Whose War Was It?

What is it about?

Competing claims based on rival notions of agency and empowerment during the Second Seminole War (1835–42) have surfaced from a group of scholars and from amateur historians who promote the unorthodox idea that African Americans, rather than Seminoles, constituted the real “backbone” of military resistance. Conflicting claims often accompany memories of war, as victors and losers inevitably bring opposing versions of dramatic events that inflict death and suffering on a massive scale. In this case, however, rival assertions have arisen from the same side that fought and died together in the Florida wilderness in a long but ultimately ill-fated effort to thwart removal efforts by the United States Army. One historian has recently inverted the standard paradigm of Seminole tragic heroes (Osceola being the most renowned) who led Indian warriors and their black allies into battle by reconfiguring the latter as the war’s principal leaders and by framing their motives as a slave rebellion, not an Indian war. Other authors, some without formal historical training, have espoused pricklier narratives; one has demanded that blacks reject history that has consigned them to the subservient role of playing “Tonto” to the Seminoles. Despite obvious obstacles, including the opposing claims of two groups who have long been oppressed and marginalized and whose historical traditions have been intensely politicized, this essay will nevertheless attempt to place the notion of black sovereignty into much-needed critical context.

Featured Image

Why is it important?

Historical legacies are crucial to the collective identities of both Native Americans and African Americans, far more so than whites, as research suggests. Views of the past, often in oral form, allow both groups to preserve a present-day collective identity, frequently under adverse circumstances and continued oppression. At the minimum, historians have a responsibility to treat all those who trace their traditions to the Florida war with a sense of equity. Professional standards of course dictate impartiality, but the recent ascendance of different heritage “crusades” that privilege group solidarity and empowerment over factual accuracy nonetheless permeate many levels of society. Few, it seems, are immune to such influences and historical truth, as imperfect a notion as it may be, has often suffered as a result. The fact that biases inevitably enter the equation, however, certainly does not preclude customary adherence to logic, evidence, and candor. “To throw off the reins of objectivity just because no one is neutral,” as historian Thomas L. Haskell has warned, and to endorse “political commitment uncritically, without erecting fences around propaganda” is self-defeating and has profound cultural implications.