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: americanindians; dixie; dixielist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-357 next last
To: Agnes Heep
NOPE, sorry i'm not buying any of that NONSENSE.

traditional scholars of the north/south/east/west, until the rise of the HATEFILLED, arrogant, anti-Southernist,self-righteous,REVISIONIST historiography in the mid-1960s, generally agreed on at least ONE thing: that the WBTS was NOT about chattal slavery.

traditional scholarship held (correctly in my view) that the WBTS was, while complex in causation, PRIMARILY about a continuation of the American Revolution.

it was about LIBERTY for dixie.nothing more,nothing less.

IF what you say were true, the CSA wouldn't have had at least 100,000 black men as volunteers for the war (and incidently NOT a few black women!). there may have been as many as 15,000 black men in the ranks of the CSA's various military formations, according to the late (& sorely missed!) Professor H R Blackerby of the history department of Tuskeegee University.

free dixie,sw

321 posted on 01/11/2004 12:24:11 PM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. ,T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 316 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
If a former slave owner such as, say, Stonewall Jackson or Alexander Stephens (I don't know whether he did, but am assuming he did based on his place in society in Georgia) made some statement about the purposes of the Republic, or the meaning of a section of the Constitution, would the fact that he owned slaves place an asterisk, in your eyes, next to whatever he had said or written?
322 posted on 01/11/2004 12:25:55 PM PST by lentulusgracchus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
SADLY, you are CORRECT!

free dixie,sw

323 posted on 01/11/2004 12:29:33 PM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. ,T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 308 | View Replies]

To: rustbucket
WELL SAID!

where the founding fathers FAILED is NOT "slapping down the USSC" when they usurped the "power to declare" ANYTHING un-Constituional!

free dixie,sw

324 posted on 01/11/2004 12:31:27 PM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. ,T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 311 | View Replies]

To: 4ConservativeJustices
lincoln, the war CRIMINAL & tyrant, was a lawyer. it is the nature of a lawyer to be SELF-interested & amoral.

he was also just a CHEAP POLITICIAN, not any different than wee willie klintoon.

free dixie,sw

325 posted on 01/11/2004 12:33:51 PM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. ,T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 317 | View Replies]

To: capitan_refugio
TRUE!

FYI, "Running Brave" spends 100% of its publicly solicited donations to the "poorest of the poor" American Indians.

not one publicly donated DIME goes to fund raising or administration. (those necessary funds are raised privately from persons who are told EXACTLY what their dollars will buy = printing,salaries,utilities,rent,etc!)

my most recent donation bought a wood cookstove for a family @Rosebud Reservation.

free dixie,sw

326 posted on 01/11/2004 12:39:06 PM PST by stand watie (Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God. ,T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 319 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
We buy a stove every year for the Navajo through the Southwest Indian Foundation. It's nice when you can get people a specific item that you know they really need! Civil War living conditions look good compared to many places on the reservations.
327 posted on 01/11/2004 2:48:59 PM PST by Tax-chick (I reserve the right to disclaim all January 2004 posts after the BABY is born!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 326 | View Replies]

To: stand watie
traditional scholarship held (correctly in my view) that the WBTS was, while complex in causation, PRIMARILY about a continuation of the American Revolution.

it was about LIBERTY for dixie.nothing more,nothing less.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.

Once again, you're almost right. The "liberty" Dixie sought was the liberty of "wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces." The evil Union, acting through the elected representatives of the people, decided that they could have their precious chattel slavery, so long as it didn't go farther than it already had. That didn't suit the southerners; just as the ban on partial birth abortion doesn't suit contemporary liberals. Therefore they decided to take their ball and go home.

Does anyone seriously believe that if the Southern states had been allowed to secede they would have maintained their precious confederacy for any longer than it took each individual state to get pissed off over some decision by the majority that didn't jibe with its "interests"? The result would have been a hodgepodge of small, poor, agrarian nations, each run by an aristocratic oligarchy. Slaves and arrogance; that's a pretty good assessment. I'm glad they got their butts kicked, and what's more, you should be happy too.

328 posted on 01/11/2004 5:44:59 PM PST by Agnes Heep
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 321 | View Replies]

To: Agnes Heep
The result would have been a hodgepodge of small, poor, agrarian nations, each run by an aristocratic oligarchy. Slaves and arrogance; that's a pretty good assessment. I'm glad they got their butts kicked, and what's more, you should be happy too.

Your prediction is logically inassailable. You can deduce anything from a false hypothesis.

329 posted on 01/11/2004 7:03:37 PM PST by Aurelius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
TC - I don't have a book on Johnston handy. I have read little about him other than short passages in various books referring to Seven Pines and his defense of Richmond. If you find anything on him, I would be interested.

I searched my personal database and found nothing, but Amazon has a few entries for Joseph E. Johnston

Also, the Foxhole did a profile of Seven Pines in December

330 posted on 01/12/2004 5:44:49 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
I don't care (except as an interesting historical question, "What do we 'know,' and why do we think we know it?") whether Gen. Jackson owned slaves. Is there a moral difference between owning a slave and renting the labor of one? Not to me. Is there a moral difference between owning a slave yourself, and your wife's owning a slave? Nope. Is there a moral difference between treating a person well, and treating a person poorly, irrespective of legal status? You betcha. No one has ever suggested that Jackson treated any person, in any context, without respect for his Christian dignity, and that's why I admire him.

Your defense of Jackson is passionate... and I don't begrudge you one word of it. But, I hope you don't think it was my intent to damage the reputation of this decent and honorable man. Nothing could be further from the truth. I am certainly not going to hold a man of the 1800's to 2003's standard of outraged political correctness.

I think the world could do with a whole lot more men cast in Jackson's mold.

331 posted on 01/12/2004 5:54:24 AM PST by carton253 (It's time to draw your sword and throw away the scabbard... General TJ Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 281 | View Replies]

To: carton253
No, I certainly don't think you intended to denigrate Jackson! I'm assuming that, like me, you're interested in the various sources of historical evidence on a (somewhat) disputed point, and what we can learn from them ... and what influence our preconceptions have on our analysis of historical data :-).

I've stayed with this thread because I'm learning new facts and getting ideas for more reading. To me, some of the most interesting questions are the ones we may never know the answers for: Where was Andrew Jackson born? Who was Abraham Lincoln's father? What about Jefferson and Sally? What really caused the Hamilton/Burr duel? And then there are the "facts" we "know," that turn out to be wrong!

The answers don't really make much difference, but I'm fascinated by the idea that "The truth is out there!" but the principals just didn't bother to leave us idiot-proof records that are beyond dispute.
332 posted on 01/12/2004 6:14:47 AM PST by Tax-chick (I reserve the right to disclaim all January 2004 posts after the BABY is born!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 331 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
Thanks! I'll try to remember to drop you a note if I find a really good book (all bets are off when I have the baby ...). Charlotte/Mecklenburg Library has a surprisingly broad collection for a Soviet institution :-).
333 posted on 01/12/2004 6:20:19 AM PST by Tax-chick (I reserve the right to disclaim all January 2004 posts after the BABY is born!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
"To me, some of the most interesting questions are the ones we may never know the answers for: Where was Andrew Jackson born?"

Andrew Jackson was born at the Waxhaws, North Carolina in 1767. He was born 18 months after his parents left Carrickfergus on the shores of Belfast Lough for a new life in America. "The Scots-Irish in the Carolinas", p. 1997, Billy Kennedy.

334 posted on 01/12/2004 6:29:29 AM PST by Godebert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
I'm assuming that, like me, you're interested in the various sources of historical evidence on a (somewhat) disputed point, and what we can learn from them ... and what influence our preconceptions have on our analysis of historical data :-).

Big bump on that!

I also like the "what if" game. What if Jackson wasn't killed at Chancellorsville? What if the 2nd Corps wasn't split between AP Hill and Ewell? What if Jackson was at Gettysburg?

I got a book - Stonewall at Gettysburg but it was horrible. Total lack of imagination on the writer's part. Disappointing to say the least.

Anyway... I have Stephen Sears book on Gettysburg coming from the library... I've read his book on Antietam and Chancellorsville. They were very good.

335 posted on 01/12/2004 6:42:22 AM PST by carton253 (It's time to draw your sword and throw away the scabbard... General TJ Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 332 | View Replies]

To: Godebert
I live in the Waxhaws, NC, area! There are two locations, a few miles apart, offered as his birthplace. One is now in NC and one in SC, but at the time, the border hadn't been fixed by law. According to the local history sources, his mother was staying with one of her two married sisters when AJ was born, but the letters don't make it entirely clear which one.

South Carolina makes a bigger deal of it, at their state park, but Museum of the Waxhaws, NC, shows the birthplace near what's now the insignificant town of Mineral Springs, NC. (No library ... not even their own post office!)

Anyway, around here at least, it's a disputed issue. The truth is out there ...
336 posted on 01/12/2004 6:43:34 AM PST by Tax-chick (I reserve the right to disclaim all January 2004 posts after the BABY is born!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: carton253
I heard Newt's book on G'burg is good, too. We did a few reviews on FR last year and folks seemed to like it.
337 posted on 01/12/2004 6:55:56 AM PST by stainlessbanner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: carton253
If you're going to Gettysburg, there's an Army War College battlefield guide that's really good. I remember my dad had it when we visited in 1992. It was December, so we froze our extremities right off, but at least it wasn't crowded!
338 posted on 01/12/2004 7:03:40 AM PST by Tax-chick (I reserve the right to disclaim all January 2004 posts after the BABY is born!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 335 | View Replies]

To: stainlessbanner
I did get Newt's book from the library, but didn't get a chance to read it. I'll have to put it on my list.
339 posted on 01/12/2004 7:49:24 AM PST by carton253 (It's time to draw your sword and throw away the scabbard... General TJ Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 337 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
I am going to Gettysburg, so I will have to look up that battlefield guide. Thanks!
340 posted on 01/12/2004 7:56:05 AM PST by carton253 (It's time to draw your sword and throw away the scabbard... General TJ Jackson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 338 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-357 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson