tonight's speaker.

i'm very excited to introduce her to you. she stuck to fay yarbrough professor of history and an associate dean at rice university. tonight speaker, i'm very excited to introduce you to her, she's doctor fay yarbrough, professor of history and associate dean of rice university. she's an expert on 19th century native american history, and she has special interest in the interactions between indigenous people, and people of african descent during the 19th century. so her first book was race in the cherokee nation, 17 in the 19th century. her most recent book is called choctaw confederates, the american civil war and indian country. if you recognize the title, that book is the subject of tonight's talk. it's also basically brand-new. i noticed it's

official publication date was two years ago. it's a two-week birthday for your book this evening. we're excited to share it with you. you can find it in all the usual bookstore places, as well as directly from the university of north carolina press publishers. the top will be around 30 to 35 minutes, also. we'll have plenty of time for a discussion at the end. the way we do discussion, if you've been to these events before, we do it all through the q and a feature in zoom. you can type in questions to the q&a box at anytime. if something occurs to you during the talk, feel free to type it in then, or wait till the end. we'll get to as many of your questions as we can. we'll wrap things up in about an hour in 15 minutes. around 8:15, eastern time. so that's all from me, i just want to say how grateful i am that doctor fay

yarbrough, is able to be with us tonight. it's a wonderful book, i enjoyed reading it, and looking forward to hearing the author's perspective on the book as well. without further ado, i will turn over the virtual podium to doctor fay yarbrough, so thank you very much for being with us. >> thank you so much. good evening everyone. it's a pleasure to be with you if only virtually. i'd like to thank you for spending some of your time with me this evening. i'd like to thank professor paul quigley for inviting me. i'd also like to thank professor miller, for a fun chat as a prelude to our chat tonight. i'll share some -- with you in a moment, but first i want to share the introduction of my paper. then, just as we were starting to leave, here comes something across that little prairie, sure enough. we know they is indians, the way they is writing. the way they is all

strong out. they have a flag and it was all red and had a big crisscross on it that looks like a sawhorse. the man carrying it, rare back on it, with the wind with it. but it slapped all around the horses head. and the horse pitched and rear like you know somebody's going to happen. by that time it turn kind of dark and began to rain a little. we get out to the big road, and the rain comes down hard. it rained so hard, that we had to stop the wagon. then come along more soldiers than i ever see before. they all white men, i think. they have on that brown clothes died with walnut and butternut, and old master say they're confederate soldiers. -- davis, enslaved by -- offers one of the few existing

accounts of the battle of honey springs. she described seeing native troops approach carrying the confederate battle flag, the changing battle -- weather conditions -- her account goes on to explain the roar of gunfire that sounded like horses. the plank bridge way off somewhere. davis offers compelling testimony about the far-reaching and destructive power of battle on the civilian population and on the landscape. what i am most in interested in tonight is the experience of native soldiers. when we know of those soldiers on horseback whose writing style was so distinctive that davis and her fellow spectators identify them from deep

distance. what can we say about their experience and the confederate army? to answer these questions, i will turn to the service records from national archives, compiled service records of confederate soldiers that served organizations raised by the confederate government. from the outset, these records are something of -- a this title suggests that authorities listed these troops into service, however choctaw legislative documents from the era indicate that choctaw spent a deal of time about their commitment, and raising this for us. here i will share screen so we can make sure we're on the same page about where we are in terms of location. i'm most interested in the choctaw nation. you can see here. this is of the southeast corner of indian territory at this time. i focus on the choctaw because of their strong commitment to the confederacy, which is what i explore in the larger book problem project. here is my moment of shameless self promotion. doctor paul quigley did some for me, but this talk

and more on the subject can be found in my book choctaw confederates. the strength of their commitment which we can talk about in the q&a's best exemplified by the fact that they pass a statute deeming it treason to say anything about the confederacy. that's how strongly committed they are to the confederate cause. as a separate sovereign nation with its own constitution, judicial system, choctaw legislators could choose to align -- or attempt to remain neutral altogether during the war. they early allied with the confederacy and agreed to place a regiment of choctaw troops numbering 1000 man, under confederate officers, with the confederacy committing to pay $500,000 to armed troops. which authorities, choctaw or confederate then, enlisted these troops is less clear than the records title suggests. which will often be demonstrated by examining the

actual enlistment documents, which i'll show you in a moment. in addition, i supplement the service record with firsthand accounts from civil war soldiers, more broadly, to create a fuller picture of choctaw soldiers experiences. the majority of these records consist of forms provided by the word important to facilitate rapidly individual eligibility for pensions and benefits. the records include a jacket with the soldiers name, company, and rank, and other cards associated with the rank. there is significant numbers of the choctaw troops that the preprint it -- also known as calvary, with confederate imprint this. it's the jacket off it contained a villain in the blank style company must unroll. the company name and information appear printed on

this form as well. the form listed the date, location, and term of enlistment. here, i'll give you an example of one record from private-y -- of the second company k. you can see on his record that he's listed as age 30. he enlisted on june 12th, 1861. for 12 months, he enlisted -- you can see there's info from his company must unroll from july 26, 1862. these are the records that form the backbone of this talk on military experience for choctaw soldiers, and it's also an important part of the book project. if you see the -- adjustment you to have a little sympathy for me. i looked through thousands of these records in this reverse black background white writing, with

the handwriting on there. and compiled them into a database. so, especially useful in these records is the remarks section. in most sections -- cases it only says if in and with the is present -- but sometimes it includes rich tidbits about leave, promotion, work duties. frequently included a payroll farm saying whether the soldier received -- generally an amount of $25. sometimes a bounty paid, and receive rolls for $50 is on file as well as long as with petitions for official correspondence regarding the soldier. less frequently there's other miscellaneous documents often handwritten that are included in the soldiers jacket. i spend a little time giving you this description of these records because there is often this misconception that there aren't a lot of records regarding native populations that are

available. in fact there are. we can do a number of things in terms of creative reading of the records that we do have or looking more deeply to see if there are other records that we might be able to find and combined with other information to create a fuller picture of native experience. so again, to remind you of the kinds of information that is in these records available through national -- so given our time constraints all touch briefly on some of the into that you can glean from these records. first, the records indicate that more choctaw served for the confederacy than we previously knew. second, the records can give us some sense of changes taking place in choctaw society. we can also use the records to him for connections between people who served, and in particular i will look at what the records

can tell us about enlistments, how fluctuations and can vary based on battle and political activity. most importantly the records provide a glimpse at the experiences of common soldiers in the civil war and remind us that the war was not just a rupture between northern and southern states, but that other groups, native groups, were drawn into the dispute. so the contemporary choctaw nation estimates that approximately 1200 chuck to troops served on the side of the confederacy by the middle of the civil war. i collected the service records -- for the totality of the work. these 3100 troops translate -- or 20% of the choctaw population if you exclude enslaved persons. in the united states, soldiers accounted for approximately 14% of the northern population, andf 8. 3% of the confederacy and border states. if one excludes the enslaved populations of the

south, 12. 5 southerners served in the can federer see. i put this out to say that, wow, that 3100 choctaw soldiers might seem like a small number, as a proportion of the population, it's actually quite low. and substantial. so this figure, the, of 3100 troops, is much lower than the 10,000 troops that colonel douglas was predicted that the choctaw and chickasaw would prove fried to a letter of the president of the confederacy, jeff davis, and number more astonishing given the combined populations of the choctaw chickasaw populations was less than 23,000 people including their enslaved populations. cooper wrote, the choctaw and chickasaw can furnish 10,000 warriors if needed. the choctaw and chickasaw are extremely anxious to form another regimen. the deadly and -- that

included in the compiled military records tell us that only individual soldiers, but reveal aspects of the changing nature of chucked a society. for instance, the names on these records can simultaneously demonstrate the influence of euro americans and the resilience of traditional naming practices. here's an example of some of the names that we can see in these records. you'll see names such as -- a jefferson davis, private age 25, but also more traditional names like -- -- you see these blended names. there is a european route of a name, but then combined with choctaw language names. and then you see sir names are prominent families within the choctaw political arena. so the -- are important families that produce district chiefs in the

choctaw choctaw during the 19th century so something a simple as these names can reveal brighter changes that were taking place in the society. it also provides opportunity for comparison with similar data on american soldiers. i will just summarize to say that chalked a soldiers, the average age of them was just a little older of the age of enlistee's, based on what little data we have based on but that we have from confederate soldiers. again, we can see that they are slightly older than they are american, the counterparts. the age plus name data can also reveal relationships between soldiers. it's suggests relationship when soldiers. there is a cluster of

five greenwood enlistee's age 20 to 28. we wonder if allen gibson and hogan and greenwood all mustard into the same company one e on the same day, july 30th, 1861, at the same location, at blackjack court ground. if they are all related to each other. where the brothers? cousins? who enlisted together? similarly, joseph hunter, age 43, and hunter age 18 both joined the company in 1864. could they have been a father and son in hopes of joining together and branching out for one another? these sources are -- other data from the indian pioneer history collection, which is very similar to the wpa slave narratives, the informants and the indian pioneer history

collection are people who lived in indian territory during the 19th century. that data, along with personal papers, can augment some of these military records to confirm relationships. we know for certain that in both the union and confederate armies, family members did join together, cousins, brothers, fathers, sons. so, we should not be surprised that we see similar kinds of patterns in these records in the choctaw nation. another kind of record that seems, another piece of data that seems fairly straightforward is the question of company assignment. individuals mustered into company a, to the second k, to the second one. as was common among many other confederate troops, choctaw companies were also known by names connected to their commanding officers. so, captain sent an company was

known as a walking state company, also known as company i. we have companies, captain nelson's company, trump didn't gardeners company, captain john gibson's company. these company names were pre-printed on these enlisted, enlistment records. reinforce and how frequently they occurred. people knew these companies by these other names. again, i think of choctaw language and english names is also noteworthy. sinta nowa means walking snake. walking snake company and sinta nowa's company is a translation of his name. i think it's interesting to ponder that the

traditional choctaw language name was included. similarly, -- it may come from the chalk to word shima, which means to dress up or embellish. perhaps john gibson also known as captain -- also a recognition of a traditional choctaw name. again, the presence of these choctaw traditional names on the civil war military wrecked kurds exemplifies how much this quintessentially american event included other people who did not identify as americans. the date on the record, the date in place of the records reveals patterns about when and where soldiers enlisted into this mountain rifle group. almost 70% of the records include this information, which only makes sense if you think about trying to keep track of how long the period is opposed to last. you definitely want to keep track

of when and where they enlisted so you know when their terms of service should end. we can see in these records that the majority of the enlistments took place in 1861. june and july were especially popular months to enlist. 950 soldiers enlisted in these two months alone. the doctor and louisiana for the confederacy is even more remarkable given that the choctaws did not sign a treaty with the confederacy until july of 1861. the choctaw man who are committing to fight in the war, even before the choctaw lattice later had officially sided with the confederacy. again, the enthusiasm is high.

historian notes that the work of consolidating indian support began before any formal treaties resigned between the confederate and the choctaw. the choctaw government has passed a resolution in support of the southern states in february of 1861. the formal treaty alliance will not come for five more months. perhaps getting these men to enlist was not a difficult task. surely, the choctaw resolution was then response to the february 4th meeting of six southern states in montgomery to form a provisional government and establish the confederate space states of america. that resolution of support must have been in response to this meeting. the choctaws may have been waiting for this to create a more formal body before expressing choctaw support. u. s. indian agent douglas age cooper and rolled natives as early as 1861. again, before unofficial treaty of alliance had been signed. rules show over 100 troops in listed in 1861, specifically on may 13th. it described you can see here, the northeast corner of choctaw nation. sculleries known as a

particularly stronghold for southern support because a long the number of slave holders and that area it explains the high number of enlistments in that area. or this fervor for enlistment might have been prompted by the neighboring state of arkansas's decision to join the confederacy less than one week prior on may 7th of 1861. you can see other locations on this map that we're hotbeds of in this mid activity. fort ouachita, for bible, silver spring, goodwin station, sugarloaf, the depot blackjack grove, harry abel.

they were all locations for clusters of enlistment in 1861. buggy depot each served as capitals of the choctaw nation. they seem like very logical sites for forming companies. in 1862 enthusiasm for the war among chalked and eons was still strong. nearly 800 men and listed in the regiment of during the second year of the war. january marked and july were especially popular times. the almost 200 men who joined the regiments in january may have been spurred to action by the november and december battles that took place in indian territory. ground mountain, -- all three engagements were efforts to subdue -- and his followers. initially hoping to remain neutral, the leader disagreed with the creek council's decision to ally with the confederacy. while other native nations were negotiating treaties of alliance with confederate officials, indians loyal to the american federal

government were coalescing around though his wife -- many in the nation's run away to -- the banks have been owned by the greek mcintosh family recalled her family joining the gauge as -- all our family joined up with him. there was lots of greek indians and slaves in the outfit when they made a break for the north the runaways rose riding ponies stowing from the masters. moreover, many free blacks also favored the unionist stance and joined the local camps which are growing in size. some estimated that opothleyahola had as many as 9000 followers. only 2000 would have been fighting them. colonel cooper lead over 1400 native

confederates, supplemented by the ninth texas calgary to pursue chief opothleyahola and has banned. each of these three battles punctuated the flight to kansas for opothleyahola. there were a number of deaths that were recorded in these records. 105. four of which were four horses, which is something we can talk about in the q&a if you would like. seven where from this campaign against opothleyahola. cherokee prosper taryn minister steven foreman wrote in his diary in january of 1862 that he had heard about 14 men who were lost in the fighting. perhaps the additional deaths noted by four men came from the night forth texas cavalry that colonel cooper had called in as reinforcements. despite these losses, the confederate forces claimed a victory. they had for

so many loyal indians into kansas. and then to neutralize the threat by opothleyahola. with this threat remains outside of indian territory? missionary joseph mauro worried that once the weather conditions improved there will be's quality times in this territory again unless there is considerable force, unless there is a considerable force of confederate troops on the kansas border to oppose old posey, another nickname for opothleyahola. and his wild indians and jayhawkers. at this feeling was widespread within indian territory, more broadly, and i'm on the choctaws a peculiar, it may explain the first of enlistments in january of 1862. the man joined the regiment at evil town, and oakville. all located in the shoe newbie district in the south corner of the nation

closer to texas and arkansas. nearly 231 man and listed in march, again, from the same area. the companies raised in red river county formed on march 10th most likely in response to the battle at pea ridge. which is in nearby arkansas. here is one representation of the battle at pea ridge. it is from 1889. after the war, still in the 19th century. here is a 20th century rendering. again, we could talk about it if you like. it comes from the topps trading card company. this was produced in 1962 as part of a celebration of the centennial. it is the art of bob saunders

and of the back of the card, it has a summary of the war. the whole collection included 88 cards. 87 with images. and then a card that was the checklist that you had collected all the cards. you can see the difference in terms of the depiction in the 19th century versus the depiction in the 20th century. i am going to pause here. i don't want to leave this on, i will go

forward to battles. you can see battles that are taking place. the first chalked up and shake us up mountain rifles failed to arrive on site at pea ridge. the federal forces defeated the confederate troops. the confederate general albert pike pulled back his forces leaving the territory isolated. the proximity of the fighting and the threat of -- may have spurred confederate choctaw companies to form. june in july brought another 200 troops into service. i hope what i am giving you a sense of, what i am trying to argue for, you can see that these battles can spur enlistments activity. the enlistments are happening obviously, in this larger world where they are paying attention to events. they are paying attention to political activity. they are paying attention to battles. this can encourage or discourage enlistments among choctaw troops. so, i want to be mindful of our time. i always have more stuff than i should. i'm going to jump ahead a little bit. new york to mention the tampa massacre, which takes place in the least district of the chickasaw nation. i want to bring this up because it demonstrates that during the war there can be tensions within groups, and they can be attentions within native groups that are magnified by what's happening within the war. so the wichita agency is in the least district, and it's at the center of the action. the

wichita indians claim that the -- has been signed under duress. but group such as the -- i have signed willingly. the confederate government, was not able to meet the stipulations for supplies and medicine in the treaty. -- making incursions, despite their share of loyalty to the confederacy, tensions rose to the point that indian agent moved his family to the safety of sherman texas. when union raiders, which reportedly included members of the shawnee, delaware, kick up two -- tribes, some confederate indians join the raiders because of their frustrations with the confederate governments and kept promises. reports of the deaths of a cato boy, and the suspected cannibalism of the top of, is suddenly focused the various groups iron sharply on the pun callous. the time cabins

reported to the superintendent that they last 23 of their warriors, and about 100 other women and children in the massacre. the american civil war could exacerbate tensions within native groups, and between native groups, echoing -- a fight that could pit brother against brother or friend against friend. rather than stoke enthusiasm for the confederacy, the time kava massacre revealed how convoluted the alliances could be. by 1863, we see that the enlistment numbers declined sharply. only 189 soldiers enlisted. remember we chart more than 1000 enlistments in 1861, and nearly 800 in 1862. as in the larger confederacy, by 1863, the civil war had gone

on much longer than anyone expected. the realities of fighting the, familiar separation, and being poorly provisioned extinguished choctaw enthusiasm for the war. as -- wrote to his wife in 1863, i'm sick of war, and the separation from the dearest objects of life. surely, many choctaw soldiers would've agreed with the sentiment. the captain resigned his command of -- regiment because of physical and ferment, but also stated,

and last but not least, the reason is, i have so many little children. unless i stay at home and provide for them, they must necessarily suffer as they have been during my first campaign. these men -- knew the suffering of the civilians as war continued. the choctaw enlistments that did occur clustered in the first half of 1863, in february, march and april, with no enlistments occurring after july. of course, in january of 1863, we have the emancipation proclamation. from abraham lincoln which took effect indian slavery, in parts of states. well it was unclear if the proclamation applied to indian territory, news of emancipation to spread to indian territory. if nothing, else union troops sometimes informed enslaved people in indian territory other change in status. so this woman, charlotte johnson white learned of emancipation when soldiers arrived at her cherokee masters plantation. perhaps more relevant to talk to military enlistments was activity in the cherokee nation in the first part of 1863. a pro union

faction of cherokee's claimed rightful 30s to govern and establish a new legislature. in february of 1863. one of the first acts was to abolish slavery in the cherokee nation. where many turkey slave owners did not recognize the legitimacy of this new government, and likely ignored this act, the fact remains that this action brought abolition and the prospect of emancipation to the heart of indian territories. for some chalked, oz events of the -- might have hardened their resolved and led to the enlistments in skullyville and -- district, closer to the cherokee nation. on the other hand -- led many other chalked us to see many other chances for success declining, and affected the overall enlistment numbers. in july, battles took place at -- creek and honey springs. you can see the

choctaw nation map here. where some of the enlistments have been taking place. if you go to the battle, here we go. the battles at cabin creek and honey springs. this also could've affected choctaw and less meant embers. kevin creek was located on texas road and supply route for moving military supplies to indian territory. the battle consisted of a series of skirmish meant as -- forces attempted to -- they -- more remarkable is the diversity of forces president. troops from colorado, wisconsin, and kansas, the indian home guards, confederate indian troops, texas partisans, and the first kansas colored

volunteers all clashed on the battlefield. private christopher kimball of the ninth kansas calgary describe the federal forces attempting to cross the crossing. he assumed command which consisted of the indians, five companies of the colored regiment, lamented men, and the second colorado, and captain charles j stewart's company, the ninth canvas, major foreman, followed by captain grits of the third indian advanced into the stream. it's amazing, the confluence of troops that have participated in this battle. private campbell's word paint a portrait of different races fighting together to preserve

the country. in fact, historian mark -- suggests the trial racial model in the west could have been a model for future race relations in the united states. here you can see the very pixelated version of the confederate battle flag based on the seal of the choctaw nation, the bow and arrow as well as the tomahawk at the center. late kevin creek, honey springs, was also located on the supply road along the texas road. in july 1863, confederate forces use the location as a staging ground to prepare a -- preferred gibson, and pushed federal forces out of indian territory. soldiers are massed at honey springs. here's a sketch of it from harper's weekly. and brought in supplies and preparation from the march to fort gibson. here's -- again the fighting would include men of native ancestry, african

ancestry, and euro -- effect not last on men involved. as they waited for the command to advance, the colonel told the men of the first kansas colored volunteers, this is the man -- the day we've been patiently waiting for. the enemies of kevin creek gave you the opportunity of showing them wet men can do fighting for their natural rights and the recently acquired freedom and the freedom of their children and their children's children. colonel williams also assessed his men's performance after the fighting. they, the rebels, received a lesson which milan pinion custom not to despise on the battlefield, they have all internalized of having no rights which await them as ban respect. i had long been of the opinion that this race had a right to kill traders and improve their capacity for the work. colonel william certainly understood the meaning of color troops on this battlefield, for they themselves and for the men that they face. private edward fulsome of the first choctaw

and chickasaw mounted -- was on the other side of the battle right lines. the color troops made a -- on him as well. he remarked, it was not long before the -- cavalry found us, and came with negro troops and give us faith. we had one side of the creek, and they're the other. it was a standup fight. i never did see so many wounded negro troops in such a fight. soldiers everywhere, not just in the south, were impressed by the combat action of color troops during the war. the confederates failed at honey springs because of interior munition supplies, and impart the combined actions of the first kansas regiment and the indian home guards. the confederates outnumbered the

federals by 2 to 1, but were outgunned 3 to 1. and the inferior quality of the confederate gunpowder meant that the downpour during the battle angela 17th rendered their arms useless, according to general cooper. as the fight ranged, the federal indian hungarian regiment inadvertently misled the 20th and 29th texas calgary into thinking the federals were retreating. texas pursued only to be met with a volume from the first kansas colored -- then the federal troops picked up the texans colors. tandy walker arrived with choctaw and chickasaw late in the fight, was able to hold the -- forces tell us bowman a private from the first talk to and genocide mattered rifles remembered, the feds followed us half a mile out on the prairie, at which time are battalion charge on them and held him in check until the train could get out of the way. native troops that were important to both confederate and federal forces in the battle. as the troops fled, general cooper ordered the destruction of supplies and munitions located in honey springs. corporal w k make him some of the confederate indian brigade, led the squad that set fire to the -- formerly enslaved person henry clay had been an increased nation and

remembered the smoke and fire as the yankees burned up honey springs, he said. but in reality, we likely saw the result of confederate action rather than federal action. some enslaved people also witnessed the battle and described the fighting and retreat years later. creek freed women's davis, from this lectures moment -- opening heard the guns going all day, and along the evening, here come the southside making for a getaway. they come writing and writing by where we is, it don't make no difference how much the head men haulers at them. they can't make them slow up and stop. davis's description matches private bowman's comments that confederate troops scattered, which caused confusion, and we had a general stampede. likewise, private edward fulsome reported that is companies pickett stampeded and broke for the mountains, ammo likewise, private edward almost got away. phoebe banks's uncle jacob told her that the fulsome

reported that is fighting at honey creek was the most terrible fighting he seen. companies pickett stampeded and the union soldiers went back to broke for the mountains, ammo four gibson. the rebels was almost got away. phoebe banks's chased over the country and couldn't find each other for a uncle jacob told her that the fighting at honey creek was the most terrible fighting he seen. the union soldiers went back to four gibson. the rebels was chased over the country and couldn't find each other for a long time, the way he tell it. mixes family had been owned by a creek family and followed -- to kansas. uncle jacob had returned to indian territory with federal troops to fight the indians that stayed with the south. in his words, a disheartened private army unit from the 20th texas calorie seemed to confirm michael jacobs account. i believe they will whip, s and whip us all the time, and to reinforce from texas at some other point. we've got so much scattered miss in the stampede that we was three days getting together, and not all have come in yet. it seems that confederate soldiers truly have scattered across the country and did not regroup immediately for a counter attack, or another engagement. so this battle at honey springs prove to be the largest battle fought in indian territory based on numbers. approximately 9000 men that

year. nearly 6000, approximately 9000 -- close to 6000 confederates and close to 4000 union soldiers. the confederate last left the road open for union control, and allowed federal troops to take four cups. in some view honey springs as a turning point for confederate forces in indian territory, after which way troops no longer defended the area in an organized manner. moreover, the victory gave federal troops an avenue into talk to a nation, described as the fiercest and most steadfast of the indian nations in the confederacy. given the scale of the fighting, and the defeat, it comes as no surprise at the first talk to and chickasaw mounted rifles did not see any new enlistments for the remainder of the year. the fed sent troops to four gibson to

strengthen their position in july's 63, and handed confederate forces major losses. confederates were back on their heels, and talk to soldiers may have viewed the southern effort as a losing one overall. so the compiled service records for the soldiers of the first choctaw and chickasaw mounted rifles provide a window into the experiences of civil war soldiers in indian territory. the troops often did not leave other kinds of -- free diaries, and letters home are rare indeed. service records include important information about how they enlisted for battle, for how long they enlisted, and the kind of work they performed the competing. records of, all i even and predictable, and predictable offer further glimpses of daily life to the troops. some of the records that i haven't discussed today track the movement of federal prisons of war from camp to camp and show that some shoulders which used to share the -- and join federal unions.

other prisoners of war were exchanged. these records also included more mundane and consequential information such as petitions for promotion, letters of resignation and certificates of disability. the records offer the opportunity to -- about troop movements and battle losses. that's a picture emerges of enthusiastic enlistee is in the chalk to our nation. at the beginning of the war. the support for the war waned as -- and desertion as the war progressed. chalked of confederates then were not so different from southern confederates in many respects. thank you. >> thank you very much, that was great, really enjoyed it. we have already got some good questions coming in. i would like to encourage the audience to keep those

questions coming and type them into the q&a box. we have got a couple of questions that will touch on the motivations for chalked up people to side with the confederacy. both people asking this question assume based probably what you said another knowledge, i, think that it was one of those cases where they joined with the confederacy because the enemy of my enemy is my friend. you know, the obviously had a strained history with the united states. one of the people asking this type of question draws a parallel with the american revolution where some native americans sided with one side or the other because of the way they had been treated in the past. so, what would you say about the primary motivation of the choctaws for siding with the confederacy? >> i think they were interested in a couple of things. one, they were interested in protect protecting their sovereignty and preserving their identity

as choctaw people. sometimes, i make the joke that, i don't know if anyone will like this joke. i sometimes make the joke that for the choctaw, the argument about states rights actually have real meaning. meaning that the choctaw understood that this was a moment that can protect sovereignty. surely people who are claiming to want to have states rights would recognize the sovereignty of these native nations. moreover, the confederate government promises them all kinds of things. they promised to recognize sovereignty. they promised to pay for all of their costs related to the war. they offer them representation in the confederate congress. i think

one layer of it, they are attempting to preserve choctaw sovereignty. another level of their support has to do with their participation in the enslavement of people of african descent, they are slaveholders, they have an economy in which slavery is an important part. they are producing cotton for the market. now, their mix of goods there producing is a little bit different. they produce more corn than cotton. which isn't what you see in the larger south. they are using slave labor. they are creating a society that has a racial hierarchy. i think that is another reason why they support the confederacy. they have all these connections and ties to the south as well. the indian agents that the federal government have sent to work with native nations are by and large from the south. they are going to have this relationship and be proposing the native

nations such support southern causes. they are, the funds that are due to the choctaw nation, a lot of them are invested in southern companies and southern concerns. there is also an element of thinking, well, if we, if we don't side with the south, are we going to lose all of these investments that have been made on our behalf? there are a lot of factors that push them into that direction. i think paramount is this concern for sovereignty and this desire to protect choctaw sovereignty. which is connected to a desire to preserve choctaw identity. the fact that they are practicing this latent of people of african defeat

dissent. the confederacy promises to protect that. that is an important factor in their decision. >> definitely, would you say the confederates genuinely saw the choctaws as equals in this racial hierarchy? saw them as fellow slave holders who had that common interest. is it more and an alliance of convenience for the confederacy? >> i would go with the latter. and alliance of convenience. i say that because there are these moments where they are coming to the confederacy, they go to the native nations, they see the indian territory as an important place that they don't want them to side with the federal government. it is making an in road into a place where federal troops can easily attack southern states. there is that motivation, the confederate desire to have native nations as allies. there are these, and i recognize that

they are slaveholders and et cetera. then there are these moments in the treaty agreement that they make with the choctaws and chickasaw for instance. they assert, the confederate government asserts authority in a way that reveals they don't respect the sovereignty. for instance, when they make the offer of, you can have someone be a delegate in our government. they then want to supervise the election. well, why does the confederate government need to supervise the election in the chickasaw or choctaw nation? they have been conducting elections for quite some time. they seem to know what they're doing. moments like that. where they make stipulations of the alliance that, if the choctaws sell land or make any land session agreements with the federal government, then they forfeit all of the land. well, that is the kind of requirement

to make when you see yourself in some position of authority over that population. and then you have these statements from confederate soldiers, where they talk about native troops. but in pretty racist terms. language that seems very familiar if you look at how soldiers, when soldiers, talk about color troops. lack of discipline, don't take care of their uniforms, the same kind of language. i think there's definitely -- they are not seeing them as equals. yeah, yeah. a different kind of question now. more on the military side of things. you told us about a few battles close to what was then indian territory. did they fight in any battles for the east? >> the native nations make a requirement of their alliance with the confederacy that they

cannot be asked to fight outside of an end in territory without their permission. they feel very committed to staying in the indian territory unless they agree to do it. the example that usually comes out is -- it is poison springs? it's where there is a massacre of colored troops. it is choctaw troops that are described as being vicious in their -- yeah. they can go outside. not on the -- they are not going to go on the eastern seaboard. there might be example of scouts that are --

we know that there are scouts, seneca scouts, whatever that are and other areas. i haven't seen evidence of them going all the way to the eastern seaboard. again, they are quite clear that they have to agree if they're going to go somewhere else outside of indian territory. >> we have a couple of questions about slavery of the choctaw people. generally, what was slavery like in choctaw nation? another question about whether the choctaw or chickasaw made any official statement about slavery or the enslaved people. i assume that means the role in the civil war. the place of slavery as a motivation for choctaw or chickasaw involvement. >> in terms of what's slavery looked like in shock to nation, there is a whole chapter in my book. particular nation you can see bob crouch hammers excellent

book. in general, it looks a lot like what you think of as slavery in the american south. again, the mix of crop production can be a little bit different. there are choctaw slaveholders who are large slaveholders who are producing carbon free market. there are examples of broad marriages, marriages where the and slave partners don't live on the same plantation. we see evidence of that in choctaw nation. i would say something that's a little bit different is that in choctaw nation and in in indian territory you see examples of sometimes enslaved people serving as interpreters. sometimes, you have enslaved people who actually may have been enslaved in a place like georgia or alabama, and something, and speak english,

and now are versed in the choctaw language. you have that happen sometimes where there are enslaved people who are serving as interpreters in the choctaw nation. i think that probably would commit surprise to people. in many ways, the contours are similar. again, to the larger american south. there are, there are some accounts that you see where enslaved people in their autobiographies later, their narratives later, will say that native masters are kinder. we also have accounts of nader's masters being quite cruel. there is a spectrum of treatment, just like in the larger american south. there is a spectrum of treatment i've enslaved people by masters. it varies based on the master, not

so much because they're in a native nation. if you take the accounts of some white southerners who describe what's happening in chalk to nation and in indian territory, they will often say things which we, i think we can assume our tinge by racism. native masters are lazy, they don't know how to control their slaves. they don't know how to do work. they don't, they are not good masters, affective master. i don't know if we really have at that. or if that's just the rhetoric that those people are using because they're trying to say something negative about native masters. that is a little bit of a snapshot. i have lost the thread of the second half of the question. >> was there any kind of official

statements where the choctaw and chickasaw came out and said, you know, we're doing this because of slavery. slavery means this to us. >> and that kind of way. there are, let me think. there are statements where the principal chief or other chalked officials will do things like where southern and every respect. we are southern in every respect. or they talk about purchase and sale of enslaved people. there is a letter from a prominent choctaw where he talks about why lincoln is a problem. they are not for emancipation. letters where they say the same thing that you see white slaveholder say. it's a howdy to my people for me. they're enslaved people. it is very similar in terms of the way that they are

talking about it. now, do we have and alexander stevens cornerstone moments? no. we do not have a cornerstone moments of this nation is built upon this. no. we do not have that. not that i found yet. >> right. one of the things i really liked about your book is the way you talk about the sources you used. that came out in the top tonight with the service records. you showed us examples. and the book itself, you also talk a fair amount about the wpa slave narratives. how you approach those. and you some thoughtful interesting things to say about it. i wonder if you could share a bit of that with the audience tonight. what those sources are

like. how you use them. what kinds of cautions you have to take and using those sources. >> yeah, if folks aren't familiar with them, the works progress administration slave narratives, the wpa slave narratives, are an amazing resource. at this, point there are 50 volumes. they are organized by state. that is a little bit misleading. the texas narratives are people who were interviewed in texas, not necessarily who have been enslaved in texas. these narratives developed because during the great depression when they are putting people to work, they are also putting people, writers to work to collect narratives. the work really starts with black academics who said no didn't out from historically black

colleges to go out and interview formerly enslaved people. they realized that it is getting, they are getting older. it is 60 years after emancipation. this is a valuable resource that is fading away. so, these black academics do some of this early interviewing of people. the works progress administration takes up the mantle of that and puts rioters to work. and then has them go out and interview formerly enslaved people. they ask about all kinds of stuff. food, punishment, relationships, church, religious practices.

there is a similar thing that happens with indian pioneer histories. again, they are injuring people who aren't entering in territory in the 19th century. the wpa slave narratives, you have to be very careful in how you work with them. one, some states are overrepresented like arkansas. there are too many narratives in arkansas for the distribution of the enslaved population. they are obviously going to -- who are very young at the time of emancipation. it is so many years after. another complaint is that peoples memory might not be so good. there is a great article in the journal of southern history that is about how maybe these narratives tell you more about the moment of the great depression than they do about the past. there is a lot of descriptions of food in those narratives. if you think about people who are starving because of the depression, you can imagine a lot of discussion of

good food you had in the past. other problems include that some of the interviewers, some of the people sent out to interview these for me enslaved people are related to the people who enslaved the person being interviewed. that is awkward. we see a difference of, for, instance in terms of how they talk about punishment if the interviewer is white or if the interviewer is black. there also is some things that you have to think about in terms of how the interviewer is rendering the person's voice. there are these narratives where the interviewer asked the question, the informant responds, where the interview, or it includes this in the transcription, which i always

find kind of amazing. on tv, is this how you talk when you're with your own people? i want you to talk to me the way that you are talk to your own people. you will have this first part that's in standard english. then, once the person has asked the informant, i want you to talk to me the way you talk to your own people. everything else is in dialect. is it in dialect because the person actually spoke to him dialect? did you decide they

should be speaking in dialect? i am giving you all these reasons why we have to be careful or a little bit skeptical of these sources. however, if you use them carefully if you think about another transcription problem. i don't know how old i am. it will say that. i don't know how old i am. the personal write it as, i don't know, and oh how old i am. and set of no. how do you know your informant does not know the difference between know and no? again, these concerns. if you read them carefully and then compare them to other kinds of material that we have, look for patterns within the narratives. you see a common mentioned by many informants over geography. then you can make some good supposition's about how accurate they are. the last thing that i would say about them, two things i would say about them. when, they are held up to a kind of scrutiny that

sometimes it seems that other sources is not about black people, it's not held up to. we should be asking these kinds of questions of all of the sources that we look at. why is it that these sources in particular have to be so concerning for people? that is one. number two, they there is this amazing opportunity to hear from enslaved people in their own voice, as much as we can see that it's their own voice. it is this, it's so unique that we have that, that we have this way to access their -- some of their thoughts and feelings. for a population that legally was prohibited from gaining literacy so that they can record this, records themselves

at the time. i think they are really valuable and really powerful. also, it sometimes includes photos. you can actually see the person being interviewed. again, i think it's amazing. i tell my students in class all the time. slavery is not as far as way as we think. these are people from the 20th century who were alive and experienced enslavement. it is not a distant past. it is much closer than -- perhaps uncomfortably close to us and time. >> absolutely, i could not agree more. maybe we can move on to the post war period just for the last few minutes. you also get into it in your book. one of the questions is about relations with the u.s.

government, attitudes towards the confederate government after the war and confederacy was defeated. one way to ask it would be, did the choctaws regret what they had done? that they suffer for what they had done in their relations with the u.s. government after the war? >> it's really interesting. you get a kind of rewriting of what happened later. i gave all these examples of, wow, they're enlisting before the treaty has even, the treaty of alliance has even been signed. they are throng-ing these locations in order to sign up to master for service. what you get after the war. you get statements from the principal chief that say things like, we have no other choice, we were forced into this position. we would have chosen something else if they could have. you definitely get a rewriting and a minimization of that enthusiasm and desire

to enlist that we see if we look at these records. that definitely happens. the second thing that we do see, yes, it definitely affects the relationship between native nations and the federal government. they get reconstructed just like the larger south does. so, there's a treaty that forces them to accept formerly enslaved people that they owned. they don't have to take formerly enslaved people from texas, say. they have to accept them as citizens. because land is belt in common, this gives those freed people land. that is a huge difference, obviously, then what happens in the larger south. for that friedman it is a very different picture. they are in choctaw nation, chickasaw nation, versus in georgia, alabama, et cetera.

they get access to land. do they get access to the sam out of land as other people? as citizens by blood? no. they still get access to land. that has real consequences. which melinda miller can tell people all about. there is that consequence for the freed people. the larger consequences that the federal government can use the participation of the choctaws and chickasaws and cherokee's on the side of the confederacy to make more inroads on native sovereignty. to be punitive in ways that then allow them to get access to more land and to chip away at native sovereignty and native self government. there are definite consequences for having made that decision. >> you mentioned the choctaw and chickasaw and the cherokee as being in some ways in a similar boat and situation. one

attendee is asking about the comparison between the way those three nations treated formerly enslaved black people after the war. you mentioned in the choctaw case that they were required to give black people citizenship of a kind. maybe not full citizenship. was that the same in all three nations? was it different? >> i should first say, and initially when the federal government makes this demand, they say, or the people, the freed people will have to leave, the choctaw nation says, yes, make them go. their initial responses, no, we don't want to make them citizens. the federal government withhold's money waiting for the choctaws to comply and make citizens of these folks. then the federal government gives them the money. the choctaw government says, yeah, we still want them gone. you gave us the money. we told you we did not want them here. the freed people actually exist in a weird kind of legal limbo and chalked a nation in

1883 until they passed the ball to clarify the status. cherokee nation, since that's the subject of my first book, they do things like put in the newsroom that free people have to get back to cherokee nation in a time limit if they want to be eligible for citizenship. which is tough, some cherokee enslavers did what many other southerners do and refugee

elsewhere. take their enslaved property to texas. it's hard for, again, a largely illiterate population. you put an ad in the newspaper that says, hurry back, if you want to be eligible for citizenship.o all kinds that is tough. the cherokee nation does that. but they like the choctaw nation are forced to grant citizenship but then do all kinds of things to limit the political rights. the freed people are able to be citizens and to access land, there are other kinds of limitations placed on their political rights and civil rights. >> yeah. on, that note we are out of time. i really, really enjoyed the conversation. i want to thank the audience for providing us with great

questions. i apologize if we did not get to your question. i really appreciate them all. i also want to say i appreciate the sentiments of the people who simply say, you, know this is a great talk. thank you very much. that kind of thing. i couldn't agree more. thanks to the audience. thanks to the donors of the virginia center for civil war studies. a very generous, they have been very generous over the 20 or so years that center has been an operation. they make possible everything we do. thank you. most of all, thank you to our speaker for tonight, doctor fay yarbrough for giving us such a wonderful talk. answering questions as well. we really appreciate the conversation in the time you took. everyone is going to be interested to rush out or at least go to the website of their choice and purchase your book, choctaw confederates. i think you will enjoy it. we've intimated in the q&a session there's lots

more in the book then you have heard about even tonight. it is definitely worth going out and getting it.

>> i'm very privilege to introduce and wilson green, it says he is retired. i don't believe that. i'm very privileged to introduce a. wilson green. it says he's retired. i don't believe that. from a 44 year career in public history, most notably as a former and founding executive of some place. previously served as historian and manager of a national park rv