Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire What Did The Confederate States And The Indians Had In Common

Wonder what would’ve happened if the tribes like the Sioux would have seen what was coming and went on a big war party eastward against the Yankees during the civil war

Sorry Jorge, I understand your point now. Went back and reread this thread. Been a long day.

Btw, got the bulls taken care of! 😊

They're still whining?

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Absolutely nothing. The Sioux were irrelevant as a military power by then if conquering the USA was the measure.

About 90% of the Indian wars actually took place east of the Missippi about 100 years earlier. Most of the tribes from the northern Great Lakes to the Gulf of Mexico actually formed an alliance to drive back the Americans. Henry Hamilton, the British commander at Fort Detroit, tried to get all or them to launch a simultaneous attack. But his plans fell through when George Rogers Clark captured Vincennes and took Hamilton prisoner. The Indians always fought as individuals and were not capable of fighting in any coordinated fashion. The American militias soon defeated the Cherokees in the South. The northern Indians (Shawnee, Wyandot, Delaware) held out because the British supplied them from Detroit until Fallen Timbers.

There were two battles in Ohio where the US Army lost far more men than at Custer's last stand. Plus Braddock's defeat in the French and Indian War was far worse than Custer's. The sioux were a last minute blip.

And one of the more complicated cascading bits of bad fortune. Ceded lands in 1851 treaty, partially for survival. Hard winters had killed off most game.

Then no food treaty payments , in part due to civil war. Much of the states militia involved in the war and gone. The hungry Dakotah were frustrated. In August 1862, hot head youths stealing food kill a farm family and the fear of retribution was the spark. There is some commonality between Indians and the Confederacy right there.

BTW, the killings were not indiscriminate in many cases. Many German and Bohemian immigrants refused to trade or otherwise interact with the Dakotah. Many, maybe most , who did were spared, some escorted to safety by some of the many Dakotah who chose not to fight.

A culture does not lose because if a single event. It takes a series of them.

More of an observation than a question. And that is, there are many reasons why a particular nation state either prospers or doesn't. Amount and fertility of arable land, abundance of natural resources necessary for indusry to prosper, form of government, and others. It's hard to pinpoint a single reason for prosperity or the opposite.

Just curious, where did the Comanches get those cattle? Wild cattle appropriated off the range?

As far as I’ve read the Indians didn’t like the Mexicans much and figured the southern states would be a buffer zone

And, why did they choose to fight a war of rebellion? Do you know? Do you even have a clue?

How about the people in the south that didn’t have plantations nor slaves but there farms and homes were being burned in the Shenandoah valley I know what I’ve had done

James Smith is one of those figures in our history that would be regarded as too good to be true if he were a fictional character. Captured at nineteen during Braddock's disastrous campaign, seven years through his early twenties living as an adopted Mohawk, returns to Pennsylvania and leads a ranging company against Indian attacks, present on our side at the battle of Brushy Run, begins fighting the British well before the Rev War commences, Pennsylvania delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1776, later elected to the Kentucky General Assembly, end his public life as a Presbyterian Missionary to the Indians.

Not only that but a literate and well-written man best known for his captivity narrative "Scoowa"...

What I found more interesting is his last work, written in 1812 in response to the Ohio Indian Wars... "A Treatise on the Mode and Manner of Indian War", written by a principled and intelligent guy who knew his way around Frontier warfare. See....

https://books.google.com/books?id=P..._r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

In it he goes to great lengths to refute the notion pertaining to the Eastern Woodlands Tribes that " The Indians always fought as individuals and were not capable of fighting in any coordinated fashion."
(see page 11: "We have more good rifles, marksmen and bold fellow than the Indians; all we want is Indian discipline." )

As to the relatively early defeat of the Cherokees relative to the Ohio Territory tribes, I would guess that had much to do with their much closer proximity to the settlements with their relatively inexhaustible supply of manpower, the Cherokees at that time like all the rest in the midst of a population spiral. It is a notable point that the Cherokees in 1760 were the first of anybody in North America to decimate an advancing British Redcoat column with precision rifle fire from a distance.

The British could promise supplies, essential in any military campaign and always a stumbling block to the Indians, they could argue and offer inducements, but few Indians would have ever regarded a British Officer as their "leader". Fallen Timbers was a relatively bloodless defeat for the Indians, the real significance being that the immediate aftermath proved the British to be weak and vacillating ally. Who COULD possibly have united the tribes was the Shawnee Indian Tecumseh, whom William Henry Harrison himself thought to be the greatest threat.

All in all, considering that they had recently been fighting each other, and had about the most free and egalitarian social organizations on the planet, the Indians did about as well as can be expected when it came to uniting, certainly as well as the Scottish and Irish Clans ever managed for example despite sharing common enemies for centuries and who had far more authoritarian social systems.

I read the book this article is written about.

https://www.amren.com/news/2017/10/indian-savages-american-indian-wars-scalp-dance-thomas-goodrich/

Read James Michener's "Hawaii." God's servants went there to do good, and they did very well.