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?
How do you get to the proposition that, if the Cherokee had a prior beef with the federal government (and if I thought really hard I might be able to guess what it was!), anything else they said about the federal government and its relationship to the States, which it was then laboring mightily to change to the extreme disadvantage of the States and the Peoples it was waging open warfare upon, would a priori be null and void? Or even discounted?
A guy shoots me. I complain. He shoots someone else, and I complain again. But my second complaint is bogus and I have no beef on account of the second shooting, because the guy shot me first?
Sounds like schoolboy debater's reasoning (or brawling and eye-gouging) to me.