The involvement of American Indians in the Civil War is a subject that has gradually gotten more attention in recent years. One incident with them, however, has long had a place in the American consciousness, albeit an incident reduced to an amusing or exotic anecdote to a lesser-known major battle in the West. The Battle of Pea Ridge, fought from March 7-8, was the largest battle west of the Mississippi River and also the largest to involve Indian units. Nearly 900 Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw Indians marched out of Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma) to fight alongside Confederate units. After the Battle of Pea Ridge these Indian troops became the center of a controversy: the mutilation and scalping of killed and wounded Federal soldiers.
Historians have identified the culprits of these mutilations as the two Cherokee Regiments, the 1st Cherokee Mounted Rifles under Colonel John Drew and the 2nd Cherokee Mounted Rifles under Colonel Stand Watie. To understand why these Indians joined ranks with the Confederates, one would have to go back decades to the removal of Cherokees from their land in northwestern Georgia. The controversial treaties and resultant Trail of Tears towards the designated Indian Territory created antagonistic political divisions within the Cherokee Nation. On one side was Stand Watie and the Southern Rights Party. The Southern Rights Party consisted mostly of mixed-blood Cherokees who supported black slavery (which was practiced in the Cherokee Nation). With ties to white southern families and wealthier social status, they held significant political influence and were naturally inclined to pitch in with the Confederacy. On the other side was the National or Pin Party. Its members were more likely to be full-blooded Cherokees and more hostile to the idea of slavery. Ironically Stand Watie, the most prominent member of the Southern Rights Party, was three-quarters Cherokee while President John Ross, who relied on the support of the Pins and opposed an alliance with the Confederacy, was mostly white and a slaveholder himself. These two factions had in the past engaged in vicious blood feuds within Indian Territory. Wishing to end the fractious bloodshed and preserve his people, John Ross was able to soothe tensions with a general amnesty.[1] The divisions remained, however, and the Southern Rights Party eventually maneuvered the Cherokee Nation into the Confederate camp.
Stand Watie
 |
| John Drew |
When Federal forces withdrew from frontier outposts to focus on the secession crisis, they exposed the western borders of the new Cherokee Nation to attack from Commanches and other hostile groups. The Cherokees turned to the Confederacy for protection. John Ross also needed to get ahead of Watie and form an alliance on his own terms. The Cherokees would organize regiments and cooperate with the Confederate Army, but they could not be forced to fight outside their own territory. The organization of the two Cherokee regiments might have been a power play by Ross. Stand Watie had already formed a regiment or pro-Confederates, but the second regiment, under Ross’s nephew John Drew, got the distinction of 1st Cherokee Mounted Rifles. This regiment was also largely made up of Ross supporters. Despite the clause of the treaty forbidding Indians to fight outside their territory, a desperate Confederacy sought to draw the 1st and 2nd Cherokee Mounted Rifles out of Indian Territory to support a drive into Missouri. General Earl Van Dorn had just taken command of forces driven into Arkansas by a Federal army under General Samuel R. Curtis. He wanted as much men as possible to retake southern Missouri and even St. Louis.[2]
Brigadier-General Albert Pike (left), a former Indian Commissioner and commander of the Indian Brigade, was tasked with bringing his men to Van Dorn’s army. This was a violation of the treaty he had helped make with President Ross. Fortunately the Indian troops were amenable to “compensation” and Pike, through some payments, was able to get them to defy Ross and head east into Arkansas. When the Choctaw and Chickasaw made similar demands, he left them behind as he was already late in joining Van Dorn. The Indian Brigade only had 900 men, though overestimating battle reports and an outraged Northern press inflated their numbers to 3,000. The two Cherokee regiments reached Van Dorn’s army on March 6, just in time for the Battle of Pea Ridge.[3]
In contrast to the attention they have
received in artistic depictions of the battle and the outrage in the North, the
Cherokees’ contribution to the battle was quite minimal. The first day of the
Battle of Pea Ridge was really two battles separated by hilly terrain. The
Cherokees took part in the fight for Leetown. Here the Confederate’s rear
column, under Generals Ben McCulloch and James McIntosh, came upon a battery of
three cannon in a clearing. The dismounted 3rd Iowa Cavalry defended
this artillery. The two Cherokee regiments were sent to flank the Federals from
the right. A detachment of the Iowans turned and prevented the flanking, but
their numbers were too few. The Cherokees quickly overwhelmed them and the guns
fell into Confederate hands. According to Pike’s report the actions of Watie
and Drew’s regiments differed from each other. Watie’s men charged on foot and
their commander scouted ahead to point out another Federal battery protected by
infantry. By contrast Drew’s men rode into battle and then entered in a scene
of confusion. “…Around the taken battery was a mass of Indians and others in
the utmost confusion, all talking, riding this way and that, and listening to
no orders from any one.” One Confederate officer later wrote, “the Indians
swarmed around the guns like bees, in great confusion, jabbering and yelling at
a furious rate.” The Cherokees, more used to small-scale and personal violence,
may have been excitedly discussing their triumph in such a big fight.[4]
The second Federal battery, which Watie
had scouted out, fired two shells into the clearing. The Cherokees did not take
well to these projectiles and could not be made to stay in the open. Pike
withdrew them into the woods to protect the captured guns, where their demeanor
grew more respectably restrained. The Cherokees sat out the rest of the first
day’s battle, save for sniping with Federals in the brush. On the second day they
only engaged in a brief skirmish in the battle’s final moments. During the
retreat, the Cherokees decided to go back to Indian Territory, feeling, and
indeed having, no obligation to stick it out with Van Dorn.[5]
Despite their small role, the Cherokees’ actions sparked the battle’s greatest controversy. The first day of battle had McCulloch’s wing of the Confederate army lose most of their gains. In fact, Pike found himself rising to overall command of this force after McCulloch and McIntosh both fell in battle. Regaining their starting positions, the men of the 3rd Iowa Cavalry were horrified to discover that the wounded, who they had to leave behind in their retreat, had not just been killed, but slaughtered brutally. At least eight were scalped. As the Cherokees had driven the Iowans out of their position and then stayed behind in a supporting role, they became the obvious suspects. The 3rd Iowa’s colonel, Cyrus Bussey, took the time in his report to issue a condemnation:
“That their brave comrades, fighting in support of our national banner, the emblem of all that is good and great in the present civilization of the world, should thus be butchered and mangled by rebel savages has excited among my men an indignation that will, I assure you, exhibit itself on every field where they may in future be allowed to engage the enemy, in a relentless determination to put down the flag that calls to its support bands of rapacious and murdering Indian mercenaries.”[6]
Curtis contacted Van Dorn through
intermediaries. When agreeing to the Confederate general’s request to allow
burial parties to scour the battlefield for the dead, he brought up the
mutilations and expressed his wish that “this important struggle may not degenerate
to a savage warfare.” Van Dorn claimed ignorance, noting that the Cherokees and
other Indians on the Confederate side had proven themselves to be among the
civilized tribes. He promised to do his part to uncover the truth and stop any
further atrocities, but also claimed that Federal Germans likewise committed
heinous acts of Confederate wounded.[7]
Captain Scott from the 3rd
Iowa worked to collect testimony and have it sent to the Committee on the
Conduct of the Present War. Curtis passed it on in May, explaining that it
contained “the statements and affidavits…from which it will appear that large
forces of Indian savages were engaged against this army at the battle of Pea
Ridge, and that the warfare was conducted by said savages with all the
barbarity their merciless and cowardly natures are capable of.” These
statements came from several officers of the 3rd Iowa, who provided
gruesome details. A sergeant claimed that, following the Iowans’ rout, he “saw
about 300 Indians scattered over the battle-field, without commanders, doing as
they pleased.” In the aftermath Colonel Bussey counted 25 of his men dead. Of
these “8 were scalped and the bodies of others were horribly mutilated, being
fired into with musket balls and pierced through the body and neck with long
knives. These atrocities I believe to have been committed by Indians belonging
to the rebel army.” Adjutant John Noble of the 3rd Iowa Cavalry likewise
claimed to have found 8 of his comrades scalped. He “saw bodies of the same men
which had been wounded in parts not vital by bullets, and also pierced through
the heart and neck with knives, fully satisfying me that the men had first
fallen from the gunshot wounds received and afterwards brutally murdered.[8]
The mutilations had an effect on Pea
Ridge’s veterans. Many Federal veterans gained a hatred for the Cherokees and
other Indians, though most would rarely, if ever, have to fight them again. A
captain in the 37th Illinois wrote his wife, “These Indians are
blood thirsty and savage. We know when we fight them that we have to fight on a
different principle than we would white men.” Another captain from the 3rd
Iowa, which was actually victimized, recalled the impromptu execution of a
Cherokee prisoner. “I wish it had been the last of that race…There will be no
quarter shown them after this, that is certain.”[9]
The
Federal soldiers were justifiably horrified that if any of them was wounded and
fell into Indian hands, he might find himself shot through and scalped.
Confederate leaders for their part denounced the atrocities. This is evidence
that it was indeed Cherokee soldiers who committed the mutilations. The Cherokee National Council denounced the scalpings and
insisted that it was their nation’s policy to fight war in a “humane” manner.[10]
Pike was embarrassed that some of his men had gotten out of hand and
violated the rules of conduct during war. He even witnessed one Cherokee shoot
an already wounded Federal.[11]
Following the battle he sent Phillip S. Hocker, a
Texas cavalryman, to General Curtis’ headquarters with a message of apology.
After a three-day travel, Hocker reached Curtis with Pike’s message. Pike
admitted that his Cherokee subordinates had scalped some of the Federals, but
that he had never approved such actions and was greatly sorry. Hocker later wrote
“I speak advisably when I say that no man regretted the savage practice more
than Gen. Pike…I readily recall to mind his expressions of regret that he was
unable to control a portion of his Indian soldiers.”[12]
Pike’s reputation, however, was doomed
thanks to the power of the Northern press. The Battle of Pea Ridge had occurred
mostly out of view of the press. Only two reporters were present at the battle:
William L. Fayel of the St. Louis Daily
Missouri Democrat and Thomas W. Knox of the New York Herald. They had a relationship with Curtis that ensured
the general got favorable coverage and in turn they got access to further details.
Their reporting guided the North’s view of the battle. As a result, writers at
other papers had to wait for information or copy what Fayel and Knox had
already reported. To differentiate their takes on the battle, they embellished
the truth and created fanciful stories. The Cherokee presence of the battle was
fodder for such attention-grabbing tales. Even Fayel, who was at the battle,
could not resist spinning yarns about the Indians, a couple which might be
true, but have otherwise been uncorroborated. One was that the Indians put on
black war paint to signify hunger, as they had not eaten for two days. Another
was that, in reaction to the Federal artillery, the Indians would exclaim,
“Ugh, big gun!” and flee for cover.[13]
Nothing caused quite a stir, however, as
the reports of the mutilations. Initial reports were restrained. Thomas Knox of the New
York Herald described the Indians as “aborigines” in a subtitle, but dwelt
little on their presence in the battle.[14]
The Chicago Tribune, which had no
reporters on the ground, printed a paragraph from Colonel Bussey’s battle
report on the first page. It was the paragraph on the mutilations. The second
page provided details of other possible atrocities in the battle. One concerned
a Lieutenant Smith of the 8th Indiana, left behind after being
wounded. He was later found with his throat cut. The Tribune did not, however, clearly theorize who might have committed
such a horrid act, leaving it to the reader to decide if it was an Indian or
perhaps a white Confederate. It should be noted that the 8th Indiana
went into action against Sterling Price’s pro-Confederate Missourians, at the
other end of the battlefield.[15]
Soon the papers began to print new articles on Pea Ridge, with much more colorful and creative details. One common theme of these articles was the vilification of Albert Pike. Northern papers started to not only accuse him of responsibility for the crimes at Pea Ridge, but attack his morality in other parts of his life. Since Pike grew up in Massachusetts, they labeled him a traitor to his state. Other accusations were much more absurd. Apparently he had also beaten and starved a child near to death and then fled west to escape justice, where he abandoned his high education ingratiated “himself to the culture of the Great Spirit, or rather of two great spirits, whiskey being the second”. They further charged him with inciting his native troops to commit atrocities by giving them whiskey before battle.[16] Here is an example of such character assassination n the New York Illustrated News:
The Albert Pike who led the Aboriginal Corps of Tomahawkers and Scalpers at the Battle of Pea Ridge, formerly kept school in Fairhaven, Mass, where he was indicted for playing the part of Squeers [a literary allusion to the cruel headmaster from Charles Dickens’ Nicholas Nickleby], and cruelly beating and starving a boy in his family. He escaped by some hocus-pocus of law, and emigrated to the West, where they violence of his nature has been admirably enhanced. As his name indicates, he is a ferocious fish, and has fought duels enough to qualify himself to be a leader of savages. We suppose that upon the recent occasion he got himself up in good style, war paint, nose ring, and all. This new Pontiac is also a poet, and wrote “Hymns to the Gods” in Blackwood; but he has left Jupiter, Juno, and the rest, and betaken himself to the culture of the Great Spirit, or rather of two Great Spirits – whisky being the second. So much for Pike![17]
The Chicago
Tribune exemplified the transition into sensationalist reporting. The Tribune
stated that “col. Albert Pike, a Northern man, who deserves, and will doubtless
receive eternal infamy for his efforts to induce a horde of savages to butcher
brave men who had taken up arms to prevent the subversion of the Republic…The
Indians in many instances could not refrain from scalping their enemies, and it
is said that as many as a hundred of our brae men were thus barbarously
treated.” Worse, they performed this on soldiers who were disabled, but not
fatally wounded. Of course these charges were made to reflect on the
Confederates themselves. The article accused them of sending the Indians into a
“demoniac rage” through “large quantities of whiskey and gunpowder a few
minutes previous to the commencement of hostilities.” The Indians were supposedly
so stirred up that they scalped white Confederates as well, an incident of
poetic justice.
The article also impugned
the Indians’ honor by claiming they refused to fight in the open and not only
sniped from behind trees and rocks, but would play dead and then rise up to
shoot at a passing Federal. However, this was not a shot at their bravery, as
it was reported that alcohol-crazed Indians
“lost their sense of caution and fear, and ran with long knives against
large odds, and fell pierced by dozens of balls.” The article finally reported
an incredible and as it turns out entirely unsupported story of a battle behind
Confederate lines. Since the alcohol and blood-crazed Cherokees targeted
“friend and foe alike,” they fired into the rear of Arkansans and the two
Confederate units got into a pitched firefight while the confrontation of the
Federals was still in play.[18]
If such an incident had occurred, Confederate battle reports would have been
crying for censures and court-martials of Pike and his subordinates.
The New York Illustrated News took things a step further, providing an
engraving (below) in which heroic Federal soldiers square off against half-naked
Indians, some armed with tomahawks and other primitive instruments of death
(The Cherokees lacked proper uniforms, but were mostly dressed in western
attire and would not have exposed their bodies to the still cold early March weather).
The attached article is no less incendiary than the Chicago Tribune report. Those who “had the misfortune” to be
wounded and left behind in the initial retreat “were foully and fiendishly
scalped, murdered, and robbed by these red-skinned wretches.” The paper
repeated the fiction that Arkansans and Indians got into a battle amongst
themselves. It also claimed that the Indians could not stand “after a single
volley.”[19]
Although the papers
castigated the Cherokees for both real and imagined atrocities, the larger
point they made was that the Confederates were using them as pawns, a way to
commit atrocities on Federals without getting their own hands dirty. This
reflected Patriot propaganda of the Revolutionary War. In that conflict the
American Revolutionaries claimed
that the Iroquois Indians were savage, blood-crazed, and easily duped pawns of
the British Empire rather than autonomous peoples with their own goals and
motivations. Propagandists in art and literature often depicted their
atrocities being conducted under the oversight of British officers.[20]
Now the Cherokees were the savage pawns of Confederate officers such as Albert
Pike.
The
scalpings at Pea Ridge soon faded into a footnote, but nevertheless an
interesting one that gained attention in post-war writings. Debate broke out
over which Cherokees had committed the crimes: John Drew’s 1st
regiment or Watie’s 2nd? In the regimental history of the 3rd
Louisiana, a regiment that fought near the Cherokees at Pea Ridge, the author used
what may have been his racial assumptions to assign the blame. He claimed that
the full-blooded Cherokees went wild on anyone with a blue coat, which included
Confederates, and shot and scalped them. This is the only corroboration of the
story that Cherokees and white Confederates slugged it out during the battle.
In the confusing, dense woods, the inexperienced Indians, who had just joined
the army only a day or so before, mistook the blue-clad Louisianans for
scattered Federals and acted accordingly. By contrast, the 3rd
Louisiana history stated that the “the half-breeds” of Watie’s regiment “were
better trained, and practiced no such barbarities.”[21]
More interesting was the partisan
bickering amongst the Cherokees themselves. Months after Pea Ridge, the
Federals invaded Indian Territory and, unaware of the complex political
divisions wracking the Cherokee Nation, arrested John Ross and sparked another
civil war between Ross’ supporters and the Southern Rights Party. Also, most of
John Drew’s regiment defected to the Union. The violence that ensued was of the
kind perpetrated in Missouri and Kansas, with combatants caring more about
personal or local agendas (rather than the larger nation-wide conflict), the
killing of prisoners, and the frequency of scalping and knifing. One white
Baptist missionary in Indian Territory, John Slover, remembered that "It became unsafe for non-combatants to live at their
homes. Even some old men were shot near their doors, others were tortured in
one way or another to make them reveal where their money was."[22] At one meeting
pro-Northern Cherokees described their “country being greatly devastated by the
war, many of the houses and farms being destroyed by fire, and others being so
demolished that the women would find no shelter at their homes.”[23]
When the war finally concluded, strong bitter feelings remained amongst the
veterans of the Cherokee regiments, who had fought alongside and then against
each other.
William Penn Adair, an assistant
quartermaster in the 2nd Cherokee, admitted that the Cherokees did
scalp Union wounded. He then made the odd argument that they were humane in
doing so, as scalping “starts the blood to running” and helps a wounded man
recover and run away. In an article in the Missouri
Republican, prominent Watie supporter Elias Boudinot falsely charged that
Adair was in a Northern prison and that his bizarre defense of scalping showed
“he didn’t know what he was talking about. No man in his senses would have
given utterances of such ghastly twiddle.” Boudinot then played partisan
politics. He insisted that the true perpetrators of the scalping came from Drew’s
1st Cherokee Regiment. This was a convenient accusation, as the
regiment’s lieutenant-colonel was William Ross, another nephew of President Ross.
He shared his uncle’s reluctance to join the Confederacy and led his men to
desert to the other side later in the year. Boudinot further charged that they
continued to scalp their enemies, but were not criticized by the formerly
outraged Northern press as they now targeted Confederates.[24]
A 1959 pro-Confederate history of Watie and his soldiers by Frank Cunningham
was quick to agree with Boudinot and put the blame on Drew’s Cherokees.[25]
More recent histories have cautiously assigned the scalpings to the Cherokees
in general, unable to confirm this partisan blame assignment.
As it turned out, the scalpings at Pea Ridge were just one of many atrocities committed in the Civil War’s Trans-Mississippi theatre. It struck a nerve because it was the first major Confederate atrocity of the war. In the three remaining years of the war, the actions of William Quantrill, Bloody Bill Anderson, and various other Confederates would eclipse the actions of the Cherokees. The Cherokees would not even have the dubious distinction of committing the greatest atrocity on behalf of American Indians. At the Battle of Poison Spring in 1964, the Choctaws would join their Texan allies in massacring surrendering and wounded black troops. After the battle they scalped and mutilated both black and white Federal soldiers, according to some burying black corpses up to their waist as headstones for the whites’ graves. The Union was not guiltless in this part of the war. Pro-Union Jayhawkers could be as ruthless as Quantrill’s raiders, and the Federal army itself exacerbated the suffering of Indian Territory’s inhabitants by plundering their property. The Pin Cherokees, if they had the chance and motivation, also subjected the Confederates to the same fate as the 3rd Iowa:
“The scalping…was confined principally to Confederate Indians, but in a few instances some of our white soldiers were scalped, the greatest dread we had in the engagement the fear of being wounded and falling into the hands of the Pins, whose leading propensity seemed to be to separate from the white Union soldiers in order to satiate their thirst and secure a trophy of an enemy’s scalp. The above knowledge engendered a spirit of retaliation, especially with the Confederate Indians.”[26]
The scalpings at Pea Ridge, then, were
just the tip of a mountain of dark and violent actions in the Trans-Mississippi
Civil War. As terrible as they were, they were committed by a small group of
people against another small group of people at the fringe of a battle. The
brief outrage throughout the North was the result of exaggerations and
embellishments in the press. If the scalpings play any importance, it’s that
they contributed to the cycle of violence at an early stage, introducing scalping
as a vengeful tactic on both sides of the war.
 |
| 100 years after the battle, Topps released a Civil War trading card series. This is one of the cards, which shows that the imagery of Indians slaughtering ad scalping Federals had lasting effect in popular memory. |
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Adams,
Leigh. “‘Them Infernal Indians’: Letters from an Iowa Cavalryman at Pea Ridge,”
Military Images Vol. 11 No. 2
(September-October 1989): 23-24.
Banasik, Michael E. Confederate
Tales of the War in the Trans-Mississippi Part Two: 1862. Camp Pope
Bookshop, 2011.
Cherokee
National Council: Act Recognizing Negotiation with U.S., November 3, 1863, from
Thomas Lee Ballenger Papers, Special Collections, Newberry Library.
Chicago
Daily Tribune, March 20, 1862.
Chicago
Daily Tribune, March 25, 1862.
New
York Herald, March 19, 1862.
New-York
Illustrated News,
April 12, 1862.
Report
of Trial of Stand Watie Charged with Murder of James Foreman (original), 1843,
from Thomas Lee Ballenger Papers, Special Collections, Newberry Library.
Slover, James. Minister to the Cherokees: a Civil War
Autobiography. University of Nebraska Press, 2001.
Tunnard, W.H. A Southern Record:
The History of the Third Regiment Louisiana Infantry. Baton Rouge,
Louisiana: 1866, 133.
United States. The War of
the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and
Confederate Armies Vol. III, VIII, XIII.
Washington D.C. 1894.
Secondary
Sources
Brown, Walter,
“Albert Pike and the Pea Ridge Atrocities,” The
Arkansas Historical Quarterly Vol. 38, No. 4 (Winter, 1979) pg. 345-359.
Confer,
Clarissa W. Cherokee Nation in the Civil
War. University of Oklahoma Press, 2007.
Hoock, Holger. Scars of Independence: America’s Violent
Birth. New York: Crown, 2017.
McLoughlin,
Michael. After the Trail of Tears: The
Cherokees’ Struggle for Sovereignty, 1839-1880. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press, 1993.
Mueller, James
E. ‘”This Act of Brutal Savageism’: Coverage of Native Americans at the 1862
Battle of Pea Ridge, Arkansas.” Southwestern
Mass Communication Journal. Vol. 32, No. 2 (2017). https://journals.tdl.org/swecjmc/index.php/swecjmc/article/view/29
Shea,
William L., and Hess, Earl J. Pea Ridge: Civil War Campaign in the
West. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992.
Sturm, Circe. Blood Politics: Race, Culture, and Identity in
the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 2002.
[1] Michael McLoughlin, After the Trail of Tears: The Cherokees’
Struggle for Sovereignty, 1839-1880 (Chapel Hill: University of North
Carolina Press. 1993): 16-17; “Report of the Trial of Stand Watie Charged with
Murder of George Foreman”, 1843 (from Thomas Lee
Ballenger Papers, Special Collections, Newberry Library, Ayer Modern S
Ballenger, Kutsche 5544); Circe Sturm, Blood
Politics: R; e, Culture, and Identity in the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma (Berkeley: University of
California Press. 2002) 66-67.
[2] The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of
the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies Vol. III,
(Washington; Government Printing Office, 1881), 672-673; Clarissa W. Confer, Cherokee Nation in the Civil War,
(University of Oklahoma Press, 2007), 46-47.
[3] The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of
the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies Vol. VIII,
(Washington; Government Printing Office, 1883), 287; OR XIII, 820; Confer, 57.
[4] OR VIII, 287-288; Shea, 108.
[5] OR VIII, 288; Shea, 244, 262.
[6] OR VIII, 235.
[7] OR VIII, 194-195.
[8] Leigh
Adams, “‘Them Infernal Indians’: Letters from an Iowa Cavalryman at Pea Ridge,”
Military Images Vol. 11 No. 2
(September-October 1989), 24; OR VIII, 206-208.
[9] Shea, 302; Leigh Adams, “‘Them Infernal Indians’: Letters from an Iowa
Cavalryman at Pea Ridge,” Military Images
Vol. 11 No. 2 (September-October 1989), 24.
[10] Muller, 2.
[11] Walter Brown, “Albert Pike and
the Pea Ridge Atrocities” The Arkansas
Historical Quarterly Vol. 38, No. 4 (Winter, 1979), 346.
[12] Michael
E. Banasik, Confederate Tales of the War
in the Trans-Mississippi Part Two: 1862, (Camp Pope Bookshop, 2011), 71-72.
[13] James E. Mueller, ‘”This Act of
Brutal Savageism’: Coverage of Native Americans at the 1862 Battle of Pea
Ridge, Arkansas,” Southwestern Mass
Communication Journal. Vol. 32, No. 2 (2017), 5-7.
[14] “The Great Battle at Pea Ridge,” New York Herald, March 19, 1862,10.
[15] Chicago Daily
Tribune, March 20, 1862, 1.
[16] Brown, 349-351.
[17] New-York Illustrated News, April 12, 1862, 363.
[18] Chicago Daily Tribune, March 25, 1862, 3.
[19] New York Illustrated News, April 12, 1862. 363.
[20] Holger Hoock, Scars of Independence: America’s Violent Birth. New York: Crown, 2017,
278-280.
[21] W.H. Tunnard, A Southern Record:
The History of the Third Regiment Louisiana Infantry. Baton Rouge,
Louisiana: 1866, 133.
[22] James Slover, Minister to the Cherokees: a Civil War
Autobiography, (University of Nebraska Press, 2001), 94
[23] “Cherokee National Council: Act
Recommending Negotiation with U.S.” November 3, 1863 (from
Thomas Lee Ballenger Papers, Special Collections, Newberry Library.
[24] Banasik, 66-68.
[25] Frank Cunningham, General Stand Watie’s Confederate Indians,
(San Antonio Naylor Company, 1959), Kindle Edition. 72.
[26] Banasik, 72.
No comments:
Post a Comment