Download The Role of Native American Dissatisfaction in their Involvement in

Research Center Working Paper Series No. 16
The Role of Native American Dissatisfaction
in their Involvement in the Civil War
by
Courtney Steele
Undergraduate Major in History
Saint Anselm College
Manchester, N.H 03102-1310
Class of 2009
1
Introduction
During the Civil War, every Native American tribe residing in Indian Territory signed a
treaty with the Confederate States of America. Historians usually explain this fact by stressing
that the tribes were slaveholders or that they were upset because the federal government paid
them too little attention. The issues of slavery or insufficient United States interest alone,
however, were not enough to convince the Native Americans living in Indian Territory to join the
Confederacy. Discontented with the federal government and worried they would see their land
taken from them as it had been in the 1830s, Native Americans joined the Confederacy because it
promised not only to recognize land and income promises made in the treaties with the United
States, but also to provide Native Americans with the political and legal rights they needed to
defend the integrity of their land and their way of life. The fact that the Confederacy was willing
to promise the tribes exactly what they had wanted from the United States was not accidental.
The best method of negotiating treaties, Albert Pike discovered, was to, “gain for the Indians
what had long been denied by the Federal government.”1
While many historians have written about Native American involvement in the Civil War,
there has been less focus on why they chose to become involved and more on what they did. This
approach is easier than attempting to fully understand the motives of Native Americans when
many of the primary sources are from whites or a few “civilized” Native Americans. The
historians who have discussed the process by which Native Americans in Indian Territory became
involved in the Civil War tend to focus on the Confederacy rather than on the Native American
tribes. For example, in his analysis of the treaties made between the Confederacy and the tribes of
Indian Territory, Kenny Franks seems to take for granted that the Native Americans would fight
1
Kenny A. Franks, "The Implementation of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," Chronicles of
Oklahoma 51, no. 1 (1973), 33.
2
with the Confederacy. After discussing how they were almost completely surrounded by
secessionist states, Franks states, “these conditions made it practically impossible for the Indians
to remain loyal to the North.”2 This argument ignores all of the other issues that factored into the
decision of the Native Americans and strips them of agency in the decision. Annie Heloise Abel,
perhaps the historian most cited by other scholars in their research, argues that the main reason
the Native Americans became involved in the conflict was because the federal government paid
them far too little attention.3 This is certainly true. If the federal government had been more
attentive to the grievances of the Native Americans, perhaps they would not have found the South
so appealing. However, this argument is not fully satisfying. It does not account for the multitude
of issues that Native Americans were dealing with at the time and seems to simplify a complex
situation. Laurence Hauptman, who has also written widely on the subject of Native American
involvement in the Civil War, argues that the Native Americans were dependent people who
fought because they “saw military involvement as their only chance, the last desperate hope for
obtaining a larger and more secure landbase.”4 Certainly the land issue was a major part of the
reason Native Americans became involved in the Civil War, but it was not the entire reason.
There were other concerns, such as expanded personal and political rights and annuity payments.
Promises of land were good, but the Native Americans wanted the financial and legal ability to
maintain them. This paper focuses on Native American agency and their desire to attain the
political and legal rights that would give them power to enforce treaty provisions, placing Native
Americans at the center of the decision-making.
2
Kenny A. Franks, "An Analysis of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," Chronicles of
Oklahoma 50, no. 4 (1972), 458.
3
Annie Heloise Abel, The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist (1915, reprinted Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 1992), 5.
4
Laurence M. Hauptman, Between Two Fires: American Indians in the Civil War (New York: Free Press
Paperbacks, 1995), 186.
3
Pre-War Status
To understand the situation of the Native Americans in Indian Territory and the issues that
concerned them, it is first necessary to understand their pre-war status. All of the tribes residing
in Indian Territory had been removed from their homelands in the southeastern part of the United
States during the 1830s, often through fraudulent treaties. None of the tribes had unanimously
decided to move, resulting in deep divisions among tribal members. While the effect of removal
was similar for all the tribes, the circumstances of removal were not identical.
The Cherokee tribe failed to gain enforceable protection and recognition of their land
rights in federal court in 1831 and 1832, clearing the way for the federal government, supported
by the southern states, to push them toward removal. A small group of Cherokee, known as the
Treaty Party, advocated removal to the west, led by Major Ridge, John Ridge, Elias Boudinot,
Thomas Watie, and Stand Watie. In 1835, Major Ridge signed the Treaty of New Echota, ceding
Cherokee lands in the east over the objection of a majority of the Cherokee people, which directly
violated Cherokee law. According to this law, all those who signed the treaty were marked for
execution, with only Stand Watie escaping with his life. John Ross, the leader of the anti-treaty
party, was likely behind the executions. The Treaty Party moved to Indian Territory in 1835 and
formed an alliance with the Old Settler Party of Cherokee who had moved to Indian Territory in
1828. When Ross’s National Party arrived in 1838, there were problems among these three
different groups. The Old Settler Party resented the intrusion of Eastern laws and land rights, as
well as the fact that the National Party considered them sellouts for working with the Treaty
Party, with whom they were still not getting along. The parties engaged in a destructive period of
killing and revenge murders until Ross and Watie signed an agreement in 1846 that appointed
Ross the principal chief in exchange for a full pardon for all crimes done before then. Tension
between the two parties and their leaders remained, but the conflict began to calm down. The
4
tribe began to prosper until the onset of the Civil War, when the rift in the tribe would again
become a major issue.5 While the specifics were different, Creek removal also followed this
pattern of one party signing an illegal treaty, followed by murder of the signer, and divisions
remaining after removal to Indian Territory.6
The Seminoles’ removal experience was different from the experience of the Cherokee
and Creek. After a few chiefs illegally signed the Treaty of Payne’s Landing, exchanging their
lands in the Florida Everglades for land in Indian Territory, the anti-treaty Seminoles decided to
fight and engaged in a guerrilla war against the United States Army that was very costly in lives
and money. Groups of Seminoles were captured and removed by the United States Army and
scattered about Indian Territory. It was not until 1845 that they were able to organize any sort of
national government, but they were living on land owned by the Creeks and their laws were
subject to Creek approval. The Seminoles were not able to gain autonomy from the Creeks until
1860. Most of the Seminoles’ struggles were due to lack of funds, which the federal government
was not very inclined to provide to the people they had just fought in a long and costly war.
Consequently, the Seminoles remained mostly impoverished.7
The Choctaws’ problems were not caused by removal as much as cultural conflict. The
Choctaws originally came from Mississippi and had been completely removed by 1837. The
Chickasaws were removed from the South and settled onto land the Choctaws owned and were
subject to Choctaw oversight of their nation. In 1855, the Chickasaws withdrew from this
partnership and were granted their own land and political independence. Once they withdrew, the
Choctaws faced a governmental crisis. A number of Choctaws wanted to form a more modern
5
Hauptman, Between Two Fires, 43-46.
G. W Grayson and W. David Baird, A Creek Warrior for the Confederacy: The Autobiography of Chief G.W.
Grayson, The Civilization of the American Indian series [v. 189] (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988), 45.
7
LeRoy Henry Fischer, “Introduction,” in The Civil War Era in Indian Territory, ed. LeRoy Henry Fischer (Los
Angeles: L.L. Morrison, 1974), 14.
6
5
government under one ruler, while others wanted to stick with the three traditional chiefs of their
land districts. This problem was not resolved before the onset of the Civil War.8
Thus, on the eve of the Civil War, the Native American tribes of Indian Territory were
facing some significant problems. They were still struggling to reconstruct themselves after the
trauma of removal to Indian Territory. Their move to Indian Territory also caused some serious
rifts in the political life of the tribes, many of which were fiercely divided. These divisions
resulted in disunity in responding to the war, as some factions looked to gain political benefits for
themselves rather than to solve some of the issues that were bothering them from the treaties with
the United States.
Federal Treaties
The federal government had made some very specific promises in the treaties that
removed the Native Americans from their land in the East. The government assured each tribe
that it would have full rights and permanent ownership over its new territory. The federal
government also assured the Native Americans that it would protect them. For example, in a
treaty with the Cherokee Nation, the United States promised “to protect the Cherokee nation from
domestic strife and foreign enemies and against intestine wars between the several tribes. …They
shall also be protected against interruption and intrusion from citizens of the United States, who
may attempt to settle in the country without their consent; and all such persons shall be removed
from the same by order of the President of the United States.”9 This protection was against both
white intruders and other possible threats. To the Chickasaw, the federal government even
promised to pay for removal costs.10 The government also showed some willingness to listen to
Native American grievances. In an 1846 treaty with the Cherokee, the United States expressed its
8
Fischer, “Introduction,” 12-13.
“Treaty with the Cherokee, 1835,” in “Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties,” edited by Charles J. Kappler, available
from http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler, internet; accessed 5 October 2008.
10
“Treaty with the Chickasaws, 1834,” in “Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties.”
9
6
willingness to compensate the families of the members of the Treaty Party who were killed and to
pay for some of the things lost in the move west, such as compensation for an abandoned printing
press.11 Although open to the possibility of compensating some Native Americans, the treaties the
tribes signed with the federal government did not deal with any of the other issues that the Native
Americans were facing. The only assurances the government would give were promises about
land security, which would not prove to be very genuine.
Hauptman claims, “the single biggest factor affecting American Indian life leading up to
the Civil War was the constant threat of their removal.”12 Despite promises that Native
Americans could hold their lands in Indian Territory in common forever, the federal government
was trying to entice the Creeks, the Choctaws, and the Chickasaws to allot land in severalty, that
is, to break up their allotted territory and give tribal members individual ownership of plots. This
tendency made the Native Americans a bit nervous.13 The 1854 passage of the Kansas-Nebraska
Act did little to assuage these feelings. The act formed the Kansas and Nebraska territories and
sharply reduced the size of Indian Territory, encouraging even more white settlement in the
Trans-Mississippi West.14 To make the situation even worse, that year Senator William H.
Seward said that Indian Territory must be vacated by Native Americans for the betterment of the
nation. Seward would run for president in 1860 and was subsequently appointed Secretary of
State by Lincoln.15
It was not just talk of losing their land that worried Native Americans. Whites had begun
to settle illegally in Indian Territory and Native Americans feared they would be unable to get
them off of it. The Cherokee, for example, had ownership over a strip of land that ran along the
11
“Treaty with the Cherokee, 1846,” in “Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties.”
Hauptman, Between Two Fires, 4.
13
Abel, The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist, 58.
14
Hauptman, Between Two Fires, 11.
15
Hauptman, Between Two Fires, 11.
12
7
southern border of Kansas. The Cherokee had thought this land, which the tribe purchased in
1835, would be needed for additional settlement, but they never actually settled there. White
settlers on the land became increasingly common in the 1850s. These illegal settlers were told to
move by the federal government, but the government rarely backed up its words with actions.16
Despite promises to the contrary, it became clear that the federal government would not protect
the land of the Native Americans.
One way Native Americans thought they would be able to protect their land was through
expanded rights. The Native Americans were not allowed full rights and guarantees of United
States’ citizenship.17 This was quite problematic, as they did not really enjoy equal standing or
fairness in legal matters. Native American slaves were often stolen by white men under the
pretense that they were fugitive slaves. Indian Territory fell under the court system of Arkansas,
which was too far away from Indian Territory to actually afford Native Americans a jury of their
peers, and the white men were not very likely to side with Native Americans in judicial matters.
The tribes of Indian Territory had been asking the government to give them a federal court of
their own, but were consistently denied.18 The Native Americans, however, did not give up.
Before the Civil War, for example, the Choctaw Nation created its own internal court system, but
it was consistently coming into conflict with the United States government over jurisdictional
control of the extradition of criminals, fugitive slaves, regulation of trade, and the removal of
squatters.19 The political rights of Native Americans were likewise limited in the years prior to
the Civil War. The tribes of Indian Territory did send delegates to Washington, D.C. in an
16
Alin O. Turner, “Cherokee Nation-United States Financial Relations, 1830-1870,” in The Civil War Era in Indian
Territory, 54.
17
Hauptman, Between Two Fires, 2.
18
Abel, The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist, 23.
19
Paul Bonnifield, “The Choctaw Nation on the Eve of the Civil War,” in The Civil War Era in Indian Territory, 65.
8
attempt to protect their interests in Congress, but they were afforded no official status.20 The
Choctaws tried to get the United States to grant them statehood, but they were consistently
denied.21
Each tribe in Indian Territory received annuity payments from the federal government,
which served as compensation for the lands they were forced to cede in the east. The money was
invested in stocks and annually paid out to finance the running of the tribal government, social
programs, and other tribal expenses. Native Americans do not seem to have been dissatisfied with
the payment amounts, and in their treaties with the Native American tribes, the federal
government showed its willingness to increase payment amounts to cover extra expenses
associated with the move. While some Native Americans did feel as though they deserved more
restitution than they received, the biggest problem the Native Americans had was the distribution
of the funds. The Choctaws and Chickasaws had an ongoing problem with this issue throughout
the 1850s. The federal government was mismanaging their money and some of their officials
either stole Native American annuities outright or conspired to overcharge the tribes for goods or
services. It was not until 1859 that the Choctaws and Chickasaws were able to convince the
government to pay what they had been wrongly denied. Even after agreeing to pay the tribes, it
took two years for the money to actually appear, and when it did, it was less than the agreed upon
amount of compensation.22 In general, the federal government’s payment of annuities was slow
and inadequate, which upset the Native Americans.23 In fact, the last three payments owed the
20
Fischer, “Introduction,” 19.
Bonnifield, “The Choctaw Nation on the Eve of the Civil War,” 73.
22
Henry M. Winsor, “Chickasaw-Choctaw Financial Relations with the United States, 1830-1880,” in The Civil War
Era in Indian Territory, 39.
23
Turner, “Cherokee Nation-United States Financial Relations,” 53.
21
9
Cherokee before they decided to side with the Confederacy were not paid, something that
weighed on the minds of the tribal leaders.24
Whether or not they trusted the United States to live up to its promises in the pre-Civil
War period, some Native Americans needed government help, particularly the smaller tribes.
Groups such as the Delaware, Cayuga, Seneca, and Shawnee were far smaller and weaker than
the other tribes that had been removed to Indian Territory. When they settled in the 1830s, they
had to make deals with the government to survive and adjust to their new, and at times hostile,
Native American and non-Native American neighbors.25 Thus, just before Civil War, Native
Americans living in Indian Territory were dissatisfied with the treatment they were receiving
from the federal government, but at that point, the federal government was their only option.
Choosing the Confederacy
The Confederacy formed on February 9, 1861, and the Civil War broke out on April 12.
The Union quickly felt that it needed more troops in the East. They saw that Indian Territory was
surrounded by Confederate states and that the federal troops in the area were in a fairly precarious
situation. Consequently, the Union decided to withdraw their troops from Indian Territory. Many
Native Americans, especially those who had hoped to remain uninvolved in the conflict, were
displeased with this abandonment, not only because it violated existing treaties the tribes had
made with the United States, but also because it left them defenseless against the Plains tribes,
especially the Comanche, and hostile whites.26 “Secretary of War Simon Cameron doomed Indian
neutrality on April 17, when he withdrew federal troops from Indian country,” historian Edmund
24
Craig W. Gaines, The Confederate Cherokees: John Drew’s Regiment of Mounted Rifles (Baton Rouge: Louisiana
State University Press, 1989), 9.
25
Hauptman, Between Two Fires, 17.
26
Hauptman, Between Two Fires, 25.
10
Danziger boldly accuses.27 A case can certainly be made for this accusation. When the federal
troops pulled out, Texan troops loyal to the Confederacy moved in to fill the void. At that point,
there was little left to encourage the development of pro-Union sympathies.28
The location of Indian Territory played a big part in the Confederate push to win Native
American loyalty. Indian Territory was surrounded by secessionist states and “their sole contact
with the Northern states was Kansas, which was divided over the question of slavery. These
conditions made it practically impossible for the Indians to remain loyal to the North.”29 The
South was willing to go to great lengths to get assurances that it would not have a pro-Union
territory effectively cutting off the important Texas ports and leaving the western flank of the
Confederacy extremely vulnerable to a Northern attack launched from Kansas, which would
especially threaten the important agricultural areas of Louisiana and Arkansas.30 It was not only
the Confederacy that was concerned with losing agricultural markets. The major outlets for goods
produced by the various tribes in Indian Territory were Gulf Coast markets.31 The agricultural
interests of Native Americans, particularly the tribal leaders who had the big farms, were tied to
the South.
The South certainly had an advantage in its attempt to entice Native American support.
Most, if not all, of the Indian agents, traders, and other Indian Agency employees were
Confederate sympathizers from Texas and Arkansas.32 Indian Agents were very influential with
the tribes to which they were assigned. It was the agents who disbursed the money that the federal
government held in trust for the tribes from the sale of their land and acted as intermediaries in
27
Edmund J. Danziger, Indians and Bureaucrats: Administering the Reservation Policy During the Civil War
(Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1974), 166.
28
Danziger, Indians and Bureaucrats, 167-168.
29
Franks, "An Analysis of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 458.
30
Franks, "An Analysis of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 458.
31
Fisher, “Introduction,” 17.
32
Hauptman, Between Two Fires, 25.
11
Native American dealings with the federal government.33 Most of the pro-South Indian Agents
actively attempted to woo the Native Americans to the Southern cause. After the Union army
pulled out and the Texans pushed in, Indian Territory was virtually cut off from all
communication with the United States government.34 Thus, when the Confederates assured the
Native Americans that Britain and France would side with the South and that the Union was only
fighting to steal Native American lands and slaves, they were more likely to believe them.35
Beyond these assurances, the money the federal government held in trust for the Native
Americans was invested in stocks—and almost all of these stocks were invested in Southern
states. The South assured the Native Americans that these securities would be forfeited after the
war, hinting that if they wanted their money, they had better side with the South.36 Through their
agents, Texas and Arkansas also had courted and formed relationships with the mixed-blood
slaveholding class of Native Americans, which proved beneficial in their later attempts to get the
tribes to sign treaties with the Confederacy.37 There is little evidence that the United States
actively courted the tribes of Indian Territory. The fact that they pulled their troops out of Indian
Territory and failed to assure the Native Americans that they would continue to be protected no
matter what leads one to conclude that the Union was preoccupied with the war in the East and
underestimated either the willingness of the tribes to remain loyal or Indian Territory’s strategic
value. 38
The Confederate States had another advantage beyond close proximity and loyal Indian
Agents—they were willing to work with the issues that were of such concern to Native
Americans that the North was unwilling to solve. The South felt that working with these issues
33
Fisher, “Introduction,” 19.
Danziger, Indians and Bureaucrats, 167-168.
35
Danziger, Indians and Bureaucrats, 168.
36
Abel, The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist, 61.
37
Abel, The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist, 67.
38
Abel, The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist, 79.
34
12
was a great way to win the loyalty of the tribes of Indian Territory. The Confederacy was very
deliberate in its pursuit of treaties with the Native Americans. After his first choice, David
Hubbard, fell ill, Jefferson Davis directly appointed Albert Pike and Ben McCulloch to enter
negotiations to form an alliance with the Native Americans in Indian Territory. McCulloch would
soon relinquish his duties to Pike alone, who would make treaties with all the tribes in the
Territory at Fort Smith, Arkansas, between July and October of 1861.39 The fact that Davis
personally set up the negotiation of these treaties shows just how important the task was and
makes it understandable why the South went to such great lengths to give the tribes what they
wanted. Franks aptly describes the situation in which the South was “guilty of promising much
more than it could ever deliver. In return for the needed buffer territory to protect Texas from a
Northern invasion, the South seemed willing to offer such bountiful promises that it would be
impossible either for the Indians to refuse or the South to honor them.”40 That the treaties were a
direct response to Confederate needs is clear from the relative concessions—more powerful tribes
got more concessions because they were more important to the Southern cause.41
Confederate Treaties
The treaties that the Native Americans ended up making with the Confederates were not
necessarily a radical break from those they had made with the United States. In fact, these treaties
looked very similar to the treaties the United States had with the Native American tribes. The
Confederate treaties specifically stated that all provisions of United States treaties that “[are] not
supplied by, and which are not contrary to, the provisions of this treaty, and so far as the same are
not obsolete and unnecessary, or repealed, annulled, changed or modified by subsequent treaties,
or laws, or by this treaty, are and shall be continued in force, as if made with the Confederate
39
Franks, “An Analysis of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes,” 458-459.
Franks, "The Implementation of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 33.
41
Abel, The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist, 174.
40
13
States.”42 For example, the treaties did not expand or alter the territory given to the Native
Americans, with the exception of a minor change on the border between Arkansas and the
Choctaw and Chickasaw nations.43 These treaties, however, promised increased power to enforce
provisions that were very important to the Native Americans, whereas the United States had
seemed unable or unwilling to adequately enforce such provisions.
One of the issues that the Confederates addressed was white settlers infringing on tribal
land. The treaties with the United States guaranteed that Native American land would not be
settled by whites without tribal permission. In the Confederate treaties, if whites did settle
illegally, either the civil officers of the tribe or the Confederate States had the right to remove
them. The Confederacy was even willing to commit itself to using the military to assist in
removing intruders, if necessary.44 The Choctaws and Chickasaws were able specifically to
reserve the right for the tribal authorities to inflict punishment on whites who illegally resided on
their lands, something they had attempted to get the United States to allow them to do prior to the
Civil War. 45
These treaties gave much attention to the legal rights of Native Americans. The individual
tribes received judicial power over most of the people who committed crimes within the
boundaries of their nation. The only crimes reserved for Confederate prosecution were
counterfeiting, putting the security of the South at risk, and issues concerning trade. Most
strikingly, Native Americans were given exactly the same legal rights and responsibilities as any
42
“Treaty with the Creek Nation, July 10th, 1861,” in Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy and Treaties Concluded
by the Confederate States with Indian Tribes, ed. Ronald V. Gibson (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications, 1977),
90.
43
Franks, "An Analysis of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 462.
44
“Treaty with the Creek Nation,” 81-82; “Treaty with Choctaws and Chickasaws, July 12th, 1861,” 109; “Treaty
with the Seminole Nation, August 1st, 1861,” 124; “Treaty with the Osages, October 2nd, 1861,” 158; “Treaty with
the Senecas and Senecas and Shawnee, October 4th, 1861,” 169; “Treaty with the Quapaws, October 4th, 1861,” 179;
“Treaty with the Cherokees, October 4th, 1861,” 188 all in Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy and Treaties
Concluded by the Confederate States with Indian Tribes, ed. Ronald V. Gibson (Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana
Publications, 1977).
45
“Treaty with Choctaws and Chickasaws,” 109; Bonnifield, “The Choctaw Nation on the Eve of the Civil War,” 65.
14
citizen of the Southern states. The Confederacy would even cover the costs of transporting and
keeping witnesses that Native Americans might need to defend themselves in court.46 Native
Americans’ right to purchase and hold property was expanded and included any land in any
Confederate state.47 These examples show how much Native Americans resented the demeaning
laws and second-class treatment they received from the United States. Native Americans felt that
by having expanded rights, they would be better able to protect their interests. Franks notes that,
“The creation of a court system within Indian Territory was probably most widely hailed by the
Indians. Because they had long experienced white man’s laws as applied to the Indians on white
man’s ground, they were eager to have control over their own judicial system.”48 Having legal
footing that was essentially equal to that of whites would allow the tribes access to legal avenues
to challenge the government if it ever tried to take away their land in the future.
The issue of political representation was similarly important to the Native Americans, and
these treaties provided a radical expansion of their status and ability to be involved in government
decisions that would affect them. The Creeks, together with the Seminoles, were granted a
representative to the House of Representatives of the Confederate States of America, as were the
Choctaws and Chickasaws, and the Cherokee.49 While the tribes’ collective three members of the
Houses of Representatives hardly gave the Native Americans a powerful or influential voting
block, it did allow their members to address the Congress in matters that would affect their future
as well as other matters of importance. As mentioned earlier, the Native Americans had long sent
46
“Treaty with the Creek Nation,” 85-86; “Treaty with Choctaws and Chickasaws,” 110-111; “Treaty with the
Seminole Nation,” 127-128; “Treaty with the Osages,” 158-159; “Treaty with the Senecas and Senecas and
Shawnee,” 169-170; “Treaty with the Quapaws,” 180; “Treaty with the Cherokees,” 190-192.
47
Franks, "An Analysis of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 466.
48
Franks, "The Implementation of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 28.
49
“Treaty with the Creek Nation,” 87; “Treaty with Choctaws and Chickasaws,” 108; “Treaty with the Cherokees,”
193.
15
delegates to the United States Congress to try to protect their interests, but they had never been
granted any official status.50
Not only did the Confederacy extend Congressional representation, it also gave the
Choctaws and Chickasaws special consideration of an avenue to statehood in the Confederacy,
“as one of the Confederate States, on equal terms, in all respects, with the original States.” This
offer was extended to the Choctaw and Chickasaw people because of their “uniform loyalty and
good faith.” This offer of statehood rested on the tribes’ ability to maintain a republican
government commensurate with that of the current states and approval by a referendum of the
Choctaw and Chickasaw people.51 While only the Choctaw and Chickasaw treaty included
provisions for statehood, the Creeks, Seminoles, and Cherokee could also become a part of the
same state so long as they “were able to reach the same level of self-government and pass the
prescribed formalities.”52 These provisions indicate that, far from treating Native Americans as
second-class citizens, the Confederacy was willing to give Native Americans the same status as
anyone else, which is notable indeed for a society so focused on matters of race.
Slaveholding was another issue that the Confederacy addressed. The practice was not
common among the Native Americans of Indian Territory. Less than two and a half percent of
Native Americans owned slaves, compared to about twenty-five percent of white southerners,
while the total slave population in Indian Territory was only around four thousand. Though few
in number, these slaveholders tended to dominate economic and political life among the
Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw. The Creeks and Seminoles tended to be less dominated by
these members of their society, but they did still have slaves.53 The Seminoles had the most
unique relationship with their slaves, who often lived in separate villages, coming and going as
50
Fischer, “Introduction,” 19.
“Treaty with Choctaws and Chickasaws,” 108.
52
Franks, "An Analysis of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 464.
53
Abel, The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist, 3.
51
16
they pleased. The only requirement was that these slaves either provided a specific service or
gave their owners a certain percentage of the crops they grew. This difference in influence of
slaveholders can be attributed to the fact that most of the slaveholders were mixed blood, while
the Seminoles, and to a lesser degree the Creeks, had more influential full blood members.54 Even
though most of the Native Americans did not own slaves, all the treaties made with the
Confederacy had almost identical assurances about slavery:
It is hereby declared and agreed that the institution of slavery in the said nations is legal
and has existed from time immemorial; that slaves are taken and deemed to be personal
property; that the title to slaves and other property having its origin in the said nations
shall be determined by the laws and custums[sic] thereof; and that the slaves and other
personal property of every person domiciled in said nations shall pass and be distributed
at his or her death in accordance with the laws, usages and customs of the said nations,
which may be proved like foreign laws, usages and customs, and shall everywhere be held
valid and binding within the scope of their operation.55
In examining these treaties, some scholars believe that the inclusion of this part of the treaty
underlines that it was natural that the tribes would side with the South because slavery was well
established among the tribes in Indian Territory. It is unclear, however, how much of this part of
the treaties was for the benefit of the Confederacy, assuring that the Native Americans would
support and continue slaveholding practice, and how much it was included for the slaveholding
members of the tribes, to assure that they would not lose their rights to own slaves.56
Essential to the Native Americans’ willingness to side with the South was the issue of the
annuities and payments that the United States had been making to them. The commitment of the
Confederacy to assume these payments was vital. The Confederacy agreed to take up the
payments of annuities and all the financial commitments made by the United States to the Creeks
as well as toward the Seneca, Shawnee, Choctaws, and Chickasaws.57 In addition, the
54
Fisher, “Introduction,” 15.
“Treaty with Choctaws and Chickasaws,” 112.
56
Franks, "An Analysis of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 458.
57
“Treaty with the Creek Nation,” 89-90; “Treaty with Choctaws and Chickasaws,” 113.
55
17
Confederacy promised to cover payments of stocks and interest owed to the Seneca by the State
of New York.58 Likewise the Confederate States would also have to assume payments for a long
list of diverse investments that the United States had made on behalf of the Cherokee, adding up
to two hundred thousand dollars that went to a permanent orphan’s fund, school fund, or general
fund. The Confederacy also had to pay the interest the Cherokee would annually receive for their
investments.59 These monies were essential to the tribes and the running of their government and
social services, and all the tribes sought more regular and reliable dispersal of funds.
Beyond simply taking up the annuity payments the United States owed the Native
Americans, there were some specifics that the Native Americans demanded of the Confederacy in
the way of social and economic assistance. The Seneca and Shawnee, for example, made a
special demand that the Confederate States build schoolhouses, employ teachers, and provide
books and stationery for schools for twenty years, which would serve all children in the tribe
equally.60 For the Creeks, the special demands included payments for a wheelwright, a
blacksmith, a shop, tools, iron, agricultural operations, education, and the care of orphan
children.61 The Quapaw Tribe was a bit more specific, demanding that the Confederates provide
two thousand dollars a year for the next twenty years in order to purchase blankets, clothes,
tobacco, furniture, utensils, and other such items. They felt they deserved this “in consideration of
the uniform loyalty and good conduct of the Quapaw Tribe, and of their necessities arising from
the sale by them of their lands in Arkansas for a grossly inadequate price.”62
The Quapaws’ demand for reparations for cheaply sold land brings up yet another cause
of dissatisfaction among the Native Americans that the Confederacy was willing to rectify. Many
58
“Treaty with the Senecas and Senecas and Shawnee,” 170-172.
“Treaty with the Cherokees,” 194.
60
“Treaty with the Senecas and Senecas and Shawnee,” 173.
61
“Treaty with the Creek Nation,” 89-90.
62
“Treaty with the Quapaws,” 181.
59
18
tribes felt they had been shortchanged when they were removed from their ancestral homes and
that they deserved additional payments in recognition of this injustice. The Confederacy granted
restitution for horses, mules, hogs, cattle, wagons and other articles left behind when the
Seminoles were relocated to Indian Territory, as well as payment for abandoned land and
improvements to that land. The United States had promised to compensate the Creeks for their
things when they arrived in Indian Territory, but never did. The Confederate States agreed that
these claims would be:
fairly investigated, in a generous and liberal spirit, by an officer or commissioners, to
whom that duty shall be assigned by the Confederate States; and that whatever shall
appear, upon such investigation, to be justly or equitable owing to members of the said
band, on account of such losses as aforesaid, shall be paid to the persons originally
entitled to the same, or to the legal representatives of such of them as may be deceased.63
In addition to the Confederacy’s assumption of the payments Native Americans were receiving
from the United States, the Native Americans demanded reimbursement for slaves who were
illegally seized by the United States during the Seminoles’ removal, as well as compensation for
slaves who were seized for several years to serve as interpreters. The Confederacy promised to
investigate these claims and make the appropriate payment.64 The Confederacy was to provide
the Seneca and Shawnee with extra payments for admitting members of the Mohawk, Cayuga,
and Wyandot tribes onto their land.65 The South also agreed to pay the Cherokee in full all money
owed them, compensation for land that was illegally settled by whites, as well as to pay off a loan
that the Old Settler Party of Cherokee owed.66 The Confederates agreed to pay twenty-seven
thousand dollars in compensation for arms taken from the Cherokee when they were forced to
relocate in Indian Territory.67 These promises of additional payment added to the financial
63
“Treaty with the Creek Nation,” 94.
“Treaty with the Seminole Nation,” 132.
65
“Treaty with the Senecas and Senecas and Shawnee,” 173.
66
“Treaty with the Cherokees,” 198.
67
“Treaty with the Cherokees,” 199.
64
19
security of the tribes, as well as individual members. For example, John Jumper, the principal
chief of the Creeks, was to receive payment for a four-month absence from his home as he
assisted the Superintendent of Indian Affairs to Florida “to bring about the removal of the hostile
Seminoles,” along with forty other delegates, who claimed to have received insufficient
compensation from the United States.68 Franks identifies this “as more of a bribe than anything
else,” a payment for their part in getting the treaty signed.69
The Confederacy would not have accommodated so many of the Native Americans’
demands if it was not interested in getting something in return. Perhaps the most central aim of
the Confederate treaties was to keep a friendly, slaveholding territory on its border and, just as
important, deprive the Union of valuable allies. All the treaties promised a friendly offensive and
defensive alliance between the Confederate States and the Native American tribes residing in
Indian Territory.70 The burden of furnishing the troops needed to keep the Union out of Indian
Territory fell upon the Native Americans, with the larger tribes furnishing up to twelve regiments
and the smaller tribes promising lesser numbers. They were to be armed by the South and receive
the same pay and allowances as other mounted men, a promise the North did not extend to any of
their non-white allies. The Native Americans were able to get assurances that their troops would
protect their home land, and “would not be moved beyond the limits of the Indian country west of
Arkansas without their consent.”71 The Creek treaty included an agreement that the tribe would
never be required to pay any part of the expense of the Civil War or any war in which the
Confederacy might take part in the future.72 The Confederacy was certainly in need of the extra
68
“Treaty with the Seminole Nation,” 132-133.
Franks, "An Analysis of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes,"471.
70
“Treaty with the Creek Nation,” 83; “Treaty with Choctaws and Chickasaws,” 101; “Treaty with the Seminole
Nation,” 122; “Treaty with the Osages,” 153; “Treaty with the Senecas and Senecas and Shawnee,” 164; “Treaty
with the Quapaws,” 176; “Treaty with the Cherokees,” 184.
71
“Treaty with the Creek Nation,” 87.
72
“Treaty with the Creek Nation,” 87.
69
20
troops the Indian Territory provided and might not have been able to maintain control of the
strategically important land without the alliances.
Disunity Within Indian Territory
While every one of the Native American tribes in Indian Territory made a treaty with the
Confederacy, not all individuals in these tribes supported the South. In fact, in many cases,
treaties were made by tribal members who did not have the full authority to do so.73 Those who
did not support the South did not necessarily base their decision on dislike for what the South was
offering the Native American tribes. Rather, the internal politics of a tribe and of the power
structure of the Native American community in general often played a role in the decision to side
with the North. None of the groups who chose to support the North did so until their rivals within
the tribe had chosen to support the South. The choice, then, was not so much in support of the
North as it was against their rivals who supported the South.
John Ross, the principal chief of the Cherokee, provides a great example of the role
internal tribal politics played in decision making. The Cherokee were still grappling with
divisions stemming from removal. Stand Watie was quick to side with the Confederacy, but Ross
was the principal chief. Ross himself was a major slave owner, but most of his followers were
traditionalists, some of whom were expressly anti-slavery.74 Ross was worried that the
Confederate forces would replace him as principal chief, but he was also afraid of breaking the
treaties the Cherokee had with the United States and losing the money the North held in interest.
Ross decided to insist on neutrality.75 Despite this decision and a public proclamation of his intent
to keep the Cherokee Nation neutral, Ross was heavily courted both by the Confederate
government and surrounding states who wanted a clear pro-South or pro-North stance, preferring,
73
Franks, "An Analysis of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes,”460.
Hauptman, Between Two Fires, 45.
75
Hauptman, Between Two Fires, 47.
74
21
“an open enemy to a doubtful friend.”76 By fall of 1861, the Confederate army was only a few
miles from Washington, D.C., and the North had pulled their forces out of Indian Territory. It
appeared that the Union would face a quick defeat and Ross did not want to be on the losing
side.77 Ross’s supporters would later claim that Ross only sided with the South as a last resort to
avoid total destruction of the Cherokee Nation. 78 They claimed that Ross was coerced to work
with the South and did so only until the Union army finally returned.79 After the Union forces
reentered Indian Territory in 1862, Ross’s supporters switched to the Union side and Ross
himself was captured and spent the rest of the war in Washington, D.C., claiming that he was still
loyal to the Union and attempting to maintain political control over the tribe.80
The power relations among all of the tribes in Indian Territory was another reason why
some Native Americans supported the North. The Delaware, for example, were largely pro-Union
due to the precariousness of their existence. They were a small group who had been bounced
around after their removal from the mid-Atlantic states. They were settled briefly in Missouri,
then Texas, before finally being expelled to Indian Territory. Once in Indian Territory, they faced
aggressive intruders and hostile Plains Indians. They were unable to withstand the pressure and
agreed to repeated concessions demanded by the federal government, including selling large
tracts of their land in return for security. It may seem as though they would be eager to side with
the Confederacy, given the widespread dissatisfaction caused by their dealings with the federal
government. This, however, was not the case. Though a few Delaware signed a treaty with the
Confederacy, few tribal members actually supported it. They had more basic concerns. They
76
Mark Bean, W. B. Welsh, E.W. MacClure, et al., “Letter to John Ross, Boonsboro, Arkansas, May 9, 1861,” in
Communication of the Delegation of the Cherokee Nation to the President of the United States, Submitting the
Memorial of Their National Council, With the Correspondence between John Ross, Principal Chief, and Certain
Officers of the Rebellious States (Washington: Gibson Bros., printers, 1866), 32.
77
Gaines, The Confederate Cherokee, 9.
78
Cherokee Nation, Communication of the Delegation of the Cherokee, 9.
79
Cherokee Nation, Communication of the Delegation of the Cherokee Nation, 17.
80
Hauptman, Between Two Fires, 49.
22
wanted protection from the Comanche and other tribes who had sided with the Confederacy and
did not feel that the South would be willing to protect them against the Confederacy’s Comanche
allies. The fact that siding with the North would allow the Delaware to fight against the Texans,
with whom they had still-seething problems stemming from their brief residency in the state, was
an added incentive.81 Hauptman sums the situation up well, stating, “To a small, weak, and often
removed Indian nation, the strategy of currying favor with the ‘Great Father’ in Washington was
the only survival option open to them. Tribal survival, not antislavery or other moral principles,
made enlistment [with the Union] a necessity.”82 The promises made in the Confederate treaties
had no real appeal to the Delaware because they were concerned with more basic issues of
survival that the treaty between the Confederacy and the Comanche made more difficult.
Failed Implementation
While the treaties addressed many of the issues that were of concern to the Native
Americans living in Indian Territory, they were not fully implemented. The Native Americans
were prompt in fulfilling their treaty obligations. Indian troops were swiftly raised and integrated
into the Confederate forces, but the South did not fully reciprocate.83 In other matters, what was
promised in the treaties was not carried forward: the Creeks, Choctaws and Chickasaws, and
Seminoles saw their rights in court somewhat amended, Choctaws and Chickasaws statehood was
referred to a Confederate Congress that was unlikely to approve it, and the Choctaws and
Seminoles saw the amount of payment from the sale of their land somewhat reduced.84
Franks holds that the reason many promises were never put into effect or only partially
fulfilled was because “the Confederacy was incapable in many cases of carrying out its
81
Hauptman, Between Two Fires, 17-22.
Hauptman, Between Two Fires, 23.
83
Franks, "The Implementation of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 24.
84
Franks, "An Analysis of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 472.
82
23
commitments.”85 There were a number of basic problems. Finding someone to fill the role of
superintendent of Indian affairs, for example, took nearly six months and caused a delay in some
of the payments to the Native Americans, which “did nothing to enhance Southern chances of
producing a workable alliance with the Indians.”86 There were other more understandable
difficulties as well. The functioning of civil services, such as postal service, that were promised to
the Native Americans were “hampered by Federal military occupation and domination of large
areas of the country throughout the course of the war. In addition, the South was never able to
completely fulfill its role in civil matters,” because “though the programs outlined for Indian
Territory were well organized and developed, they never were adequately initiated and
maintained.” 87 Essentially, the Confederacy was in too much chaos to put a priority on
implementing social programs in the middle of an ever-active war zone.
The biggest area of discontent for Native Americans had to do with the implementation of
expanded legal rights for Native Americans. Until the Native American court system was up and
running, all cases were referred to the District Court of Western Arkansas. Because the
Confederacy was never able to get the courts established, Native Americans fell under the
jurisdiction of the District Court for the duration of the war. The fact that the court system was
never put into action would remain a contentious issue and one of particular dissatisfaction
throughout the war.88
One of the most serious and immediate problems, however, was the South’s inability to
meet the financial promises it had made to the Native Americans. The Confederacy could hardly
keep its own troops in shoes and uniforms. It did not have any money to spare for the Native
Americans. By the summer of 1862, the Confederacy began to default on its annuity payments,
85
Franks, "An Analysis of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 472.
Franks, "The Implementation of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 26.
87
Franks, "The Implementation of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 27, 23.
88
Franks, "The Implementation of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 29.
86
24
“much to the dissatisfaction of the Indians.”89 The financial straits of the tribes became such a
problem that Elias Boudinot, the Cherokee representative to the Confederate Congress, secured a
personal loan for one thousand dollars to aid the Native Americans after he was unable to push
the Confederate government to fulfill its obligations.90
One thing that was successfully implemented was the introduction of Native American
representatives into the Confederate House of Representatives. All the allotted representatives
were eventually seated between 1863 and 1864, the three being Elias Boudinot representing the
Cherokee Nation, Robert M. Jones representing the Choctaw and Chickasaw nations, and S. B.
Callahan representing the Creek and Seminole nations. “The Indians were very enthusiastic at the
opportunity of having a voice in the Confederate government,” and, Franks writes, “apparently
the Indians used their representatives with a great degree of success. Through them they were
able to secure for the various nations substantial sums of money to relieve the suffering resulting
from the course of the war. It was in this function that the South came closest to fulfilling its
obligations to the Indians.”91 Note that the South came closest to fulfilling its obligation here, but
did not fully, as Boudinot’s difficulties in securing payment to the Cherokee illustrates. The
biggest failure was that the Creeks, Choctaw and Chickasaws, and Seminoles saw their
representation in Congress restricted. Representatives were only being permitted to take part in
deliberation if the issue being discussed was “one in which either nation was particularly
interested.”92
They ways in which the South failed to fulfill the treaties is important because it says
something about the Native Americans who stuck with the South despite this. The loyalty of the
89
Franks, "The Implementation of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 30.
Franks, "The Implementation of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 31.
91
Franks, "The Implementation of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 32.
92
Franks, "An Analysis of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 472.
90
25
Native Americans remained strong despite the South’s inability to fulfill more than a few of the
agreements it had made. Franks argues:
Perhaps this was due to the liberal nature of the treaties, which gave the Southern Indians
many more benefits than they had ever been promised by the United States, and they
reasoned that the shortcomings of the Confederacy were due to the conditions created by
the war….This optimistic argument could be used by their pro-Southern leaders to mask
the intertwining political struggles within the tribes, and obscure any jealousy of their
new-found political power.93
The number of Native Americans who remained loyal to the Confederacy to the bitter end, like
Stand Watie who was the last Confederate general to surrender, is remarkable. This loyalty may
be partly due to the poor attempts by the North to win back loyalty. For example, Union troops
under Colonel William Phillips went through Indian Territory laying waste to the countryside in
an attempt to win converts. Foreseeably, it only strengthened the commitment of a number of proConfederates.94 It is also true, however, that some did change sides. Watie’s rival, John Ross
switched his loyalty to the Union when Northern troops reentered Indian Territory in summer of
1862, assuring Ross that they were close to defeating the Confederacy. Ross wished to be on the
winning side to maintain a political edge over his rival Watie.95 The choice to stay with the South
through their misfortunes could also have another reason. The Native Americans already knew
how poor the North was in fulfilling its promises. The worst that the South could do was not live
up to the promises it made, which were considerably more appealing than what the North had
provided. Even when the writing was on the wall at the end of the war, many pro-Confederates
knew that Union victory would mean severe punishment for their defection, and they stuck with
the South in a last ditch hope of somehow avoiding what would be a very grim fate.96
93
Franks, "An Analysis of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes," 472.
Fischer, “Introduction,” 23.
95
Gaines, The Confederate Cherokee, 110.
96
Annie Heloise Abel, The American Indian and the End of the Confederacy, 1863-1866 (1925, reprinted Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 1993), 29.
94
26
Results of Defeat
It was indeed a very grim fate that awaited Native Americans at the end of the war. Indian
Territory had been laid to waste. Vast amounts of property were destroyed or stolen, including
four and a half million dollars worth of cattle.97 Twenty-five percent of the Native Americans
residing in Indian Territory had been killed, and most of the rest were displaced and destitute.
The factionalism that had plagued the tribes before and during the Civil War did not disappear
and perhaps became even more bitter. With no clear authority and no annuity payments to
support social services, Indian Territory was a land of lawlessness and desperation.98
The United States was not feeling very sympathetic to the Native Americans at this
moment either. The Union was not pleased with the Native Americans’ decision to side with the
South in 1861, but many Northern officials understood why they did. During the war, most
admitted that the fault for the defection of the Native Americans lay with the North and its failure
to give the tribes support and protection.99 In an 1861 report to the Department of the Interior,
Commissioner William Dole expressed his increasing frustration with this failure. Dole drew
parallels with the dissatisfied citizens of the border slave states and said, “the presence of even a
small force of federal troops located in the disaffected States has had the effect to preserve the
peace, encourage the friends of the Union, and induce the people to return to their allegiance.”
Facing the danger of Confederate aggression, Dole continues, the Native Americans would “have
no inducement to unite with the enemies of the United States unless we fail as a nation to give
them that protection guaranteed by our treaty stipulations.”100 By the war’s end, however, this
view of the North neglecting its duty to the Native Americans had been forgotten. The
97
Abel, The American Indian and the End of the Confederacy, 312; Danziger, Indians and Bureaucrats, 179.
Fischer, “Introduction,” 24-25.
99
Abel, The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist, 242.
100
William Dole, “No. 2,” Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Accompanying the Annual Report of the
Secretary of the Interior, For the Year 1861 (Washington: Government Printing Press, 1861), 35.
98
27
negotiations over what punitive measures to take with the disloyal tribes were rather complex, but
in the end, all of the tribes of Indian Territory were treated as defeated enemies, even if some of
their members had sided with the North. While some tribes tried to convince the United States
that they had been coerced into signing treaties with the South, others, such as the Choctaw and
Chickasaw, proudly admitted to their defection.101
The terms reached in post-war treaties were as harsh as the Native Americans expected.
Native Americans who sided with the North were given little or no special consideration. In his
autobiography, G.W. Grayson said that the Creeks who sided with the South, like himself, were
not treated any differently than pro-Northern Creeks. He states:
The Federal government was not disposed to recognize any advantage of either party over
the other, excepting the item of losses of property sustained by those who left their home
at the outbreak of hostilities and joined the fortunes of the North, which it solemnly
agreed to pay.102
Many federal officials thought that the Native Americans had forfeited any right for
accommodation when they sided with the South. In the debates over the post-war treaties in
Congress, one senator proclaimed, “the Indians have broken their faith with the United
States;…these treaties [made during removal of the 1830s] are all abrogated.”103 Indian Territory
was consolidated under one governor and secretary who were appointed by the president and had
absolute veto over the proceedings of any tribe’s legislative assembly or council. The boundaries
of Indian Territory were specified, but these boundaries could be changed by the federal
government without consent from the tribes.104
Native American land was coveted by white settlers, and the defection of the tribes in
Indian Territory during the war provided political cover to gain some of it. The Seminoles were
101
Abel, The American Indian and the End of the Confederacy, 211.
Grayson, A Creek Warrior for the Confederacy, 23.
103
Abel, The American Indian and the End of the Confederacy, 264.
104
Abel, The American Indian and the End of the Confederacy, 243.
102
28
forced to give up their two-million-acre-holding for only fifteen cents per acre, and then
compelled to buy a two-hundred-thousand-acre-tract of inferior land for fifty cents per acre.105
The Creeks were perhaps the hardest hit, forced to give up well over three million acres of land—
essentially the entire western half of their holdings.106 Some tribes had holdings that extended
into Kansas and Arkansas that were all forfeited.107 The land that Native Americans were allowed
to retain was no longer guaranteed protection from foreign invasion and could be occupied by the
United States military at will.108 Some of this land also had to be given to the newly freed slaves,
along with rights and status equal to tribal members.109 The Native Americans were clearly
heading down the path of loss of all this land.
Eventually, the United States Government would do exactly what the Native Americans
feared, violating its promises and opening up Indian Territory to white settlement.110 By the end
of the 1800s, the federal government used the Dawes Act to force the Native Americans to
change their landholding practices and allot a plot of land to every member of the tribe, with all
extra land returning to the federal government. The Native Americans lost two-thirds of their
landholdings. Ironically, this parceling of land was one of the issues that the federal government
had been pushing for before the Civil War, one which helped to push the Native Americans into
Southern arms.111 Watching this happen, Creek tribal member Grayson lamented that the Native
Americans had come full circle, bemoaning that the federal government “demanded [change in
the Native Americans’ land holding system] because in the general upheaval that would follow
the change, he, the white man, hoped and expected to obtain for a song, lands from ignorant
105
Abel, The American Indian and the End of the Confederacy, 322.
Abel, The American Indian and the End of the Confederacy, 341.
107
Abel, The American Indian and the End of the Confederacy, 362.
108
Abel, The American Indian and the End of the Confederacy, 322.
109
Abel, The American Indian and the End of the Confederacy, 189.
110
Grayson, A Creek Warrior for the Confederacy, 152.
111
Abel, The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist, 58.
106
29
Indians as others had done in other older states.”112 Grayson was right—white settlers poured into
Indian Territory, only this time there was nowhere left for the Native Americans to go.
Conclusion
When the Civil War broke out, the South had a number of advantages that historians have
pointed to as the reason so many of the Native American tribes in Indian Territory sided with the
Confederacy. Indian Territory was surrounded by Southern states with the exception of Kansas.
Virtually all the Indian Agents who dealt with the tribes in the area were Southern sympathizers.
Finally, the Union forces pulled out of Indian Territory in the opening days of the war, allowing
the South unchallenged access to Native American lands and ears. However, these arguments
tend to ignore Native American agency in their decision making and the fact that none of this
would have pushed the tribes to side with the Confederacy if there had not been some very
important issues that were troubling the Native Americans which the North had failed to address.
Despite federal promises that the Native Americans would have their new lands in Indian
Territory forever, the Indian nations were facing serious challenges to their territorial integrity
that the North was either unwilling or unable to solve. The Native Americans had heard enough
promises from the federal government, and their trust was wearing thin. The South recognized
this situation and, feeling that Indian Territory held strategic importance in the protection of the
newly formed Confederate States, undertook a policy to promise the Native Americans exactly
what they wanted—promises of not only land, but the financial ability, legal rights, and political
power to protect their holdings. The fact that the Native American tribes were willing to risk
forfeiting the treaties they made with the North underlines just how dissatisfied they were.
Though some Native American groups chose to side with the North, this was not because they
found the Union more appealing as much as it was because they saw their rivals side with the
112
Grayson, A Creek Warrior for the Confederacy, 164.
30
South. All the promises were good, but the Confederacy did not, and perhaps could not, keep
them. Nonetheless, most Native Americans stayed with the South even when their defeat was
clearly inevitable. This loyalty shows just how important the promises the Confederacy made
were to the Native Americans and how little hope they had that they could achieve what they
wanted with the North. They were right to have little hope. At the end of the war, the tribes of
Indian Territory saw part of their land taken away and a path for further loss of land established.
The trickle of white encroachers that had worried Native Americans in the 1850s became a flood,
and the Native Americans had no rights or standing with which they were able to stop it. Their
worst fears had come true.
31
Bibliography
Abel, Annie Heloise. The American Indian and the End of the Confederacy, 1863-1866. 1925;
reprinted Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1993.
Abel, Annie Heloise. The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist. 1915; reprinted
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1992.
Bonnifield, Paul. “The Choctaw Nation on the Eve of the Civil War.” In The Civil War Era in
Indian Territory. Ed. LeRoy Henry Fischer. Los Angeles: L.L. Morrison, 1974.
Cherokee Nation. Communication of the Delegation of the Cherokee Nation to the President of
the United States, Submitting the Memorial of Their National Council, With the
Correspondence between John Ross, Principal Chief, and Certain Officers of the
Rebellious States. Washington: Gibson Bros., printers, 1866.
Danziger, Edmund Jefferson. Indians and Bureaucrats; Administering the Reservation Policy
During the Civil War. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1974.
Dole, William. “No. 2.” Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Accompanying the Annual
Report of the Secretary of the Interior, For the Year 1861. Washington: Government
Printing Press, 1861.
Fischer, LeRoy Henry. The Civil War Era in Indian Territory. Los Angeles: L.L. Morrison, 1974.
Franks, Kenny A. "An Analysis of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized Tribes."
Chronicles of Oklahoma 50, no. 4 (1972): 458-474. America: History & Life, EBSCOhost
(accessed September 24, 2008).
Franks, Kenny A. "The Implementation of the Confederate Treaties with the Five Civilized
Tribes." Chronicles of Oklahoma 51, no. 1 (1973): 21-33. America: History & Life,
EBSCOhost (accessed September 24, 2008).
Hauptman, Laurence M. Between Two Fires: American Indians in the Civil War. New York: Free
Press, 1995.
Gaines, W. Craig. The Confederate Cherokees: John Drew's Regiment of Mounted Rifles. Baton
Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1989.
Gibson, Ronald V. Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy and Treaties Concluded by the
Confederate States with Indian Tribes. Dobbs Ferry, N.Y.: Oceana Publications, 1977.
[Includes full text of all treaties between Confederacy and Indian Tribes]
Grayson, G. W., and W. David Baird. A Creek Warrior for the Confederacy: The Autobiography
of Chief G.W. Grayson. The Civilization of the American Indian series [v. 189]. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press, 1988.
32
“Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties.” Edited by Charles J. Kappler. Available from
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler. Internet; accessed 5 October 2008.
Turner, Alin O. “Cherokee Nation-United States Financial Relations, 1830-1870.” In The Civil
War Era in Indian Territory. Ed. LeRoy Henry Fischer. Los Angeles: L.L. Morrison,
1974.
Winsor, Henry M. “Chickasaw-Choctaw Financial Relations with the United States, 1830-1880.”
In The Civil War Era in Indian Territory. Ed. LeRoy Henry Fischer. Los Angeles: L.L.
Morrison, 1974.