[HeadOn]

It never ceases to amaze me how people can totally ignore the plain language of a historical document. The Cherokee declaration quoted is very plain. True enough, there may have been other underlying motives, but how can you absolutely discount the official declaration of a nation of people?

Oh, I'm sorry, Jokelahoma - perhaps you are a Supreme Court Justice or a Democratic Congressman/Senator. Now I understand.

Stop letting your pre-determined attitude towards the Civil War keep you from honest dialogue.

[Jokelahoma]

True enough, there may have been other underlying motives...

And therein is my point. The author disregards any other motivation that may have existed for the Cherokee (or any other Indian nation at the time) to have a beef with the Federal government in order to attempt to strengthen his argument that the Cherokee supported the Confederacy. Was it truly a case of support for the Confederacy, or a case of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"? Were that the case, the argument against the federal government mad ein the article would lose any "oomph" it has, so it is ignored.

Oh, I'm sorry, Jokelahoma - perhaps you are a Supreme Court Justice or a Democratic Congressman/Senator. Now I understand.

Nice. It's a shame, however, that snarky comments don't do much to bolster arguments. Now, what are my pre-determined attitudes, exactly? And what is the point I'm missing? That Indians didn't like the Feds?