I'll have to remember to go back to page and chapter, but it is written as more of an opinion expressed by Colonel Young.

The starving Indians weren't in Kansas they were in Indian Territory, but because Texans hating Indians like they did at the time, anyone who would be championing their cause would not been looked upon favorably by the Texans.

Albert Pike was infact a Champion of the Indians, he was the General of the Department of Indian Territory and saw his munitions and rations being stolen by Hindman. Jefferson Davis was turning a blind eye as he could use the Confederates Hindman was equiping and could not use the Indians according to treatys saying the Indian was to be used for defense in Indian Territory. Acoording to Patti's book Davis had the same problems with some of the Texas units, if he couldn't control them he didn't want them. The problem with the Indian Territory units was, he was violating the treaties Pike signed to get them into the Confederacy and Davis was treating the Indians just as the Union did.

My point of contention is, the opinon was allowed to remain, giving the allusion that it was truth. This kind of stuff can seriously damage a book that is wished to be taken as historically accurate. I'm not stating this to demean Patti, but to, as she would a student, guide her in the right direction. I like the book, there are places, it repeats itself, lots of footnotes and explanations. But that one thing made me think, now what else is opinion.