Indians – American History to 1877

February 19, 2014

American History from a Canadian Perspective

Warning: Undefined variable $num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 126

Warning: Undefined variable $posts_num in /home/shroutdo/public_html/courses/wp-content/plugins/single-categories/single_categories.php on line 127

I found it fascinating to read Wilentz from somewhat of an outsider’s perspective, not being American and having never studied American history or read the American constitution. I have been told repeatedly told by American students at Davidson that I should not be considered an international student because “there’s really no difference better Canada and the US”. Reading Wilentz, the cultural differences and the historical roots of those differences become abundantly clear. Even Wilentz writes, “The Revolution’s democratic impact forever changed the context of American politics and culture and brought ordinary Americans into public and political life, which fundamentally altered how they perceived themselves and others.” Though I share many of the American cultural values including freedom, independence, property rights and class mobility, these values are not tied to my identity as a Canadian, but my identity as human being. I think these values are rooted in American identity because they are directly rooted in the events and teaching of American history, in a way that they are not in Canada – we got our independence in 1867, the last province joined in 1949 and we didn’t have a national flag specified by statue law until 1965.

Of all the texts we have read this semester, the first chapter of The Rise of American Democracy by Sean Wilentz comes closest to what I think of as how American (and North American) history is traditionally told. Each page is peppered with the names of white men in prominent economic or political positions. (I also wonder if this is how American history is told because of the US culture often values individual identity, representation of every individual and the possibility of upward mobility for everyone) Even when the chapter discusses class differences, the discussion is limited to a comparison between the lifestyles and beliefs of urban and rural dwellers. At the end of the chapter, Wilentz does briefly discusses slavery in the context of the Philadelphia convention and summarizes the results as “the final draft avoided explicitly mentioning slavery […] But delegates effective barred the government from taking any action against slavery in the states”. But, Wilentz does not discuss the impact of these events, nor does he mention anywhere the efforts by slaves of free Blacks to fight for and promote democratic values. By contrast, David Brion Davis focuses exclusively slaves and free blacks in this time period in chapter seven of Inhuman Bondage. He details attitude towards slavery and changes to slave ideals of freedom, as well as chronicling the roles slaves played in revolutionary effects and the misgiving of many whites to involve slaves. Davis provides a parallel history that fills in many of the gaps in Wilnetz chronicle. Olivia provides a really valuable analysis of in her blog post “The Revolutionary War as a Precursor to the Civil War?” of Davis and the role of slavery in both the Revolutionary and Civil wars, demonstrating the value of analyzing history from multiple perspectives.

Still, these chapters were the only historical texts you had read on American history, you would never know that there were Native peoples living in North America. Admittedly, we have moved forward on the timeline from European arrival an early interactions and I don’t mean to imply that Wilentz or Davis are responsible for telling those parts of American history, however having read Taylor with his attention to marginalized populations, I am left wondering in what ways Native people were directly or indirectly involved in shaping the new American state.

Davis, David Brion. Inhuman Bondage. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Wilentz, Sean. The Rise of American Democracy. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2005.
*Olivia Rosen, “The Revolutionary War as a Precursor to the Civil War, http://sites.davidson.edu/his141sp2014/the-revolutionary-war-as-a-precursor-to-the-civil-war/

February 17, 2014

Indian Impact on the Seven Years War

Traditional histories fail to fully explain the role Indians played in the Seven Years War. Falsely portraying the numerous Indians that allied with either the British or French forces as mere “bodies,” they ignore the impact the natives had on the outcome of the war. Taylor on the other hand, does a great job of expounding upon the Indian tribes’ critical role in Chapter 18: Imperial Wars and Crisis.

Referencing an observation an English trader made in 1755, Taylor notes that “Indians determined the military balance of power within North America.” He explains that their strategic location between the British and French colonies, combined with their guerilla method of fighting, made them an important asset to both the British and the French in the North American theater of the Seven Years War (424). While the French ultimately had more Indian allies because they treated them better, the British were able to gain some Indian support. As the author of “Britain’s Rise to Power” mentions, the British had an advantage in trade; they were able to trade mass quantities of goods to the Indians that were both superior to and cheaper than French goods. This not only prompted some Indians to ally with the British, but it also made Indian allegiance with the French weaker (428). Native assistance would ultimately prove invaluable to the British cause.

Initially, the British failed to utilize their Indian allies appropriately. When British general Edward Braddock marched on Fort Duquesne – a French fort located in what is now modern-day Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania – only eight Indians accompanied his army of 2,200 men. The British would suffer nearly a thousand casualties and wounded men. Taylor astutely argues that “no expedition through the forest could prosper without significant Indian support and without heeding Indian expertise” (429). However, the next British attack on Fort Duquesne would be much more successful. Deploying new “ranger units” that consisted of colonists who used Indian tactics and British infantrymen equipped with rifles and tomahawks, the British, under the command of William Pitt, forced the French to abandon and destroy Fort Duquesne. The British would consequently build a much larger fort known as Fort Pitt (431). While this is only one example, the British attacks on Fort Duquesne display the critical role the Indians played during the Seven Years War. Without native assistance, it is possible that the British could have lost the war.

Taylor’s thorough history of the Seven Years War reveals an Indian population far more influential to the development of Colonial America than most history texts impart. I enjoyed reading about the economic forces that factored into many British-Indian alliances and thought his unique narrative of the war was captivating. In addition, he does a great job setting the stage for the American Revolutionary War.

February 17, 2014

The Indians’ Role before the American Revolution

Throughout chapter 18, Taylor discusses several different aspects of this short time period leading up to the American Revolution. While one could explore any one of the differing narratives, it seems that the one of the most appealing—and one that has often been left out of the “romantic” tale of American independence—is the role of the native peoples. As articulated in “The Changing Role of the Indians,” the conflicts between European powers often directly affected the Indians (for better or worse). Just as both Taylor and the aforementioned post note, the Indians were a respectable foe, and for this reason, all other groups attempted to “win” over their allegiance. An English trader observed in 1755, “the importance of the Indians is now generally known and understand. A Doubt remains not, that the prosperity of our Colonies on the Continent will stand or fall with our Interest and favour among them” (Taylor 424). This statement cannot be over emphasized because it indicates that (at one point) the French considered the Indians to be the sole key to their own success. In fact, even the governor-general of New England believed, “the Iroquois are more to be feared than the English colonies” (426). Taylor’s effective use of observations from the time period gives us insight into the then-typical opinions of the people. Clearly, as the quotes imply, the might of the Indians (especially that of the Iroquois Nation) was respected and feared.

Taylor goes on to observe that the native peoples benefited from a balance of power between the French and British because it “kept presents flowing, preserved competition in the fur trade, and held invading settlers at bay” (426). However, the situation soon deteriorated for the Indians. As Taylor notes, “the collapse of New France was dreadful news to the Indians of the interior. No longer could they play the French and the British off against one another to maintain their own independence, maximize their presents, and ensure trade competition” (433). The changing dynamics of power also led to the mass-killings of native peoples because “the settlers [soon] treated all Indians, regardless of allegiance, as violent brutes best exterminated” (436). Ultimately, in the midst of the precursor to the American Revolution, the Indians became inferior to colonists because the “vision of white liberty” necessitated the “systematic dispossession of native peoples” (443).

I appreciate the attention that Taylor gives to the Indians in this chapter. While we are all aware of the stereotypical absence of Indians in American history, it seems that this unjust portrayal (or lack thereof) becomes particularly true when discussing the beginning of colonial independence. However, Taylor carefully incorporates crucial details regarding the native peoples and their interactions with the European powers. In the end, all other groups unfortunately ignore the human dignity of the Indians and only use them in order to accomplish the ulterior end of control—a motive that Taylor rightfully stresses and articulates throughout the reading.

February 17, 2014

A Social Narrative of Military History

One of the major aspects that we have focused while discussing American Colonies has been the type of narrative Taylor tells and how it differs from the ways history has traditionally been told. In general Taylor focuses more on the social narrative than other history textbooks, analyzing events from both perspectives and looking for non-linear causation. Chapter 18 “Imperial Wars and Crisis, 1739-75” is the first chapter we have read of American Colonies that primarily chronicles military efforts and conflicts; other chapters focused on land claims, settlement, the establishment of political systems and religion. Alex argues, in the post “Britain’s Rise to Power” that in chapter 18 Taylor “forsakes his previous style of a social narrative for more of a direct military history”. Alex was not the only one to make such a claim, with many of our peers expressing appreciation for the perceived shift in focus and argument. Though it is apparent that Taylor has chosen to focus this chapter on military events and conflicts, I disagree with the claim that he forsakes the social narrative. I would argue that it is not the events that are discussed, but the approach and perspectives taken in analyzing those events, which makes Taylor’s writing a social narrative.

In his post “The Changing Role of The Indians” Dana does a thorough job of summarizing and analyzing Taylor’s discussion of Native Americans in Chapter 18. Taylor’s focus on Indian rebellions as well as the impacts of imperial wars on Indian societies and life styles demonstrates that Taylor is not writing a traditional military history. Though he acknowledges that Europeans played Indian nations against each other, he makes efforts not to victimize them. Taylor acknowledges that Indians were not passive subjects of European colonialism when he writes, “To maximize their advantages, after 1701 the Iroquois cultivated a neutrality meant to preserve the balance of power between the French and the British […] A rough balance of power kept presents flowing, preserved competition in the fur trade, and held invading settlers at bay” (Taylor 426). This is the type of social commentary and depth that many historical textbooks lack.

Furthermore, in the second half of the chapter Taylor focuses on the imperial crisis and the United States as an “Empire of Liberty”. These sections analyze the sociological and psychological the impacts of the military conflicts and events detailed in the first part of the chapter. Taylor examines notions of liberty and slavery, arguing that “free colonists intently defended their property rights because property alone made men truly independent and free” and “Broadly defined, ‘slavery’ meant to labor for a master without reaping the rewards” (Tayor 442). By exploring these social themes, Taylor takes chapter 18 beyond a timeline oriented military history to a thorough examination of the significance of these military events in how they impacted society.

Works Cited:
Alan Taylor, American Colonies (New York: Penguin Books 2001), 421-443.
Dana Harvey, “The Changing Role of The Indians”, http://sites.davidson.edu/his141sp2014/the-changing-role-of-the-indians/
Alex Palinski, “Britain’s Rise to Power”, http://sites.davidson.edu/his141sp2014/britains-rise-to-power/