The American Indian as Partic.i.p.ant in the Civil War.

by Annie Heloise Abel.

I. THE BATTLE OF PEA RIDGE, OR ELKHORN, AND ITS MORE IMMEDIATE EFFECTS

The Indian alliance, so a.s.siduously sought by the Southern Confederacy and so laboriously built up, soon revealed itself to be most unstable.

Direct and unmistakable signs of its instability appeared in connection with the first real military test to which it was subjected, the Battle of Pea Ridge or Elkhorn, as it is better known in the South, the battle that stands out in the history of the War of Secession as being the most decisive victory to date of the Union forces in the West and as marking the turning point in the political relationship of the State of Missouri with the Confederate government.

In the short time during which, following the removal of General Fremont, General David Hunter was in full command of the Department of the West--and it was practically not more than one week--he completely reversed the policy of vigorous offensive that had obtained under men, subordinate to his predecessor.[1] In southwest Missouri, he abandoned the advanced position of the Federals and fell back upon Sedalia and Rolla, railway termini. That he did this at the suggestion of President Lincoln[2] and with the tacit approval of General McClellan[3] makes no

[Footnote 1: _The Century Company's War Book_, vol. i, 314-315.]

[Footnote 2: _Official Records_, first ser., vol. iii, 553-554.

Hereafter, except where otherwise designated, the _first series_ will always be understood.]

[Footnote 3:--Ibid., 568.]

difference now, as it made no difference then, in the consideration of the consequences; yet the consequences were, none the less, rather serious. They were such, in fact, as to increase very greatly the confusion on the border and to give the Confederates that chance of recovery which soon made it necessary for their foes to do the work of Nathaniel Lyon all over again.

It has been most truthfully said[4] that never, throughout the period of the entire war, did the southern government fully realize the surpa.s.singly great importance of its Trans-Mississippi District; notwithstanding that when that district was originally organized,[5]

in January, 1862, some faint idea of what it might, peradventure, accomplish did seem to penetrate,[6] although ever so vaguely, the minds of those then in authority. It was organized under pressure from the West as was natural, and under circ.u.mstances to which meagre and tentative reference has already been made in the first volume of this work.[7] In the main, the circ.u.mstances were such as developed out of the persistent refusal of General McCulloch to cooperate with General Price.

There was much to be said in justification of McCulloch's obstinacy.

To understand this it is well to recall that, under the plan, lying back of this first

[Footnote 4: _Official Records_, vol. liii, supplement, 781-782; Edwards, _Shelby and His Men_, 105.]

[Footnote 5:--Ibid., vol. viii, 734.]

[Footnote 6: It is doubtful if even this ought to be conceded in view of the fact that President Davis later admitted that Van Dorn entered upon the Pea Ridge campaign for the sole purpose of effecting "a diversion in behalf of General Johnston" [_Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government_, vol. ii, 51]. Moreover, Van Dorn had scarcely been a.s.signed to the command of the Trans-Mississippi District before Beauregard was devising plans for bringing him east again [Greene, _The Mississippi_, II; Roman, _Military Operations of General Beauregard_, vol. i, 240-244].]

[Footnote 7: Abel, _American Indian as Slaveholder and Secessionist_, 225-226 and _footnote_ 522.]

appointment to the Confederate command, was the expectation that he would secure the Indian Territory. Obviously, the best way to do that was to occupy it, provided the tribes, whose domicile it was, were willing. But, if the Cherokees can be taken to have voiced the opinion of all, they were not willing, notwithstanding that a sensationally reported[8] Federal activity under Colonel James Montgomery,[9] in the neighborhood of the frontier posts, Cobb, Arbuckle, and Was.h.i.ta, was designed to alarm them and had notably influenced, if it had not actually inspired, the selection and appointment of the Texan ranger.[10]

Unable, by reason of the Cherokee objection thereto, to enter the Indian country; because entrance in the face of that objection would inevitably force the Ross faction of the Cherokees and, possibly also, Indians of other tribes into the arms of the Union, McCulloch intrenched himself on its northeast border, in Arkansas, and there awaited a more favorable opportunity for accomplishing his main purpose. He seems to have desired the Confederate government to add the contiguous portion of Arkansas to his command, but in that he was disappointed.[11] Nevertheless, Arkansas early interpreted his presence in the state to imply that he was there primarily for her defence and, by the middle of June, that idea had so far gained general acceptance that C.C. Danley, speaking for the Arkansas Military Board, urged President Davis "to meet

[Footnote 8: _Official Records_, vol. liii, supplement, 679.]

[Footnote 9: The name of Montgomery was not one for even Indians to conjure with. James Montgomery was the most notorious of bushwhackers.

For an account of some of his earlier adventures, see Spring, _Kansas_, 241, 247-250, and for a characterization of the man himself, Robinson, _Kansas Conflict_, 435.]

[Footnote 10: _Official Records_, vol. liii, supplement, 682.]

[Footnote 11: Snead, _Fight for Missouri_, 229-230.]

the exigent necessities of the State" by sending a second general officer there, who should command in the northeastern part.[12]

McCulloch's relations with leading Confederates in Arkansas seem to have been, from the first, in the highest degree friendly, even cordial, and it is more than likely that, aside from his unwillingness to offend the neutrality-loving Cherokees, the best explanation for his eventual readiness to make the defence of Arkansas his chief concern, instead of merely a means to the accomplishment of his original task, may be found in that fact. On the twenty-second of May, the Arkansas State Convention instructed Brigadier-general N. Bart Pearce, then in command of the state troops, to cooperate with the Confederate commander "to the full extent of his ability"[13] and, on the twenty-eighth of the same month, the Arkansas Military Board invited that same person, who, of course, was Ben McCulloch, to a.s.sume command himself of the Arkansas local forces.[14] Sympathetic understanding of this variety, so early established, was bound to produce good results and McCulloch henceforth identified himself most thoroughly with Confederate interests in the state in which he was, by dint of untoward circ.u.mstances, obliged to bide his time.

It was far otherwise as respected relations between McCulloch and the Missouri leaders. McCulloch had little or no tolerance for the rough-and-ready methods of men like Claiborne Jackson and Sterling Price. He regarded their plans as impractical, chimerical, and their warfare as after the guerrilla order, too much like

[Footnote 12: _Official Records_, vol. liii, supplement, 698-699.]

[Footnote 13:--Ibid., 687.]

[Footnote 14:--Ibid., 691.]

that to which Missourians and Kansans had accustomed themselves during the period of border conflict, following the pa.s.sage of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. McCulloch himself was a man of system. He believed in organization that made for efficiency. Just prior to the Battle of Wilson's Creek, he put himself on record as strongly opposed to allowing unarmed men and camp followers to infest his ranks, demoralizing them.[15] It was not to be expected, therefore, that there could ever be much in common between him and Sterling Price. For a brief period, it is true, the two men did apparently act in fullest harmony; but it was when the safety of Price's own state, Missouri, was the thing directly in hand. That was in early August of 1861.

Price put himself and his command subject to McCulloch's orders.[16]

The result was the successful engagement, August 10 at Wilson's Creek, on Missouri soil. On the fourteenth of the same month, Price rea.s.sumed control of the Missouri State Guard[17] and, from that time on, he and McCulloch drifted farther and farther apart; but, as their aims were so entirely different, it was not to be wondered at.

Undoubtedly, all would have been well had McCulloch been disposed to make the defence of Missouri his only aim. Magnanimity was asked of him such as the Missouri leaders never so much as contemplated showing in return. It seems never to have occurred to either Jackson or Price that cooperation might, perchance, involve such an exchange of courtesies as would require Price to lend a hand in some project that McCulloch might devise for the well-being of his own particular

[Footnote 15: _Official Records_, vol. liii, supplement, 721.]

[Footnote 16:--Ibid., 720.]

[Footnote 17:--Ibid., 727.]

charge. The a.s.sistance was eventually asked for and refused, refused upon the ground, familiar in United States history, that it would be impossible to get the Missouri troops to cross the state line. Of course, Price's conduct was not without extenuation. His position was not identical with McCulloch's. His force was a state force, McCulloch's a Confederate, or a national. Besides, Missouri had yet to be gained, officially, for the Confederacy. She expected secession states and the Confederacy itself to force the situation for her.

And, furthermore, she was in far greater danger of invasion than was Arkansas. The Kansans were her implacable and dreaded foes and Arkansas had none like them to fear.

In reality, the seat of all the trouble between McCulloch and Price lay in particularism, a phase of state rights, and, in its last a.n.a.lysis, provincialism. Now particularism was especially p.r.o.nounced and especially pernicious in the middle southwest. Missouri had always more than her share of it. Her politicians were impregnated by it.

They were interested in their own locality exclusively and seemed quite incapable of taking any broad survey of events that did not immediately affect themselves or their own limited concerns. In the issue between McCulloch and Price, this was all too apparent. The politicians complained unceasingly of McCulloch's neglect of Missouri and, finally, taking their case to headquarters, represented to President Davis that the best interests of the Confederate cause in their state were being glaringly sacrificed by McCulloch's too literal interpretation of his official instructions, in the strict observance of which he was keeping close to the Indian boundary.

President Davis had personally no great liking for

Price and certainly none for his peculiar method of fighting. Some people thought him greatly prejudiced[18] against Price and, in the first instance, perhaps, on nothing more substantial than the fact that Price was not a Westpointer.[19] It would be nearer the truth to say that Davis gauged the western situation pretty accurately and knew where the source of trouble lay. That he did gauge the situation and that accurately is indicated by a suggestion of his, made in early December, for sending out Colonel Henry Heth of Virginia to command the Arkansas and Missouri divisions in combination.[20] Heth had no local attachments in the region and "had not been connected with any of the troops on that line of operations."[21] Unfortunately, for subsequent events his nomination[22] was not confirmed.

Two days later, December 5, 1861, General McCulloch was granted[23]

permission to proceed to Richmond, there to explain in person, as he had long wanted to do, all matters in controversy between him and Price. On the third of January, 1862, the Confederate Congress called[24] for information on the subject, doubtless under pressure of political importunity. The upshot of it all was, the organization of the Trans-Mississippi District of Department No. 2 and the appointment of Earl Van Dorn as major-general to command it. Whether or no, he was the choice[25] of General A.S. Johnston, department commander, his appointment bid fair, at the

[Footnote 18: _Official Records_, vol. liii, supplement, 816-817.]

[Footnote 19: Ibid., 762.]

[Footnote 20:--Ibid., vol. viii, 725.]

[Footnote 21:--Ibid., 701.]

[Footnote 22: Wright, _General Officers of the Confederate Army_, 33, 67.]

[Footnote 23: _Official Records_, vol. viii, 702.]

[Footnote 24: _Journal of the Congress of the Confederate States_, vol. i, 637.]

[Footnote 25: Formby, _American Civil War_, 129.]