have you ever read ‘knights of the horseshoe?’… neither have i. you can only get so much info on a limited scan on amazon.com.
that was what was cited, but it wasn’t the same date as the book you mentioned. there can be four possibilities from this: he was lying. the citation was screwed up somehow. it wasn’t a citation from the book but perhaps from one of the numerous historical articles the author had written (the author was very interested in history and wrote a great deal on it i found out, not just through historical fiction novels). or, he quoted from the book which indeed had information on jackson’s involvement at horseshoe bend. some books do indeed include info from various points of geography and historical events, ya know, especially when they tie in to certain events in the time period.
so that’s that, and it is what it is, and unless either of us has ever read what is being cited there, which i’m tempted to do now, can’t exactly comment so definitively on it, can ya?
meanwhile, i forgot to mention your sources again… the one attributed fort mims and atrocities directly to tecumseh, while you wanted us to believe tecumseh was not only for such things but for such things done so haphazardly on settlers throughout the land, which would have provoked the militias into action and given them the just cause to attack he and others they so desperately sought that would’ve done great damage to his confederacy, and all his hard work over years… sure. that’s believeable, especially given the direct contrast between that and what historical sources say on the matter. you’ve never picked up a book on tecumseh, just perused some websites and pieced together whatever you found. so, don’t pretend to be in a position to speak on the matter when you haven’t devoted any amount of time to it. that’s an insult to numerous people.
then one of your sources said that seekabo was called the prophet, and was a shawnee. actually, tecumseh’s brother was ‘the prophet,’ not seekabo. seekabo wasn’t even a shawnee. another of the sources you threw out said as much also, and when i pointed this out to you, you conveniently ignored it. so… heh. so much for that
Same title, same author. Nothing whatsoever to do with the point for which it was cited. Sure sounds like a falsified cite to me.
No, but I do know that the Atlanta-Fulton County Library site says it’s a fictional account of the life of Alexander Spotswood (1676-1740) (a good 100 years before the battle of Horseshoe Bend) and describes the novel as “a traditionary tale of the cocked-hat gentry of the Old Dominion.”
Hmm. The Atlanta-Fulton County Library is just down the street, and their site says they have a copy. Maybe I’ll stroll down and check it out. Sounds like a ripping yarn! I’m pretty sure I won’t learn anything about the Creek War by reading it, though…
No. None of my sources attributed the atrocities at Ft. Mims directly to Tecumseh. Instead, those sources show that Tecumseh spoke to the Creeks, and that he advocated just the sort of massacre that the Creeks (or at least the Red Sticks faction of them) later carried out at Ft. Mims. Since you insist on pressing this point, here again are Tecumseh’s own words (spoken to the Creeks):
jac wrote:
How the hell do you know what I’ve read? In fact, I’ve read the very book from which the above excerpt of Tecumseh’s speech was taken. You’re the one citing sources you haven’t read. That’s how you got caught on the ridiculous Knights of the Horseshoe cite. Surely you remember the exchange:
Speaking of falsifying cites…there you were, jac, citing a book which you now admit you’ve never even seen, and which the rest of us now know to be a novel that has nothing to do with the Battle of Horseshoe Bend.
This is a tiresome thread, and you are a tiresome fellow. This board is dedicated to fighting ignorance, and you seem determined to spread the stuff.
wow… here you are, having ignored my mention of your conflicting sources for the umpteenth time, trying to take digs at me on one of my sources… some kind of nerve you have there spoke.
not only that, but i gave you online source you seem to have ignored as well because it didn’t fit your preconceived reverie and whatever else you’d like to imagine, mentioning the purposeful murder of a child there, and the killing of an elderly blind indian who appeared also to possibly be mute because one of jackson’s soldiers wanted to brag back home about having killed an indian, among many of the atrocities committed there.
if you only pick and choose what you want to address, no wonder you never seem to get anything and progress is never had. you’ve dug your heels in because it seems the only thing you know how to accomplish.