Saturday, December 28, 2024
1934 Indian Reorganization Act
Tuesday, December 10, 2024
1492 Europeans Bring Change
The 1st Europeans believed to have arrived in North America were Vikings around about 1000CE. Leif Eriksson, a Viking explorer, led a party to Newfoundland and established a colony called Vineland. Earlier, Bjarni Herjulfsson, a sailor, had been blown off course while sailing from Iceland to Greenland and spotted an unknown shore. He returned to describe the land he saw, prompting Leif Eriksson to lead an expedition in 1001 to explore it further.
The Vikings seem to have abandaned their settlements in North America after only a few years. European interest in the continent did not resurface significantly until the late fifteenth century. Christopher Columbus's first voyage to the Caribbean in 1492 initiated an era of extensive European exploration.
Following Columbus’s voyage, Spain, Portugal, and other European powers began exploiting opportunities in the Americas, leading to permanent colonization. Spain undertook exploration, conquest, and settlement, driven by the pursuit of "gold, glory, and God." The conquest of the Aztec Empire between 1519 and 1521 marked a key event in early Spanish colonization. Portugal claimed lands in North America (Canada) and colonized much of eastern South America, naming it Santa Cruz and Brazil. Portuguese colonizers brought millions of enslaved Africans to Brazil from the 1500s to the 1800s.
European colonization dramatically impacted the indigenous population and culture of North America. Diseases carried by Europeans caused the native population to decline by an estimated 80%.
Economic theories like mercantilism, which aimed to maximize a nation's trade and stockpile of gold and silver, underpinned European colonization. The Columbian Exchange facilitated the transfer of commodities (e.g., horses, tomatoes, sugar), people, and diseases across the Atlantic. This exchange spurred population growth in Europe, introduced new crops, and shifted Europe toward a capitalist economy.
The motivations for European migration to the Americas revolved around "God, gold, and glory." Colonizers sought to extract valuable resources such as gold and sugar, spread Christianity, and enhance their nations' global status and military strength. Technological innovations, including compasses, astrolabes, and caravels—small, fast ships—enabled these ventures. The caravel, used by Spanish and Portuguese explorers, facilitated large-scale trade networks between the Old and New Worlds.
The Columbian Exchange initiated cultural and biological exchanges between indigenous peoples and European colonizers. This exchange brought new crops to Europe, promoted population growth, and accelerated economic shifts toward capitalism. The process moved commodities, people, and diseases across the Atlantic, reshaping both hemispheres.
European colonists encountered abundant land and natural resources but faced chronic labor shortages. Establishing settlements, building forts, clearing farmland, raising crops, and managing livestock required significant labor. Colonists had to produce goods for trade or earn income to procure essential supplies from Europe. With limited capital and a shortage of workers willing to emigrate, settlers devised various strategies to address their labor needs.
Some aristocratic investors initially sought to develop their holdings with European tenants, but the widespread availability of land undermined this approach. Others attempted to coerce Native Americans into labor, but this strategy failed on the mainland. By the early seventeenth century, British colonists, perceiving overpopulation in England, recruited impoverished English men and women to fill the labor gap. These individuals worked under indentures, providing unpaid labor for several years to repay the cost of their passage to the colonies.
ibliography
Books
Axtell, James. After Columbus: Essays in the Ethnohistory of Colonial North America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1988.
Axtell, James. Beyond 1492: Encounters in Colonial North America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Bailyn, Bernard. Atlantic History: Concept and Contours. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.
Berlin, Ira. Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.
Blackhawk, Ned. The Rediscovery of America: Native Peoples and the Unmaking of U.S. History. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2023.
Crosby, Alfred W. Ecological Imperialism: The Biological Expansion of Europe, 900–1900. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. New York: W. W. Norton, 1997.
Edelson, S. Max. The New Map of Empire: How Britain Imagined America Before Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017.
Elliott, John H. Empires of the Atlantic World: Britain and Spain in America 1492–1830. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.
Fernlund, Kevin Jon. A Big History of North America, from Montezuma to Monroe. Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2022.
Hinderaker, Eric, and Rebecca Horn. Territorial Crossings: Histories and Historiographies of the Early Americas. Williamsburg, VA: Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, 2010.
Jennings, Francis. The Invasion of America: Indians, Colonialism, and the Cant of Conquest. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1975.
Kruer, Matthew. Time of Anarchy: Indigenous Power and the Crisis of Colonialism in Early America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2021.
Lockhart, James, and Stuart B. Schwartz. Early Latin America: A History of Colonial Spanish America and Brazil. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983.
Mann, Charles C. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005.
Morison, Samuel Eliot. The European Discovery of America: The Northern Voyages, A.D. 500–1600. New York: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Morison, Samuel Eliot. The European Discovery of America: The Southern Voyages, 1492–1616. New York: Oxford University Press, 1974.
Pagden, Anthony. European Encounters with the New World: From Renaissance to Romanticism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1993.
Parry, J. H. The Age of Reconnaissance: Discovery, Exploration, and Settlement, 1450–1650. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.
Reséndez, Andrés. The Other Slavery: The Uncovered Story of Indian Enslavement in America. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2016.
Taylor, Alan. American Colonies: The Settling of North America. New York: Penguin Books, 2001.
Thornton, Russell. American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.
Articles
Bailyn, Bernard. "The Idea of Atlantic History." Itinerario 20, no. 1 (1996): 19–44. Explores the conceptual framework of Atlantic history as a field of study.
Blackhawk, Ned. "Recasting the Narrative of America: The Rewards and Challenges of Teaching American Indian History." The Journal of American History 93, no. 4 (2007): 1165–1170. Highlights the complexities and benefits of integrating Native American perspectives into historical narratives.
Crosby, Alfred W. "The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492." The William and Mary Quarterly 33, no. 2 (1976): 289–299. Examines the exchange of goods, diseases, and people between the Old and New Worlds.
Elliott, John H. "The Seaborne Empires." The Oxford History of the British Empire, Volume I: The Origins of Empire, 1485–1715. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Analyzes the economic and strategic factors driving early European exploration.
Hinderaker, Eric, and Rebecca Horn. "Territorial Crossings: Histories and Historiographies of the Early Americas." The William and Mary Quarterly 67, no. 3 (2010): 395–432. Discusses territorial interactions and historiographical debates on early American history.
Jennings, Francis. "Virgin Land and Savage People." American Quarterly 23, no. 4 (1971): 519–541. Critiques the myth of an untouched wilderness in colonial narratives.
Thorvaldsen, Thor. "Viking Expansion and Settlement: A New Perspective." Scandinavian Studies 45, no. 1 (1973): 15–31. Provides an updated analysis of Viking activity in the Americas.
Monday, October 21, 2024
Dwindling Native Populations
Historians think that tuberculosis, dysentery, & parasitic diseases were common in the Americas before the arrival of the Europeans. Research on early skeletal remains has also given scientists intriguing clues to early New World diseases & treatments. In the 1970s, a pre-Columbian mummified child from Peru was examined, & the skeleton, as well as the preserved soft tissue, showed signs of tuberculosis with remnants of tuberculosis bacilli still in the tissue.
The impact of these diseases is somtimes referred to as the "Virgin Soil Epidemics," where populations were exposed to pathogens for the first time, leading to catastrophic loss of life. This rapid depopulation dramatically altered Native American societies, making them more vulnerable to European expansion and colonization efforts. The loss of elders and leaders also disrupted the transmission of oral histories, traditions, and cultural knowledge, contributing to the loss of invaluable aspects of Indigenous heritage.
Bibliography
Books:
Crosby, Alfred W. The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492. Greenwood Press, 1972.
Diamond, Jared. Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies. W.W. Norton & Company, 1997.
Fenn, Elizabeth A. Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of 1775-82. Hill and Wang, 2001.
Mann, Charles C. 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus. Vintage Books, 2006.
Thornton, Russell. American Indian Holocaust and Survival: A Population History Since 1492. University of Oklahoma Press, 1987.
Articles:
Baugh, Timothy E. "Transforming Landscapes: The Impact of Early European Settlement in North America." Journal of American History, 2002. This article discusses the landscape transformations brought by European settlers and their introduction of crops and livestock to the Americas, which were facilitated by the depopulation of Native communities.
Crosby, Alfred W. "The Columbian Exchange: Biological and Cultural Consequences of 1492." Journal of American History, 1972. Crosby introduces the concept of the Columbian Exchange and its impact on both the Old and New Worlds, particularly focusing on the diseases that devastated Native populations.
Dobyns, Henry F. "Estimating Aboriginal American Population: An Appraisal of Techniques with a New Hemispheric Estimate." Current Anthropology, 1966. This influential article reevaluates pre-Columbian population estimates and discusses the role of disease in reducing Native American populations by as much as 90% after European contact.
Ramenofsky, Ann. "The Problem of Epidemics: Disease and Depopulation in the Early Spanish Empire." Journal of Anthropological Research, 1987. This article analyzes how epidemics, particularly smallpox, facilitated Spanish colonization by weakening and depopulating Native societies across the Americas.
Sunday, January 28, 2024
Profit-Seekers covet Native Lan
The American Indian Wars (also called American Frontier Wars, & the First Nations Wars) were fought by European governments seeking economic expansion into the Americas & by their colonists, & later by the newly formed United States & Canadian governments plus their settlers, against various American Indian & First Nation tribes.
America's native people prior to the European invasion were a complex mixture of histories, alliances & conflicts. Humans are human, & some native tribes acted towards one another with the same brutality as the Europeans did towards them, & visa versa. Grudges & the lure of power were similar. It is believed that the colonists intentionally spread contagious diseases among the natives, usually through gifts of infected blankets or clothing. Measles & smallpox probably killed more natives than bullets & bayonets. The Native's "stone age" war technologies eventually succumbed to the deceptions & weapons of the Europeans.
These particular conflicts occurred in North America from the time of the earliest European colonial settlements from the 17C until the early 20C. The various wars resulted from a wide variety of factors. These wars usually resulted in the sovereignty of combatants being either extended or lost; a massive native indigenous population decline; deportation & forced assimilation of indigenous tribes; many treaties, truces, & armistices made & then broken by combatants; & the establishment of "Indian reservations" in the United States & Canada.
The European political & economic powers & their colonies also enlisted allied Indian tribes to help them conduct warfare against each other's colonial settlements.
After the American Revolution, many conflicts were local to specific states or regions & frequently involved disputes over land use; some entailed repeated cycles of violent reprisal.
As settlers spread westward across North America after 1780, armed conflicts increased in size, duration, & intensity between the European settlers & various Native & First Nation tribes. The climax came in the War of 1812, when major Indian coalitions in the Midwest & the South fought against the United States & lost. Conflict with settlers became less common & was usually resolved by treaty, often involving sale or exchange of territory between the federal government & specific tribes.
The Indian Removal Act of 1830 authorized the American government to enforce Native American removal from east of the Mississippi River to Indian Territory west on the American frontier, such as the land that later became Oklahoma. The federal policy of removal was eventually refined in the West, as American settlers kept expanding their territories, to relocate native tribes to restricted land areas called reservations.
See:
Barnes, Jeff. Forts of the Northern Plains: Guide to Historic Military Posts of the Plains Indian Wars. Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania: Stackpole Books, 2008.
Glassley, Ray Hoard. Indian Wars of the Pacific Northwest, Binfords & Mort, Portland, Oregon 1972
Heard, J. Norman. Handbook of the American Frontier (Compilation of Indian-white contacts & conflicts) Scarecrow Press, 1987–98
Volume 1: "The Southeastern Woodlands,"
Volume 2: "The Northeastern Woodlands,"
Volume 3: "The Great Plains,"
Volume 4: "The Far West,"
Volume 5: "Chronology, Bibliography, Index."
Kessel, William and Robert Wooster. Encyclopedia of Native American Wars and Warfare (2005)
McDermott, John D. A Guide to the Indian Wars of the West. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998.
Merrell, James H (1989). "Some Thoughts on Colonial Historians & American Indians" William and Mary Quarterly. 46
Merrell, James H (2012). "Second Thoughts on Colonial Historians & American Indians" William and Mary Quarterly. 69
Michno, Gregory F. Deadliest Indian War in the West: The Snake Conflict, 1864–1868, Caxton Press, 2007
Miller, Lester L, Jr. Indian Wars: A Bibliography US Army, 1988 online (lists over 200 books & articles)
Stannard, David. American Holocaust: Columbus and the Conquest of the New World, Oxford, 1992
Tucker, Spencer, ed. The Encyclopedia of North American Indian Wars, 1607–1890: A Political, Social, and Military History (3 vol 2012)
Wooster, Robert. The Military and United States Indian Policy, 1865–1903, Published 1995
Friday, January 26, 2024
INative Women & Fur Trade
Brokers of the Frontier: Indigenous Women & the Fur Trade
From Women’s History Matters (assisting the Montana Historical Society) December 2, 2014
For 2 centuries—from the mid-1600s to the 1860s—Indian & Métis women...brokered culture, language, trade goods, & power on the Canadian & American fur-trade frontier. They were partners, liaisons, & wives to the French, Scottish, Canadian, & American men who scoured the West for salable furs. Stereotyped by early historians as victims or heroines (and there were both), indigenous women also wielded significant, traceable power in this era of changing alliances, increasing intertribal conflict, & expanding European presence in the West.
The roles indigenous women played during the fur trade reflected the roles they historically held within their communities. Despite cultural distinctions among tribes, indigenous women generally shared the common responsibilities of procuring & trading food, hides, & clothing. Women also embodied political diplomacy as tribes forged internal & intertribal relationships around family alliances & cemented these social structures through (often polygamous) marriage. These traditional economic & political roles placed indigenous women at the center of trade, & made them desirable & necessary partners for fur traders.
A multicultural & economically diverse group working for international companies, the fur traders who came to Montana were all far from their families. Whether company managers, clerks, laborers, or trappers, the men sought companionship, intimacy, & entrée into local tribal communities, as well as assistance in making their economic endeavors a success. Marriage to indigenous women could provide all of these things.
In keeping with tribal customs, traders arranged liaisons with indigenous women by exchanging gifts with tribal families, who themselves recognized the potential benefits of establishing alliances. Depending on both partners’ preferences, relationships lasted a season, many months or years, or a lifetime. Some indigenous wives returned to eastern settlements with their white husbands; some raised families together in the West.
Whatever the specifics of their individual relationships, the important socioeconomic positions indigenous women held in their own cultures manifested in their contributions to the fur trade. Indigenous wives gave fur traders invaluable ties to the land & tribes. Their knowledge of the region’s climate, wildlife, plants, languages, & topography shortened considerably the male outsiders’ learning curves. At the same time, the women brought inside information to their tribes about the reliability of traders & prices while relaying tribal news to their white partners.
Indigenous women also accomplished work fundamental to the survival of the fur traders & to their economic success. While incorporating European household goods into their daily lives (and thus making those goods more marketable), women in the fur trade continued to utilize indigenous methods to produce food & durable goods such as clothing, footwear, & blankets as well as baskets, parfleches, & other portable trade & traveling containers. Women also prepared hides, expertly cleaning & tanning them to command high prices.
Notwithstanding the power they derived from being experienced locals, many indigenous wives faced adversity & tragedy. They had to learn new languages, navigate European cultural norms, & often adapt to unfamiliar dwellings. Separation from their families & the reality of living amid an almost exclusively male population caused particular hardship; fur trade wives lost the support & companionship of other women with whom, in their native societies, they would have shared the duties of daily work & child rearing. Living at fur forts also placed them at increased risk of sexual exploitation. In addition, close proximity to Europeans exposed indigenous women to many infectious diseases. In 1837, when a steamboat brought smallpox up the Missouri, they were among the disease’s first victims—and its first carriers back to tribes...
The feelings & perceptions of women...who brokered the geographical & cultural frontiers of the North American continent’s fur trade, do not exist in written documents. Most of what we know of their lives comes from traders & territorial visitors, not the women themselves. Thus, we know from a visitor’s published account that Coth-co-co-na adorned her husband with her artistry, gifting him with a beautifully beaded tobacco sack. But we don’t know how she felt about her husband or her role as the indigenous wife of a Euro-American. Nevertheless, careful reading of existing documents can reveal glimpses of the complexities that she & other indigenous women faced as they melded their lives with men from a very foreign culture.
The Métis are often called “children of the fur trade.”
See:
Boller, Henry A. Among the Indians: Eight Years in the Far West, 1858-1866. Chicago: Lakeside Press, 1959 (1868).
Brown, Jennifer S. H. Strangers in the Blood: Fur Trade Company Families in Indian Country. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1980.
Graybill, Andrew. The Red & the White: A Family Saga of the American West. New York: W. W. Norton, 2013.
Lansing, Michael. “Plains Indian Women & Interracial Marriage in the Upper Missouri Trade, 1804-1868.” The Western Historical Quarterly 31, no. 4 (Winter, 2000), 413-33.
Meikle, Lyndel, ed. Very Close to Trouble: The Johnny Grant Memoir. Pullman: Washington State University Press, 1996.
Milner, Clyde II, & Carol O’Connor. As Big as the West: The Pioneer Life of Granville Stuart. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009.
Schemm, Mildred Walker. “The Major’s Lady: Natawista.” The Montana Magazine of History 2, no. 1 (January 1952), 4-15.
Van Kirk, Sylvia. Many Tender Ties: Women in Fur-Trade Society, 1670-1870. Winnipeg: Watson & Dwyer, 1980.
Waterman, Kees-Jan. Noel, Jan. “Not Confined to the Village Clearings: Indian Women in the Fur Trade in Colonial New York, 1695–1732.” New York History Vol 94 (2013): 40-58.
White, Bruce M. "The Woman Who Married a Beaver: Trade Patterns & Gender Roles in the Ojibwa Fur Trade." Ethnohistory Vol 46. (1999): 109-47.
Wischmann, Lesley. Frontier Diplomats: Alexander Culbertson & Natoyist-Siksina among the Blackfeet. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2004.
Wednesday, January 24, 2024
1757 Geu Washingtin & the Natives - Douge Run Farm, originally Indian Lands, adjoining Mount Vernon
Dogue Run Farm
Dennis J. Pogue, PhD in Anthropology with an emphasis in historical archaeology, tells us that: in 1799, Mount Vernon consisted of 8,000 acres divided into 5 farms: Mansion House, Dogue Run, Muddy Hole, River, & Union, plus a gristmill & distillery. Dogue Run Farm was assembled over time through numerous purchases of smaller tracts.
References in George Washington's diaries as early as 1762 to "Doeg Run Quarter," which was likely composed of at least the western portion of a 500-acre tract purchased from Sampson Darrell in 1757. This holding was enlarged by several smaller parcels acquired in the early 1760s.
Early references to "Doeg Run" describe it as a "Quarter," a term generally used in the region to designate a remote section of a large farm or plantation. During the colonial 18C, the phrase usually denoted a portion of the farm that functioned separately with an overseer & a basic complement of enslaved workers, buildings, & stock, & probably developed because of the fragmented pattern of larger landholdings common in the colonial Chesapeake.
This early quarter was significantly enlarged by the 3 purchases that became the central core of the resurveyed & renamed Dogue Run Farm. The key acquisitions were: 75 acres from Valinda Wade in 1770, 400 acres from Thomas Marshall in 1779, & 118 acres from William Barry in 1783. By 1786 Washington reconfigured these holdings & embarked on a plan to bring order to Dogue Run.
Washington, however, faced inherent obstacles: field systems based on disparate ownership, as well as buildings that were scattered across the newly imagined farm but constructed for outmoded needs. Among the buildings that can be identified on the new farm in the late 1780s were at least 2 dwelling complexes, "Wade's houses" located near "the old dam" on Dogue Run, & "Barry's houses," positioned in reasonably close proximity to Wade's. These dwelling houses were occupied by prior owners, & each complex included a typical array of domestic & agricultural buildings associated with a small tobacco farm.
There was also at least one tobacco house built by Washington at Doeg Run Quarter in the 1760s, as well as a hay barracks, a corn house, & huts for the enslaved people who worked the Washimgton's fields. With the new field system in place, a dwelling available for his overseer & housing for the enslaved workers, Washington turned his attention to improving the agricultural buildings at Dogue Run. In 1786 there were 39 enslaved men, women, & children living on the farm. The number of people grew to 45 in 1799.
These physical improvements were modest at first. The tobacco house was adopted for other crop storage needs & work crews spent available time in the fall of 1788, cutting & hauling rails for enclosing the new fields & preparing stack yards for wheat, oats, & rye.
A simple fodder house was built as well as farm pens & a cellar to store potatoes. Construction work was still at full bore on the Ferry barn in the spring of 1789, when George Washington turned his attention to the need for more substantial improvements at Dogue Run, anticipating a new, solidly built barn on that farm.
The construction of the Ferry barn complex had another 2 years to run to reach completion. However, the bricks for the Ferry complex had been completed the previous fall, & the enslaved bricklayers' duties were nearly complete there as well. Washington seemed intent on shifting to his next project, one that had already been discussed in at least conceptual terms. But no further record of significant building activity can be linked to Dogue Run Farm until 1791. In June of that year, Washington prepared a memorandum of carpentry work to be done throughout the Mount Vernon plantation under the supervision of farm manager Anthony Whiting.
Other needs at Dogue Run took precedence, & by September the Washington's carpenters were at work on a new overseer's house for the farm. The old house of Valinda Wade was incompatible with the new field system & had become a distracting & inconvenient intrusion. It was replaced by a new frame house located in close proximity to the middle meadow.
In the fall of 1792, Washington was prepared to make a major commitment to a new agricultural complex at Dogue Run. By October 28, Washington completed a framing plan & a structural section for a uniquely innovative barn designed specifically to tread wheat.
Washington had several types of wheat planted by enslaved workers in an attempt to find the perfect fit for his fields, including summer wheat, red-straw wheat, lamas wheat, double-headed wheat, yellow-bearded wheat, early wheat, & Russian wheat. He finally settled on a variety known simply as white wheat.
Monday, January 22, 2024
Geu Washingtin & Native Hoecakes
Hoecakes & Honey
George Washington grew most of the plants used for the meals at his Virginia Plantation, & he "enjoyed a bounteous table at his home at Mount Vernon. Various contemporary sources discuss the amount, quality, & variety of items served to Washington & his guests. In both his earlier days as a country gentleman & in his later role as an elder statesman, George & Martha Washington frequently hosted guests at their home.
"As such, the Washingtons had a ready supply of a variety of foods, some of which were imported & many of which were produced at Mount Vernon itself. While foods at Mount Vernon ranged from fish to mutton to hazelnuts, washed down with liberal helpings of whiskey, wine, & home-brewed beer, one of General Washington's favorite meals was also one of the simplest: hoecakes & honey.
"Hoecakes & honey is a distinctly American dish. The recipe originated with Native Americans & subsequently was utilized by enslaved people & European settlers alike. Recipes varied, but the basic idea of a flat cake made of cornmeal mush spread all throughout the country. Various incarnations of the recipe were consumed in New England, Virginia, the Deep South, & the Southwest.
"The American diplomat & poet Joel Barlow immortalized the hoecake in his 1793 poem "The Hasty Pudding," calling it "fair Virginia's pride," but also attested to other regional variants such as the New England johnnycake, which "receives a dash of pumpkin in the paste."1 Along with these names, it was also known variously as a journey cake, ash cake, cornpone, spider bread, mushcakes, Injun bread, & bannock.
"As its many names & its wide regional dispersal illustrates, the hoecake was a ubiquitous food in colonial America. It was a staple for many poor & middling Americans, & was especially associated with enslaved people's diet. Multiple guests of the Washingtons noted hoecakes & honey being a significant component of a Mount Vernon breakfast. George Washington preferred his hoecakes "swimming in butter & honey."2 One guest surmised that having the hoecakes softened with honey & butter made it easier for Washington to chew his breakfast.
"Over the years as hoecakes have faded in their historical memory as a food for the enslaved community or a prominent regional dish of Virginia, they have become more strongly associated with Washington. Although he also enjoyed other foods such as nuts, fish, & Madeira wine, the simple American hoecake has become entwined with his reputation as a simple American."
Mount Vernon Digital Encyclopedia By Katie Uva, Graduate Center, City University of New York
Notes
1. Joel Barlow, "The Hasty Pudding," Selections From the American Poets, ed. William Cullen Bryant (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1860). See FTP Address: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/a/amverse/BAH8718.0001.001/1:5.1?rgn=div2;view=fulltext.
2. Nelly Custis, quoted in Dining With the Washingtons: Historic Recipes, Entertainment, & Hospitality From Mount Vernon (Chapel Hill: UNC Press Books, 2011), 38.
See:
Dining With the Washingtons: Historic Recipes, Entertainment, & Hospitality from Mount Vernon. Chapel Hill: UNC Press Books, 2011.
The Oxford Companion to American Food & Drink, ed. Andrew F. Smith. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.
Selections from the American Poets, ed. William Cullen Bryant. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1860.
Saturday, January 20, 2024
Natives & Revolution
John Reuben Chapin, Battle of Oriskany, State of New York. Ballou's Pictorial 12, no. 18, May 2, 1857, 280.
Mount Vernon tells us that the Oneida are one of the Six Nations Iroquois (Haudenosaunee), & the only one that openly declared its support for the American Revolution. In describing the group's support of the revolution, George Washington explained that, "The Oneidas have manifested the strongest Attachment to us throughout this Dispute."1 The Oneida provided American forces with troops & spies throughout the Revolution, beginning at the Battle of Oriskany in New York's Mohawk Valley August 1777.
Initially, the Oneida remained neutral, though they were sympathetic to the American cause, partly because of their friendship with the patriot missionary Samuel Kirkland described by Washington as having "an uncommon Ascendency over them."2 The sympathy Kirkland evoked turned into outright support when the British told the Oneida that General Barry St. Leger would march a combined force of British & American loyalist soldiers through the Oneida lands to attack Fort Schuyler, where he hoped to join forces with General John Burgoyne. The Oneida did not believe themselves to be subservient to either the British or their Mohawk allies, & so the Oneida saw St. Leger's action as an offence they were honor-bound to oppose.3
On August 2, 1777, the Oneida rode out to warn the local patriots at Fort Schuyler & in the New York militia of the impending British attack.4 Four days later, the Oneida fought alongside the militia to defend Fort Schuyler. Commanded by General Nicholas Herkimer, the New York troops went into battle & were ambushed by St. Leger & the Mohawk.5 Eventually, however, the Oneida & the New York militia turned back the British after the Mohawk fled, thus preventing St. Leger from meeting Burgoyne as planned. The achievement helped set the stage for a decisive patriot victory at Saratoga in October.
The Battle of Oriskany, named after the nearby river, was one of the bloodiest battles in the Revolution & the only battle where Native Americans fought each other on a large scale.6 Despite the British retreat, the victors sustained heavy losses. The New Yorkers lost almost their entire local militia & the nearby Oneida village was pillaged by the retreating Mohawk.7 Equally important, this battle determined the sides the different Iroquois nations would take in the war & signified the end of the centuries-old Iroquois alliance.
After the Battle of Oriskany, General Washington invited the Oneida to assist the Americans at Valley Forge. When they arrived, Oneida leaders dined with Washington, who gave each leader a wampum belt in gratitude for their help.8 In addition to troops, the Oneida brought much-needed food & supplies. Most notable is the example of Polly Cooper, who gave white corn to the starving troops & taught them how to prepare the grain to make it edible. Polly Cooper remained at Valley Forge that winter, serving as Washington’s cook.9 Despite the great services they performed, the Oneida refused payment for what they had done. To show her gratitude, Oneida oral tradition holds that Martha Washington presented Polly Cooper with a shawl & bonnet.10
General Washington also deployed the Oneida as scouts, soldiers, & spies. Oneida scouts patrolled the area around Valley Forge during the winter of 1777-78. In May 1778, during the Battle of Barren Hill, the Oneida scouts stayed behind so that General Lafayette & his troops could escape, after which they assisted other American officers.11 Oneida men also fought alongside American patriot forces in many battles. Ten Oneida soldiers attained officers' commissions in the Continental Army, & one rose to the rank of lieutenant-colonel.12 Some Oneida acted as spies, intercepting British communications & gathering information on troop movements & strategies, including Deacon Thomas, who hid in the rafters of the council house in a Mohawk village until his assassination in 1779.13
After the war, Congress thanked the Oneida for their help & granted them war reparations. While the U.S. government punished Native American tribes that sided with the British, the Oneida were left in relative peace. Despite their professed friendship for the Oneida, however, state & federal governments prevented the group from buying back most of their ancestral lands.14 The situation worsened when the State of New York claimed land that, according to a treaty, belonged to the Oneida. Congress ruled that the land was to be returned to the Oneida & that New York should pay reparations. However, when New York then attempted to force the Oneida to pay taxes on their land, Congress issued a mixed verdict, exempting the Oneida from state taxes but also ruling that they did not have sovereignty in the lands that they bought.15
Alejandra Smith, George Mason University
Notes:
1. "From George Washington to the Commissioners of Indian Affairs, 13 March 1778," Founders Online, National Archives. Source: The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 14, 1 March 1778?–?30 April 1778, ed. David R. Hoth (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2004), 167–8.
2. Ibid.
3. James Kirby Martin, "Forgotten Heroes of the Revolution: Han Yerry & Tyona Doxtader of the Oneida Indian Nation," in Alfred F. Young, Gary Nash, & Ray Raphael, eds., Revolutionary Founders: Rebels, Radicals, & Reformers in the Making of the Nation (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011), 203; Joseph Glatthaar & James Martin, Forgotten Allies: Oneida Indians & the American Revolution (New York: Hill & Wang, 2006), 156.
4. Martin, "Forgotten Heroes," 205.
5. Paul A. Boehlert, The Battle of Oriskany & General Nicholas Herkimer: Revolution in the Mohawk Valley (Charleston, S.C.: The History Press, 2013), 80.
6. Martin, "Forgotten Heroes," 205; Karim Tiro, The People of the Standing Stone: The Oneida Nation from the revolution through the Era of Removal (Amherst, Mass.: University of Massachusetts Press, 2011), 48.
7. Glatthaar & Martin, Forgotten Allies, 177; Boehlert, Battle of Oriskany, 101.
8. Glatthaar & Martin, Forgotten Allies, 285.
9. William Sawyer, "The Oneida Nation in the American Revolution," Fort Stanwix, National Park Service.
10. William Rockwell et. al., "The Polly Cooper Shawl," Oneida Indian Nation.
11. Martin, "Forgotten Heroes,", 208; David Norton, Rebellious Younger Brother: Oneida Leadership & Diplomacy, 1750-1800 (DeKalb, Ill,.: Northern Illinois University Press, 2009), 99.
12. Tiro, People of the Standing Stone, 51; Barbara Graymont, "ATIATOHARONGWEN," in Dictionary of Canadian Biography, vol. 5, University of Toronto/Université Laval, 2003.
13. Tiro, 51.
14. Norton, 111.
15. Glatthaar & Martin, 320-3.
Bibliography:
Boehlert, Paul A. The Battle of Oriskany & General Nicholas Herkimer: Revolution in the Mohawk Valley. Charleston, S.C.: The History Press, 2013.
Glatthaar, Joseph T. & James K. Martin. Forgotten Allies: Oneida Indians & the American Revolution. New York: Hill & Wang, 2006.
Martin, James Kirby, "Forgotten Heroes of the Revolution: Han Yerry & Tyona Doxtader of the Oneida Indian Nation. In Alfred F. Young, Gary Nash, & Ray Raphael, eds., Revolutionary Founders: Rebels, Radicals, & Reformers in the Making of the Nation. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2011. Pages 199-214.
Norton, David. Rebellious Younger Brother: Oneida Leadership & Diplomacy, 1750-1800. DeKalb, Il: Northern Illinois University Press, 2009.
Tiro, Karim. The People of the Standing Stone: The Oneida Nation from the Revolution through the Era of Removal. Amherst & Boston, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2011.
Thursday, January 18, 2024
Geu Washingtin & Natives
Mount Vernon tells us that in the 18C, though, the Creek Nation was instead the Creek Confederacy, a multi-ethnic coalition of migrant peoples with a territorial expanse that encompassed much of the Deep South: from South Carolina to Alabama. The Confederacy evolved out of the Mississippian civilizations that collapsed in the southeast during the 16C & 17C as a consequence of European colonialism.
Specifically, Muskogean-language groups such as the Abihka, Tallapoosa, & Apalachicola coalesced into a polyglot alliance of towns, who were later joined by groups of non-Muskogean speakers like the Yuchi, Hitchiti, Shawnee, Natchez, Chickasaw, Apalachee, & others. Over the course of a century, these multilingual communities continuously merged, precipitated by the founding of the “mother” towns – Coweta, Cusseta, Tukabatchee, & Abeka. By the turn of the 18C, they were all collectively identified by Europeans as the “Creek Indians.”
Such fluidity continued to define the Confederacy throughout the eighteenth-century. For example, the primary source of identity in the Creek world was one’s town (talwa). From the annual Busk festival, political councils, & ritual gatherings, to economic exchange, preparation for war, & recreation & sport, all manners of life unfolded in the town square. T
herefore, the Confederacy was less a “nation” as defined by Western standards, & more of a flexible union of towns. The British Superintendent of Indian Affairs, John Stuart, observed as much when he remarked in 1764, “The Towns…may be considered as so many Different Republicks which form one State, but each of these Towns has separate Views & Interests.”1 Yet the autonomous nature of the Confederacy existed side-by-side with “Upper” & “Lower” Creek affiliations, as communities along the Coosa & Tallapoosa Rivers (“Upper”) & towns on the Chattahoochee & Flint Rivers (“Lower”) occasionally acted cooperatively, as in times of war or in negotiations with Europeans.
In addition, Creek society pivoted around family & clan, agriculture, & a particular cosmology. Along with town & regional identities, the Creek privileged their family & clan connections. For instance, each individual belonged to a clan moiety & resided with their extended relatives in a town in clan clusters.
Creek society was also matrilineal, as children inherited the clan of their mothers. Women controlled the means of production, commanded the power to incorporate outsiders, & wielded authority over the household. Similarly, women & men performed complementary yet distinct tasks: men hunted fur-bearing animals for food & trade & waged war, while women cultivated agriculture, the most important responsibility in Creek society.
This gendered labor system was embodied in the Creek cosmology, in which the world was divided into three separate planes of existence: the Upper World, Under World, & This World. Since the Creek lived in This World – the in-between world – they were tasked with maintaining balance between the Upper & Under Worlds, & did so through ritual. For instance, during the Green Corn Ceremony (Posketv), the entire town ritually & physically cleansed their bodies, minds, homes, & communities. Thus, the Confederacy functioned within social & cosmological structures of balance.
When it came to politics, the Confederacy operated at a more local & individual level, as town headmen (micos) competed with one another for authority inside & outside of their towns. Since political authority in the Creek world did not revolve around coercive power as it did in Europe, micos engaged in consensus politics, having to persuade their peers to support them, with the assumption that they had the community’s best interests in mind.
Creek headmen often achieved consensus by redistributing trade goods & presents to the community, sustaining a vibrant trade with Europeans, & mediating conflict with other Native peoples & Europeans. Yet there were instances when micos attempted to assert broader authority over their towns. For example, in 1718, Brims articulated a collective foreign policy – known as the “Coweta Resolution” – that committed all Creek towns & micos to end internal conflict in the Confederacy & to open trilateral negotiations with the French, English, & Spanish.
The Resolution pitted Europeans against one another for the loyalty of the Confederacy, which translated into greater leverage & more favorable trade for the Creek.2 In doing so, the Creek extended their political & commercial reach as far west as the Arkansas & Ohio River Valleys, & north to the Great Lakes & Iroquoia.
While the Confederacy abided by the “Coweta Resolution” for most of the 18C, the American Revolution dramatically changed their situation. No longer able to play Europeans off of one another, the Confederacy at first clashed violently with the United States during the 1780s & 1790s, before embarking on a “Plan of Civilization” – as coined by U.S. officials like Benjamin Hawkins – during the Washington, Adams, & Jefferson administrations.
In this case, “Civilization” was envisioned by a new generation of Creek leaders – many of whom were born of the unions between Creek women & Euro-American men – as a means to counter American colonialism by reinventing the Confederacy as a “nation” similar to the United States, thus putting the two states on equal footing.
Consequently, the Creek Nation adopted a written constitution, established a National Council & other federal forms of government, implemented a legal system that privileged property ownership & patriarchy, & turned to plantation agriculture & African slavery. Such adaptations came at the cost of the clan & town identities, consensus politics, & matrilineality that once characterized the Confederacy.
While such efforts ultimately failed to deter the United States from its violent removal of the Creek during the 1820s-1840s, the Muscogee Nation still thrives to this day, a testament to the fluidity & adaptability that has defined the Creek Indians for centuries.
Bryan Rindfleisch, Marquette University
Notes:
[1] Clarence Edwin Carter, ed. “Observations of John Stuart & Governor James Grant of East Florida on the Proposed Plan of 1764 for the Future Management of Indian Affairs,” American Historical Review Vol. 20: No. 4 (July 1915): 828.
[2] Steven C. Hahn, The Invention of the Creek Nation, 1670-1763 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2004).
Bibliography:
Ethridge, Robbie. Creek Country: The Creek Indians & Their World. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003.
Frank, Andrew K. Creeks & Southerners: Biculturalism on the Early American Frontier. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2005.
Hahn, Steven C. The Invention of the Creek Nation, 1670-1763. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2004.
Piker, Joshua. Okfuskee: A Creek Indian Town in Colonial America. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2004.
Saunt, Claudio. A New Order of Things: Property, Power, & the Transformation of the Creek Indians, 1733-1816. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Tuesday, January 16, 2024
Geu Washingtin & Natives
During the summer of 1787, 55 men assembled in the Pennsylvania State House (Philadelphia's Independence Hall) to hammer out a new form of government for the United States of America. On the morning of 15 June 1775, as he had for the past month, George Washington entered Independence Hall & took his seat with the rest of the Virginia delegation to the Continental Congress. He was an imposing presence. At 43, he stood six feet four inches, weighed over 225 pounds & was renowned for his military bearing. The quiet planter was respected as a judicious Patriot with a natural dignity & an intense sense of personal honor. He was also known for an iron will that kept a passionate nature firmly in control.
Congress had already agreed to accept responsibility for the improvised army that had set siege to General Thomas Gages' British regulars in Boston in the aftermath of the fighting at Lexington & Concord. New Englanders had responded to that 1st revolutionary bloodshed by taking up arms, but, unaided, they could not hope to withstand the full might of the British. When Congress convened in mid-May, the New England delegates, supported by New Yorkers worried about an invasion from Canada down the Hudson River-Lake Champlain corridor, pleaded for united military action. Colonel Washington's military experience (he had commanded Virginia's troops in the French & Indian War) led his fellow delegates to listen to his views. Acting on his advice, Congress adopted all existing forces as "the American continental army."
On the 15th the delegates turned to selecting a general who could be trusted to lead these men. They needed an individual with military experience, but also one who shared their fundamental political values & therefore posed no threat to the Patriot cause. Washington, the highest-ranking native-born American veteran, appeared the ideal choice. He had served in Virginia's House of Burgesses & in both Continental Congresses, where he had impressed his peers as a man who could be trusted with authority. The fact that he came from Virginia would help convince London that Americans from all sections were united in resistance. His habit of wearing a uniform to the sessions indicated his interest in the assignment. His election as commander of "all the continental forces raised, or to be raised, for the defense of American liberty" was unanimous.
The need to defend the relatively poor & sparsely settled colonies against both Native American tribes & European powers led to a new military arrangement in America. Defense had played a major role in colonial life. No colony could afford to maintain enough troops to meet all contingencies, so all relied on the concept of the citizen-soldier to defend the community. Within 2 years of its founding in 1607, for example, Jamestown had organized itself into a virtual regimental garrison complete with companies & squads. Plymouth, on the advice of Miles Standish, formed 4 companies of militia within a comparable period. The Massachusetts Bay Colony by 1629, had a militia company, equipped with the latest weapons, at Salem; by 1636, it had formed 3 permanent regiments throughout the colony.
The colonies expanded the trained-band concept to encompass all settlers. Only Pennsylvania remained an exception to the general pattern. Settled by Quakers, it did not pass a law establishing a mandatory militia until 1777. In the early fighting between settlers & Native Americans, citizen-soldiers actually fought in defense of their homes. Later, when more elaborate retaliatory offensive operations were launched against the tribes, the colonists tried to minimize the economic dislocation by using detachments temporarily organized for a specific occasion. Although the immediate military danger subsided as the frontier & the displaced Native Americans moved westward, the colonial standing militia remained as the means to train young men in the rudiments of war, as a law-enforcement agency, & as a source of recruits or draftees for short-lived military assignments on the frontier.
Eventually, hired military volunteers began to range the wilderness throughout colonial America, patrolling outposts & giving early warning of an attack by Native Americans. Other volunteers combined with friendly Native Americans for offensive operations deep in the wilderness, where European tactics were ineffective. This volunteer concept matured during the colonial wars. Regiments completely separated from the militia were raised for specific campaigns. These units, called Provincials, were patterned after regiments in the regular British Army & were recruited from the militia, often during normal drill assemblies. In 1754, Royal Governor Robert Dinwiddie of Virginia raised a Provincial regiment to secure the colony's claims to the Ohio Valley against French encroachment. Major George Washington led the vanguard of this regiment toward the forks of the Allegheny & Monongahela rivers (now Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania) with instructions to force a French withdrawal. After some initial success, he eventually surrendered to superior numbers, thus setting off the French & Indian War, the last & greatest of the colonial wars between France & England.
See: Soldier-Statesmen of the Constitution by Robert K. Wright, Jr. and Morris J. MacGregor, Jr. Center of Military History, United States Army. Washington, D.C., 1987
Friday, January 12, 2024
Geu Washingtin & Pontiac
Famed soldier of the French & Indian War & the American Revolution, Israel Putnam also served during Pontiac's Rebellion. Major General Israel Putnam, 1864 lithograph by Dominique C Fabronius (1828-94)
Seems like we’ve been in wars in the past 20-40 years that don’t really end & raise more problems than they resolve. In that that sense, Pontiac’s War is a classic & hopefully instructive insurgency.
The military career of George Washington spanned over 45 years of service (1752–1799). Washington's service can be broken into 3 periods, French & Indian War, American Revolutionary War, & the Quasi-War with France, with service in 3 different armed forces - the British Colonial Provincial Militia, the Continental Army during the American Revolution, & the United States Army.
Mount Vernon tells us that for much of George Washington's life, the Ohio Valley was a driving force of politics & the politics of expansion. Pontiac’s Rebellion (1763-1765) was an armed conflict between the British Empire & Algonquian, Iroquoian, Muskogean, & Siouan-speaking Native Americans following the Seven Years’ War.
Also known as “Pontiac’s War” or “Pontiac’s Uprising,” the violence represented an unprecedented pan-Indian resistance to European colonization in North America, in which Indigenous nations – Ottawa, Delaware, Potawatomie, Shawnee, Mingo (Seneca), Wyandot, Ojibwe, Huron, Choctaw, Piankashaw, Kickapoo, Tunica, Peoria, & Mascouten – challenged the attempts by the British Empire to impose its will & abrogate Native sovereignty.
Although the war originated in the Great Lakes & Ohio River Valley, the violence spread as fast west to the Illinois Country & as far east to western Virginia. Even though the conflict ended in a stalemate after 2 years of intense fighting, the British Empire was forced to reconsider its policy toward Native Americans, ultimately recognizing Indigenous autonomy.
However, the British American colonists resented the empire’s change of heart, given that such conciliatory measures ran counter to their anxieties & hostility toward Native Americans, which contributed to the growing disillusionment that culminated in revolution.
The origins of “Pontiac’s Rebellion” can be traced to the political fallout of the Seven Years’ War. Following the victory in 1763, the British empire sought to integrate former French & Spanish territories – Canada, Florida, & the Great Lakes – into its American dominion.
At the same time, the English inherited an elaborate system of alliances with the Indigenous peoples of those regions, which prompted imperial administrators to deliberate on whether or not Native Americans were the subjects of empire or autonomous polities.
In the end, the governor general in North America – Jeffrey Amherst – summed up British attitudes toward Native Americans, who were “the Vilest Race of Beings that Ever Infested the Earth,” & he was “fully convinced the only true method of treating those [Indians] is to keep them in a proper subjection.”
Most egregiously, Amherst discontinued the political tradition of gift-giving, an unnecessary cost in his eyes. But in most Indigenous societies, gifting was culturally important & cemented the political relationships between two parties.
Therefore, Amherst violated Native expectations &, in effect, severed potential alliance between the British Empire & Indigenous nations. Coupled with the post-war encroachments on Native territories by colonists, imperial restrictions on trade, & stationing English troops in the Great Lakes & Ohio River Valley, Native American groups such as the Ottawa & Iroquois complained “These steps appears to them as if the English have a mind to cut them off the face of the earth.”1
Simultaneous to these developments was the spread of a revitalization movement by the Delaware Prophet, Neolin. Burdened with a vision from the “Master of Life” (the “Great Spirit” to others), Neolin expressed that Native Americans had become too dependent on Europeans for their livelihoods, particularly when it came to the tools & weapons they used on a daily basis.
In addition, alcohol corrupted Indigenous societies, missionaries threatened Native ways of life, & colonists trespassed on their lands. Neolin’s message also represented a fusion of Delaware & Christian traditions, driven by a millenarian faith that the world was on the brink of disaster unless they acted against the European threat. After which Neolin promised their old ways – & previous lives – would return & flourish. It did not take much to convince leaders like the Ottawa headman, Pontiac, “it is important for us, my brothers, that we exterminate from our lands this nation [British] which seeks to destroy us.”2
In May 1763, Native American in the Great Lakes & Ohio River Valley went on the offensive & overran Britain’s westernmost fortifications, from Fort Edward Augustus in present-day Wisconsin to Fort Presque Isle in western Pennsylvania.
While historians dispute whether “Pontiac’s Rebellion” started as a coordinated or spontaneous assault, the war quickly spread throughout Native America. From the beginning, Indigenous strategy revolved around besieging the western forts, cutting off all communications & reinforcements, & subduing the surrounding settler communities.
For the most part, the offensive was successful, & by the end of June 1763, only three forts remained – Niagara, Detroit, & Pitt. British responses proved sluggish, since Amherst believed Indigenous peoples incapable of concerted action.
It was not until the following year that the empire launched expeditions to try & relieve the pressure on the surviving garrisons. Even then, British forces scored only minor victories, which were offset by continuous raids in western Pennsylvania, Maryland, & Virginia.
The war came to an end in early 1765 when French aid failed to materialize for Native Americans, the prospect of the Iroquois Confederacy’s intervention on behalf of the empire, & – more significantly – promises by imperial administrators to conform to Native understandings of their alliances & recognize Indigenous sovereignty.
The results of “Pontiac’s Rebellion” were many. Most important, the conflict enabled Native Americans to endure as major players in the geopolitics of North America during the 18C by compelling the British to reevaluate its “Indian Affairs” & give in to Native demands for fear of a prolonged war. Similarly, it displayed pan-Indian resistance to colonization & provided examples for future pan-Indian movements like the “Northwest Confederacy” of the 1790s & Tecumseh & Tenskwatawa’s coalition in the early 19C.
The violence also produced unforeseen consequences. Those who bore the brunt of the violence were Americans settlers; scholars estimate that over 500 civilians lost their lives. The mortality & resulting trauma & resentment incited indiscriminate settler attacks against Native populations during & after the conflict, including the infamous Paxton Boys massacre of the Conestoga (Susquehannock) Indians.
Emerging in the Btitish American colonies was a culture of “Indian-hating” – or the “anti-Indian sublime”3 – in which Europeans of different religions, ethnicities, & political affiliations rallied together, despite their dissimilarities, against a Native “Other.”
And when the British Empire across the Atlantic took measures to defend Native sovereignty, like enforcing the Proclamation Line of 1763, the colonists vented their frustrations upon the mother empire, all of which contributed to the revolutionary storm brewing in the American colonies between 1763 & 1775.
Bryan Rindfleisch, Marquette Universtiy
Notes:
1. Silverman, David J. Thundersticks: The Violent Transformation of Native America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2016) 130, 122, 128.
2. Calloway, Colin G. The Scratch of a Pen: 1763 & the Transformation of North America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 70.
3. Silver, Peter. Our Savage Neighbors: How Indian War Transformed Early America (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008)
Bibliography:
Anderson, Fred. Crucible of War: The Seven Years' War & the Fate of Empire in North America, 1754-1766 (New York: Vintage Books, 2001)
Calloway, Colin G. The Scratch of a Pen: 1763 & the Transformation of North America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006)
Dowd, Gregory Evans. War Under Heaven: Pontiac, the Indian Nations, & the British Empire (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 2002)
Silver, Peter. Our Savage Neighbors: How Indian War Transformed Early America (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2008)
Silverman, David J. Thundersticks: The Violent Transformation of Native America (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2016)
Wednesday, January 10, 2024
1754 Geu WashingtinNatives & French
“Journey to the French Commandant: Narrative,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified October 5, 2016, [Original source: The Diaries of George Washington, vol. 1, 11 March 1748–13 November 1765, ed. Donald Jackson. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1976, pp. 130–161.]

.jpg)








%20by%20Dominique%20C%20Fabronius%20(1828-94).jpg)
