The American Indian as Slaveholder and Seccessionist: An Omitted Chapter in the Diplomatic History of the Southern Confederacy — John Shaqi
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
In this connection it may not be improper to state that from North
Fork to Red River we met over 120 wagons, movers from Texas to Kansas
and other free States. These people are from Grayton, Collin, Johnson,
and Denton, a country beautiful in appearance, rich in soil, genial in
climate, and inferior to none in its capacity for the production of
the cereals and stock. In disguise, we conversed with them freely.
They had proposed by the ballot box to abolitionize at least that
portion of the State. Failing in this, we suppose at least 500 voters
have returned whence they came.
All of which is respectfully submitted this April 23, 1861....
Presumably, the suggestions, contained in the closing paragraphs of the
commissioners' report, in so far as they concerned Texas, were immediately
acted upon by her. It was very true, as the commissioners had reported,
that a change was taking place in the disposition of Federal troops within
the Indian country. About the middle of February, a complaint[134] had
been filed at the Indian Office by the Wichita agent, Matthew Leeper, to
the effect that men, claiming to be Choctaws and Chickasaws, were
trespassing upon the Leased District. The Reserve Indians asked for relief
and protection at the hands of their guardian, the United States
government. Shortly afterwards, perhaps in a measure in response to the
appeal or more likely, to a hint that everything was not quite as it
should be on the Texan border, Colonel William H. Emory, First United
States Cavalry, was ordered, March 13,[135] to take post at Fort Cobb. He
was then in Washington and, immediately upon his departure thence, was
ordered, March 18,[136] to form his regiment at Fort Washita instead, word
having come from the commander at that post,[137] in a report of the third
instant, of a threatened attack by Texans. In explanation of a policy so
vacillating, Emory was given to understand that the change of destination
was really made at the solicitation of the agent and delegation of the
Chickasaws. Those men were in Washington, out of reach of and apparently
out of sympathy with, the events transpiring at home. Agent Cooper,
secessionist though he was, probably did not altogether approve of the
interference of the Texans. At any rate, he shared the representations of
the Chickasaw delegation that Fort Washita stood in need of
reënforcement,[138] and the War Department acceded to their request on the
ground that, "The interests of the United States are paramount to those
of the friendly Indians on the reservation near Fort Cobb."[139]
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