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
Such were the conditions obtaining among the Indians west of Missouri and
Arkansas in the years immediately antedating the American Civil War; and,
from such conditions, it may readily be inferred that the Indians were
anything but satisfied with the treatment that had been and was being
accorded them. They owed no great debt of gratitude to anybody. They were
restless and unhappy among themselves. Their old way of living had been
completely disorganized. They had nothing to go upon, so far as their
relations with the white men were concerned, to make them hopeful of
anything better in the future, rather the reverse. Indeed at the very
opening of the year 1860, a year so full of distress to them because of
the great drouth[90] that ravaged Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, the
worst that had been known in thirty years, there came occasion for a new
distrust. Proposals were made to the Creeks,[91] to the Choctaws,[92] and
to the Chickasaws to allot their lands in severalty, notwithstanding the
fact that one of the inducements offered by President Jackson to get them
originally to remove had been, that they should be permitted to hold their
land, as they had always held it, in common, forever. The Creeks now
replied to the proposals of the Indian Office that they had had experience
with individual reservations in their old eastern homes and had good
reason to be prejudiced against them. The Indians, one and all, met the
proposals with a downright refusal but they did not forget that they had
been made, particularly when there came additional cause for apprehension.
The cause for apprehension came with the presidential campaign of 1860 and
from a passage in Seward's Chicago speech,[93] "The National Idea; Its
Perils and Triumphs," expressive of opinions, false to the national trust
but favorable to expansion in the direction of the Indian territory, most
inopportune, to say the least, and foolish. Seward probably spoke in the
enthusiasm of a heated moment; for the obnoxious sentiment, "The Indian
territory, also, south of Kansas, must be vacated by the Indians," was
very different in its tenor from equally strong expressions in his great
Senate speech[94] on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, February 17, 1854. It soon
proved, however, easy of quotation by the secessionists in their arguments
with the Indians, it being offered by them as incontestable proof that the
designs of the incoming administration were, in the highest degree,
inimical to Indian treaty rights. At the time of its utterance, the
Indians were intensely excited. The poor things had had so many and such
bitter experiences with the bad faith of the white people that it took
very little to arouse their suspicion. They had been told to contract
their domain or to move on so often that they had become quite
super-sensitive on the subject of land cessions and removals. Seward's
speech was but another instance of idle words proving exceedingly fateful.
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