Author Topic: ENOUGH!!!!!!! (Read 12271 times)

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #90 on:** October 31, 2008, 04:59:42 PM »

Thanks for the info, Skunk. I'll use one of our southern phrases, "if it hadda been a snake, it woulda bit me". Meaning, I was all on top of it and couldn't see it for looking. I'll give it a try for tomorrow's Tidbit. I guess you would just look for me in the "Started By" column. Thanks for the suggestion and the guidance.

I hope we didn't nearly scare you away, coming back at you the way we did. I like the way you ask questions that have been intelligently thought out. I like your determination to learn. I'm glad to see you taking this topic seriously. We see so many with the attitude you mentioned earlier; "Southerners should quit living in the past." I think you're beginning to see why we never will. You'll begin to see, through your research, and your conversations with us, you can never have a better friend than a Southerner, but you wouldn't want a worse enemy. (I don't mean for having views different from ours, just in general.)

I'll get outta here now and let you catch up on some reading. Looking forward to your thoughts on those two topics in my last post.
I'll see y'all tomorrow on the main floor...

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #91 on:** October 31, 2008, 06:04:02 PM »

Skunk, your analysis of the Davis Resolutions are on the money. But, there are a couple of points I'd like to make here because you may not be aware of them just yet...

1. From the very creation of the United States, the constitution guaranteed the right to property and the protection of that property. When Southerners of the day spoke of slaves, in any context, it was STRICTLY as property, because that's what they were. To them, it was no different than the Gov't. trying to take away their cattle or horses without compensation. It was unconstitutional. It was actually forbidden by the Constitution. Most slave owners actually kept their slave records (births, deaths, medical treatments given, purchases, sales, etc.) in the same record books as their livestock. ( A way to keep up with inventory.) The moral implications were certainly there, especially on the part of Southerners, but I already have that setup as a TIDBIT topic for later, so I won't go into detail here, except to say that almost every white man in America during that time (North AND South) felt the same way towards slaves being treated as property. This is in part proven by the Senate having no problem passing all 6 of Davis's Resolutions. Their treatment will be a big part of that topic. The wait will be worth it.

2. You have to realize that the Fugitive Slave laws of 1793 & 1850 were Federal Laws and over half the country had slaves. At the time of the Revolutionary War, EVERY state had slaves. The Government had no choice but to enforce the laws they passed, which took a 2/3 vote to be passed. Just 11 years prior to the War (1850), the Fed renewed and revised that law.

Skunk · « **Reply #92 on:** October 31, 2008, 06:58:52 PM »

Good points SBG.

I'm also finding out that not every Northern State was completely in support the war. Here is a copy and paste taken from a page at the Wisconsin Historical Society website. It doesn't address any real issue about slavery, but it does sort of demonstrate what many of the immigrants, especially the Germans, thought about Lincoln's draft. Many of the Germans had made the move to the U.S. to avoid the compulsory service requirement of their homeland, but old Abe had some different plans for them:

"Everyone in Wisconsin did not support the war. Some were Democrats who honestly thought state's rights should prevail, or that the nation had been taken over by Republican extremists. Others, especially German Catholics, did not support the Lincoln administration which, to them, represented abolitionism, Yankee nativism, and Protestant godlessness. The draft that Lincoln instituted in 1862 was especially intolerable to them, since many Germans had left their homeland to escape compulsory military service. On November 10, 1862, roughly 300 rioters attacked the draft office in Port Washington and vandalized the homes of Union supporters, until troops arrived to quell the disturbance. In Milwaukee that week, a mob of protesters shut down the draft proceedings, and in West Bend, the draft commissioner was beaten bloody and chased from the scene by opponents of the Civil War draft."

It looks like in the end though, the general consensus of the majority of Wisconsin residents is to support the war.

http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/turningpoints/tp-024/?action=more_essay

williamlayton · « **Reply #93 on:** November 01, 2008, 12:17:32 AM »

I find a lot of pride and passion in all of the statements here. I also find the pride and passion too direct the findings of the facts---more than they should.
A point or two.
The states were never sovereign nations under the Constitution only under the eyes of some in the South.
Georgia's wealth and place in the worlds economy was due largely too slavery.
Sherman and Grant were of one mindset when it came too war. It was total war--now, less you critize too loudly--the South was fond of using the same tactics.
The facts do not represent the pride and passion.
The pride and passion are the results of one sided history.
Blessings

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #94 on:** November 01, 2008, 11:58:46 AM »

Great Post, littlecanoe, I know exactly what you mean. I see it in almost all older people and I've started realizing the same about myself. In fact, one of my close friends asked me just a few days ago, why I was probably going to vote Democrat this time. Remarkably, my response was the same as your example; because he's NOT Republican. Even though Georgia has gone Republican in the last few elections, (State & National), I still see an awful lot of the same kind of people you're talking about. This same friend said just this morning that when he went to vote for the very first time, his father made him vote Democrat, because he "wasn't going to have no Republican living in his house; not after all the trouble they had brought to his family and the South." I too, see myself as a conservative Democrat, and I can agree with many aspects of the Republican platform. However, I cannot make myself vote for a Republican, for those same reasons you mentioned. I guess in part because the right one hasn't come along yet. The closest I think I ever came was when Colin Powell almost ran against Bush. He stated that if he decided to run, it would be on a Republican ticket. I would have voted for him in a heartbeat.
All that being said, I too believe that deep down, It's because of Lincoln (who was the very first Rep. Pres.) and what his Gov't. did to our families.... Lest we forget.

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #95 on:** November 01, 2008, 12:10:12 PM »

williamlayton, you say the South used the same tactics. I respectfully disagree with you on that. While the South did what was necessary to survive an all out invasion, I remind you that 99 % of the war was fought in the South. That's not even in the same context. Find me one shred of evidence where Southern forces went into a Northern state and committed the same kinds of atrocities as Sherman did in Georgia. So, no sir, they did not use the same tactics. Not even close.

williamlayton · « **Reply #96 on:** November 02, 2008, 05:20:43 AM »

Bloody Kansas
Quantrell
These come quickly too mind---there are other raiders that would could be mentioned.
The South failed too see the seriousness of war, consider the consequences, and most of all the denial of the acts of war.
Sure, you are correct, that the Union brought the war too the South. What did you or would you have expected if you had been alive then.
D-Day and the prior bombing killed thousands of innocent French---this was considered expedient by the planners and this included the French.
Most probably you applaud the incertion into Iraq as the only choice--explain the differences of the concept.
Wars begin with pride and passion, soon too be discarded by reality and the facts.
Blessings

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #97 on:** November 02, 2008, 06:05:10 AM »

Quantrill's Raiders was neither sanctioned by nor approved of by the Confederate States of America, as evidenced in the headlines of article after article in Harper's Weekly (a NORTHERN Newspaper) when their captions detailing these raids entitled Guerrilla Raids in the West. He was not acting on ORDERS from his Government. He was just what these articles suggest, a guerrilla warrior. In a sense, a nut that went out and took thing into his own hands. His raids were never even all that organized, especially the way Sherman's were. Letters from Grant and Lincoln to Sherman clearly show him being given full authority by his Superiors to wage this type of war against civilians. Quantrill's Raiders' actions are completely dwarfed by Sherman's.
The South failing to see the seriousness of war is irrelevant in that they tried to leave peacefully and were subsequently INVADED. They never wanted or expected to be invaded by a neighboring country. (See Jefferson Davis' resignation speech from the U.S. Senate)

deltecs · « **Reply #98 on:** November 02, 2008, 10:26:31 AM »

Quote from: SouthernByGrace on November 02, 2008, 06:05:10 AM

Quantrill's Raiders was neither sanctioned by nor approved of by the Confederate States of America, as evidenced in the headlines of article after article in Harper's Weekly (a NORTHERN Newspaper) when their captions detailing these raids entitled Guerrilla Raids in the West. He was not acting on ORDERS from his Government. He was just what these articles suggest, a guerrilla warrior. In a sense, a nut that went out and took thing into his own hands. His raids were never even all that organized, especially the way Sherman's were. Letters from Grant and Lincoln to Sherman clearly show him being given full authority by his Superiors to wage this type of war against civilians. Quantrill's Raiders' actions are completely dwarfed by Sherman's.
The South failing to see the seriousness of war is irrelevant in that they tried to leave peacefully and were subsequently INVADED. They never wanted or expected to be invaded by a neighboring country. (See Jefferson Davis' resignation speech from the U.S. Senate)

Wheter or not the intent was to secede peacably, it was the South that began hostilities.

Quote

Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina.
Quote
. When federal troops are fired upon, it is only natural to presume that hostilities have begun by a declared new independent nation, Confederate States of America, regardless of the rhetoric spoken by Jefferson Davis when he was a member of Congress.

littlecanoe · « **Reply #99 on:** November 02, 2008, 02:41:11 PM »

We can draw a nice parallel between the Founding fathers of the Colonies and the men who labored over the decision to leave the new nation. We have to come back to the fact that they tried to do so in the same manner that our founding fathers tried. They worked through their magistrates, elected leaders.

In reading the Biography of Patrick Henry it becomes clear that many appeals were made to King George. The men of the South made appeals that fell on deaf ears. They exercised, against their government, those provisions laid out by our wise founding fathers. They formed a "new government".

If the southern states were wrong in defying what they thought to be tyranny, the founding fathers, those whom we hold in high regard, share the same guilt.

WL, The attitudes of many of these men would have followed, to large degree, the covanental reformed understanding of reciprocating responsibility between the citizen and the magistrate as they were largely Presbyterian and reformed Baptists. This is kindred to the view of the founding fathers and the spirit of Cromwell's war if I'm not mistaken.

As such, I believe that SBG is right in saying that Mr. Q acted out of hand and without consent of the southern leadership. I can't believe that Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis would have condoned such actions considering their sense of honor and duty.

As to atrocities, when we compare the British to Sherman, didn't a British officer burn civilians in a church? I may be totally off base here as I'm not sure if that act, as depicted in The Patriot was Hollywood or based on truth.

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #100 on:** November 02, 2008, 03:14:12 PM »

Right again, littlecanoe. "A+"
I found an interesting little speech today and a portion of it fits what you're talking about perfectly, in regards to "forming a new Government." We are vindicated by this speech more than people know.
Let me know your thoughts on this one...

Excerpt from a speech given on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1847:

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world."
Abraham Lincoln

deltecs · « **Reply #101 on:** November 02, 2008, 03:31:41 PM »

I'm in agreement with most of the posters on the War and the reasons it began. I think in todays scenario, another civil war is about to be intitiated. This time it won't be about economic policies but about philosophocal principles. I fully expect most of the Southern States to side with the more conservative Northen ones in this new economic war and socialism. This from an Alaskan and former Yankee from PA.

Ga.windbreak · « **Reply #102 on:** November 02, 2008, 10:24:39 PM »

Hi, SBG, its good to see another Georgian in the ranks. I've been an on and off poster for the last few years but lately have started to post more. Good luck with ironfoot and WL.

I also noticed you've posted several things about Jefferson Davis, God bless his soul. I'm now reading "Jefferson Davis Unconquerable Heart" By Felicily Allen Copyright 1924. Its now out of print and my copy is a reprint from 1999. It came to me by way of a Canadan Library.

Of the many things I've learned about our Mr. Davis is that he was a very religious man who took all of his duties to heart. His overseer was a slave who he trained to not only run his farm but take care of his family and his money. That Slave also ran his court where all the other slaves were brought to be tried when they did anything wrong. They could not be whipped unless he oked it and the book says he almost never did. He adopted an orphaned slave boy and raised him as his own until his arrest and the boy was taken from him never to be seen again by Davis. He was truly a very special man.

I would also like to thank you for sharing the writings of your Great Granmother. That is truly special.

williamlayton · « **Reply #103 on:** November 03, 2008, 12:31:51 AM »

Look boys, I am a southerner from longer than most here.
My heritage came too East Texas in 1838.
I understand the pride and the passion--I was raised with it/raised on it.
What I disagree with are the basics.
The South wanted independent soverign states--read in nations--in a union.
This was because everybody in each section of the south wanted too do their own thing and not be bothered by another.
That is a very good thought. That is a very short sighted thought.
You cannot have a nation without common goals--the South shunned common goals for individual goals and these were subject to power of the one that wanted what he wanted.
The South was less than bright. They began what they could not do and what they wanted too do they could not accomplish even if the Union had left them too their own devices.
It was a folly and a mess doomed too destruction by somebody if not the Union.
Blessings

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #104 on:** November 03, 2008, 02:02:04 AM »

The South took the Consitution as it was written , the North tried to create power for the Federal Govt. by using creative interpitation of the Consitution . Look around they haven't stopped yet ! Just look at education where does that fall under the Consitution ? The interstate system is a military project ETC. ETC.

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #105 on:** November 03, 2008, 02:12:33 AM »

Ga.windbreak, thanks for your comments. You are correct about Pres. Davis being a good, decent, and deeply religious man. He has been vilified my the historians writing the history books, while Lincoln is portrayed as a savior. The adoption of the orphan slave boy is going to be one of my topics for a Tidbit real soon. It's a very interesting story, as you know. Can you imagine reading in a history book that Jefferson Davis ADOPTED a black child and raised him as his own?

I live only yards away from 9 National Historic markers indicating the very spots where Sherman's troops camped for more than a week. He personally took the house and barn of my great uncle for himself and his officers. He burned the house afterwards, first giving his officers the go ahead to take whatever they wanted, but left the barn, which still stands. My great aunt's journal (my great uncle was away, fighting in VA.) tells of the total disrespect he had for others and their property, of how he "tracked mud onto my floor with no more concern than a hog."

So you see, there is absolutely a HELL of a lot of pride and passion in my family. Some people mistake pride & passion for anger. I guess you have to be a Georgian to fully understand that, while yes, there is anger to some extent, it does not come from the events that happened here, so much as the people from other sections of the country trying to deny it happened at all or not to the degree we know it did. They just don't realize that this affects us personally and it has for generations.

God Bless Jefferson Davis.

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #106 on:** November 03, 2008, 02:14:02 AM »

I agree, SHOOTALL. Totally.

littlecanoe · « **Reply #107 on:** November 03, 2008, 02:55:15 AM »

SBG,

My first question would be to ask, "Did Lincoln have core beliefs"?

To make such a strong statement in the face of the understanding of how our country was founded and then trample on that same principle leads me to think that he might have been a bit of an Emperialist, or at least influenced by Emperialists.

WL, I'll agree that the way that they went about it could be construed as wrong. However, freedom in this life is the second most precious thing that a human can possess right behind freedom of the heart through Christ. We have to say that these men labored over this decision. They had to see this as the only option.

As I look at my family today and consider where this nation came from I've had to ask myself if sacrifice of my life, liberty, fortune and sacred honor, my name is worth the price of securing future liberty for my posterity. I honestly believe that this is what these men were speaking.

As a note to all others here. WL and I have shared time together. He is a deep thinker and a good guy. He doesn't need me to back him as he thinks for himself. Just thought I'd throw that out there. He's welcome in my home at any time. And he can use the back door.

williamlayton · « **Reply #108 on:** November 03, 2008, 07:58:27 AM »

What I am saying is there must be a strong central government.
It is my opinion that the Union would have survived but the Confederacy would have scummed to another if not the Union.
Texas would have left at the first breath of western movement by the Union---maybe East Texas would have seceded from Texas---but the rest of Texas was very uneasy with secession.
There were Union militias formed by the German folks in the hill country in response to secession. Things were not as calm and steady behind this as some think.
We have been through this reasoning before and it won't change minds.
What one must do is come to grips with the fact that the confederacy would crumble under the first acts disagreement within. And, if you study the facts, you can see the cracks appearing before the first shot was fired.
After the Adrenalin had run it course and reality set in, the confederacy would be ripe for disolvement---they could no more stand a Confederacy than a union.
There were some nations in Europe who had hopes of regaining a foothold in this country should the union not have intervened.
Blessings

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #109 on:** November 03, 2008, 09:15:55 AM »

Guess the fact that the South had the raw materials the north needed did not enter into the decision ?

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #110 on:** November 03, 2008, 09:18:48 AM »

Also the fact that more Presidents have come from the south might indicate the South may have become strong and the north lacking leadership may have failed . If we must speculate the South has just as much chance as the north in the what if game !

Ga.windbreak · « **Reply #111 on:** November 04, 2008, 12:39:55 AM »

Well WL while you have every right to disagree and surmise all you want the facts of the history don't back up your summation.

Quote

"The South less than bright."?

Maybe in your opinion but that doesn't make it so. I would contend that the fanatics/radicals who backed Lincoln were/are the lose cannons. I believe it was Stanton who had a small bell on his desk that when ever he had a visitor his first remark was that with just one ring from that little bell would send said visitor to a cell where by he would never again see the light of day. That, my friend, is your strong central government. By the way he caused that bell to ring out somewhere between 15 and 35 THOUSAND TIMES. I wonder what those Northerners happened to think of Mr. Lincoln and his band?

For all of your gloom and doom WL you really don't have a clue as to what might have been, none of us do, and that's the real rub. All Jeff Davis and the original 6 States wanted was to be left to their own devises. It was done in such a manner legally that it has never been contested in a court of law. For all the boasting the Rats couldn't let it see the light of day. Where would it leave them? In one of those cells that they had dumped so many who spoke out against them. Why wasn't Lee, Davis, and all the rest brought to trial and hung as traitors if what they did was illegal? Don't talk to me of being nice for if that were so we wouldn't have lived under 12 years of Military rule after the war. No, the fanatics wanted to make sure that we were grounded under foot so that we would never forget. Well one thing is for sure we have not forgotten. The sad fact is that now most Americans have no real idea of what true freedom is like and never will.

I was listening to a liberal expound the fact that the government was there to help us all, that was their job. No thank you, I took care of my Mother when she was dying, to put her away just to relieve me of the responsibility that was mine alone. And one that I might add I wanted to do with the same love and devotion that she had used to raise me. I owed her at least that much, don't you think?

You have your beliefs and I have mine but to degrade my beliefs as being not to bright, well, all I can say to that is that it takes one to know one.

Peace

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #112 on:** November 04, 2008, 01:18:55 AM »

We have to remember that, to Lincoln, the very idea of losing the Southern states sent quivers up his spine. The ONLY reason he wanted to keep the Southern states in the Union was... Remember, the South paid in 80% of the tax revenue back then... (and saw no benefit from it...)
Lincoln's Secretary of War, Stanton, kept a personal journal, like most people of the time did, and he actually recorded Lincoln's candid remarks about losing the Southern states... "Why, if we allow the South to leave us, where pray tell shall our revenues come from to run the government?" The fact is the South's economy was booming and when they wanted to leave, the North couldn't conceive of it because they would have been ruined, financially.

Jefferson Davis was held in prison for two years after his capture in 1865, without ever being charged with a single crime. He was never charged with treason because the Federal judges knew they couldn't convict him on it, mainly because the North invaded the South. What was he treasonous of? The North was so quick to condemn and convict, they literally bit their noses off to spite their faces.

Look for the TIDBIT on the main floor sometime later today (6-ish) because it will explain all of this in detail. It will also show proof that the U.S.A. recognized the Confederacy...
Y'all come !

littlecanoe · « **Reply #113 on:** November 04, 2008, 01:34:46 AM »

WL,

You do have me thinking as I always want to be "fair and balanced". I really miss the mark sometime on that one.

You spoke of fissures that were developing in the south and the belief that the confederacy would not stand any internal unrest or termoil. Can you expand on this? I'd like to consider what you are saying.

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #114 on:** November 04, 2008, 01:36:35 AM »

littlecanoe, I believe Lincoln did have core beliefs, but over time they changed drastically. His first and foremost reason for wanting to hold the entire Union together was MONEY. Coming in a close second, I think he knew that without the South, the country literally being reduced to half its size and strength, the U.S. was vulnerable to outside invasion and they couldn't afford to wage war on an invader, much the same as the South couldn't, either.
It is my strong belief that had the North let the South leave peacefully or if the South had won the War, reunification would have had to occur well before WWI, but not without some compromises on both sides. This would have made the U.S.A. MUCH closer to what the Founding Fathers intended.

williamlayton · « **Reply #115 on:** November 04, 2008, 01:41:49 AM »

SBG
Much of what you say is as much conjecture as is mine, I agree.
The facts are a little more conclusive.
The South was desprate to find backing in Europe.
I would like too see the source that the South paid most of the taxes.
The West offered many more resources than the South, for the sake of agriculture.
The South was not completey weaned from England since the revolution and there were some influential folks in Virginia would applaud a new association with thier mother land---seems we got there some 50 years later. Cousins across the pond.
I will still say that the South was very short sighted.
If, as you continue to say, the South was reacting too the constitution as it was written I would disagree. I say the South was reacting too the constitution as the wish it were written.
A strong nation, one nation, united under one leadership, under one flag, one united goal, one United states, one government for the people and by the people.
It is a miscaculation of the words when you espouse that nation was formed for the protection of soverign states bound for protection by treaty of a constitution.
One nation---one people---one government,
Blessings

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #116 on:** November 04, 2008, 03:25:59 AM »

So by your take NATO members should be one country ?

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #117 on:** November 04, 2008, 04:39:38 AM »

WL, my source on the tax thing is the US 1860 Census. It actually enumerates the taxes received from each state, respectively, over the past ten years. The South paid 80% of all tax revenue collected in the United States. They saw practically no benefit from these taxes. I repeat, Does taxation without representation ring any bells?

"A strong nation, one nation, united under one leadership, under one flag, one united goal, one United States, one government, for the people and by the people." I couldn't agree more; in today's world. But in 1860, more than half the country wanted a change in that government, and while NOT united under one leadership, they set out to make that change by creating their own government. Abraham Lincoln, himself, believed that to be a sacred right of ANY PEOPLE. Any people, that is, except the South. When you have half the country NOT wanting to go in the direction their gov't. wants to, that is neither one united goal, one United States, NOR is it one government for the people OR by the people.

Dee · « **Reply #118 on:** November 04, 2008, 11:07:02 AM »

Quote from: williamlayton on November 03, 2008, 07:58:27 AM

What I am saying is there must be a strong central government.
It is my opinion that the Union would have survived but the Confederacy would have scummed to another if not the Union.
Texas would have left at the first breath of western movement by the Union---maybe East Texas would have seceded from Texas---but the rest of Texas was very uneasy with secession.
There were Union militias formed by the German folks in the hill country in response to secession. Things were not as calm and steady behind this as some think.
We have been through this reasoning before and it won't change minds.
What one must do is come to grips with the fact that the confederacy would crumble under the first acts disagreement within. And, if you study the facts, you can see the cracks appearing before the first shot was fired.
After the Adrenalin had run it course and reality set in, the confederacy would be ripe for disolvement---they could no more stand a Confederacy than a union.
There were some nations in Europe who had hopes of regaining a foothold in this country should the union not have intervened.
Blessings

In actuality the State of Texas came into the union as a REPUBLIC. It reserved the right to IF IT WANTED, to not only secede, but also DIVIDE INTO 5 states. To say that only East Texas was Southern is as nonsensical is most of your thought. I will repeat that the Stature on our Court House Lawn is damn sure not Abraham Lincoln. I do not live in East Texas, but instead North Central. The "Daughters of the Confederacy" are alive and well in my area, they are constantly finding and dedicating Confederate Graves. Had you lived in Gainesville, Texas, which is 35 miles further WEST of my area, and is the beginning of WEST TEXAS, at the time of the War of Northern Aggression, you would have been hung from the same tree that 62 other Union sympathizers were hung from in three days. Had you said what you said here, then, there would be 63 on that monument. The ONLY Union monument in Texas, that I am aware of. And rightly so I might add.

Littlecanoe, and SBG, look up the History of Grayson County Texas, with emphasis on Sophia and Holland Coffee whom owned Glen Eden Plantation in Hagerman, Texas. Sophia Coffee by then a widow, and middle aged, swam a horse alone, across the Red River to warn a CONFEDERATE Patrol camped on the Oklahoma side of a Northern patrol camped at her plantation. She had served them alcohol, got them drunk, and then warned the Confederate patrol.
My Grandfather was not made an American citizen until 1907 when he was enrolled with the Dept. of the Interior, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. Reason? When Lee surrendered at Appomattox, the Cherokee refused to surrender. I too, have ID cards on myself from these same agencies.
Most native Oklahomans, white or red, consider themselves Southerners.

FACT: There is at least one Confederate monument in VIRTUALLY EVERY County in the State of Texas.

SouthernByGrace · « **Reply #119 on:** November 04, 2008, 12:36:31 PM »

Good post, Dee. Interesting stuff there. I agree with your statement of the Cherokee claiming to be Southern. I actually work with a few blacks who refuse to believe Cherokees (and other blacks for that matter) owned black slaves. I asked them, "Where do you think the plantation system came from?" I certainly wasn't brought over here from England...
After I go watch the election news, I'll come back and look up the story you mentioned. I hope she has a monument dedicated to her heroic deeds. You gotta love it.