Clarissa W. Confer. The Cherokee Nations in the Civil War. University of Oklahoma Press:
Norman, 2007.
Clarissa Confer argues, in The Cherokee Nation in the Civil War, that historical accounts of the American Civil War lag behind in adopting underrepresented views of minority groups. Her thesis proposes that underrepresentation has been detrimental to Native American voices, overlooking the unique positions of the tribes in the United States, the roles they had in the war, and the severe consequences the Civil War had on their societies. This thesis is given nuance through the choices, decisions, experiences, and atypical development of the Cherokee as they were influenced by Removal and Civil War tensions (8). It also conveys how the war severely altered the cultures of the Cherokee and Indian Territory, leading to the erosion of tribal sovereignty through factors of the greed exhibited by the American federal government, the prejudices faced from the American public, and tribal factionalism (148).
The Cherokee Nation portrays Native Americans as actors on the geopolitical stage. Its primary strength is illustrating that Civil War stressors did not occur in a vacuum, and that the tensions that strained the relationship between the Northern and Southern states also divided the tribes. This idea challenges Native American romanticism, as Confer illustrates that they were motivated by the same economic, political, and social systems of the United States (23). Observances of Cherokee motivations for forming alliances also strengthen her work, detailing the following factors of allegiances: Jackson’s administration proving that favorable Supreme Court decisions offered no protections (19), the tribe’s economic interest being reliant on agriculture and chattel slavery (23), and the Confederacy’s willingness to work with the Cherokee as legislative equals while Lincoln’s administration was idle (45).
There are also several weaknesses in Confer’s arguments. The most prominent is that in distinguishing between American and Native identities, she seems to favor the latter, and is averse towards ideas she associates with white society. This weakens her work because when describing the selfish economic, political, and social motives of the Cherokee and Native American tribes, she attributes them to the corruption of white society instead of historical agency (45). This occurs in contradiction to her prefix that the decisions that the Cherokee made during the war may not have always been favorable, but they were Native American decisions (5). This also skews military history because she describes losses of high-stakes battles, like Robert E. Lee’s in Pennsylvania, as a failed gamble, but gives Stand Waite’s loss when attacking Ft. Gibson’s supply lines the description of a bold, logical attack despite of extreme Union power (88). Still, the work makes major contributions to the historical contexts of the Civil War through its observances of how Cherokee and tribal perspectives influenced the conflict (9).
Confer used primary accounts, like Elizabeth Watts’ childhood description, to depict Cherokee thoughts of war. Secondary sources were utilized to tell the feats of Stand Waite and John Ross, using maps and pictures to detail military strategy. The first sentence that grabbed my attention from the work was “the Cherokee’s appealed to the highest legal authority, the United States Supreme Court, and discovered favorable rulings provided no practical protection” (19). This sentence poses the historical question of where does one turn when the federal government ignores its own authority. It also represented the Cherokee’s attempts to rectify their situation through judicial processes, to no avail. The next sentence that garnered my attention was “native leaders made it clear that they had not accepted missionaries in order to be judged on the morality of slavery” (28). This sentence depicts how deeply rooted slavery was into American and Cherokee societies. It also poses the historical question of could the Cherokee have survived in an agrarian economy without the institution of slavery, framing the context of tribal struggle that led to the decrease in Native American autonomy.