whites compounded the sorrow indians felt over removal and exacerbated the fear by which they continued to live. for those who think that indian removal concluded in 1842, lingering fears of removal over a century later may seem irrational, but the removal of southern indians did not end in 1842, nor were its effects limited to cherokees, seminoles choctaws, creeks. the same factors, greed, racism, political posturing led to dispossession of other southern indians in the antebellum period, an indication of the pervasiveness of removal sentiment. indian reservation in virginia, north carolina and south carolina, that dated from the colonial period faced disillusion as states made indian land available to white

farmers and indian people disappear into the amorphous category of free people of color. in virginia lost much land in the '30s after state legislature provided for allotment of reservations that dated to the 17th century. in 1831, north carolina required the remainder of an 18th century tuscarora reservation which left landless those tuscaroras who remained in north carolina. in 1840 over a barrel of rum catawba proceeded to south carolina, their reservation. they proceeded to relocate them to north carolina, ending bankruptly when the north carolina governor got wind of it. in recompense for the acres seceded they had largely

worthless clay hills that could not support them. the fervor that surrounded indian removal often led to dispossession by individuals. in louisiana, for example, the biloxis left all but 130 acres when a white man fenced much of their holdings for himself, charged several indian women with trespassing on the track and shot the chief who protested his actions. removed, therefore, was more encompassing than southern historians traditionally acknowledged. it also extended over a much longer period. following the civil war, the united states renewed efforts to remove remnants of tribes targeted in the 1830s. in the 1860s commissioner of indian affairs requested funding for an agent to assess feasibility of moving seminoles west, a goal he thought could be accomplished if they were

informed of the advantages to be gained there by. in the indian office it seems, memory was short, hope long, and disappointment, at least where the seminoles were concerned, predictable. no one went west. more susceptible to removal efforts were cherokees who were not a part of the core land owning group in north carolina. in the 1870s approximately 100 of these cherokees who whites fraudulently dispossessed of their land and property encamped near east tennessee railroad station in a destitute condition to await transportation that the united states had promised but was slow to deliver. their ordeal seemed to mirror the cherokee experience of 1838 and dampened further pro removal sentiment among the cherokees. in 1903 united states made the

final attempt to remove all choctaws from mississippi by empowering the dawes commission to award them indian territory now in oklahoma. opposition of records, landlords who held many choctaws in meonage and indians fear of having anything to do with the federal government hampered these efforts. add to this bureaucratic bungling, shies ter lawyers who defrauded clients and property so severe that those who received allotments often could not afford a rail ticket to go claim their land and the result was failure to rid mississippi of choctaws. peaked by indians refusal to disappear from mississippi, state and federal governments adopted a punitive attitude. choctaw found their schools close, communities dislocated and economic opportunities more

circumscribed than they had been. choctaw baxter york told an interview the government said those that failed to go to oklahoma 1893, all right, we're going to take everything away from you, even your happiness. york made this comment nearly three-quarters of a century after the event but his anguish was still palpable. sporadic efforts to dispossess indians made people reluctant to have any dealings with government officials. in the early 20th century drainage projects steadily opened the swamps in which the seminoles lived to whites. but knows indians refused to move to reservation land they had acquired for them. settling on a reservation, they thought, made them vulnerable to remove. in 1911, a federal agent tried

to convince charlie osceola, who as a child had seen seminoles deported on a steamboat, they tried to persuade him relocating to a reservation would provide some security for seminoles. charlie osceola replied. no, there's a big canal out there. pretty soon big steamboat come along, put engine on and never come back. a white trader living among seminoles testified in 1917 to a congressional hearing that the events of 1830 are as fresh with many today as they were when they happened and 9/10 of seminoles believed the government still wanted to take them to oklahoma. even after a century, removal haunted indians across the south. when the office of indian affairs and a special investigator from washington in

1931 to assess choctaw in oklahoma city, the people that lived there refused to meet with them despite the beef they bash queued in an effort to lure them to the meeting. they wanted nothing to do with the federal government because of fear that, as one man put it, the government will take us away someday to oklahoma. when the investigator sought an explanation for why many choctaw share croppers refused to leave their landlord's plantations and settled on land the united states had been acquiring for them since world war i, another told him old time indian choctaw scared to remove because of forced removal years ago. memory was long and made them wary of removals. such an association is not

surprising since missionaries established schools in cherokee, choctaw and creek nations in the decade or so immediately before 1830 when congress passed the indian removal act. refusing to send their children to school was one way indian students is lated indians and whites and they believed the possibility of removed. any issue involving education tended to become associated with removal. a dispute between the u.s. agent and quaker school superintendent over control of the cherokee school in 1892 sparked rumors, the agent claimed, that i was going to move the indians west if they did not let me have control of the school. in the 1930s, the choctaws believed the government intended to first make a show of beneficence through education of their children and eventually by this means bring about forced

immigration as in 1830. for southern indians removal became the touch stone for totally unrelated events. in 1870, refused to answer questions of a census numerator. he and his family all took to the swamp repeating the response of an earlier generation to removal. in 1930, some seminole communities gave up their cattle in order to avoid possible confrontations with white cattlemen over grazing, conflicts they feared might result in their deportation. rejected citizenship because they did not want to be subject to the united states which might decide to carry them off. memories of removal shaked interpretations of current events. an article in the cherokee one feather in the 1970s compared richard nixon's refusal to turn over oval office tapes to the

congressional committee investigating the watergate burglary, they compared that to andrew jackson's refusal to enforce wooster v. georgia. removal did mar more to native people than arouse fear and distrust. american indian mental health professionals point to historical trauma, that is a profound grief rooted in the past as one explanation for why native people have high rates of depression, suicide, alcoholism, violence, and a host of anti-social behaviors. because whites controlled the public venues and events of the south, indians had few chances to confront them openly about past injustice. the inability to publicly express grief and anger over what happened to their ancestors meant that unresolved feelings

were passed from generation to generation. in 1917, tubby pittiously described the effect of historical trauma on cho choctaws. they have given up hope. despair had become a theme in their individual and communal lives. on a social and political level, removed made it difficult for tribes to come together into new nations. the choctaw agent could have been speaking about any of the remnant southern tribes when he wrote that removal left them without tribal relationship. the story of the cherokees through the 19th century as the gradual and arduous consolidation of people and authority of cherokee as it was

called, not ounl 20th vengery choctaws had polit dal ties between their dispersed communities. choctaws had been divided before removal each with its own chief. removal forced those that remained to live wherever they could. most survived as share croppers, squatter, mississippi, louisiana, alabama, and ultimately tennessee where they formed widely separated communities. even today the choctaw reservation is not composed of contiguous land. although mississippi choctaws united as a federally recognized tribe after world war ii, the choctaws in louisiana remained separate. although war in the 1830s seemed to unite seminoles against a common threat, the tactic of capturing and deporting entire groups induced the seminoles to forge the smallest possible social and political unit.

their relocation to the swamps of southwest florida where environment's caring capacity was very low reinforced this pattern. the seminoles never managed to form a single policy and today they are two federally recognized tribes as well as independent seminoles who want nothing to do with either. from necessity the seminoles and others learned to live as individuals and to be skeptical of tribal unity. cherokees were the first to succeed in putting together a tribal government largely because they had a vested interest in land and needed to make corporate decisions about its use. governments like that of the cherokees could protect the indians' interest but tribal government also could become tools of those who wished to dispossess indians. since treaties exist between

governments and treaties had been the instruments of removals, the absence of governments meant treaties and other instruments could not be negotiated. for that reason tribal government as they were in the south before removal and existed elsewhere in the country developed slowly in the post removal south. furthermore factionalism was rife. whether intention or not, it provided a strategy for avoiding relations with the united states except on specific issues like economic relief for schools of which most members of a tribe could agree. federal recognition was not a good thing in the removed era and memories of the suffering wrought by recognition encouraged indian communities to keep their heads down. one result was growing obscurity and anonymity. to rid them geographically and

racially came at the turn of the century where their presence and racial ambiguity began to complicate jim crow laws. thousands lived and were a diverse group. in addition to those removed there were indian communities that had no history of relations with the united states and were not slated for removal. some in louisiana had tribal land that predated the louisiana purchase. the alabama indians inside texas, south carolina and virginia retained state reservations. but th remaining in the south had no common land and no formal relationship with state or federal governments. as states segregated not only schools but also transportation and public accommodations, these people presented legislators with a conundrum.

how could they fit a third race into a biracial legal system. solutions varied according to time and place. but generally states categorized indians as colored and had separate provisions for them in jim crow statutes insisting intermarriage with african-americans had tainted their indian blood, states usually closed white facilities to native people and refused to record them as indian on official documents. although local and state governments occasionally funded more commonly insisted indians attend colored schools or the federal government provide an education for them. the federal office of indian affairs did acknowledge obligations to remnants of removed tribes. as for other native people, the united states demured.

ironically the people who were not supposed to be in the south, that is those whose nations had removed had a legitimacy denying indians who were never slated for federal removal. a history of removal affirmed the indian identity of remnant peoples. that acknowledgement did not necessarily give them access to schools, social services, transport, public accommodations or jobs reserved to whites.estn carolina, for example, denied admission to cherokee students in the 1890s. the white school in florida expelled four or five seminoles who enrolled in 1916 because local whites objected. porch creeks in alabama gained admission to a white high school only in 1936 and as late as the 1950s mississippi choctaws were restricted to use of colored

facilities and generally treated as colored. whites conceded the racial identity of all these people as indian, but jim crow's purpose was to protect whiteness, note to segregate the white population in mirered ways based on ethnicity. despite before victims of jim crow, few southern indians joined the civil rights movement after world war ii. their history distinguished them from african-americans even if discrimination did not. in 1962 choctaw chief philip martin expressed the view of many indians. when the white people came, they brought with them the negroes as their slaves. so in a nut shell the white and negro problem is one of their own making. in my opinion, the basis of the indian problem is entirely different. tribes did not seek individual rights for individual indians,

instead they sought respect for their distinct status as sovereign nations. consequently they looked to indian organizations such as national congress of american indians to seek redress of grievances. southern indians recognized they had unique problems rooted in southern history. therefore they formed regional organizations that addressed particular needs. membership in these organizations was tribal, not individual, and they focused on relations with the federal government, not civil rights. these organizations formed during the tenure of the indian claims commission, which congress established in 1936 to reach a final settlement with tribes in preparation for terminating federal responsibility for them. the remnants of removed tribes joined claims for lands lost in the southeast. the mississippi choctaws failed

in their suit to participate in an award to the choctaw nation in oklahoma. but the porch creeks eastern ch florida seminoles and miccosukees won nearly $10 million for land unjustly taken before court case that had clouded thousands of land titles in suburban charlotte ended with a settlement that brought the tribes between $80 million and $90 million for land that south carolina illegally acquired before 1840. demanding legal redress represents an exercise of political sovereignty, but as indian people began more confident, they began to assert cultural sovereignty as well. no longer willing to let white southerners to represent their history, indians began to tell their own story. in the 1970s the eastern

cherokees opened the modern museum and gradually exhibits began to reflect a cherokee's perspective. just last year the cherokees opened a research center, and started a project to digitize tribe at holds. they wrested control of their outdoor drama from local whites. similarly, seminoles bochted state of the art museum and archives on the big cypress reservation. osceola as well as other warriors received brief mention in the introductory film but the theme of exhibits is not indian-white relations but seminole cultural survival. from subsistence practices to their annual green corn ceremony, the seminoles celebrate their past by linking it to their present and to their existence as a people. other southern tribes are also moving toward research centers and museums in order to preserve

records and provide their own interpretations of the past. southern indians sometimes refer to the past in rather startling ways. the mississippi choctaws, for example, have built the dancing rabbit golf club adjacent to their casinos in neshoba county. now, some may take offense that a golf course named for the treating of dancing rabbit creek by which the choctaw nation was removed, but every time a white guy in plaid bermuda shorts forks over $150 to play a round of golf, the choctaws ensure their survival as a people. they have forgotten neither the removal nor the irony implicit in their current economic empire.

among the people who often have forgotten that indians remained in the south after removal are southern historians. the long shadows that removal has cast across the region does not generally fall on us today. the second volumes of popular southern history texts do not mention indians. and the august, 2009, issue of the "journal of southern history" which offers fine essays on the state of the field barely countenance their existence, but indians are an intrinsic part of southern history, both remote and recent. their presence belies a southern racial binary in ways that are complicated and often uncomfortable. many indians, for example, supported segregation as long as it made room for them as indians and used it legally to establish their identity as indians. most native people did not join

the civil rights movement. although they often benefitted from it. instead, they demanded respect for the sovereign rights of tribes to be separate, and they won reparations for some of the land that their tribes had lost unjustly.s with an opportunity to examine different experiences and perspectives in the history of the south. ones that do not follow the standard narratives but instead challenge and enrich us. it is a legacy of indian removal that i encourage all southern historians to acknowledge. thank you.

>> you're watching american historyive to, 48 hours of people and events that help document the american story. all weekend, every weekend, on c-span3. >> there's a new website for "american history tv" where you can find our schedules and preview our upcoming programs. watch featured video from the regular weekly series as well as access the history tweets, history in the news and social media from facebook, youtube, twitter and four square. follow "american history tv," all weekend, every weekend on c-span3 and online at cspan.org/history. >> all weekend long "american history tv" joins our comcast cable partners in shreveport, louisiana, to showcase its history and literary culture.

shreveport founded in 1836 has a population of about 200,000 people and is located about 250 miles northwest of baton rouge. you're watching american his troyive ive history tv on c-span3. >> barksdale air force base is home of the eighth bomber wing. since the b-52's introduction here in 1958, the base has housed one of the largest fleets of this aircraft in the u.s. military. >> when a b-52 enters a conflict, that the decision makers, america's leadership, they're serious, and it just got serious if the b-52 entered the conflict because b-52 says massive air power. >> it was the first nuclear bomber and it was designed basically during the cold war era and it was to project global power and long-range strike to our enemies during that era.

now, that has graduated over the years and this weapons system has also can modernized and upgraded over the years to continue with the flights that currently need us today. >> this is the b-52-h, has a wingspan of 185 feet. maximum gross weight is 488,000 pounds fully loaded, so that's with weapons and fuel. we carry up to ten different munitions on this particular jet ranging from unguided weapons, so gravity weapons that just free fall out of the bombay ba to guidedgps, guided weapons, jdam and we carry airisles so a whole bunch of modern weaponry goes on this jet. eight engines. each engine is capable of producing approximately 17,000 poundsapiece.

it's kind of an abnormal design. most aircraft don't have the engine hangs off like this as you see. when you push the power up, the jet will have a tendency to raise its nose. this is the bomb bay. 488,000-pound gross weight. as we add weapons, it reduces the amount of fuel we can carry. we can carry up to approximately 50,000 pounds of weapons inside the bomb bay here. these are the bomb racks. so, this is where the weaponsac. typically in this configuration we're carrying gravity weapons but we can carry depending on the weapon 27 internal gravity weapons d nuclear mission is required or, you know, conventional mission, we have the conventional air launch cruise missiles or the nuclear

cruise missiles. we'll take these cluster rack out and we'll put in what's called a csrl, it's a rotary launcher, and it attaches to the missiles themselves and it's kind of like a six-shooter, rotate, drop one out, and missile away. the fuel's loaded pretty much everywhere you don't see a bomb bay. i mean, this jet is designed for heavy metal, weapons, and fuel, that's all there is to it. this is the bomb bay, and you'll see above you labeled fuel tank. so, pretty much everywhere. the wings -- it's called an integral fuel system, so the fuel tanks are actually part of the structure of the wing itself, so the wings are fully loaded with fuel, that's why you'll see when the b-52s are parked, their wings are hanging low. that's just the fuel weight in the wing is pulling the wings to the ground, whereas after landing, you know you do a long mission, the wings will be up in the air, almost, you know, six feet and