Authors today are far more informed than even ten years ago, therefore we have more accurate information. However, there are books out there that are very misleading. Just like the internet you also can’t believe everything you read in a book. Having said that, if the only place you get your information is on the net, you are most probably misinformed. Buy a book!

This is an example of how a novice researcher might be misled:

This paragraph is from an article in "Civil War History, A journal of the middle period", published by Kent State University Press, Dec 1973. The name of the article is "Chief John Ross during the Civil War".

"The differences which spawned divisions in the Union at large were reenacted in microcosm on the Indian frontier. The drift of succession sentiment reached the Cherokee Nation and widened the existing rift between the party of Ross and the newly reformed Ridge party. The Ross party was composed chiefly of full bloods and non slaveholders, while the opposition, led by Stan Watie, included mainly mixed bloods and Southern sympathizers."

My concern with this paragraph is that the novice would automatically think that Ross was full blood and a non slave owner while Watie was the opposite. Was this an honest oversight by the author or did he carry his bias so far as to mislead the reader? The entire article is overwhelmingly biased toward John Ross and makes him appear a victim. There are glaring omissions such as this.

The fact is that Ross was 1/8 Cherokee and 7/8 Scots. He also owned about 100 slaves. I am not sure how much European blood Watie had but he had more Cherokee blood than Ross. He also owned about 200 slaves. Nowhere in this article did the author explain this. The average reader – including myself a few years ago – would come to false conclusions.