3 ms·

You can read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Territory_in_the_American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Territory_in_the_Americ... for more i

You can read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Territory_in_the_American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Territory_in_the_Americ... for more information, but yes, several of the tribes in the Indian Territory did in fact make alliances with the Confederacy and fought on the side of the Confederacy against the Union.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
Ah, the US civil war was three decades after the Indian Removal Act, so most of them were in modern-day Oklahoma (bordering Texas, Arkansas and Missouri). That makes sense. For some reason I placed the US civil war about 50 years earlier.
pseudalopex 5y ago
The article said leaders from several tribes acted without the consensus of their councils. The Cherokee were split.[1] A Confederate source said just the Choctaw weren't.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_in_the_American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_in_the_American_Civil... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choctaw_Nation_of_Oklahoma#American_Civil_War_in_Indian_Territory_(1861-65) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choctaw_Nation_of_Oklahoma#Ame...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
pkdpic 5y ago
Wow, really glad this got in the thread and the link is much appreciated. I seriously had no idea. Mikey Foucault was right history is a hot mess.
- ethbr0 5y ago
  History is best viewed from the perspective of the individuals or groups with substantial power, because outcomes are their acting in their own best interests. Or what they perceived to be their best interests. In the context of the Cherokee (which I'm more familiar with than other tribes), you initially have a group of mostly-independent city states, surrounded by neighboring tribes (with which there is good and bad history), dealing with substantial population decrease (due to smallpox), trying to negotiate with a fundamentally different culture (colonies/US) encroaching on their lands. Think 10th century Europe. There were a diversity of opinions on how to move forward, and so a diversity of approaches, as groups jostled for personal advantage. Fundamentally though, it was a delaying action, fought (economically, politically, and militarily) until ceaseless European migration made coexistence as equals untenable. The Cherokee have a somewhat unique history in that, by the late 1700s, they were moving to colonial style economics (land ownership, farming), politics (central government), language (invention and dissemination of written language in the 1820s), and religion [0]. Unfortunately, 1829 also saw gold discovered in northwest Georgia, at which point there was too much money to be made by seizing and exploiting land, and any burgeoning cultural similarities and human rights were conveniently ignored so fortunes could be made. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Echota#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Echota#History See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee#19th_century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee#19th_century

wizzwizz4 5y ago

Ah, the US civil war was three decades after the Indian Removal Act, so most of them were in modern-day Oklahoma (bordering Texas, Arkansas and Missouri). That makes sense. For some reason I placed the US civil war about 50 years earlier.

pseudalopex 5y ago

The article said leaders from several tribes acted without the consensus of their councils. The Cherokee were split.[1] A Confederate source said just the Choctaw weren't.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_in_the_American_Civil_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee_in_the_American_Civil... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choctaw_Nation_of_Oklahoma#American_Civil_War_in_Indian_Territory_(1861-65) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choctaw_Nation_of_Oklahoma#Ame...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

pkdpic 5y ago

Wow, really glad this got in the thread and the link is much appreciated. I seriously had no idea. Mikey Foucault was right history is a hot mess.

ethbr0 5y ago
History is best viewed from the perspective of the individuals or groups with substantial power, because outcomes are their acting in their own best interests. Or what they perceived to be their best interests. In the context of the Cherokee (which I'm more familiar with than other tribes), you initially have a group of mostly-independent city states, surrounded by neighboring tribes (with which there is good and bad history), dealing with substantial population decrease (due to smallpox), trying to negotiate with a fundamentally different culture (colonies/US) encroaching on their lands. Think 10th century Europe. There were a diversity of opinions on how to move forward, and so a diversity of approaches, as groups jostled for personal advantage. Fundamentally though, it was a delaying action, fought (economically, politically, and militarily) until ceaseless European migration made coexistence as equals untenable. The Cherokee have a somewhat unique history in that, by the late 1700s, they were moving to colonial style economics (land ownership, farming), politics (central government), language (invention and dissemination of written language in the 1820s), and religion [0]. Unfortunately, 1829 also saw gold discovered in northwest Georgia, at which point there was too much money to be made by seizing and exploiting land, and any burgeoning cultural similarities and human rights were conveniently ignored so fortunes could be made. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Echota#History https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Echota#History See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee#19th_century https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherokee#19th_century