The American Civil War discussion

This book was just listed as a 2021 Pulitzer Finalist. Anybody interested in doing a buddy read?

The Three-Cornered War: The Union, the Confederacy, and Native Peoples in the Fight for the West

I might be interested, Porter

Would you prefer starting sooner or later? E.g. starting next week sometime or waiting until the start of July? I don't think I'll wait much past July 1.

I have a couple of books that I would like to finish. I own the book. Would you consider starting about June 25?

Works for me.

Great, I look forward to it! This will be interesting, and I know nothing about the West during the war. Totally new for me.

I know a little... but not really enough to speak with confidence.

Bryan wrote: "Great, I look forward to it! This will be interesting, and I know nothing about the West during the war. Totally new for me."

I guess it was pretty wild :-D

Yeah, if it like the rest of our history, Native Americans were important players in American wars. I would often read how an officer would be from the West or went West during the war and then nothing more.

Hi guys .. need to check another thread on occasion :) I would be very interested in joining a 'paced' team read & June 25thish would work for me as well ...

I too know relatively little about westward expansion though it certainly was a happenin thing antebellum, war & reconstruction for sure ... gold rushes, transcontinental railroads and indian territory oh my ...

Bryan: sounds like you'll be in for an especially enlightening ride . and here's a little appetite whetter for you with one of the few things I am aware of. There's something called 'The Trail of Tears' you may have heard of; but did you know ...

The Cherokee native americans were rooted, agrarian people that went out of their way to adapt to the white man's 'lifestyle' (rules) . to the point of taking their case as a sovereign, immovable nation to the supreme court - which they WON! Andrew Jackson responded by saying F the supreme court & passed the 'Get Rid of All Indians Everywhere' Act . which begat the trail of tears . which begat Indian Territory . which begat :(( ...

We also might find some of the uglier sides of our civil war 'heroes' ...

2 quatloos for anyone who knows who said

"The only good indian is a dead indian"

Magooz wrote: "Hi guys .. need to check another thread on occasion :) I would be very interested in joining a 'paced' team read & June 25thish would work for me as well ...

I too know relatively little about wes..."

Re: the quotation. It was attributed to Sheridan but was actually not quite what he said. He was a fierce Indian fighter, however, so everyone believed it. Teddy Roosevelt also once said something similar but, again, not the same words. It seems likely neither man would have disagreed vehemently with the words, however, sadly.

Magooz wrote: "Hi guys .. need to check another thread on occasion :) I would be very interested in joining a 'paced' team read & June 25thish would work for me as well ..."

Welcome to the buddy read, Magooz. This will be my first buddy read in this group, so I'm note sure what the pace will be.

This is my game plan: I think this will be a self-paced discussion. I might use the "view spoiler" feature and do it by chapter to list my initial thoughts or points of interest. Of course, comment on other people's posts.

Porter, I remember you from the Pulitzer Group and you are a fast and thoughtful reader.

------------------------

I'm familiar with a little of the Cherokee history. I was in northern Georgia a few years ago, an area that white settlers wanted really bad. Some Cherokee people wanted to take a stand and others wanted to deal. I learned a little about John Ross. Like all history, it's complex.

For those thinking about joining us, here is the book:

by Megan Kate Nelson

Synopsis:

Finalist for the 2021 Pulitzer Prize.

Megan Kate Nelson “expands our understanding of how the Civil War affected Indigenous peoples and helped to shape the nation” (Library Journal, starred review), reframing the era as one of national conflict - involving not just the North and South, but also the West.

Against the backdrop of this larger series of battles, Nelson introduces nine individuals: John R. Baylor, a Texas legislator who established the Confederate Territory of Arizona; Louisa Hawkins Canby, a Union Army wife who nursed Confederate soldiers back to health in Santa Fe; James Carleton, a professional soldier who engineered campaigns against Navajos and Apaches; Kit Carson, a famous frontiersman who led a regiment of volunteers against the Texans, Navajos, Kiowas, and Comanches; Juanita, a Navajo weaver who resisted Union campaigns against her people; Bill Davidson, a soldier who fought in all of the Confederacy’s major battles in New Mexico; Alonzo Ickis, an Iowa-born gold miner who fought on the side of the Union; John Clark, a friend of Abraham Lincoln’s who embraced the Republican vision for the West as New Mexico’s surveyor-general; and Mangas Coloradas, a revered Chiricahua Apache chief who worked to expand Apache territory in Arizona.

Wow - sure sounds like a whole lot of new stuff to overload our heads with :) :(

As an aside, watched a couple episodes of the old Kung Fu tv show recently. Hadn't realized before, ths show takes place in the early 1870s . and presumably never leaves California. The last two I watched involved Sioux & Apache indians as main plot focuses for ep. Don't recall Sioux or Apache in Cali; but that being said; very interesting to see how the many varied minorities are portrayed in a show from the early 1970s. Did have to hang my head & shake it seeing there were NO native americans playing native americans :(

Here we go. I will put in spoilers at first until more people get started.

Prologue

(view spoiler)[

*At first, this reminds me of the Kansas territory where secessionists and Unionists were together, vying for power.

*This is not the first time Native Americans took advantage of the U.S. army being distracted.

*For Jefferson Davis: "New Mexico Territory, he believed, would be an ideal location for a transcontinental railroad, the center of a network of iron rails that would bind the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the Confederacy together...For now, though, Davis wanted New Mexico for the same reason Lincoln did: for its access to gold and Pacific ports, which would help the Confederacy win the war to come."

It's interesting to learn the geopolitics of this part of the country during the CW. New to me. But building a railroad totally makes sense for the Confederacy.

(hide spoiler)]

Chapter 1

(view spoiler)[

*As John Baylor begins his military campaign, it brings me back to my visit to New Mexico. Although it was further north, the landscape was indeed barren, a whole different planet. So different than the Eastern theater. Few roads and had to rely more on supplies. No one living off the land here.

*I was a little surprised about the conditions of the Union troops. Clearly, the chaos of the moment bested these veterans. Ran out of water!

*"He [Baylor] was the vanguard of Confederate manifest destiny."

"Baylor became desperate for men to help him fight what he was sure would become a multi-front Civil War against Yankees, Mexicans, and Apaches."

(hide spoiler)]

I started this last night. I'm posting from phone so:
1) please forgive my typos.
2) don't know how to put spoiler notices on phone messages... read at own risk.

That being said, I've read the first few chapters.

This book is an easy read. I've read some Pulitzer winners that are hard to read. while this was a finalist, the content and style are very digestible.

That being said, this is going to be a book that is more enjoyable than challenging.

So the highlights:

1---I lived in Colorado for over a decade. I didn't know that Breckenridge was named after the former VP/Presidential candidate

2---Really enjoyed the story about John Baylor. I've lived in Texas for 14 years, didn't know who Baylor was. Enjoyed the story about how he acted and attacked a union outpost before he got orders not to. How he saved Union troops from dying due to dehydration.

3) Chapter about military wife's really hit home. I'm a military brat. My dad was career Air Force. I liked the fact that the book dedicated a chapter to the experience of the wives.

4. This book brings forth the fact that loyalties were divided in the west. We usually don't think about what happened in "Indian" territory. The US army was attempting to establish order and civilization in the west... and to subdued the natives.

But what happens to military order when word arrives that a Civil War had errupted. Suddenly that unit/fort that had been united is now divided. Half the enlisted/officers are on divided loyalties. Men who would have given their lives for one another a week ago are not enemies.

Indians, who a week ago, were a common enemy can be viewed as potential allies? And what about that renegade group in Utah know as the Mormons?

simple book, but a lot to it!

Porter wrote: "I started this last night. I'm posting from phone so:
1) please forgive my typos.
2) don't know how to put spoiler notices on phone messages... read at own risk.

That being said, I've read the fir..."

Sounds good, Porter, thanks. Hope y'all are keepin' safe!

Great post, Porter, especially from a phone. I'm impressed!

Yeah, it's interesting how complicated it gets out West with all these shifting alliances.

I am also glad to learn more about Louisa Canby. It's impressive that she decided to stay close to her husband rather than way off in a bigger city.

Chapter 3

*The Sibley Brigade bought "firearms on the open market." The first thing that came to my mind when I read this is that they are going to run out of ammo. How are you going to carry all these types of ammo when the guns are not uniform? Shotgun here, bear gun there...

Chapter 5

*Wow, Juanita and Manuelito had thousands of sheep. A good chapter from the Native American perspective: the important connection to the land and the reminder that not everyone followed the treaty that is signed.

*Interesting quote: "In addition to taking care of sheep, Navajo women also narrated the history of the Dine."

Chapter 6

*Now we learn more about what is going on in the north, more convergence of men.

*"Ickis, like many Anglo-Americans in the mid-nineteenth century. believed that race and nationality were synonymous. To him, true Americans were white."

It wasn't always like that. When settlers first came to America, nationality was huge, but race became very important a little later as all settlers faced slaves and/or Native Americans. Better to unite white people under the "white banner" than Dutch, Irish, etc. as people moved West.

How can whites take Native lands? By seeing them as inferior to begin with.

Land ownership is also very different by culture.

Many Native Americans don't own the land, they use it. They have traditional grounds where they show up every year and then move on. In some of those areas they may do some agriculture planting crops to grow when they pass through again or store supplies. They may camp at the same place every spring before moving to their summer lodgings. Another tribe or group may use the same ground every year, but at a different time.

Europeans view occupation as ownership.

Different ideals and understanding of the world then comes into conflict.

The analogy that I've made is the family that goes to church every week for 50 years. Every for 50 years they sit in the same spot at the 9 am service.

Nobody else sits there because they know whose spot it is. A new person shows up and sits on that spot. The new person doesn't want to move because they were there first and were using it---it's their spot.

Suddenly you have a conflict as two views of ownership coming into conflict.

Westerners look at open land and say nobody is using it, it's mine now. It didn't necessarily require that you don't see the other as equal--- they didn't have a basis to communicate their differences in understanding.

Well said, Porter.

Perhaps if you saw each other equally, there might be some path toward compensation.

Porter wrote: "Land ownership is also very different by culture.

Many Native Americans don't own the land, they use it. They have traditional grounds where they show up every year and then move on. In some of t..."

Very interesting point, Porter. The indigenous American tribes must have had a hard time understanding the white man's selfish greed in taking the land and monopolising it.

Yeah, and the white settlers didn't understand the fact that the Indians didn't own/occupy/actively used the land, yet called it theirs.

While racism was involved, it was more than just race--- the two cultures had fundamental differences in how they saw the world.

Even if they saw everyone as fundamentally equal, problems would have arose because they didn't have a common understanding of each other's cosmology.

it's why the Earth alliance opened fire on the membari.

And land is power from your small family plot to large ranchers and growers. It helped usher in the Civil War, and this book gives us an important reminder that even in war, land plays a huge role in the dynamics.

*Like in the East, epic marches also play a vital role in the West. Wow, Sibley's brigade marched 120 miles in ten days!

*Another interesting note: the Homestead Act plays out in New Mexico. The Southerns wanted to block the act and occupying New Mexico was a way to do it.

*Also, I have been a member of the Society for Military History off and on over the years, and it is always great to see women occupying a male-dominated field like military history. Dr. Nelson proves women can write military history, and one day, I hope we can see that it is no longer a male-dominated field.

I have seen more women as National Park Rangers at CW battlefield sites, too, which is awesome.

I agree with you about the desirability of having women in the military history field. One of my favorites is Carol Reardon from Gettysburg College. She is a fine speaker as well, which unfortunately is not true of all the rangers and guides on the battlefields. In fact, after listening to many of them (women and men) over the years, I don't understand why they aren't given more training. They know facts, but their presentation is lacking.

Interesting, Betsy. Dr. Readon rings a bell. And the director of the Nau Center for Civil War History at the University of Virginia is Dr. Caroline Janney. I met Dr. Elizabeth Vardon, as well, who does important work in the CW.

I hear you about presentation! It's hard to find the great combination of facts and presentation. As a former ranger myself, it is not easy to find both skills in one person.

Not everyone is a good speaker so I guess getting your facts straight is the more important. The ones that bother me most (and I can only speak about the ones at Gettysburg) are the rangers and guides who try to be comedians or entertainers. There are 3 at Gettysburg, who set my teeth on edge. In fact, I have stopped listening to them, which is unfortunate since sometimes their topics are good ones.

BTW, why is it so many rangers/guides mispronounce CAVALRY? I don't know how how many times I've heard CALVARY.

Wow, really? That's crazy. You can't mispronounce that!

To be an official Gettysburg guide, it is a lot of advanced work. But now I wonder if there are different levels.

I know they do a great deal of work, but listening to them over the weekend, I heard CALVARY many times.

Betsy wrote: "I know they do a great deal of work, but listening to them over the weekend, I heard CALVARY many times."

It gets worse, Betsy. Some US presidents have not been able to pronounce 'nuclear', saying 'nucular' instead – and they have the power to use 'em!

Gary wrote: t gets worse, Betsy. Some US presidents have not been able to pronounce 'nuclear', saying 'nucular' instead – and they have the power to use 'em! >

I heard them mispronounce that word, too, Gary. It struck me too.

I don't think most people know there is a difference between Cavalry and Calvary. They probably just think it is regional differences in pronunciation.