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
I cannot close this report without calling your attention to the
admirable tone and feeling pervading the reports of superintendents of
schools and missionaries among the Choctaws, and particularly to that
of the Rev. Ebenezer Hotchkin, one of the oldest missionaries among
the Choctaws, who, in referring to past political disturbances, says:
"We have looked upon our rulers as the 'powers that be, are ordained
of God,' and have respected them for this reason. 'Whomsoever,
therefore, resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God'
(Romans, xiii, 2). This has been our rule of action during the
political excitement. We believe that the Bible is the best guide for
us to follow. Our best citizens are those most influenced by Bible
truth."
I rejoice to believe the above sentiments are entertained by most, if
not all, the missionaries now among the Choctaws and Chickasaws, and
that they entirely repudiate the higher-law doctrine[49] of northern
and religious fanatics. It is but lately, as I learn, that the Choctaw
mission, for many years under the control of the American Board of
Commissioners for Foreign Missions (whose headquarters are at Boston)
has been cut off, because they preferred to follow the teachings of
the Bible, as understood by them, rather than obey the dogmas
contained in Dr. Treat's letter and the edicts of the parent board.
It is a matter of congratulation among the friends of the old Choctaw
missionaries, who have labored for thirty years among them, and intend
to die with armor on, that all connection with the Boston board has
been dissolved. If it had been done years ago, when their freedom of
conscience and of missionary action was attempted to be controlled by
the parent board, much of suspicion, of ill-feeling, and diminished
usefulness, which attached to the Choctaw missionaries in consequence
of their connection with and sustenance by a board avowedly and openly
hostile to southern institutions, would have been prevented.[50]
In the next year, 1860, Cooper was still sanguine as to affairs among the
Indians of his agency and he could report to Rector, unhesitatingly, as
if confident of official endorsement both at Forth Smith and at
Washington,[51]
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