7LQW\SHRIDQXQLGHQWLÀHG$PHULFDQ,QGLDQVROGLHUGUHVVHGLQ8QLRQXQLIRUP:,&5FRXUWHV\RI:LOVRQ·V&UHHN 1DWLRQDO%DWWOHÀHOG1DWLRQDO3DUN6HUYLFH .DQVDV+LVWRU\$-RXUQDORIWKH&HQWUDO3ODLQV 36 (Spring 2013): 2–21 2 Kansas History The U.S. Army, Indian Agency, and the Path to Assimilation: The First Indian Home Guards in the American Civil War E\&KULV5HLQ hroughout its history, the United States Army has willingly included indigenous allies in its combat organizations. From Pequot allies in New England to Afghan militia on the Pakistani border, the organization XVXDOO\EHQHÀWWHGIURPKDYLQJWURRSVZLWKORFDOH[SHUWLVHDQGLQWLPDWHNQRZOHGJHRIWKHSK\VLFDODQGFXOWXUDO terrain. But for America’s Indian allies service with the army became part of a larger campaign of assimilation Tand acculturation, as the army began to treat them less as independent auxiliaries and more as an additional pool of manpower for its regular units. The tipping point arrived during the sectional crisis, when American Indians were LQGXFWHGLQWRUHJLPHQWDOVL]HGXQLWVIRUWKHÀUVWWLPHZLWKPL[HGUHVXOWVDVWKHQHZVROGLHUVVRXJKWWRSUHVHUYHXQLTXH cultural ideas about warfare alongside a bureaucratic organization intent on treating them like any other soldiers. The army would eventually win this struggle, and, by the First World War, American Indians were fully integrated into regular army units and were fast becoming indistinguishable from their countrymen in uniform. 1 Chris Rein LVDQDVVLVWDQWSURIHVVRURIKLVWRU\DWWKH86$LU)RUFH$FDGHP\LQ&RORUDGR6SULQJV&RORUDGR+HHDUQHGKLV3K'DWWKH8QLYHUVLW\RI.DQVDVLQ DQGLVFXUUHQWO\UHVHDUFKLQJWKHFRQQHFWLRQVEHWZHHQUHOLJLRXVLQGRFWULQDWLRQDQGWKH6DQG&UHHN0DVVDFUH 1. The literature that addresses North American Indian military service is vast and expanding. See, among others, Mark van de Logt, :DU3DUW\LQ %OXH3DZQHH6FRXWVLQWKH86$UP\ (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2010); Paul C. Rosier, 6HUYLQJ7KHLU&RXQWU\$PHULFDQ,QGLDQ3ROLWLFVDQG 3DWULRWLVPLQWKH7ZHQWLHWK&HQWXU\ (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2009); Thomas A. Britten, $PHULFDQ,QGLDQVLQ:RUOG:DU,$W:DU and at Home (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1998); Alison R. Bernstein, $PHULFDQ,QGLDQVDQG:RUOG:DU,, (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1991); Timothy C. Winegard, )RU.LQJDQG.DQDWD&DQDGLDQ,QGLDQVDQGWKH)LUVW:RUOG:DU (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba Press, 2011); and Bonnie Lynn-Sherow and Susannah Ural Bruce, “‘How Cola’ from Camp Funston: American Indians and the Great War,” Kansas History: $-RXUQDORIWKH&HQWUDO3ODLQV 24 (Summer 2001): 84–97. The First Indian Home Guards in the American Civil War 3 The history of one unit, the First Indian Home Guards, and Colorado, Don Juan Bautista de Anza included over raised in Civil War-era Kansas from refugee Creeks and two hundred Pueblos, Apaches, and Utes alongside his Seminoles from Indian Territory, offers a window into Spanish colonial forces. Indigenous auxiliaries eventually the army’s efforts and the ways that Indian soldiers came to be considered essential to warfare against Indians. successfully resisted assimilation, at least for a time. “Colonists learned that Indians were the only match for For the army, incorporating large numbers of American other Indians. Whites were so inept at forest warfare Indians into regular units signaled that it was no longer that sending an expedition against the Indians without ZLOOLQJWRDOORZWKHVHDOOLHVWRÀJKWDORQJVLGHLWVVROGLHUV accompanying Indian allies invited disaster.” 2 as independent auxiliaries, ending over two centuries of Despite being considered essential allies in warfare, Anglo-Indian patterns of warfare. But during that time American Indians maintained a remarkable degree of service had been on the Indian troops’ own terms, which agency throughout the colonial period and into the early ZHUH KHDYLO\ LQÁXHQFHG E\ WKHLU FXOWXUDO LGHDV DERXW days of the Republic. Indians could still largely choose ZDUIDUH7URRSVPRGLÀHGDOPRVWHYHU\DVSHFWRIIHGHUDO LIDQGZKHQWRÀJKWDVWKH\GLGGXULQJWKH5HYROXWLRQ military life, including uniforms, drill, the personal use HYHQ DORQJVLGH QRWHG ,QGLDQÀJKWHU DQG HYHQWXDO of government-issued weapons, and desertion, in ways architect of Indian removal Andrew Jackson at the Battle that would have resulted in severe punishment for other of New Orleans during the War of 1812. The pattern troops. Army authorities, including commanders of units continued into the post–Civil War era, when the army such as the First Indian Home Guards, made concessions offered employment to Indian scouts and auxiliaries in and apparently accepted the Indians’ behavior in VHYHUDO FDPSDLJQV ´7KH PRVW VXFFHVVIXO RIÀFHUV XVHG exchange for the valuable service they provided as both Indian allies,” concluded Millett and Maslowski, and “in regular troops and mounted scouts who had an intimate a few instances the only U.S. soldiers engaged with the knowledge of the terrain and inhabitants of what is now enemy were Indian allies.” But indigenous troops could eastern Oklahoma. In organizing the First Indian Home also reject overtures and remain neutral or even aid the Guards, the army continued its reliance on Indian troops in opponent, as many members of the Iroquois Nation did warfare that extended into the Plains Wars in the decades during the American Revolution. 3 that followed, most notably with the Pawnee Scouts. It The Civil War was no different, as the Trans-Mississippi ZDVDOVRKRZHYHURQHRIWKHÀUVWVWHSVLQDQDFFHOHUDWHG theater still held large numbers of American Indians program of assimilation that included the Dawes Act of who were actively courted by both sides as potential 1887 and placed increasing pressure on Indian culture allies. While that theater often receives comparatively and lifestyles. less attention from scholars, the war in the region had VLJQLÀFDQW FRQVHTXHQFHV IRU WKH SHRSOH OLYLQJ WKHUH ince the earliest days of colonization, Europeans In some respects, Indian Territory mirrored the nation had discovered the effectiveness of employing as a whole, as allegiances split nations, often along Indians as allies, either against other colonizers or preexisting fault lines. Within the Muscogee (or Creek) against hostile Indians. One account of American Nation, those who had resisted removal from ancestral Smilitary history found that, during the colonial period, homelands in Georgia and Alabama aligned with the “almost all Indian wars pitted the English and some federal government, while those who had signed the Indians against other Indians.” Initially, both sides sought removal treaties aligned with the South. At the same to use the other to their own advantage. “When Europeans time, governments in Washington and Richmond took arrived in the New World,” observed historians Allan R. advantage of the outbreak of hostilities to add manpower Millett and Peter Maslowski, “many Indian tribes sought to their own armies and extend the area under their them as Allies against their traditional rivals, and the control. 4 English recognized that animosities among Indians could 2. Allan R. Millett and Peter Maslowski, )RUWKH&RPPRQ'HIHQVH$ be advantageously exploited.” In 1675 colonists in New Military History of the United States of America (New York: Free Press, England, aided by friendly American Indians, located a 1994), 12; and Ron Kessler, $Q]D·V&RPDQFKH&DPSDLJQ (Monte Vista, Colo.: Adobe Village Press, 2001), 72. Narragansett village in Rhode Island’s “Great Swamp” 3. Millett and Maslowski, )RUWKH&RPPRQ'HIHQVH , 255. and slaughtered its inhabitants. But English colonists were 4. For Confederate attempts to expand the area under their control and attract potential recruits, see Gary L. Cheatham, “‘Within the Limits not the only ones to employ local auxiliaries. In his 1779 of the Southern Confederacy’: The C.S.A.’s Interest in the Quapaw, campaign against the Comanche in northern New Mexico Osage, and Cherokee Tribal Lands of Kansas,” Kansas History: A Journal RIWKH&HQWUDO3ODLQV 26 (Autumn 2003): 172–85. 4 Kansas History Moreover, many Indians, in particular the Cherokees, Creeks, Chickasaws, Choctaws, and Sem- LQROHVKDGVKDUHGVXIÀFLHQWFRQWDFW with Southern society to acquire some of its distinctive character- istics, including the maintenance of small farms and even larger plantations worked by slaves. Most tribes also contained a sizeable free black population, made up of slaves manumitted by the Indians or fugitives from neighboring slave states. Intermarriage with white and black Southerners allowed South- ern thought to penetrate some factions of the tribes. Most of the tribal agents were Southerners, appointed by Southern-born presi- dents, who brought their sectional 'XULQJWKH&LYLO:DUWKH7UDQV0LVVLVVLSSLWKHDWHUKHOGODUJHQXPEHUVRI$PHULFDQ,QGLDQVZKR prejudices to their posts. While the ZHUHDFWLYHO\FRXUWHGE\ERWKVLGHVDVSRWHQWLDODOOLHV:KHQIRUFHGWRWDNHVLGHVLQWKHLPSHQGLQJ degree of assimilation varied within FRQÁLFWPDQ\FDVWWKHLUORWZLWKWKHROGIHGHUDOJRYHUQPHQWUDWKHUWKDQWKHQHZVHFHVVLRQLVWRQH and between these eastern tribes, +HUH,QGLDQVJDWKHUDWWKH:KLWH+RXVHGXULQJWKHZDU3KRWRJUDSKFRXUWHV\RIWKH/LEUDU\RI &RQJUHVV3ULQWVDQG3KRWRJUDSKV'LYLVLRQ:DVKLQJWRQ'& the cultural exchange increased daily as war approached. 5 Indian Territory corresponded roughly with the upper Despite the apparent similarities with their fellow South in terms of Unionist and secessionist sentiments. Southerners, many Indians, especially the native-speaking While tribes that bordered the slave states of Texas and factions of the tribes, resented land-hungry settlers who Arkansas were mostly secessionists, those farther north had driven them