Introduction
At dawn on November 15, 1845, over
twenty black slaves from Webbers Falls, Oklahoma ran away from their owners and
headed south. After stealing horses and arms from a store on the way, they
gathered others from nearby plantations and continued on their way. Riding
horseback but with little knowledge of the terrain and as a conspicuous
sight—an uncommon 35 blacks hurrying south and having robbed a store—the slaves
were overtaken by their masters forty miles from Webbers Falls. In the battle
that ensued, the masters who had joined together were able to kill two and
capture twelve slaves, but the rest escaped and continued south.
As their flight continued, the slaves
again made themselves conspicuous when they met up with eight others, and
killed the masters who were trying to recapture them. As the group continued
southwest, the masters stopped following them and instead took legal action to
bring them back.[1]
On November 17th, 1842,
a council near Webbers Falls passed a resolution allowing a hundred men to
pursue the slaves. The act gave captain John Drew permission to buy supplies,
for which he would be reimbursed by the government,[2]
and relieved him of blame should any slaves be killed in the process. A week
and a half later, Drew and a crew of 87 men caught up to the slaves, who
surrendered immediately, and the whole group returned to Webbers Falls by
December 7th.[3] In
the aftermath of the event, only two of the slaves were eventually put on trial
in Arkansas, with most of them simply being returned to their masters.[4]
This fairly common narrative of a
failed slave revolt in the mid-1800s is made unique and fairly notorious by one
significant difference from the norm: these slaves had American Indian masters.
These were the slaves of Cherokee, Choctaw, and Creek plantation owners in
Oklahoma, and the council that sent troops to rescue them was the National
Council of the Cherokees. The fact that such a rebellion would have taken
place, and with such similarities to other slave revolts at the time, this begs
serious questions about slavery by American Indians. At a time when many slaves
of white masters were isolated from communication and even kept from leaving
the plantation, did slaves of Cherokees and other tribes have more mobility?
How widespread was enslavement of blacks by American Indian tribes, and do what
extent did racism become imbedded in those cultures? Given that the slaves
revolted, was black slavery under American Indians any more humane than under
white Americans?
This paper focuses on slavery specifically
within the Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma, especially after the Indian Removal of
the 1930s. Using the 1942 revolt as a reference point, it discusses the
conditions of slaves within the Cherokee Nation and the ways in which the
Cherokee Nation’s laws and informal understanding of slavery and treatment of
blacks changed over time. Given the common perception of both modern and
nineteenth century Americans that enslavement by American Indians was less
brutal than enslavement by white Americans,[5] it
outlines the diversity of slave experiences under Cherokee masters, as well as
the ways in which Cherokee slaveholding practices were influenced by concurrent
practices of Southern whites.
Beginning with a history of
Cherokee slavery, the paper starts by outlining pre-Columbian practices regarding
prisoners of war and continues through the Cherokee response to the Civil War
and Emancipation Proclamation. Second, it details the relevant history of
Joseph Vann, the Cherokee owner of many of the slaves involved in the 1842
revolt. Third, it analyzes slaveholding in the Cherokee Nation, particularly in
the mid-nineteenth century, and assesses whether Vann’s slaves involved in the
1842 were representative of the general lives of slaves under Cherokee masters
or if they constituted an exception to the rule. Finally, it concludes with a
discussion of Cherokee slavery overall and the ways in which it was similar to
and different from white slavery at the time.
For the purposes of this paper, the
terms “Indian” and “American Indian” will refer to Native Americans. No South
Asian peoples are referenced in this paper. “Black” will be used to refer to
all peoples of African descent. This is in contrast to “African American” in
order to reduce confusion, as some of the black people discussed in the paper
are explicitly stated to have born in West Africa.
History of Cherokee Slavery
Pre-Columbian Slaveholding and Prisoners of War
Most
American Indian tribes had been enslaving members of other tribes in one form
or another before the arrival of Europeans in North America.[6]
These slaves generally took the form of prisoners of war, and their enslavement
was only temporary. While practices differed, most tribes did not overwork
their slaves in the way that white Americans generally did, and slave status
certainly was not passed on to children.[7]
Slaves were sometimes given from tribe to tribe as tribute or to ransom
captives, but they were not bought and sold. Not all captives were used as
slaves either—many were incorporated into tribes as standard tribe members.[8]
J.B. Davis writes that in the literature on pre-Columbian Cherokees, "the
terms ‘slave’ and ‘prisoner’ were used interchangeably in almost every such
instance, and the latter term was probably more nearly correct in most
instances."[9]
This is
not to say that American Indian enslavement practices were benign or humane
before the arrival of Europeans in North America. On the contrary, prisoners of
war were often tortured and even killed after being taken in battle.
Intertribal warfare was very common and retaliation for everything from land
disputes to kidnapping could be incredibly bloody.[10]
The violence involved in warfare often continued in the treatment of some
prisoners of war,[11]
although it is important to recognize the incredible diversity in enslavement
practices between tribes. Nonetheless, there was a clear shift in American
Indian enslavement practices with the arrival of Europeans: for however brutal
they may have been, Indians and specifically Cherokees did not participate in
chattel slavery until contact with white slaveholders.[12]
This institution fundamentally changed the institution of slavery for various
Indian tribes, especially the Cherokee Nation.
Indians from Slaves to Slaveholders
Much has been written about the
enslavement of American Indians by white Americans in the early days of
colonization. The violence between colonists and Indian tribes in early struggles
for land included captives on both sides, and Indian slaves were initially
preferred to Africans, largely because the cost of their transportation was so
much lower. Europeans sought to use Indian systems of captivity and the selling
of prisoners of war in much the same way they used already-existing captivity
systems in Africa, buying Indians who had been captured by other tribes and
using them for their own chattel slavery. Because white slaveholders were
willing to pay more, Indians increasingly sold captives to whites rather than
to other tribes.
After 1720, North American
slaveholders began to prefer Africans as slaves. Because of their lack of
knowledge of the terrain, language, and surrounding peoples, Africans were more
vulnerable and less likely to escape. Indians were seen as more rebellious,[13]
and once colonists discovered that slaves straight from Africa were more
docile, less cunning, and more disease-hardy, it took only ten years for the
trade of Indians as slaves to all but disappear. Thus American Indian tribes
returned to their status as autonomous groups, less vulnerable to white
American enslavement although still at risk of attack. For colonists, the
challenge shifted from finding ways of taking and enslaving large numbers of
Indians to finding ways to use them as reinforcement for their increasing
numbers of black slaves.
Relations between tribes and
colonizers varied tremendously, even within the same region: while some southeastern
tribes initially worked with escaped slaves in order to receive English lessons
and agricultural knowledge that would help them negotiate and compete with
colonizers,[14]
members of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, and Seminole tribes began
capturing escaped slaves and selling them back to their white owners.[15]
For this reason and others, these five tribes became known to whites as the
Five Civilized Tribes and frequently allied with Southern whites. In response,
they adopted more practices of Southern white plantation owners than did other
tribes, which perpetuated the image of them as move civilized, or more similar
to white Americans, than other American Indians. Nowhere is this better illustrated
than with the Cherokee: while the Seminoles were known for incorporating blacks
into their communities[16]
and for allowing their slaves to own livestock and weapons,[17]
the Cherokee did
none of this were often seen as most civilized Indian tribe. As time went on
and they became richer, largely because of their use of black slaves, they
received increasing respect from surrounding whites.[18]
Influence of White Slaveholders and Policy
Colonial economic practices and
domination of American Indians caused many Indian tribes to adopt slavery in
order to support a lifestyle that mirrored that of richer white Americans.
While it is well understood that Europeans brought perceptions of race to the
existing Indian slave trade, it is critical to note that they also brought
capitalism. The profit-maximizing system that made certain plantation owners so
successful had its effect on Indian tribes.[19]
Initially, this came in the form of trade: Indians came to depend on the
muskets and blankets they received in exchange for catching escaped slaves, so
various tribes worked with colonizers in supporting their slave trade because
of increased economic dependence.[20]
As tribes sought to gain self-sufficiency after the introduction of capitalism
to their livelihood, they worked to learn the agricultural practices used by
white Americans. Because they learned agricultural practices from a largely
slaveholding population, the practices they learned depended on slavery as
well.[21]
In the process, Indian slavery became racialized. White slaveholders brought to
various tribes what William McLoughlin calls "the assumption that slavery
was not simply the result of being captured by an enemy but that it was assumed
to be the lot of all darker peoples when they came into contact with white
people"[22] and, soon, some American
Indian people as well.
While the Indians’ learning of
chattel slavery based on economic systems may not have been an intentional
effort by white slaveholders to institutionalize racism and their form of
slavery within American Indian tribes, not all interactions were so innocent.
Especially among eighteenth century white slaveholders, a pervasive fear began
to exist that black slaves might run away and join Indian tribes. This was
sometimes taken further in the concern that, upon their integration, the former
slaves may convince American Indians to turn against the colonists forever.[23]
In order to avoid this, whites began refusing to trade with tribes unless they
agreed to return fugitive slaves.[24]
There are also accounts of whites spreading rumors about each group to the
other in order to incite mutual fear. Whites in contact with Cherokees blamed
their devastating 1739 smallpox epidemic on blacks, and sometimes used blacks
as soldiers in battles against Indians in order to create a view of blacks as
aggressive to Indians,[25]
while on the other side slaveholders told their black slaves horror stories of
Indian torture methods—fictional or real—and used Indians to suppress slave
rebellions.[26]
Indian
tribes fought assimilation with whites in varying amounts, and there were
certainly tribes avoiding white practices through the early 1800s.[27]
Some of the Indian conformity to Southern white slaveholding practices and its
correlated racism was intentional while some of it was likely an unintentional
result of economic domination, but regardless a serious transition took place
in the enslavement practices of many tribes during the 1700s. While early
eighteenth century Indians enslaved people of all races—whites, blacks, and
members of other tribes— and for temporary periods of time, by the American
Revolution, slavery in the Indian country had come to look a lot like slavery
by Southern whites.[28]
Progression of Cherokee Slaveholding Practices
As might be expected, Cherokee
treatment of slaves declined over time. While Cherokees and Chickasaw Indians
were among the first to have a full-fledged system of chattel slavery by the
late 1700s,[29] the first generations of
Cherokee slaveholders generally had very humane treatment of their black
slaves.[30] Certain
institutions, like intermarriage between Cherokees and blacks, had never been
accepted within Cherokee society,[31]
but treatment of black slaves as well as free blacks in the Cherokee Nation
worsened especially in the early to mid-1800s.[32]
This was particularly true of the
Indian Removal of the 1830s, when the Cherokees formerly of Georgia and
Tennessee moved to Oklahoma. While 1,592 black slaves joined the Cherokee on
the “Trail of Tears,” slavery became much more profitable, harsher, and more
ingrained in their culture after their relocation to Oklahoma. In response, the
Cherokee saw an increase in black attempts at escape, often to Mexico. It was
after this point that narratives of very inhumane Cherokee slaveholding
practices began to take place: tales of slaves being whipped, tortured, hanged,
and burned by their Cherokee owners.[33]
At the same time, the slave population increased significantly: by the Civil
War, the number of slaves held by Cherokees in Indian Territory had increased
by almost a thousand to 2,511 in less than thirty years. Cherokee slave codes
increasingly came to look like the slave codes in southern states, limiting
blacks’ rights to own property, vote, bear arms, or eventually to receive
education of any sort.[34]
When the Civil War did take place,
the Cherokee Nation signed a treaty with the Confederacy agreeing that it was
exempt from fighting.[35]
However, many Cherokees
and other Southern Indian nations fought for Confederacy despite the treaty.[36]
Part of the reason for this was an allegiance to the whites of the surrounding
territories, as had been so often the case for Cherokee groups. However,
another catalyst existed: because of aggression both by official troops and by
“Pin Indians,” or less organized Cherokee groups who fought for the union and
often destroyed Confederate Cherokee towns, many Cherokees were displaced
during the war.[37]
Those who could not fight moved further south, but many took their male slaves
and joined the Confederate army. After the Civil War, the Cherokee Nation made
a declaration in November 1866 that all people including blacks who lived in
Cherokee country at the start of the war may claim Cherokee citizenship,[38]
though, as with other freed southern slaves, this was certainly no promise of
humane or equal treatment of blacks by Cherokees.
The Vann Family
One of the wealthiest Cherokees of
the early 1800s, James Vann built a manor in Georgia that rivaled those of the
richest white Georgian plantation owners and was built in a similar style.[39]
Motivated by monetary gain, Vann used white American social rules and customs
when it benefitted him to do so: owning his land instead of following the
Cherokee tradition of communal land, working with the US government to support
the creation of a turnpike that went right by his estate, even creating a
business with a white friend that bought and sold black slaves.[40]
Vann was elected a chief in 1806[41]
and owned 115 slaves by his death in 1809,[42]
but in many ways James Vann was exceptional as far as Cherokees and even
Cherokee plantation owners went. Most Cherokees did not use crops to accumulate
incredible amounts of wealth, as he did, and he accepted a group of Moravian
missionaries to live on his plantation not because he sought any religious
information but because he sought education for his children and the children
of his fellow Cherokees.[43]
At a time when only one in ten southern whites had more than 20 slaves, Vann’s
possession of over 100 put him well into the economic elite of all Georgians
rather than just Cherokees.[44]
While he did follow Cherokee religious practices and support his Cherokee
countrymen when they found themselves threatened by disputes with whites,
especially over land,[45] Vann’s
status as one of the wealthiest and most powerful Cherokees of his time is
important in understanding the life of his son.
The Vann family continued to be
wealthy and influential long after James’ untimely death in 1809. After the
Indian removal, James’ son Joseph Vann owned 300 slaves on his land in Oklahoma[46]
and was known to be a very pragmatic, efficiency-based slave owner. While James
drank with his slaves and had them fiddle for the many social events at his
estate, Joseph was not recorded as having had any personal relationships with
slaves or even allowing them into his house for tasks other than cooking and
cleaning.[47] This came in slow
progression: even before the removal, the Vann family in Georgia headed by
James and then Joseph had deteriorating relations with their black slaves. The
family that had once been known to slaves for its generosity began selling
slaves to white owners, giving lower quality food and clothing, and occasionally
killing slaves. The slaves responded by slowing down work, ruining tools,
running away, and killing themselves.[48]
One account even tells of James Vann burying a slave alive, a practice that was
certainly an anomaly among Cherokee slaveholders.
Few records exist detailing the
specific way that Joseph Vann treated his slaves once in Oklahoma, but his
reputation for efficiency, pragmatism and social distance from slaves as well
as his economic power provide one image. In light of that, it is easy to imagine
the awful living conditions that might have driven his slaves to leave in 1842
and the violent punishment that might have awaited them when they return.
However, the few interviews in existence about Joseph Vann’s response to the
revolt tell a different story. While he was instrumental in getting the
Cherokee government involved in bringing slaves back, it seems his interest was
economic and his response even to the slaves themselves was pragmatic and
efficient rather than angry. The daughter of one of the 1842 escapees writes
that while there was a lot of excitement among slaves on the plantation and
speculation about what might happen, Vann did not even sell the escapees.
Instead, he took them away from the plantation and kept them working on his
steamer on the Mississippi, where there was less chance of escape, rebellion
was more difficult, and they did not have the chance to incite dissent amongst
other slaves.[49] While his 1844 death in
an explosion related to his steamboat caused great distress among slaves and
Cherokees alike, it is not clear whether this reaction was because he was
appreciated or simply due to his great economic and social power.[50]
Treatment of Cherokee Slaves
As has been noted, it is impossible
to define the nature of Cherokee slavery as a whole without reference to time,
as it intensified significantly in the early to mid-1800s. In general, the
Cherokees were seen as among the American Indians that conformed to Southern
white ideals the most based on factors as diverse as the architecture of their
houses, their frequent willingness to accept Christianity, their intermarriage
with whites,[51] and a racial prejudice
that is said to have limited their interactions with even Spaniards for being
too dark.[52] While Patrick Minges
argues that the US government intentionally created hatred between blacks and
Cherokees through civilizing programs and support of missionaries to the
Cherokee Nation,[53] Cherokee treatment of
black slaves largely followed a similar pattern to white treatment of slaves,
though over a shorter time period: while the first slaveholders were humane and
used blacks as servants, allowing slaves to own property, make money, and
attain some level of mobility, over time both white and Indian slaveholders
became more strict, less humane, and more intense in their punishments.[54]
However, there is substantial evidence that many Cherokees never reached the
level of slave dehumanization that characterized so many of their white
slaveholding contemporaries. In characterizing the Cherokee slave experience,
it is also worth noting that while most Cherokee slave owners had less than
10 slaves, about one in three slaves in Cherokee country lived on large Cherokee
plantations.[55]
What this means is that while a characterization of the Cherokee slaveholder
experience would be fairly accurate if depicted with mostly small farms, in
characterizing the lives of the slaves themselves it is critical to note the
33% who lived on larger plantations.
While Cherokees of the mid-1800s usually
bought their slaves, both from whites and from other Cherokees,[56]
multiple accounts indicate that Cherokees got some of their slaves by stealing
from plantations and by kidnapping other Indians.[57]
Many Cherokee plantations did not have overseers, but by the 1850s certain plantations
had white or sometimes black overseers,[58]
indicating a level of wealth and social status uncommon even in white
plantations at the time. The existence of black overseers, however, also
indicates that at least some Cherokee owners trusted blacks with this task,
something that would have been uncommon among Southern whites so late in the period
of slavery. Near the Civil War, mobility for blacks between Cherokee
plantations was limited: patrols between plantations checked blacks for passes
ensuring that their owners had allowed them to leave.[59]
As this was a legal requirement by ever-stricter Cherokee slave codes rather
than a policy imposed by individual Cherokee masters, it is difficult to know
whether or not those masters supported limiting the mobility of their slaves at
the time.
The religious practices and
religious freedom of black Cherokee slaves differed tremendously from
plantation to plantation, largely because Cherokee religions and opinions
towards Christianity were inconsistent at best. Experiences vary widely: some
slaves went to Christian churches with their Cherokee masters regularly, some
went irregularly or to special services held by missionaries, while others
found themselves banned from Christianity in the same way they were banned from
literacy. Some slaves used medicinal practices traditional either among
Cherokees or among their original West African cultures,[60]
whereas others consistently used doctors with what white people would term
“conventional medicine.”[61]
In an interesting combination of cultures, black slaves on James Vann’s
plantation in Georgia often combined aspects of their former West African
cultures, religions, and languages with those of the Cherokee world they were
immersed in, skipping Southern white culture altogether.[62]
There is even some indication that these slaves created an African-Cherokee
creole language. For slaves who had not been born in Africa and spent their
lives on Cherokee plantations, this often came to exist as a distinctive
Cherokee slave culture that persisted for multiple generations, unlike the
experience of slaves on Southern white plantations especially with regards to
music, dance, and celebrations.[63]
Whether or not this perception was
accurate, it is clear that slaves of both Cherokee and white owners saw
Cherokee slaves as being treated better. Many slaves of Cherokees cite not
having been whipped, as they’d heard was the case for other slaves.[64]
Former slave Katie Rowe, who had lived near Cherokee lands with a white master,
gives a contrasting description: "Lots of old people lak me say dat
dey was happy in slavery, and dat dey had de worst tribulations after freedom,
but I knows dey didn't have no white master and overseer lake we all had on our
place. Dey both dead now I reckon, and dey no use talking 'bout de dead, but I
know I been gone long ago iffen dat white man Saunders didn't lose his hold on
me."[65]
Similarly, by far the harshest accounts of slavery in the Cherokee nation are
those of the slaves of Ben Johnson, a white man who came to the nation through
his wife, a Cherokee.[66]
One of his slaves, Sarah Wilson, described her rare interactions with others in
the Cherokee Nation, a set of Cherokee women who sewed together and whom she
joined from time to time. Wilson noted that these women treated her with
significantly more respect than she ever received on her own plantation.[67]
While this is a single individual’s experience, it constitutes one of the only
records of a slave able to contrast experience working for Cherokees and
whites, and in this limited record Wilson indicates that the Cherokees treated
her much better.
While most slaves of Cherokees
indicated never having witnessed a beating, some Cherokee masters certainly did
beat their slaves as punishment. Multiple slaves point out that the Cherokees
did not have a jail, and that given the nature of punishment on plantations
there was no need for one. [68]
More often, owners sold disobedient slaves rather than punishing
them with violence.[69]
Cherokee slaves did know of whippings, though, and of slaves running away from
masters they could not stand.[70]
These rumors, which seem to have circulated widely, may have contributed to the
Cherokee slave perception that their lives were better than the lives of their
counterparts under white masters. Regardless of their mode of punishment, as
time went on slaves throughout Indian territories came to show very similar
forms of resistance to slaves on white plantations.[71]
Many former Cherokee slaves
referenced considering their mistresses to be their mothers, and clearly
indicate that the label was voluntary—they truly saw themselves as being
treated with the kindness of a mother.[72]
Another slave tells of squirrel hunting with his master as a boy, described
more as a game than as a serious hunt, in which the slave boys raced, laughed,
and played games to enjoy their time hunting with a benevolent, even fatherly
master.[73]
While the Vanns were known to separate slave families, accounts describe
Cherokee masters who intentionally purchased slaves who were the relatives or
romantic interests of their own,[74]
creating a stronger sense of community not only between the slaves but also a
sense of trust between slave and master.
Few slaves encountered money[75]
and some describe harsh working conditions with long hours,[76]
but others found that there was more work to be done than slaves needed to do
it and work was rarely strenuous.[77]
Some Cherokee masters went so far as to break the law in order to provide their
slaves money[78] or education.[79]
Vanns as Slaveholders
In light of these narratives, it is
clear that the Vanns were exceptional as slaveholders in many regards. Their
wealth alone set them apart and gave them renown: a former slave of relative
Jim Vann discussed the privileges she received simply as a slave of the Vann
family, from high quality clothing to exclusive rides on steamers during her
month-long Christmas break.[80]
While her story is likely not indicative of the lives of Joseph Vann’s slaves,
it does give insight into the significance of an owner’s wealth on his slaves’
lives. For Joseph Vann, who had many slaves and was often off travelling, the
distance between him and his slaves seems near inevitable. What is not inevitable,
of course, is the revolt. Not much is known about the specific reasons why the
slaves of Vanns and others tried to escape in late 1842, but given the accounts
of other Cherokee slaves from nearby it seems Joseph Vann’s plantation was an
anomaly in the efficiency and impersonality with which he conducted his affairs
with slaves.
Conclusion
While the Slave Revolt of 1842 is
sometimes taken as an indication that American Indian slavery, and specifically
Cherokee slavery, was similar to Southern white slavery at the time, a more
nuanced view must be taken. The revolt reflects the desires not of all Cherokee
slaves throughout early America but of a specific few in Webber Falls, Oklahoma
in the early 1840s. This said, it is clear from the slave codes of the time
that whether or not Cherokee slaveholders wanted to treat their slaves well,
their legal system was increasingly dehumanizing.
As has been made clear, the slave
code as well as overall Cherokee enslavement practices became increasingly race-based
from the early contact with whites in the mid-1600s through the Civil War.
Through a combination of intentional and unintentional interventions in
Cherokee society and economy by white plantation owners, the Cherokees and
other American Indians went from their temporary system of prisoners of war to
a distinctive race-based form of chattel slavery that was dehumanizing through
law, if not through individual interactions. While Cherokee slaves appear to
have appreciated their masters and had much closer personal connections with
them than the slaves of whites at the time, the Cherokee willingness to buy
into a Caucasian-centric racism impacted some even to the point of racial
self-hate, with the Vanns of Georgia tending to take on white social and
economic practices over Cherokee ones, and even some black Cherokee slaves
choosing to spend time exclusively with Cherokees rather than with other blacks
because they were “tired looking at Negroes.”[81]
The impacts societal shifts created by white chattel slavery went far beyond the
Southern white slave plantations where they are most often noted, and the
impacts of that system of the worldviews not only of whites but of people of
many races, especially Indians and blacks, present a very different side of the
issue from the Caucasian-centric telling of history and even of slavery that is
so often presented today.
Bibliography
Bragdon, Kathleen. "Review of Slavery in
Indian Country: The Changing Face of Captivity in Early America, by
Christina Snyder." Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Autumn
2011: 301-302.
Burch,
John. "Review of Slavery in Indian Country: The Changing Face of
Captivity in Early America, by Christina Snyder." Library Journal,
March 1, 2010: 92-93.
Davis,
J. B. "Slavery in the Cherokee Nation." Chronicles of Oklahoma.
December 1933.
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronicles/v011/v011p1056.html.
Flaherty,
Daniel. "Review of Slavery in Indian Country: The Changing Face of
Captivity in Early America, by Christina Snyder." Alabama Review,
April 2012: 151-153.
Labourot,
Séverine. "Review of Slavery in the Cherokee Nation: The Keetoowah
Society and the Defining of a People, 1855-1867, by Patrick Minges."
Ethnohistory, Winter 2006: 245-246.
Littlefield,
Daniel F. Jr., and Lonnie E. Underhill. "Slave 'Revolt' in the Cherokee
Nation, 1842." American Indian Quarterly, Summer 1977: 121-131.
McLoughlin,
William G. "Red Indians, Black Slavery and White Racism: America's
Slaveholding Indians." American Quarterly, 1974: 367-385.
Miles,
Tiya. The House on Diamond Hill. Chapel Hill, NC, USA: University of
North Carolina Press, 2010.
Oklahoma
Genealogy and History. Slave Narratives. n.d.
http://okgenweb.org/slave.htm.
Willis,
William S. "Divide and Rule: Red, White, and Black in the
Southeast." The Journal of Negro History, 1963: 157-176.
[1]
Daniel F. Littlefied, Jr., and Lonnie E. Underhill, "Slave
"Revolt" in the Cherokee Nation, 1842," American Indian
Quarterly, Summer 1977: 121-122.
[2] J. B. Davis,
"Slavery in the Cherokee Nation," Chronicles of Oklahoma,
December 1933.
http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronicles/v011/v011p1056.html: 1066-1067.
[3]
Littlefield and Underhill, “Slave ‘Revolt,’” 122-123
[4]
Littlefield and Underhill, “Slave ‘Revolt,’” 121
[5] William G. McLoughlin,
"Red Indians, Black Slavery and White Racism: America's Slaveholding
Indians." American Quarterly, 1974: 368.
[6]
McLoughlin, “America’s Slaveholding Indians,” 371
[7] Tiya Miles, The House on Diamond
Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA: University of North Carolina Press, 2010:
59
[8] John Burch, "Review of Slavery
in Indian Country: The Changing Face of Captivity in Early America, by
Christina Snyder." Library Journal, March 1, 2010: 92.
[9] Davis, "Slavery in the Cherokee Nation,"
1056
[10]
Ibid
[11] Kathleen Bragdon,
"Review of Slavery in Indian Country: The Changing Face of Captivity in
Early America, by Christina Snyder." Journal of Interdisciplinary
History, Autumn 2011: 302.
[12]
Miles, The House on Diamond Hill, 21
[13] Davis, "Slavery in the Cherokee Nation," 1057
[14]
McLoughlin, “America’s Slaveholding Indians,” 368
[15] Davis, "Slavery in the Cherokee Nation," 1057
[16] Bragdon, "Review of Slavery in Indian Country,”
302
[17]
Littlefield and Underhill, “Slave ‘Revolt,’” 126
[18]
McLoughlin, “America’s Slaveholding Indians,” 379-380
[19] Burch, "Review of Slavery in Indian Country,”
92
[20] William S. Willis, "Divide and
Rule: Red, White, and Black in the Southeast," The Journal of Negro
History, 1963: 168
[21]
McLoughlin, “America’s Slaveholding Indians,” 375
[22]
McLoughlin, “America’s Slaveholding Indians,” 371
[23] Willis, "Divide and Rule,” 161
[24] Willis, "Divide and Rule,” 163
[25] Willis, "Divide and Rule,” 166-167
[26] Willis, "Divide and Rule,” 173
[27]
McLoughlin, “America’s Slaveholding Indians,” 374
[28] Daniel Flaherty, "Review of Slavery in Indian
Country: The Changing Face of Captivity in Early America, by Christina
Snyder," Alabama Review, April 2012: 152.
[29] Willis, "Divide and Rule,” 173
[30]
Miles, The House on Diamond Hill, 21
[31] Davis, "Slavery in the Cherokee Nation," 1065
[32]
McLoughlin, “America’s Slaveholding Indians,” 381
[33]
McLoughlin, “America’s Slaveholding Indians,” 368
[34]
McLoughlin, “America’s Slaveholding Indians,” 381
[35] Davis, "Slavery in the Cherokee Nation," 1070
[36]
McLoughlin, “America’s Slaveholding Indians,” 380
[37] Oklahoma Genealogy and
History, “Chaney Richardson,” Slave Narratives. n.d.
http://okgenweb.org/slave.htm.
[38] Davis, "Slavery in the Cherokee Nation," 1071
[39]
Miles, The House on Diamond Hill, 12
[40]
Miles, The House on Diamond Hill, 56-60
[41]
Miles, The House on Diamond Hill, 63
[42]
Miles, The House on Diamond Hill, 87
[43]
Miles, The House on Diamond Hill, 69
[44]
Miles, The House on Diamond Hill, 79
[45]
Miles, The House on Diamond Hill, 69-70
[46]
Littlefield and Underhill, “Slave ‘Revolt,’” 127
[47]
Miles, The House on Diamond Hill, 22
[48]
Miles, The House on Diamond Hill, 75
[49] Oklahoma Genealogy and
History, “Betty Robertson,” Slave Narratives. n.d.
http://okgenweb.org/slave.htm.
[50] Oklahoma Genealogy and
History, “Lucinda Vann,” Slave Narratives. n.d.
http://okgenweb.org/slave.htm.
[51]
Miles, The House on Diamond Hill, 20
[52] Willis, "Divide and Rule,” 157
[53]
Labourot 245
[54]
Miles, The House on Diamond Hill, 81
[55]
Miles, The House on Diamond Hill, 87-88
[56] Oklahoma Genealogy and
History, “Chaney McNair,” Slave Narratives, n.d.
http://okgenweb.org/slave.htm.
[57] Oklahoma Genealogy and
History, “Sweetie Ivery Wagoner,” Slave Narratives, n.d.
http://okgenweb.org/slave.htm and Oklahoma
Genealogy and History, “Rochelle Allred Ward,” Slave Narratives. n.d.
http://okgenweb.org/slave.htm.
[58]
Ibid
[59] Oklahoma Genealogy and
History, “Phyllis Petite,” Slave Narratives. n.d.
http://okgenweb.org/slave.htm, Oklahoma Genealogy and History, “Morris
Sheppard,” Slave Narratives. n.d. http://okgenweb.org/slave.htm,
“Rochelle Allred Ward,” Slave Narratives, and Oklahoma
Genealogy and History, “Sarah Wilson,” Slave Narratives. n.d.
http://okgenweb.org/slave.htm
[60] Oklahoma Genealogy and History, “Victoria Taylor
Thompson,” Slave Narratives. n.d. http://okgenweb.org/slave.htm
[61]
“Morris Sheppard,” Slave Narratives.
[62]
Miles, The House on Diamond Hill, 98
[63]
Miles, The House on Diamond Hill, 89
[64] Oklahoma Genealogy and History, “Patsy Perryman,” Slave
Narratives. n.d. http://okgenweb.org/slave.htm, “Chaney Richardson,” Slave
Narratives, “Betty Robertson,” Slave Narratives, “Victoria Taylor
Thompson,” Slave Narratives, and “Sweetie Ivery Wagoner,” Slave
Narratives.
[65] Oklahoma Genealogy and History, “Katie Rowe,” Slave
Narratives. n.d. http://okgenweb.org/slave.htm
[66] Oklahoma Genealogy and History, “Charlotte
Johnson White,” Slave Narratives. n.d.
http://okgenweb.org/slave.htm and “Sarah Wilson,” Slave Narratives.
[67]
“Sarah Wilson,” Slave Narratives.
[68] “Phyllis Petite,” Slave Narratives and “Chaney
Richardson,” Slave Narratives.
[70] “Victoria Taylor Thompson,” Slave Narratives
[71]
Miles, The House on Diamond Hill, 93
[72]
“Morris Sheppard,” Slave Narratives and “Rochelle
Allred Ward,” Slave Narratives.
[73] Oklahoma Genealogy and History, “Johnson Thompson,” Slave
Narratives. n.d. http://okgenweb.org/slave.htm.
[74] “Rochelle Allred Ward,” Slave Narratives.
[75]
“Morris Sheppard,” Slave Narratives and “Sarah
Wilson,” Slave Narratives.
[76] “Phyllis Petite,” Slave Narratives.
[77]
“Morris Sheppard,” Slave Narratives.
[78] “Rochelle Allred Ward,” Slave Narratives
[79] “Sweetie Ivery Wagoner,” Slave Narratives.
[80] “Lucinda Vann,” Slave Narratives.
[81] “Patsy Perryman,” Slave Narratives.
No comments:
Post a Comment