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
be negotiated, made extradition a rather one-sided[301] affair. The tribe
was to yield the criminal to the state, but, not reciprocally, the state
to the tribe. This verbal inequality would not have so much mattered had
there been a possibility that in the sequel it would have been
interpreted, as in the states, in terms of executive courtesy and
discretion; but the chances were that a state would have made it a matter
of absolute obligation with the tribe. Reciprocity[302] found its way into
the second treaty, however, and also into all the later ones of the First
Class. Finally, be it remarked, that as a climax to this series of
judicial concessions, full faith and credit[303] were to be given by the
one Indian nation or Confederate state, as the case might be, to all legal
processes, decisions, and acts of the other.
There yet remain two provisions[304] of importance that were intended to
put the Indian nations on a basis of equality with the states. They are
provisions rather particular in their nature, however, and, in their full
operation, would have affected Texas and Arkansas much more nearly than
any other members of the Southern Confederacy. The first of these
provisions is to be found, as a grant of mutual rights, only in treaties
of the First Class and in two only of those, the Choctaw and Chickasaw and
the Cherokee. The omission from the Creek and Seminole treaties was due,
most likely, to geographical conditions; but the lack of reciprocity in
the Osage, the one treaty of the Second Class in which a suggestion of the
provision occurs, was just as surely due to the weakness of the tribe from
which the privilege was exacted. The provision comprehended the use of
navigable streams within the limits of the Confederacy and the Indians
specified were to have the same rights in the premises as the citizens of
the Confederate States. Osage[305] streams and water courses were,
however, to be open to white people but not conversely Confederate waters
to the Osages. The clauses in treaties of the First Class, embodying this
provision, comprehended all navigable streams whatsoever but had
particular application to the Red and Arkansas Rivers, the Choctaw[306]
and Chickasaw to the former and the Cherokee[307] to the latter. The
rights of ferrying on these streams were to be open alike to white and red
men living upon their banks.
The second provision was couched in terms of general amnesty. The Indians
were to forgive wholesale the citizens of the individual Confederate
states for their past offences and, reciprocally, the states were to
forgive and pardon the Indians for theirs, or, rather, the government of
the Confederate States was to use its good offices to persuade and induce
them to do so.[308] The Choctaw and Chickasaw Treaty contained, in
addition to this general clause, a particular one bringing out again the
close connection with Texas and Arkansas. It reads thus:
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