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
It has been authenticated and is well understood today that, as the
Southern States, one by one, declared themselves out of the Union or were
getting themselves into line for so doing, they prepared to further the
cause of secession among their neighbors and, for the purpose, sent agents
or commissioners to them, who organized the movement very much as the
Committees of Correspondence did a similar movement prior to the American
Revolution. In short, in the spring of 1861, the seceding states entered
upon active proselytism and at least two of them extended their labors to
and among the Indians. Those two were Texas and Arkansas. Missouri also
worked with the same end in view, so did Colorado, but apparently not so
much with the great tribes of Oklahoma as with the politically less
important of Kansas. Colorado, it is true, did operate to some extent upon
the Cherokees of the Outlet and upon the Wichitas, but mostly upon the
Indians of the western plains. No one can deny that, in the interests of
the Confederate cause, the project of sending emissaries even to the
Indians was a wise measure or refuse to admit that the contrasting
inactivity and positive indifference of the North was foolhardy in the
extreme. It indicated a self-complacency for which there was no
justification. More than that can with truth be said; for, from the
standpoint of political wisdom and foresight, the inactivity where the
Indians were concerned was conduct most reprehensible.
While Chickasaws and Choctaws, unsolicited,[122] were expressing
themselves, the secessionist sentiment was developing rapidly in Texas.
By the middle of February, conditions were such that steps might be taken
to order the evacuation of the state by Federal troops. This was finally
done under authority of the Committee of Public Safety[123] and the
general in command, D. E. Twiggs of Georgia, compliantly yielded. His
small show of resistance seemed, under the circumstances, a mere pretense,
although he had his reasons, and good ones too, perfectly satisfactory to
himself, for doing what he did. Two main conditions were attached to the
agreement of surrender;[124] one, exacted by General Twiggs, to the effect
that his men be allowed to retain their arms, commissary stores, camp and
garrison equipage, and the means of transportation; the other, exacted by
the Texan commissioners, that the troops depart by way of the coast and
not overland, as the United States War Department had designed when, a
short time before, it had ordered a similar removal.[125] The precaution
of forcing a coastwise journey[126] was taken by the Texan commissioners
to consume time and to prevent the troops being retained in states or
territories through which transit lay for possible future use against
Texas. The easy compliance of General Twiggs[127] undoubtedly merits some
censure and yet was perfectly well justified to his own conscience by the
exigencies of the situation and by the fact that he had repeatedly asked
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