Great article...

[celtan]

Hi Aiontay.

Then the NPS is plumb wrong.

Yes, he used to serve the Brits, but since they were no more, he found new "masters". Proof of this is that during the Arkansas Post attack he did not bother Americans, and in fact. many Americans were part of his troupe.

There's also a history recorded from one of his contemporaries, I can't recall his name, he was a (n) american, who actually mentions Colbert's American employ.

There were (at least) two Colberts, father and son, both served the Brits. I believe the one that lead the attack at Arkansas was the son. But I might be wrong.

Remember that we are talking about 1783, when Spanish and Americans were trying to control the Mississippi and frontier areas, and de facto England was out of the picture In theory, Colbert was still at official War with Spain, although the Paris Treaty was signed on January. Colbert continued with his depredations and attacks on the grounds he had not received notice. Even after receiving same, he continued doing so, although more circumspectly.

BTW: I know what you mean. Sometimes I wish that some members of my extended family would change their surname...

Best

M

Originally Posted by aiontay

The NPS document claims that James Colbert led a force of British, not American, partisans. Arrell Gibson writes in his book "The Chickasaws" that James Colbert was a leader of British forces during the Revolutionary War. As for James being adopted, well, I could ask his descendents since I know a couple of them. Clearly, he intermarried and had/has numerous Chickasaw descendents. I'm Kiowa and Chickasaw, and my family, though not related, had pretty close ties with some of the Colberts back in the 19th Century, although I don't say that with any particular pride since the Colberts are problematic bunch.