Michael lee taylor

10/30/2020
Civil war history

Three cornered war analysis

The fight for the far west should have been titled the four sided war. Given

Mexico and their ever present threat was always an option. Though rude to say, during

Baylor's moment of weakness in his new mexico venture, mexico made it clear that if

they wanted to, they could, would and will take back the land that was stolen.

Thus forcing the confederacy into a war of three fronts. On one, a constant battle

of both diplomatic and conventional methods with the native americans who called this

place home. Two, constantly ensuring that they were strong enough to defend against

an invasion from mexico. Three, the ever present battering of the union brigades and

invasions into their territory.

Baylor is an interesting character in all of this. His main theme of life seems to be

the perfect rolls of dice. An officer of no commanding rank deciding that he can lead a

regiment. Leading the first successful raid on union territory. Somehow defeating

ANOTHER union regiment who “had succumbed to the most common of desert

maladies”. Then getting to piggyback off this line of success into calling himself the new

Arizona governor.

Though it seems power rushed to his head, as he decides to use both his

position as a colonial and a governor in tandem. Offering peace talks with the apache,
then having them captured and slaughtered. A move which the confederate president

decided was in fact, too bitter for his palette, stripping Baylor of his rank and position.

This leads into an interesting thought. Throughout american history the apache

and other tribes have been shown to be great hunters, great warriors, great strategists.

They know the land better than any american or confederate at this time. They know

what's safe to eat and drink. They know the best spots for gathering. Those last two in

particular should have interested the confederate armies.

But to both sides this was a great boon and a rather easy ally. The promise of

ancestral land and to be left alone sufficing, easy enough given the size america has

expanded to. But this would not come to pass, given the humiliation of mangas, whose

head “was dropped into a boiling kettle and left” then had his skull set on display.

Humiliated and disgraced in both a sense of the treatment of prisoners and the tribe

who saw the body needed to be intact for burial.

Though that was not the only hurdle for an alliance with the Indians, some were

naturally predisposed to another side. Some that were too far north and in union

territory such as the pottawatomie in Michigan enlisted as sharp shooters to improve

their standings within their surrounding communities. On the opposite side of the coin,

tribes such as the catawba tribe were already using slaves.

I'm getting side tracked with the hurdles of diplomacy, this book shows that the

native americans were astoundingly capable fighters regardless if they had the modern

weapons at the time such as guns or if they were fighting with arrows. Without a strong

relationship with the native americans, both the union and confederate armies would
have to spend valuable time and energy fighting a group that had nearly perfected the

art of guerilla fighting tactics.

This went double for union settlement towns that were set up in this area due to

the treaties the confederates signed with the “the five civilized tribes” which consisted of

the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole Indians. This group was

moved off their land by the United states towards Oklahoma, positioning them in a

perfect position to help aid the confederates in the war time efforts, spurred on by prior (

Andrew Jackson ) administrations hostility.

The goal for the confederate was to one, claim new mexico and arizona. That

would drastically increase their area and make them look more viable across the seas

to those still on the fence supporting them. That and it gives them miles and miles of

new prime cotton farming land, all the way to the Texas border to the appalachians.

Which leads to the next part of why the west became so important to the war, Its

terrain. As we saw near the top of the paper, there was an army who fell to the horrors

of marching in a desert, heat and thirst that incurred. Most of this area was essentially

plains. But there were areas that could serve as resupply points with enough food to

interest lee.

But this gives new problems. That's a lot of land to settle and properly defend.

Settlement towns are reliant on the states for supplies and protection. One good raid

and they could be wiped out or taken over.

The string of victories by the union in this theater disrupted this essential plan in

three ways. Cutting off supplies to settlement towns, cutting off backup for these areas
and surrounding the main states of the confederacy. This, to me, makes the western

theater the make of break point for both sides of the war.

If the south managed to keep a firm hold of the western theater, and extend to

the Appalachians, they nearly doubled their territory and gave them miles and miles of

farmland. This increases their standing in the global community as an international

provider and makes it more likely that more countries would have demanded some form

of peace treaty to be formed.

Interestingly, this outcome would have benefited the five civilized tribes, as they

could have been rewarded new tribal land that belonged both to them, and to their

enemies. This is a massive maybe given it means that the confederacy would have had

to honor and uphold their own treaty. Which in the case of america usually doesn't

happen.

My final thoughts on this book. It's a very interesting read, that helps me structure

more clearly some of the “smaller” players in the war and the impact that they had. I'm

happy that they also included the omnipresent threat of mexico in some of the chapters

given I was always curious on why they didn't capitalize on the chaos and weakness of

the confederacy towards the end of the war, given it would have been an excellent way

for them to regain the land they lost and more.

 Citations page

“Native Americans in the Civil War.” StackPath. Accessed October 28, 2020.
https://www.essentialcivilwarcurriculum.com/native-americans-in-the-civil-war.html.

Bentley, Martha M. "The Slaveholding Catawbas." The South Carolina Historical

Magazine 92, no. 2 (1991): 85-98. Accessed October 28, 2020.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/27568212.

NELSON, MEGAN KATE. THREE-CORNERED WAR: the Union, the Confederacy, and
Native Peoples in the Fight for the West. S.l.: SCRIBNER, 2021.