sábado, 19 de julio de 2008

Kikapuaki





















El Actual jefe Chakoka


En el idioma kikapú se usa kikapua para una persona, y kikapuaki para varias personas.
En Muzquiz, Coahuila en el año de 1859 se estableció una reservación para el grupo étnico kikapu y de acuerdo a un decreto emitido por el Presidente Benito Juárez, los kikapus son tribus migratorias que fueron desalojadas de la ahora poderosa Chicago, su nombre se deriva de ki-wika-pa-wa que quiere decir “ los que andan por la tierra errando”. En el XII Censo General de Población se registraron tan solo 125 personas viviendo en la zona conocida como Nacimiento y con datos de la Comisión Nacional de Pueblos Indígenas (CDI) trata de rescatar las costumbres y la historia de este pueblo aguerrido que era vigilante de las famosas carretas que traían a los pioneros de estas tierras y que continuamente eran atacados por apaches y comanches en el amplio territorio conocido como Coahuiltejas (actualmente Coahuila y Texas), la CDI presentó en la localidad el 28 de junio pasado, la monografía de la tribu Kikapu, elaborada por la alemana Elisabeth Mager Hois (esto para demostrar que los antropólogos mexicanos poco se ocupan realmente de hacer investigaciones sobre nuestras diferentes etnias), su obra esta organizada de esta forma, Mager Hois, Elisabeth A. Kikapú / -- México : CDI, 2006.55 p. : mapas., fots. – (Pueblos indígenas del México contemporáneo), Incluye bibliografía ISBN 970-753-079-01. KIKAPÚ – HISTORIA 2. KIKAPÚ – UBICACIÓN GEOGRÁFICA 3. INDIOS DECOAHUILA – KIKAPÚ 4. EL NACIMIENTO, COAHUILA 5. MEDIO AMBIENTE – ELNACIMIENTO, COAHUILA 6. KIKAPÚ – DEMOGRAFÍA 7. KIKAPÚ – ACTIVIDADESECONÓMICAS 8.AGRICULTURA – KIKAPÚ 9. GANADERÍA – KIKAPÚ 10.ARTESANÍAS KIKAPÚ 11. JORNALEROS 12. ALCOHOLISMO 13. DROGADICCIÓN14. KIKAPÚ – ORGANIZACIÓN POLÍTICA 15. KIKAPÚ –ORGANIZACIÓN SOCIAL 16.VIVIENDAS KIKAPÚ 17. CICLO VITAL – KIKAPÚ 18. KIKAPÚ – RITOS YCEREMONIAS 19. KIKAPÚ – VIDA SOCIAL Y COSTUMBRES 20. KIKAPÚ (LENGUA)21. KIKAPÚ – RELIGIÓN Y MITOLOGÍA




Los verdaderos Americanos del Nor-Este y Medio-Oeste, antes de ser despojados y desalojados de sus Territorios

Chippewas 2. Menominees 3. Winnebagos 4. Illinois 5. Potawatomis 6. Sauk 7. Fox 8. Mascutes 9. Miami 10. Shawnees 11. Kikapoo (muy estudiados por Juan Adrián Cerda de la Torre) 12. Algonquines 13. Nipises 14. Hurones 15. Ottawas 16 Petunes 17 Neutrales 18. Wenros 19. Eries 20. Senecas 21. Cayugas 22. Onondagas 23. Oneidas 24. Mohawk 25. Mahican 26. Delawares 27. Suskehanas 28. Nantikotes 29. varios Algonquinos 30. varios Iroquies 31. Algonquinos 32. Iroquies 33. Abenakies del oeste 34. Abenakies del este 35. Malisete 36. Micmacs 37. Algonquinos





La Tribu de los Illiniweks de Chicago





KIKAPÚ, UNA TRIBU DE LOS GRANDES LAGOS, antes de la llegada de los europeos, los kikapú, habitaban, junto con otros indígenas, en el bosque situado al Noreste de lo que hoy día es el territorio de Michigan, en Estados Unidos; vivían principalmente de la caza de venados y osos. Su vida era semi-sedentaria porque durante el invierno se dedicaban a la caza y durante el verano a la recolección de frutos silvestres, al cultivo de maíz y fríjol, y a la pesca (Rodríguez; 1995, p. 114). Debido a esta diversidad de actividades necesitaban un territorio muy amplio, en especial para la cacería. Además, los límites de su hábitat eran indefinidos, ya que ocupaban la extensión que les permitiera satisfacer sus necesidades. Antes del contacto con los europeos, los kikapú vivían en la Región de los Grandes Lagos, entre el lago Michigan y el lago Erie, al sur del actual estado de Michigan, pero hay indicios de su etnia en Indiana y en Illinois. En el texto se aplica el término “kikapú” indistintamente para el singular y el plural, con objeto de respetar la forma original de la palabra. Para los kikapú, la forma “kikapús” o “kikapúes” representa una castellanización no muy apreciada. En el idioma kikapú se usa kikapua para una persona, y kikapuaki para varias personas. La palabra equivalente en inglés es kickapoo y que se traduce como: LOS KIKAPÚ, UN PUEBLO EN MOVIMIENTO CONSTANTE QUE VIGILA AL MUNDO .La razón de su vida errante está en su nombre mismo: kikapú. La palabra tiene dos ortografías distintas: kikapú (kika-pús o kikapúes) en español, y kickapoo en lengua inglesa. (Embriz y Saldaña; 1993, p. 5). Algunos autores relacionan también este nombre con la palabra kiwigapawa o kiwikapawa, que quiere decir “el que se mueve por aquí o por allá” (Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs; 1910).




El vocero de la tribu kikapú, Makateonenodua, atribuye al término el significado de guardián del mundo: “Nos platican nuestros abuelos que Dios formó el mundo y una pareja de personas para que vigilaran el mundo, el universo. Eso es lo que significa kikapú. Los kikapú son los vigilantes del universo” (Perea; 1996, p. 13). De acuerdo con estas definiciones, los kikapú se representan como un pueblo elegido para vigilar el mundo. Los kikapú pertenecen a la familia lingüística del grupo central de los algonquinos, junto con los siuox y los fox, los miami, los shawnee, los menominos, los peoría, los chippewa, los potawatomi y los ottawa, entre otras etnias. La historia de las tribus norteamericanas se puede resumir como la historia de la expulsión violenta de su territorio, un despojo que llevaron a cabo primero los colonos europeos (franceses y británicos) y después los norteamericanos, quienes escondieron su avidez por la tierra en las líneas de la doctrina del “Destino Manifiesto”. Con él justifica-ron su expansionismo territorial, al considerarse elegidos para predicar el evangelio a los “pueblos salvajes” (Ortega y Medina; 1971, p. 413). Los protestantes aplicaron esta modalidad de colonización con el argumento de que merecían el éxito y la riqueza de las nuevas tierras, porque las cultivaban, a diferencia de los indios, que las tenían ociosas. Migración de la tribu kikapú en la región de Los Grandes Lagos en el momento del contacto con los europeos. Autor: Jesús Manuel Mager Hois, 2004. El periodo de dominio francés (1610 a 1763) se caracterizó por el intercambio comercial de pieles con los nativos y el desplazamiento de las tribus; los sioux (siouanos) y los iroqueses, por ejemplo, avanzaron hacia el territorio kikapú en busca de castores. Por esta razón, los kikapú pidieron a los franceses, a los fox y a los mascouten, por el año de 1650, que los ayudaran a defender su territorio. La ofensiva conjunta de los kikapú y los franceses contra los iroqueses, en 1687, terminó en la época de la Guerra del Rey Guillermo III (1688-1697). Ésta fue una lucha entre franceses e ingleses en la que finalmente los iroqueses fueron empujados hacia el suroeste de los Grandes Lagos. Sin embargo, la tierra liberada entre los lagos Erie y Michigan ya no fue considerada indígena, sino propiedad francesa. Para evitar la matanza, entre 1727 y 1765, los kikapú se desplazaron hacia el sur; llegaron a Illinois, Indiana y Iowa, y se dividieron en diferentes grupos, los cuales mantenían La historia de las tribus norteamericanas un despojo que llevaron a cabo primero los colonos europeos (franceses y británicos) y después los norteamericanos (Wright y Gesick; 1996, pp. 5-7). El grupo de la pradera, o Prairie Band, se estableció en Illinois, y el grupo de Vermillion, al oeste del río Wabash en Indiana (ibid., p. 7). Después, cuando Francia cedió la Luisiana a España en 1763, un grupo menor, bajo el mando del jefe Serena, se trasladó al lado del Mississippi, con lo cual se impuso un límite a los británicos en su expansión colonial; no obstante, este movimiento también constituyó una ayuda para los españoles que estaban cerca de San Louis (Gibson, 1963; p.x). Después de la guerra contra los franceses y los nativos, los británicos se apropiaron del territorio de la Nueva Francia, cuya ocupación fue ratificada por el Tratado de París en 1763; es decir, el sur del río Ohio perteneció a partir de entonces a los ingleses, lo cual despertó la alarma entre los kikapú (ibid.; pp. 21-25) y entre las demás tribus de los Grandes Lagos, sobre todo por la discriminación de que eran objeto. La emigración en el territorio kikapú empezó cuando los ingleses, entre 1735 y 1763, llegaron hasta el valle de Ohio buscando un nuevo camino comercial que pasara por Illinois hacia Luisiana, y ofreciendo productos más baratos que los franceses, como el brandy y las armas de fuego. Como respuesta a esta invasión británica (1763-1771), en el año 1762 los kikapú se unieron al movimiento panindio de Pontiac, jefe de los ottawa que seguía las enseñanzas del profeta Neolin, pues dicho movimiento representaba una unión de las tribus de los Grandes Lagos contra los soldados británicos.
Sin embargo, sobrevino una catástrofe: los guerreros indios se contagiaron de viruela. Este brote epidémico explica la conducta del comandante Amherst al expresar al oficial Henry Bouquet su táctica: “Usted haría un gran favor al contagiar a los indígenas con cobijas infectadas, y aplicar cualquier método para exterminar a esta raza horrible“(Josephy; 1996, p. 257). Esto fue un antecedente de las nuevas epidemias desarrolladas en Fort Detrick contra los mexicanos y otros más que quieren controlar con temas de exterminio. A pesar de estas vicisitudes, los kikapú no cejaron en su lucha contra los europeos y, posteriormente, contra los estadounidenses.En 1783, cuando entraron los colonos al territorio kikapú, la autonomía de este pueblo se vio amenazada, al igual que la de muchas otras tribus. Tras sufrir diversos tipos de vejaciones que incluían desde varias formas de tortura hasta el asesinato, en 1786 una delegación de guerra formada por un grupo de entre 400 y 700 kikapú y miami juraron matar a todos los estadounidenses; así, unos 300 guerreros de los kikapú junto con otros de diferentes tribus del noroeste, y bajo las órdenes de sus líderes Little Turtle y Blue Jacket, vencieron en batallas a los invasores norteamericanos en las cercanías de Fort Wayne, Indiana, en 1790, y del río Wabash en 1791. En estas batallas murieron 623 oficiales de Estados Unidos, mientras que del lado de los nativos sólo se registraron 21 bajas, las películas de Hollywood ponen siempre los números al contrario, lo mismo sucede en las guerras modernas como en Irak. El sabor de la victoria les duró poco, ya que el ejército norteamericano se fortaleció con la llegada de nuevos inmigrantes europeos. Ante una amenaza de 2, 200 soldados estadounidenses, Little Turtle se rindió. Los indios atacaron sin esperar las órdenes de Blue Jacket, lo cual entre los maltratos a las victimas se practicaba el scalp, que no es otra cosa que arrancarle la cabellera a la víctima. Los scalps o cueros cabelludos eran considerados trofeos indios, pues significaban literalmente poseer la cabeza de un enemigo.

La caravana de las lágrimas
Pintado por Robert Lindneux, La caravana de las lágrimas refleja la emigración forzada de los indios norteamericanos, entre 1831 y 1835, desde el este de Estados Unidos al Territorio Indio, en Oklahoma. Entre las tribus que se vieron obligadas a hacer el viaje a pie estaban los cherokee, los creek, los choctaw y los chickasaw. Muchos murieron durante este largo y duro viaje.





La derrota decisiva sucedió en Fallen Timbres (1794). Esta derrota ocasionó la pérdida de dos tercios de su territorio, lo cual quedó registrado en el Tratado de Greenville (1795). El 30 de julio de 1819 se negoció una estrategia con los kikapú de Illinois en el Tratado de Edwardsville, y el 30 de agosto del mismo año se intentó convencer a los kikapú del río Wabash, mediante el Tratado de Fort Harrison, para que ambos grupos abandonaran su territorio en Indiana e Illinois, a cambio de tierras al lado del río Osaga en Missouri (Gibson; 1963, p. 80). Además, según el Tratado de Castor Hill, de 1832, los kikapú tenían que entregar la titularidad del territorio de Osage River en Missouri, a cambio de Missouri River, cerca de Fort Leavenworth en Kansas (Kappler; 1963, pp. 365-367) con una reducción drástica de su territorio, de 2 millones 48 mil a 768 mil acres (Gibson; 1963, p. 111). Este periodo del traslado al oeste del Mississippi se conoce como el “camino de las lágrimas”, en el cual “hombres, mujeres y niños fueron despiadadamente asesinados, mientras trataban de cruzar el gran río” (Nevins y Steele; 1994, p. 185). Los kikapú de Illinois, bajo el mando de Mecina, rehusaron desplazarse al otro lado del Mississippi, argumentando que no podían dejar la tierra donde estaban enterrados los huesos de sus antepasados. Por eso, varios kikapú se unieron a la resistencia de Black Hawk, jefe de los sioux, con el fin de enfrentarse a los norteamericanos. Sin embargo, cuando su jefe y 150 guerreros fueron capturados, se perdió la última esperanza de resistencia. Como consecuencia del desplazamiento territorial, la estructura económica de la tribu cambió, ya que su vida de cacería quedó limitada a la extensión de la reservación de Kansas, sobre todo cuando una gran parte de su territorio fue parcelada y vendida a los promotores del ferrocarril y a los especuladores de la tierra.


El nombre del río Mississippi proviene, según White Water, de la palabra kikapú mesecipue y significa “río grande”; “Chicago” se deriva de la palabra kickapú chicagua. En 1854, se autorizó a la compañía Transwestern Railroad que atravesara la reservación kikapú en Kansas. Sin embargo, este tratado fue declarado fraudulento, porque no había sido firmado por los jefes de la tribu, sino por personas sin autoridad para hacerlo; además, se había presionado a la población para que firmara, con la amenaza de traer tropas al territorio kikapú (Gibson; 1963, pp. 130-133). Aunque el acuerdo fue suspendido por el presidente Abraham Lincoln y el Congreso de Estados Unidos en 1863, el reparto de la tierra prosiguió, en especial por la llegada de nuevos colonos y la construcción de una carretera que cruzaba la región (Nelson; 1975, pp. 38, 41). De esta manera, los kikapú, ahora con actividades seminómadas, terminaron convirtiéndose en agricultores sedentarios. Además, la moral del grupo decayó al percatarse de que se intentaba asimilarlos culturalmente por medio de misioneros, fraudes y corrupción de los historias de resistencia y exterminio: Éxodo a México.
Los indios de Coahuila durante el siglo XIX. Coahuila. Autora: Martha Rodríguez, 1995.INI / CIESAS, p.131. Los colonos y empresarios de ferrocarril que mataban a los búfalos y ofrecían alcohol a los desesperados indígenas. El grupo se dividió y los de tendencias más guerreras no estuvieron de acuerdo con la vida sedentaria de los de espíritu más pacífico, que eran seguidores del profeta Kennekuk, de modo que decidieron buscar su libertad, primero en Texas y luego en Coahuila, México. Así las cosas, los kikapú, junto con un grupo de indios seminoles y mascogos, bajo el mando del jefe seminol Wild Cat, hicieron una petición al Gobierno Mexicano en 1850 para obtener tierra en este país a cambio de defender su frontera norte contra los ataques de comanches y apaches. En julio de 1850, 800 seminoles negros y kikapú cruzaron el río Bravo cerca de Eagle Pass, con sus jefes Wild Cat, John Horse y Papequah, en espera de 70 mil acres de tierra en México (Gesick; 1994, p. 171).




























“En 1852 los kikapú fueron ubicados en un lugar llamado La Navaja, del que pidieron ser trasladados porque la tierra no era suficientemente productiva esto esta narrado en la entrevista del presidente Lázaro Cárdenas con Oscar Sukwe y se encuentra en el Archivo del Museo de Múzquiz, Coahuila, 1938. En 1859, en respuesta a su petición, fueron ubicados en las tierras de El Nacimiento, expropiadas al terrateniente Carlos Sánchez Navarro” (Dardón; 1980, p. 2). Benito Juárez otorgó a la tribu kikapú sus tierras comunales en una concesión definitiva en 1859, con una dotación de 3 510 hectáreas. Durante el mandato del presidente Lázaro Cárdenas, el territorio llegó a tener 7 022 hectáreas, debido a que se les otorgó tierra ejidal para el ganado (Gesick, 1994, p. 171; Rodríguez, 1995, p. 119; Embriz y Saldaña, 1993, p. 12).Los kikapú fueron reconocidos como guerreros valientes, pero también temidos por las otras tribus. En ese entonces, como el Gobierno Mexicano necesitaba que alguien protegiera su frontera contra apaches y comanches, los kikapú recibieron el encargo de hacerlo. Por ejemplo el 10 de enero de 1841, el periódico El Voto de Coahuila, informaba de un ataque relámpago de cerca de 1000 comanches a la ciudad de Saltillo (Zócalo, Línea del Tiempo, Comanches atacan a Saltillo, 5 de julio del 2008, pagina 2C). Por otro lado, como había colonos tejanos que robaban tierras a los kikapú, éstos se vengaron desollando a algunos y hurtándoles los caballos. Los colonos se quejaron de los ataques kikapú y pidieron ayuda al gobierno de Estados Unidos. Otro caso muy mentado fue el del Indio Vitorio, un aguerrido jefe comanche cuyo padre era de Castaños, área metropolitana de Monclova (Zócalo de Piedras Negras, La Línea del Tiempo, El Indio Cautivo de Castaños, Otto Schober, 11 de julio del 2008, pag 2C). Desde esa época empezaron las negociaciones con los kikapú de México para que regresaran a la reservación de Estados Unidos. Después de una respuesta negativa, “el 19 de mayo de 1873, Mackenzie, sin respetar las leyes mexicanas, cruzó el río Bravo por El Moral y atacó por sorpresa a los kikapú radicados en El Remolino, Coahuila” (Gibson; 1963, p. 124). La táctica fue, como en casos anteriores, el ataque por sorpresa: el asalto se produjo el 18 de mayo de 1873, cuando “los guerreros habían salido de caza desde el día anterior [y] en la villa sólo se encontraban los ancianos, las mujeres y los niños.”
Se trató de una lucha contra indefensos,{recuerden la táctica de Uribe contra los estudiantes mexicanos en Ecuador}, cuyo resultado fue la muerte de los que se resistieron y la captura de los demás. En total, 40 mujeres y niños fueron capturados y secuestrados. El 15 de mayo de 1873, algunos kikapú cruzaron el río Bravo hacia San Antonio y después hasta el Indian Territory, por temor a que la tribu intentara recuperar a los cautivos. Para reunirse con sus mujeres e hijos, 317 kikapú salieron de Santa Rosa, antes así se llamaba Muzquiz y era una Misión y una cárcel para políticos del régimen , y se trasladaron a Estados Unidos, donde los prisioneros de Fort Gibson, una reservación en el Indian Territory, les dieron la bienvenida, el 20 de diciembre del mismo año. Los kikapú aceptaron esa reservación como su nuevo hogar. Amado Rivera menciona, al respecto, la creación en Oklahoma de una nueva reservación para los kikapú, de 200 mil acres, en 1883. En 1891, esa tierra se subdividió en parcelas de 80 acres para cada kikapú, y el resto se vendió a personas que no eran indígenas, “aunque dos tercios de la tribu no aceptaron el acuerdo” Makateonenodua, vocero de la tribu, dice que los kikapú no tienen ningún problema en ningún lado de la frontera. “Ni de aquí para allá, ni de allá para acá, porque, estando allá, el gobierno estadounidense te protege y, estando aquí, también el mexicano. [...]

Los kikapúes son ciudadanos mexicanos y estadounidenses, pues fundaron lo que es el territorio de Estados Unidos y también fueron de los primeros pobladores que vinieron a México. [...] Los gobiernos se hablaron, chocaron las manos y dijeron: si pasa para tu territorio, cuídalo” (Perea; 1996, p. 13). El derecho de cruzar la frontera sin pasaporte se debe a que los kikapú están protegidos, según lo asienta el Documento de Fort Dearborn, autorizado por William Whittle el 28 de septiembre de 1832, para facilitar el contacto entre los diferentes grupos kikapú de Estados Unidos y de Coahuila. “Se certifica en el número 37 que las familias de los indios kikapú están protegidas contra cualquier injuria de parte de cualquier persona, ya que están bajo la protección de Estados Unidos, y quien viole esta disposición será castigado” (Documento de Fort Dearborn, 1832). Este documento fue renovado en su certificación por C.M. Benavides, el 19 de febrero de 1960 en el condado de Maverick, Texas (Eagle Pass, en donde por cierto les permitieron posteriormente instalar un Casino, Lucky Eagle, El 8 de enero de 1983, este proyecto de ley se presentó al Congreso para que se convirtiera en ley, mediante la firma del presidente Ronald Reagan {Mager; 2004, p. 293}. La apertura del casino Lucky eagle fue en julio de 1996, es decir 14 años más tarde, a los kikapú de Texas se les otorgó el derecho de abrir un casino en su tierra federal, debido a que tenían el crédito de una compañía financiera y el consenso de la tribu). Según los comentarios de algunos kikapú, en 1998 se agravaron la situación migratoria y económica por eso se les pide también el pasaporte.





Los grupos de Kansas y Coahuila son de la misma familia y comparten su cosmovisión; por esta razón se visitan con frecuencia y celebran las fiestas en conjunto, una vez en Jones, Oklahoma, y otra vez en El Nacimiento. Los kikapú se ubican en el ejido de El Nacimiento, situado en el municipio de Melchor Múzquiz, Coahuila; aproximadamente a una hora en auto de la ciudad de Múzquiz, que es la cabecera municipal. Este ejido tiene una extensión de 7 022 hectáreas; aunque en tiempo de lluvias es difícil cruzar el río Sabinas. El Nacimiento de los Kikapú se ubica en la zona carbonífera, a un poco más de 150 kilómetros desde Piedras Negras, en la frontera norte de México. Colinda con Eagle Pass, Texas, del lado estadounidense. Los kikapú consideran que El Nacimiento es “una nación soberana en una nación”, un país propio en otro país, sin jueces y con otras autoridades. Ellos mandan todavía a los delincuentes a Múzquiz, pero por su propia decisión. Nadie tiene derecho a entrar, excepto cuando ellos lo permiten. Sin embargo, el territorio kikapú no es soberano, sino sólo autónomo, porque no tiene una legislación propia y está integrado al Estado mexicano. Entre semana, los viernes, el gobierno de Texas les permitió organizar una “pulga” o “tianguis” debajo de puente internacional numero 1 que une a Piedras Negras con Eagle Pass, según los últimos censos de población existían en 1995 un total de 2 357 habitantes (Kansas: 478; Oklahoma: 1 104; Texas: 450, y del municipio de Múzquiz: 325) (Velarde y Tiller; 1996, pp. 344, 520, 566; administración kikapú en Kickapoo Village). Es comun encontrar kikapus deambulando por las calles de Eagle Pass y en lugares aislados de El Nacimiento; a lo largo del río Sabinas o por los montes. A los mexicanos se nos olvida del gran cineasta de origen kikapu, Emilio (a) El Indio {kikapu} Fernández, su madre era kikapu y el Indio Fernandez nació en el mineral El Hondo de Sabinas, Coahuila, es el máximo exponente del cine nacionalista mexicano, curiosamente su casa esta en la misma cuadra que la del macrosicario global egresado de Harvard, Carlos Salinas de Gortari y la de la prestigiada economista y fundadora del PRD, Ifigenia Martínez, eso en el bello barrio colonial y cultural de Coyoacan, al sur de la Ciudad de México
Fuentes : Glen Black Laboratory of Archaeology and The Trustees of Indiana University. 2 de octubre del 2000.
http://www.gbl.indiana.edu/archives/dockett_317/317_59g.html
Adicionalmente, información directa obtenida de El Instituto de las Culturas Texanas, de la Hemisferio de San Antonio, y a unos pasos de la Plaza México , en dónde está asentada la UNAM y la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores , llenos de extranjeros como Teresa Fox que influyó para darle el Doctorado Honoris Causa al mayor gangster de Muzquiz, Alonso Ancira . Otra fuente para este articulo fue el Periódico local El Factor de Muzquiz, http://www.elfactor.com/ y obviamente el documento base fue el trabajo académico de Elisabeth Mager Hois, en su presentación en La Casa de la Cultura de Muzquiz, con el Jefe Kikapu Lucio Jimenez y su fabuloso baile del Pow Pow, publicado en El Factor del 10 de julio del 2008 y reporteado por Daniel Gómez Ortiz, paginas 20 y 21, y la CDI o sea la Comisión de los Pueblos Indígenas de México (http://www.cdi.org.mx/) . Éxodo a México. Los indios de Coahuila durante el siglo XIX. Coahuila. Autora: Martha Rodríguez, 1995.INI / CIESAS. Otra fuente mas fue “La Tribu Kikapoo de Coahuila, de Alfonso Fabila, en los Cuadernos Clásicos de la Antropología, Numero 18, con prologo de Rene Aviles Fabila, editado por el Instituto Nacional Indigenista, México,2002.






KIKAPOO

KIKAPOO (KICKAPOO, KIKAPU KICAPUS, KICAPAUX, KICAPOUX, KIKABEEUX, QUICAPAUSE) [KIC] 300
in Mexico (1992 SIL); 539 in USA including 6 monolinguals (1990 census); 839 total, out of 1,500 population including USA
(1987 SIL). Coahuila. Algic, Algonquian, Central. Most speakers spend part of the year in the USA working. 1% literate in
Spanish, 45% in English. Work in progress.

KIKAPOO (KICKAPOO, KIKAPU) [KIC] 539 speakers in the USA, including 6 monolinguals (1990 census); 300 in
Mexico (1990); 839 total out of 1,500 population (1977 SIL). Northeastern Kansas: Horton; central Oklahoma: McCloud,
Jones; Texas: Nuevo Nacimiento. Algic, Algonquian, Central. Possibly intelligible with Sac and Fox (Mesquakie). Language
use is vigorous in Mexico. In Oklahoma some younger people prefer English, and in Kansas most or all speakers are
middle-aged or over. Dictionary. Work in progress.

Ethnologue: Languages of the World
Language Code Lookup
Below is a list of links to all entries for the language identified by the code KIC.
kic
2 item(s) were found:
1. KIKAPOO (Mexico)
2. KIKAPOO (USA)

Part of the Ethnologue, 13th Edition, Barbara F. Grimes, Editor.Copyright © 1996, Summer Institute of Linguistics, Inc. All rights reserved.
Send corrections and updates on the content of the Ethnologue, with your sources, to: Editor.Ethnologue@sil.org
Send questions on how to use this Web presentation of the Ethnologue to: WWW@sil.org
[Countries Names Families Ethnologue Home Page SIL Home Page]



http://maia.cl.au.ac.th/~u3815097/

Site where Texas Militia, Confederate Troops and
Kikapoo Indians fought a battle, January 8, 1865.
Captain N.M. Gillentine and his son W.M. Gillentine
were among18 militia killed along with 4 confederates in
the engagement. 19 militia and confederates were
wounded.

http://mapping.usgs.gov:8888/gnis/owa/MapServer?f_name=Dove+Creek+Battleground&f_state=TX&f_latlong=311952N1003603W&f_ht=.125&server=TIGER


http://mapping.usgs.gov:8888/gnis/owa/MapServer?f_name=Kickapoo+Spring&f_state=TX&f_latlong=310926N1000745W&server=TIGER


Geographic Names Information System Feature Details
Feature Name:
Kickapoo Spring
Feature Type:
spring
State:
Texas
County:
Tom Green
USGS 7.5' x 7.5' Map:
Kickapoo Spring
Latitude:
310926N
Longitude:
1000745W
Show Feature Location using maps produced from the U.S. Census Bureau's Tiger Map Server. If this site is busy, try this alternate map site.
Find the Watershed for this feature using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Surf Your Watershed site.

GNIS Query Form Mapping Information

URL: http://mapping.usgs.gov/www/gnis/GetDetail Maintainer: gnis_manager@usgs.gov Last modified: 15:09:38 Wed 24 Sep 1997 dlg

Consolidated Docket No. 317, Defendant Exhibits 61-171

Dft. Ex. 119

National Archives, RG 107.

P-201(9), p. 3, 4
P-48(9), pp. 1, 2, 3
M-439(9), pp. 1, 2, 3
P-62(9), pp. 1, 2.

National Archives, RG 107.
Secretary of War, Letters Received, P-201(9).

B. Parke to the Secretary of War,
Vincennes, March 27, 1816.
P-201(9), p. 3


Eleven months Since, a Wea chief murdered a Vermillion Kickapoo chief in this place- Under my mediation an accommodation between the tribes was effected- but as the Grand father of the Decd was a Sauk, that tribe, together with the Prairie Kickapoos, have taken up the quarrel; and the Weas are under just apprehensions of an attack from them-

The Wabash Indians are constantly complaining of the non arrival of their annuities- I have frequently informed them that there had not been time to procure and transport them to this place

There are strong reasons to believe that many of the Puttawatamies are hostile- and it is probable that two war parties of that nation are now on their march against the Wabash Settlements. Much of the information I receive may be incorrect, and the Indians may indulge in threats that they will never execute. Fearing however that an incursion may be attempted, I have advised
the Miamis not to visit our Settlements, and employed a few Indian spies to detect the approach of any hostile party-

All the Chiefs who Signed the Treaty of Decr 1809 are dead, except Knoshania or the Otter-

All circumstances considered I thought it would be imprudent to permit the Weas and Vermillion Kickapoos to seperate under an idea that there was no prospect of effecting an amicable adjustment of the controversy- and that in affording an opportunity for that purpose, as little delay as possible should be incured- Whilst I therefore distinctly asserted the right of the U. States to
the land in question, and that it would not be restored to them, I informed them I should refer the subject to a Grand Council of the Miamis, Kickapoos and Delewares, to be assembled at Fort Harrison on the 23d May- under a belief that when they came to consult with their friends they would be convinced of their error, and cheerfully acquiese in the justice of our claim

I would respectfully suggest the propriety of the appointment of a Special Commissioner to attend the Council I have invited


National Archives, RG 107.
Secretary of War, Letters Received, P-201(9).

B. Parke to the Secretary of War,
Vincennes, March 27, 1816.

P-201(9), p. 4




Owing to the manner in which the mail is arranged, I understand there would be some delay in your receiving this letter if conveyed through Governor Posey- the urgency of the case will therefore I hope furnish an apology for addressing myself directly to you
I have the Honor to be very respectfully

Sir

Your obt Servt

B. Parke

The Honble Secretary of War-
Washington City


National Archives, RG 107.
Secretary of War, Letters Received, P-48(9).

Parke, B. to the Secretary of War,
Vincennes, April 3, 1816

P-48(9), p. 1






Vincennes April 3d 1816

Sir,

From the hurry in which my letter of the 27th Ulto was written, some circumstances were omitted, which it may be proper to mention-

Knowing that Harris the Surveyor would not return, unless under the protection of a guard, I told the Indians I should forbid his resuming the survey until the event of the Council I should invite, was known- Harris informs me that there are not exceeding six Townships to survey- That they are situate at the Northern corner of the Tract opposite the mouth of Racoon creek- That the land is not desirealbe and if offerred for sale, very little, if any would be sold for several years- Permit me therefore respectfully to suggest, for the consideration of the President, the propriety of authorising the sale of the lands now surveyed- believing that the country as high as Fort Harrison, & from the Wabash to the Eastern branch of White River would be immediately occupied even under the difficulties & dangers incident to an Indian War- And the measure would demonstrate to the savages the unalterable determination of the Government to settle the Country, notwithstanding any cavil or opposition they might attempt- for sometime past the Indians who resorted to Fort Harrison appeared sullen and morose, and it was especially the case during the late Council. Stone Eater, a Wea Chief, arrived from a distant hunting ground, the second day of the Council, but he did not dissent from the outrageous pretensions advanced by the Indians- A Kickapoo War Chief, a particular friend of the 0tter, and who had been with him during the late winter, came in a few hours before the Council broke up; he was immediately gratified with an opportunity of consulting with the others, and acquiesced in what they had done- I doubt not they entered the council with views similar to those expressed by the Chiefs who first assembled, and that an extensive confederacy is forming, probably already formed, for the purpose of opposing the Government- Altho' I could not learn where the Otter was, I now have good reason to believe that he received my invitation, & purposely absented himself, to furnish an excuse for an attempt at procrastination, as mentioned in my last.


National Archives, RG 107.
Secretary of War, Letters Received, P-48(9).

Parke, B. to the Secretary of War,
Vincennes, April 3, 1816

P-48(9), p. 2




After I had dismissed the Indians some of the Weas speaking of what had been done, observed, that altho' in Council, they had yeilded, with respect to the lands last purchased to the East of the Wabash, they were still determined that the Americans should not inhabit them-

On friday last, a sister of the late Winemack informed Major Morgan that a party of Eight Kickapoos had started for the Embarras settlements, a few miles N.W. of this place- to masacre white people- That as informant, she did not wish her name concealed- That it would generally be known in a few days, and that some of the Kickapoos who disaproved of the enterprise, would probably communicate the same fact- The character of this woman is as good as that of any of the savages- The Warrior said to be at the head of the hostile party, is of the Vermillion Band.

On the subject of the reports of contemplated hostility by different parties of Indians, one or two reflections may occur- Are these reports circulated to prevent the extension of our settlements? The plan is not beyond the depth of Indian policy- Or are the Indians stimulated to circulate these reports, by British Traders and others to prevent competition in trade? The Traders
might suggest, and the Indians at their instance would not hesitate to pursue such a course- But in attempting to account for the change lately manifested, other circumstances may claim attention- The savages consider the people of the U.S. their natural enemies- The mischief and inconveniences resulting to them from the small pox- The use of whiskey and the diminution of game
from the sale of their lands they attribute to them- These are causes always operating to the prejudice of the U. States- Since the Treaty at Detroit, the Indians have been repeatedly advised that England would make war against the U.S. this spring- The prophets party is select, strongly attached to the British, and active in endeavours to excite dissertions- The families and friends of those who were killed during the late war, are still restless and breathing revenge- The Tribes that have not yet treated of peace, are endeavouring to form a confederacy against the U.S. and have informed the Miamies, that they must drive the white people from the land on the Wabash, purchased in 1809- The Puttawatamies & Prarie Kickapoos will probably interpose a claim to the land


National Archives, RG 107.
Secretary of War, Letters Received, P-48(9).

Parke, B. to the Secretary of War,
Vincennes, April 3, 1816

P-48(9), p. 3




between the Illinois & Mississippi- many of the surveyors marks, in that Tract, have been defaced, and the likeness of Indian Warriors a Tomhawk in one hand and a spear in the other, substituted- an intimation that cannot be mistaken- The purchase of lands in 1809, and the consequent intrigues of the prophet, united the Indians for war- The surveying and settlement of the same
lands, may now be used as a pretext for the same purpose- La frambois & others are treading the steps of the prophet, Labossure &c in 1810 & '11; and I doubt not that an hostile feeling actuates the Indians generally from the Wabash to the Mississippi & the Lakes-
I have the Honor to be &c very respectfully

Sir

Your obt servt

B. Parke

The Honble

Secretary at War

Washington City


National Archives, RG 107.
Secretary of War, Letters Received, M-439(9).

Major Willoughby Morgan to the Secretary of War,
Fort Harrison, April 7, 1816.

M-439(9), p. 1




Fort Harrison 7th April 1816

Sir

Since the Counsel held at this place for the purpose of asscertaining the sentiments of the Indians respecting the interruption of the Surveyors. I have conversed with one or two chiefs again upon that subject; and my Opinion with respect to the views and dispositions of the Indians have under gone some change.

They declare it to be their sincere wish to preserve faithfully the relations of peace between the United States and themselves; and are desirous that the difference with respect to the land may be amicably adjusted.

If the Kikapoos can be satisfied that their chiefs signed the treaty of sale knowing its contents I am of opinion that they will acquiesce. This I presume may easily be done; as one of the chiefs who signed the treaty is yet alive, and the interpretor who acted on that occasion resides at Vincennes and may be had at the Counsel contemplated to be held.

The Miamis take a different ground. They alledge that the land did not belong to the Kikapoos- that it belonged to them, and that therefore, the Kikapoos had no right to sell it. If the Kikapoos acquiesce I can scarcely believe that the Miamis will persist in this objection.

I am, therefore, inclined to believe that this affair may be settled without having recourse to arms.

Many reports of the hostility of some of the Indians have been circulated in this quarter; and connected with the interruption of the Surveyors and the unexpected ground assumed by the Indians in Counsel have excited some alarm on the frontiers; but I feel satisfied that the Indians immediately around our borders do not mediate hostility against us. With respect to those at a
distance I know not any thing with respect to their sentiments and feelings at present.


National Archives, RG 107.
Secretary of War, Letters Received, M-439(9).

Major Willoughby Morgan to the Secretary of War,
Fort Harrison, April 7, 1816.

M-439(9), p. 2




The British have very lately sent the Kikapoos and Miamis a belt of wampum with a speech- They advise them to remain at peace- not to kill any of the americans or to steal any of their horses- that if they commenced war again with the americans they would be certainly destroyed- that they were too week to contend with the United States. They advise each of those tribes to
assemble in villages- the Kikapoos somewhere on the Wabash- and the Miamis on the Eel River. This advice those tribes are preparing to persue; and the promptness with which they do so shews the vast influence the British possess over the Indians.

They assign as a reason why they should be altogether in a village- that the more distant tribes might do mischief which, if they were scattered and dispersed, might be attributed to them. I am of opinion that the speeach may have a good effect; for before this some of the Indians seemed to entertain an expectation that war between the United States and the English would
recommence again this Spring.

This Speech was reported to me by a Kikapoo Chief; and the two young Indians who brought it were at this post.



When the Surveyors were interrupted I thought it my duty to communicate it to you in order that a circumstance that appeared to me at that time of very little importance might not be magnified at the Department; and having got into the subject I have been drawn much further than I had anticipated or could wish. Correct information upon this subject- where the title to a large tract of Country has been called in question- cannot I presume but be important to the Government; and an officer residing upon the ground and daily in the habit of converseing with those who controvert that little may be supposed to be better able to give such information than those who reside at a distance. This is the motive for addressing you; together with a wish to qualify an expression of a former communication- that the the display of a considerable military force might be necessary. Further reflection and the conversations I have alluded to induce me to believe that if the Govt persue a mild but a firm course the affair may be


National Archives, RG 107.
Secretary of War, Letters Received, M-439(9).

Major Willoughby Morgan to the Secretary of War,
Fort Harrison, April 7, 1816.

M-439(9), p. 3




settled without a great deal of difficulty.

I had omitted to mention that the Kikapoo chief said he understood that a belt of Wampum with a similar speech had been sent to other tribes
I have the honor to be
very respectfully
Yr Obt H St

Willoughby Morgan
Major Corp




National Archives, RG 107.
Secretary of War, Letters Received, P-62(9) Enc.

Benjamin Parke to Governor Thomas Posey.
Vincennes, April 10, 1816. (copy)
Page 1

P-62(9), p. 1




Vincennes April 10, 1816

Sir

By the 3d article of the treaty of Fort Wayne (7th June 1803) it was stepulated that the tribes who were parties to it should annually receive a quantity of salt, not exceding one hundred & fifty bushels- The Weas & Vermillion Kickapoos have lately reminded me that they expected the salt to which they were intitled under that article.

No injury has yet been done on the frontiers and the little Ducks & others of the Vermillion Kickapoos vehemently deny any knowledge of the warriors of their tribe contemplating the perpetration of mischief.

Enclosed herewith are two Talks delivered on sunday last to Majr Morgan at Ft. Harrison- La frombois is a wea- and the Ducks a Vermillion Kickapoo- It appears that they are still indisposed to yield with respect to the disputed boundary. The Weas & Vermillion Kickapoos are too contemptable to admit of the supposition that this plan of opposition originated with them- The pretension has been advanced under an Idea that they would be countenancd & supported by the other Indians- To the British they appear to listen with complaisance & attention, and promptly acceede to the arrangement proposed by them-
La frombois too has received a belt from the British, advising the Weas to be quiet and not injure the americans- These stories are intended to amuse- are but half told- & the balance may probably be ferreled out in a few days- Lafrombois insenuates that
I acted improperly in selecting the Indians, I intended to invite to the council- I told them that I should send for all the Miamies, the Vermillion Kickapoos, & the Delawars- & as the little Otter of the Prairie, was a particular friend of the Vermillion band, fruquently transacted business with them, & with their own chiefs signed their Treaties, that I should send for him also- but as to
the other chiefs of the Prairie Kickapoos, I should not send for them.- The Vermillion Kickapoos are intruders; but they have for many years been in the quiet possession of the country they inhabit on the Wabash & Vermillion, & may now be considered as the rightfull occupants

Copy of a letter from Judge Parke

P.S. I believe the story of the Squaw- she is of a powerfull


National Archives, RG 107.
Secretary of War, Letters Received, P-62(9) Enc.

Benjamin Parke to Governor Thomas Posey.
Vincennes, April 10, 1816. (copy)
Page 2

P-62(9), p. 2




family- and disregards the Ducks & her squaw- A Kickapoo left the Ft hastely just after she arrived, & I believe gave notice to the war party that was approaching our settlements that they were discovered- I am of opinion that no mischief will be done till the event of the Grand council is over.- I have attended to your instructions, & have no knowledge of any intruders on Indian
lands in this Territory.
B. Parke

Governor Posey

Continue to next page
Continue to Dft. Ex. 120.
Return to Docket 317 Table of Contents
Return to Ohio Valley - Great Lakes Ethnohistory Archive Menu
Return to Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology List of Publications
Return to Glenn A. Black Laboratory of Archaeology Home

Last updated: 27 January 1998
Comments: webmaster@www.gbl.indiana.edu
Copyright 1997, Glen Black Laboratory of Archaeology and The Trustees of Indiana University.


http://www.gbl.indiana.edu/archives/dockett_317/317_59g.html




Por lo tanto estos esfuerzos , aunque crecen con demasiada lentitud , porque la Banca Mexicana no se arriesga a financiar este tipo de desarrollos , ellos solo buscan proyectos de rápida recuperación del capital prestado y el Gobierno de México , no hace nada para presionarlos a que tengan una mayor solidaridad y puede hacerlo y el mismo Congreso de la Unión puede hacerlo , sólo que el Sistema Político , Educativo y Financiero están cargados de Globalización y no les interesa la localidad y menos aún se interesan por la ecología y menos aún por las comunidades índigenas que como los kikapooes hicieron mucho por México y aún por los pioneros americanos que disque conquistaron el Oeste combatiendo a los apaches y los comanches , los pieles rojas , mas indomables a la llamada colonización americana y mexicana , los kikapues , eran respetados por los apaches y comanches, y no se atrevían a incursionar por sus tierras , por lo que los pioneros americanos , pasaban por territorio kikapu , pagando una cuota de protección, y enfilándose hacia Chihuahua , el gran presidente mexicano , Benito Juárez , les otorgó esa enorme región del norte de Coahuila y además los protegió del exterminio yanqui , ya que los kikapues son originarios de la región de Chicago , Illinois y desde allá venían siendo perseguidos y exterminados, sin embargo con el tiempo los americanos les reconocieron sus derechos y les permitieron cruzar la frontera sin pasaporte , así los kikapues , se iban a Chicago en el verano y regresaban a Muzquiz en el invierno , sólo que el Servicio de Inmigración de los EUA (SIN) recientemente , les trató de quitar sus derechos migratorios y los kikapues ,entonces se fueron a vivir debajo del puente internacional de Piedras Negras e Eagle Pass , como manera de protestar por esas decisiones racistas y neoliberales del Gobierno de los EUA , eso desató luchas a su favor y el Estado de Texas ( El Instituto de las Culturas Texanas , en el centro de la Hemisferia , de San Antonio y a unos pasos de la Plaza México , en dónde está asentada la UNAM y la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores , llenos de extranjeros que apoyan mas a los gringos que a los Mexico-Americanos,Mexicanos,Ilegales , e indios como los Kikapooes) ahora les propone que se vayan a vivir definitivamente al lado americano y les da a cambio apoyos económicos , es decir nos los quieren quitar , comprándolos , mientras en México , al saber esto , empezaron las invasiones de paracaidistas urbanos , en los territorios de los kikapues , como se ve , nuestro Gobierno es tan racista como el de EUA , y la gente local no entiende de esto , ni quiere además a los kikapues , ni nuestro cine tan mexicano no recuerda ni apoya el origen del mas grande realizador y director que hayamos tenido , creador de figuras como María Félix , Pedro Armendariz , Dolores del Rio , el gran indio kikapu , Emilio (a) el Indio , Fernández , que nació en el municipio de Muzquiz ,en el poblado de Hondo. Esto es un recordatorio hacia nuestras nuevas generaciones , que no olviden la historia de nuestro país.






Intentan llevar a cabo el programa Orden ComunitarioLa CNI se reúne con kikapús
Funcionarios del Instituto Nacional Indigenista viajaron a la reserva de la tribu Kikapú para plantear el programa de Orden Comunitario
Se habló principalmente de la caza del venado y de los permisos
M. Múzquiz, CoahuilaIntegrantes de la Comisión Nacional Indigenista sostuvieron importante reunión con los altos mandos de la tribu Kikapú ayer, en El Nacimiento, donde se expuso un planteamiento a todos los integrantes de la etnia al respecto de la forma en que pudiera ordenarse el uso de la tierra, la flora y la fauna que habita en el territorio, especialmente el venado.El evento fue convocado y organizado por el Instituto Nacional Indigenista, cuyos integrantes acudieron a la reservación de los indios Kikapú acompañados por funcionarios municipales, para sostener la plática que podría ser la pauta para que florezca la pretensión de las autoridades.Jorge Meléndez, Raúl Humberto López y Alfredo Ramírez Hernández, todos de la Comisión del Instituto Nacional Indigenista, hicieron uso de la palabra para exponer el deseo tanto de la Semarnap como de las diferentes dependencias ecológicas para buscar los acuerdos necesarios con los integrantes de la tribu.Los altos mandos de la tribu Kikapú encabezados por Chakoka Anico, escucharon atentos, inteligentes y a la expectativa los planteamientos que expusieron paso a paso los funcionarios de la dependencia nacional indigenista.El plan llamado Orden Comunitario pretende desencadenar procesos autogestivos de hombres y mujeres de determinada localidad, a través de evaluar sus sistemas ambientales, sociales y productivos que puedan equilibrar la relación sociedad-naturaleza.Breves fueron los comentarios de los integrantes de la etnia, y un tanto indefinible el cómo, el programa que en un momento dado se aplicaría en esta tierra reservada para los Kikapú; principalmente de lo que se habló fue de la caza del venado y los permisos y sólo se acordó que vendrán más reuniones.Alfredo Ramírez Hernández hizo hincapié ante los presentes que la reunión es sólo una de otras que vendrán y donde los Kikapú podrán ponerse de acuerdo con los otros habitantes de la reserva, para que ellos también expongan sus ideas una vez que las analicen.

Pugnan etnias por sobrevivir
Inician acciones para mantener su cultura. El gobierno plantea plan de protección

Guillermina Guillén-El Universal-4 de julio del 2004

En el lobby de un hotel capitalino, Chakoka Aniko, jefe de la tribu kikapoo, increpa a un joven japonés por fumar a su "corta" edad. El muchacho sonriente le explica: "I`m 26 years old" (tengo 26 años), respuesta que provoca la risa inmediata del jefe indio, y da pauta para que ambos inicien una conversación que provoca la curiosidad entre los huéspedes del lugar.
El jefe Chakoka domina tres lenguas igual que la totalidad de su tribu.

Por sobrevivencia, los kikapúes deben conocer el español y el inglés, pues están asociados con sus contrapartes en Estados Unidos en un negocio de casinos, que les da lo justo para subsistir.

Sin embargo, más que los bienes materiales, su existencia es la cuestión más apremiante para estos indios, quienes se encuentran en la lista de los 20 grupos etnolingüísticos que podrían desaparecer de nuestro país, en por lo menos 10 años, de acuerdo con estimaciones oficiales.

Los kikapúes no quieren perder su esencia y, de entrada, se han negado a aceptar escuelas de gobierno porque dicen representan una amenaza a sus tradiciones y a su lengua materna, de modo que, afirma el jefe Chakoka Aniko, su esfuerzo por no dejarse extinguir se ha centrado en este rubro y en una lucha con autoridades ambientales, para que les permitan seguir cazando venados cola blanca, imprescindibles para sus ceremonias sagradas.

En la reserva Kikapoo se habla sólo la lengua madre. Para aprender español, los infantes tienen que ir a Monclova y, posteriormente, en San Antonio, Texas, adquieren sus conocimientos en inglés.

"Yo no tuve escuela para no perder la lengua y las tradiciones", dice el hombre de rostro serio y larga cabellera negra, quien de la bolsa interior de su chaqueta saca un cigarrillo, cruza la pierna y remata: "Y no las vamos a perder mientras yo viva... Hacemos la lucha".

En este nuevo siglo, se estima que unos 5 mil 900 kikapúes, kiliwas, aguacatecos, lacandones, cochimíes, ixiles, pápagos, kumiais, mochós, cucapás, paipais, kakchikeles, quichés, ixcatecos, seris, tlahuicas, jacaltecos, kekchíes, pimas y chochos, están en situación crítica.

"La pérdida de una lengua y de su contexto cultural representa la quema de un libro de consulta único, que nos explique el mundo de la naturaleza... las lenguas indígenas contienen información vital sobre la naturaleza y, perderlas, es perder también el conocimiento sobre los recursos que nos alimentan y alivian nuestras enfermedades" dice el Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente.

Junto a los mexicanos, afirma el organismo, hay unas 2 mil 500 lenguas indígenas que también agonizan en el resto del mundo.

Una de las alternativas previstas por el gobierno mexicano para impedir esta crisis, es un nuevo Instituto Nacional de Lenguas Indígenas (Inali), que se espera inicie su trabajo este mes con un presupuesto de 30 millones de pesos.

Está pendiente, sin embargo, que el presidente Vicente Fox designe al titular de la institución, entre una terna que integran un maya con doctorado en Alemania; un poeta y escritor náhuatl y un lingüista experto en Náhuatl y purépecha.

La misión del Inali será impulsar el rescate de las 20 lenguas en vías de extinción y, entre las innovaciones de su trabajo, se incluye la capacitación de profesionistas para que cuenten con conocimientos mínimos de la lengua hablada en las localidades que atenderán.



El indígena sin cultura

En la inhóspita sierra de San Pedro Mártir, en Baja California, habitan los kiliwas, en un pueblo que tiene pinturas rupestres, cóndores, borregos cimarrones cotizados en miles de dólares; y son exportadores de yuca (usada para vigorizar a los ancianos de Estados Unidos), pero esta cultura milenaria y reacia a ser conquistada por los españoles, está a punto de perder su identidad étnica.

La lengua de este grupo ha sido definida como "técnicamente extinta", porque solamente quedan seis hablantes con edades que van de los 38 a los 80 años, factor poco favorable para revivirla. Además, no tienen un alfabeto.

Se advierte que las lenguas más amenazadas son aquellas que tienen menos de mil hablantes, situación en la que se encuentran 20 de los 62 grupos etnolingüísticos identificados en el país y, en este caso, los kiliwas enfrentan una situación crítica si se considera que viven a distancias que se miden por kilómetros entre una y otra casa, de modo que difícilmente puede haber un acercamiento entre ellos para enseñar a las nuevas generaciones.

Elías Espinosa Álvarez, autoridad tradicional, responsabiliza de esta crisis a la falta de acceso a los servicios: "La gente muere por falta de apoyos. Muchos indígenas se han ido acabando por enfermedades que ningún médico atiende, y las personas migran a las ciudades con sus conocimientos y su habla".

El sólo imaginar que el destino de su tribu y toda su historia está en las manos de seis personas, agobia al hombre que se reconoce ignorante de su lengua materna.

"Creo que no se miraría bien que fuéramos indígenas y no tuviéramos una lengua, una cultura. No es nomás decir `soy indígena`, ¡un indígena debe tener su cultura, una historia, y muchas cosas que ellos dejaron y que tenemos que rescatarlo! Por lo pronto, lucharía por recuperar esto", responde.

Planea urbanización

"¡Estamos armando un plan de desarrollo de nosotros mismos! Una zona urbana con agua potable, drenaje, vamos a construir 20 casas para que la gente vuelva acá. Hay que conseguir una escuela y un maestro, y con la gente que habla la lengua, podríamos enseñar a los chamacos. ¡Sí se puede!, pero es cuestión que alguien nos apoye. Ya con 20 ó 30 hablantes, tendríamos buen camino".

La gente podrá trabajar aquí mismo. Exportamos y eso deja lo suficiente para pagar su sueldos, y dejar algo de aportación para proyectos... ¡Yo me imagino que sí se podría!", dice optimista.

Registros oficiales señalan que en 36 años (de 1885 a 1921) desaparecieron seis grupos indígenas: los acmara, cuicaltecos, puctuncos o puctunes, los cahuillo, cuissimas y los chabañales.

En el censo del año 2000, se encontraron solamente 15 personas que hablaban el solteco (seis), papabuco (cinco) y ópata (cuatro). A la fecha, se desconoce cuántos sobreviven.

jueves, 7 de febrero de 2008

US Civil War


The American Civil War (1861–1865) (also referred to as War Between the States, among other names) was a civil war between the United States of America (the "Union") and the Southern slave states of the newly formed Confederate States of America under Jefferson Davis. The Union included all of the free states and the five slaveholding border states and was led by Abraham Lincoln and the Republican Party. Republicans opposed the expansion of slavery into territories owned by the United States, and their victory in the presidential election of 1860 resulted in seven Southern states declaring their secession from the Union even before Lincoln took office.[1] The Union rejected secession, regarding it as rebellion.
Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces attacked a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina. Lincoln responded by calling for a large volunteer army, then four more Southern states declared their secession. In the war's first year, the Union assumed control of the border states and established a naval blockade as both sides massed armies and resources. In 1862, battles such as Shiloh and Antietam caused massive casualties unprecedented in U.S. military history. In September 1862, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation made ending slavery in the South a war goal, which complicated the Confederacy's manpower shortages.
In the East, Confederate commander Robert E. Lee won a series of victories over Union armies, but Lee's reverse at Gettysburg in early July, 1863 proved the turning point. The capture of Vicksburg and Port Hudson by Ulysses S. Grant completed Union control of the Mississippi River. Grant fought bloody battles of attrition with Lee in 1864, forcing Lee to defend the Confederate capital at Richmond, Virginia. Union general William Sherman captured Atlanta, Georgia, and began his famous March to the Sea, devastating a hundred-mile-wide swath of Georgia. Confederate resistance collapsed after Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox Court House in April 1865.
The war, the deadliest in American history, caused 620,000 soldier deaths[2] and an undetermined number of civilian casualties, ended slavery in the United States, restored the Union by settling the issues of nullification and secession and strengthened the role of the Federal government. However, issues affected by the war's unresolved social, political, economic and racial tensions continue to shape contemporary American thought.


Causes of the war
Main articles: Origins of the American Civil War and Timeline of events leading to the American Civil War
The coexistence of a slave-owning South with an increasingly anti-slavery North made conflict inevitable. Lincoln did not propose federal laws against slavery where it already existed, but he had, in his 1858 House Divided Speech, expressed a desire to "arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction".[3] Much of the political battle in the 1850s focused on the expansion of slavery into the newly created territories.[4][5][6] All of the organized territories were likely to become free-soil states, which increased the Southern movement toward secession. Both North and South assumed that if slavery could not expand it would wither and die.[7][8][9]
Southern fears of losing control of the federal government to antislavery forces, and Northern fears that the slave power already controlled the government, brought the crisis to a head in the late 1850s. Sectional disagreements over the morality of slavery, the scope of democracy and the economic merits of free labor vs. slave plantations caused the Whig and "Know-Nothing" parties to collapse, and new ones to arise (the Free Soil Party in 1848, the Republicans in 1854, the Constitutional Union in 1860). In 1860, the last remaining national political party, the Democratic Party, split along sectional lines.
Both North and South were influenced by the ideas of Thomas Jefferson. Southerners emphasized the states' rights ideas mentioned in Jefferson's Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and the right of revolution mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Northerners ranging from the abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison to the moderate Republican leader Abraham Lincoln[10] emphasized Jefferson's declaration that all men are created equal. Lincoln mentioned this proposition in his Gettysburg Address.
Historian Kenneth M. Stampp mentioned Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens' A Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States as an example of a Southern leader who said that slavery was the "cornerstone of the Confederacy" when the war began and then said that the war was not about slavery but states' rights after Southern defeat. Stampp said that Stephens became one of the most ardent defenders of the Lost Cause.[11]
All but one inter-regional crisis involved slavery, starting with debates on the three-fifths clause in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. Other factors include modernization in the rapidly industrializing North, sectionalism (caused by the growth of slavery in the deep South while slavery was gradually phased out in Northern states) and economic differences between North and South, although most modern historians disagree with the extreme economic determinism of historian Charles Beard.[12] The fact that seven immigrants out of eight settled in the North, plus the fact that twice as many whites left the South for the North as vice versa, contributed to the South's defensive-aggressive political behavior.[13] There was controversy over adding the slave state of Missouri to the Union that led to the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Nullification Crisis over the Tariff of 1828 (although the tariff was low after 1846[14]), the Gag rule that prevented discussion in Congress of petitions for ending slavery from 1835–1844, the acquisition of Texas as a slave state in 1845 and Manifest Destiny as an argument for gaining new territories where slavery would become an issue after the Mexican-American War (1846–1848), which resulted in the Compromise of 1850.[15] The Wilmot Proviso was an unsuccessful attempt by Northern politicians to exclude slavery from the territories conquered from Mexico. There were unsuccessful attempts to end controversy over slavery in the territories through popular sovereignty and Southern attempts to annex Cuba (including the Ostend Manifesto) and Nicaragua as slave states. The extremely popular antislavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin (1852) by Harriet Beecher Stowe greatly increased Northern opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850.[16][17]
There was the polarizing effect of slavery that split the largest religious denominations (the Methodist, Baptist and Presbyterian churches)[18] and controversy caused by the worst cruelties of slavery (whippings, mutilations and families split apart). In Congress arguments over slavery became violent when Representative Preston Brooks of South Carolina attacked Radical Republican Senator Charles Sumner with a cane after Sumner's "Crime against Kansas" speech.[19] Even rival plans for Northern vs. Southern routes for a transcontinental railroad became entangled in the Bleeding Kansas controversy over slavery. The old Second Party System broke down after passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854. The "Dred Scott Decision" of 1857, the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, John Brown's raid in 1859 and the split in the Democratic Party in 1860 polarized the nation between North and South. The election of Lincoln in 1860 was the final trigger for secession. During the secession crisis, many sought compromise. Two of these attempts were the "Corwin Amendment" and the "Crittenden Compromise." All attempts at compromise failed.
Southern secession was triggered by the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln[20] because regional leaders feared that he would stop the expansion of slavery and put it on a course toward extinction. Many Southerners thought either Lincoln or another Northerner would abolish slavery, and that it was time to secede. The slave states, which had already become a minority in the House of Representatives, were now facing a future as a perpetual minority in the Senate and Electoral College against an increasingly powerful North. Deep South states with the most slavery seceded first, followed by the secession of four more states following the Battle of Fort Sumter and Lincoln's subsequent call for each remaining state to provide troops to retake forts and suppress the insurrection. Upper South states refused to send troops against their neighbors in what they considered an invasion.


Slavery
Main article: History of slavery in the United States
A strong correlation was shown between the degree of support for secession and the number of plantations in the region; states of the deep South which had the greatest concentration of plantations were the first to secede. The upper South slave states of Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee had fewer plantations and rejected secession until the Fort Sumter crisis forced them to choose sides. Border states had fewer plantations still and never seceded.[21][22] The percentage of Southern whites living in families that owned slaves was 36.7 percent in the lower South, 25.3 percent in the upper South and 15.9 percent in the border states that fought mostly for the Union.[23][24] Ninety-five percent of blacks lived in the South, comprising one third of the population there as opposed to one percent of the population of the North. Consequently, fears of eventual emancipation were much greater in the South than in the North.[25]

Abraham Lincoln 16th President of the United States (1861–1865)
The Supreme Court decision of 1857 in Dred Scott v. Sandford added to the controversy. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's decision said that slaves were "so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect",[26] and that slavery could spread into the territories. Lincoln warned that "the next Dred Scott decision"[27] could threaten northern states with slavery.
Northern politician Abraham Lincoln said, "this question of Slavery was more important than any other; indeed, so much more important has it become that no other national question can even get a hearing just at present."[28] The slavery issue was related to sectional competition for control of the territories,[29] and the Southern demand for a slave code for the territories was the issue used by Southern politicians to split the Democratic Party in two, which all but guaranteed the election of Lincoln and secession. When secession was an issue, South Carolina planter and state Senator John Townsend said that "our enemies are about to take possession of the Government, that they intend to rule us according to the caprices of their fanatical theories, and according to the declared purposes of abolishing slavery."[30] Similar opinions were expressed throughout the South in editorials, political speeches and declarations of reasons for secession. Even though Lincoln had no plans to outlaw slavery where it existed, Southerners throughout the South expressed fears for the future of slavery.


Southern concerns included not only economic loss but also fears of racial equality.[31][32][33][34] The Texas Declaration of Causes for Secession[35][36] said that the non-slave-holding states were "proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color", and that the African race "were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race". Alabama secessionist E. S. Dargan said that emancipation would make Southerners feel "demoralized and degraded".[37]
Beginning in the 1830s, the U.S. Postmaster General refused to allow mail which carried abolition pamphlets to the South.[38] Northern teachers suspected of any tinge of abolitionism were expelled from the South, and abolitionist literature was banned. Southerners rejected the denials of Republicans that they were abolitionists.[39] John Brown's raid on the federal Harpers Ferry Armory greatly increased Southern fears of slave insurrections.[40] The North felt threatened as well, for as Eric Foner concludes, "Northerners came to view slavery as the very antithesis of the good society, as well as a threat to their own fundamental values and interests".[41]

Secession begins

Secession of South Carolina

Monument in honor of the Grand Army of the Republic, organized after the war.
South Carolina adopted the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" on December 24, 1860. It argued for states' rights for slave owners in the South, but contained a complaint about states' rights in the North in the form of opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act, claiming that Northern states were not fulfilling their federal obligations under the Constitution. At issue were:
The refusal of Northern states to enforce the fugitive slave code, violating Southern personal property rights;
Agitation against slavery, which "denied the rights of property".
Assisting "thousands of slaves to leave their homes" through the Underground Railroad.
The election of Lincoln "because he has declared that 'Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,' and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction".
"...elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens". Most Northerners opposed the Dred Scott decision, although only a few New England states allowed blacks an equal right to vote.[42]

Secession winter
Before Lincoln took office, seven states had declared their secession from the Union. They established a Southern government, the Confederate States of America on February 9, 1861. They took control of federal forts and other properties within their boundaries with little resistance from President Buchanan, whose term ended on March 4, 1861. Buchanan asserted, "The South has no right to secede, but I have no power to prevent them."[43] One quarter of the U.S. Army—the entire garrison in Texas—was surrendered to state forces by its commanding general, David E. Twiggs, who then joined the Confederacy.
As Southerners resigned their seats in the Senate and the House, secession later enabled Republicans to pass bills for projects that had been blocked by Southern Senators before the war, including the Morrill Tariff, land grant colleges (the Morill Act), a Homestead Act, a trans-continental railroad (the Pacific Railway Acts), the National Banking Act and the authorization of United States Notes by the Legal Tender Act of 1862. The Revenue Act of 1861 introduced the income tax to help finance the war.


Status of the states, 1861. States that seceded before April 15, 1861 States that seceded after April 15, 1861 Union states that permitted slavery Union states that banned slavery Territories

The Confederacy
Main article: Confederate States of America
Seven Deep South cotton states seceded by February 1861, starting with South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. These seven states formed the Confederate States of America (February 4, 1861), with Jefferson Davis as president, and a governmental structure closely modeled on the U.S. Constitution. In April and May 1861, four more slave states seceded and joined the Confederacy: Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina and Virginia. Virginia was split in two, with the eastern portion of that state seceding to the Confederacy and the northwestern part joining the Union as the new state of West Virginia on June 20, 1863.


State and territory boundaries, 1864–5. Union states Union territories Kansas, which entered the Union as a free state after the Bleeding Kansas crisis Union border states that permitted slavery The Confederacy Confederate claimed and sometimes held territories

The Union states
Main article: Union (American Civil War)
Twenty-three states remained loyal to the Union: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Wisconsin. During the war, Nevada and West Virginia joined as new states of the Union. Tennessee and Louisiana were returned to Union control early in the war.
The territories of Colorado, Dakota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Washington fought on the Union side. Several slave-holding Native American tribes supported the Confederacy, giving the Indian territory (now Oklahoma) a small bloody civil war.

Border states
Main article: Border states (Civil War)
The Border states in the Union were West Virginia (which was separated from Virginia and became a new state), and four of the five northernmost slave states (Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and Kentucky).
Maryland had numerous pro-Confederate officials who tolerated anti-Union rioting in Baltimore and the burning of bridges. Lincoln responded with martial law and called for troops. Militia units that had been drilling in the North rushed toward Washington and Baltimore.[44] Before the Confederate government realized what was happening, Lincoln had seized firm control of Maryland (and the separate District of Columbia), by arresting all the Maryland government members and holding them without trial.
In Missouri, an elected convention on secession voted decisively to remain within the Union. When pro-Confederate Governor Claiborne F. Jackson called out the state militia, it was attacked by federal forces under General Nathaniel Lyon, who chased the governor and the rest of the State Guard to the southwestern corner of the state. (See also: Missouri secession). In the resulting vacuum, the convention on secession reconvened and took power as the Unionist provisional government of Missouri.[45]
Kentucky did not secede; for a time, it declared itself neutral. However, the Confederates broke the neutrality by seizing Columbus, Kentucky in September 1861. That turned opinion against the Confederacy, and the state reaffirmed its loyal status, while trying to maintain slavery. During a brief invasion by Confederate forces, Confederate sympathizers organized a secession convention, inaugurated a governor, and gained recognition from the Confederacy. The rebel government soon went into exile and never controlled the state.[46]
Union supporters in the far northwestern counties of Virginia opposed secession and formed a pro-Union government in Wheeling shortly after Virginia's 1861 declaration of secession from the U.S. They then organized a vote on October 24, 1861 to approve a secession from Virginia, and were admitted to the Union as the new state of West Virginia on June 20, 1863, eventually composed of 50 former counties of Virginia. The vote was poorly attended and only token votes appeared in many counties that had supported Virginia's secession, some giving no vote at all,[47][48] and both before and after admission to statehood, there were disputes over the boundary between West Virginia and Virginia, and the legality of the vote.[49][50][51]
Similar Unionist secessions attempts appeared in East Tennessee, but were suppressed by the Confederacy. Jefferson Davis arrested over 3000 men suspected of being loyal to the Union and held them without trial.[52]

Overview

A Roman Catholic Union army chaplain celebrating a Mass
Over 10,000 military engagements took place during the war, 40% of them in Virginia and Tennessee.[53] Since separate articles deal with every major battle and many minor ones, this article only gives the broadest outline. For more information see List of American Civil War battles and Military leadership in the American Civil War.

The war begins
For more details on this topic, see Battle of Fort Sumter
Lincoln's victory in the presidential election of 1860 triggered South Carolina's declaration of secession from the Union. By February 1861, six more Southern states made similar declarations. On February 7, the seven states adopted a provisional constitution for the Confederate States of America and established their temporary capital at Montgomery, Alabama. A pre-war February Peace Conference of 1861 met in Washington in a failed attempt at resolving the crisis. The remaining eight slave states rejected pleas to join the Confederacy. Confederate forces seized most of the Federal forts within their boundaries (they did not take Fort Sumter); President Buchanan protested but made no military response aside from a failed attempt to resupply Fort Sumter via the ship Star of the West (the ship was fired upon by Citadel cadets), and no serious military preparations.[54] However, governors in Massachusetts, New York, and Pennsylvania quietly began buying weapons and training militia units.
On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as President. In his inaugural address, he argued that the Constitution was a more perfect union than the earlier Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, that it was a binding contract, and called any secession "legally void".[55] He stated he had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery where it existed, but that he would use force to maintain possession of federal property. His speech closed with a plea for restoration of the bonds of union.[56]
The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents on the grounds that the Confederacy was not a legitimate government, and that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government.[57] However, Secretary of State William Seward engaged in unauthorized and indirect negotiations that failed.[57]
Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina, Fort Monroe, Fort Pickens and Fort Taylor were the remaining Union-held forts in the Confederacy, and Lincoln was determined to hold Fort Sumter. Under orders from Confederate President Jefferson Davis, troops controlled by the Confederate government under P. G. T. Beauregard bombarded the fort with artillery on April 12, forcing the fort's capitulation. Northerners rallied behind Lincoln's call for all of the states to send troops to recapture the forts and to preserve the Union. With the scale of the rebellion apparently small so far, Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers for 90 days.[58] For months before that, several Northern governors had discreetly readied their state militias; they began to move forces the next day.[59]
Four states in the upper South (Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Virginia), which had repeatedly rejected Confederate overtures, now refused to send forces against their neighbors, declared their secession, and joined the Confederacy. To reward Virginia, the Confederate capital was moved to Richmond.[60] The city was the symbol of the Confederacy; if it fell, the new nation would lose legitimacy. Richmond was in a highly vulnerable location at the end of a tortuous Confederate supply line. Although Richmond was heavily fortified, supplies for the city would be reduced by Sherman's capture of Atlanta and cut off almost entirely when Grant besieged Petersburg and its railroads that supplied the Southern capital.

Anaconda Plan and blockade, 1861
Main articles: Naval battles of the American Civil War, Union blockade, and Confederate States Navy

1861 cartoon of Scott's "Anaconda Plan"
Winfield Scott, the commanding general of the U.S. Army, devised the Anaconda Plan[61] to win the war with as little bloodshed as possible. His idea was that a Union blockade of the main ports would weaken the Confederate economy; then the capture of the Mississippi River would split the South. Lincoln adopted the plan, but overruled Scott's warnings against an immediate attack on Richmond.
In May 1861, Lincoln enacted the Union blockade of all Southern ports, ending most international shipments to the Confederacy. Violators' ships and cargos could be seized and were often not covered by insurance. By late 1861, the blockade stopped most local port-to-port traffic. The blockade shut down King Cotton, ruining the Southern economy. British investors built small, fast "blockade runners" that traded arms and luxuries from Bermuda, Cuba and the Bahamas in return for high-priced cotton and tobacco.[62] When captured, the blockade runners and cargo were sold and the proceeds given to the Union sailors, but the British crews were released. Shortages of food and other goods triggered by the blockade, foraging by Northern armies, and the impressment of crops by Confederate armies combined to cause hyperinflation and bread riots in the South.[63]
On March 8, 1862, the Confederate Navy waged a fight against the Union Navy when the ironclad CSS Virginia attacked the blockade; it seemed unstoppable but the next day it had to fight the new Union warship USS Monitor in the Battle of the Ironclads.[64] The battle ended in a draw, which was a strategic victory for the Union in that the blockade was sustained. The Confederacy lost the CSS Virginia when the ship was scuttled to prevent capture, and the Union built many copies of the USS Monitor. Lacking the technology to build effective warships, the Confederacy attempted to obtain warships from Britain. The Union victory at the Second Battle of Fort Fisher in January 1865 closed the last useful Southern port and virtually ended blockade running.

Eastern Theater 1861–1863
For more details on this topic, see Eastern Theater of the American Civil War.

A Union Regimental Fife and Drum Corps
Because of the fierce resistance of a few initial Confederate forces at Manassas, Virginia, in July 1861, a march by Union troops under the command of Maj. Gen. Irvin McDowell on the Confederate forces there was halted in the First Battle of Bull Run, or First Manassas,[65] whereupon they were forced back to Washington, D.C., by Confederate troops under the command of Generals Joseph E. Johnston and P. G. T. Beauregard. It was in this battle that Confederate General Thomas Jackson received the nickname of "Stonewall" because he stood like a stone wall against Union troops.[66] Alarmed at the loss, and in an attempt to prevent more slave states from leaving the Union, the U.S. Congress passed the Crittenden-Johnson Resolution on July 25 of that year, which stated that the war was being fought to preserve the Union and not to end slavery.
Maj. Gen. George B. McClellan took command of the Union Army of the Potomac on July 26 (he was briefly general-in-chief of all the Union armies, but was subsequently relieved of that post in favor of Maj. Gen. Henry W. Halleck), and the war began in earnest in 1862. Upon the strong urging of President Lincoln to begin offensive operations, McClellan attacked Virginia in the spring of 1862 by way of the peninsula between the York River and James River, southeast of Richmond. Although McClellan's army reached the gates of Richmond in the Peninsula Campaign,[67] Johnston halted his advance at the Battle of Seven Pines, then General Robert E. Lee and top subordinates James Longstreet and Stonewall Jackson[68] defeated McClellan in the Seven Days Battles and forced his retreat. The Northern Virginia Campaign, which included the Second Battle of Bull Run, ended in yet another victory for the South.[69] McClellan resisted General-in-Chief Halleck's orders to send reinforcements to John Pope's Union Army of Virginia, which made it easier for Lee's Confederates to defeat twice the number of combined enemy troops.
Emboldened by Second Bull Run, the Confederacy made its first invasion of the North, when General Lee led 45,000 men of the Army of Northern Virginia across the Potomac River into Maryland on September 5. Lincoln then restored Pope's troops to McClellan. McClellan and Lee fought at the Battle of Antietam[70] near Sharpsburg, Maryland, on September 17, 1862, the bloodiest single day in United States military history.[71] Lee's army, checked at last, returned to Virginia before McClellan could destroy it. Antietam is considered a Union victory because it halted Lee's invasion of the North and provided an opportunity for Lincoln to announce his Emancipation Proclamation.[72]

Confederate dead behind the stone wall of Marye's Heights, Fredericksburg, Virginia, killed during the Battle of Chancellorsville, May 1863
When the cautious McClellan failed to follow up on Antietam, he was replaced by Maj. Gen. Ambrose Burnside. Burnside was soon defeated at the Battle of Fredericksburg[73] on December 13, 1862, when over twelve thousand Union soldiers were killed or wounded during repeated futile frontal assaults against Marye's Heights. After the battle, Burnside was replaced by Maj. Gen. Joseph Hooker. Hooker, too, proved unable to defeat Lee's army; despite outnumbering the Confederates by more than two to one, he was humiliated in the Battle of Chancellorsville[74] in May 1863. He was replaced by Maj. Gen. George Meade during Lee's second invasion of the North, in June. Meade defeated Lee at the Battle of Gettysburg[75] (July 1 to July 3, 1863), the bloodiest battle of the war, which is sometimes considered the war's turning point. Pickett's Charge on July 3 is often recalled as the high-water mark of the Confederacy, not just because it signaled the end of Lee's plan to pressure Washington from the north, but also because Vicksburg, Mississippi, the key stronghold to control of the Mississippi, fell the following day. Lee's army suffered 28,000 casualties (versus Meade's 23,000).[76] However, Lincoln was angry that Meade failed to intercept Lee's retreat, and after Meade's inconclusive Fall campaign, Lincoln decided to turn to the Western Theater for new leadership.

Western Theater 1861–1863
For more details on this topic, see Western Theater of the American Civil War.
While the Confederate forces had numerous successes in the Eastern theater, they were defeated many times in the West. They were driven from Missouri early in the war as a result of the Battle of Pea Ridge.[77] Leonidas Polk's invasion of Columbus, Kentucky ended Kentucky's policy of neutrality and turned that state against the Confederacy.
Nashville, Tennessee, fell to the Union early in 1862. Most of the Mississippi was opened with the taking of Island No. 10 and New Madrid, Missouri, and then Memphis, Tennessee. The Union Navy captured New Orléans[78] without a major fight in May 1862, allowing the Union forces to begin moving up the Mississippi as well. Only the fortress city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, prevented unchallenged Union control of the entire river.
General Braxton Bragg's second Confederate invasion of Kentucky ended with a meaningless victory over Maj. Gen. Don Carlos Buell at the Battle of Perryville,[79] although Bragg was forced to end his attempt at liberating Kentucky and retreat due to lack of support for the Confederacy in that state. Bragg was narrowly defeated by Maj. Gen. William Rosecrans at the Battle of Stones River[80] in Tennessee.
The one clear Confederate victory in the West was the Battle of Chickamauga. Bragg, reinforced by Lt. Gen. James Longstreet's corps (from Lee's army in the east), defeated Rosecrans, despite the heroic defensive stand of Maj. Gen. George Henry Thomas. Rosecrans retreated to Chattanooga, which Bragg then besieged.
The Union's key strategist and tactician in the West was Maj. Gen. Ulysses S. Grant, who won victories at Forts Henry and Donelson, by which the Union seized control of the Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers; the Battle of Shiloh;[81] the Battle of Vicksburg,[82] cementing Union control of the Mississippi River and considered one of the turning points of the war. Grant marched to the relief of Rosecrans and defeated Bragg at the Third Battle of Chattanooga,[83] driving Confederate forces out of Tennessee and opening a route to Atlanta and the heart of the Confederacy.

Trans-Mississippi Theater 1861–1865
For more details on this topic, see Trans-Mississippi Theater of the American Civil War.
Guerrilla activity turned much of Missouri into a battleground. Missouri had, in total, the third most battles of any state during the war.[84] The other states of the west, though geographically isolated from the battles to the east, had a few small-scale military actions take place. Confederate incursions into Arizona and New Mexico were repulsed in 1862. Late in the war, the Union Red River Campaign was a failure. Texas remained in Confederate hands throughout the war, but was cut off from the rest of the Confederacy after the capture of Vicksburg in 1863 gave the Union control of the Mississippi River.

End of the war 1864–1865

Jefferson Davis, first and only President of the Confederate States of America
At the beginning of 1864, Lincoln made Grant commander of all Union armies. Grant made his headquarters with the Army of the Potomac, and put Maj. Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman in command of most of the western armies. Grant understood the concept of total war and believed, along with Lincoln and Sherman, that only the utter defeat of Confederate forces and their economic base would bring an end to the war.[85] This was total war not in terms of killing civilians but rather in terms of destroying homes, farms and railroad tracks. Grant devised a coordinated strategy that would strike at the entire Confederacy from multiple directions: Generals George Meade and Benjamin Butler were ordered to move against Lee near Richmond; General Franz Sigel (and later Philip Sheridan) were to attack the Shenandoah Valley; General Sherman was to capture Atlanta and march to the sea (the Atlantic Ocean); Generals George Crook and William W. Averell were to operate against railroad supply lines in West Virginia; and Maj. Gen. Nathaniel P. Banks was to capture Mobile, Alabama.
Union forces in the East attempted to maneuver past Lee and fought several battles during that phase ("Grant's Overland Campaign") of the Eastern campaign. Grant's battles of attrition at the Wilderness, Spotsylvania, and Cold Harbor[86] resulted in heavy Union losses, but forced Lee's Confederates to fall back again and again. An attempt to outflank Lee from the south failed under Butler, who was trapped inside the Bermuda Hundred river bend. Grant was tenacious and, despite astonishing losses (over 65,000 casualties in seven weeks),[87] kept pressing Lee's Army of Northern Virginia back to Richmond. He pinned down the Confederate army in the Siege of Petersburg, where the two armies engaged in trench warfare for over nine months.
Grant finally found a commander, General Philip Sheridan, aggressive enough to prevail in the Valley Campaigns of 1864. Sheridan defeated Maj. Gen. Jubal A. Early in a series of battles, including a final decisive defeat at the Battle of Cedar Creek. Sheridan then proceeded to destroy the agricultural base of the Shenandoah Valley,[88] a strategy similar to the tactics Sherman later employed in Georgia.
Meanwhile, Sherman marched from Chattanooga to Atlanta, defeating Confederate Generals Joseph E. Johnston and John Bell Hood along the way. The fall of Atlanta,[89] on September 2, 1864, was a significant factor in the reelection of Lincoln as president.[90] Hood left the Atlanta area to menace Sherman's supply lines and invade Tennessee in the Franklin-Nashville Campaign.[91] Union Maj. Gen. John M. Schofield defeated Hood at the Battle of Franklin, and George H. Thomas dealt Hood a massive defeat at the Battle of Nashville, effectively destroying Hood's army.

A dead soldier in Petersburg, Virginia 1865, photographed by Thomas C. Roche.
Leaving Atlanta, and his base of supplies, Sherman's army marched with an unknown destination, laying waste to about 20% of the farms in Georgia in his "March to the Sea". He reached the Atlantic Ocean at Savannah, Georgia in December 1864. Sherman's army was followed by thousands of freed slaves; there were no major battles along the March. Sherman turned north through South Carolina and North Carolina to approach the Confederate Virginia lines from the south,[92] increasing the pressure on Lee's army.
Lee's army, thinned by desertion and casualties, was now much smaller than Grant's. Union forces won a decisive victory at the Battle of Five Forks on April 1, forcing Lee to evacuate Petersburg and Richmond. The Confederate capital fell[93] to the Union XXV Corps, composed of black troops. The remaining Confederate units fled west and after a defeat at Sayler's Creek, it became clear to Robert E. Lee that continued fighting against the United States was both tactically and logistically impossible.
Lee surrendered his Army of Northern Virginia on April 9, 1865, at Appomattox Court House.[94] In an untraditional gesture and as a sign of Grant's respect and anticipation of folding the Confederacy back into the Union with dignity and peace, Lee was permitted to keep his officer's saber and his horse, Traveller. Johnston surrendered his troops to Sherman on April 26, 1865, in Durham, North Carolina. On June 23, 1865, at Fort Towson in the Choctaw Nations' area of the Oklahoma Territory, Stand Watie signed a cease-fire agreement with Union representatives, becoming the last Confederate general in the field to stand down. The last Confederate naval force to surrender was the CSS Shenandoah on November 4, 1865, in Liverpool, England.

Slavery during the war
Main article: History of slavery in the United States
At the beginning of the war some Union commanders thought they were supposed to return escaped slaves to their masters. By 1862, when it became clear that this would be a long war, the question of what to do about slavery became more general. The Southern economy and military effort depended on slave labor. It began to seem unreasonable to protect slavery while blockading Southern commerce and destroying Southern production. As one Congressman put it, the slaves "…cannot be neutral. As laborers, if not as soldiers, they will be allies of the rebels, or of the Union."[95] The same Congressman—and his fellow Radical Republicans—put pressure on Lincoln to rapidly emancipate the slaves, whereas moderate Republicans came to accept gradual, compensated emancipation and colonization.[96] Copperheads, the border states and War Democrats opposed emancipation, although the border states and War Democrats eventually accepted it as part of total war needed to save the Union.
In 1861, Lincoln expressed the fear that premature attempts at emancipation would mean the loss of the border states, and that "to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game."[97] At first, Lincoln reversed attempts at emancipation by Secretary of War Simon Cameron and Generals John C. Fremont (in Missouri) and David Hunter (in South Carolina, Georgia and Florida) in order to keep the loyalty of the border states and the War Democrats.
Lincoln mentioned his Emancipation Proclamation to members of his cabinet on July 21, 1862. Secretary of State William H. Seward told Lincoln to wait for a victory before issuing the proclamation, as to do otherwise would seem like "our last shriek on the retreat".[98] In September 1862 the Battle of Antietam provided this opportunity, and the subsequent War Governors' Conference added support for the proclamation.[99] Lincoln had already published a letter[100] encouraging the border states especially to accept emancipation as necessary to save the Union. Lincoln later said that slavery was "somehow the cause of the war".[101] Lincoln issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation on September 22, 1862, and said that a final proclamation would be issued if his gradual plan based on compensated emancipation and voluntary colonization was rejected. Only the District of Columbia accepted Lincoln's gradual plan, and Lincoln issued his final Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. In his letter to Hodges, Lincoln explained his belief that "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong … And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling ... I claim not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me."[102]
Since the Emancipation Proclamation was based on the President's war powers, it only included territory held by Confederates at the time. However, the Proclamation became a symbol of the Union's growing commitment to add emancipation to the Union's definition of liberty.[103] Lincoln also played a leading role in getting Congress to vote for the Thirteenth Amendment,[1] which made emancipation universal and permanent.
Confederates enslaved captured black Union soldiers, and black soldiers especially were shot when trying to surrender at the Fort Pillow Massacre.[104] This led to a breakdown of the prisoner exchange program and the growth of prison camps such as Andersonville prison in Georgia where almost 13,000 Union prisoners of war died of starvation and disease.[105]
The Emancipation Proclamation[106] greatly reduced the Confederacy's hope of getting aid from Britain or France. Lincoln's moderate approach succeeded in getting border states, War Democrats and emancipated slaves fighting on the same side for the Union. The Union-controlled border states (Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware and West Virginia) were not covered by the Emancipation Proclamation. All abolished slavery on their own, except Kentucky and Delaware.[107] The great majority of the 4 million slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, as Union armies moved South. The 13th amendment,[108] ratified December 6, 1865, finally freed the remaining slaves in Kentucky and Delaware that numbered 225,000 for Kentucky and 1,800 in Delaware as of 1860.[109]

Threat of international intervention
Main article: Great Britain in the American Civil War
Entry into the war by Britain and France on behalf of the Confederacy would have greatly increased the South's chances of winning independence from the Union.[110] The Union, under Lincoln and Secretary of State William Henry Seward worked to block this, and threatened war if any country officially recognized the existence of the Confederate States of America (none ever did). In 1861, Southerners voluntarily embargoed cotton shipments, hoping to start an economic depression in Europe that would force Britain to enter the war in order to get cotton. Cotton diplomacy proved a failure as Europe had a surplus of cotton, while the 1860–62 crop failures in Europe made the North's grain exports of critical importance. It was said that "King Corn was more powerful than King Cotton", as US grain went from a quarter of the British import trade to almost half.[111]
When the UK did face a cotton shortage, it was temporary, being replaced by increased cultivation in Egypt and India. Meanwhile, the war created employment for arms makers, iron workers, and British ships to transport weapons.[112]
After 1846, Northern industry lacked the assistance of a high protective tariff. There were enough Democrats, including Southerners, in the U. S. Senate to keep tariffs low. Britain was by far the best customer of the United States, and the British did not impose a duty on cotton or wheat, although they did tax imported tobacco. About one-seventh of the population of the United Kingdom, or four million people, depended on the cotton industry. Hence the tariff was kept low before the war so that especially the British could import more, despite the outcries of Northern industrialists.[14]
Charles Francis Adams proved particularly adept as minister to Britain for the Union, and Britain was reluctant to boldly challenge the Union's blockade. The Confederacy purchased several warships from commercial ship builders in Britain. The most famous, the CSS Alabama, did considerable damage and led to serious postwar disputes. However, public opinion against slavery created a political liability for European politicians, especially in Britain. War loomed in late 1861 between the U.S. and Britain over the Trent Affair, involving the Union boarding of a British mail steamer to seize two Confederate diplomats. However, London and Washington were able to smooth over the problem after Lincoln released the two.
In 1862, the British considered mediation—though even such an offer would have risked war with the U.S. Lord Palmerston reportedly read Uncle Tom’s Cabin three times[113] when deciding on this. The Union victory in the Battle of Antietam caused them to delay this decision. The Emancipation Proclamation further reinforced the political liability of supporting the Confederacy. Despite sympathy for the Confederacy, France's own seizure of Mexico ultimately deterred them from war with the Union. Confederate offers late in the war to end slavery in return for diplomatic recognition were not seriously considered by London or Paris.

Aftermath
Since the war's end, it has been arguable whether the South could have really won the war. A significant number of scholars believe that the Union held an insurmountable advantage over the Confederacy in terms of industrial strength and population. Confederate actions, they argue, could only delay defeat. Southern historian Shelby Foote expressed this view succinctly in Ken Burns's television series on the Civil War: "I think that the North fought that war with one hand behind its back.… If there had been more Southern victories, and a lot more, the North simply would have brought that other hand out from behind its back. I don't think the South ever had a chance to win that War."[114] The Confederacy sought to win independence by out-lasting Lincoln. However, after Atlanta fell and Lincoln defeated McClellan in the election of 1864, the hope for a political victory for the South ended. At that point, Lincoln had succeeded in getting the support of the border states, War Democrats, emancipated slaves and Britain and France. By defeating the Democrats and McClellan, he also defeated the Copperheads and their peace platform.[115] Lincoln had also found military leaders like Grant and Sherman who would press the Union's numerical advantage in battle over the Confederate Armies. Generals who did not shy from bloodshed won the war, and from the end of 1864 onward there was no hope for the South.
On the other hand, James McPherson has argued that the North’s advantage in population and resources made Northern victory possible, but not inevitable. The American War of Independence and the Vietnam War are examples of wars won by the side with fewer numbers. Confederates did not need to invade and hold enemy territory in order to win, but only needed to fight a defensive war to convince the North that the cost of winning was too high. The North needed to conquer and hold vast stretches of enemy territory and defeat Confederate armies in order to win.[116]
Also important were Lincoln's eloquence in rationalizing the national purpose and his skill in keeping the border states committed to the Union cause. Although Lincoln's approach to emancipation was slow, the Emancipation Proclamation was an effective use of the President's war powers.[117]


The more industrialized economy of the North aided in the production of arms, munitions and supplies, as well as finances, and transportation. The table shows the relative advantage of the Union over the Confederate States of America (CSA) at the start of the war. The advantages widened rapidly during the war, as the Northern economy grew, and Confederate territory shrank and its economy weakened. The Union population was 22 million and the South 9 million in 1861; the Southern population included more than 3.5 million slaves and about 5.5 million whites, thus leaving the South's white population outnumbered by a ratio of more than four to one compared with that of the North. The disparity grew as the Union controlled more and more southern territory with garrisons, and cut off the trans-Mississippi part of the Confederacy. The Union at the start controlled over 80% of the shipyards, steamships, river boats, and the Navy. It augmented these by a massive shipbuilding program. This enabled the Union to control the river systems and to blockade the entire southern coastline.[119] Excellent railroad links between Union cities allowed for the quick and cheap movement of troops and supplies. Transportation was much slower and more difficult in the South which was unable to augment its much smaller rail system, repair damage, or even perform routine maintenance.[120] The failure of Davis to maintain positive and productive relationships with state governors (especially governor Joseph E. Brown of Georgia and governor Zebulon Vance of North Carolina) damaged his ability to draw on regional resources.[121] The Confederacy's "King Cotton" misperception of the world economy led to bad diplomacy, such as the refusal to ship cotton before the blockade started.[122] The Emancipation Proclamation enabled African-Americans, both free blacks and escaped slaves, to join the Union Army. About 190,000 volunteered,[123] further enhancing the numerical advantage the Union armies enjoyed over the Confederates, who did not dare emulate the equivalent manpower source for fear of fundamentally undermining the legitimacy of slavery. Emancipated slaves fought in several key battles in the last two years of the war.[124] European immigrants joined the Union Army in large numbers too. 23.4% of all Union soldiers were German-Americans; about 216,000 were born in Germany.[125]

Reconstruction
Main article: Reconstruction
Northern leaders agreed that victory would require more than the end of fighting. It had to encompass the two war goals: Secession had to be totally repudiated, and all forms of slavery had to be eliminated. They disagreed sharply on the criteria for these goals. They also disagreed on the degree of federal control that should be imposed on the South, and the process by which Southern states should be reintegrated into the Union.
Reconstruction, which began early in the war and ended in 1877, involved a complex and rapidly changing series of federal and state policies. The long-term result came in the three "Civil War" amendments to the Constitution (the XIII, which abolished slavery, the XIV, which extended federal legal protections to citizens regardless of race, and the XV, which abolished racial restrictions on voting). Reconstruction ended in the different states at different times, the last three by the Compromise of 1877. For details on why the Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment were largely ineffective until the American Civil Rights movement, see Jim Crow laws, Ku Klux Klan, Plessy v. Ferguson, United States v. Cruikshank, Civil Rights Cases and Reconstruction.[126]

Results
All slaves in the Confederacy were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation, which stipulated that slaves in Confederate-held areas, but not in border states or in Washington, D.C., were free. Slaves in the border states and Union-controlled parts of the South were freed by state action or by the Thirteenth Amendment, although slavery effectively ended in the U.S. in the spring of 1865. The full restoration of the Union was the work of a highly contentious postwar era known as Reconstruction. The war produced about 970,000 casualties (3% of the population), including about 620,000 soldier deaths—two-thirds by disease.[127] The war accounted for more casualties than all other U.S. wars combined.[128] The causes of the war, the reasons for its outcome, and even the name of the war itself are subjects of lingering controversy today. About 4 million black slaves were freed in 1865. Based on 1860 census figures, 8% of all white males aged 13 to 43 died in the war, including 6% in the North and an extraordinary 18% in the South.[129]

See also

American Civil War Portal
List of American Civil War topics
Abolitionism
African Americans in the Civil War
German-Americans in the Civil War
Canada and the American Civil War
Casualties of the American Civil War
List of Medal of Honor recipients
Military history of the Confederate States
National Civil War Museum
Naming the American Civil War
New York Draft Riots
List of people associated with the American Civil War
List of wars involving the United States
Official Records of the American Civil War
Opposition to the American Civil War
Photography and photographers of the American Civil War
Rail transport in the American Civil War
U.S. Congress Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War
American Civil War spies
List of wars by death toll
Confederados

Cinema and television

Films about the war
The Birth of a Nation (1915)
The General (1927)
Gone with the Wind (1939)
Friendly Persuasion (1956)
Raintree County (1957)
The Horse Soldiers (1959)
Major Dundee (1965)
Shenandoah (film) (1965)
The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (1966)
The Blue and the Gray (1982)
Glory (1989)
Gettysburg (1993)
Andersonville (1996)
Ride with the Devil (1999)
Gods and Generals (2003)
Cold Mountain (2003)
North and South (TV miniseries) (Book I - November 3, 1985 Book II - May 4, 1986 Book III - February 27, 1994)

Documentaries about the war
The Civil War (1990)

Notes
^ a b James McPherson, Drawn With the Sword, from the article Who Freed the Slaves?
^ American Civil War, Encyclopædia Britannica
^ Abraham Lincoln, House Divided Speech, Springfield, Illinois, June 16, 1858
^ Shelby Foote, The Civil War: Fort Sumter to Perryville, page 34
^ Prevent, as far as possible, any of our friends from demoralizing themselves, and our cause, by entertaining propositions for compromise of any sort, on slavery extension. There is no possible compromise upon it, but which puts us under again, and leaves all our work to do over again. Whether it be a Mo. Line, or Eli Thayer's Pop. Sov. It is all the same. Let either be done, & immediately filibustering and extending slavery recommences. On that point hold firm, as with a chain of steel. - Abraham Lincoln to Elihu B. Washburne, December 13, 1860
^ Let there be no compromise on the question of extending slavery. If there be, all our labor is lost, and, ere long, must be done again. The dangerous ground—that into which some of our friends have a hankering to run—is Pop. Sov. Have none of it. Stand firm. The tug has to come, & better now, than any time hereafter. - Abraham Lincoln to Lyman Trumbull, December 10, 1860
^ James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, page 241 and 253
^ Declarations of Causes for: Georgia, Adopted in January 29, 1861; Mississippi, Adopted in 1861 (no exact date found); South Carolina, Adopted in December 24, 1860; Texas, Adopted in February 2, 1861
^ The New Heresy, Southern Punch, editor John Wilford Overall, September 19, 1864 is one of many references that indicate that the Republican hope of gradually ending slavery was the Southern fear. It said in part, "Our doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED."
^ Lincoln's Speech in Chicago, December 10, 1856 in which he said, "We shall again be able not to declare, that 'all States as States, are equal,' nor yet that 'all citizens as citizens are equal,' but to renew the broader, better declaration, including both these and much more, that 'all men are created equal.'"; Also, Lincoln's Letter to Henry L. Pierce, April 6, 1859
^ Stampp, The Causes of the Civil War, pages 63–65 and pages 152-153
^ Kenneth M. Stampp, The Imperiled Union: Essays on the Background of the Civil War (1981) p 198; Woodworth, ed. The American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature and Research (1996), 145 151 505 512 554 557 684; Richard Hofstadter, The Progressive Historians: Turner, Beard, Parrington (1969)
^ James McPherson, "Antebellum Southern Exceptionalism: A New Look at an Old Question," Civil War History 29 (September 1983)
^ a b Allan Nevins, Ordeal of the Union: A House Dividing - 1852-1857, pages 267–269
^ William E. Gienapp, "The Crisis of American Democracy: The Political System and the Coming of the Civil War." in Boritt ed. Why the Civil War Came 79–123
^ McPherson, Battle Cry pages 88–91
^ Most of her slave owners are "decent, honorable people, themselves victims" of that institution. Much of her description was based on personal observation, and the descriptions of Southerners; she herself calls them and Legree representatives of different types of masters.;Gerson, Harriet Beecher Stowe, p.68; Stowe, Key to Uncle Tom's Cabin (1953) p. 39
^ James McPherson, Drawn With the Sword, page 11
^ Fox Butterfield; All God's Children page 17
^ David Potter, The Impending Crisis, page 485
^ James M. McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom 1988 p 242, 255, 282-83. Maps on page 101 (The Southern Economy) and page 236 (The Progress of Secession) are also relevant
^ David Potter, The Impending Crisis, pages 503–505
^ Selected Statistics on Slavery in the United States. Retrieved on 2007-10-14.
^ Otto H. Olsen (December 2004). Historians and the extent of slave ownership in the Southern United States. Civil War History. Southernhistory.net. Retrieved on 2007-11-23.
^ James McPherson, Drawn with the Sword, page 15
^ David Potter, The Impending Crisis, page 275
^ First Lincoln Douglas Debate at Ottawa, Illinois August 21, 1858
^ Abraham Lincoln, Speech at New Haven, Conn., March 6, 1860
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, page 195
^ John Townsend, The Doom of Slavery in the Union, its Safety out of it, October 29, 1860
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, page 243
^ David Potter, The Impending Crisis, page 461
^ William C. Davis, Look Away, pages 130–140
^ William W. Freehling, The Road to Disunion, page 42
^ Winkler, E. A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.. Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas. Retrieved on 2007-10-16.
^ Winkler, E. A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.. Journal of the Secession Convention of Texas. Retrieved on 2007-10-16.
^ Speech of E.S. Dargan, in the Convention of Alabama, January 11, 1861
^ Schlesinger Age of Jackson, p.190
^ David Brion Davis, Inhuman Bondage (2006) p 197, 409; Stanley Harrold, The Abolitionists and the South, 1831–1861 (1995) p. 62; Jane H. and William H. Pease, "Confrontation and Abolition in the 1850s" Journal of American History (1972) 58(4): 923–937.
^ David Potter, The Impending Crisis, pages 356–384
^ Eric Foner. Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (1970), p. 9
^ James McPherson, The Negro's Civil War, page 3
^ President James Buchanan, Message of December 8, 1860
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 284–287
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 290–293
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 293–297
^ Richard O. Curry "A House Divided: A Study of Statehood Politics and the Copperhead Movement in West Virginia" Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1964, pg. 49, county map of Ordinance of Secession vote of May 23, 1861, and Statehood vote pgs. 149-50
^ West Virginia Statehood
^ Curry's "A House Divided", Randall's "Civil War and Reconstruction" pgs. 236–242
^ State of Virginia v. State of West Virginia, 78 U.S. 39 (1870)
^ Bastress, R.M. Virginia v. West Virginia. The West Virginia Encyclopedia.
^ Mark Neely, Confederate Bastille: Jefferson Davis and Civil Liberties 1993 p. 10–11
^ Gabor Boritt, ed. War Comes Again (1995) p 247
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 234–266
^ Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, Monday, March 4, 1861
^ Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861
^ a b David Potter, The Impending Crisis, pages 572–573
^ James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, page 274
^ See the account at [1]
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 276–307
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 333–335
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 378–380
^ Heidler, 1651–53
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 373–377
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 339–345
^ James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, page 342
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 424–427
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 538–544
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 528–533
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 538–544
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 543–545
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 557–558
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 571–574
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 639–645
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 653–663
^ James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, page 664
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 404–405
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 418–420
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 419–420
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 480–483
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 405–413
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 637–638
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 677–680
^ Civil War in Missouri Facts (1998). Retrieved on 2007-10-16.
^ Mark E. Neely Jr.; "Was the Civil War a Total War?" Civil War History, Vol. 50, 2004 pp 434+
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 724–735
^ James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, pages 741-742
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 778–779
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 773–775
^ James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, pages 774–776
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 812–815
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 825–830
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 846–847
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 848–850
^ McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom page 495
^ McPherson, Battle Cry page 355, 494–6, quote from George Julian on 495.
^ Lincoln's letter to O. H. Browning, September 22, 1861
^ Stephen B. Oates, Abraham Lincoln: The Man Behind the Myths, page 106
^ Images of America: Altoona, by Sr. Anne Francis Pulling, 2001, 10.
^ Letter to Greeley, August 22, 1862
^ Abraham Lincoln, Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865
^ Lincoln's Letter to A. G. Hodges, April 4, 1864
^ James McPherson, The War that Never Goes Away
^ Bruce Catton, Never Call Retreat, page 335
^ James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, pages 791–798
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 557–558 and 563
^ Harper, Douglas (2003). SLAVERY in DELAWARE. Retrieved on 2007-10-16.
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 840–842
^ U. S. Census of 1860
^ James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, pages 546–557
^ McPherson, Battle Cry 386
^ Allen Nevins, War for the Union 1862–1863, pages 263–264
^ Stephen B. Oates, The Approaching Fury: Voices of the Storm 1820–1861, page 125
^ Ward 1990 p 272
^ McPherson, Battle Cry, pages 771–772
^ James McPherson, Why did the Confederacy Lose?
^ Fehrenbacher, Don (2004). Lincoln's Wartime Leadership: The First Hundred Days. University of Illinois. Retrieved on 2007-10-16.
^ Railroad mileage is from: Chauncey Depew (ed.), One Hundred Years of American Commerce 1795–1895, p. 111; For other data see: 1860 US census and Carter, Susan B., ed. The Historical Statistics of the United States: Millennial Edition (5 vols), 2006.
^ McPherson 313–16, 392–3
^ Heidler, David Stephen, ed. Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social, and Military History (2002), 1591–98
^ McPherson 432–44
^ Heidler, David Stephen, ed. Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social, and Military History (2002), 598–603
^ Black Regiments. Retrieved on 2007-10-16.
^ John Hope Franklin, The Emancipation Proclamation (1965)
^ Faust, page 523. Quoting from an 1869 ethnicity study by B. A. Gould of the United States Sanitary Commission.
^ Eric Foner, Reconstruction - America's Unfinished Revolution - 1863-1877, Harper & Row, 1988
^ Nofi, Al (2001-06-13). Statistics on the War's Costs. Louisiana State University. Retrieved on 2007-10-14.
^ James McPherson, Battle Cry of Freedom, page xix (from the introduction by C. Vann Woodward as of 1988)
^ Lambert, Craig (May-June 2001). The Deadliest War. Harvard Magazine. Retrieved on 2007-10-14.

References
Main article: American Civil War bibliography
Overviews
* Beringer, Richard E., Archer Jones, and Herman Hattaway, Why the South Lost the Civil War (1986) influential analysis of factors; The Elements of Confederate Defeat: Nationalism, War Aims, and Religion (1988), abridged version
Catton, Bruce, The Civil War, American Heritage, 1960, ISBN 0-8281-0305-4, illustrated narrative
Davis, William C. The Imperiled Union, 1861–1865 3v (1983)
Donald, David et al. The Civil War and Reconstruction (latest edition 2001); 700 page survey
Eicher, David J., The Longest Night: A Military History of the Civil War, (2001), ISBN 0-684-84944-5.
Fellman, Michael et al. This Terrible War: The Civil War and its Aftermath (2003), 400 page survey
Foote, Shelby. The Civil War: A Narrative (3 volumes), (1974), ISBN 0-394-74913-8. Highly detailed narrative covering all fronts
McPherson, James M. Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era (1988), 900 page survey; Pulitzer prize
James M. McPherson. Ordeal By Fire: The Civil War and Reconstruction (2nd ed 1992), textbook
Nevins, Allan. Ordeal of the Union, an 8-volume set (1947–1971). the most detailed political, economic and military narrative; by Pulitzer Prize winner
1. Fruits of Manifest Destiny, 1847–1852; 2. A House Dividing, 1852–1857; 3. Douglas, Buchanan, and Party Chaos, 1857–1859; 4. Prologue to Civil War, 1859–1861; 5. The Improvised War, 1861–1862; 6. War Becomes Revolution, 1862–1863; 7. The Organized War, 1863–1864; 8. The Organized War to Victory, 1864–1865
Rhodes, James Ford. History of the Civil War, 1861–1865 (1918), Pulitzer Prize; a short version of his 5-volume history
Ward, Geoffrey C. The Civil War (1990), based on PBS series by Ken Burns; visual emphasis
Weigley, Russell Frank. A Great Civil War: A Military and Political History, 1861–1865 (2004); primarily military
Reference books and bibliographies
* Blair, Jayne E. The Essential Civil War: A Handbook to the Battles, Armies, Navies And Commanders (2006)
Carter, Alice E. and Richard Jensen. The Civil War on the Web: A Guide to the Very Best Sites- 2nd ed. (2003)
Current, Richard N., et al. eds. Encyclopedia of the Confederacy (1993) (4 Volume set; also 1 vol abridged version) (ISBN 0-13-275991-8)
Faust, Patricia L. (ed.) Historical Times Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Civil War (1986) (ISBN 0-06-181261-7) 2000 short entries
Esposito, Vincent J., West Point Atlas of American Wars online edition 1995
Heidler, David Stephen, ed. Encyclopedia of the American Civil War: A Political, Social, and Military History (2002), 1600 entries in 2700 pages in 5 vol or 1-vol editions
Resch, John P. et al., Americans at War: Society, Culture and the Homefront vol 2: 1816–1900 (2005)
Tulloch, Hugh. The Debate on the American Civil War Era (1999), historiography
Wagner, Margaret E. Gary W. Gallagher, and Paul Finkelman, eds. The Library of Congress Civil War Desk Reference (2002)
Woodworth, Steven E. ed. American Civil War: A Handbook of Literature and Research (1996) (ISBN 0-313-29019-9), 750 pages of historiography and bibliography