sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bob Ferguson (musician), Culture of the Choctaw, Cyrus Byington, Cyrus Kingsbury, Elias Cornelius, Francisco Bouligny

“WE ARE CLAY PEOPLE”: THE STRUGGLE AGAINST

COMMUNAL DISSOLUTION, 1801-1861

By

Gary Coleman Cheek Jr.

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of State University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History in the Department of History

Mississippi State, Mississippi

May 2010 Copyright by

Gary Coleman Cheek Jr.

2010 “WE ARE CLAY PEOPLE”: THE STRUGGLE AGAINST CHOCTAW

COMMUNAL DISSOLUTION, 1801-1861

By

Gary Coleman Cheek Jr.

Approved:

______Anne Marshall Alan I. Marcus Assistant Professor of History Chair and Professor of History (Director of Dissertation) (Committee Member)

______Evan Peacock Jason K. Phillips Associate Professor of Anthropology Associate Professor of History (Committee Member) (Committee Member)

______Peter C. Messer Gary L. Myers Associate Professor of History Dean of the College of Arts and Director of Graduate Studies in the Department of History (Committee Member) Name: Gary Coleman Cheek Jr.

Date of Degree: May 1, 2010

Institution: Mississippi State University

Major Field: History (Native America)

Major Professor: Dr. Anne Marshall

Title of Study: “WE ARE CLAY PEOPLE”: THE STRUGGLE AGAINST CHOCTAW COMMUNAL DISSOLUTION, 1801-1861

Pages in Study: 359

Candidate for Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Acculturation has become an integral part of scholarship about Native Americans in the Southeast. Recent studies have focused on trade the eighteenth century and

Choctaw entry into the American market economy during the beginning of the nineteenth century. This study analyzes acculturation from 1801 to 1861, carrying the story about cultural change and persistence through the Removal era and to the .

It argues that while acculturated to survive, prosper, and protect autonomy in a changing world, they continuously battled communal dissolution, which threatened to destroy their nation. Some individuals attempted to promote new methods of subsistence, worshiping, and dealing with the , and others feared that a loss of traditions would disrupt the bonds that bound together Choctaws as a people. Most Choctaws attempted to change certain elements of culture while maintaining others.

New ideologies about behavior, political and social organization, and economic transformation highlighted the divisions between individuals and among social orders and classes. The threat of factionalism then determined how Choctaws, both elites and commoners, reacted to major nineteenth-century crises, which included the destruction of game, entrance into the American market economy, establishment and continuation of missionary education, Removal, the evolution of a national constitution, and decisions about Choctaw entry into the Civil War. By understanding the relationships between communal dissolution and acculturation in this way, this study portrays how Choctaws fought to balance cultural change and persistence while creating new bonds that held their society in tact through multiple tribulations throughout the nineteenth century.

I would like to dedicate this research to my family, Amanda Cheek, Gary and Tina

Cheek, Scott and Kay Gibson, and Chris and Kim Myer for their continued love and support; to Anne Marshall for her words of wisdom that provided guidance and inspiration through the process; and to Ken York for teaching me what Choctaw history is really about.

ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Feelings of intimidation, humility and fear are constant friends of the individual who writes a dissertation. Luckily, I have had many friends, professors, and family members who made the process less stressful. Without their patience, time and selflessness, the following project never would have materialized. Several individuals have aided me in my journey to complete this project and deserve my undying gratitude for their help.

Before the writing process began, I was fortunate to work under the excellent group of scholars on my dissertation committee. I express my sincerest gratitude to Dr.

Anne Marshall and Dr. Greg O’Brien. Dr. Marshall challenged me to think in new, decisive ways about culture and its relationship to history, spent much time and effort guiding me through the process of writing and continues to inspire me to produce intricate, emotionally-charged historical analyses. I would also like to thank Dr. O’Brien for offering his time and expertise in Native America and Choctaw history to this project, and serving as the second reader for the dissertation. Special thanks are due other members of my committee consisting of Evan Peacock, Peter Messer, Alan Marcus and

Jason Phillips for their invaluable aid and input.

Without much assistance from the faculty and staff of various research organizations, the project would have never come to fruition. I first would like to the staff

iii of the Mississippi State University Special Collections and Government Documents departments in particular Mattie Sink for pointing me to numerous, salient and collections within the university’s archives; Brenda Valentine for spending countless hours ordering literally hundreds of and articles via the interlibrary loan program; and to Christine Fletcher for suggestions about various government and missionary collections as well as weeding through piles of microfilm to find requested materials. To the staff of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, I appreciate the time spent aiding me in finding, copying, and suggesting resources. To the staff of the Western

History at the University of , I owe my gratitude for the thousands of copies made and sent, which served as a crucial part of my dissertation’s story.

I lack the room to thank the legion of friends, professors and mentors that have contributed to this work. To not mention a few of them would be a dishonor to their discussions with me, analyses, willingness to read portions of or entire chapters and moral support. I would like to thank my Spartanburg Methodist College family, particularly

Kathy Cann for her support and Marvin Cann for commenting on the . Stephen

King once wrote in his On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft (2000), “To write is human, to edit is divine.” Marvin, you edited this work divinely. I would also like to thank Jim

Haller for purchasing a number of important materials that made finishing the dissertation possible. To Janet Rafferty, who although not on my committee, never turned me away when I asked questions or wanted to discuss anthropological theories relating to the project. To David Sicko, who at first was a professor and later became a great friend and who was provided guidance on numerous occassions. Next, to my friends and colleagues,

iv Andi Knecht, Jeff Howell, Kirk Strawbridge, and Micah Rueber for your continued support through this difficult process. Finally, I would like to thank my parents for believing in me and my research and pushing me to strive for excellence. Finally, to my wife Amanda, who has served as my cheerleader and been my soul mate for the many years taken to reach this point, I give all my love and heartfelt thanks. Any errors are, of course, my own.

v

. DEDICATION...... ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... iii

CHAPTER

I. ...... 1

II. “CHAHTA SIYAH HOKI!”: THE CHOCTAW IN THE SEVENTEENTH AND THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES ...... 13

III. THE EMERGENCE OF FACTIONALISM IN A MARKET-ORIENTED WORLD, 1800-1818 ...... 64

IV. PROTECTING AUTONOMY BY BECOMING AMERICAN: PRESBYTERIANS AND ACCULTURATION ...... 118

V. THE FRACTURING OF A PEOPLE: THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON AND THE ROAD TO DANCING RABBIT CREEK ...... 182

VI. REBUILDING AND REUNIFICATION AFTER REMOVAL: DANCING RABBIT CREEK AND THE ROAD WEST...... 245

VII. CONSTITUTIONS, EDUCATION, SLAVERY AND THE COMING OF THE CIVIL WAR IN CHOCTAW COUNTRY...... 289

vi VIII. CONCLUSION ...... 335

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 341

vii I

INTRODUCTION

During his travels in Mississippi and Oklahoma at the beginning of the twenty- first century, Tim Tingle recorded a poem by elder Estelline Tubby in which she recounted that Choctaws “nourished by their roots,” preserved by tradition, “grew” and adapted and survived when faced with multiple crises. When Tubby stated “We are clay people,” she claimed that Choctaw culture was malleable like clay. They reshaped their lifestyles to cope with changes around them. Yet, as clay remains part of the earth,

Choctaws remained one people bound by the same goals.1 Although Choctaws boasted a long history of cultural adaptation, they did not always remain united. Instead, communities became fragile as factionalism emerged during the nineteenth century.

Choctaws often found themselves struggling for different goals, some fighting to protect autonomy and others merely trying to survive. As communities splintered, the power of the Choctaw Nation waned. When united, however, Choctaws proved formidable adversaries in politics and markets.

1 Part of the title of this dissertation borrows from Tubby’s poem entitled “We are a People of Miracles.” For the entire piece, see “We are a People of Miracles” in Tim Tingle, Walking the Choctaw Road: Stories from Red People Memory (El Paso, TX: Cinto Puntos Press, 2003), 139-42.

1 This study asks how acculturation affected Choctaw communal stability. It seeks to understand how dissolution and unity impacted Choctaws during the first half of the nineteenth century. To do so, it analyzes what bound communities together and divided them as Choctaws sought to transform parts of their culture and preserve others. Views about change and persistence differed from village to village, among chiefs, and between elites and commoners. Ideological differences threatened the power of chiefs and the ability of commoners to survive.2 This dissertation argues that communal dissolution among the Choctaw originated in an ideological battle rooted in competing views about how and what to preserve culturally.3 Although it acknowledges that acculturation took place, the transformation of Choctaw culture created power struggles among chiefs, alienated followers from leaders, and weakened their ability to fight treaties with United

States. Finally, it holds that pre- and post-Removal communities were linked because

Choctaws used the skills, knowledge, and shared experiences faced before 1830 to rebuild and survive after arrival in between 1831 and 1833. Choctaws

2 In this study, elites represent individuals who exercised political, economic, military or religious power within Choctaw society. Commoners did not hold positions in which they influenced others in communities directly. Commoners did have an important position, however, because chiefs only held power as long as followers supported them.

3 Community is here defined as a social group of considerable size that shares a common culture, government and history. It refers to those formed within villages, village clusters, the three district divisions, and the whole Choctaw Nation. Historian Greg O’Brien describes a “village cluster” as a political unit made up of several villages, usually with a large town serving as a political center. Communities also formed around particular ideas that focused on how to preserve autonomy, protect property, and survive. For a discussion about villages and clusters see, Greg O’Brien, Choctaws in Revolutionary Age, 1750-1830 (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 2002), 12-13.

2 continued to suffer factionalism until 1861. When faced with the American Civil War,

Choctaws reunified and joined the Confederacy by basing their decision on the dissolution faced throughout the nineteenth century and the threat the destruction of communities posed to the Choctaw autonomy.

In a broader sense, this study contributes to a larger historiography about

Southeastern Indian cultural change, how and why different Indians preserved or transformed their culture by fusing new ideologies with old ones. It focuses on how

Natives who transformed their cultures acted upon persisting or reinvented visions of self to grapple with crises they faced. Historians such as Richard White, Daniel Richter,

James H. Merrell, Gregory Dowd, and William McLoughlin have analyzed the consequences of cultural change and persistence and shown how different Native groups east of the acted according to fusions of Native and “white” ideologies.4 In this study, culture takes center stage as a dynamic and complex, yet

4 See Richard White, The Middle Ground: Indians, Empire, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999; originally published in 1991); Daniel K Richter, The Ordeal of the Longhouse: The Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992); and Gregory Evans Dowd, War under Heaven: Pontiac, the Indian Nations and the British Empire (Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002). William McLoughlin and James Merrell respectively produced two excellent studies about ideological and cultural changes among Southeastern Indians. Merrell analyzes the Catawba to understand processes of acculturation to survive in a changing world. William McLoughlin explores cultural change among the and describes their transformation as a fusion of traditional values and lifestyles with those of Americans by the time of their own Removal crisis. See James H. Merrell, The Indians’ New World: Catawbas and their Neighbors from European Contact through the Era of Removal (New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1991); and William G. McLoughlin, Cherokee Renascence in the New Republic (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986). Patricia Galloway argues the “Chahta” emerged from the “de-evolution” of the Mississippian peoples, who populated the

3 flexible, concept. Choctaws redefined theirs by fusing new ideologies with traditional values. Acculturation thus influenced the motivations, behaviors, and decisions of community members. Choctaws attempted to negotiated the boundaries between the worlds to create a new culture that reflected both Indian and American values and beliefs without assimilating into American society, but disagreements about how to acculturate split communities at the national and local levels.5

Various historians and archaeologists have produced noteworthy scholarship on the pre-Removal period. Patricia Galloway’s Choctaw Genesis redefined how and when a people who considered themselves “Choctaw” formed. She produced numerous articles, which examined on French and British relations with the Natives in the deep South, kinship systems and European misunderstandings about them, and ethnohistorical

Mississippi Valley before contact. The pattern of change and adaptation revealed in the emergence of the Choctaw as a people defined their reactions to all subsequent events. See Patricia Galloway, Choctaw Genesis, 1500-1700 (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1995), 265. In reference to problems with the term “tribe” and ethic distinctions among American Indians, see Wendell H. Oswalt, This Land was Theirs: A Study of Native Americans, 7th ed. (Los Angeles, CA: McGraw-Hill Mayfield, 2002), 246- 49, 85, 265., and James C. Milligan, The Choctaw of Oklahoma, ed. Stacy C. Shepherd (Abilene, TX: H. V. Chapman and Sons, 2003), 10-11.

5 For specific studies dealing with simultaneous change and persistence in Native communities, see Elizabeth A. Perkins, “Distinctions and Partitions Amongst Us: Identity and Interaction in the Revolutionary Ohio River Valley,” 205-34; Andrew R. L. Cayton, “‘Noble Actors’ upon ‘the Theatre of Honour’: Power and Civility in the Treaty of Greenville,” 235-69; Lucy Eldersveld Murphy, “To Live among Us: Accommodation, Gender, and Conflict in the Western Great Lakes Region, 1760-1832,” 270-303; John Mack Faragher, “‘More Motley than Mackinaw’: From Ethnic Mixing to Ethnic Cleansing on the Frontier of the Lower Missouri, 1783-1833,” 304-26, all in Contact Points: American Frontiers from the Mohawk Valley to the Mississippi, 1750-1830, eds. Andrew R. L. Cayton and Fredrika J. Teute (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1998).

4 approaches to writing Native history.6 Richard White’s The Roots of Dependency argued that Choctaws as well as Navajos and Pawnees became dependent on United States goods, and the loss of independence created dissillusion within their society during the eighteenth century. Greg O’Brien’s seminal Choctaws in a Revolutionary Age analyzed the lives of two prominent, eighteenth-century chiefs and found that Choctaw adapted in different ways to maintain local power through that century. His theory of the Choctaw as a “multiethnic confederacy” challenged ideas about Native unity presented in White’s earlier work. O’Brien published an important article about concepts of masculinity among the Choctaw and another about their role in the , the latter which redefined popular myths about them in that war.7 James Carson’s Searching for the

Bright Path argued that Choctaws united based on a “gendered division of labor, a matrilineal kinship system, a political structure based on chiefly power, and a cosmology or belief system with roots in the Mississippian past.”8 Along with this , he wrote several articles examining Choctaw trade during the eighteenth century and how

6 Patricia Galloway, “‘So Many Little Republics’: British Negotiations with the Choctaw Confederacy, 1765,” Ethnohistory 41:4 (Aut 1994): 513-37; Galloway, “‘The Chief Who is Your Father’: Choctaw and French Views of the Diplomatic Relation” in Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast, eds. Peter Wood, Gregory A. Waselkove, and M. Thomas Hatley (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989), 254- 78; and “Countering ‘A Powerful Indefiniteness’: Doing Choctaw Ethnohistory in the Liminal Space between History and Archaeology” in Pre-removal Choctaw History: Exploring New Paths, ed. Greg O’Brien (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2008), 48-69.

7 O’Brien, Revolutionary Age, 12-26.

8 Ibid., 13-14; and James Taylor Carson, Searching for the Bright Path: The Mississippi Choctaws from Prehistory to Removal (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1999).

5 entry into the American market economy affected them during the nineteenth century.

Carson’s analyses concerning Choctaw views about cattle and horses play an important role in this study as well.9 Clara Sue Kidwell’s Choctaws and Missionaries in Mississippi and various articles about Presbyterians in Choctaw Territory add other dimensions to

Choctaw history. Her discusses the preservation of the Choctaw when

Presbyterian missionaries attempted to transform Natives to mirror and behave like

Americans. In her “Choctaws and Missionaries in Mississippi before 1830,” Kidwell argued that chiefs sought the establishment of missionary schools to fight the “white men” on their own terms.10 As discussed in later chapters, Choctaw methods of resistence certainly changed after missionaries entered Mississippi and reflected shifting ideologies about survival and autonomy as Removal became inevitable.

As the above studies have done, this dissertation relies on an ethnohistorical approach to analyze Choctaw cultural change and persistence and the ramifications of both within communities faced with crises through the nineteenth century. It contributes to Choctaw history in numerous ways. It will rely on the combined viewpoints of archaeology, anthropology, and history to separate truth from bias, tease out Native

9 James Taylor Carson, “Native Americans, the Market Economy, and Culture Change: The Choctaw Cattle Economy, 1690-1830” in Pre-Removal, 183-99; and James Taylor Carson, “Horses and the Economy and Indians, 1690- 1840,” Ethnohistory 42:3 (Sum 1995): 495-513.

10 Clara Sue Kidwell, “Choctaws and Missionaries in Mississippi before 1830” in Pre-removal, 200-20; Clara Sue Kidwell, “The Language of Christian Conversion among the Choctaws,” Journal of Presbyterian History 77:3 (Fall 1999): 143-52; and Kidwell, Choctaws and Missionaries in Mississippi, 1818-1918 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995).

6 perspectives, and portray how Natives not only saw themselves but also how they acted based upon that self-perception. Since Native American left few written records, it is necessary to analyze documents with a keen eye for Native perspectives and motivations.

By understanding how Native views about Euro-American trade goods, such as cows or metal tools, one may glean how subsistence strategies changed. Finally, oral histories that portrayed proper etiquette for Natives provide tools for understanding cultural change through time.11

The study uses ideology as a tool for understanding resistance and how new ideologies affected Choctaws values, motivations, and behaviors toward decisions regarding non-Indians. Ideology refers to the values, “ethics,” and ideas that an individual or group uses to move from what is perceived as “real”toward the “ideal” in the world.12

11 Since most Natives did not leave written records, it is crucial to draw upon ethnohistory to understand how and why they acted and made decisions as they did. See, James Axtell, “The Ethnohistory of Native America,” 11-17; Theda Perdue, “Writing the Ethnohistory of Native Women,” 73-75; Donald L. Fixico, “Methodologies in Reconstructing Native American History,” 118-19, all in Rethinking American Indian History, ed. Donald L. Fixico (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1997); Melissa L. Meyer and Kerwin Lee Klein, “Native American Studies and the End of Ethnohistory,” 183-86, 199-200; and Russell Thornton, “Institutional and Intellectual Histories of Native American Studies,” 95-96, both in Studying Native America: Problems and Perspectives, ed. Russell Thornton (Madison: The University of Press, 1998); Patricia Galloway, Practicing Ethnohistory: Mining Archives, Hearing Testimony, Constructing (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2006), 33-41; and O’Brien, Revolutionary, xxvii.

12 Perry G. Horse, “Reflections on American Indian Identity” in New Perspectives on Racial Identity Development: A Theoretical and Practical Anthology, ed. Charmaine L. Wijeyesinghe and Bailey W. Jackson III (New York: New York University Press, 2001), 91-97, 100-10; Raymond D. Fogelson, “Perspectives on Native American Identity” in Studying Native America: Problems and Perspectives, ed. Russell Thornton (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1998), 41, 48-53; James A. Clifton, “Alternate Identities and Cultural Frontiers,” 28-32; and Geoffrey E. Buerger, “Eleazer

7 Choctaws split or united based on the persistence or change of ideologies, and this tool thus becomes crucial for understanding communal unity and dissolution. By approaching

Choctaw history in this way, this study will portray how Choctaws saw themselves in a changing world, why they integrated American values and ideas into their culture, how and why they behaved based on the ideas they acculturated, how they attempted to resist various Federal policies, and how they struggled to combat communal dissolution between 1801 and 1861.

This study connects the pre- and post-Removal periods, which previous studies about the Choctaw have not done. Many historians frame their studies in the period before or after 1830, when the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek required the Choctaws to move to lands west of the Mississippi River, because they claim that Removal represented a time of change.13 This dissertation argues that the transformation of ideology linked those periods in two ways. Choctaws used the skills and knowledge

Williams: Elitism and Multiple Identity on Two Frontiers,” 112-34, both in Being and Becoming Indian: Biographical Studies of North American Frontiers, ed. James A. Clifton (Chicago, IL: The Dorsey Press, 1989).

13 Analyzing Removal as a beginning or end of Indian histories is true of many previous histories, including works on the Choctaw. See, for example, Carson, Searching; Donna L. Akers, Living in the Land of Death: The Choctaw Nation, 1830-1860 (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2004); Arthur DeRosier, Jr., The Removal of the Choctaw Indians (Knoxville: The University of Press, 1970); Michael D. Green, The Politics of Indian Removal: Creek Government and Society in Crisis (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1982); McLoughlin, Cherokee Renascence; Galloway, “Chief,” 254-78; and Gregory Evans Dowd, Spirited Resistence: The North American Indian Struggle for Unity, 1745-1815 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992). For detailed definitions and a theoretical approach to history using the concepts of “identity,” see Peter C. Messer, Stories of Independence: Identity, Ideology, and History in Eighteenth-Century America (Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2005), 3-4.

8 obtained before 1830 to rebuild communities destroyed through Removal. Also, the same ideologies that threatened communal unity before 1830 did so again after arrival in Indian

Territory. In 1861, Choctaws used their experiences over the previous six decades to prevent a repetition of1830.

Each of this study’s six chapters examines a specific period and theme relative to how acculturation affected communities, impacted elites and commoners, and how the

Choctaws managed the consequences of communal dissolution. The chapters discuss what was at stake for the various social strata in Choctaw society and why the preservation of communal unity became important to achieve different goals among individuals and within social groups between 1801 and 1861. Chapter 2 serves as an introduction to Choctaw culture and description of life before the nineteenth century. It analyzes acculturation through eighteenth century and provides a basis upon which to gauge cultural change and continuity as well as communal unity and disunity.

Chapter 3 seeks to explain the crisis that developed at the end of the eighteenth century. Leaders tried to protect their power by negotiating better trade relations with

Americans. Commoners began to change their subsistence strategies to farming and husbandry and trading Native-produced goods with Americans. Native goods were no longer limited to furs, instead expanding to include numerous items such as “beeswax, snakeroot, tallow, bear oil, beef, bacon, venison,” corn, , horses, and cattle at mission schools, privately, and at trade houses.14 The study proposes that during this

14 George Strother Gaines, The Reminiscences of George Strother Gaines: Pioneer and Statesman of Early and Mississippi, 1805-1843, intro., notes, ed. James P. Pate (Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press, 1998), 4; and Carson,

9 period commoners gradually shifted from warrior-hunter subsistence an economy based on trade and commerce. Not all Choctaws agreed with the cultural transformations promoted by chiefs or that took place among commoners. Chiefs fought to maintain control over villages, village clusters and districts as commoners and high-ranking warriors sought their own means of surviving and prospering that challenged the authority of leaders. As communal unity became threatened, Choctaws lost land to Federal corruption in treaty negotiations and in transactions with local traders.

Chapter 4 examines the role of Presbyterian schools in cultural transformation.

Choctaws sought the establishment and financial support for mission schools in hopes that these institutions would produce Choctaws knowledgeable in American government, law and the market economy. The rising generation of educated Choctaws, many chiefs hoped, would protect autonomy and land against Federal policies using knowledge obtained in missionary schools. On a local level, the schools would produce well- informed farmers, ranchers, and blacksmiths, promoting Choctaw economic success and independence and a sense of community based on changing ideas and values. Bicultural

Choctaws such as David Folsom, who owned stores and an inn, and James McDonald, who practiced law, served as examples of effective leaders who resisted corruption in diplomatic relations and treaties with the United States. Choctaws again faced communal

Searching, 74-75, 82-84. The United States established the “factory system” in 1796 and disestablished it by 1824. “Trade houses” or “factories” bought, sold, and traded a variety of goods with Indians, including the Choctaw. Bob Ferguson, A Choctaw Chronology (Compiled for Nashville Chapter, Tennessee Archaeological Society, 1962), 6; and Herman J. Viola, Thomas McKenney: Architect of America’s Early Indian Policy: 1816- 1830 (Chicago, IL: Sage Books, the Swallow Press, Inc., 1974), 16, 19.

10 splits as a some commoners and leaders differed in opinion about how and what to change culturally.

Chapter 5 examines the attempt of Choctaws to fight Americans on American terms during treaty negotiations in Washington between1824 and 1825. Choctaw leaders formed a delegation to visit the city to meet with the president in hopes of negotiating a fair treaty. The Treaty of Washington significantly impacted the Treaty of Dancing

Rabbit Creek in 1830 and the removal process that followed it. The years surrounding

Removal highlight dramatic cultural changes that occurred before the move west and as

Choctaw rebuilt upon the ideological foundations laid before 1830. Ideological differences about cultural change and persistence caused communal dissolution, splintering the Choctaw Nation and creating an inability to fight the Dancing Rabbit agreement and ultimately removal to the West.

Chapter 6 focuses on the period Removal and analyzes the foundations upon which Choctaws rebuilt a stronger Nation. Once in Indian Territory, commoners relied on the practices of husbandry and agriculture to provide food and trade goods; they established new schools, taverns, and small businesses to foster the growth of Choctaw towns. They combined traditional ideas about honor and prestige with American values based on constitutional government to form stronger, more stable economic and political systems west of the Mississippi River and to close the gap between factions that existed before 1830.

The seventh chapter describes on the re-emergence of factionalism within the

Choctaw society in Indian Territory. Once again, communities split based on ideological

11 differences rooted in the conflict between tradition and change. Constitutionalism, the role of the General Council and chiefs, and a series of unfortunate natural disasters brought about panic within the Nation. Distrust emerged between elites, who held political power, and commoners, who felt a lack of control in the newly formed government. When the Civil War approached, Choctaws were threatened with a crisis similar to 1830. The Federal government threatened to cheat Indians out of land and destroy Indian autonomy. Remembering the years before and after Removal, Choctaws united to strengthen communities and joined the war on the side of the Confederacy to protect Choctaw independence, and protect land.

The ideologies that bound communities by the time fo the Civil War evolved between 1801 and 1861 as Choctaws acculturated to fulfill different goals, including survival, maintaining power, preserving autonomy, and protecting property. Motivations for acculturation differed. As culture changed, Choctaws questioned the best balance of

Indian and white elements. Some Choctaws feared a loss of spiritual beliefs, others desired material goods, still others sought education to become diplomats to the United

States, and yet other Choctaws a acculturated in a variety of other ways. By 1861,

Choctaws came together not because they agreed upon common ideas about change and persistence but because communal dissolution threatened to destroy all they had worked for individually and collectively.

12 CHAPTER II

“CHAHTA SIYAH HOKI!”: THE CHOCTAW IN THE SEVENTEENTH

AND THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURIES

On a winter day in the early-eighteenth century, Capitané, or Capitaine Humma, led a party of twenty Choctaws on a hunting excursion near present-day Tuscaloosa,

Alabama. On the eastern side of the , more than one hundred

Muskogees (Creeks), mortal enemies of the Choctaw, ambushed the band of hunters. A fierce battle ensued. Outnumbered, Humma ordered his men to retreat across the river. As the Choctaw fled, he turned back to fight the Muskogees and give his men time to escape.

On the opposite bank of the river, the surviving members of the hunting party watched

Humma’s last moments. He cried out his name as he rushed toward the enemies. Arrows struck him in both legs. Although he fell to his knees, he continued to fight and killed several Creeks as he yelled repeatedly, “Chahta siyah hoki!,” or “I am Choctaw!” The

Creeks forces eventually overwhelmed Humma, but he would die courageously and honorably in battle to save his men, who escaped to their homes. Upon their return, they recounted Humma’s valorous death, a story told to young warriors for over a century.1

1 Dr. Kennith York, Mississippi band of Choctaw Indians, interviewed by , 20 March 2008; Dr. Kennith York, personal communication, 6 August 2008. See also Bernard Romans, A Concise Natural History of East and West , ed. and intro. Kathryn E. Holland Braund (New York, 1774; reprint, Tuscaloosa and London: The

13 Capitané Humma’s heroic deeds remain little more than legend, but the story reveals important characteristics about how Choctaws, both men and women, saw themselves during the eighteenth century. When he died, Humma knew what it meant to be and live as a Choctaw. He had been born to a Choctaw mother in a matrilineal society and took the ethnic status of his mother. His name, derived from the Spanish or French word for “captain” and the Choctaw word for “red,” served as a mark of distinction in his society. After establishing diplomatic relations with the Spanish and French around 1700, the Choctaw incorporated the term “captain” into their vocabulary to denote war chiefs.

The color red symbolized war, and Choctaws added the term for red, humma, to individuals’ names who had distinguished themselves in battle and hunting. Humma was, as a missionary wrote, “an addition to a man’s name which gives him some distinction, calling on him from courage and honor”; it was given to warriors who did not turn from battle.2 Humma’s men followed him out of earned trust. Both men and women followed

University of Alabama Press, 1999), 130 (page citations to the reprint ); and Greg O’Brien , Choctaws in Revolutionary Age, 1750-1830 (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 2002), 35, 44-45.

2 York interview, 20 March 2008. Choctaws also added the term abi, “to kill,” to individuals’ names as a mark of distinction in battle and hunting. See “humma” and “abi” in A Dictionary of the , comp. , eds. John R. Swanton and Henry S. Halbert (Smithsonian Institution: Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 46, Washington, D.C.: Government Office, 1915; reprint, Durant, OK: Choctaw Crafts & Books, 2006), 170 (page citations are to the reprint edition). For a discussion of naming practices, including the use of “captain” and “red” see, John R. Swanton, Source Material for the Social and Ceremonial Life of the Choctaw Indians, by Kenneth H. Carleton (originally published as Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 103, 1931; reprint, Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2001), 94 (page citations are to the reprint edition), 119-24; and Ovid Vickers, “Mississippi Choctaw Names and Naming: A Diachronic View,” Names 31:2 (1983): 119-20.

14 and respected such leaders according to the prestige they had earned. Warriors who heard the tale about Humma’s death saw him as a great leader, hunter, and warrior, an example to emulate and the embodiment of what it meant live as a Choctaw. During life and at his death, Humma believed that he was behaving as his forefathers had and as warriors who lived after him would. During the eighteenth century, the ideals by which Humma and other Choctaws of legend lived and died dictated how Choctaws defined their place in the world, what they believed and how they related to each other.

Although the Choctaw thought of themselves as a “multiethnic confederacy,” they recognized similar ideas and customs common to all villages that defined who was a member of the Choctaw community and how members should act, live and behave within it.3 This chapter will paint a portrait of Choctaw culture as it existed between 1650 and

1800.4 Until the nineteenth century, Choctaw communal identity, here defined as the

3 As Patricia Galloway claims, the British considered the Choctaw more a confederacy of small republics rather than a unified nation because various groups of villages acted as they wished and sometimes contrary to a neighboring village. The inhabitants of all the villages, however, considered each other Choctaw. Similarly, the French noted in 1732 that the Choctaw appeared more like little republics than a unified nation. See Patricia Galloway, “‘So Many Little Republics’: British Negotiations with the Choctaw Confederacy, 1765,” Ethnohistory 41:4 (Aut 1994): 514; and Reverend Father J. Beaudoiun, From the Ministry of the Colonies, Chickasawhay, 23 November 1732, Mississippi Provincial Archives. French Dominion, 1729-1740: French-English-Indian Relations, Wars with the Natchez and Indians: I, collected, eds., and trans. Dunbar Rowland and A.G. Sanders (Jackson, MS: Press of the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, 1927), 154 (hereafter MPA:FD following by volume and page number).

4 Culture is here defined as a set of behavioral, social, political, religious and artistic patterns shared among a group of people and transmitted through time. See Sir Edward Burnett Tylor, “The of Culture” in Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History, 3d ed., eds. R. Jon McGee and Richard L. Warms (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004), 41.

15 ideas and behaviors that determined and outwardly depicted membership within a community, rested on three factors.5 First, the survival and preservation of communities and their autonomy rested on the ability to adapt to internal and external crises by acculturating foreign ideas, traditions, and material goods. Second, Choctaws unified, organized, and protected their communities by creating a system of social ranking based on accomplishments in warfare, hunting, or other endeavors profitable to the community and its members and a system of reciprocity between persons different social status.

Third, Choctaws looked to education as a model of self-definition. Through education,

Choctaws passed down important knowledge about the doctrines of belief, subsistence, and behavior that outwardly showed who was a Choctaw. Education promoted the importance of warfare and reciprocity in society such as subsistence on horticulture, hunting, and fishing; it preserved religious beliefs, rituals, and customs common among member of a village or “village cluster.”6 Ideologies enforced a warrior ideal, created organization and structure among villages and village clusters, and determined how a

5 Raymond D. Fogelson, “Perspectives on Native American Identity” in Studying Native America: Problems and Perspectives, ed. Russell Thornton (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1998), 41, 48-53; Perry G. Horse, “Reflections on American Indian Identity” in New Perspectives on Racial Identity Development: A Theoretical and Practical Anthology, ed. Charmaine L. Wijeyesinghe and Bailey W. Jackson III (New York: New York University Press, 2001), 91-97, 100-101; Patricia Galloway, “‘The Chief Who is Your Father:’ Choctaw and French Views of the Diplomatic Relation” in Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast, eds. Peter H. Wood, Gregory A. Waselkov, and M. Thomas Hatley (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989), 254-78; and Gregory Evans Dowd, Spirited Resistence: The North American Indian Struggle for Unity, 1745-1815 (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992) in its entirety.

6 O’Brien, Revolutionary, 12-13.

16 Choctaw was supposed to act. Such ideologies thus unified villages and clusters into a confederacy of “republics,” which valued their Choctaw traditions and beliefs but also their local autonomies.7

Although some Choctaws believe their community has existed for centuries, modern scholarship has dated their appearance as a people to the protohistoric period, or the time between and sustained contact with an outside, literate culture.8 Choctaw protohistory is the time between the first Spanish explorations through present-day

Mississippi during the mid-1500s and the beginning of sustained contact with the Spanish and French during the mid-1600s. During this period, the Choctaw emerged from the dissolution and destruction of the Mississippian peoples. A desire for trade goods coupled with environmental stresses and political tensions fostered a “devolutionary” cycle before sustained contact.9

Before contact, complex trade networks through which natives exchanged material goods as well as pathogens spanned the continent. These networks allowed

Natives to trade over long distances without extensive travel but became a disadvantage when Europeans arrived in North America. The earliest explorers and missionaries who penetrated the Deep South brought syphilis, measles, bubonic plague, yellow fever,

7 Beaudoiun, 23 November 1732, MPA:FD, I:156.

8 Jay K. Johnson, “From Chiefdom to Tribe in Northeast Mississippi: The Soto Expedition as a Window on a Culture in Transition” in The Expedition: History, Historiography, and “Discovery” in the Southeast, ed. Patricia Galloway (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 299.

9 Patricia Galloway, Choctaw Genesis, 1500-1700 (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1995), 31-38, 87-88, 90-95.

17 smallpox, and influenza. These diseases and others spread through extensive networks and were carried by indigenous animals, including dogs, sheep, reptiles, fowl, raccoons, deer, buffalo, fish, insects (particularly mosquitos) and, of course, humans. Diseases fueled the decline of Mississippian political structures, and the Mississippians broke into smaller groups, which dispersed throughout Southeastern North America and later joined with one another for survival by creating new ethnic groups and polities.10

Emergent cultural groups vied for natural resources and political dominance. By the end of the seventeenth century, the members of one of those competing groups considered themselves Choctaw.11 In the middle of the sixteenth century, European explorers traversed the Deep South, a region defined as Florida, the interior of ,

Mississippi, Alabama, and western Georgia. Neither Hernando De Soto between 1539 and 1543 nor Tristán de Luna y Arellano between 1559 and 1561 recorded any about the Choctaw Indians. During this period, as archaeological evidence

10 Ibid.; Neal Salisbury, “The Indians’ Old World: Native Americans and the Coming of Europeans,” American Encounters: Natives and Newcomers from European Contact to Indian Removal, 1500-1850, Peter C. Mancall and James H. Merrell, eds. (New York: Routledge, 2000), 3-25. For discussions about some of the effects of disease among Amerindians, see also Elinor G. K. Melville, “Disease, Ecology, and the Environment” in The Oxford History of Mexico, eds. Michael C. Meyer and William H. Beezley (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 213-243.

11 This study will not use the term “tribe” in reference to Native American ethnic groups (e.g. Navajo, Choctaw, Cherokee, Mohawk, etc.). Instead, it will use the terms “cultural group(s)” or “ethnic group(s)” to refer to Amerindian peoples. In reference to problems with the term “tribe” and ethnic distinctions among American Indians, see Wendell H. Oswalt, This Land was Theirs: A Study of Native Americans, 7th ed. (Los Angeles, CA: McGraw-Hill Mayfield, 2002), 246-49, 85, 265.; and James C. Milligan, The Choctaw of Oklahoma, ed. Stacy C. Shepherd (Abilene, TX: H. V. Chapman and Sons, 2003), 10-11.

18 has shown, no one lived in what became “Choctaw territory” in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The first European account of the Choctaw came from Bishop

Calderón between 1674 and 1675, who noted the locations of 107 villages where a people calling themselves “Chata” lived in proximity to the Mobile Indians. Chronologically,

Marcos Delgado next recorded information about the “Chata” during his 1688 expedition.12 Sometime between 1561 and 1675, a people who called themselves

“Chahta” appeared in present-day central Mississippi. Spanish cartographers did not mention the Choctaw, or a derivative of that name on maps of the interior until the middle of the sixteenth century. Between 1673 and 1674, several Spanish- and French-expedition records and maps distinctly located the ethnic group. Pierre le Moyne d’Iberville’s accounts from 1702 and various maps from the 1680s noted specific towns that did not exist at the time of Spanish expeditions of the 1500s. Little did Europeans know that their presence would help facilitate the emergence of new ethnic groups.13 The formation of new ethnic groups through acculturation is termed ethnogenesis. In a sense, the Choctaw always lived in a world of encounters. Each native group that emerged out of

Mississippian dissolution survived the best way it could in the wake of European arrival,

12 Galloway, Genesis, 143, 148, 166-70. For more information concerning the explorations and mention of various Indian groups in the Mississippi Valley, see ibid., 164-75.

13 For a reproduction of maps, see ibid., 210-12, 214, 217-19, 221, 223-24, 228- 32, 234-39, 241-42, 244-49, 252, 254, 256-57, 259. For discussion of cartographic evidence, see ibid., 192-95, 198, and chapter 6.

19 whether by alliances, war or migration. Dispersed groups joined together and forged new communities and trade networks from the chaos wrought by encounters.14

When the Choctaw united, they gradually acculturated, absorbing a variety of traditions drawn from various peoples into a single culture. The pattern of adaptation revealed in the emergence of the Choctaw as a people defined their reactions to subsequent events. Although the assimilation of beliefs and customs was nothing new, a particular combination of customs and their incorporation into social practices and religious rituals created a distinct Choctaw culture. Because they initially included dispersed groups from various regions, the Choctaw, incorporated numerous customs from other ethnic groups. Ceramic motifs, language patterns and even oral traditions mimicked other Indian groups. Choctaws assimilated into their pottery, especially that found in the eastern and southern regions of present-day Mississippi, a combination of styles to create what one scholar termed a “multilinear curvilinear motif.” Although the evidence does not explain the appeal to or aesthetical value of the style, pottery found at

Choctaw sites portrays the incorporation of various styles and methods of creation.15

14 For three discussions about American Indian ethnogenesis, see W. Raymond Wood, “The Realities of Ethnogenesis,” Missouri Archaeologist 63 (2002): 71-82; Brent R. Weisman, “Archaeological Perspectives on Florida Ethnogenesis” in Indians of the Greater Southeast: Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory, ed. Bonnie G. McEwan (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2000), 299-317; and Brian D.Haley and Larry R. Wilcoxin, “How Spaniards became Chumash and other Tales of Ethnogenesis,” American Anthropologist 107:3 (2005): 432-45.

15 For example, anthropologist Patricia Galloway, whose studies provide the best evidence for Choctaw ethnogenesis, argues that Choctaws had a more “mixed [ceramic] tradition” than surrounding groups. Two types of ceramic tempering, crushed pottery and sand, fit into a “Choctaw ceramic complex.” Choctaws used both “tempering methods” in their “multilinear curvilinear” motifs. The combination of methods and motifs points to a

20 Language patterns provide another example of acculturation. Among the largest

Southeastern groups—most notably the Creek, Chickasaw, and Seminole—Choctaw fit into the Muskogean family. From the proto-Muskogean (ca.1000 B.C.), a Western and

Eastern language division formed. “Old Choctaw” evolved from Western Muskogean, which separated into “New Choctaw” and “Chickasaw.” The Eastern Muskogean eventually divided into “New Alabama,” “Apalachee,” “Koasati,” “New Hitchiti,”

“Mikasuki,” “New Creek,” and “Seminole.”16 Generally, language subdivision reflected changes over time. New Choctaw and Chickasaw dialects were alike in structure and vocabulary. Ethnogenesis from different ethnic groups resulted in the variety of dialects.

Choctaws from southwestern Mississippi the Natchez dialect while those of the eastern villages spoke traces of an Alabama/Mobilean one. Overall, the Choctaw language most closely resembled the Chickasaw. As an informant told the late Choctaw tribal historian

Robert Ferguson, the dialects resembled each other so closely that a “modern” Choctaw

Choctaw style. Depending on the geographic region, multilinear curvilinear motifs either mimicked or were the same as those found on the “Natchezean decorated pottery tradition” while others reflected motifs found within the “Alabama River” and “Pensacola” traditions. See, Galloway, Genesis, 31-38, 265, 276; John Howard Blitz, An Archaeological Study of the Mississippi Choctaw Indians, Archaeological Report No. 16 (Jackson: Mississippi Department of Archives and History, 1985), 24, 47, 50; O’Brien, Revolutionary Age, 3-4; and James Taylor Carson, Searching for the Bright Path: The Mississippi Choctaws from Prehistory to Removal (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1999), 16-17.

16 Although prominent ethnic groups in Mississippi and Alabama, two major exceptions with no linguistic links to the Muskogean family were the Natchez and Tunica. Subdivisions, in theory, may have also originated from southern and northern Mississippian groups, but the Western and Eastern groups noted here remain linguistically linked. See, Galloway, Genesis, 311, 315-24.

21 could understand a Chickasaw but not a Creek although all three come from the Muskogean family of Indian languages.17

In her analyses, Marcia Haag, scholar of Indian languages, noted some similarities among Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Creek. Choctaw uses an internal “h”, pronounced as in

“prehistory,” whereas Chickasaw uses a “glottal stop.” Thus, the Choctaw word for

“white” is tohbi and in Chickasaw is to’bi. Although Choctaws and Creeks cannot understand each other when speaking their respective native tongues, the languages do have, as Haag argues, a “similar grammatical structure.” Choctaws continued adapting their language after contact. Europeans brought and taught about a variety of animals indigenous to the Eastern Hemisphere. Choctaws formed new terms from words already present in their vocabulary. New words were based on concepts, or “metaphorical descriptions,” inherent in the culture before European arrival. The Naming of “Old

World” animals portrays the process of adapting language. The Choctaw word for horse is issoba from issi holba, literally translating as “like a deer.” Chukfi vlhpoa for “sheep” literally translates as “domesticated rabbit.” And a final example, “monkey” is shawi hattak or hattak shawi, literally “raccoon men.”18

17 Robert B. Ferguson, “A Choctaw Chronology,” compiled for the Nashville Chapter, Tennessee Archeological Society, 1962, 1; John R. Swanton, “The Choctaw,” Indians of the Southeastern United States (Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1979), 121-23; Swanton, Source Material, 1; and Henry C. Benson, Life among the Choctaw Indians and Sketches of the South-west, intro T. A. Morris (Cincinnati, OH: L. Swormstedt & A. Poe, 1860), 22.

18 Marcia Haag, “A History of the Choctaw Language” in Choctaw Language and Culture: Chahta Anumpa, eds. Marcia Haag and Henry Willis, foreword Grayson Noely (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001), 276-79; and Byington, Dictionary, 77, 113.

22 Much like the ceramic evidence, the Choctaw language shared traits with surrounding groups including the Natchez, Alabama, and Mobile. It incorporated a variety of dialects that formed a new language. In 1775, James Adair noted enough similarity between Chickasaw and Choctaw languages that he believed they had descended from one people.19 The languages resembled each other so much that missionaries in the nineteenth century used Bibles translated into Choctaw to teach

Chickasaw.20 Geography influenced these developments. Hence, no Choctaw dialects

19 James Adair, The History of the American Indians: Particularly those Nations Adjoining to the Mississippi East and , Georgia, South and North Carolina, and , rep., ed., new introduction Robert F. Berkhofer, Jr. (1775; reprint, New York and London: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1968), 5 (page citations to the reprint edition). Adair visited Choctaw territory during the early 1700s, but his memoirs were not published until 1775. See also Horatio Bardwell Cushman, History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw and Natchez Indians, ed. , intro. Clara Sue Kidwell (Greenville, TX: Headlight Printing House, 1899; first reprint, Stillwater, OK: Redlands Press, 1962; second reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999), 362 (page citations are to the second reprint edition).

20 Clara Sue Kidwell, “The Language of Conversion among the Choctaws,” Journal of Presbyterian History 77:3 (Fall 1999): 144-47. The Reverends Robert Bell and Cyrus Kingsbury reported to John C. Calhoun that both the Choctaw and Chickasaw students and leaders approved of the school at Elliot, which used a number of translated documents written in Choctaw to teach and preach. Among these texts were the Bible and various catechisms. Most , like most Choctaws, who entered the school could not speak English. Missionaries noticed the similarities between the languages of each ethnic group and used the materials at hand to teach and preach to Choctaw and Chickasaw students. Mr. Kingsbury’s Report to the Secretary of War: First Annual Report of the Mission School at Elliot, Choctaw Nation, to the autumn of 1819, Missionary Herald, February 1820, 79; and From [the Rev.] Robert Bell, Charity Hall, Chickasaw Nation, [Monroe County, Miss.,] 1 October 1824, The of John C. Calhoun: Volume IX, 1824-25, ed. W. Edwin Hemphill (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1976), 336. For an analysis of the Chickasaw lexicon and its relationship to the Choctaw language, see George Aaron Broadwell, A Choctaw Reference Grammar (Bloomington American Indian Studies Research Institute, Indiana University: University of Nebraska Press, 2006), 13.

23 reflected characteristics of Cherokee. Some Creek dialects reflected Cherokee influence but were more closely related to Choctaw. Despite this degree of diversity, the Choctaw shared a common linguistic background with the Chickasaw and Creek in the Muskogean family. Linguistic divisions depended on the development of those languages in relation to geographical dispersion as exemplified by the Mobilian trade language. In 1702, the

French established the colony of Mobile, north of which lived the Tohomés and

Mobilians. As settlers learned over the next few years, the language of these two native peoples almost matched that of the Chickasaws and Choctaws. Catholic priest Henri

Roulleaux de La Vente observed that most Indian peoples in the region “are so different that one village does not understand the language of another and it is only the language of the Choctaws” that could be understood by most ethnic groups.21 The British, who enjoyed better relations with the Chickasaw than Choctaw, called the language they heard

“Chickasaw.” Europeans quickly found that natives were speaking a trade language, now called “Mobilian.” As did other ethnic groups, the Choctaw adapted and learned the language to communicate for trade.22

Dialectical differences existed only slightly at the local level among Choctaws while further exemplifying the adoption of linguistic characteristics from other

Amerindian ethnic groups. In 1893, Henry S. Halbert observed that certain words heard in a region of Choctaw territory known as the Six Towns were not heard among Choctaws

21 Henri Roulleaux de La Vente quoted and translated in James M. Crawford, The Mobilian Trade Language (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1978), 12, 30- 31.

22 Crawford, Mobilian, 8, 30-31, 41-42, 74-75.

24 elsewhere. The people of the Six Towns district knew a local creek as Iasunlabi, translated as “leech-killer.” The creek’s name came from the combination of iasunla and abi, meaning “leech” and “to kill” respectively. Other Choctaws, however, referred to a leech as hallus or yallus. Dialectical differentiation and language divisions depended on the development of those languages in relation to geographical dispersion after

Mississippian dissolution, proximity to outlying Indian cultural groups and how

Choctaws in different villages and village clusters evolved their languages over time.23

Aside from language, the Creek, Chickasaw, Alabama, and Choctaw also shared similar oral traditions and ceremonial and religious symbols. The Choctaw had more than one origin legend, and at least one of those stories paralleled to other prominent

Muskogeans’ stories. According to Creek legend, Creeks emerged from the earth in the

“West” then migrated eastward when the “earth ate their children.” Two separate

Choctaw myths relate similar tales. In one creation story, Aba, the Sun and the principal

Choctaw deity, brought the American Indian peoples out of , a sacred mound located about twelve miles northeast of present-day Philadelphia, Mississippi. The

Muskogees, , and Chickasaws were taken from within the earth first and traveled to where they would live until Removal in 1830. The Choctaw exited last and remained near Nanih Waiya.24 Similar to the Choctaws, the Creeks too emerged from

23 Henry S. Halbert, “Okla Hannali; or, the Six Towns District of the Choctaw,” American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal 15 (1893): 148-49; and Clara Sue Kidwell, Choctaws and Missionaries, 1818-1918 (Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995), 87-91.

24 Isaac Pistonatubbee, “The Choctaw Migration Legend” in Choctaw Tales, coll. and ann. Tom Mould (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2004), 64-65; Reverend

25 under the earth. Another Choctaw tale speaks of a great migration from the “West,” a story shared by the Choctaw and Chickasaw but also including a migration from a western country of chaos and turmoil to a land of plentiful resources. In the “far western country,” two brothers named Chahta and Chikasa ruled over their people. Under advisement from their elders, the brothers led their people to the “east,” which had fertile soil and abundant game. The two disagreed on a “national” issue and split the peoples into opposing ethnic groups.25

The relationship between Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Creek origin myths underscores the centrality of acculturation to Choctaw culture. The relationship between the Choctaw, Creek, and Chickasaw reveals a distinction between them and the

Cherokee. Belonging to the Iroquoian language family, which consisted of the Iroquois of the “Longhouse” (Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca, and Tuscarora),

Alfred Wright, “Choctaws. Religious Opinions, Traditions, &c.,” Missionary Herald, June 1828, 181-82; and Romans, Concise, 121, 129.

25 Peter Folsom, “The Migration Legend” in Choctaw Tales, 71-72; Ferguson, “Chronology,” 1; Adair, History, 5; Henry S. Halbert, “Nanih Waiya, the Sacred Mound of the Choctaws,” of the Mississippi Historical Society 2 (Oxford, MS, 1899), 224; John F. Schermerhorn, “Report Respecting the Indians Inhabiting the Western Parts of the United States,” Collections of the Historical Society 24:2 (Boston, 1814): 17; Gibson Lincecum, “Choctaw Traditions about their Settlement in Mississippi and the Origin of their Mounds,” Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society 8 (Oxford, MS, 1904): 530, 542; William Brescria, Jr., “Choctaw Oral Tradition Relating to Tribal Origin,” The Choctaw before Removal, ed. Carolyn Keller Reeves (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1985), 3-7, 9-11; Tom Mould, Choctaw Prophecy: A Legacy of the Future (Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 2003), 114-15; and , Traditional History of the Chahta Nation Translated from the Chahta by Gideon Lincecum, 2 pts. (1861; reprint, Eugene C. Barke Center, University of Texas , 1932), typescript copy available at the Neshoba County Library, Philadelphia, MS, I:9.

26 Southeastern Cherokee origin myths mirrored Iroquoian oral traditions. According to

Cherokee tradition, “primal waters” once covered the earth. A Tortoise swam to the bottom, brought up mud and with the aid of the first woman (herself a deity that “fell” from “heaven” after having sexual relations with a man) created the world. A Beetle took mud from the bottom of sea and created the earth. Then, a brother and sister “reproduced” to people the world. The Iroquois tell a similar tale. The world was covered in a primordial water, people lived in the sky, and animals of the sea dove to find land when the pregnant daughter of the “Great Chief” fell from the sky. The water, sky, animal, and creation motifs are all similar to the Cherokee creation myth.26

Another similarity and sign of acculturation among Muskogean ethnic groups concerns the ceremonial importance of fire among the Choctaws, Chickasaws, Creeks,

Natchez, and Alabamas. Choctaw ceremonialism and cosmology focused on the Sun,

Hushtahli or Aba, and fire, his companion. The Sun led Choctaws on a “bright path” to success, and fire provided warriors with intelligence. It is no surprise that warriors prayed to the Sun for success by using rituals that involved sacred fires before going to war.27

26 “The Eastern Cherokee: Farmers of the Southeast,”397-98 and “The Iroquois: Warriors and Farmers of the Eastern Woodlands,” 361-62 both in This Land was Theirs: A Study of Native Americans, 7th ed., ed. Wendell H. Oswalt, (Los Angeles, CA: McGraw-Hill Mayfield, 2002),; and Daniel K. Richter, The Ordeal of the Longhouse: The Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization (Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1992), 1-4, 8.

27 Angie Debo, The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Republic, reprint (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972; 1934), 6 (page citations to the reprint edition); Swanton, Source, 195-96; Wright, “Religious,” 179-80; and “Journey to the Sky” in Native American Legends, Southeastern Legends: Tales from the Natchez, , Biloxi, Chickasaw, and Other Nations, comp. and ed. George E. Lankford (Little Rock, AR: August House Publishers, 1987), 209-10. According to Cushman, Choctaws sometimes

27 Like the Choctaw, the Natchez saw the sun and fire as religiously important and used them in rituals and to mark socio-political and religious status. During an expedition to the Natchez in the early eighteenth century, the French naturalist, explorer, and historian

Antoine du Pratz recorded that Natchez worship focused on the “preserving the eternal fire” and their leader “watches over it with a peculiar attention.” According to their beliefs, the Frenchman continued, the Natchez would be destroyed if the fire was ever extinguished.28 Among them, the “Sun chief” or “Great Sun” held much authority even in death, and his burial consisted of highly honored customs. Upon his death or that of his family, all considered “Suns in death,” the remains of the deceased would be placed in a mound to rot, exhumed, and then placed in a temple.29

Many travelers in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries noted the same mortuary practices performed among the Choctaw as observed among the Natchez. When a Choctaw died, the body was put in a chest or coffin and placed atop a high scaffold with painted poles stuck into the ground surrounding it and leading to a cemetery. Once the body had sufficient time to rot, a designated group of persons within the village or a

referred to their deity as Nittakhushi, or “day sun.” See Cushman, History, 193.

28 Antoine Simon Le Page du Pratz, The , or of the Western Parts of Virginia and Carolina, Containing a Description of the Countries that lie on both Sides of the River Mississippi: With an Account of the Settlements, Inhabitants, Soil, Climate, and Products. Translated fromthe French of M. Le Page du Pratz with Some Notes and Observations Relating to our Colonies (London: Printed for T. Becket, Corner of Adelphi, in the Strand, 1774), 316-17.

29 Galloway, Genesis, 292. Du Pratz wrote that children and adults were killed upon the death of the Great Sun, his wife the Great Female Sun, or one of their children. Those killed would serve the Suns in the afterlife. See ibid., 76-77, 299-300.

28 neighboring village called “bone-pickers,” who grew their finger nails long for the task from which they received this name, scraped the remaining flesh and intestines from the skeleton with their nails. The flesh and intestines were burned in a fire created for the mortuary ritual. Friends and family would again weep over the skeleton. Another group would pull the poles as a procession carried the deceased to the cemetery. Crying would cease and a funerary festival followed to celebrate his or her life. Neither the Creeks nor the Chickasaws practiced such a ritual, but the Natchez did. Among the Choctaw, the practiced faded shortly before Removal in 1830.30

As did the Natchez and the Choctaw, the Creek considered fire as sacred and important. They included a “fundamental ceremonial practice” in their origin myths with one element that focused on the “establishment of the New Fire.” Fire did not represent a symbol of status but did hold religious and ritualistic significance for Creeks. Its ceremonial importance extended to major surrounding groups and represented another example of acculturating religious ideals.31 The similarities in the usage of fire and sun motifs reveals not only communication between them but also cultural borrowing.

30 Adair, History of the American Indians, 183; Jean-Bernard Bossu, Travels in the Interior of North America, 1751-1762, trans. and ed. Seymour Feiler (Paris, 1768; reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962), 166-67 (page citations refer to the reprint); Romans, Concise, 142; Henry S. Halbert, “Funeral Customs of the Mississippi Choctaws,” Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society 3 (1900): 353-366; and William Bartram, The Travels of William Bartram, ed. Mark van Doren (New York: Dover Publications, 1928), 403-404.

31 Mould, Prophecy, 27; Cushman, History, 438-39; James Taylor Carson, “From Corn Mothers to Cotton Spinners: Continuity in Choctaw Women’s Economic Life, A.D. 950-1830” in Women of the South: A Multicultural Reader, ed. Christie Anne Farnham (New York and London: New York University Press, 1997), 13; and D. Clayton James, Antebellum Natchez (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1968), 11.

29 Precisely how the sun and fire motifs, symbols, and rituals were acculturated into their cultures and why it was done remain a mystery.

Unfortunately, because of a lack of evidence, the exact origin and time of the the

“Chacta” emergence also remains a mystery. The evidence shows that as dispersed groups migrated, joined, and amassed new polities, they adopted ceramic motifs, language dialects, religious beliefs, and oral traditions. When new ethnic groups emerged from

Mississippian dissolution, they competed with one another for resources and political influence across the Southeast. Warriors protected the villages and their autonomy that

Choctaws had arduously labored to build.32 To achieve maximum military advantages,

Choctaws relied on two cultural systems. They imbued their lifestyles with training for war and hunting through rigorous mental, spiritual, and physical education and used social and political distinction to award achievements in these areas.

The promotion of warrior distinction fostered a large native military complex among the Choctaw compared to other Southeastern peoples. Demographic estimates of

Choctaw warriors ranged from between 15,000 to 30,000, probably closer to the latter, at

32 At the latest, Bishop Calderón noted the existence of a people who called themselves Choctaw by 1675. See 7n12. A common myth holds that all American Indian peoples had warriors. This is not true. The best example of a peaceful people comes from the four-corners region of the Southwest. The Hopi refused to adopt European culture, particularly Christianity, but they believed that a person could act or not act “Hopi.” If the latter, that person acted “kahopi,” roughly translated as “not Hopi.” To behave as such, meant that the individual was not kind and prone to violence or anger. Leading a “Hopi” life was equated with living a peaceful one. John D. Loftin, Religion and Hopi Life in the Twentieth Century (Bloomington Indiana University Press, 1991), 2-4, 23, 114; The Oxford History of the American West, eds. Clyde A. Milner II, Carol A. O’Connor, Martha A. Sandweiss (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 17-18; and “The Hopi: Farmers of the Desert” in Wendell, This Land, 292.

30 any given time between 1650 and 1800. Analyzing cartographic and ethnographic records from seventeenth- and eighteenth-century Spanish and French explorers, historian and anthropologist John R. Swanton recorded approximately 115 towns in the Choctaw

Nation between 1702 and 1784. Depending on disease, warfare, and other factors, the actual numbers of villages, total population, and warriors may have changed from one decade to the next. Peter H. Wood provides the best demographic evidence of Indians in the Southeast during the colonial and early republican eras. Choctaw warrior estimates ranged as low as 3,230 to as many as 6,000 and peaked around 8,000 about 1685.33

Statistically, the ratio of warriors to commoners, including women and children, was high among the Choctaw with about a 4:1 ratio at the lowest and 2:1 at the highest. Even among the more populous Cherokee, the warrior-to-commoner ratio averaged between

5:1 or 6:1.34 The higher percentage of Choctaw warriors among their total population

33 Swanton, Southeastern, 118-19, 110-15, 121-23, 158-61, 197-99. Their Chickasaw neighbors typically numbered between 600 and 1000 but possibly as high as, though unlikely according to Wood, 2,000 to 4,000 among a total population of about 7,000 or 8,000 at its peak. Compared to other prominent groups, the Creek’s total population ranged between about 2,000 to 22,000 with between 1,600 to almost 3,000 warriors between 1738 and 1833. The Cherokee population, the largest of the Southeastern peoples, numbered close to 35,000 with between 5,000 and 6,000 warriors before 1700. After 1700, disease reduced those numbers to about 22,000 people with warriors numbering about 6,000 after 1700. Two other prominent groups in Mississippi and the Southeast after 1600, the Natchez and Tunica, had much smaller populations, totaling as many as 4,500 for the former and the latter almost 2,500. See, Peter H. Wood, “Geography and Population,” Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast, eds. Peter H. Wood, Gregory A. Waselkove, M. Thomas Hatley (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989), 61-72.

34 Swanton, “Cherokee,” “Muskogee (Creek Confederation),” and “Chickasaw” in Southeastern, 110-19, 123, 153-54. Commoners here refers to the women, children, and men who did not fight or take part in politics and war.

31 evidences a greater emphasis on warfare than in other Southeastern groups. The ability of the Choctaw to raise a large force quickly, as noted in one British report in 1739, seems to confirm the above estimates. In negotiating trade with various Indian peoples, a British scout wrote that the Creeks, Chickasaws, and Choctaws immediately sent warriors to treaty talks. Of the three groups, the Choctaw easily raised the most warriors.35

During the eighteenth century, the Choctaw became the second largest and one of the most influential Indian groups in the Southeast, and Europeans who had diplomatic relations with them knew it. Choctaw informants claimed much influence over other peoples. In an attempt to intimidate traveler Bernard Romans, one Choctaw stated that

“we, like men, have killed men only, and got the marks thereof” unlike the Creeks who killed “many women and children.”36 Du Pratz recorded that the large number of Choctaw warriors “awed the natives near whom they passed” and “nobody disputed them.” He claimed that their warriors numbered twenty-five thousand. This estimate probably is exaggerated, but his observation that Choctaws had thousands of warriors and a larger native military than other Amerindians speaks to the promotion of war and its successes for local domination in Choctaw society.37 As early as 1723, French naturalist Andre

Pénicaut argued that the Choctaws and Chickasaws could have “put as many as sixteen thousand warriors on the warpath” and “would have had the power to destroy our colony

35 A Ranger’s Report of Travels with General Oglethorpe, 1739-1742, Travels in the American Colonies, ed. Newton D. Mereness (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1916.), 215-16.

36 Romans, Concise, 130.

37 Du Pratz, History, 296.

32 in its infancy.” Pénicaut further noted that peaceful relations and the practice of giving presents created significant alliances with the Choctaw, who protected the French settlement of Mobile and settlements in Louisiana.38 During the first few decades of the eighteenth century, the French also found that Choctaws attacked nearby Native peoples, including the Natchez, to instill fear and maintain power locally. These groups complained of harsh treatment by the Choctaw, but the French and later the Spanish realized they could be useful for protecting territory from tribes allied with the British.39

Even United States officials, including the Secretary of War Henry Dearborn in 1803, noted the potential threat the Choctaws caused with their multitude of warriors, and the strategic positions of their towns. At that time, according to Dearborn, the Choctaw had no inclination to attack the United States, but their villages surrounded American

38 Andre Pénicaut, Fleur de Lys and Calumet: Being the Pénicaut Narrative of French Adventure in Louisiana, trans. and ed. Richebourg Gaillard (1723; reprint, McWilliams. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1953), 78-79 (page citations to reprint edition).

39 Galloway, Patricia. “French-Choctaw Contact, 1680s to 1763” in Tribal Government: A New Era, ed. William Brescia (Philadelphia, MS: Choctaw Heritage Press, 1982), 9-10; and Journal of De Beauchamps’ Journey to the Choctaws, 1746 (September), Travels in the American Colonies, ed. Newton D. Mereness (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1916), 290-91; Ezpeleta to Juzan, February 19, 1781, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 1765-94 in Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1945, 3 vols., ed. and intro. Lawrence Kinnaird (Washington, DC: GPO, 1946-1949), 1:420-21 (hereafter to Spain in the Mississippi Valley followed by volume and page number); Report on the Mission of Paulous to the Chickasaws, September, 1782, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 2:57; and Peter Chester to the Earl of Hillsborough, Pensacola 28th September 1771, 95-96, and Peter Chester to the Earl of Hillsborough, Pensacola 29th September 1771, 100, both in Mrs. Dunbar Rowland, “Peter Chester: Third Governor of the Province of British West Florida under British Dominion, 1770- 1781,” Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society, Centenary Series 5, ed. Dunbar Rowland (Jackson, MS: Printed for the Society, 1925).

33 settlements and might be dangerous if Choctaw attitudes changed. Relations were good, however, and small numbers of troops stationed near their territory would alert the

Federal government if the Choctaw attacked.40

Certainly, Choctaws believed in their superiority in combat. As one Spanish officer wrote in 1767, the Choctaw threatened the Spanish colonists with violence if colonial officials did not give presents as had the French. He continued by noting that the

Choctaw “could destroy various settlements of the colony if steps are not taken to satisfy it, and for said gifts some eight thousand pesos are needed.” 41 In 1790, chief

Franchimastabé had no qualms about threatening American settlers at Cole’s Creek along the Black River because they had intruded upon lands not owned by the United States.42

Choctaws sneered at British soldiers during the eighteenth century whom they considered obese and lazy, traits not characteristic of a good warrior.43 French traveler and naturalist

40 The Secretary of War to James Wilkinson, War Department, 16 April 1803, The Territorial Papers of the United States, Volume V: The Territory of Mississippi, 1798- 1817, comp. and ed. Clarence Edwin Carter (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1937), 217.

41 Governmental Expenses, 1767, Colony of Louisiana, Extraordinary Expenses, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 1:18.

42 Carlos de Grand-Pre to Miró, October 2, 1790, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 2:380.

43 Greg O’Brien, “Trying to Look Like Men: Changing Notions of Masculinity among Choctaw Elites in the Early Republic” in Southern Manhood: Perspectives on Masculinity in the Old South (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2004), 56-57.

34 Jean-Bernard Bossu met a Choctaw who, without being threatened, claimed he was a

“real man” and “not afraid to die” if Bossu was looking for a fight.44

Perhaps the most interesting account of Choctaws defending their honor and prowess involves and the most renowned Choctaw chief .

Supposedly, during the in 1814, a soldier who had been placed under the command of Pushmataha insulted Andrew Jackson’s wife, Rachel. The Choctaw chief knocked the man down, slapped him with the butt of his sword, and called him an

“insolent dog.” Jackson asked the chief what he would have done if Jackson himself had insulted Pushmataha’s wife. Pushmataha stated that he would have run the General through because only a fellow leader was truly worthy of being killed by Pushmataha’s blade; he also said he would have no problem taking vengeance for such an insult from

Jackson.45 Such observations by Du Pratz, Pénicaut, Dearborn, and others showed that the

Choctaw perceived themselves to be the most formidable and powerful Native people of the Southeast.

Government reports similarly warned of the real dangers the Choctaws might pose if ever angered. The threats resulted from a desire by the Choctaw to protect the nation they had created after Mississippian dissolution. Choctaws had incorporated a variety of traits from foreign cultures that worked within socio-political ethos that bound together communities.

44 Bossu, Travels, 158-59.

45 York interview, 20 March 2008.

35 Choctaws used education to promote competition, teach what they believed to be their superiority to other native groups, and to offer a model for self-definition. Education served another part of their identity because it provided examples for Choctaws to match.

Two facets of education served as models for living as a “Choctaw.” First, nearly all education from childhood to adulthood focused on competition and winning distinction in warfare, hunting, or other endeavors profitable to communities. Distinction gained in these areas caused individuals to rise or fall in social rank and status based on the amount and type of distinction they had earned. By earning respect and reverence in society,

Choctaws proved themselves worthy to lead, command, and advise. Second, other cultural structures such as a matrilineal kinship system, division of labor, and religious beliefs re-enforced the importance of war and hunting in Choctaw society. Warfare thus dominated the lives of both men and women. Primarily, men fought and hunted while women reared children and farmed, but men and women took part in educating the

Choctaw populace based on gender divisions.46

To defend themselves and their status as a powerful and influential Indian nation, the Choctaw gave much attention to teaching about warfare and hunting.47 Education consisted of oral traditions, physical training, and apprenticeships.48 Of the three, oral

46 Bossu, Travels, 7-8; and T. N. Campbell, “Choctaw Subsistence: Ethnographic Notes from the Lincecum Manuscript,” Florida Anthropologiest 12 (1959): 11, 15-18.

47 Grayson Noley, “The Early 1700s: Education, Economics, and Politics,” in Before Removal, 73, 75, 79.

48 Here defined, apprentice learning refers to education through performing, hearing about, and repetition of actions than by through reading. This definition represents a simpler and more concise definition of “informal” or “practical learning”

36 traditions served as the primary source of information, as a blueprint for survival, and a corpus of knowledge that exemplified how individuals should behave and live as

Choctaws. Orators’ tales buttressed the warrior ethic and belief in the superiority of the

Choctaw.49 The storyteller imparted wisdom through two types of stories. The first type of story encompassed prophecy, creation stories, and history, all of which symbolized truth.

Like the Bible or the Koran to the Christian or Muslim, oral histories served as the basic foundations for Choctaw religion. The Choctaw had several creation myths, but the most prominent were the migration story, which focused on the Chickasaw and Choctaw migration as a single people, and the Nanih Waiya creation myth. Variations of the Nanih

Waiya story exist. Pre-missionary legends construed that the “Great Father” chose the

Choctaw as his people and led them from under the earth, the “Great Mother,” and into

described in F. Niyi Akinnaso, “Schooling, Language, and Knowledge in Literate and Nonliterate Societies,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 34:1 (Jan 1992): 72, 75, 78-79, 81-84, 88-90, 92-94, 99-101; and Clara Sue Kidwell, “Native Knowledge in the Americas,” Osiris 1:2 (1985): 209, 224-28. For discussions about education and cognitive thought in nonliterate societies, see Brian V. Street, in Theory and Practice, reprint (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 35-36, 95-125, 132-44; Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy, reprint (New York: Routledge, 2000), 31-76; Jack Goody, The Domestication of the Savage Mind, reprint (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995),1-15; and Jack Goody and Ian Watt, “The Consequences of Literacy,” Comparative Studies in Sociology and History 5:3 (Apr 1963): 344-45.

49 For discussions about the usage of oral traditions in academic writing see, Richard J. Mason, “Archaeology and Native North American Oral Traditions,” American Antiquity 65:2 (2000): 239-66; LeAnne Howe, “The Story of America: A Tribalography,” 29-50 and Craig Howe, “Keep Your Thoughts above the Trees: Ideas on Developing and Presenting Tribal Histories,” 161-80, both in Clearing a Path: Theorizing the Past in Native American Studies, ed. Nancy Shoemaker (New York: Routledge, 2002); and LeAnne Howe, “Ohoyo Chishba Osh: Woman Who Stretches Way Back” in Pre- Removal Choctaw History, ed. Greg O’Brien (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2008), 26-47.

37 the world. In at least three of creation myths— two about Nanih Waiya—the Choctaw,

Creek, and Cherokee emerged into the world as separate, but related, peoples. The most common version included other Indian nations, and Aba specifically chose the Choctaw as the most honored people among other ethnic groups in the Southeast.50 In his Histoire de la Louisiane, Du Pratz recorded the earliest version of the story in 1758. By that year the Choctaw had adopted the Nanih Waiya myth as “Choctaw” and the Sun and fire motifs as their own, distinct from ethnic groups like the Chickasaw and Creek. Du Pratz’s story represents the most original, unaltered origin myth of the people before the acculturation efforts of the United States.51 In another account, recorded by Charles

Lanman during an interview with Peter Pitchlynn, an American Indian of mixed heritage and a chief of the Choctaws in the West during the second half of the nineteenth century, the Choctaw nation “became so powerful that its hunting grounds extended even to the sky.” Lanman’s account represented an exaggerated tale told by Pitchlynn. Such exaggerations were common, however, and reinforced the belief that Choctaws were the most powerful and successful Indian warriors and hunters.52

Indeed, oral traditions had an overwhelming importance for Choctaw religious education, morality, and faith. Stories about creation taught the people how to think and

50 Schermerhorn, “Report,” 17; Brescria, “Choctaw Oral Tradition,” 3-7, 9-11; and Romans, Concise, 121, 129.

51 Du Pratz, History, 296.

52 Charles Lanman, Hawhonoo or Records of a Tourist (Philadelphia, PN: Lippincott, Grambo and Co., 1850), 244-45. See Mould’s reproduction in Prophecy, 114- 15.

38 believe. They answered questions about Native origins and asserted Choctaw superiority over other Indian groups. The second type of myth, like much Anglo-American folklore, was used to teach children and adults morals, Choctaws passed down fables, or shukha anumpa (“hog talk”), which taught social behavior and etiquette through myths about animals.53 Consider the following familiar fable, “The Turtle and the Turkey”:

On a particular spring day, a big Tom turkey came upon a green turtle along a roadside. The proud turkey asked the slow pacing turtle what the latter was good for. The turtle replied he could do many things, including beating the turkey in a race. Tom turkey’s gobble echoed all over the forest. He told the turtle that he would beat him by at least half a mile, and the boastful bird accepted the challenge. It was agreed that the turtle would have a white feather in his mouth so the turkey could identify him from other turtles along the race track. When the day of the big event approached, the turtle found another turtle to help him trick the turkey. The second turtle was to be placed at the end of the race track, and, of course, he was to have a white feather in his mouth. The two contestants met on the designated day. The turkey was about 100 yards behind the turtle. At the turkey’s gobble, the race was on. The turkey soon passed the slower turtle, and after a while, the big Tom decided to eat some tempting green grass on a hillside. He always kept his eyes on the road, after his meal, he again started on his course. He could not see anything of the turtle. He increased his speed to overtake the terrapin, but without success. When he reached the finish line, the turtle was already there. This, of course, was the second turtle. The moral of this tale is that the proud and scornful are often outwitted by those they look upon with contempt and disdain.54

This tale, resembling the “Tortoise and the Hare” in American folklore, entertained while teaching moral behavior and the importance of wisdom. Young children may have laughed when hearing that a crafty tortoise, slow and somber, had tricked the

53 Cushman, History, 164.

54 “Race Between the Turkey and the Terrapin,” 206-207 and “Turtle and Turkey,” 207-208, both in Mould, Choctaw Tales; and Randy and Leonard Jimmie, “The Turtle and the Turkey,” Nanih Waiya 1:3 (1974), reprinted online at “Choctaw Legends: Choctaw Tales and Legends,” online, accessed: 26 February 2004, available URL: .

39 cocky yet speedy bird. But when the narrator had completed the tale, children would have learned a valuable lesson about using intellect to conquer the “proud and scornful” judgments and quick tempers of others. Unlike creation stories, comic elements abound in the form of woodland creatures with which children or adults could easily identify in their own environment. In the case of male children, the story portrayed the ability to outsmart the opponent, even opponents who were bigger, faster, and stronger. Fighting with brains as well as brawn not only promoted advantages but also offered a means of being successful. The turtle gained respect among the other animals of the forest, which symbolized society, by outwitting and defeating a physically superior opponent.55 Stories portrayed what behaviors were necessary for men to receive respect from other men and women. Women would pass on important knowledge from such stories to daughters as well as young boys, who had not yet begun training for hunting and war. For women, stories imparted knowledge that dictated behavior and social structure. They became keepers of that knowledge and created the foundations for communal unity by conveying oral traditions to the youngest children.56

Unlike the turtle story, some tales warned and demanded proper social etiquette with seriousness. One of the more important myths, called the “Legend of Chatah Osh-

Hochi-Foh-Keya (The Nameless Choctaw),” may be construed as either fable or history.

55 See similar tales “The Possum and the Raccoon,” “The Reason Why the Chipmunk has Stripes,” and “The Opossum and the Wolf” also found at

56 Dr. Kennith York, Mississippi band of Choctaw Indians, interviewed by author, 20 March 2008.

40 Although not comical or entertaining, it underscored important lessons. For Choctaw males in particular, the process of naming was a matter of immense importance. Mothers gave male children temporary names at birth, but a child did not received “a specific name in childhood unless he deserved it by some daring act.” The name then would become that used as an adult.57 In the “Nameless Choctaw,” a boy never earned distinction in hunting or war, and thus his village found him unworthy to received the benefits of being Choctaw. Without bravery and war, the boy matured as a coward and never received a wife. Since Choctaws based male social ranking on experience and distinction gained from war, the nameless boy could not survive in society without military achievements.58

The story contained a simple plot and lesson but depicts an overarching theme.

The central character was not someone specific. Instead, the boy was nameless and could have represented any male who did not follow the mandates of society. Not only did the story taught listeners to follow certain cultural practices, but it portrayed the ideal male—a warrior. The perfect Choctaw man represented the antithesis of the “Nameless

Chatah” by demonstrating strength, bravery, and honor in battle. Without those traits, he

57 Cushman, History, 218.

58 “Nameless Choctaw” in Mould, Choctaw Tales, 88-92; Florence Rebecca Ray, Chieftain Greenwood Leflore and the Choctaw Indians of the Mississippi Valley: Last Chief of the Choctaws East of the Mississippi River, 3d ed. (Memphis, TN: C.A. Davis Printing Company, Inc., 1970), 120-21; and Charles Lanman, Adventures in the Wilds of the Untied States and British American Provinces, volume 2 of 2 vols. (Philadelphia: John W. Moore, 1856), 437-38. Ray’s work contains various biases, which in most cases hinders the objectivity of the book’s statements. In this circumstance, evidence from that book has been compared to other sources for validity or extracted as a recorded oral myth.

41 would live a life of calamity and loneliness, an outcast from society could not marry.

Furthermore, if society were filled with such nameless individuals, Choctaws would not have the capability to fend off external threats. Reflection on this tale depicted to young warriors the importance of warrior-hunter distinction in society but also the necessity of warriors for protection.

Yet another story often told to young warriors taught individuals to avoid carelessness in battle. Although warriors competed against each other, they realized they needed to work together to defeat common enemies. A group of Choctaws chased a raiding party of Muskogees out of Choctaw territory, but one Choctaw warrior traveled ahead and alone. He killed an enemy, but while scalping his victim, two other Muskogees attacked him. The Choctaw warrior’s comrades saw the danger and warned him, yelling

“Chikke-bulilih chia! Chikke bulilih chia!” From that moment, the warrior, once aptly named Ahaikahno, translated as “The Careless,” was called Chikke Bulilih Chia, or

“Quickly, run you!”59 Such stories reminded young warriors that even without fear, carelessness brought danger to fellow Choctaws, a dishonorable act indeed.

Oral traditions reveal much cultural information about Choctaw society. The list of legends, creation myths, and fables was long. They taught religious, behavioral, and cultural practices. Myths and histories served as a foundation for educating the young and old, male and female. Physical training and apprentice learning also flourished in their society. Physical training consisted of conditioning the body for war, hunting and other strenuous activities. Typically, village elders, considered wise and great orators, trained

59 Vickers, “Names,” 119.

42 young boys by retelling stories and directing physical conditioning. In 1820 missionary

Adam Hodgson recorded an account of physical training told to him by a “half-breed

Choctaw, married to a Chickasaw.” As soon as young Choctaw boys awoke, elders forced the youths to “plunge in the water, and swim, in the coldest weather; and were then collected on the bank of the river, to learn the manners and customs of their ancestors, and hear the old men recite the traditions of their forefathers.” At sunset, elders brought the children back together to recite stories again and taught that passing these stories on to future generations was a “sacred duty.”60 Presbyterian missionary H.B. Cushman observed Choctaw training in the same manner:

Even the little Choctaw boys took delight in testing the degrees of their manhood by various ways of inflicting pain. I have often seen the little fellows stir up the nests of yellow jackets, bumble-bees, hornets and wasps, and then stand over the nests of the enraged insects which soon literally covered them, and fight them with a switch in each hand; and he who stood and fought longest without flinching—foreshadowed the future man—was worthy the appellation of Mighty Warrior. But the business ends of the hornets, bees and wasps, noted for their dispatch in all matters of this kind, universally effected a hasty retreat of the intruder upon their domiciles, sooner or later—much to the delight of his youthful companions and acknowledged by an explosion of yells and roars of laughter. But the discomfited embryo warrior consoled himself by daring any one of his merrymaking companions to ‘brave the lion in his den,’ as he had and endure longer than he did the combined attacks of the valiant little enemy. . . . I have also seen them place a hot coal of fire on the back of the hand, wrist and arm, and let it burn for many seconds—bearing it with calm composure and without the least manifestation of pain, or experience the deepest sorrow without the slightest emotion.61

60 Adam Hodgson, Letters from North America, Written during a Tour in the United States and Canada, volume 1 of 2 vols. (London: A. Constable & Co. Edinburgh, 1824), 243-44; and Romans, Concise, 112.

61 Cushman, History, 154-55. Cushman also claims that Choctaws competed by burning their hands and wrists in fire. The person who could stand pain the longest won the contest.

43 Such physical conditioning prepared individuals for the trials associated with warfare and hunting. In the first account, elders taught through oral traditions after the trainees exited cold waters. By requiring the children to recite myths and legends, imagining the behavior and beliefs of their ancestors, trainees would simultaneously strengthen endurance and cultural knowledge. Somewhat surprising was the reaction of children to that conditioning. Rather than fleeing or avoiding those rigors, youths instead tested their own endurance. They aggravated nests of stinging and biting insects and fought them with sticks to prove their courage and entertain peers. Testing endurance through such physical pain showed that, even in youth, Choctaws embraced the warrior ideal. The competition among the children further prepared them for competition as adults. Other education for war included target shooting with bows and arrows, with rewards for marksmanship. The best shooter received the title of “apprentice warrior” much as men received titles for success in war and hunting.62 Elders taught young boys hunting skills, including teamwork, stealth, and the ability locate and track game.63

Finally, boys were taught to walk in each others’ tracks to confuse their enemies and rely on surprise attacks. In their spare time, boys roamed freely in groups from village to village and practiced shooting small game with blowguns. As they wandered and hunted, they learned to use weapons and stealth by trial and error. When he entered the Deep

62 Ibid.; Bossu, Travels, 170; Vickers, “Names,” 121-22; and Greg O’Brien, Choctaws in a Revolutionary Age, 1750-1830 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002), 28.

63 Noley, “Early 1700s,” 74-75; and Margaret Zehmer Searey, “Choctaw Subsistence, 1540-1830: Hunting, Fishing, Farming, and Gathering,” in Before Removal, 43.

44 South in the early 1700s, the French explorer Jean-Bernard Bossu observed the foundation of Choctaw education: discipline taught through repetition and observation.64

Competing in games also promoted social competition. The boy who could withstand the tortuous insects the longest gained the respect of his peers.

If these were typical activities for young boys, physical conditioning and competition continued for adult males. Men competed for social respect and portrayed themselves as potential leaders. Once a boy reached adulthood, he graduated to another tier of physical training and played tolik, or “stickball,” which Choctaws called the “little brother to war.”65 Ball-play flourished among the Choctaw as well as many other Native peoples, and it served three purposes. First, it provided competitive entertainment for local and foreign villages. Second, stickball promoted endurance training for adults. The sport resulted in frequent injuries received in violent play and random fights among players. During the early 1700s, explorer James Adair observed that the players moved swiftly on the field to avoid being cut by the ball sticks. “Once, indeed, I saw some break the legs and arms of their opponents, by hurling them down, when on a descent, and running at full speed. But I afterward understood,” Adair wrote, “there was a family

64 Cushman, History, 120-21, 154-55; and Bossu, Travels, 105-106, as translated in Swanton, Sources, 124.

65 Cushman, History, 123; Patricia Galloway, Practicing Ethnohistory: Mining Archives, Hearing Testimony, Constructing Narrative (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2006), 367; and Carson, Bright Path, 18.

45 dispute of long continuance between them: that might have raised their spleen, as much as the high bets they had then at stake, which was almost all they were worth.”66

The violence between the players may have represented an act of vengeance, not dangerous ball-play, but Adair observed that players were constantly in danger of being cut by the ball-sticks. He called the game a “severe and tempting exercise” that reminded him of the ancient Spartans. Over one hundred years later, Cushman observed the same violence associated with stickball, writing that “if he [a player] escaped only with a broken limb or two, and a first-class scar, he might justly consider himself fortunate.”

Stickball served as physical training, and the tolerance for pain gained from broken limbs, cuts, and other frequent injuries sustained in a single game was priceless for the young and old warrior alike. It exposed to real violence, gave warriors endurance and hardiness needed to succeed in battle, and taught players how to adapt at a moment’s notice in the midst of chaos to achieve a goal.67

Stickball also served as a type of apprentice learning. Stickball taught a multitude of tactics useful for war: speed, agility, accuracy throwing and aiming a ball, out- maneuvering competitors, and acting against live opponents. It models rituals of war. One observer wrote, “The night preceding the day of the play was spent in painting, with the same care as when preparing for the warpath, dancing with frequent rubbing of both the upper and lower limbs, and taking their ‘sacred medicine.’” Village dances and prayers asking the Great Spirit to help them defeat opponents were offered the night before each

66 Adair, History, 40-401.

67 Ibid.; and Cushman, History, 127-30.

46 game just as warriors offered prayers to their god for success the evening before waging war.68 Teaching bred competitiveness in battle. Competitive training prepared the warriors to fight harder and promoted morale. Competition had one drawback in that it provide opportunities for gambling. Travelers who witnessed stickball contests noted that men bet high stakes on their own victories. Women and men gambled on the game’s outcome. Contestants often bet their “horses, weapons, blankets, articles of clothing, household utensils, in short, of all imaginable chattels.”69

Despite the evils of gambling, Choctaws warfare reflected what they had learned from childhood. Adair noted that Choctaws crawled on the ground to surprise enemies and witnessed such a tactic against a group of Chickasaws with Adair and his men. When the band of Choctaws saw that Adair’s camp was pitched in a location that denied a surprise attack, the ambushing party adapted to the situation and attempted to use a lure to draw out their enemies. Adair wrote, “they stole one of the bell horses, and led it away to a place near their den, which was about a mile below us, in a thicket of reeds, where the creek formed a semi-circle. This horse was a favourite with the gallant and active young man I had escorted the day before to camp.” When the man reached the location, he saw

68 Adair, History, 401; and Lincecum, “Traditions,” in Swanton, Sources, 26.

69 Hodgson, Letters, 221-22; Bossu, Travels, 170; Romans, Concise, 134; and Baldwin Möllhausen, of a Journey from the Mississippi to the Coasts of the Pacific, vol 1, intro. Peter A. Fritzell (1858; reprint, New York, NY: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1969), 47 (page citations refer to reprint edition).

47 the band of Choctaws, who were using the horse a diversion to pull Adair’s Chickasaw allies into the woods and kill them.70

Bossu and Cushman both noted similar tactics of stealth, surprise, and diversion.

Warriors would hide in the forests during the day and travel at night. They would attack at day break while their enemy slept. They walked single-file in the same footprints, a technique learned as children, to confuse the enemy. Remaining quiet before an ambush,

Choctaws communicated with hand gestures.71 Anthropologist John Swanton translated a detailed account of these tactics from an anonymous eighteenth-century French source; it described other tactics not mentioned by Adair, Bossu, or Cushman. Specifically, warriors who moved stealthily through woods carefully removed dried leaves from their paths to avoid making noise. If a person stepped on a twig or branch and broke it, he made the noise of some bird or mammal to convince the enemy that the sound came from something other than a person.72 These accounts at times appear exaggerated, but they show that Choctaws had a keen understanding of their environment, were able to adapt and use strategy in battle and hunting, and relied on skills obtained via education. Each skill helped Choctaws live according to the warrior-hunter ideal, which served as a tool for survival. It sparked fear in enemies, respect from allies, and protected Choctaw settlements and autonomy.

70 Adair, History, 336

71 Bossu, Travels, 166; and Cushman, History, 140, 186-87.

72 Relation de La Louisiane as translated by Swanton in Sources, 162. Swanton claims the information in this text dates to the 1720s or 1730s. See Swanton’s appendix, 243, 252-53 for the typescript version in French.

48 Although elders used physical conditioning to prepare boys for battle and hunting, apprentice training was also used to teach young women. Whereas men hunted and warred, labor divisions dictated that women farm, and forage as well as forge “bones, antlers, hides and meats of the deer into tools, clothing, and food.” They cultivated a home garden and the communal fields. Primarily they grew corn but also produced potatoes, beans, squash, sunflowers, and melons. Part of Choctaw territory encompassed the resource-rich regions in central and northern Mississippi, which contained fertile alluvial lands that later provided massive cotton yields in the 1800s. The rich soil allowed women to produce enough food to provide two-thirds of the tribe’s diet and surpluses stored in “cribs” and houses. Women reared infants and young children but provided them with little real attention besides nourishment and protection. New mothers resumed their regular tasks a few days after giving birth in order to provide for family and community. When children grew old enough to practice hunting or farming, the learning began in earnest.73

In the same manner that boys observed hunting practices and war techniques, young girls watched women perform their tasks. Women saw the field as their proper place of labor and laughed at the men who attempted farming tasks. The wife of George

Strother Gaines, a prominent trader among the Indians of the Southeast, told the Choctaw

73 William Cooper and Thomas Terrill noted that after whites cultivated cotton in the alluvial plains of Mississippi, yields boomed from 73,000 in 1800 to 335,000 bales by 1820. William J. Cooper, Jr. and Thomas E. Terrill, The American South: A History, v.1, 3d ed. (New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2002), 180-81. For discussions about female education, see Debo, Rise and Fall, 10; Noley, “Early 1700s,” 73-76, 93-94; Carson, Bright Path, 16-18; and Cushman, History, 161, 175-76, 205.

49 women she had hired to let the men plant the fields. One of the women exclaimed,

“Would you have me make a woman of my son? He is to be a man and a warrior & is not going to work like a woman!” 74 Oral traditions supported the view that women should farm. According to legend, an unknown woman gave corn to the Choctaw for them to raise food. Fields were under the jurisdiction of women until the nineteenth century.

Often, elder women killed or shooed away pests while younger women tilled, planted, and harvested.75 Choctaw women produced so much food that one observer called them a

“nation of farmers.”76 Women played an important social role because they represented a counterbalance to men. Whereas men identified with fire and war, women were symbolic for the refreshment and life-giving aspects of water, associated with their work in cultivation.77

Women’s treatment of infants also portrayed an intriguing ideal in the Choctaw community in light of the myth “A Mother Gives Her Life for That of Her Son (Top-To-

Pe-Hah).” In that tale, a son murders another man. At the killer’s execution, the mother

74 Choctaw woman quoted in James Taylor Carson, “From Corn Mothers to Cotton Spinners: Continuity in Choctaw Women’s Economic Life, A.D. 950-1830” in Women of the South: A Multicultural Reader, ed. Christie Anne Farnham (New York and London: New York University Press, 1997), 9-10. See also Relation de La Louisiane, quoted and translated in Swanton, Sources, 139.

75 Howe, “Ohoyo Chishba Osh,” 36-44; “The Origin of Corn” in Mould, Choctaw Tales, 77; and Michelene E. Pesantubbee, Choctaw Women in a Chaotic World: The Clash of Cultures in the Colonial Southeast (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2005), 10, 22-23.

76 Romans, Concise, 129.

77 Carson, “Corn Mothers,” 13.

50 offers herself, “blood for blood,” in her son’s stead. Her sacrifice sends her to the “Happy

Hunting Ground,” not unlike the Biblical concept of Heaven. Women learned that a mother’s love for their children was important, but the need for warriors to protect society was more important. While women produced most of the food, the gender division gave men more time to train, teach war, and govern communities.78

“A Mother Gives Her Life” also presented a model of a lack of honor. Killing a fellow Choctaw weakened the nation and was punishable by death. Each warrior felt a sense of individuality and unity in battle. He competed for status, which allowed him to take a wife and achieve higher social and political rank. Until a child, male or female, grew old enough to learn, the infant might become a hindrance to society. Infanticide represented an option for mothers who could not care for a child or if infant appeared to detract in some way from women’s work, which Choctaws considered crucial for the survival of the nation.79 The persistence of the people of the nation mattered as much, if not more, than the life of an infant child, who did not already contribute to communal health through hunting, farming or warring.

78 Ray, Chieftain, 125-26; and Benjamin Henry Boneval Latrobe, Impressions Respecting : Diary & Sketches, 1818-1820, ed. and intro. Samuel Wilson, Jr. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1951), 78.

79 Letter from Capt. Red Fort, Six Towns, Choctaw Nation, 18 October 1822 in Sarah Tuttle, Conversations on the Choctaw Mission, Volume 2 of 2 (Boston: Massachusetts Sabbath School Union, 1830), Selected Americana from Sabin 97515, reel no. 126, microfilm, filmed from the holdings of the Huntington Library, San Marino, CA, 25; and Grant Foreman, The : Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole, 3d ed., intro. John R. Swanton (1934; Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1970), 20 (page citations to reprint edition).

51 Considering the importance of oral traditions for behavioral learning and social customs, the story about a mother who sacrificed her own life for her murderous son underscored the importance of the male warrior in society. Although her son had murdered a fellow Choctaw, men protected the nation. Evern pregnant women and new mothers worked the fields, nourishing infants and protecting children; their condition afforded no relief from daily drudgery. Mothers continued farming to support the community and educated a child only if it were a girl and old enough to learn. If the child was a boy, she protected and nourished him until he could train with other males to become a warrior. Women were to remain hidden if their village was attacked.80 Such behavior follows reasoning already discussed. Women served as a valuable part of the community because they created life, especially that of future warriors. One woman giving her life for a young warrior capable of defending his nation appeared justified, but the death of many women who could give birth to and teach a new generation of warriors would have been considered a major loss. Community needs came first.81

Kinship placement, dependent on birth, influenced social behavior and perception.

Choctaws looked to their matrilineal kinship systems to determine who was Choctaw by birth. A person born from a Choctaw mother and non-Choctaw father would be Choctaw

80 Pesantubbe, Chaotic, 24. The idea that Women served as life givers is reflected in the fact that many women served as healers. See ibid., 9-10. As chapter four discusses, males most often only taught males, and females most often taught female. Since education relied on apprentice learning, Choctaws and later missionaries advocated particular gender roles by allowing children to observe adults or older children of the same sex perform activities.

81 Cushman, History, 88.

52 by birth. If the child came from the union of a non-Choctaw mother and Choctaw father, however, then he or she would not be considered Choctaw unless adopted into the Nation by some ritual or rite.82 Choctaws from all moieties used distinction obtained in war and hunting to advance their status. If a warrior killed an enemy in battle, the sex and social status of his victim influenced the warrior’s rank. Purposely killing women and children was considered cowardice. Destroying an equal opponent showed bravery. The gender, age, and number of kills in war boosted an individual’s status.83 To provide the best opportunities for killing male warriors, Choctaws employed special war strategies.84 For

Choctaws, surprise attacks and defensive warfare assured opportunities for boys to become men and older warriors to rise in rank socially. When attacking an enemy village,

Choctaws often made a night assault and killed as many men as possible. In such surprise attacks, they often could not avoid taking the lives women and children, although each

Choctaw warrior had the opportunity to gain distinction taking the lives of men. They often practiced defensive warfare during which warriors would take lives without any killing women or children. An attack on a Choctaw community meant all able-bodied men and women defended it. At the end of the battle, the warriors could claim body

82 James Taylor Carson, “Native Americans, the Market Economy, and Culture Change: The Choctaw Cattle Economy, 1690-1830” in Pre-Removal, 184; and Idem., Searching, 15-17.

83 Kidwell, Missionaries, 9.

84 “The Crow: Plains Raiders and Bison Hunters,”165-76 and “The Iroquois: Warriors and Farmers of the Eastern Woodlands,” 370-72, both in Wendell, This Land; and

53 counts of male victims only; each Choctaw warrior had an opportunity to win higher socio-political status.85

War and civil chiefs together ruled each of the three Choctaw territorial districts

(Sixtowns, Eastern, and Western). Above the war and civic chiefs of each district, there was a “grand chief.” Junior advisors, usually five, served under the civil, war, and grand chiefs. Choctaw men were next divided into hierarchical ranks: minkos (chiefs) at the top,

“beloved men” second, warriors third, and men without experience in warfare or who had

“only killed a woman or child” filled the fourth strata of society.86 A socio-political hierarchy then emerged from the system of obtaining status through war and hunting and kinship divisions. In this study, the term chief will refer to an individual who holds a position as a head of a district, village cluster or town or was considered a war chief, leading warriors into battle. The term headman refers to a Choctaw held in high esteem and who influenced public opinion, actions and politics despite the lack of the title of chief.

This hierarchical system kept Choctaws of lower status in check since they followed leaders out of respect. At times, respect and experience were not enough to demand allegiance. The power of higher-status individuals depended on a system of reciprocity between men of differing rank. Choctaws of lower rank expected individuals

85 Romans, Concise, 32; and Brandão José António, Your Fyre Shall Burn No More: Iroquois Policy toward New France and its Native Allies to 1701 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 41.

86 Carson, Bright Path, 12-15; Noley, “Early 1700s,” 93-97, 126, 138; and Swanton, Sources, 54-58, 79-80, 85-86, 90-92, 94-95.

54 of higher rank to provide them with material goods and opportunities for social advancement in warfare. Material goods provided by the chiefs varied in quality and kind, but in the post-contact world how goods were obtained and distributed changed drastically.

After 1701, European goods replaced Native items once exchanged via expansive webs of trade to denote prestige. Before contact, “prehistoric shell badges” and captives as well as “exotic” goods such as copper from regions east of the Mississippi or mica from the Appalachian mountains served as outward signs of wealth and power. After contact, metal gorgets and flags replaced them. European-made items became the new status symbols within Choctaw communities.87 Having the appearance of seals, medals served not only as “symbols of allegiance” to a European power, as one scholar noted, but also signified which individuals in a Native community had power and authority. Spanish officials distributed flags, issued written commissions that noted a person’s status, uniforms, and staffs of office. By outwardly showing good relations with a European nation that supplied a multitude of “presents,” Choctaw leaders expanded their authority over villages and clusters. Of particular interest to the Choctaws were red ribbons given community leaders. The cloth not only showed status because it came from Europeans but

87 Salisbury, “The Indians’ Old World,” 6-8; Galloway, “British Negotiations,” 515; O’Brien, “Trying,” 62; Galloway, Practicing Ethnohistory, 292-94. For an extensive discussion of redistribution and control of resources, particularly labor and goods, and the relation of these two elements of culture to communal unity and status among Amerindians during the prehistoric period, see Michael S. Nassaney, “Communal Societies and the Emergence of Elites in the Prehistoric American Southeast” in Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Sotuheastern North America, eds. Alex W. Barker and Timothy R. Pauketat(Washington, D.C: American Anthropological Association, 1992), 111-43.

55 because it fit nicely within the ideological systems concerning warfare.88 Choctaws saw gorgets and medals of the most importance and considered them “sacred pieces of stone,” or tali hullo, which denoted the highest status within villages and clusters. Burial in

European clothing and with European grave goods further displayed the importance of an individual even in death.89

As more European goods flooded Native communities, ordinary Choctaws expected their leaders to obtain practical , not symbolic, trade goods.90 Such a practice had come to fruition by the early nineteenth century when the United States established trading sites near Indian territories to meet the demand for the trade goods which had increasingly entered Indian communities. From French traders, Choctaws received coats, hatchets, tinsel, hats, brass kettles, brass wire, blankets, shoe buckles, needles, thread, knives, scissors, beads, combs, paint, “Steels for striking fire,” guns, salt, rum, ball, powder, mirrors, and flints. These goods were shared by lower status Choctaws, while traders and government officials reserved “private presents” for chiefs of elite status. In

Louisiana, special gifts included metal buckles, ornate coats, and larger supplies of ball,

88 John C. Ewers, “Symbols of Chiefly Authority in Spanish Louisiana,” The Spanish in the Mississippi Valley, 1762-1804, ed. John Francis McDermott (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1974), 272-73, 276-77.

89 O’Brien, “Trying,” 58; and Kathryn Holland, “The Anglo-Spanish Contest for the Gulf Coast as Viewed from the Townsquare” in Anglo-Spanish Confrontation on the Gulf Coast during the American Revolution, eds. William S. Coker and Robert R. Rea (Pensacola, FL: Gulf Coast History and Humanities Conference, 1982), 91.

90 Notably, the distinction between these two groups resulted from prestige rather than wealth, and therefore did not represent class divisions.

56 powder, flints than non-elites received.91 In part, chiefs determined who received particular items. Warriors with the highest status under favored chiefs received the most desirable goods. Of the thousands of warriors among the Choctaw, 603 received presents on January 24, 1764. These warriors were led by five chiefs. The higher the rank of the warrior, the more valuable the goods he received. Chiefs determined who would travel with them to receive goods and thus controlled redistribution. The practice of redistribution solidified elite status by providing other Choctaws with non-indigenous goods. By attaining higher status as successful warriors and hunters, lower-status

Choctaws received opportunities to acquire more goods. Non-elites only received so much. Gorgets and medals remained a marker of the highest status in Choctaw society even after they fomented relations with United States traders.92 Elites constantly adapted the categorization of prestige and non-prestige goods depending on the influx of items into communities. In this way, they maintained status through trade and redistribution as

91 List of French Presents (given at Louisiana), 24 January 1764, Mississippi Provincial Archives, 1763-1766, English Dominion: Letters and Enclosures to the Secretary of State from Major Robert Farmar and Governor George Johnson: Volume I, comp. and ed. Dunbar Rowland (Nashville, TN: Press of Brandon Printing Company, 1911), 28-29 (hereafter MPA:ED); Report on the Mission of Paulous to the Chickasaws, September, 1782, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 2:57; and Vicente Manuel de] Zespedes to [Most Excellent Señor Conde de] Gálvez, August 16, 1784, No. 21, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 2:109.

92 Names of Villages, Chiefs and No. of Inhabitants of the Tchacta, 24 January 1764, MPA:ED, 26-28; and Papers Relating to Congress with Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians, December 1771 in Rowland, “Peter Chester,” 140-41, 148.

57 well as success in war and hunting. The system filtered down to other Choctaws, who received presents relative to the status they held.93

Post-contact Choctaws found new opportunities to strengthen the bonds that united their communities. On several occasions, Choctaws aided the French, English, and

Spanish in protecting territorial claims in the Southeast. Before the end of the French and

Indian War in 1763, the French claimed good relations with the Choctaw while the

English had better luck among the Chickasaw. European nations used Indian allies to fight and harass each other. Monsieur de Vaudreuil wrote to a colleague in 1750 that the

French “absolutely need[ed the Choctaw] in order to repress the boldness of the

Chickasaws and to put limits on the cupidity of the English.”94 During the American

Revolution, some Choctaws sided with Spanish and British troops and fought with them during battles at Mobile and the .95 Bossu noted that Choctaws were

93 O’Brien, “Trying,” 59-61.

94 Vaudreuil to Rouillé, 1 February 1750, Mississippi Provincial Archives. French Dominion, 1749-1763: Volume V, coll., ed., trans. Dunbar Rowland and A.G. Sanders, rev. and ed. Patricia Kay Galloway (Baton Rouge and London: Louisiana State University Press, 1984), 42; and [James] Dallas to [John] McGillavray, July 3, 1778, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 292-93.

95 Holland, “ Anglo-Spanish Contest,” 93-95; and The First General Assembly, First Session: November 3, 1766-January 3, 1767, The Commons House, Saturday, November 22, 1766: To the Right Honorable the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations the Humble Representation of the Council and Assembly for the Province of West Florida, The Minutes, Journals, and Acts of the General Assembly of British West Florida, comp., intro, eds. Robert R. Rea and Milo B. Howard Jr. (The University of Alabama Press, 1979), 46-49. Calvin Cushman claimed that Choctaws served as scouts for the Americans during the Revolution, but Greg O’Brien’s queries revealed the opposite. See his selection “The Conqueror Meets the Unconquered: Negotiating Cultural Boundaries on the Post-Revolutionary Southern Frontier” in Pre-Removal, 148-82.

58 happy to fight for the French in “raiding British territory.” Such alliances made sense for

Choctaw cultural systems. Raiding allowed individuals to steal British goods and kill both Chickasaw warriors and British troops. Leaders then distributed goods to followers and kept what they wanted for themselves to show prestige obtained in battle. Those leaders had provided opportunities for young warriors to kill and rise in status. Warriors wore the scalps of their victims as trophies and outward signs of success in battle. By aiding Europeans, Choctaws fostered trust. Better relations with Europeans, who competed with one another for Indian trade, meant that Choctaws could manipulate their foreign allies to obtain more goods.96

A second benefit of helping Europeans involved trade. French, English, and

Spanish officials throughout the eighteenth century gave “presents” to Indians to solidify alliances. All three foreign powers rewarded Indian successes in battle with greater of goods. After 1750, Choctaw leaders realized they could manipulate the competition for

Indian trade to maximize the amount of goods received from Europeans. Chief

Franchimastabé had no qualms about stating his desires when he told Spanish officials that “i thing you will say that my talk is Verey Reasonabl for you cant want to see me alone with a few of My warers for when i get presents for my self i would wish for all my

Nation to Get there part as well as me which the Next talk i get from you i expect that I will be to meat you at Mobille that i may lay off my tiger skin to put on good Close.”97 In

96 Bossu, Travels, 163, 166.

97 Hay to Miro, July 30, 1788?, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 2:258. Greg O’Brien presents the best discussion of Franchimastabé and trade. See his Choctaws in a Revolutionary Age in its entirety.

59 1787, a Spanish official in New Orleans wrote to his commanding officer that it was necessary to give gifts to the warriors and their leaders who visited him to discourage trade with the Americans. The British found that giving presents was the primary way to maintain good relations when competing against the Spanish for Indian trade.98 One

English trader managed to slip into Spanish territory to convince different Indian groups to side with the English rather than the Spanish.99 Carlos de Grand-Pré realized in 1790 that Franchimastabé used diplomacy to play the British off the Spanish and later Spanish off the Americans when he wrote “this chief’s character indicates that his impertinences merely spring from a desire to receive more presents.”100 And certainly the English realized they were being manipulated. Their own traders and government officials among

Choctaws compared the quality of their goods and speed of their deliveries to those of the

Spanish. The English claimed that Spanish goods did not meet the high expectations of those that they produced to convince Choctaws to cease trade with their enemies.101

Spanish and English officials could do little but continue competing and trading. In their dealings with the Southeastern Indians, the French, English, and Spanish all realized that maintaining political and military superiority and protecting significant sources of

98 [Marios de] Villiers to [Señor Governor General Estevan] Miró, August 30, 1787, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 233-34; and From Major Farm, to the Secretary of War, Mobile, 24 January 1764, MPA:ED, 11-14.

99 [Pedro] Piernas to [Señor Don ] Unzaga, April 12, 1773, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 1:215.

100 Grand-Pré to Miro, January 10, 1790, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 2:291.

101 Chactaw Congress, 26 March 1765-12 June 1765, MPA:ED, 221.

60 valuable furs depended on promoting good relations with Natives. American Indians, especially the Choctaw, used that competition to their advantage by threatening to trade exclusively with one nation or another if their desire for presents was not met in a timely fashion.102

In retrospect, Choctaws forged a male culture based on warrior status and reciprocity between individuals of different status. Men behaved as male Choctaws by honoring appropriate religious symbols and rituals, becoming warriors, and being good hunters. Success required individuals to respect leaders, who provided those of lower status with opportunities to obtain the improved status through war and hunting. By distributing goods, leaders maintained their power among the lower ranks of Choctaw society. Ownership of prestige goods marked individuals with high status and brought respect. The demand for that respect from success in war and hunting brought order, but lower-status individuals also influenced the amount of power chiefs had. Chiefs’ authority was not absolute but instead depended on the submission of fellow warriors to his will by providing opportunities for status and goods and distributing goods to other

102 Kerlérec to De Machault d’Arnouville, 12 December 1756, Mississippi Provincial Archives. French Dominion, 1749-1763: Volume V, collected, ed., trans. Dunbar Rowland and A.G. Sanders, rev. and ed. Patricia Kay Galloway (Baton Rouge and London: Louisiana State University Press, 1984), 179 (hereafter MPA:FD followed by volume and page number); Papers Relating in Rowland, “Peter Chester,” 140; Luis de Blanc to Miró, 30 March 1791, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 2:408; Special Instructions to [Captain Don Fernando de] Leyba from [Bernardo de] Gálvez, March 9, 1778, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 1:259; Memoir on Indians by M. de Kerlérec, New Orleans, 12 December 1758, MPA:FD, 5:218; and Favre to Carondelet, June 29, 1792, At the Choctaws, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 3:57.

61 Choctaws to maintain power.103 Kinship based on moieties also provided order to

Choctaw society as well as vital links among families and villages. Notably, while matrilineal kinship, warrior-hunter status, gendered subsistence practices, and honoring religious symbolism created cultural bounds among villages, they each served particular purposes for Choctaw communal identity. Choctaws took their status from the mother, and an individual’s kinship and birth determined who was Choctaw. In terms of etiquette, the warrior ideal, gendered subsistence practices in farming or hunting, and honoring religious beliefs and symbols exemplified how to act and what it meant to be Choctaw during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Educational systems provided the means by which knowledge passed through subsequent generations and served as a framework for behaving as a Choctaw should.

Most important, Choctaw emerged from and continued to adapt to a variety of pressures to preserve these bounds and foundations of communities. After sustained contact began, Choctaws redefined the meaning of reciprocity among individuals of different status. By joining foreign wars, individuals earned distinction within Choctaw communities and over larger geographical localities, incorporated non-indigenous goods that could be distributed to promote power, and made survival easier within the

Southeast. By the eighteenth century, however, reciprocity changed from providing goods to providing opportunities for wealth and education. For several decades during the latter seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Choctaws thrived by manipulating foreign competition for Indian trade, maintained their autonomy, and continued to look to

103 Beaudoiun, From the Ministry, MPA:FD, 1:155-60.

62 traditional practices and beliefs to define their place in the world, how to live and act and relate to non-Choctaws as well as non-Indians. Like Capitané Humma, Choctaws of the eighteenth century looked to their traditions and models for behavior and did not question who was and what it meant to be a Choctaw. After 1800, a variety of unforeseen developments would cause leaders and followers alike to question their traditions and their ability to hold together communities. New adaptations that began in the eighteenth century dramatically spread in the nineteenth century, shaking the foundations of

Choctaw society.

63 CHAPTER III

THE EMERGENCE OF FACTIONALISM IN A MARKET-ORIENTED

WORLD, 1800-1818

At the end of the eighteenth century, Choctaws experienced multiple crises, and the ways in which they tried to solve them affected the Nation’s cultural development for over half of the nineteenth century. After 1800, Choctaws suffered multiple crises and attempted solutions which threatened to destroy the ideological bonds that united the community and established order. Leaders feared a loss of Choctaw autonomy and gradual extinction if the people did not adapt in some ways because only united might

Choctaws resist pressures to relinquish sacred lands. They promoted new means of living and surviving while preserving social, religious, and political customs that demanded order. Not all followers, however, accepted the direction of headmen. Some commoners continued to resort traditional methods of obtaining status and refused to behave like

“whites” while other commoners integrated elements of Euro-American culture into their own. Still, others became outcasts from their ethnic group, suffered poverty and disillusion, and sought methods of survival considered unacceptable by other Choctaws.

Not all Choctaws saw change as a viable option to combat the crises. Divisions formed within communities as various groups sought to find different solutions to solve the communal problems. The relationship between commoners and elites became strained as

64 individuals and groups sought their own methods of survival as well as new opportunities as Choctaws participated in the American market economy. As this chapter will argue, multiple factions emerged within Choctaw society along ideological lines. Traditional institutions that unified the community through order, hierarchy, distinction, and gender relationships failed as individuals and groups sought their own methods of coping with change and allowed them to obtain, amass, and protect private property.

The seeds of these crises were planted during the eighteenth century through trade relations. For nearly one hundred years, Amerindian ethic groups had traded with

Europeans and, after the American Revolution, with the United States. Animal skins served as currency for the acquisition of manufactured goods.1 Choctaws first traded with the French and English, who established settlements in the Mississippi River Valley and brought coats, hatchets, tinsel, hats, brass kettles, brass wire, blankets, shoe buckles, needles, thread, knives, scissors, beads, combs, paint, flint, guns, salt, rum, ball, powder, and mirrors.2 At the turn of the century, commoners and elites alike witnessed the disadvantages of exploiting trade for such goods, and at least four factions emerged over

1 Chactaw Congress, 26 March 1765-12 June 1765,Mississippi Provincial Archives, 1763-1766, English Dominion: Letters and Enclosures to the Secretary of State from Major Robert Farmar and Governor George Johnson: Volume I, comp. and ed. Dunbar Rowland (Nashville, TN: Press of Brandon Printing Company, 1911), 221 (hereafter MPA:ED); James Adair, The History of the American Indians: Particularly those Nations Adjoining to the Mississippi East and West Florida, Georgia, South and North Carolina, and Virginia, rep. ed., intro. Robert F. Berkhofer, Jr. (1775; reprint, New York and London: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1968), 285-89; and J. F. H. Claiborne, Mississippi as a Province, Territory, and State (Jackson, MS: Power & Barksdale, Publishers and Printers, 1880), 485-86.

2 List of French Presents (given at Louisiana), 24 January 1764, Mississippi Provincial Archives, 1763-1766, MPA:ED, 28-29.

65 the following two decades. The interests of each group differed and so too did the ways they attempted to cope with the crises that emerged.

Headmen represented the first important faction in Choctaw society, and they had multiple fears regarding the changes around them. Before 1800, headmen, especially the district chiefs, depended on trade to promote and protect power over other Choctaws.

Trade relations served an important purpose for leaders like Franchimastabé, who received and redistributed goods among followers. This process of redistribution persisted from the protohistoric period and gave the chiefs a method of protecting their status and authority. Certain rare trade items depicted higher status within communities.

Owning or controlling the distribution of those goods — one scholar termed this practice

“prestige-goods” trade — provided elites with authority.3 Elites provided opportunities for receiving goods and commoners obtained distinction in hunting and war that convinced leaders to give a particular prestige item or larger numbers of them.4 Chiefs chose not to distribute such items because they could be kept as outward symbols of authority. Private presents included metal buckles, ornate coats, and larger amounts of

3 Patricia Galloway, “‘So Many Republics’: British Negotiations with the Choctaw Confederacy, 1765,” Ethnohistory, 41:4 (Aut 1994): 515.

4 See for example Franchimastabé’s speech in Hay to Miro, July 30, 1788?, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 1765-94, ed. and intro. Lawrence Kinnaird, 3 vols. (Washington, DC: GPO, 1946-1949), 2:258 (hereafter Spain in the Mississippi Valley followed by volume and page number). Greg O’Brien presents the best discussion of Franchimastabé and trade. See his Choctaws in Revolutionary Age, 1750-1830 (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 2002) in its entirety.

66 ball, powder, flints or other goods given to non-elites.5 Leaders like Franchimastabé depended on redistributing non-indigenous items that Europeans and Americans provided to solidify control over commoners since non-elites typically lacked other sources for those goods. Trade relations and the goods they provided served as important status symbols for Choctaw chiefs. Certain trade goods continued to depict status outwardly within communities, and leaders adapted by defining which goods served as symbols of authority. Whereas “prehistoric shell badges” previously portrayed social rank in

American-Indian communities, European-made items became new symbols of status.

Choctaws saw gorgets and medals as important and considered them “sacred pieces of stone,” or tali hullo, which denoted the highest status within villages.6 If affordable for persons of rank, burial in European clothing and with European goods further displayed the importance of the individual and trade in death.7

5 List of French Presents (given at Louisiana), 24 January 1764, Mississippi Provincial Archives, 1763-1766, MPA:ED, 28-29; Report on the Mission of Paulous to the Chickasaws, September, 1782, 57, and Vicente Manuel de] Zespedes to [Most Excellent Señor Conde de] Gálvez, August 16, 1784, No. 21, 109, both in Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 2.

6 O’Brien, Revolutionary, 12-13; and Greg O’Brien, “Trying to Look Like Men: Changing Notions of Masculinity among Choctaw Elites in the Early Republic” in Southern Manhood: Perspectives on Masculinity in the Old South (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2004), 58

7 Kathryn Holland, “The Anglo-Spanish Contest for the Gulf Coast as Viewed from the Townsquare” in Anglo-Spanish Confrontation on the Gulf Coast during the American Revolution, eds. William S. Coker and Robert R. Rea (Pensacola, FL: Gulf Coast History and Humanities Conference, 1982), 91. Aside from gorgets, flags, and medals, these goods also included metal buckles, ornate coats, and greater amounts of ball, powder, and flints, and expensive dining with government officials. See List of French Presents, 29; Extract of a Letter from Lieut. Forde at Tombeckbe Fort, 3 December 1763, 39; Ewers, “Symbols of Chiefly Authority in Spanish Louisiana,” The

67 To provide larger amounts of non-indigenous trade goods, Chiefs allowed foreigners to become a part of Choctaw communities. French and English traders married

Choctaw women to solidify trade relations with the particular localities from which their wives came. Intermarriage guaranteed foreign entry into a society on a personal level and became a tool for French and English governments to use in fomenting strong alliances with Choctaws. Amerindians benefitted and encouraged intermarriage but only on their terms. Native women taught husbands to respect and honor traditions and ideals central to

Choctaw culture. To be accepted within Choctaw communities, traders had to follow matrilineal practices, respect important cultural symbols such as fire, and perform rituals required at the time of marriage.8 Although intermarriage became more common,

Choctaws preserved religious, political and socio-economic practices. The adoption of

Europeans as “fictive kin” did not inwardly threaten the persistence of ideology and cultural practices. It did increase the influx of non-indigenous goods into Native communities and provide easier access to goods to commoners and elite families that married the traders.9

Spanish in the Mississippi Valley, 1762-1804, ed. John Francis McDermott (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1974), 272-73, 276-77; and O’Brien, Revolutionary, 79.

8 For a discussion of traders, intermarriage, and European acculturation in the eighteenth century, see Theda Perdue, “Mixed Blood” Indians: Racial Construction in the Early South (Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 2003), 19-24.

9 Ibid., 11; and Patricia Galloway, “‘So Many Republics’: British Negotiations with the Choctaw Confederacy, 1765,” Ethnohistory, 41:4 (Aut 1994): 515.

68 Choctaw leaders sought to maximize the quantity and quality of foreign trade goods by manipulating the competition for Indian trade between foreign nations.10

Europeans were aware of this manipulation and could do little but continue competing against one another. The British found that giving presents represented the primary way to maintain good relations when competing against the French and Spanish for Indian trade.11 Regardless of international competition for trade, Europeans realized that maintaining political and military superiority and protecting a significant source of indigenous goods, particularly furs, in the Southeast depended on promoting good relations with Natives. American Indians such as the Choctaw used that competition to their advantage by threatening or promising exclusive trade rights in exchange for generous gifts.12 The manipulation of non-indigenous governments to maximize access to

10 See for example, Vaudreuil’s and Kerlérec’s accounts concerning the Choctaw civil war and threats made by chiefs to trade with the English in Memoir for the King, 26 February 1749, 32-33, and Memoir on Indians by Kerlérec, 12 December 1758, 214-16, both in Mississippi Provincial Archives. French Dominion, 5 vols., collected, ed., trans. Dunbar Rowland and A.G. Sanders, rev. and ed. Patricia Kay Galloway (Baton Rouge and London: Louisiana State University Press, 1984), 5 (hereafter MPA:FD followed by volume and page number).

11 From Major Farm, to the Secretary of War, Mobile, 24 January 1764, MPA:ED, 11-14; Chactaw Congress, 26 March 1765-12 June 1765, MPA:ED, 221; From Hillsborough, Whitehall, 11 June 1768, The Correspondence of General Thomas Gage with the Secretaries of State, and with the War Office and the Treasury, 1763-1775, 2 volumes, comp., ed. Clarence Edwin Carter (Yale University Press, 1933; reprint, Archon Books, 1969), 2:70; [Marios de] Villiers to [Señor Governor General Estevan] Miró, 30 August 1787, 233-34, and Grand-Pré to Miro, January 10, 1790, 291, both in Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 2.

12 Kerlérec to De Machault d’Arnouville, 12 December 1756, MPA:FD, 5:179; “Papers Relating to Congress with Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians, December 1771,” ed. Mrs. Dunbar Rowland, “Peter Chester: Third Governor of the Province of British West Florida under British Dominion, 1770-1781,” Publications of the Mississippi

69 goods also had another important advantage. By forcing foreign nations to compete for

Indian trade, Choctaws prevented Europeans from attacking, asking for territory, and threatening traditional culture. Commoners looked up to headmen to take advantage of foreign relations and provide a steady influx of goods from multiple business partners while leaders protected Choctaw communities from foreign political influence.

Headmen saw many advantages in promoting and manipulating trade with foreigners. Commoners held chiefs responsible for increasing the flow of goods into

Choctaw territory while commoners themselves enjoyed better access to non-indigenous items. Choctaws depended on international competition for Indian trade and political allegiance; it guaranteed a steady stream of trade goods and kept foreigners too busy to threaten their way of life. Commoners’ dependence on leaders to maintain relations with traders and foreign governments increased leaders’ power and respect. Finally, continued trade required game reserves large enough to continue obtaining furs, the only items

Choctaws could use to acquire manufactured goods before 1800.

Trading with multiple partners had drawbacks such as threatening the power of elites within Choctaw communities. As the number of traders entering the Mississippi

Valley increased, so too did the amount of non-indigenous goods and the ease of access to them. The prestige-goods trade, which created hierarchy and order based on status, began

Historical Society, Centenary Series 5, ed. Dunbar Rowland (Jackson, MS: Printed for the Society, 1925), 140; Luis de Blanc to Miró, 30 March 1791, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 2:408; Special Instructions to [Captain Don Fernando de] Leyba from [Bernardo de] Gálvez, March 9, 1778, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 1:259; Memoir on Indians by M. de Kerlérec, New Orleans, 12 December 1758, MPA:FD, 5:218; and Favre to Carondelet, June 29, 1792, At the Choctaws, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 3:57.

70 to fall apart when chiefs no longer exercised control over access to trade goods. Certainly, chiefs’ diplomacy provided a multitude of foreign items, but limiting access to certain ones protected their power. As competition increased, commoners’ access to non- indigenous items followed suite. When headmen lost control over distribution of prestige items, their authority, partially dependent on providing prestige items, was in jeopardy.13

Choctaws overhunted their territory to obtain more furs and buy more goods by dealing directly with traders. The deer populations decreased as did the quality of furs, but Choctaws attempted to increase the number of furs to off-set declining quality. Only by increasing the numbers of furs could Choctaws continue trading for more valuable goods. Henry Timberlake noted that traders exchanged goods based on prices that

Indians imposed, which gave Choctaw elites measure of control over outsiders who entered their territory. Choctaws also competed with other Indian ethnic groups in the fur trade. Chickasaws and Choctaws fought for exclusive trading rights with the English during the latter eighteenth century. As one observer noted, the Choctaw told English officials that they could and would kill more deer than the Chickasaw if the English would only give better goods and more of them.14 The amount of furs Choctaws could provide in the region shocked the English. “It’s amazing to tell you of the great quantities

13 O’Brien, Revolutionary, 96-97.

14 Henry Timberlake, The Memoirs of Lieutenant Henry Timberlake, 1756-1765, ann., intro., Samuel Cole Williams (Marietta, GA: Continental Book Company, 1948), 87; James Adair, The History of the American Indians: Particularly those Nations Adjoining to the Mississippi East and West Florida, Georgia, South and North Carolina, and Virginia, rep. ed., intro. Robert F. Berkhofer, Jr. (1775; reprint, New York and London: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1968), 285, 317.

71 of skins they have from thence every year,” an observer wrote, “at a moderate computation they get at least 20,000 pounds annually.” English officials fought to keep

Natives “always dependent for those supplies which are necessary to them” by increasing the trade of furs for European-produced goods.15 For Choctaws, increased hunting had dramatic and frightening consequences. Choctaws thought they needed to bring greater quantities of furs for particular items. Traders accepted the higher yields, which compensated for losses resulting from trading goods at much lower prices than they sold for in Europe.16 For Choctaw leaders, traders represented both an asset and a liability. By the turn of the century, Choctaws saw game reserves deplete sharply as commoners competed with each other, their chiefs, and neighboring Indian ethnic groups for furs.17

Although a source of skins and thus indirectly trade goods, deer served as the primary source of meat among Native peoples. By the turn of the century, Choctaws increasingly suffered famine because deer herds had been depleted.

15 The Fourth General Assembly, Second Session: March 1-May 19, 1770, The Commons House: Journal of the Commons House of Assembly of the Province of West Florida being the Second Session of the Fourth General Assembly of the Said Province, Monday, 19 March 1770, and The First General Assembly, First Session: November 3, 1766-January 3, 1767, The Commons House, Saturday, November 22, 1766: To the Right Honorable the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations the Humble Representation of the Council, 49, and Assembly for the Province of West Florida, 230, both in The Minutes, Journals, and Acts of the General Assembly of British West Florida, comp., intro, eds. Robert R. Rea and Milo B. Howard Jr. (The University of Alabama Press, 1979).

16 The Memoirs of Lieutenant Henry Timberlake, 1756-1765, ann., intro., and index Samuel Cole Williams (Marietta, GA: Continental Book Company, 1948), 87.

17 Bejamin Hawkins to John McKee, 26 October 1801, Letters, Journals and of Benjamin Hawkins: Volume I, 1796-1801, ed. C. L. Grant (Savannah, GA: The Beehive Press, 1980), 386.

72 The power of leaders to manipulate commerce with foreign nationsrepresented a major feature of their strategy to protect their communal authority. In 1800, the practice of playing foreign nations off one another to maximize trade suffered a major blow. For fourteen years, Choctaws had pitted Spanish and American traders against one another until the Treaty of San Ildefonso returned Louisiana to France.18 When Louisiana changed hands in 1800, Choctaws lost the Spanish not only as an ally but as a tool to use against the Americans. They no longer could play competing nations against one another to obtain more favorable trade arrangements. Choctaws faced an ever-encroaching United

States, hungry to conquer “untamed lands” and not as generous with presents as their

European predecessors.19

When rumors circulated in 1800 that the United States hoped to negotiate another treaty, Choctaw leaders expressed their desire to visit Washington and speak with the president. The chiefs had visited Federal officials in Philadelphia in 1796 and thought a face-to-face meeting would convince Americans to continue giving gifts and provide a resolution to the crises Choctaws now faced. John McKee, an agent to the Choctaw, noted that a trip would be expensive and that the United States would not pay for it. On

26 August 1800, an unnamed Choctaw chief received a letter from Benjamin Hawkins,

Indian agent to the Creeks and treaty commissioner. The chief previously had written to

18 Treaty of San Ildefonso, 1 October 1800, The Avalon Project at Yale Law School, online, available Path: 19th Century Documents/San Ildefonso, Treaty of—Oct. 1, 1800.

19 James Taylor Carson, “Horses and the Economy and Culture of the Choctaw Indians, 1690-1840,” Ethnohistory 42:3 (Sum 1995): 500-502.

73 express his satisfaction with the government agent and interpreter, but he also noted concerns over game shortages and the future relationship between the United States and the Choctaw. The chief hoped for “presents” as had been received from the Spanish in exchange for allegiance and trade relations during the 1780s. The response did not reassure the Choctaws. Hawkins said that John McKee and Samuel Mitchell, agents commissioned to them, possessed knowledge needed to help Choctaws prosper without receiving government presents. He concluded replied that the United States did give money and provisions to the Cherokee, but that Cherokee had surrendered land in return.

Years earlier, the Spanish had warned the Choctaw that Americans were hungry for land.

Americans not only wanted a land cession but permission to build a Federal road through

Choctaw territory. The cautionary words of the Spanish may have been prophetic.20

United States agents had their own agendas, which often included obtaining territory from

Amerindians. Beginning in 1801, as instructed by Washington, American agents begin the push for land cessions in negotiations with various Native ethnic groups.21

In an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion, the United States sent officials to negotiate a new treaty with the vulnerable Choctaw. On 12 December 1801, James

Wilkinson, Benjamin Hawkins and Andrew Pickens met representatives of the Choctaw

Nation and their interpreters at Fort Adams to discuss a new treaty. The principal goal of the United States government was permission to carve a road to the town of Natchez on

20 Benjamin Hawkins to John McKee, Creek Agency, August 26, 1800 and [Enclosure] to Choctaw chiefs, both in Benjamin Hawkins, 347-48.

21 [Enclosure] to Choctaw chiefs, in Benjamin Hawkins, 348.

74 the Mississippi River, Choctaws sought assistance to alleviate the widespread famine their people had begun to experience during the previous decade.22 Choctaw agent John

McKee claimed that the United States would help only when Choctaws learned to “help themselves” and often told Choctaws that both men and women should take up “industry and improvement in the useful arts” as had the Cherokee. The American agents argued that the road would help Choctaws by bringing new opportunities to trade between

Tennessee and. War Chiefs with whom McKee spoke agreed that a road should indeed be opened through their territory, but some Choctaws leaders expressed concerns over the loss of their land.23 Leaders considered the advantages and disadvantages of granting the

American request. A road might bring a steady flow of goods back into Choctaw territory, an alternative to manipulating two competing foreign nations in the fur trade. The

Choctaw and United States signed one previous treaty in 1786, referred to as the Treaty of

Hopewell, that acknowledged peace with the United States.24 To promote allegiance with

Spain rather than the United States, Spanish officials once claimed that Americans only

22 Hawkins to McKee, 26 October 1801, Benjamin Hawkins, 386.

23 To John McKee, 25 March 1801, Records of the Office of the Secretary of War, Letters Sent, Indian Affairs, 1800-1824, Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Record Group 75, National Archives, Washington, D.C., microfilm M15, reel 1 (hereafter, M15 followed by the reel number); A letter from John McKee, U.S. Agent fo the Choctaws to the Honorable the Secretary of War, 19 November 1801, Copy of a letter from Mingo Pooscoos to John McKee, 14 November 1801, Copy of a letter from John McKee to Mingo Pooscoos, 16 November 1801, all in Letters Received by the Secretary of War Relating to Indian Affairs, 1800-1823, Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Record Group 75, National Archives, Washington, D.C., microfilm publication M271, reel 1 (hereafter, M271 followed by reel number).

24 “Hopewell Treaty” in Pre-removal Choctaw History: Exploring New Paths (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2008), 236-50.

75 wanted Indian lands. The demands made by American treaty commissioners seemed to prove the Spanish allegation.25 Despite the fears of losing land, McKee’s suggestions appealed to some Choctaw chiefs. Speeches made by headmen during treaty negotiation at Fort Adams in 1801 suggest their goals. The most surprising requests came from

Puckshunubbee, one of three principal chiefs who governed the Upper Towns division of the Choctaw Nation. Among treaty commissioners, he earned a reputation for being a tough negotiator.26 During his turn to speak, Puckshunubbee demanded that individuals encroaching upon land owned be removed. Treaty commissioners argued that they had received nothing and therefore would give no presents to Choctaws, but Puckshunubbee disagreed. Rather, he argued, Choctaws gave land to the United States in a previous treaty but received nothing for it. The Hopewell Treaty the “protection of the United States of

America” and clarified the boundaries of Choctaw territory but did little else.27 Despite

Puckshunubbee’s brute honesty and his sincere desire to protect the interests of his nation, he agreed that Choctaws needed to change to survive. At Fort Adams, he refused

25 [Carlos de] Grand-Pré to Miro, October 2, 1790, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 2:380; and [Enclosure] to Choctaw chiefs, Benjamin Hawkins, 347-48.

26 Andrew Jackson considered Puckshunubbee a man with whom it was difficult to bargain. Puckshunubbee often refused to accept provisions from agents to avoid debt to the United States. The negotiation of 1820 at Doak’s Stand represents one example of this tactic. See, Andrew Jackson to John Caldwell Calhoun, Nashville December 30, 1818, 263-64, 265n1, John McKee to Andrew Jackson, French Camp Choctaw Nation, August 13, 1819, 313, Andrew Jackson to Choctaw Indians, Choctaw Treaty Ground, October 3, 1820, 391, 392, Andrew Jackson to Choctaw Indians, Choctaw Treaty Ground, October 17, 1820, 394-96, all in The Papers of Andrew Jackson: Volume IV, 1816-1820, Harold D. Moser, David R. Hoth, George H. Hoemann, eds. (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1994).

27 “The Hopewell Treaty,” Pre-Removal Choctaws, 248-50.

76 “to beg” and “brought no property . . . to purchase any thing.” Instead, he felt that

Choctaws suffered in the wake of game shortages and interruption of trade with

Europeans. Puckshunubbee requested a blacksmith for the nation. The chief hoped that

Choctaws could rely on the blacksmith to make items for which they once had traded.

More importantly, if the blacksmith left, Puckshunubbee wished for “him [to] leave tools, and they remain with us as the property of the upper towns district.” If Choctaws could learn the blacksmith trade, the chief hoped, they could reduce dependence on the United

States for a variety of trade goods. Finally, he asked for “spining wheels and somebody to be sent among” women and “halfbreeds” to teach them to make cloth.28

Another principal chief named Homastubby offered a view that would become common in decades following the Fort Adams agreement. If a few Choctaws, women and individuals of mixed ancestry who enjoyed stronger ties to American culture, could become skilled artisans, they would teach others those skills. Homastubby claimed that the President already had promised to send “white” women to teach Choctaw women to spin and weave. This chief hoped individuals of mixed-heritage, a minority within Indian communities, would spread Euro-American techniques for producing goods. American

Indians of mixed heritage had lived in Choctaw communities since the middle of the eighteenth century and now might bridge the Choctaw and American worlds. “I ask for women to teach our women,” he said, “these women may first go among our halfbreeds and teach them, and the thing will then extend itself; one will teach the other, and the

28 Theda Perdue, “Mixed Blood” Indians: Racial Construction in the Early South (Athens: University of Georgia press, 2005), chapter 1.

77 white people may return to their own people again.” Homastubby also desired that

“weeding hoes, grubing hoes, axes, hand saws, augurs, iron wedges and a small set of blacksmith’s tools for a red man” be given to people who might produce goods for the nation and teach other commoners to do the same. Of course, once Choctaws had learned to make goods, according to the chief, Americans should go home.29

At Fort Adams, Chiefs negotiated not only for goods but for the knowledge needed to produce goods essential to national prosperity. Increasing Choctaw ability to manufacture goods might break their dependence on Europeans and Americans, protect lands and autonomy, and save Choctaws from extinction.30 Bucshunabbe stated that he no longer wished to travel as far as Mobile to trade and instead wished to do business closer to home. He claimed that having traders closer to Choctaw territory would allow leaders to provide commoners with more non-indigenous goods. Homastubby and Buchshunabbe asked that a trading house be established closer to the Choctaw Nation.31 Using traders as far away as Mobile meant chiefs were unable to transport large amounts of goods for redistribution and personal use back to their communities. Having traders closer to home would aid in the chiefs’ preservation of power and promote order among their followers.

The United States answered chiefs’ request by establishing the Choctaw Trading

House, an organization that provided goods at reasonable costs. The Secretary of War,

Henry Dearborn, authorized the first Choctaw Trading House at Fort St. Stephens on the

29 Minutes of a Conference, 12 December, 1801, Benjamin Hawkins, 397-98.

30 Ibid., 395-96.

31 Ibid., 397.

78 Tombigbee River in 1803. His instructions describing the purpose of the trading post reflected then-common prejudices against Native peoples. The purpose was to

“encouragement . . . civilization, by introducing among them the arts of husbandry and domestic manufactures . . . in reclaiming this poor and humble people from a state of

Savage Ignorance” by selling goods for usage in a variety of occupations. For Americans, the purpose of Trading House was to divert Indian trade away from New Orleans, Mobile,

Pensacola, and ultimately foreign influence.32 For chiefs, the factories provided a regular and dependable supply of goods for the Choctaws.

Because American traders sold large quantities of liquor to the Choctaws, it was often difficult for headmen to control their followers. Lax Federation, a Jeffersonian policy, regulation of traders allowed individuals without licenses to sell whiskey within the nation. Alcohol abuse had become a serious social problem among the Choctaw.

Bucshunabbe, another chief who spoke at Fort Adams thought drunkenness induced by liquor was responsible for the deaths of many Choctaws, including several who had committed acts of violence at Natchez. Liquor kept some commoners from hunting as they were in a perpetual stake of inebriation, or the desire for alcohol induced men to

32 Herman J. Viola, Thomas McKenney: Architect of America’s Early Indian Policy: 1816-1830 (Chicago, IL: Sage Books, the Swallow Press, Inc., 1974), 303; From Henry Dearborn, War Department, 11 September 1802, Official Letter Books of W. C. C. Claiborne, 6 vols., ed. Dunbar Rowland (Jackson, Mississippi: Printed for the State Department of Archives and History, 1917), 227-28; and To Silas Dinsmoor, 28 January 1803, Journal of the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 1803-1808, Record Group 2, series 483, reel 2040, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi (hereafter, JSIA for the Journal itself and MDAH for the Jackson-based archive). Within primary sources trading houses are sometimes called “factories.”

79 overhunt game not for subsistence but to become drunk.33 The chief ended his talk by requesting “iron wedges, hand saws, and augurs.” Such goods were not prestige items but did make daily tasks easier and represented an important commodity among commoners.

By obtaining such goods from the United States and distributing them, the chief hoped to protect his status as a leader. Furthermore, he hoped that commoners would be more willing to trade for such goods rather than alcohol.

Headmen saw settler encroachment on Choctaw land as a growing problem.

Elautaulau Hoomuh asked that settlers living on Choctaw lands with livestock be removed so Choctaws could use the territory. Two Choctaws requested provisions for producing cloth. Edmond Folsome asked for cotton cards and stated that he knew the advantage of making their own clothes. Robert McClure asked for a cotton gin. He claimed that the people of his district not only wished to learn to use the gin but blacksmith tools because “We red people do not know how to make iron and steel.” Like

Puckshunubbee, McClure also wanted the tools to remain in the Nation if the blacksmith left.34 Leaders realized that controlling and providing for commoners meant protecting the resources that Choctaws had available. Parting with a small portion of land to help

Choctaws survive was a viable option, but the protection of lands retained by the ethnic group as a whole represented a different issue. White encroachment deprived Native people of their property and brought settlers and Choctaws into contact on sometimes violent terms.

33 Minutes of a Conference, 12 December, 1801, Benjamin Hawkins, 397.

34 Ibid., 398-99.

80 As the prestige-goods trade, established by Europeans and carried on by

Americans, and the populations of deer decreased, Choctaw leaders sought new means of maintaining power and influence. In each speech, the headmen’s goals were the same: teach Choctaw men and women to produce goods so that they might become self- sufficient and reduce their reliance on the United States. Headmen turned to promoting new ways of thinking and living where traditional systems of government and kinship would not change but ways in which individuals, families, and villages survived would.

Through acculturation, Choctaws could gain the skills needed to adapt in a changing world. Both men and women would benefit from these changes, which were associated with traditional ideas about labor and gender. Traditionally, Choctaws acknowledged labor divisions based on gender. Men warred and hunted, occupations associated with manhood, whereas women represented the society’s producers by farming and making cloth. Although blacksmiths produced goods, the occupation itself was associated with men in European and American society.35

Shifting to agriculture and husbandry as the primary and inviting Americans to teach Choctaw men and women new skills meant that Choctaws might alter their ideas about gender roles within their culture. By adapting the concept of manhood to include blacksmithing with hunting and warfare, elites and some commoners began to accept that skill as an appropriate male occupation. Similarly, women already produced clothes, but the use of cotton, spinning and weaving clothes traded to Americans and Europeans was a

35 Ibid.

81 non-traditional function. With the shortage of game, women could produce clothing from cotton rather than skins without giving up their role in society.36

Although women tended to crops, men, women and children prepared fields for planting. Prior to European trade, Choctaws used “digging sticks” to plant crops. Hoes, ploughs and axes obtained through the fur trade made these tasks much easier. While men helped prepare fields by using ploughs and hoes, women used a variety of tools to tend to the crops during growing seasons.37 Again, neither men nor women were forced to relinquish traditional gender roles in society. The tools made tasks easier, but the speed with which work could now be completed left more time for men to either overhunt or drink whiskey, actions that threatened acculturation, survival and lives. Choctaws owned few ploughs and hoes by 1800 since most individuals could still survive by hunting, but chiefs hoped to provide new work opportunities. Chiefs hoped to change the lifestyles of commoners and preserve elements of Choctaw culture regarding kinship and gendered labor divisions. Leaders hoped that commoners would adopt new methods of working and production for subsistence and deny settler encroachment without resorting to

36 For two studies about changes to gender roles within Choctaw society, see Greg O’Brien, “Trying to Look Like Men: Changing Notions of Masculinity among Choctaw Elites in the Early Republic” in Southern Manhood: Perspectives on Masculinity in the Old South, eds. Craig Thompson Friend and Lorri Glover (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2004), 49-70; Michelene E. Pesantubbee, Choctaw Women in a Chaotic World: The Clash of Cultures in the Colonial Southeast (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2005); and Clara Sue Kidwell, “Choctaw Women and Cultural Persistence in Mississippi” in Negotiators of Change: Historical Perspectives on Native American Women, ed. Nancy Shoemaker (New York: Routledge, 1995), 115-34.

37 T. N. Campbell, “Choctaw Subsistence: Ethnographic Notes from the Lincecum Manuscript,” Florida Anthropologiest 12 (1959): 17.

82 violence. If their goals came to fruition, the changes made in Choctaw society would not confuse gender roles or challenge religious beliefs. Women might learn to weave and sew, but the process of refining materials to make clothing was considered the job of women. Men might learn the craft of the blacksmith as a new means of acquiring the item necessary for survival.38

Chiefs considered the cession of territory as a small price to pay for the survival of their people, who were starving from lack of food and becoming dependent on the United

States for goods, a view that would change by 1830. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Choctaws held enough land in common to support the population. At least some of that territory could be used as a valuable trade commodity. By exchanging land for money and tools, leaders expected to lessen their dependence on the United States for trade goods. When they signed the Fort Adams treaty on 17 December 1801, the Choctaw received $2,000 in annuities, payable to the chiefs, and blacksmith tools. These concessions appear small when compared to the cession of 2,641,920 acres and permission to build a Federal road through Choctaw territory, a road that gave American alcohol venders, criminals and settlers easy access to the region.39 Rather than distributing prestige goods, chiefs now would provide opportunities and knowledge to survive in the wake of settler encroachment.40

38 Ibid., 11, 15-18.

39 Ferguson, “Treaties,” Before Removal, 216.

40 Greg O’Brien shows that the trend of acting upon American expectations rather than Choctaw ones began before 1800 and probably influenced the decisions of leaders to employ American methods of subsistence after the turn of the century. Providing

83 Chiefs remained concerned about protecting their power and protecting their autonomy, but commoners’ desires were often simpler. They simply wanted enjoy life in their villages and village clusters. Few aspired to the position of mingo, but acquiring property through trade, living more comfortably, and achieving improved social standing were all in the reach of common folk. They traditionally followed the will of chiefs, but commoners were divided in their opinion about acculturation. Despite the goals of

Choctaw leaders, non-elites were not so willing to abandon old customs and instead wished to continue folk traditions. Some commoners held firm to practices that provided status for men and promoted the life-giving, producing role of women in society. “We have a number of warriors who use their guns for a living,” Homastubby stated during the negotiations, and those warriors would continue to depend on hunting despite the efforts of others to acculturate.41 The speech revealed Homastubby’s concerns that not all

Choctaws would follow the will of their chiefs. Indeed, headmen like Homastubby realized the importance of traditional beliefs and practices and how those facets of

Choctaw society created order and respect. Chiefs had begun to identify the cultural elements that should be preserved and those that could be changed. Whereas Choctaws identified with their villages and villages clusters before 1800, the nineteenth century saw them divide based on ideologies that split communities and created tensions based on new ideas of private property, survival, beliefs and practices. Leaders struggled to avoid

opportunities for other Choctaws did not, however, become a primary means of maintaining authority until after 1800. See O’Brien, Revolutionary, 100-101.

41 Minutes of a Conference, 12 December, 1801, Benjamin Hawkins, 398.

84 conflict between old traditions and new practices, but commoners found it difficult to give up what they believed. Commoners split into at least several groups. Some Choctaws adapted their lifestyle, some vehemently rejected change, and still others adopted a middle way, a compromise and combination of ideas and practices from Choctaw and

Euro-American cultures.

Commoners faced difficult decisions, as did their leaders, but they considered acquiring wealth essential to survival. Individuals prospered by accumulating personal goods and flaunting them before fellow Choctaws who had not managed to secure their own. Choctaws adopted a variety of methods of survival from Americans, including raising cattle and hogs and producing goods to sell at markets. Although definitive evidence is lacking, Choctaws may have considered cows as trade goods as early as 1701 when sustained contact began with the French. As one historian noted, the French who negotiated with Choctaws found that this particular ethnic group had incorporated the word waka—the term is derived from the Spanish vaca—for cow.42 Despite raising cattle, men continued the masculine activities of hunting and war. Other historians have argued that Choctaws took up cattle ranching as the primary means of survival with the close of trading sites along the Tombigbee, but the shift to ranching was a gradual process rooted in the eighteenth century. Ranching increased during the nineteenth century, but not at the

42 James Taylor Carson, “Native Americans, the Market Revolution, and Culture Change: The Choctaw Cattle Economy, 1690-1830” in Pre-Removal Choctaw History, 184-85. In this article, Carson includes a discussion on other terms, or “loanwords,” incorporated into the Choctaw language from Europeans.

85 speed previously claimed.43 Only when Choctaws realized that game had declined to a point where survival had become too difficult did some individuals begin shifting from a warrior- and hunter-oriented society to one that included cattle herders. Only with that realization did chiefs direct the creation of a new identity for Choctaws, characterized by a combination of old beliefs and new subsistence practices.44

A “Civilization Program,” first proposed by Secretary of War Henry Knox, spearheaded the movement to change Indian culture in the Southeast, including the promotion of husbandry over hunting, but did not have a profound effect until after the

Fort Adams treaty was signed in 1801.45 Indians could learn to respect the United States,

43 Ibid., 9n12; and Richard White, Roots of Dependency: Subsistence, Environment, and Social Change among the Choctaw, Pawnees, and Navajo (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983), chapters 3-5.

44 Benjamin Hawkins, A sketch of the present state of the objects under the charge of the principal agent for Indian affairs South of the Ohio, 1801, American State Papers: Indian Affairs, 2 vols. (Published by Gales and Steaton, Washington, D.C., 1832), 1:647 (hereafter ASP:IA followed by volume and page number).

45 The plan known as the Civilization Program came from Henry Knox, who held the position of Secretary of War, in 1789. He wrote to President Washington and stated that boundary rights should be respected when treaties were signed, and the United States should teach the “savage” peoples of North American to live like Americans that they might survive in the wake of game destruction. Encroachment, Knox claimed, was inevitable. Washington believed the United States should pursue gradual change by using medals, as had the Europeans, to draw Choctaw allegiance and then promote the program among them. The program itself resulted in the establishment of government-operated trade with Choctaws in the 1790s. See, General Henry Knox, Secretary of War, to the President of the United States, 7 July 1789, ASP:IA, 1:53; and Bauman L. Beldenm, Indian Peace Medals: Issued in the United States (New Milford, Conn.: N. Flayderman & Co., 1966), 22. Bob Ferguson places the establishment of government trade with the Choctaw in the years 1796, but the trading factories were not established until the nineteenth century. See, Bob Ferguson, A Choctaw Chronology, compiled for Nashville Chapter, Tennessee Archaeological Society, 1962, 6.

86 be taught to live like whites, and then assimilate into American culture through the program. A tool of the Civilization program, the Choctaw Trading Houses, represented perhaps the most important catalyst of the transition to a market-oriented culture, particularly among commoners.

Analysis of the records of the trade factories reveals some individuals’ shift from a warrior-hunter lifestyle to a market-oriented one. When factors— a term used by

Choctaws to describe the Indian agents who worked at trade houses—had transactions with individuals of high status, which included chiefs and other headmen, names were included within account records of the Choctaw Trading Houses. For example, when chiefs Pushmataha and Mushulatubbee traded at Fort Stephens, American factors recorded their names along with the items they received. Factors worked closely enough with headmen that they befriended them and vigorously maintained records of their transactions. When individuals of common status traded there, factors simply wrote that an “Indian” bought, sold or traded the items that were listed. In a few cases, the name of an individual was accompanied by a title such as “Captain” or without the term Mingo, the Choctaw term for chief. “Captain” simply served a marker of status. Since hundreds of commoners entered the doors of the factory, American agents had difficulty remembering those individuals. Befriending high-status Choctaws, however, gave factors status in the eyes of the Federal government, contemporary traders, and Native leaders with whom they traded.46 Between 1803 and 1811, the majority of goods traded by

46 George Strother Gaines befriended prominent Choctaws leaders, including Pushmataha, Little Leader and Mushulatubbee. See George Strother Gaines, The Reminiscences of George Strother Gaines: Pioneer and Statesman of Early Alabama and

87 Choctaws, elite and common, were furs. During the year of 1807, the factory at St.

Stephens received 12,624 deer skins weighing 35,212 pounds, 313 pounds of bear, 1040 of fox, 1955 of raccoon, and 558 of cat.47 Choctaws refined tallow from animal fats, to make candles, and collected beeswax. George Strother Gaines, the factor stationed at St.

Stephens, noted that women and men traded a variety of items including snakeroot

(believed to cure snake bites), “bear oil, corn,” various meats, and vegetables.48 Choctaws even ordered particular goods. These items included coats, cotton hoes, “sheetings,” and ivory combs, which would have been considered prestige items during the eighteenth century. Most often, however, Indians received “lead, powder, blankets, calico, knives, flints, kettles,” butcher knives, needles, thimbles, and sewing items used by men and women and some used by women. Some women, such as “Mrs. Jones, a Choctaw,” Molly

McDonald, and Molly Frazier traded and sold enough items at the factories to buy household items such as furniture, linen, blankets, and cups after the war with Britain.

After the nineteenth century, Choctaws also traded for slaves.49 Noteably, Choctaw men

Mississippi, 1805-1843, intro., notes, ed. James P. Pate (Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press, 1998), 77; and Cushman, History, 22.

47 Daybooks, Letter from the Secretary of War: List of goods orders and of whom purchased, 8 April 1805, and Invoice, 30 September 1807, Records of the Choctaw Trading House, Under the Office of Indian Trade, 1803-1819, The National Archives and Records Service General Services Administration, Record Group 75 (Washington, D.C., 1960), microfilm publication T500, reel 1 (hereafter T500 followed by reel number).

48 Gaines, Reminiscences, 1.

49 Daybooks, July-November 1804, 10 October-18 November 1807, 31 March, T500, 1; and James Taylor Carson, “Dollars Never Fail to Meet Their Hearts: Native Women and the Market Revolution,” Neither Lady nor Slave: Working Women of the Old South, ed. Susanna Delfino and Michele Gillespie (University of North Carolina Press,

88 and women traded for flatware used prepare food and saddles for the horses they rode.

The rarity and function of each item not only aided in day-to-day activities but also might be indicative of status.

Between 1803 and 1811, the types of goods Choctaws requested slowly began to shift from goods associated with hunting to ranching and agriculture. Choctaws increasingly traded for those items throughout the second decade of the 1800s. The process began with elites and individuals of mixed heritage and later included commoners. Elite and bicultural Choctaws bought ivory combs, hundreds of pounds of lead, and blankets hundreds of literally hundreds of pounds of skins. From 1805 to 1813, primarily non-Indians, bicultural Choctaws, and elites bought silk, to make finer clothes.

They also bought shovels to ease agricultural tasks and nails to build fences to enclose their property. In October 1807, Captain Hoosha Hoomah traded 68 deer skins and 1 otter fur for blankets, powder, shrouds, and brass kettles, all items used on hunting trips; he also bought spurs and a cowbell. The spurs were to guide his horse and the cowbell kept track of his cattle. Captain Tisho Hollata traded 200 deer skins and 41 otter furs for blankets, shrouds, and salt, and received an augur and 2 pounds of nails, probably to be used for building fences or a house. Other customers traded for ivory combs, cotton cards, linen, rifles, needles, thimbles and a variety of other goods.50

2002), 24.

50 Daybooks, July-November 1804, 8 April 1805, 13 October 1807, 16 October 1807, 17 October 1807, T500, 1;and 12 August 1808, 31 March 1811, T500, 2.

89 The changes seen in goods reflects the gradual shift in lifestyles and subsistence practices in Choctaw communities. For example, cattle represented a food source that could replace deer. Although men enjoyed eating beef and had requested it at feasts given by Europeans, ranching did not become an ordinary occupation in Choctaw society until turn of the century.51 The most popular items sold at the trade houses between 1803 and

1811 were kettles, tin cups, lead, powder, flints, and butcher knives for hunting game and processing skins.52 The shift to cattle came with realization that game depletion had became a serious problem but the move to ranching was gradual because Choctaws saw hunting itself as important for obtaining status within communities. Women farmed throughout the first two decades of the 1800s, and men raised cattle and hogs to obtain meat from nature. Women then processed meat and skin to make clothing using materials obtained from trade factories. 53 Notably, chiefs promoted and initiated these transitions to new lifestyles while attempting to preserve ideas and beliefs within Choctaw cultural bounds.

Accepting new means of subsistence and warfare to distinguish one’s self in society meant changing traditional Choctaw attitudes. Some individuals resisted changing

51 Juzan to Ezpeleta, February 19, 1781, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 1:419.

52 Analysis of Trading House invoices and daybooks from 1803 to 1811 reveals that the majority of goods traded to Indians during that period were these goods. See Indentbooks, T500, 1-2; and “Goods for Choctaw & Chickasaw etc. 1801-1804,” Record Group 92, EN 225, Indian Department Files, Box 895, Quartermaster General Records, copy available in Atkinson/Elliot Agency Collection, Acc. No. 569, Box 2, Mitchell Memorial Library Special Collections, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS.

53 Daybooks, 5 may 1814, T500, 5.

90 their ideologies and lifestyles, either initially or completely. As evidenced by the persistence of hunting, some sought to preserve traditional means of subsistence. Tens of thousands of pounds of furs continued to enter trade houses until 1811 and increased after the War of 1812. On January 24, 1809, St. Stephens recorded an intake of 14,463 pounds of deer skins only and 20,000 pounds in 1811. The amount of deerskins had not declined between 1807 and 1811. Hunting continued to be successful despite game shortages through the first decade of the nineteenth century. Commoners saw hunting as the easiest method for securing trade items with a market value. Increased furs translated into more goods purchased from trade factories, but the trade often left Indians in debt. When

Choctaws traded, they often bought goods worth more than the furs they exchanged. The trading-house logs recorded the difference in value as a debt due in the future. These debts rose steadily, especially among leaders. The debts incurred would represent a problem that Choctaws later would fight with the Federal government.54

Commoners increasingly sought their own means of dealing with the failure of cultural traditions of the past despite the supposed authority of leaders and those leaders’ attempts to establish new means of survival, such as trading without using chiefs as middlemen, stealing, and begging. The chaotic state of Natchez in the first decade of the nineteenth century highlighted the devolution of Choctaw society and the struggle of both elites and commoners to adjust to the crisis of change. Natchez became a center for socio- economic interaction between Indians and settlers and often suffered from violence

54 Daybooks, March-July, 1811, T500, 2; and William Eustis to Silas Dinsmoor, 23 October 1810, M15, 3.

91 between them. At least a few Choctaws traveled to Natchez to receive good for husbandry or agriculture, but others went there to prepare for warfare or hunting excursions. The city and the surrounding area was plagued by criminal activity; it was also a place from which

Choctaws launched attacks against enemy Indians located west of the Mississippi River.

Bravery displayed in such actions served traditional purposes, and warriors who performed heroic deeds demonstrated courage in the eyes of other Choctaw. For example, one observer wrote that Choctaws frequently crossed the Mississippi from Natchez to make war on the Caddoes. The Osage also became a frequent target for Choctaw raiding parties that crossed the Mississippi River.55 William Claiborne spoke to the masses of

Choctaws in Natchez saying that he had received many complaints about their etiquette.

American settlers had complained of having cattle and hogs killed, one man in town discovered four barrels of flour were stolen from his home, and still another discovered his meat stores ransacked and stolen. Claiborne told Choctaw Agent Silas Dinsmoor in

1803 that Choctaws killed livestock and stole corn on a regular basis.56 Other Choctaws

55 Andrew Ellicott, The Journal of Andrew Ellicott: Late Commissioner on Behalf of the United States for Determining the Boundary Between the United States and the Possessions of His Catholic Majesty (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1803), 113; Introduction: Part III, xvii; and Delavillebeuvre to Carondelet, October 27, 1794, 367, both in Spain in the Mississippi Valley; John Sibley to the Secretary of War, 5 April 1805, M271, 1. Choctaws also used New Orleans for supplies before waging war or hunting west of the Mississippi River. Some Choctaws traveled west of the Mississippi to tap into game reserves there after deer populations declined east of the River. See John Sibley, Agent for the Indian Affairs in the Territory of New Orleans, 1807, M271, 1; and Horatio B. Cushman, History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Natchez Indians, rep. ed., foreward and ed. Angie Debo (Greenville, TX: Headlight Printing House, 1899; Oklahoma: Redlands Press of Stillwater, 1962), 222.

56 Talk to Indians, 2 April 1802 in Official Letter Books, 1:68; and William C. C. Claiborne to Silas Dinsmoor, 3 June 1803, JSIA.

92 ambushed travelers along the road to Nashville, the present-day Natchez Trace, stealing provisions and killing animals.57

Raiding replaced formal warfare as an means of obtaining prestige, but raiding also resulted from commoners’s loss of resources. Horses served as a valuable commodity for carrying skins to traders and retrieving corpses of animals, and as a symbol of status among warriors, individuals who made up the bulk of commoners in

Choctaw society. Stealing horses allowed individuals to raid and obtain status much as they had in warfare. Taking the animals also provided much needed provisions that

Choctaws because the horses could be traded for food.58 Claiborne wrote to James

Madison in 1802 and stated that thefts by Indians occurred because the United States did not honor Spanish practices of gift giving. Claiborne had no “presents” to distribute in

Natchez. Without providing presents, the United States lost its ability to subdue theft and violence by Indians.59 With the practice in decline and lack of warfare, commoners felt no

57 William C. C. Claiborne to Henry Dearborn, 28 June 1804, JSIA.

58 Carson, “Horses,” 498-500; Journal of David Taitt’s Travels from Pensacola, West Florida , to and through the Country of the Upper and the Lower Creeks, 1772, Travels in the American Colonies, ed. Newton D. Mereness (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1916), 562; [Franco] Bouligny to Miró, 22 August 1785, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 2:137; De Blanc to Carondelet, 1 December 1792, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 3:100; Adair, History, 133; and John McKee to William H. Crawford, 5 April 1816, Records of the Old Southwest in the National Archives: Abstracts of Records of the Choctaw Indian Agency and Related Documents, 1794-1841, comp. and ed. James R. Atkinson, appendices Jan Hillegas (Cobb Institute of Archaeology, 2005), 209-10.

59 William C. C. Claiborne to General Wilkinson, 15 April 1803, JSIA; “Papers Relating,” ed. Rowland, 138-41, 147-50; and Talk to Indians, 2 April 1802, Official Letter Books, 67. Often the eldest brother of the mother served as the father figure of a son and daughter, but the French, Spanish, English and American use of the term created

93 obligation to honor allegiances to the United States. Instead, they raided American settlements to block against white encroachment onto Choctaw lands. More importantly, they stole needed provisions no longer obtainable through the distribution of presents by foreign nations. As Claiborne noted, goods stolen were most often grain, hogs and cattle.60

Choctaws considered the United States a guardian against settler corruption, particularly when material goods were at stake. If Choctaws stole from settlers,

Americans thieves stole from Indians. Mingo Homastubbee and an Indian named

Helubbee had horses stolen near Natchez. Claiborne hoped the loss of horses to white thieves might convince Choctaw robbers to confess to their own misdeeds. Fragile relations with the Indians and the threat of retribution, however, meant paying Indians for their losses. Leaders assured that no violence would come to settlers for the loss of the

a working relationship of reciprocity. The Choctaw understanding of their non-Indian “father” was one of a provider, a nation that gave presents to maintain alliances and trade with Indians. For a discussion of matrilineal customs and the position of father among Choctaws, see Patricia Galloway, “‘The Chief Who is Your Father’: Choctaw and French Views of the Diplomatic Relation,” in Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians of the Colonial Southeast, rev. ed., eds. Gregory A. Waselkov, Peter H. Wood, and M. Thomas Hatley (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2006), 345-70; and Claims Made by John McKee, Agent to the Choctaws, in Copy of a Letter from John McKee to Mingo Pooscoos, 16 November 1801, M271, 1.

60 Claiborne to , M. T. Near Natchez, 3 April 1802, 69-70; Claiborne to Henry Dearborn, Near Natchez, 8 April 1802, 72; and Claiborne to Daniel Burnett, Near Natchez, 3 October 1802, 193, all in Official Letter Books of W. C. C. Claiborne; From Willliam C. C. Claiborne, 23 February 1802, JSIA; and Secretary of War to Silas Dinsmoor, 23 March 1812, M15, 3. For a discussion of raiding and stealing for distinction, see Caron, “Horses,” 500-502.

94 horses if they would prevent further “mischief” in and around Natchez.61 Choctaw Agent

Silas Dinsmoor witnessed the lack of control chiefs had over on other Choctaws caused by a loss of faith and respect in the chiefs’ stations. Dinsmoor offered aid to “enforce their authority,” an offer which chiefs declined for the moment but agreed to reconsider for the future. Tense relations between Choctaws and whites prompted at least one chief to neglect traditional practices of reciprocity concerning murder. Tradition demanded a life for a life. When a Choctaw was killed by settlers in Kentucky prior to 1803, rather than demanding reciprocity, Hooshee Hoomah, or Red Bird, accepted payment of

“suitable presents in goods or money” for the “resentment of the family” rather than shedding innocent blood.62 Choctaws gradually saw Federal power as a tool Natives could use to regain stolen items. Chiefs sought retribution by demanding payments made to families who had lost their kin or property to settler violence and thievery.

Not all problems between settlers and Choctaws were resolved smoothly. In

1803, Mississippi Territorial Governor Claiborne learned that Samuel Vaun, a Choctaw, had been killed in Natchez two years earlier. Lewis Vaun, Samuel’s brother, claimed that

Samuel was killed and his property stolen while he was drunk. No body was found to prove Lewis’s case. Claiborne speculated that Lewis was lying about Samuel. As

Claiborne noted, “I deny that he was killed by a white citizen if it had been so I should have heard some account of his death before this, for murder cannot be kept secret and

61 W. C. C. Claiborne to Cato West, 15 June 1804, and Cato West to Silas Dinsmoor, 10 July 1804, both in JSIA.

62 Claiborne to Dinsmoor, 16 August 1804, JSIA.

95 the Choctaws well know it.” Ironically, Lewis knew precisely what his brother had been carrying at the time: “two blankets, two hats, one piece of binding and twenty dollars.”63

Lewis might have been relying on the fact that the Federal government respected

Choctaw beliefs about retribution and reciprocity to obtain goods by lying about his brother. Americans officials offered to pay for damages incurred by whites because not doing so might disrupt the relationship between the Choctaw and the United States, as

Claiborne feared in Lewis’s case. Regardless of the lack of evidence for the murder,

Lewis used traditional ideas about reciprocity to obtain damages, here cash and clothing.

By observing traditional beliefs and realizing that he might profit by from manipulating the system, Lewis was able to obtain a settlement for his brother’s death.

Violence sometimes resulted from alcohol abuse, a problem which increased throughout the nineteenth century and widened the gap between chiefs and followers.

Claiborne witnessed incidents of alcohol abuse that Choctaws experienced all too often.

In Natchez in 1803, a group of intoxicated Choctaws and “some imprudent Boatmen” fought. Three of the Indians were wounded and one died from his injuries. Although a

“white man” was “arrested, confined, indicted and tried for the murder,” he was acquitted of the crime. Claiborne apologized to the chiefs for the death of their warrior, but for commoners these condolences were not enough. The Federal government provided payment to the warrior’s chief Ochchummey, but unlike the chief commoners desired revenue. Claiborne wrote, “Brother, some of the Choctaws who were here have told me

63 Claiborne to Dinsmoor, 17 May 1803, JSIA; and John McKee to Benjamin Hawkins, Loftus Heights, 9 December 1801, Official Letter Books, 22-23.

96 they will never be sattisfied, until some white man dies.” Claiborne blamed the death of the warriors not on their actions but rather those Americans who sold them liquor. As for the man who killed Ochchummey’s warrior, Claiborne promised that if the guilty man was caught he would “do every thing in [his] power to have him put to death.”64

Incidents of alcohol abuse increasedas Natives spent more time in American settlements, where liquor was readily available. The Choctaw victims of violence by the boatmen refused to reject traditional beliefs about reciprocity, which required taking a life for a life.65 Unlike Lewis Vaun, these commoners demanded retribution in the form of an execution or material payment. Although evidence does not clearly dictate one way or the other, Choctaws like Lewis may have also attempted to manipulate the system when lives were not lost, while others attempted to preserve and act on tradition when individual actually were killed. In these ways, Choctaw commoners might benefit from acknowledging both traditional practices of reciprocity to honor kin and friends and material reciprocity when goods were needed for survival.

Claiborne noted that dangers to Choctaws and their property caused serious tensions with Americans. Natives complained of ill treatment and often felt in danger when traveling the American roads; others complained when white Americans stole their property. Charles, a bicultural Choctaw, threatened to kill James Elliot, who had stolen

64 Claiborne to Dinsmoor, 17 May 1803, JSIA; and William C. C. Claiborne to Ochchummey, 17 May 1804, JSIA.

65 Benjamin Henry Boneval Latrobe, Impressions Respecting New Orleans: Diary & Sketches, 1818-1820, ed. and intro. Samuel Wilson, Jr. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1951), 78.

97 his mare in 1807. When John Sibley, Indian Agent in Orleans Territory, heard of the crime, he sent a group of men to investigate Elliot, who had hired “7 or 8 [men] who had encamped themselves between the Adaize and the Sabine” and were stealing horses from

Indians and white settlers alike. Elliot claimed protection in neutral territory, but was arrested and sentenced to jail. He escaped to Claiborne’s jurisdiction. Individuals like

Charles threatened the relationship that leaders fought to keep with the United States, but traditional law dictated retribution and reciprocity. Whereas the Federal officials were more likely to make peace by a variety of means with leaders such as Homastubbee and

Ochchummey, commoners often were not so lucky. Elliot returned to the camp with his gang of bandits and continued tp take Indians’ horses. While sources note that chiefs did retrieve property by working through the Federal government, they do not mention commoners achieving the similar successes. Chiefs received payment for theft or murder, which could then be distributed to harmed parties. Healthy relations with the Choctaw meant appeasing chiefs who made requests or demands, not necessarily commoners in need.66

As the old institutions of Choctaw society began to weaken and fail, some engaged in dishonorable behavior in a struggle to survive. As early as 1794, Gayoso de

Lemos said that Indians were stealing from traders while amassing debt. Natives promised traders that they would hunt for furs if traders advanced the necessary provisions. Instead, they did not hunt or settle the debts. Choctaws continued to ask

66 Sibley to the Secretary of War, M271, 1; and Turner Brashears to John McKee, 30 October 1817, Records of the Old Southeast, 211.

98 traders for goods despite the lack of furs, eventually turning to the charity of settlers as a means of survival.67 American Agent Benjamin Hawkins later wrote that Choctaws were a “beging race,” and when this option did not provide needed provisions, commoners felt no obligation to honor property rights of settlers.68

Some Indians traveled to New Orleans, a city that became a haven for the desperate, and poverty-stricken Choctaws used the city as a source of charity. Without opportunities to trade near their homes, either because they had to use elites as intermediaries or the Americans were not providing enough goods for furs, some traveled there to exchange their furs.69 Some commoners went to New Orleans and into the Lower

Mississippi Valley to beg because food resources had dwindled severely. The Spanish noted several occasions when Choctaws asked for presents and food and considered the practice of begging a common occurrence.70 William Claiborne, first Mississippi

Territorial Governor, described several bands of Choctaws camping around Natchez for

67 Gayoso de Lemos to Delavillebeuvre, 23 June 1794, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 3:308.

68 Benjamin Hawkins to Samuel Mitchell, Coweta, June 22, 1798, 203-205; Treaty with the Chickesaws, Upper and Lower Creeks, Chactaws, Cherokees, and Catawba, 1763, 17, both in Official Letter Books.

69 To Shelburne, New York August 20th 1767, The Correspondence of General Thomas Gage with the Secretaries of State, 1763-1775, vol. 1, comp., ed. Clarence Edwin Carter (Yale University Press, 1931; reprint, Archon Books, 1969), 145.

70 [Phelipe] Treviño to [Señor Don Estevan] Miró, October 18, 1783, 88-89, and [Antonio] Maxent to [Señor Don Francisco] Bouligny, September 24, 1782, 59, both in Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 2; Carondelet to Señor Don Francisco Montreuill, December 13, 1792, 105, Manuel de Lanzos to Baron de Carondelet, 152; Gayoso de Lemos to Delavillebeuvre, June 23, 1794, 307, Delavillebeuvre to Carondelet, July 22, 1794, 327; all in Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 3.

99 the purpose of requesting presents and stealing. Such actions were not condoned by chiefs. Rather, chiefs considered individuals who begged and stole as “vagabonds” and outcasts. Rifts formed within communities regarding whether or not commoners should act dishonorably, and Native leaders could not bridge them successfully.71 As noted by

Claiborne, Choctaws were reduced to begging for food because overhunting had nearly destroyed the herds of animals.

As more commoners left their communities to beg for provisions, chiefs found themselves in a difficult situation. They realized that commoners needed provisions they stole and for which they begged, but the practice contradicted traditional beliefs about self-sufficiency, obtaining status by providing food through hunting and obtaining goods through chiefs’ diplomacy. Instead of depending on their leaders for provisions and without litle success in hunting or trade, some Choctaws resorted to begging for food.

Indeed, Europeans and Americans considered Choctaws beggars because their leaders constantly asked for gifts. These chiefs, however, presents an appropriate payment for political allegiance, the fur trade and peace. Commoners who begged no longer depended on their chiefs, they refused or were unable to adapt to the factory system, and had no other way to survive within their communities.

The practice of begging continued until Choctaw Removal in 1830. Choctaw men and women traveled to New Orleans to beg or trade. A few commoners adapted enough

71 Benjamin Hawkins to Samuel Mitchell, Coweta, June 22, 1798, 203-205; Treaty with the Chickesaws, Upper and Lower Creeks, Chactaws, Cherokees, and Catawba, 1763, 17; and To James Madison, M. T. Near Natchez, 3 April 1802, 69-70, To Henry Dearborn, Near Natchez, 8 April 1802, 72-73; all in Official Letter Books, 1.

100 to buy and sell in New Orleans. One traveler observed that men took skins, honey, oils,

“birds, squirrels, perhaps a raccoon or opossum, often ducks, which they either sell to the hucksters in the market or hawk about the streets.” Women also sold crafted goods such as woven mats and baskets.72 According to Henry Latrobe, the desperate Choctaws he met there did not represent the majority of the ethnic group but only a portion of it. Those he met were “a sort of outcasts, the fag end of the tribe, the selvage, the intermediate existence between annihilation & savage vigor.” They camped and lived near New

Orleans where begging was their primary means of survival. More successful Choctaws traveled to New Orleans to buy and sell in the market economy and learned to live through it. Many who had split from their communities in present-day Mississippi had adapted.73 Notably, Choctaws who accomplished the transition did so without neglecting traditional gender roles. Men continued to hunt and take from the forest, and women remained producers of goods and vegetables. Both activities provided items to sell or trade, but chiefs and commoners in Choctaw Territory considered economic division in

72 Villebeuvre to Carondelet, Boukfouka, 27 February 1793, “Papers from the Spanish Archives Relating to Tennessee and the Old Southwest,” trans. and ed. D. C. Corbitt and Roberta Corbitt, East Tennessee Historical Society’s Publications 29 (1957): 157-58; Benjamin Henry Boneval Latrobe, January and March 1819, Impressions Respecting New Orleans: Diary & Sketches, 1818-1820, ed. and intro., Samuel Wilson, Jr.(New York: Columbia University Press, 1951), 76; and Paul Wilhelm, Duke of Württemberg, Travels in North America, 1822-1824, trans. W. Robert Nitske, ed. Savoie Lottinville (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1973), 33.

73 Latrobe, Impressions, 21-22.

101 the larger community as unforgivable and beggars were dishonored among their counterparts.74

Until 1811, Chiefs and commoners questioned whether they should cling to tradition, support themselves through raiding, or do neither and instead adapt their culture to preserve the economic benefits provided by the United States. American citizens at

Natchez complained about problems created by Choctaws who camped and lived near them, Indians who were drunk, stole from farms, and occasionally killed whites. The seeming inability of chiefs to hold commoners in check might spark an expensive war with the Natives. Federal officials debated how to help chiefs bring troublesome

Choctaws under control. A crisis was averted when chiefs, commoners and Federal officials found an unlikely means of repressing violence between Choctaws and settlers, decreasing solicitation of goods in Natchez, and preventing thievery of settlers’ property.

Ironically, a violent war quelled unrest and brought back some control of chiefs. The conflict pushed more commoners to enter the market economy and to live not as warriors but as farmers and ranchers.75 The event in question began in 1811, when an unlikely figure visited the Southeast. Tecumseh, famed Shawnee chief, traveled to the Six Towns

74 For further discussion of gender roles and trade, see Carson, Bright Path, chapter 4.

75 Here, the term “businessman” is used to generally refer to individuals who lived by buying and selling in a the market economy rather than just buying and selling goods. This new outlook for Choctaws in the nineteenth century required not only a change in ideology, which concerned the shift from a warrior-hunter lifestyle for men and horticultural one for women, but also changes to Choctaws’ cultural identity in the nineteenth century. See, for example, Carson, Bright Path, 71.

102 district, where Pushmataha governed as one of three principal chiefs of the Choctaw

Nation.

Pushmataha was born in 1764, and he excelled in traditional activities such as stickball and later earned prestige through warfare and hunting. He gained renown for victories against the Osage and Creeks before 1812. Those victories and many others earned him the name Pushmataha; translated variously as “a messenger of death” or “one whose tomahawk is fatal in war or hunting.” He was a brilliant orator whose words inspired his listeners. The chief was proud of heritage and other Choctaws followed him partly because he was an outspoken advocate of acculturation. He understood the extent of Federal power and knew that Choctaws depended on the United States for economic prosperity. Legend held that once when a council convened to elect a new chief, lightning struck a tree and killed many of the its members. When Pushmataha stepped from behind the tree and the survivors asked from where he had come, he replied, “‘From the Great

Spirit.’” Afterward, Choctaws believed he was spiritually ordained and gave him great respect.76

76 Gideon Lincecum, Pushmataha: A Choctaw Leader and His People, intro. Greg O’Brien (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2004), 100; Cushman, History, 262-64; Anna Lewis, Chief Pushmataha: American Patriot. The Story for the Choctaws’ Survival (New York Exposition Press, 1959), 13-16, 20-21, 24-25, 28-29, 38, 55, 61-62, 137-38, 141-42, 150-51, 155-56; Clara Sue Kidwell, “Choctaws and Missionaries in Mississippi before 1830,” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 11:2 (1987): 55; and Typescript excerpt from the Bureau of Ethnology regarding the life of Pushamataha and the Choctaw, Walter Stanley Campbell Collection, Box 117, Folder 3, online, accessed: 30 October 2008, University of Oklahoma Western History Collections, Norman, OK (hereafter, UOKWHC) Path: The University of Oklahoma Western History Collections/search: “choctaw”/transcript excerpt

103 Pushmataha battled a worthy adversary in Tecumseh, who commanded power and prestige in his own right. Their battle in words illustrated the persistence of prestige as a symbol of power among the Choctaw. Tecumseh hoped to win support for his pan-

Indian and British alliance against the United States. The Shawnee chief challenged

Pushmataha’s allegiance to the Americans. Pushmataha’s based his decision to reject

Tecumseh’s alliance not only on his friendly relations with the Federal government but because he feared the consequences for the Choctaw of a war. Tecumseh reported that he would travel to territory and urge the Creeks to join the pan-Indian alliance.

The long-standing hatred between Creeks and Choctaws was another reason not to follow

Tecumseh. As a youth, a band of Creeks raided a Choctaw village and killed

Pushmataha’s parents, an act for which the chief always sought revenge. The Creeks were sworn enemies of the Choctaw and had been for perhaps a hundred years. Pushmataha and his followers refused to forget that history.77

77 Lincecum, Pushmataha, 90, 100-101; Stephen P. Van Hoak, “The Poor Red Man and the Great Father: Choctaw rhetoric, 1540-1860,” Chronicles of Oklahoma 81:3 (2003): 308; and Col. John McKee to George S. Gaines, 16 May 1814, 209, Records of the Old Southwest, 209. Donna L. Akers claims that Choctaws did not follow Pushamataha into the War of 1812 until their prophets ritually sacrificed a cow to determine the will their deity. Henry Halbert claims that this story originally came from Horatio Cushman and was a Judeo-Christian tradition fused with the tradition of prophecy. Such a ritual, as Halbert rightfully claims, would have varied from traditional and acculturated ideas about cattle. Raiding and then killing or stealing cattle provided distinction for individuals and groups who attempted to preserve warrior-hunter traditions at the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries. Individuals who began raising livestock would not have sacrificed their own cows either because those animals represented their primary means of survival in the wake of dear populations. See discussions by Donna L. Akers, Living in the Land of Death: The Choctaw nation, 1830- 1860 (East Lansing: Michigan state University Press, 2004), 18-191; and Tecumseh’s Visit to the Choctaw Nation, 1811, Henry S. Halbert Papers, microfilm copy (Montgomery, AL: Alabama Department of Archives and History, n.d.), available at

104 Tecumseh warned about friendship between American Indians and the United

States, but Pushmataha, fellow principal chief Mushulatubbee and the majority of the

Choctaw refused to join the alliance. Pushmataha had multiple reasons for refusing.

Cutting ties with the United States to side with Britain would result in losing American traders as a source for goods. If the United States won the war, the non-aligned Choctaws might use their allegiance as leverage in post-war maneuvering. Furthermore, if Choctaws joined war as America’s allies and shared the victory, commoners and headmen would have an opportunity to obtain prestige through war.

The War of 1812 helped unify Choctaw communities once again as they joined to fight for common causes, fighting against their ancient enemies the Creeks and rising in status through warfare. Hundreds of Choctaws gained recognition within their own society under district chiefs like Pushmataha and Mushulatubbee. Other headmen, including Edmund and David Folsom, Hummingbird, Opoiee, and Red Fort led war parties.78 Those warriors received payment in money and goods, particularly blankets and clothing.79 Gifts for military service were familiar to Choctaws. It represented a system

Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, MS, reel 4294 (hereafter Halbert Papers, MDAH, followed by reel number).

78 Regarding the life of Pushamataha, UOKWHC, Online.

79 Governor, Military Papers, 1807-1815, Series 487, Box 116, Letters 151-159, MDAH; and Article 11, Treaty of Doak’s Stand, 18 October 1820, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, 2 vols., comp. and ed. Charles J. Kappler (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904), 2:193, Oklahoma State University Center: Digital Collections, Stillwater, OK, Online, Path: Oklahoma State University Electronic Publishing Center/Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties/Volume II (Treaties, 1778-1883): Table of Contents/Choctaw: Treaty with the Choctaw, 1820.

105 used by Europeans to forge Indian alliances during the eighteenth century and supported the tradition of reciprocity among Choctaws.80 Aiding the United States did not help the

Choctaw Nation resist further land cessions but did help preserve peaceful relations for trading and the cancellation of future debts.81 In 1815, United States Agent for the

Choctaw John McKee and Trading House Agent George Gaines met in council with chiefs and headmen. Before the visit, Secretary of War William Harris Crawford authorized a further cession of land for building a new factory.82 When they met with the

Choctaw elites, Gaines and McKee promised perpetual friendship for the services given to the United States during the conflict. They used the opportunity to promote the values of acculturation, noting that by adopting American practices of farming and husbandry

80 See for example, Greg O’Brien, “The Choctaw Defense of Pensacola in the American Revolution” in Pre-Removal, 123-47.

81 Through the treaties of Hoe Buckintoopa and Mount Dexter in 1803 and 1805 respectively, the United States paid Choctaw debts to Panton, Leslie, and Company, a major trading firm among American Indians during the eighteenth century. See, Ferguson, “Treaties between the United States and the Choctaw Nation,” 217; Indian Speeches Made at Long Town, June 1, 1793, Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 3:165; The Secretary of War to James Wilkinson, War Department, 16 April 1803, The Territorial Papers of the United States, Volume V: The Territory of Mississippi, 1798-1817, comp. and ed. Clarence Edwin Carter (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1937), 214; William Simpson to the Secretary of War, Washington, 19 October 1810, The Territorial Papers of the United States. Volume VI: The Territory of Mississippi, 1809-1817, comp. and ed. Clarence Edwin Carter (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1938), 123; and William S. Coker and Thomas D. Watson, Indian Traders of the Southeastern Spanish Borderlands: Panton, Leslie & Company and John Forbes & Company, 1783-1847, foreword J. Leitch Wright, Jr. (Pensacola: University of West Florida Press, 1986) 23-27, 174-75, 246-247, 364-66.

82 William Harris Crawford to George S. Gaines, 14 August 1815, M15, 3. Similar letters to Indian Agents in Mississippi Territory were sent in 1816. See, for example, Crawford to Coffee et. al., 20 May 1816, and Crawford to McKee, 20 May 1816, both in M15, 3.

106 and avoiding alcohol Choctaws could prosper easily with “little labour.” Gaines and

McKee noted that, despite participation in the war, peace could not exist until Indians ceased raiding and stealing from whites. Furthermore, the Federal government, they threatened, would shut down roads that wound through Choctaw territory and end trade with Natives if these crimes did not cease.83 Federal roads served as an excellent place to trade Choctaw goods to whites. During one journey only a few years before the war began, Jacob Young noted that travelers bought “hickory-nuts, walnuts, hazel-nuts,” corn and pumpkins along the roads. Using roads to sell indigenous goods represented another adaptation threatened by the destruction of diplomatic relations with the United States.84

Participation in the Creek War and War of 1812 brought some stability to the political chaos that grew within Choctaw society. The war provided an outlet for traditional acts of violence that brought prestige to warriors, but it also understood the need for change. The final defeat of the British seemed to prove that foreign wars in which Choctaws participated during the previous century for prestige and status in their own communities were rare occurrences. Increasingly, commoners and elites saw cultural change as necessary for survival.

The war interrupted trade at the factories. Registers of debts showed little or no change for individuals. Pushmataha’s and Mushulatubbee’s accounts significantly

83 John McKee to the Secretary of War, December 1815 – February 1816, M271, 1.

84 Campbell, “Choctaw Subsistence,” 15; and Rev. Jacob Young, Autobiography of a Pioneer; or, The Nativity, Experience, Travels, and Ministerial Labors of Rev. Jacob Young, with Incidents, Observations, and Reflections (Cinncinnati, Cranston and Curts, 1890; 1857), 212-13.

107 increased during this period, but a majority of accounts remained unchanged. Ironically, despite game shortages, furs pored into the trade houses after the war. To keep up with the demand for trade goods, the value of inventories increased from less than $3,000 a year before 1812 to over $10,000. Between 1815 and 1820, Choctaw factories kept between $11,981 and $20,773 worth of merchandise per year for sale to Indians.

Choctaws and Americans exchanged thousands of dollars in trade items every month. In

1816, Choctaws and some Chickasaws brought 28,042 lbs. of deer skins, 1,131 of beeswax, 136 of beaver skins and 433 other skins to the factory, all shipped to the Federal government. In 1818, the amount of deer skins that were brought to factories nearly doubled to 54,011 lbs. At the end of the next year, the poundage increased again to

64,632.85 As game reserves plummeted, the number of Choctaws who changed subsistence strategies to ranching and farming increased dramatically. They continued to trade for powder and lead to aid in hunting, but the types of goods received shifted after

1815. The change in goods reveals a transition in lifestyles and dependence on new subsistence methods of cash-crop agriculture and husbandry. As the war against Britain came to a close late in 1814, debts had changed little, including those of headmen who often traded more than commoners.

Choctaws requested a variety of goods for trade in the coming years that differed from items they received before the war. By analyzing account books, one may see what items interested commoners most and deduce what types of cultural changes were taking place. Included in the inventory of 31 December 1814 were cow bells used to keep track

85 Halbert Papers, Trade, 2137.

108 of cattle, adzes for fence building, and saddles for the horses that Choctaws used to herd their livestock and carry trade goods to factories. The inventories listed “corn hoes” and a ploughs and handsaws.86 Over the next five years, Choctaws traded for tools essential to their new lifestyles. Agents in Mississippi territory reported on the complete destruction of game in some areas of Indian territory, and the transition to new lifestyles and increase in goods to aid in new subsistence practices coincides with the near-extinction of game.

Rather than trading primarily for items used in hunting, individuals increasingly sought goods for use in ranching and cash-crop agriculture. Men bought bridles, saddles, hoes, nails, awls, chizzels, shovels, mattocks, saws, cow bells, and files.87 The transition to new lifestyles, which occurred among elites and bicultural Choctaws before the 1815,occurred among commoners, who had begun to amass property.

New subsistence methods involved husbandry and cash-crop agriculture coupled with transitional collecting of forest goods that factories would receive for credit or other goods. In particular, hogs and cattle became crucial elements for surviving in a changing, market-oriented world. One observer noted that “Choctaws raise a great many cattle.

They have laid aside hunting, as a business, though they sometimes engage in it for amusement.”88 The evidence for the transition lies in records of the Choctaw factories.

After 1815, commoners brought materials refined from livestock to barter and sell at St.

86 Sibley to Secretary of War, 5 April 1805, M271, 1.

87 Account registers, 31 December 1814, 2, and Daybooks, May 1814-January 1815, 5, both in T500.

88 Jedediah Morse, A Report to the Secretary of War of the United States on Indian Affairs (1822; New York: August M. Kelley, Publishers, 1970), 182.

109 Stephens and later Ft. Confederation. Included among these goods were cow skins.

Although not as valuable as deer, fox and beaver, factors used cow skins to tie bundles of other furs for transportation and protected the decks of ships from gun fire and arrows in case of Indian raids.89 Like cows, hogs provided tradeable items. Records are peppered with records of the sale of bacon to factors, and the amount was not insignificant. On 5

May 1814, the factory traded 191 pounds of bacon, and on 3 April 1816 individuals traded 386 pounds. Choctaws did not trade these hundreds of pounds of hog meat for lead, powder and skinning knives. Rather, they receives axes, saddles, bridles, and augurs, tools used to herd cattle and build homes as did American ranchers.90

Choctaw women reaped benefits from new lifestyles as much as men. Whereas men hunted and fought in traditional Choctaw culture, women were producers. They made a variety of goods such as clothing and bowls, gathered provisions such as nuts and berries, and farmed.91 Similarly, they aided in caring for cattle and hogs. Historian James

Carson provides and intriguing perspective on the relationship between cattle and gender roles. He argues that men would shoot these animals for food much as they had killed a

“deer or turkey” in the eighteenth century. Women milked the cows and cooked the meat as they had done in the previous centuries. One historian claimed that women viewed

89 Daybooks, 28 June 1817, November 5, 1817, T500, 6; and Carson, “Choctaw Cattle Economy,” 187.

90 5 May 1814, 3 April 1816, 23 May 1816, T500, 5.

91 Campbell, “Choctaw Subsistence,” 10-11, 15.

110 cows as fruit trees so as not to change their role as gatherers and farmers.92 Although men and women preserved their roles in society, new ideas about livestock raised important issues. Men did not live by hunting and warfare any longer. Women continued to gather by collecting milk from cows, but both men and women participated in raising livestock and claimed ownership over animals and goods that they bought.

Like livestock, cash-crop agriculture represented a new means of subsisting that challenged the way men and women saw their place in society. In 1800, Choctaw Agent

Samuel Mitchell gave the first cotton seeds to the Choctaw. At first, women grew cotton in the same gardens as vegetables.93 Cotton soon became an important commodity for

Choctaw participation in the market economy, especially after 1815. Observers noted that cotton production was rising. Dr. Rush Nutt wrote of families “cultivating the earth in corn, cotton, & other garden vegetables.” Choctaws who cultivated cotton often lived in log cabins and “handled the cards & wheel very well.” Although farming was considered a woman’s task, men eventually helped cultivate cotton fields. Certainly, not all men worked in the fields, but fencing cultivated land or territory for grazing off-set the decline in deer herds.94 Once cotton was picked, women spun, wove, and made clothing as had

92 In his analysis of the Choctaw language, Carson found that women called cattle althpoa, which also literally meant “free trees such as are cultivated.” For his discussion about gender roles of women and cattle, see Carson, Bright Path, 76-78.

93 Ibid., 79; and Samuel Mitchell to David Henley, 17 January 1800, David Henley Papers, William R. Perkins Library Special Collection, Duke University, Durham, NC.

94 “Notes and Documents: Nutt’s Trip to the Chickasaw Country,” ed. Jesse D. Jennings Journal of Mississippi History 9 (January 1947): 39-40; and Cushman, History, 104-105.

111 been their practice throughout the eighteenth century. Headmen and chiefs such as

Edmonde Folsom asked for cotton cards. His people already made cloth but needed the tools to produce larger amounts of it. Factories exchanged beeswax, furs and even bacon for cards and twists.95 Cotton production rose enough that individuals found it difficult to gin the fiber by hand. Chiefs wrote to the Choctaw Agency in September 1816 requesting a mechanical gin to increase fiber production; they also noted the need for additional cards.96 One historian has calculated that factories received only 238 pounds of cotton in

1818 and a mere 157 in 1819, but by March 1822, the amount multiplied rose to 13,245 pounds.97 Throughout 1817 and 1818, Choctaws bought and bartered for cotton cards, twists, hoes, saddles, bridles, needles and ploughs, which they used in new livelihoods.

They looked to producing goods for themselves, raising livestock, and increasing agricultural output to survive and prosper.98

95 Minutes of a Conference, 12 December, 1801, Benjamin Hawkins, 398.

96 William H. Crawford to John M. McKee, 25 September 1816, M15, 3. The Federal government offered to build such a gin in Choctaw territory in 1800, but the Nation refused. Cotton production had not yet risen to the point where such a device for needed. This particular gin was instead built in the Chickasaw Nation in 1801 at the town of Cotton Gin Port. Choctaw destroyed this gin in 1811 and asked for a gin to be built in their own territory in 1816. John McKee, Vol. 3, Book 4, Registers of Warrants, War Department Accountant, Choctaw Agency Records, 127, Record Group 217, Entry 374, 187-88, and Choctaw Agency Records, John McKee, Volume 6, Journal F, Choctaw Agency Records, Record Group 217, Entry 366, pp. 3883, 168, both abstracted in Records of the Old Southwest,; and Miscellaneous Accounts, 1811-1815, T500, 2.

97 See Carson’s calculations in Bright Path, 79 and 164n49; and Halbert Papers, Trade, 2137.

98 Daybooks, 23 January 1815, 2-27 February 1815, March 1815, October- December 1815, 15-29 January 1816, 8 March-13 November 1816, 5 and Daybooks, 9 April 1817, 21 May 1817, 29 May 1817, 30 May 1817, 6 June 1817, 5 November 1817,

112 The shift to cotton production and ranching promoted new ideas about land ownership. Choctaw depended on these new aspects of life and business to survive, but both created divisions in the Nation based on property. Traditionally, Choctaws shared lands and held ownership only over small gardens. Men hunted in the forests and women primarily tended to crops. Some men and women now saw the protection of their own horses, cattle, and homes as crucial to their survival. Houses became centers of production and the nuclei of ranches and cotton fields. Individuals endeavored to care for animals and protect them from theft rather than depend on falling deer populations. Men and women bought furniture and kitchen wares for their cabins.99 Protecting property became an important goal for individuals. Some Choctaws fenced in their land to prevent escape of livestock, ravishing of fields, or theft of provisions they considered theirs.100

Rather than responding with personal violence against those who had stolen, some

6, T500; and Receipt, Edward Mitchell to John McKee, 1 January 1819, Receipt, Eden Brashears to John McKee, 5 March 1819, both in Records of the Old Southwest, 28.

99 Adam Hodgson, Letters from North America, Written during a Tour in the United States and Canada, 2 vols. (London: A. Constable & Co. Edinburgh, 1824), 1:242-44; Sarah Tuttle, Conversations on the Choctaw Mission, 2 vols. (Boston: Massachusetts Sabbath School Union, 1830), selected Americana from Sabin 97515, reel no. 126, microfilm, filmed from the holdings of the Huntington Library, San Marino, CA, 2:88; Extracts from a Letter Written by the Reverend Cyrus Kingsbury to the War Department, 8February 1830, Speeches on the Passage of the Bill for the Removal of the Indians Delivered in the Congress of the United States, April and May, 1830 (New York: Perkins and Marvin, 1830; reprint, Millwood, NY: Kraus Reprint Co., 1973), 67; “Notes and Documents,” 40; and 10 October 1807, T500, 1.

100 Gaines, Reminiscences, 47-48.

113 Choctaws sought help through the legal system.101 In 1816, Wayna of Little Yazoo suffered a theft by “whitemen and Negroes” in Natchez. He approached the local Indian agent and requested compensation for the mare, valued at $10, as well as his bell, saddle, bridle, and blanket and the goods carried on the horse under stipulations. Mushulatubbee complained that a “whiteman” stole an “excellent rifle” worth $25 and his shot bag; he received compensations the same day. When his brother Nanta was killed by Americans,

Paunshunstubby took the battle to the Choctaw Agency and there demanded that the articles stolen from the body were either returned or paid for. A group of American men stole a horse from Nancy Gillet, on whose honor Mushulatubbee and Robert Folsom vouched. She borrowed a friend’s horse and managed to follow the thieves’ tracks for thirty or forty miles. Other Choctaws claimed to have seen the horse in the Americans’ possession. When she did not find the thieves, she submitted her plea to the Choctaw

Agency and Federal government.102

Submitting claims of stolen property such as horses and livestock demonstrates a profound shift in ideology. Before the nineteenth century, Choctaws would have committed acts of violence on perpetrators. Worse, if the thieves themselves could not be punished, warriors would seek reciprocity by destroying the property or taking the lives of

101 Sibley to the Secretary of War, M271, 1; Turner Brashears to John McKee, 30 October 1817, Records of the Old Southeast, 211; and Introduction, Records of the Old Southeast, 15.

102 John McKee to Secretary of War, 5 April 1816, 209-10, Depositions, Choctaw Agency, 30 October 1817, 211, Receipt, Muhmatubby to John McKee, Choctaw Agency, 30 October 1817, 211; Receipt, Paunshunstubby to John McKee, 2 November 1817, 211- 12, all abstracted in Old Records of the Southeast; and William Ward to James Barbour, 27 September 1826, M234.

114 other Americans.103 By 1818, Choctaws regularly submitted their claims and attempted to protect property through legal methods condoned by the United States. Aside from submitting claims of theft and fencing land, branding served as an important method of distinguishing an individual’s livestock. Like Americans who had lost cattle to Choctaw theft, Choctaws themselves could prove their own claims by marking their property.

Choctaws even began to order and buy padlocks from factories to protect their investments.104

Despite changes in the lifestyles and gender relationships that Choctaws used to define themselves as “Choctaw,” other traditions persisted. Religious beliefs and kinship practices remained the same. They continued to play and gamble on stickball games, a form of pseudo-warfare, and use competitions to obtain social prestige. Choctaws respected the leaders of their nation for exploits in war and hunting. Elders continued to tell stories about rainmakers, and witches, and warned the youth about the supernatural dangers of the world. Healers continued to perform their arts by “sucking” sickness from patients.105

103 Daybooks, 8 April 1817, 24 April 1817, 8 May 1817, T500, 6.

104 Cushman, History, 284; Carson, “Horses,” 505; and Daybooks, April 8-May 8, 1817, T500, 6.

105 Gaines, Reminiscences, 77; Journal of the Mission of Elliot, Choctaw Nation, 18-21 April 1819, Papers of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, microfilm copy, (Woodbridge, CT: Houghton Library of Harvard University, 1984-1985), reel 755, copies available at Mitchell Memorial Library Special Collections, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS.; Michael C. Coleman, Presbyterian Missionary Attitudes toward American Indians, 1837-1893, (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1985), 84-85; Michelene E. Pesantubbee. Choctaw Women in a Chaotic World: The Clash of Cultures in the Colonial Southeast (Albuquerque: University of New

115 By 1818, many Choctaws throughout Mississippi had embraced foreign methods for survival into their own culture, but not every Choctaw was successful. Those who were not begging often resorted to stealing for needed provisions.106 Others continued to use violence against settlers despite agreements with the United States to cease such actions. The Secretary of War noted murders and raiding from “rival factions” within

Choctaw society despite changes that had taken place. The number of such incidences of violence and theft as well as overall factionalism decreased between 1811 and 1818. A gradual consensusabout new communal and individual identities and social stratification began to emerge as more Choctaws entered the market economy. With the emergence of ideas of private property, individuals sought new ways to protect not only their herds and homes but their communal autonomy and right to live and believe as they pleased.

Although Choctaws increasingly adapted, survived, and prospered, new threats emerged.

The Federal government failed to keep its promises never again to ask for cessions of land. With the emergence of ranching and cash-crop agriculture as occupations crucial for

Choctaw survival, the amount of land held and its value for growing cotton and sustaining herds became a salient issue in negotiations with the United States. Peace and changing lifestyles would not be enough to convince Americans to stop requesting

Choctaw lands.

Mexico Press, 2005), 10; and John R. Swanton, Source Material for the Social and Ceremonial Life of the Choctaw Indians, foreword by Kenneth H. Carleton (originally published as Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 103, 1931; reprint, Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2001), 94 (page citations are to the reprint edition), 226-28

106 Latrobe, Impressions, 77.

116 Survival of commoners, rising in status in society, and preserving power became less important as the Federal government demanded more land after 1815. Saddened at the prospect of future cessions and perhaps regretful for the help they had given to the

United States in the war against Britain six years earlier, Pushmataha and Mushulatubbee revealed their concerns in a letter to the president. “Our Father, You have sent a talk to us,” they wrote, “but our land is small and we do not wish to part with any of it, and therefore have not complied with your wishes. . . . our land is so small we could not spare any.”107 Americans now endangered Choctaw autonomy and existence itself. Choctaws, particularly leaders, felt they had to culturally change more than they had over the previous two decades to fight treaties on American terms, but doing so, however, would shake the foundations of communal cohesion in ways no one expected.

107 Pooshemullaha and Mishulatubbe to President [James Monroe], In Council at the Chaktaw [sic] Trading House, Oct [obe]r 30th, 1818, 243, and James Pitchlynn to John C. Calhoun [?], 18 March 1819, 674-75, both in The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume III, 1818-1819, ed. W. Edwin Hemphill (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1967); and From S[amuel] Worcester, Cor[responding] Sec[retary of the] B[oard of] C[ommissioners for] F[oreign] M[issions] to John C. Calhoun, Salem, Mass. Feb. 6, 1818, 124-25, and Calhoun to John McKee, Gen. William Carroll, and Daniel Burnet, 1818, 276, both in The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume II, 1817-1818, ed. W. Edwin Hemphill (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1963).

117 CHAPTER IV

PROTECTING AUTONOMY BY BECOMING AMERICAN:

PRESBYTERIANS AND ACCULTURATION

In 1820, two chiefs visited the fledgling school of Elliot, where Presbyterian missionaries taught young Choctaws a variety of occupational skills. There, a schoolroom of about fifty students impressed the leaders and made the chiefs proud of the Choctaw students. After touring the classes, district chief Mushulatubbee addressed the students: “I hope I shall live to see my council filled with the boys who are now in the school; and that you will know much more than we know, and do much better than we do.”1

Mushulatubbee and other chiefs hoped that Presbyterian schools would teach the skills needed to protect Choctaw autonomy by resisting unfair treaties. Some commoners also saw education as advantageous. Missionaries taught husbandry, cash-crop agriculture, blacksmithing, and reading and writing. In the wake of game shortages, such skills might break dependence on American traders for goods and lead to greater prosperity.

Missionary education came at high price because chiefs signed away territory to establish and pay for mission schools, and missionary funds were spread too then to

1 Sarah Tuttle, Conversations on the Choctaw Mission, 2 vols. (Boston: Massachusetts Sabbath School Union, 1830, selected Americana from Sabin 97515, reel no. 126, microfilm, filmed from the holdings of the Huntington Library, San Marino, CA), 1:90.

118 provide complete financial support. Presbyterian became prejudiced towards Native religion and social customs. Choctaws who incorporated Western religious ideology into their own culture threatened to destroy the traditions that bound communities and families. Some Choctaws who obtained missionary educations converted to Christianity while others learned to new skills but refused to change their religious views. Still others learned how to buy, sell, and trade in the market economy, using market skills to avoid corrupt negotiations of traders, amassed property, and looked down on other commoners who were unsuccessful at such tactics. As this chapter will show, Choctaw culture evolved to blend Native and American beliefs and practices. The mixture of ideologies, however, differed among individuals and groups and sparked further factionalism along material, political and religious lines. Despite socio-political and religious divides, acculturated Indians almost always took pride in their Choctaw heritage. With the aid missionary education, chiefs and commoners found new ways of maintaining their autonomy and reducing dependence on United States traders. The successes they experienced simultaneously created new bonds and divisions among the Choctaws.

Among the missionaries from various denominations who visited and worked among the Choctaw in Mississippi, which included Catholics, Baptists, and Methodists,

Presbyterians had the most profound impact on Choctaws before Removal because they served as a catalyst for cultural change. More Presbyterians entered Mississippi to convert

Natives than other denominations before 1830, and Choctaws wanted to benefit from their schools. Choctaws themselves gradually accepted these outsiders into their territory and communities because missionaries provided many benefits, material, ideological or

119 occupational. For over a decade before Choctaws removed, Presbyterians befriended headmen and commoners, recorded stories and opinions from a multitude of individuals both young and old, and wrote about the preservation of traditions and acculturation in arduous detail. Presbyterian records also speak about tensions between within Choctaw society, the emergence of factions, and tensions between chiefs and commoners that emerged as missionary education spread. Missionary records, therefore, represent an important resource for understanding Choctaw views, behaviors, and adaptation.

Missionary records provide a window through which one may view how

Choctaws incorporated American goods, skills, and subsistence practices into their daily lives, how the Federal government attempted to force total assimilation into American society and how Choctaws dealt with the threats to their communal stability. Americans like George Strother Gaines, who lived in Alabama and worked as a factor for the United

States, thought that using trade factories and missionary education for assimilation represented a viable plan. He observed, “To their patches of corn, potatoes, beans, pumpkins, etc., cotton began to be added. The white men among them introduced cows and horses, and many Indian families became owners of these useful animals.”

Concerning schools, Gaines stated that they “were . . . looked upon by the common

Indians with favor. The schools were now doing well every where they were established.”2 Trade factories promoted the transition from warrior-hunter subsistence by selling and trading a variety of goods. Factory goods aided in the transition of Choctaw

2 George Strother Gaines, The Reminiscences of George Strother Gaines: Pioneer and Statesman of Early Alabama and Mississippi, 1805-1843, ed., intro. and notes by James P. Pate (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 1998), 47-48, 77-78.

120 culture and cultivated peaceful relations with the United States on whom Natives depended for those goods. But economic contact did not “civilize savages,” nor did it obtain Indian lands on the scale that the government desired.3 Factories held much of the trade in Mississippi Territory statehood in 1817, but competition with private, freelance traders and land companies, other Natives, and frontiersmen hindered the government attempts at assimilating Natives and acquiring land.4

Factors and Federal officials considered freelance traders as “bad examples” for

Choctaw leaders who feared their powered was threatened, illegal tactics gave alcohol to

Indians and engaged in corrupt practices. As one individual observed by 1849, alcohol had served as the traders’ tool to rob Choctaws of their property for decades. Private traders found that Natives enjoyed the euphoria caused by liquor and became addicted to it. As the demand for alcohol increased, so too did the influx of furs from Indians who wanted more.5 To assimilate Choctaws into American society, factors attempted to change Native subsistence practices from hunting, gathering and horticulture to farming and ranching. They also opposed the alcohol trade. Private traders blocked these attempts

3 Clara Sue Kidwell, Choctaws and Missionaries, 1818-1918 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995), 25-26; Horatio B. Cushman, History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw and Natchez Indians, ed. Angie Debo, intro. Clara Sue Kidwell (Greenville, TX: Headlight Printing House, 1899; first reprint, Stillwater, OK: Redlands Press, 1962; second reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999), 77-78 (page citations are to the second reprint edition).

4 Joel W. Martin, Sacred Revolt: The Muskogees’ Struggle for a New World (Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1991), 66-67.

5 Ibid.; and Baldwin Möllhausen, Diary of a Journey from the Mississippi to the Coasts of the Pacific, vol. 1, intro. Peter A. Fritzell (New York, NY: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1969; 1858), 26-27.

121 by selling alcohol and promoting the continuation of the fur trade. Furthermore, alcoholism among Natives sparked violence with American settlers at an alarming rate, which in turn caused tensions between Choctaws and the Federal government.6 Choctaws would seek whatever means necessary to obtain the goods they desired, and they needed factories and traders to get them.

Presbyterian missionaries offered a partial solution to the problems of the Federal government and the Choctaw. Missionaries advanced government policy by helping assimilate Indians into American society by teaching Anglo-American occupations and socio-political ideas. For the Choctaw, missionary morality condemned and discouraged the use of alcohol. Although already present in Indian territory, traders had no experience in teaching or guiding the process of assimilation, nor did government officials believe they possessed the morals to mold Choctaw ideas and values into “American” ones.

Thomas L. McKenney, Secretary of the Office of Indian Trade, considered private traders immoral and dangerous. “A trader no sooner resolves on a commencement of his career than he fixes his eye upon the object in view; and that object is gain,” McKenney wrote,

“and so far as my information extends I have never detected any evidence going to shew the least unwillingness on the part of the private adventurer to adopt any resort that should promise to favor his scheme of profit.”7 John C. Calhoun, Secretary of War from

6 Thomas L. McKenney, Report on Indian Affairs, 19 August 1818 in Letters Received by the Secretary of War Relating to Indian Affairs, 1800-1823, Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Record Group 75, National Archives, Washington, D.C., microfilm publication M271, reel 2 (hereafter, M271 followed by reel number).

7 Thomas L. McKenney to John C. Calhoun, 19 August 1818, The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume III, 1818-1819, ed. W. Edwin Hemphill (Columbia: University of

122 1817 to 1825, thought the Federal government should use missionaries, who were people of “good moral character,” and were not corrupted by the avarice of commerce and greed.

To Calhoun, Presbyterians represented the perfect candidates for teaching Natives. They exhibited strong morals and were less likely to use Indian-United States relationships for profit than freelance traders. Missionaries established permanent boarding schools in

Indian territory and used their experience in teaching, linguistics, and preaching to

“civilize” the Indians.8

Established in 1796, the “Civilization Program” made possible the eventual establishment of mission schools in Choctaw territory. Aside from regulating trade with

American Indians, the policy promoted their assimilation into American society by teaching them to behave, work, and act like Americans.9 The plan focused on the

Southeast, but the impetus for establishing mission schools did not appear until the nineteenth century. In 1810, a group of ministers in Boston, influenced by the Second

Great Awakening, formed the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, which participate in the Civilization Program. Based on Presbyterian values and doctrine,

South Carolina Press, 1967), 47-48 [emphasis added].

8 Calhoun to Henry Clay, 5 December 1818, Calhoun Papers: Volume III, 350-52; Calhoun to McKenney, 19 May 1820, 129, and From Jedidah Morse, 12 January 1821, 636-37, both in The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume IV, 1819-1820, ed. W. Edwin Hemphill (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1969).

9 James Taylor Carson, Searching for the Bright Path: The Mississippi Choctaws from Prehistory to Removal (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1999), 7, 49; and “The Eastern Cherokee: Farmers of the Southeast,” This Land was Theirs: A Study of Native Americans, 7th ed., Wendell H. Oswalt, ed. (University of California, Los Angeles: McGraw-Hill Mayfield, 2002), 409-10.

123 servants of the Board traveled overseas to spread Christianity, but at least one individual publicly noted that “many millions of men [were] ‘sitting in darkness and in the region of shadow and death.’” If missionaries provided little or no aid to Natives in the Southeast, the Board thought, those Natives would become extinct.10

In May 1814, Board members saw progress in their efforts to convert and

“civilize” Indians and reported that several Southeastern Indians other than the Cherokee were taking up American customs.11 “They have already made great progress in agriculture and civilization, and are by degrees casting off the Indian habits and adopting the modes of the whites,” an observer wrote, They are gradually moving out of their villages, giving up the hunting life, clearing small plantations and raising domesticated animals.”12 The Board thought its calling was to convert and “save” these Natives.13

Although some Choctaws had changed their livelihoods, they continued to hold dear the traditional beliefs and practices of their spirituality. For example, when Gaines discussed

10 Nathan Bangs, An Authentic History of the Missions under the Care of the Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church (New York, 1832), microcard 1, 21 [hereafter Bangs, Authentic, followed by microcard and page number]; and American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, First Ten Annual Reports of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions with Other Documents from the Board (Boston: Printed by Crocker and Brewster, 1834), 18, 57-58.

11 John F. Schermerhorn, “Report Respecting the Indians Inhabiting the Western Parts of the United States” in Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, rep. ed., vol. 2 (1846; 1814), 20-21.

12 Ibid.

13 Kidwell, Missionaries, 25-26; and idem, “Choctaws and Missionaries in Mississippi Before 1830,” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 11:2 (1987): 52.

124 religion with Chief Little Leader of the Choctaw, he learned to his surprise that the chief and his followers still believed in the power of “rainmakers” despite prolonged contact with Christians. The first Presbyterians to arrive among the Choctaw reported several claims of witchcraft, witch hunts and stories about spirits who inhabited the forests.14

Although Choctaws emulated the lifestyles that missionaries taught, they continued to traditional spiritual views. To transform Native culture fully, Board representatives attempted to change Choctaws’ ideas about spiritualism, peace and alcohol.

Presbyterians already had a growing reputation for their effective methods of teaching and conversion, stemming from their success among the Cherokee. The

Cherokee school at Brainerd, Tennessee proved that Natives could be educated and converted. Secretary of War John C. Calhoun agreed to the establishment of schools for the Choctaw, but he stated that converting Indians to Christianity should not be the primary goal of the institutions. Calhoun wanted the Choctaw to learn about private property and become literate, both of which, he believed, would make the Indians submit to Federal desires during negotiations.15 Thomas L. McKenney influenced that opinion when he wrote to the House Committee on Indian Affairs in 1817. The letter had resounding consequences:

14 Gaines, Reminiscences, 77; and Journal of the Mission of Elliot, April 14 and April 21, 1819, Papers of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (Woodbridge, CT: Houghton Library of Harvard University, 1984-1985), microfilm, reel 755 [hereafter, ABCFM followed by reel number].

15 William A. Love, “The Mayhew Mission to the Choctaws,” Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society 11 (1910): 364.

125 In the present state of our country, one of the two things seems to be necessary: either that those sons of the forest should be moralized or exterminated. Humanity would rejoice at the former, but shrink with horror from the latter. Put into the hands of their children the primer and the hoe, and they will naturally, in time, take hold of the plough; and, as their minds become enlightened and expand, the Bible will be their book, and they will grow up in habits of morality and industry, leave the chase to those whose minds are less cultivated, and become useful members of society. . . .16

With support from McKenney, who had worked in the Office of Indian Trade, and the

Secretary of War, Presbyterians traveled to Mississippi Territory, spread the Gospel, and attempted to enlighten the Natives whom the missionaries thought lived in darkness.

Natives could learn to survive in a market economy through industry and labor. Schools would teach Indians moral standards common to whites, reduce Indian hostilities, and create functioning American citizens. Whereas trade houses provided crucial economic and political links, Presbyterians would teach the Choctaw how to become “white,” relying on Anglo-American goods and occupations to prosper. Federal assistance would portray the government in both a formidable and merciful light. The initial attempt to aid

Indians would not have a hefty price tag. As McKenney noted, the schools would experiment with acculturating Southeastern Indians. If successful, the government could appropriate more funds for boarding schools and more quickly and easily obtain land cessions from Natives.17

16 Thomas L. McKenney to Isaac Thomas, chairman of the House Committee on Indian Affairs in 1817, 22 January 1818, reprinted in Francis Paul Prucha, American Indian Policy in the Formative Years: The Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts, 1790-1834 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962), 220-21.

17 Ibid.

126 The Presbyterians, the Federal government, and the Choctaws obviously had different goals. Missionaries prioritized Christianizing over obtaining land treaties and literacy. The government preferred assimilation to conversion. Choctaws wanted goods and knowledge rather than full assimilation into another culture. Various factions among the Choctaw, whether ideological or geographical, did not agree with one another on all facets of missionaries education, which included conversion and teaching skills in labor, literacy and logic. Tradition dictated that chiefs take measures to protect their followers and provide opportunities to prosper, and what Presbyterians offered appeared a viable solution to protecting their chiefly power, Choctaw autonomy, and individual survival.

Under the auspices of the American Board of Commissioners, Presbyterians first arrived among the Choctaw and settled on the Yalobusha River in July 1818, where

Cyrus Kingsbury and Mr. And Mrs. Loring Williams established a boarding school.18

Before arriving in Choctaw Territory, Kingsbury and Loring Williams wrote to Samuel

Worchester, a friend and fellow missionary to the Cherokee, to acknowledge their goals.

Missionaries considered the goals of the Civilization Program as important, but these goals were “still secondary to the one primary object of securing holiness in the hearts of individuals.”19 Stating somewhat different goals to John C. Calhoun, Thomas C. Stuart wrote that missionaries cultivated the “head, heart, and hands.” Clergy developed the intellect through “reading, writing, spelling, geography, arithmetic, English grammar, and written composition.” They would teach vocational skills to boys, jobs that included

18 American Board, First Ten Annual Reports, 199-200.

19 Cyrus Kingsbury and Williams quoted in Kidwell, Missionaries, 29.

127 “carpentry, blacksmithing, agriculture, and animal husbandry,” and “missionary matrons” would teach girls to sew, spin, weave, knit and perform other domestic duties. Only then,

Stuart reported, did mentors teach spiritualism through “daily prayers, Bible study,

Christian doctrine, and abstinence from alcohol.” Missionaries had found Federal support for educating Indians, but they had to promote the Civilization Program’s goals to receive assistance.20 Thus, they claimed that their first priority was “civilizing,” but in truth they wanted to save souls first. Between 1818 and 1830, Stuart, Kingsbury, Williams, and

Worchester remained in constant contact with each other about the progress of mission schools among the Choctaw and Chickasaw, but did not reveal their primary goal to the government. They wanted to save souls first, then teach labor and commerce.

Kingsbury and Williams christened the first school “Elliot” after John Elliot, who in the seventeenth century converted Massachuset Indians by teaching, preaching, and translating the Bible into their language.21 On 27 June 1818, the missionaries began clearing land. Within a year, the school of Elliot and the surrounding area sprang to life with log cabins, a mill, stable, and store-house. Anticipating progress from Presbyterian educations, Choctaws aided the missionaries in clearing and building.22 By 1819, the

Civilization Fund Act had provided $10,000 a year to tribes who wanted to learn how to

20 Thomas C. Stuart quoted in Robert Milton Winter, Shadow of a Mighty Rock: A Social and Cultural History of Presbytereanism in Marshall County, Mississippi (Franklin, TN: Providence House Publishers, 1997), 24.

21 “First Annual Report of the Mission School at Elliot, Choctaw Nation, to the Autumn of 1819,” Panoplist and Missionary Herald 16 (Aug 1820): 79

22 “Mission to Choctaws,” Panoplist and Missionary Herald 16 (Dec 1820): 562; and Cushman, History, 72-73.

128 subsist like United States citizens. After observing the successes of Elliot by 1820,

Kingsbury and his wife founded the Mayhew mission near present-day Starkville.23

Presbyterians previously had used camp meetings to spread Christianity but had enjoyed no lasting successes. Elliot and Mayhew were nothing like these temporary and random mission camps. Instead, Presbyterian missions were permanent settlements within

Choctaw Territory. Their founders believed that an administrative organization, a staff specialized in educating Natives, and a permanent school within reasonable distance to

Indian homes could better acculturate students.24 Unlike camp meetings, boarding schools allowed students to live, work, and learn in a controlled environment. Life at the institutions centered on organized curriculums agreed upon by teachers, educational methodologies, and structured leadership.

During the first year, chiefs allowed missionaries to teach and preach as they wished, but rising tensions between the United States and chiefs regarding future land cessions put added pressures on Choctaw leaders to regulate curricula. In 1819, the

Federal government increased its efforts to negotiate a treaty that would obtain more

Choctaw lands through land cessions. Mushulatubbee and Pushmataha, two of the three

23 Kidwell, Missionaries, 35; and “Letter from the Missionaries at Elliot to the Corresponding Secretary, 12 June 1820,” Panoplist and Missionary Herald 16 (Sept 1820): 416-17.

24 Love, “Mayhew,” 364; and Cyrus Kingsbury, M. Jewett, A. Williams, J.G. Vanouse to Samuel Worchester, April 1819-May 31, 1819, ABCFM, 755. For a discussion of camp meetings among the Choctaws, see Holland N. McTyeire, A History of Methodism: Comprising a View of the Rise of the Revival of Spiritual Religion in the First Half of the Eighteenth Century, and of the Principle Agents by Whom it was Promoted in Europe and America (Nashville, TN: Publishing House of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South [hereafter, PHMECS], 1898), 577-80.

129 principal chiefs of the Choctaw Nation, responded to these efforts on August 12 of the same year at a council meeting. They acknowledged the President as the person responsible for establishing the school at Elliot. They regretted to say that they had little land left and refused to cede anymore of it. Rumors spread that the United States would suggest for the Choctaw to remove from lands east of the Mississippi River. This proposition, Mushulatubbee stated, was unfathomable. The Choctaw insisted that they would “not to leave the country of our forefathers” and “remain where we have always lived.” Pushmataha similarly noted that he and his followers did “not wish to be transplanted into another soil.” United States officials claimed that some Choctaws already had removed to territory in the west, but Pushmataha corrected that “these are considered straglers” and “have no houses or places of residence.”25 These outcasts from

Choctaw society escaped the problems faced by the bulk of the Nation and were no longer considered members of the community. For leaders like Pushmataha and Mushulatubbee, those outcasts denied traditional beliefs of self-sufficiency and survival. Choctaws who intentionally separated themselves from their communities ran away from the challenges faced by all Choctaws in Mississippi. Their actions symbolized fear and cowardice.

Choctaws remained a powerful and influential ethnic group, but survival meant supporting and trusting in the leadership and decisions of chiefs rather than breaking from them. Escapism threatened not only chiefs’ power but also Choctaw autonomy and even survival. Choctaws who attempted to break with their communities indefinitely

25 Mashoolatubby and Pooshamataha, In General Council of the Choctaw Nation, 12 August 1819, M271, 2.

130 threatened not only the power of chiefs, who appeared unable to control followers, but also autonomy. Against the United States, whose Federal officials promoted assimilation as a means of survival, chiefs realized that Choctaws must band together to preserve independence. For commoners, the decision to break with communities in Mississippi might provide new opportunities for prosperity elsewhere. For chiefs, followers who left meant a dissolution of power both in the eyes of the Federal government and the remainder of Choctaws.

Along with Federal negotiators, Cyrus Kingsbury attended the General Council at

Upper French Camp in August to promote the missionaries’s goals. Two days before the chiefs refused to cede more land to the United States, Kingsbury observed ominous practices among commoners and headmen, particularly that several kegs of whiskey were shared in the camp. He spoke with headmen concerning the schools and wrote that a number of chiefs expressed an interest in supporting the institutions. Kingsbury certainly realized that a treaty might allot funds for boarding schools but only if the chiefs agreed to such stipulations, but he thought the meeting itself would achieve little.26 The

Choctaws there would prove Kingsbury wrong.

A new, influential group of bicultural, or “mixed-blood,” Choctaws emerged in support of acculturation, particularly American education. Typically, white traders married Indian women. The most notable families included the Folsoms, Pitchlynns,

Greens, Leflores and Coles. Unions between white men and Choctaw women often

26 Extracts from the Journal of the Brethren at Elliot, 7, 10 August 1819, ABCFM, 755.

131 produced children who received Choctaw status through matrilineal descent from mothers and access to education through their fathers. That they had white fathers meant that bicultural children enjoyed political respect outside the confines of Indian political systems.27 During the first twenty-five years of the nineteenth century, they did not represent a new faction. Rather, they held many of same views as chiefs, supported political ideas and played an important role in the establishment of mission schools.

Bicultural Choctaws lived in two worlds, one Native and the other American. They often traced their lineage matrilineally but practiced non-traditional occupations such as owning stores and inns.28 Chiefs hoped this experience in both worlds would provide them with the knowledge necessary to fight against land cession and sought missionary education to educated their “full-blood” sons and nephews.

In 1818, David Folsom emerged as one of the most influential and respected

Choctaw leaders. He attained status through non-traditional and traditional means. In the

1770s, Nathaniel Folsom, David’s father, traveled to Choctaw territory from North

Carolina with his family where to trade with the Indians. After a disagreement with his father, Nathaniel, nineteen years old at the time, left his family and began working for a

27 This study uses the term “bicultural” to denote Choctaws of mixed with those of non-mixed ancestry. The terms “mixed-blood,” “half-blood,” and “half-breed” were ethnocentric terms used by outsiders to pit individuals of mixed ancestry against the greater community of Choctaws. For two pertinent studies about bicultural Natives, see Theda Perdue, “Mixed Blood” Indians: Racial Construction in the Early South (Athens: University of Georgia, 2003); and Andrew K. Frank, Creeks and Southerners: Biculturalism on the Early American Frontier (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2005).

28 Carson, Bright Path, 70-71

132 man whom he called “Mr. Welsh.” He learned to speak Choctaw, though he “was never perfect in the language,” and traded in the Nation.29 He married Aiahnichih Ohoyoh, a niece of chief Puskush and a descendent of the Hattakiholihta Iksa. Aiahnichih Ohoyoh and Nathaniel had a son, whom they named David.30 Born in 1791, David was sixteen when he first attended school on the Elk River. His father arranged for him to live with

Indian Agent Samuel Mitchell in Tennessee, who had married David’s sister Molly. The young Folsom learned English and received an American education at a “common school,” which he attended for six months. After Molly’s death, he returned to

Mississippi, took up the family business, working at his father’s tavern and trading post located on the Natchez Trace.31 Although he had prospered American business, Folsom traced his lineage to his mother, a descendent of chiefs. In part, status and respect originated through matrilineal lines. The status of Aiahnichih, David’s mother, provided him with the respect needed to influence Choctaw national affairs and sway the opinions

29 Memoir of Mr. Nathaniel Folsom, Jay L. Hargett Collection, Box H-57, 59 Western History Collection, University of Oklahoma [Hereafter, collection name, WHCUOK, followed by box and folder number].

30 Cushman 328; and Carson, Bright Path, 15-17; Jesse O. McKee and Jon A. Schlenker, The Choctaw: Cultural Evolution of a Native American Tribe (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1980), 16-17; Grayson Noley, “The Early 1700s: Education, Economics, and Politics,” in The Choctaw before Removal, ed. Carolyn Keller Reeves (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1985), 123-25; Angie Debo, The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Republic, 2d ed. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1961), 15-16; and John R. Swanton, Source Material for the Social and Ceremonial Life of the Choctaw Indians, foreword by Kenneth H. Carleton (originally published as Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 103, 1931; reprint, Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2001), 76-78 (page citations are to the reprint edition).

31 Cushman, History, 287, 332, 326-28, 332; and Czarina C. Conlan, “David Folsom,” Chronicles of Oklahoma 4:4 (Dec. 1926): 340-41.

133 of chiefs. During the War of 1812, Folsom obtained the rank of “captain,” a term incorporated into Choctaw politics to distinguish high-status leaders who did not hold the rank of chief.32 Chiefs regarded people like David Folsom as symbols of a brighter future who represented the best of both worlds. He wanted to see Choctaws flourish as an independent, autonomous nation but do so by incorporating new ideas work from

Americans.

With the help of Folsom, chiefs sought missionary education for their followers.

When Choctaw learned of the Cherokee school at Brainerd, Georgia, they wrote to the

American Board of Commissioners and asked for the establishment of their own institutions. Their request for schools manifested the chiefs’ desire to teach some individuals to farm, buy and sell, and produce metal goods like Americans and others to read, comprehend and interpret texts. The “White Man’s Book,” as they called the Bible, not only would teach Indians how to live, but also literacy would serve as a tool for fighting corrupt negotiations and treaties. The ability to read and write would allow

Choctaws to understand the stipulations outlined in treaties and thereby better negotiate fairer pacts.33

David Folsom wrote to the American Board in 1818 to problems Choctaws faced and explain why Natives needed missionary schools. Folsom wrote that Choctaws were a

“people much in need for help and instruction,” and that “the peoples at the Nation have

32 Swanton, Source, 119-24.

33 C. Kingsbury, L. Williams, W. Prise, Issac Fisk to Samuel Worchester, Sept. 7, 1819-Sept. 21, 1819, ABCFM, microfilm, reel 755; and Cushman, History, 77-78.

134 still hunted for game and they have in many become in want.” His people needed schools to learn “industrys and farming” and “lay . . . hunting aside.34 He wrote to President

James Monroe and stated that “[w]ith anxious desire I look forward to the day when

School will be established in my Nation, and our Children [sic] be taught to reade [sic] and write the talk of our white Brethren,” but chiefs also wrote to Monroe and reminded him that despite their desire for schools, they would not leave their lands.35 ” Folsom spoke for other Choctaws who had similar desires and echoed their concerns to the missionaries. District chiefs held the same views as Folsom. Each of the leaders realized that Choctaws needed greater change to survive the threat posed by Americans.

As a fellow headman, Folsom wanted to bring new opportunities to followers while promoting peace with Americans. When Kingsbury attended a council meeting in

1819, the headmen of the Choctaw Nation portrayed their support not only in speech but in deeds. There, Folsom drew upon the tradition that great oratory demanded respect from commoners. He spoke to the crowds and fellow leaders in a “very animated manner for a considerable time on the importance of schools.” On that day, headmen provided between

80 and 90 cows and calves and over $1300 in cash for the schools, all testament to their support of the changes missionary education might bring.36

34 David Folsom to Elias Cornelius, 16 July 1818 in Cushman, History, 291; and “Letter of David Folsom,” Missionary Herald 17 (Oct 1821): 310-11.

35 David Folsom to James Monroe and John C. Calhoun, 9 October 1818, Calhoun : Volume III, 195-96; and Pooshemullaha and Mishulatubbe to President James Monroe, 30 October 1818, Calhoun Papers: Volume III, 243.

36 Extracts from the Journal of the Brethren at Elliot, 12 August 1819, ABCFM, 755.

135 Between 1820 and 1824, the danger of United States encroachment and Federal pressures for land cessions appeared more threatening than in the previous decade because the United States threatened to overtake Indian lands in that were previously given for land in Mississippi and without compensation for the lands in

Arkansas. Leaders feared that their followers would die from starvation. As discussions about another treaty spread throughout Choctaw ranks, James Pitchlynn, a bicultural son of a Choctaw interpreter employed by the Federal government, claimed that between one third and one half of Choctaws east of the Mississippi would remove with their families if offered a treaty. Pitchlynn claimed that several families already had gone over the

Mississippi River to settle in the West.37 Some Choctaws, who had refused to acculturate, moved west to maintain traditional practices of hunting and warfare. Others moved to reduce contact with Americans. This news induced the Federal government to increase efforts to obtain lands from the Choctaw, but diplomatic barriers blocked

American goals. Pitchlynn wrote that the “half Breeds have assumed a stand I little

Expected them to take,” and a few of them “threatened to knock [him] in the head” because he supported further cessions and removal.38 The resolve of some leaders

37 From James Pitchlynn, 18 March 1819, American State Papers: Indian Affairs, 2 vols. (Washington, D.C.: Published by Gales and Seaton, 1834), 229 [hereafter ASP:IA followed by page number]. Also reproduced as James Pitchlynn to John C. Calhoun [?], Choctaw Nation, 18 March 1819, Calhoun Papers: Volume III, 674-75.

38 James Pitchlynn to Andrew Jackson, 13 September 1819, Calhoun Papers: Volume IV, 323; and Andrew Jackson to John C. Calhoun, 30 December 1818, The Papers of Andrew Jackson: Volume IV, 1816-1820, eds. Harold D. Moser, David R. Hoth, George H. Hoemann (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1994), 263- 64.

136 crumbled under outside pressure. Redfort, a chief and headman of a village in the Six

Towns District, told Pitchlynn that his warriors wished to exchange lands east of the

Mississippi River for territory west of it, but only if the Federal government bought and provided “improvements.”39 Redfort felt the same pressures as did other chiefs, but he thought the only way to provide for his followers and protect his power was to cede land.

He considered survival and maintaining his status in another land a better option when compared to remaining in Mississippi, losing his command and bringing death to his people.

Most chiefs and headmen, including individuals of mixed ancestry and the three district chiefs of the Nation, opposed cessions, but old tactics of negotiating with the

Federal government proved fruitless in protecting land and autonomy. Headmen realized that without American aid, Choctaws would lose important resources needed for their survival. District chiefs Mushulatubbee and Puckshunubbee wrote to Reverend Samuel

Worcester that the Choctaws’ “game is gone; and missionaries tell us, the Good Spirit points out to us now this new and better way to get our meat, and provide bread and clothes for ourselves, women and children.”40 David Folsom thought that the situation had grown worse as game reserves continued to dwindle through the 1820s. He invited

Cyrus Kingsbury to his home at Pigeon Roost and translated lessons and sermons into

Choctaw. During frequent conversations with Kingsbury, Folsom discussed the goals of

39 James Pitchlynn, to [James Monroe], 29 January 1820, Calhoun Papers: Volume IV, 616.

40 Letter from the Choctaw Chiefs to the Rev. Dr. Worcester, 4 June 1820, Panoplist and Missionary Herald 16 (Aug 1820): 379.

137 chiefs and desires of commoners. He claimed both groups had seen the successes and prosperity that the “good Book” provided to Americans, but leaders and commoners feared further loss of land.41

In 1819, American officials in Choctaw Territory said that chiefs had agreed to meet with commissioners regarding a treaty. Biculturual Choctaws claimed differently.

Edmund Folsom, brother to David Folsom, stated in September 1820 that the Six Towns and villages in other districts refused to sell or exchange any more land, and the Folsom brothers had advised the leaders of the districts, village leaders, and other headmen to oppose the cessions demanded by the United States.42 When chiefs met commissioners, they faced hard choices. They set out to negotiate a fair pact, which they hoped would protect schools, autonomy and peace, but leaders did not want to exchange or sell land to achieve these goals. Despite persistent refusals of chiefs, when government officials learned of Choctaw migrations to the West during the previous year, they thought the right treaty negotiators could obtain territorial cessions. The Federal government dispatched Andrew Jackson.43

Andrew Jackson served as a treaty commissioner in 1820 and quickly destroyed the trust of the Choctaw Nation and its chiefs. In 1816, the Treaty of Fort Confederation exchanged approximately 10,000 acres for annuities and merchandise, which benefitted

41 March 26, 1821, Journal of the Mission at Elliot, Choctaw Nation, 1820-21, ABCFM, 755.

42 From James Pitchlynn, 22 June 1819, ASP:IA, 2:231; and From John McKee, 13 August 1819, ASP:IA, 2:230.

43 Andrew Jackson to John C. Calhoun, 19 June 1820, ASP:IA, 2:230-31.

138 Choctaws, but chiefs opposed further cessions. That treaty did not have the far-reaching impact of the Treaty of Doak’s Stand, arranged by Jackson. The future president promoted the power of the United States over Indians, and district chiefs Puckshunubbee,

Mushulatubbee, and Pushmataha witnessed the corruption of the Federal government first-hand. “The arm of your father the President is strong,” Jackson stated, “and will protect the poor Indian from the threats of the white man and half breed, who are growing rich by their labor.”44 Jackson used status divisions to convince leaders to sign treaties.

He claimed thievery and distrust characterized the bicultural population despite the fact that Choctaws of mixed ancestry had often worked leaders to achieve common goals and would continue to do so for decades to come. Yet, Jackson’s words did not appear entirely hollow. Mixed children did boast biological links to whites, whom leaders declared untrustworthy and greedy. Chiefs feared the possibility that bicultural Choctaws might move to take power. Without Federal aid, Jackson argued, the Choctaw would not

“prosper as a nation,” and the President could not help those who insisted on remaining east of the Mississippi River. He even threatened to close mission schools if Chiefs did not sign the treaty. Perhaps Jackson produced the most ruthless threat ever employed by an American treaty commissioner. It involved the district chief Puckshanubbee, whose grandson-in-law had deserted the United States army. Jackson arrested the deserter and

44 Andrew Jackson to Choctaw Indians, Choctaw Treaty Ground, October 3, 1820, Jackson Papers: Volume IV, 391-92.

139 secretly told Puckshanubbee that the his daughter and granddaughter would suffer if he did not sign the treaty.45

By using intimidation and threats, particularly taking mission schools and undermining Federal protection against Indian enemies, Jackson obtained the signatures he required. He had served as a commissioner to the Choctaw since the Treaty of Fort

Stephens in 1816. Jackson employed threats, intimidation, and blackmail to an advantage.

While the Doak’s Stand Treaty did not completely remove the Choctaw from Mississippi.

It did exchange over 5 million acres in Mississippi for land in . The cession represented a massive tract compared to the 10,000 acres ceded in 1816. Initially,

Pushmataha and Mushulatubbee refused to sign the Doak’s Stand Treaty in 1820, but the commissioner’s threats pushed chiefs to agree to Federal terms.46 Jackson called upon the

Choctaw to “Frown upon evil counsellors,” namely bicultural individuals, and only trust in the Federal government. The United States, the commissioner claimed, was obligated to protect the Choctaw but would no longer aid those east of the Mississippi. For this

45 Robert B. Ferguson, “Treaties between the United States and the Choctaw Nation, 1786-1830,” The Choctaw before Removal, ed. Carolyn Keller Reeves (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1985), 216-17; Jackson to Calhoun, 30 December 1818, 263-64, and John McKee to Andrew Jackson, 13 August 1819, 265 n.1, 313, both in Jackson Papers: Volume IV; and Anna Lewis, Chief Pushmataha: American Patriot (New York: Exposition Press, Inc., 1959), 146. On 3 March 1821, Calhoun ordered Thomas L. McKenney to send William Ward, Choctaw Agent, to bribe warriors to remove with 500 blankets, 500 kettles, 500 rifles, and 1,000 pounds of powder and lead. See, To Thomas L. McKenney, Georgetown, D.C., March 28, 1821, The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume V, 1820-1821, ed. W. Edwin Hemphill (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1971), 704.

46 Lewis, Pushmataha, 141, 151, 155-57, 164-67, 174; and Ferguson, “Treaties,” 217-19,

140 reason, Jackson supported removal to western lands as the most viable option for Native survival.47 The Treaty of Doak’s Stand was signed on October 18, and Choctaws exchanged 5,169,788 acres in Mississippi for about 13,000,000 acres of “wild territory” on the Red River in present-day Arkansas. It provided resources, such as a blacksmith and materials for building homes and fences, and funds for the establishment of additional mission schools.48

Doak’s Stand represented another catalyst for cultural change because leaders, chiefs and other headmen, spouses of Choctaw wives, and parents of bicultural children again increased their support for schools and promoted education in a variety of ways.

Some headmen attempted to draw missionary support by simply asking for new schools.

For example, Pushmataha asked for a mission in the Six Towns district. Others, such as

David Folsom and Peter Pitchlynn, son of a United States trader and interpreter asked missionaries to establish additional, smaller schools in conjunction with larger ones to continue the process of “civilization.”49 Folsom and Pitchlynn oversaw the progress of

47 Andrew Jackson to Choctaw Indians, 17 October1820, Jackson Papers: Volume IV, 394-96.

48 Ferguson, “Treaties,” 217-18; Cyrus Kingbury to Andrew Jackson, 18 October 1820, ASP:IA, 232-33; and Treaty of Doak’s Stand, 18 October 1820, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, 2 vols., comp. and ed. Charles J. Kappler (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904), 2:191-95, Oklahoma State University Electronic Publishing Center: Digital Collections, Stillwater, OK, Online, Path: Oklahoma State University Electronic Publishing Center/Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties/Volume II (Treaties, 1778-1883): Table of Contents/Choctaw: Treaty with the Choctaw, 1820.

49 “Projected Station at the Six Towns” and “Projected Station at the French Camps,” Missionary Herald 18 (Jan 1822): 9; “Projected School for the Six Towns,” Missionary Herald 17 (Sept 1821): 287; “Scite of a New Station,” Missionary Herald 19

141 missionaries, and both gave speeches to encourage students, who came from both commoner and elite backgrounds, to work hard and pay attention to their lessons. In these speeches, they told the students to respect the missionaries, the need to learn English, and adopt values and ideas inherent in American society. By striving for these goals, they argued, children would succeed, prosper, and become strong political figures among the

Choctaw. Folsom and Pitchlynn had succeeded in getting support from headmen, but the efforts of Choctaw leaders would mean little if the children did not succeed and believe in the doctrines taught by the missionaries. Notably, the speeches did not focus on conversion as the missionaries may have hoped but rather on improving lifestyles, learning to think logically, obtaining knowledge associated with “various mechanical arts,” and becoming literate.50 These skills, Folsom and Pitchlynn hoped, would provide a brighter future for young Choctaws, protect the authority of headmen, and ultimately help

Choctaws produce the goods for which they had once traded.

Some chiefs attempted to induce missionaries to establish more schools and protect those institutions already built by changing laws in the localities they controlled.

(Jan 1823): 8-9; Cyrus Kingsbury to J. Evarts, 17 May 1822, Cyrus Kingsbury Collection, WHCUOK, Folder 6, copy number 2 [hereafter followed by folder number and copy number]; “Letter from David Folsom,” Missionary Herald 17 (Oct 1821): 311; and Kingsbury, Moses Jewett, Isaac Fisk, William Pride, and Loring S. Williams to Samuel Worcester, 21 September 1819, ABCFM, 755.

50 “Maj. Pitchlyn and Capt. Folsom’s address to the School,” Missionary Herald 18 (Dec 1822): 376; and David Folsom to Reverent Cyrus C. Byington, Hargett, WHCUOK, H-57, 18. Some scholars claimed that few commoners and even fewer “full- blood” Indians attended these missionary schools. In 1999, James Carson found differently and calculated that not only were the majority of students of full-blood ancestry by removal but the group was characterized by mixed status. See Carson, Bright Path, 84, 166-67n72.

142 Combating alcohol abuse represented one tactic for convincing missionaries to establish schools near their homes. Missionaries abhored alcohol abuse and heard frequent tales of

Choctaws who suffered from overindulgence. Stories emerged within communities about the effects of alcohol on Natives. One tale told of a man who became intoxicated and was taken prisoner by a forest spirit called the “great Bullfrog.” Another story claimed that a man discovered a witch and received a house as a reward. When he became drunk from whisky, he lost the home. Later, the same man, missionaries wrote, “got drunk, & and in his fit of intoxication, threatened to destroy, by witchcraft, two other Indians, who had offended him.” The threatened individuals killed the drunken man.51 These stories portrayed the ills caused by alcohol, but intoxication continued. David Folsom wrote to his brother Israel that alcohol abuse ruined the lives of Choctaws every day. The chiefs drank obsessively and “when the headmen do bad, the Warriors will do as their leaders.”52

Aside from Folsom, headmen provided means for their followers to obtain educations, but excessive drinking portrayed behaviors that might destroy commoners’ ability to excel at mission schools if not checked.

Headmen combated alcohol sales and consumption in order to convince missionaries to establish additional schools. A council of Choctaws organized the “light horse company” in 1821 with funds provided from Article 13 of the Doak’s Stand Treaty.

51 Journal of the Mission of Elliot, 15 July 1819, ABCFM, 755.

52 David Folsom to Israel Folsom, 29 March 1822, ABCFM, 757; Colonel James R. Creecy, Scenes in the South, and other Miscellaneous Pieces (Washington: Thomas McGill, Printer, 1860), 118-21; and Paul Wilhelm, Duke of Württemberg, Travels in North America, 1822-1824, trans. W. Robert Nitske, ed. Savoie Lottinville (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1973), 33, 132.

143 Consisting of ten men on horses, one company for each of the three districts, the light horse served as a police force and was first formed to enforce temperance laws that headmen gradually instituted throughout the Choctaw Nation. The light-horse served under district and local chiefs, but held immense authority throughout the Nation. In theory, if a chief broke laws regarding spirits, they too could be punished by the light horse. Although the sources are not clear, light horse members probably consisted of warriors who had obtained prestige in battle, hunting or by obtaining an education. As a police force, the group oversaw the enforcement of laws, including theft, alcohol sales and consumption and murder. Both before and after removal, the organization won wide public approval for promoting the ideas of leaders and preserving peace internally. When traders first arrived in the area, Choctaws rushed to obtain whiskey:

Four years ago the price was $1 per bottle of about ½ pint. No sooner was it announced that a cargo of whiskey had arrived than all within hearing would assemble & never quit the place until it was drank up. Those who had money would give it. When that was wanting clothes, blankets, guns, horses & eery species of property would be freely given in exchange for whiskey with very little regard to the comparative value of the articles. It would be impossible to describe the evils, which resulted from this practice. Poverty, wretchedness, quarelling & _____filled the country. . . .53

53 “Extracts from the Journal Kept at Mayhew,” Missionary Herald 18 (Apr. 1822): 103; “Extracts from the Journal of the Mission,” Missionary Herald 19 (Jan. 1823): 8; Doak’s Stand in Kappler, Indian Affairs, 2:191-95, Oklahoma State University Electronic Publishing Center: Digital Collections, Stillwater, OK, Online, Path: Oklahoma State University Electronic Publishing Center/Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties/Volume II (Treaties, 1778-1883): Table of Contents/Choctaw: Treaty with the Choctaw, 1820; John R. Swanton, Source Material for the Social and Ceremonial Life of the Choctaw Indians, foreword by Kenneth H. Carleton (originally published as Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 103, 1931; reprint, Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2001), 94 (page citations are to the reprint edition), 107-108; Carson, Bright Path, 76; and Journal of the Mission at Mayhew, 13 November 1823, ABCFM, 755.

144 With the development of the light horse, trade in whiskey there decreased significantly.

The patrols confiscated and destroyed barrels of whiskey then punished those selling or drinking it.54

The influence and skill of the light horse grew so rapidly that they became agents of change and a tool for chiefs to implement laws within the nation. In 1822 Captain Red

Fort instituted other regulations that the light horse enforced. The policies included laws against infanticide, stealing, and adultery. Red Fort wanted schools established in his district. He stated that he made these changes because he wanted to “see the good work” before his death for the Choctaws who “wish[ed] to follow the ways of the white people” and receive education. Furthermore, this was the first time he had enacted such laws in his community in hopes that the missionaries would remember his actions.55 Other headmen used the light horse to collect debts, punish violations of minor laws, and pass judgements on offenses, including passing execution sentences for murders. As one observer wrote, they served as “sheriff, judge and jury.”56 When the light horsemen arrived amid crowds of individuals who were not acting in a lawful manner, according to claims of missionaries, the crowds dispersed and ceased their meanderings.57

54 Ibid.; and Herman J. Viola, Thomas McKenney: Architect of America’s Early Indian Policy: 1816-1830 (Chicago, IL: Sage Books, the Swallow Press, Inc., 1974), 177- 78.

55 Tuttle, Conversations, 2:24-26.

56 “Extracts from the Journal Kept at Mayhew,” Missionary Herald 18 (Apr. 1822): 103; and Cushman, History, 157-58.

57 Cushman, History, 159.

145 After missionaries established the Elliot and Mayhew schools, headmen not only fought to have additional schools built but also direct educations based on what those leaders desired for themselves and their followers. Headmen realized that written treaties signified contractual agreements between Indians and the Federal government. Spoken words no longer bound agreements between parties, but signed documents did. To successfully fight land cessions, Choctaw leaders believed they had to understand written documents or use people who had that knowledge to effectively combat cessions. After the Doak’s Stand Treaty, headmen demanded that missionary educators emphasize reading and writing and attempted to direct missionary education towards literacy. When missionaries failed to teach reading and writing, some headmen were disappointed.

Presbyterians feared if they did not agree to the chiefs’ demands, students would abandon schools or chiefs would withhold funding for the institutions.58 Presbyterians could not afford such failures that certainly would destroy their chances of achieving missionary and Federal goals. Similarly, chiefs believed that missionaries offered knowledge found in the Bible, and the interpretation of that knowledge was valuable for teaching Choctaws to change their lifestyles. For missionaries, Choctaw misunderstanding of the Bible would serve as an advantage.

Through an interpreter, district chiefs of the Choctaw Nation wrote that “they wished their children taught the better way of life, which was found in the ‘White Man’s

58 Love, “Mayhew Mission,” 378.

146 Book.’ That they were equally as worthy as the Cherokees.”59 When visiting Elliot, chiefs were most impressed by students who learned “spelling, excercise for speaking—english, and singing.”60 Headmen often brought their own children to receive educations. The famed and influential district chief Pushmataha was no exception; he took his nephew to

Elliot to receive a missionary education in 1820. Before the establishment of the school,

Pushmataha used his influence with George Strother Gaines, who allowed the chief’s nephew to receive private lessons from “several of the gentlemen” at the St. Stephens trading station. The chief hoped missionaries would build upon the learning his nephew had already received, which included the ability to read and write well and some knowledge in geography.61 By using his nephew’s knowledge and experience,

Pushmataha might protect Choctaw autonomy and maintain his own power.

Leaders knew that not all children would have the intellect, patience, and stamina to succeed in school. For the these other Choctaws, leaders hoped to promote education in

American subsistence methods, production, and buying and selling in a market economy.

Upon multiple visits to the schools, chiefs approved of the vocational education students

59 ABCFM representative quote from the “Society for propagating the Gospel among the Indians and others in North America,” reported in Massachusetts Historical Society Collections, Second Series II, n.d., quoted in Love, “Mayhew Mission,” 369-70;

60 Journal of the Mission at Elliot, 3 June 1821, ABCFM, 755.

61 “Mission among the Choctaws,” Missionary Herald 17 (Feb. 1821): 49. That Pushmataha took his nephew to receive an education at Elliot is not surprising. In matrilineal Choctaw society, biological uncles served as father figures to young males. For a discussion of matrilineal beliefs, see Patricia Galloway, “‘The Chief Who is Your Father:’ Choctaw and French Views of the Diplomatic Relation” in Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast, eds. Peter H. Wood, Gregory A. Waselkove, and M. Thomas Hatley (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989), 254-78.

147 received from missionaries. As an observer wrote, chiefs that visited Elliot in 1821 were astounded that students learned blacksmithing, carpentry and how to buy, sell, and trade goods fairly.62 Like Pushmataha, Puckshunubbee took his nephew to Elliot. Unlike the former chief, the latter wanted his nephew to learn trades. Upon taking him to the school, the chiefs stated, “I give him up to you, to put him to a trade, or on the farm as you please,

& to do with him in every respect as you think best . . . because whites think Indians are lazy and Indians will starve.”63 Puckshunubbee appeared genuinely concerned about

Choctaw survival. His statement not only revealed concern over the future of his nephew but also the desire for him to become an example for other Choctaws. He hoped that

Choctaws would change and live new lifestyles independent of hunting, warfare, and the

United States.

Robert Cole, a bicultural Choctaw and captain, supported schools because missionaries taught students trades. Cole often questioned how missionaries used the money he and his fellow headmen gave to the schools, but he saw the missionaries and the education they provided as advantageous to the Choctaw people. He once told Cyrus

Kingbury, “Brother, we want you to teach us ways of white people. We want you to each our children different kinds of trades.”64 Kingsbury replied that funds were used to benefit the children. Although Cole was satisfied with the answer, he expressed concern that

62 Ibid.

63 Kingsbury, L. Williams, M. Jewett, I. Fisk, W. Pride to Samuel Worcester, 12 June 1820, and Journal of Elliott, 2 February 1822, both in ABCFM, 755.

64 Journal of Elliott, 6 February 1823, ABCFM, 755.

148 students did not learn fast enough. On another occasion, Cole reprimanded missionaries for what he considered ill treatment of his family. In June 1821, W. McCurtain (often written Curtin) removed his children from school. Curtain was married to Robert Cole’s sister, and according to Choctaw law, Cole had more authority as a father figure than

McCurtain. Angered by McCurtain’s decision to remove the students from Elliott, Cole fought to get them readmitted. He drafted a petition signed by fellow headmen Captain

Levi Perry, Tuscamiubby, Tagleontubby, Anoaga, Hiacagey, Naholeubby,

Checoanchabby, Nethlahomachubby. McCurtain had little influence among the Choctaw, but Cole certainly did and was slated to succeed Puckshunubbee as a district chief. At first, the missionaries at Eliot refused to admit the students because they had instituted limits upon the number of students allowed to board at the institutions. Choctaws wanted the missionaries to take all children they brought.65 Saddened over the “condition of the children,” in November Cole took twelve children, six of whom were McCurtain’s, to

Elliot and stated that he wished for the missionaries to “keep them till we can learn them no more.” Given Cole’s station within the Nation, the missionaries reinstated the students and also allowed six additional children to join Elliot.66 Cole’s fight to provide educations for these children indicated his esteem for the mission schools. His eventual success also

65 Ibid.; Copy of Captain Cole’s Petition, 6 June 1821, ABCFM, 755; and “Extracts of Letters from Mr. Kingsbury,” Missionary Herald 17 (Nov 1821): 346-47.

66 Journal of Elliot, 28 November 1821, ABCFM, 755; and “Extracts of the Journal Kept at Elliot: Return of Children to School,” Missionary Herald 18 (Mar 1822): 78 [emphasis in original].

149 gave him respect and power among commoners, who frequently asked Cole to take their children to schools and ask for their admittance as students.67

Headmen and parents of bicultural children showed their support by providing funding and resources. In support of the schools and all the scholars, headmen gave cash payments “out of pocket.” In 1819, the Elliot school received “75 cows, 10 steers, 8 yearlings, 67 calf and 8 horses.”68 In 1821 an “aged Indian chief” named Tusheamiubbee arrived from his home located 40 miles from Elliot, “gave him [his grandson of 12 or 14 years of age] entirely up to our care” for instruction. As a sign of good faith and support,

Tusheamiubbee also brought a cow and calf for the school.69 A father who had two bicultural children at Elliot, gave cows, calves and steers to the institution.70 On 30 June

1822, Mushulatubbee visited the Mayhew mission with several captains and warriors; he brought two sons and a nephew to enroll in school. Another aged Indian gave grandchildren over to schools on the same day. The visitors were impressed to see

Choctaw “full-bloods” and “half-breeds” working in the blacksmith shop “beating hot iron” and in the joiners shop. When headmen asked how them “white people prospered & became numerous & the red people became few & feeble,” missionaries answered that

67 Extracts of the Journal Kept at Elliot: Return of Children to School,” Missionary Herald 18 (Mar 1822): 78.

68 Kingsbury, Moses Jewett, Isaac Fisk, Wiliam Pride, and Loring S. Williams to Samuel Worcester, 21 September 1819, ABCFM, 755.

69 Journal of Elliot, 14 June 1821, ABCFM, 755; and Missionary Herald 17 (Oct 1821): 310.

70 Journal of the Mission of Elliot, 3 July 1819, ABCFM, 755.

150 the Bible taught the “to be industrious, sober; to educate their children; to obey the great

Spirit. The red people never had this good book; have never been taught the good way; have not educated their children; this is the reason why they have become few & feeble & poor.”71 According to the missionaries, Presbyterian education, which focused on the teachings found in Christian texts, provided the knowledge needed to live, survive and prosper as Americans. Missionaries served as the interpreters of those texts and the teachers of knowledge that would save Choctaws from destruction.

For these reasons, headmen continued to promote education in literacy and industry together and support schools with resources, funding and additional students.

The donations helped form the foundations of education for the bulk of individuals who attended Choctaw schools because their learning focused on husbandry, farming, and blacksmithing.72 By teaching how better to raise livestock, grow cash crops, and create metal goods, leaders hoped that commoners as well as the Choctaw Nation as a whole could break dependence on the United States for trade goods. Learning new subsistence methods meant Choctaws no longer had to depend on hunting game, which continued to decrease, for food or as a trade commodity.

Like leaders, commoners’ interest in schools began early. Missionaries noted

Choctaw desire for schools as early as 1819, when the institutions first opened their doors

71 Journal of the Mission at Mayhew, 30 June 1821, ABCFM, 755.

72 Journal of the Mission at Mayhew, 31 June 1822, ABCFM, 755; William Pride to Thomas Thacher Thompson, 27 May 1825, and Hannah Pride to Thompson, August, 1821, both in Pride (Hannah and William) Papers, Mississippi Department of Archives and History [hereafter MDAH].

151 to students. In April of that year, one family traveled over 160 miles with eight children in the hopes that the youth might join the school at Elliot. The missionaries were not yet prepared to take students at that time. As other potential candidates for admission arrived, the Presbyterians commenced the first classes on April 19, four days after the eight children arrived.73 Upon her arrival to Choctaw Territory in 1819, Cyrus Kingsbury’s wife wrote that “The Indians appear . . . anxious to have the school in operation.”74 Adult women and children sought missionaries to learn a variety of tasks, and the enthusiasm exuded by the Choctaws inspired her to continue working at Elliot. The next year,

Puckshunubbee and Mushulatubbee wrote to Samuel Worcester and Cyrus Kingsbury and thanked the Board for the work they did. The chiefs stated that they also had “more than

1000 children in our nation, who are now waiting and looking up to our white brothers for the means of instruction.”75 Some commoners wanted to attend the schools and were willing to reify the wishes of their leaders. Those Choctaws saw schools as symbols for change. As they had done at the beginning of the century, commoners could have opposed the command of their leaders to achieve their own goals. Instead, by the 1820s, they saw the means of achieving their goals and those of their chiefs as related and mutually enforcing.76

73 Journal of the Mission of Elliot, 15 and 19 April 1819, ABCFM, 755.

74 “Mission at Elliot,” Missionary Herald 16 (Feb 1820): 94.

75 “Letter from the Choctaw Chiefs to the Rev. Dr. Worcester,” 4 June 1820, Missionary Herald 16 (Aug 1820): 379-80; and Journal of the Mission at Mayhew, 14 July 1821, ABCFM, 755.

76 Ibid.

152 Headmen hoped children would grow intellectually, learning trades or becoming literate, but they wanted the same opportunities for all commoners. As they provided these opportunities, whether by supporting schools with resources or getting children accepted as students, those chiefs maintained their own power. Simultaneously, these headmen promoted new goals for commoners to achieve, and those commoners saw obtaining an education as signs of respect within communities. Gradually, missionary education helped form new bonds that united individuals and communities and helped

Choctaws obtain foreign goods, gain respect, and amass property. With the support of chiefs and headmen and in consideration of what an American education could provide, commoners flocked to the missions. A few commoners found jobs at the schools as cooks, teachers, ranchers, and carpenters. These individuals made money, bought goods, and learned and spread knowledge about how American occupations function and the advantages employment conveyed. By acculturating, some commoners found new opportunities for survival at the mission schools and thus considered them as advantageous for prosperity in the wake of game destruction.77

The extent and nature of acculturation of commoners who attended Presbyterian schools experienced varied depending on status, sex, age, needs and desires. A typical traditional morning for a Choctaw boy in his village would have consisted of physical conditioning with near-torturous exercises like leaping into freezing waters or enduring

“inflictions of tortures to their naked bodies.” After testing physical endurance, children

77 Hired Labor at Mayhew, 12 April 1826, 757, and Kingsbury to Evarts, 21 June 1827, 758, both in ABCFM.

153 heard and repeated oral stories about cultural traditions and beliefs. Children learned to hunt, fight, and use weapons. Afternoons typically saw young boys roaming from village to village and practicing their hunting skills and hearing oral traditions at night. Such physical, spiritual, and intellectual teachings produced honorable warriors. Boys observed each other and learned from the groups’ mistakes and successes. Since educational and gender divisions were common, young females trained in domestic tasks and field work.

Choctaws saw men as hunters and associated with the forests and women with farming and the home. Much like males, girls learned through physical and apprentice learning, and they also learned about culture through songs, which like stories educated men to hunt and women to care for children and gardens.78

The organization of daily learning, public prayer, meals, and group singing and learning at the mission mimicked traditional educational methods in part because it depended on apprentice learning. When boys and girls learned to hunt, fish or fight, they did so by watching each others’ successes and failures and mimicking elders. Through trial, error, and observation both sexes received the skills necessary to survive and

78 Adam Hodgson, Letters from North America, Written during a Tour in the United States and Canada, vol. 1 of 2 (London: A. Constable & Co. Edinburgh, 1824), 243-44; and Angie Debo, The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Republic, 2d ed. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1961), 18; and “Hunting Song” reprinted in O’Brien, Revolutionary Age, 30. For research on Choctaw music, including the song noted here, see , “Choctaw Music,” Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 136 (Washington, DC, 1943), 177. For a discussion of different types of learning, including apprentice learning, see F. Niyi Akinnaso, “Schooling, Language, and Knowledge in Literate and Nonliterate Societies,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 34:1 (Jan 1992): 68-109.

154 prosper as a male or female within a Choctaw community.79 Presbyterians also taught through apprentice learning by using the Lancasterian plan. In this system, students were grouped by age. As older students advanced in education, they helped teach their younger counter parts. The methodology provided missionaries with enough individuals to teach larger classes. It also used observation of one another, trial and error, and reward systems to promote learning much like traditional Choctaw education.80

Teachers at Elliot, Mayhew, and other Presbyterian institutions then divided curricula based on American, Christian gender roles. Generally, male children learned skills in farming and husbandry or blacksmithing. Women learned domestic tasks. In a

79 J. F. H. Claiborne, Mississippi as a Province, Territory, and State (Jackson, MS: Power & Barksdale, Publishers and Printers, 1880), 487; Cushman, History, 104-1- 5, 176, 308-309; Jean-Bernard Bossu, Travels in the Interior of North America, 1751- 1762, trans. and ed. Seymour Feiler (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962), 170- 71; Swanton, Sources, 125; and Margaret Zehmer Searey, “Choctaw Subsistence, 1540- 1830: Hunting, Fishing, Farming, and Gathering,” in Before Removal, 43. For a discussion of apprentice education versus education through reading and writing, see Maureen Konkle, “Indian Literacy, U. S. Colonialism, and Literary Criticism,” American 69:3 (Sept 1997): 457-86; Jack Goody and Ian Watts, “The Consequences of Literacy,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 5:3 (Apr 1963): 304-45; Jack Goody, The Domestication of the Savage Mind (UK: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Walter J. Ong, Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (New York: Routledge); Brian V. Street, Literacy in Theory and Practice (UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984); and Catherine Pelissier, “The Anthropology of Teaching and Learning,” Annual Review of Anthropology 20 (1991): 75-95.

80 Indian Office to Mr. Henderson, 7 February 1828, The Choctaw Academy: Official Correspondence, 1825-1841, ed., comp. Joe R. Goss (Conway, AR: Oldbuck Press, 1979), 34-35; “Report from Kingsbury, 30 January 1822,” in Jedediah Morse. A Report to the Secretary of War of the United States on Indian Affairs (New York: August M. Kelley, Publishers, 1970; 1822), 189-90; John C. Calhoun to Joseph Lancaster, 13 March 1820, Calhoun Papers: Volume IV, 713; John C. Calhoun to Joseph Lancaster, 16 May 1820, Calhoun Papers: Volume V, 123; Thomas L. McKenney to John C. Calhoun, ca. 25 January 1822, 637-38; and Joseph Lancaster, The Lancasterian System of Education (Baltimore: Wm. Ogden, Printer, 1821), 7-11, 23-31.

155 letter to Secretary Calhoun on 16 January 1823, Kingsbury described a typical day at

Mayhew mission. Before breakfast, children read from their studies. Soon after sunrise they met with the mission families at the “Hall” for breakfast. Prayer, scripture reading and singing hymns followed the meal. Teachers then employed boys and girls in a variety of tasks. Most days, Kingsbury wrote, “About 20 boys with their axes, followed Mr.

Elijah Bardwell to the wood where they are engaged in clearing land. . . . They cut it all down, and cut it suitable for rails, for rolling, & for firewood, on about an acre in a week.

Fifteen or 20 other boys were with Mr. Cyrus Byington, chopping wood at the house, leveling the yard, & doing various other work.”81 Boys of various ages often aided in construction projects at the missions and helped clear land, and they were taught other trades, which included blacksmithing and agriculture.82

Agriculture and husbandry became the main occupational skills taught by missions. Missionaries hired Choctaws who possessed experience to care for the cattle.

Children helped these individuals and traveled with them to obtain new additions to the herds. Kingsbury took boys on trips to obtain more cows, and others learned to herd, raise, and care for cattle from both the missionaries and the individuals that the

Presbyterians hired.83 A few pupils learned to blacksmith, a skill that provided

81 Cyrus Kingsbury to John C. Calhoun, 16 January 1823, The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume VII, 1822-23, ed. W. Edwin Hemphill (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1973), 426-27.

82 Journal of Eliot, 26 June 1822, ABCFM, 755.

83 Ibid.; Journal of Elliot, 26 June, 1 July, and 27 December 1819; C. Kingsbury, M. Jewett, S. Williams, A. Williams, J. G. Vanouse to Samuel Worcester, 12 April 1819; L. Williams, M. Jewett, A. Dyer, L. Howes, 3 January 1822; Loring Williams to Jeremiah

156 commoners with the ability to materials essential to agricultural communities.84 The jobs for boys were limited to the tasks of the American laboring classes and becoming literate.

By providing vocational training, missionaries taught Choctaw boys to participate in markets by producing, buying, and selling goods. A few boys might learn enough to become strong, educated leaders within the Choctaw government. Mission stations were self-sufficient institutions with their own weavers, farmers, ranchers, shoemakers, brickmakers, cooks, tanners, joiners, blacksmiths, mill workers, clerks and wagoners, all jobs that Choctaws observed and emulated.85

Female students also learned tasks at missions through apprentice training, reading and writing. For example, girls learned to milk the cows, a task Choctaw women had learned during the two previous decades. As missionary Loring Williams noted in a letter to his superior in the Board, “The people have given one hog for every scholar they send to begin upon & during the summer season will lend one good milk cow for every child.”86 Milking was considered a domestic task by missionaries and a

Everts, 3 January 1822, all in in ABCFM, 755; and “Difficulties of Missionary Labor,” Missionary Herald 16 (Mar 1821): 75-76.

84 Extracts from the Journal of the Brethren at Elliot, 24 August 1819, Journal of the Mission at Mayhew, 17 November 1821, 31 June 1822, Journal of the Mission at Mayhew, Kingsbury to Calhoun, November 18, 1819, 755, Account of Mayhew, 1828, 757, all in ABCFM; and “Extracts from the Journal Kept at Elliot,” Missionary Herald 18 (June 1822): 180-81.

85 Accounts of Mission at Mayhew, 30 June 1823, ABCFM, 763.

86 Loring Williams to Jeremiah Everts, 3 January 1822, ABCFM, 755. During his travels to Choctaw Territory in the 1820s, Adam Hodgson claimed that many Choctaws lived in homes and raised livestock, especially cattle and horses. A few elites whom he met own enough slaves to cultivate small plots of land but not enough for large-scale

157 woman’s task among Choctaws. Likewise, raising cattle and obtaining meat was considered an occupation of males. In other words, males killed cattle to obtain meat.

Women gathered or raised food. The process of obtaining milk did not harm the animals, and it represented a female role within traditional Choctaw culture. Girls stayed at the female school house and learned to quilt, pick cotton, card and spin, sew, iron, wash dishes and prepare meals. A little before nine in the morning, all children attended school, which “opened by reading a portion of Scripture, singing a hymn, in which the scholars united, & prayer. . . . The school is divided into nine classes.” A typical day ended with scripture reading, a passage from “Scott’s Practical Observations,” singing and prayer, and bed.87

Educating individuals in the proper methods for milking or processing cattle thus paralleled goals of Choctaws, but a significant change occurred among the two sexes.

Gradually, men’s work in agricultural endeavors increased. Women did not stop growing crops, but they did receive more help from men. Missionaries reiterated teachings of the day through text reading much like elders did with traditional oral myths. Physical and apprentice learning occurred in the morning after which children performed daily duties.

Reading about white customs correlated with laboring in the morning and afternoon.

plantations. See, Hodgson, Letters from North America, 224-27, 253.

87 Hodgson, Letters from North America, 228; Gaines, Reminiscences, 77-78; “Regulations concerning the Civilization of the Indians,” Calhoun Papers: Volume IV, 295; John Gambold to John C. Calhoun, 13 November 1819, Calhoun Papers: Volume IV, 404-405; From Rev. Kingsbury, 6 June 1821, in Morse, Report, 184; and “Notices of Female Pupils in the school at Mayhew taught by Miss Burnham,” Missionary Herald 20 (Aug 1824): 251-53.

158 Unlike their indigenous learning, girls and boys together learned about Biblical ideologies in a classroom setting. Finally, both girls and boys were taught particular ideals, manners, and morals based on the Bible. Like girls and boys in a traditional Choctaw society, those at mission schools learned behavior and customs through imitation and physical training, but educators replaced oral histories with texts.88

Whether directly or indirectly, mission schools upheld and disseminated

American ideas about private property among the Choctaw. Mission schools amassed livestock, constructed buildings, and taught children and adults to produce and protect goods for selling in a market economy. Missionaries estimated the value of property at

Elliot at over $14,000, consisting of 400 cattle, 2 pairs of oxen, 5 horses, 100 hogs, and

$855 in crops for that year alone. Mayhew boasted almost $4,000 worth of property, which consisted of 350 cattle, 100 sheep, 100 hogs, 10 pairs of oxen, and 12 horses.89

Among the nine schools established in the Choctaw Nation before Removal, Elliot,

Mayhew, Emmaus, and Goshen inventoried thousands of dollars worth of goods and improvements per station. The types of property were not limited to livestock and

88 Kingsbury to Calhoun, 16 January 1823, Calhoun Papers: Volume VII, 426-27; Cyrus Kingsbury to John C. Calhoun, November 1819, Calhoun Papers: Volume IV, 458- 59; and Clara Sue Kidwell, “The Language of Conversion among the Choctaws,” Journal of Presbyterian History 77:3 (Fall 1999): 148. Description of provisions from the Tuscumbian (March 1826), cited in Caroline Bennett, “Historical Notes on Mayhew Mission and First Presbyterian Church, Starkville, Mississippi,” typewritten mss., n.d. Kidwell, Missionaries, 40.

89 Annual Report of Choctaw Schools, October 1829, and Kingsbury to to the Secretary of War, November 1828, both in ABCFM, 756.

159 buildings but included library books, furniture, kitchen ware, and a variety of “mechanic tools.”90

Such goods did not represent traditional items but slowly entered communities and individual homes as Choctaws acculturated. As Choctaws absorbed the knowledge missionaries provided, they changed their material culture in ways that helped some individuals achieve prosperity. New teaching methods proved effective and had an important impact on Choctaw society, but Natives also learned in the same fashion as they had for centuries. The preservation of learning methods and conveyance of new ideas by missionaries convinced commoners that they could preserve certain parts of their culture and change others to survive. Whether missionaries knew their teaching methodologies ran parallel to those practiced by the Choctaw remains unknown, but the correlation with traditional education resulted in the creation of individuals who possessed skills and beliefs that were both American and Choctaw. Traditional educational methods revolving around apprentice remained virtually unchanged, but what missionaries taught differed greatly from Choctaw education before the establishment of schools.

In 1829 Kingsbury wrote that missionary efforts had profound consequences among the Choctaw. Many Indians dressed like Americans and in clothes they themselves produced. Commoners used blacksmithing tools and raised crops and livestock as did

Americans. They lived in log cabins and filled their homes with “furniture and all the

90 Kingsbury to to the Secretary of War, November 1828, both in ABCFM, 756.

160 comforts & conveniences of civilized life.”91 A missionary census of one district found that the people living there owned a total of 11,661 cattle, 3,974 horses, 112 oxen, 22,047 hogs, 136 sheep, 530 spinning wheels, 124 looms, 360 ploughs, 32 wagon, 7 blacksmith shops, 2 cooper’s shops, and 2 carpenter’s shops. The communities within this district subsisted primarily on agriculture, livestock, and jobs of “industry.” More telling,

Kingsbury noted, was the example of a single “clan,” or family of 313 individuals. In

1821, this family was “destitute of property, grossly intemperate, & roaming from place to place.” By 1829, that same family had amassed “188 horses, 571 cattle, 853 hogs, 7 looms, 68 wheels, 35 ploughs, 6 oxen,” and developed one school in their district.

Missionaries showed Choctaws how to fence land and protect what they bought through their labor.92

Choctaws enjoyed plenty of opportunities to practice their skills in trading and selling what they produced. Mission stations became economic hubs for Choctaws.

Traders visited the mission stations to buy, sell and trade livestock and agricultural goods, and missionaries themselves encouraged Natives to sell produce by buying Choctaw

91 Kingsbury to the Board Office, 28 January 1829, ABCFM, 756.

92 Missionaries used the term “industry” to refer to jobs such as blacksmithing, carpentry, wheelwrights, spinners and weavers, etc. In other words, industrial jobs included occupations not considered agriculture or husbandry. Ibid.; C. Kingsbury, M. Jewett, S. Williams, A. Williams, J. G. Vanouse to Samuel Worcester, 12 April 1819, ABCFM, 756; Gaines, Reminiscences, 47-48; From the Rev. Cyrus Kingsbury, 11/–/1819, Calhoun Papers: Volume IV, 458-59; Theda Perdue, Slavery and the Evolution of Cherokee Society, 1540-1866 (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1979), 71- 72.

161 goods.93 In May 1820, Folsom helped finance and oversee the construction of a wagon road from Elliot to Pigeon Roost, a distance of about 60 miles. The road increased the influx of supplies to the mission, provided easier access to the school, and gave missionaries a direct route to the Natchez Trace and allowed them to seek resources at trade stations.94 The road also provided easier, faster access to Elliot, where Choctaws and suppliers met to exchange, buy and sell Native and American goods.

As commoners learned the skills needed to produce goods and obtain goods through selling and trading, chiefs sought to define new items that would display prestige and authority within Choctaw society. Commoners learned to imitate the Southern

Americans, who owned plantations. Missionaries supported occupations that focused on agriculture, husbandry, and industry. The evolving ideas about property, the search for new prestige goods that might distinguish elites from commoners, and the fact that missionaries forged their educational programs around “plantation” work had adverse effects, which those missionaries would later regret. Southern prosperity was based on slave labor and human property.95

93 Journal of Eliot, 23 February 1822, 755, and Journal of Elliot, 18 June 1820, 755, both in ABCFM; and “Extracts from the Journal Kept at Elliot,” Missionary Herald 17 (March 1821): 74-75.

94Direct route Journal of Elliot, May 17 and 24, 1820, ABCFM, 755.

95 As noted in the previous chapter, Choctaws also began to amass property during the first two decades of the nineteenth century, but they depended on the fur trade to obtain it. Missionaries taught Choctaws that they could obtain more goods through the same labors that were performed on Southerners’ plantations. By 1830, Choctaw chiefs, some bicultural families, and a few commoners had bought slaves. See C. Calvin Smith, “The Oppressed Oppressors: Negro Slavery among the Choctaw Indians of Oklahoma,” Red River Valley Historical Review 2:2 (1975): 240; and William G. McLoughlin, “Red

162 For a small group of Choctaws, particularly chiefs and lower-ranking headmen, slaves guaranteed prestige. Slaveowners were often elites or bicultural Choctaws. Full- blood chiefs like Homatubby and Mushulatubbee used slaves to perform menial tasks, but they were primarily symbolic, a type of property that outwardly depicted status within the larger Choctaw community. By using slave labor, leaders also abstain from doing what they considered “women’s work.” Among the bicultural individuals, slave ownership symbolized their American heritage and gave them influence in American social circles; bicultural individuals used slaves as both status symbols and for labor on their plantations.96 Apparently few Choctaws had slaves, and sources do not record slave

Indians, Black Slavery and White Racism: America’s Slaveholding Indians,” American Quarterly 26:4 (Oct 1974), 375. Presbyterian missionaries used the same language as Southern slave owners and called the mission stations “plantations,” which served as self- sufficient institutions based on the support of agriculture and livestock production. See Extracts from the Journal of the Brethren at Elliot, 27 December 1819, Kingsbury, L. Williams, M. Jewett, I. Fisk, W. Pride to Worcester, June 12, 1820, 755, Journal of the Mission at Mayhew, 9 May 1823, 755, Kingsbury to Calhoun, January 31, 1822, 755, Kingsbury to Everts, 8 August 1825, 756, all in ABCFM. Historian Claudio Saunt found that some Creeks had assimilated white cultural traditions by the early 1800s. Included in those traditions, slaves had become property, and they produced tradable goods or cared for plantations of wealthy Indians. Similarly, slave-owning Choctaws experienced the same phenomenon. A few chiefs and full-blood slave-owners used slaves for agricultural production. Wealthly “mixed-bloods” used slaves for the same reason but also to support their plantation lifestyles. See, Claudio Saunt, “Taking Account of Property: Stratification among the Creek Indians in the Early Nineteenth Century,” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 57:4 (Oct 2000): 733-60; and Claudio Saunt, A New Order of Things: Property, Power, and the Transformation of the Creek Indians, 1733-1816 (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1999) in its entirety.

96 Perdue, “Mixed Blood”, 18, 64-65, 68, 96; Kidwell, Missionaries, 31, 80-82, 106, 161; John H. Peterson, Jr., “The Indian in the Old South,” in Red, White, and Black: Symposium on Indians in the Old South, Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings, No. 5, ed. Charles M. Hudson (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1971), 122-23; Donna L. Akers, “Peter P. Pitchlynn: Race and Identity in Nineteenth-Century America,” The Human Tradition in Antebellum America: No. 7, Human Tradition in America, ed.

163 ownership by Choctaws until the 1820s. Slaves were a rare commodity among Indians in

Mississippi. They were expensive, and caring for them and overseeing their labor was time consuming. Before Removal, chiefs and headmen who bought or traded for slaves did not use slave labor to the extent that large-scale plantation owners of the South did.

Due to their rarity and cost, slaves symbolized an outward display of power as had medals and gorgets during the eighteenth century.97

Notable leaders who retained authority through the tradition of prestige-goods trade and outward displays of office owned few slaves and charged them with menial tasks. Historian James Carson cited numerous statistics in support of this conclusion.

According the 1830, the Choctaw population consisted of 17,963 individuals including

512 slaves. Fifty-four Choctaws owned them. Greenwood Leflore, who owned 32 slaves,

Michael A. Morrison (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc., 2000), 131; and Thomas Farnham, Travels in the Great Western Prairies, the Anahuac, and the Rocky Mountains, Volume XXVIII, ed. Reuben Gold Thwaites (Cleveland, OH: The Arthur H. Clark Company), 121.

97 Neal Salisbury, “The Indians’ Old World: Native Americans and the Coming of Europeans,” American Encounters: Natives and Newcomers from European Contact to Indian Removal, 1500-1850, Peter C. Mancall and James H. Merrell, eds. (New York: Routledge, 2000): 6-8; Patricia Galloway, “‘So Many Little Republics’: British Negotiations with the Choctaw Confederacy, 1765,” Ethnohistory 41:4 (Aut 1994): 514- 515; Michael S. Nassaney, “Communal Societies and the Emergence of Elites int eh Prehistoric American Southeast” in Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Southeastern North America, eds. Alex W. Barker and Timothy R. Pauketat (Washington, D.C: American Anthropological Association, 1992), 111-43; John C. Ewers, “Symbols of Chiefly Authority in Spanish Louisiana,” The Spanish in the Mississippi Valley, 1762-1804, ed. John Francis McDermott (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1974), 272-73, 276-77; and Greg O’Brien, “Trying to Look Like Men: Changing Notions of Masculinity among Choctaw Elites in the Early Republic” in Southern Manhood: Perspectives on Masculinity in the Old South (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2004), 58, 62.

164 held the largest number and David Folsom owned ten. William and Benjamin Leflore, brothers of Greenwood, owned sixteen slaves between them. Mushulatubbee boasted ten slaves, who farmed roughly thirty acres. Nine women also owned slaves, but sources reveal even less about those owners. Individuals who did own slaves had only a few.

According to Carson’s analysis, Choctaws often did not take part in the institution. Even then, Choctaw chattels spent more time herding than cultivating cotton or other crops.98

Ironically, Presbyterian missionaries were partially responsible for promoting slavery among the Choctaw. During the decade after 1819 when they first established schools in the Choctaw Nation and monopolized Indian education, they encountered labor shortages. For missionaries, the task of literally building and running institutions was difficult. Labor shortage represented one of the worst problems at the mission stations.

Complaints about shortages pepper the journals and letters from Elliot, Mayhew and other schools. At Elliot, Kingsbury wished to hire a new cook after the previous one “settled his accounts,” but he feared he would be forced to hire a slave if another could not be found.99 He partially blamed the problem on a “great scarcity” of money from the

98 James Taylor Carson, Searching for the Bright Path: The Mississippi Choctaws from Prehistory to Removal (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1999), 80-81; Adam Hodgson, Letters from North America, Written during a Tour in the United States and Canada, volume 1 of 2 (London: A. Constable & Co. Edinburgh, 1824), 240; Henry S. Halbert, “District Divisions of the Choctaw Nation,” in A Choctaw Source Book, ed. John H. Peterson, Jr. (Garland Publishing, Inc.: New York & London, 1985), 377-379 [page numbers refer to original]; and Smith, “Oppressed,” 241.

99 Journal of Elliot, January 1823, ABCFM, 755; and Report of the Committee on Anti-Slavery Memorials, September 1845: American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (Boston: Press of T. R. Marvin, 24 Congress St., 1845), The Negro and Cognate Subjects, Stone Collection, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, MS, 17-18.

165 establishment of the schools.100 Missionaries fired some wage laborers due to “bad conduct” and thus added to their labor problems. Attempts to appeal to the Prudential

Committee of the American Board for more funds or additional hired laborers often yielded little success.101

In desperation, Presbyterians used slavery as a solution. Slaves owned by

Choctaws possessed a wide variety of skills that could assist the missions. Without individuals skilled in farming, husbandry or “domestic tasks,” Presbyterians would have little ability to make the self-sustaining institutions function or effectively teach those endeavors to students. Choctaws and non-Indian husbands of mixed-race marriages offered to lend or rent their slaves to the missionaries. Slaves owned by Choctaws who worked at the institutions were often assigned to work at a variety of tasks. Males cared for livestock, especially cattle and hogs, and farmed crops. Female slaves performed tasks often associated with housework, including spinning, weaving and cooking, jobs that lightened everyday labors among Choctaw women. 102

Most Presbyterian missionaries considered slavery an immoral institution.

Kingsbury claimed that “real evils . . . attend it.” With Kingsbury, other teachers sent

100 Journal of the Mission of Mayhew, 13 July 1821, and Kingsbury to Everts, 17 May 1821, both in ABCFM, 755.

101 Journal of the Mission at Mayhew, 12 February, 4 March, 9 May, ABCFM, 755; and “Annual Meeting of the Board: Report of Mr. Treat,” Missionary Herald 44 (Oct. 1848): 345-67.

102 Accounts of Mission at Mayhew, March 18, April 1 to June 30, 31 October 1822, 763, and Journal of Elliot, 14 January 1823, 755, Accounts of Mission at Mayhew, 30 June 1823, 763, all in ABCFM.

166 petitions demanding the Prudential Committee give a straight answer regarding the organizations policy about slave labor at mission schools.103 Borrowing or renting slaves from local owners represented a cheap solution to perform tasks, fill the positions needed to make the institutions self-sustaining, and teach students through apprentice learning. A few slaves served as chaperones for boys and girls during working hours and in dormitories at night. Slaves named Fanny and Hannah, the former owned by “Judge

Locke”and the latter by an “Indian,” established close relationships with both the missionaries and students. Between 1820 and 1830, Presbyterians drew upon slave labor to solve the shortage of labor and had the added benefit of converting numerous blacks who worked for them.104 Slaves performed similar tasks as hired labor, but dependence on slave labor brought missionaries into conflict with the moral principles they were attempting to teach Indians.

Some of the first Choctaws interested in the Gospel owned slaves. After the missions were established in 1818 and opened their doors a year later, “both masters and servants” were admitted to the church.105 Kingsbury hoped that Choctaw families would

103 Robert Lewit, “Indian Missions and Antislavery Sentiments: A Conflict in Evangelical and Humanitarian Ideals,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 50 (1963- 64): 41.

104 Journal of the Mission at Mayhew, 27 January 1822, 755, Cyrus Kingsbury to , 21 June 1827, 756, Hired Labor at Mayhew, 12 April 1826, 757, Note by Anna Burnham, 31 May 1828, 757, all in ABCFM; Kingsbury to Treat, 18 October 1858, 3:25, and Kingsbury to Treat, 28 November 1855, 3:29, both in Kingsbury Collection, WHCOUK, 5:25.

105 Kingsbury to David Greene, 2 July 1849, Kingsbury Collection, WHCOUK, 3:8.

167 manumit their slaves after receiving the lessons of Gospel. In 1814, James Gum, who had married a Chickasaw wife, freed a two-year-old mulatto girl after joining a church. She remained among the Chickasaw, where she married a slave and birthed eleven children.

Gum promoted the release of slaves among the Chickasaw and argued that no slave owner should be allowed to enter the church officially.106 For Presbyterians, bringing slaves into the church provided a variety of opportunities. In 1826, Cyrus Kingsbury wrote that although slavery represented a fundamental “evil,” the slaves were too valuable at that present time to give up the practice at the missions.107 Combined with the benefit of a labor force and conversion, missionaries might also provide opportunities for freedom.

For missionaries, slavery represented a necessary evil. Although the missionaries received funding from various sources, they lacked enough laborers to construct buildings and perform the multitude of tasks required to sustain the institutions. Presbyterians hired some Choctaws, but much of the needed labor came in the form of hired slaves.108

Choctaw commoners and elites, however, observed the practice, saw missionaries taking

106 Ibid.; and Report of the Committee on Anti-Slavery Memorials, 17-18.

107 For a discussion of slavery’s increase after Removal, see Lewitt, “Indian Mission and Antislavery Sentiments,” 43-46; and Kidwell, Missionaries, 175; and Cyrus Kingbury to Jeremiah Evarts, 4 October 1826, ABCFM, 756.

108 Accounts of Mission at Mayhew, 30 June 1823, Hired Labor at Mayhew, 12 April 1826, 757, Kingsbury to Evarts, 21 June 1827, 758, Loring Williams to Jeremiah Everts, 3 January 1822, 755, Journal of Elliot, 14 January 1823, Journal of the Mission at Mayhew, 7 December 1821, 755, Accounts of Mission at Mayhew, March 18, January 1 to April 1, April 1 to June 30, October 31, 1822, 763, and Note by Anna Burnham, 31 May 1828, 757, all in ABCFM.

168 advantage of slave labor, and considered it viable for producing and prospering in an

American market economy. Slaves possessed the knowledge to perform a multitude of tasks related to the goals of Choctaws.

Presbyterians support for the institution of slavery became problematic after 1830.

Missionaries saw the use of slaves as integral to the existence of Indian schools. Without their labor, the institutions could not survive. Presbyterians feared that Choctaws would not convert without missionary aid. Indians, afterall, believed in the existence of pagan beings, practiced witchcraft and were, according to one missionary, devoid of morality,

“ignorant of the Gospel” and living according to “heathenish habits.”109 Missionaries among the Choctaw typically did not condone ownership of fellow human beings, but their actions sent a different message to their students and adults who learned at the schools. For missionaries, temporary dependence on slavery was a small price to pay to save the souls of God’s lost children. For Choctaws, who cared little for Christianity and knew Aba the Sun would reign eternally, mimicking Presbyterians’ use of slaves, as

Choctaws had done with techniques of farming and husbandry and reading and writing, represented yet another tool for surviving and prospering in a changing world.

Ideas about property certainly aided the missionaries’s goals for “civilizing”

Choctaws, but literacy and print were essential parts of the Presbyterians’ teaching. Their belief that morals, behavior, and social habits originated not only from physical and

109 Hannah Pride to Thompson, Mayhew, 28 June 1825, Pride (Hannah and William) Papers, MDAH; and Mrs. Lee Spencer to Mother, 16 June 1860, Colonial Dames Collection, Box 2, Folder 30, Western History Collection, University of Oklahoma [hereafter box followed by folder number].

169 apprentice learning but also from texts, explains why literacy became the backbone of

Presbyterian efforts at converting and assimilating Indians. Missionaries believed that documents and books read by students reflected the actions, behavior, social and religious traditions, laws, and gender divisions of white society. The Presbyterian focus on literacy promoted the goals set forth by the Civilization campaign.110

After 1820, to promote further promote conversion and education among

Choctaws and Chickasaws, the Tombigbee Presbytery, which served as a council for all

Presbyterian missions within Mississippi territory, agreed to create a Choctaw lexicon.

They reasoned that reading, writing, preaching, and teaching in the Choctaw language would be more effective, and Choctaws could easily learn stories and themes if read to and taught in their own language. Cyrus Byington, who researched and produced the first written version of the Choctaw language, wrote to his supervisor Jeremiah Evarts, “We are much encouraged in the hope that the language of these tribes will yet become our instrument in the hands of the Lord of communicating to them a knowledge of his salvation.” Reverends Alfred Wright and Cyrus Byington had learned enough of the language to preach in the native tongue. Byington was the admirable scholar who spearheaded work on the lexicon. He had not only picked up the Choctaw language quickly, but he had trained in “Latin, Greek, and Hebrew.” Furthermore, his library reflected an interest in native linguistic studies. His collection included “John

Heckwelder’s account of the Delawares, . . . Roger William’s vocabulary of Narraganset,

110 Bruce David Forbes, “‘And Obey God, etc.: Methodism and American Indians,” Methodist History 23:1 (Oct 1984): 5-9.

170 Josiah Cotton’s vocabulary of Massachusetts, and John Pickering’s Cherokee grammar.”

Wright and Byington hoped a Choctaw lexicon would aid in converting as had these works by Heckwelder, William, Cotton and Elliot, and Pickering. 111

David Folsom advocated creating a lexicon. His beliefs mirrored those of the chiefs; education would allow natives to coexist in American society in the wake of game destruction and problematic treaty negotiations. He had received a missionary education and used it to prosper in both white and Indian societies. Folsom wrote to Reverend Elias

Cornelius in 1818:

I know and all I can say for my nation they are a people much in need for help and instruction, and we look up to the government of the U.S. for instruction, and which I do know the establishment of the this school will be the means of the greatest good ever been done for this nation. Our hunting are done for these many years back and for wanting good Father and good Council that the general run of peoples at the Nation have still hunted for game and they have in many become in want.112

Folsom stated that reading provided a tool for “civilizing.” Choctaws would learn about the advancements of whites by reading books. They would read about and accept constitutionalism, written laws, white etiquette and dress, agriculture, domestic tasks, and the market economy.113 By embracing the civilization program, Indians would obtain

111 Love, “Mayhew Mission,” 378; Cyrus Byington to Jeremiah Evarts, 1 July 1826, ABCFM, 756; Kidwell, Missionaries, 33, 53; and Kingsbury to Calhoun, November 1819, Calhoun Papers: Volume IV, 458-59; and A Record of Missionary Meetings Held in the Chahta and Chikesha Nations and the Records of Tombigbee Presbytery from 1825 to 1838, vol. 1, ed. John W. Mosely (West Point Leader Printery, MS, n.d.), 2, copy held at MSUSC.

112 David Folsom to Reverend Elias Cornelius, 16 July 1818, in Cushman, History, 42 [emphasis in original].

113 Byington to Jeremiah Evarts, Yaknokchaya, July 20, 1829, ABCFM, 756

171 material goods to make agricultural and industrial jobs easier and receive an education in the behavioral etiquette of American citizens. Folsom did not say that the Indian should quit being Choctaws. On the contrary, he prided himself in his connection to the Indian ethos. Survival and prosperity in the shadow of a threatening foreign power, the United

States, meant Indians should imitate whites to avoid destruction. His message was clear.

Although they would live like Americans, they should never forget their “Choctawness.”

Even if education and Christianity did not protect land, they could sustain culture and patriotism. They would survive and think of themselves as Choctaw, but conform to white systems of communication and occupations.114

Folsom later joined Byington and Wright to begin work on a Choctaw dictionary.

By July 1826, Byington, Wright, Williams, and Folsom had collected 4,000 words and definitions. The first Choctaw spelling book was published in 1825 and other editions followed. The Choctaw spelling book, used specifically for learning English and grammar and for missionaries to learn the native language, provided terms that the Presbyterians equated with Biblical ideology. Missionaries created new words and placed them into the lexicon. For example, the Choctaw derivative for the “Bible” became holisso holitopa; aiokpuloka chukoa or aiokpuloka foka meant “damned”; and achukma, ashachi, haksi, okpulo, and yoshoba translated to “sinful” in English. Alfred Wright organized his

Choctaw Hymn Book into themes pertinent to conversion. To aid in teaching English, the first 220 pages presented hymns in their native tongue while the last 20 pages were printed in English. Wright divided the various types of hymns into sections, which

114 Kidwell, Missionaries, 58-59; and Perdue, “Mixed Blood”, 44-45.

172 included “Jehovah, Awakening and Inviting, Sin, Christ, Holy Spirit, Anxious Seat,

Conviction, Christian, Worship, Church, Prayer, Times and Seasons, and Miscellaneous.”

Content, organization and outline of books played a role in the success of literacy.

Learning about Christ and the Resurrection represented the most fundamental and crucial part of conversion. This theme exposed students to concepts of sin, the pious lifestyle, how to worship the Lord, and the essentiality of prayer.115

As one historian noted, the Federal government attempted to place Choctaws into the social stratum of yeomen farms, and missionary teachers supported that goal through apprentice education and Christian teachings. The Biblical story of Cain and Abel found in Genesis 4:1-26, described Cain as a farmer, “a tiller of the ground,” and Abel “a keeper of sheep.” After Cain killed his younger brother, Yahweh (God) expelled the first murderer in Biblical history, not only from the ground but also from his father Adam’s occupation, farming.116 As one interpretation stated, the story did not undermine

115 Cyrus Byington, A Dictionary of the Choctaw Language: Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology, Bulletin 46, eds. John R. Swanton and Henry S. Halbert (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1915), 381-611; Jones, History of Methodism, 167; Josiah Gregg, “Commerce on the Prairies; or, The Journal of a Santa Fé Trader, during Eight Expeditions across the Great Western Prairies, and a Residence of nearly Nine Years in Northern Mexico, Part II: Chapters xii-xvi of Volume I, and all of Volume II of original,” in Early Western Travels, 1748-1846: A Series of Annotated Reprints of some of the best and rarest contemporary volumes of travel, descriptive of the Aborigines and Social and Economic Conditions in the Middle and Far West, during the Period of Early American Settlement. Volume XX, ed. Reuben Gold Thwaites (Cleveland, OH: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1905), 310; Thomas McKenney to Isaac Thomas, 22 January 1818, reprinted in Prucha, American Indian Policy, 220-21; and David Draper, “Abba Isht tuluwa; The Christian Hymns of the Mississippi Choctaw,” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 6:1 (1982): 43-61.

116 Kidwell, Missionaries, 26; and Genesis 4:1-26, The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical Books, new revised standard version,

173 agriculture as an unworthy practice, although that opinion might be reasonably inferred from Cain’s fall as a farmer. Instead, the tale played on the tensions between sedentary and semi-nomadic life. Neither was necessarily below the other. Presbyterians noted

Cain’s punishment rather than his occupation before Abel’s murder. While the actual passages do not term Cain a “hunter,” the term “wanderer” could be equated with hunter because the ground would not produce for his progeny. Furthermore, the importance of tilling soil was shown through Cain’s banishment from farming. He represented a model not to follow for several reasons. Abel was a model to imitate through husbandry, a common practice within white culture. Cain’s occupation, a horticulturist like Adam, became yet another lifestyle to mimic. Both husbandry and agriculture became the primary focus of labor education. The wanderer Cain represented the fallen model, which

Choctaws should avoid. Finally, the faith of Abel in God provided an excellent example of a “true” follower of God. Later books, including the commonly used the Gospel of

Matthew, called Abel “righteous” and a man of “obedience and faith,” a revered follower of God.117

Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy, eds. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 6-9, Old Testament [hereafter OT; New Testament cited as NT].

117 Genesis 4:1-26 and 5:1-32, Matthew 23:35, Hebrews 11:4, New Oxford, 6-9 OT, 36 NT, 327 NT. In 1852, Cyrus Byington published a dictionary and student text based on original from 1825 to 1830 for the study of grammar and learning English from Choctaw. While the provided a basis for learning names of environmental objects and religious terms, the section on grammar focused on the primary books of the Bible used by Presbyterians for conversion and assimilating. These included Matthew 5, Luke 15, 1 Hebrew, “The Prodigal Son,” and Genesis 1-4. See Cyrus Byington, Holisso Anumpa Tosholi: An English and Choctaw Definer for the Choctaw Academies and Schools, 1500 copies (New York: S.W. Benedict, 16 Spruce Street, 1852), 2, 22, 45, 55, 94-199, 202-207, 210-17, 219-48, Mississippi State

174 The first translations of hymns and catechisms focused on themes about divisions of labor and the roles individuals played within communities. Like Matthew and Genesis,

Luke was a primary text in teaching white culture. When considering the story of Cain and Abel, the combination of Biblical tracts also promoted the differences between gender divisions in white society versus Choctaw society. For example, in Genesis, the men Cain, Abel, and Adam toiled in the fields or practiced husbandry. Women did not perform these manual labors. Instead, they bore children, and, as one might assume, found purpose in the home. In a few passages from Luke, used mostly for its teachings about Christ, women were portrayed in the domestic sphere welcoming visitors into their homes or caring for men without laboring in agriculture or industry.118 The Biblical stories that described men in the fields and tending to herds implied that Choctaw women should no longer handle those jobs, but that they should function within the domestic sphere.

Missionaries claimed the Bible would teach them how to live like Americans, who used the book to direct their social and occupational behaviors. Missionaries boasted a few successes. In 1822, a Choctaw man arrived and claimed that he kept count of the days to know when to celebrate the Sabbath. A missionary spoke with him and

University Special Collections [hereafter MSUSC].

118 Luke 7:36-50, 10:28-42, New Oxford, 90-91, 97-98, all from NT; and Ulla i Katikisma: or a child’s catechism in Choctaw (Printed for the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions by Crocker and Brewster, 1835); Alfred Wright, Choctaw Hymn Book, 3rd ed. (Boston: T. R. Marvin, 1844). The first edition of the Choctaw Hymn Book was published in 1829. A copy of the third edition is held by the Mississippi State University Special Collections.

175 asked several questions regarding his faith. Although the man had not attended the schools, he stated that God had made the world. Upon death, people who had led moral lives went “above,” and those who did not went to “a bad place.” The missionary inquired who the bad people were. The man replied that they were individuals who “get mad, drink whiskey, & take knife and kill another.”119 Although the Choctaw man did not convert, he learned the tenants taught by the missionaries and expressed his desire to further the knowledge he had received from fellow Choctaws at the schools by attending classes. Missionaries considered a Choctaw individual named Tahoka an intelligent man, who “could read people well” and possessed a “strong character.” The missionaries wrote, “indeed, he was the ringleader in all kinds of vicious pleasures; and could at any time put the whole nation in motion by appointing a ball-play.” Despite his previous actions, which missionaries considered unethical, Tahoka eventually converted through the work of Loring Williams.120

In some instances, missionaries experienced sadness with conversion. In October

1821, John Lang, a fourteen-year-old boy, died at the school. Students and missionaries alike experienced illness. This particular youth, according to one observer, “was a fine scholar, and had been very serious for months, giving comfortable evidence that he had been renewed in the temper of his mind.”121 Lang’s work, determination, and moral

119 Journal of Elliot, 23 February, 1822, ABCFM, 755; and “Station of Elliot,” Missionary Herald 19 (July 1823): 203-204.

120 Tuttle, Conversations, 2:89.

121 Ibid., 2:13.

176 aptitude convinced the missionaries that he would rise above the other children in his studies and become a preacher. Lang would have symbolized a definitive change and success within the Choctaw Nation, and that same determination would not be seen again until the end of the decade. Another success emerged from the sadness experienced in

Lang’s death. Perhaps finding comfort in the messages of the Presbyterians during their time of loss, Lang’s parents traveled to French Camp from over sixty miles away and converted to Christianity.122 During seceding years, missionaries did boast achievements like Lang. In 1824, the Missionary Herald recorded accomplishments by Choctaw students at Mayhew. Levi Parsons Oliphant, for example, was intelligent and disciplined in his studies with a particular interest in the teachings found in the New Testament.

Edward Dwight not only spoke good English but was “industrious, frank,” and possessed knowledge about arithmetic and geography. Most such successes occurred among children at mission schools and at camp meetings held in villages even though a few of

122 Tuttle, Conversations, 2:13-15; and “Death of John Long. An intriguing method that missionaries used to convert involved naming practices. Choctaws gave adult names to students who had succeeded at cultural endeavors important to surviving and prospering in Choctaw society. Missionaries also did by giving children American names. The giving of names in traditional culture symbolized a rite of passage into adulthood and maturity, a mark of prestige in society. Similarly, name giving served a similar purpose within the mission schools themselves. See, Ovid Vickers Ovid Vickers, “Mississippi Choctaw Names and Naming: A Diachronic View,” Names 31:2 (1983): 119-20; “Names Appropriated to Children,” Missionary Herald 18 (June 1822): 180-81; and Journal of the Mission at Mayhew, 3 June 1822; C. Kingsbury, M. Jewett, S. Williams, A. Williams, J. G. Vanouse to Samuel Worcester, 12 April 1819; and Description of boys at Mayhew, 4 May 1824, all in ABCFM, 755.

177 the scholars were “not industrious . . . [and] sometimes a little mischievous” or careless and studied little.123

As children returned home to for vacations, they aided their families in tasks within their villages. From these children and the adults who frequented the mission stations, information regarding the Bible and labor spread through communities.124

Presbyterian missionaries then traveled from the schools to spread the Gospel. By the end of the decade, commoners listened to the preaching of missionaries. Missionaries became hopeful at new prospects among Choctaws and stated that “there is a prospect that they will become teachers of schools, interpreters & perhaps preachers of the Gospel to their

Nation.”125 David Folsom and a few of his family members who converted — most headmen did not convert before 1828 — promoted Christian doctrines in the hope that they might advance the goals of both missionaries and Choctaw leaders.126

123 Missionary Herald 20 (Sept 1824): 283-85.

124 Ibid.; and Journal of Elliot, 1 January 1822; Journal of Mayhew, 15 August 1822, both in ABCFM, 755.

125 Kingsbury to the Board Office, 28 January 1829, ABCFM, 756.

126 “Letter of David Folsom,” Missionary Herald 17 (Oct 1821): 310; Tuttle, Conversations, 2:70-72; and David Folsom to Israel Folsom, 29 March 1822, ABCFM, 756. Folsom spoke of similar goals for Choctaws in letters to various other missionaries, especially Elias Cornelius, a preacher who gave sermons in the Northeastern United States to raise money for American Indians in the Southeast during the nineteenth century. See, for example, David Folsom to Elias Cornelius, 5 March 1820, H-57, 8; David Folsom to Mr. And Mrs. Elias Cornelius, 21 June 1821, H-57, 9; David Folsom to Elias Cornelius, 16 July 1818, H-57, 11; David Folsom to Elias Cornelius, 9 July 1819, H-57, 16; David Folsom to Elias Cornelius, 22 June 1822, H-57, 19, all in Hargett, WHCUOK. For a discussion of leaders who converted, see James Taylor Carson, Searching for the Bright Path: The Mississippi Choctaws from Prehistory to Removal (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1999), 103-11.

178 Although missionaries did boast some examples of conversion and educational success, the spread of Christianity was often slow or stagnant. As Cyrus Kingsbury noted in 1824, children “who have received names, have for various reasons left school before they received any permanent benefit. . . .” and “through the fickleness of parents or chiefs, are removed from the school & all our care & labours rendered abortive.” Choctaws received an education based on Biblical texts, but they often did not want to change their religious beliefs. Often, as observed by missionaries, students remained at the mission schools only long enough to learn to read and write and gain skills in agriculture and husbandry.127 Similarly, most headmen also preserved their spiritual beliefs even if their lifestyles transformed into ones resembling those of American farmers, ranchers and blacksmiths. Most Choctaw leaders wanted to preserve their beliefs rather than convert to

Christianity. Students who attended classes often left before conversion and returned to their communities with the “same heathenish habits to which they were before accustomed.” As Kingsbury wrote, the missionaries lived in “dark times” and the “house of God is still lamentably neglected.”128

127 Kingsbury to Rufus Anderson, 24 June 1825, ABCFM, 755; and Journal of Eliot, 1 January 1822, ABCFM, 755.

128 Hannah Pride to Thompson, Mayhew, Choctaw Station, 28th, June 1825; William Pride to Thompson, 31 September 1825, and William Pride to Thompson, Mayhew,29 November 1825, Pride Papers, MDAH; Joel Wood to Cyrus Kingsbury, 13 November 1828, ABCFM, 756; and Cyrus Kingsbury to Jeremiah Evarts, 13 January 1824, 7:6; Cyrus Kingsbury to Jeremiah Evarts, 9 October 1823, 7:9; and Cyrus Kingsbury to Jeremiah Evarts, 9 May 1824, 7:36, all in Cyrus Kingsbury Collection, WHCUOK.

179 Although missionary successes increased towards 1829, conversions did not happen often. Most children, families of those children, and a few headmen who believed in the hopeful message of Christianity. Followers did not disdain leaders who converted or break from communities if Chiefs agreed with Christian principles. Instead, some commoners felt hope in a time when survival became difficult. Headmen attempted to decrease alcohol use and stop a variety of cultural practices that missionaries deemed inappropriate or in conflict with Christian beliefs, yet many cultural traditions did persist throughout the 1820s. By the end of the decade, most Choctaws remained faithful to their origin myths, which claimed they migrated from the West led by the magical powers of two brothers. Commoners and headmen continued to believe in the power of rainmakers and the healing prowess of conjurers. Choctaws held and enjoyed stickball matches and feared and respected the mythical, mysterious beings of the woods.129

Despite winning few converts, Presbyterian missionaries had a profound influence on Choctaw culture and the ways Choctaws related to one another. How each person and village acculturated differed, but the amount of change within communities increased. Rather than widening socio-political gaps within communities, missionary schools brought Choctaws together. A loose consensus about cultural change as well as common goals and how to achieve them emerged by 1824. Headmen provided new opportunities for social and political advancement through the education missionaries provided, and commoners looked to those leaders for those opportunities as they had in

129 “Religious Opinions, Traditions, &c. of the Choctaws,” Missionary Herald 24 (June-July 1828): 176-83, 215-16; Gaines, Reminiscences, 77; and “Superstitious Observances of the Indians,” Missionary Herald 24 (Jan 1824): 13.

180 previous generations. Commoners found that missionaries brought more than buildings and a new religion. Rather, Presbyterians provided goods and the knowledge to obtain them. Education resulted in what headmen and commoners wanted. For headmen,

Presbyterians produced individuals who might use the new knowledge to fight American policies on American terms. For commoners, missionaries provided the skills necessary to survive by agriculture and husbandry, produce goods through blacksmithing and tailoring and obtain goods in a market economy, and amass and protect property. By the end of 1824, the loose consensus that had begun to emerged among Choctaws would be tested as headmen and educated Choctaws traveled to Washington to make a fair treaty with the United States, fight for Choctaw autonomy, and protect what individuals had achieved since missionaries arrived in Choctaw territory.

181 CHAPTER V

THE FRACTURING OF A PEOPLE: THE TREATY OF WASHINGTON

AND THE ROAD TO DANCING RABBIT CREEK

By the beginning of 1824, a loose consensus had emerged among the Choctaw of

Mississippi regarding what they needed to do to survive. Within a few years, however,

Choctaws of various status and rank held different opinions about what really mattered in their lives and for their communities. Individuals and communities acculturated differently. Not all Choctaws embraced acculturation, but most agreed to at least some changes in their lifestyles, beliefs and practices. Chiefs and headmen espoused the need for acculturation and wanted their followers to acculturate enough to coexist with

Americans while retaining Native autonomy. Leaders promoted the idea that Choctaws must oppose American treaties on American terms, which meant using “white” education to negotiate. The Treaty of Washington revealed that education might result in fairer agreements but also underscored the frailty of the consensus that had formed. Widespread disillusion resulting from the treaty created factionalism within the Choctaw Nation that resulted in an inability to reverse Federal Removal policies at Dancing Rabbit in 1830.

The Washington Treaty represented the pinnacle of success for Choctaw chiefs, headmen, educated negotiators and commoners. A majority of the Choctaw Nation believed chiefs

182 could protect Native interests against Federal policies. Their failure resulted in the fracturing of the Choctaw community.

After the signing of the Treaty of Doak’s Stand in 1820, small groups of

Choctaws removed to lands in present-day Arkansas and Oklahoma that they had received in exchange for a portion of territory east of the Mississippi River. Those who removed were placed under a new Western Agency referred to as the Caddo or Red River

Agency in 1821. As a result of inaccurate maps used during the 1820 negotiations,

Choctaws were assigned land that American settlers already occupied. Complaints quickly reached the Office of Indians Affairs from settlers and the Governor of Arkansas who claimed that the treaty was deficient, that one-third of the American settlers lived within the boundaries of Choctaw territory in the West and the solution to the problem would require a massive upheaval of Natives and Americans from their homes.1

Choctaws also complained about the mistake made by the Federal government. Choctaw

Agent William Ward wrote that “Much Jelloussy exists among the natives about the land ceded to them beyond the Mississippi on account of its being settled by white people prior to the Treaty of Oct[o]b[e]r last.” Chiefs, headmen and commoners demanded answers from the United States officials. Furthermore, as Ward noted, their leaders

1 Edward E. Hill, “Choctaw Agency, 1824-76” in The Office of Indian Affairs, 1824-1880: Historical Sketches (New York, NY: Clearwater Publishing Company, Inc., 1974), 44; From [Humphrey McCormay ?], 22 May 1824, Letters Received by the Office of Indian Affairs, 1824-891, Choctaw Agency, Microfilm publication M234 (Washington, DC: National Archives, 1959), reel 169 [hereafter M234 followed by reel number], and Francis Paul Prucha, American Indian Policy in the Formative Years: The Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts, 1790-1834 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962), 171-72.

183 refused to negotiate any further treaties and commoners refused to remove without an immediate rectification.2

As the government stalled, chiefs and headmen devised their own plan for dealing with the problems inherent within the Doak’s Stand agreement by testing the effectiveness of American education in negotiations with the United States. Reports filtered to the Secretary of War regarding the formation of a Choctaw Delegation, which planned to travel to Washington City and negotiate directly with the President. Cyrus

Kingsbury, one of the Presbyterian missionaries to the Choctaw, noted that a “few of the most intelligent” wished to speak with President Monroe regarding the confusing treaty.3

Realizing the 1820 cessions had created problems for Natives and Americans in Arkansas territory, Calhoun promised William Ward that the War Department would aid in the

Delegation’s trip to Washington in 1824.4 The talks in Washington would differ from

2 William Ward to John C. Calhoun, 26 July 1821, The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume VI, 1821-22. ed. W. Edwin Hemphill (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1972), 285. Calhoun no doubt realized the severity of the problem. Three months prior, he order Thomas McKenney, who ran the Office of Indian Affairs, to bribe warriors in the East to move to territories west of the Mississippi River. Provisions included 500 blankets, 500 kettles, 500 rifles, and 1,000 pounds of powder and lead to be given to those who removed. Essentially, the United States government gave Choctaws weapons to fight off encroaching settlers. Calhoun to Thomas L. McKenney, 28 March 1821, The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume V, 1820-21, ed. W. Edwin Hemphill, (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1971), 704.

3 Cyrus Kingsbury, 16 January 1823, The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume VII, 1822-23, ed. W. Edwin Hemphill (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1973), 425-26.

4 From Calhoun, 29 January 1824, Microfilm publication M15, Records of the Office of the Secretary of War, Letters Sent, Indian Affairs, 1800-1824 (Washington, DC: National Archives, 1942), reel 6 [hereafter M15 followed by reel number].

184 previous because educated natives served as the principal diplomats while the principle chiefs remained in control. The negotiations revealed varying opinions about what mattered most to the Nation as it struggled to survive and remain independent from the

United States. After they signed the treaty in 1825, Choctaw leaders split and led different factions based on conflicting views about acculturation, land, compromise with the

United States, property and ultimately removal. Commoners who remained in Mississippi viewed the Delegation as a unification of the Choctaw Nation and hoped it might achieve goals that benefitted all Choctaws.

The ten delegates held differences in opinion about acculturation but they united along similar goals.5 Included among its members were the three district chiefs

Mushulatubbee, Puckshenubbee, and Pushmataha. Each had supported missionary schools and change, but they received their power from tradition and epitomized

Choctaws who defined themselves based on Native religion, success in warfare and a hierarchy of respect based on reciprocity. Born between 1750 and 1770, Mushulatubbee received a traditional education and worshiped Aba. He married between the age of fifteen and twenty and practiced polygamy. As a chief, he ruled one of the three districts of the Choctaw Nation.6 Although he not boast the oratory of Pushmataha, he used

5 Eight delegates signed the treaty in 1825, but two died during the trip to Washington. Treaty with the Choctaws, No. 219, 18th Congress, 2d Session, 27 January 1825, American State Papers: Indian Affairs, 2 vols. (Published by Gales and Steaton, Washington, D.C., 1832), 2:548 (hereafter ASP:IA followed by volume and page number).

6 Horatio Cushman, a historian of the Choctaw and son of missionaries who lived among those Natives during the 1820s, recorded Mushulatubbee’s name as meaning “to destroy by fire.” Ovid Vickers, a current historian of linguistics, notes that “abi,” here

185 speeches to influence followers. Furthermore, he gained fame in battles against numerous enemies and received medals of honor, thus earning the title of Medal Chief, after fighting under Andrew Jackson during the Creek War.7 Despite his lineage and rise to power through tradition, he supported limited acculturation among his people. Mirroring the opinion of his late-uncle Homastubby, whom he succeeded as chief, he noted in 1820,

“We cannot expect to live any longer by hunting. Our game is gone.”8 As had his predecessors, Mushulatubbee advocated acculturation and financially supported mission schools. He realized that hunting and warfare no longer represented viable options for subsistence and wanted Choctaws to learn new ways to survive without converting to

Christianity, which he detested.9 The chief exemplified the Choctaw effort to preserve spelled “ubbee,” means “to kill.” Thus, the name earned refers to Mosh’s ability to destroy and kill in battle and hunting. See, Horatio Bardwell Cushman, History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw and Natchez Indians, ed. Angie Debo, intro. Clara Sue Kidwell (Greenville, TX: Headlight Printing House, 1899; first reprint, Stillwater, OK: Redlands Press, 1962; second reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999), 276; and Ovid Vickers, “Mississippi Choctaw Names and Naming: A Diachronic View,” Names 31:2 (1983): 119-20.

7 The system of giving medals to denote status and allegiance to a foreign ally began with the French during the eighteenth century. The British, Spanish, and United States also used the British. After the War of 1812, which included the Creek War in the Southeast, Pushmataha, Mushulatubbee and Puckshenubbee had each received the title of Medal Chief by the United States. See, Robert V. Remini, Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars (New York, NY: Viking, 2001), 184, 197.

8 Mushulatubbee’s had an assistant named Aiahokatubi, who relayed speeches on behalf of Mushulatubbee. See, Push 95-96; Anna Lewis, Chief Pushmataha: American Patriot (New York: Exposition Press, Inc., 1959), 55, 60, 137, 140, 170, 191; and Maxine Barker, The Third Arrow: A Story of Mushulatubbee, Choctaw Chief (Carollton, MS: Pioneer Publishing Company, 1997), 25-28, 34-39, 43.

9 Gideon Lincecum, Pushmataha: A Choctaw Leader and His People, intro. Greg O’Brien (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2004), 96; and Wade Crawford

186 religious and social values but adapting certain aspects of American culture. According to one observer, Mushulatubbee owned a “moderate stock of cows and horses” and even bought six slaves.10 Although he purchased and used slaves for labor, he most likely held them as prestige goods, which only the wealthier and more powerful Choctaws could afford. He often bragged of such ownership and other prowesses. For example, the old chief boasted to other individuals that he wooed a white woman into marriage but he loved his Choctaw wife more. The chief showed his faith in the new generation of

Choctaws when he placed his maternal nephew Peter Pitchlynn, who later gained prominence as a leader in Indian territory in charge of the light horse brigade.11

Unfortunately, Mushulatubbee also enjoyed alcohol, which led to his fall from power among Choctaws, loss of respect among missionaries, and lack of influence in

Barclay, Early American Methodism in Two Volumes, Part One: 1769-1844, vol. 1 of 2 (New York: The Board of Missions and Church Extension of The Methodist Church, 1950), 137.

10 The observer in question was Gideon Lincecum, who lived among the Choctaw from 1822 to 1825. While there he visited and spoke with various chiefs, including the three district leaders and made several important observations about Choctaw social, political, religious and economic structures. See, Gideon Lincecum, Adventures of a Frontier Naturalist: The Life and Times of Dr. Gideon Lincecum, eds. Jerry Bryan Lincecum and Edward Hake Phillips, introduction by Jerry Bryan Lincecum, foreword by A. C. Greene (College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1994), 75-77.

11 Mingo Moshulatubbee to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 24 September 1824, Peter P. Pitchlynn Collection, Box 1, Folder 3, Western History Collection, University of Oklahoma [hereafter UHCUOK followed by box and folder numbers]; and Journal of Mayhew, 14 August 1822, Papers of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (Woodbridge, CT: Houghton Library of Harvard University, 1984-1985), microfilm, reel 755 [hereafter, ABCFM followed by reel number].

187 Washington.12 For his followers, faith placed in the new, educated generation of individuals hinted at the prosperity possible and the political importance of acculturation for future Choctaws.

Like Mushulatubbee, Pushmataha served as a district chief and rose in status based on skills at hunting, war and oratory. He became a living legend through his skill in hunting and in campaigns against the Osage and Creek. He befriended Andrew Jackson at the Creek War and helped fend off the British during the Battle of New Orleans in 1815.

Undoubtedly, Pushmataha reveled in his heritage, but he was also an outspoken advocate of acculturation. Before becoming chief, he traded items like meat, furs and pelts for material goods at the Choctaw Trading House.13 Commoners followed his example and used the factory system to obtain supplie. Furthermore, he promoted missionary education by donating funds and by sending family members to school. He noted on many occasions that he welcomed the establishment of a school in his Six Towns District.14

12 Lincecum. Adventures, 77; Journal of Mayhew, 14 August 1822, 755, and Cyrus Kingsbury to Jeremiah Everts, 8 August 1825, 756 both in ABCFM.

13 Choctaw Factory Account Records, 1803 to 1815, St. Stephens Accounts, 1815, Account Register, reel 2, A List of Balances, Chaktaw Trading House, 1 October 1807, reel 1, Daybooks, 31 March 1811, reel 2, April 1-3, 1817, reel 6, all in Records of the Choctaw Trading House, Under the Office of Indian Trade, 1803-1819, The National Archives and Records Service General Services Administration, Record Group 75 (Washington, D.C., 1960), microfilm publication T500 [hereafter T500 followed by reel number].

14 Journal of the Mission at Mayhew, 13 May 1823, 13 November 1823, ABCFM, 755; “Projected Station at the Six Towns” and “Projected Station at the French Camps,” Missionary Herald 18 (Jan 1822): 9; “Projected School for the Six Towns,” Missionary Herald 17 (Sept 1821): 287; and “Scite of a New Station,” Missionary Herald 19 (Jan 1823): 8-9; and “Mission among the Choctaws,” Missionary Herald 17 (Feb. 1821): 49.

188 During the last three negotiations, Pushmataha had served as the principle speaker, a position he relinquished in 1825. He considered the position important, but he also felt that Choctaws educated in American practices and ideologies, business and political tactics, and writing could better convey his views to the foreign people.15

Little is known about Puckshenubbee except that he fiercely fought against land cessions and Federal impositions, he feared dependence on a foreign power, and believed

Americans wished to destroy Choctaws’ traditional way of life. He had earned his name, which meant “to encircle and kill” in war, and his immense distrust of whites was well- known among fellow Choctaws and the commissioners.16 In 1820, he took rations for his people to the treaty talks at Doak’s Stand, claimed the people of his district would owe the Americans nothing after the negotiations, and protested any use of alcohol by his warriors. Alcohol already had caused the loss of too much land, according the old leader, and his people should not lose more territory from bad choices made during drunkenness.

In a letter to Secretary of War John C. Calhoun, Andrew Jackson said that he had

15 Lincecum, Pushmataha, 86.

16 Claims of his distrust exist in records as early as 1801, when the United States negotiated the Treaty of Fort Adams with the Choctaw Minutes of a Conference between the Brigadier General James Wilkinson, Benjamin Hawkins & Andrew Pickens, Esquires, Commissioners of the United States, and the Principal Chiefs of the Choctaw Nation of Indians, held at Fort Adams, the 12th day of December, 1801, 12 December, 1801, Letters, Journals and Writings of Benjamin Hawkins: Volume I, 1796-1801, ed. C. L. Grant ( Savannah, GA: The Beehive Press, 1980), 395-96. Horatio Cushman stated that Puckshenubbee prided himself on his honestly. He considered himself “uncontaminated” with anything foreign and believed such foreign items and beliefs, including alcohol, corrupted Choctaws’ traditional way of life. His actions and reactions against “whites” earned him the name Hattakupihumma okpuloh (a Bad Red Man). Concerning the meaning of his name, see Cushman, History, 234-35, 273-74.

189 difficulties negotiating with Puckshenubbee, who showed a terrible temper towards the commissioners. Fearing Puckshenubbee would create tensions with the United States,

Pushmataha sent a petition to Andrew Jackson requesting that the Federal government remove Puckshenubbee from his position as chief and replace him with his bicultural nephew Robert Cole. Despite attempts to overthrow Puckshenubbee, his followers defended their leader’s power as chief, and he remained in his position with the backing of his district to participate in the negotiations. Commoners trusted Puckshenubbe, an unwavering advocate for Choctaw rights who was untarnished by foreign bribery and corruption. A strong-willed chief, Puckshenubbee maintained support despite internal threats to his power. True to character, he made negotiations difficult for Federal emissaries at Doak’s Stand. Only when Jackson threatened Puckshenubbee’s son-in-law, who had deserted the United States Army and was arrested in 1820, did the old chief agree to the treaty terms. Only through threats did Jackson convince Puckshenubbee to sign the agreement.17

Ironically, despite fears that Choctaws were changing too much, Puckshenubbee advocated acculturation. He considered most negotiations corrupt and commissioners untrustworthy, but he did not deny that circumstances demanded change. In his youth,

17 Pooshemullaha and Mishulatubbe to President James Monroe, 30 October 1818, The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume III, 1818-1819, ed. W. Edwin Hemphill (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1967), 243; Andrew Jackson to John Caldwell Calhoun, 30 December 1818, 263-64, 265 n.1, John McKee to Andrew Jackson, 13 August 1819, 313, Andrew Jackson to Choctaw Indians, 3 October 1820, 391-92, Andrew Jackson to Choctaw Indians, 17 October 1820, 394-96, all in The Papers of Andrew Jackson: Volume IV, 1816-1820, eds. Harold D. Moser, David R. Hoth, George H. Hoemann(Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1994); Lincecum, Pushmataha, 29; Lewis, Pushmataha, 146; and Remini, Jackson, 197.

190 Puckshenubbee herded cattle and traded “deerskins and cowhides for . . . saddles, bridles, spurs, whips, cowbells, and salt, which was essential for the animals’ nutrition.”18 He promoted the development of cotton cultivation by Choctaws for sale in American markets. The old chief not only provided money for schools but also send his nephews to the schools, donated cattle from his own herds for the development of the schools, and visited the institutions to monitor the progress of the students and the way children were treated.19 Commoners saw Puckshenubbee as an important example to follow. Although strong-willed, he altered his life only in ways that did not dishonor traditional Choctaw culture.

Although the three district chiefs did not always agree on political questions, they symbolized a transformed Choctaw culture that had not yet diverged from its traditional religion or its desire for autonomy. All three district chiefs shared the goal of preventing further loss of land through cessions. Each received warrior educations, rose to power

18 James Taylor Carson, Searching for the Bright Path: The Mississippi Choctaw from Prehistory to Removal (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1999), 74. For further discussion of trading, see ibid., 74-83.

19 Journal of the Mission at Elliot, Choctaw Nation, 2-3 June 1821, Kingsbury, M. Jewett, S. Williams, A. Williams, J. G. Vanouse to Samuel Worcester, 12 April 1819, Kingsbury, L. Williams, M. Jewett, I. Fisk, W. Pride to Worcester, 12 June 1820, Kingsbury, Moses Jewett, Isaac Fisk, Wiliam Pride, and Loring S. Williams to Samuel Worcester, 21 September 1819, and Kingsbury to Calhoun, 18 November 1819 all in ABCFM, 755; From Thomas L. McKenney to Calhoun, 4 March 1819, Calhoun Papers: Volume III, 630; McKenney to Calhoun, [ca. 25] January 1822, The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume VI, 1821-22, ed. W. Edwin Hemphill (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1972), 638; and Sarah Tuttle, Conversations on the Choctaw Mission, 2 vols. (Boston: Massachusetts Sabbath School Union, 1830, selected Americana from Sabin 97515, reel no. 126, microfilm, filmed from the holdings of the Huntington Library, San Marino, CA), 1:52-53.

191 through traditional means and promoted the authority in traditional ways, but each incorporated parts of American culture into their lives. Pushmataha took pride in diplomacy with the United States, Mushulatubbee owned slaves and cattle,

Puckshanubbee encouraged followers to sell crops in American markets, and all three promoted missionary education.20 Pushmataha and Mushulatubbee shared similar views about diplomacy with the United States. They signed treaties to obtain trade, funded schools and dictated a letter of thanks to the President for establishing schools. All three feared dependence, conversion and the destruction of Indian autonomy. These leaders refused to compromise the ideologies they used to define themselves as leaders and

Choctaws. In their youth, each chief learned the importance of oratory to sway opinions.

Speeches made at negotiations did not produce fair results in final treaties. Chiefs feared not only the loss of their authority but loss of the faith of their Nation, the dissolution of their governmental control, and the destruction of the bonds that united their people.

Negotiation tactics, district leaders thought, needed to change.

To speak for the Choctaw in Washington, the chiefs chose diplomats, specifically

David Folsom and James L. McDonald, who might respond effectively to American tactics. Folsom’s family offered a model for other Choctaws. His education enabled him to succeed as an inn owner and politician. He helped his brothers enroll in schools so they might benefit from education. Folsom used his influence to get his brother Israel accepted to a school in Cornwall, Connecticut, where he studied theology and business skills

20 Carson, Bright Path, 79-80.

192 similar to those learned by his elder brother.21 Robert Folsom later followed David’s example, and after completing his education, aided in the fight to protect Choctaw lands and autonomy.22 By the 1820s, Folsom had become a spiritual and political leader, and

Choctaws flocked to his side that they might benefit from his example.

Although Folsom did not become a chief until after the Washington negotiations, he had long enjoyed influence in the Choctaw Nation because of his father, Nathaniel

Folsom, and his education. He had built a sizeable following and promoted religious conversion as an option for survival. According to Folsom, two obstacles blocked

Choctaw progress. Choctaws suffered from two boundaries that blocked progress.

Foremost, alcohol abuse existed throughout the Nation. The light horse brigade confiscated and destroyed liquor, but “whiskey” kept Choctaws from being “brote to the light.”23 Second, Choctaws were settled sparsely over a large region of territory. Folsom thought that a more compact settlement pattern would be more conducive to missionary education and learning. Since a few Choctaws refused to give up hunting as their primary source of subsistence and others farmed cash crops, the chance to establish compact, higher-density, large-scale settlements within the three districts remained slim.24

21 Israel Folsom to James Monroe, Folsom (Israel) Letter, 8 March 1821, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, MS [hereafter abbreviated as MDAH].

22 Letter from Robert Folsom, 8 March 1830 in Tuttle, Conversations, 70-72.

23 David Folsom to the Missionaries, 23 July 1821, Jay L. Hargett Collection, Box H-57, 55, Western History Collection, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma [Hereafter, collection name, WHCUOK, followed by box and folder number].

24 Ibid.

193 On several occasions, David Folsom equated himself with the Choctaws and, more importantly, showed sympathy for them. In July 1818, he wrote to Reverend Elias

Cornelius of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions: “I know that your wish is pure and love and good for this nation, and therefore I have been talking to my peoples and have advice them for the best during their intention to industrys and farming, and lay our hunting aside, and here is one point of great work is just come to hand before us which is the establishment of a school, and the Choctaws are appear to be well pleased.” In 1822, Folsom noted concern about student progress at mission schools:

“I did feel sorry when I was there to witness some bad conduct of the scholars there. But I hope good may overrule for the best—this is my sincere wish. . . . The children go out to work cheerfully, and mind their teacher cheerfully, and on the hole I think they improve most handsomely—and the missionary spirit at Mayhew I think it is good—they all appear to do what they can.”25 Folsom felt sympathy for the children who failed to acculturate. He wanted the youths to learn, work and act like Americans. To further this end, he helped Cyrus Byington create a written version of the Choctaw language. Folsom saw the decline of the Choctaw and hoped missionary schools would “[n]ow lead us in this white path, that we may find the great joy and happiness as you do.” He noticed the dissatisfaction of chiefs when missionaries did not focus curricula on trades and literacy.

Folsom trusted that the missionaries knew how best to promote the survival of Choctaws.

He feared that the chiefs’ “fuss and talks and grumbling and dissatisfaction” about the

25 Quote from David Folsom to Cyrus Byington, 6 July 1822, both reprinted in Cushman, History, 292-93. See also Folsom to Elias Cornelius, 16 July 1818 in ibid., 292.

194 curricula of schools might hinder acculturation and the stain their relationship with missionaries. After becoming a chief at Pigeon Roost, Mississippi, he continued to encourage commoners to embrace American religious beliefs and occupations.26

As exemplified by his political views, Folsom believed communal language, geographical location and political autonomy characterized Choctaw culture and provided the important bonds that linked individuals and their communities together as a people.

The district chiefs and Folsom based national decisions on the welfare of the nation. Both sides looked to religion for guidance, Folsom as a Christian and the district chiefs as practitioners of a traditional faith. During his days at a “common school,” Folsom befriended other American Indians. Those childhood friendships often drew him back to his home country. He never physically attacked Mushulatubbee or other traditionalists, and he hoped to preserve peaceful relations with his American Indian kin. Although he had seen the advantages of the market economy and wealth within American society, he did not cheat Choctaws out of land or money. Folsom learned from his father’s culture how to survive in the white man’s world, but he defined himself as a Choctaw through birth, taking his heritage from his mother as powerful leaders had done for centuries.

Torn by the appeal of two cultures, Folsom promoted the civilization program and entered the American market economy while boasting about his heritage and struggling to preserve the rights of Choctaw commoneres.

Folsom drew much support because he respected traditional religion and did not attempt to convert Choctaws on a massive scale. He wished for coexistence, not for the

26 Ibid.

195 entire transformation and subservience of his people. Although his opinions about conversion and acculturation differed from those of the district chiefs, he made valiant efforts to oppose corrupt treaties and unfair land cessions.27 Chiefs and commoners considered Folsom’s bicultural heritage an advantage. He understood Native customs and the desire for education and autonomy. Although he advocated religious conversion, he respected traditional beliefs. As one observer wrote, commoners saw Folsom as a patron,

“full of anxious solicitude for their [Choctaws’] honor and welfare.”28 He was passionate about the desires and needs of his fellow Choctaws. Commoners saw that passion in his intensity to do good for the Choctaw Nation by bringing about new generations of

Choctaws who might unify the people, preserve autonomy, and increase prosperity.

Although he had befriended settlers and promoted peaceful relations with the Federal government and American Board of Commissioners, he alone did not possess adequate knowledge of United States law to fight corrupt negotiations and land-cession attempts effectively. For such a battle, chiefs also relied on another well-educated individual,

James L. McDonald, who became one of the most important individuals in pre-Removal

Choctaw history.

27 Excerpt from David Folsom to Elias Cornelius, 3 November, 1818, David Folsom to Cyrus Byington, 6 July 1822, and Folsom to Byington, 7 January 1829, all reprinted in Cushman, History, 292-95; and Cyrus Kingsbury to Jeremiah Evarts, July 1829, ABCFM, 756.

28 Thomas J. McKenney to Mr. Kingsbury, 3 August 1825, in The Choctaw Academy: Official Correspondence, 1825-1841, ed., comp. Joe R. Goss (Conway, AR: Oldbuck Press, 1979), 8.

196 James L. McDonald possessed the knowledge and attitude necessary to achieve

Choctaw goals. He enjoyed status among Choctaw leaders even though he was not a leader. Instead, his status came only from his education and experiences in American society. The story of McDonald’s life showed the district chiefs what Choctaws could achieve through education. More importantly, when faced with becoming tool of the

Federal government to trick Indians into ceding lands, he traced his lineage to his mother, considered himself a Choctaw by birthrite, and decided to return the Nation to aid his brethren in resisting Federal policy. McDonald became an example for the Nation to follow and a beacon around which district chiefs and other men of status joined to achieve national goals.

McDonald had, received American education superior to any other Choctaw.

Unlike the “mixed-blood” families, particularly the Folsoms, Coles, and Pitchlynns,

McDonald lived among Americans for most his life.29 Choctaw chiefs believed

McDonald’s experiences and education made him a weapon that they could use to win a fair agreement with the government. McDonald’s exact origins remain unknown. Records reveal nothing about his father and little about his mother. About 1813, the Yearly

29 In records concerning McDonald’s education and role in the government, Federal officials called him a “Choctaw boy,” which seemed to denote full-blood status. Typically, letters and other original documents refer to mixed-bloods as “half-breeds.” Such sources did not, however, term McDonald as bicultural. Records concerning his mother claim that he may have been of mixed heritage. If his mother was of mixed heritage, than he must have been as well. See From Philip E. Thomas, 16 February 1818, The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume II, 1817-1818, ed. W. Edwin Hemphill (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1963), 142. Folsom became chief of Western District, which Puckshenubbee once ruled, in 1826 after deposing Robert Cole, nephew of Puckshenubbee. See Carson, Bright Path, 95-97.

197 Meeting of Friends at Baltimore agreed to place a Choctaw boy whom they called James

Lawrence McDonald into their Quaker school “for the purpose of promoting the civilization of the Indian natives.”30 If McDonald received an education, the Friends believed, he might convince fellow Choctaws to remove, cede land and assimilate into

American society. Philip E. Thomas, secretary for the Maryland school that McDonald attended, claimed that the boy “conducted himself remarkably well, has an excellent understanding, and promises to become a useful & valuable man.”31 Payment for

McDonald’s education came from the War Department, an agent which saw the boy’s potential value in his experiences in both American and Native worlds. For Thomas and the Federal government, the McDonald’s success proved that American education could transform young Native children into “white” adults. To exploit McDonald’s potential,

Thomas needed more funding and sought aid from a friend.32

McDonald’s progress at the Quaker school convinced prominent Federal officials that educating Indians might result in complete to assimilation. When he learned of

McDonald’s progress, Superintendent of the Department of Indian Trade Thomas

McKenney increased support for the Civilization program. After McDonald’s graduation in 1818, he gave the fourteen-year-old McDonald work within the department. Their relationship evolved into friendship, and the Superintendent treated the young Choctaw as an adopted son by giving him a home. McKenney promoted the boy’s understanding of

30 Philip E. Thomas, 16 February 1818, Calhoun Papers: Volume II, 142.

31 Ibid.

32 Ibid.

198 American culture and, with the blessing of John C. Calhoun, obtained government funding for his advanced education.33 McDonald fought continued to distinguish himself much as he had at the Quaker school. As the boy received further education at an academy Georgetown, Doctor Carnahan, who helped oversee the institution, issued a complaint about the youth: “he comes to school with his lessons all so well digested, and with more Latin, and Greek, and mathematics in one of them, than the class I attached him to can get through in a week, so I have put him in a class by himself.”34

As McDonald progressed to a higher tiers of schooling, McKenney reported the youth’s progress with pride and noted the his exceptional work ethic. In 1819, McKenney wrote Calhoun and included a letter from the McDonald. According to the Indian Trade

Superintendent, “[h]is [McDonald’s] letter, (I could have wished he had taken more pains in its mechanical parts) tells, I think, very plainly of what power of Intellect he may by & by boast.”35 McDonald’s intellect amazed McKenney and Calhoun, and McKenney and his family became quite attached to young man.

McDonald’s experiences, however, often left him doubting the efficiency and ethics of the American economic and political system. He provided interesting thoughts

33 Thomas L. McKenney to John C. Calhoun, 26 March 1818, Calhoun Papers: Volume II, 211, 221.

34 Thomas L. McKenney, Memoirs, Official and Personal: With Sketches of Travels Among the Northern and Southern Indians, 2 vols., 2d ed. (New York: Paine and Burgess, 1846; Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing Legacy Reprints, 2007), 111.

35 McKenney to Calhoun, Weston, 10 August 1819 [Enclosure: James L. McDonald to Thomas McKenney], 9 August 1819, Calhoun Papers: Volume IV, 226- 230.

199 about the government factory system and higher learning. He had worked and received an education in “mercantile relations [‘a Dry-Goods store’],” and at different times during his employment had left the store to attend classes with supervision and funding from the government. He had “[s]pent 20 months learning business at the Store,” learned the skill of surveying, “‘attended a course of Lectures on Natural & Experimental Philosophy,’” learned Latin, and “partially studied ‘Mechanics and Astronomy.’” His letter also stated that he enjoyed working at the store but hated to write. According to McDonald, writing spurred boredom and provided activity but without visible result. Mercantilism produced profits and commercial success that he could see and touch. The Superintendent of Trade tried to convince McDonald of liberal education’s importance. McDonald wrote

McKenney at the latter’s request “in order that [McDonald’s] views might be the more readily got at.” Unfortunately, the boy replied with mixed emotions about education and writing: “That part of his letter which relates to his return to school from his office would seem to convey the idea that it was not by his own suggestion, or desire.” McDonald himself stated, “Indeed, I believe you are aware that I have no predeliction for the Pen.

Writing is a most irksome employment to me: I had rather be delving with the Spade or

Mattock. I consequently did but little, comparatively speaking, in the Office.” Education and writing later guaranteed McDonald’s success by giving him the ability to engage in commerce and interpret written laws and receipts. McKenney and Calhoun would not have funded McDonald’s education if not for the level of acculturation and the “power of

Intellect he may by and by boast.”36 McDonald was an exception among the other

36 Ibid.

200 Choctaws who attended Mississippi mission schools. He had learned about philosophy,

Federal policies that concerned Indian affairs, and about United States economic practices. He had the potential to become a prominent, wealthy, landowning Native.

Furthermore, McDonald experienced white culture at the Office of Indian Trade in

Washington and learned about economics at the dry-goods store. These, experiences taught him about the inner workings of American politics and economics.

Although pressured by McKenney and Calhoun to be educated in a variety of subjects, McDonald confessed to mixed ambitions about obtaining employment in

American society. McKenney had sent McDonald back to school because the youth professed a desire to further his education. When the he returned from classes, he stated that he did not want further schooling, only a job at the Office of Indian Trade. When

McKenney suggested a “choice of a Profession—Law, Physic, or Divinity,” McDonald declined the “Study of Learned professions”; he only wanted to return to the Choctaw

Nation to farm for the government. He claimed that the nostalgia of being reared on a farm outweighed the other options. Yet, he closed, “But, I must confess, I have some ambition to distinguish myself, some disposition to be useful, and a desire to free the character of educated Indian Youth (with some degree of Justice cast upon it) of a proneness to relapse into Savagism.”37 As McDonald was reared in the Choctaw Nation until the age of fourteen, he had heard the speeches of chiefs Pushmataha and

Puckshenubbee and learned his people’s traditions. He never forgot that life.38 Instead, he

37 McDonald to McKenney, Calhoun Papers: Volume IV, 228-30.

38 McKenney, Memoirs, 106.

201 recalled the virtues learned before reaching the Quaker school and living with McKenney.

Throughout the remainder of his life, McDonald would suffer confusion, anger and sadness as he balanced uncomfortably between two worlds.

McDonald faced a crucial decision that would affect the remainder of his life.

McDonald feared his “Indianness,” his so-called “savage nature,” would re-emerge if he returned home and did not use the education at which he had excelled. Yet, he desired a simple life of agriculture. His education called him to a different aspiration, which would characterize him as American in nature but Choctaw by birth. He had an intense emotional connection to his mother Molly (or Mary), who still lived with her people.

McDonald’s strong feelings for her are not surprising considering that he came from a matrilineal society. During his years with McKenney, McDonald maintained in contact with his mother. Similarly, her son most likely witnessed the changes she made to her lifestyle during his youth. The records of the Choctaw Trading House include her name from 1807 through 1817. McDonald would have been approximately three years old when she began trading at the factory.39 Furthermore, McDonald may have received some education from Silas Dinsmoor, who served as agent to the Choctaw from 26 February

1802 to 7 April 1814, and later took the delivered-teenage Choctaw to the Quaker school in Baltimore.40

39 See lists of balances for October 1807, March 1809 on reel 1, September 1811 on reel 2, April 1817 on reel 6 all in T500.

40 In 1988, Evabeth M. Kienast wrote to the Mississippi Department of Archives and History Director Elbert Hilliard regarding James McDonald. Her research and Hilliard’s assistants uncovered letters from Silas Dinsmoor, who stated that he taught the boy until 1813. In that year, Dinsmoor took McDonald to the Quaker schoool in

202 By 1821, McDonald had witnessed first-hand the atrocities committed against

Choctaws, events that influenced his career decision during the following three years. In

1821, Calhoun received word concerning two depositions forwarded by Choctaw Agent

William Ward and submitted by Molly. A citizen of the United States named Samuel

Crawford sold her a slave for $800 of which she paid $684.50 upon receipt and the remainder of the balance on credit. Crawford later demanded payment in full, which

Molly could not afford. She offered a horse worth the amount, and he accepted it as payment. When she left to get the horse, however, Crawford and two men armed with pistols stole the slave.41 When her depositions had no effect, she complained to her son

James, who then contacted Calhoun and argued that the government should reciprocate her loss because it guaranteed the protection of Indians’ private property. McDonald would, as he wrote, fight for her “possession—an indemnity to which she [was] entitled under the fourth section of the Indian trade law.” McDonald stated that “principle” was the important issue regarding his mother and complained “[h]ow easy it is for the white man to establish his claim!” According to the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act,

Baltimore to continue his education. See Evabeth M. Kienast to Elbert Hilliard, 12 March 1988, in James L. McDonald subject file, MDAH.

41 Deposition/Certification, John Rhodes to William Smith, 7 September 1820, 44 and William P. Gould to John C. Calhoun, 12 April 1821, 45, both in Records of the Old Southwest in the National Archives: Abstracts of Records of the Choctaw Indian Agency and Related Documents, 1794-1841, comp. and ed. James R. Atkinson, appendices Jan Hillegas (Cobb Institute of Archaeology, 2005); and James L. McDonald to John C. Calhoun, 10 July 1824, and McDonald to Calhoun, 9 November 1824, both in M234.

203 McDonald cited, she should received “immediate compensation” for her loss.42 A little over three months later, his mother received compensation for the slave. If not for

James’s close relations with Calhoun and McKenney, Molly may not have received compensation for her repossessed slave. That white creditors could illegally take her property meant they could do the same against other Choctaws. Arguably, his emotional connection to Molly drove him to protect Choctaw rights because the destruction of

Choctaw country would adversely affect her. She was his only blood-related family member for whom he showed affection. Also, he might not have fought diligently for her property if not because of a close relationship.43 McDonald realized that much tension existed between Indian and American cultures. Unfair treatment of some Choctaws appeared unethical. He felt torn between two worlds. The Americans who trod upon his fellow Indians were the same people who had given him so many opportunities.

McDonald realized that he could live as Native and American, use his government-funded education to aid the Choctaw effort for survival in the East. He once told McKenney that he could “either throw away all that belonged to the white race, and

42 Ibid.; and McDonald to McKenney, 13 December 1824 and McDonald to Calhoun, 10 July 1824. McDonald later witnessed the same atrocities committed against other Choctaws who also lost property to Americans. He often questioned how Natives could fight corruptions through the litigation of the court rooms. See McDonald to Calhoun, 9 November 1824, M234.

43 James L. McDonald to John C. Calhoun, 9 November 1824 and Thomas L. McKenney to William Ward, 23 February 1825, both in The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume IX, 1824-25, ed. W. Edwin Hemphill (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1976), xxix-xxx, 309-10, 375, 384-85;

204 turn Indian; or quit being Indian, and turn white man.”44 He chose an occupation that could achieve both those objectives and studied law. Between 1821 and 1823, Judge John

McLean, Ohio Supreme Court Justice and close friend of McKenney and Calhoun, educated McDonald. By 1823, the young man gained admittance to the Ohio bar. In a letter to Calhoun, McDonald stated that McLean recommended that he practice in

Cincinnati. When Calhoun prepared to offer McDonald a position of service in the

American government to negotiate with Natives, the Choctaw lawyer stated that he decided to practice in Mississippi and Alabama. If successful, he would settle in one of the two places.45 Calhoun, McKenney, McLean, and others did not want their efforts to educate McDonald wasted, but McDonald refused to become a traitor to his people.

Instead, he turned on the individuals who had provided him with so many opportunities.

By the time he had earned his law degree, McDonald realized the government had acted unjustly at past treaty negotiations. He the unfair treatment of his mother by traders despite the law being in her favor. He managed to gain compensation for Molly’s stolen property, but future threats to her well-being drove him to practice law in Jackson rather than in a distant state or the Federal government. McDonald wrote to Calhoun about

Choctaw opinions that concerned ceding land and protection by Federal law. He stated that they knew that their land possessed fertile soil and prime hunting. McDonald

44 McKenney, Memoirs, 113.

45 Introduction, xxx, and James L. McDonald to John C. Calhoun, 13 October 1823, 311-12, both in The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume VIII, 1823-1824, ed. W. Edwin Hemphill (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1975); and Carson, Bright Path, 116.

205 included a personal note, stating that both he and Calhoun had enjoyed a budding friendship and should remain friends despite his decision to work for the Choctaw rather than the United States. McDonald realized he had not followed the path that Calhoun and

McKenney had desired. Yet, the lawyer’s experiences in American society, observation of

Federal law, and education prepared him to protect Indian interests and rights.46

The events leading to McDonald’s tenure as the Choctaw Nation’s attorney reveal much about American-educated Choctaws. With links to “white fathers,” namely

McKenney and Calhoun, McDonald gained the same, if not better, opportunities than bicultural individuals like David and Israel Folsom, Peter Pitchlynn and the Coles. Hence, he pursued a primary, secondary, and advanced education and understood the inner- workings of governmental and economic policies in the United States. His ability to communicate through letters, understand the power of law, and interpret contracts gave him an advantage in dealing with land cessions. Unlike Choctaw leaders who marked an

“X” on treaties without completely understanding those documents, McDonald could interpret and negotiate with full understanding of the documents. He once stated that removal did not pose a terrible alternative for Choctaws who refused to “civilize,” but it would destroy Natives who practiced American agriculture and customs and who acculturated in order to remain on sacred Choctaw lands. Moreover, personal

46 McDonald to Calhoun, 16 November 1824, Calhoun Papers: Volume IX, 384- 85.

206 considerations influenced McDonald’s decisions to negotiate with the Federal government. The long-term consequences of an unfair treaty might hurt his mother.47

Bicultural Choctaws had a key role in negotiating treaties and running Native governments because they lived as both Native and American, but Folsom and McDonald received different educations than most of their counterparts. Their advantages resulted from relationships with white communities, particularly their fathers’ roles as “fictive kin.” During the eighteenth century, Choctaws adopted particular “European traders, agents, and emissaries” into their societies as fictive kin with certain titles and privileges.

After the American War of Independence, refugees and traders made Indian country their home. Although non-Natives were allowed to intermarry with Choctaws, fictive kinships meant that non-Natives who became parts of Indian communities learned and practiced spiritual, social and political rites. Since Choctaws based land ownership and kinship ties on matrilineal systems, children and land belonged to the mothers.48 According to tribal law and matrilineal customs, mothers dictated the fate of children. Although the progeny of mixed heritage, offspring would not enter American schools without the consent of the

47 For examples of Choctaw-leader signatures, see Robert B. Ferguson, “Treaties between the United States and the Choctaw Nation,” in The Choctaw before Removal, Carolyn Keller Reeves, ed. (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1985), 216-17. For typescript copies of treaties with the Choctaw signed between 1786 and 1830, see Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, 2 vols., comp. and ed. Charles J. Kappler (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904), 2:11-319, Oklahoma State University Electronic Publishing Center: Digital Collections, Stillwater, OK, Online, Path: Oklahoma State University Electronic Publishing Center/Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties/Volume II (Treaties, 1778-1883): Table of Contents/Choctaw: Treaty with the Choctaw, 1786-1830.

48 Theda Perdue, “Mixed-Blood” Indians: Racial Construction in the Early South (Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 2003), 11-21; and O’Brien, Revolutionary, 5-6.

207 mother. Chiefs supported such offspring, like Robert Cole, because they provided a distinct advantage in governing Choctaws, dealing with Americans, and promoting prosperity for future generations. As Theda Perdue found in her work concerning individuals of mixed heritage, bicultural children obtained power in both worlds. They gained land, titles, and prowess through matrilineal kinship links and positions of leadership through their influence. Educations would help preserve Choctaw autonomy while also protecting positions of power.49 As Folsom, McDonald and Cole showed, however, individuals of mixed heritage attempted to provide for the people first and their own needs second. For mothers, children who received education provided prowess and honor to the family line, property and monetary wealth, and aided in promoting Choctaw independence. By sacrificing the traditional education of their children, mothers provided important advantages for the Choctaw community because their progeny would lead the

Nation against an adversary by using diplomacy, law and economic theory rather than bows or guns.

Fathers with mixed children advocated mission schools for three reasons. First, mission schools taught both literacy and white labor. Second, Mississippi territory remained a frontier in the early 1800s. According to various accounts in the late-1700s and early-1800s, many natives continued to practice their “old” customs, which included native religious rituals, hunting, warfare, and polygamy. At the beginning of the century,

Americans saw few signs of assimilation despite Choctaw efforts to adopt white agricultural practices, including raising cattle, horses, and hogs. Mission schools

49 Ibid., 86.

208 provided not only signs of acculturation and a trustworthy, reasonable, and assessable means of educating bicultural children. Similarly Choctaws who increasingly traded at factories, received American educations, and accumulated property such as slaves and houses exemplified the shifting culture from Native to American. Third, missionary education would promote “whiteness” in mixed-blood children, who would throw off the chains of “heathenism.” These students embraced both “white” and Indian worlds.50 Like

Folsom, bicultural Robert Cole practiced the customs of both cultures, owning taverns and promoting American agricultural techniques over Indian hunting practices. Yet when removal threatened his people, Cole fought to help Choctaws keep their lands in

Mississippi. By both fighting for his people and embracing the market economy, Cole acted as a Native and an American. Fathers had worried only about their children’s survival as United States citizens, but offspring saw biculturality as an advantage prospering in both American and Choctaw worlds. Quite often such mixed individuals, including Cole, would adapt means of subsistence, but they continued to practice traditional methods of rule and spirituality. Folsom converted, but Cole worshiped in the

50 Reverend Alfred Wright, “Religious Opinions, Traditions, etc. of the Choctaw,” The Missionary Herald 24:6 (Jun 1828): 179-81, 215-16; Maxine Barker, The Third Arrow: A Story of Moshulatubbee, Choctaw Chief (Carollton, MS: Pioneer Publishing Company, 1997), 33, 34; Journal of the Mission at Elliot, 26 March 1819, ABCFM, 755; F.B.Young, Esquire, “Notices of the Choctaw, or Choktah, Tribe of North American Indians,” Edinburgh Journal of Natural and Geographic Science 2 (1830): 13-16; Patricia Galloway, “‘So Many Little Republics’: British Negotiations with the Choctaw Confederacy, 1765,” Ethnohistory 41:4 (Aut 1994): 513-14, 519, 524, 530; James Taylor Carson, “Horses and the Economy and Culture of the Choctaw Indians, 1690-1840,” Ethnohistory 42:3 (Sum 1995): 495, 497-99, 501-503; Hannah Pride to Thompson, August 1821, and William T. Pride to brother and sister, June 1825 both in Pride (Hannah T. and William W.) Papers, 1821-1826, manuscript, MDAH; and, Pride Papers, MDAH.

209 “old” manner, respecting nature and the importance of the Sun. Yet, during negotiations, both Cole and Folsom drew upon their experiences and educations in the American world to combat unfair Federal policy.51

Literacy became one of the weapons used by bicultural individuals. Writing provided fast, efficient and fluid communication between Indians and the United States government. Those who could not read and write dictated letters to middle-men, who doubled as translators and then sent the documents to the appropriate Federal official.

Chiefs who dictated often could not speak much English. In 1818, for example, chiefs

Pushmataha and Mushulatubbee dictated a message to a government interpreter. The

Indian leaders supposedly stated, “Our Father, you have sent a talk to us; but our land is small and we do not wish to part with any of it, and therefore have not complied with your wishes. We do not wish to leave our country. We have received your Commissioners

[Andrew Jackson and Isaac Shelby] & took them by the hand & treated them kindly, but our land is so small we could not spare any.”52 The language here is simple, the ideas general, and the message concise and clear. The interpreter recorded and translated the dictation accurately. The chiefs, or rather the interpreter, gave no specific reasons why

51 Prominent mixed families that balanced between cultures included the “Folsoms, . . . , Pitchlynns, Nails, Juzans, Brashears,” Turnballs, and Coles. See, Carson, Bright Path, 70-71; Perdue, “Mixed-Bloods,” 44; and Clara Sue Kidwell, Choctaws and Missionaries, 1818-1918 (Norman and London: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995), 18.

52 Pooshemullaha and Mishulatubbe to President James Monroe, In Council at the Chaktaw Trading House, October 30, 1818, Calhoun Papers: Volume III, 243. For another example of chiefs dictating messages to an interpreter, see Love, “Mayhew Mission,” 371; and Kidwell, Missionaries, 41.

210 Choctaws opposed removal other than because their land was small. Of course, leaders who communicated through interpreters had not received missionary educations. Perhaps then, lacking the skills to interpret written language, they did not always comprehend the stipulations set forth in treaties and Federal law.

To the full-blood chiefs in the Delegation, Choctaws of mixed ancestry, specifically James McDonald and David Folsom, appeared as models of a brighter future, whose knowledge about contracts, law, and surveying could help protect Choctaw property. Folsom certainly believed that Indians could prosper in the American world if they acculturated, threw off their “simple ways” and became literate. As early as 1818, he wrote to James Monroe and John Calhoun, whom Folsom hoped would promote mission schools and the coexistence of Choctaws and Americans.53 Yet Folsom did not say that

Choctaws should quit being Choctaws. On the contrary, survival and prosperity in the shadow of a threatening foreign power, the United States, meant Indians should live and act like Americans to avoid destruction and preserve autonomy. They would read, write, interpret and examine the articles and stipulations set forth by the treaty, a contractual agreement that educated, bicultural individuals could understand, negotiate and manipulate for the betterment of the Choctaw Nation. Folsom and McDonald, who disagreed with the removal of acculturated Choctaws, would dramatically change their views after 1825, but before and during the Washington Treaty negotiations they considered education a tool to combat threats while preserving peaceful relations with the

53 Folsom to Monroe andCalhoun, 9 October 1818, Calhoun Papers: Volume III, 1967; and Byington to Jeremiah Evarts, 20 July 1829, ABCFM, 756.

211 Federal government. Choctaws would abandon their earlier violent response. Instead, they would defend Choctaw rights with their intellect by exploiting education. Law, diplomacy and surveying became the weapons of a new class of warriors who had become tired of ceding land to the United States and would travel to Washington to prevent further losses.

The Treaty of Washington in 1825 represented a watershed in Choctaw history and ultimately led to Choctaw removal to the west of the Mississippi River. Determined to protect the power, land and property of their people, chiefs selected educated diplomats to counter treaty provisions hostile to Choctaw interests. The chiefs feared that negotiations in Washington might sour relations and cause the United States government to cancel funding for mission schools of end its practice of giving annuities. Native leaders believed reasonable relations had to continue because they considered the Federal government an ally and President James Monroe their benefactor. In turn, the chiefs had hoped that discussing the next treaty face-to-face with the President might establish more equitable agreements. They could exchange land for schools, and their compromises would bring peace and missionary education. Monroe was concerned about Choctaw well-being. Although Indian commissioners had obtained earlier treaties through bribery and threats, Monroe advocated negotiating “peaceably and on reasonable conditions.” He observed that the Senate had become saturated with debates about Indian rights. Many senators argued in support of indigenous liberties, for nonviolence in treaty negotiations,

212 and for the “betterment” of “savages.” Together, these attitudes, indigenous and Federal, set the stage for treaty negotiations in Washington.54

The Choctaw Delegation left in early October 1824. It consisted of ten individuals, among them the three district chiefs Pushmataha, Mushulatubbee, and

Puckshanubbee and bicultural removal opponents David Folsom and lawyer McDonald.

Of the individuals who signed the treaty, only two could read, write and comprehend the articles within it.55 While in Washington, correspondence between the Federal government and Folsom and McDonald increased tensions that had originated in the

Doak’s Stand Treaty. Educated Natives served as the principal diplomats, but district chiefs made the final decision whether or not to sign the treaty. In this way, the three district leaders remained in control of the process. Folsom and McDonald had the ability to win a hearing with Federal authorities. Their goals remained simple: obtain a fair treaty or no treaty at all; obtain a better deal than previous treaties; protect peaceful trade and political relations with the United States; and protect missionary education and property, most especially Choctaw lands.

54 To Congress—Removal of the Indians, 30 March 1824 and To the Senate and House of Representatives and To , April 1824, both in The Writings of James Monroe: Volume VII, 1824-1831, ed. Stanislous Murray Hamilton (New York: AMS Press, 1969), 14-15, 20-21; From the Reverend Cyrus Kingsbury, 16 January 1823, The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume VII, 1822-23, ed. W. Edwin Hemphill (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1973), 425-26; and James Pitchlynn to Andrew Jackson, 13 September 1819, Calhoun Papers: Volume IV, 323.

55 At the end of the treaty, the only two individuals who signed their names were McDonald and Folsom. The other individuals, who possessed no formal education, were not literate. Washington. Treaty with the Choctaws, No. 219, 18th Congress, 2d Session, 27 January 1825, ASP:IA, 2:548

213 These goals seemed attainable at first, but stalemate soon developed. McDonald and Folsom temporarily did block new land-cession demands. McDonald wrote to

Calhoun that the soil and hunting in Mississippi were better than in Arkansas. He noted that the Choctaw would “consider” government propositions for a land cessions since both sides desired a continued friendship. In November 1824, McDonald and Folsom replied kindly, but firmly, that the “Delegation cannot, at this time, give a decisive answer on the subject [of a removal treaty]. . . . The Delegation wish you to tell them what price you are willing to pay for the land which they propose to cede, and they can then determine, with the less hesitation, on the manner in which the compensation for the cession shall be applied.”56 Secretary of War John Calhoun acted as commissioner for the treaty and immediately offered an immediate payment of five thousand dollars plus six thousand annually for ten years. Regarding the western lands, he concluded, “Considering the remoteness of the lands proposed to be ceded, and the price which has been usually given for those similarly situated, it is believed that the offer is a liberal one, and I hope the Delegation will find no difficulty in acceding to it.”57 After a brief deliberation, the

Delegation replied that the offer was “altogether inadequate.”58

Written refusals had not occurred prior to 1824 and represented a significant deviation from past negotiations. For two months, Calhoun contested the issue with

56 James L. McDonald to John C. Calhoun, 9 November 1824, M234.

57 Calhoun to Choctaw Delegation, Department of War, 19 November 1824, Calhoun Papers: Volume IX, 388.

58 Choctaw Delegation to Calhoun, 22 November 1824, Calhoun Papers: Volume IX, 397-99.

214 Choctaw diplomats. The Delegation treated the United States not as a father figure,whose demands would be honored, but rather as an equal business partner with whom they would negotiate. Commissioners had negotiated past treaties at camp grounds and communicated with headmen through interpreters. Commissioners, most notably Andrew

Jackson, frequently threatened Choctaws to obtain signatures. Headed by McDonald and

Folsom, the 1824 Delegation spoke directly to the War Department. Neither interpreters nor commissioners, not even district chiefs, had a role in the negotiations. Such directness meant government agents could not issue underhanded and secretive threats through middlemen at frontier sites. The relationship between McDonald, McKenney and

Calhoun prompted peaceful talks because they had cultivated a friendship during

McDonald’s tenure as a government employee. Written communication and diplomacy, the location of the negotiations in Washington, and the friendship between McDonald and

Calhoun forced both sides to negotiate on equal terms.

The delegation’s argument rested on several foundations. Using a business approach and surveying skills, they concluded that, although remote, the area was extremely valuable. If the United States had the land, its citizens would possess easy access to the Mississippi and thus New Orleans by way of the Arkansas and Red Rivers.

The area was characterized by prime farming and pasture lands. For twenty-four years,

Choctaws had ranched, raised cash crops (including cotton), and participated in the

American market economy; and they had the ability to exploit the land like Americans.

Furthermore, the land was much more valuable that the amount Calhoun offered.

“Suppose you should not be able to sell more than one-third [of the land],” delegation

215 diplomats McDonald and Folsom insisted, “That, at the minimum price of public lands, will bring you more than two millions of dollars. Is it not just and right that we should receive, in annuities, a reasonable portion of that sum?” The delegation stated that “fine farms, dwelling houses, cotton gins, & mills of various descriptions” dotted the landscape. Those improvements coupled with Choctaw “civilization” and the rich soil, made the lands much more valuable than the government claimed. Using their knowledge of Indian law and Congressional policies, McDonald argued, “Those improvements which have been made since the Treaty, without any colour of right, and contrary to the laws of Congress, which prohibit settlement on Indian lands, are unquestionably ours.

The labour has not been ours, we freely acknowledge; but who can say that the property is not?” At the least, the delegation estimated the value of improvements alone at “several hundred thousand dollars.”59 The land and everything on it had become Choctaw property after the 1820 negotiations. Choctaws refused wished to relinquish valuable property which they might exploit for future gain. They too had the right to live, work and turn profits like Americans. To offer such low amounts for the territory and the improvements on it merely insulted the education of the diplomats and assumed they would not comprehend the theft taking place.

The delegation insisted not only on the agricultural value of the land but also its worth for commerce. The proximity and access to New Orleans and the Mississippi River from the Arkansas and Red Rivers in Choctaw territory would provide essential trade routes that led to the Gulf of Mexico. Folsom’s and McDonald’s business experiences

59 Ibid. [emphasis added “contrary to the laws of Congress”].

216 provided knowledge necessary to estimate the 2 million dollar approximation for one- third of the territory the government wanted. A matter of principle emerged as another motivation to reject the Federal demand. The delegation noted the several successes of the civilization program. They did not give specific names or numbers of those that had embraced American customs but included one general example of acculturation, namely

Indian ownership of property. The delegation admitted that the Choctaw had not made the improvements near the Red River, but individuals who had removed there considered the territory their property. Traditional Choctaw culture did not promote private ownership, but the continuous influence of material goods, missionaries and markets prompted the acknowledgment of individual private property.

The Delegation had suffered multiple problems during their absence from

Choctaw territory. These problems ranged from death to drunkenness. During the trip

Puckshenubbee disappeared on October 13 while the delegation rested at an inn in

Maysville, Kentucky. He strolled through the town at night and fell from a bluff. He was found alive and a doctor was summoned, but the old chief had suffered multiple broken bones and severe head trauma that led to his death two days later. Although the Federal government paid for the funeral and a parade in his honor, the situation seemed suspicious. Puckshenubbee represented the fiercest opponent of Federal policy, having little trust in the United States to engage in honest negotiations. Furthermore, as Folsom noted, unlike the other chiefs and representatives, Puckshenubbee did not drink alcohol

217 and concluded that drunkenness was not the culprit.60 Despite questions surrounding

Puckshenubbee’s death, the Delegation attended his funeral and then continued to

Washington in an effort to achieve the goals of the many Choctaws at home.

The misfortunes continued upon the delegation’s arrival in Washington when

Folsom learned of a family tragedy. Cyrus Byington, one of the principle Presbyterian missionaries to the Choctaw, informed Folsom that his infant son had died. The diplomat replied that he felt much pain in leaving his family, and his absence must have caused his wife great suffering as well. He only hoped that he would join his son after death.61 In the same letter, Folsom mentioned another problem that hindered the delegations. During the trip Folsom remained sober, but his fellow delegates became drunk on many occasions.

On September 25, the delegation stopped to rest 12 miles from Columbus, Mississippi.

Here, near the beginning of the trip, some began to “drink Whiskey and get drunk.”

Folsom attempted to convince them to remain sober and tactful during the trip, which the members promised to do in the future. But on October 13, McDonald also got drunk, a frightening prospect considering that he represented the most intelligent and perhaps most important individual for negotiating a fair treaty. By January, half of the delegation was perpetually sick from excessive alcohol consumption. Folsom feared their condition would lead to the failure of their mission. Historian Herman Viola calculated the debt for alcohol ingested by the Delegation at $2,149, when only $2,000 was appropriated by the

60 David Folsom to Cyrus Byington, 13 October 1824, MDAH; and John Pitchlynn to William Ward, 17 October 1824, Pitchlynn Papers, WHCUOK, 1:7.

61 Folsom to Byington, 7 December 1824, Hargett Collection, WHCUOK, H- 57:23.

218 Federal government for room, board and clothing throughout the entire trip. After a deduction of $684.50 paid by McDonald, total expenses for the Choctaws in Washington reached a staggering $4,315, not including Puckshenubbee’s funeral costs nor travel expenses. The Delegation spent half the money to indulge in drink.62

The principle negotiators had begun to doubt their ability to succeed in the negotiations and feared the Choctaw Nation would soon lose confidence in them. Folsom wrote that God had brought these trials upon the them to reveal the “wickedness of the

Delegation” but hoped that “better men may raise up in their place.”63 McDonald too had lost hope in his the effort to achieve what now seemed impossible, namely fair treatment of Natives. One evening after the other delegates retired to bed, McKenney invited the lawyer to his office and reminisced about the days of McDonald’s youth spent at Weston with McKenney’s family. McDonald replied “Spare me! Oh, spare me! It is that thought that makes me so miserable.” He admitted that he longed for the Choctaw Nation and longed for that “sweet home, and its endearments.” McDonald exclaimed that a “veil . . . was kindly placed between me and my Indian case,” and after seeing how he would never be more “than a degraded outcast.”64 He feared that his cultural and biological links to two worlds tore him in half and had placed an unfathomable pressure upon him that

62 Folsom to Byington, 25 September 1824, Hargett Collection, H-57:21, Folsom to Byington, 13 October 1824, H-57: 22, both in WHCUOK; Viola, McKenney, 130-31; Annuity List: Items Delivered and sums used by the delegation at Washington City, 1825, description in Records of the Old Southwest, 75; and Lincecum, Adventures, 76-77.

63 Folsom to Cyrus Kingsbury, 14 January 1825, Hargett Collection, WHCUOK, H-57:56; and McKenney, Memoirs, 88.

64 McKenney, Memoirs, 116-17 [emphasis in original].

219 McKenney could not understand. The stresses had become so intolerable that they affected his ability to think clearly, even about the treaty. Folsom believed that the chiefs did not have the capability to lead the Choctaw Nation into a brave new world of change and prosperity. McDonald feared that the problems the Delegation faced ran much deeper. He blamed racism for the treatment and difficulties faced in Washington.

Regardless of his intellect, tact and superior legal abilities, Americans looked down upon him as a lesser man whose views were not worthy of consideration.

The biggest blow to the Delegation occurred toward the end of December. A few days before Christmas, Pushmataha, aged about sixty years, contracted a respiratory illness and passed away on Christmas Eve before the treaty could be signed. Although a sad end, his funeral honored the life that had been, both the legendary and real one. After he was dressed in the uniform of an American colonel and followed by a procession of

3,000 persons, Pushmataha’s remains were laid to rest in the Congressional Cemetery on

December 24. Words on his tombstone bore his final request: “When I am dead let the big guns be fired over me.” At his funeral, cannons were fired to honor the late warrior.65

Pushmataha’s death exacerbated the strife the delegation already suffered. On his death bed, Pushmataha predicted that when the delegation traveled home, they would “see the flowers, and hear the birds sing” and “They [the Choctaw Nation as a whole] will hear the

65 Gideon Lincecum, Pushmataha: A Choctaw Leader and His People, intro. Greg O’Brien (Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2004), 98-100; and Typscript excerpt from the Bureau of American Ethnology regarding the life of Pushmataha and the Choctaw, Walter Stanley Campbell (1877-1957) Collection, Box 117, Folder 21, WHCUOK.

220 tidings like the fall of a mighty oak, in the stillness of the wood!”66 The end of

Pushmataha’s life greatly affected the negotiations. The delegation’s members felt a vacuum of power and loss of leadership, and Calhoun used the situation to his advantage.

He presented the letters that had passed between Choctaws and himself to President

Monroe. A mere four days after Pushmataha’s burial, Calhoun stated that, according to

Monroe, the difference between the price asked for the lands and “that which is possible for the Government to give” was so great that the “President deems it unnecessary further to continue the negotiation.”67 Without Pushmataha, the Government lost the person who most effectively drove Choctaws to live peacefully with Americans, to seek missionary education and acculturation, and to maintain autonomy. The delegates had not expected a stalemate and worried the journey to Washington may have been in vain.

Indeed, given the loss of the chief whom commoners, delegates, headmen and fellow principles chiefs revered and the stalemate in negotiations, the delegation thought failure was inevitable. Mushulatubbee remained the sole representative for leading his people to prosperity despite encroachments by the Federal government. Without his signature on the treaty, the delegation feared trade and political relations would worsen, and the government would repossess schools and factories. Calhoun took the opportunity to counteract Choctaw efforts only four days after Pushmataha’s death. Physically exhausted from the journey, fearful of a deterioration of relations with Americans,

66 Ibid., 88.

67 Calhoun to the Delegation, 28 December 1824, Calhoun Papers: Volume IX, 465-66.

221 emotionally drained by the sudden death of his fellow chiefs, and weakened by illness,

Mushulatubbee considered submission his only option. He ordered the Delegation to sign the Treaty of Washington on January 20, 1825.

Once finalized, the Washington Treaty represented the best and worst of the pre-

Removal treaties. Choctaws received the largest sum of money ever obtained in a treaty, including an annual annuity in perpetuity. They had preserved their schools and secured additional funding for them. The United States agreed to cancel the remaining debts of principal chiefs. Finally, the delegation successfully maintained peaceful relations with

Americans on whom their survival depended. Yet, historians also regard it the worst agreement because they ceded the territory in Arkansas granted in the Doak’s Stand

Treaty in 1820 and received little land in return.68 Commoners who had removed to that territory and made new lives for themselves would be removed and lose all their property.

David Folsom remained hopeful that the treaty would fulfill his dreams of an educated, autonomous Choctaw Nation. He wrote that he hoped the Choctaws would “reape the benefit of it as it were sold for their improvement.” The Delegation’s “soul object,”

Folsom claimed, was to educate their children and the “improving” of the Choctaw

68 Treaty with the Choctaw, 1825 in Kappler, Laws and Treaties, 211-14, Oklahoma State University Electronic Publishing Center: Digital Collections, Stillwater, OK, Online, Path: Oklahoma State University Electronic Publishing Center/Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties/Volume II (Treaties, 1778-1883): Table of Contents/Choctaw: Treaty with the Choctaw, 1825. For the original, non-typescript version of the Treaty of Washington, see Treaty of Washington, 20 January 1825, Ratified Indian Treaties, 1722-1869, Record Group 11, Microfilm publication M668 (Washington, D.C., 1973), reel 5.

222 people.69 Since the leaders had not gotten what the Arkansas lands were worth, Folsom feared the Nation would have little appreciation for the sacrifices made in Washington.

Leaders believed the preservation of education guaranteed the future survival of their nation, but commoners at home felt the immediate loss of land and once again felt betrayed by their rulers.

As Folsom had feared, Choctaws in Mississippi did not agree with the cessions made in Washington, but they could do little except wait for their leaders to negotiate their fate. Acculturation dictated that they continue living as Americans, relying on cash- crop agriculture, husbandry and the market economy to sustain them as well as receiving missionary educations. Missionaries continued to claim new successes at the schools, including young girls thrilled by their own ability to perform menial tasks such as baking cakes and the privilege of living comfortably in the schools’ dormitories.70 Boys and girls exhibited proficiency in English, including the ability to read and possibly interpret the

Bible. Presbyterians even founded a new school, which they christened Bethany, in

Robert Cole’s territory.71 By 1825, Presbyterians boasted five named missions and four unnamed missions within the Choctaw Nation operating with varying degrees of success.

In some regions, particularly in Folsom’s region, the schools served as a stabilizing force.

There, at Iikhunnah, a station west of Mayhew, Folsom and Presbyterians brought

69 David Folsom to Jeremiah Evarts, 19 January 1825, ABCFM, 756. Copy also available in the Cyrus Kingsbury Collection, WHCUOK, 6:15.

70 “Choctaw Mission,” Missionary Herald 20 (Aug. 1824): 249-53.

71 Journal of Elliot, 6 January 1824, ABCFM, 755; and From Cyrus Kingsbury, Mayhew, 26 October 1824, Calhoun Papers: Volume IX, 356.

223 together 25 families, who had previously been “wanderers, without industry, property, or character.”72 Commoners continued to seek missionary education, their desire for the schools evidenced by their continued support of the institutions despite leaders’ absence.

Missionaries noted that few Choctaws took advantages of the Delegation’s from the

Nation to act disorderly, but threats to the unity created by missionaries still emerged while leaders remained in Washington.

When the chiefs left for Washington, Kingsbury wrote to his superior Jeremiah

Evarts about the desire of Methodists to begin mission work in the Choctaw Nation. The

American Board of Commissioners agreed to allow it, but Kingsbury had reservations about the decision because the competition of a new denomination might split Choctaws who had united under the care of the Presbyterians. As long as the two denominations worked for the same goals and Methodists did not attempt to monopolize mission work in

Mississippi, Kingsbury agreed to support their establishments.73 Kingsbury’s fears quickly became reality. Methodists rarely, if ever, preached in Choctaw, and according the Presbyterian’s observations religious messages were seldom understood.74 Worse, the two denominations’ techniques for mission work rarely coincided. Methodists relied on camp meetings and had little desire to establish schools. Still, some Choctaws followed

Methodist teachings. Even leaders who were not members of the Delegation sent

72 “The Choctaws,” Missionary Herald 21 (Jan. 1825): 2-4.

73 Kingsbury to William Winans, 28 January 1825, ABCFM, 756.

74 Kingsbury to Evarts, 13 May 1825, ABCFM, 756.

224 children to the opposing denomination’s preachers to receive religious and educational instruction.75 But the Methodists had established themselves nonetheless, and they split the Choctaw community in ways Kingsbury and his fellow Presbyterians could not fathom.76

The failures at Washington coupled with community dissolution caused in part by denominational competition combined to wreak havoc on the Choctaw Nation in 1825.

Leaders had promised to protect the remaining lands held by Choctaws as well as the property commoners held dear. The Delegation hoped that the preservation of education would continue to aid Choctaws in preserving autonomy and the power of elites, which in turn would allow leaders and educated individuals to protect the community’s property and livelihood.

Upon the Delegation’s return, commoners were angry with the Delegation for ceding more land. The communal unity, albeit fragile, founded upon general agreement concerning acculturation, fractured. Some saw the negotiations as a success because schools and autonomy were preserved, but most feared that the land cessions would never stop. Choctaw leaders found their power threatened and moved to restore their power through tradition, religion and economics. The events at Washington showed that educated Choctaws, when not hampered by alcohol abuse and leadership attrition, could

75 Ibid.

76 William Warren Sweet, Religion on the American Frontier, 1783-1840: Volume IV, the Methodists, (New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1964), 499; and Wade Crawford Barclay, Early American Methodism in Two Volumes, Part One: 1769-1844 (New York: The Board of Missions and Church Extension of The Methodist Church, 1950), 1:135.

225 negotiate fairer agreements than had been made in previous decades. Those same negotiators, however, needed the unity and support of the Nation and its leaders to do so.

Instead, the Treaty of Washington brought a temporary end to communal unity and the power of chiefs. When threatened with Removal in 1830, Choctaws were unable to reunify and effectively oppose the United States and its ever-encroaching policies.

Upon the Delegation’s return to Mississippi, Choctaw commoners split their support among various leaders based on differing ideologies. The surviving district chief

Mushulatubbee felt the first blows from the factionalism forming in the Choctaw Nation and the initial threats to his power as a chief. His followers found two problems with his leadership upon his return. Before leaving for Washington, Mushulatubbee indulged in alcohol and become intoxicated on multiple occasions. Missionaries saw the chief’s actions as intolerable and a dangerous influence on younger generations. Furthermore, his behavior violated Presbyterian beliefs concerning temperance. In response, missionaries closed the school in his district. Angered at their chief’s actions and the subsequent result, commoners complained and threatened to strip Mushulatubbee of his position if he did not cease the habit and bring back missionary education. The old chief, feeling threatened, stopped drinking and the missionaries reopened the station.77 By 1824, commoners themselves wanted schools and valued education. Commoners showed the

77 Cyrus Kingsbury, 2 July 1824, 195, Robert Bell to Calhoun, 1 October 1824, 336, Cyrus Kingsbury to Calhoun, 26 October 1824, 356, Cyrus Kingsbury to Calhoun, 30 September 1824, 332-33, and Thomas L. McKenney to Cyrus Kingsbury, 28 August 1824, 294, all in Calhoun Papers: Volume IX; and Kingsbury to Evarts, 8 August 1825, ABCFM, 756.

226 district chief, the most powerful political leader over them, that they were willing to fight for what they wanted and needed.

In Mushulatubbee’s defense, the chief disagreed with the tactics of Presbyterians, who taught and preached in Choctaw. He once noted that no student from those schools left with the ability to keep and maintain records of accounts, an important task for

Choctaws to survive in business. The chief thought that a school outside the Nation would keep students from running home to their parents, a problem he considered responsible for some educational failures. Thus, Mushulatubbee proposed the creation of a new school outside Choctaw to teach lessons in English and trades. That arrangement might prevent children from leaving school before they completed their education since this was a significant problem with Presbyterian stations near Choctaw residences.78 In

1825, the chief provided funds for the establishment of Choctaw Academy in Scott

County, Kentucky, and the school opened in February of 1826. As in Presbyterian schools, its teachers instructed the students in multiple subjects, which included “reading, writing, arithmetic, English grammar, geography, practical surveying, astronomy, natural philosophy, history, moral philosophy, and vocal music.”79 By 1830 when Removal became a reality, the school boasted 65 students, all boys.

78 For a discussion of Mushulatubbee’s views concerning schools after 1825, see Carson, Bright Path, 94-95.

79 Letter from the Secretary of War transmitting a communication from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in respect to the manner in which certain stipulations in the Choctaw treaty of Dancing Rabbit creek have been fulfilled, 26th Congress, 2d Session, House of Representatives, War Department, Document No. 109, March 3, 1841: J. R. Poinsett to T. Hartley Crawford, War Department, Office of Indian Affairs, March 1, 1841, Choctaw Academy, 1-3.

227 Kingsbury opposed schools outside the Choctaw Nation. He claimed the new institution located at such a distance from home would not allow parents to discipline children. Also, Choctaws would not see the improvements made by scholars, and thus

Choctaw Academy would not serve as visual example for the uneducated. Cyrus

Kingsbury, who led the movement for Presbyterian education in Mississippi, argued that schools within Mississippi served as an inspiration to others. He recognized that a few hundred students in school was a low number when considering a total population of over

15,000 Choctaws in the region, but Kingsburgy explained that these numbers only represented students who applied to the schools, lived in the boarding houses and were considered “full-time” scholars. The register of students kept by the Presbyterian missionaries did not include the thousands of individuals who enrolled in worship services, attended a few classes when possible and learned skills indirectly from students who attended the schools.80 Choctaws in the lower section of Mushulatubbee’s district wrote to the Federal government to disagree with their chief. If the decision were left to them, they noted, they would have a new institution built in their neighborhood.81

Although Kingsbury attempted to plan a second school at David Folsom’s in order to block the Kentucky institution, a plan which McKenney highly supported, the effort failed and Choctaw Academy became a reality when ten headmen signed a resolution for its establishment. Its teachers did not come from the Methodist or Presbyterian

80 Mr. Kingsbury to the War Department, Mayhew, Choctaw Nation, July 6, 1825, ibid., 5-6.

81 Choctaw Trading House, June 27, 1825, ibid., 7; and J. Hartley Crawford to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 13 March 1841, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCUOK, 5:60.

228 denominations but rather from the Baptist Missionary Society of Kentucky. Each denomination had its own advocates, and each group of supporters competed for influence in the Choctaw community.82 Mushulatubbee found some support in his nephew Peter Pitchlynn. At an early age, Pitchlynn learned toherd cattle, received an missionary education, developed strong skills in oratory and used his position as the nephew of a district chief to obtain power. Peter Pitchlynn drew inspiration from numerous sources. Education became a primary motivator for cultural change. He attended school in Nashville and learned about the American economy from his

American father and traditional Choctaw culture from his Choctaw mother. With David

Folsom, he advocated the establishment of Presbyterian schools in1818 and 1819.83 With

Folsom, Pitchlynn also helped direct the growth and development of missionary schools within the Nation and urged the establishment of Choctaw Academy, located outside the

Nation. Like his uncle, Pitchlynn hoped that this new school would help Choctaw children more easily adapt from to American customs by situating them in a smaller community completely run and surrounded by “whites.”84 Opened in February 1826 and

82 From Colonel Ward to the War Department, 26 June 1825, 4, Mr. Kingsbury to the War Department, 6 July 1825, 5-6, Thomas J. McKenney to Mr. Kingsbury, 3 August 1825, 8, Resolutions of the Choctaw Council, 27 August 1825, 9, Colonel Ward to the War Department, 4 October 1825, 16, Colonel Ward to the Indian Office, 22 October 1825, 18, Indian Office to Mr. Kingsbury, 14 December 1825, 24-25, all in Choctaw Academy Correspondence.

83 Major Pitchlynn to David Folsom, Extract, 31 October 1819, ABCFM, 755; and “Peter Pitchlynn,” Conlan Collection, Folder 4, Notebook 2, WHCUOK.

84 “Peter Pitchlynn,” Conlan Collection, Folder 4, Notebook 2, WHCUOK; and Kingsbury to Evarts, July 1825, ABCFM, 756; and J. N. Bourassa to the War Department, Choctaw Academy, 21 February 1833, Choctaw Academy, 63.

229 located in Scott County, Kentucky, the school was dubbed Choctaw Academy. In this institution for males, curricula emphasized on writing and mathematics in classrooms and industrial skills. Impressed by missionary education, chiefs requested that letters be sent by the Choctaw Agent to Christian societies to recruit teachers for the institution. The

Baptist Missionary Society of Kentucky offered to supply instruction.85

Pitchlynn himself helped push through a formal agreement among Choctaw chiefs to establish the Choctaw Academy. Eventually, he became superintendent of the institution in 1841. On 22 October 1825, he personally set off with twenty-one students to

Kentucky.86 For over a decade, Pitchlynn maintained close relations with the individuals in charge of Choctaw Academy. But the school divided Choctaws over the question of

85 Letter from the Secretary of War transmitting a communication from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, in respect to the manner in which certain stipulations in the Choctaw treaty of Dancing Rabbit creek have been fulfilled, 26th Congress, 2d Session, House of Representatives, War Department, Document No. 109, 3 March 1841: J. R. Poinsett to T. Hartley Crawford, War Department, Office of Indian Affairs, 1 March 1841, Choctaw Academy, 1-3; and From Colonel Ward to the War Department, Choctaw Agency, June 26, 1825, Choctaw Academy, 4.

86 Resolutions of the Choctaw Council, Choctaw Agency, August27, 1825, 9; and Colonel Ward to the Indian Office, Choctaw Agency, October 22, 1825, Choctaw Academy, 4. Greenwood Leflore himself visited the school to inspect the education of the students and confirm that the young Choctaws were not displeased with it. He wrote, “I will observe that their accommodation in every respect, is equal to my wishes, and their progress flattering and rapid.” Charles Juzan, an individual with children of mixed ancestry, was impressed with the classrooms, instruction, housing and clothing of students. By October 1827, the school population had grown from 21 students to 89, including the children of the Pitchlynns, Jones, Worcesters, Garlands, George Hawkins, LeFlores, and many other prominent families with the Choctaw Nation. See, Report of Colonel Laflore [to James Barbour, Sec. of War], a Choctaw Chief, Choctaw Academy, 27 June 1827, 38-39, and Report of Charles Juzan, a Choctaw Chief, Choctaw Academy, 13 October 1827, 39-41, both in Choctaw Academy.

230 whether a national institution should be located within or outside Choctaw territory.

Pitchlynn backed Mushulatubbee despite the communal splits that had begun to emerge.

For Mushulatubbee, some commoners and other headmen thought his actions threatened the Choctaw Nation. Even the Superintendent for Indian Affairs Thomas

McKenney, an avid supporter of the “civilizing” Indians through acculturation, criticized the chief. McKenney portrayed Mushulatubbee as an enemy of missionaries, education and Choctaw progress. Furthermore, he charged, the chief had driven missionaries away and would likely do so again. Other Choctaw leaders and Mushulatubbee’s followers reconsidered the possibility of ousting the old leader from his position.87 Commoners blamed Mushulatubbee for signing away more land and the property of fellow Choctaws, a second strike against the chief’s leadership. Although the delegation at Washington numbered ten, Mushulatubbee was the only district chief who signed and therefore received the most blamed for relinquishing land

Again feeling his power threatened, Mushulatubbee raced to solidify power amongst his top-ranking warriors and further alienated his critics. He spread annuities among principle warriors but refused this wealth with many of his people as well as his political supporter Robert Cole. Worse the money had been promised to support the mission schools, a step which Cole advocated.88 McDonald, who practiced law in Hinds

87 Thomas L. McKenney to the Chiefs of the Choctaw Nation, 21 October 1825, Kingsbury Collection, WHCUOK, 1:3.

88 McDonald blamed Mushulatubbee for taking control of all annuity funds including those dictated by treaty to fund the Presbyterian schools. Partially, the blame also fell to agent William Ward, who did not divide the annuity payments equally and thus allowed Mushulatubbee to take control of them. James Carson claimed that the

231 County upon his return from Washington in order to support his mother, wrote to

McKenney about the political turmoil in the Nation. Although a “National Academy” might benefit the Nation, he preferred that education support remain with the missionaries in Mississippi. He was “highly satisfied” with the schools at Mayhew and

Elliot, but he thought the Presbyterians appeared at times “overzealous.” In regard to the annuity funds, he placed blame on Mushulatubbee for misdistribution.89 McDonald may have lived outside of the Nation, but he had a “deep and natural solicitude” for the welfare of the Choctaw people. A “kindred” and “common origin” bound them together, and the chiefs worked together and in Washington for the same goals. Within a year, he sank into a deep depression because the comradery and progress made in Washington had fallen apart and “they (the Choctaw and their chiefs) [were] divided.” McDonald felt his work was in vain. The prospects of a Choctaw Nation where chiefs, headmen and educated individuals could successfully fight corruption nearly had became reality in

1825, but money and greed divided them. The Choctaw lawyer feared that James

Barbour, Secretary of War in 1826, would act on the already widening divisions to destroy Indians’ titles to land and bring “jealousness” to his people.90 Regardless of the tensions between Cole and Mushulatubbee originated in the latter’s failure to give wealth to Cole, but more probable was that Cole became angered when missionaries did not received funds as promised. McDonald, an outside observer, noted this problem in his letter to McKenney. See, McDonald to McKenney, 25 April 1826, M234, 169; and Carson, Bright Path, 94-97.

89 McDonald to McKenney, 31 January 1826, and McDonald to McKenney, 25 April 1826, M234, 169.

90 McDonald to McKenney, 25 April 1826, and McDonald to McKenney, 27 April 1826, both in M234, 169.

232 tide of factionalism, McDonald realized that the mistakes made by Mushulatubbee would rip the Nation apart if not corrected quickly. The remedy, he hoped, lay in a new caliber of leaders, educated and prepared to bring change to the Choctaw world in support of commoners first and chiefs second. His once-fellow treaty negotiator David Folsom became an answer to the prayers of individuals like McDonald

In 1826, Folsom called a council to oust Mushulatubbee from his seat as principle chief of the Eastern district. He claimed that the old chief did not have the capability to lead the Choctaw Nation into a brave new world of markets and Christianity while maintaining political autonomy. According to Folsom, who made speeches at the council meeting, the Choctaw needed men who would support temperance, education and land preservation. As he noted in letter to Presbyterians months earlier, “I do hereby inform you, I have no wish to have my people remove west. . . . For if the Choctaw people remove, it will be against their will, interest, happiness; and every thing dear to them will cease from them.”91 Folsom pledged to fight to protect Indian lands at all costs, a promise

Choctaws had heard before, but a promise in which they again found hope. David Folsom continued his arguments against anyone who opposed missionaries or cultural change. He argued that Mushulatubbee as well as Robert Cole in the Western District and

Tappenahooma in the Six Towns District, who had taken power after the deaths of

Puckshenubbee and Pushmataha respectively, undermined the ability of missionaries to educate Choctaw children and preserve National power in the face of United States

91 Folsom to McKenney, 27 June 1826, and William Ward to James Barbour, 15 April 1826, M234, 169.

233 threats. They were, Folsom claimed, drunken thieves who ruled as tyrants. The members of the council, consisting primarily of other headmen and a few commoners, agreed that the chief must be removed and elected Folsom as the new leader.92

Mushulatubbee and Folsom exemplified two different views of the Choctaws’ futures. They had conflicting opinions about the method and amount of assimilation needed to survive in the face of United States expansion. Mushulatubbee held to traditional values; but Folsom, fearing the Choctaw could not resist the United States, adopted the primary goal of encouraging his people to survive by living among, worshiping like, and working for whites. Folsom urged to followers to convert, receive educations and live like “whites” but not to relinquish land. Choctaws’ only hope resided in ignoring the “wicked path,” characterized by non-Christian values.93 Folsom represented another option for Choctaws who feared that the reign of the old chiefs might cause further losses of property and prosperity. As faith in the older leaders began to wane, embracing new leaders with education and contacts within Indian and American societies appeared to many commoners to be the best solution for survival.

When these views spread from Folsom’s district, into Western and Six Towns, commoners deposed the powerful, traditionalist leaders. Robert Cole claimed that

Choctaws of mixed ancestry felt the brunt of threats from Mushulatubbee and his followers. He felt ashamed that chiefs would act so frivolously and uncouth in

92 Ibid.; and “Choctaws: The Present Condition of the Mission as Affected by the Proposed Removal of the Indians,” Missionary Herald 26 (Aug. 1830) 250-52.

93 Cyrus Byington to Jeremiah Evarts, 20 July 1829, ABCFM, 756.

234 Washington and realized that education would be doomed if such men continued to hold power, but he too was deposed in1826. Although a bicultural Choctaw, Cole learned that divisions forming within the Choctaw Nation split not along ancestral lines but along ideological ones when other bicultural individuals sought his position as chief. Folsom charged that Cole used annuity payments for alcohol rather than to benefit the Nation, and he claimed that “Indians in darkness must go through a revolution in some way,” and he supported the Western district’s decision to replace Robert Cole with Greenwood Leflore in 1826.94 According to Folsom, Cole’s own warriors supported his deposition, but Cole claimed otherwise. He argued that his warriors had supported him. According to Cole,

“white men” and educated Choctaws were responsible for his loss of power. Rumors spread throughout the districts claiming that the old chiefs were “being favorable to white people, and to the wishes of the United States” and had received bribes in Washington to sell more land. On the contrary, Cole and Mushulatubbee and many of their supporters sent a proclamation during that year to state they had “come to a Resolution . . . [to] sell no more land on any terms.”95 Folsom felt much animosity towards these more traditional chiefs. Kingsbury worried that the tensions between Folsom and other leaders would undermine the objects of missionaries. Kingsbury’s fears came true when Robert Cole turned against the Presbyterians. Cole considered them an arm of what he labeled the

“Christian party” led by Folsom. For Cole and Mushulatubbee and those who agreed with

94 Folsom to McKenney, 27 June 1826, M234, 169; andKingsbury to Everts, 8 August 1825, ABCFM, 756.

95 Mushulatubbee and Robert Cole to James Barbour, 17 November 1826, M234, 169; and Choctaw Chiefs to James Barbour, 18 March 1826, M234, 169.

235 them, the missionaries appeared part of the clique that removed them from power.96 Each group consisted of individuals who shared the same views about the extent of change. All the groups shared the same overarching goals. They wanted to protect Choctaw political autonomy and land, but their opinions regarding how to achieve these objectives differed.

By 1828, the Choctaw Nation had come under the rule of three bicultural individuals, two with formal educations. David Folsom remained in power over the

Eastern district. In the Six Towns district, or the Southern district, John Garland displaced

Tappenahooma, who had succeeded Pushmataha.97 Tappenahooma considered the prospect of removal and told the Secretary of War he would “examine the northern country” and give his opinion about it upon his return. While absent, his followers, threatened by prospect of their leader ceding territory east of the Mississippi as had

Mushulatubbee, deposed him. Believing “their “rights could be better guarded,” as

William Ward told an acquaintance, Choctaws of the Southern district elected John

Garland, a bicultural individual with little formal education, who followed the will of

Folsom.98 Garland represented little threat to Mushulatubbee and Cole’s ambitions to regain power, but Folsom represented a larger danger because he had developed support by providing for Choctaws in new ways, namely providing education and means of obtaining property. Folsom and Garland would not act alone.

96 Letter from Cyrus Kingsbury, 17 May 1825; Kingsbury to Evarts, 13 July 1830, 6:28, and Kingsbury to Henry Hill, 26 July 1830, both in Kingsbury Collection, WHCUOK.

97 Tappenahooma to the Secretary of War, 28 September 1828, M234, 169.

98 William Ward to Peter B. Porter, 11 October 1828, M234, 169.

236 After Folsom ousted Mushulatubbee in 1826, the Western district replaced Cole with an educated, bicultural Choctaw man who became the most controversial character in Choctaw history, Greenwood Leflore. Leflore’s father was Louis Le Fleur, a Canadian who entered the deep South in 1792 as a trader employed by Panton, Leslie and

Company. He married two women, Rebecca Cravat and her sister from the Western district within Choctaw territory. Rebecca bore a son, whom they named Greenwood, in

1800.99 Historian James Carson, noted that his father probably gained important ties to the Choctaw Nation by marrying Rebecca, a daughter of chiefly heritage. Greenwood, therefore, would have been in a position to take power later in life since Choctaws traced lineage and even status matrilineally.100 Leflore’s father established a trading station on the Natchez Trace that he named French Camp for his French ancestry. When Greenwood

Leflore was twelve, Major John Donley visited his parents. Although Leflore spoke little

English, Donley offered to take the boy to his home in Nashville, Tennessee. His parents accepted and Leflore left for Tennessee, where he received an education and married

Donley’s daughter Rosa.101 Louis and Rebecca no doubt realized that Donley had offered an important opportunity to their son. Like the Folsom and Pitchlynn children, Leflore’s

99 R. Halliburton, Jr., “Chief Greenwood Leflore and His Malmaison Plantation,” in After Removal: The Choctaw in Mississippi, ed. Samuel J. Wells and Roseanna Tubby (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1986), 56; and Allene Smith, Greenwood Leflore and the Choctaw Indians of the Mississippi Valley (Memphis, TN: C. A. Davis Printing Company, Inc., 1951), 18-22.

100 James Taylor Carson, “Greenwood Leflore: Southern Creole, Choctaw Chief,” in Pre-Removal Choctaw History: Exploring New Paths, ed. Greg O’Brien (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2002), 224-25.

101 Smith, Greenwood Leflore, 22-39.

237 parents fostered links between both white and Indian worlds. By obtaining a “white” education rather than a Choctaw one, Leflore would have an advantage in the American market economy by learning how to conduct business and about the political structures and their functions within the United States. Considering his lineage, Leflore might also take the reins of leadership as an educated and politically savvy chief in future.

Between 1826 and 1830, Leflore and Folsom led the movement to reforge and unify the Choctaw Nation under a single government with a constitution modeled on that of the United States. The first version of the constitution produced by Choctaw leaders included numerous changes to traditional law. For example, accusations of theft would go before a judge and jury. Unless witnesses could prove violations had been committed, the accused would be acquitted. Also included within the constitution were articles outlining punishments for infanticide, rape, murder, polygamy and alcohol trafficking. Earlier chiefs had attempted to produce simple law codes with some success, but those attempts did not include written rules.102 With a written code, chiefs and leaders of lesser status could refer to laws which the entire Nation was required to follow. The code would serve as a common law that superceded the rules set forth by local headmen. Among the stipulations included by the Choctaw Council, the chiefs approved two actions: one

102 “In General Council of the Chatas,” Peter Pitchlynn Collection, WHCUOK, 7:5. This document, included in the Western History Collection at the University of Oklahoma, consists of multiple written documents produced by the Choctaw Council. These documents recorded laws and legislation passed by the three chiefs between 1826 and 1830. Red Fort produced a law code in the territory over which he ruled. The code was not written. Although Red Fort was a headman, he was not a district chief. Rather he held the position of a captain and probably ruled over village and its surrounding countryside. He explained his law code to missionaries in 1822. See Letter from Captain Red Fort, 18 October 1822 in Tuttle, Conversations, 24-26.

238 would help commoners and the other aided in the promotion of national law. First, chiefs passed legislation to establish new blacksmith shops and apprentice Choctaw men to them to learn the trade, apprenticeships for which chiefs and commoners had fought since the arrival of missionaries. Second, the chiefs established a national council house to serve as a seat of government and visual reminder of the unity among districts and villages within the Choctaw Nation. While attempting to unify the Nation, the new leaders managed to isolate individuals who continued to believe in non-Christian practices and a vendetta for crimes. Families and individual Choctaws no longer were allowed to exact vengeance on witches who brought harm to kin. Instead, the Choctaw

Council, made up of chiefs and headmen, held trials to determine punishment. The new chiefs abolished pole-pulling ceremonies, which had represented an important ritual for honoring the deceased.103 These actions and others drove wedges between the new government and its followers.

To Thomas McKenney, the actions of the chiefs appeared to have a dramatic effect on the views of commoners who were grateful for the opportunity to receive missionary educations. Even when threatened with the possibility of removal, commoners rather than headmen wrote to Presbyterians thanking them for the schools and begging that those missionaries to relocate with the Indians west of the Mississippi

River.104 McKenney noted to an official within the Department of Indian Affairs that

103 “In General Council of the Chatas,” Peter Pitchlynn Collection, WHCUOK, 7:5.

104 Extract of a Letter from Hugh Coldwell, 17 July 1829, Kingsbury Collection, WHCUOK, 6:17; and Robert Folsom and other headmen to missionaries of the ABCFM,

239 people who followed Folsom, Leflore and Garland did so whole-heartedly, and “if the chiefs were to sign any paper, and call on their followers to sign it too, they would . . .

[not] enquire what they signed. They follow implicitly.”105 Commoners who followed particular leaders often listened and acted faithfully according to their respective rule, but

McKenney’s observance belied the splits evident underneath the documents and laws the new leaders produced.

Mushulatubbee and Robert Cole retained a number of followers and joined with a new ally Nittakechi, nephew of Pushmataha and a powerful war chief. These deposed leaders promoted violence, particularly against Leflore and Folsom, and considered the new government threatening rather than protective of Choctaw autonomy and land. They hoped to reclaim power and thought they were more competent to lead their people.106

Aided by Peter Pitchlynn, an educated and influential Choctaw of mixed ancestry,

Mushulatubbee, Cole and Nittakechi attempted to foment revolution against Folsom and

Leflore.107 Pitchlynn organized a group to assassinate Leflore, who had lost the trust of some leaders, commoners, and Presbyterian missionaries.

19 March 1831, ABCFM, 758. Copy of Folsom letter also available in the Cyrus Kingsbury Collection, WHCUOK, 6:20.

105 McKenney to J. B. Porter, 3 November 1828, M234, 169.

106 Kingsbury to Evarts, 6 May 1830, ABCFM, 756; “Present Condition,” Missionary Herald 26 (Aug. 1830), 253-54; J. C. Hastings to Pitchlynn, 13 June 1830, 1:16, R. D. Hallin to Peter Pitchlynn, 13 July 1830, 1:17, and R. M. Jones to Pitchlynn, 6 August 1830, 1:18, all in Pitchlynn Collection, WHCUOK.

107 Carson, Bright Path, 119.

240 Tensions soon arose not only along political lines but religious ones. Folsom remained the most vehement supporter of Presbyterian mission schools from their conception in 1818. He and Garland both converted during the 1820s. Leflore too converted to Christianity, and his followers often did the same. But his relationship with

Presbyterians differed from Folsom because he became a Methodist. Alexander Talley, who headed the Methodist missionaries among the Choctaws, believed the best means of

Choctaw survival lay in either assimilation or removal. Talley also believed that

Choctaws first should accept the Gospel and that cultural change would then proceed from it.108 Methodist programs for “civilizing” Choctaws began with camp meetings.

Talley acquired an interpreter and traveled from village to village and visited individual families to obtain support for the Methodist cause. Initial accounts of conversions numbered in the thousands, but such numbers were unrealistic. Presbyterians did not boast so many conversions and, according to sources, did enjoy better relations with

Choctaws than Methodists before 1830. By 1833, his staff included two Choctaws, T.

Myers and William W. Oakchiah.109 Despite outspoken support of removal, Methodists missionaries noted rapid converts as 1830 approached. After Talley’s appointment to missionize Choctaws in Mississippi, he became acquainted and eventually lived with

Leflore, who interpreted his sermons. Before removal, Talley noted that commoners often spoke of the establishment of schools and that the desire for “English education prevails.”

108 Ray Holder, The Mississippi Methodists, 1799-1983: A Moral People “Born of Conviction,” (Maverick Prints, 1984), 37; and Barclay, Early American Methodism, 1:135.

109 Barclay, Early American Methodism, 1:136-38.

241 Despite the hope for additional schools, Methodists promoted education only after

Choctaws converted. As Leflore’s missionary aid, however, Talley wielded more power than the Presbyterians had alone.110

By 1830, Choctaw politics became chaotic as Kingsbury and Folsom disagreed on how to continue educating and converting Choctaws. In February, Leflore, Folsom and

Garland convened a council in which they argued that the Nation must remain united to promote the best interest of its people. Folsom and Garland resigned their offices to

Leflore, who convinced them that a single ruler would better run the Choctaw Nation than three.111 Greenwood Leflore had remained absent from the Nation for most of the previous winter during which he traveled to Washington and met with John Ross in

Cherokee country, supposedly to discuss prospects for protecting land. When Leflore left, he opposed the idea of removal. Upon his return, his opinion had changed. Sources materials do not state what changed in Leflore’s mind, but perhaps the United States did influence his decision through bribery or some other form of coercision. Only his actions prove that his ideas about removal differed from when he left. The United States planned to extend the laws of Mississippi, he argued, over the Choctaw. They must either fight, remove, or assimilate. Mushulatubbee argued that the election of a single chief destroyed the “Republican” spirit of the Nation and would lead to tyranny, but he questioned if

110 Nathan Bangs, An Authentic History of the Missions under the Care of the Missionary Society for the Methodist Episcopal Church (New York: J. Emory and B. Waugh, 1832), 152-58.

111 “Present Condition,” Missionary Herald 26 (Aug. 1830): 253.

242 removal was the best course of action. The council decided to write to the Federal government and agree to negotiations.112

Cyrus Kingsbury observed that the transition to one chief in the Choctaw Nation occurred smoothly, but by May talk of corruption spread throughout the Nation.

According to the missionary, Leflore was “no doubt bribed with all the inducements suggested by the Sec. of War” and the government’s own “secret agents” while on his trip to Washington. Despite accusations by missionaries and west of the Mississippi, no definitive proof of Leflore’s “bribery” existed. Some commoners detested the idea of either removing or coming under Leflore’s leadership. They complained to Kingsbury that they had entrusted their fates to Folsom and Garland, who would come to amicable agreements through diplomacy with fellow Choctaw chiefs, not a single man over the whole Nation.113 Folsom had no faith in the ability of his people to fight the extension of

Mississippi laws much less defeat a removal treaty. Few trusted Leflore or knew what to expect from him, and Garland agreed with Leflore on all political affairs. On the surface,

Leflore ruled the Choctaw Nation with educated allies to advise him. Underneath, multiple factions emerged in torrent of political and religious tensions, split along ideological lines, which concerned change and persistence, power and subversion, public politics versus secrecy and bribery. Leflore and the Methodists supported removal.

Folsom preferred for Choctaws to remain in Mississippi and sought help in God and his followers. Mushulatubbee, Cole and Nittakechi supported education but hated the

112 Ibid.

113 Kingsbury to Evarts, 6 May 1830, ABCFM, 756,

243 missionaries, whom they blamed for a loss of power. Behind Kingsbury and the

Presbyterians, a multitude of commoners felt confused and betrayed the faith invested in leaders. Most wished to remain in Mississippi, but felt they would soon be forced into a decision with which they did not agree.114 The stage was set for negotiations at Dancing

Rabbit Creek, where leaders would sign an agreement to remove Choctaws from their homes east of the Mississippi River.

114 Ibid.; Kingsbury to Evarts, 11 August 1830, 6:33 and David Folsom to William Ward, 10 December 1829, both in Kingsbury Collection, WHCUOK.

244 CHAPTER VI

REBUILDING AND REUNIFICATION AFTER REMOVAL:

DANCING RABBIT CREEK AND THE ROAD WEST

For five years, leaders of the Choctaw Nation, their followers and outsiders vied to achieve goals that might potentially either destroy or preserve the Choctaw people.

Before the Treaty of Washington, a loose consensus formed among the Choctaw and strengthened the Nation. Choctaws hoped that the Federal government could be defied by using the education they had received from missionaries. By promoting Presbyterian schools, leaders and commoners held that Choctaws might adapt subsistence strategies to survive game depletion. A loss of faith in chiefs created the first strains that would rip

Choctaw communities apart and dissolve the bonds that bound them together. When

Federal officials learned of the desires of some to remove west of the Mississippi River, they acted by sending diplomats to negotiate a final removal treaty in September of 1830.

Factionalism resulted in an inability to fight removal, and thousands of Choctaws traveled west under the supervision of the United States to Indian Territory, much of which encompassed present-day Oklahoma. Removal represented the most traumatic event

Southeastern Indians, including the Choctaw, experienced during the nineteenth century.

For the Choctaw it served as an important learning experience, showing that only by being united might they succeed at preserving autonomy and protecting land. As

245 Choctaws struggled to adjust in a new land, they looked back to the years before Removal as an example to follow. By rebuilding their educational systems, promoting involvement in the American market economy and combining traditional ideas with written law,

Choctaws closed the gaps between factions to reunite around similar, if not the same, ideas about acculturation.

In 1830, the state of Mississippi claimed it had the right to extend its laws and political control over the Choctaw residing within the state. Considering the rising demand for cotton and fertility of soil within Choctaw territory, settlers and state officials dreamed of exploiting lands to grow cash crops and net fortunes.1 The threat resulted in panic among Choctaw followers and desperate attempts by Choctaws to gain seats in the

Mississippi legislature. James McDonald, hoping to build on his experiences as a lawyer, planned to run for office in 1831.2 Similarly, Mushulatubbee offered his candidacy and offered to fight for the state, remain loyal to all people living there and promote the

1 Henry S. Halbert, “Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek,” Henry S. Halbert Papers, microform, (Montgomery, AL: Alabama Department of Archives and History, n.d.), reel 4294, copy available at the Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, MS [hereafter MDAH]; A bill to create new land offices in the late Choctaw purchase, and for the more convenient organization of the land districts in the state of Mississippi, undated Ellis (Powhatan) Papers, MDAH; Paul Wilhelm, Duke of Württemberg. Travels in North America, 1822-1824, trans. W. Robert Nitske. ed. Savoie Lottinville (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1973), 132; From Francis Flournoy, Madison, 19 July 1820, The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume V, 1820-21, ed. W. Edwin Hemphill (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1971), 267-68; Arthur H. DeRosier, Jr., The Removal of the Choctaw Indians (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1970), 100.

2 James McDonald to Alexander McKee, 30 March 1831, Peter Pitchlynn Papers, Western History Collection, University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, box 1, folder 22 [hereafter WHCUOK followed by box and folder numbers].

246 prosperity, justice and mercy of the “forlorn kindred” of the Choctaw and American peoples.3

Attempts to bridge the cultural and political gaps between Choctaws and

Mississippi citizens, however, failed. In 1829, Andrew Jackson not only became the seventh president of the United States but also one of its most outspoken advocates of

Indian removal. Not all Americans agreed with Jackson and feared what the United States might do to the Indians. Although a few argued that removal represented the “right path, which leads to serenity and happiness,” others argued that the many Choctaws who had changed their lifestyles and subsistence methods would falter in a new place.4

Such warnings came not only from missionaries like Cyrus Kingsbury, who hoped examples of temperance, agriculture and written law would convince pro-Removal advocates to allow Choctaws to remain in the East as an autonomous Nation, but also from high-ranking officials within the halls of Congress. New Jersey Senator Theodore

Frelinghuysen claimed that through the aid of the United States the Choctaw prospered by relying on systematic agriculture and husbandry, which allowed for the production of goods to sell in American markets. Peleg Sprague, a senator from Maine, stated that if the

Choctaws chose to remove, then that would benefit the Southern states, but he proclaimed that such a decision should be “by their own free choice, unawed by fear, unseduced by bribes.” The lands of Mississippi had, according to Sprague, “drank up the blood of their

3 Niles Weekly Register 38 (10 July 1830).

4 Powhatan Ellis to David W. Haley, 17 September 1828, Haley (David W. And Family) Papers, MDAH.

247 fathers, shed in its defense—and is mingled with the sacred dust of children and friends.”5

The lands held meanings for Choctaws that Americans did not understand and symbolized far more than wasted profitability. This land was sacred territory and had been the home of generations of Choctaws as well as the resting place of their ancestors, who themselves fought to preserve autonomy in the face of and powerful outsiders. As two representatives noted, these families no longer lived by hunting and warfare. The

United States had successfully induced them to change. These Indians attended schools, instituted laws based on those of the United States and even cultivated cotton, a chief export for many families. Choctaws lived, worked and bought luxury goods to pursue lives of prosperity, stability and comfort just like Americans.6 Therefore, the United

States owed such peoples, a policy designed to preserve them, not to destroy them.7

5 Extracts from a Letter Written by the Reverend Cyrus Kingsbury to the War Department; 8 February 1830, 67-68, Speech of the Honorable Theodore Frelinghuysen, Senator from New Jersey, Delivered in the Senate of the United States, 7April 1830, 26, Speech of the Honorable Peleg Sprague, Senator from Maine, Delivered in the Senate of the United States, 16 April 1830, 66, all in Speeches on the Passage of the Bill for the Removal of the Indians Delivered in the Congress of the United States, April and May, 1830 (New York: Perkins and Marvin, 1830; reprint, Millwood, NY: Kraus Reprint Co., 1973).

6 Speech of the Honorable Asher Robbins, Senator from Rhode Island, Delivered in the Senate of the United States, 21 April 1830, 277-78, Speech of the Hon. George Evans, Representative from Maine, Delivered in the House of Representatives, Sitting as in Committee of the Whole, on the Bill for Removing the Indians, Tuesday, 18 May 1830, 171-72, The Substance of the Speech of the Hon. Edward Everett, Representative from Massachusetts, Delivered in the House of Representatives, on the Bill for the Removal of the Indians, Wednesday, 19 May 1830, 277-78, 290, 297-98, all in Speeches on the Passage of the Bill.

7 Speech of Theodore Frelinghuysen, Speeches on the Passage of the Bill, 18.

248 In the eyes of some of the Choctaw’s most prominent advocates who worked for the United States, the situation in Mississippi had become too dire to reverse. These individuals, believing Indians must continue to change their culture, began to promote

Removal among their Native allies. Convinced that the Civilization Program failed

American Indians, the most prominent advocate of Native rights was Thomas McKenney,

Superintendent of Indian Affairs. In the late 1820s, he traveled to Mississippi to negotiate treaties with the Chickasaw and Choctaw. His advice aroused harsh resistence by

Choctaws, and he questioned whether that resistance, a result of cultural change promoted by the United States, now hurt Indian chances for survival if they refused to remove.8 For individuals like McKenney, who worked so hard to protect and preserve the rights of a people, as well as Choctaws like Mushulatubbee and McDonald, Removal seemed inevitable.

Yet some Choctaws who opposed removal to the West feared that the a divided community guaranteed a future of corruption and death. On 15 September 1830, between six and eight thousand Choctaw Indians met treaty commissioners John Eaton and John

Coffee, whom Andrew Jackson sent to arrange a treaty that forcing Choctaw removal from Mississippi. The commissioners made Hartwell Hardaway’s home, located about half of a mile south of the meeting site, their headquarters. The most prominent leaders of the Choctaw Nation camped on the grounds. Presbyterian missionaries feared the commissioners might employ unfair tactics against the Choctaws. For example, Federal

8 Thomas L. McKenney, Reports and Proceedings of Colonel McKenney (Washington, D.C.: Gales and Seaton, 1828), 8, 15, 17, 29.

249 officials might threaten Choctaws or give them alcohol to make them drunk. Missionary friends of the Choctaws asked to be present during negotiations, but their fears quickly became reality when John Eaton refused to allow their presence. Despite Eaton’s decision, Alexander Talley, close friend to Leflore and advocate of removal, remained at the camp. Kingsbury claimed that “Dr. Talley is determined on not leaving the ground unless he is tied and carried off.” Eaton again refuted such an argument, stating that he meant no disrespect but he wished for the missionaries to leave as the negotiations were a governmental matter, not a religious one. “Your religious exercises may interfere.—will interfere,” the commissioners wrote, and Indians “should have [their minds] altogether free and easy at such a moment as the present, and fully to be applied to the whole subject matter that is before [them].” The commissioners reassured the Choctaws by saying, “We approach the subject with distrust, resolved only upon one thing, that we will act candidly, fairly, and liberally towards the Indians, and save them from the ruin which is anticipated to invade them.”9

According to witnesses present at the grounds, Eaton and Coffee created an ideal atmosphere for confusing and swaying Choctaws. The commissioners knew that plying the Natives with alcohol and gambling in the past had made negotiations easier for the

9 William Ward to Cyrus Byington, 15 September 1830, Kingsbury, Byington, L.S. Williams, C. Cushman to John H. Eaton and John Coffee, 17 September 1830, Kingsbury, Byington, L.S. Williams, C. Cushman to John H. Eaton and John Coffee, 18 September 1830, Eaton and Coffee to Kingsbury, Byington, L.S. Williams, C. Cushman, 18 September 1830, second letter, all in Papers of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (Woodbridge, CT: Houghton Library of Harvard University, 1984- 1985), microfilm, reel 758, copies available at Mitchell Memorial Library Special Collections, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS [hereafter, ABCFM followed by reel number].

250 Federal officials. Confusion and drunkenness could create a climate where illiterate

Indians would not comprehend complex written agreements. While missionaries were not allowed to preach on the Sabbath, commissioners allowed “rowdies, gamblers and saloonkeepers” on the grounds. As Colonel Kit Taylor, who had been present at Dancing

Rabbit, noted in an interview, numerous “whites” set up gambling tables and offered alcohol to all who would indulge. David Folsom’s followers refused such vices and instead prayed and remained sober for the negotiations.10 Witnessing the attempts of

Eaton and Coffee to undermine Indian resistence, a few leaders banded together to refuse further cessions publicly, but this last effort was weakened by communal divisions and underlying opposition between leaders. Many Choctaws regarded not only the commissioners but also Greenwood Leflore with suspicion. Nittakechi wore traditional image adorned with beads, a colored and decorated shawl upon his head, silver bands on his wrists, and crescent-shaped silver gorgets that hung from his neck.11 His clothing suggested the importance of traditionalism and a dedication to his people and their beliefs from which he did not stray. Mushulatubbee wore a general’s uniform presented to him by Andrew Jackson for his service to Americans during the War of 1812.12

Such a uniform might appear to have serve as one symbol of allegiance to

Americans. According to the long-evolving relationship between “whites” and Choctaws,

10 H. S. Halbert, “Story of the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit,” Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society 6, ed. Franklin L. Riley (Oxford, MS: Printed for the Society, 1902), 375, 377.

11 Halbert Papers, “Dancing Rabbit,” MDAH, 4294.

12 Halbert, “Story,” 376.

251 however, it served as symbol of prestige. Much like gorgets and seals given by the

French, Spanish, British and finally Americans to denote status among Choctaws, the uniform proved the Mushulatubbee was a friend to Choctaws and Americans, a symbol around which individuals from both world should unite. Using physical symbols from a foreign power to show power had faded in recent years as leaders such as Folsom and

Leflore began promoting education, acculturation and religious change as means of binding together communities. Mushulatubbee already supported removal, and some

Choctaws remained guarded against his leadership.

Unlike his contemporaries, Leflore arrived dressed in a suite of “citizen clothes,” which separated him ideologically from other Choctaws. He rose to power by preaching resistence, but claimed in a speech in 1829 that Choctaw should accept removal as the best alternative because Americans would overtake Indian lands and cheat them out of their property. By March of 1830, the chiefs of the Eastern and Southern Districts resigned to make him the principal chief of the nation, giving him power to make decisions for the whole Choctaw Nation.13 By making these decisions and promoting removal after promising resistance, Leflore lost much of his support outside of his own district. Still, Leflore could have signed the treaty to make Removal a reality since he had become the single leader of the Nation, but opposition to such action became much stronger than he anticipated. With thousands of Choctaws present at the treaty grounds, a wrong move on his part might cost him his life as well as those of the commissioners,

13 Ibid.; and James Taylor Carson, “Greenwood Leflore: Southern Creole, Choctaw Chief,” in Pre-Removal Choctaw History: Exploring New Paths, ed. Greg O’Brien (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2002), 229-30.

252 possibly starting a Choctaw-American war. If Leflore were sincere about preserving

Choctaw autonomy and helping his people survive, he needed to convince former leaders and lower-ranking headmen to support removal. If they signed a treaty, the thousands of

Choctaws who accepted their authority would follow their.

At the treaty grounds, one hundred sixty-eight headmen opposed the treaty alongside their multitude of followers. The highest ranking captains and former district chiefs formed a circle with seven honored women, the heart of resistence to Removal, within it. Each person was to speak during the negotiations.14 In a final effort to retain possession of Choctaw lands, Mushulatubbee joined the leaders who opposed removal.

14 Debate has arisen concerning the role of these women at the council meeting. Few sources remain about the role of women in Choctaw politics, but according to eye-witness reports recorded by Henry Halbert, they played an integral role in the discussions. Michelle Pesantubbee and Donna L. Akers have written about the role of women in Choctaw society before and after removal but claim their power diminished by 1830. Other scholars have argued that women’s role in Choctaw society merely evolved and change but remained important to politics and cultural preservation. For an account of women at the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek negotiations, see Halbert Papers, “Dancing Rabbit,” MDAH, 4294. For works concerning diminishing power among Choctaw women, see Michelene E. Pesantubbee, Choctaw Women in a Chaotic World: The Clash of Cultures in the Colonial Southeast (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2005; and Donna L. Akers, Living in the Land of Death: The Choctaw Nation, 1830-1860 (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2004). For works concerning the persistence of women’s power, see Clara Sue Kidwell, “Choctaw Women and Cultural Persistence in Mississippi” in Negotiators of Change: Historical Perspectives on Native America Women, ed. Nancy Shoemaker (New York: Routledge, 1995), 115, 125-30; LeAnne Howe, “Ohoyo Chishba Osh: Woman Who Stretches Way Back,” 26-47 and Greg O’Brien, “The Coming of Age of Choctaw History,” 3-25, both in Pre-Removal Choctaw History: Exploring New Paths, ed. Greg O’Brien (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2008).

253 Nittakechi, nephew of Pushmataha, and Little Leader also played prominent roles in treaty debates.15

Little Leader rose to prominence in the nineteenth century as a supporter of acculturation and an opponent of removal. He became a friend of George Strother Gaines, who served as the primary factor at St. Stephens. Gaines once recalled that the headman believed in rainmakers and spirits despite the growing influence of Christianity that had occurred among Natives in the region.16 Little Leader knew the value of property and the effects of losing it. He considered himself a progressive Choctaw in that he supported change and displayed his power by amassing wealth forts as well as a small group of slaves, but he was traditionalist enough to respect non-Christian spiritualism. He supported the ban on alcohol and claimed he would take the head of any person caught with it.17 After the Washington Treaty, there had been an increase in theft of Indian property by American settlers. Nancy Gillet was one victim this surge. Robert Cole and

Mushulatubbee vouched for her when she claimed to have lost a horse to thieves. James

McDonald’s mother also suffered when creditors unfairly took a slave for which she had paid. Chiefs were not safe from settler crime either. Little Leader lost four horses to

15 Halbert, “Story,” 382.

16 George Strother Gaines, The Reminiscences of George Strother Gaines: Pioneer and Statesman of Early Alabama and Mississippi, 1805-1843, ed. James P. Pate (Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press, 1998), 77; and Halbert Papers, “Dancing Rabbit,” MDAH, 4294.

17 Carson, Bright Path, 80; and Journal of Mayhew, 14 August 1822, ABCFM, 755.

254 thieves from Alabama, and David Folsom suffered the loss of a horse worth $60.18

Leader’s views lay somewhere between Folsom and Mushulatubbee. Mostly, he agreed with Peter Pitchlynn. Both men thought that Choctaws should unite not as a multiethnic confederacy but nationally to fight common enemies but preserve the elements of their culture with which they identified as being distinctly Choctaw. The cultural facets Leader and Pitchlynn identified with most were leadership based on reciprocity and traditional spiritualism.

Little Leader held similar views about protecting property from Americans and corrupt Indians at the treaty council. Killihota, a Choctaw of mixed ancestry spoke in favor of the treaty. He claimed the only way for Choctaws to survive the oncoming onslaught of American settlers was to sell everything they owned and move west.

Killihota asserted, “The soil there [in the West], too, was so fertile that watermelons, pumpkins, and squashes grew twice the size they did in Mississippi.” His statements antagonized some women and Little Leader. In a fit of anger, one woman leapt to her feet and threatened to cut him open with her butcher knife to reveal his “two hearts.”

Although Killihota claimed his opinions about removal stemmed from a desire to save his people, other headmen challenged him. Little Leader responded that located in the lands east of the Mississippi were Choctaw homes, all their property and the burial grounds of their forefathers. He claimed that anyone who sold land was a traitor to the Nation and

18 William Ward to James Barbour, 27 September 1826, and George S. Gaines to William Ward, 24 January 1824, both in M234; and Carson, Bright Path, 75.

255 should be executed.19 No doubt Little Leader feared that removal would destroy his people. He also was concerned, however, about his own wealth, the loss of his land, slaves and livestock if the treaty was signed.

Peter Pitchlynn, serving as a representative of the headmen who met in council, delivered the Choctaw rejection of the new treaty with the United States to Eaton, aggravating tensions between Choctaws and the commissioners. Eaton threatened that if they did not sign, the president would march into Choctaw territory within twenty days and use force to extend the laws of Mississippi over the Indians there, a statement which invited multiple threats from headmen. Little Leader swore that if violence came to his

Nation, he would raise an army of warriors to fight Americans. Negotiations ended on a hostile note, but a majority of Choctaws left for their homes confident that they had defeated a pact guaranteeing removal.20

Realizing that failure would upset Jackson and bring unknown, possibly dangerous, consequences, Eaton refused to give up. Drawing upon the aid of Leflore,

Eaton invited a few headmen known to be sympathetic to Removal to meet for additional negotiations. Repeating similar arguments, the commissioner claimed that if a Choctaws refused to make a treaty, the Federal government would remove their agent, close down their public shops and extend the laws of Mississippi over them. Furthermore, if they did

19 Halbert, “Story of Dancing Rabbit,” 384-85.

20 Ibid., 387-90; No. 10 Communication addressed to A. W. Dillard from George Strother Gaines in George Strother Gaines, Dancing Rabbit Creek Treaty, State Department of Archives and History: Historic and Patriotic Series (AL: Birmingham Printing Co., 1928), 25-31; and Kingsbury to Evarts, 11 October 1830, ABCFM, 758.

256 not reach an agreement, Eaton threatened to take the lands in the West, which were reserved for Choctaw removal. According to Cyrus Kingsbury, a delegation of seven

Choctaws was chosen to draft an agreement, with James McDonald as lead author. Before submitting it to the headmen who remained at the grounds, commissioners asked to examine the document. Without consulting the delegates, Eaton and Leflore presented the draft for approval. As McDonald later said, the agreement he labored to create had been changed to favor a few headmen, particularly Leflore and Folsom. Folsom had become one of the most vehement advocates of Removal.21 Leflore promised that an article within the treaty would allow Choctaws who wished to remain in Mississippi the opportunity to become United States citizens and retain their property. When the commissioners promised that the United States never again would ask for land from the Choctaw Nation, headman Tushka Mastubee stated, “I don’t believe you. Your tongue is as forked as a chicken’s foot.”22 As McDonald claimed, headmen felt betrayed by the district chiefs.

21 Kingsbury to Evarts, 29 September 1830, Kingsbury to Evarts, 11 October 1830, Kingsbury to Evarts, 25 December 1830 (With enclosures), all in ABCFM, 758.

22 Halbert, “Story of Dancing Rabbit,” 391, 399. Under Article 14, heads of families who wished to remain in Mississippi would have to notify the Choctaw agent within six months of the treaty’s signing. Furthermore, they would receive from the Federal government rights and privileges as a citizen of the United States and as a Choctaw citizen. If they later decided to leave Mississippi, they would not receive a portion of the annuity granted to other Choctaws who had previously removed. See Treaty with the Choctaws, 1830 in Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, 2 vols., comp. and ed. Charles J. Kappler (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904), 2:318, Oklahoma State University Electronic Publishing Center: Digital Collections, Stillwater, OK, Online, Path: Oklahoma State University Electronic Publishing Center/Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties/Volume II (Treaties, 1778-1883): Table of Contents/Choctaw: Treaty with the Choctaw, Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830.

257 They hoped that the treaty would provide some aid to Choctaws who decided not to remove, but the doubts remained. Even David Folsom, who had come to agree that removal was the Choctaws’ best option for survival, claimed that the “treaty was a bad one.”23 The remaining headmen signed the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek on 28

September 1830, agreeing to the removal of Choctaws from Mississippi to lands west of the Mississippi River.24

Not all Choctaws left, and those who refused used one of two means to remain. A few attempted to use the American legal system to obtain rights to particular lands on which Natives had lived before the removal process began. For fifteen years, these

Choctaws sought to buy land and use the articles stipulated within the Dancing Rabbit

Treaty to protect their rights as citizens of the United States. Little Leader led the group and created a plan for retaining territory. Using his power as a headman, he created a system of taxation over Choctaws who remained to raise funds to buy portions of the land taken through the treaty.25 Individuals who worked with Little Leader often came from

23 Kingsbury to Evarts, 17 November 1830, ABCFM, 758.

24 “Treaty with the Choctaws, 1830,” in Kappler’s Indian Affairs, 310-19, Oklahoma State University Electronic Publishing Center: Digital Collections, Stillwater, OK, Online, Path: Oklahoma State University Electronic Publishing Center/Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties/Volume II (Treaties, 1778-1883): Table of Contents/Choctaw: Treaty with the Choctaw, 1830.

25 Despite attempts by David Folsom to convince Little Leader otherwise, Little Leader refused to remove his band of followers to Indian Territory. Memorial of the Sundry Citizens of Mississippi, 24th Congress, 1st Session, Senate and H. R., 24 February 1836: Complaining of certain disadvantages growing out of the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, with the Choctaw Indians and praying redress (Government Printing Office, 1836), 1-7.

258 what could be considered the middle class of the Choctaw Nation. They were not commoners nor did they represent the upper echelon of district chiefs. Rather, these individuals once served as captains and lower status headmen who held some power but ultimately bowed to the will of district leaders. They did not enjoy the same wealth as principal chiefs, but they did receive a bulk of the redistributed wealth from their superiors. Finally, their status placed them in positions where opportunities for economic prosperity and amassing property were easier than for most Choctaws.26

Other Choctaws who remained used the treaty to obtain rights within the United

States. According to the 1830 agreement, Article 14 allowed Choctaws to apply for citizenship within six months of the treaty’s conclusion. Mississippi citizens claimed that

Leader practiced fraud, but J. F. H. Claiborne, an early writer of the state’s Native history and advocate of Indian rights, claimed that Choctaws who remained had the right to apply for citizenship under the treaty stipulations. According to Claiborne, over seven hundred heads of families desired to apply under the article, but only two hundred actually applied under oath with witnesses present. The drop in number resulted from “white men” who sold fake “contracts and agreements obnoxious to every principle of law and justice” to convince Choctaws who remained in Mississippi that they did not have to apply for citizenship. Land sold through such fraudulence allowed citizens of the state to claim lands, which they did not previously own, as their own. The Government, Claiborne continued, suspicious of Indian claims, gave the territory to the citizens of Mississippi.

26 Choctaws who worked with Little Leader to obtain lands through taxation included Hiatubbee, Onohambee, Anokatubbee, Salahnea, Ianimutubbee, Anola, Ishpia, Tuwatucha, Nowahona, Noatema, and Hotah, all of the Choctaw middle class. See, ibid.

259 Those who stole the land from these Choctaws were allowed to “slink around like hungry wolves to crunch the bones and lap up . . . the last life-blood of a once noble but now miserable race.”27 By the 1840s, the Choctaws who attempted to remain under the stipulations of the 1830 agreement failed. One advocate of Indian rights wrote that “the

Government of the United States has wholly neglected and failed to secure to them the stipulations of the treaty,” but a Federal official claimed that the government did what it could to secure lands for families who chose to remain. The failures, according to these same officials, resulted from corrupt agents and citizens of Mississippi who bought lands out from under Choctaw families illegally. A Choctaw man argued that it was the government’s responsibility to follow the treaty regulations and retain stolen property.

“Although we are Choctaw,” he wrote, “ we no longer compose a tribe or a nation, but we are citizens of the state of Mississippi and of the United States.”28

According to the Treaty and laws of the United States, Claiborne was right, but the government claimed it could do nothing and refused to aid those few who remained.

Witness reports contested the charge that the Choctaw agent William Ward remained perpetually drunk, used pages from his ledger as “shaving paper,” and deleted names and destroyed applications for citizenship. Few Choctaws who remained could read, one chief

27 Ibid.; and Memorial of J. F. H. Claiborne, 28th Congress, 1st Session, H.R. Doc. no. 137, 19 February 1844: Praying that the law of 1842, creating the Choctaw commission, be repealed; and that provision be made to satisfy the just claims of the Choctaw Indians, and for their removal from the state of Mississippi, referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs (Blair and Rivers, print, 1857), 1-6.

28 Memorial of the Choctaw Citizens of the State of Mississippi to the Congress of the United States, Referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs , 27th Congress, 2nd Session, H. R. no. 15, 15 December 1841 (s.n., 1841), 1-5 (emphasis in original).

260 claimed, and Natives were “afraid of writing” because it spoke in ways they did not understand.29 Most Native leaders who signed the Dancing Rabbit Treaty were illiterate.

Those who could read and write appeared to supported removal because they understood what the document entailed and still signed it. Regardless of claims supporting the

Choctaws’ cases, they failed to obtain the lands and rights promised by the treaty. Of over

6,000 individuals who remained in Mississippi, William Ward only submitted sixty nine names for provisions under Article 14. The remainder hid in the forests of Mississippi, hired themselves as low-wage laborers or chose to remove in later years.30

29 Ronald N. Satz, “The Mississippi Choctaw: From the Removal Treaty to the Federal Agency” in After Removal: The Choctaw in Mississippi, eds. Samuel J. Wells and Roseanna Tubby (Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1986), 5-12.

30 According to records, William Ward was dismissed from his post in November 1833 because there not enough Choctaw left in Mississippi for his job to remain salient. If the government thought that only sixty nine remained, their action to dismiss Ward is not surprising. See, James C. Milligan and Stacy C. Shepherd, The Choctaw of Oklahoma (Abilene, TX: H. V. Chapman & Sons: 2003), 62-63. Bob Ferguson, A Choctaw Chronology, compiled for the Nashville Chapter, Tennessee Archaeological Society, 1962; Rufus Ward, “Choctaw Farmsteads in Mississippi, 1830,” 33-42, and Clara Sue Kidwell, “The Choctaw Struggle for Land and Identity in Mississippi, 1830-1918,” 64-93 both in After Removal; and “Extracts from a Communication from Mr. Byington, Date August, 1831,” Missionary Herald 27 (November 1831): 353. Of all the Choctaws who remained in Mississippi, Greenwood Leflore prospered most. By the end of his life, he had served on the Mississippi legislature, amassed over 15,000 acres, hundreds of slaves and an impressive mansion boasting French art, Italian marble, and a Louis XIV set of furniture valued at over $10,000. Due to his success as a cotton planter and Southern elite, most Choctaws considered him corrupt and believed he had cheated them out of land for his own benefit. The controversy, however, continues because he himself claimed that his intentions were based solely on his people’s survival. See, R. Halliburton, Jr., “Chief Greenwood Leflore and His Malmaison Plantation” in After Removal, 59-62. For an argument against Leflore’s corruption, see Carson’s “Leflore” in its entirety.

261 If factionalism characterized the Choctaw Nation before 1830, the years of the

Removal campaign saw it fall into chaos. The majority of the Choctaw Nation, according to government plans, left Mississippi in three waves; one each year between 1831 and

1833. George Strother Gaines, once a government factor at St. Stephens, organized and lead the first removal in 1831. The Federal government oversaw the emigration of between 13,000 and 15,000 Choctaws to Indian Territory, present-day Oklahoma.31

Gaines planned to send a few thousand Choctaws as far as possible as up the Arkansas and Ouachita Rivers by steamboat and lead the rest of trip on foot, horseback and wagons. He secured the steamboats Walter Scott, Brandywine, Reindeer, Talma, and

Cleopatra as well as supplies, rations and the wagons. Of the three divisions removed in

1831, 1832, and 1833, each group would be divided into smaller groups to prevent overcrowding.32 Although Gaines was usually organized and prepared, he quickly ran into multiple problems when the removal process began. Foremost, Natives did not want to remove. Witnesses recorded the plight of individuals preparing to leave. One Choctaw stated, “We found ourselves like a benighted stranger, following false guides until he was surrounded by fire and water — a distant view of the opposite shore encourages the hope;

31 Historian of the Choctaw, Arthur DeRosier figure’s place the removed number at 14, 404. F. W. Armstrong, who directed the census in the Choctaw Nation in 1831, stated that 19,554 individuals lived there of which 248 were slaves and 97 were listed as “Whites.” Thus, 19,209 Choctaws were left to either attempt to obtain citizenship or leave. See, Arthur H. DeRosier, Jr., The Removal of the Choctaw Indians (Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1970), 143, 153, 161-62; F. W. Armstrong, 1830 Choctaw Roll “Armstrong Roll”: Volume III, Leflore District, intro. and index Larry S. Watson (1985), 56, typescript copy available at WHCUOK; and “Choctaws,” Missionary Herald 29 (1833): 23-24.

32 DeRosier, Removal, 143-44.

262 — to remain would be inevitable annihilation; who would hesitate, yet who would say that his plunging in the water was his own voluntary act.”33 Considering the uncertainly of

Choctaws’ future, another noted, “Our schools have all been broken up, and our children scattered. . . . Are we thus ever to be the victims of political expediency? How long are we to remain in this tantalizing situation? Are we annually to be visited by the terrors of a new removal?”34 Regardless of the factions with which they sided, Removal became an inevitability for commoners.

Many Choctaws were disillusioned by the actions of their leaders. Individuals and families gave up on their leaders. Leflore resigned shortly after signing the treaty in 1830, and the Nation elected George W. Harkins as his successor. Harkins felt confused and angered by the situation. He noted in an address to his people that, despite his position as chief, the United States would force the stipulations agreed upon at Dancing Rabbit

Creek. Harkins knew Choctaws must rebuild, but how to accomplish it in a strange land represented the ultimate quandary.35 Commoners dispersed, concerned about their own needs rather than the power and unity of the Nation. All that remained was the chance for survival. Only if they lived through the removal would they worry about rebuilding in a new land. Missionaries who conversed with families preparing for the move noted feelings of injustice and confusion. With few exceptions, Choctaws believed their lands

33 Natchez, 3 February 1832, volume 3, number 5, 34-35.

34 Natchez, 17 February 1832, volume 3, number 7, 50-51.

35 Ibid., 51-52.

263 had been taken without their consent. The emotional vortex in which Choctaws were caught increased the suffering felt during the journey.36

Planning, technical and health problems characterized the removal process.

Government agents were often less than dedicated to the task of safely removing Indians to the West. Gaines stated “[a]t that period of our govt. there were created many useless public Agencies: but those in aid of Choktaw immigration were worse than useless.”37

Although he offered to draw upon the support of his own assistants, the Federal government refused and hired its own, who lacked organization, tact and skill.38 Gaines planned for the first wave to be removed in the summer of 1831, but a lack of resources delayed the journey write in October. By December, almost 2,500 Choctaws reached a small post in Arkansas, commanded by a Captain Brown who was unprepared to care for such numbers. One observer noted that during that month, Arkansas suffered one of the worst blizzards of the nineteenth century. Most Choctaws were barefoot, especially children. With only sixty tents brought from Vicksburg, individuals huddled together for warmth. Exhausted and hungry from the trip, Choctaws began dying from a combination of starvation and exposure. Brown attempted to move the families to a safer location, but the 350-mile journey was marred by poor roads and further exposure to the elements.

Reports of Indians begging for food for the children and elderly who survived reached

36 “Letters from Mr. Wright and Mr. Williams,” Missionary Herald 27 (January 1831): 18-19.

37 Gaines, Dancing Rabbit, 17-18.

38 Ibid.

264 leaders still in Mississippi.39 The first wave of Choctaws was divided into two groups.

Rather than heading along the same Arkansas route, the second half, numbering about

1,100, traveled up the . Upon arrival at Écore à Fabre, they learned no agent had been assigned to receive them. These Choctaws were forced to pay more than double the average of prices for rations and supplies, which many could not afford.

During the second wave of the removal in 1832, William Colquhoun replaced Gaines.

Boat captain John Samuel of the Helipolis claimed that Colquhoun was perpetually mean, crude and drunk around the Choctaws. Disease joined starvation, exhaustion and exposure as killers of the removed Indians. Cholera spread along ports on the Mississippi, and Choctaws had little resistence tot he disease. Boarding the boats meant possible infection, but government officials forced their departure. The third removal faced its own unique problems beginning with crop shortages. Starvation ran rampant as people prepared for the journey. During the third removal in 1833, three boats carried the remaining Choctaws to Indian Territory. One of the boats broke a shaft and caused a rise in costs of the move, and on another boat the boiler exploded, killing some of the crew and passengers.40

39 DeRosier, Removal, 153-55; and “Extracts from a Letter of Mr. Holmes Dates at Martyn, Dec. 24, 1831,” Missionary Herald 28 (January 1832): 117-18.

40 DeRosier, Removal, 158-59, 161-62; and Lewis Cass to Secretary of War, 20 April 1832, 13 April 1832, 17 September 1832, all in M234, 185. According to missionary reports, most of the Choctaws who arrived in 1832 became sick during or after the voyage. In part, these illnesses originated from the cholera and smallpox epidemics spreading along the river routes to Indian Territory. In his letter, published in the Missionary Herald in 1832, Alfred Wright noted that about half the Choctaws who left Mississippi during the 1832 wave lost their lives to disease. See “Extracts from a Letter of Mr. Wright, Dated Sept. 26th, 1832,” Missionary Herald 28 (Dec. 1832): 401-

265 Despite such difficulties, hope re-emerged as families arrived in the West and decided how they would survive. Leflore abandoned them shortly after signing the 1830 agreement by resigning his post as chief and remaining in Mississippi, offering little explanation for his decision. New leadership included Leflore’s nephew George W.

Harkins, who vowed “not to do what my uncle did.” In the Eastern District, Peter

Pitchlynn, nephew of Mushulatubbee, took control. In the Six Towns, or Southern

District, Joel Nail was elected after the deposition of Nittakechi, an action supported by

David Folsom.41 After settling in the West, Choctaw claims were sent to the Federal government and recorded numerous losses of property totalling thousands of dollars.

Among the claims, Choctaws claimed approximately 1668 horses lost and dozens of slaves, including one “negro” killed by a wagon accident. While most commoners suffered a loss of one or two animals, wealthier individuals like Joseph Kincaid, James

Fletcher, George Pusley and Widow Sterns reported fifteen, seventeen, twenty-six and thirty horses lost respectively with a total worth of $3237.00, property that had been insured by United States dollars before Removal.42 For commoners and elites alike, losing

402.

41 D. W. Haley to Andrew Jackson, 10 March 1831, M234, 169; Byington to David Greene, 1 December 1830, ABCFM, 758; Thomas Wall to Alexander McKee, 28 April 1831, Pitchlynn Papers, WHCUOK, 1:23; Southern Council to John Eaton, 16 October 1830 and 22 October 1830 both in M234, 185; and “Letters from Mr. Wright and Mr. Williams,” Missionary Herald 27 (January 1831): 18.

42 Photocopy of pages of a book where names of Choctaws involved in the are listed, who were entitled payments for property left behind. The document has no specific date but was written circa 1830s. See Herbert Otho Boggs Collection, Box B- 59, C, WHCUOK. The calculations presented here come from the addition of amounts provided by Federal government through the Choctaw Agency and the number of horses

266 property represented one of the worst results of Removal. Both relied on animals, tools and land they owned prior to 1830. These same losses provided an advantage, however, because commoners and elites deprived of property found common ground on which to stand, rebuild and fight further oppression. In essence, their common losses later provided an experience around which to unify and prosper in Indian Territory.

The Federal government provided supplies until 1833, and commonerswere compelled to learn quickly how to survive without aid from the United States. By 1835, an aging Mushulatubbee stood before his brethren and spoke with the authority he once boasted in Mississippi. Removal was the most traumatic event felt by the majority of

Choctaws, but they could use it as an example to remain unified against common enemies and preserve their autonomy As the removed Choctaws settled and regained some stability, they began to conceive a new Nation. The horrors of Removal had ended, and they realized that life must begin anew. Choctaws quickly cleared land, found sources of water and tended to animals that had survived the trip west.43 Families who arrived did have one advantage. The majority of individuals who removed had acculturated in some ways; they had learned to farm and tend to livestock. From these simple beginning,

Choctaws formed a new foundation for a stronger nation. Mushulatubbee stated that seeing his “brothers who live in the west” was not a terrible sight but rather represented a new beginning. His fellow Choctaws had begun to make new homes and prosper in a new lost by the individuals as noted the government’s rosters. See also, Schedule of Horses alleged to have been lost by the country, October 1837, M234, 184.

43 Donna L. Akers, Living in the Land of Death: The Choctaw Nation, 1830-1860 (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press, 2004), 103-104.

267 land. “We are called Choctaws,” he reminded them, “we have our towns too; we live in houses. . . .” No longer should they fight amongst each other, nor should they promote violence against he United States. They must rebuild, remain peaceful within their communities and preserve and protect their new lands. He noted that soon he would die, but regardless what happened in their future, he promised to watch over them as all their ancestors continued to do.44 Whatever failures Mushulatubbee had in the past, he helped to rectify with hopeful message that reflected on his vision of a better future. In 1838, the last of the old, great chiefs of Mississippi died in a small pox epidemic that swept along the Arkansas River and killing between 400 and 500 Choctaws, but his vision lived and

Choctaws again flourished constructing a new Choctaw Nation upon the knowledge, skills and education they obtained before Removal.45

Elites who moved west remained in the best position to recoup losses.46 Influential families like the Folsoms, Pitchlynns and Garlands, raised cotton in Mississippi before the Removal campaigns began. Once they arrived in Indian Territory, many settled on the

Red River where they continued cultivating the cash crop. These same families brought

44 Speech of Musha-la-tubbee, Chief of the Choctaw Nation at Camp Holmes, 25 August 1835, Mushulatubbee Collection, Minor M-46, WHCUOK.

45 Maxine Barker, The Third Arrow: A Story of Moshulatubbee, Choctaw Chief (Carolton, MS: Pioneer Publishing Company, 1997), 129.

46 Here, the term elites is used to describe individuals of high status, not necessarily headmen who held positions of leadership, who gained prestige among other Choctaws by becoming wealthy through cash crop agriculture or some other business within the American market economy.

268 slaves to work small plantations.47 Peter Pitchlynn, who obtained a leadership position within the Choctaw government and served as a diplomat to Washington after removal, became successful in this way. Pitchlynn was as an example of simultaneous cultural change and persistence. He lived in a log cabin, grew cotton, owned stocks of hogs and cattle, but he looked to Choctaw political systems, autonomy and cultural traditions to influence his decisions regarding his people. When the Removal campaign began,

Pitchlynn left his parents in Mississippi to move west with the Choctaw. Unlike Leflore and Garland, who remained in Mississippi and relinquished their positions as chief to grow cotton, Pitchlynn decided to preserve and protect his people.48 Furthermore, land along the Red River in Indian Territory was ideal for growing crops. He could fulfill his goal of business success and provide the leadership poorer Choctaws needed in the new land.49

Other Choctaws aside from Pitchlynn found much success in Indian Territory.

Robert M. Jones was the wealthiest Choctaw of the nineteenth century. Jones first appeared in the historical record as a youth at Choctaw Academy, a Kentucky school and founded to teach Native children. While in school, his guardian collected $1,800 in

47 John Pitchlynn to Peter Pitchlynn, 10 March 1833, 1:36, and Samuel Garland to Peter Pitchlynn, 28 November 1833, 1:39, both in Peter Pitchlynn Collection, WHCUOK.

48 “Peter Pitchlynn: Chief of the Choctaws,” Madeline Czarina Colbert Conlan Collection, Folder 4, Notebook 2, WHCUOK.

49 Hitchcock, A Traveler in Indian Territory: The Journal of Ethan Allen Hitchcock, Late Major-General in the United States Army, ed. Grant Foreman (Cedar Rapids, IA: The Torch Press, 1930), 184-85; and James C. Milligan, The Choctaw of Oklahoma, ed. Stacy C. Shepherd (Abilene, TX: H. V. Chapman and Sons, 2003), 71.

269 annuity for him, and Jones used that money to found a trading company. When removal beckoned, Jones left Mississippi to rebuild at the Choctaw town of Doaksville, near Fort

Towson, in Indian Territory. Jones established two plantations, each with cotton gins, boasting a total of nearly 15,000 acres and averaging about 700 bales of cotton per year.

Although he gained a reputation for his kind treatment, Jones owned slaves; the number reached 227 by 1860. Along with his cotton business, he produced tobacco and corn and owned three stores, located at Forts Coffee, Towson and Boggy respectively. By 1844, he also bought a small fleet of steamboats to carry goods on the Red River.50 By the time of his death, he had become the wealthiest Native in Indian Territory. Despite his wealth,

Jones fought for the rights of commoners until his death. He led a committee to obtain reimbursement for their losses sustained after the journey west and aided in recovering funds withheld by the Federal government during and after the Civil War.51

Most Choctaws did not proper as well as Jones and Pitchlynn, but they did draw upon knowledge obtained before Removal to rebuild their economic stability. Little about commoners and subsistence is noted within historical records, but a few materials hint at how these Choctaws coped. A missionary who arrived there in 1832 wrote that territory itself possessed good timber and was suited to sustain a large population. As new groups arrived, they began clearing land and fencing in plots that would become new, family- owned properties. A minority of the removed managed to obtain lands already cultivated

50 Hitchcock, Traveler, 219-20; and Milligan, Choctaw of Oklahoma.

51 Michael L. Bruce, “‘Our Best men are Fast Leaving Us’: The Life and Times of Robert M. Jones,” Chronicles of Oklahoma 66:3 (Fall 1988): 294-98.

270 by squatters whom the government removed to make room for Natives.52 Although he claimed much “humbug” existed regarding improvements by Indians, Allen Hitchcock recorded during his journey to Choctaw country in the West in 1842 that they indeed were

“very far removed from primitive life.” Hitchcock thought that many of them “have better houses, own more stock and cultivate larger fields than their ancestors.” According to another observer, “Everybody has plenty of hogs and a sufficiency of cattle unless it be a few full-blood Indians.”53 A few Choctaws failed to get back what they lost in Removal, but eye-witness reports tell a more hopeful story. When Albert D. Richardson visited the

Choctaws in 1859, he found that raising livestock was “the most lucrative employment” with “oxen selling at fifty dollars per yoke, cows at ten dollars each, and horse at twenty dollars apiece.” To keep track of ownership, Choctaws branded their animals, and all marks of property were registered with their government’s public records to prevent theft and promote the return of stray animals.54 Although a gradual process, Choctaws found success in subsistence strategies acculturated before the journey west. The concept of private property, as far as ownership of livestock went, illustrates the importance of commodities for the market economy and survival in Indian Territory.

52 “Letter from Mr. Williams, Dated April 12th, 1832,” Missionary Herald 28 (July 1832): 223-25.

53 Hitchcock, Traveler, 187-90, 209, 211, 214.

54 Albert D. Richardson, Beyond the Mississippi: From the Great River to the Great Ocean. Life and Adventure on the Prairies, Mountains, and Pacific Coasts. New Edition. Written Down to Summer of 1869 (Hartford: American Publishing Company, 1875), 221.

271 A few educated commoners chose not to rely on agriculture and ranching for their livelihood. Instead, they pursued special occupational skills they learned at mission schools. Stores at local forts became a convenient way to obtain needed materials quickly until permanent means of subsistence could be attained. Commoners bartered, sold and bought goods at local establishments as they had in Mississippi.55 An observer wrote that numerous individuals from David Folsom’s district became blacksmiths, shoemakers and carpenters upon arrival. A few established joiner shops and stores, which profited from local production of fellow Natives, American mechanics who settled in the region and

American merchants who traded in Choctaw-produced goods.56 John D. Lang and Samuel

Taylor Jr. visited Choctaw territory in 1842 and recorded similar impressions. A few of the brightest scholars from schools, according to these travelers, worked as clerks and accountants at town stores. One Choctaw clerk noted that he received his education at

Choctaw Academy in Kentucky. Although he held ill feelings about his experience there, the education he received became invaluable after Removal because it gave him a distinct advantage against the uneducated. Education blurred gender roles as well. Choctaw women enjoyed similar assets as did men, including owning slaves, estates and stores.57

Married and unmarried women alike found numerous advantages in changing subsistence practices and obtaining educations. Before Removal, a thirteen-year-old girl sold her cow

55 “Arkansas Choctaws,” Missionary Herald 29 (Jun 1833): 206

56 Ibid.

57 John D. Lang and Samuel Taylor, Jr., A Report of a Visit to Some of the Tribes of Indians Located West of the Mississippi River (New York: James Egbert, Printer, 1843), 30-31.

272 to buy new clothes so that she might impress missionaries, who she hoped would then accept her into their school. She proved to both her friends, who had suggested selling the cow to buy clothes, that purchasing and selling cattle could provide new opportunities for advancement. During their journey, Lang and Taylor rented a room at a tavern owned and operated by a Choctaw woman. Before Removal, James McDonald’s mother Molly owned slaves and did business at factories as did other Choctaw women. After Removal,

Molly continued to live in Mississippi and enjoyed minor successes in agriculture. Molly later inherited her son’s estate, including his four slaves, although she would later move west of the Mississippi.58 Women who owned property and exercised economic authority represented only one group of individuals who benefitted from acculturation after 1830.

Married women often aided in running farms and ranches and enjoyed benefits from co- or full ownership of property. As one historian found, as late as the 1870s, the continuation of matrilineal customs in the West demanded that women control property.

When Peter Pitchlynn’s daughter Rhoda married a “white” man, she owned their farm. In

1877, she died in childbirth, but her husband did not keep the property. Following tradition, her sister Malvina reclaimed the farm and custody of Rhoda’s children, holding the property and rearing the children as the matrilineal heir.59 When Baldwin Möllhausen

58 Carson, Bright Path, 77-78; Day Books, Records of the Choctaw Trading House, Under the Office of Indian Trade, 1803-1819, The National Archives and Records Service General Services Administration, Record Group 75 (Washington, D.C., 1960), microfilm publication T500, reel 5; Charlotte Capers to Herman J. Viola, James L. McDonald subject folder, MDAH; Robert M. Jones to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 26 January 1855, Peter Pitchlynn Collection, WHCUOK.

59 Akers, Living, 98-99.

273 visited Choctaw territory in the West in 1849, he noted how women and men enjoyed equal status in the household and held important roles in the family and local economies.

Möllhausen visited a man called “Fraser, the Indian smith,” who according to maps resided in the Mushulatubbee district of the Choctaw Nation on the border of the Sans- bois Mountains near the Sans-bois Creek. Fraser made a living as a blacksmith, but he and his wife, both Choctaw, diversified their money-making strategies. They lived on a farm and owned cattle, hogs and a variety of other livestock as well as growing numerous crops. Although they did not produce much of this stock and crops for the market economy, some of it was sold. Fraser and his wife sold livestock, material goods and corn to travelers who passed through the region. Fraser spent his time smithing with only a portion devoted to his farm, but his wife held the responsibility of caring for herds and tending to crops as women had before arrival in the territory. In particular, Fraser’s wife sold visitors a variety of farm products such as “eggs, milk, butter, chickens, and such like dainties.” According to Möllhausen, her customers paid high prices, and she used the money to by “pretty stuffs and gay ribbands which this unlooked-for windfall will enable her to procure.”60

These accounts of women’s roles int eh Choctaw economic system suggest dramatic increases in wealth held by wives and daughters. Removal may have destroyed the lives that individuals and families built in Mississippi, but new homes west of the

Mississippi provided opportunities for prosperity. Women retained their status through

60 Baldwin Möllhausen, Diary of a Journey from the Mississippi to the Coasts of the Pacific, vol. 1, intro. Peter A. Fritzell (New York, NY: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1969; 1858), 26, 50-52.

274 matrilineal customs, but men gradually relinquished hunting to aid in agricultural work and ranching. Since the most of the land in Indian Territory possessed by the Choctaw, especially along the Red River, were characterized by fertile soil and abundant timber, individuals who had little difficulty finding resources to rebuild their lives.61 Although most Choctaws cultivated crops, raised livestock, educated individuals found new opportunities for advancement as artisans, clerks and a variety of other occupations. As women and men worked together to start over, farms appeared in the countryside, and the

Choctaw towns of Doaksville, Skullyville, Perryville and Boggy Depot evolved as cultural, political and economic centers within the Nation.62 From the smallest farms to the fleets of steamboats owned by Jones, Choctaws rebuilt their community by uniting economically. Using the skills learned in Mississippi, they filled jobs once performed by

Americans. They not only were becoming self-sufficient by forging a local economy among themselves, but also bought, sold and traded to become prosperous. As one observer noted, Choctaw motivation success did not differ greatly from many Americans.

Families built comfortable homes and bought luxury goods, including furniture and fine clothing. As one politician noted in 1830, a Choctaw was driven not by mere survival but

61 William H. Goode, Outpost of Zion with Limnings of Mission Life (Cincinnati: Poe & Hitchcock, R. P. Thompson, Printer, 1864), 40; and “Speech of the Hon. Asher Robbins, Senator from Rhode Island, Delivered in the Senate of the United States, April 21, 1830,” Speeches on the Passage, 77-78.

62 Hitchcock, Traveler, 186; and Milligan, Choctaw of Oklahoma, 71.

275 rather by a “thirst for gain.”63 The tools and knowledge acquired before 1830 allowed

Choctaws to turn the traumatic experience of Removal into a new beginning.64

The creation of a local economy with connections to markets in the United States as well as the common experience of Removal became the glue that bound together the

Choctaws who removed to Indian Territory. By the middle of the decade, new leaders emerged to reforge the Choctaw Nation politically. These leaders represented a generation of rising elites that drew upon American governmental systems to rewrite

Choctaw laws and promoted education as the means to succeed in the West. Of the leaders who removed, Peter Pitchlynn, arguably, had the greatest impact on the political, economic and cultural development of the Choctaw Nation in the West. For example, after removal, Choctaw Academy continued to flourish under the auspices of Pitchlynn, the number of students rising to 112 in 1831 and 120 in 1832. Throughout the 1830s, children received solid educations in science, literature and advanced mathematics, and a few learned industrial skills like blacksmithing and carpentry. As families removed to the

63 “Speech of the Hon. Asher Robbins,” Speeches on the Passage, 78.

64 As Cyrus Kingsbury argued in 1830, Choctaws had changed to survive, but they achieved much more as proven in Indian Territory. Before leaving Mississippi in 1828, a census of the Choctaw within only the Northeastern District revealed surprising statistics. The 5,627 people who lived there raised livestock totaling 11,661 cattle, 3,874 horses, 112 oxen, 22,047 hogs, and 136 sheep. They owned 530 spinning wheels, 124 looms, 360 ploughs, 32 wagons, 7 blacksmith shops run by Choctaws, 2 coopers’ shops. George Evans, a Representatives from Maine, noted in his speech against Removal, Choctaws were not hunters but farmers and ranchers. Indeed, he was correct. Notably, despite losing the majority of their livestock and farms in the move to the West, they persevered and became more successful and owned more than previous generations in Mississippi. See “Extracts from a Letter Written by the Reverend Cyrus Kingsbury to the War Department; Dated Feb. 8, 1830,” 67-68, and “Speech of the Hon. George Evans,” 171 both in Speeches on the Passage; and Hitchcock, Travelers, 187.

276 West, such skills became especially advantageous.65 These same children, as well as those who attended Presbyterian schools in Mississippi became the carpenters, blacksmiths and clerks, a new generation of educated, middle-class. These were Choctaws who used their knowledge and skills, not their status as headmen or the amount of property amassed, to prosper in the new Nation. They played an integral role in the development of new political systems, academic institutions and a local economy operated by Choctaws, which served as the foundation for rebuilding and reunifying the Choctaw community.

Pitchlynn and other leaders promoted the re-establishment of Presbyterian and

Methodist schools in the new nation alongside Nationally-operated institutions not affiliated with Christian denominations. By 1840, the Academy in Kentucky had become

“disorganized” as a loss of interest in the institution gripped the Choctaw Nation.66

Students attending the school complained that administrators failed to enforce regulations

65 Extract from the Annual Report of Indian Office, November 19, 1831, 53, Quarterly report, showing the condition of the Choctaw Academy in Scott county, Kentucky, on the 1st of August, 1832, 57, From Mr. Henderson, transmitting certain compositions, &c., Choctaw Academy, April 13, 1838, 121-23, Report showing, in detail, the condition of the Choctaw Academy in Scott county, Kentucky, on the 30th September, 1838, being the end of the third quarter, 127, Report showing the condition, in detail, of the workshops at the Choctaw Academy in Scott county, Kentucky, on the 30th September, 1838, being the end of the third quarter, 128, and Inspector’s Report, January 1, 1841, Choctaw Academy, January 5, 1841, 146-47, all in Choctaw Academy. For additional information about Choctaw Academy, see Ella Wells Drake, “Choctaw Academy: Richard M. Johnson and the Business of Indian Education,” The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society 91 (sum 1993): 260-97; Majorie Hall Young, “‘Stars in a Dark Night’: The Education of Indian Youth at Choctaw Academy,” 15:3 (1997): 280- 305; Carolyn Thomas Foreman, “The Choctaw Academy,” Chronicles of Oklahoma 6:4 (Dec 1928): 453-80, Carolyn Thomas Foreman, “The Choctaw Academy (Continued from December number),” Chronicles of Oklahoma 10:1 (Mar 1932): 77-114.

66 Henry C. Benson, Life among the Choctaw Indians and Sketches of the South- west, intro T. A. Morris (Cincinnati, OH: L. Swormstedt & A. Poe, 1860), 162-64.

277 or allow Natives to keep the Sabbath. One influential Choctaw named Thomas Leflore, a cousin of Greenwood Leflore, complained that students who returned had learned “all the bad vices that can be---such as gambling, drinking, &c.” The same individual brought his son and nephew back to the Nation that they might be educated near family and friends, who would enforce discipline and moral behavior.67 Peter Pitchlynn, one founder of the school in 1825, now saw that the institution’s standards had fallen, and thought it no longer usefully served the Nation. Pitchlynn moved to dissolve the school in 1841.When it closed, the Academy had taught 260 children as well as 250 adults to read and write in their natives languages and acquire the skills of numerous jobs, but these students did not suffer displacement. Instead, Pitchlynn moved to establish schools operated by missionaries and educated Choctaws but under the auspices of the Nation itself.68

Through the aid of Pitchlynn and others, national schools appeared within the

Choctaw Nation west of the Mississippi. The Methodist Episcopal Church founded three new schools: Spencer academy in the Puckshenubbee district, Naniwaya Academy in the

Pushmataha district, and Fort Coffee in the Mushulatubbee district.69 Founded north of

67 Adam Nail and others, students of the Choctaw Academy, to the Indian Office, Choctaw Academy, Scott county, Kentucky, October28, 1839, 135-36, Colonel Johnson to Indian Office, Senate Chamber, January 17, 1840, 137, Captain Armstrong to the Indian Office, Choctaw Agency, February 22, 1840, 137, Letter from Thomas Leflore, transcribed by Bazil Leflore, Choctaw, clerk of the district, Puckshumbbie District, January 14, 1840, 138, all in Choctaw Academy.

68 Angie Debo, The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Republic, reprint ed. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972; 1934), 45; and W. David Baird. Peter Pitchlynn: Chief of the Choctaws (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972), 27-28, 57-59, 61.

69 Benson, Life among the Choctaw Indians, 61.

278 Doaksville in November 1842, Spencer gained renown as a “national school.” Although owned and operated under the jurisdiction of the Choctaw Council through the School

Act, its teachers were Methodists. Baptists did not give up hope after losing Choctaw

Academy and founded Armstrong Academy a few miles northeast of Bokchito in 1845.

These schools offered similar studies, although students were not allowed to speak their

Native language at Armstrong, and each was monitored by trustees, who also served within the National Council or worked for it.70

With the Baptists and Methodists, Presbyterians continued the work that they started in Mississippi. Before leaving the East, Choctaws asked Presbyterians missionaries to establish new schools in the West. The most prominent churchmen, especially Cyrus Kingsbury and Cyrus Byington, took the request to heart and eventually moved to Indian Territory to re-establish schools and churches. As in Mississippi, the

Presbyterians, funded by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, boasted the most schools and farthest-ranging impact among the Choctaw. Within twelve days of reaching Indian Territory in 1832, Presbyterians began establishing mission schools, preaching and teaching. The first missions were established near the Red River communities, but soon Presbyterian schools appeared in all three Choctaw districts in the

West.71 The General Council, pleased with the previous results of the Presbyterians,

70 Milligan, Choctaw in Oklahoma, 82; and Clara Sue Kidwell, The Choctaws in Oklahoma, 1855-1970, foreword Lindsay G. Robertson (Norman: University Oklahoma Press, 2007), 9-11.

71 “Extracts from a Letter of Mr. Wright, Dated Jan. 14th, 1833,” Missionary Herald 29 (June 1833): 206.

279 allotted funds to support several institutions beginning with Bethabara, established in

1832, and Wheelock and Clear Water, both established in 1833.72 By 1848, the

Presbyterians had created more institutions; Pine Ridge, Stockbridge and Wheelock having the most successful educational programs among the Choctaw. The General

Council contracted with the American Board’s missionaries to teach and preach in the

Nation. Although Choctaw Academy shut its doors, the best scholars, who often became future leaders, often attendance to American colleges such as Dartmouth and Yale to receive advanced degrees.73

The schools established in the nation differed little from those in Mississippi before Removal with a few significant exceptions. Presbyterians began to rely on

Choctaw teachers, who returned from the Choctaw Academy or other school. Native instructors demanded not only respect but the attention of scholars. Moreover, they provided clear models of the success attainable through learning. As early as 1833, two schools used Native teachers in the classroom, but sources do not indicate the subjects they taught.74 The publication of materials in the Choctaw language gave Presbyterians an advantage in teaching and helped to spread literacy far beyond the confines of the schools themselves. Such publications existed before Removal but new publications written in the

Choctaw language increased throughout the 1830s and 1840s. Over 2000 copies of the

Choctaw Hymn Book were printed in 1829. In 1833, three new books were sent to press,

72 “Choctaws on the Red River,” Missionary Herald 30 (Jan 1834): 7.

73 Debo, Rise and Fall, 61.

74 “Mission to the Choctaws,” Missionary Herald 32 (Jan 1836): 23.

280 which focused on the old Testament and the Gospels of Luke and John. Overall, copies numbered 3,500 plus 6,500 printed before Removal.75 By the end of the year, a second edition of the Hymn Book was issued with a print order of 3,000. Missionaries planning of it increased its size and the number of hymns because “[t]he desire to possess books in their own language and the inclination to learn to read them are prevailing.” The numbers and types of texts continued to increase over the decade. By 1835, theses included a small tract of the Sabbath and new books focusing on spelling, arithmetic, geography and astronomy, numbering over 3,000 copies.76 By 1840, the total number of publications was

33,000.77 With the bulk of materials printed in Choctaw, Presbyterians continued to lead the education movement by creating written tracts and bridging the cultural gap through the Native language.78 The desire for literacy and conversion grew out of the multitude of

75O“Choctaws East of the Mississippi,” Missionary Herald 29 (Jan 1833): 23.

76 “Mission to the Choctaws on the Red River,” Missionary Herald 29 (Dec 1833): 465; and “Mission to the Choctaws,” Missionary Herald 31 (Jan 1835): 25.

77 Coleman, Louis. “Cyrus Byington: Missionary to the Choctaws.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 62:4 (1984-1985): 374-75.

78 As previously noted in the chapter, Baptists refused to allow Choctaws to speak and did not teach in Choctaw at the schools the Baptists oversaw. Although not as strict on this rule, Methodists focused on teaching and preaching in English more than Choctaw and often considered the usage of the language in the classroom and pulpits as a retardation of the civilization process. By communicating in the language itself, Presbyterians enjoyed lasting successes in conversions and moreso in teaching skills such as reading and writing. They did not rely on translators and better understood Choctaw culture as if they themselves were cultural insiders. See Kidwell, Choctaw in Oklahoma, 10; Clara Sue Kidwell, “The Language of Conversion among the Choctaws,” Journal of Presbyterian History 77:3 (Fall 1999): 148; “First Annual Report of the Mission School at Elliot, Choctaw Nation, to the Autumn of 1819,” Panoplist and Missionary Herald 16 (Aug 1820): 79; and Chapter 4, 46-49.

281 tracts published post-1830, but with attention on publication, conversion and education,

Presbyterians had little time to interfere in Choctaw politics as they had before 1830.

Experimenting with diverse methods of teaching became integral to the success of

Choctaw missions in the West. Although missionaries established numerous schools, not all institutions taught boys. At Wheelock, teachers instructed boys and girls, but at least one station stood out among the rest for its focus on female education only. Located about one mile from Skullyville by Methodists, New Hope Seminary was created in conjunction with a boy’s institution at Fort Coffee in 1844. While Fort Coffee was self-sustaining,

New Hope was not.79 The two schools did work together, however, boys producing goods and food for use at New Hope and girls doing the same for Fort Coffee. Girls between the ages of eight and fourteen attended New Hope lived in log cabins and traveled there to become a new generation of mothers in the Nation.80

Separating the educations of males and females did have important consequences for Choctaw culture in the West. Kinship systems began to break down as patrilineal customs emerged within Choctaw communities. Before Removal, women took on

79 William H. Goode, Outpost of Zion with Limnings of Mission Life (Cincinnati: Poe & Hitchcock, R. P. Thompson, Printer, 1864), 45-46; Richardson, Beyond the Mississippi, 222; and Milligan, Choctaw in Oklahoma, 78-79.

80 Carolyn Thomas Foreman, “New Hope Seminary, 1844-1897,” Chronicles of Oklahoma 22:3 (1944): 271-72, 275. Although New Hope became the most important institution for educating Choctaw girls, Presbyterians also established four female schools, including Chuahla, which consisted only of girls, and Wheelock, which consisted for both sexes. See, Baird, Pitchlynn, 64; Milligan, Choctaw in Oklahoma, 79- 81; Annie Heloise Abel, The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist, intro. Theda Perdue and Michael D. Greene, reprint ed. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1992; original, Cleveland, OH: Arthur H. Clark Company, 1915), 40n42; and Louis, “Cyrus Byington” 371-72.

282 “domestic” tasks of weaving, milking cows, and making butter and cheese. Men, who once only hunted and warred, shared tasks once considered women’s work, such ascaring for livestock and aiding in agricultural duties.81 After making the journey West, men filed claims for lost property, not women. This action was surprising considering that women held ownership rights within Choctaw culture. As men made claims to property, they gradually promoted a shift from matrilineal to patrilineal customs. By 1859, Cyrus

Byington, who by then had preached among the Choctaw for almost forty years, observed that kinship terms had changed. In 1836, the General Council passed a law allowing individuals to marry within their “iksa,” social divisions created to balance communities, a policy first presented before 1830 but entering the written law code of the new Choctaw

Nation after arrival in the West. Marriage within one’s own iksa was once considered a form of incest, but after Removal the law extinguished a facet of their culture that distinguished Choctaw marriage customs. Fathers controlled property now and descent of property followed the male line. Despite this change, men and women continued to enjoy equal rights under the law.82 Gradually, Choctaw politics, religion and economics became a blurry reflection of that of Americans, but this Choctaw did preserve a few particular facets of their culture that helped bind the Nation together.

81 Speech of the Hon. Asher Robbins, Senator from Rhode Island, Delivered in the Senate of the United States, April 21, 1830, Speeches on the Passage of the Bill, 78.

82 Kidwell notes that a major indicator of kinship practices came when men bartered away land, which according to traditional customs belonged to women. See Clara Sue Kidwell, “Choctaw Women and Cultural Persistence in Mississippi”in Negotiators of Change: Historical Perspectives on Native American Women, ed. Nancy Shoemaker (New York: Routledge, 1995), 127-28.

283 The most important cultural practices preserved from Mississippi revolved around stickball, beliefs in oral traditions and supernatural beings and occurrences, and continued use of the Choctaw language. For example, travelers observed a continued reverence for the sun even among Christianized Choctaws. Stories about legendary chiefs and traditional ideas about creation persisted after Removal. A few Choctaws still believed in a group of underground, sub-human Choctaws, who were known as the “crawfish band.”

Such stories became “privatized” among families but persisted either because Choctaws continued to believe in the stories or learned from the values portrayed in them.83

Although some leaders disagreed with the continuation of the sport, stickball provided a release from emotional or psychological pressures, originating in politics and cultural transformation. The Folsoms attempted to convince followers to give up ball play and considered it a remnant of “uncivilized” culture and an obstruction to conversion.

Despite their arguments, most Choctaws continued to play Stickball after Removal.

Individuals like Tahoka, an influential headman, proved that Choctaws could enjoy the sport and convert. In the 1850s, Baldwin Möllhausen observed that the activity continued.

Although no longer used to train for war, the competitions drew communities together for

83 Tom Mould. Choctaw Prophecy: A Legacy of the Future. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2003. 109-10; J. S. McDonald to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 13 and 14 December 1830, 1:19, Peter Pitchlynn Collection, WHCUOK; Möllhausen. Diary of a Journey, 38-39; and Josiah Gregg, “Commerce on the Prairies; or, The Journal of a Santa Fé Trader, during Eight Expeditions across the Great Western Prairies, and a Residence of nearly Nine Years in Northern Mexico (Part II: Chapters xii-xvi of Volume I, and all of Volume II of original)” in Early Western Travels, 1748-1846: A Series of Annotated Reprints of some of the best and rarest contemporary volumes of travel, descriptive of the Aborigines and Social and Economic Conditions in the Middle and Far West, during the Period of Early American Settlement, Volume XX, ed. Reuben Gold Thwaites (Cleveland, OH: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1905), 284-86.

284 a traditional activity, which had persisted for over a hundred years and helped give

Choctaws a common identity. Although they Americanized their dress styles, Choctaws wore traditional garb during play. Men wore plumes on their backs, carried decorated ball sticks, gambled on the outcome of matches and painted their faces as in preparation for war. Möllhausen was surprised at seeing some Choctaw leaders dressed in cotton hunting shirts and brown pants and others decorated as warriors on a battlefield. Ironically, the games were advertised in local newspapers, and headmen generally disagreed with the sport while supporting these publications.84 Belief in the supernatural, the persistence of storytelling, preservation of Choctaw as a primary language, and stickball provided vital links to traditions practiced in Mississippi. Choctaws looked back to these facets of their culture and unified around them. Regardless of changes they made as a Nation, whether political or economic or religious, traditions drawn from the pre-Removal era provided a sense of sameness throughout communities and brought unification.

Language served as a vital link that bound together communities. Not only had it survived despite acculturation, it also had evolved. Since the arrival of missionaries, translations of Bibles and textbooks appeared. After Removal, Choctaws worked to publish other important documents both in their native language and English. As

American and Indian beliefs and practices fused to create a new, mixed culture, Choctaws

84 Letter from Robert Folsom, 8 March 1830 in Tuttle, Conversations, 2:71-72. Missionaries noted that a few converts continued to play the sport despite conversion. Tahoka was one such individual who enjoyed political influence in his village. He converted to Christianity but could “could at any time put the whole nation in motion by appoint a ball-play.” See, ibid, 89. Möllhausen, Diary of a Journey, 34, 39-40, 46-49; and James D. Morrison, “News for the Choctaws,” Chronicles of Oklahoma 27:2 (1949): 212.

285 promoted themselves as a bicultural people. David Folsom and Peter Pitchlynn drew upon the skills of their political contacts to produce constitutions written in both English and Choctaw for the sake of non-Native and Native readers.85 More impressive than bilingual constitutions, the Choctaw Nation boasted its own newspaper. D. G. Ball, a non-Native originally from New Orleans, served as the publisher. Daniel Folsom, a member of David Folsom’s family and a Choctaw of mixed heritage, founded and edited the paper. Folsom was born in Mississippi and removed with his family to the West. In

1825, he became one of the first students of Choctaw Academy in Kentucky, where he received the education that led him into the newspaper business. He settled in Doaksville, the political center of the new Choctaw Nation of Indian Territory and founded the

Telegraph with the aid of Ball in 1848. The publisher later dissolved the paper in 1849 due to financial problems, resulting not only from small subscription numbers but from an inadequate mail service.86 The paper did not die, however, because an American named L. D. Alsabrook bought the paper and continued publication as The Choctaw

Intelligencer. Like its previous incarnation, the Intelligencer soon failed because of financial problems.87

85 Benson, Life among the Choctaw Indians, 2; and Milligan, Choctaw of Oklahoma, 43-44.

86 Morrison, “News for the Choctaws,” 205-207, 211, 221-22.

87 As Daniel Littlefield and James Morrison found, a lack of interest did not cause low subscription numbers. Instead, most Choctaws remained overwhelmingly rural and inadequate mailing and advertising systems did not succeed with such a cultural restraint. Ibid., 207-212; and Daniel Littlefield, Jr., “Choctaw Newspapers” in Choctaw Language and Culture: Chahta Anumpa, ed. Marcia Haag and Henry Willis, foreword Grayson Noley (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001), 313.

286 Despite its hardships, the paper made a lasting impression. It not only provided news for a multitude of Choctaws but also promoted the survival of the language. The paper carried stories on useful information about agriculture, husbandry and business; it educated the populace on subsistence public announcements, practices and market strategies. News traveled from person to person served as a valuable commodity to individuals who farmed or ranched for a living. Reports ranged from information about weather and river flooding to the possibility of droughts.88 Flooding of the Red River created chaos for cotton farmers and preparations for natural disasters proved a significant advantage to those who wished to save crops. Advice on farming and ranching practices, including the use of mules instead horses as one article noted, aided in subsistence practices and larger agricultural yields. Finally, the papers included political speeches and reports as well as information about the successes of local schools. Stories included opinions of trustees, enrollment numbers and the types of educations students received and why they received them.89 These reports and many others provided Choctaws with useful information for everyday life, but beyond this it became a symbol of what Choctaw were capable of producing.90

88 Morrison, “News for the Choctaws,” 212.

89 13 June 1850, 1:2, pp. 2-4, 20 June 1850, 1:3, pp. 2-4; 4 July 1850, 1:5, pp. 2; 8 August 1850, 1:9, pp. 2; 28 August 1850, 1:11, pp. 2-3, 11 September 1850, pp. 2; 13 November 1850, 1:22, pp. 2, 20 November 1850, 1:23, pp. 2, 19 February 1851, 1:35, pp. 2, 4, 26 February 1851, 1:36, pp. 2, 7 January 1852, 2:26, pp. 2, all in Choctaw Intelligencer, microfilm (Doaksville, Choctaw Nation, 1941).

90 After publication of the Intelligencer’s ceased in 1852, the Nation fell into tumultuous times as threats of a Civil War between the states loomed. After the Civil War, Choctaws revisited the advantages and disadvantages of a national newspaper. By

287 Removal was the one of the most traumatic events for Choctaws. Factionalism created an inability to block the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, which brought about their removal from Mississippi and resulted in the death of thousands. In the West, diseases such as small pox and cholera ravished populations. Over many generations,

Choctaws developed systems of hunting and agriculture in Mississippi that helped them sustain their communities and become powerful force among Southeastern Indians.

Indian Territory did not boast the game and fertile soil of the deep South, hunting and agriculture becoming more difficult in the new land. Despite these many hurdles,

Choctaws looked back to the skills, material goods and political systems developed through acculturation before Removal to rebuild their lives. Schools, a unified national system directed by a Choctaw constitution, mission work in education and Christianity, and developments in agribusiness became the foundations on which the new nation was built. By the mid-1840s, the Choctaw Nation again stood as a powerful force among

Native groups in Indian Territory. Within fifteen years, however, new problems would emerge and create new social divisions. Before removal, factionalism emerged along ideological lines, which concerned how to survive, the relationship of chiefs and commoners. After 1830, new groups formed based on opinions regarding slavery, markets and, most importantly, the coming war between the states. Primarily, new divisions emerged along class lines but, as before, threatened the fragile unity and stability of the new, acculturated Choctaw Nation.

1872, the Nation again published newspapers that evolved and survived. For more information about the post-Civil War Choctaw newspapers, see Littlefield, “News for the Choctaw,” 314-17.

288 CHAPTER VII

CONSTITUTIONS, EDUCATION, SLAVERY AND THE COMING

OF THE CIVIL WAR IN CHOCTAW COUNTRY

On January 9, 1861, Jacob Folsom wrote to his uncle Peter Pitchlynn. He remembered his move to Indian Territory in 1834 and spoke about his views regarding the tensions between the North and the South. “This year, I want to pay my whole attention to raising mules,” Jacob wrote,”and, if Abe Lincoln and his host of devils don’t run over us, I shall want to buy a negro boy to work for me, as I am getting old.”1 The

Folsoms represented a new economic aristocracy in the 1820s, a family who had acculturated while reveling in their Indian heritage and earning status and power within the greater Choctaw community. Like most Southerners, they supported slavery, but

Jacob did not stop with his witty comment about Lincoln. He claimed that “Lincoln will make as good a President” as some Americans in the United States promised. According to Jacob, Lincoln should take all the Fire Eaters and ardent abolitionists and hang them all.2 Folsom argued that slavery did not represent the most significant issue among

1 Jacob Folsom to Peter Pitchlynn, 9 January 1861, Box 3, Folder 92, Peter P. Pitchlynn Collection, Western History Collection, University of Oklahoma [hereafter, WHCUOK followed by box and folder number]. Jacob Folsom attended Choctaw Academy and was about twenty five when he left Mississippi for the West. See Carolyn Thomas Foreman, “The Choctaw Academy,” Chronicles of Oklahoma 6 (Dec 1926): 455.

2 Folsom to Pitchlynn, 9 January 1861, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCUOK, 3:92.

289 Choctaws. Instead it sparked violence within communities. Folsom’s jokes about Lincoln and his comments about killing extremists in the North and South touched on the same problem he saw within the Choctaw Nation. Factionalism ripped apart communities and created weakness and lawlessness within society.3

Jacob’s letter reveals much about Choctaw attitudes towards the United States and the coming of the Civil War. Even if individuals despised their leaders, respect for headmen and chiefs was required. Perhaps more importantly, Jacob realized that the violence the people within the states suffered originated in ideologies about state rights and slavery, issues which he believed should be discussed in councils rather than battlefields. Like Pitchlynn, Folsom witnessed the consequences of communal divisions during the political and removal crises before 1830 and feared the same would happen in the American Nation. For many Choctaws, the coming Civil War meant fear and uncertainty seemed a blurry reflection of the events that occurred within the Choctaw

Nation before 1830. By the eve of the Civil War, Choctaws had spent thirty years rebuilding their Nation in a new land, but they always remained connected to the South politically, economically and religiously. Choctaws accumulated property and sought with every available weapon to protect what they owned. By 1861, wealthy Choctaws feared that their slaves would be taken and commoners fought to keep farms and ranches from the hands of greedy settlers, who threatened them once again.

White Americans provided the impetus for cultural change and the tools necessary to survive after removal. With the approach of war. Choctaws questioned those

3 Ibid.

290 connections. The newly emergent Choctaw Nation in the West developed and prospered by mirroring American economically, politically and spiritually. The elements of

Choctaw society that bound together communities after Removal were established before

1830 through a fusion of Native and American cultures. Like those bonds, the seeds of disunion among the Choctaw were planted before Removal. Choctaws disagreed on how to acculturate, and changing ideologies divided the Nation along, class, ethical, spiritual and political lines. When faced with the American Civil War, however, Choctaws followed their leaders in joining the Confederacy, a government that promised to uphold

Choctaw autonomy.

One point of contention after Removal concerned the structure and functions of the Choctaw government. The trauma of the move created chaos, but within year after the third wave of emigrants arrived in the West Choctaw headmen forged a new constitution.

Commoners and their leaders adapted by relying on husbandry, new methods of farming and receiving educations that allowed them to effectively buy, sell and trade in the

American market economy. The first Choctaw constitution appeared in 1826 with revisions appearing until the signing of the Dancing Rabbit Creek Treaty. The first post-

Removal General Council immediately designed a new form of government and drafted a new constitution.4 In 1834, the Council feared that United States military might overrun the already weakened Choctaws and destroy their autonomy. The creation of a new government signified that the Choctaw Nation had survived removal and would continue as an independent nation. At the first Council meeting on the Kiamachi River on June 3,

4 “In General Council of the Chatas,” Peter Pitchlynn Collection, WHCUOK, 7:5.

291 1834, the Council named the location after the sacred mound located in Mississippi,

Nanih Waiya, which would represent the center of the Nation and symbolize the physical and spiritual survival of the Choctaw people in the West. According the 1834 and 1838 versions of the constitution, each male over 16 received the right to vote. A single chief no longer would rule the Nation. Instead, the Council divided the Nation into three districts, each named after one of the three great, pre-Removal leaders Pushmataha,

Puckshenubbee and Mushulatubbee.5 Remembering Greenwood Leflore’s actions at

Dancing Rabbit, commoners argued that a single chief would become a tyrant and bring oppressive taxation upon the Nation.6 Three chiefs, as Choctaws observed before the pre-

1830 political crisis, provided a system of checks and balances within their own government. Vesting power in single chief might threaten autonomy once again.

The Constitutions of 1834 and 1838 represented a blending of Choctaw laws and policies drawn from American documents. For example, the document used language similar to the Constitution of the United States. It began by stating “We the people of the

5 Henry C. Benson, Life among the Choctaw Indians and Sketches of the South- west, intro, T. A. Morris (Cincinnati, OH: L. Swormstedt & A. Poe, 1860), 28-29. In 1830, Andrew Jackson’s commissioners oversaw the signing of a Removal treaty for the Chickasaw in Mississippi. The agreement exchanged lands in Mississippi for those within Choctaw territory. The Choctaw would, therefore, rule over the Choctaw after the Chickasaws settled in the West. The move prompted the creation of a new constitution in 1838, which created a Chickasaw district alongside the Pushmataha, Puckshenubbee and Mushulatubbee districts. Eventually, new versions of the Constitution gave each of the four districts its own representatives and chiefs who convened in Council once a year and raised the required age to vote by two years. See James C. Milligan, The Choctaw of Oklahoma (Stacy C. Shepherd, ed. Abilene, TX: H. V. Chapman and Sons, 2003), 66-67.

6 James D. Morrison, Seven Constitutions (Anumpa Vlhpisa Untuklo): Government of the Choctaw Republic, 1826-1906 (Durant, OK: Choctaw Bilingual Education Program, 1977), 57-58.

292 Choctaw Nation, having a right to establish our own form of government,” claiming sovereignty by relying on political lingo used by Americans.7 It dissolved titles of nobility, hereditary or otherwise, which represented a shift from the tradition of placing individuals into the position of “chief” by birthright rather than election. The 1834 document upheld laws regarding the execution of witches, as determined by the chief and

Council, the 1838 did not include such a provision, a sign that a new generation of

Choctaw leaders not only held power but shaped from the constitution based on changing beliefs and practices. The constitution guaranteed similar rights and powers to the chiefs and Council members as they held before Removal. Each district elected its own representatives, and chiefs ruled through the General Council rather than over it.8

Power remained in the hands of elites and chiefs after Removal, but some leaders soon began to ignore the voice of commoners. Overall, the stability of the Nation’s government rested on a democracy based on representation, like the United States, with political structures taken from pre-Removal political systems. Laws previously included in the pre-1830 Constitutions, which prohibited the sale of alcohol, infanticide, and witchcraft persisted. The Light Horsemen enforced laws as they had in Mississippi and

7 Ibid., 30-33.

8 Constitution of the Choctaw Nation, October 1838, transcript copy posted by Michael D. Wilson, Associate Professor of English, University of Wisconsin – Milwaukee, online, a Path: Michael D. Wilson’s Homepage/Tribal: Choctaw Homepage/Constitutions/1838 Constitution.

293 functioned as a police force under the authority of the chiefs and General Council until

1860.9

The Constitution, even in its revised forms, should have held together a stronger and more unified Choctaw Nation. Instead, it failed to do so as effectively as its hoped. As revisions continued from 1834 to 1860, Choctaws debated of the political system, the types of laws enacted and how the document conflicted with traditional views. It may have clearly marked the boundaries of the Nation based on United States treaty negotiations and protected the rights and privileges of Choctaw citizens, but all citizens did not agreed with its resemblance to American laws. Punishments for crimes varied depending on the infraction, but penalties remained the same as before removal by consisting of fines, whippings and death.10 For some, the Choctaw Supreme Court and

General Council functioned too much like those of the United States, which disregarded traditional methods of justice. Some Choctaws blamed the similarities on bicultural leaders, particularly Peter Pitchlynn and the Folsoms. At first glance, Pitchlynn’s actions appeared patriotic. He served as a delegate in Washington, where he fought Congress on

Indian-rights issues such as funding for Indian education, markets for Choctaw goods and the protection of Native autonomy. Most notably, he attempted to make Congress responsible for provisions incorporated in the 1830 treaty, particularly those concerning

9 Clara Sue Kidwell, The Choctaws in Oklahoma, 1855-1970, foreword Lindsay G. Robertson (Norman: University Oklahoma Press, 2007), 14, 56, 174.

10 Benson, Life among the Choctaw, 29

294 the protection of the Choctaw Nation under the United States.11 Commoners viewed his work as noble but saw him, one observed wrote, as “too much of a white man to be intrusted with power; they could not vote for a man who had a fair complexion and blue eyes.”12 Nat Folsom, also of mixed heritage, dressed partially in traditional clothing, kept a “polished and sharp” knife at his hip, smoked tobacco regularly. He received enough votes to hold the position of chief for a short time. Folsom too found difficulty in gaining the trust of the people. Despite being a “dignified and sensible man, of good character,” some commoners and elites viewed him as incapable of effectively running his district because he had little formal education. Others viewed him with suspicion because he had

Choctaw and American parents and owned “considerable property.”13 Commoners amassed property as had elites. Three differences created distrust against leaders. First, many of the leaders who had obtained large tracts of land, wealth and slaves appeared to pass laws and supported policies that benefitted the rich. Second, these elites also

11 Choctaws experienced violence with Texans who often raided Choctaw Territory. Pitchlynn made trips to Washington, where he met with Congressional members to remind the United States that it had guaranteed protection from foreigners in the Dancing Rabbit Treaty of 1830. Texas was, according to Pitchlynn, a foreign threat. Whether or not the United States became successful at quailling Texas violence within Choctaw is not clear, but Pitchlynn gained renowned in the Nation for his attempts to fix the problem. See From Peter P. Pitchlynn, 25 March 1842, 1:79, From George S. Gaines, 7 December 1845, 1:98, David Folsom to Peter Pitchlynn, 16 January 1846, 1:100, David Folsom to Peter Pitchlynn, 27 June 1846, 1:107, all in Pitchlynn Collection, WHCUOK.

12 Benson, Life among the Choctaw, 104; and William H. Goode, Outpost of Zion with Limnings of Mission Life (Cincinnati: Poe & Hitchcock, R. P. Thompson, Printer, 1864), 41.

13 Benson, Life among the Choctaw, 101-102.

295 possessed mixed heritage, having white and Indian ancestry. That bicultural Choctaws had become rich and boasted more property than commoners appeared suspicious.

Finally, bicultural, affluent elites held the top political positions in the nation. Therefore, commoners often distrusted those in power with biological ties to Americans, who appeared to threaten Choctaw autonomy by seeking additional land cessions, had brought about removal from Mississippi, advocated cultural change, and threatened to destroy traditionalism. Property displayed their success and prestige within the Nation. Less successful commoners often felt cheated when they gazed upon the prosperity of bicultural leaders. Ordinary Choctaws suspected that such leaders cared more about what they owned and how to get more than about the multitude of the Choctaw people.

Animosity towards individuals who attempted to copy the United States or mirror

“white” culture increased as constitutions shifted and conformed to the will of bicultural individuals. As American travelers visited the Choctaw Nation west of the Mississippi, they often cited the adoption of a constitution like that of the United States as an advancement.14 Such comments must have created fear amongst individuals who already worried that traditions, which had worked so well until Removal, were dying, and

14 Ibid., 29; Thomas J. Farnham, Travels in the Great Western Prairies, the Anahuac, and the Rocky Mountains, Volume XXVIII, ed. Reuben Gold Thwaites (Cleveland, OH: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1906), 123-25; and Josiah Gregg, “Commerce on the Prairies; or, The Journal of a Santa Fé Trader, during Eight Expeditions across the Great Western Prairies, and a Residence of nearly Nine Years in Northern Mexico (Part II: Chapters xii-xvi of Volume I, and all of Volume II of original),” Early Western Travels, 1748-1846: A Series of Annotated Reprints of some of the best and rarest contemporary volumes of travel, descriptive of the Aborigines and Social and Economic Conditions in the Middle and Far West, during the Period of Early American Settlement. Volume XX, ed. Reuben Gold Thwaites (Cleveland, OH: The Arthur H. Clark Company), 1905.

296 commoners saw bicultural individuals as the destroyers. Bicultural families like the

Pitchlynns and Folsoms established plantations along the Red River, where their slaves farmed cotton and brought them wealth. They held the highest positions of power in

Choctaw country. As decades passed, commoners increasingly viewed the successes of bicultural individuals in the market economy with suspicion as they were increasingly marginalized politically and economically.15

To commoners, Robert Jones certainly appeared untrustworthy. He married a

Choctaw wife, but he was bicultural. The most successful and richest Choctaw of his day,

Jones established stores, where individuals bought, sold and traded goods, and helped build a new, localized economy within the Choctaw Nation. He funded schools and provided advice supposedly in the hopes that educated youths would return to fill positions as bookkeepers, accountants and skilled laborers. Some Choctaws returned to work for Jones, but he often hired white men to run his businesses. Perhaps Jones thought educated Choctaws could not perform tasks as responsibly as Americans.16 Missionary

John D. Lang noted that the habit of well-to-do Choctaws to hire whites rather than

Natives had become a severe problem after Removal. Many boys returning from schools outside the nation could not find jobs. But many elites hired outsiders to work their plantations and businesses. As the prominent Choctaw politician George Harkins

15 John Pitchlynn to Peter Pitchlynn, 10 March 1833, 1:36, From Peter P. Pitchlynn, 10 September 1837, 1:54, and Rhoda Pitchlynn to Peter Pitchlynn, 23 September 1841, 1:67 all in Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK.

16 Milligan, The Choctaw of Oklahoma, 73-74; and George W. Harkins to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 16 November 1857, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 2:107.

297 observed, elites who hired whites rather than educated Choctaws retarded national progress. Natives sent their children to schools sotheir offspring might fill positions in businesses and government. The Choctaw Nation then could become self-sufficient politically and economically and more easily preserve as autonomy.17 Jones’s actions seemed hypocritical, willing to promote education so Choctaws might pursue reputable careers but unwilling to employ qualified Choctaw applicants. On his journey West, traveler Henry Benson noted that bicultural individuals like Jones lacked the confidence of the masses.18

Bicultural respect for traditions which still inspired many commoners gradually dissipated. Symbols of change, such as new constitutions, threatened tradition. Laws enacted by the Council provoked concern over loss of tradition. Choctaws used iksas to divide their population. Iksas were exogamous and provided a sense of balance and purpose within communities since each division complimented its partner. For example, while one iksa was associated with warfare, the other was associated with diplomacy and civil affairs. Iksas helped to explain kinship relations as well as socio-political, economic and spiritual relationships among members of the Choctaw community. Until 1830,

Choctaws regarded the iksa as one of the most important traditional institutions within their culture. After arrival in the new territory, however, the role of kinship divisions

17 John D. Lang and Samuel Taylor, Jr., A Report of a Visit to Some of the Tribes of Indians Located West of the Mississippi River (New York: James Egbert, Printer, 1843), 34.

18 Benson, Life among the Choctaw, 102.

298 changed dramatically. In 1836, the newly established Choctaw government in Indian

Territory passed a law to allow marriage within iksas.19

Kinship groups once controlled property through matrilineal relationships, but ownership systems shifted with the legality of intermarriage. Disruption of the moiety system created worries that communal structures might fail. In 1826, leaders proposed a law that left the property of a deceased husband to his surviving wife and children.20 Such policies seemed unfathomable considering that women controlled property through kinship systems, which relied on relationships between the iksas. But in 1836, the new policy became a reality. By allowing intermarriage, Choctaw government no longer recognized the sacred and communal importance of iksas. Moreover, it no longer acknowledged exclusive property ownership by women and their associated kinship groups. Men would control property equally with women, who themselves lost communal influence as a result. That elites wanted to change older systems regarding property ownership and inheritance is not surprising considering that amassing property became an important method for acquiring authority within communities, the Nation, and the United

States. For commoners, acquiring property did not have the same significance. The sense

19 Iksas served a similar usage as clans did among other Native Americans. They provided a sense of purpose within the community and organized society politically. They also determined how an individual should behave and provided general links to ancestries. For further discussion of Iksas, see Swanton, Sources, 76-84; and Clara Sue Kidwell, “Choctaw Women and Cultural Persistence in Mississippi,” in Negotiators of Change: Historical Perspectives on Native American Women, ed. Nancy Shoemaker (New York: Routledge, 1995), 117-23.

20 Kidwell, “Choctaw Women,” 117-123.

299 of spiritual, economic and political balance at the lower levels of the Choctaw community instead felt threatened.

Tensions regarding the structure of Choctaw government came to a head in 1855 regarding a treaty that changed the political dynamic between the Chickasaw and

Choctaw. The Federal government had placed the Chickasaw, a smaller Indian nation, under the political jurisdiction of the Choctaw Nation after Removal. The treaty of 1855 guaranteed Chickasaw autonomy, but required payment of $150,000 to the Choctaw

Nation to obtain it.21 The agreement revealed weaknesses within the government.

Questions over the ability of the Nation and its leaders to protect Choctaw autonomy led to a crisis regarding the Skullyville Constitution in 1858. The Choctaw had revised their post-Removal constitution twice before 1858, once in 1842 and again in 1850. The 1842 draft created a senate within the Grand Council and promoted Choctaw control over schools within the Nation.22 The 1850 document expanded the rights of citizens and set the amount of salaries for various political offices, but this version raised questions regarding unequal representation and the inability to get policies passed by the Council.

On November 8, 1856, the chiefs approached the Council and suggested delegates be

21 Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 22 June 1855, Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, 2 vols., comp. and ed. Charles J. Kappler (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904), 2:706-714, Oklahoma State University Electronic Publishing Center: Digital Collections, Stillwater, OK, Online, Path: Oklahoma State University Electronic Publishing Center/Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties/Volume II (Treaties, 1778-1883): Table of Contents/Choctaw: Treaty with the Choctaw and Chickasaw, 1855.

22 Article III: Legislative Department, sec. 1-3, Constitution and Laws of the Choctaw Nation together with the Treaties of 1855, 1865, and 1866 (New York: Wm P. Lyon and Son, 1869, Printers and Publishers), 10.

300 chosen to fix the structural problems within the government. Four days later on

November 12, 1856, the Grand Council authorized delegates to “amend the old or frame a new Constitution.”23

The creation of the Skullyville Constitution aroused the anger of commoners and the leaders who desired a conservative approach to revisions. On November 4, 1857, delegates met and approved the new constitution, later dubbed the “Skullyville

Constitution” by its opponents, and claimed that it was in force as soon as the General

Council acted. Not all laws provided significant changes to the government. Acts continued to enforce the prohibition of liquor sales and guaranteed the power of the light- horse infantry to enter homes, seize alcohol and destroy it. Others made the act of slander illegal, defined punishments for certain crimes and established fees for services performed by certain officials of the Choctaw government, including Justices of the

Peace, Judges and Sheriffs.24 Other decisions made by the delegates were, according to opponents, actions against the Choctaw people.

Two issues served as the foundation for the constitutional crisis. Some Choctaws demanded a greater degree of democracy and limits on the power of the Grand Council.

23 George Harkins to Tandy\ Walker, 15 September 1857, reprinted in “For the Choctaws—read and circulate,” 1857, Cyrus Kingsbury Collection, WHCOUK, 1:9.

24 “Resolutions declaring what laws are in force” (Approved November 4, 1857), “An Act entitled an act to prevent the introduction and use of intoxicating liquors in the Choctaw Nation” (Approved October 26, 1857), “An Act entitled an act establishing the fees of certain officers therein named” (November 3, 1857), all in Constitution and Laws of the Choctaw Nation 163-71.

301 Both sides of the issue boasted effective leaders. Tandy Walker, the President of the

Skullyville Convention, insisted the 1857 document was legitimate and supported the power of the General Council to act on behalf of the people. George Harkins claimed the people did not support the new constitution because it had not been submitted to them for approval. The debate raged in public newspapers and private letters between chiefs and delegates. Tandy Walker argued his points in print, publishing his correspondence with

Harkins. Harkins wrote that the citizens of five of the seven counties in his district opposed the document. He claimed that they were “run over by a few and no respect

[was] shown to their feelings or rights.”25 For Harkins the individuals who created the

Skullyville Constitution were throwing away traditional values regarding government, namely the power of the people to influence their leaders rather than vice versa.

Changes to the constitution were crucial to the stability of the Choctaw Nation, and George Harkins, perhaps more than any other leader, knew it. He had admitted that it was not a perfect document, but changes to the structure of government had to be handled with care.26 That the people fought the changes made at Skullyville and that Harkins supported them is no surprise. The Skullyville Constitution included a provision that placed a “Governor,” a principle chief, in power over the Nation. One individual rather than three separate chiefs would reside over all districts. During the thirty years since

25 George Harkins to Tandy Walker, 24 August 1857, reprinted in “For the Choctaws—read and circulate,” 1857, Cyrus Kingsbury Collection, WHCOUK, 1:9; and Lester Hargrett, A Bibliography of the Constitutions and Laws of the American Indians, intro. John R. Swanton (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947), 59-60.

26 George Harkins to Peter Pitchlynn, 21 May 1858, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 3:21.

302 Removal, commoners gradually lost more influence within their governments to elites, who increasingly ignored public sentiment. Before arrival in Indian Territory, commoners enjoyed some influence over chiefs, who depended on the masses for support and respect.

When followers lost faith in their leaders, chiefs might have found themselves thrown out of office. Elections of officials changed the dynamic of traditional government. With the creation of written constitutions, elected officials now held their positions for af fixed term regardless of the opinion of the masses. According to Harkins, delegates at the 1857 convention “force[d] a constitution down the throats of a majority.”27 Echoing Harkins’s views, Lycurgus Pitchlynn wrote to his father Peter about the issue. Lycurgus claimed that the constitution was not suited to the “intellect” of the masses. Although based on the example of the United States Constitution, a document which he considered strong and worthy of mirroring, the constitution of the Choctaw was too complex and did not meld with traditional views about their government.28

Harkins argued that the district divisions with a chief over each worked well. It reserved governmental power to the people rather than a minority of elites and protected the rights and property of individuals and their families. These same arguments made to

Tandy Walker and Skullyville supporters appeared earlier in a letter written to Harkins’s uncle, who had remained in Mississippi and earned a reputation as a traitor, namely

Greenwood Leflore. Commoners and leaders like Harkins and Peter Pitchlynn

27 Ibid.; and George W. Harkin to Greenwood Leflore, 17 June 1845, Herbert Otho Boggs Collection, Box B-59, D and F, WHCUOK.

28 Lycurgus P. Pitchlynn to Peter Pitchlynn, c. 1858, 3:6, and Lycurgus to Peter, 4 January 1858, 3:7, both in Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK.

303 remembered that the Choctaw government, unfortunately, had given sole power of the

Nation to Leflore between 1825 and 1830. The situation occurring in Indian Territory between 1855 and 1860 appeared eerily similar once just as dangerous. According to

Choctaw perceptions under the 1858 constitution, leaders might once again sell Choctaw land without approval from the masses. Walker, who remained in contact with the United

States government through agent Douglas Cooper, may have appeared a reincarnation of

Leflore. Pitchlynn admitted that he had more faith in current leaders than did Harkins, but his views mirrored the fears of commoners.29 If given the opportunity, the United States would force the Choctaw Nation into accepting territorial status, an action, which

29 Harkin to Leflore, 17 June 1845, Boggs Collection, WHCUOK, D and F. Presbyterian missionary Cyrus Kingsbury, who worked among commoners and lower- ranking political leaders within the Choctaw Nation noted his concerns about whites overtaking Choctaw lands. Some elites desired to sell surplus lands not used by the Nation, and Kingsbury worried that the decision to do so would open the door for American encroachment a second time in Choctaw territory. Douglas Cooper served as agent for the Choctaws and Chickasaw during the second half of the 1850s. He assured Charles E. Mix that the government founded under the 1857 constitution and the leadership of Tandy Walker was the only legitimate government in the Choctaw Nation. See Kidwell, The Choctaws in Oklahoma, 21, 50-52. Another source of fear that whites would overtake Choctaw territory a second time resulted from the creation of the Butterfield Overland Mail route. Between 1858 and 1861, the route, also called the Overland Mail Company, served as a mail route San Francisco. The road cut through Choctaw Territory. Although much rivalry existed between the North and South regarding the Southern route, it received a noteable amount of traffic during its existence. The route also brought numerous Americans through the area. As distrust of Americans had increased during the 1850s, Choctaws probably viewed the route with suspicion. Choctaws gave the United States permission to build a road, later named the Natchez Trace, through their territory in 1801. Americans established stations along the Federal road, which promoted expansion and the eventual cession of Indian lands in Mississippi. Certainly, a Federal road through Indian Territory in the West might create a similar situation and threaten Choctaws again. See Susan Peterson, “The Butterfield Overland Mail in Indian Territory, 1858-1861,” Red River Valley Historical Review 6:3 (1981): 77- 86.

304 according to pro-Skullyville elites, would allow the sale of unused lands within Choctaw territory. The Skullyville Constitution had given the Grand Council the final decision in making such sales and encroachment possible by including an article that allowed the

Council to regulate the influx of “emigrants,” including whites, into Choctaw territory.30

As the political crisis unfolded, commoners felt as if elites were gaining too much control. If one chief ruled over the entire nation again, a government change that

Choctaws revoked immediately after Removal, then they once again might lose more land to the United States.

By 1858, the Skullyville Constitution continued to spark political controversy.

Delegates did not wish to allow the people to vote on the constitution and the United

States government upheld that decision, but turmoil in the Nation spoke volumes. Elites who agreed upon one head of state hoped that a more centralized government would function better than one with four district leaders. Walker argued that the power of the

Council was implied, and it had acted according to that power. To add insult to injury in correspondence published in a circulated, national pamphlet, Walker cited the definition of the word “frame” from Webster’s Dictionary, insulted Harkins’s knowledge about political theory and claimed his opponent was committing treason by supporting an old constitution rather than the 1857 version.31 Not all advocates of the Skullyville document treated opponents so harshly. Israel Folsom, a preacher rather than a politician, claimed

30 Kidwell, The Choctaws in Oklahoma, 55.

31 Tandy Walker to George Harkins, 15 September 1857, reprinted “For the Choctaws—read and circulate,” 1857, Cyrus Kingsbury Collection, WHCOUK, 1:9.

305 that although “whipt into silence on it for many years,” he wished the Choctaw Nation would structure their government with one national leader rather than four, which Folsom stated that the United States “with the population of twenty millions have but one ruling

Head, called President,” and the “English with 7,000,000 has but one.” He continued by arguing that other large nations had but one head of state, including France, Russia and even the “Chinese Empire. “But we the Choctaws of only twenty three thousand souls of us,” he wrote, “want four Chiefs to rule us.”32 Sampson Folsom argued that the people did not want to “submit to the power that be” and accept a loss of power that they themselves had vested in their representatives. Further, only a single chief would destroy the political

“confusion” present within a structure that relied on multiple chiefs.33 Elites who supported the centralization of Choctaw government may have appeared threatening to commoners, but they did agree that the battle against encroachment could not be made effectively by a divided nation. If the great nations of the world had succeeded by centralization of power with millions of individual citizens under their rule, then the

Choctaw Nation could function much more smoothly through the decisions and policies with fewer individuals in power.

That the Skullyville Constitution angered Choctaws became obvious. Kingsbury noted that Choctaws feared that history would repeat itself. He argued that whites might

32 Israel Folsom to Thompson McKenney, 3 June 1850, Jay L. Hargett Collection, Box H-57, 44, Western History Collection, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma [Hereafter, collection name, WHCUOK, followed by box and folder number].

33 Sampson Folsom to Uni Osh Ma (Peter P. Pitchlynn), 9 December 1857, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 3:2.

306 again attempt to invade Indian lands now located west of the Mississippi River. Some elites desired to sell surplus lands not used by the Nation, and Kingsbury worried the decision to do so would open the door for American encroachment a second time.34 As outspoken delegate to Washington, advocate of Choctaw autonomy and contributor to the

Choctaw constitutions after Removal, Peter Pitchlynn feared some of the changes occurring in the government. “The [Choctaw] Government will never stop,” he wrote,

“until they are bought out of their country to give room to the Whites to occupy.”35

Choctaws might oppose the United States both at home and in Washington, but Pitchlynn believed the Federal government would not stop until all Indian lands belonged to its citizens.

Commoners publicly demonstrated their dissatisfaction 36 One individual noted that the creators of the Skullyville constitution needed to forge a document both “useful and beneficial” and “suited to the wants and requirements of the People — [it] must conform to their habits of thinking.”37 As some leaders stalled revisions to the constitution, the political woes of commoners were compounded by crop failures and starvation, which created further social angst. Commoners soon feared that their chiefs

34 Cyrus Kingsbury to S. B. Treat, 20 April 1860, Kingsbury Collection, WHCOUK, 5:2.

35 Peter Pitchlynn to Thompson McKenney, 2 March 1854, Hargett Collection, WHCOUK, H-57:66.

36 Peter Pitchlynn to Daniel Folsom, 15 June 1858, 3:27, and Peter Folsom, 19 January 1861, 3:93, both in Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK.

37 Lycurgus to Peter Pitchlynn, c.1858, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 3:6.

307 and council leaders were not prioritizing the basic needs over political problems.38 As leaders appeared to ignore the needs of followers, the masses began to starve. Choctaws then wrought chaos within their communities and upon themselves to cope. Nancy Dukes observed that the people were “living in a sad state” and were “drinking and killing upon each other in a shocking manner.”39 Sampson Folsom claimed that, combined with the party splits in the Nation, commoners’s violence had spread so rapidly that the Choctaw people lived on the “eve of anarchy.” He argued further that “[m]urder, manslaughter, stealing, lying, drinking whiskey (rot-gut), assault & battery are an everyday occurrence.

Personal property is considered without protection.”40 Leonidas Pitchlynn noted that the

“indians are killing one another up like dogs upon a fox.”41 George Hudson reported that the new government did not work. People bought, sold and became drunk on whiskey and fought and killed one another because they considered themselves no longer under the law. Hudson blamed the chaos on Walker’s new government and the refusal of the people

38 Lycurgus to Peter Pitchlynn, 10 February 1860, 3:60, Israel Folsom to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 19 March 1860, 3:64, Lycurgus to Peter Pitchlynn, 28 March 1860, 3:65, Joseph Dukes to Peter Pitchlynn, 5 September 1860, 3:81, Jubal B. Hancock to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 16 September 1860, 3:82, Peter P. Howell to Peter P. Pitchlynn, c.1860, 3:83, and Sampson Folsom to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 8 October 1860, 3:84, all in Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK.

39 Joseph and Nancy Dukes to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 21 May 1858, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 3:24

40 Sampson Folsom to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 9 December 1857, 3:1, and Sampson Folsom to Uni Oshi Ma, 9 December 1857, 3:2, both in Pitchlynn Collection..

41 Leonidas Pitchlynn to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 12 January 1855, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 2:59

308 to accept it.42 Regarding the law, Lycurgus stated simply, “no order, no law & no peace.”43 Even Cyrus Kingsbury said that lawlessness was spreading throughout the

Choctaw Nation in 1858.44

In response to the growing social unrest, delegates agreed to reconvene the constitutional convention and forge a new document, which came to be known as the

Doaksville Constitution and be submitted to the people for approval. Opposition to a new constitution continued as Harkins and his followers supported only the 1850 version, but the convention to draft yet another document convened on May 5, 1858.45 Sampson

Folsom, a supporter of the Skullyville document, noted that “they [Choctaws] must come together as one people” or be “doomed . . . sooner or later.” As parties fought each other, the Nation itself became weaker. Pitchlynn insisted that a government of the people meant that they should have the opportunity to vote, but Folsom responded that the delegates served as the “voice of the people.”46 Two days after Folsom wrote to Pitchlynn,

42 George Hudson to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 23 February 1858, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 3:15.

43 Lycurgus to Peter Pitchlynn, 31 March 1858, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 3:20.

44 From Cyrus Kingsbury, 31 May 1858, Cyrus Kingsbury Collection, WHCOUK, 5:49.

45 Kingsbury to S. B. Treat, 17 July 1858, 5:26, and Kingsbury to S. B. Treat, 1 March 1858, 5:27, both in Kingsbury Collection, WHCOUK; and Joseph Dukes to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 5 March 1858, 3:16, George W. Harkings to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 19 April 1858, 3:21, Sampson Folsom to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 19 May 1858, 3:23, both in Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK.

46 Sampson Folsom to Pitchlynn, 19 May 1858, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 3:23 [emphasis in original].

309 Joseph and Nancy Dukes, a bicultural family who were friends of Pitchlynn, reported on the proceeding and reasoning behind the constitutional changes that took place with the

Doaksville version. During the convention, delegates received a letter from Thompson

McKinney written by Tandy Walker and considered it an “overture for a compromise.”

Dukes and the other delegates debated the prospect of a “fourth chief system,” which would revive the district chief structure but also acknowledge a single senior chief. In a referendum, voters could chose either the new constitution or the Skullyville version; the constitutional plan that received the most votes would be the fundamental Choctaw law.47

By 1860, the referendum had occurred, and the Doaksville Constitution became the official constitution for the Nation. While Harkins and Walker agreed that it was not perfect, it represented a compromise between the two parties, accommodated the power of the people and that of the representatives, and proved that divisional splits could be rectified.48

The constitutional crisis became only a minor worry by 1860, when tensions between the North and South reached Indian Territory, but the new document provided provisions to protect property, including slave property. Whatever stability the Doaksville version temporary created quickly diminished in the wake of a renewed threat of encroachment. To cope with the movement of whites into the Nation, delegates in both

47 Joseph and Nancy Dukes to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 21 May 1858, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 3:24; and Constitution of the Choctaw Naion, done in convention at Doaksville, 5 May 1858, Hargett Collection, WHCOUK, H-57:63.

48 George W. Harkins to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 10 February 1860, 3:58, Tandy Walker to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 10 Ferbruary 1860, 3:59, and Tandy Walker to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 18 March 1860, 3:63, all in Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK.

310 parties argued for the sectionalizing of land to provide funds, which could in turn be used to protect Choctaw autonomy. Such actions appeared threatening to the masses. Israel

Folsom noted that the “minds of the people are now like as they were just before the treaty of 1830. . . . Rapidly do men of all classes seem to be losing confidence in each other. . . . Surely as you say the whites will eat up & consume the Red Men wherever they come into contact with them. Our people now actually believe that . . . a day of doom awaits them.”49 As fears spread, the United States government, once expected to mirror to protect autonomy and promote Choctaw successes, began to falter. Chaos reigned in

Indian Territory as crime increased and commoners lost faith in the ability of their leaders to stem the coming wave of war and bloodshed.

Missionaries’s roles within Indian Territory west of the Mississippi River represented the second issue that split Choctaws after Removal. Presbyterian, Methodist and Baptist missionaries traveled west to continue their work among removed Choctaws.

For Choctaw leaders, missionaries represented another face of a common enemy bent on stealing lands. Presbyterians remained at the forefront of Christian conversions and education as before 1830. The desire for missionary education and the skills taught served as two of the bonds that helped unite communities in Indian Territory. As economic and political tensions emerged with the approach of the Civil War in the United States, some leaders blamed missionaries and their work for the social chaos in the Choctaw Nation. In

1848, Israel Folsom claimed that “warfare of words have has been carried On . . .

49 Israel Folsom to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 19 March 1860, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 3:64.

311 unknown to the world.” Presbyterians, he argued, represented one of the great abolitionist denominations in the United States. Missionary or not, whites were to blame, Folsom. By

1860, missionaries had embraced the anti-slavery gospel, and their attitude represented a danger to Choctaws who owned slaves and threatened the right of Choctaws to run their government as they pleased. Jubal B. Hancock and Peter P. Howell, both non-Indians and friends of Peter Pitchlynn, warned Pitchlynn that “missionaries were supposed to be the instigators” of slave rebellion, a view commonly held by Southern slave holders.50

Choctaws worried about a slave uprising, and Hancock and Howell lent credence to that fear.

Presbyterians claimed that they had no desire to promote abolitionism or slave insurrection. “We have said, that we are not, and never have been, either the advocates or apologists of slavery,” Kingsbury wrote. Despite their views about slavery, missionaries claimed, the Choctaw themselves had to decide whether or not to own humans.

Regardless of their purpose in Indian Territory, missionaries still considered the slavery

“as one of the greatest evils that afflicts our country, morally, civilly and politically.”

Their primary duty remained education and saving souls, not abolition, but they certainly felt the backlash from their personal views. Israel Folsom, who became a vehement opponent of the missionaries, left Kingsbury’s church and joined the Cumberland

50 Israel Folsom to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 23 February 1848, 2:2, Israel Folsom to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 24 July 1854, 2:47, Israel Folsom to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 3:64, Jubal B. Hancock to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 5 September 1860, 3:82, Peter P. Howell to Peter P. Pitchlynn, October 1860, 3:83, all in Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK [emphasis in original]; “Letter from Mr. Kingsbury, Dates Dec. 10th, 1840,” Missionary Herald 36 (May 1841): 210-11; and Cyrus Kingsbury to S. B. Treat, 18 October 1858, Kingsbury Collection, WHCOUK, 5:26.

312 Presbyterian Church, which supported slavery. Being a man of influence, some Choctaws certainly sided with Folsom in his endeavor.51 Various headmen also told Kingsbury that they were no longer satisfied with the message preached at mission schools. “We took them [the students] at the request of the Choctaws, with a view to their benefit & not our own,” Kingsbury wrote to S. B. Treat. “If the Choctaws insist on a change of basis, . . . I for one am very willing to go with the Committee.”52 If Choctaws decided to change their educational system, Kingsbury would support it. As distrust between headmen and the few missionaries who advocated slavery increased, Presbyterians found themselves in the center of socio-economic, political, and religious strife and a source of disunity in the

Choctaw Nation by 1860. Contention surrounding Presbyterian missionaries originated from their growing opposition slavery and Choctaw desires to exact more control over schools.

The number of slaves and slave owners within the Choctaw Nation remained small into the post-Removal period, but the meaning of servitude changed after Removal.

Before 1830, Presbyterians had accepted slavery to combat the lack of labor at newly- established schools in Mississippi. Ironically, their dependence on slave labor before removal to the West convinced Choctaws that slaves could serve as tools to bring prosperity. Ironically, Presbyterians now opposed the institution they had helped establish firmly within Choctaw society. In 1845, the Prudential Committee, which served as the

51 The new school law, signed: Cyrus Kingsbury, et al., 27 December 1853, Kingsbury Collection, WHCOUK, 5:39.

52 The Choctaw request that the missionaries give up the schools, 25 April 1854, Kingsbury Collection, WHCOUK, 5:36.

313 governing body of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, issued a statement regarding Indians and slavery. The number of slaves and slaver owners within the Choctaw Nation grew into the post-Removal period as the meaning of servitude changed after Removal. In 1845, the Prudential Committee, issued a statement regarding the number of Indians who owned slaves. By that year, it estimated that about 20,000

Choctaws and Chickasaws lived within Choctaw Territory west of the Mississippi River of which 603 had direct connections to the Presbyterian church. Twenty of those individuals owned slaves, 131 slaves belonged to the church as Christians rather than laborers, and 7 “free negroes” were also a part of the congregation. Other denominations in the Nation included Moravians, Baptists and Methodists. On average, the document continued, one in thirteen slaves belonged to the church. If the Committee’s estimates were correct, the number of slaves among Choctaws had more than tripled in the years after Removal.53 Cyrus Byington, like Cyrus Kingsbury a prominent Presbyterian missionary who had also served among the Choctaw before Removal, wrote:

‘But what is to be done? Shall we desert our churches and schools, and send back those who compose them to the shades of moral darkness and death, because some among them own slaves? Is not the Choctaw nation a part of that world into which Christ commanded his disciples to go and preach the gospel to every creature? Can we expect the half-enlightened, half-civilized Choctaws to proceed on this subject in advance of the white people in the States around them? Or in advance of those churches in civilized and enlightened communities where slavery exists?’54

53 Report of the Committee on Anti-Slavery Memorials, 10-12.

54 Bying quoted in Ibid., 14-15.

314 As missionaries watched slavery expand, they feared the institution might not see a swift death.55 Slavery represented a moral dilemma for the missionaries. They were conflicted in their desire to save souls and be champions of human freedom. They also struggled with the question of whether an abolitionist position might deprive them of the opportunity to continue working in the Choctaw schools.

As Byington reported to the Prudential Committee, missionaries felt torn between becoming ardent abolitionists and threatening the progress made over the previous decade and half or supporting schools. A majority of the Choctaws cared little about slaves, owning none themselves due to poverty. They did not possess the political influence of the Pitchlynns and Folsoms, nor the financial resources of Robert Jones. Most lived far from the Red River, home of the plantations owned by the wealthy and affluent Choctaws of that day.56 Gradually, a small minority of slave owners had obtained the majority of the power within the Nation, which slowly mirrored Southern society, where a minority of slave owners held most of the political and economic influence. If ownership of slaves initially symbolized power, it soon became only a means of economic progress. Choctaws

55 Cyrus Byington to J. Leighton Wilson, 8 February 1855, American Indian Correspondence: The Presbyterian Historical Society Collection of Missionaries’ Letters, 1833-1893, microform (Greenwood Press, 1978), reel 13, Mississippi State University Government Documents, Mitchell Memorial Library, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS [hereafter, letter, AIC, MSUGD, followed by reel number].

56 Ethan Allen Hitchcock, A Traveler in Indian Territory: The Journal of Ethan Allen Hitchcock, Late Major-General in the United States Army, ed., ann. Grant Foreman (Cedar Rapids, IA: The Torch Press, 1930), 184-85, 220; Farnham, Travels in the Great Western Prairies, 121-24; Milligan, Choctaw of Oklahoma, 47, 60; and Donna L. Akers, “Peter P. Pitchlynn: Race and Identity in Nineteenth-Century America,” in The Human Tradition in Antebellum America: No. 7, Human Tradition in America, ed. Michael A. Morrison (Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc., 2000), 142-43.

315 of mixed ancestry prompted the transition of slavery from a status symbol to an agricultural labor system. According to one observance, “[n]ine tenths of the Choctaws have no interest in slavery, and no sympathy with it.” The only individuals who owned slaves were those of “wealth” and “intelligence,” slavery giving them “great influence and power.”57 Commoners supported the power of the bicultural individuals in government because those leaders possessed education and close ties to the United States.

Bicultural individuals also had the most to gain and lose by supporting slavery.

Eventually, commoners realized the distinction between themselves and their counterparts in government. No longer were their leaders holding power traditionally, but did so instead through economic prosperity. By the second decade following Removal,

Choctaws saw the emergence of class divisions based on varying degrees of property. As

Israel Folsom noted on the eve of the Civil War in March 1860, “Rapidly do men of all classes seem to be losing confidence in each other.” The situation appeared much as it had in 1830, a “great stir now among the people of all parties.” If the situation played out the same, “white men” would certainly be there to rip the land from the grasp of the

Choctaws.58

As Choctaws entered the 1850s, they suffered natural disasters and crop failures, which helped paint their wealthy, landowning leaders in a darker light. Lizzie Lee wrote to her mother from Spencer Academy about the desperation felt by commoners. “A poor

57 Kingsbury to Treat, 25 April 1854, Kingsbury Collection, WHCOUK, 5:36.

58 Israel Folsom to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 19 March 1860, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 3:64.

316 woman brought a handful [of strawberries] here today and wanted to sell them for bread,” she stated, “This has been a hard winter for the Choctaws & great many come here to get something to eat. Corn is very scarse and the winter so cold that a great many cannot get enough to eat. A great many cattle have starved to death.”59 In 1850 and after, Choctaws living along the Red River had to cope with flooding and crop destruction. Although the richest and affluent individuals lived along its banks, those few families who did not have great wealth suffered immensely as their crops perished. The Choctaw Nation as a whole suffered flooding throughout the decade which caused major losses of cash crops, particularly cotton and corn.60 When the rains stopped, the Nation was plunged into a harsh drought, further hindering food production.61 As crop losses rose, Choctaws were forced to buy corn from merchants on the . Seizing the opportunity for profits, the merchants charged high prices that many Choctaws could not afford.62 Choctaws got little help from leaders whose laws and policies protected property, especially slaves, and

59 Mrs. Lee to Mother, 1860, Colonial Dames Collection, WHCOUK, 2:26.

60 “The River,” 13 June 1850, 1:2, 2, and 25 July 1850, 1:7, 3, both in Choctaw Intelligencer, Doaksville; and Cyrus Byington to J. Leighton Wilson, 26 September 1860, AIC, MSUGD, 12; and Israel Folsom to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 19 March 1860, 3:64, and Lycurgus P. Pitchlynn to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 28 March 1860, 3:65, both in Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK.

61 The drought brought suffering to elite leaders as it had to commoners. Gradually, leaders recognized such issues among commoners and hoped to fix them in the future. The Civil War would hamper such plans. See, Sampson Folsom to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 8 October 1860, 3:84, and Lycurgus P. Pitchlynn to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 3:85, both in Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK.

62 Cyrus Byington to Walter Lowrie, 11 July 1865, 17, Byington to Wilson, 9 February 1861, 12, Byington to Kingsbury, 20 March 1854, 13, Extracts from the Records of the Choctaw Missions of the A.B.C.F.M., May 1854, 13, in AIC, MSUGD.

317 benefitted primarily the wealthy, but did little to ease the economic suffering of commoners.

Leaders like George Harkins promoted the cotton cultivation by commoners in the hope that the average, Choctaw might prosper economically as had the bicultural elites. In a letter published in a Choctaw newspaper in 1852, he argued that cotton sold better than corn and livestock and that commoners should devote at least a small portion of the their land and time to the crop.63 Other articles in the paper, published on behalf of leaders, advised when and what to plant to yield the greatest profits.64 Most commoners did not read the newspapers, and the elites lacked the ability to provide adequate strategies for widespread prosperity through cash-crop agriculture or other businesses within the

Nation. Missionaries often appeared as the only beacon of hope in Choctaws’ darkening world.

Regarding the missionary presence within the Nation, commoners found reason to be angry as well, but that anger was focused on Choctaw leaders rather than the

Christians who taught at schools and preached the Gospel. Missionary schools, especially those established and run by Presbyterians, provided institutions for education, trade and sometimes conversion. Arguably, if not for Presbyterian schools, which sparked the creation of other educational institutions founded by Methodists and Baptists, commoners would have lacked the skills and knowledge necessary to rebuild west of the Mississippi

63 “Geo. W. Harkins. — To the People of the Puckshunubbee District,” 7 January 1852, Choctaw Intelligencer, Doaksville, 2:26, 2.

64 “A Word to our Farmers,” 19 February 1851, Choctaw Intelligencer, Doaksville, 1:35, 2, 4.

318 River. When leaders threatened to close schools if they were not turned over to the

Choctaw government, the rift between commoners and elites widened.

Divisions hardened when leaders, as rumors claimed, prepared to dissolve the connection between schools and the American Board. Presbyterians appeared to threaten the institution of slavery, and the Choctaw leaders’ distrust of missionaries stemmed primarily from their abolitionist sentiment. Tensions between commoners and elites over the management of schools originated in a contractual relationship between the Choctaw

Nation and teachers. By 1843, the General Council appropriated $18,000 for schools headed by missionaries and located within Choctaw boundaries.65 The desire to produce educated Choctaws remained high after Removal. Peter Pitchlynn often complained that uneducated individuals who served on the General Council caused most of the communal dissolution apparent in the Nation by the 1850s.66 According to leaders, a lack of schools or dysfunctional education systems were to blame for emergent social divisions. But missionary work had produced numerous educated men and women who performed well within Choctaw society as business owners and politicians.

Despite commoners’ concern that schools in the West were not as good as those in the East, their faith in missionaries remained strong. In 1844, Cyrus Kingsbury wrote to

American Board representative David Greene that “there is a manifestly this feeling among the Choctaws, that the schools they had in the Old Nation were better than any

65 Jared Olmsted to Orrin Olmsted, 9 February 1843, reprinted in “The Choctaw Nation in 1843: A Missionary’s View,” Chronicles of Oklahoma 44:3 (1966): 319-21.

66 Thompson McKinney to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 31 August 1853, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 2:24.

319 they have had since.”67 Commoners preferred boarding schools, which they believed ran more efficiently than new institutions in the West. Further, non-elites remained faithful to the missionaries who remained with them through Removal and relationships between the

Natives and missionaries had strengthened over the years.68 A few students exhibited enough skill and Christian faith to become teachers and preachers within the Nation.

Lizzie and Orlando Lee noted that a Choctaw Reverend Dwight visited Spencer on occasion and previously had studied at the school for seven years. His wife, also a Native, served as a teacher.69 Allen Wright attended seminary and became a prominent

Presbyterian preacher during the Civil War. He translated the Psalms into the Choctaw language and served as chief between 1866 and 1870.70 For common Choctaws,

Presbyterians provided communal bonds and taught skills necessary to their survival.

Popularity of schools rose through the decades after Removal. By 1841, Presbyterians oversaw six schools and furnished teachers for the Choctaw national academy of Spencer.

One missionary reported that although the schools were small, attendance and progress in studies remained consistent. Success among Presbyterians became so great that Methodist

67 Cyus Kingsbury to David Greene, 9 February 1844, Kingsbury Collection, WHCOUK, 2:11.

68 Ibid.

69 Mrs. Lee to Mother, 1860, Colonial Dames Collection, WHCOUK, 2:32; and Annual Report of the Chuahla Female Seminary, 28 July 1845, ABCFM, 759.

70 Allen Wright to Peter Pitchlynn, 30 March 1854, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 2:34; John Bartlett Meserve, “Chief Allen Wright,” Chronicles of Oklahoma (December 1941): 320-21; and Estimated expenses of the Choctaw Mission for the year 1857, ABCFM, 759.

320 missionaries copied the Presbyterian practice of teaching and preaching in the Choctaw language. Each year, teachers noted rising success rates at their respective schools in conversion and teaching.71 By 1850, one traveling preacher noted, the Choctaw people were so anxious to receive the Gospel that they “often [walked] barefoot over the frozen ground and even through snow and ice” to hear it. By 1851, boarding schools were re- established, the number of official Presbyterian schools increased to nine. The number rose again to twelve schools by 1854 with over 600 families within the congregation, and up to fifteen schools by 1855. At the end of the decade, the Presbyterians controlled sixteen church schools where the attendance of students remained constant.72 In addition to the educational institutions, Presbyterians boasted more than thirty Sabbath schools for preaching the Gospel.73 Missions to the Choctaws served communities through spiritual and academic guidance, providing hope for the future and skills to survive the decisions of elites.

The situation for leaders became more difficult as the Prudential Committee of the

American Board debated how to handle the slave issue. The American Board claimed that

71 “Annual Report Respecting the Schools and Churches,” Missionary Herald 36 (Oct. 1840): 897-98; “Annual Survey: Choctaw,” Missionary Herald 37 (Jan. 1841): 14; and “Letter from Mr. Wright, Jul 1, 1845,” Missionary Herald 41 (Nov. 1845): 386-87.

72 The Indian Presybtery Report, 1852-53, Annual Report of Presbytery to the General Assembly, 5 May 1854, Annual Report of Presbytery to the General Assembly, 7 April 1855, all in ABCFM, 759.

73 “Survey of the Missions of the Board,” Missionary Herald 46 (Jan. 1850): 13- 14; “Letter from Mr. C. C. Copeland, March 5, 1850,” Missionary Herald 46 (1850): 168-69; and “Survey of the Missions of the Board,” Missionary Herald 47 (Jan. 1851): 12-13.

321 they had given no instructions on how to teach or preach about slavery. It claimed that the reduction in the use of slave labor at mission schools in the Choctaw and Cherokee ations pleased the committee but did not agree with the missionaries’s decision to allow slave holders to officially join churches.74 Kingsbury, Alfred Wright, Cyrus Byington, E.

Hotchkin, C. C. Copeland, David Bree Jr., H. H. Copeland, and D. H. Winship wrote to the Prudential Committee regarding the issue of slavery and the Choctaws. Missionaries had been involved with slavery in two ways, they explained, “by employing slaves as laborers & by admitting them & their masters to the church as we do other person who give evidence of personal piety. We are not slaveholders nor have we been save for the single purpose of emancipation. While laboring in our families.”75 They attempted to hire free people to work at mission schools, and the lack of labor remained a significant problem since the establishment of Presbyterian institutions among the Choctaw. The

Prudential Committee did not adhere to their missionaries’s advice to hire teachers and laborers. Considering salvation and education as the American Board’s most important goal, missionaries employed slave labor out of necessity and attempted to free Indian slaves where and when possible.76 Although some Choctaws owned slaves, missionaries

74 Statement respecting the employment of slaves in the southwestern missions, 23 January 1837, Statement of the Prudential Committee in relation to their Correspondence with the Cherokee & Choctaw Missions, Missionary House, Sept. 1849, and Statement of the Prudential Committe, Sept. 1851, all in ABCFM, 759.

75 C. Kingsbury, Alfred Wright, Cyrus Byington, E. Hotchkin, C. C. Copeland, David Bree Jr., H. H. Copeland, D. H. Winship to the Prudential Committee, 31 March 1848, ABCFM, 759.

76 Ibid.

322 desired to treat all people equally as would, according to their Biblical beliefs, God. Slave holders were Christians, and missionaries refused to play the part of judges.

Missionaries brought hope to the darkness associated with Removal from homes in the East. They persuaded a few Choctaws to convert and some to become religious leaders. Elites became concerned about missionary views on slavery, especially when their opinions might influence the mass of followers in the Nation. Further, Choctaw preachers might convince fellow Natives to support abolitionism. Leaders feared that missionary control of schools might detract from the efficiency of education because teachers might focus on promoting abolitionism rather than skills necessary for progress.

Afterall, what Choctaw leaders desired to attain through missionary education and what the schools provided differed. Part of curricula focused on skilled labor, reading and writing, and logic, but young people were also exposed to religious instruction and opinions regarding slavery that came with it.

Leaders thought missionaries took sides in the disagreements between elites and commoners, traditionalists and progressives, slave holders and non-slave holders, rich and poor. George Harkins argued that he “would like it . . . [i]f we could [get] loose from these missionaries.” The schools did “little good with the present set of teachers,” but he feared the Choctaw government could not break with missionaries “honorably.”77 The missionaries, according to Israel Folsom, “are actually taking sides in the great Indian political topics of the day some openly & some in the dark under the punishing floor.”

77 George Harkins to Peter Pitchlynn, 19 October 1855, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 2:65.

323 These “white men,” like all others, he continued, would “consume the Red Men wherever they come in contact with them.”78 John Conner, a bicultural Delaware leader and friend of Pitchlynn, wrote that a similar occurrence was unfolding among his people. The United

States divided, and whites were taking advantage of the lack of control within their own country to take land and property from Indians.79 For Pitchlynn, Folsom, Harkins and others, missionaries were as “white” and corrupt as any other American. They might provide education for Choctaws, but leaders would be forced to exact control over them and their teachings.

Choctaw leaders would have to remain cautious when dealing with missionaries.

Commoners lashed out at society when unhappy about political decisions made by leaders in whom their trust was failing. Israel Folsom feared a statement openly critical of missionaries might bring about violence against Choctaw leaders. He observed that one

Choctaw felt such sympathy for the Presbyterians that he offered to fight to protect Cyrus

Kingsbury. Such attitudes, Folsom argued, could break apart the Nation. Other Choctaws stated that they would follow missionaries regardless of what leaders ordered.80

Kingsbury argued that the majority of the Choctaws in the Nation disagreed with any effort to visit missionary teachers. As leaders debated the future of the missionaries,

78 Israel Folsom to Peter Pitchlynn, 19 March 1860, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 3:64.

79 John Conner to Peter Pitchlynn, 30 January 1860, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 3:64.

80 Israel Folsom to Peter Pitchlynn, 24 July 1854, Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 2:47

324 missionaries feared leaders were forming a conspiracy against them. Letters were to the

Board by the General Council threatening to end cooperation with the church, Kingsbury wrote, “without the knowledge of the Choctaw people —much less with their consent.”81

Furthermore, leaders supported the dissolution of Choctaw schools, according to the aging missionary, which would bring about anarchy, destruction and rioting by commoners who were dependent on missionary education.82 Kingsbury questioned what would happen to the property of the schools. He feared they would be subject to destruction and theft.83

Choctaw leaders thought that missionaries might decide to leave on their own if coerced by national law and used contracts and arguments to promote their dominion over educational institutions. Led by Israel Folsom and Peter Pitchlynn, the Choctaw government attempted to create new boarding schools under the Cumberland Presbytery, a pro-slavery branch of the church within the Nation.84 The tactic alienated the anti- slavery missionaries from leaders. When the Cumberland plan fell through, Pitchlynn and

Folsom sponsored the School Act in the National Council in 1853. The law placed individual missionaries under contract with the Council, and gave the government the right to cancel the agreements at any time. It established a Board of Trustees to monitor

81 Cyrus Kingsbury to S. B. Treat, 7 April 1859, Kingsbury Collection, WHCOUK, 5:17.

82 Ibid.

83 Letters concerning the breaking with the Board, all correspondence between Kingsbury and S. B. Treat, 1859, Kingsbury Collection, WHCOUK, 2:5.

84 Kingsbury to Treat, 27 December 1853, Kingsbury Collection, WHCOUK, 5:39

325 student progress and teacher behavior. The Council could terminate anyone considered to be an abolitionist who promoted that view because such individuals were “dangerous to the peace and safety of the Choctaw people.”85 By tying abolitionism to the stability of schools and the welfare of the Nation, leaders asserted greater control over missionary activities. This policy would silence the missionaries, or compel them to leave the Nation.

The tactic worked, causing some Presbyterians to flee, but a few remained in service to the schools and hoped to continue converting the people.

By 1859, Kingsbury, Byington, and the few other Presbyterians who remained in the Nation separated from the American Board of Commissioners. This action proved to

Choctaw leaders and the Prudential Committee of the Board their determination to preach the Gospel and continue their education program.86 They noted that little help had come from the Prudential Committee. For Choctaws, missionaries gradually became less important for their teaching and more for preaching. Schools like Spencer, an institution not affiliated with a specific denomination, had successes in teaching Choctaws. When an unknown individual set fire to buildings at Spencer in 1851, Alexander wrote the

Choctaws could not have committed such an because they saw Spencer, the Choctaw’s

85 New Choctaw School Laws Approved by the Chiefs, 16 November 1853, AIC, MSUGD, 13.

86 Cyrus Byington to Cyrus Kingsbury, 20 March 1854, 13, Extracts from the records of the Choctaw missions of the A.B.C.F.M., May 1854, 13, To the Trustees of public schools in the Choctaw Nation, 17 February 1860, 12, Cyrus Byington to J. L. Wilson, 25 January 1861, 12, Byington to Wilson, etc., 24 April 1861, 12, Cyrus Kingsbury, et al, to Secretary of the Board of Foreign Missions, 2 December 1859, 12, all in AIC, WHCOUK.

326 national school, as “their own.”87 According to another letter, the school had never been as popular as it was in 1850. Peter Pitchlynn, Robert Jones, and Thompson McKenney visited the institution at least a dozen times and often stayed for many hours to work with students and staff.88 John Edwards wrote that “Spencer Academy is a fountain sending forth in every direction all over the Choctaw Nation numerous strains of influence either for good or evil.”89 C. H. Gardner wrote that the children “seem to love their school,” and treated him with much kindness. Responding to the need for more education, he established a second school for Indian adults.90 Near Stockbridge, a group of Choctaws built their own log school and a meeting house to attract teachers.91

Although attendance did not suffer, religious instruction did. Cyrus Byington wrote that the subject of slavery caused much division among the missionaries and impeded progress, but Choctaws looked to national schools for instruction, gradually separating the function of the church from that of the state. Congregations continued to prosper and grow, especially within the larger communities of Boggy Depot. In rural areas like Mt. Pleasant and Tomahush, church members were scattered, and had

87 Alexander Reid to Walter Laurie, 2 April 1850, AIC, WHCOUK, 15.

88 Reid to Laurie, 25 May 1850, AIC, WHCOUK, 15.

89 John Edwards to Walter Laurie, 19 September 1851, AIC, WHCOUK, 15.

90 C. H. Gardner to Walter Laurie, 20 March 1850, AIC, WHCOUK, 15.

91 Cyrus Byington to J. Leighton Wilson, 26 September 1860, AIC, WHCOUK, 12.

327 difficulty in attending to worship services.92 Reports from Presbyterians noted that new churches and congregations were established yearly. Although slow, congregational attendance rose enough that C. C. Copeland lacked the ability to preach to so many interested individuals within the Choctaw Nation. Unfortunately, the rise in violence and intemperance created difficulty not only politically but also educationally, economically and religiously. While the “Board still enjoy[ed]” the confidence of the people by 1858, one observer noted, “The ability of the Choctaws to managed their own affairs has been severely tested of late.” After Kingsbury and his colleagues separated from the Board, the

Board itself claimed, regarding the Choctaw, “there has been no failure here.”93 The

Prudential Committee saw its missionaries as peacekeepers, converters and teachers who experienced much success in among the Choctaws.

In 1860, the civil war between the North and South in the United States loomed and Choctaws were caught in the middle of the conflict. Coupled with their anger over changes to the Choctaw Constitution, commoners engaged in violence, alcohol abuse and class divisions. Between 1850 and 1860, commoners, torn between factions, fought and died for beliefs that combined new and traditional ideas. Commoners lost faith in leaders

92 H. Balentine to Leighton Wilson, 19 September 1856, 13, and Allen Wright to J. Leighton Wilson, 14 January 1861, 7, both in AIC, WHCOUK;

93 “Survey of the Missions of the Board: Choctaws,” Missionary Herald 46 (Jan 1850): 14; “Letter from Mr. C. C. Copeland, March 5, 1850,” Missionary Herald 46 May 1850 168-69; “Recent Intelligence: Choctaws,” Missionary Herald 47 (Apr 1851): 140; “Letter from Mr. C. C. Copeland, December 31, 1852,” Missionary Herald 49 (Mar 1853): 80-81; “Survey of the Missions of the Board: Choctaws,” Missionary Herald 55 (Jan 1859): 10-11; and “Survey of the Missions of the Board: Choctaws,” Missionary Herald 56 (Jan 1860): 12-13.

328 to make decisions that would benefit the Nation rather than themselves.94 A small minority of Choctaws left to find gold in California in hopes of leaving the chaos behind.95 Choctaws complained that their property was stolen, and no efforts to protect what commoners owned appeared forthcoming. Choctaw leaders considered an arrangement with the United States to turn Choctaw lands into a United States territory. If accepted by leaders, Choctaw lands would be surveyed and divided among families.

Additional lands left over would then be available to sell based on approval by the

Choctaw government.96 When the Civil War began, the Choctaw faced important choices.

They debated whether join the Union, the Confederacy, or to stay non-aligned. They wondered if the war might prompt an attempt by the Federal government to take their

94 Mrs. Lee to Mother, 1859, 2:10, Mrs. Lee to Mother, 1859, 2:12, Mr. Lee to Mrs. Woodruff, 1860, 2:39, Mrs. Lee to Mother, 1860, 2:40, all in Colonial Dames Collection, WHCOUK; From R. M. Jones, 23 July 1858, H-57:7, Constitution of the Choctaw Nation, done in convention at Doaksville, Choctaw Nation, H-57:63, Peter Pitchlynn to Thompson McKenney, 2 March 1854, H-57:66, Douglas H. Cooper to P. Pitchlynn, et al, 8 January 1857, H-57:69, all in Hargett Collection, WHCOUK; and Thomas J. Bond to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 18 September 1858, and Sampson Folsom to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 16 July 1860, 3:74, both in Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK, 3:33.

95 Henry O’Reilly to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 11 September 1845, 1:97, Douglas H. Cooper to Peter P. Pitchlynn, et al, 20 January 1854, 2:27, Thomas J. Pitchlynn to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 5 May 1854, 2:37, Leonidas Pitchlynn to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 12 January 1855, 2:59, Robert M. Jones to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 29 November 1857, 2:110, Sampson Folsom to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 9 December 1857, 3:1-2, Lycurgus P. Pitchlynn to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 31 March 1858, 3:20, all in Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK.

96 Cyrus Kingsbury to S. B. Treat, 1 March 1858, 5:27, Cyrus Kingsbury to S. B. Treat, 31 May 1858, 5:49, Message of the chief, c. 1840s, 9:55, all the Kingsbury Collection, WHCOUK; and Lycurgus P. Pitchlynn to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 6 August 1858, 3:29, and Sampson Folsom to Peter P. Pitchlynn, 12 February 1860, 3:61, both in Pitchlynn Collection, WHCOUK.

329 lands. Commoners feared their leaders would fail to preserve their rights and property.

Leaders worried that their slaves would be taken and their livelihoods lost.

Rather than destroying the Choctaw Nation, the Civil War bridged the gap between leaders and commoners. The Choctaw relationship with the Federal government was based on the ability of the United States to protect them and their autonomy. William

H. Seward, a Republican, argued in 1860 that the Indians west of the Mississippi must remove again so that Americans might settle the area.97 Pitchlynn, Folsom and other leaders who once hoped that a territorial bill might pass in the halls of the United States

Congress feared that a pact with the Union would cause another expulsion. Early

Confederate losses in Indian Territory made leaders fear that Choctaw autonomy would not, as treaties had promised, be protected by the United States. Furthermore, many

Choctaw leaders owned slaves. Despite disagreement between commoners and leaders over the institution of slavery, commoners faced a decision much like they had in 1830: either split the nation or join together as a nation to fight a common enemy. Albert Pike and Douglas Cooper, represented the Confederate government and negotiated a deal with

Choctaw. They portrayed the North as a destroyer of the agrarian lifestyle by threatening the existence of slave labor, cash-crop agriculture, and ranching. When Pike traveled to

Choctaw country and promised to protect their way of life, he acknowledged their sovereignty. He committed the Confederate government to assume the responsibilities of the Union noted in previous treaties, Choctaw leaders signed a treaty with the

Confederacy and supported the rebellion militarily.

97 See quote from Seward in Kidwell, Choctaws in Oklahoma, 57.

330 Commoners followed their leaders, fought in the Civil War and hoped they had made the right decision. There seemed good reasons to support their leaders’ decision.

Unlike 1830, Pitchlynn, Harkins and other chiefs and elites publicly explained their desire to protect the lands held by Choctaws. They found a similarity between 1830 and 1861 and feared that the communal dissolution would weaken and ultimately destroy the

Nation. The Confederacy offered to preserve autonomy by providing statehood to the

Indian nation. In the1861 treaty, the Confederacy recognized that Choctaws had demonstrated the “fitness and capacity for self-government, proven by the establishment and successful maintenance, by each, of a regularly organized republican government, with all the forms and safe-guards to which the Confederate States are accustomed, . . .

.”98 Such reassurances for self-government appeared similar to those made by the United

States in previous decades with one important difference. Choctaw leaders understood how the United States political system functioned and that states remained subservient to the will of the Federal government. If the Choctaw Nation became a state within a confederation, their government would function much differently than that of a territory linked to the United States.

Choctaws believed that belonging to a Confederation of states would have be advantageous politically, economically and socially. In 1861, the Choctaw Nation signed an agreement with the Confederacy and publicized a number of resolutions that explained

98 Article XXVIII of Choctaw-Chickasaw Treaty, 1861, reprinted in Annie Heloise Abel, The American Indian as Slaverholder and Secessionist, intro. Theda Perdue and Michael D. Green (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1992), 159-60n264.

331 why they made that decision. Here, the General Council echoed their reasons for separating total independence from the United States and joining the South:

That in the event a permanent dissolution of the American Union takes place, our many relations with the General Government must cease, and we shall be left to follow the natural affections, education, institutions, and interests of our people, which indissolubly bind us in every way to the destiny of our neighbors and brethren of the Southern States upon whom we are confident we can rely for the preservation of our rights of life, liberty, and property, and the continuance of many acts of friendship, general counsel, and material support.99

States within a confederation would enjoy self rule without being subservient to the

Federal government. Choctaw government would maintain trade and political relations with a larger, foreign government while have more opportunities to enjoy self rule.

Furthermore, no longer having to worry about Federal intervention into their political and social affairs, Choctaws hoped to foment cultural bonds more easily by enforcing laws created by the General Council, which would not longer spend much its time negotiating with the United States, and becoming more independent politically.

If Choctaws doubted their decision to join the South, Confederates erased those questions by taking actions to guarantee rights and privilege of elites and commoners.

The Confederacy gave all money from land sales in Choctaw districts to the General

Council to be dispersed as its members saw fit. Confederate emissaries to the Nation agreed to pay debts and annuities that the United States had failed to honor since 1830.100

99 From Resolutions expressing the feelings and sentiments of the General Council of the Choctaw Nation in reference to the political disagreement existing between the Northern and Southern States of the American Union, February 7, 1861, reprinted in ibid., 73.

100 Abel, Slaveholder and Secessionist, 159-60n264.

332 The Confederacy established courts within the Choctaw Nation for Choctaws to control.

The Federal government had set up a court, but only white men served on juries.

Guaranteeing juries would, Choctaws thought, promote fairness in their judicial system.101 Last, the Confederacy sent representatives to offer the Choctaw Nation representatives in the Confederate Congress.102 Federal officials could no longer make decisions without Choctaw representation, and the Choctaw Nation would have locals self government and a voice in national affairs. When Confederate troops defeated Union forces in Indian Territory and the North lost control of the region, Choctaws saw the

North as weak, unable to protect their military and political interests and believed the

South a more viable ally.103

The decision to join the Confederacy extinguished decades-old dissensions in the

Nation. Choctaws fought together for land, rights, property, and sovereignty, an effort that unified Choctaw communities by erasing political, religious and economic divisions. In

1870, five years after the Union defeated the Confederacy, Peter Pitchlynn stood before

Congress and argued that the Choctaw actions were justified. As a self-governing people,

Choctaws could decide for themselves what alliances to form.104 The United States

101 Ibid., 188n348; and Kidwell, The Choctaws of Oklahoma, 61.

102 Akers, “Pitchlynn,” 142-43.

103 Kidwell, The Choctaws of Oklahoma,, 58.

104 Peter P. Pitchlynn, “Remonstrance, Appeal, and Solemn Protest of the Choctaw Nation addressed to the Congress of the United States,” 21 March 1870, Western Americana : frontier history of the Trans-Mississippi West, 1550-1900, microfilm, reel 108, no. 1169 (New Haven, CT: Research Publications, 1975), 1-7 [page numbers refer to original].

333 interfered and ripped property from them despite promises to protect it, but the people stood united. Although it joined the Confederacy and suffered loss from that decision, the

Choctaw Nation remained intact. Despite the political, economic and religious differences that evolved until the Civil War’s beginning, Choctaws chose to prevent another 1830 and join together.105 As they did so, communities bound together as they had for generations before the birth of the United States.

105 Kidwell, The Choctaws of Oklahoma, 59.

334 CHAPTER VIII

CONCLUSION

In the nineteenth century, Choctaws lived in a constantly changing world. During the 1700s, they relied on the strength of local communities and the Choctaw community at large to persevere through a host of challenges. Men fought as warriors and hunted the forests of present-day Mississippi, and women brought and sustained life as “corn mothers.” Prestige and power dictated communal organization through respect and brought stability.1 During the nineteenth century, Choctaws of different social status faced a variety of problems, including game depletion, loss of land, and settler violence. To cope with these other crises, Choctaws adapted by transforming their culture in a variety of ways. How individuals and groups changed, however, differed based on personal, local, or national goals. As Choctaws adapted to a world that was changing around them, factionalism formed along ideological lines and split communities, bonds that had unified the Choctaw for over a century.

1 James Taylor Carson, Searching for the Bright Path: The Mississippi Choctaws from Prehistory to Removal (Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1999), 8; Greg O’Brien, “Trying to Look Like Men: Changing Notions of Masculinity among Choctaw Elites in the Early Republic” in Southern Manhood: Perspectives on Masculinity in the Old South (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2004), 56-57; and James Taylor Carson, “From Corn Mothers to Cotton Spinners: Continuity in Choctaw Women’s Economic Life, A.D. 950-1830” in Women of the South: A Multicultural Reader, ed. Christie Anne Farnham (New York and London: New York University Press, 1997), 9-15.

335 The nineteenth century held new opportunities. Chiefs advocated participation the

American market economy. Some leaders argued that ranching, especially raising cattle and hogs, represented not only a means of obtaining food but also producing goods that could be sold and traded to Americans. Others claimed the selling cotton would bring wealth to Choctaws and provide a a valuable resource for making clothing. A few chiefs stated that learning blacksmithing would allow Choctaws to break their dependence on the United States for metal goods. Leaders hoped to become less reliant on Americans for goods and help commoners survive as opportunities earning prestige in war and hunting decreased. In these ways, leaders hoped to maintain their power.

The opinions of about how to change culturally differed. Some traveled to

Natchez or New Orleans and resorted to theft and begging to secure needed provisions and food. Others became lost in a haze of alcohol to escape their problems.The more successful raised livestock and sold bacon and milk to trade factories. These individuals who participated in the American markets often made enough money to build small homes and amass property. Such successes convinced other commoners to do the same.

Finally, a small number of Choctaws who lost hope of opportunities to advance socially or acquire foreign-made material goods broke with their communities and became outcasts. They ignored for what chiefs wanted and focused on keeping themselves and their families alive.

Maintaining power, surviving, prospering individually, and protecting land and autonomy served as overarching themes in this study. The means to achieve those goals differed among Choctaws and threatened communal stability. Choctaws disagreed on

336 what facets of their culture to preserve and what to change. For sixty years, chiefs and commoners worked to help themselves but also to fuse Choctaw and American beliefs and practices to foster common ideologies around which all individuals might live as a nation. The process of controlling communal disillusion was never an easy one.

The arrival of Presbyterians further exacerbated the difficulties of keeping communities united. They brought education, which chiefs hoped would produce learned future leaders. Missionaries spread skills in agriculture, husbandry, blacksmithing, literacy and bookkeeping. Still, few Choctaws converted and not all took advantage of missionary education.2 A few individuals became preachers, established plantations, or entered other positions in which they used their skills to benefit both the Choctaw Nation and themselves. These educated individuals provided hope for commoners and elites because they had become less dependent on the United States for goods and prospered by fusing Choctaw and American ideologies about subsistence, trade, and social status. In this way, Presbyterians did provide new bonds to unite communities. Simultaneously,

Presbyterians hurt communal unity by fostering the creation of a “Christian party” by

1830, when Choctaws removed from Mississippi.3

For many Choctaws, the Treaty of Washington symbolized the failure of acculturation. Commoners split among different leaders who promised to restore land,

2 Clara Sue Kidwell, “Choctaws and Missionaries in Mississippi before 1830” in Pre-removal, 204, 216-17.

3 Letter from Cyrus Kingsbury, 17 May 1825; Kingsbury to Evarts, 13 July 1830, 6:28, and Kingsbury to Henry Hill, 26 July 1830, both in Kingsbury Collection, WHCUOK. A further discussion of the Christian Party can be found in Chapter 5 of this study.

337 protect autonomy, and fight the oncoming wave of American settlers. Now splintered,

Choctaws could no longer rely on communal unity to oppose a foreign enemy. In desperation and threatened by the Federal government, a few chiefs ignored the will of their followers and in 1830 signed the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, an agreement that required the total removal of Choctaws to an area West of the Mississippi River.

Removal wrought death upon many who traveled west, but rebuilt by using the skills and knowledge obtained before 1830. Experiences in the American market economy for almost thirty years aided in creating stable, independent businesses such as taverns, inns, post offices, plantations, steam boat companies, blacksmithing shops, and mercantile stores in Indian Territory. Missionary education provided information about

American political structures and the advantages of constitutional government. Educated

Choctaws forged a new Nation by writing a law system based on that of the United States and founded upon a Choctaw constitution. The memory of Removal, the most traumatic shared experience among the Choctaw, brought people together with the common goals of rebuilding and surviving in the West.

Although Choctaws did reconstruct their Nation, society and economy, factionalism persisted based on differences in ideology. The General Council revised their constitution many times between its conception in 1834 and the eve of the American

Civil War in 1861. Commoners once played a vital role in Choctaw politics as they had the ability to oust chiefs with whom they were dissatisfied. When the General Council restructured the government, the practice of voting allowed chiefs to remain in office until a following election. Commoners soon distrusted leaders, who were often educated

338 and bicultural, and sometimes opposed them through violence. Some Choctaws continued to support missionaries, who promoted abolitionism as the Civil War approached.

Opposition to slavery represented another point of contention between commoners, who often owned no slaves, and leaders, who had mimicked the wealthy Southerners by buying slaves and establishing plantations.

These problems combined with a series of natural disasters brought Choctaw society to brink of chaos, but the American Civil War became a boon for communities.

When faced with the decision to remain neutral, join the Confederacy, or join the Union, the Choctaw Nation chose to ally with the South. The Federal government again threatened to take land, and failures to maintain a military presence in Indian Territory proved that to Choctaws that the United States did not have the ability to protect Natives from threats outside Indian borders. Furthermore, the Confederacy offered total autonomy to the Choctaw Nation and representation within its assembly. Finally, Choctaws feared that another 1830 would occur if they joined with the Union. A loss of autonomy, another disillusion of communities, and lack of protection of property, might bring about another larger and deadlier removal. Communities had cause to reunite, support their leaders, and protect their right to national autonomy.

In retrospect, commoners, leaders, and their relationship to communal stability represented an important factor in ability of Choctaws to cope effectively with crises they faced in the nineteenth century. Choctaws showed that despite struggles against communal disillusion, they would rise to fight for common goals. As Clara Sue Kidwell concluded, Choctaws found good reasons to enter the Civil War, and their goals united

339 them.4 Only together, commoners and elites realized, could their nation survive and prosper when facing foreign opposition or internal strife. The Confederacy lost the Civil

War, but Choctaws remained united politically, economically, and socially after the conflict. Although ideologies split opinions, the Choctaws remained bound by their communities that gave them the strength to live, endure, and prosper in a changing world.

4 Clara Sue Kidwell, The Choctaws in Oklahoma, 1855-1970, foreword Lindsay G. Robertson (Norman: University Oklahoma Press, 2007), 69-86.

340 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abel, Annie Heloise. The American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist. Intro. Theda Perdue and Michael D. Greene. Reprint ed. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1992; original, Cleveland, OH: Arthur H. Clark Company, 1915.

Adair, James. The History of the American Indians: Particularly those Nations Adjoining to the Mississippi East and West Florida, Georgia, South and North Carolina, and Virginia. Rep. ed., intro. Robert F. Berkhofer, Jr. 1775; reprint, New York and London: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1968.

Akers, Donna L. Living in the Land of Death: The Choctaw nation, 1830-1860. East Lansing: Michigan state University Press, 2004.

Akinnaso, F. Niyi. “Schooling, Language, and Knowledge in Literate and Nonliterate Societies.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 34:1 (Jan 1992): 68-109.

American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, First Ten Annual Reports of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions with Other Documents from the Board. Boston: Printed by Crocker and Brewster, 1834.

American Encounters: Natives and Newcomers from European Contact to Indian Removal, 1500-1850. Ed. Peter C. Mancall and James Hart Merrell. Routledge, 2000.)

American Indian Correspondence: The Presbyterian Historical Society Collection of Missionaries’ Letters, 1833-1893. Microform. Greenwood Press, 1978. Mississippi State University Government Documents, Mitchell Memorial Library, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS.

American State Papers: Indian Affairs. 2 vols. Gales and Steaton, Washington, D.C., 1832.

Anglo-Spanish Confrontation on the Gulf Coast during the American Revolution. Eds. William S. Coker and Robert R. Rea. Pensacola, FL: Gulf Coast History and Humanities Conference, 1982.

341 Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History, 3d ed., eds. R. Jon McGee and Richard L. Warms (Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2004), 41.

António, Brandão José. Your Fyre Shall Burn No More: Iroquois Policy toward New France and its Native Allies to 1701. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997.

Armstrong, F. W. 1830 Choctaw Roll “Armstrong Roll”: Volume III, Leflore District. Intro. and index Larry S. Watson. 1985. Typescript copy available at Western History Collection, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

Atkinson/Elliot Agency Collection. Mitchell Memorial Library Special Collections, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS.

Baird, W. David. Peter Pitchlynn: Chief of the Choctaws. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972.

Bangs, Nathan. An Authentic History of the Missions under the Care of the Missionary Society of the Methodist Episcopal Church. New York, 1832.

Barclay, Wade Crawford. Early American Methodism in Two Volumes, Part One: 1769- 1844. 2 vols. New York: The Board of Missions and Church Extension of The Methodist Church, 1950.

Barker, Maxine. The Third Arrow: A Story of Mushulatubbee, Choctaw Chief. Carollton, MS: Pioneer Publishing Company, 1997.

Bartram, William. The Travels of William Bartram. Ed. Mark van Doren. New York: Dover Publications, 1928.

Being and Becoming Indian: Biographical Studies of North American Frontiers. Ed. James A. Clifton (Chicago, IL: The Dorsey Press, 1989.

Beldenm, Bauman L. Indian Peace Medals: Issued in the United States. New Milford, Conn.: N. Flayderman & Co., 1966.

Bennett, Caroline. “Historical Notes on Mayhew Mission and First Presbyterian Church, Starkville, Mississippi.” Typewritten mss., n.d.

Benson, Henry C. Life among the Choctaw Indians and Sketches of the South-west. Intro T. A. Morris. Cincinnati, OH: L. Swormstedt & A. Poe, 1860.

342 Blitz, John Howard. An Archaeological Study of the Mississippi Choctaw Indians. Archaeological Report No. 16. Jackson: Mississippi Department of Archives and History, 1985.

Boggs, Herbert Otho. Herbert Otho Boggs Collection. Western History Collection, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

Bossu, Jean-Bernard. Travels in the Interior of North America, 1751-1762. Trans. and ed. Seymour Feiler. Paris, 1768; reprint, Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1962.

Broadwell, George Aaron. A Choctaw Reference Grammar. Bloomington American Indian Studies Research Institute, Indiana University: University of Nebraska Press, 2006.

Bruce, Michael L. “‘Our Best men are Fast Leaving Us’: The Life and Times of Robert M. Jones.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 66:3 (Fall 1988): 294-305.

Bryant, Jr., Keith L. “The Choctaw Nation in 1843: A Missionary’s View.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 44:3 (1966): 319-21.

Byington, Cyrus. A Dictionary of the Choctaw Language: Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology. Bulletin 46. Eds. John R. Swanton and Henry S. Halbert. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1915.

______. Holisso Anumpa Tosholi: An English and Choctaw Definer for the Choctaw Academies and Schools. New York: S.W. Benedict, 16 Spruce Street, 1852.

Campbell, T. N. “Choctaw Subsistence: Ethnographic Notes from the Lincecum Manuscript,” Florida Anthropologiest 12 (1959): 9-24.

Campbell, Walter Stanley. Typescript excerpt from the Bureau of Ethnology regarding the life of Pushamataha and the Choctaw. Walter Stanley Campbell Collection. Box 117, Folder 3. Online. Accessed: 30 October 2008. University of Oklahoma Western History Collections, Norman, OK. Available Path: The University of Oklahoma Western History Collections/search: “choctaw”/transcript excerpt

Carson, James Taylor. “Horses and the Economy and Culture of the Choctaw Indians, 1690-1840.” Ethnohistory 42:3 (Sum 1995): 495-513.

______. Searching for the Bright Path: The Mississippi Choctaws from Prehistory to Removal. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1999.

343 The Choctaw Academy: Official Correspondence, 1825-1841. Ed., comp. Joe R. Goss. Conway, AR: Oldbuck Press, 1979.

“Choctaw Academy: Richard M. Johnson and the Business of Indian Education.” The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society 91 (sum 1993): 260-97.

Choctaw Intelligencer.

Choctaw Language and Culture: Chahta Anumpa. Ed. Marcia Haag and Henry Willis. Foreword Grayson Noley. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2001.

The Choctaw before Removal. Ed. Carolyn Keller Reeves. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1985.

A Choctaw Source Book. Ed. John H. Peterson, Jr. Garland Publishing, Inc.: New York & London, 1985.

Claiborne, J. F. H. Mississippi as a Province, Territory, and State. Jackson, MS: Power & Barksdale, Publishers and Printers, 1880.

Clearing a Path: Theorizing the Past in Native American Studies. Ed. Nancy Shoemaker. New York: Routledge, 2002.

Coker, William S., and Thomas D. Watson. Indian Traders of the Southeastern Spanish Borderlands: Panton, Leslie & Company and John Forbes & Company, 1783- 1847. Foreword J. Leitch Wright, Jr. Pensacola: University of West Florida Press, 1986.

Colonial Dames Collection. Western History Collection, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

Coleman, Louis. “Cyrus Byington: Missionary to the Choctaws.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 62:4 (1984-1985): 360-87.

Coleman, Michael C. Presbyterian Missionary Attitudes toward American Indians, 1837- 1893. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1985.

Conlan, Czarina C. “David Folsom.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 4:4 (Dec. 1926): 340-55.

______. Madeline Czarina Colbert Conlan Collection. Western History Collection, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

344 Constitution and Laws of the Choctaw Nation together with the Treaties of 1855, 1865, and 1866. New York: Wm P. Lyon and Son, Printers and Publishers, 1869.

Contact Points: American Frontiers from the Mohawk Valley to the Mississippi, 1750- 1830. Eds. Andrew R. L. Cayton and Fredrika J. Teute. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1998.

Cooper, Jr., William J., and Thomas E. Terrill. The American South: A History. Vol. 1. 3d ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 2002..

The Correspondence of General Thomas Gage with the Secretaries of State, and with the War Office and the Treasury, 1763-1775. 2 vols. Comp., ed. Clarence Edwin Carter. Yale University Press, 1933; reprint, Archon Books, 1969.

Crawford, James M. The Mobilian Trade Language. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1978.

Creecy, Colonel James R. Scenes in the South, and other Miscellaneous Pieces. Washington: Thomas McGill, Printer, 1860.

Cushman, Horatio Bardwell. History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw and Natchez Indians. Ed. Angie Debo. Intro. Clara Sue Kidwell. Greenville, TX: Headlight Printing House, 1899; first reprint, Stillwater, OK: Redlands Press, 1962.

Debo, Angie. The Rise and Fall of the Choctaw Republic. Reprint. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1972; 1934.

Densmore, Frances. “Choctaw Music.” Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 136. Washington, DC, 1943.

DeRosier, Jr., Arthur H. The Removal of the Choctaw Indians. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1970.

Dowd, Gregory Evans. Spirited Resistence: The North American Indian Struggle for Unity, 1745-1815. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992.

______. War under Heaven: Pontiac, the Indian Nations and the British Empire. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2002.

Draper, David. “Abba Isht tuluwa; The Christian Hymns of the Mississippi Choctaw.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 6:1 (1982): 43-61.

345 Early Western Travels, 1748-1846: A Series of Annotated Reprints of some of the best and rarest contemporary volumes of travel, descriptive of the Aborigines and Social and Economic Conditions in the Middle and Far West, during the Period of Early American Settlement. Volume XX. Ed. Reuben Gold Thwaites. Cleveland, OH: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1905.

Ellicott, Andrew. The Journal of Andrew Ellicott: Late Commissioner on Behalf of the United States for Determining the Boundary Between the United States and the Possessions of His Catholic Majesty. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1803.

Ellis, Powhatan. Ellis (Powhatan) Papers. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi.

Ferguson, Bob. A Choctaw Chronology. Compiled for Nashville Chapter, Tennessee Archaeological Society, 1962.

Folsom (Israel) Letter, 8 March 1821. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi.

Forbes, Bruce David. “‘And Obey God, etc.’: Methodism and American Indians.” Methodist History 23:1 (Oct 1984): 3-24.

Foreman, Carolyn Thomas. “The Choctaw Academy.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 6:4 (Dec 1928): 453-80.

______. “The Choctaw Academy (Continued from December number).” Chronicles of Oklahoma 10:1 (Mar 1932): 77-114.

______. “New Hope Seminary, 1844-1897.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 22:3 (1944): 271-99.

Foreman, Grant. The Five Civilized Tribes: Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek, Seminole. 3d ed. Intro. John R. Swanton. 1934; Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1970.

Frank, Andrew K. Creeks and Southerners: Biculturalism on the Early American Frontier. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2005.

Gaines, George Strother. Dancing Rabbit Creek Treaty. State Department of Archives and History: Historic and Patriotic Series. AL: Birmingham Printing Co., 1928.

346 ______. The Reminiscences of George Strother Gaines: Pioneer and Statesman of Early Alabama and Mississippi, 1805-1843. Intro., notes, ed. James P. Pate. Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press, 1998.

Galloway, Patricia. Choctaw Genesis, 1500-1700. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 1995.

______. Practicing Ethnohistory: Mining Archives, Hearing Testimony, Constructing Narrative. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2006.

______. “‘So Many Little Republics’: British Negotiations with the Choctaw Confederacy, 1765.” Ethnohistory 41:4 (Aut 1994): 513-37.

Goode, William H. Outpost of Zion with Limnings of Mission Life. Cincinnati: Poe & Hitchcock, R. P. Thompson, Printer, 1864.

Goody, Jack. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Reprint. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Goody, Jack, and Ian Watt. “The Consequences of Literacy.” Comparative Studies in Sociology and History 5:3 (Apr 1963): 304-345.

Green, Michael D. The Politics of Indian Removal: Creek Government and Society in Crisis. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1982.

Halbert, Henry S. Henry S. Halbert Papers. Microfilm. Montgomery, AL: Alabama Department of Archives and History, n.d. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, MS.

______. “Okla Hannali; or, the Six Towns District of the Choctaw.” American Antiquarian and Oriental Journal 15 (1893): 146-49.

Haley, David W. Haley (David W. And Family) Papers. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi.

Hargett, Jay L. Jay L. Hargett Collection. Western History Collection, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

Hargrett, Lester. A Bibliography of the Constitutions and Laws of the American Indians. Intro. John R. Swanton. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1947.

Henley, David. David Henley Papers. William R. Perkins Library Special Collection. Duke University, Durham, NC.

347 The Hernando de Soto Expedition: History, Historiography, and “Discovery” in the Southeast. Ed. Patricia Galloway. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997.

Hitchcock, Ethan Allen. A Traveler in Indian Territory: The Journal of Ethan Allen Hitchcock, Late Major-General in the United States Army. Ed. Grant Foreman. Cedar Rapids, IA: The Torch Press, 1930.

Hodgson, Adam. Letters from North America, Written during a Tour in the United States and Canada. 2 vols. London: A. Constable & Co. Edinburgh, 1824.

Holder, Ray. The Mississippi Methodists, 1799-1983: A Moral People “Born of Conviction.” Maverick Prints, 1984.

Holmes, Jack D. L. “The Choctaws in 1795.” Alabama Historical Quarterly 30 (Spr 1968): 33-49.

The Human Tradition in Antebellum America: No. 7, Human Tradition in America. Ed. Michael A. Morrison. Wilmington, DE: Scholarly Resources, Inc., 2000.

Indians of the Greater Southeast: Historical Archaeology and Ethnohistory. Ed. Bonnie G. McEwan. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2000.

James, Clayton D. Antebellum Natchez. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1968.

Jennings, Jesse D. “Notes and Documents: Nutt’s Trip to the Chickasaw Country.” Journal of Mississippi History 9 (January 1947): 34-61.

Jimmie, Randy, and Leonard Jimmie. “The Turtle and the Turkey.” Nanih Waiya Magazine 1:3 (1974): n.p.

Journal of the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 1803-1808. Record Group 2, series 483, reel 2040. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi.

Kappler, Charles J. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1904. Oklahoma State University Electronic Publishing Center: Digital Collections. Stillwater, OK. Online. Available Path: Oklahoma State University Electronic Publishing Center/Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties

Kidwell, Clara Sue. “Choctaws and Missionaries in Mississippi before 1830.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 11:2 (1987): 51-72.

348 ______. Choctaws and Missionaries in Mississippi, 1818-1918 (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995).

______. The Choctaws in Oklahoma, 1855-1970. Foreword Lindsay G. Robertson. Norman: University Oklahoma Press, 2007.

______. “The Language of Christian Conversion among the Choctaws,” Journal of Presbyterian History 77:3 (Fall 1999): 143-52.

______. “Native Knowledge in the Americas.” Osiris 1:2 (1985): 209-28.

Kingsbury, Cyrus. Cyrus Kingsbury Collection. Western History Collection, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

Konkle, Maureen. “Indian Literacy, U. S. Colonialism, and Literary Criticism.” American Literature 69:3 (Sept 1997): 457-86.

Lancaster, Joseph. The Lancasterian System of Education. Baltimore: Wm. Ogden, Printer, 1821.

Lang, John D., and Samuel Taylor, Jr. A Report of a Visit to Some of the Tribes of Indians Located West of the Mississippi River. New York: James Egbert, Printer, 1843.

Lanman, Charles. Adventures in the Wilds of the Untied States and British American Provinces. 2 vols. Philadelphia: John W. Moore, 1856.

______. Hawhonoo or Records of a Tourist. Philadelphia, PN: Lippincott, Grambo and Co., 1850.

Latrobe, Benjamin Henry Boneval. Impressions Respecting New Orleans: Diary & Sketches, 1818-1820. Ed. and intro. Samuel Wilson, Jr. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951.

Letters, Journals and Writings of Benjamin Hawkins. 2 vols. Ed. C. L. Grant. Savannah, GA: The Beehive Press, 1980.

Letters Received by the Office of Indian Affairs, 1824-1891, Choctaw Agency. Microfilm publication M234. Washington, DC: National Archives, 1959.

Lewis, Anna. Chief Pushmataha: American Patriot. New York: Exposition Press, Inc., 1959.

349 Lewit, Robert.“Indian Missions and Antislavery Sentiments: A Conflict in Evangelical and Humanitarian Ideals.” Mississippi Valley Historical Review 50 (1963-64): 39- 55.

Lincecum, Gideon. Adventures of a Frontier Naturalist: The Life and Times of Dr. Gideon Lincecum. Eds. Jerry Bryan Lincecum and Edward Hake Phillips. Intro. Jerry Bryan Lincecum. Foreword A. C. Greene. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 1994.

______. Pushmataha: A Choctaw Leader and His People. Intro. Greg O’Brien. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2004.

______. Traditional History of the Chahta Nation Translated from the Chahta by Gideon Lincecum. 2 pts. 1861; reprint, Eugene C. Barke Texas Center, University of Texas Library, 1932. Typescript copy available at the Neshoba County Library, Philadelphia, MS.

Loftin, John D. Religion and Hopi Life in the Twentieth Century. Bloomington Indiana University Press, 1991.

Lords of the Southeast: Social Inequality and the Native Elites of Sotuheastern North America. Eds. Alex W. Barker and Timothy R. Pauketat. Washington, D.C: American Anthropological Association, 1992.

Love, William A.“The Mayhew Mission to the Choctaws.” Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society 11 (1910): 363-402.

McDonald, James L. James L. McDonald subject file. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi.

McKee, Jesse O., and Jon A. Schlenker. The Choctaw: Cultural Evolution of a Native American Tribe. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1980.

McKenney, Thomas L. Memoirs, Official and Personal: With Sketches of Travels Among the Northern and Southern Indians. 2d ed. 2 vols. New York: Paine and Burgess, 1846; Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing Legacy Reprints, 2007.

______. Reports and Proceedings of Colonel McKenney. Washington, D.C.: Gales and Seaton, 1828.

McLoughlin, William G. Cherokee Renascence in the New Republic (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1986.

350 ______. “Red Indians, Black Slavery and White Racism: America’s Slaveholding Indians.” American Quarterly 26:4 (Oct 1974), 367-85.

McTyeire, Holland N. A History of Methodism: Comprising a View of the Rise of the Revival of Spiritual Religion in the First Half of the Eighteenth Century, and of the Principle Agents by Whom it was Promoted in Europe and America. Nashville, TN: Publishing House of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 1898.

Martin, Joel W. Sacred Revolt: The Muskogees’ Struggle for a New World. Boston, MA: Beacon Press, 1991.

Mason, Richard J. “Archaeology and Native North American Oral Traditions.” American Antiquity 65:2 (2000): 239-66.

The Memoirs of Lieutenant Henry Timberlake, 1756-1765. Ann., intro., and index Samuel Cole Williams. Marietta, GA: Continental Book Company, 1948.

Memorial of the Choctaw Citizens of the State of Mississippi to the Congress of the United States, Referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs , 27th Congress, 2nd Session, H. R. no. 15, 15 December 1841. S.n., 1841.

Memorial of J. F. H. Claiborne, 28th Congress, 1st Session, H.R. Doc. no. 137, 19 February 1844: Praying that the law of 1842, creating the Choctaw commission, be repealed; and that provision be made to satisfy the just claims of the Choctaw Indians, and for their removal from the state of Mississippi, referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs. Blair and Rivers, print, 1857.

Memorial of the Sundry Citizens of Mississippi, 24th Congress, 1st Session, Senate and H. R., 24 February 1836: Complaining of certain disadvantages growing out of the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, with the Choctaw Indians and praying redress. Government Printing Office, 1836.

Merrell, James H. The Indians’ New World: Catawbas and their Neighbors from European Contact through the Era of Removal. New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1991.

Meserve, John Bartlett.“Chief Allen Wright.” Chronicles of Oklahoma (December 1941): 314-21.

Messer, Peter C. Stories of Independence: Identity, Ideology, and History in Eighteenth- Century America. Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2005.

351 Milligan, James C., and Stacy C. Shepherd. The Choctaw of Oklahoma. Abilene, TX: H. V. Chapman & Sons: 2003.

The Minutes, Journals, and Acts of the General Assembly of British West Florida. Comp., intro, eds. Robert R. Rea and Milo B. Howard Jr. The University of Alabama Press, 1979.

Mississippi Provincial Archives, 1763-1766, English Dominion: Letters and Enclosures to the Secretary of State from Major Robert Farmar and Governor George Johnson: Volume I. Comp. and ed. Dunbar Rowland. Nashville, TN: Press of Brandon Printing Company, 1911.

Mississippi Provincial Archives. French Dominion. 5 vols. Collected, ed., trans. Dunbar Rowland and A.G. Sanders. Rev. and ed. Patricia Kay Galloway. Baton Rouge and London: Louisiana State University Press, 1911-1984.

Mississippi Territory Governor. Military Papers, 1807-1815. Series 487, Box 116, Letters 151-159. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, MS.

Möllhausen, Baldwin. Diary of a Journey from the Mississippi to the Coasts of the Pacific. Vol. 1. Intro. Peter A. Fritzell. 1858; reprint, New York, NY: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1969.

Morrison, James D. “News for the Choctaws.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 27:2 (1949): 207- 22.

______. Seven Constitutions (Anumpa Vlhpisa Untuklo): Government of the Choctaw Republic, 1826-1906. Durant, OK: Choctaw Bilingual Education Program, 1977.

Morse, Jedediah. A Report to the Secretary of War of the United States on Indian Affairs. 1822; New York: August M. Kelley, Publishers, 1970.

Mould, Tom. Choctaw Prophecy: A Legacy of the Future. Tuscaloosa, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 2003.

______. Choctaw Tales. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 2004.

Mushalatubbee. Speech of Musha-la-tubbee, Chief of the Choctaw Nation at Camp Holmes. 25 August 1835. Mushulatubbee Collection. Minor M-46. Western History Collection, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

Natchez.

352 Native American Legends, Southeastern Legends: Tales from the Natchez, Caddo, Biloxi, Chickasaw, and Other Nations. Comp. and ed. George E. Lankford. Little Rock, AR: August House Publishers, 1987.

Negotiators of Change: Historical Perspectives on Native American Women. Ed. Nancy Shoemaker. New York: Routledge, 1995.

Neither Lady nor Slave: Working Women of the Old South. Ed. Susanna Delfino and Michele Gillespie. University of North Carolina Press, 2002.

The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocryphal and Deuterocanonical Books. New revised standard version. Eds. Bruce M. Metzger and Roland E. Murphy. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

New Perspectives on Racial Identity Development: A Theoretical and Practical Anthology. Ed. Charmaine L. Wijeyesinghe and Bailey W. Jackson III. New York: New York University Press, 2001.

Niles Weekly Register.

O’Brien, Greg. Choctaws in Revolutionary Age, 1750-1830. Lincoln and London: University of Nebraska Press, 2002.

______. Pre-removal Choctaw History: Exploring New Paths. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2008.

The Office of Indian Affairs, 1824-1880: Historical Sketches. New York, NY: Clearwater Publishing Company, Inc., 1974.

Official Letter Books of W. C. C. Claiborne. 6 vols. Ed. Dunbar Rowland. Jackson, Mississippi: Printed for the State Department of Archives and History, 1917.

Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy. Reprint. New York: Routledge, 2000.

Oswalt, Wendell H. This Land was Theirs: A Study of Native Americans, 7th ed. Los Angeles, CA: McGraw-Hill Mayfield, 2002.

The Oxford History of the American West. Eds. Clyde A. Milner II, Carol A. O’Connor, Martha A. Sandweiss. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

The Oxford History of Mexico. Eds. Michael C. Meyer and William H. Beezley. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.

353 Panoplist and Missionary Herald. Published by the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, Boston, Massachusetts.

Papers of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. Microfilm. Woodbridge, CT: Houghton Library of Harvard University, 1984-1985. Mitchell Memorial Library Special Collections, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS.

The Papers of Andrew Jackson: Volume IV, 1816-1820. Eds. Harold D. Moser, David R. Hoth, George H. Hoemann. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1994.

The Papers of John C. Calhoun: Volume II-IX, 1817-1825. Ed. W. Edwin Hemphill. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1967-1976.

“Papers from the Spanish Archives Relating to Tennessee and the Old Southwest.” Trans. and ed. D. C. Corbitt and Roberta Corbitt. East Tennessee Historical Society’s Publications 29 (1957): 145-58

Pelissier, Catherine. “The Anthropology of Teaching and Learning.” Annual Review of Anthropology 20 (1991): 75-95.

Pénicaut, Andre. Fleur de Lys and Calumet: Being the Penicaut Narrative of French Adventure in Louisiana. Trans. and ed. Richebourg Gaillard. 1723; reprint, McWilliams. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1953).

Perdue, Theda. “Mixed Blood” Indians: Racial Construction in the Early South. Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 2003.

______. Slavery and the Evolution of Cherokee Society, 1540-1866. Knoxville: The University of Tennessee Press, 1979.

Pesantubbee, Michelene E. Choctaw Women in a Chaotic World: The Clash of Cultures in the Colonial Southeast. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2005.

Peterson, Susan. “The Butterfield Overland Mail in Indian Territory, 1858-1861.” Red River Valley Historical Review 6:3 (1981): 77-86.

Pitchlynn, Peter P. Peter P. Pitchlynn Collection. Western History Collection, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma.

354 ______. “Remonstrance, Appeal, and Solemn Protest of the Choctaw Nation addressed to the Congress of the United States.” 21 March 1870. Western Americana : frontier history of the Trans-Mississippi West, 1550-1900. Microfilm, reel 108, no. 1169. New Haven, CT: Research Publications, 1975.

Powhatan’s Mantle: Indians in the Colonial Southeast. Eds. Peter Wood, Gregory A. Waselkove, and M. Thomas Hatley. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989.

Pride, Hannah, and William Pride. Pride (Hannah and William) Papers, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, Mississippi.

Prucha, Francis Paul. American Indian Policy in the Formative Years: The Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts, 1790-1834. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962.

Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society 2. Oxford, MS: Printed for the Society, 1899.

Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society 3. Oxford, MS: Printed for the Society, 1900.

Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society 6. Oxford, MS: Printed for the Society, 1902.

Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society 8. Oxford, MS: Printed for the Society, 1904.

Publications of the Mississippi Historical Society, Centenary Series 5. Ed. Dunbar Rowland. Jackson, MS: Printed for the Society, 1925.

Ray, Florence Rebecca. Chieftain Greenwood Leflore and the Choctaw Indians of the Mississippi Valley: Last Chief of the Choctaws East of the Mississippi River. 3d ed. Memphis, TN: C.A. Davis Printing Company, Inc., 1970.

A Record of Missionary Meetings Held in the Chahta and Chikesha Nations and the Records of Tombigbee Presbytery from 1825 to 1838. Ed. John W. Mosely. West Point Leader Printery, MS, n.d. Mitchell Memorial Library Special Collections, Mississippi State University, Starkville, MS.

Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Letters Received by the Secretary of War Relating to Indian Affairs, 1800-1823. Record Group 75. Microfilm publication M271. National Archives, Washington, D.C.

355 Records of the Choctaw Trading House, Under the Office of Indian Trade, 1803-1819. The National Archives and Records Service General Services Administration. Record Group 75. Microfilm publication T500 Washington, D.C., 1960.

Records of the Office of the Secretary of War, Letters Sent, Indian Affairs, 1800-1824. Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Record Group 75. Microfilm publication M15. National Archives, Washington, D.C.

Records of the Old Southwest in the National Archives: Abstracts of Records of the Choctaw Indian Agency and Related Documents, 1794-1841. Comp. and ed. James R. Atkinson. Appendices Jan Hillegas. Cobb Institute of Archaeology, Mississippi State University, 2005.

Red, White, and Black: Symposium on Indians in the Old South. Southern Anthropological Society Proceedings, No. 5. Ed. Charles M. Hudson. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1971.

Remini, Robert V. Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars. New York, NY: Viking, 2001.

After Removal: The Choctaw in Mississippi. Ed. Samuel J. Wells and Roseanna Tubby. Jackson: University Press of Mississippi, 1986.

Report of the Committee on Anti-Slavery Memorials, September 1845: American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions. Boston: Press of T. R. Marvin, 24 Congress St., 1845. The Negro and Cognate Subjects, Stone Collection. Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jackson, MS.

Rethinking American Indian History. Ed. Donald L. Fixico. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1997.

Richardson, Albert D. Beyond the Mississippi: From the Great River to the Great Ocean. Life and Adventure on the Prairies, Mountains, and Pacific Coasts. New Edition. Written Down to Summer of 1869. Hartford: American Publishing Company, 1875.

Richter, Daniel K. The Ordeal of the Longhouse: The Peoples of the Iroquois League in the Era of European Colonization. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992.

Romans, Bernard. A Concise Natural History of East and West Florida. Ed. and intro. Kathryn E. Holland Braund. New York, 1774; reprint, Tuscaloosa and London: The University of Alabama Press, 1999.

356 Saunt, Claudio. A New Order of Things: Property, Power, and the Transformation of the Creek Indians, 1733-1816. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

______. “Taking Account of Property: Stratification among the Creek Indians in the Early Nineteenth Century.” The William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 57:4 (Oct 2000): 733-60.

Schermerhorn, John F. “Report Respecting the Indians Inhabiting the Western Parts of the United States.” Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society 24:2 (Boston, 1814): 1-48.

Smith, Allene. Greenwood Leflore and the Choctaw Indians of the Mississippi Valley. Memphis, TN: C. A. Davis Printing Company, Inc., 1951.

Smith, C. Calvin. “The Oppressed Oppressors: Negro Slavery among the Choctaw Indians of Oklahoma.” Red River Valley Historical Review 2:2 (1975): 240-53.

Southern Manhood: Perspectives on Masculinity in the Old South. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2004.

Spain in the Mississippi Valley, 1765-94 in Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1945. 3 vols.. Ed. and intro. Lawrence Kinnaird. Washington, DC: GPO, 1946-1949.

The Spanish in the Mississippi Valley, 1762-1804. Ed. John Francis McDermott. Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1974.

Speeches on the Passage of the Bill for the Removal of the Indians Delivered in the Congress of the United States, April and May, 1830. New York: Perkins and Marvin, 1830; reprint, Millwood, NY: Kraus Reprint Co., 1973.

Street, Brian V. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Reprint. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Studying Native America: Problems and Perspectives. Ed. Russell Thornton. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1998.

Swanton, John R. Source Material for the Social and Ceremonial Life of the Choctaw Indians. Foreword Kenneth H. Carleton. Originally published as Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 103, 1931; reprint, Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2001.

357 ______. Indians of the Southeastern United States. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1979.

Sweet, William Warren. Religion on the American Frontier, 1783-1840: Volume IV, the Methodists. New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 1964.

The Territorial Papers of the United States: Volume V-VI. Comp. and ed. Clarence Edwin Carter. Washington: Government Printing Office, 1938.

Timberlake, Henry. The Memoirs of Lieutenant Henry Timberlake, 1756-1765. Ann., intro., index Samuel Cole Williams. Marietta, GA: Continental Book Company, 1948.

Tingle, Tim. Walking the Choctaw Road: Stories from Red People Memory. El Paso, TX: Cinto Puntos Press, 2003.

Travels in the American Colonies. Ed. Newton D. Mereness. New York: The MacMillan Company, 1916.

Travels in the Great Western Prairies, the Anahuac, and the Rocky Mountains, Volume XXVIII. Ed. Reuben Gold Thwaites. Cleveland, OH: The Arthur H. Clark Company, 1906.

Treaty of San Ildefonso, 1 October 1800. The Avalon Project at Yale Law School. Online. Available Path: 19th Century Documents/San Ildefonso, Treaty of—Oct. 1, 1800.

Tribal Government: A New Era. Ed. William Brescia. Philadelphia, MS: Choctaw Heritage Press, 1982.

Tuttle, Sarah. Conversations on the Choctaw Mission. 2 vols. Boston: Massachusetts Sabbath School Union, 1830. Selected Americana from Sabin 97515. Reel no. 126, microfilm, filmed from the holdings of the Huntington Library, San Marino, CA.

Ulla i Katikisma: or a child’s catechism in Choctaw. Printed for the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions by Crocker and Brewster, 1835.

Van Hoak, Stephen P. “The Poor Red Man and the Great Father: Choctaw Rhetoric, 1540-1860.” Chronicles of Oklahoma 81:3 (2003): 298-315.

Vickers, Ovid. “Mississippi Choctaw Names and Naming: A Diachronic View.” Names 31:2 (1983): 117-22.

358 Viola, Herman J. Thomas McKenney: Architect of America’s Early Indian Policy: 1816- 1830. Chicago, IL: Sage Books, the Swallow Press, Inc., 1974.

White, Richard. The Middle Ground: Indians, Empire, and Republics in the Great Lakes Region, 1650-1815. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1999; originally published in 1991.

______. Roots of Dependency: Subsistence, Environment, and Social Change among the Choctaw, Pawnees, and Navajo. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983.

Wilcoxin, Larry R. “How Spaniards became Chumash and other Tales of Ethnogenesis.” American Anthropologist 107:3 (2005): 432-45.

Wilhelm, Paul. Travels in North America, 1822-1824. Trans. W. Robert Nitske. Ed. Savoie Lottinville. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1973.

Winter, Robert Milton. Shadow of a Mighty Rock: A Social and Cultural History of Presbytereanism in Marshall County, Mississippi. Franklin, TN: Providence House Publishers, 1997.

Women of the South: A Multicultural Reader. Ed. Christie Anne Farnham. New York and London: New York University Press, 1997.

Wood, W. Raymond. “The Realities of Ethnogenesis.” Missouri Archaeologist 63 (2002): 71-82.

Wright, Alfred. Choctaw Hymn Book. 3rd ed. 1829; Boston: T. R. Marvin, 1844.

York, Dr. Kennith. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. Interviewed by author, 20 March 2008.

______. Personal communication, 6 August 2008.

Young, Jacob. Autobiography of a Pioneer; or, The Nativity, Experience, Travels, and Ministerial Labors of Rev. Jacob Young, with Incidents, Observations, and Reflections. Cinncinnati, Cranston and Curts, 1890; 1857.

Young, Majorie Hall. “‘Stars in a Dark Night’: The Education of Indian Youth at Choctaw Academy.” 15:3 (1997): 280-305.

359