The American Indian as Slaveholder and Seccessionist: An Omitted Chapter in the Diplomatic History of the Southern ConfederacyAbel, Annie Heloise
History
The American Indian as Slaveholder and Seccessionist: An Omitted Chapter in the Diplomatic History of the Southern Confederacy
Abel, Annie Heloise
Indian Territory; Slavery -- United States; United States -- History -- Civil War, 1861-1865
As the year 1860 approached, appearances assumed an even more serious
aspect. Kansas settlers and would-be settlers demanded that the Indians,
so recently the only legal occupants of the territory, vacate it
altogether. So soon had the policy of granting them peace and undisturbed
repose on diminished reserves proved futile. The only place for the Indian
to go, were he indeed to be driven out of Kansas, was present Oklahoma;
but his going there would, perforce, mean an invasion of the property
rights of the southern tribes, a matter of great moment to them but
seemingly of no moment whatsoever to the white man. Some of the Kansas
Indians saw in removal southward a temporary refuge--they surely could not
have supposed it would be other than temporary--and were glad to go,
making their arrangements accordingly.[27] Some, however, had to be
cajoled into promising to go and some had to be forced. A few held out
determinedly against all thought of going. Among the especially obstinate
ones were the Osages,[28] natives of the soil. The Buchanan government
failed utterly to convince them of the wisdom of going and was, thereupon,
charged by the free-state Kansans with bad faith, with not being sincere
and sufficiently persistent in its endeavors to treat, its secret purpose
being to keep the free-state line as far north as possible. The breaking
out of the Civil War prevented the immediate removal of any of the tribes
but did not put a stop to negotiations looking towards that end.
All this time there was another influence within the Indian country, north
and south, that boded good or ill as the case might be. This influence
emanated from the religious denominations represented on the various
reserves. Nowhere in the United States, perhaps, was the rivalry among
churches that had divided along sectional lines in the forties and fifties
stronger than within the Indian country. There the churches contended with
each other at close range. The Indian country was free and open to all
faiths, while, in the states, the different churches kept strictly to
their own sections, the southern contingent of each denomination staying
close to the institution it supported. Of course the United States
government, through its civilization fund, was in a position to show very
pointedly its sectional predilections. It will probably never be known,
because so difficult of determination, just how much the churches aided or
retarded the spread of slavery.[29]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account