The Six Nation’s War against Americans…The Revolutionary War…

[amicus]

The Six Nation’s War against Americans…The Revolutionary War…


I have been watching the Series on the Military Channel and even though I did Graduate work in Colonial American History, I found several things I did not fully understand before.

Even before I begin, I want to say up front, this is not a ‘flame’ piece to those who support rights and compensation for Native Americans, but an attempt to provide a foundation for some of the activities of the US and the various Indian Nations.

In the series episode I watched this evening, the statement was made that: “All most all of the Indian Tribes took sides with the British against the Colonists in the Revolutionary War…”

The Indian leaders thought that the British would be supportive of their efforts to keep their land whereas the Colonists were always pushing westward to settle new land for the Americans.

The British paid money for American scalps, every man, woman and child in many settlements were scalped and dismembered by tribes of the Six Nations; in one mentioned case, 227 men women and children butchered and killed in one town alone during the French and Indian portion of the war.

All the frontier settlements were attacked and destroyed, one after the other, with all the settlers being scalped and killed.

It reached such a point that General Washington delegated a force of 5,000 men to go into the land of the Six Nations and destroy and burn every village and kill every Indian inhabitant.

Although a terrible carnage took place on both sides, the attitude that the natives were cruel, inhuman savages continued on when the Revolutionary War was finally over and American settlers continued the westward push into Indian Territory.

It is not a pretty history from either side but the continuing viewpoint of many, that ruthless and greedy Americans nearly destroyed Native American culture for no reason at all, except wanting the land and the resources is somewhat of an exaggeration.

Even during the period of history where Treaties we made and broken, those stories are laced with faulty beliefs on each side. It was not a time of honor to look back upon, nor is it totally a one-sided issue.

I have always looked upon that era as an example of what happens when two civilizations collide, the outcome is heavily weighted towards the more industrial or ‘modern’ one. A defeated and conquered people, anywhere in the world, suffers the same humiliation of a loss of culture as did the Native Americans.

War and a violent confrontation between civilizations with different values seems never to be a pretty thing.

Amicus…

 

[kendo1]

I suspect both sides were to blame for the attrocities committed. (Or should that be four sides? if you include the French and Dutch)

A defeated and conquered people, anywhere in the world, suffers the same humiliation of a loss of culture as did the Native Americans.

Are you sure you want to say that the American Indians were defeated?
You are a braver man than I.

Ken

 

[Liar]

War and a violent confrontation between civilizations with different values seems never to be a pretty thing.

Yep.

And I could shorten that to: War and a violent confrontation seems never to be a pretty thing.

Case in point, Yugoslavia. Case in point 2, Rwanda.

Not all that radically different peoples and cultures (although there was a clash of religions in Bosnia, that was never really the issue of the war), but messy as hell.

 

[amicus]

Thanks to both above for thoughtful comments...

I am about to publish book two of my Native American saga, working on book three and thinking about books 4 & 5.

It takes a long time for early, beginning civilizations to formulate and solidify a 'culture' and a value or belief system, I think.

I am trying to recreate and fictionalize a scenario as it might actually have occured, as successful tribes prospered and transitioned from 'hunter gatherer' to agricultural and settled. I take poetic license and create conflicts that seem possible and logical to me, but as I look forward to where my 'people' become numerous enough and strong enough to defend what they have, I am searching for an alternative 'tribe' that has acquired different and conflicting values and trying to imagine how they will react to each other.

In addition to cultural differences, I think the language difference, not being able to understand each other, provides the most difficult area of a peaceful relationship between the two.

Although I do have a sketchy outline in my mind, I prefer to attempt to let the circumstances they meet and the 'character' of the characters determine what course of action they take as new situations arrive.

I found it strange, for the writer, me, to be surprised when his characters and the plot line takes a life of its own, sometimes in a way I did not expect and would not have created.

There were many conflicts between Native American tribes, as well as much trade and cooperation. Unfortunately, what we know is from artifacts and supposition and very little from actual history.

For example, the Mound Builders in the midwest, according to some fictional novels I have read, suffered a terrible drought that destroyed the maize crops and changed their entire culture.

So that weather patterns, which can be determined, are great influencers on culture.

anyway...I digress....

amicus...

 

[oggbashan]

The Native Americans in the East and South of North America were exploited as combatants by the Europeans and fought for the Dutch, the French, the English, the Americans and the Spanish.

The Native Americans paid the price in blood and in the end were not rewarded for their support by anyone. Where are the tribes of the Eastern Seaboard now?

Is Pocohontas regretting in her English grave?

Og

 

[Pure]

ami said,

//every man, woman and child in many settlements were scalped and dismembered by tribes of the Six Nations;//

i thought indians didn't take scalps-- it was a white man's hobby.

also what is your point? side A hires some folks to wage war against side B. just as the US hired Meo tribesmen in Vietnam to wage war against the communist forces, just as they hired 'contractors' to go to Iraq and get the 'insurgents.' just your normal work for hire. what's your problem?

(a last point: guess what, of the tribes hired by the US in 'Nam, very few remain, why is that?)

 

[cloudy]

i thought indians didn't take scalps-- it was a white man's hobby.

They didn't, until white folks taught them that particular brutality.

 

[Pure]

not surprising,

but Amicus has a poor grip on the facts.

it could be expected that Indians would ally with Britishpower, on the principle that 'my enemy's enemy is my friend.' the American settlers having become in many cases, 'the enemy.'


but the picture in fact is rather mixed. there was a significant minority of tribes on Washington's side.

http://www.veteranmuseum.org/revolutionarywar.html

from the veteran's museum:

Fighting on the patriot side were allied Indian tribes as well as French military forces, who supported the rebel cause both in the United States and in Europe by engaging the British in a colonial fight for independence that ultimately became worldwide in scope. British officers who had served in the colonies during the French and Indian War (1754-1763) believed the Americans would prove to be "leaderless, lazy, and militarily ineffectual." They expected high rates of desertion among the American forces, and "assumed a lack of toughness in the rebels--who they thought--would collapse at the first application of force." In this, of course, the British were mistaken.
----

http://www.utexas.edu/courses/wilson/ant326/outlines/revolutionary.html
a course on history of relations with the Indians:

Stockbridge tribe joined Massachusetts minutemen
---------

http://www.stregismohawktribe.com/his.htm

During the Revolutionary War, most of the Seven Nations Confederacy supported the British. A large minority, however, primarily from Kahnawake and Saint Regis, supported the Americans. As a result, after the war a large number of Kahnawakes moved to the Saint Regis settlement to escape any retribution from the British or their Indian allies.

 

[Pure]

a bit more documentation courtesy of the Sons of the American Revoltion (Connecticutt

http://www.ctssar.org/revroad/news28.htm
website for The Connecticut Society of the
Sons of the American Revolution, Inc.


Article:Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary Route WRRR Newsletter No. 28 March 20, 2000 - Give One Away Editor Hans DePold, Bolton Town Historian


The new developing American nation sought their [the Indians'] help. On Saturday, July 1, 1775 the Journals of the Continental Congress record:

On motion, Resolved, That... the colonies ought to avail themselves of an Alliance with such Indian Nations as will enter into the same...

On August 16, 1775 Swashon, an Abenaki Chief addressed the Massachusetts House of Representatives,

"As our Ancestors gave this country to you, we would not have you destroyed by England; but are ready to afford you our assistance."

On December 1775 the Continental Congress: Resolved,
That the Indians of St. Francis, Penobscot, Stockbridge, and St. John's, and other tribes, may be called on in case of real necessity, and that the giving them presents is both suitable and proper.

The Chevalier de Pontiband, aide-de-camp of Lafayette wrote about several trips to seal the alliances with the Indian nations.

"At another time a meeting was appointed with the chiefs and warriors belonging to several tribes, which resided at great distances from each other in different directions. They had to pass through vast and thick forests where there were no paths. Though without either watch or compass they found their road, by means known to themselves alone. The meeting was to be on a plain, and it is a fact that on the day appointed we heard their songs and cries, and saw the various bodies of Indians arrive from all sides almost simultaneously."


George Washington to the President of Congress, November 3, 1779 writes:

Sir: I have taken the liberty to enclose, for the consideration of Congress, the memorial of Col. Hazen in Behalf of Capt. Joseph Louis Gill Chief of the Abeneeke or St. Francois Tribe of Indians. The fidelity and good services of this Chief, and those of his Tribe, are fully set forth in the memorial.


A delegation of 19 Native American leaders arrived in Newport on 29 August 1780. Jean-Babtiste-Antoine De Verger wrote that the Indian chief said to Rochambeau,

"O my Father, whom we have chosen of our own free will to lead us in war, we promise you every assistance."

 

[cloudy]

as far as scalping goes, there's popular myth, and then there's the truth:

Stereotypes are absorbed from popular literature, folklore, and misinformation. For instance, many children (and adults) incorrectly believe that fierce native warriors were universally fond of scalping early white settlers and soldiers. In fact, when it came to the bizarre practice of scalping, Europeans were the ones who encouraged and carried out much of the scalping that went on in the history of white/native relations in America.

Scalping had been known in Europe, according to accounts, as far back as ancient Greece ("the cradle of Western Civilization"). More often, though, the European manner of execution involved beheading. Enemies captured in battle - or people accused of political crimes - might have their heads chopped off by victorious warriors or civil authorities. Judicial systems hired executioners, and "Off with their heads!" became an infamous method of capital punishment.

In some places and times in European history, leaders in power offered to pay "bounties" (cash payments) to put down popular uprisings. In Ireland, for instance, the occupying English once paid bounties for the heads of their enemies brought to them. It was a way for those in power to get other people to do their dirty, bloody work for them.

Europeans brought this cruel custom of paying for killings to the American frontier. Here they were willing to pay for just the scalp, instead of the whole head. The first documented instance in the American colonies of paying bounties for native scalps is credited to Governor Kieft of New Netherlands.

By 1703, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was offering $60 for each native scalp. And in 1756, Pennsylvania Governor Morris, in his Declaration of War against the Lenni Lenape (Delaware) people, offered "130 Pieces of Eight [a type of coin], for the Scalp of Every Male Indian Enemy, above the Age of Twelve Years, " and "50 Pieces of Eight for the Scalp of Every Indian Woman, produced as evidence of their being killed."

Massachusetts by that time was offering a bounty of 40 pounds (again, a unit of currency) for a male Indian scalp, and 20 pounds for scalps of females or of children under 12 years old.

The terrible thing was that it was very difficult to tell a man's scalp from a woman's, or an adult's from a child's - or that of an enemy soldier from a peaceful noncombatant. The offering of bounties led to widespread violence against any person of Indian blood, male or female, young or old.

Paying money for scalps of women and even children reflected the true intent of the campaign - to reduce native populations to extinction or to smaller numbers so the natives could not oppose European seizure of Indian lands.
____________

*sigh*

I know I'm just slamming my head into a brick wall, here, but I can't help it.

 

[Guest]

.....

 

[amicus]

Amazing but no longer amusing how some on this forum can take a fairly straight forward report on a History program and television and turn it into a political vehicle and a means to excoriate their favorite whipping boy.

And that is all it was, basically as accurate a portrayal of what was contained in the program as I could manage from a single viewing.

I think the only moral point of view or value judgment made in the post was to express that war is hell.

Oh, well, maybe someone else will eventually watch the episode and have a comment.

amicus...

 

[cloudy]

Amazing but no longer amusing how some on this forum can take a fairly straight forward report on a History program and television and turn it into a political vehicle and a means to excoriate their favorite whipping boy.

And that is all it was, basically as accurate a portrayal of what was contained in the program as I could manage from a single viewing.

I think the only moral point of view or value judgment made in the post was to express that war is hell.

Oh, well, maybe someone else will eventually watch the episode and have a comment.

amicus...

You're right...war is hell. I take offense, though, not necessarily to you, but to the program that seemed to perpetuate the old stereotypes. I was merely setting the record straight, that's all.

For maybe a more balanced view of the same time period, you might watch "500 Nations." The atrocities were committed by both sides, not just one, and there were plenty of children killed by white folks.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Amicus, you mentioned the French and Indian portion of the war. Are you referring to what is called the French and Indian War in America and the Seven Years War everywhere else? That was not part of the American Revolution and the colonists and British, including Captain G. Washington, fought together against the French.

 

[cantdog]

Amicus, you mentioned the French and Indian portion of the war. Are you referring to what is called the French and Indian War in America and the Seven Years War everywhere else? That was not part of the American Revolution and the colonists and British, including Captain G. Washington, fought together against the French.

Precisely, SPA. It is never worthwhile to read an amicus post, most particularly when the subject is history.

 

[Pure]

beats me

I think the only moral point of view or value judgment made in the post was to express that war is hell.

jeez, and some people thought you had some sort of agenda! bad people!

 

[SensualMale]

They didn't, until white folks taught them that particular brutality.

Interesting info.

 

[SensualMale]

I think the only moral point of view or value judgment made in the post was to express that war is hell.

jeez, and some people thought you had some sort of agenda! bad people!

Of course he didn't

 

[kendo1]

Amicus, the only way you could become a bigger dumbfuck is to gain weight.

If someone just moved themselves onto my property and tried to throw me out, scalping would be letting them off easy.

No wonder I put you on ignore.

This is uncalled for, Dranoel.
I suspect most people would be upset if someone moved on to their property.
As a matter of interest, did native Americans think of the land as theirs?

 

[Liar]

This is uncalled for, Dranoel.
I suspect most people would be upset if someone moved on to their property.
As a matter of interest, did native Americans think of the land as theirs?

I believe they thought of the land as the land's.

But that could also be a stereotype, so I leave that to the in-the-know to answer.

 

[kendo1]

That's what I thought.

 

[Pure]

reply to kendo--whose land?

This was in a posting of mine earlier in the thread. It suggests this tribe thought of the land as theirs or theirs to give.

On August 16, 1775 Swashon, an Abenaki Chief addressed the Massachusetts House of Representatives,

"As our Ancestors gave this country to you, we would not have you destroyed by England; but are ready to afford you our assistance."

 

[kendo1]

This was in a posting of mine earlier in the thread. It suggests this tribe thought of the land as theirs or theirs to give.

On August 16, 1775 Swashon, an Abenaki Chief addressed the Massachusetts House of Representatives,

"As our Ancestors gave this country to you, we would not have you destroyed by England; but are ready to afford you our assistance."

But, was this a general belief or particular to them?