We've seen this pattern with you before. You take any criticism of the oh- so-holy Confederacy as a personal attack upon Southerners. Never mind that almost as many Southerners were pro Union. Never mind that a traitor is a traitor is a traitor. (And Watie was one more traitor, just this time to Cherokees.)
So you deliberatley distort, or in this case present outright lies as the truth repeatedly.
Actually, I usually stay out of these discussions. But sometimes the level of pure horse manure gets so high that SOMEBODY has to shovel it all out before we all suffocate in it.
1. Blood quantum doesn't mean squat to most Indians, and esp not to Cherokee, who accept as Cherokee anyone with any descent at all as long as they've kept in touch with their community and their culture. What counts is cultural knowledge and loyalty. Ross is regarded by most Cherokees as a Geo Washington figure, Watie as their Benedict Arnold.
Odd, I've known quite a few Cherokees in my time, and discussed this very issue with them, and not one of them ever called Stand Watie a Benedict Arnold. In fact, "Stand" and " Watie" were, for many years after the war, among the most common names given to Cherokee children, in his honor. If present-day Cherokees consider Watie a "Benedict Arnold," then they view him differently than their grandsires did.
2. Why don't you tell us what that conflict was, pre Trail of Tears, assuming you know?
The Watie faction illegally and immorally sold the Cherokee homeland to the US govt, in direct defiance of Cherokee law and custom.
I'm well aware of the circumstances of the conflict. And I don't defend Watie's role in the illegal treaty. Although, it should be said that Watie's faction acted for what they thought the good of the Cherokee people. They knew the Cherokees weren't going to be allowed to stay in Georgia. So they tried to cut the best deal they could.
If the majority had not listened to John Ross, the Trail of Tears would never have happened. The Cherokee were given ample warning that they were going to be removed. They had time to prepare for the trip. Instead, they listened to Ross and believed that the federal government was going to do the right thing and allow them to stay on their land. Then the alloted preparation time ran out, and federal troops were sent in to round up the Cherokee and put them on the road whether they were prepared or not. THAT'S why so many Cherokee died on the Trail of Tears. John Ross may have been right to argue that the removal was illegal and even immoral. But he was totally unrealistic and he led his people to a disaster. Stand Watie and his faction tried to prevent all that. It is unfortunate in the extreme that they failed.
For this, some of the leaders of the Watie faction were executed for high treason under Cherokee law. Watie narrowly escaped being executed as he richly deserved.
Actually,
some leaders of the Watie faction were murdered by members of the opposing faction. It was a lynching, not an "execution." (I can boldface too). To his credit, John Ross had nothing to do with it, and it was NOT sanctioned by the Cherokee government and had no basis in law.
3. That is an outright lie, and you know it, or should. Ross was overwhelmingly elected Pricincipal Chief. Watie's "election" was a fraud.
Ross was elected Principal Chief PRIOR to the war. He lost support for his stance during the war. And I have yet to see any evidence presented that the 1862 election was a fraud. I've read quite a bit on this subject. Source, please.
4. Yet another lie. Ross was continually recognized as Principal Chief, before, during, and after the war, winning re election numerous times.
Before, yes. During, no, except by the minority who changed sides and supported the Union. After, yes, because former Confederate Cherokees were stripped of their rights, and in order to get them back Stand Watie had to give up his claim on the Chiefdom (part of the Treaty of 1866, IIRC from my readings on the subject).
5. Yet another lie. The Ross govt made a pragmatic choice because there were Confed troops on three sides and no Union troops available to aid them.
I'll let the Ross government
speak for itself .
And Pea Ridge? What does it tell you when the great mass of Cherokees supposedly on the Confed side swtich sides first chance they get? Mass desertions (though technically you can't desert an insurgent group, only an actual national army) followed mass enlistment on the Union side.
Except that the "great mass" of the Cherokee did not switch sides. A minority group led by John Ross did.
6. There was only one "white man's govt". Or rather an insurgent group seeking to become one, the Confederacy, which had white supremacy enshrined in its founding documents.
There may have been pro-slavery provisions in the CS Constitution, but not one anti-Indian provision. The Cherokees, by the way, were a slaveholding people.
The Union, OTH, would shortly make this war a war to end slavery based on race, and had 1/3 of its soldiers from Blacks, plus the support of most Tejanos, most Indians in the North and many in the South, plus Latinos like Admiral Farragut.
1/3 of Union soldiers black? Well, approximately 200,000 blacks served in Union blue. Over 2 million men served, all told, in Union armies during the war. That's more like 10 percent. Granted, that's a lot. But your 1/3 figure is just another example of the horse manure you frequently bring to debates like this. You don't do a lot for your credibility when you spout such blatant and bald-faced inaccuracies as truth. Excuse me while I get the shovel again.
Most Tejanos? You obviously haven't read too much on that subject. Suggest you check out HISPANIC CONFEDERATES by John O'Donnell-Rosales. It's pretty hard to find...its been out of print for a few years. But quite interesting.
Contrast that to the CSA, with less than a hundred Black soldiers, most of them orderlies, hastily assembled in the final month or two of the war.
Plus the 20,000 to 90,000 blacks (figures vary widely) who served in Confederate units in support roles (cooks, teamsters, musicians, and yes, hospital orderlies). By the way, very, very few of the 200,000 who wore Union blue actually were used in combat. Most black units were used as labor battalions during the war. The scene in the movie, GLORY, where the 54th Mass. Infantry was out chopping wood and corduroying roads while the white troops were fighting? THAT was the reality for most black soldiers on BOTH sides during the Civil War.
7. Who did most Cherokees blame for the Trail of Tears? White Southerners, the ones who stole their land and lobbied the feds to back up their theft.
That's true back then and is true to this day. Gen. Winfield Scott is not blamed, but a white Southern slave trader named Andrew Jackson is.
Andrew Jackson, a slave trader? Source, please. Oh wait, you can't give me one, because there ARE NONE. Andrew Jackson was never a slave trader in his life! Better watch out, the arrow of the old credibility meter is dipping into the danger zone.

Time to get out the shovels again!
Jackson certainly is blamed, and well he should be, for the removal of the Cherokees. But the federal government was blamed too...after all, Jackson was President of the United States at the time. Or have you forgotten this?
8. "Repression"? Ridiculous, and yet again, either you don't know this or you deliberately lie.
According to the sources I have read, after the war the Northern Cherokees (i.e. the Ross faction, supported by their Union backers) confiscated the property of the Southern Cherokees and disenfranchised them. It was only with the Treaty of 1866 that the Southern (i.e. former Confederate) Cherokees were given their voting rights back, but at a price...unlike the Northern Cherokee, and unlike any person in any Southern State, the Southern Cherokees were forced to divide their lands and inheritances equally with their former slaves. I'm not saying necessarily this was wrong...but the Southern Cherokee were the ONLY group forced to bear that burden.
So yes, there was repression.