The question is what was Tecumseh doing in the American State Papers in the 1790’s and why is he saying the same things Alexander McGillivray and William Panton of Panton Leslie Forbes says and all around Mount Vernon and Chastang Alabama? Why is that?
The Treaty of Ghent is free to read and there is no Creek War per se. No Ft. Mims atrocities. Interesting facts for a document that lists every little act of violence done during the war of 1812.
John Andre was said to be hung by the neck and the Andre family is in Chastang, Alabama and in 1818 was in the same newspaper as Francis the Prophet aka Hillis Harjo and isn’t it odd that the same name comes up again with regard to Washington as in the President. And the fact that George Washington once lived in Washington Parish. Who knew that? Alabama was once Virginia and so many other states and about half of Washington’s General’s were fighting in the vicinity of Alabama and Tennesssee. Who knew that?
Ron Johnson
I fail to understand your point unless it it is that all history is wrong except your version.
vanne hanisch-godoy
Black people played a major role in the history of Alabama. Why are there no articles on black history on this site???
Darby Weaver
The American State Papers is the United States version of history.
One day people will read what Andrew Jackson actually is recorded to have written and realize that “The Life of Jackson” is more of a parody than that of actual history.
Of course this would mean exploring each person’s name discussed and learning what was being conveyed by each mention of a name aka “name throwing”.
Now the real question is why did the people of the Mississippi Territory aka Alabama think they needed to get things straight in 1810 when they learned they were squatting the wrong land…
Next why were those people or their descendants again appealing to Congress in 1834/1836 or so not to be removed…
I was taught it was the Indians who were removed from Alabama and yet I read the request of the white settlers who want to stay.
How can that be?
That’s not the Alabama version.
So what really happened if Alabama ancestors are asking Congress to let them stay…
Why is Tecumseh in Federal Records in the 1790’s?
Why is the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794?
There is a lot more wrong with Alabama History and it’s not my version.
It is the Federal Version.
Darby Weaver
On black history and Alabama – the possible reason why is that the Zora/Dora version was not yet created.
The reason why slavery was not mentioned much in early Alabama history is that Mobile was a swamp and people just didn’t farm much in the swamps.
It came down to supply and demand
We have to examine the agricultural and farming records in the 1840-1860’s for example.
There is a serious lack of opulent wealth.
That is, the richest of the rich were not quite wealthy enough to own slaves or else large numbers of slaves.
There were many small farms but few had the wealth required to afford many of any slaves.
So if a farm was only valued at $100.00 lock, stock, and barrel.
It would be incredibly unlikely a family could afford a slave which might cost upwards of $500.00 or more.
Also most families were larger during this period. So most of the pioneers carried their own water.
If we take the Chastang family which are always assumed to be a rich wealthy planter class in Mobile Alabama as an example…
Mobile’s records show most of the men named Chastang working under their overseer named Isaac Johnson in say the later 1820’s
Isaac Johnson and John Johnson are Choctaw Indians and community leaders then and later in history.
Captain Isaac was more or less a public servant who helped the “Hands to Work”’programs.
He paid the Chastang men each $1.00 a week to help build the roads in the swamps in the Alabama heat or cold and alongside rattlesnakes and moccasins or whatever was there when fever and death abounded in the swamps.
So even the presumably wealthier class were doing manual labor themselves.
I’d expect if they had slaves they would have been working then instead of the alleged slave owners.
That’s public records.
We have to recall that in Alabama – slaves were deterred from coming into the state and also from entering the ports.
To have a large slave holding class by 1860 there had to be more economy.
We have to read from Mr. Martin’s biography to learn what traffic there was on the Alabama River up to a certain point and learn why it was not the great river of opportunity as a means of transportation.
Alternatively one could visit the river now that it has been cleaned out by the US Army Corp of Engineers around the 1870-1880’s or so.
But that happened after the slavery days and not before.
So if the rivers were not really a great means of transportation at that time…
The state had its challenges.
Recall Mobile was the largest metro area in the State of Alabama for some time.
Also people had to get the land patented before they could even dream of owning their own antebellum style home.
So we have to visit those books to learn when most people even claimed land much less started to improve it.
Everything takes time.
No one ever mentioned having slaves on credit.
The bank system also had to become developed.
Roads were needed for commerce so we have to look at these.
Lots of internal infrastructure issues that would come about at some time.
Chicken or the Egg…
I grew up wit this notion of generations of white slave holders in the Antebellum South in my mind.
However, the records and events can’t support that notion and don’t.
It makes a sensational story.
No doubt but the economic reality seems to not be able to support the notion.
There are facts that support that what we read isn’t always what actually happened.
The trick is we actually have to read more than what we are fed in a history class.
Unlock with Patreon
The question is what was Tecumseh doing in the American State Papers in the 1790’s and why is he saying the same things Alexander McGillivray and William Panton of Panton Leslie Forbes says and all around Mount Vernon and Chastang Alabama? Why is that?
Hint: The Creek War Myth is fake history no matter how many liars tell a tale.
The Treaty of Ghent is free to read and there is no Creek War per se. No Ft. Mims atrocities. Interesting facts for a document that lists every little act of violence done during the war of 1812.
John Andre was said to be hung by the neck and the Andre family is in Chastang, Alabama and in 1818 was in the same newspaper as Francis the Prophet aka Hillis Harjo and isn’t it odd that the same name comes up again with regard to Washington as in the President. And the fact that George Washington once lived in Washington Parish. Who knew that? Alabama was once Virginia and so many other states and about half of Washington’s General’s were fighting in the vicinity of Alabama and Tennesssee. Who knew that?
I fail to understand your point unless it it is that all history is wrong except your version.
Black people played a major role in the history of Alabama. Why are there no articles on black history on this site???
The American State Papers is the United States version of history.
One day people will read what Andrew Jackson actually is recorded to have written and realize that “The Life of Jackson” is more of a parody than that of actual history.
Of course this would mean exploring each person’s name discussed and learning what was being conveyed by each mention of a name aka “name throwing”.
Now the real question is why did the people of the Mississippi Territory aka Alabama think they needed to get things straight in 1810 when they learned they were squatting the wrong land…
Next why were those people or their descendants again appealing to Congress in 1834/1836 or so not to be removed…
I was taught it was the Indians who were removed from Alabama and yet I read the request of the white settlers who want to stay.
How can that be?
That’s not the Alabama version.
So what really happened if Alabama ancestors are asking Congress to let them stay…
Why is Tecumseh in Federal Records in the 1790’s?
Why is the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794?
There is a lot more wrong with Alabama History and it’s not my version.
It is the Federal Version.
On black history and Alabama – the possible reason why is that the Zora/Dora version was not yet created.
The reason why slavery was not mentioned much in early Alabama history is that Mobile was a swamp and people just didn’t farm much in the swamps.
It came down to supply and demand
We have to examine the agricultural and farming records in the 1840-1860’s for example.
There is a serious lack of opulent wealth.
That is, the richest of the rich were not quite wealthy enough to own slaves or else large numbers of slaves.
There were many small farms but few had the wealth required to afford many of any slaves.
So if a farm was only valued at $100.00 lock, stock, and barrel.
It would be incredibly unlikely a family could afford a slave which might cost upwards of $500.00 or more.
Also most families were larger during this period. So most of the pioneers carried their own water.
If we take the Chastang family which are always assumed to be a rich wealthy planter class in Mobile Alabama as an example…
Mobile’s records show most of the men named Chastang working under their overseer named Isaac Johnson in say the later 1820’s
Isaac Johnson and John Johnson are Choctaw Indians and community leaders then and later in history.
Captain Isaac was more or less a public servant who helped the “Hands to Work”’programs.
He paid the Chastang men each $1.00 a week to help build the roads in the swamps in the Alabama heat or cold and alongside rattlesnakes and moccasins or whatever was there when fever and death abounded in the swamps.
So even the presumably wealthier class were doing manual labor themselves.
I’d expect if they had slaves they would have been working then instead of the alleged slave owners.
That’s public records.
We have to recall that in Alabama – slaves were deterred from coming into the state and also from entering the ports.
To have a large slave holding class by 1860 there had to be more economy.
We have to read from Mr. Martin’s biography to learn what traffic there was on the Alabama River up to a certain point and learn why it was not the great river of opportunity as a means of transportation.
Alternatively one could visit the river now that it has been cleaned out by the US Army Corp of Engineers around the 1870-1880’s or so.
But that happened after the slavery days and not before.
So if the rivers were not really a great means of transportation at that time…
The state had its challenges.
Recall Mobile was the largest metro area in the State of Alabama for some time.
Also people had to get the land patented before they could even dream of owning their own antebellum style home.
So we have to visit those books to learn when most people even claimed land much less started to improve it.
Everything takes time.
No one ever mentioned having slaves on credit.
The bank system also had to become developed.
Roads were needed for commerce so we have to look at these.
Lots of internal infrastructure issues that would come about at some time.
Chicken or the Egg…
I grew up wit this notion of generations of white slave holders in the Antebellum South in my mind.
However, the records and events can’t support that notion and don’t.
It makes a sensational story.
No doubt but the economic reality seems to not be able to support the notion.
There are facts that support that what we read isn’t always what actually happened.
The trick is we actually have to read more than what we are fed in a history class.