Calloway_Chapter_4_A - W W 2 Are they of any value in understanding Native American historical experi— ences 3 Why did the way Indians were

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–14. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 2
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 4
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 6
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 8
Background image of page 9

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 10
Background image of page 11

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 12
Background image of page 13

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Background image of page 14
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: W W 2. Are they of any value in understanding Native American historical experi— ences? 3. Why did the way Indians were depicted in art matter to the young nation? References 1. Ann Uhry Abrams, “Benjamin West’s Documentation of Colonial History: William Penn’s Treaty with the Indians,” Art Bulletin 64 (1982), 59—75; Arthur Einhorn and Thomas S. Abler, “Bonnets, Plumes, and Headbands in West’s Painting of Penn’s Treaty,” American Indian Art Magazine 21 (Summer 1996), 45—53; Patricia Trenton and Patrick T Houlihan, Native Americans: Five Centuries of Changing Images (New York: Abrams, 1989), 26-30; Anne Cannon Palumbo, “Averting ‘Present Commo— tions’: History as Politics in Penn’s Treaty,” American Art, 9 (Fall 1995), 29—55. 2. See Rick Stewart, Joseph D. Kettner II, and Angela L. Miller, Carl Wimar: Chroni- cler of the Missouri River Frontier (Abrams, 1991), 45—50. AWENCANHWJANS ANDTHEKEW/ Pd/XT1CDPQ I783—1838 THE NEW NATION EXPANDS While competing powers waged wars of empire in the East, large areas of In- dian America in the West remained untouched by European contact. There life went on in traditional ways, and Indian people made choices and changes with- out much thought to Europeans. Once the United States had won its liberty from Britain, it began to build its own domain in the territory that Britain had transferred at the peace treaty of 1783 —lands inhabited by Indian peoples. In— evitably, war and treaty—making came to dominate U.S.—Indian relations, al— though the federal government developed policies aimed at robbing Indians of their cultures as well as their lands. The United States regarded its expansion as inevitable, even divinely ordained, and recognized that its growth would entail dispossessing the original Indian inhabitants. But Indians challenged the pol- icy that threatened to transform their homelands into national real estate. “Our lands are our life and our breath,” declared the Creek chief Hallowing King in 1787. “If we part with them, we part with our blood.”1 Giving up land meant more than shrinking a tribe’s territorial base: it reduced the people’s mobility and restricted the range of resources available to them; it uprooted them from ancestral places to which they felt bound by communal traditions and stories. While the American victory in the East brought changing relations be- tween Indian Americans and white Americans, a massive smallpox epidemic in the West also generated far-reaching changes. Breaking out in Mexico City in 1—mn t1“. A“:4-M:, Ln: nmmmil :14 n1] Atycmh'mac frqxrpl‘ina thrnnol-i flip Smith- 200 CHAPTER 4: AMERICAN INDIANS AND THE NEW NATION, |783—|838 Developing an Indian Policy of Canada by 1783. Thousands of Indians died.2 A generation later, the new United States began to venture beyond the Mississippi. Like the Pilgrims who landed at Plymouth in 1620, they were setting foot in a land already devastated and depopulated by disease. The new United States followed the British example in Indian relations: they set up an Indian department, established rules for the sale and transfer of Indian lands, and tried to regulate the advance of the frontier. The United States Con- stitution established national authority over the conduct of Indian relations, permitting only the federal government to negotiate and make treaties with In- dian nations. The War Department assumed responsibility for Indian affairs, and the first secretary of war, Henry Knox, proved relatively humanitarian in his dealings with Indians. In the 17805, with dust from the Revolution not quite settled on the frontiers, it made sense for Indian affairs to be under the juris— l V1109: 7.40, .m ‘ u aft/w UNITED STATES I ‘AM E KI C A, drfllfletl by thefmca of 1733. I 'g l lmWMLzEa.bUMflyfm-Mmflam The United States in I783 The Treaty of Paris in 1783 recognized the independence of the United States and estab— lished the borders of the new nation at the Great Lakes, the Mississippi, and the northern boundary of Florida. As the map shows, most of this territory was inhabited by Indian nations. The Indians were not mentioned in the Peace of Paris, and American expansion entailed taking:r possession of their lands by war or treaty. National Archives of Canada. THE NEW NATION EXPANDS 20| diction of the War Department. Furthermore, the United States in the 17805 was still an infant power, with hostile European neighbors on its northern and southern borders. Both the British in Canada and the Spanish in Florida con— tinued to encourage and support Indians living within the United States terri— tory in resisting American expansion, while the young nation lacked the mili— tary resources and economic strength to establish control over its frontiers. The Indian Office, later known as the Bureau of Indian Affairs, was established in 1824; notppfitill§49 was it transferred from the War Department to the De— partrrgm wwwww W W ##Indian policy, and the machinery for conducting Indian relations, in the words of historian Francis Paul Prucha, “grew bit by bit.”3 Nevertheless, a clear and basic object of United States Indian policy from the end of the American Revolution to the Indian removals of the 18305 was the acquisition of lands be- tween the Appalachians and the Mississippi. Many government leaders were conscious of their position as the only republic on the world stage and wanted to ensure that national expansion be pursued with honor, but the drive to ac— quire land was constant. Indians responded to American policies and pre— sumptions in a variety ofways, and Indian power continued to limit American expansion for many years. Nevertheless, by 1815 the United States had effec— tively destroyed Indian power east of the Mississippi. Regulating an Indian—and a Land—Policy In the decade following the Revolution, the United States claimed Indian lands east of the Mississippi by right of conquest. These territories were a vital na— tional resource that would provide land for citizens, fill an empty treasury, and guarantee a future of continuous growth and prosperity. But formulating and implementing national policy was frequently hampered and frustrated. In an effort to regulate conditions on the frontier and reaffirm that conduct of Indian affairs was reserved to the federal government, not the states, Con— gress passed the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act in 1790. Only licensed traders were permitted to operate in Indian country, and no transfers of Indian land were valid without congressional approval. The Trade and Intercourse Acts were renewed periodically until 1834. But, like the British after 1763, the fledgling United States government failed to control its own citizens on distant frontiers. Frontier settlers, squatters, and speculators seldom shared their gov— ernment’s concern for expansion with honor —— all they wanted was expansion. Individual states, resentful of attempts by the federal government to restrict their rights, frequently made treaties that never received congressional ap— proval. Further complicating the government’s land policy were conflicting colo- nial charters; because of them, seven of the original states had land claims stretching to the Mississippi valley. The parties agreed that these claims should be ceded to the national government for the common good before the Articles of Confederation went into effect in 1781 and that the lands lying beyond these boundaries should fall into the public domain. By 1786, the states had ceded L. Michigan ISLAND CONNECTICUT NEW JERSEY rfolk ATLANTIC OCEAN Lands ceded ' 1750—1783 Lands ceded 1784—1810 is Battles E Treaties 150 300 miles l—r—l—r—J 0 150 300 kilometers MAP 4.I United StatesTreaties and Indian Land Cessions to I8I0 Although individual states exerted pressure on the southern tribes, the new United States government devoted most energy to acquiring Indian lands beyond the Ohio River and to defeating the multitrihal coalitions that resisted American expansion there. Treaties, by which Indian nations sold lands or ceded them in return for peace, became major instru— ments in the United States’ policy of national expansion. most of the lands north of the Ohio River. Southern states proved less compli- ant, however. Virginia retained claims to Kentucky, North Carolina did not cede Tennessee until 1789, and Georgia did not relinquish its claims to the ter— ritory of Alabama and Mississippi until 1802. In the early years of the repub- lic, national expansion focused north of the Ohio, since the government had no lands to sell in the South. In 1787, the Northwest Ordinance proclaimed that the United States would observe “the utmost good faith” in its dealings with Indian people and that their lands would not be invaded or taken except in “just and lawful wars au— thorized by Congress.” But the Ordinance also laid out a blueprint for national expansion: the Northwest Territory was to be divided into districts which, after passing through territorial status, would become states. Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, M1ch1gan, and Wlsconsin eventuallv entered the Union as states mrwd from INDIANS CONFRONT EXPANSION 203 the Northwest Territory. Indians who resisted American expansion soon found themselves subjected to “just and lawful wars.” ' INDIANS CONFRONT EXPANSION While American power was relatively weak after the Revolution, Indian power remained formidable in much of the western territory that the United States claimed. Indian tribes usually acted in the specific interests of family and band rather than as a “race,” but in times of crisis, Indian peoples often cooperated in impressive displays of unity. For Indian people, American independence ushered in a new era in which they struggled again to preserve their homelands and freedom. Not only did various tribes come together to negotiate and fight those who pushed them off their land, in some cases they also collectively sought hope in new religious movements. Building a United Defense WfiQ’UW 05/ In the 17805, as Americans dictated treaties to separate tribes, the Mohawk leader Joseph Brant emerged as a leading spokesman in a confederacy of north- Vyggmtfibfis. The confederacy rejected treaties signed by individual tribes and refused to accept any American settlement west of the Ohio River. Dele— gates from the Iroquois, Hurons, Delawares, Shawnees, Ottawas, Anishinaabeg, Potawatomis, Miamis, and Wabash River tribes assembled in council at the mouth of the Detroit River in December 1786. They sent a message to Congress, assuring the Americans of their desire for peace, but insisting that “as landed matters are often the subject of our councils with you, a matter of the greatest importance and of general concern to us,” any cession of lands “should be made in the most public manner, and by the united voice of the confederacy; hold- ing all partial treaties as void and of no effect?“1 The confederacy prepared to resist American expansion, by armed force if necessary. Early American efforts at a military solution met with little success. In 1790, General Josiah Harmar invaded Indian country with some 1,500 men, but the warriors of the western tribes, ably led by the Miami war chief Little Turtle and Blue Jacket of the Shawnees, inflicted a decisive defeat. Worse was to come. In 1791, Little Turtle routed an American army under General Arthur St. Clair in the heaviest defeat Indians ever inflicted on the United States. St. Clair suf- fered over 900 casualties, with some 600 dead, at a time when the young re- public had neither the manpower nor the resources to sustain such losses. American claims to Indian land by right of conquest looked empty. For a time it seemed as if the United States would negotiate a compromise agreement with the Indian tribes of the Old Northwest. However, while the Americans rebuilt their army, deep divisions appeared in Indian ranks. After the defeat of St. Clair. InseDh Brant and the Iroquois recommended reaching a 204 CHAPTER 4: AMERICAN INDIANS AND THE NEW NATION, I783—I838 Benjamin Hawkins and the Creeks United States Indian agent Benjamin Hawkins is shown introducing Creek Indians to plows, steel tools, and Euro-American farming techniques. For Hawkins, promoting agri- culture meant transforming Indian men from hunters to farmers; Indian women, who produced the cornucopia portrayed here, were to be allotted more “domestic” chores. Greenville County Museum of Art, Greenville, South Carolina. Gift of the Museum Association, Inc. settlement with the United States. Brant and the Iroquois continued to exert in— fluence in Indian country after the Revolution, but many of the western tribes regarded them with increasing suspicion. Western warriors who had already de- feated two American armies rejected the idea of compromise. “Money, to us, is of no value,” representatives of the united tribes told American commissioners in 1793, and <‘no consideration whatever can induce us to sell the lands on which we get sustenance for our women and children.” They assumed that the settlers who trespassed across the Ohio were poor and proposed that the United States take the money it was offering to purchase Indian land, add to it “the great sums you must expend in raising and paying Armies” and divide the total among the settlers. Thus accommodated, the settlers would happily remove from Indian lands and peace could be restored. All the Indians wanted was “the peaceable possession of a small part of our once great Country.” They could not give up the Ohio River as their boundary: “Look back and View the lands from whence we have been driven, we can retreat no further.” Meanwhile, Congress was appropriating $1 million to raise, equip, and train a new army, the Legion of the United States, to be led by General Anthony Wmme against the Inrlinn qllianrp RV fl'lp fimp Wmmp anrl hie armv pnfprpA In- INDIANS CONFRONT EXPANSION 205 dian country in 1794, the confederacy was no longer united, On the west bank of the Maumee River, south of Lake Erie, a reduced Indian force confronted Wayne’s troops in a tangle of trees felled by a tornado. Outnumbered and out— gunned, the Indians were driven from the field by the American cannon, cav— alry, and bayonets. “We were driven by the sharp end of the guns of the Long Knives,” recalled one Indian leader. “Our moccasins trickled with blood in the sand, and the water was red in the river.”6 They fled to a nearby British fort, Where they believed they would receive assistance. But although the British were willing to encourage Indian hostility to the United States, they were not interested in another war in America While faced with trouble in Europe and a revolutionary government in France. [heyflgeingglpdigns found thgmgates of the fort barred agai “them: The lack of British support dispirited the Indiahs 'morEIhan the actual battle at Fallen Timbers, where their losses were relatively light. In 1795, at the signing of the Treaty of Greenville, more than a thousand Indian delegates accepted Wayne’s terms and ceded to the United States two— thirds of present—day Ohio and part of Indiana. In return, the Indians were promised a lasting boundary between their lands and American territory. Accommodating and Resisting Change Military pressures were not the only ones that Indian peoples experienced in these years. Americans sought to eradicate the Indians’ way of life at the same time as they took away their lands. Men like Benjamin Hawkins, United States agent to the Creek (or Muskogee) Indians from 1796—1816, attempted to im- pose a social revolution on Indian country, organize Indian economic life around intensive agriculture, and redefine gender roles in Indian families. The Creeks, Cherokees, and most other Eastern Woodland peoples had farmed for centuries, but in the American program, men, not women, were to do the farm— ing and were to give up hunting for a lifeubexhindarplgmewméwem to take up Spinning, i‘domestcchores.” As Indians spent less time lfiifitfng, thTey would need less land and could sell the “surplus” land to the United States. As men spent more time at home, the nuclear family, with the male at its head, would supplant the matrilineal clans. As families acquired more property, they would adopt Anglo-American principles of ownership and inheritance. “Ultimately,” concludes one scholar “the Muskogees would become good yeoman farmers, settlers with a slightly darker skin and some quaint ethnic memories. The men would display ‘the manners of a well bred man,’ the women the ‘neatness and economy of a White woman.’ This was Hawkins’ dream.”7 Missionaries and other groups in American society believed it was their duty to “civilize” the Indians by destroying their traditions and culture and transforming them into Christians. Some Indians were quick to point out What they saw as the Americans’ hypocrisy. The Seneca chief Red Jacket, for example, asked missionaries to explain why they were so sure that theirs was the one true religion. The Great Spirit had made Indians and white men different in many resuects, so Why not accept that He had given them different religions to suit CHAPTER 4: AMERICAN INDIANS AND THE NEW NATION, I783—I838 Handsome Lake Preaching Handsome Lake preaches his new religion in the Seneca longhouse at Tonawanda, New York, in a twentieth—century watercolor by Ernest Smith, who was born at Tonawanda. Handsome Lake’s Teachings resulted in the Longhouse Religion, which many Iroquois people Still practice. Rochester Museum and Science Center. their needs? The Indians might be more inclined to accept Christianity, he said, if theChristians they saw around them served as better examples. But since they saw lying, cheating, drunkenness, and theft, the Indians thought they were bet- ter off with their own religion.8 In a period of intense pressure and crisis, many Indians found solace in new forms of religion. Time and again, Indian people turned to ritual and belief to restore balance and harmony to a world that had gone chaotic. The Delaware prophet Neolin had headed one such movement in the 17603; his renunciation of European material goods and influences, helped fuel Pontiac’s war of resis— tance a rams‘t’Tli’é”British.-~w—m—w-kaw. il‘3yg1800, the Iroquois Confederacy was broken) Iroquois people who had once dominated the northeastern United States were now confined to reserva- tions in small areas of their traditional homelands or lived in exile in Canada. The Senecas once held some 4 million acres of western New York and Penn— sylvania; now they lived on fewer than 200,000 acres, divided into ten separate tracts. Many sought refuge in alcohol. In 1799, a hard—drinking Seneca named Handsome Lake, who lay ill and apparently close to death, experienced a vision in which the Creator awakened him to a new religion and a new way of life for IIOCILIOIS DBODle. Handsome IflkP rennnhrprl I1ic fnrmpr n‘F Ar11hiznnnncc ' and based many of his teachings on the Great Law of Peace (see “ INDIANS CONFRONT EXPANSION 207 and embarked on a mission to bring his teachings sage,” to his people. The <<Longhouse Religion” that developed based on his teachings combined traditional beliefs with some Christian additions, adopted from Quaker missionaries to the Senecas. Handsome Lake preached that Iro— quois people should live in peace with the United States and with one another, , Gaiwiio, or “the Good Mes— ” The Iroquois Great League of Peace, pages 44—55). He denounced alcohol and factionalism and emphasized the importance of education and farming. He espoused the new social gospel in which men now did the farming, and husbands headed the nuclear family, in place of society based on matrilineal, extended families that had traditionally inhabited the clan mothers’ longhouses.9 At the same time, his teachings incorporated thanksgiving festivals and other ceremonies from the old religion and denounced the sale of lands. For many, the new religion meant a new way of living, but it also offered hope in a time of spiritual crisis and a means of coping. The Longhouse Religion and the code of values Handsome Lake preached continue as a way of life for many Iroquois people today. The Last Phases of United Indian Resistance Like the Iroquois, the Shawnee Indians had lost lands, suffered defeat in battle, and seen their culture assaulted. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, however, Shawnees emerged as leaders in a pan-Indian religious and political movement. Like Handsome Lake, the Shawnee Prophet, Tenskwatawa, lived an early life of drunkenness and debauchery. Like Handsome Lake, he fell into a trance and experienced a Vision in 1805, which caused him to transform his life and bring a message of hope to his people. Tenskwatawa preached that the Master of Life had selected him to spread the new religion among the Indians. Indian people were warned to avoid contact with the Americans, who were “children of the Evil Spirit.” They were urged to give up alcohol, refuse inter- marriage, reject Christianity, lay down manufactured tools, and throw off white man’s clothing. Instead of eating the meat of domesticated animals, they should return to a diet of corn, beans, maple sugar, and other traditional foods. They should avoid intertribal conflict and practice communal ownership of property. Tenskwatawa’s teachings promised a revitalization of Shawnee culture but his message also drew adherents from the Delawares, Kickapoos, Ottawas, Potawatomis, Anishinaabeg, and other tribes, especially after he accurately pre— dicted a total eclipse of the sun on June 16, 1806. Many Indians rejected his message, but hundreds of others flocked to the village he established at Prophetstown on the Tippecanoe River in Indiana. However, it was the Shawnee Prophet’s brother, Tecumseh, who gave strongest direction to the developing movement of Indian unity. Tecumseh had fOught at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794 but he refused to sign the Treaty of Greenville. Identifying American expansion and piecemeal cessions of land as the major threat to Indian survival, Tecumseh argued that no tribe had the right to sell their lands. berancp fI—Ip Iaanc kalnnnafl +n n1] Luann“ LTA 4‘ CHAPTER 4: AMERICAN INDIANS AND THE NEW NATION, I783—I838 after pro—American chiefs ceded more than three million acres to the United States at a “whiskey treaty” at Fort Wayne in 1809. Tecumseh traveled from the Great Lakes to Florida, carrying his message of pan-Indian land tenure and preaching a vision of an Indian nation stretching from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Tenskwatawa’s teachings and Tecumseh’s vision alarmed the United States government. In 1811, an American army under General William Harrison launched a preemptive strike against the Prophet’s village at Tippecanoe while Tecumseh was away in the South. The battle was a relatively minor affair— Tecumseh dismissed it as “a scuffle between children”—but the Americans claimed a victory, the Prophet lost prestige, and Tecumseh’s confederacy suf- fered a setback. Tension between Indians and Americans persisted into the War of 1812. In that conflict, Tecumseh sided with the British in a last attempt to stem the tide of American expansion. The British—Indian alliance scored some early victories—in 1812 Tecumseh and General Isaac Brock captured Detroit—but Britain was distracted by its involvement in European resistance to Napoleon. When Tecumseh was killed at the Battle of the Thames in Ontario in 1813, the last hope of Indian unity east of the Mississippi also died. In the South, Alexander McGillivray (1759—93) of the Creeks headed a confederacy of tribes whose united power represented a considerable force in the decade after the Revolution. McGillivray was the son of a Scottish trader who provided him an education in Charleston, South Carolina, and a French— Creek mother who gave him membership in the influential Wind clan. He tried to protect Creek lands and independence in a region of competing and threat— ening international, intertribal, and state ambitions. McGillivray refused to recognize any claims of the United States to Creek lands based on the treaty with Britain in 1783 because the Indians took no part in the treaty. In 1784, he signed a treaty with Spain at Pensacola, securing Spanish trade and protection of Creek lands. The United States signed its first treaty with the other major southeastern tribes——the Cherokees, Choctaws, and Chickasaws—at Hopewell in Georgia in 1785—86, reaffirming tribal boundaries in an effort to avoid all— out war on the southern frontier. In 1790, McGillivray led a delegation of Creek chiefs to New York where they signed a treaty in which the United States guar— anteed Creek territorial boundaries. But the southern states posed a more im— mediate threat than Congress, and Georgia continued to encroach on Creek and Cherokee lands. , McGillivray was opposed by some chiefs who favored a policy of appease— ment and land cessions in dealing with Georgia. Tension within the Creek con— federacy increased after McGillivray’s death in 1793, and escalated after Tecum- seh traveled the Southeast with his message of united Indian resistance in 1811. Upper Creek towns tended to favor adopting a militant stance in dealing with the United States; Lower Creek towns tended to advocate peace and accom— modation. Conflicts within the Creek confederacy spilled over into attacks on American settlers, and the United States responded with swift military action against the militant Creeks, or “Red Sticks.” In the Creek War of 1813—14, Gen- pral AnArprr Tonbcnn rl‘ivnr‘l-AA n (\nv-finn A1: AA"...,A.Aa.L.- --_.._._:__, IL A; ,,,1.,,: INDIAN REMOVALS 209 Tohopeka or Horseshoe Bend on the Tallapoosa River in present—day Alabama in March 1814. About five hundred Cherokees and one hundred Lower Creeks helped Jackson win his victory. But at the Treaty of Fort Jackson the general dic— tated punitive terms that divested the Creek Nation of 14 million acres, two- thirds of their tribal domain. It was the single largest cession of territory ever made in the Southeast and initiated a boom in land sales and cotton produc— tion in the deep South. /—7 m r SUM/LISWM’Q 6-! ((5,! m car; As the deerskin trade declined and the Cotton Kingdom expanded into newmtaws and Chickasaws adjusted to new eco- nomic conditions. They changed their farming and settlement patterns, raised more stock, mingled with African American slaves, and grew cotton for the market.10 The age of Indian confederacies in the East and of Indian power that delayed American expansion was over by the end of the War of 1812, but Indi— ans did not disappear just because they stopped fighting. INDIAN REMOVALS The state of Oklahoma today is home to numerous tribes: Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Seminole, Caddo, Comanche, Southern Cheyenne, South— ern Arapaho, Kiowa, Apache, Shawnee, Potawatomi, Wyandot, Quapaw, Osage, Peoria, Ottawa, Seneca, Pawnee, Ponca, Oto, Kansa, Tonkawa, Kickapoo, Modoc, Wichita, Iowa, Sauk and Fox, as well as to members and descendants of many other tribes. Few of these peoples were indigenous to the Oklahoma region; most live there because nineteenth-century United States policies des— ignated the region “Indian Territory” and relocated thousands of Indian people there from other areas of the country. The policy of removing Indian peoples from their eastern homelands to the West was implemented in the late 18205 and 1830s, but it originated in earlier periods when Americans had considered various solutions to the problem of what to do with Indians in the eastern United States. The government could try to (1) destroy the Indians; (2) assimilate them into American society; (3) pro— tect them on their ancestral lands; (4) remove them to more distant lands. Most Americans favored the last option as the only practical course. Removal became a policy on which almost all sectors of American society could agree. V Even some Indians came to believe that removal represented their best strategy for survival. Roots of Removal Policy The beginnings of removals went back to the presidency of Thomas Jefferson. In 1802, the state of Georgia ceded its western land claims to the United States, but in return Congress agreed to secure on “reasonable and peaceful” terms title n1 2|0 CHAPTER 4: AMERICAN INDIANS AND THE NEW NATION, l783—I838 827,000 square miles of territory between the Mississippi and the Rocky Moun- tains—for a mere $15 million, and the United States doubled its size overnight. Jefferson soon dispatched Meriwether Lewis and William Clark on an epic journey (1804—06) to the Pacific to discover What the United States had bought (see “The Lewis and Clark Expedition,” pages 225—39). The Lewis and Clark ex— pedition initiated a new era of American interest in the West and, ultimately, a new era for the Indian peoples living there. The explorers did not enter an iso— lated and unchanging world. They met Indian people who had had contacts with European cultures—who rode horses, carried guns, wore woolen cloth— ing, sometimes bore pock—marked faces, and, on occasion, swore like sailors. They encountered sedentary agricultural villages where the inhabitants did a brisk business trading corn and tobacco with hunters from the plains; some of these plains hunters had, until relatively recently, been farmers. Direct and in— direct contact with the outside world had transformed the Indian West long be— fore Lewis and Clark arrived. But many Americans saw the West as barren and virtually empty. Removal of the eastern Indians to presumably “empty” lands beyond the Mississippi became a practical possibility after 1803. Jefferson and others easily solved the dilemma of how to take Indian lands with honor by determining that too much land was a disincentive for Indians to become “civilized.” Ignoring the role of agriculture in Eastern Woodland so- cieties, they argued that Indians would continue to hunt rather than settle down as farmers unless their options were restricted. Taking their lands forced Indians into a settled, agricultural, and “civilized” way of life and was, therefore, good for them in the long run. As Indians took up farming, Jefferson wrote in 1803 to William Henry Harrison, governor of Indiana Territory, “they will per- ceive how useless to them are their extensive forests, and will be willing to pare them off from time to time in exchange for necessaries for their farms and families.” To promote this process “we shall push our trading houses, and be glad to see the good and influential individuals run into debt, because we ob— serve that when these debts get beyond what the individuals can pay, they be— come willing to lop them off by a cession of lands.” In this way, American settlements would gradually surround the Indians “and they will in time either incorporate with us as citizens of the United States, or remove beyond the Mis— sissippi.”11 The process of dispossession could be comfortably accomplished within Jefferson’s philosophy of minimal government. The government could do little to regulate the frontier and protect Indian lands, causing Indians to fight for their land. The government would have no choice but to invade Indian country, suppress the uprising, and dictate treaties in which defeated Indians signed away land. The stage was then set for the process to repeat itself. Jeffer— son’s strategy for acquiring Indian lands resulted in some thirty treaties with a dozen or so tribal groups and the cession of almost 200,000 square miles of In- dian territory in nine states. Jefferson regretted that Indians seemed doomed to extinction, but he showed little compunction in taking away their homelands.12 Some Indians moved west voluntarily; others determined never to aban— don their ancestral lands. But in the early decades of the century the pressure to move west mounted steadily. Americans who hated Indians and desired their 1A_J_I,,,, 1 INDIAN REMOVALS I Englanders denounced the removal policies in the South, many other Ameri— cans who were sympathetic to the Indians also favored removal as the only way to protect them from their rapacious neighbors. Proremoval forces received a boost when Andrew Jackson, a renowned Indian—fighter and a staunch advo- cate of removal, was elected president in 1828. Jackson knew the settled and agriculturally based Creeks and Cherokeesfisthenid, but iIMf the Ellionfliress h‘SAdepicted them as wandering hunters: “What $63 man wouldfiger a country coivered with forests and ranged by a few thousand savages to our extensive republic studied with cities, towns and prosperous farms, embellished with all the improvements that art can devise or industry ex— ecute, occupied by more than 12 million happy people and filled with all the blessings of civilization, liberty and religion?” he asked.13 The Indians would be better off in the West, where they could live undisturbed, Jackson argued. Other politicians expressed similar Views, declaring that a few thousand Indians could not be allowed to stand in the way of human progress. Indians did not put the land to good use, they said, and could not be allowed to deny that land to American farmers. “Civilization” and “progress” demanded that the Indians be removed. The Cherokee Resistance The irony in Jackson’s argument lay in the fact that the Indians whom Ameri- cans seemed moSt anxious to expel from their lands were people whom, even by their own definition, Americans termed civilized. Many Cherokees, Creeks, Chickasaws, and Choctaws had accommodated to American ways, wore Euro— pean styles of clothing, plowed fields and fenced lands, cultivated corn and cotton. Some held slaves; some were Christian and literate. In 1827, the Chero- kees restructured their tribal government into a constitutional republic mod- eled after that of the United States, with a written constitution, an independent judiciary, a supreme court, a principal chief, and a two-house legislature. They had a written language based on the syllabary developed by Sequoyah (a.k.a. George Gist, c. 1770—1843), who devoted a dozen years to developing a written version of the Cherokee language. In 1828 they established a newspaper, the Cherokee Phoenix. Its editor, Elias Boudinot, had received an education at a Moravian school in North Carolina and at the Cornwall Foreign Mission School in Connecticut. The Phoenix was published in both Cherokee and En- glish. Some Cherokees were literate in two languages: they displayed more of the attributes of supposedly “civilized” society than did many of the American frontiersmen who were so eager to occupy their lands. A census taken among the Cherokees in 1825 showed that they owned 33 grist mills, 13 saw mills, one powder mill, 69 blacksmith shops, two tan yards, 762 looms, 2,486 spinning wheels, 172 wagons, 2,923 plows, 7,683 horses, 22,531 cattle, 46,732 pigs, and 2,566 sheep.14 The Cherokees seemed to have everything the United States re— quired of them to take their place in the new nation as a self-supporting, func- tioning republic offarmers. “You asked us to throw off the hunter and warrinr john Ridge John Ridge (1803—39) was the son of Major Ridge, speaker of the Cherokee Council who fought as an ally ofAndrew Jackson during the Creek War of 1813—14. Along with his cousin Elias Boudinot, John attended the American Board’s Foreign Mission School in Cornwall, Connecticut. When the two young men fell in love with women in the town and proposed marriage, the Citizens of Cornwall responded with an outburst of racist at— tacks. The young people married anyway, John taking Sarah Bird Northrup as his wife. Ridge wrote for the Cherokee Phoenix and served as an interpreter and secretary in del— egations to Washington. Along with his father and Elias Boudinot, he came to believe that continued opposition to removal was futile. He was one of the so—called Treaty party who signed the Treaty of New Echota in 1835, committing the Cherokees to westward re- moval by 1838. From the Collection of Gilcrease Museum, Tulsa. so—you asked us to form a republican government: We did so—adopting your own as a model. You asked us to cultivate the earth, and learn the me- chanic arts: We did so. You asked us to learn to read: We did so. You asked us to cast away our idols, and worship your God: We did so.’)155 But it did not save them. Indeed, their very success and prosperity only in- creased pressure from neighbors eager to get their hands on Cherokee land. Cherokee territorv originallv extended into five mnthm QfPrn cfafpc 11m 1“. +1” INDIAN REMOVALS 2 l 3 discovered in Cherokee country in 1827 and prospectors flooded into the area. In December the Georgia legislature passed a resolution asserting its sover— eignty over Cherokee lands within the state’s borders. Georgia demanded that the United States government begin negotiations to compel the Cherokees to cede their land: “The lands in question belong to Georgia,” the legislators as- serted. “She must and will have them.”16 Georgia subjected the Cherokees to a systematic campaign of harassment, intimidation, and deception, culminating in a sustained assault on their government. The state applied to the Cherokees not only general laws governing all citizens, but also special laws aimed only at Cherokees with “a direct intent to destroy the political, economic, and social in- frastructure of the nation.”17 It prohibited meetings of the tribal council and closed down the tribal courts. In 1830, Georgia created a police force—the Georgia Guard—t0 patrol Cherokee country. Over the next few years the Guard harassed Cherokee people, arrested Principal Chief John Ross and seized his papers, and confiscated the Cherokee printing press. Elias Boudinot ap- pealed to Washington in words that proved prophetic: The State of Georgia has taken a strong stance against us, and the United States must either defend us in our rights, or leave us to our foe. In the for— mer case, the General Government will redeem her pledge solemnly given in treaties. In the latter, she will Violate her promise of protection, and we cannot, in future, depend consistently, upon any guarantee made by her to us, either here or beyond the Mississippi.18 Implementing Removal In May 1830, after extensive debate and a close vote in both houses, Congress passed the Indian Removal Act, authorizing the president to negotiate treaties of removal with all Indian tribes living east of the Mississippi. Almost imme- diately, surveyors and squatters entered Cherokee country and Georgia stepped up its campaign of harassment. The Cherokees decided to fight Georgia in the federal courts. In 1830, John Ross hired William Wirt, the former attorney gen- eral, and other lawyers to represent his people’s interests. Wirt filed a series of test cases. He first obtained a writ of error from Supreme Court Justice John Marshall to stay the execution of a Cherokee named Corn Tassel. Corn Tassel had been sentenced to death by a Georgia court for killing another Indian in Cherokee country, a crime the Cherokees and their supporters argued should fall under Indian jurisdiction. In a special session, the Georgia legislature voted to defy the writ, and Corn Tassel was hanged. “The conduct of the Georgia Legislature is indeed surprising,” wrote Elias Boudinot in another prophetic passage. “[Tlhey . . . authorize their governor to hoist the flag of rebellion against the United States! If such proceedings are sanctioned by the majority of the people of the U. States, the Union is but a tottering fabric which will soon {all anri rrnml—xln infn ofnmc”19 CHAPTER 4: AMERICAN INDIANS AND THE NEW NATION, I783—I838 Lands ceded 1810—1819 Land still held by Indians El Lands already ceded Lands ceded 1820—1829 H Land still held by Indians 0 400 800 miles O 400 800 kilometers 1 81 0—1 81 9 Lands already ceded ' Lands ceded ‘ 1830—1839 ‘ Land still held by Indians Lands already ceded Lands ceded , 1 840—1849 1 Land still held bylndians 1830—1 839 1 840—1 849 MAP 4-2 Indian Land Cessions, I8l0—49 Between 1810 and 1849, the United States quashed the final Indian military resistance east of the Mississippi and implemented the policy of removing eastern Indian peoples to the west of the Mississippi. The result was massive loss of Indian homelands. a Native Response,” pages 240—49). Chief Justice John Marshall declared that the court lacked jurisdiction over the case since the Cherokees were neither U.S. cit— izens nor an independent nation; they were, he said, “domestic dependent na— tions.” The next year, however, a Vermont missionary brought suit challenging Georgia’s right to exert its authority over him in Cherokee country. Because the suit involved a U.S. citizen, it fell within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction. In Worcester 1/. Georgia the court found that the Cherokee Nation was “a distinct community, occupying its own territory” in which “the laws of Georgia can I12er nn Farrp 7’20 'T‘Ima r‘nnrf’c rlom'm'nn “mo nan AF 4-14,. MAM. :m..,\..4.,...4. :.,. LLA LL. INDIAN REMOVALS 2I5 The Trail of Tears A decade before American pioneers headed west in search of new opportunities, thou— sands of southeastern Indians were forced, often at gunpoint, to gather what possessions they could and trek west beyond the Mississippi. The Cherokee ordeal, portrayed in this I 942 painting, became known as “The Path Where They Cried,” or “The Trail of Tears.” Woolaroc Museum, Bartlesville, Oklahoma. Georgia would not tolerate a sovereign Cherokee nation within its boundaries; nor would it tolerate federal protection of that sovereignty. Georgia ignored the Supreme Court’s ruling. By the 18305, the South was producing about half the cotton consumed in the world, and growing rich exporting most of it to the cotton mills of northern England. Southeastern Indian lands were too valuable to be left in Indian hands. Southern Indians faced a choice between destitution and re— moval. Most bowed to the inevitable. As early as 1820, the Choctaw chief Pushmataha made a treaty with Jackson at Doak’s Stand, ceding lands in Mis- sissippi to the United States and accepting new lands in the West in return. Ten years later, the Choctaws signed the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek, en— "11";“111 4.14,. fifififififi _-1 ,L‘ A r .1 . 2|6 CHAPTER 4: AMERICAN INDIANS AND THE NEW NATION, I783—I838 Ceded lands and dates of cession * indian reservations Boundaries of 1830 N10. G AALLZ E D! 5T, , 4— Major routes of indian removal MICHIGAN ' TERRITORY ' . DEL. ATLANTIC OCEAN Gulf of Mexico O 100 200 miles l—i’_|_l—' O 100 200 kilometers MAP 4-3 Indian Removal and the Trail of Tears in the |8305 The United States’ government policy of removing Indians west of the Mississippi hrought tremendous sufi‘ering to the uprooted people and disrupted the lives of the people already inhabiting the region to which they moved. As many as a quarter of the Cherokees died on their Trail of Tears in 1838. But not all Indians were removed: groups of Cherokees, Seminoles and Choctaws still live in their traditional homelands. tosh was executed by fellow tribesmen in 1825 for selling lands in contraven— tion of tribal law. But in 1836, the Creeks embarked on a bitter march west. In 1835, the United States signed the Treaty of New Echota with a minor- ity of Cherokees who agreed to move west voluntarily. The “Treaty Party” in- cluded Elias Boudinot, Iohn Ridge, and others who now felt they had no alter- native but to migrate. Principal Chief John Ross and the majority of his people denounced the treaty and refused to abide by it. In 1838, citing the Treaty of New Echota, federal troops moved in and forced out the Cherokees. Thou- sands of Creeks, Cherokees, and others died on the journeys west, on the aptly nomarl “Trail {\‘F Toorc ” Alnvic (in annnnxrilla a prism/‘11 v‘icifnr fn fl’lp Ilhifpfl INDIAN REMOVALS 2 l 7 had earned a reputation for brutality in their dispossession of the Indians the Americans had attained the same objective under the pretense of legality and philanthropy. It was, he wrote, “impossible to destroy men with more respect to the laws of humanity.”21 For most of the Cherokees, the march west to Indian Territory was the be- ginning of a new era in which they would have to adjust to life in a strange land and re—create their societies in the area that became the state of Oklahoma. In 1839, unknown assailants killed Major Ridge, lohn Ridge, and Elias Boudinot, the leaders of the Treaty Party who had ceded Cherokee land, and civil strife continued to divide the Cherokees in their new homes. Nevertheless, the Cherokees rebuilt their nation in the West. They reestablished their political in— stitutions, centering their government at Tahlequah, in northeastern Okla— homa. They established churches and Protestant seminaries for both men and women and provided free coeducation in their public schools—the first west of the Mississippi. Once again, Cherokees were the vanguard of “civilization.” Some southern Indians managed to stay in the traditional lands. Florida Seminoles refused to remove and, in the Second Seminole War (1835—42), fought the United States to a standstill from their stronghold in the Everglades. The federal government spent millions of dollars, deployed thousands of troops, and lost 1,500 men. Despite the capture by treachery of the chief, Osce— 01a, under a flag of truce and his subsequent death in prison, some Seminoles remained undefeated and defiant in their Florida homelands. Some Cherokees also evaded the American drive west, and survive in North Carolina as the Eastern Band of Cherokees. In the North, implementing the removal policy meant dealing with a va- riety of tribes and bands, many of which had migrated from one region to an- other, and many of which were already living on a fraction of their former lands. Between 1829 and 1851, the United States signed eighty-six treaties with twenty—six northern tribes between New York and the Mississippi. Sometimes several tribes participated in a treaty; sometimes a single tribe signed several treaties.22 In New York, pressure to remove the remaining Indians mounted steadily. In 1838, the United States negotiated the Treaty of Buffalo Creek, in which the Senecas agreed to give up their four reservations in New York and move to Kansas. But charges of bribery and fraud by the commissioners im- peded the treaty’s ratification by the Senate and the Senecas were able to nego— tiate a compromise treaty four years later which allowed most 0% Ms alone partic— ipated in nineteen treaties. Most Anishinaabe bands managed to preserve reser— vations in their Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota homelands. Often they signed treaties that ceded large chunks of territory but guaranteed their rights to continue hunting, fishing, and gathering wild rice on the ceded lands and the rivers and lakes—rights that they had to reassert in confrontations and court cases in the late twentieth century. Some Potawatomis, Anishinaabeg, and Ot- tawas moved north into Canada rather than go west to Kansas and Oklahoma. Other tribes joined the general pattern of coerced migration beyond the Mississinni. In 1R3”). the Rank chief Rlnrk I—Iawlr returned with his hennle tn 2|8 CHAPTER 4: AMERICAN INDIANS AND THE NEW NATION, I783—I838 e W Black Hawk Black Hawk or Makataimeshekiakiak consistently defended his people’s homeland against American expansion. He denounced the Treaty of St. Louis of 1804, whereby a small delegation of tribal leaders ceded all Sauk lands east of the Mississippi; he fought with the British against the United States in the War of 1812; and in 1832 he led his hand across the Mississippi and into a disastrous defeat. The Warner Collection of Gulf States Paper Corporation, Tuscaloosa, Alabama. SURVIVING BEHIND THE FRONTIER 2'9 occupying the area claimed that they were being invaded. The Illinois militia was called out and federal troops were brought in. The so—called “Black Hawk War” culminated in the slaughter of many of Black Hawks band at the Battle of Bad Axe as they were trying to escape across the Mississippi. Black Hawk was captured and imprisoned, but later was taken on a tour of the East and related his autobiography. Citing the “unprovoked” war as justification, the United States stripped the Sauks of their lands in treaties in 1833, 1836, 1837, and 1842. Most Sauks eventually removed to new homes in Kansas. Contrary to what some Americans asserted, the country to which the east— ern tribes were removed was not empty. The United States carved its “Indian Territory” out of the homelands of Omahas, Otos, Missouris, Kansas, Pawnees, and Osages, who regarded the newcomers as invaders. The Osages, who had dominated the southern prairies in the eighteenth century, clashed repeatedly with Cherokees in the Arkansas country. Relations between Native inhabitants and Native immigrants from the East remained tense for years.23 I SURVIVING BEHIND THE FRONTIER Despite the pressures to remove west, many Indian people remained on their traditional homelands throughout the eastern United States. They continued the fight to remain Indian in the midst of an alien society that denied the va— lidity of their culture and in time ignored their very presence. In New England, Indian people remained long after New Englanders believed they had resolved their Indian “problem.” Confined to tiny reservations and subjected to in- creasing regulation by individual states, they saw their lands whittled away. In Vermont and New Hampshire, as Americans occupied their lands, Abenakis pulled back into the farthest reaches of their territory or maintained a low pro- file on the peripheries of the new towns, villages, and farms. Newcomers as- sumed that Indians were fast disappearing from the region, or insisted that those they saw were from St. Francis and belonged in Canada, not inVermont.24 In Maine, Penobscots and Passamaquoddies, who had supported the American cause during the Revolution, appealed to Congress for justice as fheirwformekr allies invaded their hunting territories. But, in defiance of the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act of 1790, first Massachusetts and then after 1820 the new state of Maine imposed treaties that gobbled up huge areas of Indian land with— out obtaining congressional approval. In 1794, the Passamaquoddies ceded more than one million acres to Massachusetts. Two years later, the Penobscots ceded almost 200,000 acres in the Penobscot valley; in 1818, they relinquished all their remaining lands except an island in the Penobscot River and four six- mile square townships. In 1833, Maine bought the four townships for $50,000. By mid-century, the Penobscots were confined to Indian Island at Old Town, near Orono, Maine, and the Passamaquoddies were reduced to two reserva— trons. Massachusetts reinstituted a guardian system for Indians after the Revolu- , Cornelius Krieghoff, The Basket Seller (c. I850) With traditional economies disrupted and their men often away from home, many Indian women in New England and eastern Canada found that making and selling baskets ojfered a way of both preserving traditional craft skills and making ends meet. Some women peddled their wares from village to village and house to house, often a humiliating experience. William Apess’s grandmother barely earned enough to feed her family. A minister in Ledyard, Connecticut, recalled, as a small boy, seeing an In— dian woman named Anne Wampy every spring selling baskets she had made during the winter. “When she started from home she carried upon her shoulders a bundle of baskets so large as almost to hide her from view,” he wrote. Her fine baskets found cus— tomers at almost every house. After two or three days her load would be sold, but “sad to relate,” noted the minister, she would spend much of her earnings on strong drink before she reached home. ( Quoted in Barry O’Connell, ed., On Our Own Ground: The Complete Writings of William Apess, a Pequot (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, I 992 ), 153.) Art Gallery of On- CHAPTER 4: AMERICAN INDIANS AND THE NEW NATION, I783—1838 who often exploited their position for their own ends. At places like Natick and Stockbridge, where Indians and Anglo- Americans shared the same town, Indians were edged out of town offices and off the land. Stephen Badger, minister at Natick, reported in 1798 that Indians were “gener— ally considered by white people, and placed, as if by common consent, in an inferiour and degraded situation, and treated accordingly.” Covetous neighbors “took every advantage of them that they could, under colour of legal authority . . . to dis— hearten and depress them.n25 Indian people who had once moved seasonally for subsistence purposes were now compelled to move about by poverty and the search for either work or dislo- cated relatives. New England towns added to the numbers of Indian people traveling the roads by “warning out” needy people to avoid paying poor relief. Wu men went away to sea, often on lengthy whaling voyages, and their wives had to as— W's’ufiie—tlié‘burden of supporting the family. Many women married non—Indians. Some Mashpee women of Cape Cod married Africans, Portuguese sailors, or German veterans of the Revolutionary War. Indian people who moved to Boston, Providence, Worcester, and other cities often took up residence among the growing African American population. Stephen Badger said in 1798 that the Indians of Natick were “frequently shifting their place of res- idence, and are intermarried with blacks, and some with whites; and the various shades between those, and those de— scended from them.” Indians in some parts of Massachusetts had become “almost ex- tinct,” and seemed to “vanish” among “people of color.”26 Former president John Adams, writ- ing to Thomas Jefferson in 1812, recalled growing up in Massachusetts seventy years Captain Amos Haskins: Daguerreotype by an Unknown Photographer Haskins (181 6—61), a Wampanoag Indian from New Bedford, Massachusetts, was one of many New England Indians who worked in deep—sea whaling in the nineteenth century. He prob— ably began whaling in the early I 8305. By the time this picture was made, probably in the mid-18505, he had achieved the rank of ship’s captain and made his fortune. Few Indian Whalers were so fortunate. New Bedford WhalingMuseum. SURVIVING BEHIND THE FRONTIER 22l went out to Service and the Boys to Sea, till not a Soul is left,” he wrote. “We scarcely see an Indian in a year.”27 In his Report on Indian Ajfairs, submitted to the secretary of war in 1822, Jedidiah Morse portrayed the Indian communities in New England as a “few feeble remnants” teetering on the brink of extinction.28 Writing in 1833, after his visit to the United States, Alexis de Tocqueville declared, “All the Indian tribes who once inhabited the territory of New England—the Narragansetts, the Mohi- cans, the Pequots—now live only in men’s memories.”29 The prevailing View among Anglo—Americans was that Indians were a doomed race—an idea embodied in James Fenimore Cooper’s The Last of the Mohicans (1826). They were wrong. The same year that Tocqueville pronounced them gone, the Mashpee Indians openly defied the au— thority of Massachusetts and staged a “re- volt” which, though never violent, did win them a measure of self-government and was a limited victory for Indian rights.30 William Apess, who delivered a eulogy for King Philip (see “Two Views of King Philip,” pages 121—30) in 1836, took an ac— tive role in the revolt and worked hard to make sure that Americans did not forget that New England had once been, and on one level still was, Indian country. Ad— dressing those New Englanders who protested against Georgia’s treatment of the Cherokees, Apess demanded: “How will the white man of Massachusetts ask favor for the red men of the South, while the poor Marshpee [sic] red men, his near neighbors, sigh in bondage?” In “An Indian’s Looking Glass for the White Man,” he reminded his readers that the new American nation was built on In- dian land and with African slave labor: “Can you charge the Indians with rob- bing a nation almost of their continent, and murdering their women and chil- dren, and then depriving the remainder of their lawful rights, that nature and God require them to have? And to cap the climax, rob another nation to till their grounds and welter out their days under the lash with hunger and fatigue under the scorching rays of a burning sun?” If all the races of the world were out tooet‘her. “aan earh ckin Ina ire natinnol N;ch imam“ "mm ;+” 1“ “1m; 222 CHAPTER 4: AMERICAN INDIANS AND THE NEW NATION, I783—l838 References 1. Quoted in Colin G. Galloway, ed., Early American Indian Documents: Treaties and Laws, 1607—1789. Vol. 18: Revolution and Confederation (Bethesda, Md: University Publications of America, 1994), XXV. 2. Elizabeth B. Fenn, Pox Americana: The Great Smallpox Epidemic of] 775—1782 (New York: Hill and Wang, 2001). 3. Francis Paul Prucha, American Indian Policy in the Formative Years: The Indian Trade and Intercourse Acts, 1790—1834 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1970), Vii, 1—2. 4. Colin G. Galloway, ed., The World Turned Upside Down: Indian Voices from Early America (Boston: Bedford Books, 1994), 175—76. 5. Calloway, ed., The World Turned Upside Down, 181—83. 6. Dresden W. H. Howard, “The Battle of Fallen Timbers as Told by Chief Kin-Jo-I— No,” Northwest Ohio Quarterly 20 (1948), 37—49, quotes at 46—47. 7. Joel Martin, Sacred Revolt: The Muskogees’ Struggle for a New World (Boston: Bea- con Press, 1991), 98. 8. Quoted in Peter Nabokov, ed., Native American Testimony (New York: Harper and Row, 1978), 69—70. 9. Joy Bilharz, “First Among Equals? The Changing Status of Seneca Women,” in Laura E. Klein and Lillian A. Ackerman, eds., Women and Power in Native North America (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1995), 108. 10. Daniel H. Usner, Jr., “American Indians on the Cotton Frontier: Changing Eco- nomic Relations with Citizens and Slaves in the Mississippi Territory,” Journal of American History 72 (1985), 297—317. 11. Quoted in Francis Paul Prucha, ed., Documents of United States Indian Policy (Lin- coln: University of Nebraska Press, 1975), 22—23. 12. Anthony F. C. Wallace, Jefi‘erson and the Indians: The Tragic Fate of the FirstAmer- icans (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1999). 13. Virgil J. Vogel, ed., This Country Was Ours: A Documentary History of the American Indian (New York: Harper and Row, 1972), 289. 14. Quoted in Theda Perdue and Michael D. Green, eds., The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History with Documents (Boston: Bedford Books, 1995), 119—20. 15. Quoted in John Ehle, Trail of Tears: The Rise and Fall of the Cherokee Nation (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 254. 16. Quoted in William G. McLoughlin, Cherokee Renascence in the New Republic (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986), 412. 17. Sidney L. Harring, Crow Dog’s Case: American Indian Sovereignty, Tribal Law, and United States Law in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 32. 18. Theda Perdue, ed., Cherokee Editor: The Writings of Elias Boudinot (Knoxville: Uni— versity of Tennessee Press, 1983), 105—06. 19. Perdue, ed., Cherokee Editor, 121. 20. Perdue and Green, eds., The Cherokee Removal, 74. 21. J. P. Mayer, ed., Democracy in America by Alexis de Tocqueville (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), 339. 22. Francis Paul Prucha, American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994), 184. -_ _ . n n “- H1111 AM“. A“ Emanufimnni Chi/l1] nf Hpapmnnv on the SUGGESTED READINGS 223 count of the troubles see John Joseph Matthews Th ,- . , e Osa : C ' ' Waters (Norman: Umversrty of Oklahoma Press, 1961), ilfapshZZr—TSOfthe Middle 24. Colin G. Calloway, The Western Abenakis of Vermont, 1600—1800' War Migration and the Survival 0 an I d' P . . . 1990). f n ian eople (Norman. Umversrty of Oklahoma Press, 25. Stephen Badger, “Historical and Characteristic Traits of the American Indians in General and Those of Natick in Particular” Colle ' . a I , ctions of th ' torrcal Socrety, 1st series, 5 (1798), 38—39. e Massadlusetts HIS— 26. Badger, “Historical and Characteristic Traits,” 35, 43. 27. Lester J. Cappon, ed., The Adams—Jefi‘erson Letters: The Complete Correspondence be— tween Thomas Jefierson and Abigail and John Adams 2 v ' . , 015. Ch - ' S1ty of North Carolina Press, 1959), 2:310—1 1. ( apel H111- Unwer- 28. Rev. Jedidiah Morse A Report to the Secretar ' . , y of War 0 the United St ' Afi‘airs (New Haven: S. Converse, 1822), 64—75. f ates, on Indian 29. Mayer, ed., Democracy in America, 321. l)()na.1d M. Nielsen, The Mashpee Revolt Of E” l d 1 1 ( ) L y W gall Qua. t6 ly 31. Barry O’Connell ed On Our Own Ground' The C ' ' , ., . . . omplete Writings 0 William Apess, a Pequot (Amherst: Universuy of Massachusetts Press, 1992), 157205. Suggested Readings Calloway, Colin G., ed. After King Philip’s War: Presence and Persistence in Indian New England (Hanover, NH: University Press of New England, 1997). Dowd, Gregory Evans. A Spirited Resistance: The North American Indian Struggle for Unity, 1745—1815 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992). Edmpgisis), R. David. The Shawnee Prophet (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, Horsman, Reginald. Expansion and American Indian Policy, 1783—1812. Reprint ed. (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1992). Hurt, R. Douglas The Indian Frontier 1763 1846 (Alb ' ' , , — u uer ue: U Mexico Press, 2002). q q mvemty OfNeW Jackson, Donald, ed. Black Hawk: An Autobiography (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964). Martin, Joel. Sacred Revolt: The Muskogees’ Struggle for a New World (Boston: Bea- con Press, 1991). McLoughlin, William G. Cherokee Renascence in the New Republic (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1986). O’Connell, Barry, ed. On Our Own Ground: The Complete Writings of William Apess, a Pequot (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1992). Perdue, Theda. Cherokee Women: Gender and Culture Change, 1700—1835 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1998). Perdue, Theda, and Michael D. Green, eds. The Cherokee Removal: A Brief History CHAPTER 4: AMERICAN INDIANS AND THE NEW NATION, I783—I838 Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and theAmer- ican Indians, 2 vols. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984). Ronda, James P. Lewis and Clark among the Indians (Lincoln: University of Ne— braska Press, 1984). Sheehan, Bernard W. Seeds of Extinction: Jeffersonian Philanthropy and the Ameri- can Indian (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1973). Sugden, John. Blue Jacket: Warrior of the Shawnees (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2000). Sugden, John. Tecumseh: A Life (New York: Henry Holt, 1998). Wallace, Anthony F. C. The Death and Rebirth of the Seneca (New York: Knopf, 1969). Wallace, Anthony F. C. Iefi‘erson and the Indians: The Tragic Fate of the First Ameri- cans (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1999). Wallace, Anthony F. C. The Long, Bitter Trail: Andrew Jackson and the Indians (New York: Hill and Wang, 1993). The Lewis and Clark Expedition Even before the United States purchased the Louisiana Territory from France 11L 180;, President Thomas TEfferson was making plans for an American expedition to explore the Missouri River to its sources and from there to the Pa— cific. The first European to cross the continent north of Mexico was Alexander Mackenzie, a Scotsman in the employ of the Montreal—based North West Com— pany, who traveled in 1793 from Saskatchewan to the Pacific. In 1801, Macken— zie published Voyages from Montreal, which not only described his travels but also spelled out his ideas for British settlement in the West. Jefferson read this book in 1802 and it galvanized him to action. In the words of Lewis and Clark scholar James Ronda, “The Lewis and Clark Expedition—Jefferson’s imperial response to Mackenzie’s challenge—began the moment the president read the final pages of Voyages from Montreal.”1 By the time the expedition—led by two Virginians, Jefferson’s personal secretary Meriwether Lewis and William Clark—left St. Louis in 1804, the Louisiana Territory was “American,” and the president was eager to learn what he had acquired. In reality, of course, the vast territory that lay roughly between the Missis— sippi and the Rocky Mountains was not American, French, or Spanish, al— though those nations passed claim to it among themselves. It was Indian coun- try. It was a world in which the presence of British, French, and Spanish traders and the aspirations of competing European nations had been felt for some time, but where Indian people and Indian power were still dominant. The Corps of Discovery, as the Lewis and Clark expedition was known, would have to travel through Indian country, deal with Indian tribes, and develop a work— ing knowledge of Indian politics, as would the American traders, settlers, and agents that Jefferson envisioned following in their wake. Lewis and Clark’s pur— pose, therefore, was to proclaim American sovereignty over the area, prepare the way for American commerce with the tribes, and gather as much information as possible about this “new land” and the many Indian peoples who inhabited it. The success of the expedition depended on cultivating amicable relations: “In all your intercourse with the natives,” Jefferson instructed Lewis, “treat them in the most friendly and conciliatory manner which their own conduct will permit.”2 « On the whole, the expedition succeeded in doing so. The explorers carried with them flags and gifts to present to Indian chiefs; they met and smoked with ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 05/18/2008 for the course AIS 1110 taught by Professor Richardson during the Spring '08 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 14

Calloway_Chapter_4_A - W W 2 Are they of any value in understanding Native American historical experi— ences 3 Why did the way Indians were

This preview shows document pages 1 - 14. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online