Comments on: The Long, Bitter Trail (I) http://expostfacto.historytools.org/the-long-bitter-trail-i/ Unsolicited Historical Commentary Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:13:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Kyle Krauss http://expostfacto.historytools.org/the-long-bitter-trail-i/#comment-159 Kyle Krauss Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:37:58 +0000 http://expostfacto.historytools.org/the-long-bitter-trail-i/#comment-159 I thought the point made by Mr. Nichols equating slavery in the South to owning a car was a good one in that it was seen as normal or even necessary there - we must keep that in mind when looking back and not judge those who owned slaves too harshly. Actually, owning slaves in the South is actaully very much like owning a horse today. You have to make sure it's fed and cared for and all, but the horse does not see the benefits of its labor. Perhaps in the future, it will be considered wrong to own a horse as some people do today, but are they REALLY bad people? I don't think so. In the same way, we can't judge Ross the way we would someone holding slaves today. I thought the point made by Mr. Nichols equating slavery in the South to owning a car was a good one in that it was seen as normal or even necessary there - we must keep that in mind when looking back and not judge those who owned slaves too harshly.

Actually, owning slaves in the South is actaully very much like owning a horse today. You have to make sure it’s fed and cared for and all, but the horse does not see the benefits of its labor. Perhaps in the future, it will be considered wrong to own a horse as some people do today, but are they REALLY bad people? I don’t think so.

In the same way, we can’t judge Ross the way we would someone holding slaves today.

]]> By: Thomas http://expostfacto.historytools.org/the-long-bitter-trail-i/#comment-157 Thomas Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:45:08 +0000 http://expostfacto.historytools.org/the-long-bitter-trail-i/#comment-157 Everything that I read in this chapter was very interesting, although it was not completely new to me. Throughout this time, like Wallace states the white people were truing to “civilize” the Natives to there standards. Although the Natives did not completely turn away from their culture, they adapted new ways of thinking, as did the whites at this time. It is like a diffusion of cultures. Some like Ross may have wanted that life of a slave owner knowing the power it gave whites and sought to make it as complete as possible. Although he did own slaves like Washington and Jefferson, I do not believe Ross would have thought of himself as a minority like the Blacks of this time. He I believe would have thought of them as outsiders as well, not seeing them of the same level as Natives. Everything that I read in this chapter was very interesting, although it was not completely new to me. Throughout this time, like Wallace states the white people were truing to “civilize” the Natives to there standards. Although the Natives did not completely turn away from their culture, they adapted new ways of thinking, as did the whites at this time. It is like a diffusion of cultures. Some like Ross may have wanted that life of a slave owner knowing the power it gave whites and sought to make it as complete as possible. Although he did own slaves like Washington and Jefferson, I do not believe Ross would have thought of himself as a minority like the Blacks of this time. He I believe would have thought of them as outsiders as well, not seeing them of the same level as Natives.

]]> By: David Voelker http://expostfacto.historytools.org/the-long-bitter-trail-i/#comment-151 David Voelker Mon, 19 Mar 2007 23:08:25 +0000 http://expostfacto.historytools.org/the-long-bitter-trail-i/#comment-151 Two things about this discussion especially interest me. First, there is the use of the word "civilized." It's worth noting that most of you are using this label in a very European way. (In other words, there is no universal standard of "civilization.) White Americans referred to the Cherokee as one of the "civilized tribes" precisely because they had assimilated a number of white practices. Second, I see a lot of surprise about the fact that Ross (and other Cherokee) owned slaves. Why should this be so surprising or especially hypocritical? Why expect Ross to hold to a higher standard? (I think that Amanda makes a nice point in this regard about Jefferson and Washington.) Two things about this discussion especially interest me. First, there is the use of the word “civilized.” It’s worth noting that most of you are using this label in a very European way. (In other words, there is no universal standard of “civilization.) White Americans referred to the Cherokee as one of the “civilized tribes” precisely because they had assimilated a number of white practices.

Second, I see a lot of surprise about the fact that Ross (and other Cherokee) owned slaves. Why should this be so surprising or especially hypocritical? Why expect Ross to hold to a higher standard? (I think that Amanda makes a nice point in this regard about Jefferson and Washington.)

]]> By: Amanda Crump http://expostfacto.historytools.org/the-long-bitter-trail-i/#comment-149 Amanda Crump Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:42:39 +0000 http://expostfacto.historytools.org/the-long-bitter-trail-i/#comment-149 The description of the Cherokee wasn't surprising to me because of other classes that I've taken that have discussed how their lives were, in many ways, more civilized then the Europeans. What surprised me was that Ross, basically a self-proclaimed Indian (he was less than a quarter Cherokee since his mother was only quarter Cherokee), was a slave owner. That makes him really hypocritical by fighting for Native American rights but owning African American's as slaves. Although, when you think about it, it's not that much different from Washington or Jefferson owning slaves but not really agreeing with the concept. It would be interesting to see what his people, the Cherokee, or even any of his critics thought about him owning slaves and running a plantation. The description of the Cherokee wasn’t surprising to me because of other classes that I’ve taken that have discussed how their lives were, in many ways, more civilized then the Europeans. What surprised me was that Ross, basically a self-proclaimed Indian (he was less than a quarter Cherokee since his mother was only quarter Cherokee), was a slave owner. That makes him really hypocritical by fighting for Native American rights but owning African American’s as slaves. Although, when you think about it, it’s not that much different from Washington or Jefferson owning slaves but not really agreeing with the concept. It would be interesting to see what his people, the Cherokee, or even any of his critics thought about him owning slaves and running a plantation.

]]> By: Jessica http://expostfacto.historytools.org/the-long-bitter-trail-i/#comment-148 Jessica Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:24:17 +0000 http://expostfacto.historytools.org/the-long-bitter-trail-i/#comment-148 Wallaces description of the Cherokee is totally different than what I learned growing up regarding American Indians. The Cherokee seemed to be moree civilized and were not just about hunting, but theirmain sorces of food were from agriculture. When Wallace started describing John Ross and how he owned a plantation with slaves and some of the other Indians as well. Another aspect of the Indians I did not know about was the missionary academies and training schools for artisians. Wallaces description of the Cherokee is totally different than what I learned growing up regarding American Indians. The Cherokee seemed to be moree civilized and were not just about hunting, but theirmain sorces of food were from agriculture. When Wallace started describing John Ross and how he owned a plantation with slaves and some of the other Indians as well. Another aspect of the Indians I did not know about was the missionary academies and training schools for artisians.

]]> By: Scott T Nichols http://expostfacto.historytools.org/the-long-bitter-trail-i/#comment-130 Scott T Nichols Sat, 17 Mar 2007 15:23:19 +0000 http://expostfacto.historytools.org/the-long-bitter-trail-i/#comment-130 Cherokee society before the introduction of Europeans seemed more civilized and cultured than that of European societies. They lived in larger urbanized areas than other tribes with more elaborate ceremonies and architecture.(16) The men and the women of the tribes both worked hard in the fields to produce crops not only for their own towns but those adjacent to them. This differs from the nomadic buffalo hunting, tent living Indians that I grew up learning about in school. This being the lifestyle of the tribes west of the Mississippi was pretty much the whole view of Native Americans from coast to coast through out my young life. It is easy to see that Europeans caused problems for the Indians as soon as contact was made because a). language barriers (with the thousands of different tribes there were many languages among these tribes that differed let alone the difference of English and Native Language) b). differences in Indian cultures from region to region of Northern America c). new diseases introduced to Native Americans d). technologies and (although some were just improvements of the Natives already existing technologies, like axes and knives the introduction of guns would change the lifestyle of Indians)alcohol; all these thrown together changed the simlple lives of Indians who believed that they were put on Earth for Earth and they were to treat it well and clashed with the Europen belief that God put the Earth here for mankind. Soon European greed for money and land would mark the beginning of Indian removal. This would also be the case for Americans (Europeans) after the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. The Inians had lands that were rich for cotton and tabacco and years of war against indians and belief that they were not as civilized as Europeans fueled the hate and justified their removal. Men like Ross were a threat to this removal. He believed that Indians were just as capable of advancing economicaly and agriculturaly. He didn't find it necessary for the Indians to be removed from their lands. This would not work well with the white European man's greed for power and control over the lands and the cash crops it would produce. It also does not surpurise me that Ross owned slaves. Slavery was so intertwined into American culture at this time and lets not forget that he lived in the South so large plantation owners owning a slave would be as natural as people owning a car today. Cherokee society before the introduction of Europeans seemed more civilized and cultured than that of European societies. They lived in larger urbanized areas than other tribes with more elaborate ceremonies and architecture.(16) The men and the women of the tribes both worked hard in the fields to produce crops not only for their own towns but those adjacent to them. This differs from the nomadic buffalo hunting, tent living Indians that I grew up learning about in school. This being the lifestyle of the tribes west of the Mississippi was pretty much the whole view of Native Americans from coast to coast through out my young life. It is easy to see that Europeans caused problems for the Indians as soon as contact was made because a). language barriers (with the thousands of different tribes there were many languages among these tribes that differed let alone the difference of English and Native Language) b). differences in Indian cultures from region to region of Northern America c). new diseases introduced to Native Americans d). technologies and (although some were just improvements of the Natives already existing technologies, like axes and knives the introduction of guns would change the lifestyle of Indians)alcohol; all these thrown together changed the simlple lives of Indians who believed that they were put on Earth for Earth and they were to treat it well and clashed with the Europen belief that God put the Earth here for mankind. Soon European greed for money and land would mark the beginning of Indian removal. This would also be the case for Americans (Europeans) after the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. The Inians had lands that were rich for cotton and tabacco and years of war against indians and belief that they were not as civilized as Europeans fueled the hate and justified their removal. Men like Ross were a threat to this removal. He believed that Indians were just as capable of advancing economicaly and agriculturaly. He didn’t find it necessary for the Indians to be removed from their lands. This would not work well with the white European man’s greed for power and control over the lands and the cash crops it would produce. It also does not surpurise me that Ross owned slaves. Slavery was so intertwined into American culture at this time and lets not forget that he lived in the South so large plantation owners owning a slave would be as natural as people owning a car today.

]]> By: djvoelker http://expostfacto.historytools.org/the-long-bitter-trail-i/#comment-110 djvoelker Tue, 13 Mar 2007 18:23:00 +0000 http://expostfacto.historytools.org/the-long-bitter-trail-i/#comment-110 Roxanne: I assume that you meant Ross, rather than Wallace. --DV Roxanne: I assume that you meant Ross, rather than Wallace. –DV

]]> By: Roxanne http://expostfacto.historytools.org/the-long-bitter-trail-i/#comment-109 Roxanne Tue, 13 Mar 2007 16:40:11 +0000 http://expostfacto.historytools.org/the-long-bitter-trail-i/#comment-109 I know that Wallace was only half Cherokee but it still surprised me that he ended up a slave owner with a plantation. With the indian removal going on I wouldn't have thought that someone who outrightly claims to be indian and having his own persecutions, would take on the role of a rich white landowner and buy a plantation with slaves. I guess this could be a case that he was too white to be indian but too indian to be white so he had to find some sort of middle ground for himself to be able to lead a happy life. I know that Wallace was only half Cherokee but it still surprised me that he ended up a slave owner with a plantation. With the indian removal going on I wouldn’t have thought that someone who outrightly claims to be indian and having his own persecutions, would take on the role of a rich white landowner and buy a plantation with slaves. I guess this could be a case that he was too white to be indian but too indian to be white so he had to find some sort of middle ground for himself to be able to lead a happy life.

]]>