Talk:Cherokee–American wars/Archive 1

Archive 1

Move from "Chickamauga (tribe)" to "Chickamauga wars"

After adding a tremendous amount of material to the page entitled Chickamauga (tribe) and rexamining it more closely, I realized that another article entirely should be created since the subject matter encompassed by the material I'd added had grown exponentially; therefore, this present article came into existence.--Nattybumpo 27 October 2006

This page would greatly benefit by the supplement of digital pictures taken at the Fort Sycamore Shoals State Park located in Elizabethton, Tennessee (in addition to the reconstruction of a "Fort Sycamore Shoals" the visitor center has a bust of Dragging Canoe in the lobby...)4.129.71.185 18:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Source of the name of this article?

What is the source for the name "Chickamauga Wars"? I've never seen this specific title used outside of Wikipedia, although it has of course spread over the Internet because of Wikipedia's visibility. Was this term coined on Wikipedia? Have any print sources used this term? —Kevin Myers 12:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm the one who wrote the article, I'll answer this. I may have picked up the term somewhere in something I've read, I can't remember, but I used the name "Chickamauga Wars" to de-emphasize the name "Chickamauga" being applied to the militant Cherokee, and others, led by Dragging Canoe. Too many people the past twenty years or so have bought into the myth of a "Chickamauga" tribe separate from the Cherokee as a whole. Besides, the wars between Dragging Canoe's followers and the nascent United States of America were among the longest lasting in American history and deserved a name. For all I know, I may have coined the phrase, or, as I said before, maybe I picked it up somewhere. FYI, I did vet the article, including its title, with Raymond Evans, the author of several of my sources, before posting it. Natty4bumpo 2336, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. As you probably know, coining a new proper noun on Wikipedia is frowned upon: as Wikipedia editors, we should aim to summarize scholarly writings without coining new terms in the process. But the article has to be called something, of course, which is difficult because, as one of the many Native American wars often overlooked in history books, this war doesn't have a commonly accepted name. In such cases, we must use a descriptive title rather than trying to coin a proper name. So this article would be better titled "Chickamauga wars" (with a small "W"), to make it a descriptive title rather than a newly minted proper noun. This is perhaps a minor point, but it's a distinction that gets a lot of attention on Wikipedia.

However, I'm not sure that your title really accomplishes your goal to "de-emphasize the name 'Chickamauga' being applied to the militant Cherokee"; I think it actually does the opposite. To de-emphasize "Chickamauga", various descriptive article titles could be chosen: Dragging Canoe's resistance movement, or Cherokee military history (1776–1794), etc. Those are wordy compared to "Chickamauga wars", but they do get the point across. Just food for thought in case you want to consider other possibilities. Cheers! —Kevin Myers 01:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You're obviously not familiar with New Age Indians and wannabes. As I indicated at the top of the discussion, there had been an article called simply "Chickamauga" purporting to be about the "Chickamauga tribe". As you can or may have already discovered, there is no longer aan article about the "Chickamauga"; the "tribe" never existed as such, but the wars themselves certainly did. Since frontiersmen at the time referred to their opponents as the Chickamauga Cherokee, or sometimes simply as "Chickmauga", using the term "Chickamauga Wars" has the benefit of being historically accurate. As for supposedly inventing a new term, as I mentioned before, I vetted the entire article with Raymond Evans, one of the two founders of the Journal of Cherokee Studies, before posting it, and he said it was a good way to refer to it. I consider him a much better judge of a proper way to refer to this series of conflicts than either you or anyone else at Wikipedia. Natty4bumpo 2056, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame that you've made such an unproductive and petulant reply. (Your non sequitur that I'm "obviously not familiar with New Age Indians and wannabes" is wrong but irrelevant.) To get back on point: Wikipedia policies exist in part to prevent people from pretending to be authoritative when they're not. You want people to simply take your word that you've privately vetted the article title with a scholar. You may be telling the truth, but who knows? Certainly the article is not well written enough to have any claims to be authoritative. For example, you wrote in the article:

In response to the settlement of Fort Boonesborough, the first inside Kentucky and founded by a group under Daniel Boone, the Shawnee, Delaware, Mingo, and some Cherokee attacked a scouting and forage party from the settlement that included Boone’s son, beginning what is known as Dunmore's War (1773-1774).

There are at least two factual errors in that one sentence. I'm surprised that Mr. Evans, if he actually read your article, didn't point them out to you. This is just the tip of the iceberg of the article's problems; the title is only the beginning. I thought perhaps you'd be open to suggestions and want to improve the article. My mistake. —Kevin Myers 02:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

First, Ray didn't gov over the article with a fine tooth comb, merely pointed out a few things that jumped out at him, and second, I'm not even sure if the paragraph you singled out is mine; someone from Northeast Tennessee and a strong advocate of James Roberston inserted a bunch of material regarding him and his activities in that section of the state and that may have been part of it. Regarding any mistakes I myself may have made, well, dig up the authors, which in some cases may have to be done literally, and complain to them. Everytime there was a question or a difference, I checked sources until I got a majority opinion. If you would like to ask Mr. Evans himself about the article and his review of it either by email or phone, that can be arranged. And you are correct, at least about the Fort Boonesborough mention...that didn't take place, the founding of it, I mean, until 1775. Natty4bumpo 2216, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

On the location of Etowah (Itawayi, "Hightower") town

The town of Etowah, inhabited by Cherokee formerly of the Lower Towns in North Carolina, was across the Etowah River from the Etowah Indian Mounds and was near Cartersville, Georgia, not Rome. The reason the Cherokee town was named Etowah, in fact, was because of the proximity of the former Muskogee town. I know that the Daughters of the American Revolution says Etowah (which they mangle as "Hightower") was near Rome on their monument, but the DAR is notoriously unreliable for historical accuracy. There was a town at Rome, but it was called Head of Coosa, and it was founded by Major Ridge, who moved from Oothcaloga (Calhoun, Georgia) with John Ross following, several years after the wars had ended. Natty4bumpo 0520, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Turnip Town (Ulunyi) arose during the Chickamauga wars, and it WAS near Rome. Later, after the peace of 1794, the town of Chatuga eclipsed its earlier founded neighbor. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Article title amounts to a neologism

The title of this article appears to coin a name (a neologism) for a series of frontier conflicts. I don't think this was done deliberately. The article title has a lower-case "w," so the reference is not, strictly speaking, to a proper-noun "Chickamauga Wars." Unfortunately, I doubt that many readers have been aware of the distinction, or else they've regarded "wars" as a typo. (This blogger failed to catch it, despite an apparently close engagement with the article. She upper-cased the W.)

I think the title of this article amounts to a case of WP:UNDUE, if not WP:OR. It urgently needs to be changed.

Natty4bumpo said back in January that he cleared the title with Raymond Evans, presumably the Cherokee historian and archaeologist from Chattanooga. This is hearsay, and it isn't really fair to Evans, who isn't here to speak for himself. So I tried to determine whether any neutral, reliable sources use "Chickamauga wars" to refer to these conflicts. N.B. No scholar published in JSTOR or Google Books uses the phrase "Chickamauga wars." I searched these databases and got exactly one hit for "Chickamauga Wars" (upper case W) in a schlocky self-published book (Seeds of War by Steven C. King) in which the author seems to have derived all his knowledge of the Chickamauga people from Wikipedia, although he gives no attribution. (See p. 79.) I'm willing to search more academic databases if need be, but I think these results are convincing.

Kevin Myers suggested a move to Dragging Canoe's resistance movement or to Cherokee military history (1776-1794). Neither title seems exactly right, but either is better than Chickamauga wars. Perhaps we can keep "Chickamauga" in the title without implying that we're giving a proper name to a series of wars. Chickamauga frontier conflicts (1776-1794). Chickamauga resistance (1776-1794) (may be a loaded term). Other ideas?

Let's take care of this as soon as we can. "Chickamauga wars" may be an appropriate phrase. Historians may adopt it en masse next month. But until they do, we can't use it as the title of an article. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 06:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Tell it to those who came up with the titles "First Battle of Chattanooga", "Second Battle of Chattanooga", "Third Battle of Chattanooga", "First Battle of Dalton", "Second Battle of Dalton", "Third Battle of Dalton", and "Fourth Battle of Dalton", as well as "First War for Scottish Independence" and "Second War for Scottish Independence". With regard to the Civil War battles, those designations did not exist before Wikipedia. Neither did the Scottish references; previously the whole period 1296-1329 has been referred to as the "Scottish Wars for Independence" without specifying two separate conflicts, and the interregnum of Edward Balliol during the reign of David II has never been mentioned as part of the wars of independence before. Not to mention that if Wikipedia editors are going to neologize about the Scottish conflicts they should at least do enough research to realize that what they designate the "First War for Scottish Independence" were actually two separate conflicts with roughly a year and a half between them.

"Chickamauga Wars", both capitalized, would be a neologism; "Chickamauga wars" is not, since it points to a series of conflicts fought by a section of the Cherokee referred to by whites as the "Chickamauga". If you knew anything at all about who's who in the study of Cherokee history and Indians of the Southeast, you'd know who Ray is. He started the Journal of Cherokee Studies along with Duane King. I'm not sure where Duane is, but Nick Honerkamp, another colleague of theirs, is currently head of anthropology at the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. Ray himself has been working on several Civil War-based projects in the Southeast Tennessee, Northwest Georgia, and Northeast Alabama area for several local governments the past several years.

And thanks for undoing the vandalism by the representative of the "Chikimaka". That is a wannabe group based in Grundy County, Tennessee, with not a single allele of Cherokee DNA among its members.

By the way, I am "Natty4bumpo", just using my own name instead of hiding behind a nickname. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

About the other articles you mention: Other Stuff Exists is not a valid argument. (If it were, nothing could get fixed until everything else got fixed: a formula for inaction.)

About not capitalizing "wars," I'll repeat myself: The article title has a lower-case "w," so the reference is not, strictly speaking, to a proper-noun "Chickamauga Wars." Unfortunately, I doubt that many readers have been aware of the distinction, or else they've regarded "wars" as a typo. I'm not repeating an argument you've heard before. I'm making a case that the distinction you implied by not capitalizing "wars" is not clear enough to general readers.

I'll pass over your assumption that I don't know the right people in southeastern Indian studies. I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that special credentials or contacts are required for editing this article. Let's not personalize the discussion anymore, if that's OK with you. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 03:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If "Other Stuff Exists" on Wikipedia, meaning that there are other articles with what you refer to as "neologisms", and mine is singled out for attack on that basis, then the fact that "Other Stuff Exists" is relevant and germaine and a potential cause of action.

As for your not knowing who's who on Southeast Indian affairs, that's rather obvious, but that wasn't really my point. I was giving you names of people to contact who could verify whether or not my statement about Ray's comments are likely valid. Your assertion implies that I'm lying or at least exaggerating; I contend that you should do some actual legwork and investigation before making accusations (explicit or implicit) and/or attempts to force a change. Nick could also verify that I do have a close relationship with Ray and that I would not claim that unless if were so. If you want to check out who Ray is, read some of the articles in the references which he authored.

If you bothered to read this Talk page in its entirety, you'd see that the very reason for the existence of this article was an earlier one on the "Chickamauga (tribe)", which never existed (the tribe didn't exist, the article did). You may be unfamiliar with the myth common among "wannabes" that such a tribe existed and that remnants of it survive to this day, but it is more common than you may be aware of. The vandal whose "work" you removed was one such person of one such group. "Chickamauga wars" is far less of an invention than an imaginary "Chickamauga (tribe)". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is moving far from the subject of the article. I'll respond to your personal remarks on your talk page.

Concerning the article: The title is unintentionally misleading to readers for the reasons I've stated above. Please suggest an alternate title that will adequately represent the article's content; I propose Chickamauga frontier conflicts (1776-1794).

Or if you prefer, dispute my case for changing the title. But keep it civil. No one is attacking you or the article. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 14:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Chickamauga wars" is much simpler and more accurate than your proposal, which implies there was a "Chickamauga frontier" to begin with, and implying that there was necesarily implies there was a "Chickamauga (tribe)" for there to be a frontier of, only no such thing ever existed. The term "Chickamauga" was, however, used by whites, especially on the frontier, to designate the Cherokee following Tsiyugunsini, and it is from that which the erroneous notion evoled that a "Chickamauga tribe" existed. Even though that was how whites ignorant of the inner workings of the Cherokee nation referred to those who were physically resisting their encroachment, that does not make it valid. However, since the name "Chickamauga" was applied to the conflicts, wars, it's appropriate to use that as part of the designation. But as I pointed out, since there never was a Chickamauga tribe, there could be no Chickamauga frontier, and renaming the article with your suggestion would be a fallacy, a fallacy of both fadct and of logic. "Chickamauga wars" is sufficient and accurate and there's no valid reason to change it.

Before you take further action, I recommend you follow up with contacting some of those people I suggested, particularly Dr. Honerkamp. I recommend him because you can find him on your own, and he can at least verify that Ray and I have a working relationship and are friends, and that I would not make the claims I made were they untrue. I can also put you in touch with Ray himself, but you'll have to contact me through private email for that; I'd have him write you through here but the Internet is not his forte.

You made a logically valid point with your reference to "Other Stuff Exists", but what stands in the court of logic is not necessarily valid in a court of law, which has entirely different rules. My reason for pointing that out, as well as pointing out the other stuff that exists, is to demonstrate that the Wikipedia rule against neologisms is not ironclad and is not alone a valid reason for making alterations just to put your own stamp on an article to which you have contributed nothing. That, and the fact that I can defend my position in a court of law, regardless of who would score intellectual points in a debating society where the debate focuses more on philosophical rules of rhetoric than topical substance.

I accept your point about the unintended implications of "Chickamauga frontier." But we're still left with the unwanted implications of "Chickamauga wars." Besides, to a biased reader at least "Chickamauga wars," or any title using the name "Chickamauga," implies the existence of a Chickamauga tribe no less than "Chickamauga frontier" does.

Supposing we dropped "frontier" and made it Chickamauga conflicts? The article content could clarify that Chickamauga refers to a place, or better, to a group of settlements, not to a "tribal" community. Of course, we'll still have to watch for biased edits no matter what the article is called. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 16:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I HAD made the distinction clear and emphasized that there was no such tribe as the "Chickamauga"; apparently one of the "Chikimaka" or other wannabes removed it. I still don't think a change is justified. As for whether there is a justification for the designation "wars", one of the two permanent forts of the American Department of War was Ft. Southwest Point on Long Island-on-the-Holston (the other was Ft. Pitt), placed there because of Dragging Canoe's activities. Speaking of which, I would have used the term "Dragging Canoe's rebellion/risings/wars, etc.", to get rid of "Chickamauga", except that he died two years before they ended. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you want to downplay the notion that the Chickamauga were a tribe of their own, perhaps the word "Cherokee" would help. Something like "Cherokee Chickamauga wars/conflict/struggle/resistance". Just an idea. It is tricky to come up with a terse title that is accurate and avoids possible misleading. Personally, I think I prefer the term "resistance" over wars, conflict, etc. "Resistance" can imply fighting as well as cultural resistance and a distancing from the threatening and growing power being resisted. If I understand right the Chickamauga resisted in these differing ways--fighting, moving to supposedly more secure places, and a rejection of (some) of the cultural transformations occurring, no? The terms war, struggle, rebellion, etc, seem narrower in meaning. Pfly (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I did go through the article yesterday and delete "Chickamauga" as a reference to Dragging Canoe's group except as a modifier to "Cherokee" in a couple of places where necessary to distinguish between them and the Overhill and other Cherokee. Truthfully, in the latter decade of the series of conflicts, possibly longer, they were more often referred to as the Lower Cherokee, and after John Watts' treaty in 1794, exclusively so, by both the US government and the Cherokee councils. The white frontierspeople, however, continued to refer to them as the Chickamaugas; also, calling them Lower Cherokee confuses them with the population earlier referred to as Lower Cherokee, and to make matters more confusing, the Chickamauga Cherokee began being referred to as Lower Cherokee about the time refugees from the Lower Towns began moving into Northeast Alabama, even though Dragging Canoe's clique remained in charge.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

On further consideration, and recognizing the need to further de-emphasize reference to the name "Chickamauga", I realize that the time has probably come for a name change. I'd like to add some of the information above about the group being referred to as Lower Cherokee after a certain time, and perhaps include more information to demonstrate the "Chickamauga wars" as part of a natural progression of a series of Cherokee resistance, possibly even copying the whole of the article Anglo-Cherokee War or at least a substantial part of it. If I were going to make it that extensive, I'd have to do some research into Cherokee conflicts with the Spanish out of La Florida (which at one time included missions all the way to Ajacan, their name for what later became Virginia). As a side note, the area later named Carolina in honor of Charles I of England (by his son, Charles II) had previously been called Carolina by the Spanish in honor of Charles V, and before that Carolina in honor of Charles IX of France. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 08:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That's a tall order, Chuck! I agree that mentioning past Cherokee conflicts with colonial powers would provide useful context for readers of this article. Excellent point. Otherwise, though, the time frame for this article seems right as it is.

Pfly's case for "resistance" is changing my mind, as Dragging Canoe and his followers did use other means besides fighting to fend off U.S. power and influence. Chuck, your point about de-emphasizing "Chickamauga" also makes sense, and not only as a reaction to "Chickamauga tribe" legends. This may be wishful thinking, but do we have a RS that indicates how this band of Cherokees referred to themselves? That would probably trump both the Cherokee council's name(s) and the name(s) given by Anglo-Americans.

Should the article be a history of this group, rather than of wars or conflicts? That might also justify a more direct engagement with present-day myth-making about the group. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 15:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I found a couple of references on the web (one the website of the Cowpens National Park) that referred to the "Second Cherokee War", but both cited it as ending the same year it began, while a third cited the treaty of Hopewell in 1785 as the end date. Clearly neither date is accurate. I have, however, included the use of the term in the opening paragraph.

In the second paragraph, note the mention of Norton's journal of his travels, where Dragging Canoe's own brother tells Norton there was no "Chickamauga tribe".

For the part about context, check out Timeline of Cherokee removal.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Dragging Canoe's Attack on Fort Black (Abingdon VA)

"Dragging Canoe personally attacked Black's Fort on the Holston (today Abingdon, Virginia), and a gravestone there reading "William Crestwell, July 4, 1776" still shows where an unfortunate settler caught outside the stockade lies buried.[11]"

While this is all nicely referenced, its wrong. First of all, William Crestwell is Henry Creswell (my 5th great grandfather). He was not killed on July 4, 1776. Militia records state he was paid for participation at the Battle of Long Island on July 20, 1776. Its believed Henry was killed during the attack on Fort Black about July 22nd, 1776. He is buried in SInking Spring Cemetery in Abingdon and his graves stone reads HENRY CRES / WELL ENTERED / THIS PLACE / JULY, 1776. I refer you to (http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~varussel/indian/19.html), a transcription of an unpublished manuscript by Emory L. Hamilton and his citations of correspondence between Gov. David Campbell, of Abingdon and Dr. Lyman C. Draper dated July 11, 1845. - Revans1953 —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC).

You are right, and shortly after I added the original reference, I found that information, but never got around to correcting it. As I recall reading about it, part of the confusion seems to come from a newer plaque that was placed near the gravestone that had the erroneous date "July 4, 1776", while the original stone was still visible and said merely "July, 1776". I later found out that the correct name is Henry Creswell and the attack is believed to have been July 22. Feel free to update the info with your reference. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that the corrected blurb has been deleted entirely. I have no problem with this. Henry Creswell at best is a minor person even in Abingdon's history. - Revans1953 —Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC).

No, actually NattyBummpo just moved it to a more chronologically correct section - it's still there...! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 02:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Mistranslation of Muskogean words and misrepresentation of Muskogean ethnic divisions

The article contains numerous supposed translations of Muskogean words that are just off the wall. Obviously, no Creeks or Choctaws were consulted. Chika-mauka was a Chickasaw village on the Tennessee River just west of modern day, Chattanooga. The word means "Place to look out" in Chickasaw. That is how Lookout Mountain got its name, It has NO meaning in Mvskoke or Hitchiti, the two principal Creek languages. The Chickasaw allies of the renegade Cherokees invited them to settle nearby. Thus, the general location of renegade villages was assigned to the entire Cherokee-Upper Creek-Chickasaw rebel force.

The word Chattanooga has two possible origins, one Chickasaw and the other, Mvskoke. Since, when the Spanish came through in the 1500s, the natives around Chattanooga spoke dialects of Chickasaw, the origin is more likely to be Chickasaw.

The article's translation of Chiaha O'lamiko was partially incorrect: not accurate for either Mvskoke or Hitchiti. Chiaha is a Maya word meaning "beside the water." Quite a few Hitchiti-Creek towns had Maya names, as there are many Chontal and Itza Maya words in Hitchiti. O'lamiko means "town of the Great Sun" in Hitchiti - but has no meaning in Mvskoke.

The Muskogees DID NOT take part in the Chickamauga War. The Upper Creeks (also known as Kusa or Abeica Creeks) were the allies of the Cherokees. Muskogee and Hitchiti Creeks suffered greatly because they were blaimed for the raids of the Upper Creeks. The animosity that developed between the divisions of the Creeks at this time eventually resulted in the Red Stick War. It also should be clarified that South Carolina and Georgia Creeks actively fought on the side of the Patriots and were instrumental in the crushing of the Cherokees in 1776 and 1777.

Finally, the article appears not to mention the Battle of Etowah Cliffs in what is now Rome, GA. The Chickamauga Cherokees lost most of their soldiers, and quickly sued for peace. The survivors fled to the Natchez-Cherokee town of Pine Log. Several of them became the most famous leaders of the Cherokees in the early 1800s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talamachusee (talk • contribs) 04:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The Cherokee town of Etowah was across the river from the Etowah Mounds near Cartersville, Georgia, originally the home of the Itawa, or Itaba, tribe. In fact, that is from where the Mounds got their name. The Maya were nowhere near what is now the Southeastern United States. There is no evidence that the Chickasaw were anywhere that far east during the period. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, the Cherokee were not invited to the region by the Chickasaw, the invitation was from Alexander Cameron, then British Deputy Superintendent for Indian Affairs for the Southeast. His deputy, John MacDonald had a supply and trading post at the site later occupied by Brainerd Mission, and Cameron made his headquarters there. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 07:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose also that you know nothing of William McIntosh and his band of Hitchiti warriors who fought for the British from the beginning of the Revolutionary War, or that the remaining neutral Lower Muskogee threw in their lot with the British after the capture of Savannah in 1779. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Article is too long

The article goes far beyond the end of the wars, which already covered a long period. I've deleted most of the material after the Treaty of Greenville. It has to end, not encompass Tecumseh's war and the Creek War, which have their own articles. Also, the material on Scots and Scots-Irish in the SE belongs in another article that is more an overview of the Southeast, not one that is about a series of wars. Also, I don't think it's appropriate to go back to every conflict that might have involved the Cherokee and English colonists, especially when it's not even clear if they are being referred to. Twenty years before - the Seven Years War, should be sufficient, as it shows reasons for worrying about the differing alliances. There is so much detail that it is hard to wade through this.Parkwells (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I reverted most of your changes because you went through with a scythe rather than a scapel. The Richard Fields comment definitely belongs since he was there and it puts the lie to the idea that the "Chickamauga" formed a separate tribe. The Penelope Allen Papers in the Tennessee State Archives are widely acknowledged as one of the most solid sources for the material she covers. The Muscogee-Chickasaw War was part of the hostilies included in the period until the treaty which ended the Wars. The part about the Scots traders could be moved to the article on the Cherokee rather than eliminated entirely, which I have done. It is most certainly a point of interest and significant to the changes through which the Nation found itself moving. The earlier wars, okay, I was being all-inclusive, perhaps a little too much so. I moved the name stuff to the article on Chattanooga. I'll do more more work, culling consolidating, moving, etc. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Some I deleted, most I simply moved elsewhere. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that most could be moved elsewhere - the main Cherokee article is a good place for the material on the Scots traders, which looked really good and I agree is a fascinating topic; and Chattanooga for the name stuff. Thanks for clarifying some of the other parts, and sorry if I went overboard - must have been too much energy at that time. It seemed that your material on Chickamauga-Cherokee was sufficient without the anecdote; that's why I took it out. But you've got some great stuff. Still trying to read all about the Chickamauga wars and understand the shifting terrain. Parkwells (talk) 04:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, you're dping a good job also. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Casualties in battles in 1788

Are there documents describing casualties in battles between Franklin militia and Cherokee in 1788?? I thinking about three battles: 1. general Martin's Battle of Lookout Mountain 2. Sevier's attack against Ustally (incl. ambush by Bob Benge) 3. Sevier's battle at Coota-Cloohee

I know only that numbers: 1. Battle of Lookout Mountain: whites - 3KIA, 2 WIA (incl. 3 captains killed and one captain wounded), Natives - 1 killed (one Creek warrior) 2. Ustally: Cherokees - 7 killed (5 in Ustally Town, 1 in ambush, 1 boy murdered). Whites - none 3. Coota-Cloohee - ??

I believe - that these casualties are incorrect. 1. Only officers killed/wounded at two-day Battle of Lookout Mountain where fought hundreds of militia and natives???? 2. Was Bob Benge stopped advance of Seviers soldiers (and saved retreated women and children) without casualty on Sevier's side?? 3. No casualties at battle near Coota-Cloohee, which stopped Sevier's campaign?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.204.160.51 (talk) 16:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Cherokee–American wars (with Cherokee-American wars created as a redirect). Messy discussion to say the least, but of those who have expressed an actual opinion on the title "Cherokee–American wars" seems to be both the majority and the most well-reasoned, especially as there is a consensus that "Chickamauga" should not be in the title. Comments arguing for this to be moved to userspace have effectively discounted (though I did read them fully to see if there was any opinion on what the title should be if it remains in article space) as they are outside the scope of RM – moving to userspace would effectively be the same deleting and it is not really a result that RM can come to. @Alarob: I strongly suggest that if you cannot work out your disagreement below and still maintain this should not be an article you take it to WP:AFD. Jenks24 (talk) 10:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Chickamauga Wars (1776–94) → ? – At a minimum, the parenthetical should be removed as there is no ambiguity. In addition, there are concerns noted above that there is no source for the name of the article and that the article title amounts to a neologism. The article's creator and prolific editor admits above that "I can't remember [the source of the title]... For all I know, I may have coined the phrase, or...maybe I picked it up somewhere." If these concerns are valid, the w in "Wars" should probably be lowercase since the title would merely be a description. I have notified previous contributors and related WikiProjects of this discussion. Relisting. Jenks24 (talk) 11:41, 4 June 2014 (UTC) —  AjaxSmack  03:53, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

• Reply I certainly agree that the disambiguator should be removed. It's not clear what else we might move it to, I feel inclined to say "if it ain't broke don't fix it". "Chickamauga wars" is not an unreasonable term, alternatives like Second Cherokee War or Dragging Canoe War would also be neologisms which present problems. PatGallacher (talk) 21:30, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
• Move to userspace: This is an important move request, as the naming of this article has done measurable harm by coining a neologism that has been picked up by other writers on the Web and in print. Editors have raised this problem since 2007, a year after the article was moved from Chickamauga (tribe) to Chickamauga wars. Even with a lower-case W, the article title influenced readers to assume the existence of a historical event called the "Chickamauga Wars." No such event is attested in any reliable historical source. Because of this article, though, by 2008 the term had begun appearing in low-quality books. (See "Article title amounts to a neologism" above.)

Since then, the article has been moved to "Chickamauga Wars," with a capital W, embracing the neologism rather than correcting it. The move went unexplained in Talk. The article violates WP:OR as clearly as anything I have encountered on Wikipedia.

Before anyone suggests it, I am not motivated by personal animus against the article or its principal author. I admire in particular his contributions to removing pseudo-historical claims about the Chickamauga people from Wikipedia. His thesis that the events in Chickamauga country should be defined as "Chickamauga Wars" may be proved valid. But Wikipedia is not the place for original historical research.

As mentioned, discussions about how to rename this article have gone nowhere. I think I know why. It is because this is not an encyclopedia article, and that the encyclopedic information it does contain is already provided by Chickamauga Cherokee. That article's section "Constant war", which links to this article, contains a more appropriate level of detail about the events that are belabored here at undue length, with no adequate lede paragraph.

It will be objected that the present article can be improved. But improving it will not resolve the problem of what to name it.

Because so much time and labor and, especially, emotion has been invested in this present article, I recommend that it be moved to the principal author’s userspace. Work should continue on Chickamauga Cherokee instead. (I also recommend that the principal author submit a manuscript to a peer-reviewed history journal, making a case for the reality of the Chickamauga Wars. I have published similar work, and would be glad to advise about it by email if desired.) — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 18:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

• Move and rename: I am the principle author. There is not and never was a separate "Chickamauga Cherokee" tribe. That in itself is a neologism from the 1930's, an invention by John P. Brown. Regarding peer-review, before I posted the article, I sent a copy to Raymond Evans, one of the two founders of the Journal of Cherokee Studies (the other was Duane King), who said it was the best thing on the subject he'd ever seen, and was contacted soon after it was posted by the former director of the Smithsonian who had previously been the director of its Museum of Natural History who had comments similar to Ray's.

Now, like it or not, whether or not you are aware of the fact, there were an ongoing series of wars from the beginning of the American Revolution to 1794, a fact to which several of my sources for this article, included in the article, testify. It would be highly inappropriate to move this material to the Chickamauga Cherokee article, which only exists to further the fiction of the "Chickamaugas" and is the much latter of the two, not the original.

Before you attempt to make that move under mistaken grounds, you really need to read some of my sources, particularly Brown's Old Frontiers and Ramsey's Annals of Tennessee, because those two certainly grouped all these events into one continuing story long before I did. None of the research, by the way, is "original research" by Wikipedia's definition. I most definitely object to seeing it shuttle off into my user space where it won't be accessible.

There is really no such thing as "Chickamauga Wars" because there was never any "Chickamaugas", outside of the convenient reference used by frontier people in what is now East Tennessee, and even then contemporaries only used it for a period of five years (1777-1782), after which the militant Cherokee became known as the Lower Cherokee. I have never been comfortable with the name myself. The initial change to Chickamauga wars was meant to be transitional, to get folks looking at the events rather than a fictional tribe. The current designation Chickamauga Wars (1776-1794) was not my doing.

I would suggest moving it to an article titled Cherokee wars, or maybe Cherokee-American wars. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I believe you'll find that Chickamauga Cherokee does not assert that there "was a separate 'Chickamauga Cherokee' tribe," although I agree that the article must be continually monitored for inaccurate drive-by edits. Your suggestions for a new name for this article unfortunately conflict with some of the articles linked at the Cherokee War dab page. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 23:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Correction: Cherokee War of 1776 on the Cherokee War dab page links to this article! — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 23:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Now I see that this article is occupying the space that should be devoted to an article on the war between the Continental Congress and the Cherokees during the American Revolution. The subject is briefly treated in the article Cherokee history; see the 18th century history section. Yet the dab page Cherokee War misleadingly links Cherokee War of 1776 to this article on the Chickamauga — a side show to the main event.

Even the lede to this article concedes as much, calling the so-called Chickamauga Wars a continuation of the Cherokee (Ani-Yunwiya, Ani-Kituwa, Tsalagi, Talligewi) struggle during and after the American Revolutionary War against encroachment by American frontiersmen from the former British colonies. Yet the "Second Cherokee War" is relegated to a section of the article. This structure implies that the Chickamauga Wars are the main event, and the Second Cherokee War is just an episode that provides background.

Here’s an analogy: It’s as if Wikipedia lacked an article on the Second World War, but instead had a section about the war in the article Siege of Leningrad. It would imply that the war was less significant than the siege. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 23:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The idea of the "Second Cherokee War" being limited to 1776 is as much a myth as the existence of a Chickamauga tribe. Its main significance is that it was the start of hostilities between the Cherokee and the frontier people, and, by extension, the colonies and then the American states. It was only one action. The so-called "Second Cherokee War" was, in fact, the Leningrad to the greater conflic about which this article is written. The scope of the article as it stands follows that of every other person who has written on the subject. You seem to be trying to do OR of your own. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

"the greater conflic about which this article is written"

You give a hint to what you believe the article is about. Please elaborate. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 22:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• Based on the discussion above and below, what about Cherokee–American wars (lowercase w)? It seems to avoid the contentious "Chickmauga" name and the idea of Second Cherokee War be subsumed under that heading while also covering all of the items in the article (which are a few too many for one article, but that's another issue). —  AjaxSmack  13:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is supposed to reflect published scholarship, how are these wars referred to in current scholarship (last 25 years) about this period of the Cherokee people and their history? While early (19th and early 20th century) historians may have had one point of view, as Chuck notes below, there has been much new research in Native American studies in the last quarter century, and I think we should be reflecting that here. If names/references/context have changed, that can be addressed in the article as part of explaining changing historiography (and why it changed) of this constellation of events.Parkwells (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Cherokee-American wars, with or without a capital W, should only be used if it is attested in reliable sources. As we saw with the former Chickamauga wars (which still redirects here), some users regard the name as a proper noun even when the "w" is lower-case. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 18:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Further comment on Move to userspace: Please see Poor quality of sources (below) for more about why this is unlikely to become a Wikipedia article. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 01:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If readers can't tell the difference between a proper noun and a common noun, they need to retake middle school English. Were there a series of wars between Cherokee and American frontier people? Undoubtedly. "Cherokee-American wars" is an accurate description of that. As for your "move to user space" suggestion, my counter is that you compose your own article in your user space because that is clearly your objective. I responded to your other quips below.

How about "Wars between the Cherokee and American frontier people from 1776 to 1794 that we cannot call'Cherokee-American wars' because even though it is an accurate description no one has ever used that specific designation before"? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:58, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved

Since no one, including myself, was comfortable with the previous name and there was no disagreement on that account, I moved it here with a more accurate name and included a stipulation in the overall introductory section that this is not an official name. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Chuck Hamilton (User:Natty4bumpo) moved the article to Cherokee-American wars (1776–94). I did not notice the mentioned stipulation in the lede. I do not think an article title should rely on explanation within the article text, especially as the article text is subject to change.

I made many edits to the article, especially removing sections dealing with the American Revolution or Creek and Chickasaw affairs. It would be more appropriate to wikilink to relevant articles. Chuck Hamilton reverted most of these edits, with some accusations of "vandalism" and a few rather personal edit comments. Criticism should be directed at the article, not editors. Chuck appears to harbor a sense of ownership that is always inappropriate for Wikipedia.

All of my edits related to WP:OR have been reverted, with some comments that lead me to think Chuck is not clear about what constitutes original research or why it is not acceptable. I recommend the concluding "Assessment" section as a concise statement of the principal editor's thesis, which finds fault with the consensus of current scholarship. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 19:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You removed whole sections which were relevant and integral with the rest of the body of the article. For instance, you took out the paragraph about the massacre of the Kirk family, which was one of leading catalysts to the massacre of Old Tassel and the other old chiefs in the Overhill Towns, one of the most notorious incidents of the entire period. You also took out the section on the Treaty of Greeneville ending the war in what the Americans called the Northwest Territory, which the Cherokee were quite involved in as allies of the Shawnee and other northern tribes,and the ones in the north did not stop fighting merely because the fight in the south had collapsed. You took out the explanation that the Chickamauga were nothing other than Cherokee, which when the article was under the previous name, "Chickamauga Wars (1776-1794)", needed to be singled out for special mention. That paragraph has now been removed, by the way, since under the current name it is not necessary here.

Thanks for pointing out several places that were missing references. There had been some in most of those places, and in particular I'm thinking about the Muscle Shoals Council, and someone removed them. I think in that case, the source was Eckhert, or it may have been Calloway, but I did find another or two.

If you think the scope of the article is so broad and takes in so much that it fits the definition of "OR", I strongly suggest you read Ramsey's Annals of Tennessee or Brown's Old Frontiers. The latter might be hard to find, maybe through your university library (that's where I got the copy of The Wallace, by Nigel Tranter several years ago), but the former is available as a .pdf online. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Those books were published in 1853 and 1938, respectively. I am sure there are books that reflect more up-to-date research. But first we have to establish what this article is about.

In suggesting a move to userspace, I meant to acknowledge that the work does have value and can be the basis for contributions to more than one article. This article itself, though, is not an encyclopedia article. It seems to me that if we can't give it a self-explanatory title, then we can't leave it in article space. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 00:44, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Please explain what is not self-explanatory about the title. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't wish to monopolize this discussion, so will step back after answering your question.

A typical reader might wonder: How many Cherokee-American wars are covered in this article? IOW, if this article is about "wars," what are the names and dates of each specific war?

If this article is about the wars from 1776 to 1794, when were the other Cherokee-American wars?

Please note, I'm not looking for answers to these questions, much less advice about what books I should read to attain your level of expertise. The point of this discussion is to clearly define, in as few words as possible, the scope of a needed Wikipedia article or articles, keeping in mind which ones already exist.

That's enough from me for now. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 14:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It was jumping the gun to move it while discussion was still in progress, it may be that nobody like the present title, but I was leaning towards "Chickamauga wars". PatGallacher (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Pat, there was a previous lengthy discussion about why people, many of whom were involved in this discussion, didn't like any title mentioning Chickamauga in a way that might make that capable of being construed as an official title. That was the title I had given it originally before someone else changed it to a proper noun, so it doesn't bother me. One of the main reasons people gave against that name is the fact that it leaves room for the false idea that there was an actual tribe called the "Chickamauga" (there are quotes from both Richard Fields and Turtle-at-Home from contemporary sources that strike down that notion). But if the majority wants that title, so be it.

Rob, the title "Cherokee-American wars" (or Chickamauga wars) is like saying "Indian wars"; they were not nice neat little tidy affairs in which both sides made mutual declarations of war and quit fighting as soon as a peace treaty was signed. Things were a lot messier than that. There were periods, sometimes of several months, without a major conflict, but there were still raiding parties, scalpings, territorial encroachments, etc. It wasn't Europe. It was a mess. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Removed image; possible copyright violation

I've removed File:Fiver Lower Towns.jpg from the article. It was flagged as a copyrighted image and its source is unknown. The file page states only: "Dead website." The image is useful but is not eligible for free use. It must be replaced. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 18:54, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

All the info is on the map "The primary areas of operations during the Chickamauga Wars",so we didn't lose anything.Chuck Hamilton (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Poor quality of sources

I have stated my opinion that Chickamauga wars is not an encyclopedia article and is unlikely to become one. Barriers to the success of the article include its:

• lack of a topic,
• lack of focus, including repetition of tangientially related stuff in lieu of wikilinking to existing articles,
• ownership by a principal editor,
• and low quality of sources.

The last point has not been discussed so far. In fact, two WikiProjects have given the article a B rating, largely due to the mere number of sources cited. So I'll explain what I mean about the low quality of sources.

After eliminating a few broken links and Rootsweb citations, I have identified 27 cited sources (as of June 6, 2014). Twelve additional sources listed in "References" are not cited.

The most frequently used sources are obsolete or of low quality. The best sources are underused, being cited only once or twice. Here is a table of information on the sources cited more than once:

Source	Year	No. cits.	Remarks
Brown, Old Frontiers	1938	24	76 years old. Less than helpful for Cherokee history.
Moore & Foster	1923	14	Dubious.
Evans, "Dragging Canoe"	1977	6	Fine for 1977. Where are up-to-date sources on Dragging Canoe?
Evans, "Bob Benge"	1976	5	Fine for 1976.
Green, Spanish Conspiracy	1891	5	Obsolete.
Tanner, "Ohio Country"	1978	5	Overused here.
Hoig	1998	3	Good source.
Klink & Talman	1970	3	Published primary source (19th-century personal journal)
Murphy	n.d.	3	from Encyclopedia of North American Indian Wars
American State Papers	n.d.	2	Published primary source; incomplete citations
Starr, History	1967	2	Reprint of 1921 book.

The average age of these sources is 62 years.

Underused: The following sources should be relied on more than at present:

• Faulkner, Charles. Massacre at Cavett’s Station: Frontier Tennessee during the Cherokee Wars. University of Tennessee Press, 2013. (1 citation)
• Hoig, Stanley. The Cherokees and Their Chiefs: In the Wake of Empire. University of Arkansas Press, 1998. (3 citations)
• McLoughlin, William G. Cherokee Renascence in the New Republic. Princeton University Press, 1992. (0 citations)

Missing books: A search at an academic library turned up other potential sources to consult.

• Champagne, Duane. Social Order and Political Change: Constitutional Government among the Cherokee, the Choctaw, the Chickasaw, and the Creek. Stanford University Press, 1992.
• Cumfer, Cynthia. Separate Peoples, One Land: The Minds of Cherokees, Blacks, and Whites on the Tennessee Frontier. University of North Carolina Press, 2007.
• Grenier, John. The First Way of War: American War Making on the Frontier, 1607-1814. Cambridge University Press, 2005. (Very highly regarded.)
• Hatley, Tom. The Dividing Paths: Cherokees and South Carolinians through the Era of Revolution. Oxford University Press, 1993.
• O'Donnell, James H. III. Southern Indians and the American Revolution. University of Tennessee Press, 1973. Older, but superior to most sources now being used.
• Reid, John Phillip. A Law of Blood: The Primitive Law of the Cherokee Nation. Northern Illinois University Press, 2006.

Missing articles: These also seem to be worth consulting.

• Banker, Luke H. "A History of Fort Southwest Point, 1792-1807." The East Tennessee Historical Society's Publications 46 (1974): 19-36.
• Barksdale, Kevin. "The Spanish Conspiracy on the Trans-Appalachian Borderlands, 1786-1789." Journal of Appalachian Studies 13, no. 1/2 (Spring 2007): 96-123. (Replaces Green's obsolete book.)
• Bender, Albert. "Dragging Canoe's War." Military History (January 2012): 68-75. (Use with caution; not peer reviewed.)
• Perdue, Theda. "Race and Culture: Writing the Ethnohistory of the Early South." Ethnohistory 51, no. 4 (Fall 2004): 701-723. (For guidance on terms like "half-breed," "mixed-blood," used in the present article as if their meanings are obvious to everyone. Or see Perdue's short but valuable book, "Mixed-Blood" Indians: Racial Construction in the Early South. University of Georgia Press, 2003.)
• Pesantubbee, Michelene E. "Nancy Ward: American Patriot or Cherokee Nationalist?" American Indian Quarterly 38, no. 2 (Spring 2014): 177-206.

I have not had time to look more closely at the Georgia Historical Quarterly, Tennessee Historical Quarterly, or Alabama Review, three peer-reviewed state history journals.

I'll work through the list as time permits, in order to improve Wikipedia coverage of Cherokee history in general. Of course that includes the present article, in the event that I'm wrong and it can be saved (i.e., we figure out what it is about). HTH. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 00:35, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

What is the subject of your dissertation? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The subject of the article is stated in the first sentence. The time scope of the article is based on how the series of events have been written about since at least 1823, the wars beginning with the American Revolution down to the treaty which ended them finally. The interconnectedness of the northern conflict is likewise not my innovation. As originally written, the article was much longer with a large amount of material covering events post-1794 that has been moved to a more proper location in Chickamauga Cherokee.

As for your complaint about sources being out of date, that is only true if the information is incorrect and has been overturned by more recent sources. It is not and has not. Moore and Foster is a brief version of Goodpasture, whose article was published in Tennessee Historical Magazine. If you really believe Brown isn't helpful, you haven't read it. Evans' articles on Benge and Dragging Canoe are still quoted and used as sources, and given that they ARE the sources, there is no reason not to used them directly except for your prejudice. Green could be augmented by Barksdale, but that's not necessary is the material is accurate. You can't really update the personal journal of a 19th century person (Norton).

Regarding the underused sources, the massacre at Cavett's Station is covered by multiple sources and since that is the main focus of the work about which you are complaining hasn't been used enough, I fail to understand your complaint. Nor is your complaint about Hoig valid, or even understandable unless you just happen to like it. McLoughlin was a source for material that for the most part was moved to Chickamauga Cherokee, though its first chapter did deal with the last years of the wars.

The "missing" books and the fact that they are missing is only relevant if they have relevant information or if they have better information that overturns previously published information.

Fort Southwest Point, established only in 1793, had little with the wars which ended with the Treaty of Tellico Blockhouse, though later in the decade and the first two of the next century its garrison was quite large. True, Sevier's troops built a blockhouse there in November 1792, but that was long after hostilities affected the area that far northeast.

If you're really looking to make a mark, do an article on the Indian wars in the Old Southwest, of which these events were a part. This article focuses primarily on the conflicts between the Cherokee and the frontier settlers, and demonstrating the involvement of international powers. There were, however, conflicts involving the Muscogee, the Choctaw, the Seminole, the Chickasaw, the Shawnee, the Delaware, and other tribes/nations in the Old Southwest, a term which covers everything south of the Ohio River to Spanish Florida, west of the Blue Ridge and the State of Georgia, and east of the Mississippi. In fact, "Indian Wars and Warriors of the Old Southwest" is the title of Goodpasture's article. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 17:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

By the way, regarding my alleged "ownership", the article's current title was not my choice. I specifically did not make it a proper noun but acquiesced when someone else did so. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your complaint about Pesantubbee's article not being referenced, Nancy Ward's sole contributions to these events were the two times she betrayed the Cherokee plans to the Americans, both of which are described and referenced. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Had you bothered to look at the Sources, you would have seen that there is only one listing for American State Papers: Indian Affairs, Volume 1. There is no basis upon which to question which volume or what series a citation of the ASP comes from since this is the only listing in Sources. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Fine, Chuck; if readers can't find the cited work by referring to the note, it's their fault for not bothering "to look at the Sources." It's not as if we are writing for a global audience, right? Anyone who doesn't already know that American State Papers is composed of several topical series, and that the correct series name and volume number must be somewhere within the article text, is too ignorant to live. (Pardon my sarcasm; I know it's not helpful.)

Sources:' FWIW, I have no "complaint" about sources not being used; I have suggestions for further research. After all, more recent works have a larger body of evidence to draw on, as well as a more balanced approach to both Cherokee and U.S. perspectives. By contrast, earlier historians wrote from a serenely white supremacist perspective, in which white people were civilized, Cherokees were either savage or barbarous (or at best, "civilized" to the extent that they ordered their households and farms in a manner approved by white people), and all Indians were destined to disappear Real Soon Now. This is why the doings of white frontiersmen play such a prominent role in these histories, as they do in this article. Earlier historians also had only the most rudimentary grasp of Cherokee language, culture, and beliefs, yet they often made confident categorical pronouncements on these topics. More recent work is not infallible — histories never are — but they are much more reliable.

Just as the article on heat does not cite 19th-century works on caloric theory — which was "true" in 1823 — any article on Cherokee history should not rely on sources grounded in obsolete historical science (as the Library of Congress calls them). Even for the narration of events, a source like Old Frontiers should be compared with other accounts, not accepted as definitive because it is old.

Title: The move discussion closed before I got around to proposing a move to Cherokee War of 1776. As best I can tell, that is the name most contemporary historians use, followed by Second Cherokee War (which already redirects here). You have expressed contempt for Cherokee War of 1776, apparently because you thought the name implies that the war began and ended in that year. A Google Books search would be a good way to test that assumption.

Next step: I will look for opinions from other editors about the name and scope of this article. I think that an article deletion request, as Jenks24 suggested above, would be too radical, as we do need a proper article on what historians call the Cherokee War of 1776, and we might as well build it out of these materials. If you are very attached to the article text as it is, you can always copy it to userspace, and/or to an alternative outlet.

Anyway, Chuck, there will be no point in anyone else trying to collaborate on this article as long as you revert most edits not written by you. Many of your remarks on this page imply unawareness of the basic principles and etiquette guiding the development of Wikipedia. I assume you have not yet gotten around to familiarizing yourself with them. Please take a moment to review WP:5P now. I would consider it a favor. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 18:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

In truth, Rob, the article is much shorter than it used to be, by about a third. Most of that material is now elsewhere on Wikipedia in other articles. Many of you "edits" were ill-considered, such as taking out the Massacre of the Kirk family, which was the reason for the murder of the (peaceful) Cherokee chiefs, which was one of the major incidents of the wars. Perhaps if you had actually read the article you might have noticed that.

I think having a separate article on the Cherokee War of 1776 is a good idea. There used to be an article called Second Cherokee War, but another editor merged that one with this article. There is more than enough material here and elsewhere to provide an even better picture of those events than with that as simply a section of a larger article. However, reducing this article to that won't happen because it is not only inaccurate but a lie. While there are certain aspects of the events of 1776 that justify isolating them in their own article, in no way did they end the war of the militant Cherokee against the American frontier settlements. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Then you're satisfied with Cherokee-American wars, even though it's a neologism? Would you oppose moving this to Cherokee War of 1776 with a new lede? — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 22:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly more accurately descriptive than the previous title, and it's not a proper noun so therefore not really a neologism.

Yes, moving this whole article, that I would oppose. Though that period is part of the overall series of conflicts, in some respects it does stand on its own and deserves an article on its own, like it had before. To be honest, the previous version, "Second Cherokee War", didn't really amount to much which was why the other editor just merged it into this one. You seem to have enough of an interest in it to make a very worthwhile article. If that were the case, the amount of room that 1776 takes up here could be greatly reduced, like with the section on the Anglo-Cherokee War. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 01:20, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that "Cherokee War of 1776" does not describe a war that ended within a year? (The War of 1812 ended in 1815, you'll recall.) A search of the Google Books database shows that living historians use the term to refer to a war that ended in either 1782 or 1794, depending on how they interpret it — so essentially the same ground as this article. The second most common term is "Second Cherokee War." No one uses "Cherokee-American wars," not even in fiction. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 00:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen that at all. Everyone who writes about the Cherokee War of 1776 cuts it off with the treaties of 1777. Nadia Dean's book, for instance. Or to cite a more academic example, Steven Smith of USC Columbia's article in the Encyclopedia of the American Revolution.

Speaking of which, check out the first review of her book on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Demand-Blood-The-Cherokee-1776/dp/0983113300). Pay special attention to the first paragraph, which reads,in part: "Unless you somehow have a ProQuest subscription, narrative histories of Cherokee involvement during the American Revolution have been difficult to come by...One really has to go all the way back to John P. Brown's 1938 opus, Old Frontiers, to find a proper re-telling of the British-aided Cherokee attacks on frontier settlers and the devastating reprisals led by Gen. Griffith Rutherford and Col. Andrew Williamson. But Brown's work is almost impossible to find, having been out of print for decades (even the reprints from the 1970s tend to go for close to $200 on Amazon these days). In any case, Brown was much more interested in the Chickamauga Cherokee and their extended campaign against the white settlers, which continued for a decade after the American Revolution was over, than he was in the American Revolution proper." That's an accurate assessment and why Brown is such a good source. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess you told me, Chuck. If you've never seen it, it must not exist.

And anonymous reviewers on Amazon are always the last word when it comes to determining the accuracy and rigor of a work of history. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 04:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not always, but in this case, it's an accurate statement. I've been researching in this area for over twenty years. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I did some checking via Google Books and have posted the results at User:Alarob/NameThatWar. I found that:

1. there was no sign of a consensus on how to name these events before the 1980s;

2. the closest thing to a consensus before then was "Second Cherokee War," used e.g. in David H. Corkran's The Creek Frontier (1967).

3. the current preference is for "Cherokee War of 1776," with most authors ending the war in either 1794 or 1782. Nadia Dean is exceptional in picking 1777.

4. "Cherokee War of 1776" is apparently preferred by regional academic presses (e.g. the University of Tennessee Press). It also occurs in:

• encyclopedias,
• an official Tennessee schools textbook (Tennessee through Time),
• top history books such as Anderson & Cayton's Dominion of War,
• and local histories.

Finally, I'll remind you that when this article was called Chickamauga wars (a neologism) for more than six years, that term started showing up in books, most of them cut-and-paste rip-offs of Wikipedia text. It is safe to predict that if we keep it under Cherokee-American wars for a similar length of time, the same thing will happen. This is why Wikipedia has a policy against original research. An encyclopedia does not blaze new trails.

Have you even glanced at the Five Pillars of Wikipedia? It's a quick read. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 17:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Having surveyed the suggested source, Google Books, as you suggested, I found exactly zero sources who treated the "Cherokee War of 1776" as anything other than a conflict which ended with the treaties of 1777 on the first three pages of hits. Some examples are:

• James Swisher, author of Revolutionary War in the Southern Back Country, includes a chapter on the Cherokee War of 1776 that restricts it to later spring 1776 through the treaties of 1777.
• Nadia Dean’s A Demand of Blood restricts the "Cherokee War of 1776" to the same parameters.
• Tom Hatley’s The Dividing Paths: Cherokees and South Carolinians through the Revolutionary Era refers to the period as the Whig Indian War and seems to regard Dragging Canoe’s secession as the end of it.
• The Encyclopedia of North American Indian Wars treats the Cherokee War of 1776 as restricted to the afore-mentioned parameters.
• K.M Tiro, in the “Amibvalent Allies” section of Strategy in the American War of Independence: A Gl: A Global Approach treats the “Cherokee War of 1776” as being limited to the actions and counter-actions in 1776, ended by the treaties of 1777.
• The Encyclopedia of American Indian Wars, 1492-1890 calls it the “Cherokee Campaign of 1776”, limited to those same parameters.
• The North Carolina Experience: An Interpretive and Documentary History says explicitly that the “Cherokee War of 1776” ended with the treaties of 1777.
• Treaties with American Indians: An Encyclopedia of Rights, Conflicts, and Sovereignty doesn’t mention the Cherokee invasion of Upper East Tennessee at all and restricts the “war” to the time ending with the treaties of 1777.
• The brief mention of the “Cherokee War of 1776” in Catawba Nation: Treasures in History deals with the conflict as restricted to the above parameters.
• In The War for Independence and the Transformation of American Society, Henry Ward treats the “Cherokee War of 1776” as if it is restricted to those same parameters.
• In American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly, Francis Paul Pruscha ignores Dragging Canoe entirely and treats the Cherokee War of 1776 as ending with the treaties of 1777. He also makes the egregiously mistaken claim that the Muscogee were the only Southern Indians who stayed with the British throughout the Revolution.
• In his Historical Dictionary of the American Revolution, Terry Mays refers to the above-mentioned period as the “Cherokee Campaign of 1776” and treats the period from the outbreak to the treaties of 1777 as being inclusive of that campaign.

I see no reason to continue. Your claim that the term "Cherokee War of 1776" covers the time through 1783 or 1794 just doesn't hold up. However, I have discovered a source for the events of 1776 as they happened in the Carolinas, so thank you. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

You are certainly reading some of these sources differently than I am. I just checked my copy of Hatley's The Dividing Paths, and I find that his treatment of the "Indian War of 1776" (or "Whig Indian War" as he chooses to call it in a chapter title) referred at the time to the 1776 campaign, but Hatley discusses it together with seven campaigns, by his count, that followed between 1776 and 1782. In a subsequent chapter on the Chickamauga, he makes the point again, while linking the 1776 events to Dragging Canoe and the protracted Chickamauga resistance.

"The 'Indian War' of 1776 stands apart from the seven major campaigns and the numerous rear-guard actions against the tribe which were to follow in its wake. However, the post 1776 campaigns probably had a cumulative physical impact on the tribe which far surpassed that of the first 'Indian War.'" (p. 226)

It was patriotic American historians who found a special significance in the 1776 campaign and defined it as a discrete event. (p. 197)

Of course the article on the 1776 war should report each opinion on when the war ended. I'm not trying to colonize "your" article.

In fact, Hatley's index has a single entry for "Cherokee War" that specifies a date range of only 1769-81, but sub-entries refer to events from outside that range. And of course his dates don't match those of Wikipedia's Anglo-Cherokee War article. What is becoming clear to me is that historians struggle to define periods (named wars) within an era of almost uninterrupted conflict.

This suggests that the present article might serve well as a way to tie together articles like Anglo-Cherokee War and Cherokee War of 1776 by saying more about the continual conflict. Maybe this is something like what you have been trying for all along, and it may explain why the article kept growing until recently.

I am still concerned about the name, which will be taken as a formal name, whether "wars" is capitalized or not. I also remain confused about the scope of the article. And I continue to think that ownership is a problem.

What would you say to requesting a third opinion on this? — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 22:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

The name "Cherokee War of 1776" is worse, because it then lends credence to the notion that hostilities ended after the treaties and that subsequent action falls along the lines of frontier police work. There's is a wealth of information available that there was no room for here, and that, frankly, I'm not as up on as I am the overall picture of the two decades (more or less) that the Cherokee (and others) were fighting the frontier colonists.

And no, I have no interest in further discussion about the name, because that is what the RM discussion was all about. An administrator closed the discussion after nearly a month and moved the article to its current location, end of story. I really do believe that there should be a separate article focusing on and centered around the events of the Cherokee War of 1776 and wholeheartedly support any effort toward that. Applying that designation to the entire series of actions from that time through 1794, or even 1783, would not be accurate, though. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 18:47, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Chuck, I do see your point, and I can see how this article (under a different name that does not imply a formally named war or wars) can fit into the mix of articles on Cherokee military history, Cherokee War (disambiguation), the Western Confederacy, and the history of southern U.S. states, among other topics.

I am frustrated by the difficulty of collaborating with you, a difficulty that I suspect has driven off other would-be contributors. Based on the page history, you have a strong urge to revert, sometimes of edits that you afterward accept.

When I pose a question, you seem to evade answering, perhaps because you don't perceive a question. For example, when I asked about seeking a third opinion, you only expressed your opposition to reconsidering the article name. You opposed changing the name to Cherokee War of 1776, failing to notice that I was expressing agreement with you that this article should not be moved to that name.

I've asked you to read WP:5P and I've mentioned WP:OWN, as have others. Let me quote the latter policy:

All Wikipedia content − articles, categories, templates, and other types of pages − is edited collaboratively. No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though he or she is the owner of a particular article.

Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

Once you have posted it to Wikipedia, you cannot stop anyone from editing text you have written. As each edit page clearly states:

Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone

Similarly, by submitting your ideas (for article organization, categorization, style, standards, etc.) to Wikipedia, you allow others to challenge and develop them.

Please have a look at the rest of the article. When you describe how you permitted others to make significant changes to the article, you are expressing a sense of ownership. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 14:30, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

When you asked what I thought about getting a third opinion, I thought you meant about the name of the article (about which you had just prior expressed concern about), and based on that I did answer (what I thought was) your question. Maybe I should have pointed out that if the consensus as discerned by the administrator that the article be named "Cherokee War of 1776" I might have expressed by disagreement but would nevertheless now be defending that choice.

Regarding the scope of the wars, Goodpasture, for instance, included more than just the Cherokee with his title "Indian Wars of the Old Southwest". Too many writers focus almost entirely on the Cherokee during the Revolution to the almost total exclusion of the other five major Southern tribes, each of which has its own story to tell. Especially in the case of the Muscogee.

Speaking of which, there is the entanglement of the Southern Indians fighting both as allies of the British in the Revolution and for their own reasons during that same period.

Unless you are being deliberately obtuse, I fail to see how you can not understand the scope of the article since it is stated explicitly in the opening section, more so since I revised it. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I made one edit to the lede in the last 24 hours. You reverted it. Here are the diffs:

• My edit, where I redirected your [[Southwest Territory|Old Southwest]] wlink to Old Southwest. My comment: Old Southwest is not identical with Southwest Territory
• Your revert. Your comment: That's how several writers have used the term, Goodpasture for instance.

Yet the Wikipedia articles Old Southwest and Southwest Territory do not use it that way. (Neither does this, this, this, etc., etc.) Even the venerated Albert Virgil Goodpasture (1855-1942) never used the term as you suggest, from what I can determine. I suggest that you have confused Goodpasture's phrase "the old Southwest Territory" with "the Old Southwest." (See his article, "William Blount and the old Southwest Territory", American Historical Magazine vol. 8 (1903): 1-13 and other similar references to the territory that would become Tennessee.)

It's an understandable error, and we all make them. The trouble is that your revert-happy conduct tends to enshrine your errors while driving off the community of editors that would otherwise collaborate to catch everyone's errors and improve the article. Have you read WP:5P yet? — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 19:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"Indian Wars and Warriors of the Old Southwest" is the title of Goodpasture's lengthy series in the four issues of the fourth volume of Tennessee Historical Magazine. He wrote "...of the Old Southwest", not "...of the Old Southwest Territory". Also, I have encountered the term numerous times in articles and among other articles by several sources because at the time of the wars in question, the Upper South, as it is in Wikipedia, WAS the "Southwest". American territory then stopped at the Mississippi River. The reason Goodpasture and others used the phrase Old Southwest, besides the fact that many of the events in question took place beyond the borders of the 1796 State of Tennessee, is that when studying those events they use reference terms from that period. You yourself edited out a reference I made to "West Tennessee". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Here's an example that's a little less Paleo: The Old Southwest, 1795-1830: Frontiers in Conflictby Thomas Clark, published 1996. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The State of Alabama Department of Archives and history refers to the area in question (between the Ohio River and the 31st parallel, from the Appalachians to the Mississippi) as the "Old Southwest". Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

What about Archibald Henderson's The Conquest Of The Old Southwest: The Romantic Story Of The Early Pioneers Into Virginia, The Carolinas, Tennessee And Kentucky 1740 To 1790? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There's also Constance Lindsey Skinner's Pioneers of the Old Southwest: A Chronicle of the Dark and Bloody Ground (Yale University Press, 1921). Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

And then there's Democracy's Lawyer: Felix Grundy of the Old Southwest, by Roderick Heller (LSU Press, 2010). Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, there's always The Emergence of the Cotton Kingdom in the Old Southwest: Mississippi, 1770-1860, by John Hebron Moore (LSU Press, 2008). Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Chuck — I'm not saying there was no such thing as the Old Southwest. I'm saying it is not the same thing as the Southwest Territory, later the State of Tennessee. Your edit elided the difference, then you reverted my correction. Now you lecture me about the definition of Old Southwest. Are you trolling? — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 22:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

As well as Humor of the Old Southwest by Henning Cohen and William Dillingham, UGA Press 1975.

None of these people are talking about the Southwest Territory or the region now occupied by the states of New Mexico and Arizona. They are instead referring to the entire region, or a large portion of the region, south of the Ohio, north of the 31st, west of the Appalachians, and east of the Mississippi. It was easier to look for books online than go through all the sources discussing the wars of the Cherokee and look for occasions where the term has been used in that manner and cite page. Yes, most of the events in the Cherokee wars took place within the current boundaries of the State of Tennessee, but not all of them, and to use the term "Southwest Territory" rather than Old Southwest implies that is the case. It would also be an anachronism for the overwhelming majority of the period. If "West Tennessee" is improper because it's an anachronism here, then so would be Southwest Territory. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

In The Companion to Southern Literature: Themes, Genres, Places, People, Movements, and Motifs by Joseph Flora, Lucinda Hardwick MacKethan, and Todd Taylor (LSU Press, 2001), the entry for Old Southwest begins: "Historians use the term Old Southwest to describe the frontier region that was bounded by the Tennessee River to the north, the Gulf of Mexico to the South, the Mississippi River to the west, and the Ocmulgee River to the east." Historically speaking, "Old Southwest" is the best term to use for the area of North America where these events took place. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

For the love of mercy. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 04:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Patriot propaganda erroneous link

The Patriot propaganda section of this article contains a link which was formatted as such: [[Washington District, North Carolina|Washington District|Alabama|Mississippi|Mississippi Territory]]. It's unclear to me from the context what the correct link(s) is/are supposed to be. I have separated it out into three links for now (Washington District, Alabama, and Mississippi Territory); please review and make any adjustments necessary. tubedogg (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal: Synopsis re-write

I would edit, but I don't know enough about the subject to do so. The synopsis is very unclear, due to several rambling run-on sentences, some of which seem to relate only tangentially to the subject. Even if accurate, they do not seem to add to the summary.

Most egregiously, what does the sentence (yes, all one sentence)in paragraph five "Dav Weaver whose sons carry the name David Crockett Weaver who lived at the time of fame of old Davy Crockett himself, was affirmed by John Ross at the last Cherokee Council of the Eastern Band of Cherokee while he was a Chief and Chief Thomas Taylor also affirmed that Dav Weaver did not remove from the Chota/Choctaw Territory, the Neshoba Church is still in existence in Citronelle Alabama, the Red Fox Road where the Chocta/Choctaw own their traditional Tribal Lands on land presently held in Trust by the United States Federal Government at the MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians Indian Reservation is noticed by the National Park Service/Department of Interior and the Federal Highway Administration today." mean, and why is it in the middle of the paragraph claiming to sum up the 1776–1783 phase of the wars? I think that sentence should just be removed, but I'm not clear what the author was trying to say. I do note that Dav Weaver shows up nowhere else in the article, though. While not long, I don't think the sentence "History then created a fork." adds any clarity to the paragraph either.

Para two of the article is not as difficult to parse as para five, but I really don't understand what all of the seemingly parenthetical info about the locations of the Apalachee Indian Village, Alexander McGillivray's Home, etc. have to do with the rest of the para, nor why it is needed in a synopsis.

Can someone who knows this subject better than I do please edit for length and clarity?24.96.22.109 (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Second the motion; much of this article reads like tourist-brochure copy. ("Old Davy Crockett himself"??) It needs a thorough audit for fruity and POV passages. Laodah 22:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Alexander McGillivary Reference

I'm not sure what Alexander MvGillivary had to do with the British-Cherokee alliance of 1776. There is an "Old Fort McGillivary" on one of the old maps but it is shown between Malcolm and McIntosh near where the McIntosh Trail terminated. One of the Histories of Mobile, maybe Hamilton's, says that McGillivary's home was on Dog River before he moved to Pensacola where he died and is probably burried. He was allied with most of the warring parties at one time or another, it was just good business. It would be good if you would cite your sources on this so we might understand the reference better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.240.2.125 (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)