|
Post by Paul Sylvain on Apr 2, 2011 18:59:11 GMT -5
His opposition to and vote against the Indian Removal Act (think "Trail of Tears") did not sit well with Jackson and his supporters. The policy was ultimately pursued despite the Supreme Court ruling against the measure.
It's hard to deny that Crockett was willing to stake his political future on land rights issues, both those of the people in Tennessee and for the First Peoples (American Indians, if you prefer). I think he had respect for the Native peoples and understood then, as many do today, that our government's treatment of the Native peoples was just flat-out wrong. He stood his ground and it cost him in the end.
I do agree with you on one thing. The First Peoples might have been viewed as a threat, and rightly so, but to expansionism -- that whole "manifest destiny" thing. I don't want to carry on beyond that, because it will take this thread miles away from a "what if" discussion about Crockett. Was he a "great friend" of them? Hard to say, but he certainly respected them and fought for them in Congress. In my book, he was.
Paul
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 2, 2011 20:52:02 GMT -5
Jim,
A small clarification I think should be made. The headright grant that Crockett described was unrelated to military service. It was issued to those who arrived before March 2, 1836. Heads of families received one league (4,428 acres) and one labor (177.1 acres), while single men received 1/3 league (1,476.1 acres). Military service was not a prerequisite for land to be granted.
Crockett came without his family and would have been granted the 1/3 league if he had survived. That of course would be in addition to the 320+ acres of land issued to him as a bounty grant for the 3+ months of service he would have accrued from January to April.
I think it is clear that Crockett was looking for prosperity when he entered Texas, the point being that prosperity could potentially be gained without having to volunteer for military duty.
Fair enough, John, and thanks for the clarification about the claims amounts. I do think though, that Crockett's involvement in the Texas Rev was motivated by a desire for land more than any political aspirations or ideological stance. Of course, if the Texians lost the war, Crockett would have been out of luck. I found it interesting that in a late nineteenth century interview with Crockett's daughter Matilda, she claimed the family had no idea Crockett was going to join the army when he left for Texas. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Jim Boylston on Apr 2, 2011 21:08:14 GMT -5
Well, he put his career on the line when he voted against Jackson's removal act. He knew the folks back home wouldn't back his decision, and he was right. His vote was partially responsible for his third term election defeat. Crockett's pretty clear in his speeches that he thought the Indians were being mistreated. (I'm on the road again, but I'm sure Allen could provide some pertinent quotes.) He also had a correspondence with John Ross, who was very appreciative over Crockett's defense of the Cherokee. Unfortunately, we've only located one letter of this exchange (Ross to Crockett). I've also always found Crockett's autobiographical accounts of incidents during the Creek War to be haunting. I think they haunted Crockett, too. Crockett's grandparents were killed in an Indian raid, but the violence he describes in the "Narrative," retribution for just those types of murders, some might argue, sickens him. He sees the Indians as people and feels compassion. I don't think he idealized the Indians. He said that he didn't have a problem with the Indians being relocated, but insisted that treaties be honored and that the tribes must agree with any relocation terms. He also argued that Jackson was asking for federal funding for the program but wasn't being held accountable for the money.
Jim
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 2, 2011 21:46:22 GMT -5
We must be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking of "Indians" as a single group. Remember that there were hundreds of different native groups living on this continent for thousands of years before Europeans arrived. In that time, and afterward, native tribes fought among themselves, enslaved one another, pushed each other off of desirable land, fought long wars (much as their European counterparts had been doing among themselves) and continued to do so even while fighting the whites. Crockett knew many of the Indian groups in his area (Cherokee, Chickasaw and perhaps others). He both fought against and defended Indians. He was much ahead of his time and place in being able to distinguish between hostile Indians, who were a threat (and not only to whites, but often to other Indians as well), and those who were not. Cherokees fought alongside Crockett during the Creek War and so did some Creeks, who did not go along with the hostile Creeks, which made their forced removal even more unjust.
This pattern continued for as long as the Indian wars went on -- for centuries. The Crow were eager to scout and fight for the U.S. cavalry because the Sioux had pushed them off their land and had been their enemies for many years. I am now reading a book called "The Comanche Empire," which details (perhaps a bit too much) the inter-tribal warfare, brutality, enslavement, etc. in the southwest from before the time of the Spanish colonists and well beyond. Much the same went on in the northeast, where the Iroquois empire was not liked by any number of tribes who found themselves under its thumb.
It is quite possible that Crockett would have joined in the fight against the Comanche in Texas, had he lived, just as he had fought the hostile Creeks years earlier. It is to Crockett's credit that he did not condemn or demonize all Indians, as many (or most) of his contemporaries did, but judged them as he judged any other people.
As for quotes, a passage from the speech Crockett gave on the floor of Congress in opposition to Jackson's brutal Indian Removal Bill (which only passed the House by a mere 3 votes!), illustrates what I'm trying to say:
"Mr. C. said that four counties of his district bordered on the Chickasaw Country. He knew many of their tribe; and nothing should ever induce him to vote to drive them west of the Mississippi. He did not know what sort of a country it was in which they were to be settled. He would willingly appropriate money in order to send proper persons to examine the country. And when this was done, and a fair and free treaty made with the tribes, if they were desirous of removing, he would vote an appropriation of any sum necessary; but till this had been done, he would not vote one cent. . . . No man could be more willing to see them remove than he was, if it could be done in a manner agreeable to themselves; but not otherwise. He knew personally that a part of the tribe of the Cherokees were unwilling to go."
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 3, 2011 15:39:48 GMT -5
If Crockett had survived and ended up in Texas, it woud have been interesting to see where he would have settled...although my thought is that he would have been up in north Texas black land prairie area...
Which would have made him somewhat neighboors with the Choctaw, Chickasaw and Cherokees, but still a little to close to the Comanches for comfort...
Crockett may not have supported Lamar's explusion of the East Texas tribes...but I would have to agree he would have been one of the first to take up arms against the Comanches', if they raided.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 3, 2011 16:26:03 GMT -5
Quite possible, Kevin. I don't think Crockett would have hesitated to fight a dangerous enemy, while quite possibly renewing friendships with the other tribes from "back home." Of course, he wasn't getting any younger and may not have been involved in fighting a decade or so after the Texas Revolution.
One of these days I need to find a good source of info on the relations between the southeastern tribes, who were kicked off their land by Jackson and forced west to the areas you're describing, and the Comanche. I'm still reading that book, but I think the Comanche remained a serious threat to everyone well into the Texas Republic period. I think Houston was trying to find a way to make peace with them (without much luck, IIRC). I'm wondering if they raided the transplanted southeastern tribes too. When Crockett opposed Indian Removal, this was one of his concerns; that no one had really looked into the places where they'd be relocated. I recall reading some information discussed at that time which described the hostile tribes west of the Mississippi, who were likely to be hostile to the southeastern tribes if they relocated there.
Allen
|
|
|
Post by Hiram on Apr 3, 2011 18:05:04 GMT -5
Quite possible, Kevin. I don't think Crockett would have hesitated to fight a dangerous enemy.... With Crockett surviving the revolution, he would have knowledge of both the Cordova Rebellion in 1838, and the destruction of the Manuel Flores expedition and the subsequent discovery of the Manuel Flores' letter in 1839. Both episodes implicated the Cherokees in a proposed alliance with the Mexican government and led to the 1839 war, the battle of the Neches, and the virtual end to Indian hostilities in the settled portions of East Texas.
We're all on relatively thin ice here (dealing as we are in "alternative history"), but as Allen said, "Crockett would not have hesitated to fight a dangerous enemy." I also agree with Allen's point that American Indians are widely divergent. I agree to the level that even Indians of the same tribe can be different. The Cherokees of Tennessee can be different in their attitudes and philosophies than the Cherokees of Texas, particularly when being courted by the Mexican government with promises of getting their rightful lands back and exterminating the Anglos of East Texas.
So yes, I can envision Crockett supporting the Cherokee War of 1839, in spite of his stance on the Indian Removal Act of 1830.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 3, 2011 19:52:20 GMT -5
One of these days I need to find a good source of info on the relations between the southeastern tribes, who were kicked off their land by Jackson and forced west to the areas you're describing, and the Comanche. Have you looked into any of Grant Foreman's books? They are still a good start. Oh, I very much agree, because we are all assuming that had Crockett survived, the natural course of things would have taken place. I do see your point about the 1839 Cherokee War. If Crockett had made it into the Texas Government, would he have tried to make things better between the Texas Cherokee and the ROT as to help avoid the whole problems that developed? Yet, you and Allen are very correct in the differences between Indian tribes, and in some cases, between different groups of the same tribe. Our Kickapoo here were in two very distinctive different camps-the Vermilion Band got along well with their white neighbors while the Prairie Band did not. Even when they ended up in reservation in Kansas, the Vermilion Band would inform on their Prairie Band, including reporting them for having a celebration when word of Dade's Massacre reach them.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 3, 2011 21:19:45 GMT -5
Oh, I very much agree, because we are all assuming that had Crockett survived, the natural course of things would have taken place. I do see your point about the 1839 Cherokee War. If Crockett had made it into the Texas Government, would he have tried to make things better between the Texas Cherokee and the ROT as to help avoid the whole problems that developed? I not much for speculation, but these seems like scary thoughts. The natural course of Crockett's life if he had survived the Alamo would have probably seen him settle down, possibly go into Texas politics and probably live a long sedate life. The absence of Alamo martyrdom might have ruined his chances of being immortalized in Disney films and the producers could have just picked someone else. Where would Disney and baby-boomer Alamo fans be without Davy's Alamo death?
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on Apr 4, 2011 0:16:46 GMT -5
After reading "1491," and now "The Comanche Empire," as well as earlier reading on the Iroquos confederacy, I have come to the somewhat "shocking" conclusion that the native peoples of the western hemisphere were very much like their counterparts throughout the rest of the world. The major factor in making them "different" is the fact that, until European colonization, they did not know about the Europeans, nor did the Europeans know that these civilizations existed. Once they began to interact, they really behaved much the way different peoples have always behaved toward one another. Unfortunately, the history of, and relationships among the native peoples of America was distorted or just destroyed almost from the outset and their "history" and image was established by their European conquerors. It's only been quite recently (in historic time frames) that it is finally being recovered. Prior to the arrival of Europeans, these civilizations conquered, subjugated, enslaved, befriended, traded with, formed alliances with each other for thousands of years. Some groups were subsumed into other groups, leaving scarcely a trace of their existence. I think that if we studied European, Asian, African or other histories, we would find much the same thing. I hate to dumb it down to this kind of simplicity, because it trivializes the considerable cultural uniqueness of so many groups, which are worth learning about, but people are pretty much people.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Young on Apr 4, 2011 10:14:03 GMT -5
One of the reasons Fort Gibson was maintained was to help keep the peace between the indigenous Osage and the newly arrived Cherokee. Likewise Forts Towson did the same for the Choctaws and Fort Washita was built to do the same for the Chickasaws (who were close to the Comanche and other plains Indians).
It was always kind of ironic when we did living history programs at these sites, people would assume the soldiers were there to protect the settlers from the Indians. In fact, the soldiers were there to protect the newly arrived tribes (settlers) from the indegenous tribes, and in the case of Washita, from the Texans.
|
|
|
Post by Herb on Apr 4, 2011 17:19:03 GMT -5
Quite possible, Kevin. I don't think Crockett would have hesitated to fight a dangerous enemy.... With Crockett surviving the revolution, he would have knowledge of both the Cordova Rebellion in 1838, and the destruction of the Manuel Flores expedition and the subsequent discovery of the Manuel Flores' letter in 1839. Both episodes implicated the Cherokees in a proposed alliance with the Mexican government and led to the 1839 war, the battle of the Neches, and the virtual end to Indian hostilities in the settled portions of East Texas.
We're all on relatively thin ice here (dealing as we are in "alternative history"), but as Allen said, "Crockett would not have hesitated to fight a dangerous enemy." I also agree with Allen's point that American Indians are widely divergent. I agree to the level that even Indians of the same tribe can be different. The Cherokees of Tennessee can be different in their attitudes and philosophies than the Cherokees of Texas, particularly when being courted by the Mexican government with promises of getting their rightful lands back and exterminating the Anglos of East Texas.
So yes, I can envision Crockett supporting the Cherokee War of 1839, in spite of his stance on the Indian Removal Act of 1830.Quite agree with your conclusion, while the Flores' letter generally gets dismissed and swept under the historical rug, what most people ignore is how highly inflamatory it was in 1839. What is also ignored today, is the massacre of a famiily of white settlers in the northwestern present day Cherokee County that preceded the mustering of the Texas Army. Whether, the Cherokee, or the Kickapoo, or Shawnee (roughly colocated with the Cherokee) was responsible is debatable. But the impact on 1839 Texas was not.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 4, 2011 18:43:55 GMT -5
Oh, I very much agree, because we are all assuming that had Crockett survived, the natural course of things would have taken place. I do see your point about the 1839 Cherokee War. If Crockett had made it into the Texas Government, would he have tried to make things better between the Texas Cherokee and the ROT as to help avoid the whole problems that developed? I not much for speculation, but these seems like scary thoughts. The natural course of Crockett's life if he had survived the Alamo would have probably seen him settle down, possibly go into Texas politics and probably live a long sedate life. The absence of Alamo martyrdom might have ruined his chances of being immortalized in Disney films and the producers could have just picked someone else. Where would Disney and baby-boomer Alamo fans be without Davy's Alamo death? In 1952, Uncle Walt wasn't too keen on Davy Crockett for a TV show. Disney suggested frontier characters like Bigfoot Wallace, Paul Bunyon and someone called Windwagon Smith. Disney producer Bill Walsh picked Crockett for their first frontier TV show, which aired in 1954 as Davy Crockett, Indian Fighter and the rest, as they say is movie history.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on Apr 28, 2011 18:19:11 GMT -5
This pre-Disney account of Crockett's death from a Nebraska newspaper might be well-known, but I don't believe I've ever seen it or Crockett's supposed surrender/ demise written in such a heroic manner, at least in a old newspaper.
Nov. 12, 1885 McCook Tribune
General Castrillion took Col. Crockett, who stood alone in an angle of the fort, the barrel of his own shattered gun in his right hand, in his left his huge bowie-knife, dripping with blood. There was a fearful gash across his head and at his feet a cordon of nearly twenty foemen, dead and dying. His captor, who was brave and not cruel, took his silvery-haired prisoner to Santa Anna, who flew into a rage, and at his command a file of soldiers shot down the dauntless Crockett.
|
|
|
Post by mjbrathwaite on Apr 28, 2011 18:47:55 GMT -5
That's a new one for me, too. I presume it didn't name the source of the account.
|
|