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
[131] Letter to the Alabama commissioner, J. M. Calhoun, January 7, 1861
[_Official Records_, fourth ser., vol. i, 74].
[132] "Report of a Committee of the Convention, being an address to the
people of Texas, March 30, 1861."--_Ibid._, 199.
[133] _Official Records_, fourth ser., vol. i, 322-325.
[134] Leeper to Greenwood, February 12, 1861 [General Files, _Wichita,
1860-1861_, L373].
[135] _Official Records_, first ser., vol. i, 656.
[136] --_Ibid._
[137] --_Ibid._, 660.
[138] --_Ibid._, 648.
[139] _Official Records_, first ser., vol. i, 656.
[140] The Indian Office protested against a reduction of the forts because
of treaty guaranties to the Indians [Dole to Smith, April 30, 1861, Indian
Office, _Report Book_, no. 12, p. 152].
[141] Townsend to Emory, March 21, 1861 [_Official Records_, first ser.,
vol. i, 659].
[142] Same to same, _ibid._, 660.
[143] Emory to Townsend, April 2, 1861 [_ibid._, 660].
[144] At the time, when it was intended to remove all the troops from Fort
Cobb for purposes of concentration farther south and nearer to the source
of danger, instructions were issued that the Reserve Indians, whose
peculiar protection Fort Cobb was, might remove within the limits of Fort
Washita; but the Choctaws and the Chickasaws objected and, in deference to
their wishes, Emory suspended the permission [_Official Records_, first
ser., vol. i, 663], his excuse being that Fort Cobb was not to be
abandoned anyway. The contractors, Johnson and Grimes, whom Superintendent
Rector had so much favored, had a good deal to do with the forming of this
decision. They told Emory that the Reserve Indians were not free to move;
for they had no means and that they were "hutted and planting at Fort
Cobb." Quite naturally the food contractors did not wish the Indians to be
taken out of their reach within the limits of a military reservation.
[145] Matthew Leeper was very insistent. He not only wrote letters to
Emory arguing his case but travelled from his agency to Fort Smith to
interview him.
[146] Emory refused to grant the appeal of Major Sackett and Captain
Prince not to abandon Fort Arbuckle [_Official Records_, first ser., vol.
i, 666].
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account