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
Another consideration is your debts, annuities, &c., school funds due
you. Nearly all are in bonds of Southern States and held by the
Government at Washington, and these debts are nearly all forfeited
already by the act of war made upon the States by that Government.
These we will secure you beyond question if you join us. If you join
the North they are forever forfeited, and you will have no right to
believe that the Northern people would vote to pay you this forfeited
debt. Admit that there may be some danger take which side you may, I
think the danger tenfold greater to the Cherokee people if they take
sides against us than for us. Neutrality will scarcely be possible. As
long as your people retain their national character your country
cannot be abolitionized, and it is our interest therefore that you
should hold your possessions in perpetuity.[234]
The effect that such a communication as the foregoing might well have had
upon the Indians can scarcely be overestimated. Time out of number they
had been over-reached in dealings financial. Only the year before, bonds
in which Indian trust funds were invested had been abstracted[235] from
the vaults of the Interior Department; and, for this cause and other
causes, Indian money had not been readily forthcoming for the much needed
relief of Indian sufferers from the fearful drought that devastated Indian
Territory, Kansas, and other parts of the great American desert in 1860.
Comment upon Hubbard's letter from the standpoint of historical inaccuracy
seems hardly necessary here. Suffice it to say that the distortion of
facts and the shifting of responsibility for previous Indian wrongs from
the shoulders of Southern States to those of a federal government made up
entirely of northern states must have seemed preposterous in the extreme
to the Indians. One can not help wondering how Hubbard dared to say such
things to the Indian exiles from Southern States and particularly to John
Ross who like all of his tribe and of associated tribes was the victim of
southern aggression and not in any sense whatsoever of northern.
To Hubbard's gross amplification and even defiance of his instructions,
also to his extravagant utterances touching the repudiation of debts and
southern versus northern justice and generosity, Chief Ross replied,[236]
by way of strong contrast, in terms dignified and convincing:
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