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
judgment too, that the red man would be forever unmolested in the western
country because the federal government owned it absolutely and could give
a title in perpetuity, argued, in the fourth and fifth decades, that the
states were the sole proprietors, that they were, in fact, the joint
owners of everything heretofore considered as national. Inferentially,
therefore, Indians, like negroes, had no rights that white men were bound
to respect.
The crucial point has now been reached in this discussion. From the date
of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, the sectional affiliation of the Indian
country became a thing of more than passing moment. Whatever may have been
John C. Calhoun's ulterior and real motive in urging that the
trans-Missouri region be closed to white settlement forever, whether he
did, as some of his abolitionist enemies have charged, plan thus to block
free-state expansion and so frustrate the natural operations of the
Missouri Compromise, certain it is, that southern politicians, after his
time, became the chief advocates of Indian territorial integrity, the ones
that pleaded most often and most noisily that guaranties to Indians be
faithfully respected. They had in mind the northern part of the Indian
country and that alone; but, no doubt, the circumstance was purely
accidental, since at that time, the early fifties, the northern[16] was
the only part likely to be encroached upon.[17] Their interest in the
southern part took an entirely different direction and that also may have
been accidental or occasioned by conditions quite local and present. For
this southern part, by the way, they recommended American citizenship and
the creation of American states[18] in the Union, also a territorial
organization immediately that should look towards that end. Such advice
came as early as 1853, at least, and was more natural than would at first
glance appear; for the southern tribes were huge in population, in land,
and in resources. They were civilized, had governments and laws modelled
upon the American, and more than all else, they were southern in origin,
in characteristics, and in institutions.
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