By examining the Second Seminole War through the lenses of race, Jacksonian democracy, media and public opinion, American expansion, and military strategy, Monaco offers an original perspective on a misunderstood and often-neglected chapter in our history.

A major study of a costly and influential Jacksonian-era war. The Second Seminole War (1835–1842) was the last major conflict fought on American soil before the Civil War. The early battlefield success of the Seminoles unnerved US generals, who worried it would spark a rebellion among Indians newly displaced by President Andrew Jackson's removal policies. The presence of black warriors among the Seminoles also agitated southerners wary of slave revolt. A lack of decisive victories and a series of bad decisions—among them the capture of Seminole leader Osceola while under the white flag of truce—damaged the US Army's reputation at home and abroad. Desertion was rampant as troops contended with the subtropical Florida wilderness. And losses for the Seminoles were devastating; by the war's end, only a few hundred remained in Florida. In this ambitious study, C. S. Monaco explores the far-reaching repercussions of this bloody, expensive campaign. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Monaco not only places this protracted conflict within a military context but also engages the various environmental, medical, and social aspects to uncover the war's true significance and complexity. By examining the Second Seminole War through the lenses of race, Jacksonian democracy, media and public opinion, American expansion, and military strategy, Monaco offers an original perspective on a misunderstood and often-neglected chapter in our history.

"When he died in 1838, Seminole warrior Osceola was the most famous Native American in the world. Born a Creek, Osceola was driven from his home to Florida by General Andrew Jackson where he joined the Seminole tribe. Their paths would cross again when President Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act that would relocate the Seminoles to hostile lands and lead to the return of the slaves who had joined their tribe. Outraged Osceola declared war. This vivid history recounts how Osceola led the longest, most expensive, and deadliest war between the U.S. Army and Native Americans and how he captured the imagination of the country with his quest for justice and freedom. Insightful, meticulously researched, and thrillingly told, Thom Hatch's account of the Great Seminole War is an accomplished work that finally does justice to this great leader"--Provided by publisher.

Historians have traditionally viewed the Creek War of 1836 as a minor police action centered on rounding up the Creek Indians for removal to Indian Territory. Using extensive archival research, John T. Ellisor demonstrates that in fact the Second Creek War was neither brief nor small. Indeed, armed conflict continued long after peace was declared and the majority of Creeks had been sent west. Ellisor’s study also broadly illuminates southern society just before the Indian removals, a time when many blacks, whites, and Natives lived in close proximity in the Old Southwest. In the Creek country, also called New Alabama, these ethnic groups began to develop a pluralistic society. When the 1830s cotton boom placed a premium on Creek land, however, dispossession of the Natives became an economic priority. Dispossessed and impoverished, some Creeks rose in armed revolt both to resist removal west and to drive the oppressors from their ancient homeland. Yet the resulting Second Creek War that raged over three states was fueled both by Native determination and by economic competition and was intensified not least by the massive government-sponsored land grab that constituted Indian removal. Because these circumstances also created fissures throughout southern society, both whites and blacks found it in their best interests to help the Creek insurgents. This first book-length examination of the Second Creek War shows how interethnic collusion and conflict characterized southern society during the 1830s.

During the nineteenth century, the U.S. military fought numerous battles against American Indians. These so-called Indian wars devastated indigenous populations, and some of the conflicts stand out today as massacres, as they involved violent attacks on often defenseless Native communities, including women and children. Although historians have written full-length studies about each of these episodes, Massacring Indians is the first to present them as part of a larger pattern of aggression, perpetuated by heartless or inept military commanders. In clear and accessible prose, veteran historian Roger L. Nichols examines ten significant massacres committed by U.S. Army units against American Indians. The battles range geographically from Alabama to Montana and include such well-known atrocities as Sand Creek, Washita, and Wounded Knee. Nichols explores the unique circumstances of each event, including its local context. At the same time, looking beyond the confusion and bloodshed of warfare, he identifies elements common to all the massacres. Unforgettable details emerge in the course of his account: inadequate training of U.S. soldiers, overeagerness to punish Indians, an inflated desire for glory among individual officers, and even careless mistakes resulting in attacks on the wrong village or band. As the author chronicles the collective tragedy of the massacres, he highlights the roles of well-known frontier commanders, ranging from Andrew Jackson to John Chivington and George Armstrong Custer. In many cases, Nichols explains, it was lower-ranking officers who bore the responsibility and blame for the massacres, even though orders came from the higher-ups. During the nineteenth century and for years thereafter, white settlers repeatedly used the term “massacre” to describe Indian raids, rather than the reverse. They lacked the understanding to differentiate such raids—Indians defending their homeland against invasion—from the aggressive decimation of peaceful Indian villages by U.S. troops. Even today it may be tempting for some to view the massacres as exceptions to the norm. By offering a broader synthesis of the attacks, Massacring Indians uncovers a more disturbing truth: that slaughtering innocent people was routine practice for U.S. troops and their leaders.

The Second Seminole War (1835–1842) was the last major conflict fought on American soil before the Civil War. The early battlefield success of the Seminoles unnerved US generals, who worried it would spark a rebellion among Indians newly displaced by President Andrew Jackson's removal policies. The presence of black warriors among the Seminoles also agitated southerners wary of slave revolt. A lack of decisive victories and a series of bad decisions—among them the capture of Seminole leader Osceola while under the white flag of truce—damaged the US Army's reputation at home and abroad. Desertion was rampant as troops contended with the subtropical Florida wilderness. And losses for the Seminoles were devastating; by the war's end, only a few hundred remained in Florida. In his ambitious study, C. S. Monaco explores the far-reaching repercussions of this bloody, expensive campaign. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, Monaco not only places this protracted conflict within a military context but also engages the various environmental, medical, and social aspects to uncover the war's true significance and complexity. By examining the Second Seminole War through the lenses of race, Jacksonian democracy, media and public opinion, American expansion, and military strategy, Monaco offers an original perspective on a misunderstood and often-neglected chapter in our history. "This highly recommended title replaces John K. Mahon's History of the Second Seminole War, 1835–1842 as the definitive work on the conflict. Essential."—Choice "An important book on an often-neglected topic. Monaco is a skilled writer. He has distilled extensive archival research from across the United States—along with a robust list of newspapers and published memoirs—into eleven succinct chapters. Monaco's work will surely be a valuable resource for historians and students of American Indian Removal in the coming years."—Civil War Book Review "A strong contribution to American history, in the current paradigm of settler-colonial studies. Monaco writes with fascinating ecological insight, keenly critical revisions of standard ideas, access to newly discovered documentary sources, and a commendable sense that he is writing about perception and rhetoric as much as about (sometimes unascertainable) fact."—lection

While the American founders fully expected parties to form in a free society, they were far less certain that opposing parties would peacefully transfer power from one to another. Party formation presented a confounding problem for the new republic: party rivalries could not be prevented, but they might, nonetheless, catalyze civil disorder or fracture the union of the states. The status of political parties has come a long way in American society and politics, however, and today American democracy is inconceivable without them. How did party competition become a regular and "normal" feature of the American political landscape? Why did American political leaders, who viewed such rivalry as a harbinger of the new republic's destruction, come to terms with party opposition? Embracing Dissent tells this story of political transformation, making the case that the status of party gained ground as the notion that party competition might instigate class violence, secession, or civil war, receded. From the American founding and the appearance of the Jacksonian Democratic party, to Lincoln's management of party politics during the Civil War, Jeffrey S. Selinger presents a careful reconsideration of American political development. Embracing Dissent also provides historical perspective on today's polarized political condition. Too often, pundits exaggerate the significance of partisan differences and minimize the depth of political consensus that permeates American politics. Political observers casually use expressions like "party conflict," forgetting, as the famed political scientist Giovanni Sartori noted, that public consensus on fundamental legal and constitutional norms makes party competition "something less than conflict, as we endlessly if often too late rediscover whenever we are confronted with the reality of a people shooting at each other." Embracing Dissent reminds readers of the long history of Americans "shooting at each other" and describes the political events that disarmed them.