History Indian Warriors: The Untold Story of The Civil War -Documentary
[video=youtube;Y-pNO45TrWU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-pNO45TrWU[/video]
Did they compare Stand Watie to Snoop Dogg? I would think Malcolm X is the more obvious comparison - given that both were political figures that sought political leadership and have mixed legacies. Snoop Dogg focuses more on entertainment than leadership, doesn't seem to be fighting against anyone in particular, and didn't seek to be a community leader until he had gained fame and legitimacy. Watie was more easily recognized as a potential leader, given his connections to the Ridge family. From living figures, maybe Alan Keyes works, but all examples show the comparison to be really dumb, no one watching the show needed to hear a contemporary comparison to understand the difficulty in interpreting his legacy. Watie is certainly a hero, if you like to have heroes, but is certainly flawed. Same with Grant, Lee, Sherman, or even Forrest (maybe some very large flaws in all five).
tripax wrote:Did they compare Stand Watie to Snoop Dogg? I would think Malcolm X is the more obvious comparison - given that both were political figures that sought political leadership and have mixed legacies. Snoop Dogg focuses more on entertainment than leadership, doesn't seem to be fighting against anyone in particular, and didn't seek to be a community leader until he had gained fame and legitimacy. Watie was more easily recognized as a potential leader, given his connections to the Ridge family. From living figures, maybe Alan Keyes works, but all examples show the comparison to be really dumb, no one watching the show needed to hear a contemporary comparison to understand the difficulty in interpreting his legacy. Watie is certainly a hero, if you like to have heroes, but is certainly flawed. Same with Grant, Lee, Sherman, or even Forrest (maybe some very large flaws in all five).
This is the level of stuff they do now days..
Fun to watch to pass time but nothing compared to those C-span lectures.
-
Ol' Choctaw
- Posts: 1642
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm
I was glad they skipped it. This documentary, while by no means a bad 45 min story, is aimed at an audience who doesn't have too much in depth knowledge and who probably doesn't want to cloudy a picture (given that they had such a hard time expressing Stand Watie's legacy). The Indian Wars deserve better, in my opinion.
-
Ol' Choctaw
- Posts: 1642
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm
The Civil War was also the time of large Indian uprisings. From Minnesota to the West Coast all the way down to Texas. Almost every state and territory west of the Mississippi had uprisings.
The US Government was not meeting its treaty obligations in MN and the Sioux were starving. That is why they rebelled.
Colorado started a war with the Cheyenne that soon involved all of the Planes Tribes in 1863.
One of the reasons the tribes in Indian Territory joined the south was the Republican policy on western expansion and Indian land rights.
The documentary didn’t even do a pin-prick on the overall situation. It was also misleading. The Cherokee were only one of six tribes who fought for the Confederacy.
It also leaves the viewer thinking that Watie thought they were winning the war and couldn’t understand the surrender. The IT was devastated. Its level of development pushed back to almost nothing. Most of the towns, farms, and ranches were destroyed. The number of civilian deaths due to the war was likely higher than any place else in the country and so was the level of military service, at least nearly so.
The role of the Cherokee is grossly over played. Not to detract from their contribution but no other tribes are ever mentioned.
Six major tribes fought with the CSA and several smaller ones. Of all the tribes across the country only a hand full aided the Union, and that usually for their own special reasons.
Don’t you think there really may have been a reason for that?
The US Government was not meeting its treaty obligations in MN and the Sioux were starving. That is why they rebelled.
Colorado started a war with the Cheyenne that soon involved all of the Planes Tribes in 1863.
One of the reasons the tribes in Indian Territory joined the south was the Republican policy on western expansion and Indian land rights.
The documentary didn’t even do a pin-prick on the overall situation. It was also misleading. The Cherokee were only one of six tribes who fought for the Confederacy.
It also leaves the viewer thinking that Watie thought they were winning the war and couldn’t understand the surrender. The IT was devastated. Its level of development pushed back to almost nothing. Most of the towns, farms, and ranches were destroyed. The number of civilian deaths due to the war was likely higher than any place else in the country and so was the level of military service, at least nearly so.
The role of the Cherokee is grossly over played. Not to detract from their contribution but no other tribes are ever mentioned.
Six major tribes fought with the CSA and several smaller ones. Of all the tribes across the country only a hand full aided the Union, and that usually for their own special reasons.
Don’t you think there really may have been a reason for that?
Ol' Choctaw wrote:The Civil War was also the time of large Indian uprisings. From Minnesota to the West Coast all the way down to Texas. Almost every state and territory west of the Mississippi had uprisings.
The US Government was not meeting its treaty obligations in MN and the Sioux were starving. That is why they rebelled.
Colorado started a war with the Cheyenne that soon involved all of the Planes Tribes in 1863.
One of the reasons the tribes in Indian Territory joined the south was the Republican policy on western expansion and Indian land rights.
The documentary didn’t even do a pin-prick on the overall situation. It was also misleading. The Cherokee were only one of six tribes who fought for the Confederacy.
It also leaves the viewer thinking that Watie thought they were winning the war and couldn’t understand the surrender. The IT was devastated. Its level of development pushed back to almost nothing. Most of the towns, farms, and ranches were destroyed. The number of civilian deaths due to the war was likely higher than any place else in the country and so was the level of military service, at least nearly so.
The role of the Cherokee is grossly over played. Not to detract from their contribution but no other tribes are ever mentioned.
Six major tribes fought with the CSA and several smaller ones. Of all the tribes across the country only a hand full aided the Union, and that usually for their own special reasons.
Don’t you think there really may have been a reason for that?
Any events or units that should be in the game in your opinion?
-
Ol' Choctaw
- Posts: 1642
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm
RebelYell wrote:Any events or units that should be in the game in your opinion?
Most of them would apply if we get an Indian Was Scenario. If they are just standing around on the map there is little need of them. But were it incorporated into the full campaign it would be a strong drain on Union manpower and resources from 63 on. Of course it would not be great for the CSA either to have 20,000 or more angry Comanche and Kiowa raiding through west Texas before they go after the Union in Colorado.
The main event and unit that is left out as a direct combatant is the 1st Osage Bn. (CSA) Which should arrive in Sept 61 in Osage, IT.
Out side of that, there are quite a few Indian units not represented in the game from Indian Territory, both cavalry and some infantry, that would best be depicted as territorial defense forces but their inclusion might upset the balance in Kansas and Missouri.
Ol' Choctaw wrote:Most of them would apply if we get an Indian Was Scenario. If they are just standing around on the map there is little need of them. But were it incorporated into the full campaign it would be a strong drain on Union manpower and resources from 63 on. Of course it would not be great for the CSA either to have 20,000 or more angry Comanche and Kiowa raiding through west Texas before they go after the Union in Colorado.
The main event and unit that is left out as a direct combatant is the 1st Osage Bn. (CSA) Which should arrive in Sept 61 in Osage, IT.
Out side of that, there are quite a few Indian units not represented in the game from Indian Territory, both cavalry and some infantry, that would best be depicted as territorial defense forces but their inclusion might upset the balance in Kansas and Missouri.
No if we give them a bonus only in their own state, so that they are mostly useless leaving it?
-
Ol' Choctaw
- Posts: 1642
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm
Didn’t mean to not reply for so long but I have had some health problems keeping me away from such things.
While there is very little incentive to tell the real stories, until I can sit and write a bit here are a couple of videos. They only sketch the stories and miss a lot but they may give you some idea to the background and I will try to fill in some more once I am a bit more fit.
1966 Propaganda: 5 Civilized Tribes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWcVX_g0fjg
The Choctaw formed their first School system in 1824. So, it is rather interesting that the Federal Government is still working on it…
1976 Cheyenne: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14MJa8B9D5k
Rather simplistic and missing quite a bit. The Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho are the most impoverished tribes in the US, to this day.
The Indian Wars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x58MR-McptM
It covers the subject but there is a lot left out and the point of view is tilted toward the governments to a strong degree.
In the breaking of the dog soldiers, this was done by the Pawnee Scouts who were not even mentioned. The White Troopers really didn’t engage. The Pawnee Scouts did most all the tracking, fighting, and killing.
While there is very little incentive to tell the real stories, until I can sit and write a bit here are a couple of videos. They only sketch the stories and miss a lot but they may give you some idea to the background and I will try to fill in some more once I am a bit more fit.
1966 Propaganda: 5 Civilized Tribes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWcVX_g0fjg
The Choctaw formed their first School system in 1824. So, it is rather interesting that the Federal Government is still working on it…
1976 Cheyenne: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14MJa8B9D5k
Rather simplistic and missing quite a bit. The Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho are the most impoverished tribes in the US, to this day.
The Indian Wars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x58MR-McptM
It covers the subject but there is a lot left out and the point of view is tilted toward the governments to a strong degree.
In the breaking of the dog soldiers, this was done by the Pawnee Scouts who were not even mentioned. The White Troopers really didn’t engage. The Pawnee Scouts did most all the tracking, fighting, and killing.
Ol' Choctaw wrote:Didn’t mean to not reply for so long but I have had some health problems keeping me away from such things.
While there is very little incentive to tell the real stories, until I can sit and write a bit here are a couple of videos. They only sketch the stories and miss a lot but they may give you some idea to the background and I will try to fill in some more once I am a bit more fit.
1966 Propaganda: 5 Civilized Tribes: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWcVX_g0fjg
The Choctaw formed their first School system in 1824. So, it is rather interesting that the Federal Government is still working on it…
1976 Cheyenne: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14MJa8B9D5k
Rather simplistic and missing quite a bit. The Southern Cheyenne and Arapaho are the most impoverished tribes in the US, to this day.
The Indian Wars: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x58MR-McptM
It covers the subject but there is a lot left out and the point of view is tilted toward the governments to a strong degree.
In the breaking of the dog soldiers, this was done by the Pawnee Scouts who were not even mentioned. The White Troopers really didn’t engage. The Pawnee Scouts did most all the tracking, fighting, and killing.
Thanks for the links, hope you get well soon.
It is important to note that the IT Indian support for the Confederate cause was not as overwhelming as has been suggested. The Lockapaka Creeks and the Muscogee Creeks under the leadership of Opothleyahola fought for the Union. Also, the Seminoles under the leadership of Halleck Tustenuggee and Sonuk Mikko fought for the Union.
In all, 7,860 Native Americans served in the Confederate army. In November, 1861 at the battle of Round Mountain a force of 1,400 Confederates attacked Opothleyahola's camp of 7,000. The camp contained men, women and children so that direct comparison with the CSA figure is not possible. However, it can be assumed that there were several thousand Union warriors present at the battle.
The Union support by the Creeks and Seminoles plus the neutral stance of some Cherokee helped to mitigate the retribution visited upon the Civilised Tribes that supported the rebellion.
In all, 7,860 Native Americans served in the Confederate army. In November, 1861 at the battle of Round Mountain a force of 1,400 Confederates attacked Opothleyahola's camp of 7,000. The camp contained men, women and children so that direct comparison with the CSA figure is not possible. However, it can be assumed that there were several thousand Union warriors present at the battle.
The Union support by the Creeks and Seminoles plus the neutral stance of some Cherokee helped to mitigate the retribution visited upon the Civilised Tribes that supported the rebellion.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
'Nous voilà, Lafayette'
Colonel C.E. Stanton, aide to A.E.F. commander John 'Black Jack' Pershing, upon the landing of the first US troops in France 1917
-
Ol' Choctaw
- Posts: 1642
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm
Sorry Le Ricain but that is not exactly accurate.
Opothleyahola favored not fighting but that was the same as declaring for the Union to many. It was the fear that he would which prompted the Confederates to attack. Because there were 7000 they were seen as a possible threat. He decided to lead his people into Kansas for refuge. It is estimated that he had about 2500 men under arms of some sort.
I would not attribute any real sense of patriotism to what they did. While the Choctaw and Chickasaw were cotton farmers, and the 5 tribes saw themselves as sharing a southern heritage, the trust of whites was not overwhelming but more a political necessity. Seward’s plan for the Indians called for the US to extinguish tribal land titles and open the west to settlement. Some would be pro Confederate on the slave issue but the US abandonment of Indian Territory in May 61 and the offer of representation in the Confederate Congress and the assumption of treaty obligations was more the deciding factor.
Your numbers are also in dispute as to who served. The Union had no Indian soldiers. The tribes were all axillaries. Kansas may have had a few but I am really not sure they were actually enlisted as soldiers. Michigan had some in one company of sharpshooters. The 7,000 of the Creek are counted into that. The CSA had something over 12,000 who were enlisted at one point or another. Other records only contain about 3,000 names on each side.
Of the 5 tribes, three were divided. Only the Choctaw and Chickasaw were united in their stand. The Indian Territory was devastated during the war. Over 300,000 cattle and who knows how many horses were stolen. Of the entire population of the territory, 10,000 had died, a third of the women were widows, and a quarter of the children were orphaned. Practically all farms and ranches had been devastated. The peace afterwards was almost as bad but even without that development was set back to roughly what it had been in the late 1830s.
Opothleyahola favored not fighting but that was the same as declaring for the Union to many. It was the fear that he would which prompted the Confederates to attack. Because there were 7000 they were seen as a possible threat. He decided to lead his people into Kansas for refuge. It is estimated that he had about 2500 men under arms of some sort.
I would not attribute any real sense of patriotism to what they did. While the Choctaw and Chickasaw were cotton farmers, and the 5 tribes saw themselves as sharing a southern heritage, the trust of whites was not overwhelming but more a political necessity. Seward’s plan for the Indians called for the US to extinguish tribal land titles and open the west to settlement. Some would be pro Confederate on the slave issue but the US abandonment of Indian Territory in May 61 and the offer of representation in the Confederate Congress and the assumption of treaty obligations was more the deciding factor.
Your numbers are also in dispute as to who served. The Union had no Indian soldiers. The tribes were all axillaries. Kansas may have had a few but I am really not sure they were actually enlisted as soldiers. Michigan had some in one company of sharpshooters. The 7,000 of the Creek are counted into that. The CSA had something over 12,000 who were enlisted at one point or another. Other records only contain about 3,000 names on each side.
Of the 5 tribes, three were divided. Only the Choctaw and Chickasaw were united in their stand. The Indian Territory was devastated during the war. Over 300,000 cattle and who knows how many horses were stolen. Of the entire population of the territory, 10,000 had died, a third of the women were widows, and a quarter of the children were orphaned. Practically all farms and ranches had been devastated. The peace afterwards was almost as bad but even without that development was set back to roughly what it had been in the late 1830s.
-
Ol' Choctaw
- Posts: 1642
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm
The Union did not enlist Indians. They served as auxiliaries in Union service, civilians under arms. Kansas may have enlisted them and some other states but not the Union Army. They were still classed as colored troops when they were dealt with, however, so they would have had white officers over them.
I guess I don't understand what "enlist" means, then. There were certainly many Indians in the Union army (even some who did not have citizenship). I was recently learning about Oneidas in the 14th Wisconsin. Many (all?) of these soldiers were replacements for white soldiers, and were largely in F and G companies. Perhaps there is something I don't understand about the difference between the Army enlisting a soldier and a state enlisting a soldier. Or maybe you mean that Indians who had tribal affiliation such that they were not US citizens were thus by definition not drafted (but were welcome volunteers or replacements).
As far as officers, I'm not sure. There is some evidence that a ad hoc company of sharpshooters were formed out of the 14th under an Oneida commander, but I don't think he was made an officer. Parker is the most famous Union Indian officer, I'm not sure about others, though.
As far as officers, I'm not sure. There is some evidence that a ad hoc company of sharpshooters were formed out of the 14th under an Oneida commander, but I don't think he was made an officer. Parker is the most famous Union Indian officer, I'm not sure about others, though.
-
Ol' Choctaw
- Posts: 1642
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2011 7:13 pm
I don’t know how to resolve it. Officially the US did not enlist Indians. I do know they served. I just took a blanket statement that the US Army didn’t enlist Indians. That was their policy.
Most units were raised by states and perhaps the US just refused to recognize that there were Indians in the units. Indians were not citizens. The couldn’t vote and their rights were not respected if they were granted rights at all. The level of predigest in both armies was very high on both sides. Much of what you find today is sanitized or presented in a much more pleasant light.
Grant pulled strings and got Ely Parker on his staff. Had it not been for Grant‘s friendship Parker would never gotten into the army, let alone become an officer.
The CSA had Indian officers over their troops. General Douglas H. Cooper who later commanded the IT was adopted Chickasaw and long time Indian Agent for the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations.
The whole thing is clouded. There are conflicting reports. They were colored troops not officially allowed to enlist in the Union Army and restricted to specific units in the Confederate Army.
Most units were raised by states and perhaps the US just refused to recognize that there were Indians in the units. Indians were not citizens. The couldn’t vote and their rights were not respected if they were granted rights at all. The level of predigest in both armies was very high on both sides. Much of what you find today is sanitized or presented in a much more pleasant light.
Grant pulled strings and got Ely Parker on his staff. Had it not been for Grant‘s friendship Parker would never gotten into the army, let alone become an officer.
The CSA had Indian officers over their troops. General Douglas H. Cooper who later commanded the IT was adopted Chickasaw and long time Indian Agent for the Chickasaw and Choctaw Nations.
The whole thing is clouded. There are conflicting reports. They were colored troops not officially allowed to enlist in the Union Army and restricted to specific units in the Confederate Army.
Return to “ACW History Club / Histoire de la Guerre de Sécession”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests