African-Native American Genealogy Forum
Re: Lies and Misrepresentations About the freedmen
In Response To: Re: Lies and Misrepresentations About the freedmen ()
The Seminoles were mixed from different tribes, one of which included Creeks. I know that the Creeks had a horrible practice of enslaving Africans. There is no disputing that. Given that some of the Creeks chose not to move to Oklahoma and moved south to Florida, there is no doubt that they had slaves. Given the different people from different tribes, there is no historical dispute to what you keep pointing out - some Seminoles did own slaves during the Colonial period of Dutch, English, and Spanish settlements. Again, I was referring to the election and the latter years of the Seminole Wars (1830s and beyond) in which some of the Africans had clearly become Seminole warriors and became prominent because of their success in battles (Dade Massacre,etc). This part of history cannot be denied either. Some of the modern Seminoles in Florida are clearly part African. I have seen them myself. They weren't excluded like the part-African Seminoles in Oklahoma in 2000.
As for Apaches, there was a slave trade on them for hundreds years in Colonial Spain then Mexico. Scalps were worth 100 pesos for a male, 50 for a female, and 25 for a child. Apache slaves escaped very often, so the King of Spain ordered them moved to Cuba. Whereas the slavery of Africans ended in the Civil War, a slave trade was still held on Apaches well into the 1880s. See "Victorio and the Mimbres Apaches" by Dan Thrapp. The government also employed the Buffalo Soldiers to fight them. So this is a case where African soldiers took the side of whites to promote Manifest Destiny against Apaches. The Africans are not always innocent either. There are also historical instances where Africans owned other Africans as slaves or helped with the slave trade in Africa. History is complicated and imperfect as you keep pointing out.
Messages In This Thread