Author Topic: Vote Now (Read 3623 times)

subdjoe · « **Reply #30 on:** September 22, 2011, 07:16:35 PM »

Thank you. I do try to dig into things some. It helps that I'm active in several fora and have people who send me links to things of interest. Fascinating and pivotal time for our Republic.

No idea why the Cherokee Rifles were so brutal towards blacks, unless there was still some hard feelings about the, I think it was 1842, fairly minor black slave revolt against some Cherokee slave holders.

Quote from: sidewinder319 on September 22, 2011, 04:57:05 PM

Subdjo, Thx for the up date. You seem to really be well informed on the Civil War. I would like to know why the Cherokee killed all the blacks they encountered? I am sure there is some reason for this. I tried looking this up but only found a reference to Ft. Pillow[I think not sure].

williamlayton · « **Reply #31 on:** September 23, 2011, 12:58:02 AM »

Humans are strange folks.
Every race, creed, color, people have a need to feel superior and they always pick on the weakest to feel supreior over. It gives them reason to feel more than adequate.
This includes households and schools.
Blessings

Dixiejack · « **Reply #32 on:** September 23, 2011, 06:12:10 AM »

Subdjoe, I agree with you 100%. It seems that when someone write about POW atrocities, that Andersonville is in the forefront and never an explanation why. Plenty of statistics are given, but never any causes. Our Southern soldiers suffered dysentery, hunger, and other diseases associated with filth. Lack of food and clothing was another problem because the supplies lines were cut off by Northern troops and also there was a lack of local supplies. Everyone in the area was starving, not just prisoners.

I have read about some of the POW camps run by the Union Army and much pain and suffering was inflicted on Southern POW's by the Northern trained prison guards. That was another issue, trained vs. untrained guards. I could go on and on, and this could be a sub topic on its own.

Dixiejack · « **Reply #33 on:** September 23, 2011, 06:55:40 AM »

Whoa!! I thought this thread was about honest discourse among like minded people who have come together to offer up historic information and personal opinions on a topic of common interest. I don't know how the rest of you feel but I would like to keep it that way and not get drawn into a personal verbal attack upon a member (who I consider very interesting to communicate with, whether I agree with him or not) by another member.

Ga. windbreak, perhaps you have something of historical value to contribute to this thread.

Dixiejack · « **Reply #34 on:** September 23, 2011, 07:14:11 AM »

I have only heard of a few isolated cases where black slaves were killed by the Cherokee and it involved slaves participating in "uprisings" trying to flee to freedom. I sure that were many cases of Indians killing blacks.

Although the illegal appropriating of land owned by Native American farmers and businessmen and the relocating of them started around 1775 and continued to around 1840 (in Georgia) I wonder what direct bearing this had on the cause and beginning of the Civil War since the relocation of Indians to the West started approximately 85 years before the Civil War started.

reliquary · « **Reply #35 on:** September 23, 2011, 03:33:29 PM »

Sidewinder319-

The Fort Pillow massacre was done by troops under Nathan Bedford Forrest, not Cherokees.

subdjoe · « **Reply #36 on:** September 23, 2011, 04:40:05 PM »

Quote from: reliquary on September 23, 2011, 03:33:29 PM

Sidewinder319-

The Fort Pillow massacre was done by troops under Nathan Bedford Forrest, not Cherokees.

And a federal military inquest into Ft. Pillow exonerated Forrest. The "massacre" was nothing more than the Confederate troops pursuing an enemy which had not struck its colors, not surrendered, in fact the officer commanding had sent a message that they would not surrender, and had merely abandoned the fort but continued fighting.

Quote

Second Lieutenant Daniel Van Hom of the colored artillery regiment put it in his report, "there never was a surrender of the fort." Instead, as Colonel Barteau described the situation in an interview published in 1884, "they made a wild, crazy, scattering fight. They acted like a crowd of drunken men. They would at one moment yield and throw down their guns, and then would rush again to arms, seize their guns and renew the fire. If one squad was left as prisoners ... it was soon discovered that they could not be trusted as having surrendered, for taking the first opportunity they would break loose again and engage in the contest. Some of our men were killed by negroes who had once surrendered.

Given that, wouldn't you be suspicious of any federal surrendering?

sidewinder319 · « **Reply #37 on:** September 23, 2011, 04:50:32 PM »

Thanks Subdjoe very good makes sense. I have a hard time following these Civil War forums. The things turn into name calling and ranting. It would be nice to have a forum with Civil War information like the Cherokee involvement. I am sure this is not well known.

subdjoe · « **Reply #38 on:** September 23, 2011, 05:47:11 PM »

Quote from: sidewinder319 on September 23, 2011, 04:50:32 PM

Thanks Subdjoe very good makes sense. I have a hard time following these Civil War forums. The things turn into name calling and ranting. It would be nice to have a forum with Civil War information like the Cherokee involvement. I am sure this is not well known.

My pleasure. A lot of the contributions by Indians to the War are, well, not ignored so much as unknown. My knowledge and understanding them are nowhere near what they should should be. But, I'm sllllooooowly getting there. But, with a few names and the internet it will just take a little time to get at least an overview.

Here is one lead: A Guide to Cherokee Confederate
Military Units, 1861 - 1865

Gets us started with some names, and a nice short bibliography.

For quick overviews see also:

http://encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=6392

http://digital.library.okstate.edu/encyclopedia/entries/F/FI008.html

http://www.nps.gov/fosc/historyculture/forgotten-warriors.htm

williamlayton · « **Reply #39 on:** September 24, 2011, 03:19:20 AM »

The discussion on "Frustration" is the best we have had here in a long time--my idea of a discussion. This one has turned into a good one also---I am not much of one on rules of discussion. In a coffee conversation, people aare allowed a great deal of liberty to wander off--if you will notice it does tend to come back too--if it really ever left--the topic of convesation.
Blessings

sidewinder319 · « **Reply #40 on:** September 24, 2011, 07:35:29 AM »

Subdjo, very interesting references you posted. I did not know that the NDNs joined the Union Army and led a Sherman like raid across Oklahoma laying waste to all the other NDNs. The Trail of Blood on Ice? Never heard of this before. The NDNs seemed to be more interested in inter-tribal war fare changing sides depending on supplies available. Thx again for your insight on this issue.

subdjoe · « **Reply #41 on:** September 24, 2011, 09:57:34 AM »

Quote from: sidewinder319 on September 24, 2011, 07:35:29 AM

Subdjo, very interesting references you posted. I did not know that the NDNs joined the Union Army and led a Sherman like raid across Oklahoma laying waste to all the other NDNs. The Trail of Blood on Ice? Never heard of this before. The NDNs seemed to be more interested in inter-tribal war fare changing sides depending on supplies available. Thx again for your insight on this issue.

Took me a bit to catch on to the NDN thing...where the heck did that come from?

Indians fought on both sides. Sometimes a group would change sides in the middle of a battle (I'd need to do some digging to find my references to that, came across two references to it happening about 5 years, and three hard drives, ago). And yes, inter- and intra- tribal rivalries and feuds heavily influenced which white mans government they would follow.

sidewinder319 · « **Reply #42 on:** September 25, 2011, 06:15:46 AM »

It came from your referance "The Forgotten Warriors".

subdjoe · « **Reply #43 on:** September 25, 2011, 07:38:45 AM »

Quote from: sidewinder319 on September 25, 2011, 06:15:46 AM

It came from your referance "The Forgotten Warriors".

Odd, because you used it in Reply 24 on this thread, before I chimed in. I've since noticed it in other places. Wonder what the origin of using NDN instead of Indian is.

For the record, the area I live in has a lot of Pomos and Miwoks. None that I know have any problem at all with the term "Indian." And pretty much universally hate the phrase "Native American."

Spirithawk · « **Reply #44 on:** September 25, 2011, 08:19:45 AM »

Many accept the term "Indian", simply because it has been ingrained into them to do so, but resent being confused with those from India. "Native American" applies to anyone born in America regardless of race. In most Nations there is a growing wish to simply being refered to by their true names. Such as;

Cherokee = Tsalagi or Ani Yunwiya, Ani Kituhwagi
Apache = Ndee'
Choctaw = Chataw
Navaho = Dinee'e
Comanche = Numinu

Even the English names attributed to them is preferable to the blanket terms Indian or Native American. For instance you might say a person is Cherokee, or Tsalagi rather than the blanket term "Indian" or "Native American" which are simply labels not nationalities.

sidewinder319 · « **Reply #45 on:** September 25, 2011, 06:00:06 PM »

The term First Nations is used in Canada. It is said that families that go back in America five generations most likely share DNA with any number of tribal communites. The bottom line we are all Americans.

My family arrived on these shores in 1640. So when I had the DNA trace done it was no surprise that my DNA showed this relationship.

reliquary · « **Reply #46 on:** September 27, 2011, 10:01:23 AM »

sidewinder319:

Who did your DNA test? I've been thinking about having one done.

sidewinder319 · « **Reply #47 on:** September 27, 2011, 08:14:37 PM »

I used the Ancestry. Com they are a very professional out fit. They are getting the cost down to where it is affordable. There are some real surprises when you get the results. It sure proves that family stories are way off the mark.

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #48 on:** September 28, 2011, 08:11:31 PM »

I was going to recommend ancestry.com too reliquary. Sidewinder is right. They have a professional setup and the only thing it won't do is give you a racial breakdown. I think it shows it, they just won't release it. Everything else is provided though. They have some really good true stories on there where people have shared their story (good or bad). They explain in pretty good detail what you get with each type of test and the cost associated with each.

Happy hunting.

SBG

williamlayton · « **Reply #49 on:** September 30, 2011, 03:40:57 AM »

Are you sure that DNA can match all of the racial data from every source?
Blessings

subdjoe · « **Reply #50 on:** September 30, 2011, 08:19:07 AM »

A question for William.

Will you, no matter the outcome of your poll, live up to your promise of a year or more ago (don't recall exactly when you made your come back post) to just be here long enough to make one or two points then leave. Or will you use a vote in favor of your staying as a justification to back out of the promise you made when you were allowed back onto this sub-forum?

williamlayton · « **Reply #51 on:** September 30, 2011, 08:55:57 AM »

Can't never tell Joe.
It doesn't seem as thought that many people mind if I stay--what is your gripe?
Blessings

subdjoe · « **Reply #52 on:** September 30, 2011, 09:55:37 AM »

Quote from: williamlayton on September 30, 2011, 08:55:57 AM

Can't never tell Joe.
It doesn't seem as thought that many people mind if I stay--what is your gripe?
Blessings

No gripe. Got to pondering this poll and its purpose. Which got me to thinking about what little I know of your history on this sub-forum. Which got me to considering what you said in your come back post.

Just wondering if you are a man of your word or not.

williamlayton · « **Reply #53 on:** September 30, 2011, 12:17:16 PM »

The poll was just what it says it was for.
Yes--I am a man of my word but I changed my mind.
Subdeacon, The scriptures tell us to follow our hearts and to be led by the Spirit.
Blessings

subdjoe · « **Reply #54 on:** September 30, 2011, 01:11:01 PM »

In other words, you lied. But thank you for making who you are clear. "I'm a man of my word but I changed my mind."

If you are going to throw references from Scripture, how about "Let your yea be yea and your nay,nay."

williamlayton · « **Reply #55 on:** September 30, 2011, 08:02:26 PM »

You have a right to your opinion.
Blessings

Spirithawk · « **Reply #56 on:** October 01, 2011, 08:51:53 AM »

I figure I've got far too many faults of my own to be pointing out those of others.

reliquary · « **Reply #57 on:** October 01, 2011, 12:00:13 PM »

Being new to the forum and somewhat new to GBO, I don't have a clue as to the past interactions between Williamlayton and any or all of y'all. And I don't really want to know, honestly. What I've discovered is that I enjoy his postings on all the fora that I've visited.

My opinion is that he should be allowed, even welcomed, back to the discussions. My favorite "Book" talks a lot about forgiveness and tolerance. I could quote a few of them if y'all have forgotten them.

This is not a paid endorsement. Just my $.02..... =)

pastorp · « **Reply #58 on:** October 01, 2011, 02:27:14 PM »

To be honest I never knew he left or promised to leave.

Quite frankly I only visit here from time to time and don't consider myself a regular, because a lot of the threads are just too painfull and bring up bad feelings from my youth.
However I have noticed one thing about William is he like to stir up things to get the discussion going. And he does the same thing everywhere. I'm not sure thats a bad thing or done with malice.

Regards,

Spirithawk · « **Reply #59 on:** October 01, 2011, 02:41:23 PM »

If everybody agreed on everything it would get real boring real fast wouldn't it? Nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone as long as it's kept civil ( no pun intended). Name calling, and cheap shots, just makes the person doing so look wrong even if their basic argumment is right. More than that, it makes them seem juvenile at best.

Poll

An Open Chance to Voice Opinion.

Author Topic: Vote Now (Read 3623 times)