from a passage in Seward's Chicago speech,[93] "The National Idea; Its
Perils and Triumphs," expressive of opinions, false to the national trust
but favorable to expansion in the direction of the Indian territory, most
inopportune, to say the least, and foolish. Seward probably spoke in the
enthusiasm of a heated moment; for the obnoxious sentiment, "The Indian
territory, also, south of Kansas, must be vacated by the Indians," was
very different in its tenor from equally strong expressions in his great
Senate speech[94] on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, February 17, 1854. It soon
proved, however, easy of quotation by the secessionists in their arguments
with the Indians, it being offered by them as incontestable proof that the
designs of the incoming administration were, in the highest degree,
inimical to Indian treaty rights. At the time of its utterance, the
Indians were intensely excited. The poor things had had so many and such
bitter experiences with the bad faith of the white people that it took
very little to arouse their suspicion. They had been told to contract
their domain or to move on so often that they had become quite
super-sensitive on the subject of land cessions and removals. Seward's
speech was but another instance of idle words proving exceedingly fateful.
Two facts thus far omitted from the general survey and reserved for
special emphasis may now be remarked upon. They will show conclusively
that there were personal and economic reasons why the Indians, some of
them at least, were drawn irresistibly towards the South. The patronage of
the Indian Office has always been more or less of a local thing.
Communities adjoining Indian reservations usually consider, and with just
cause because of long-established practice, that all positions in the
field service, as for example, agencies and traderships, are the
perquisites, so to speak, of the locality. It was certainly true before
the war that Texas and Arkansas had some such understanding as to Indian
Territory, for only southerners held office there and, from among the
southerners, Texans and Arkansans received the preference always. It
happened too that the higher officials in Washington were almost
invariably southern men.
The granting of licenses to traders rested with the superintendent and
everything goes to show that, in the fifties and sixties, applications for
license were scrutinized very closely by the southern superintendents with
a view to letting no objectionable person, from the standpoint of southern
rights, get into the territory. The Holy See itself could never have been
more vigilant in protecting colonial domains against the introduction of
heresy. The same vigilance was exercised in the hiring of agency
employees, blacksmiths, wheelwrights, and the like. Having full
discretionary power in the premises, the superintendents could easily
interpret the law to suit themselves. They could also evade it in their
own interests and frequently did so. One notorious case[95] of this sort
came up in connection with Superintendent Drew, who gave permits to his
friends to "peddle" in the Indian country without requiring of them the
necessary preliminary of a bond. Traders once in the country had
tremendous influence with the Indians, especially with those of a certain
class whom ordinarily the missionaries could not reach. Then, as before
and since, Indian traders were not men of the highest moral character by
any means. Too often, on the contrary, they were of degraded character,
thoroughly unscrupulous, proverbial for their defiance of the law, general
illiteracy, and corrupt business practices. It stands to reason that such
men, if they had themselves been selected with an eye single to the cause
of a particular section and knew that solicitude in its interests would
mean great latitude to themselves and favorable reports of themselves to
the department at Washington, would spare no efforts and hesitate at no
means to make it their first concern, provided, of course, that it did not
interfere with their own monetary schemes.
To cap the climax, the last and greatest circumstance to be noted, if only
because of the great weight it carried with the Indians when it was
brought into the argument by the secessionists, is that practically all of
the Indian money held in trust for the individual tribes by the United
States government was invested in southern stocks;[96] in Florida 7's, in
Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, Missouri,
Virginia, and Tennessee 6's, in North Carolina and Tennessee 5's, and the
like. To tell the truth, only the merest minimum of it was secured by
northern bonds. The southerners asserted for the Indians' benefit, that
all these securities would be forfeited[97] by the war. Sufficient is the
fact, that the position of the Indians[98] was unquestionably difficult.
With so much to draw them southward, our only wonder is, that so many of
them stayed with the North.
II. INDIAN TERRITORY IN ITS RELATIONS WITH TEXAS AND ARKANSAS
For the participation of the southern Indians in the American Civil War,
the states of Texas and Arkansas were more than measurably responsible.
Indian Territory, or that part of the Indian country that was historically
known as such, lay between them. Its southern frontage was along the Red
River; and that stream, flowing with only slight sinuosity downward to its
junction with the Mississippi, gave to Indian Territory a long diagonal,
controlled, as far as situation went, entirely by Texas. Texas lay on the
other side of the river and she lay also on almost the whole western
border of Indian Territory.[99] She was, consequently, in possession of a
rare opportunity, geographically, for exercising influence, should need
for such ever arise. Running parallel with the Red River and northward
about one hundred miles, was the Canadian. Between the two rivers were
three huge Indian reservations, the most western was the Leased District
of the Wichitas and allied bands, the middle one was the Chickasaw, and
the eastern, the Choctaw.[100] The Indian occupants of these three
reservations were, therefore, and sometimes to their sorrow, be it said,
the very next door neighbors of the Texans. The Choctaws were, likewise,
the next door neighbors of the Arkansans who joined them on the east; but
the relations between Arkansans and Choctaws seem not to have been so
close or so constant during the period before the war as were the
relations between the Choctaws and the Texans on the one hand and the
Cherokees and the Arkansans on the other.
The Cherokees dwelt, like the Choctaws, over against Arkansas but north of
the Canadian River and in close proximity to Fort Smith, the headquarters
of the Southern Superintendency.[101] Their territory was not so compactly
placed as was the territory of the other tribes; and, in its various
parts, it passes, necessarily, under various designations. There was the
"Cherokee Outlet," a narrow tract south of Kansas that had no definite
western limit. It was supposed to be a passage way to the hunting grounds
of the great plains beyond. Then there was the "Cherokee Strip," the
Kansas extension of the outlet, and for most of its extent originally and
legally a part of it. The territorial organization of Kansas had made the
two distinct. Finally, as respects the more insignificant portions of the
Cherokee domain, there were the "Cherokee Neutral Lands," already
sufficiently well commented upon. They were insignificant, not in point of
acreage but of tribal authority operating within them. They lay in the
southeastern corner of Kansas and constituted, against their will and
against the law, her southeastern counties. They were separated, to their
own discomfiture and disadvantage, from the Cherokee Nation proper by the
reservation of the Quapaws, of the Senecas, and of the confederated
Senecas and Shawnees. This Cherokee Nation lay, as has already been
indicated, over against Arkansas and north of the northeastern section of
the Choctaw country. The Arkansas River formed part of the boundary
between the two tribal domains. So much then for the location of the
really great tribes, but where were the lesser?
[Illustration: COLONEL DOWNING, CHEROKEE [_From Smithsonian Institution,
Bureau of American Ethnology_]]
The Quapaws, the Senecas, and the confederated Senecas and Shawnees, the
most insignificant of the lesser, occupied the extreme northeastern corner
of Indian Territory and, therefore, bordered upon the southwestern corner
of Missouri. The Creeks lived between the Arkansas River, inclusive of its
Red Fork, and the Canadian River, having the Cherokees to the east and
north of them, the Choctaws and Chickasaws to the south, and the Seminoles
to the southwest, between the Canadian and its North Fork. The Indians of
the Leased District have already been located.
In the years preceding the Civil War, the interest of Texas and of
Arkansas in Indian Territory manifested itself, not in a covetous desire
to dispossess the Indians of their lands, as was, unfortunately for
national honor, the case in Kansas, but in an effort to keep the actual
country true to the South, settled by slaveholders, Indian or white, as
occasion required or opportunity offered. When sectional affairs became
really tense after the formation of the Republican Party, they redoubled
their energies in that direction, working always through the rich,
influential, and intelligent half-breeds, some of whom had property
interests and family connections in the states operating upon them.[102]
The half-breeds were essentially a planter class, institutionally more
truly so than were the inhabitants of the border slave states. It is
therefore not surprising that, during the excitement following Abraham
Lincoln's nomination and election, identically the same political agencies
worked among them as among their white neighbors and events in Indian
Territory kept perfect pace with events in adjoining states.
The first of these that showed strong sectional tendencies came in
January, 1861, when the Chickasaws, quite on their own initiative
apparently, met in a called session of their legislature to consider how
best the great tribes might conduct themselves with reference to the
serious political situation then shaping itself in the United States.
There is some evidence that the Knights of the Golden Circle had been
active among the Indians as they had been in Arkansas[103] during the
course of the late presidential campaign. At all events, the red men knew
full well of passing occurrences among their neighbors and they certainly
knew how matters were progressing in Texas. There the State Rights Party
was asserting itself in no doubtful terms. For the time being, however,
the Chickasaws contented themselves with simply passing an act,[104]
January 5, suggesting an inter-tribal conference and arranging for the
executive appointment of a Chickasaw delegation to it. The authorities of
the other tribes were duly notified[105] and to the Creek was given the
privilege of naming time and place.
The Inter-tribal Council assembled at the Creek Agency,[106] February 17,
but comparatively few delegates were in attendance. William P. Ross, a
graduate[107] of Princeton and a nephew of John Ross, the principal chief
of the Cherokees, went as the head of the Cherokee delegation. It was he
who reported the scanty attendance,[108] saying that there were no
Chickasaws present, no Choctaws, but only Creeks, Seminoles, and
Cherokees. Why it happened so can not now be exactly determined but to it
may undoubtedly be ascribed the outcome; for the council did nothing that
was not perfectly compatible with existing friendly relations between the
great tribes and the United States government. John Ross, in instructing
his delegates, had strictly enjoined caution and discretion[109]. William
P. Ross and his associates seem to have managed to secure the observance
of both. Perchance it was Chief Ross's[110] known aversion to an
interference in matters that did not concern the Indians, except very
indirectly, and the consciousness that his influence in the council would
be immense, probably all-powerful, that caused the Chickasaws to draw back
from a thing they had themselves so ill-advisedly planned. It is, however,
just possible that, between the time of issuing the call and of assembling
the council, they crossed on their own responsibility the boundary of
indecision and resolved, as most certainly had the Choctaws, that their
sympathies and their interests were with the South. It might well be
supposed that in this perilous hour their thoughts would have travelled
back some thirty years and they would have remembered what havoc the same
state-rights doctrine, now presented so earnestly for their acceptance,
although it scarcely fitted their case, had then wrought in their
concerns. Strangely enough none of the tribes seems to have charged the
gross injustice of the thirties exclusively to the account of the South.
On the contrary, they one and all charged it against the federal
government, against the states as a whole, and so, rightly or wrongly, the
nation had to pay for the inconsistency of Jackson's procedure, a
procedure that could so illogically recognize the supremacy of federal law
in one matter and the supremacy of state law in another matter that was
precisely its parallel.
The decision of the Choctaws had found expression in a series of
resolutions under date of February 7. They are worthy of being quoted
entire.
February 7, 1861.
RESOLUTIONS _expressing the feelings and sentiments of the General
Council of the Choctaw Nation in reference to the political
disagreement existing between the Northern and Southern States of the
American Union._
_Resolved by the General Council of the Choctaw Nation assembled_,
That we view with deep regret and great solicitude the present unhappy
political disagreement between the Northern and Southern States of the
American Union, tending to a permanent dissolution of the Union and
the disturbance of the various important relations existing with that
Government by treaty stipulations and international laws, and
portending much injury to the Choctaw government and people.
_Resolved further_, That we must express the earnest desire and ready
hope entertained by the entire Choctaw people, that any and all
political disturbances agitating and dividing the people of the
various States may be honorably and speedily adjusted; and the example
and blessing, and fostering care of their General Government, and the
many and friendly social ties existing with their people, continue for
the enlightenment in moral and good government and prosperity in the
material concerns of life to our whole population.
_Resolved further_, That in the event a permanent dissolution of the
American Union takes place, our many relations with the General
Government must cease, and we shall be left to follow the natural
affections, education, institutions, and interests of our people,
which indissolubly bind us in every way to the destiny of our
neighbors and brethren of the Southern States upon whom we are
confident we can rely for the preservation of our rights of life,
liberty, and property, and the continuance of many acts of friendship,
general counsel, and material support.
_Resolved further_, That we desire to assure our immediate neighbors,
the people of Arkansas and Texas, of our determination to observe the
amicable relations in every way so long existing between us, and the
firm reliance we have, amid any disturbance with other States, the
rights and feelings so sacred to us will remain respected by them and
be protected from the encroachments of others.
_Resolved further_, That his excellency the principal chief be
requested to inclose, with an appropriate communication from himself,
a copy of these resolutions to the governors of the Southern States,
with the request that they be laid before the State convention of each
State, as many as have assembled at the date of their reception, and
that in such as have not they be published in the newspapers of the
State.
_Resolved_, That these resolutions take effect and be in force from
and after their passage.
Approved February 7, 1861.[111]
These resolutions of the Choctaw Council are in the highest degree
interesting in the matter both of their substance and of their time of
issue. The information is not forthcoming as to how the Choctaws received
the invitation of the Chickasaw legislature to attend an inter-tribal
council; but, later on, in April, 1861, the Choctaw delegation in
Washington, made up of P. P. Pitchlynn, Samuel Garland, Israel Folsom, and
Peter Folsom, assured the Commissioner of Indian Affairs that the Choctaw
Nation intended to remain neutral,[112] which assurance was interpreted
to mean simply that the Choctaws would be inactive spectators of events,
expressing no opinion, in word or deed, one way or the other. The
Chickasaw delegation gave the same assurance and at about the same time
and place. Now what is to be concluded? Is it to be supposed that the Act
of January 5, 1861 in no wise reflected the sentiments of a tribe as a
whole and similarly the Resolutions of February 7, 1861, or that the
tribal delegations were, in April, utterly ignorant of the real attitude
of their respective constituents? The answer is to be found in the
following most interesting and instructive letter, written by S. Orlando
Lee to Commissioner Dole from Huntingdon, Long Island, March 15,
1862:[113]
Thinking you and the government would like to hear something about the
state of affairs among the Choctaws last summer and the influences
which induced them to take their present position I will write you
what I know. I was a missionary teacher at Spencer Academy for two
years and refer you to Hon. Walter Lowrie Gen. Sec. of the Pres. Board
of Foreign Missions for information as to my character &c. I left
Spencer June 13th & the nation June 24th but have heard directly from
there twice since, the last time as late as Sept 6th. So that I can
speak of occurrences as late as that.
After South Carolina passed her secession ordinance in Dec. 1860 there
was a public attempt to excite the Choctaws and Chickasaws as a
beginning hoping to bring in the other tribes afterwards. Many of the
larger slaveholders (who are nearly all half breeds) had been gained
before and Capt. R. M. Jones was the leader of the secessionists. The
country was full of lies about the intentions of the new
administration. The border papers in Arkansas & Texas republished from
the New York & St. Louis papers a part of a sentence from Hon. W. H.
Seward's speech at Chicago during the election campaign of 1860 to
this effect "And Indian Territory south of Kansas must be vacated by
the Indian" (These words do occur in the report of Mr. Seward's
Chicago speech as published in New York Evening Post Weekly for I
read it myself). This produced intense excitement of course and to add
to the effect the Secessionist Journals charged that another prominent
republican had proposed to drive the indians out of Indian Ter. in a
speech in congress. "This" they were told "is the policy of the new
administration. The abolitionists want your lands--we will protect
you. Your only safety is to join the South." Again they were told
"that the South must succeed in gaining their independence and the
money of the indians being invested in the stocks of Southern states
the stocks would be cancelled & the indians would lose their money
unless they joined the south, if they did that the stocks would be
reissued to the Confederate States for them." Their special
commissioners Peter Folsom &c, who came to Washington to get the half
million of dollars for claims, reported that they got along very well
until they were asked if they had slaves after that they said they
could do nothing. Sampson Folsom said however that he thought they
would have succeeded had it not been for the attack on Sumpter--He
said President Lincoln then told them "He would not give them a dollar
until the close of the war." An interesting fact in relation to these
commissioners is that they came to Washington by way of _Montgomery_ &
were when they reached Washington probably all, except Judge Garland,
secessionists. Thus all influences were in favor of the rebels--Where
could the indians go for light--The former indian agent Cooper was a
Col. in the rebel service. The oldest missionary who has undoubtedly
more influence with the Choctaws than any other white man is an ardent
secessionist believing firmly both in the right & in the final success
of the rebel cause--He (Dr. Kingsbury) prays as earnestly & fervently
for the success of the rebels as any one among us does for the success
of the Union cause. The son of another, Mr. Hodgkin, is a captain in
the rebel service--another Mr. Stark actively assisted in organizing a
company acted as sec. of secessionist meetings &c. Even Mr. Reid
superintendant of Spencer was confident the rebels could never be
subdued and thought when the treaty should be made they ought in
justice to have Ind. Territory. Again when Fort Smith was evacuated
the rebel forces were on the way up the Ark. river to attack it & the
garrison evacuated it in the night which looked to the Indians (if
not to the white men) as if the northerners were afraid. The same was
true of Fort Washitaw where our forces left in the night and were
actually pursued for several days by the Texans. Thus matters stood
when Col. Pitchlynn the resident Com. of the Choctaws at Washington
returned home. He gave all his influence to have the Choctaws take a
neutral position. The chief had called the council to meet June 1st. &
Col. P. so far succeeded as to induce him to prepare a message
recommending neutrality. Col. P. was promptly reported as an
_abolitionist_ and _visited_ & _threatened_ by a Texas Vigilance
committee.
The Council met at Doaksville seven miles from Red River & of course
from Texas. It was largely attended by white men from Texas our
Choctaw neighbors who attended said the place was full of white men.
The Council did not organize until June 4th or 5th (I forget which).
In the meanwhile the white men & half bloods had a secession meeting
when it leaked out through Col. Cooper that the Chief Hudson had
prepared a message recommending neutrality at which Robert M. Jones
was so indignant that he made a furious speech in which he declared
that "any one who opposed secession ought to be hung" "and any
suspicious persons ought to be hung." Hudson was frightened and when
the Council was organized sent in a message recommending that
commissioners be appointed to negotiate a treaty with the Confederates
and that in the meantime a regiment be organized under Col. Cooper for
the Confed. army.