Page:The American Indian as slaveholder and secessionist (Volume 1).djvu/104

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

98

The Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist

the disposition of his force and the objects of his mission, allowed himself to be unduly influenced in his judgment by men of local predilections.^[1] It was upon their advice and upon the urgent pleadings of Matthew Leeper,^[2] Indian agent on the Leased District, that he exercised his discretionary power as to the disposal of troops, without listening to his military subordinates^[3] or having viewed the locality for himself. In the interests of these local petitioners,^[4] he even enlarged upon Mitchell's recommendation and concluded to leave two companies at Fort Cobb as one was deemed altogether inadequate to the protection of so isolated

————

↑ 144 At the time, when it was intended to remove all the troops from Fort Cobb for purposes of concentration farther south and nearer to the source of danger, instructions were issued that the Reserve Indians, whose peculiar protection Fort Cobb was, might remove within the limits of Fort Washita; but the Choctaws and the Chickasaws objected and, in deference to their wishes, Emory suspended the permission [Official Records, first ser., vol. i, 663], his excuse being that Fort Cobb was not to be abandoned anyway. The contractors, Johnson and Grimes, whom Superintendent Rector had so much favored, had a good deal to do with the forming of this decision. They told Emory that the Reserve Indians were not free to move; for they had no means and that they were "hutted and planting at Fort Cobb." Quite naturally the food contractors did not wish the Indians to be taken out of their reach within the limits of a military reservation.
↑ Matthew Leeper was very insistent. He not only wrote letters to Emory arguing his case but travelled from his agency to Fort Smith to interview him.
↑ Emory refused to grant the appeal of Major Sackett and Captain Prince not to abandon Fort Arbuckle [Official Records, first ser., vol. i, 666].
↑ This circumstance ought not, however, to be cited to the prejudice of Colonel Emory; for it was while he was yet at Fort Smith that he manifested some of the spirit that inspired Robert E. Lee, who, by the way, was in command of the 2nd regiment of United States cavalry and had been stationed, like Emory, in Texas, and who, whether he believed in the doctrine of secession or not, put, as many another high-minded Southerner did, the state before the nation in matters of pride, of allegiance, and of personal honor. Such men as Lee belonged to quite another class from what the self-seeking politicians did who, in isolated cases at least, engineered the secession movement from hope of gain. Many of the Indian agents and employees belonged to this latter class. Emory was unlike Lee in the final result; for he did not ultimately conclude to go with his state. It was he who later on commanded, as a Union brigadier-general, the defences of New Orleans.

[1] 144 At the time, when it was intended to remove all the troops from Fort Cobb for purposes of concentration farther south and nearer to the source of danger, instructions were issued that the Reserve Indians, whose peculiar protection Fort Cobb was, might remove within the limits of Fort Washita; but the Choctaws and the Chickasaws objected and, in deference to their wishes, Emory suspended the permission [Official Records, first ser., vol. i, 663], his excuse being that Fort Cobb was not to be abandoned anyway. The contractors, Johnson and Grimes, whom Superintendent Rector had so much favored, had a good deal to do with the forming of this decision. They told Emory that the Reserve Indians were not free to move; for they had no means and that they were "hutted and planting at Fort Cobb." Quite naturally the food contractors did not wish the Indians to be taken out of their reach within the limits of a military reservation.

[2] Matthew Leeper was very insistent. He not only wrote letters to Emory arguing his case but travelled from his agency to Fort Smith to interview him.

[3] Emory refused to grant the appeal of Major Sackett and Captain Prince not to abandon Fort Arbuckle [Official Records, first ser., vol. i, 666].

[4] This circumstance ought not, however, to be cited to the prejudice of Colonel Emory; for it was while he was yet at Fort Smith that he manifested some of the spirit that inspired Robert E. Lee, who, by the way, was in command of the 2nd regiment of United States cavalry and had been stationed, like Emory, in Texas, and who, whether he believed in the doctrine of secession or not, put, as many another high-minded Southerner did, the state before the nation in matters of pride, of allegiance, and of personal honor. Such men as Lee belonged to quite another class from what the self-seeking politicians did who, in isolated cases at least, engineered the secession movement from hope of gain. Many of the Indian agents and employees belonged to this latter class. Emory was unlike Lee in the final result; for he did not ultimately conclude to go with his state. It was he who later on commanded, as a Union brigadier-general, the defences of New Orleans.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]