NF Article about. the war in Indian Territory

[major bill]

Was wondering if anyone had read "Warpath" article by Christopher Perello in the March issue of Strategy & Tactics magazine?
He made two statements I found interesting. "There was no good reason for either side to fight for Indian Territory during the Civil War." "In the end, the Civil War only made a poor territory poorer."
I am not sure I agree with either statement.

 

[peteanddelmar]

Was wondering if anyone had read "Warpath" article by Christopher Perello in the March issue of Strategy & Tactics magazine?
He made two statements I found interesting. "There was no good reason for either side to fight for Indian Territory during the Civil War." "In the end, the Civil War only made a poor territory poorer."
I am not sure I agree with either statement.

Have not read it, but know the theater a little. I don't agree.

General Watie captured tons of supplies fighting both in Indian territory and Arkansas.
Not all of it was used in Indian territory.
Native troops fought asymmetrically and effectively outside their territory.
However their inter-tribal warfare was horrible.

So I'd say it was marginally good for the south.

Steve Cotrell has written some decent little books about Indian territory and the Ozarks of mostly Arkansas.

 

[Elennsar]

But did it do their tribes any good?

I didn't read the article and don't know the area, I'm afraid. But I can still be curious.

 

[peteanddelmar]

But did it do their tribes any good?

I didn't read the article and don't know the area, I'm afraid. But I can still be curious.

No.

 

[major bill]

Would it changed things if the Confederates won the war?

 

[rhettbutler1865]

IMHO, the South, having a smaller population at the time, would have taken longer to push West, but the poor Native Americans were doomed to their fate, no matter who won...

 

[Jax]

Contrary to popular belief, Indian Territory was not as much a Confederate territory as been led to believe. In fact the Cherokee tribe was pro Union. Of the 350,000 who lived in the territory during the time, less than 8,000 joined the Confederacy without tribal approval.

Many of the tribal people sought refugee in Kansas until the war was over. Most of the action in Indian Territory was logistical for Texas and Arkansas. BTW although I did not read the article, I agree with both accounts. Native Americans were less than 30 years removed from their land in the southeast, so they had no trust for either side after dealing with Jackson.

 

[mofederal]

I think the Indian Territory was worth fighting for, but it took years to it to recover from the war. Intertribal warfare was bad, it devastated all of the groups involved. I suspect the bad feelings still exists today. I believe most of the territory was pro union, but not 100% sure of this. In many ways the fighting reminds me of the guerrilla war in Missouri, but more organized. Not a lot has been written about the war there recently. Maybe it's time for a new study of the war in the territory.