Discussion The last Confederate troops to surrender in the Civil War were Native American — here’s how they ended up fighting for the South


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Belle Montgomery

Sergeant Major
Joined
Oct 25, 2017
Messages
2,423
Location
44022
Even after Confederate commander Robert E. Lee surrendered in Appomattox Court House, Virginia, on April 9, 1865, one Confederate army refused to acknowledge defeat and for months stubbornly fought on.

It was led not by one of the wealthy white southerners who made up much of the Confederacy's officer class — but by a Native American chief called Stand Watie.

So how did a leader of a people facing systematic persecution come to fight for a cause founded on racism and the right to own slaves?

The story illustrates how in the Civil War, the presence of a common enemy caused unexpected alliances to be formed, including an alliance Paul Chaat Smith, a curator at the National Museum of the Native American, has characterised as a "mangy, snarling dog standing between you and a crowd-pleasing narrative."

Watie was himself a plantation holder and slave owner, and had...
Rest of Article with pics:https://www.businessinsider.com/how-native-americans-ended-up-fighting-for-the-confederacy-2019-6
 

Joshism

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
2,161
Location
Jupiter, FL
I read the article and it's simple but effective.

It's a little misleading though as it implies Watie was the only Confederate holdout after Lee's surrender. Watie surrendered only a couple weeks after Edmund Kirby Smith and Watie had probably the most remote land-based Confederate command in 1865 so his late surrender doesn't seem particularly remarkable to me.
 

Tin cup

Captain
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,917
Location
Texas
Sorry, but I do not understand all the hub-bub of someone taking SO LONG to surrender after the fact! Other than a historical fact, it strikes me as just fool hardy, and an unnecessary act of defiance that so many seem to want to "honor"?

Kevin Dally
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,441
Location
mo
Sorry, but I do not understand all the hub-bub of someone taking SO LONG to surrender after the fact! Other than a historical fact, it strikes me as just fool hardy, and an unnecessary act of defiance that so many seem to want to "honor"?

Kevin Dally
After what fact? When did the CSA government officially surrender?

Hint.......it didnt
 

Tin cup

Captain
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
5,917
Location
Texas
Without an government surrender, it would stand to reason it's up to the individual commanders, if under no pressure, why hurry to surrender?
WHY postpone the inevitable? Nothing/no one to support you, pay you... This is getting pointless, not understanding any point you are trying to make other than excuses, for a foolhardy act.

Kevin Dally
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,441
Location
mo
WHY postpone the inevitable? Nothing/no one to support you, pay you... This is getting pointless, not understanding any point you are trying to make other than excuses, for a foolhardy act.

Kevin Dally
Noted that you'd be the first to wave a white flag. Obviously not all shared your enthusiasm to give up, or surrender under no threat at all
 

leftyhunter

Colonel
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,820
Location
los angeles ca
Even after Confederate commander Robert E. Lee surrendered in Appomattox Court House, Virginia, on April 9, 1865, one Confederate army refused to acknowledge defeat and for months stubbornly fought on.

It was led not by one of the wealthy white southerners who made up much of the Confederacy's officer class — but by a Native American chief called Stand Watie.

So how did a leader of a people facing systematic persecution come to fight for a cause founded on racism and the right to own slaves?

The story illustrates how in the Civil War, the presence of a common enemy caused unexpected alliances to be formed, including an alliance Paul Chaat Smith, a curator at the National Museum of the Native American, has characterised as a "mangy, snarling dog standing between you and a crowd-pleasing narrative."

Watie was himself a plantation holder and slave owner, and had...
Rest of Article with pics:https://www.businessinsider.com/how-native-americans-ended-up-fighting-for-the-confederacy-2019-6
Not a great article. The article didn't really mention that Indians in the IT fought on both sides and many defected from the Confederacy. The article didn't mention as I have in other threads that Confederate soldiers killed Indian Civilians.
The article didn't even mention how may Indians Brig General Stan Waite actually commanded. Even if Stan Waite didn't surrender it really wouldn't affect the Union adversely.
Leftyhunter
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,441
Location
mo
Is there some reason you talk in riddles rather then give examples? Obviously far better is going to be subjective, as is under no threat at all......

Lee and Johnson both fought battles within days of surrendering....so obviously were under threat. The last real battle of the war was fought May 12th and 13th...…...so after that hard to say any who surrendered were under much pressure to hurry to do so

Honestly also never thought of Watie being "honored" for being the last, its usually simply noted as he was the last general to do so. Someone had to be the first and someone has to be the last...….
 
Last edited:

Joshism

Sergeant Major
Joined
Apr 30, 2012
Messages
2,161
Location
Jupiter, FL
Not a great article. The article didn't really mention that Indians in the IT fought on both sides and many defected from the Confederacy. The article didn't mention as I have in other threads that Confederate soldiers killed Indian Civilians.
The former is mentioned, albeit briefly. This wasn't intended as an in-depth article, especially not in a non-history magazine.

However, that information would also help complicate whatever "crowd-pleasing narrative" the author things they're so cleverly disrupting. I guess the narrative would be the idea that Native Americans sat out the Civil War? Although that strains the term "crowd-pleasing."

Articles that spotlight little-know history are a good idea, but I wish they wouldn't worry about things like 'disrupting the narrative' as it's probably needlessly combative towards casual readers. Rather than telling the reader how what they think they know is wrong, emphasize what (for most readers) should be a positive discovery of new information. Wasn't that interesting? Don't you want to learn other interesting history?
 

19thGeorgia

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
3,003
Not a great article. The article didn't really mention that Indians in the IT fought on both sides and many defected from the Confederacy.
Actually, 10,000+ fought with the CSA with few defections. About 3,000 fought with the Union.

The article didn't mention as I have in other threads that Confederate soldiers killed Indian Civilians.
With good reason they didn't mention it because it's not true. We know who was responsible for killing Indian civilians. No need to push it off on someone else.

From the report of Confederate Colonel Tandy Walker (Choctaw Brigade), Battle of Poison Springs, April 18, 1864:
"...the train fell into our hands, and soon a portion of his artillery, which my troops found concealed in a thicket near the train. I feared here that the train and its contents would prove a temptation too strong for these hungry, half-clothed Choctaws, but had no trouble in pressing them forward, for there was that in front and to the left more inviting to them than food or clothing—the blood of their despised enemy. They had met and routed the forces of General Thayer, the ravagers of their country, the despoilers of their homes, and the murderers of their women and children."​
 
Last edited:

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,441
Location
mo
Not a great article. The article didn't really mention that Indians in the IT fought on both sides and many defected from the Confederacy. The article didn't mention as I have in other threads that Confederate soldiers killed Indian Civilians.
The article didn't even mention how may Indians Brig General Stan Waite actually commanded. Even if Stan Waite didn't surrender it really wouldn't affect the Union adversely.
Leftyhunter
Oddly enough it didn't mention US soldiers killed Indian civilians not only in the Civil War, but for almost a century before and decades after as well................perhaps it wasnt its focus

Perhaps they should have added a side piece on Sand Creek though.......that shoulda brought you some cheer if concerned about showing the plight of Indians, as it was the most blatant example of the war.
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Top