Monday, April 10, 2006
1870s Oklahoma
Yo, y'all. Today, I'm revising an article for resubmission to a history journal.
It's about how a couple of "Indian" newspapers in what is now southeast Oklahoma responded to the Northern Plains wars in the mid-1870s and, specifically, the demise of Gen. George A. Custer at the Little Big Horn.
(Both mourned Custer's death and basically said the Northern Indians deserved what was coming to them as the cycle of violence picked up a notch)
The reviewers said I assumed that the general reader, even for an academic history journal, knew too much about Oklahoma in the 1870s. They're right, of course. So, this morning, I've come up with the following, to insert.
Y'all who know something about Oklahoma-Western-Indian history, please check to see if I've left out any major element. Y'all who *don't* know much about this time and place, same deal: Is there anything I seem to have left out?
Remmber, though: This is 377 words out of about 10,000 ...
What is now Oklahoma bore an array of frontiers in the mid 1870s – physical, racial, tribal, political, cultural, commercial. To call the place unsettled would be an understatement as well as a pun. Settlement, in fact, Indian and white, sparked most of the upheaval.
The Five Civilized Tribes – Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole, to the east – having been diminished by their alliances with the Confederacy, struggled with Reconstruction along with the rest of the South. In addition to losing western territories as a result of new treaties with the victorious Union, the tribes dealt with new neighbors along their borders, including the Delaware, Shawnee, Kickapoo, Ponca, Pawnee and Osage tribes.
White settlers, including those residing legally under permits issued by tribal governments, whites who became tribal citizens by marrying tribal members, and intruders, illegal residents, were starting to strain the small tribal governments, which reacted by asserting their distinctiveness as Indian regimes.
To the west, the United States government, having abandoned treaty-making with Indians in 1871, poured in cavalry to subdue Plains tribes and created reservations upon which even renegade bands eventually were concentrated after capitulating at Fort Sill.
The Red River War, outfitted from Fort Supply, thundered across western Indian Territory and the Texas Panhandle in 1874-1875. Warhawks claimed the Army chafed under the restrictions of President Ulysses Grant’s “peace policy,” a faith-based (largely Quaker) approach that sought to assimilate the “wild” tribes rather than annihilate them – a contention that grew white hot after the Sioux’s slaughter of Custer and the Seventh Cavalry at the Little Big Horn.
Cowboys also left their mark on the territory in the 1870s, driving Texas cattle north to markets in Kansas along three of the great cattle trails: The Shawnee Trail in the east, the Chisholm Trail up the middle and the Great Western Trail to the west. Not that the trails and rangeland supported only the stereotypical cowboy-Indian cultural dichotomy: Some cowboys were Indians, and many Indians were cowboys, in 1870s Oklahoma.
Railroads, slow to extend to the region, pushed in, mostly in the east, where many Indians also were businessmen and industrialists.
Indian Territory endured one seeming incongruity after another, in intertribal and intratribal relations, Indians’ dealings with the United States and its citizens, and in business.
What say y'all?
--ER
It's about how a couple of "Indian" newspapers in what is now southeast Oklahoma responded to the Northern Plains wars in the mid-1870s and, specifically, the demise of Gen. George A. Custer at the Little Big Horn.
(Both mourned Custer's death and basically said the Northern Indians deserved what was coming to them as the cycle of violence picked up a notch)
The reviewers said I assumed that the general reader, even for an academic history journal, knew too much about Oklahoma in the 1870s. They're right, of course. So, this morning, I've come up with the following, to insert.
Y'all who know something about Oklahoma-Western-Indian history, please check to see if I've left out any major element. Y'all who *don't* know much about this time and place, same deal: Is there anything I seem to have left out?
Remmber, though: This is 377 words out of about 10,000 ...
What is now Oklahoma bore an array of frontiers in the mid 1870s – physical, racial, tribal, political, cultural, commercial. To call the place unsettled would be an understatement as well as a pun. Settlement, in fact, Indian and white, sparked most of the upheaval.
The Five Civilized Tribes – Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole, to the east – having been diminished by their alliances with the Confederacy, struggled with Reconstruction along with the rest of the South. In addition to losing western territories as a result of new treaties with the victorious Union, the tribes dealt with new neighbors along their borders, including the Delaware, Shawnee, Kickapoo, Ponca, Pawnee and Osage tribes.
White settlers, including those residing legally under permits issued by tribal governments, whites who became tribal citizens by marrying tribal members, and intruders, illegal residents, were starting to strain the small tribal governments, which reacted by asserting their distinctiveness as Indian regimes.
To the west, the United States government, having abandoned treaty-making with Indians in 1871, poured in cavalry to subdue Plains tribes and created reservations upon which even renegade bands eventually were concentrated after capitulating at Fort Sill.
The Red River War, outfitted from Fort Supply, thundered across western Indian Territory and the Texas Panhandle in 1874-1875. Warhawks claimed the Army chafed under the restrictions of President Ulysses Grant’s “peace policy,” a faith-based (largely Quaker) approach that sought to assimilate the “wild” tribes rather than annihilate them – a contention that grew white hot after the Sioux’s slaughter of Custer and the Seventh Cavalry at the Little Big Horn.
Cowboys also left their mark on the territory in the 1870s, driving Texas cattle north to markets in Kansas along three of the great cattle trails: The Shawnee Trail in the east, the Chisholm Trail up the middle and the Great Western Trail to the west. Not that the trails and rangeland supported only the stereotypical cowboy-Indian cultural dichotomy: Some cowboys were Indians, and many Indians were cowboys, in 1870s Oklahoma.
Railroads, slow to extend to the region, pushed in, mostly in the east, where many Indians also were businessmen and industrialists.
Indian Territory endured one seeming incongruity after another, in intertribal and intratribal relations, Indians’ dealings with the United States and its citizens, and in business.
What say y'all?
--ER
Comments:
<< Home
"Forced settlement" sted "settlement" at the top.
Should I name the western tribes-reservations? Comanche, Kiowa, Wichita ...
Should I name the western tribes-reservations? Comanche, Kiowa, Wichita ...
I think you should name the western tribes/reservations.
I am not a student of history but have done a lot of reading regarding that time frame. Still, I'm not an expert in this area, so the only thing I can truthfully say is that it reads well and is interesting.
I'm sure that's not much help, but it's the best I can do. :)
I am not a student of history but have done a lot of reading regarding that time frame. Still, I'm not an expert in this area, so the only thing I can truthfully say is that it reads well and is interesting.
I'm sure that's not much help, but it's the best I can do. :)
Tweaked:
What is now Oklahoma bore an array of frontiers in the mid 1870s – physical, racial, tribal, political, cultural, commercial. To call the place unsettled would be an understatement as well as a pun. Conflicts surrounding settlement, in fact -- Indians relocated by force and growing numbers of whites -- sparked most of the upheaval. The Five Civilized Tribes – Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole, to the east – having been diminished by their alliances with the Confederacy, struggled with Reconstruction along with the rest of the South. In addition to losing western territories as a result of new treaties with the victorious Union, the tribes dealt with new relocated neighbors along their borders, including the Delaware, Shawnee, Kickapoo, Ponca, Pawnee and Osage tribes. White settlers, including those residing legally under permits issued by tribal governments, whites who became tribal citizens by marrying tribal members, and intruders -- illegal residents -- were starting to strain the small tribal governments, which reacted by asserting their distinctiveness as Indian regimes. To the west, the United States government, having abandoned treaty-making with Indians in 1871, poured in cavalry to subdue Comanche, Kiowa and other Plains tribes and created reservations upon which even renegade bands eventually were concentrated after capitulating at Fort Sill. The Red River War, outfitted from Fort Supply, thundered across western Indian Territory and the Texas Panhandle in 1874-1875. Warhawks claimed the Army chafed under the restrictions of President Ulysses Grant’s “peace policy,” a faith-based (largely Quaker) approach that sought to assimilate the “wild” tribes rather than annihilate them – a contention that grew white hot after the Sioux’s slaughter of Custer and the Seventh Cavalry at the Little Big Horn. Cowboys also left their mark on the territory in the 1870s, driving Texas cattle north to markets in Kansas along three of the great cattle trails: The Shawnee Trail in the east, the Chisholm Trail up the middle and the Great Western Trail to the west. Not that the trails and rangeland supported only the stereotypical cowboy-Indian cultural dichotomy: Some cowboys were Indians, and many Indians were cowboys, in 1870s Oklahoma. Railroads, slow to extend to the region, pushed in, mostly in the east, where many Indians also were businessmen and industrialists. Indian Territory endured one seeming incongruity after another, in intertribal and intratribal relations, Indians’ dealings with the United States and its citizens, and in business.
What is now Oklahoma bore an array of frontiers in the mid 1870s – physical, racial, tribal, political, cultural, commercial. To call the place unsettled would be an understatement as well as a pun. Conflicts surrounding settlement, in fact -- Indians relocated by force and growing numbers of whites -- sparked most of the upheaval. The Five Civilized Tribes – Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole, to the east – having been diminished by their alliances with the Confederacy, struggled with Reconstruction along with the rest of the South. In addition to losing western territories as a result of new treaties with the victorious Union, the tribes dealt with new relocated neighbors along their borders, including the Delaware, Shawnee, Kickapoo, Ponca, Pawnee and Osage tribes. White settlers, including those residing legally under permits issued by tribal governments, whites who became tribal citizens by marrying tribal members, and intruders -- illegal residents -- were starting to strain the small tribal governments, which reacted by asserting their distinctiveness as Indian regimes. To the west, the United States government, having abandoned treaty-making with Indians in 1871, poured in cavalry to subdue Comanche, Kiowa and other Plains tribes and created reservations upon which even renegade bands eventually were concentrated after capitulating at Fort Sill. The Red River War, outfitted from Fort Supply, thundered across western Indian Territory and the Texas Panhandle in 1874-1875. Warhawks claimed the Army chafed under the restrictions of President Ulysses Grant’s “peace policy,” a faith-based (largely Quaker) approach that sought to assimilate the “wild” tribes rather than annihilate them – a contention that grew white hot after the Sioux’s slaughter of Custer and the Seventh Cavalry at the Little Big Horn. Cowboys also left their mark on the territory in the 1870s, driving Texas cattle north to markets in Kansas along three of the great cattle trails: The Shawnee Trail in the east, the Chisholm Trail up the middle and the Great Western Trail to the west. Not that the trails and rangeland supported only the stereotypical cowboy-Indian cultural dichotomy: Some cowboys were Indians, and many Indians were cowboys, in 1870s Oklahoma. Railroads, slow to extend to the region, pushed in, mostly in the east, where many Indians also were businessmen and industrialists. Indian Territory endured one seeming incongruity after another, in intertribal and intratribal relations, Indians’ dealings with the United States and its citizens, and in business.
"White settlers, including those residing legally under permits issued by tribal governments, whites who became tribal citizens by marrying tribal members, and intruders, illegal residents, were starting to strain the small tribal governments, which reacted by asserting their distinctiveness as Indian regimes."
Dude, that's one sentence. One long and confusing sentence. Might I suggest breaking it up into two or even three sentences? I think it will be clearer then.
"White settlers, including those residing legally under permits issued by tribal governments, whites who became tribal citizens by marrying tribal members, and intruders -- illegal residents -- were starting to strain the small tribal governments, which reacted by asserting their distinctiveness as Indian regimes."
The dashes helped. Let's try a couple of periods, eh? :)
"Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole, to the east"
Were all these tribes to the east? use a serial comma then. If not, recast.
But overall it's good. I think it clarifies the setting in a reader's mind.
Dude, that's one sentence. One long and confusing sentence. Might I suggest breaking it up into two or even three sentences? I think it will be clearer then.
"White settlers, including those residing legally under permits issued by tribal governments, whites who became tribal citizens by marrying tribal members, and intruders -- illegal residents -- were starting to strain the small tribal governments, which reacted by asserting their distinctiveness as Indian regimes."
The dashes helped. Let's try a couple of periods, eh? :)
"Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole, to the east"
Were all these tribes to the east? use a serial comma then. If not, recast.
But overall it's good. I think it clarifies the setting in a reader's mind.
Thaks, Tech. I got a box of periods around her somewhere.
All those tribes were in the east. (You know that!)
And, gracias.
The citation, BTW:
Arrell Morgan Gibson, Oklahoma: A History of Five Centuries, 2d ed. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1981), 130-159; W. David Baird and Danney Goble, The Story of Oklahoma (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994), 182-219; Edward Everett Dale and Morris L. Wardell, History of Oklahoma (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1948), 211-213.
All those tribes were in the east. (You know that!)
And, gracias.
The citation, BTW:
Arrell Morgan Gibson, Oklahoma: A History of Five Centuries, 2d ed. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1981), 130-159; W. David Baird and Danney Goble, The Story of Oklahoma (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1994), 182-219; Edward Everett Dale and Morris L. Wardell, History of Oklahoma (Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1948), 211-213.
Ah. Gotcha! Fix:
The Five Civilized Tribes – Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole, in the eastern part of the territory – having been diminished by their alliances with the Confederacy, struggled under Reconstruction along with the rest of the South.
The Five Civilized Tribes – Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek and Seminole, in the eastern part of the territory – having been diminished by their alliances with the Confederacy, struggled under Reconstruction along with the rest of the South.
Hrm?
White settlers had started to strain the small tribal governments: those residing legally under permits issued by tribal governments, whites who became tribal citizens by marrying tribal members, and intruders -- illegal residents. The tribes reacted by asserting their distinctiveness as Indian regimes.
White settlers had started to strain the small tribal governments: those residing legally under permits issued by tribal governments, whites who became tribal citizens by marrying tribal members, and intruders -- illegal residents. The tribes reacted by asserting their distinctiveness as Indian regimes.
'Nother fix:
During the Red River War, outfitted from Fort Supply, the Army subjugated the Comanche, Kiowa, Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes, thundering across western Indian Territory and the Texas Panhandle in 1874-1875.
During the Red River War, outfitted from Fort Supply, the Army subjugated the Comanche, Kiowa, Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes, thundering across western Indian Territory and the Texas Panhandle in 1874-1875.
Cool.
Sigh. Slavign ovrer thoe 377 words, I fear, has cost me my plan to go to see the Oklahoma RedHawks (triple-A) baseball game tonight. 'Cause I got beaucoups of edits to make int he rest of the paper. ... Or should I go ahead and go to the game and finish it up tomorrow??? :-) That'd be four baseball games, in person since a week ago last Saturday: OSU UCO, Texas Rangers and RedHawks! :-)
... might be able to get more work done if I quit goofin' off on this here blog ... :-)
Sigh. Slavign ovrer thoe 377 words, I fear, has cost me my plan to go to see the Oklahoma RedHawks (triple-A) baseball game tonight. 'Cause I got beaucoups of edits to make int he rest of the paper. ... Or should I go ahead and go to the game and finish it up tomorrow??? :-) That'd be four baseball games, in person since a week ago last Saturday: OSU UCO, Texas Rangers and RedHawks! :-)
... might be able to get more work done if I quit goofin' off on this here blog ... :-)
ARRRGGGGHHHH!!!!
It was 11,000 words when I finished it, way back when. They said they were "astonished" that some of the notes were notes and not in the text -- well, that was me trying to sneak about five pages of text as notes!
Chickens have coem home. NOW, it's about 8,000 words and it's supposed to 6,500.
Some entire paragrasphs are fixing to meet Jesus. I am TIRED. OF. THIS. ARTICLE.
It was 11,000 words when I finished it, way back when. They said they were "astonished" that some of the notes were notes and not in the text -- well, that was me trying to sneak about five pages of text as notes!
Chickens have coem home. NOW, it's about 8,000 words and it's supposed to 6,500.
Some entire paragrasphs are fixing to meet Jesus. I am TIRED. OF. THIS. ARTICLE.
Nope. ... not tonight. Tomorrow night.
Now, I got a belly full of chicken salad, a handful of Girl Scout cookies and a glass of milk. Hot cup of coffee at my side. Fresh copy of article printed and red pen in hand.
Cowboying up now.
Now, I got a belly full of chicken salad, a handful of Girl Scout cookies and a glass of milk. Hot cup of coffee at my side. Fresh copy of article printed and red pen in hand.
Cowboying up now.
Hey. This is probably seriously inappropriate, but I want to do it anyway.
As Maness has re-instituted Comment Moderation at his place, and I've learned from past experience that he will use this to censor the thoughts of whom he does not agree with, lemme post it here, okay?
"I like how ELashley, several comments hence, made it sound like homosexuality isn't pleasant for those who 'choose' it. I have a lot of friends and some family who would suggest other wise.
And as for the rest of us, why do we keep indulging this man in his insane insecurites? I saw 'comment moderation' coming ten miles ago.
He accused me of being 'biblically uneduacated' a few comments ago. This, after I've failed to ridicule him for his shameful lack of historical knowledge, repeatedly. Well, Mark, I know that if I try to point out how many things mistranslated in the Dark Ages became the faith of folks like you today, you'll just say something silly about how I once posted something that you seriously disagreed with.
But it remains the truth, and to take a page out of your playbook, on that particular subject, I am Right, and You are Wrong. "
Sorry to being the donnybrook back home to you, but that particular two-day-war was just a little too stupid, and needs a headstone, if you will.
For anyone wanting to know what the hell I'm talking about, check ER's link to "4 rows back in the bleacher seats", and get ready to be disgusted.
As Maness has re-instituted Comment Moderation at his place, and I've learned from past experience that he will use this to censor the thoughts of whom he does not agree with, lemme post it here, okay?
"I like how ELashley, several comments hence, made it sound like homosexuality isn't pleasant for those who 'choose' it. I have a lot of friends and some family who would suggest other wise.
And as for the rest of us, why do we keep indulging this man in his insane insecurites? I saw 'comment moderation' coming ten miles ago.
He accused me of being 'biblically uneduacated' a few comments ago. This, after I've failed to ridicule him for his shameful lack of historical knowledge, repeatedly. Well, Mark, I know that if I try to point out how many things mistranslated in the Dark Ages became the faith of folks like you today, you'll just say something silly about how I once posted something that you seriously disagreed with.
But it remains the truth, and to take a page out of your playbook, on that particular subject, I am Right, and You are Wrong. "
Sorry to being the donnybrook back home to you, but that particular two-day-war was just a little too stupid, and needs a headstone, if you will.
For anyone wanting to know what the hell I'm talking about, check ER's link to "4 rows back in the bleacher seats", and get ready to be disgusted.
Not a prob. ER's place can be a sanctuary for excommunicated from Mark's place. Just keep it relatively clean and keep the personal attacks to a minimum -- which you did.
Now, what about the subject of this here post??? :-)
Now, what about the subject of this here post??? :-)
Oops. I delinked Mark's place while back and never relinked it:
leftfieldperspectives.blogspot.com
(The ugly, mean, self-righteous post below the nice one about his pug.)
leftfieldperspectives.blogspot.com
(The ugly, mean, self-righteous post below the nice one about his pug.)
Well, I was out in the yard all day trimming trees.
Off the top of my head......
OK, first you have to remember that the issue on Indian removal was that Indians were mostly "removed" to land given to other Indians who had been previously "removed" to said land. Such was the case in Oklahoma. Most of Eastern Oklahoma belonged by treaty to the Osage when the government "removed" the 5 tribes to Oklahoma.
So if you start naming tribes you will never get it right as to who was dumped where when. At one time there were 45 tribes in the state at the same time. Some went home such as the Modoc, and some assimilated into other tribes and some just damn well died off such as the Wichita (I know there are still some who say they have Wichita blood).
Secondly, the Comanches owned controlled and damn near did anything they pleased in the Comancheria that extended from the Canadian, across the Red well into Texas and from Ft. Washita and the Cross Timber to the Western lip of the Llano Estacado. The Kiowa and Apache were sometimes tolerated by the Comanche. They really love to raid Texas, Mexico, and the Eastern Oklahoma tribes (where your newspapers were) for horses and slaves to be sold to New Mexico Rancheros and the Pueblos.
The XXX treaties made in Kansas in the 1860's gave the Kiowa and the Cheyenne and the Arapaho the land between the Candian and the Arkansas and the whites coming across to hunt buffalo is what started the Red River aka Buffalo War. The two guys that started it were named "Walks in the Sky" (yep Skywalker) and "Smells Like Coyote Shit". I really love that last name.
By 1870 your Eastern Indians had lost almost 20% of their men to the civil war and were as afraid of the Wild Indians in the Western Territory as any "White" would have been.
Everybody, I mean Everybody, hated the Souix. So for the Sioux to kill Custer well.... mixed blessing.
Railroads were slow to be built because the tribes in the East did not want their bad influence. Railroads were behind their initial "removal" to Oklahoma in the first place (see history of the State owned Western and Atlantic of Georgia.)
So they (all 5 tribes) restricted their growth in Oklaahoma. The first RR the MKT was built in 1867 and was allowed only water and fueling stops in the Territory. No stations and no land except for the track. The MKT build right on top of the Texas Road across Oklahoma. The president of the MKT refered to his Oklahoma line as the longest damn railroad tunnel in the world, becuse he could not engage in commerece along the route.
The next one built ( the SF) was over 20 years latter.
They didn't build in the west because they couldn't get land and the Comanche would kill them.
Cattle drives paid for the right of passage through Indian lands with cattle. Which was safer and cheaper than losing chunks of the herd or the whole herd to white theives along the trails in Eastern Oklahoma or Arkansas.
Sources can be found if you want them.
Off the top of my head......
OK, first you have to remember that the issue on Indian removal was that Indians were mostly "removed" to land given to other Indians who had been previously "removed" to said land. Such was the case in Oklahoma. Most of Eastern Oklahoma belonged by treaty to the Osage when the government "removed" the 5 tribes to Oklahoma.
So if you start naming tribes you will never get it right as to who was dumped where when. At one time there were 45 tribes in the state at the same time. Some went home such as the Modoc, and some assimilated into other tribes and some just damn well died off such as the Wichita (I know there are still some who say they have Wichita blood).
Secondly, the Comanches owned controlled and damn near did anything they pleased in the Comancheria that extended from the Canadian, across the Red well into Texas and from Ft. Washita and the Cross Timber to the Western lip of the Llano Estacado. The Kiowa and Apache were sometimes tolerated by the Comanche. They really love to raid Texas, Mexico, and the Eastern Oklahoma tribes (where your newspapers were) for horses and slaves to be sold to New Mexico Rancheros and the Pueblos.
The XXX treaties made in Kansas in the 1860's gave the Kiowa and the Cheyenne and the Arapaho the land between the Candian and the Arkansas and the whites coming across to hunt buffalo is what started the Red River aka Buffalo War. The two guys that started it were named "Walks in the Sky" (yep Skywalker) and "Smells Like Coyote Shit". I really love that last name.
By 1870 your Eastern Indians had lost almost 20% of their men to the civil war and were as afraid of the Wild Indians in the Western Territory as any "White" would have been.
Everybody, I mean Everybody, hated the Souix. So for the Sioux to kill Custer well.... mixed blessing.
Railroads were slow to be built because the tribes in the East did not want their bad influence. Railroads were behind their initial "removal" to Oklahoma in the first place (see history of the State owned Western and Atlantic of Georgia.)
So they (all 5 tribes) restricted their growth in Oklaahoma. The first RR the MKT was built in 1867 and was allowed only water and fueling stops in the Territory. No stations and no land except for the track. The MKT build right on top of the Texas Road across Oklahoma. The president of the MKT refered to his Oklahoma line as the longest damn railroad tunnel in the world, becuse he could not engage in commerece along the route.
The next one built ( the SF) was over 20 years latter.
They didn't build in the west because they couldn't get land and the Comanche would kill them.
Cattle drives paid for the right of passage through Indian lands with cattle. Which was safer and cheaper than losing chunks of the herd or the whole herd to white theives along the trails in Eastern Oklahoma or Arkansas.
Sources can be found if you want them.
# posted by 
: 11:49 PM
: 11:49 PM
Some Indians were cowboys....
There weren't any Texas Indian Cowboys..... Trial drivers weren't Cowboys per se either...Damn few if any Black trail drivers from Texas either... it wasn't that texan were racist... They Were RACIST... and pragmatic...
There weren't any Texas Indian Cowboys..... Trial drivers weren't Cowboys per se either...Damn few if any Black trail drivers from Texas either... it wasn't that texan were racist... They Were RACIST... and pragmatic...
# posted by : 11:55 PM
: 11:55 PM
Some of the drovers on the Shawnee Trail picked up local help -- Indians. Some of the Indian cattle raisers in the east moved cattle north, too.
There's nothin' you've mentioned that I don't have a source for rightcheer in my home office. But that's too much detail for this article.
My question is this: Are there any glaring errors or missions in what I've written, considering that it should be seen as sort of like a 350-word encyclopedia article on "Oklahoma in the 1870s"?
I think I've got the major bases covered.
There's nothin' you've mentioned that I don't have a source for rightcheer in my home office. But that's too much detail for this article.
My question is this: Are there any glaring errors or missions in what I've written, considering that it should be seen as sort of like a 350-word encyclopedia article on "Oklahoma in the 1870s"?
I think I've got the major bases covered.
I still think the Indians were cowboys was an exception, practiced in Indian Territory, not a principle fact to be included in a summary. If you are going to mention all of the Eastern tribes then put in the Comanche, Kiowa, Cheyenne and Arapaho as your Western (wild) Indians put there by treaty otherwise it is an Indian Territory rap not "Oklahoman"
Is this for the Centennial Encyclopdedia?
Is this for the Centennial Encyclopdedia?
# posted by : 8:06 AM
: 8:06 AM
The fact that they were an exception is why I bring thewm up in a discussion of incongruities in Indian Territory -- which was not just the west, but the west as well in this period, as well as a nickname, not an actual territory, which I also get into.
This is not just a summary; it's sort of what we in the news biz call a "nut graph" a bringing up to date with context transition from the beginning of the story at hand to the rest of the story. The intro the post splains that it is a small part of a long article.
This is not just a summary; it's sort of what we in the news biz call a "nut graph" a bringing up to date with context transition from the beginning of the story at hand to the rest of the story. The intro the post splains that it is a small part of a long article.
Did you say Nut Graft?
Can they do that now? Really? I know some people that need some.
Who are the donors?
Does that mean you can have more than two if you're rich enough?
Post a Comment
Can they do that now? Really? I know some people that need some.
Who are the donors?
Does that mean you can have more than two if you're rich enough?
# posted by : 1:43 PM
: 1:43 PM << Home
