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

If your completely unaware many brigades during the CW were understrength, perhaps you need to go back to reading a bit more. As it would suggest your not all that well read then, as you seem fond of saying. We will wait for you catch up.........maybe next year you can be up to speed. Or would think you'd know by the time Watie was promoted, the dept was in shambles and many regt were understrength, which would also make brigades understrength

Also you seemed to miss the question.....if their was 178.000 USCT, what battles did they participate in Brigade strength? If they were never grouped and fought in brigade strength, why would expect so of 10k. when it didn't happen with 175k.......

Not to mention CSA Indians did fight in Brigade Strength at Honey Springs under Cooper as Watie was still a Col at the time.

So despite your irrelevant comparisons, your even wrong in your statement they never fought as a brigade.
 
Last edited:
are you doubting the Smithsonian numbers, I always thought they were more one the most reputable organizations for historical research?

They're usually pretty good, but there's clearly some debate over the 10K so doing some math from census numbers might clarify that. Especially as we don't seem to know how that number was derived.
 
They're usually pretty good, but there's clearly some debate over the 10K so doing some math from census numbers might clarify that. Especially as we don't seem to know how that number was derived.

Smithsonian puts it well over 10k, why I'm a little surprised theres some doubting 10k, I haven't seen anyone post a source for 10k or for less then 10k........Smithsonian I posted put CSA Indians over 16k with 3.6k in Union service, for 20K total both sides.
 
Smithsonian puts it well over 10k, why I'm a little surprised theres some doubting 10k, I haven't seen anyone post a source for 10k or for less then 10k........Smithsonian I posted put CSA Indians over 16k with 3.6k in Union service, for 20K total both sides.
Also @Joshism
We seem to be forgetting the little detail that Indian troops in the IT were more accurately described has Co Belligerents not has Confederate troops. For the most part the Indian troops were confined per the treaties that they signed to just the IT. Relatively few Indians fought for the Confederacy outside the IT. At best the IT is a remote backwater of the ACW.
Leftyhunter
 
Of course, they were, there was little political hay to be gained by shedding tears and wringing hands over the American Indian's plight. They stood in the way of the white man's imperialist dreams of the westward movement. It didn't matter which region the white men running the US government were from.
So therefore you agree it's very hypocritical of present day pro Confederate posters to bad mouth federal Indian policy of the Nineteenth Century. I am glad we are on the same page.

Leftyhunter
 
Also @Joshism
We seem to be forgetting the little detail that Indian troops in the IT were more accurately described has Co Belligerents not has Confederate troops. For the most part the Indian troops were confined per the treaties that they signed to just the IT. Relatively few Indians fought for the Confederacy outside the IT. At best the IT is a remote backwater of the ACW.
Leftyhunter

Actually you would be wrong yet again, nowhere does it say all the 16k Indian troops were all in IT, Just like all mixed races there would have been Indians In regular state troops of other states. Just as Ely Parker wasnt enlisted in a specific Indian regt.

Your getting ridiculous, the fact is Indians served the CS cause in far greater numbers then the US cause. Sorry if that reality offends you, so you feel some bizarre need to try belittle their service, But the fact is whether in direct CS service with state troops, or allied as tribes in the IT, the Indians participated in the CW as much as any other ethnic group........your starting to seem rather racist against indians, because they served as any other soldier served, no more or no less

BTW I suppose you now assume state militias of both sides didn't serve, or should be called co-belligerents, as many were bound to remain within their states also.

I know a lot of former serviceman you wouldn't want to belittle their service because they were in Germany instead of Vietnam, or Texas instead of Iraq......…you might find yourself picking yourself up off the ground, because no matter where they were stationed, they indeed served. Its becoming harder to tell if your just racist against Indians or just have no respect for veterans who have served.
 
Last edited:
Actually you would be wrong yet again, nowhere does it say all the 16k Indian troops were all in IT, Just like all mixed races there would have been Indians In regular state troops of other states. Just as Ely Parker wasnt enlisted in a specific Indian regt.

Your getting ridiculous, the fact is Indians served the CS cause in far greater numbers then the US cause. Sorry if that reality offends you, so you feel some bizarre need to try belittle their service, But the fact is whether in direct CS service with state troops, or allied as tribes in the IT, the Indians participated in the CW as much as any other ethnic group........your starting to seem rather racist against indians, because they served as any other soldier served, no more or no less

BTW I suppose you now assume state militias of both sides didn't serve, or should be called co-belligerents, as many were bound to remain within their states also.

I know a lot of former serviceman you wouldn't want to belittle their service because they were in Germany instead of Vietnam, or Texas instead of Iraq......…you might find yourself picking yourself up off the ground, because no matter where they were stationed, they indeed served. Its becoming harder to tell if your just racist against Indians or just have no respect for veterans who have served.
I am merely pointing out that the Indian troops in the IT were not regular Confederate troops per the treaties that they signed with the Confederacy confining their military service to the IT. I never stated there were not regular Confederate Indian troops such has those in the Thomas Legion that were regular enlisted troops and fought were ever they were sent.
Your getting quite hysterical in terms of the simple point that I am making.
Leftyhunter
 
I am merely pointing out that the Indian troops in the IT were not regular Confederate troops per the treaties that they signed with the Confederacy confining their military service to the IT. I never stated there were not regular Confederate Indian troops such has those in the Thomas Legion that were regular enlisted troops and fought were ever they were sent.
Your getting quite hysterical in terms of the simple point that I am making.
Leftyhunter

Not sure how.....your points are irrelevant nonsense, whether co-belligerents or bound to treaty to the CS, the Indian troops in fact served the CS as much as other soldier in the CW served the Union or the CS..........its not that hard to recognize their service, as they fought and died as any other soldiers.

As far as hysterical, I've read several books on the subject and none have tried to belittle their service or claimed they didn't serve the CSA.
 
Last edited:
If your completely unaware many brigades during the CW were understrength, perhaps you need to go back to reading a bit more. As it would suggest your not all that well read then, as you seem fond of saying. We will wait for you catch up.........maybe next year you can be up to speed. Or would think you'd know by the time Watie was promoted, the dept was in shambles and many regt were understrength, which would also make brigades understrength

Also you seemed to miss the question.....if their was 178.000 USCT, what battles did they participate in Brigade strength? If they were never grouped and fought in brigade strength, why would expect so of 10k. when it didn't happen with 175k.......

Not to mention CSA Indians did fight in Brigade Strength at Honey Springs under Cooper as Watie was still a Col at the time.

So despite your irrelevant comparisons, your even wrong in your statement they never fought as a brigade.
I merely asked for examples of large scale Confederate Indian troops being used in the IT . The battle of Honey Springs is a valid example. However 6k Confederate troops mostly Indian lost to 3k Union troops also mostly Indian. The fact that the Confederate Indian troops were poorly equipped says something about how valuable the Confederacy thought they were. Granted it's a good example but the fact that they list in open battle also reflects the low value the Confederacy attached to them.
Leftyhunter
 
Not sure how.....your points are irrelevant nonsense, whether co-belligerents or bound to treaty to the CS, the Indian troops in fact served the CS as much as other soldier in the CW served the Union or the CS..........its not that hard to recognize their service, as they fought and died as any other soldiers.

As far as hysterical, I've read several books on the subject and none have tried to belittle their service or claimed they didn't serve the CSA.
No you're getting a simple point. Confederate or Union soldiers go where they are sent . They are not confined to any geographical location. If you actually studied history you would know that the Missouri State Militia absolutely fought in other states especially Arkansas. If you actually studied history you would know that the Indiana Legion crossed into Kentucky from time to time so no even Union State Militias were not always confined to their home states.
Don't worry I am very patient and will try to teach you real history for free.
Leftyhunter
 
I merely asked for examples of large scale Confederate Indian troops being used in the IT . The battle of Honey Springs is a valid example. However 6k Confederate troops mostly Indian lost to 3k Union troops also mostly Indian. The fact that the Confederate Indian troops were poorly equipped says something about how valuable the Confederacy thought they were. Granted it's a good example but the fact that they list in open battle also reflects the low value the Confederacy attached to them.
Leftyhunter

Its amazing how little you apparently know about the threatre...…….I have threads that show white troops being poorly equipped., to the point of large numbers not being armed at all.........no it shows simply how poorly equipped the theatre was.
 
No you're getting a simple point. Confederate or Union soldiers go where they are sent . They are not confined to any geographical location. If you actually studied history you would know that the Missouri State Militia absolutely fought in other states especially Arkansas. If you actually studied history you would know that the Indiana Legion crossed into Kentucky from time to time so no even Union State Militias were not always confined to their home states.
Don't worry I am very patient and will try to teach you real history for free.
Leftyhunter

So your sarcastic as usual when proven wrong, nothing new here. If you cant be honest or show respect to people who are patient enough to correct your nonsense, you probally should remain quiet.
Your not teaching me anything when you admit some states were confined to within their states, you just showing you are slowing learning to repeat my truths rather then the nonsense you orginally spouted, I'm proud of you, you may actually become knowledgeable at some point..…...

If YOU had actually studied history, you would know these things before I point them out to you...… Unfortunately your just repeatedly saying "if you had studied history" .....doesnt make up for your rather apparent lack of study..........just as you now admit they were in brigade strength at Honey Springs after you falsely stated they never were, learn to be a little more civil and you may continue to learn

I could say the same nonsense such as "If you had actually flew a jet fighter in combat".........…doesn't mean I have, its just another disingenuous tactic of yours.......because almost every time you throw it out there, you then go to then say something that clearly shows you studied squat.

BTW surely you realize the MSM would not be comparable to most states....If you had actually studied history...........
 
Last edited:
So therefore you agree it's very hypocritical of present day pro Confederate posters to bad mouth federal Indian policy of the Nineteenth Century. I am glad we are on the same page.

Leftyhunter

Lefty, Lefty, I am not going to any bad-mouth any poster here no matter what his or her proclivity. What I will say is that I regard it the height of hypocrisy for any poster to wax nearly hysterical over the plight of the nineteenth-century black man by mostly Southern white men and passed off the even worse plight of the red man at the hands of the US government.
 
The Republican platform was not "Equality," but "Anti-slavery." That was a big step in the right direction, but certainly didn't go all the way.

"Racial equality" was the pipe-dream of Thad Stevens, and a few hundred other white guys, but it never characterized the Republican party as a whole.

Republicans and Democrats were both "White Man's Economic Parties."

More than a Few here reflect the Republican Party as the Radical Republican Idea. 99% of us today hold the views of the Radical Republicans.

Fact is, Republicans had no desire to touch Slavery, Where it Existed. Were Anti-Slavery, Anti-Southern and Anti-Non White. Didn’t want to live with Blacks, and had to remove the Indians during this period to fulfill their White Dream.

And yes, the Country advanced in Steps.
 
Last edited:
Lefty, Lefty, I am not going to any bad-mouth any poster here no matter what his or her proclivity. What I will say is that I regard it the height of hypocrisy for any poster to wax nearly hysterical over the plight of the nineteenth-century black man by mostly Southern white men and passed off the even worse plight of the red man at the hands of the US government.
As long as we keep in mind that it is 21st Century pro Confederate not Nineteenth Century Southern whites who had any problems whatsoever with federal Indian policy. Also that the Confederacy made absolutely no concerted effort to effectively arm their Indian allies.
Leftyhunter
 
***Posted as Moderator***
The topic is "the last Confederate troops to surrender were-native-American".
Please stay on topic and avoid personal argument!
 
Back
Top