Tuesday, January 25, MSU Foundation 8:00-8:30 Continental Breakfast 8:30-9:00 Introductions 9:00-9:30 Indians and the American Revolution (Jim and Danice) 9:30-9:40 Break 9:40-11:00 Religion and the American Revolution (Jon Butler) 11:00-11:40 Federalists and Antifederalists (Danice Toyias) 11:45-12:30 Lunch (Focus Group #1 with Phyllis Ault) 12:30-1:45 Voices of the Revolution (Chris Sink) 1:45-1:55 Break 1:55-2:55 Leaps of Faith (Walter Fleming) 3:00-3:40 Book Study Unwrapping (Jim and Danice) 3:45-4:00 Instructional Plan (Danice) Wednesday, January 26, MSU Foundation 8:00-8:30 Continental Breakfast 8:30-9:35 Women of the Revolution (Chris Sink) 9:35-9:45 Break 9:45-10:55 The First Amendment: Religion and the government (Jon) 11:00-11:45 IEA Focus: Ways of Making Treaties (Danice Toyias) 11:45-12:30 Lunch (Focus Group #2 with Phyllis Ault) 12:30-1:30 Indians and the American Revolution (Jim and Danice) 1:30-1:45 Break 1:45-2:40 The Great Transformation (Jon Butler) 2:45-3:45 Book Study Discussion: The Next Round (Jim) 3:45-4:00 Wrap Up and Adjourn Thursday, January 27, American Computer Museum 8:00-8:30 Continental Breakfast 8:30-9:45 Inventing America (George Keremedjiev) 9:50-11:00 Museums and the Classroom (George Keremedjiev) 11:00-12:00 Inventions Change History (Chris Sink) 12:00-1:00 Lunch (Focus Group #3 with Phyllis Ault) 1:00-2:00 The pride of womanhood all up in arms: Women of the Republic (Mary Murphy) 2:00-2:15 Break 2:15-3:00 Instructional Plans, Spring Book Study, MSU Course, Feedback, and Wrap Up (Bob and Danice)

Biographies of the Nation

The New Nation (1780’s-1815): Jan. 25-27, 2011 MSU Foundation/American Computer Museum

Biography and Essential Questions Biography is used as a lens to present the content of this time period. Throughout the three years of this program, there will be a focus on individuals—both the famous and not so famous. What were the conflicts and struggles facing those individuals? What were the choices they made? What were the unintended consequences of those decisions, and how did those people represent the “collective history” (narrative) of the period?

Presenters Professor Jon Butler, Yale Mr. George Keremedjiev, The University American Computer Museum [email protected] [email protected]

Mrs. Christine Sink, Hockinson Dr. James Bruggeman, MCHCE Middle School (ret.), Vancouver, Executive Director and Project WA Co-Director [email protected] [email protected]

Professor Walter Fleming, MSU’s Mrs. Danice Toyias, MCHCE Department of Native American Deputy Director and Project Studies Manager [email protected] [email protected]

Professor Mary Murphy, MSU’s Professor Robert Rydell, MSU’s Department of History and Department of History and Philosophy Philosophy and Project Co- [email protected] Director [email protected]

Contacting MCHCE: PO Box 5204, Bozeman, MT 59717 (406) 480-3925 Danice or (406) 600-6806 Jim FAX 866-936-6465

This program is made possible through a U.S. Department of Education Teaching American History Grant awarded to the Great Falls Public Schools in a consortia with the Helena and Bozeman Public Schools. Partners include: The Montana Council for History and Civics Education (a non-profit), Montana State University’s Departments of History and Philosophy and Native American Studies, and the American Computer Museum. Education Northwest conducts program evaluation. January Books

Great Falls (Paul Revere book group) The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family Annette Gordon-Reed

(Way of Duty book group) Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation by Joseph J. Ellis

Helena Daniel Boone: The Life and Legend of an American Pioneer by John Mack Faragher

Bozeman Friends of Liberty by Gary Nash

**

FOR ALL Common Sense by Thomas Paine

FOR SITE COORDINATORS Reading History: A Practical Guide to Improving Literacy by Janet Allen and Christine Landaker

2/10/11

Biographies of the Naon

Pay Informaon

PARTICIPATION

• VERY IMPORTANT!! –*Make every aempt to parcipate in 75% or more of the professional development hours offered.

FALL COLLOQUIUM

• AMOUNT: $310

• FOR: Fall 2‐day Colloquium held on the same days as MEA

• WHEN PAID: Paid at the end of the two days for parcipants staying full two days (Early departure? Checks mailed within one week.)

1 2/10/11

WINTER COLLOQUIUM

• AMOUNT: $490

• FOR: Winter 3‐day Colloquium (Dates are determined by the Districts with GF as the lead.)

• WHEN PAID: At the end of the 3‐day session for all full aendees. Early departure=check mailed within one week.

SUMMER INSTITUTE

• AMOUNT: $670

• FOR: Summer Instute held aer school is out for the summer. Districts determine days with GF as the lead.

• WHEN PAID: At the end of the summer instute. Early departure=within 1 week aer.

BOOK STUDY

• AMOUNT: $45 per session aended. There will be six, ninety minute sessions. Total possible: $270

• WHEN PAID: For most parcipants, this amount will be included in your summer instute honorarium check. *Make sure you sign the rosters when you aend!

2 2/10/11

Instruconal Plan/Notebook

• AMOUNT: $825

• FOR: Handing in a complete, polished, edited, and publishable instruconal plan AND the notebook containing instruconal plan materials.

• WHEN PAID: Within 30 days aer the June 30, 2011 due date. (Even for plans handed in early, the honorarium will be sent between June 30 and July 30.—We won’t have the money to pay you before those dates.)

3

Christine Sink Bozeman, MT January 2011

“Inventions Change History”

National History Standards Met: • Chronological Thinking • Historical Comprehension • Historical Analysis and Interpretation

Objectives: Students will be able to: • Identify major inventions of the late 18th century • Explain the cause of each invention • Analyze the effects of each invention • Design and create a poster

MATERIALS: • Poster Directions • Invention Information Packets • Chart paper and markers • Invention Information Graphic Organizer

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The Industrial Revolution is known as an era that led handmade production to machine and factory. The first industrial revolution was important for the inventions of spinning and weaving machines operated by waterpower that was eventually replaced by steam. This helped increase America’s growth. However, the industrial revolution truly changed American society and economy into an industrial state. Industrialization in America involved three important developments. First, transportation was expanded. Second, electricity was effectively harnessed. Third, improvements were made to manufacturing and communication.

INTRODUCTION: 1. Ask the question, “What kind of work did Americans do before the Civil War?” (farming, merchants, trades people, etc.) 2. Write the answers down on chart paper for all students to see. 3. Go back to each response and ask the following questions (or others) depending on what the work was. “What tools did people use for this type of work?” “How did they move their goods?” “How did they communicate?”

4. Write answers down next to previous responses. 5. Tell students that new inventions changed life for Americans after the Civil War. They will be researching one particular invention to teach the rest of the class.

ACTIVITY ONE

1. Distribute Poster Directions and go over with students clarifying any questions. 2. Give each group the following: • chart paper • markers • “Invention Information Packet” • “Invention Information” Graphic Organizer 3. Give groups time to work. Let them know when they have 5 minutes left.

ACTIVITY TWO

1. Each group presents their poster following the presentation guidelines. 2. Participants fill in their graphic organizers during presentations.

ACTIVITY THREE

1. Have a whole class discussion on the cause and effects of the industrial period. 2. Ask students to compare this time period to modern inventions and their cause and effect.

ASSESSMENT:

Have students write a summary explaining the cause and effect of one invention from the Industrial Revolution.

POSTER DIRECTIONS:

Each poster must include: • Name of invention • Inventor, year of invention and any other pertinent information • Purpose of invention • Drawing of invention • Probable cause of invention • Effects of invention • BE CREATIVE!

Presentation: • Every group member should present some part of the information. • All poster requirements must be presented to whole class. • At the end of the presentation ask for questions from the audience.

POSTER DIRECTIONS:

Each poster must include: • Name of invention • Inventor, year of invention and any other pertinent information • Purpose of invention • Drawing of invention • Probable cause of invention • Effects of invention • BE CREATIVE!

Presentation: • Every group member should present some part of the information. • All poster requirements must be presented to whole class. • At the end of the presentation ask for questions from the audience.

INVENTION INFORMATION GRAPHIC ORGANIZER NAME OF INVENTION INVENTOR AND PURPOSE OF PROBABLE CAUSE EFFECTS OF YEAR INVENTED INVENTION OF INVENTION INVENTION

INVENTION INFORMATION GRAPHIC ORGANIZER

The History of Steamboats JOHN FITCH AND ROBERT FULTON

John Fitch - Design Sketch ca. 1787

In 1769, the Scotsman James Watt patented an improved version of the steam engine that ushered in the Industrial Revolution. The idea of using steam power to propel boats occurred to inventors soon after the potential of Watt's new engine became known.

The era of the steamboat began in America in 1787 when John Fitch (1743-1798) made the first successful trial of a forty-five-foot steamboat on the Delaware River on August 22, 1787, in the presence of members of the Constitutional Convention. Fitch later built a larger vessel that carried passengers and freight between Philadelphia and Burlington, New Jersey.

John Fitch was granted his first United States patent for a steamboat on August 26, 1791. However, he was granted his patent only after a battle with James Rumsey over claims to the same invention. Both men had similar designs.

(It should be noted that on February 1, 1788 the very first United States patent for a steamboat patent was issued to Briggs & Longstreet.)

John Fitch constructed four different steamboats between 1785 and 1796 that successfully plied rivers and lakes and demonstrated, in part, the feasibility of using steam for water locomotion. His models utilized various combinations of propulsive force, including ranked paddles (patterned after Indian war canoes), paddle wheels, and screw propellers. While his boats were mechanically successful, Fitch failed to pay sufficient attention to construction and operating costs and was unable to justify the economic benefits of steam navigation. Robert Fulton (1765-1815) built his first boat after Fitch's death, and it was Fulton who became known as the "father of steam navigation."

Then came American inventor, Robert Fulton, who successfully built and operated a submarine (in France) in 1801, before turning his talents to the steamboat. Robert Fulton was accredited with turning the steamboat into a commercial success. On August 7, 1807, Robert Fulton's Clermont went from New York City to Albany making history with a 150-mile trip taking 32 hours at an average speed of about 5 miles-per-hour.

In 1811, the "New Orleans" was built at Pittsburgh, designed by Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston. The New Orleans had a passenger and freight route on the lower Mississippi River. By 1814, Robert Fulton together with Edward Livingston (the brother of Robert Livingston), were offering regular steamboat and freight service between New Orleans, Louisiana and Natchez, Mississippi. Their boats traveled at the rates of eight miles per hour downstream and three miles per hour upstream.

Photo: Steamship at Landing - between 1852 and 1860

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blsteamship.htm

How Steam Engines Work

A steam engine is a device that converts the potential energy that exists as pressure in steam, and converts that to mechanical force. Early examples were the steam locomotive trains, and steamships that relied on these steam engines for movement. The Industrial Revolution came about primarily because of the steam engine. The thirty seconds or so required to develop pressure made steam less favored for automobiles, which are generally powered by internal combustion engines.

The first steam device was invented by Hero of Alexandria, a Greek, before 300BC, but never utilized as anything other than a toy. While designs had been created by various people in the meanwhile, the first practical steam engine was patented by James Watt, a Scottish inventor, in 1769. Steam engines are of various types but most are reciprocal piston or turbine devices.

The strength of the steam engine for modern purposes is in its ability to convert raw heat into mechanical work. Unlike the internal combustion engine, the steam engine is not particular about the source of heat. Since the oxygen for combustion is unmetered, steam engines burn fuel cleanly and efficiently, with relatively little pollution.

Most notably, without the use of a steam engine nuclear energy could not be harnessed for useful work, as a nuclear reactor does not directly generate either mechanical work or electrical energy - the reactor itself does nothing but sit there and get hot. It is the steam engine which converts that heat into useful work. http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blenginehistory.htm

science.howstuffworks.com

phy.ntnu.edu.tw

JAMES WATT

elec-intro.com

ROBERT FULTON

industrialrevolutionresearch.com

POWER LOOM

The power loom was a steam-powered, mechanically operated version of a regular loom, an invention that combined threads to make cloth. In 1785, Edmund Cartwright patented the first power loom and set up a factory in Doncaster, England to manufacture cloth. A prolific inventor, Edmund Cartwright also invented a wool-combing machine in 1789, continued to improve his power loom, invented a steam engine that used alcohol and a machine for making rope in 1797, and aided Robert Fulton with his steamboats. Cartwright's power loom needed to be improved upon and several inventors did just that. It was improved upon by William Horrocks, the inventor of the variable speed batton (1813) and American, Francis Cabot Lowell. The power loom became commonly used after 1820. View Image: Power Loom When the power loom became efficient, women replaced most men as weavers in the textile factories.

Power Loom - Circa 1833

The first American power loom was constructed in 1813 by a group of Boston merchants headed by Francis Cabot Lowell. The city of Lowell and other early industrial American cities grew supporting a nearby Francis Cabot Lowell's designed power loom, an amended version of the British power loom invented by Edmund Cartwright. The power loom allowed the wholesale manufacture of cloth from ginned cotton, itself a recent innovation of Eli Whitney's.

According to the Lowell National Historical Park Handbook, for the first two centuries of American history, the weaving of cloth was a cottage industry, even after the introduction of power spinning frames in 1790. Yarn produced by machines in water-powered factories was still put out for weaving on hand looms in homes. All cloths were woven in basically the same way, although weavers followed patterns to produce cloths with intricate weaves. Because the operations of a loom focus on such a small working area, its movements must be exact. And weaving, as opposed to spinning, requires a cycle of sequential steps and involves reciprocal movement as well as circular. In a power loom, movements coordinated by human hand and eye have to be replicated through the precise interaction of levers, cams, gears, and springs. For these reasons, weaving was the last step in textile production to be mechanized.

Successful power looms were in operation in England by the early 1800s, but those made in America were inadequate. Francis Cabot Lowell realized that for the United States to develop a practical power loom, it would have to borrow British technology. While visiting English textile mills, he memorized the workings of their power looms. Upon his return, he recruited master mechanic Paul Moody to help him recreate and develop what he had seen. They succeeded in adapting the British design, and the machine shop established at the Waltham mills by Lowell and Moody continued to make improvements in the loom. With the introduction of a dependable power loom, weaving could keep up with spinning, and the American textile industry was Underway. http://inventors.about.com/od/cstartinventors/a/power_loom.htm

http://www.picturehistory.com/product/id/1181

POWER LOOM

A loom works by holding lengthwise threads, called the warp, under tension. The vertically-oriented threads are attached to two or more harnesses which move up and down, separating warp threads from each other and creating a space called the shed. Another thread, called the weft, is wound onto spools called bobbins, which are placed in a shuttle and passed through the shed, which creates the weave. In the early 20th century, the shuttleless loom, also known as the rapier loom, was invented. This type of power loom moves the weft through the shed using jets of air or water, steel rods, or a dummy shuttle that leaves a trail of yarn rather than using a weft.

The power loom was brought to the United States in 1813 by Francis Cabot Lowell, who memorized plans for the machine because export of the technology from Great Britain was illegal. Lowell worked with Paul Moody to make additions and improvements to the power loom, and in 1814 established the Boston Manufacturing Company mill in Waltham, Massachusetts, the first textile mill in America to combine all actions for turning raw cotton into cloth under one roof.

While power looms are mechanized looms, the source of the power that allows them to operate varies. Originally these looms were powered by water, but after some time that morphed into steam power and eventually air powered and electricity powered looms were created.

A loom works by holding lengthwise threads, called the warp, under tension. The vertically-oriented threads are attached to two or more harnesses which move up and down, separating warp threads from each other and creating a space called the shed. Another thread, called the weft, is wound onto spools called bobbins, which are placed in a shuttle and passed through the shed, which creates the weave. In the early 20th century, the shuttleless loom, also known as the rapier loom, was invented. This type of power loom moves the weft through the shed using jets of air or water, steel rods, or a dummy shuttle that leaves a trail of yarn rather than using a weft. http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-a-power-loom.htm

invention.smithsonian.org

Bifocals Bifocals — lenses featuring both concave and convex lenses for correcting both types of vision problems — are believed to have been developed around 1760 by Benjamin Franklin (though some place the exact year to be 1874). These original bifocal reading glasses used a top lens for distant viewing and a lower lens for reading. In this era, they were referred to as bi focal reading glasses or bi-focal reading glasses.

Benjamin Franklin's Bifocals

Benjamin Franklin, born on January 17, 1706, was a great American inventor and intellectual credited with many influential and groundbreaking discoveries and inventions.

Legend has it Ben Franklin bifocals came to be as a result of his growing tired of having to alternate between two different sets of eyeglasses. So he grafted two different prescriptions (two different lenses) into a single frame. This empowered him to see both far and near distances by simply looking down through the one lens or up through the other. This is why these glasses will be forever referred to as Benjamin Franklin bifocals or Benjamin Franklin glasses.

The discrepancy between claimed dates of invention (1760 and 1784) seems to simply be when he worked it out in a rough manner for himself and then when he refined the process and went public with it. To further confuse matters, the bifocal reading glasses as invented by Benjamin Franklin were only formally announced on May 23rd, 1785.

John Isaac Hawkins — who invented the trifocals — provided the actual title of “bifocals” in 1824 and credited Dr. Benjamin Franklin for their invention.

Ben Franklin’s bifocals featured convex lenses for close vision in the bottom half and concave lenses for far vision in the upper half. Bifocals were similarly constructed until the early 20th century. http://bifocalreading-glasses.com/history-of-bifocal-reading-glasses/

HISTORY OF BIFOCALS Glass lenses, for use as magnifiers or for starting fires, date to about 300 BC, but the first eyeglasses to aid or correct vision were almost certainly invented in 1280 in Florence, Italy by the Dominican friar Alessandro della Spina and / or his friend, the physicist Salvino degli Armati. Prescribed for far-sightedness, the glasses had convex lenses and were worn by Armati, who had injured his eyes while performing light refraction experiments and discovered that it was possible to enlarge the appearance of objects by looking through two pieces of convex glass. It was in the early fourteenth century that concave lenses were used to correct near-sightedness. In fact, Pope Leo X was depicted wearing glasses, with concave lenses, in a 1517 painting by Raphael. Whereas early eyeglasses were made of polished quartz, by the sixteenth century developments in glassmaking made it possible to mass produce them from glass. Bifocals, the combination of both concave and convex lenses for both types of vision correction, a top lens for distant viewing and a lower lens for reading, were developed around 1760 by the American statesman and inventor Benjamin Franklin. http://www.ideafinder.com/history/inventions/bifocals.htm

BEN FRANKLIN

Adapted from the important key article by Dr. Charles Letocha, also the wonderful book by Dr. John Levene and finally the comprehensive paper (yet unpublished) by Stuart Green.

In 1990 the year of the bicentennial celebration of Benjamin Franklin’s death (1706-1790) a comprehensive article was published by Dr. Charles Letocha, “The Invention and Early Manufacture of Bifocals”. It presented Benjamin Franklin as the inventor of bifocals. It is still considered the definitive paper on this topic because no new information has surfaced to the contrary during the past 15 years. This current year 2006 is the tercentenary of Franklin’s birth and therefore we can again recognize Franklin for his major role in the development of bifocal eyeglasses. No one else deserves this esteemed honor: Ben Franklin-Father of the Bifocal.

The invention of bifocals had been reviewed in great detail by Dr. John R. Levene in Chapter 6 of his book Clinical Refraction and Visual Science, Butterworth’s, 1977. Highly regarded as a diplomat and as a scientist, Franklin is generally acknowledged for all his ingenious contributions to many very practical inventions. He had talents and also numerous interests and his natural curiosity led to the search to discover ways to make things work better. One of his greatest innovations was “my double spectacles” and Franklin has been quite appropriately recognized and universally admired as their inventor.

Certainly among the most useful inventions of all time bifocals have serviced billions of people over the past 200 + years. Compound corrective lenses, usually bifocals or trifocals, and with increasing frequency, progressive multifocal length eyeglasses are the modern-day result of the remarkable evolution from Benjamin Franklin’s original simple and practical creation. THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING FRANKLIN

1). Benjamin Franklin was a hyperope who likely required eyeglasses originally in the 1730s. By the late 1750s he was usually described wearing them and they became an integral part of his face, at least for distance use. Many paintings and contemporary sketches and satirical cartoons show him represented wearing his eyeglasses. He admitted that he could not “distinguish a letter or even of large print without them”.

2). The Library Company of Philadelphia, founded by Franklin and some of his friends, became America’s first lending library. In its print archives there exists a 1764 political cartoon which depicts Franklin wearing an unusual pair of eyeglasses, interpreted by some knowledgeable people as bifocals because the upper portion of each lens appears different from the lower portion. Take a close look and decide for yourself.

3). Von Rohr and several others credit optician Samuel Pierce with making bifocals for Franklin. Pierce described people wearing bifocals in 1775 and he himself may have worn them in the 1760’s. Although this is all noted in the Levene’s chapter no hard evidence is presented.

4). Mr. H. Sykes, an English optician living in Paris, with a business on the Place du Palais-Royale, wrote to Franklin April 24, 1779 and explained the delay in sending Franklin’s order, complained he was having difficulty making the eyeglasses. “I should have sent your spectacles sooner, but in compliance with your favor of the 20th inst., have cut a second pair, in which I have been unfortunate for I broke and spoilt three glasses.”Sykes had apparently damaged them while “cutting” them in half. The word “cut” is emphasized as opposed to the word “grind”. Even Sykes’ charge for this service (18f a pair) was quite excessive when compared to the normal fee of making simple ordinary glasses.

5). During his stay in Passy, outside of Paris, Franklin (serving as the American envoy to the Court of Louis XVI) described in a letter dated August 21, 1784 to his close friend and philanthropist George Whatley: …….”I cannot distinguish a letter even of large print; but am happy in the invention of double spectacles, which serving for distant objects as well as near ones, make my eyes as useful to me as ever they were: If all the other defects and infirmities were as easily and cheaply remedied, it would be worth while for friends to live a good deal longer…..”

6). In a letter dated November 15, 1784 Whatley wrote back: “I have spoken to Peter Dollond about YOUR invention of double spectacles, and, by all I can garner,…….”

7). Another correspondence with Whatley May 23, 1785 further explains Franklin’s basic position on this matter. Noted London optician Peter Dollond had stated they were only good for “particular eyes”. Franklin’s reply is certainly very persuasive evidence that he was the inventor: …………..”By M. Dollond’s saying that MY double spectacles can only serve particular eyes, I doubt he has not been rightly informed of their construction. I imagine it will be found pretty generally true, that the same convexity of glass, through which a man sees clearly at distance proper for reading, is not the best for greater distances. I therefore had formerly two pairs of spectacles, which I shifted occasionally, as in traveling I sometimes read, and often wanted to regards the prospects. Finding the change troublesome, and not always sufficiently ready, I had the glasses cut and half of each kind associated in the same circle, thus

(his well-known drawing is in this letter which now resides in the Library of Congress).

By this means, as I wear my spectacles constantly, I have only to move my eyes up or down, as I want to see distinctly far or near, the proper glass being always ready. This I find more particularly convenient since my being in France, the glasses that serve me best at table to see what I eat, not being the best to see the faces of those on the other side of the table who speak to me; and when one’s ears are not well accustomed to the sounds of a language, a sight of the movements in the features of him that speaks helps to explain, so that I understand French better by the help of my spectacles.”

8). Whatley’s next reply dated July 22, 1785; ……….”The Dollonds are obliged by what you have been at pains to say, and describe of your double spectacles. They fully comprehend it at eh same time say, for such sight as yours are common. That therefore they only make for such as like yours when bespoke.”

9). Charles Wilson Peale painted Benjamin Franklin in 1785 and the painting is the only one showing Franklin wearing double spectacles. The bifocals are a prominent feature of this famous artwork. No earlier depiction of anyone else wearing bifocals is known to exist anywhere in the world! This unique art treasure is at the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts in Philadelphia.

10). In 1788 Peale made his own bifocals, as noted in his diary for August 25th. These became quite helpful when he painted miniatures. “It would appear that Charles Wilson Peale helped to popularize bifocals in America because he probably taught their method of manufacture to John McAllister, Sr. first American optician” (the Letocha article).

11). Correspondence from John Fenno, editor of the Gazette of the United States, to his wife March 8, 1789 described a meeting in Philadelphia during the last year of Franklin’s life. The evidence in this letter points strongly to Franklin. It currently is housed at the William C. Clements Library, University of Michigan.

“He informed me that he had worn spectacles for 50 years. He had them on and as they appeared to be differently constructed from any I had seen the circumstance led to some inquiry - each eye appeared to be formed of two pieces of glass divided horizontally – he informed me that he had always worn such – the upper part was to view distant objects, the lower to read with. ….”

12). In 1790 Dr. William Rowley published the book A Treatise on One Hundred and Eighteen Principal Diseases soon after Franklin passed away. He quoted the May 23, 1785 letter to Whatley… “A species of spectacles has been recommended by the late Dr. Franklin…” Thus he was the first to inform the medical community of Franklin’s invention. He also went on to say that he recommended double spectacles to some of his friends, “by whom they are highly approved.”

13). In the August 1791 issue of Massachusetts Magazine, the general public first learned of Franklin’s double spectacles. Lewis Leprelete wrote to the editors quoting the same May 23, 1785 letter from Franklin to Whatley announcing that “A species of spectacles has been recommended by the late Dr. Franklin…..as it is an important object, I have no doubt but you will be pleased to gratify the publick with it,…”

14). President Thomas Jefferson communicated with John McAllister Sr. and also with Charles Peale in a fascinating group of letters between 1806 and 1808. referring to the Franklin bifocal on Nov. 12, 1806. This letter is held by the Library of Congress:

“You have heretofore furnished me with spectacles, so reduced in size as to give facility to the looking over their top without moving them. This has been a great convenience………Those who are obliged to use spectacles know what a convenience it would be to have different magnifiers in the same frame. Dr. Franklin tried this by semicircular glasses joined horizontally, the upper & lower semicircles of different powers, which he told me answered perfectly. I wish to try it and therefore send you a drawing No. 2 agreeably to which, exactly, I will ask another pair of spring frames to be made.”

Jefferson had been in France during the 1784-9 period, being successor to Franklin as minister. Obviously he observed Franklin wearing his bifocals when they were together. Later in 1807 Jefferson showed his satisfaction with his new bifocals in a letter to Peale March 29th 1807. He noted that he had “adopted Dr. Franklin’s plan of half glasses of different focal distances, with great advantage” Jefferson wrote to McAllister on March 16, 1808 that he was “extremely satisfied with Dr. Franklin’s method of joining the spectacles by composing each glass of two half-glasses of different magnifying powers, and those you made for me answer positively except that the frames being circular, the glasses are always turning around and bringing the seam between the two half glasses in the way of the eye. To prevent this the frame should be oval.”

McAllister had earlier replied to Jefferson, who was by then President of the United, that he had already made such glasses for members of the Peale family and instructed Jefferson how to measure the distance between his pupils and determine the focal length of his current glasses.

15). The well-known French optician-engineer Jean Gabriel Augustin Chevallier discussed the 'Besicles a la Franklin' in the Gazette de Sante (June 11, 1806) which was subsequently reprinted in his Conservateur de la Vue (1810) and later editions of this well known book.

16). Seventeen years after Franklin died, Charles Wilson Peale painted a portrait of himself wearing bifocals.17). John Isaac Hawkins, engineer and inventor of the trifocal in 1826, coined the term bifocal in 1824 and he credited Franklin with the invention of the bifocal. http://www.antiquespectacles.com/topics/franklin/franklin.htm

Cotton gin

A cotton gin (short for cotton engine[2]) is a machine that quickly and easily separates the cotton fibers from the seeds, a job previously done by hand. These seeds are then used to grow more cotton, or to produce cottonseed oil, or, if they are badly damaged, they are disposed of. It uses a combination of a wire screen and small wire hooks to pull the cotton through the screen, while brushes continuously remove the loose cotton lint to prevent jams. The earliest versions consisted of a single roller made of iron or wood and a flat piece of stone or wood. Evidence for this type of gin has been found in Africa, Asia, and North America. The first documentation of the cotton gin by contemporary scholars is found in the fifth century AD. Visual evidence of the single-roller gin exists in the form of fifth-century Buddhist paintings in the Ajanta Caves in western India. These early gins were difficult to use and required a great deal of skill. A narrow single roller was necessary to expel the seeds from the cotton without crushing the seeds. The design was similar to that of a metate, which was used to grind grain. The earliest history of the cotton gin is ambiguous because archeologists likely mistook the cotton gin's parts for other tools.[3] Between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries, dual roller gins appeared in India and China. The Indian version of the two roller gin was prevalent throughout the Mediterranean cotton trade by the sixteenth century. This mechanical device was, in some areas, driven by water power.[4] The modern version of the cotton gin was created by the American inventor Eli Whitney in 1793 to mechanize the cleaning of cotton. The invention was granted a patent on March 14, 1794. There is slight controversy over whether the idea of the cotton gin and its constituent elements are correctly attributed to Eli Whitney. The popular version of Whitney inventing the cotton gin is attributed to an article on the subject in the early 1870s and later reprinted in 1910 in The Library of Southern Literature. In this article the author claims that Catherine Littlefield Greene suggested to Whitney the use of a brush-like component instrumental in separating out the seeds and cotton. To date there has been no independent verification of Greene's role in the invention of the gin. Many people attempted to develop a design that would process short staple cotton and Hodgen Holmes, Robert Watkins, William Longstreet, and John Murray were all issued patents for improvement to the cotton gin by 1796.[5] However, the evidence indicates that Whitney did invent the saw gin, for which he is famous. Although he spent many years in court attempting to enforce his patent against planters who made unauthorized copies, a change in patent law ultimately made his claim legally enforceable—too late for him to make much money off of the device in the single year remaining before patent expiration.[6]

Effects of the cotton gin

The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth of the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. The growth of cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the South became even more dependent on plantations and slavery, making plantation agriculture the largest sector of the Southern economy.[7] In addition to the increase in cotton production,the number of slaves rose as well, from around 700,000, before Eli Whitneyʼs patent, to around 3.2 million in 1850.[8] By 1860 the United States' South was providing eighty percent of Great Britainʼs cotton and also providing two-thirds of the worldʼs supply of cotton.[9] Cotton had formerly required considerable labor to clean and separate the fibers from the seeds; the cotton gin revolutionized the process. With Eli Whitneyʼs introduction of “teeth” in his cotton gin to comb out the cotton and separate the seeds, cotton became a tremendously profitable business, creating many fortunes in the Antebellum South. New Orleans and Galveston were shipping points that derived substantial economic benefit from cotton raised throughout the South. According to the Eli Whitney Museum site: Whitney (who died in 1825) could not have foreseen the ways in which his invention would change society for the worse. The most significant of these was the growth of slavery. While it was true that the cotton gin reduced the labor of removing seeds, it did not reduce the need for slaves to grow and pick the cotton. In fact, the opposite occurred. Cotton growing became so profitable for the planters that it greatly increased their demand for both land and slave labor. In 1790 there were six slave states; in 1860 there were 15. From 1790 until Congress banned the importation of slaves from Africa in 1808, Southerners imported 80,000 Africans. By 1860 approximately one in three Southerners was a slave.[10] Function

Whitney's cotton gin model was capable of cleaning 50 pounds of lint per day. The model consisted of a wooden cylinder surrounded by rows of slender spikes which pull the lint through the bars of a comb-like grid.[11] The grids are closely spaced, preventing the seeds from passing through.

The modern process

Cotton arrives at the gin either in trailers or in compressed "modules" which weigh about ten metric tons each. The use of the trailer for hauling product to the gin has been drastically reduced since the introduction of the module. Cotton arriving in trailers is sucked into the gin via a large (approximately 16" diameter) pipe that is swung over the cotton. This pipe is usually a manual operation, but has also been automated. If the cotton is shipped in modules, the module feeder breaks the modules apart using spiked rollers and extracts some foreign material from the cotton. The module feeder's loose cotton is then sucked into the same starting point as the trailer cotton. The cotton now enters the dryer, which removes excess moisture. The cylinder cleaner uses six or seven rotating spiked cylinders to break up large clumps of cotton. Finer foreign material such as dirt and leaves passes through rods or screens for removal. The stick machine uses centrifugal force to remove large foreign matter such as sticks and burrs while the cotton is held by rapidly rotating saw cylinders. The gin stand uses the teeth of rotating saws to pull the cotton through a series of "ginning ribs", which pull the fibers from the seeds which are too small to pass through the ribs. The cleaned seed is then removed from the gin via an auger system. The seed is reused for planting or is sent to an oil mill to be further processed into usable items. The lint cleaners again use saws and grid bars, this time to separate immature seeds and any remaining foreign matter from the fibers. The bale press then compresses the cotton into bales for storage and shipping. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin

art.com

ctinventor.wordpress.com

bluesprint.org

lookingglassreview.com

CYRUS McCORMICK Cyrus Hall McCormick Born Feb 15 1809 - Died May 13 1884 Improvement in Machines for Reaping Small Grain Mechanical Reaper Patent Number(s) Patented June 21, 1834 Inducted 1976 Cyrus Hall McCormick invented the mechanical reaper, which combined all the steps that earlier harvesting machines had performed separately. Patenting his invention in 1834, after Obed Hussey had announced (1833) the construction of a reaper of his own, McCormick started to manufacture the machine on the family estate in 1837. Six years later he began to license its manufacture in other parts of the country. In 1847 he set up a factory in Chicago, founding what eventually became one of the greatest industrial establishments in the United States. Invention Impact His timesaving invention allowed farmers to more than double their crop size and spurred innovations in farm machinery. Inventor Bio Born in Rock bridge County, Virginia, Cyrus McCormick derived his interest in invention from his father; a Virginia landowner who patented several improved farming implements and worked without success for many years to perfect a mechanical reaper. In July 1831 McCormick succeeded where his father had failed, producing a model reaper with all the essential components of later commercial machines. An astute businessman, McCormick increased his sales with door-to-door canvassing and written guarantees for his ready-to-assemble machinery. McCormick amassed a large fortune and invested widely in later years in railroad and mining enterprises. http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.invent.org

CYRUS McCORMICK (1809-1884)

Mechanical Reaper

Cyrus McCormick, the "Father of Modern Agriculture," made one of the most significant contributions to the United States' prosperity, when he invented the horse-drawn reaper in 1831.

Cyrus Hall McCormick was born in 1809. He grew up on his family's 532-acre farm, "Walnut Grove", north of Lexington, Virginia. As a boy, McCormick had a talent for both agriculture and inventing. At the age of 15, he invented a lightweight cradle for carting harvested grain (1824). Meanwhile, McCormick's father, Robert, was working from time to time in the farm's smithy on an invention of his own, a horse- drawn reaping machine. When Robert McCormick finally gave up on producing a working model, in the early fall of 1831, his son took over the challenge.

At that time, grain was harvested by the same manual process that had been used since the dawn of agriculture: the reapers mowed down the standing grain with a hand-swung scythe, and the binders followed behind them, tying the crop into bales, which were then carted away, usually for storage in barns. Because reaping was a much more painstaking process than sowing, even farmers with land and seed to spare were forced to limit their crop to what they could reap in a given season.

Using his father's incomplete model as a starting point, McCormick sketched out plans for a machine that would automatically cut, thresh and bundle grain while being pulled through a field by horses. Within six weeks --- before the 1831 harvest was over --- he had built, field- tested, remodelled, and successfully demonstrated to the public the world's first mechanical reaper. McCormick had singlehandedly increased farms' potential yield at least tenfold, with a minimum of effort by farmers. Astonishingly, they remained uninterested or at least unconvinced: for nine years, sales were virtually zero.

Farmers were leery of change, and were put off by a machine that would later be described as a "contraption seemingly a cross between a wheelbarrow, a chariot, and a flying machine." Undaunted, McCormick spent ten years making improvements, earning his first patent along the way (1834). He also utilized novel business practices, including lenient credit for purchases, written performance guarantees ("15 acres a day"), readily available replacement parts, and advertising that educated farming communities about the benefits of technology.

Beginning in 1841, the mechanical reaper finally caught on: so much so that McCormick was later forced to move production out of his family farm's blacksmith shop and into a factory in Chicago (1847). For McCormick's machine meant that the prairies of the Midwest could now become the "breadbasket" of the nation.

In 1851, McCormick's machine became an international sensation. He won the Gold Medal at the London Crystal Palace Exposition of that year, then went on to stun audiences in Hamburg, Vienna, and Paris. McCormick was elected to the French Academy of Sciences, "as having done more for agriculture than any other living man."

Returning to the US, McCormick still faced substantial challenges. For years, he was forced to defend his patent rights in court. The Chicago Fire of 1871 destroyed his factory. But by the time he died, in 1884, both his fame and his business were secure.

Because his reaper enabled much fewer farmers to produce much more grain, Cyrus McCormick not only transformed agriculture, but also diversified American industry. In 1831, 90% of the US population was involved in farming; today, only 2% of the population produces more food than the country can consume. The machines manufactured by McCormick's company and its successor, International Harvester Co., which now harvest hundreds of acres a day, have enabled the vast majority of Americans to apply their talent and energy to fields like engineering, medicine, and the arts. http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/mccormick.html

antiquefarming.com

Plow & Moldboard

By definition a plow (also spelled plough) is a farm tool with one or more heavy blades that breaks the soil and cut a furrow (small ditch) for sowing seeds. A moldboard is the wedge formed by the curved part of a steel plow blade that turns the furrow.

Plow Advances & Farm Tractors

From the single plow advances were made to two or more plows fastened together, doing more work with approximately the same man power. The sulky plow, allowed the plowman to ride rather than walk. Such plows were in use as early as 1844, perhaps earlier. The next step forward was to replace animals that pulled the plows with traction engines. By 1921, farm tractors were pulling more plows, and doing the work better. Fifty horsepower engines could pull sixteen plows, and harrows, and a grain drill, performing the three operations of plowing, harrowing, and planting at the same time and covering fifty acres or more in a day.

http://inventors. about.com/od/pstartinv entions/a/plow.htm

bookrags.com

SPINNING JENNY

1764 - Increased Yarn and Thread Production During Industrial Revolution

The spinning jenny used eight spindles of instead of the one found on spinning wheels. Engraving T. E. Nicholson In 1764, a British carpenter and weaver named James Hargreaves invented an improved spinning jenny, a hand-powered multiple spinning machine that was the first machine to improve upon the spinning wheel by making it possible to spin more than one ball of yarn or thread.{p] Spinner machines like the spinning wheel and the spinning jenny made the threads and yarns used by weavers in their looms. As weaving looms became faster, inventors had to find ways for spinners to keep up. http://inventors.about.com/od/indrevolution/ss/Industrial_Revo_3.htm

The Spinning Jenny

was one of the machines that launched the Industrial Revolution and the modern industrial age. Until the 18th century, cloth was manufactured largely by means of what was known as the "putting out" system. A cloth merchant would provide raw wool, cotton, or flax to spinners and weavers, who would then process it into bales of cloth and return it for marketing to the merchant, who would pay them at the current piecework rate. It was a true cottage industry for the most part, as the vast majority of the spinners and weavers worked out of their cottage homes.

James Hargreaves (ca. 1722-1778), who lived in the village of Standhill, Lancashire, England, was one of those cottage weavers who owned his own spinning wheel and loom. According to his own story, the idea for the spinning jenny came about in 1764, when his daughter Jenny tipped over a spinning wheel by accident and the spindle continued to revolve. It made Hargreaves think that a whole line of spindles could be worked off one wheel.

Hargreaves built his first model of the jenny using eight spindles onto which the thread was spun from a corresponding set of rovings. All eight threads could then be spun by the muscle power of one person. The jenny's primary limitation was that the thread it produced was coarse and lacked a certain degree of strength, making it suitable only for the filling or weft, the threads woven across the warp.

Hargreaves began to build his machines for more general sale, and gradually improved them to the point where each could work up to 30 spindles.

After a group of local weavers broke into his house and smashed all of his machines, Hargreaves moved to Nottingham and established a partnership with a businessman. The two constructed a small mill which used jennies to spin hosiers' yarn.

Unfortunately, Hargreaves delayed in applying for a patent for his spinning jenny, and did not get it patented until 1770. Although he did make money on his invention, his resulting fortune was far less than it could have been.

In 1779, Samuel Crompton invented the spinning mule, an adaptation of Hargreaves' jenny. Crompton's machine produced yarn of a tensile quality matching that produced by hand spinning. The mule also applied some of the principles of the water frame developed by Richard Arkwright some 10 years earlier. One operator on the mule could spin up to 1,000 threads.

Like Hargreaves, Crompton failed to profit from his invention. Although there were 360 mills using the spinning mule by 1812, most manufacturers neglected to honor guarantees given to him. A parliamentary grant of £5,000 went some way toward compensating him, but he sank most of that money into business ventures that failed.http://www.robinsonlibrary.com/technology/manufactures/textile/spinjenny.htm

Export of technology

While profiting from expertise arriving from overseas (e.g. Louis Paul), Britain was very protective of home-grown technology. In particular, engineers with skills in constructing the textile mills and machinery were not permitted to emigrate — particularly to the fledgeling America. Horse power (1780–1790) The earliest cotton mills in the United States were horse powered. The first mill to use this method was the Beverly Cotton Manufactory, built in Beverly, Massachusetts. It was started August 18, 1788 by entrepreneur John Cabot and brothers. It was operated in joint by Moses Brown, Israel Thorndike, Joshua Fisher, Henry Higginson, and Deborah Higginson Cabot. The Salem Mercury reported that in April of 1788 that the equipment for the mill was complete, consisting of a spinning jenny, a carding machine, warping machine, and other tools. That same year the mill's location was finalized and built in the rural outsets of North Beverly. The location had the presence of natural water, but it was cited the water was used for upkeep of the horses and cleaning of equipment, and not for mass-production. Much of the internal designs of the Beverly mill were hidden due to concerns of competitors stealing designs. The beginning efforts were all researched behind closed doors, even to the point that the owners of the mill set up milling equipment on their estates to experiment with the process. There were no published articles describing exactly how their process worked in detail. Additionally, the mill's horse powered technology was quickly dwarfed by new water-powered methods. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textile_manufacture_during_the_Industrial_Revolution

wendyhome.com

photos.com

THE STEEL PLOW

John Deere Born Feb 7 1804 - Died May 17 1886

John Deere developed the first American cast steel plow. The implements being used by pioneer farmers of that day were cumbersome and ineffective for cutting and turning the prairie soil. To alleviate the problem, Deere and a partner, Major Leonard Andrus, designed three new plows in 1838. Their cutting part was made from steel cut from an old sawmill blade and shaped by bending it over a log. The moldboard, used for lifting and turning, was made of wrought iron and polished on the upper surface to prevent clogging.

Invention Impact

The plow was so successful that by 1846 Deere and his partner were selling a thousand a year. Deere then sold his interest in the Grand Detour enterprise to Andrus and organized a plow company in Moline, Illinois. After experimenting with imported English steel, he had a cast steel plow made for him in Pittsburgh. By 1855 he was selling more than 13,000 such plows a year.

Inventor Bio

Born in Rutland, Vermont, Deere served a four-year apprenticeship to a blacksmith and worked in that trade until 1837, when he moved to Grand Detour, Illinois. In 1868 his business was incorporated as Deere & Company, which is still in existence today. http://www.invent.org/hall_of_fame/39.html

John Deere (inventor)

. John Deere

Born February 7, 1804 Rutland, Vermont Died May 17, 1886 (aged 82) Grand Detour, Illinois Nationality American Occupation Inventor Known for Deere & Company Spouse Demarias Lamb Deere (Married on January 28, 1827, until Demarias' death in 1865) and Lucenia Lamb Deere (Demarias' sister, Married from 1867 until John's death in 1886) [1] Children Francis Albert (1828-1848), Jeanette (1830-1916), Ellen Sarah (1832- 1897), Frances Alma (1834-1851), Charles (1836-1907), Emma Charlotte (1840-1911), Hiram Alvin (1842-1844), Alice Marie (1844- 1900), Mary Frances (1851-1851) [1] John Deere (February 7, 1804 – May 17, 1886) was an American blacksmith and manufacturer who founded Deere & Company, one of the largest and leading agricultural and construction equipment manufacturers in the world. Born in Rutland, Vermont, Deere moved to Illinois and invented the first commercially successful steel plow in 1837.

Early life

After a meager education, he was apprenticed in 1821 at age 17, to Captain Benjamin Lawrence, a prosperous Middlebury blacksmith, and entered the trade for himself in 1825.

He married in 1827, and fathered nine children. But as he was having trouble with creditors, Deere's business suffered. Facing bankruptcy, Deere sold the shop to his father-in-law and departed for Illinois.[

Steel plow Deere settled in Grand Detour, Illinois. As there were no other blacksmiths in the area, he had no difficulty finding work. Growing up in his fatherʼs Rutland, Vermont, tailor shop, Deere had polished and sharpened needles by running them through sand. This polishing helped the needles sew through soft leather. Deere found that cast-iron plows were not working very well in the tough prairie soil of Illinois and remembered the polished needles. Deere came to the conclusion that a plow made out of highly polished steel and a correctly shaped moldboard (the self-scouring steel plow) would be better able to handle the soil conditions of the prairie, especially its sticky clay. There are varying versions of the inspiration for Deere's famous steel plow. In another version he recalled the way the polished steel pitchfork tines moved through hay and soil and thought that same effect could be obtained for a plow.

In 1837, Deere developed and manufactured the first commercially successful cast-steel plow. The wrought-iron framed plow had a polished steel share. This made it ideal for the tough soil of the Midwest and worked better than other plows. By early 1838, Deere completed his first steel plow and sold it to a local farmer, Lewis Crandall, who quickly spread word of his success with Deere's plow. Subsequently two neighbors soon placed orders with Deere. By 1841, Deere was manufacturing 75-100 plows per year. In 1843, Deere partnered with Leonard Andrus to produce more plows to keep up with demand. However, the partnership became strained due to the two men's stubbornness - while Deere wished to sell to customers outside Grand Detour, Andrus opposed a proposed railroad through Grand Detour - and Deere's distrust of Andrus' accounting practices. In 1848, Deere dissolved the partnership with Andrus and moved to Moline, Illinois, because of the city's location on the Mississippi River, which helped make it a transportation hub. By 1855, Deere's factory sold more than 10,000 such plows. It became known as "The Plow that Broke the Plains" and is commemorated as such in a historic place marker in Vermont. From the beginning, Deere insisted on making high-quality equipment. He once said, "I will never put my name on a product that does not have in it the best that is in me." Following the Panic of 1857, as business improved, Deere left the day-to-day operations to his son Charles. In 1868, Deere incorporated his business as Deere & Company. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Deere_(inventor)

molinecentre.org

hubpages.com

worthpoint.com Christine Sink Bozeman, MT January 2011

Voices of the People 1776

National History Standards Met: • Standard 1: Chronological Thinking • Standard 2: Historical Comprehension • Standard 3: Historical Analysis and Interpretation

Objectives: Students will be able to: • Read the Declaration of Independence through the eyes of a citizen of 1776 using the reading strategies of numbering paragraphs, circling key terms and underlining author’s claims • Determine where this citizen would be on the Independence Worksheet • Understand diverse viewpoints towards independence • Answer the essential question, “At the time of the Declaration of Independence, what were common attitudes towards independence?” • Assess the motives behind the attitudes of the citizens

Resources: • Copy of Declaration of Independence • Copy of “Marking the Text” • Biography cards for a citizens of 1776 • Timeline • Independence Worksheet

Background: In the years before the Declaration of Independence was written, many Americans had issues with Great Britain’s control over the colonies. Citizens expressed diverse opinions about the acts of control by the British government and of the rebellious actions of the colonies. Colonists who were not in the major cities often did not want to be involved in open acts of resistance. Religion, political, social, and economic motives often were behind the variety of perspectives held by the common everyday citizens of 1776.

Introduction: • Introduce the essential question “At the time of the Declaration of Independence, what were common attitudes towards independence?” • Ask the following question and write responses on the board. “What events led up to the Declaration of Independence?” (Refer to Timeline handout) • Explain to students that they will be looking at the Declaration of Independence using some new reading strategies and through the eyes of a particular citizen of the time period.

Activity 1 Reading the Declaration of Independence

• Distribute a copy of the Declaration of Independence, Marking the Text, and biography cards to all students • Give the following directions: 1. Read the Declaration of Independence and as you are reading number the paragraphs 2. Read your biography card thinking about how the citizen would react to the Declaration of Independence. 3. Go back to the copy of the Declaration and (circle) any key terms, essential words or other thoughts that you think would support your citizen’s viewpoint on the Declaration. 4. Underline the author’s claims and any other information that would also support your citizen’s viewpoint on the Declaration. • Form groups of like citizens. That is, all large landowners group together, small landowners, merchants, tradesman, tavern keepers, and clergyman. 1. Discuss and share the evidence you found in the Declaration to support your citizen’s viewpoint. 2. Fill out the Independence Worksheet for your citizen.

Activity 2 Human Continuum of Citizens

• All representatives of citizen groups come to the front of the room. • Teacher points out which side is completely for the Declaration of Independence and which side is against. The middle represents neutral and in- between viewpoints. • Representatives discuss their viewpoint and decide where to stand on the continuum. • When all representatives are ready to present start at one end or the other. Each representative should explain their citizen group to the rest of the class and what evidence from the Declaration helped support their view. • After each representative has presented their viewpoint, then students go around the room filling out their individual worksheets.

Activity 3 Discuss the essential question “At the time of the Declaration of Independence, what were common attitudes towards independence?” Have students respond to what motives were behind these attitudes? (Religious, political, social and economic)

Assessment: Students write a summary of the various viewpoints of citizens of 1776 using their Independence Worksheet. They should include evidence of support and a discussion of the various motivations. TIMELINE OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

1765 Stamp Act passed by the House of Commons Patrick Henry offered a series of resolutions against the Stamp Act before the House of Burgesses Quartering Act

1766 Stamp Act repealed – new tax duties levied on the colonies Declaratory Act

1767 The Townsend Revenue Act

1767 Boston Non-Importation Agreement

1770 Boston Massacre

1773 The Tea Act Boston Tea Party

1774 Intolerable Acts First Continental Congress meets in Philadelphia

1775 Patrick Henry’s “Give me Liberty or give me death” speech Clash at Lexington and Concord Second Continental Congress meets George Washington named Commander in Chief Battle of Bunker Hill

1776 June 7 Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, receives Richard Henry Lee’s resolution urging Congress to declare Independence. June 12 Jefferson drafts a declaration. June 28 A copy of the committee draft of the Declaration is read in Congress. July 1-4 Congress debates and revises the Declaration of Independence. July 4 Congress adopts the Declaration. July 8 First public reading of the Declaration is in Philadelphia.

Marking the Text

“Marking the Text” is an active reading strategy that asks students to think critically about their reading. While reading the text, students analyze ideas, evaluate ideas, and circle and underline essential information. This strategy has three distinct marks: numbering paragraphs, circling key terms, and underlining information relevant to one’s reading purpose. With pencil in hand, students focus on what is being said in the text, leading to increases in comprehension and retention of textual material.

1. Number the paragraphs 1. Before you read, take a moment and number the paragraphs in the section you are planning to read. Start with the number one and continue numbering sequentially until you reach the end of the text or reading assignment. Write the number near the paragraph indention and circle the number; write it small enough so that you have room to write in the margin.

2. As with page numbers, paragraph numbers will act as a reference so you can easily refer to specific sections of the text.

2. Circle key terms, cited authors, You might circle…. and other essential words or -key concepts numbers. -lesson-based content vocabulary -concept-based vocabulary -names of people -names of historical events -dates -numbers

3. Underline the author’s claims and While reading informational texts (i.e. textbooks, other information relevant to the reference books, articles, or journals), read carefully reading purpose. to identify information that is relevant to the reading task. Relevant information might include:

-central claims -evidence -details relating to philosophy or ideology -facts about a person, place, thing, or idea -descriptions of a person, place, thing or idea -cause and effect relationships

Taken from Critical Reading: Deep Reading Strategies for Expository Texts Developed by Jonathan LeMaster for Avid. Published by Avid Press 2009.

Transcript of Declaration of Independence (1776) (from www.ourdocuments.gov) IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. INDEPENDENCE WORKSHEET Citizen role of 1776 Position on Support from Declaration of Independence Rating 1-10 Motive Independence 1= against Religious, political, Independence Social, economic 10= pro Independence LARGE LANDOWNER #1

LARGE LANDOWNER #2

LARGE LANDOWNER #3

SMALL LANDOWNER #1

SMALL LANDOWNER #2

SMALL LANDOWNER #3

INDEPENDENCE WORKSHEET Citizen role of 1776 Position on Support from Declaration of Independence Rating 1-10 Motive Independence 1= against Religious, political, Independence Social, economic 10= pro Independence MERCHANT #1

MERCHANT #2

MERCHANT #3

TRADESMAN #1

TRADESMAN #2

TRADESMAN #3

INDEPENDENCE WORKSHEET

Citizen role of 1776 Position on Support from Declaration of Independence Rating 1-10 Motive Independence 1= against Religious, political, Independence Social, economic 10= pro Independence TAVERN KEEPER #1

TAVERN KEEPER #2

TAVERN KEEPER #3

CLERGYMAN #1

CLERGYMAN #2

CLERGYMAN #3

LARGE LANDOWNER #1

You are a gentleman farmer who studied law in England. You married while in England. Your wife has a long-standing sentimental attachment to Britain.

LARGE LANDOWNER #2

You recently acquired a large plantation. You have worked hard and do not want to lose what you have gained. As a German many have shunned you. You are more interested in providing the good life for your family.

LARGE LANDOWNER #3

You have spent time studying the Roman Republic and Greek democracy. You would like to see those ideas put into motion. You need tax relief and had little protection from the English soldiers during the French and Indian War.

SMALL LANDOWNER #1

Your family has been in Virginia for five generations. You have no ties to England. You want more say in how Virginia is taxed and governed. You don’t like what has happened in Boston.

SMALL LANDOWNER #2

You are afraid of change. You have done well under the British government and see taxes as a necessary nuisance. You own a small farm in the Tidewater region.

SMALL LANDOWNER #3

As a farmer in the Shenandoah Valley, you are more concerned about providing for your family. Here in the west it doesn’t really matter who makes the laws. You are more worried about the Indians.

TRADESMAN #1

You are an itinerant Scottish weaver in the Shenandoah Valley. You want to provide for your family and not worry about who is governing. You are worried about how a war might impact your family and your traveling business.

TRADESMAN #2

You are a tailor newly arrived from Scotland. You fear the King and do not want to be called a traitor. You just want to set up business and make a living.

TRADESMAN #3

As a successful Blacksmith you own your own home and business. You employ several apprentices and journeymen. You do not want to keep paying high taxes to the British and see more work if there is a war.

MERCHANT #1

You are worried about selling items forbidden by the Committees of Correspondence. Some merchants loyal to the King have had their stores looted. You do not support British taxes.

MERCHANT #2

Your business is doing well and you are afraid if conflict breaks out it will hurt your sales. You don’t like the taxes but understand how they do help with paying for protection. You want to see an end to all hostilities and hope for a compromise.

MERCHANT #3

You are a very successful merchant who sells English made goods. You are hoping war does not break out and you can earn enough money to return to England one day.

TAVERN KEEPER #1

You run a successful tavern in town. Most of your guests are gentlemen who have ties in England. You are worried about losing your license and being punished.

TAVERN KEEPER #2

As a German immigrant running a tavern, the affairs of England do not concern you. Most of your guests do not care what is going on.

TAVERN KEEPER #3

You run a successful inn in town. Most of your clients do not like the tax laws and support the rebellion. You want to be on the winning side in order to keep your business. You have some relatives in Massachusetts.

CLERGYMAN #1

You are a Methodist minister. You are excited about the changes that are taking place, especially in the Established Church and would like to see a break with England.

CLERGYMAN #2

You are a Quaker who believes in pacifism. You do not believe in violence of any kind. You wish everyone could compromise and get along.

CLERGYMAN #3

You are a minister in the established church, the Anglican Church of England. Your family is in England. You support the King who is the head of the Church. Federalists and Antifederalists January 25, 2011 Biographies of the Nation Danice Toyias, [email protected]

Lesson Topic and Focus This lesson utilizes what I call the three C’s analysis of the Constitution debate, including determining the position of the Federalists, the Anti-Federalist and the nature of Federalism. It is designed to follow a study of the Articles of Confederation. Students should know what some of the problems with the Articles were before beginning this lesson. At the end of the activity, students will understand the different attitudes and feelings Americans had towards the ratification of the Constitution. Additionally, students will begin to understand the nature of political parties and the conflict around Thomas Jefferson being elected president.

Essential Understandings/Standards Addressed (BPS) • H.2.0/C.2.0 Students understand that the foundations of the American political system based on the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were created and revised during the early national era (1787-1815). o C.2.1 Students understand that numerous contentious issues were addressed during the creation and ratification of the United States Constitution including the Great Compromise, the 3/5ths Compromise, and the creation of the executive branch. o C.2.2 Students understand that there are basic organizational principles outlined in the Constitution including checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism, etc. o C.2.3 Students understand that the amendments contained in the Bill of Rights protect freedoms affecting citizens today. (Arguments for the addition of a Bill of Rights is addressed in this activity.) o C.2.5 Students understand that political parties develop in the 1790s because of differing opinions about the role of the government and the future of the United States.

Essential Question(s) 1. What were the positions of the Federalists regarding ratification of the Constitution? Why did they feel as they did? 2. What were the positions of the Anti-Federalists regarding ratification of the Constitution? Why did they feel as they did? 3. In the creation of the new government, how were these concerns compromised? 4. In addition to the Bill of Rights, how did Federalism attempt to consolidate the differences?

Lesson Activities and Sequence 1) Review the 3 C’s approach to historical thinking a. Context (timeframe, timeline, place in history or historical study) b. Content (historical narrative—What is happening, who is involved, what are their arguments?) c. Conclusions (“What is going on here?” Elliott West—If there is a conflict, why is there a conflict? Try to understand the feelings of both sides. If there is a resolution, did it seek to address the main issues of both sides? Did the resolution solve the conflict, or did the conflict continue? What were the “ripple effects” or unintended consequences? 2) Go over the Context in class—View the Constitutional Debate Timeline. Students take notes. Constitution Debate, pg. 1 of 1 3) Go over the Content—Give a brief history of the people and positions. 4) Hand out the note cards with quotes from the Federalist and “Antifederalist” papers. Have students highlight or underline the “argument.” What is the author in the quote trying to convince his audience? Students then pretend to be their person. They need to determine if their person is a Federalist (for) or Antifederalist (against). 5) Students should circle the room and ask each other questions to determine what other students “think” about the Constitution. Pretend they are at a conference. They need to try and speak to everyone in the class. a. Protocol: A student approaches another student and asks—What do you think of this new document, the Constitution? Why? In all encounters, the student asking the question cannot respond with their opinion. They must go onto someone else before talking with the student that initially asked. b. On the back of the note card, students make two columns—FOR ratification and AGAINST ratification. They write responses in those columns. 6) At the end of the press conference, have students divide up into the FOR groups and AGAINST groups. Have them determine if they are Federalists or Antifederalists. Have them identify how the Constitution set up the Federal system. What might characteristics of the federal system look like based on the arguments presented?

Context 1777: Articles of Confederation (Key points—loose confederation, wary of central government, gave the United States no real power over the united states, no executive, no ability to tax). Ratified in 1781. 1787: Constitutional Convention (initially met to revise the Articles, ended up writing a whole new document. Many questioned the legality of doing such a thing.) 1787-1788: Constitutional Debates 1789-1797: George Washington, 1st President (Federalist) 1790: Rhode Island finally ratifies the Constitution, bringing an end to the Constitutional Debate. 1791: First ten amendments to Constitution 1797-1801: John Adams, 2nd President (Federalist) (Thomas Jefferson, VP) 1801-1809: Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President (Republican)

Content The debate over the ratification of the Constitution was fierce. The Federalists were Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. The themes they discussed all had to do with the function of government and included federalism, checks and balances, separatism, and representation. The anti-federalists were against ratification and included Patrick Henry, Thomas Paine, Edmund Randolf, and the republicans (Thomas Jefferson was in France during the Constitutional Convention). They feared a strong central government would tyrannize over Americans and many did not agree to ratification until it was agreed that a Bill of Rights would be added.

Anti-federalist authors (from www.constitution.org) Centinel (Samuel Bryan) Federal Farmer (Melancton Smith? or Richard Henry Lee?) Brutus (Robert Yates) John DeWitt (?) Cato (George Clinton?) Constitution Debate, pg. 2 of 2 Conclusion(s) • Federalism (Delegated or Enumerated Powers=Federal, Reserved Powers=States, Concurrent or Shared Powers=States) • Bill of Rights: Civil Liberties and Civil Rights (Civil Liberties are individual freedoms and rights, including rights of people—freedom of religion, speech, due process, property, privacy, and right to a trial, and Civil Rights include rights that protect individuals from infringement by governments, other people, and private organizations—such as the rights of the accused, fair trial, right to due process. These also protect individuals and their ability to participate in political life.)

Website: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/

Quotes for Notecards

FEDERALISTS

Americans have the opportunity to "decide the important question" can "good government" be established by "reflection and choice," or is mankind "forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force." (October 27, 1787)

[We must] understand federalism as a way of a) retaining the independence of small states yet b) joining the states together so that they can pool their resources for goals such as common defense. (November 21, 1787)

The "violence of faction" is the "disease" of popular governments. What is a faction? "A number of citizens, who are united by some common interest, undesirable to the rights of other citizens." … The republican principle" of majority rule is the solution to minority faction. (November 22, 1787)

“Humans are fallible (imperfect), “the "vital principles" of liberty, energy, and stability in the legislature, executive, and judiciary was very difficult, drawing the line between the powers of the general government and the state governments was difficult.” (January 11, 1788)

Does the Constitution pass 1) the republicanism test? The answer depends on how we define republicanism. What, then, is the definition of a republic? It is "a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding office during good behavior." (January 16, 1788) Constitution Debate, pg. 3 of 3 Was the revolution fought to secure the peace, liberty, safety, and public good of the American people or to secure the sovereignty of the states? "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite." The Constitution doesn't enlarge the powers of the federal government; "it only creates a more effectual mode of administering them." (January 26, 1788)

The unique feature of the American experiment is, that for the first time, we have "the total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity, from any share" in the government," rather than " the total exclusion of the representatives of the people from the administration" of the government." (March 1, 1788)

There are two ingredients of republican safety: I "A due dependence on the people," and II "A due responsibility." "The dictates of good sense," demonstrate that one executive better secures the goals of "decision, activity, secrecy, and dispatch." Having more than one executive also destroys "responsibility." (March 15, 1788)

"The executive should be in a situation to dare to act with vigor and decision." "The principles of good government" requires the executive to be protected against the tendency in "governments purely republican" for the "legislative authority to absorb every other." (March 18, 1788)

"The most considerable of these remaining objections is that 2) the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights." "Bills of Rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects." The "We the people" clause in the Preamble to the Constitution "is a better recognition of popular rights. A bill of rights would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government." (May 28, 1788)

Constitution Debate, pg. 4 of 4

ANTI-FEDERALISTS

"All the blessings of liberty are now at stake." But since the plan is inspired by political thought which presumes 1) a balancing of the orders of society and 2) that "the administrators of every government are motivated by views of private interest and ambition." The plan encourages the exercise of extensive powers over a territory which is a recipe not "for a regular balanced government & but & a permanent ARISTOCRACY.” (October 5, 1787)

[It] “appears to be a plan retaining some federal features, but to be the first important step, and to aim strongly, to one consolidated government of the United States." (October 8, 1787)

Aren't Article One Sections 9 and 10 of the Constitution a partial Bill of Rights? Why don't we drop them or go the whole distance on behalf of a Bill of Rights? October 12, 1787 "In so extensive a republic, the great officers of government would soon become above the control of the people, and abuse their power to the purpose of benefiting themselves and oppressing others." (October 18, 1787)

The proposed plan of government failed to provide adequate protection to individual rights of conscience, the liberty of the press, the freedom of association and the right of the people to the expectation of no unreasonable searches and no cruel and unreasonable punishments. There is no possible way to effect this but by an equal, full, and fair representation." (November 1, 1787)

"Its parts show[s] that the powers are not properly deposited for the security of public liberty." The small number of representatives to be chosen violates the core meaning of representation: "those who are placed instead of the people should possess their sentiments and feelings, and be governed by their interests; and "the farmer, merchant, mechanic" will not be represented.” (November 15, 1787)

Constitution Debate, pg. 5 of 5 "Biennial elections for representatives are a departure from the safe democratic principle of annual ones, that the number of representatives are too few," and that the Senate contains the seeds of aristocracy.” (November 22, 1787)

"The nature and extent of the powers granted to the legislature;" that Congress is granted all power that is necessary and proper for carrying out is comprehensive and undefined…All the more reason for a Bill of Rights restricting the reach of congress over the states and the people and for a larger number of representatives in the Congress.” (December 13, 1787)

"It is vain to tell us that we ought to overlook local interests. It is only by protecting local concerns, that the interest of the whole is preserved." (December 18, 1787)

"I have not met with any writer, who has discussed the judicial powers with any degree of accuracy." We must “first examine the extent of the judicial powers and second, inquire whether the courts who are to exercise them will apply them for the general good." (January 31, 1788)

"The supreme court under this constitution would be exalted above all other power in the government, and subject to no control." “First, there is no power above them that can correct their errors or control their decisions." Second, "they cannot be removed from office for any error in judgment." Third, "the power of this court is in many cases superior to that of the legislature." (March 20, 1788)

Constitution Debate, pg. 6 of 6 1/21/11

What is Government?

When studying the POLITICAL aspects of a society, look for clues that answer these questions: Who or what makes the laws? Who or what enforces laws? What happens to people who break the laws?

How do people know what the laws are?

The Constitution Debate

Approach (3 C’s)

Context: Timeframe, Timeline, Place in history or historical study

Content: The historical narrative--What is happening? Who is involved? What are their arguments?

Conclusions: What is going on here? –Elliott West, What are the resolutions? What are the “ripple effects” or unintended consequences?

1 1/21/11

Context 1777: Articles of Confederation (Key points—loose confederation, wary of central government, gave the United States no real power over the united states, no executive, no ability to tax). Ratified in 1781.

1787: Constitutional Convention (initially met to revise the Articles, ended up writing a whole new document. Many questioned the legality of doing such a thing.)

1787-1788: Constitutional Debates

1789-1797: George Washington, 1st President (Federalist)

1790: Rhode Island finally ratifies the Constitution, bringing an end to the Constitutional Debate.

1791: First ten amendments to Constitution

1797-1801: John Adams, 2nd President (Federalist) (Thomas Jefferson, VP)

1801-1809: Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President (Republican)

Content (Review): Federalists

Who wrote the federalist essays? (Author) Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay

To whom were the federalist essays written? (Audience) Response to “Anti-federalist” criticisms of the proposed Constitution in New York newspapers.

Why were the federalist essays written? (Purpose) To convince Americans of the principles of the new government (i.e. the importance of Federalism and Republicanism) as written in the Constitution (Ratification)

Content (Review): Antifederalists

Who wrote the Antifederalist essays? Several sources: Centinel (Samuel Bryan), Federal Farmer (Melancton Smith? or Richard Henry Lee?), Brutus (Robert Yates), John DeWitt (?), Cato (George Clinton?)

To whom and why were the Antifederalist essays written? Appeared in New York papers. Was against a strong central government (tyranny). Wanted a Bill of Rights.

2 1/21/11

Guided Discovery Activity: Federalists and Antifederalists Each student will receive a quote card.

1. Read the text on your card.

2. Determine the argument: What is the author trying to convince you to believe? Underline or highlight the argument.

3. Determine your position: Is your author a Federalist (For ratification of the Constitution or Antifederalist (Against ratification of the Constitution)? Why? Write your answer on the back of your note card.

Practice

"The most considerable of these remaining objections is that 2) the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights." "Bills of Rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects." The "We the people" clause in the Preamble to the Constitution "is a better recognition of popular rights. A bill of rights would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government." "Bills of Rights are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous." “It meets two vital objects of a bill of rights: it 1) declares and specifies "the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government," and 2) defines "certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns." (May 28, 1788)

Underline Argument "The most considerable of these remaining objections is that 2) the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights." "Bills of Rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects." The "We the people" clause in the Preamble to the Constitution "is a better recognition of popular rights. A bill of rights would sound much better in a treatise of ethics than in a constitution of government." "Bills of Rights are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution but would even be dangerous." “It meets two vital objects of a bill of rights: it 1) declares and specifies "the political privileges of the citizens in the structure and administration of the government," and 2) defines "certain immunities and modes of proceeding, which are relative to personal and private concerns." (May 28, 1788)

3 1/21/11

Determine the Argument

A Bill of Rights is unnecessary because the Constitution already outlines the privileges of citizens and it outlines immunities which they may receive in relation to personal and private concerns.

Federalist or Antifederalist?

Federalist (Remember to write your position on the back of your note card.) Why? (Summarize on the back of your note card.) Because he believes the Constitution, as it is written, does not need a Bill of Rights added to it.

Guided Discovery Activity: Federalists and Antifederalists Each student receives a quote card.

1. Read the text on your card.

2. Determine the argument: What is the author trying to convince you to believe? Underline or highlight the argument.

3. Determine your position: Is your author a Federalist (For ratification of the Constitution or Antifederalist (Against ratification of the Constitution)? Why? Write your answer on the back of your note card.

4 1/21/11

Note Taking

In your notebook, make TWO columns. Column I is FOR (Federalist) and Column II is AGAINST (Antifederalist) Write student responses from your convention in the For or Against column.

Convention Protocol

• Approach as many students in the class as you can.

• Ask each student individually, “What do you think of this new document, the Constitution? Why?”

• In all encounters, explain the argument on your note card (summarize).

• When you ask another student, you cannot give YOUR opinion. You can only give YOUR opinion when you are asked.

Reporting Divide class into two sides and line up shoulder to shoulder facing one another. On one side of the room are the Federalists The other side are the Antifederalists

Beginning with the Antifederalists, the first person in line says, “I am an Antifederalist (or against ratification) because…..”

Without adding any comments, the first Federalist responds with, “I am a Federalist (or for ratification) because ….”

Criss-Cross the room until all students have reported.

5 1/21/11

Essential Understanding Wrap Up There were contentious debates over what the new government should look like and how it should function. Based on the set up of this classroom, what do you think was the result of those debates? The Constitution set up the Federal system: What were the characteristics of the federal system based on the arguments presented in class today?

Essential Question (1)

What were the positions of the Federalists regarding ratification of the Constitution? Why did they feel as they did? Did we answer it?

Essential Question (2)

What were the positions of the Anti-Federalists regarding ratification of the Constitution? Why did they feel as they did? Did we answer it?

6 1/21/11

Essential Question (3)

In the creation of the new government, how were these concerns compromised?

Bill of Rights, Republicanism: Citizens voting=Power in elected=representation (Great Compromise of 1787 and representation) Did we answer it?

Essential Question (4)

In addition to the Bill of Rights, how did Federalism attempt to consolidate the differences?

Delegated or Enumerated Powers=Federal, Reserved Powers=States, Concurrent or Shared Powers=States Did we answer it?

Preview: The Bill of Rights

Bill of Rights: Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Civil Liberties are individual freedoms and rights, including rights of people—freedom of religion, speech, due process, property, privacy, and right to a trial, and Civil Rights include rights that protect individuals from infringement by governments, other people, and private organizations—such as the rights of the accused, fair trial, right to due process. These also protect individuals and their ability to participate in political life.

7 Native Americans and the American Revolution January 26, 2011 Biographies of the Nation Winter Colloquium Danice Toyias, [email protected]

Lesson Topics: Wampum, the Covenant Chain, and Great Chain

Essential Question(s): What is Wampum? How did the first treaties between the U.S. government and the Six Nations establish precedents for future relations?

Context and Content Background: After the French and Indian War, King George III issued a Royal Proclamation in which lands west of the Appalachian Mountains were declared Indian Territory. Since Great Britain now had control over their North American Empire, the Proclamation did more than just create a line between the colonies and the Native Americans. Britain needed time to regulate commerce and settlement in this newly ceded territory. The colonists did not support the proclamation. Many settlements existed in the frontier prior to the proclamation line and land was promised to British soldiers west of that line as part of the proclamation itself. To the colonists, it appeared that the crown would be regulating how lands were awarded and many resented that local control (through colonial governors) seemed not to apply to the new territory.

During the American Revolution, Britain supported Indian nations in this territory by providing weapons and encouraging frontier warfare with the colonists. For this lesson, we are focusing on the relationship between the Iroquois Confederacy (League) and the U.S. At this time, the Iroquois split in their support between the United States and Great Britain. This split fractured the Six Nations. After the American Revolution, the U.S. named this new territory the Northwest Territory. In order for the United States to organize and settle the territory, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 standardized western land settlement and organization.

Lesson Focus: In order for students to understand the complicated relationship between the United States government and the many Indian nations in North America that continues to today, this lesson strives to help students understand the different ways in which the U.S. Government and Indian Nations approached and understood treaty-making and land use/ownership. This lesson is designed to help students analyze Native American treaties and treaties between the U.S. and Native Americans. Students should be able to see that both types of treaties define specific things and responsibilities and carry out their purposes, but that the conceptual understanding of the treaties is very different.

Lesson Sequence and Understandings: 1) Wampum Power Point Presentation and a look at symbolic meaning. Student activity instructions are included at the end of the power point. 2) Students should be able to answer the “Who Benefits” slide with the understanding that the U.S. gained “formal peace” with the Six Nations as a whole. They should also understand that the U.S. formally gained lands in the Ohio Valley. For the Six Nations, the treaty affirms their relationship as a separate nation with the U.S. Government (Article VII) and it returns to the Senecas land taken under the Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1784, which they held until the 1960’s when the Army Corps of Engineers built Kinzua Dam and flooded the Allegany Valley. 3) Students should understand that wampum was used for treaty making and a wampum treaty was the equivalent of a written treaty document when compared to the U.S. treaty documents. Students should demonstrate empathy in understanding that conceptually, the written document and symbolic Wampum belt showed very different representations of the same understandings. How they are interpreted and by whom established relationships of power. In the end, it is the written document that carries legal weight (The Treaty of Canandauigua). The written document could not exist however, without beginning the treaty by laying wampum and establishing that separate and sovereign nations come to this agreement, as brothers, not as father and son.

Helpful additional readings for analysis: Campisi, Jack and William A. Starna, “On the Road to Canandaigua: The Treaty of 1794” in American Indian Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 4 (Autumn 1995), pp. 467-490. Accessed at: JStore.

Mateusz, M.G. The Treaty of Canandaigua, 1794. New York: Rosen Publishing Group, 2006.

Treaty of Canandaigua, 1794 Transcription

[Editor's Note:The word 'Haudenosaunee' is the traditional by which the Six Nations refer to themselves - not 'Iroquois'. ]

Treaty of Canandaigua: Established the reservation lands throughout NY for the Six Nations

A Treaty Between the United States of America and the Tribes of Indians Called the Six Nations: The President of the United States having determined to hold a conference with the Six Nations of Indians for the purpose of removing from their minds all causes of complaint, and establishing a firm and permanent friendship with them; and Timothy Pickering being appointed sole agent for that purpose; … Now, in order to accomplish the good design of this conference, the parties have agreed on the following articles, which, when ratified by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate of the United States, shall be binding on them and the Six Nations....

ARTICLE 1. Peace and friendship are hereby firmly established, and shall be perpetual, between the United States and the Six Nations.

ARTICLE 2. The United States acknowledge the lands reserved to the Oneida, Onondaga, and Cayuga Nations in their respective treaties with the State of New York, and called their reservations, to be their property; and the United States will never claim the same, nor disturb them, or either of the Six Nations, nor their Indian friends, residing thereon, and united with them in the free use and enjoyment thereof; but the said reservations shall remain theirs, until they choose to sell the same to the people of the United States, who have the right to purchase.

ARTICLE 3. The land of the Seneca Nation is bounded as follows: beginning on Lake Ontario, … … the United States acknowledge all the land within the aforementioned boundaries, to be the property of the Seneca Nation; and the United States will never claim the same, nor disturb the Seneca Nation, nor any of the Six Nations, or of their Indian friends residing thereon, and united with them, in the free use and enjoyment thereof; but it shall remain theirs, until they choose to sell the same, to the people of the United States, who have the right to purchase.

ARTICLE 4. The United States have thus described and acknowledged what lands belong to the Oneidas, Onondagas, Cayugas and Senecas, and engaged never to claim the same, … in the free use and enjoyment thereof.

ARTICLE 5. The Seneca Nation, all others of the Six Nations concurring cede to the United States the right of making a wagon road from Fort Schlosser to Lake Erie, as far south as Buffalo Creek; and the people of the United States shall have the free and undisturbed use of this road for the purposes of traveling and transportation. And the Six Nations and each of them, will forever allow to the people of the United States, a free passage through their lands, and the free use of the harbors and rivers adjoining and within their respective tracts of land, for the passing and securing of vessels and boats, and liberty to land their cargoes, where necessary, for their safety.

ARTICLE 6. In consideration of the peace and friendship hereby established, …the United States now deliver to the Six Nations, and the Indians of the other nations residing among them, a quantity of goods, of the value of ten thousand dollars. And for the same considerations, and with a view to promote the future welfare of the Six Nations, and of their Indian friends aforesaid, the United States will add the sum of three thousand dollars to the one thousand five hundred dollars heretofore allowed to them…, making in the whole four thousand five hundred dollars; which shall be expended yearly, forever…

ARTICLE 7. Lest the firm peace and friendship now established should be interrupted by the misconduct of individuals, the United States and the Six Nations agree, that for injuries done by individuals, on either side, no private revenge or retaliation shall take place; but, instead thereof, complaint shall be made by the party injured, to the other; by the Six Nations or any of them, to the President of the United States, or the superintendent by him appointed; and by the superintendent, or other person appointed by the President, to the principal chiefs of the Six Nations, or of the Nation to which the offender belongs; and such prudent measures shall then be pursued, as shall be necessary to preserve or peace and friendship unbroken, until the Legislature (or Great Council) of the United States shall make other equitable provision for that purpose.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Timothy Pickering, and the sachems and war chiefs of the said Six Nations, have hereunto set their hands and seals.

Done at Canandaigua, in the State of New York, in the eleventh day of November, in the year one thousand seven hundred and ninety-four.

Signatures…. http://www.oswego.edu/library2/archives/digitized_collections/granger/canandaiguatreaty.html

1/23/11

Analyzing Wampum

January 26, 2011 Biographies of the Naon Winter Colloquium

Essenal Quesons

1. What is Wampum? 2. How did the first treaes between the U.S. government and the Six Naons establish precedents for future relaons?

1 1/23/11

Proclamaon of 1763

• Lands west of the Appalachian Mountains were declared Indian Territory • Britain needed me to regulate commerce and selement in this newly ceded territory. • The colonists did not support the proclamaon. • To the colonists, it appeared that the crown would be regulang how lands were awarded • Many resented that local control (through colonial governors) seemed not to apply to the new territory.

Context

• Indians had their own alliances and enemies, and individual naons’ conquests of territory in North America was fluid prior to European colonizaon.

2 1/23/11

The Iroquois and the American Revoluon • During the American Revoluon, Britain supported Indian naons in this territory by providing weapons and encouraging froner warfare with the colonists. • The Iroquois split in their support between the United States and Great Britain. This split fractured the Six Naons. • Aer the American Revoluon, the U.S. named this new territory the Northwest Territory. In order for the United States to organize and sele the territory, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 standardized western land selement and organizaon.

Wampum

Another approach to treaty‐making

3 1/23/11

Making and maintaining alliances: The importance of Wampum • Wampum were ny shells and beads woven into belts • Served as a contract between two pares • Record tribal history • Sign of sincerity before treaty talks

Wampum

• Atlanc whelks (type of shell) made the tubular beads • Atlanc clam (Quahog) made the rectangular purple beads • Serious agreements were recorded with purple the predominant color • Wampum makers were skilled arsans. They were trained in how to record tribal history.

The Hiawatha Belt

• Test your powers of analysis. Note colors. Purple is a serious agreement. This is most likely the oldest recorded Wampum Belt. • Clue: Count the number of symbols!

4 1/23/11

Iroquois Confederaon (Haudenosanunee “People of the Longhouse”) • Prior to 18th Century (Five Naons) – Mohawk – Oneida – Onondaga – Cayuga – Seneca • Aer 18th Century (Six Naons) – Tuscarora

The Haudenosanunee

Hiawatha Belt

• Represents the first United Naons agreement (Probably 16th Century) • Pine Tree is at the center (Great Peace) • All joined by 5 Iroquois Naons

“The Peacemaker used as a symbol of our Confederacy not a flag, but a tree, the great white pine. The Tree of Peace. And at the base of that tree grow four white roots in the four cardinal direcons of the earth: north, south, east, and west. And any naon that can embrace the concepts of peace, power, and righteousness can follow back one of those roots to the tree of Peace and join there with us." G. Peter Jemison, Faithkeeper, Caaraugus Reservaon of the Seneca Naon

5 1/23/11

Two Row Wampum Belt

• Test your abilies! Sketch the Wampum Belt in your notebook. Be sure to indicate colors. • Now, hypothesize as to its meaning.

Two‐Row Wampum

• Thought to be the first treaty between a European Naon and the Five Naons • Between Dutch in New York and Five Naons in the 17th century • Declaraon of Friendship and Coexistence • Called Guswenta • 4 . long, 2 rows of purple beads, separated by three links between • 3 links symbolize Peace, Friendship, Forever • This is the ulmate treaty between the Five Naons and European (and later) American governments.

6 1/23/11

Two Row Wampum also Covenant Chain Treaes • Baseline for treaes between Iroquois and North American governments (European to U.S.) • Two sovereign naons • Separate, but parallel • Coexistence without interference

You say that you are our Father and I am your son. We say, We will not be like Father and Son, but like Brothers. This wampum belt confirms our words. These two rows will symbolize two paths or two vessels, traveling down the same river together. One, a birch bark canoe, will be for the Indian People, their laws, their customs and their ways. The other, a ship, will be for the white people and their laws, their customs and their ways. We shall each travel the river together, side by side, but in our boat. Neither of us will interfere in the internal affairs of the other. Neither of us will try to steer the other's vessel.

Who benefits?

• Jigsaw Read: The Treaty of Canandaigua—Each person reads only one arcle—Arcle 1 and Intro are together • Take Notes: Column 1=How does the treaty benefit the U.S. government? • Take Notes: Column 2=How does the treaty benefit the Six Naons? • Report back to your group

7 1/23/11

Design a Wampum Belt

• If you were the Haudenosaunee arsan designing the wampum belt for this treaty, what would it look like? • As a group, design a Treaty of Canandaigua wampum belt. • Present your design to the class. • Remember: This treaty is sll in existence! It has been strained, but is not broken.

The Canandaigua Treaty (1794) Washington Covenant Belt

Great Chain, or Covenant Belt

• Thought to be presented by the U.S. government to the Iroquois in 1794 to mark the Treaty of Canandaigua • 13 figures are linked by wampum and form chain of friendship between 13 states and Iroquois confederacy • Longhouse with 2 figures is the Iroquois Confederacy (Mohawk are the Keepers of the Eastern Door and Seneca are the Keepers of the Western Door) • Length is 6 ., 3 ½ inches and Width is 5 ¼ inches. • There are 15 rows of beads ~10,000 beads

8 1/23/11

Understanding Language

• Now examine the Treaty Belt • Discuss with your group: How is the text of the treaty like the belt? How is the text of the treaty different from the belt?

Essenal Queson(s)

1. What is Wampum? 2. How did the first treaes between the U.S. government and the Six Naons establish precedents for future relaons?

Websites

• Weave a Virtual Wampum Belt: hp://www.navetech.org/beadwork/ wampumgraph/index.html • History Through Arts Wampum Lesson: hp://www.historythrougharts.org/main/ program/americanindian/Wampum.pdf • Smithsonian Instuon Wampum Lesson Plan: hp://americanart.si.edu/exhibions/online/ catlinclassroom/lessonplans/al‐bplan.html

9 1/23/11

Resources

• The Covenant Chain: hp://www.iroquoisdemocracy.pdx.edu/html/ covenantchain.htm • Treaty of Fort Stanwix: hp://earlytreaes.unl.edu/treaty.00007.html • Cayuga Naon Treaes: hp://www.cayuganaon‐nsn.gov/Home/LandRights/ Treaes/TreatyofCanandaigua • Canandaigua Treaty Belt Info: hp://www.cayuganaon‐nsn.gov/Home/LandRights/ Treaes/TreatyofCanandaigua

10 ABENAKI BACKGROUNDER 1749 - 1777

The Abenaki are a coalition of Algonquin- speaking peoples who live in southern Quebec, Maine and Northern New England. They were allied with the Micmac, the Sokoki, Passamaquoddy, and Penobscots of Maine. By the Seventeenth Century, they occupied a precarious position between the Iroquois to the west, the French colonies to the north, and the English colonies to the south. Odanak, or Saint Francis, on the St. Lawrence River in Quebec emerged as a mission village and refugee center for Abenakis fleeing the Iroquois onslaught during the “Beaver Wars” of the 1670’s and 1680’s. During these Wars, the Iroquois waged massive campaigns to seize furs, trapping grounds, and especially captives among French-allied Indians of the Great Lakes region. Nevertheless, the Abenaki resisted the pressure to join the French when they went to war against the Iroquois. Early on, they recognized the dangers of dependence on any single European power, preferring to play one off against the other up to the time of the American Revolution. The Abenaki way of life – one that involved family bands seasonally dispersing out over a wide from Odanak and other centers, such as Missisquoi, to hunt, fish and trap - worked well as a subsistence pattern for countless generations, serving also as a strategy for keeping their casualties low during the colonial wars with the English.

Both France and Britain placed the The Abenakis and their allies under great pressure during the decades leading up to the French and Indian War (The Seven Years War, 1754 - 1763). In 1749 the French reoccupied the upper St. John's River. By blaming the British for a smallpox epidemic that had broken out among the Micmac during the war and supplying arms and ammunition, the French were able to prolong the fighting in Nova Scotia until 1752. By 1755 the British had decided to reassert their control of the Maritimes by deporting the entire French Acadian population, which had steadfastly refused to sign an oath of loyalty to Great Britain. Things were also very tense in western New England, and the Sokoki at St. Francis threatened war in 1752 if there was any further English settlement up the Connecticut River. The murder of two of Abenaki hunters by New Englanders the following year brought retaliatory raids by the Abenaki against the New England frontier during the summer of 1754. In preparing for war, the French had encouraged the mission villages along the St. Lawrence (Caughnawaga, Lake of the Two Mountains, St. Francis, Becancour, Oswegatchie, Lorette, and St. Regis) to organize themselves as the Seven Nations of Canada, also known asThe Great Fire of Caughnawaga. The Caughnawaga (The Iroquois of Canada) dominated the Seven Nations and attended the Albany Conference with the British colonies (August, 1754), serving as the “older brothers” of the Abenaki and Sokoki, much as the Iroquois Six Nations did for the Ohio Indians. Speaking on behalf of the Abenaki and Sokoki, the Caughnawaga agreed to stay out of any future war between Britain and France. Unfortunately, it was a promise that could not be kept. The opening shots of the French and Indian War (1755-63) were actually fired in 1754 in western Pennsylvania. Raids from Missisquoi and St. Francis (Odanak) hit the frontier in New York that year, and the Penobscot attacked Maine settlements, prompting the Massachusetts governor to offer bounties of: £50 for a male Penobscot prisoner, £40 for a male scalp, £25 for a woman/child prisoner, and £20 for a woman/child scalp. In 1755 the British had assembled a large military expedition under General Edmund Braddock to capture Fort Duquesne (Pittsburgh). Strangely enough, the allies that helped the French inflict the horrendous defeat on Braddock's army

1. near Pittsburgh were, for the most part, not from the Ohio valley, but warriors from the Seven Nations of Canada led by a Huron war chief from Lorette. Abenaki and Sokoki warriors also participated in French general Montcalm's campaign in northern New York, where it is rumored that the Penobscot initiated the massacre that followed the capture of Fort William Henry in 1757. Meanwhile, an Abenaki war party from Becancour raiding near Albany gathered up the last 60 New England Algonquins at Schaghticook and resettled them back in the Abenaki settlement of St. Francis (Odanak) on the south bank of the St. Lawrence River. The frontier areas in Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire, New England suffered relatively few Indian attacks during the war, especially after the colonial rangers commanded by Major Robert Rogers attacked and burned St. Francis during the fall of 1759. Rogers claimed to have killed 200 Abenaki (including the French priest), but the French records listed only 30 dead. The Abenaki rades Charlestown in retaliation, but the St. Francis Abenakis dispersed after the raid and were effectively taken out of the war. After the capture of Quebec in 1759, the war was over in North America, although the French did not officially leave until 1763. Rogers’ decimation of Odanak (St. Francis) burned an intractable memory of war and its consequences in the collective Abenaki consciousness, providing a tragic cautionary of the perils of ever going to war again. Peace did not come uniformly, and Rogers Rangers were required to expel the French from the St. John's River in 1760. Even then a British survey crew was warned by the Maliseet to remain on the lower part of the river. Peace with the St. John's tribes and their eastern Abenaki allies did not really happen until after treaties were signed in 1770 and 1776, and peace with the Micmac took another three years. Elsewhere, with the French defeated and the Abenaki scattered into small groups, settlers flooded north between 1761 and 1774. With their lands being overrun, the Seven Nations (the Caughnawaga) considered joining the Pontiac Rebellion in 1763, but in the end urged peace. The British response to the uprising was to issue the Proclamation of 1763 halting further settlement west of the Appalachian crest. However, Sir William Johnson, the British Indian agent for North America, ruled that this did not cover lands claimed by the Caughnawaga, Sokoki, and Abenaki. cold. Johnson’s ruling left the Abenaki without a homeland. After years of passing back-and-forth across the border, Quebec considered them New England Indians, and New England felt they belonged in Canada. During the war, many Abenaki and Sokoki had been given refuge at the St. Regis, but with the end of the fighting, the Mohawk wanted them to leave, but they no longer had a place to go. Some stayed as unwelcome guests, others were absorbed by the “St. Francis Indians” in the multiethnic town of Odanak on the banks of the St. Lawrence River, but many were forced to scatter in small bands across northern New England as squatters in their own homeland. It was not surprising that, on the eve of the American Revolution in 1775, Catholic Abenaki and many former French allies longed for the return of French rule to North America. The American Revolution presented the Abenaki with two poor choices, namely between the Americans who were taking their land and the British who were giving it away. The Abenaki way of life that involved family bands dispersing over wide areas worked well as a subsistence pattern for generations and allowed them to respond to the pressures of war by pulling back into their territory and to continue to avoid direct involvement with the British. In Canada, the British attempted to confine the Abenaki to Odanak (St. Francis) to control their activities and their loyalties, but the Abenaki used the town only as a seasonal home, and their mobile life style frustrated British efforts at British control. Southward, in Northern New England, the Abenaki has shared long periods of peaceful, if cautious, coexistence with the colonists. The settlers who rushed into Abenaki country after the French defeat in 1760 brought dispossession and hardship for the Abenaki but they also mingled with them in remote frontier communities. Many of the Abenaki also were the children or grandchildren of Anglo American settlers, captured by Abenaki warriors during the century’s colonial wars and adopted into Abenaki families. Confronted with the choice between British redcoats, their foes during the colonial wars, and American colonists, many of whom they came to know as neighbors and even kin, the Abenaki sometimes felt stronger loyalties to the latter. Furthermore, both the Abenaki and their fictive Iroquois overlords, the Caughnawaga, were reluctant to go to war with the Americans because some of the sons of their leading families were students or alumni of Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. The Abenaki of Odanak (St. Francis) disagreed about what course to pursue in the Revolution, but beneath the surface confusion and ambivalence, all Abenaki at all times shared the goal of preserving their community and keeping the war at arms length. “O, strange Englishmen kill one another. I think the world is coming to an end,” exclaimed an Abenaki woman, “Why should we fight for t’other country, for we never see t’other country; our hunting is in this country?” But, neutrality was becoming difficult. The American invasion of Canada in 1775 placed Odadanak in the direct line of fire and demanded an early decision by the Abenaki.

2.

The Abenaki During and After the Revolution

In the beginning, the Seven Nations and other Abenaki were asked to remain neutral but ended up fighting on both sides. Already involved in a struggle with the British over settlement in northern Maine and the Canadian Maritimes, and perhaps hoping the revolution would get rid of the British and restore the French in Canada, various Abenaki divisions, such as the Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, Maliseet and Micmac, sided with the Americans. The St. Francois were divided but some helped the Americans besiege Boston and provided guides for Benedict Arnold's ill-fated expedition against Quebec during the winter of 1776-77. The Penobscot also served as scouts for Washington's army, and in 1779 participated in the unsuccessful American attack against the British forts on the Penobscot River. Colonel John Allen formed an Abenaki regiment at Machias which harassed British shipping along the Maine coast during the war. Meanwhile, other Abenaki served with the British and raided Maine's Androscoggin valley in 1781. As the Revolution entered its closing years, many Canadian Abenakis, such as those at Odanak, and Joseph Louis Gill in particular, gave indications of newfound devotion to the British. The Redcoats suspected them of double-dealing, and perhaps with good reason; after all, the Abenaki knew all too well the consequences of putting all their eggs in one basket, having been left high and dry by the defeat of their French allies in 1760. Pro-British sentiment increased as the British lost the war. By the time Gill took his oath of allegiance to King George the Abenakis probably sensed that no invasion was coming. Their need for a “play-off” system between the two powers decreased, and they proceeded to mend their diplomatic fences with the British. Whatever the result of the American struggle for independence, Odanak still would have to live with - and in - the reality of a British Canada. Abenakis might continue covertly to assist the rebels, but they also had to put by some insurance for when the war was over. Having done so, they were able to request a grant of lands in subsequent years in recognition of their services. Like other Indian communities along the Saint Lawrence, Odanak played no great role in the American Revolution. the Abenakis fought no major military actions, and their ambiguous stance frustrated Britons and Americans alike. But by successfully keeping the Revolution at arm’s length, they avoided devastating losses. Unlike their parents during the French and Indian War and unlike their contemporaries in New York, the Ohio Valley, and the Smoky Mountains, the Abenakis did not have to endure the burning of their homes and the destruction of their crops. Odanak survived the Revolution, politically divided but physically intact. In a conflict that tolerated no neutrals, internal turmoil was a small price to pay for group survival. The support lent the American cause by many Abenakis in Vermont and New Hampshire should have entitled them to claim special protection from the the newly independent states and the new republic, but that wasn’t the case. The leaders of the state and federal governments did nothing to stop the postwar land-grabbing of Ethan and Ira Allen in Vermont. In New Hampshire, the son of Timothy Bedel, who once recommended a small reservation for the friendly Abenaki around Coos, grabbed a huge swath of Abenaki territory in defiance of federal law. After the war the Abenaki Penobscot and Passamaquoddy received some recognition for their services on behalf of the American Revolutionaries, and by 1798

1. Massachusetts established three small reservations for them in northern Maine (Maine was not a state until 1820). The treaty was a clear violation of the Non-Intercourse Act passed by Congress in 1790, and led to a $81.5 million federal settlement in 1978 for lands taken from them without compensation. Federal recognition followed in 1980. The Passamaquoddy and Penobscot were granted representation in the Maine legislature in 1823, but their representatives had no status except in matters concerning Native Americans. Tribal members were not allowed to vote in state elections until 1924. The Canadian Abenaki at St. Francois and Bécancour were granted reserves. These were enlarged to accommodate an enlarged population in 1805, although the land was reclaimed in 1839 for "nonuse." During the War of 1812, the "last time the Abenaki went to war," Bécancour provided two companies to the British army. The St. Francois and Bécancour have endured to the present, although groups have left over the years. Many went west and worked with the Hudson Bay Company during the 1800s. Small groups of Abenaki have been moving west to the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley since they accompanied La Salle's expedition in 1680. The French encouraged one group to move to Ohio in 1721, but upon learning the Abenaki had proposed an alliance with the Fox (who were at war with the French at the time), the invitation was withdrawn. Several small groups still managed to settle along the Ohio River by the 1750. In 1787 some of the Abenaki with the Iroquois at St. Regis left. Crossing the Mississippi, they settled on the White River in Spanish Arkansas. After the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, they apparently merged with the Delaware and Shawnee who lived nearby and later moved with them, first to Kansas and then Oklahoma. Vermont became a state in 1791, but neither it nor the United States has ever recognized the land claims or tribal status of the Abenaki living there. The Sokoki presented claims for parts of their homeland in 1798, 1800, 1812, 1826, 1853, and 1874, but all were rejected by the State of Vermont.

2. Joseph Louis Gill (Magouaouidombaouit) Abenaki

Joseph Louis Gill, the “White Chief of the Saint Francis Abenaki,” was the son of Samuel Gill and Rosalie James. Samuel Joseph Gill was an English boy, taken captive at Salisbury, Massachusetts when he was nine or ten years old and brought to St. Francois Du Lac Indian Mission (St. Francis, or Odanak) near Quebec in 1697. Samuel was baptized as a Catholic and raised as an Abenaki boy at the Odanak Indian mission. The fact that Samuel's son Joseph Louis became an important chief and married the daughter of a chief strongly suggests Samuel was adopted into one of the leading families, probably that of a chief. (St. Francis Mission was made up of several tribes, which had fled English inroads in Maine and New Hampshire. There were four chiefs at Odanak, with one chosen as head chief.). Samuel's own father made two trips to Canada to persuade his son to return home to his friends and family, but Samuel came to love his new life and adoptive Abenaki family, and he refused to return. He had status as a full family and tribal member and willingly lived all the rest of his life as an Indian. When Samuel grew up, he married another former captive, raised as he was, named Rosalie James. Rosalie James was captured as child and brought to St. Francois Du Lac Indian mission, where she grew up. It had been thought she was captured from Massachusetts, but the "Ne-Do-Ba" web page (Abenaki Genealogy) says new evidence indicates she may have been taken in a raid on the lower Mississippi. Rosalie and Joseph had several children, most of whom, such as Joseph Louis, married into Abenaki Indian families. Joseph Louis Gill, therefore, was raised as a traditional Abenaki. and mostly likely fought with the French against the British during the French and Indian War (1754 - 1763). His first wife, an Abenaki woman named Marie Jeanne, was the daughter of Odanak’s “Grand Sachem” (Chief). By virtue of traditional Abenaki matrilineal descent, Gill and Marie’s male children, thereby, became eligible for the office of Grand Sachem. Gill and Marie Jeanne had two or three children. Tragically, only one member of Gill’s family, their son Antonine, survived the 1760 raid and slaughter of Odanak Abenaki by Robert Rogers’ New Hampshire Royal Rangers during the French and Indian War. The death of the Gill family and the burning of Odanak at the hands of the British colonial rangers burned deeply into Abenaki memory. In 1763, Gill married the daughter of a French militia captain, Antoine Gameline. Together they produced six sons and two daughters. The Rogers’ raid, the resulting death of his family, and Gill’s subsequent matrimonial alliance with the French Canadians across the St. Lawrence River from Odanak precipitated in Gill a deep resentment and distrust of the British Empire ... but also of the American colonials, their rangers and militias. At the outbreak of the Revolution, the Odanak community split into two shifting camps: a pro-British factions lead by older Abenaki and a pro-American faction, largely of younger Abenaki, that gathered about Joseph Louis Gill. Gill and the Odanak Abenaki had close ties with the French Canadian village across the St. Lawrence River, where Joseph Travesty was an active rebel collaborator. During the war, Gill moved freely between Odanak and the rebel settlements in the upper Connecticut Valley, and his brother-in-law Annance went over to the Americans early in the war. Fearing the defection of the Abenaki to the Americans, the British sent first a French Canadian in the British Army, Hertel de Rouville, and later Will Crofts of His Majesty’s 34th Regiment to keep and eye on on Odanak. By taking up residence in Odanak, these British officers attempted to concentrate the Abenaki in the town, restrict their traditional hunting forays south into New Hampshire, Connecticut, and Maine, and prevent contact with the American rebels by dispatching patrols along the St. Francis River. But these measures failed, provoking only resentment among the Abenaki. Abenaki scouts and guides assisted the American Benedict Arnold’s failed attempt to capture Quebec in 1775. In November 1777, Abenaki delegates from Odanak, perhaps Gill himself, accompanied pro-American Oneida Iroquois to a day-long conference with American Indian commissioners. The Americans could offer little material benefits in exchange for Abenaki support, yet by the winter of 1777 some Abenaki warriors and their families had immigrated from Odanak to the upper Connecticut Valley where they placed themselves at the service of the American New Hampshire Rangers. In August 1778, Gill was in Haverhill, Connecticut in rebel American territory, having been pushed out of Odanak by the arrival of an occupying force of British and Hessian troops under Captain Alexander Fraser who “made great threats” against the pro-American Abenaki faction and clamped an iron grip on the town. At Haverhill, “The Chief from Saint Francis”(Gill), according to the American account, wanted to know what the Americans intended to do for his people, “as he [Gill] says we have a great many friends that way.” Gill had not yet taken up arms for either side in the war, but his pro-American stance and the British occupation of Odanak were eroding British support there as a the younger generation of Abenaki fell behind Gill, who Fraser accused of “abusing the ears of the [St. Francis] Indians.” Pro-British sentiment in Odanak, however, was bolstered by news brought north from Connecticut that “upwards of 30 families,” all pro-American Abenaki, were “almost naked and starving” and would return to Odanak and the British if they were welcomed back. This discouraging news from the south may have increased the Crown party’s following because in May 1779 a number of Abenaki asked British governor Haldiman’s permission to allow them to send a war party of twenty to thirty men to Coos “to put that country into confusion.” At the same time, the British efforts to concentrate and confine the Abenaki to Odanak precipitated great discontent among Abenaki hunters, who wanted to leave the town limits to travel south for their traditional seasonal round of hunting and trapping. Four years into the Revolutionary War, the Abenaki were keeping the paths to Odanak open to all comers and committing themselves to none. The U.S. Congress, in the meantime, intensified their efforts to secure Abenaki allegiance. John Wheelock, President of Dartmouth College, urged Congress to appropriate funds to support the college and increase scholarships for Caughnawaga and Abenaki families who traditionally sent their sons there as a means of maintaining Indian loyalty to the American cause. George Washington, in turn, endorsed a recommendation that Joseph Louis Gill be granted an officer’s commission in the Continental Army. Gill thought himself entitled to the rank of major, “having been a long time a Captain.” In April 1779, the U.S. Congress granted Gill an officer’s commission and provided that all Abenakis who were willing to join the service of the United States “be collected and formed into a Company or Companies of the said Joseph Louis Gill & receive while in the Service the like pay[,] Subsistence & Rations with the officers and Soldiers of the Continental Army.” Gill had thrown his lot in with that of the Americans ... or had he?

Portions of this biography excerpted from Colin G. Calloway, The American Revolution in Indian Country (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995), pp, 65-84. Joseph Louis Gill’s Decision

In the Autumn of 1779, following the granting of his military commission by the U.S. Congress, Gill returned to Odanak ... and took an oath of allegiance to King George. According to the British, Gill returned from Connecticut “full of contrition for his past conduct and Profession of loyalties for the time to Come.” In 1780, Captain Alexander Fraser of the British Indian Department visited Odanak to report on conditions there and cultivate friendship with Gill. Fraser found the place a hotbed of politics and intrigue. Meeting with Gill to root out the cause of the trouble, Fraser reminded the chief that here was his chance to prove himself a loyal subject. Fraser concluded that “the present despicable state ... must be the effect of evil councils which divided them or a want of wisdom in their Chiefs.” Gill agreed that the problem lay with the chiefs, but since Abenaki leadership traditionally rested on voluntary obedience, he felt the problem was that the chiefs were too overbearing in their behavior toward the warriors (“They are the very opposite of that,” editorialized Fraser in his report.) Continuing the British practice of interfering in Abenaki chief-making, Fraser suggested making Gill the principal chief, “providing he would undertake to unite the Village, and conduct them in a loyal and useful manner.” Fearing this move might excite jealousy, however, Fraser advocated putting Gill’s son Antoine in the position. Gill agreed, pointing out that his son had more right to it anyway, being descended matrilineally from a chief himself through his mother, Marie Jeanne, who was the daughter of the “Grand Sachem” of Odanak.

Fraser assured Gill that his son would be appointed chief, but demanded that the family first prove its loyalty to the Crown by striking a blow against the rebellious Americans. He dismissed Gill’s protestations that British threats and heavy-handed control of Odanak caused his defection to the American’s in the first place. The British governor, in turn, pardoned Gill’s errors, but Gill had to give proof of his change of heart. If Gill gave any hint in the future of conniving with rebel scouts, the British would burn Odanak and drive his family into exile. So, Gill accepted the role of compliant yet valuable client chief, who, he admitted, “had been a very bad Subject” of King George but would convince the world that he could be a good one. Disingenously exaggerating his own influence over the libertarian Abenaki, Gill said he would “immediately take measures to bring back all the Abenakis that are amongst the Rebels & he was sure he could do it, and he would also be responsible for their future good behavior.” In an effort to prove his newfound loyalty to King George, Gill went on a secret mission to the upper Connecticut with ten warriors and captured American general Benjamin Whitcomb. But Whitcomb escaped on the way back to Odanak, reinforcing British suspicions that their new ally, Gill, was playing both ends against the middle. In fact, the Americans later reported that Gill’s actions were explained in terms of the consistent strategy of the Abenaki. Gill allowed Whitcomb to escape on the assurance that, if the Americans invaded Canada again, they would not burn Odanak. The memory of Rogers’ raid in which he had lost a wife and children, was vivid in Gill’s memory. He volunteered, under British pressure, to go on the mission against the Americans to safeguard Odanak, and he allowed the mission to fail in order to safeguard Odanak. Lest he burn his bridges with the British, he brought in another prisoner taken in the raid. The Revolution was but one phase in a continuing Abenaki struggle to maintain their lands and independence against all comers - French, British, or Americans - if necessary by dealing with them all. For an Abenaki, such as Gill, whether the Americans won or lost was probably of less importance than whether the Americans succeeded in invading Canada again and successfully this time. For years, the Abenaki had sent messages to the Americans that they awaited expectantly for another invasion to follow Arnold’s failed attempt. The threat that such an invasion posed to Odanak was more important than the impact of the war. Odanak ended the war as it began it: as both a channel for rebel intelligence and a source of scouting parties for the British. On the upper Connecticut, Captain John Vincent’s company of Abenaki rangers continued in service with the Americans at least 1781. The must roll of Vincent’s troops in May listed seventeen Abenaki, but the Captain told General Washington that “a much larger number has been here at times but are not steady and though I do not think they have ever done us any damage but are rambling in the woods those inserted have been serviceable as scouts &c.” He reckoned he had fed and supported about fifty Abenaki soldiers from Odanak from November 1778 to February 1781 when they werein from hunting, which was about half the time. On the British side, the English continued to send scouting parties from Odanak although they acknowledged that the purposes of such forays were to keep other Abenakis at home in Odanak. A British officer later described Gill as “man whose service to the Crown merits some attention,” and secured his permission before sending Abenaki scouting parties south to spy on the Americans. Despite these services on behalf of the Crown, the Abenaki at Odanak resented the restraints placed on them by the British. By July 1782, they were “very impatient to have Liberty to Goe to their Different occupations,” which consisted of their traditional seasonal round of hunting, trapping, and fishing, their routine and seasonal movement between Odanak and Lake Memphremagog.

As the Revolution entered its closing years, many Abenakis at Odanak, and Joseph Louis Gill in particular, gave indications of newfound devotion to the British. The Redcoats suspected them of double-dealing, and perhaps with good reason; after all, the Abenaki knew all too well the consequences of putting all their eggs in one basket, having been left high and dry by the defeat of their French allies in 1760. Pro-British sentiment increased as the British lost the war. By the time Gill took his oath of allegiance to King George the Abenakis probably sensed that an American invasion of Canada would not be forthcoming. The opportunities for Abenaki leaders to play Britain off against the American rebels decreased. Consequently, the Abenaki proceeded to mend their diplomatic fences with the British. Whatever the result of the American struggle for independence, Odanak still would have to live with - and in - a British Canada. Abenakis might continue covertly to assist the rebels, but they also had to create some insurance for that time when the war was over. Having done so, they were able to request a grant of lands in subsequent years in recognition of their services. In switching his loyalties back and forth, Gill had played his cards well. Like other Indian communities along the Saint Lawrence, Odanak played no great role in the American Revolution. The Abenakis fought no major military actions, and their ambiguous stance frustrated Britons and Americans alike. But by successfully keeping the Revolution at arm’s length, they avoided devastating losses. Unlike their parents during the French and Indian War and unlike their Indian contemporaries in New York, the Ohio Valley, and the Smoky Mountains, the Abenakis did not have to endure the burning of their homes and the destruction of their crops. Odanak survived the Revolution, politically divided but physically intact. In a conflict that tolerated no neutrals, internal turmoil was a small price to pay for group survival. Molly Ockett Abenaki 1744 - 1816

Molly’s Kennebec Abenaki name was Singing Bird. Her Christian name was Marie Agatha. She probably pronounced her baptismal name "Mali Agget," which sounded like Molly Ockett to the English settlers. Molly claimed that she was the daughter and granddaughter of chiefs. One story states that she was 15 when she hid in the bushes during the devastating raid by Roger's’ Rangers at Odanak (St. Francis) which killed many Abenaki and incinerated the town in 1759. This is backed up by a story Molly told a friend of traveling to Canada when the trail was littered with the skeletons of her people. She said she was young when she made the trip. Around 1755 smallpox nearly wiped out the bands living in the Upper Androscoggin and Upper Connecticut River, and the skeletons she saw were the remains of the inhabitants of Abenaki towns whose entire populations were wiped out by the epidemic, leaving no one to bury the dead.

Who was Molly? First and foremost Molly was an Abenaki healing woman. She wandered throughout the Upper Androscoggin and Connecticut Rivers in traditional Abenaki manner. She collected her healing medicines and provided for herself as she had been taught by her ancestors. Molly also was a skilled hunter. If she made a large kill near a settlement she would seek help from the locals - Indians and Europeans - to drag out the kill and shared generously with her assistants. She administered her remedies to the settlers whenever and whereever there was a need, never accepting more than one penny for her services. Molly was the only doctor available to most of these early Anglo-American settlers. A story told by the Hamlin family of Paris Hill tells of her saving the life of the infant Hannibal Hamlin and predicting that he would become a very famous man. She touched their lives in many positive ways. Molly was described by the Anglo settlers as a "pretty, gentle, generous squaw [an unwittingly pejorative term for a woman] ...possessed a large frame and features, and walked remarkably erect even in old age" and "kind in her disposition and unswerving in her devotion to truth". Molly generally got along well with whites but sometimes had problems understanding their attitudes. One Sunday Molly picked some blueberries and brought them to Mrs. Chapman of Bethel. The woman scolded Molly for picking berries on Sunday. When Molly returned several weeks later she said "Choke me! I was right in picking the blueberries on Sunday, it was so pleasant, and I was so happy that the Great Spirit had provided them for me." Some say she converted from Catholicism to Methodism. She was quoted as saying Methodists were "drefful clever folks" and, at times, she attended their church services. She was probably just covering all the bases. One writer describes her normal dress as a "long one piece dress to her ankles, sleeves cut half way to wrists, fringed at hemline and sleeves, leather band around her forehead with single white feather in the back". Most accounts describe her as dressing in the fashion common to Indians and wearing a pointed cap that would be appropriate for an Abenaki woman of this period.

Molly was well known in Poland, Maine where she often visited the springs. Molly claimed the springs had medicinal powers. The local residents paid little attention to her as many thought of her as an old drunken woman or a witch. However, Molly often visited the modest Inn of Wentworth Ricker and always received a cordial welcome. Mr. Ricker's family must have paid some attention to her beliefs, for it was his descendants that established the famous Poland Springs Resort. Another man from West Poland also listened to Molly. He fondly remembered some thoughts she shared with him when he was a young boy. She told him "Never marry a woman who don't love flowers or trust a person who hates music or children. When you find yourself in bad company get out of it at once and remember that as you pass through life's journey your greatest troubles will be found to result from ignorance." Molly definitely had a sly sense of humor. One story tells of how she conned Wentworth Ricker out of a bottle of rum one very cold night by convincing him that she was about to die from a tooth ache. Another tells how she fooled a priest out of $40 around 1774. She traveled to the Priest in Canada and explained that her husband had died without the benefit of absolution. After the priest performed the prayers, Molly asked if her husband was now released from purgatory. The priest replied that he was on his way to heaven. Molly scooped up the money she had offered. The priest became upset and said that he would send her husband back to purgatory. Molly replied "No you can't. Me sannap (husband), be cunning. He does not get in bad place but once. When he gets in bad place once and get out safe he stick up stake so he knows." When Molly was in the Fryeburg vicinity she camped in a cave-like rock shelter near the base of Jockey Cap Mountain. She had a birch bark camp at Bethel on the North side of the Androscoggin River. At Andover she was known for her beautiful baskets and other small crafts that she sold to the locals. The histories of Andover, Rumford, Canton, Poland, Minot, Trap Corner, Paris Hill, Bethel, North Conway, Fryeburg, and Baldwin all proudly claim that Molly was a resident of their town. Molly's nomadic lifestyle would lead to established camp sites in these places and many others as well. Molly claimed the lands of these towns as belonging to her by birthright.

Molly treated Henry Tufts for a serious knife wound around 1772. At that time they were with the Cowas Bands of Swassin (Swashan), Philip, & Tomhegan in the Upper Androscoggin. Henry lived with these bands for 3 years. He recorded that they traveled to Quebec each spring to trade their winter furs for blankets, guns, and ammunition. Henry Tufts referred to Molly, Sabatis, and Philip as doctors. He was eager to learn about Abenaki medicine and asked questions. Tufts said "In general they were explicit in communication, still I thought them in possession of secrets they cared not to reveal."

Information about Molly's husband(s) and children is very confusing at best. He may have been married to Sabatis of the Cowas band. Sabatis was captured as a young boy by Roger's Rangers in their attack on St. Francis in 1759. It is said he was very fond of liquor, and Molly eventually parted company with him because he was very foul when drunk. It seems Molly was properly married to Capt. John Sussup in 1766 but she is also reported living with Sabatis during this marriage. It is believed she had children by both men. Captain John Sussup (John Joseph) served with the French at the defeat of Braddock's British army in 1755.

When the Revolutionary War broke out in 1775, Molly and Captain John Sussup were living and traveling among the scattered American settlements of northern New England. Like all Abenaki, they were suspicious of the British; they were certainly pro-French as reflected in Captain John’s service in the French and Indian war; and, they especially remembered the burning of Odanak by British imperial agents. They also had many acquaintances and friends among the American settlers. Yet like all Abenaki, they preferred to remain neutral in the conflict, a choice made possible by their nomadic life style. Which path would Molly and Sussup take? Molly Ockett and Captain John Sussup’s Decision

Captain John Sussup was probably among the Abenaki who accompanied his fellow member of the Cowas band, Swashan, to fight with Washington at Cambridge. He also may have been among the Abenaki who served as scouts and guides for the American forces during General Benedict Arnold’s ill-fated invasion of Canada. Captain John also probably fought with the New Hampshire Rangers against the British in the upper Connecticut River Valley. There is no record of Molly’s service during the war. She may have been a member of the group of pro-American Abenaki who moved into the Connecticut Valley to follow their families engaged in service with the Americans there.

A Captain Sussup (Molly's husband or son?) was the head of a band that wintered near the headwaters of the Missisquoi River in Vermont during the winter of 1799-1800. Molly was with the band at this time. White settlers in the area observed that the band was in an "almost starving condition...the deer and moose being destroyed by the settlers". Their principal means of subsistence was baskets, birch bark containers, and trinkets” that Molly and others made and sold to the settlers.

Colonel. Clark of Boston was an early trader in the White Mountains and Molly's friend. She saved his life in 1781, and he was forever in her debt. Molly overheard Tomhegan planning a raid. The men were drinking heavily, allowing her to slip away and traveled all night to warn her friend. In gratitude, Clark persuaded her to live in Boston where he would provide for her. She was not cut out for city life and soon returned to her Abenaki homeland.

We know that Molly had a daughter, Molly (sometimes called Molly Sussup and sometimes Molly Peol) who married a Penobscot (possibly Peol Sussup). She attended school at Bethel and spoke fluent English. A man known as Captain John Sussup born about 1768 was probably Molly's son by Captain Sussup. It is likely another daughter was born around 1769 and was the child of Sabatis. In 1798 Molly traveled to Carritunk to assist a son known a Paseel (Basil) to recover from wounds he received in a fight. One daughter is thought to have married a white man and was living in Derby, Vermont by 1800.

In 1816 Molly was camped with Metallic at Lake Molechunkamunk (Upper Richardson Lake). She became ill while camped here. Metallic reportedly brought her to Andover and stayed with her until the Thomas Bragg family took over her care as a ward of the state. Mr. Bragg made her a traditional Abenaki cedar bark camp in a clump of pines near his house. Just before her death, she asked to be carried out of her camp and placed on the ground under the sky. She expressed contentment that she had lived an honorable life and died shorty thereafter. Molly is buried in a cemetery ain the town of Andover where she died. Sometime after her death a head stone was placed on her grave. The stone reads: "MOLLY OCKETT Baptized Mary Agatha, died in the Christian Faith, on August 2, A.D., 1816. The Last of the Pequakets.” Swashan Abenaki

Little is know about Swashan’s life. He was a member of the Kennebec division of the Abenaki, who lived in Maine (claimed then by Massachusetts). Specifically, he belonged to the Cowas Band of Kennebec Abenaki who lived in in the Upper Androscoggin River. As such, he probably knew Molly Ockett who also was a member of that band. In 1751, most of the Kennebecs amalgamated with the St. Francis Abenaki in Odanak (St. Francis, Quebec). The Kennebec allied themselves with the French during the French and Indian War (1754 - 1763). Most likely, therefore, Swashan served as a soldier on the side of the French in this conflict. Doubtlessly, he was present with the other Saint Francis Abenaki and Canawhega Mohawks when they attacked and defeated General Braddock and Colonel George Washington. These Kennebecs also sent a war party in 1754 against Fort Richmond, but, after a few menacing words, they retreated. The few who were now left of the original Kennebecs were scattered among the other tribes, and acted as guides to the northern and eastern Indians during the conflict. Swashan and his family also doubtlessly suffered as result of Robert Roger’s Rangers decimation of Odanak in 1763. In 1764 there were but thirty warriors left of the once great tribe of the Kennebecs. The experience of the French and Indian War left Swashan, like the Abenaki Kennebecs, with a strong distaste for the British and a hope that the French might regain Canada. By 1775, Swashan was living back in St. Francis (Odanak), perhaps chaffing under the increasing British control and domination of the town. The competition between the British and the Americans for Abenaki support of their war effort - as reflected in visits by agents and messengers - became so intense, according to an Abenaki woman on the Androscoggin River, that the men of her band could not hunt, eat, or sleep so involved were they in counseling with agents and discussing competing proposals. Shortly thereafter, the few remaining warriors of the Kennebecs gathered at Gardinerston, Maine, where they were persuaded by Paul Higgins, a white man who had lived among the Abenaki from childhood, to join the General Washington’s army that had besieged the British in Boston after the Battle of Lexington and Concord. Headed and guided by Reuben Colburn, they went, to the number of twenty or thirty, in their canoes to Merry-meeting Bay, whence they proceeded on foot, to Washington’s headquarters in Cambridge, Massachusetts, arriving on August 13, 1775. They were not much encouraged by Washington who perhaps still resenting how badly the St. Francis Indians had beaten he and Braddock during the French and Indian War. Accordingly, the small band of Kennebecs returned dejectedly to Saint Francis (Odanak). At Odanak, the rejected Abenaki soldiers conferred with Swashan and requested that he break Abenaki neutrality and aid the Americans. During the first few months of the war, the British had employed Abenaki from St. Francis (Odanak) as scouts, but they suspected them of carrying news to the rebels. Swashan was well aware of the impending invasion of Canada by the Americans, and they feared that neutrality may no longer be a tenable option. Swashan might have thought back to the burning and slaughter of Odanak by Rogers’ Rangers at the conclusion of the French and Indian War and wondered if aligning himself with one combatant or another might bring this carnage down again on the Abenaki. Nevertheless, in 1775, Swashan had to decide to continue his neutrality or ally himself with the British or the Americans. Swashan’ Decision

In the summer of 1775, Swashan decided to offer his assistance to the Americans. In August he and “four other Indians of the Saint Francois tribe” arrived at George Washington’s camp in Cambridge, offered “their service in the cause of American liberty,” and remained throughout the siege of Boston. Swashan said that he would bring half the Abenaki if the Americans wanted. The Massachusetts House of Representatives appointed a committee to confer with the chief, who according to the Bostonians, “appears as an ambassador of that Tribe.” Swashan portrayed the Abenakis as making their own decisions, unintimidated by British threats. New Englanders, for whom the colonial wars and the propaganda they generated were recent memories, retained lingering images of black-robed priests inciting Abenaki warriors to war. But if Jesuit influence was ever significant in Abenaki villages in previous conflicts, it was evidently lacking in this one, as revealed by the committee’s interrogation of Swashan:

Q: Have you a French Priest in your Tribe? A: Yes Q: Has he given you any Advice with Regard to this Dispute? A: Our Priest is not Warriour, and he does not concern himself about it.” It is probable that, after the siege of Boston, Swashan joined the New Hampshire Rangers - less than twenty years after Rogers’ Rangers burned Odanak - and served with them in fighting the British on the upper Connecticut River valley. Many of the pro-American St. Francis Abenaki relocated themselves to the upper Connecticut River Valley. By the winter of 1777-1778, they were starving and begged for help from the American authorities. In May 1778, Swashan and twenty Saint Francis Indians reenlisted with American general Schuyler. Five of the warriors had their families with them, and there were fourteen children in the group.

Abenaki oral tradition recalls that Swashan was back at Missisquoi after the Revolution. Nothing again appears about him in the historical record. In 1795, there were but seven families of the original Kennebec who had survived the war.

The following account was excerpted in part from Colin G. Calloway, The American Revolution in Indian Country ; Crisis and Diversity in Native American Communities. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998), pp. 65-84. Backgrounder: Cherokee History 1754 – 1775

The Cherokees were divided into four groups: the Overhill towns (mainly in the Little Tennessee and Tellico Rivers), the Valley and Middle Settlements in the Blue Ridge region, and the Lower towns in South Carolina. The Cherokee’s geographic location made them strategically important to the English colonies, in the words of a British statesman, “as they form a barrier against powerful incursions of Indians on the Ohio and Illinois tribes and as a counterbalance against the Creeks in case of war with them.” Furthermore, the fertile valleys, described by colonials as “fertile as Manure itself,” ensured that their lands would be coveted by white settlers. The Cherokees themselves were an settled and intensely agricultural people, but a further allure to Europeans was the Chero kee’s prosperous taking, processing, and selling of deerskins which made them some of the richest people on the continent. By the first decades of the Eighteenth Century, the Cherokees formed a strong alliance with the British against the French and their Iroquois and Shawnee allies who hitherto had dominated the rich Kentucky hunting grounds

In the 1730’s and 1740’s, the Cherokee strengthened their military power by forming an alliance with their old enemies, the Chickasaw, against the Shawnees. Cherokee and Chickasaw forces eventually drove the Shawnees out of Kentucky and into the country north of the Ohio River. By 1754, the contest between the French for the new world empire culminated in the Seven Years War (The French and Indian War, 1754-1763) in which alliances with the First Nations became the coveted goal of the European rivals and the key to winning the contest. To maintain their independence and favored trading status, Cherokee leaders played Britain against France, soliciting favors from both colonial powers. To assure that the fickle Cherokees remained loyal, the British built Fort Loudoun near Chota, the principal Cherokee town. Affronted by this threat to their independence, the Cherokee lay siege to the garrison, starved it out, and killed most of the soldiers. In retaliation, the British army invaded the Cherokee nation in 1760 and 1761 and burned the principal Cherokee towns and cornfields, reducing those Cherokee, who survived the military onslaught, to starvation. This invasion, coupled with devastating small pox epidemics in 1738 and 1759-60 reduced the Cherokee population in half (from 20,000 to 12,000). It was a time of staggering changes. New technologies, over-hunting of wildlife, Cherokee adoption of slave labor and the raising of domestic animals such as pigs and cattle combined with this demographic decline to set in motion changes in settlement patterns in which towns began to give way to isolated settlements and more individual farms - on some of which the Cherokees used African slaves - thereby eroding the social cohesion once enjoyed in the more populous towns. Affluence acquired through the deerskin trade and a growing use of alcohol prompted young male Cherokees to challenge to the traditional authority of village headmen and women. Europeans, primarily interested in military alliances and the deerskin trade, dealt almost exclusively with young warriors and hunters, thereby enhancing the power and wealth of the young soldier/hunters at the expense of the older, traditional male and female authorities. By 1770, the Cherokee nation teetered on the edge of fragmentation, factionalism, and generational revolt. Throughout these momentous changes in Cherokee social and political fortunes, four great leaders - “the old and beloved men” - strove to exercise statecraft to preserve Cherokee independence and rebuilt its war-torn towns and political structures: Old Hop (the uku, or Fire King of Chota) who would not live to see the American Revolution, Attakullakulla (Little Carpenter), Oconostota (“the Great Warrior”), and Ostenaco. In addition, Cherokee towns were the homes powerful women leaders, such as Nancy Ward. Chastised by the debacle of Fort Loudon affair, these leaders engaged in peaceful diplomatic means of securing Overhill trade and security while keeping free of entangling alliances and keeping at bay the avaricious Virginian and Carolinians. These aging leaders also strengthened the traditional Cherokee town councils - assemblies of all men and women in the town “whose purpose was to avoid rather than resolve issues, to conciliate rather than command.” The center of their influence was the town of Chota, a self-defined city of peace, “a beloved Town, A City of Refuge,” where no blood was to be shed, “where the fire of Piece [sic] is Always kept Burning.” Despite the prohibition of British authorities, white settlers poured across the mountains and began settling illegally on Cherokee lands, and the Cherokee tried once again to compensate themselves with territory taken by war with a neighboring tribe. This time their intended victim was the Chickasaw, but this was a mistake. Anyone who tried to take something from the Chickasaw regretted it, if he survived. Eleven years of sporadic warfare ended with a major Cherokee defeat at the hands of the Chickasaw at Oldfields (1769) forcing the Cherokee gave up their war of conquest and began to explore the possibility of new alliances to resist the whites. The victorious British colonists began to hold all Cherokees responsible for the action of any given Cherokee offense, perhaps recognizing that the Cherokee no longer had a rival power – as they once did in the French - to play against Britain and her colonies. On the eve of the American Revolution, the British government scrambled to appease the colonists and negotiate treaties with the Cherokee in which they ceded land already taken from them by white settlers. To this end, all means, including outright bribery and extortion, were employed as in the case of the Lochaber Treaty (1770); and the Augusta Treaty (1773) in which the Cherokee were forced to cede two million acres in Georgia to pay for debts to white traders. The traders had encouraged the Cherokees to run up large debts that could be paid off only with land. The Iroquois were caught in the same trap and, in the 1768 Treaty of Fort Stanwix ceded the Shawnee claims to Kentucky. Similarly, the Cherokee tried to protect their homeland from white settlement by selling land they did not really control. Despite the fact that these agreements were a clear violation of existing British law, they were used later to justify the American takeover of the region. The Shawnee also claimed these lands but, of course, were never consulted. With the Iroquois selling the Shawnee lands north of the Ohio, and the Cherokee selling the Shawnee lands south, where could they go? Both the Cherokee and Iroquois were fully aware of the problem they were creating. After he had signed, a Cherokee chief reputedly took Daniel Boone aside to say, "We have sold you much fine land, but I am afraid you will have trouble [from the Shawnee] if you try to live there." Confronted with rising tensions, the Cherokee elders assembled in the town house at Chota in 1774, and Oconostota sent emissaries to parlay with British and Virginian officials to keep the sporadic violence between Cherokees and the encroaching whites from escalating into a full blown war. Nevertheless the pressure on Cherokee lands continued to mount as did the challenges to the authority of the aging Attakullakulla and Oconostota by younger men. The situation reached a crisis with the infamous Sycamore Shoals Treaty in 1775 in which Richard Henderson and Nathaniel Hart met with Attakullakulla and Oconostota, and Savanukah, in defiance of Royal Proclamation and Tribal law, to fraudulently pull off the largest land swindle in history. In return for a cabin full of trade goods, Henderson secured 27,000 square miles between the Kentucky and Tennessee Rivers. Despite the elders’ protestations that they had been deceived as to what they were signing, Attakullakulla’s son, Dragging Canoe, stormed from the conference on the second day and promised to make the ceded lands “a dark and bloody ground” for the white settlers.

Traditional Cherokee Domains

The Cherokee Aftermath 1776 - 1817

Cui Canacina (Dragging Canoe) and the Chickamauga Cherokee refused to bow to American military might and kept raiding the new American settlements in former Cherokee territories that his father had sold to the whites. At the outbreak of the Revolution, the Cherokee received requests from the Mohawk, Shawnee, and Ottawa to join them against the Americans, but the majority of the Cherokee decided to remain neutral in this “white man's war.” The Chickamauga, however, were at war with the Americans and formed an alliance with the Shawnee. Both the Chickamauga Cherokee and the Shawnees had the support of British Indian agents who were still living among them (often with native wives) and arranging trade. During 1775 the British began to supply large amounts of guns and ammunition and offer bounties for American scalps. In July, 1776, 700 Chickamauga attacked two American forts in North Carolina: Eaton's Station and Ft. Watauga. Both assaults failed, in part because of the warning given the settlement by Nancy Ward, but the raids set off a series of attacks by other Cherokee and the Upper Creek on frontier settlements in Tennessee and Alabama.

The frontier militia organized in response made little effort to distinguish between hostile and neutral Cherokee, except to notice that neutrals were easier to find. During September the Americans destroyed more than 36 Cherokee towns killing every man, woman and child they could find. Unable to resist, the Cherokee in 1777 asked for peace. The Treaties of DeWitt's Corner (May) and Long Island (or Holston) (July) were signed at gunpoint and forced the Cherokee to cede almost all of their remaining land in the Carolinas. Although this brought peace for two years, the Chickamauga remained hostile and renewed their attacks against western settlements in Tennessee, Alabama, and Kentucky during 1780. After more fighting, the second Treaty of Long Island of Holston (July 1781) confirmed the 1777 cessions and then took more Cherokee land.

Through all of this, the Chickamauga fought on but were forced to retreat slowly northward until, by 1790, they had joined forces with the Shawnee in Ohio. After the initial Indian victories of Little Turtle's War (1790-94), most of the Ohio Chickamauga returned south and settled near the Tennessee River in central Tennessee and northern Alabama. From here, they had the unofficial encouragement of the Spanish governments of Florida and Louisiana and began to attack nearby American settlements. One of these incidents almost killed a young Nashville attorney/land speculator named Andrew Jackson, which may explain his later attitude regarding the Cherokee.

Dragging Canoe died in 1792, but a new round of violence exploded that year with the American settlements in central Tennessee and northern Alabama. After two years of fighting with Tennessee militia, support from other Cherokee declined, and the Chickamauga's resolve began to weaken. Following the American victory at Fallen Timbers (1794), the last groups of the Ohio Chickamauga returned to Tennessee. Meanwhile, the Spanish government had decided to settle its border disputes with the United States by diplomatic means and ended its covert aid to the Chickamauga Cherokee. After a final battle near Muscle Shoals in Alabama, the Chickamauga realized it was impossible stop the Americans by themselves. By 1794 large groups of Chickamauga had started to cross the Mississippi and settle with the Western Cherokee in Spanish Arkansas. The migration was complete by 1799, and open warfare between the Cherokee and Americans ended.

The Keetoowah (Western Cherokee or Old Settlers) had their origin with a small group of pro- French Cherokee which relocated to northern Arkansas and southeastern Missouri after the French defeat by the British in 1763. The Spanish welcomed them and granted land. Towards the end of the American Revolution in 1782, they were joined a group of pro-British Cherokee. With the migration of the Chickamauga (1794-99), the Keetoowah became formidable and a threat to the Osage who originally claimed the territory. Cherokee and Osage warfare was fairly common in 1803, when the United States gained control of the area through the Louisiana Purchase. With continued migration, 1 the Western Cherokee steadily gained at the expense of the Osage, and by 1808 over 2,000 Cherokee were established in northern Arkansas.

The Turkey Town treaty (1817) was the first formal recognition of the Western Cherokee by the United States. Under its terms, 4,000 Cherokee ceded their lands in Tennessee in exchange for a reservation with the Western Cherokee in northwest Arkansas. With this new immigration during 1818-19, the number of Western Cherokee swelled to over 6,000. However, the Osage continued to object to the Cherokee presence, and the Americans were forced to build Fort Smith (1817) and Fort Gibson (1824) to maintain peace. White settlers of the Arkansas territory were soon demanding the removal of both the Cherokee and Osage. In 1828 the Western Cherokee agreed to exchange their Arkansas lands for a new location in Oklahoma. The boundaries were finally determined in 1833, although it took until 1835 to get the Osage to agree.

Meanwhile, the Cherokee homeland in the east was rapidly being whittled away by American settlement by a series of treaties forced on the Cherokee by the victorious Americans: Hopewell 1785; Holston 1791; Philadelphia 1794; Tellico 1798, 1804, 1805, and 1806. The final cession of ten million acres in 1806 by Doublehead (Chuquilatague) outraged many of the Cherokee and resulted in his assassination as a traitor by the faction led by Major Ridge (Kahnungdatlageh -"the man who walks the mountain top"). A new, mixed-blood leadership of Ridge and John Ross (Guwisguwi - blue eyes and 1/8 Cherokee) seized control determined not to yield any more of the Cherokee homeland while introducing major cultural changes. With a unity made possible by the migration of the more traditional Cherokee to Arkansas, in less than 30 years the Cherokee underwent the most remarkable adaptation to white culture of any Native American people. By 1817 the clan system of government had been replaced by an elected tribal council. A new capital was established at New Echota in 1825, and a written constitution modeled after that of the United States was added two years later.

Many Cherokee became prosperous farmers with comfortable houses, beautiful cultivated fields, and large herds of livestock. Christian missionaries arrived by invitation, and Sequoia invented an alphabet that gave them a written language and overnight made most of the Cherokee literate. They published a newspaper, established a court system, and built schools. An inventory of Cherokee property in 1826 revealed: 1,560 black slaves. 22,000 cattle, 7,600 horses, 46,000 swine, 2,500 sheep, 762 looms, 2,488 spinning wheels, 172 wagons, 2,942 plows, 10 sawmills, 31 grist mills, 62 blacksmith shops, 8 cotton machines, 18 schools, and 18 ferries. Although the poor Cherokee still lived in simple log cabins, Chief John Ross had a $10,000 house designed by a Philadelphia architect. In fact, many Cherokee were more prosperous and “civilized” than their increasingly envious white neighbors.

Although the leadership of the eastern Cherokee steadfastly maintained their independence and land base, they felt it was important to reach an accommodation with the Americans. They refused Tecumseh's requests for Indian unity in 1811, ignored a call for war from the Red Stick Creek in 1813, and then fought as American allies during the Creek War (1813-14). Eight hundred Cherokee under Major Ridge were with Jackson's army at Horseshoe Bend in 1814, and according one account, a Cherokee warrior saved Jackson's life during the battle. If Jackson was grateful, he never allowed it to show. At the Fort Jackson Treaty ending the war (1814), Jackson demanded huge land cessions from both the Cherokee and Creek. As allies, the Cherokee must have been stunned at this treatment, and reluctantly agreed only after a series of four treaties signed during 1816 and 1817.

The Cherokee government afterwards became even more determined not to surrender any more land, but things were moving against them. In 1802 Cherokee land had been promised by the federal government to the state of Georgia which afterwards refused to recognize either the Cherokee Nation or its land claims. By 1822 Georgia was pressing Congress to end Cherokee title within its boundaries. $30,000 was eventually appropriated as payment but refused. Then bribery was attempted but exposed, and the Cherokee responded with a law prescribing death for anyone selling land to whites without permission. 2 3 ATTAKULLAKULLA (“Little Carpenter”) ca. 1700-1780

Attakullakulla became a powerful eighteenth-century Overhill Cherokee leader who, for over fifty years, played a critical and decisive role in shaping diplomatic, trade, and military relationships with the British Colonial governments of South Carolina and Virginia. He effectively led and acted as the primary spokesman for the Overhill Cherokees in the 1750s and 1760s, although apparently he never attained the official title of Uku, or foremost chief, within Cherokee society. Attakullakulla was born around 1712 on what is known today as Sevier Island in the French Broad River of Tennessee. His father was a minor chief in the "Overhill Towns" of the Cherokee Nation. The infant’s given name was Ookoonaka and he spent his earlier years in the Cherokee towns learning the ancient ways of his people. Popular stories attributed his name to his ability to construct amicable relationships with whites, but it more likely referred to his small stature and to his woodworking skills. He studied Cherokee government and trained as a warrior learning tactics and the arts of the bow, spear, knife, and blowgun. The skills came easily to him, and his presence of mind during battle was highly regarded among his tribe. In addition, he was taught a trade and, while still young, developed a great ability as a woodworker and house builder – a career that earned him a reputation as one of the best carpenters in the Cherokee Nation. In 1730 Attakullakulla was one of seven Cherokees who accompanied Sir Alexander Cumming to England where he had an audience with King George. Throughout the summer, the Cherokee delegation toured and visited the country where they became instant celebrities in the European city. When they first met King George, it was at an installation ceremony of the Knights of the Garter at Windsor. It seems that part of Sir Cuming’s show was to dress the Cherokee in the European stereotypes of native dress in the presence of the King. They were described as "being naked, except an apron about their middles and a horse’s tail hung down behind. Their faces, shoulders, etc. were painted and spotted with red, blue, green. The had bows in their hands and painted feathers on their heads." "They were welcome," Attakullakulla remembered, "to look upon me as a strange creature. They see but one and in return they gave me an opportunity to look upon thousands." Attakullakulla quickly learned the English language and English ways and had learned and enjoyed much in London and in British culture. When the party left London, Attakullakulla cried at the thought of leaving. The visit to London had an incredible impact on Attakullakulla. The last person he saw was an old fisher woman on the dock. The young Cherokee soldier grasped her hand and repeated in his best English "I thank you, I thank you, I thank you all!" From about 1743 to 1748 Attakullakulla resided as the captive of the Ottawas of eastern Canada, where he was afforded considerable freedom and became well regarded among the French. Because of his celebrity status in Europe and connection to the British Crown, he was treated with the utmost dignity by the French officials who took possession of him from the Ottawa. He returned to the Overhill country about 1750 and quickly became second in authority to Connecorte, or Old Hop, the Uku at Chota, who was probably his uncle. By this time, whites knew Attakullakulla as Little Carpenter. In the 1750s Attakullakulla negotiated repeatedly with the Virginia and South Carolina Colonies as well as the French and British traders in the Ohio Valley to increase the abundance and availability of trade goods to the Cherokees. He also argued for increased colonial military presence in the Overhill villages, which led to the construction of Fort Loudoun near the Overhill villages in 1756. In 1759 Chief Oconostota and twenty-eight of his followers were taken hostage by the British at Fort Prince George as the result of misunderstandings concerning a joint military action with the British against the French. Although Attakullakulla secured Oconostota's release, some of the hostages were killed; the Cherokees retaliated with the siege of Fort Loudoun. Attakullakulla worked to prevent an escalation of violence. Placing himself at great personal risk, he managed to save John Stuart from massacre that took away most of the Fort's garrison. Stuart was subsequently appointed the British Superintendent of Indian affairs south of the Ohio, becoming a close friend of Attakullakulla. After the devastation of the British invasions of 1761 and 1762, Attakullakulla struggled to rebuild the Cherokee nation and reestablish the old political order, while dealing with white incursions on to Cherokee land and forestalling threats to his own political standing by younger, more militant, Cherokee men. When the British Royal Proclamation of 1763 failed to stem the flood of white settlers and land speculators that flowed on to Cherokee lands, Attakullakulla and the other elders resorted to the tactic of selling or renting, through treaty, land that white settlers and speculators had already occupied as well as signing over land that belonged to other tribes. The land-sales policy of older village headmen, such as Attakullakulla, may have represented an attempt to resolve the dilemma of keeping open trade contacts while preserving some kind of boundary line to separate themselves from the backcountry settlers. Incurring debts and selling, renting, or leasing land to metis traders (children of Cherokee mothers and European trader fathers) might have created a cultural buffer that could fend off colonial expansion. In 1775, for example, it was reported that Attakullakulla was at the white settlements of Watauga and Nolchuky “where he had been Collecting his rent” from the white settlers. White settlement of Cherokee land pleased neither Attakullakulla’s fellow headman Oconostota nor the younger warriors, especially Attakullakulla’s own son, Dragging Canoe. In 1771 and 1774, Oconostota and the young soldiers summoned the British representative Alexander Cameron to the council house at Chota, where the young Cherokee warriors expressed their anger at settlers who occupied their lands without their consent. The situation reached a crisis with the infamous Sycamore Shoals Treaty in 1775 in which Richard Henderson and Nathaniel Hart meet with Attakullakulla and Oconostota, and Savanukah, in defiance of Royal Proclamation and Tribal law, to fraudulently pull off the largest land swindle in history. In return for a cabin full of trade goods, Henderson secured 27,000 square miles between the Kentucky and Tennessee Rivers - despite the elders’ protestations that they had been deceived as to what they were signing. On the second day of the Conference with the British, Attakullakulla’s son, Dragging Canoe, stormed from the conference and swore to make the ceded lands “a dark and bloody ground” for the white settlers.

The outbreak of the Revolution provided Dragging Canoe and the younger Cherokees an opportunity to challenge the actions and authority of the older village headman and gain the upper hand in the council house at Chota. Like Attakullakulla and Oconostota, the young men did not relish fighting Britain’s war, but they felt hemmed in by the encroaching settlers. All of the Cherokees were confused by the spectacle of Englishmen killing other Englishmen. Attakullakulla, Oconostota, and the other chiefs remembered the devastation that the last war brought down upon the Cherokee nation.. The British agents in Cherokee country were equally reluctant to see the Cherokees go to war, at least until it became clear that Britain would call on her Indian allies to help suppress the rebellion.

What would be Attakullakulla’s response be when Britain issued that call? Attakullakulla’s Decision

In April 1776, a deputation of fourteen Indians - Shawnees, Delaware, Mohawks, Nanticokes, and Ottawas - made a dramatic entrance into Chota painted black, carrying a Shawnee war belt that signified an invitation by the allied First Nations of the North for the Cherokee to join the British against the rebellious colonists. “After this day,” wrote Oconostota’s friend Stuart, “every young Fellow’s face in the Overhill Town appeared Blackened and nothing was now talked of but War.” The young men’s chanting of the northern warrior’s war song in the Chota Council House and Dragging Canoe’s acceptance of the War Belt from the Shawnee constituted a vote of “no confidence” in the “Beloved Old Men of Chota” - Oconostota, Attakullakulla, and The Raven. The three then “sat down dejected and silent.” They did not openly oppose the war, but their silence spoke nevertheless. By their silence, they recognized their loss of authority. The Cherokee militants came rapidly to power but only amidst division and doubt that had split the Cherokee nation.

Attakullakulla remained an active leader and negotiator for the Cherokees into the 1770s. While admiring the British since his journey with Oconostota to England in the early part of the century, Attakullakulla tried to cleave to the neutralist path. When American Revolutionary forces under the command of William Christian occupied the Overhill villages in 1776, Attakullakulla arranged for their withdrawal and played a leading role in the 1777 peace negotiated at Long Island on the Holston. His influence diminished as Dragging Canoe, his son, and other young leaders continued the Cherokee ‘s resistance to the Americans.

Cut off from British support and supplies and reeling from the American retaliation, Oconostota had no choice but to make peace overtures to the Americans. After a meeting at Long Island on the Holston with Colonel Nathaniel Gist, who had a Cherokee wife, Oconostota, Attakullakulla, and a delegation of thirty Cherokee traveled to Williamsburg to talk peace, one of Attakullakulla’s last diplomatic missions. Sometime between 1780 and 1785, Attakullakulla died. Throughout his life Attakullakula had served his village of Chota and the Cherokee people and, for that, he earned an international reputation. His rescue of John Stuart was a story literally told around the world. His life would influence Europe and America for years after his death and lead the British government to officially state that Attakullakulla was "the most ‘noble native’ on America’s southern colonial frontier". Although Attakullakulla would be later eclipsed by Chief Oconostota in the numerous histories written about the Cherokee, he became a mythical figure among the Cherokee people. No one fought harder than Attakullakulla to see that families were justly compensated for the loss of their sons killed by colonists or while serving for the British. His son Dragging Canoe would continue his father’s ways and support the British, which led to numerous attacks on him by then Col. John Xavier (AKA Sevier). Sevier’s French name alone was enough ammunition for Dragging Canoe to rally support to his cause among warriors.

Although Attakullakulla’s pro-British sympathies would later lead Cherokee elders to think of him as a British yes-man, the Chief was notorious for angering British colonial governors with his diplomatic methods that often proved successful. There was never a dull moment in his life, and no other Native American was so often written in to the early southern colonial records. According to the personal writings of many British colonial writers, it almost seemed like a game with the British to figure out what Attakullakulla would do next. Tsi'yu-gunsini Dragging Canoe (Cherokee) 1740-1792 Dragging Canoe (Tsi'yu-gunsini), Cherokee soldier and leader of the Chickamaugas faction of the Cherokee Nation, was born in one of the Overhill towns on the Tennessee River, the son of the Cherokee diplomat Attakullakulla. He also was the cousin of Nancy Ward. Historians have identified Dragging Canoe as the greatest Cherokee military leader. Even at an early age, Dragging Canoe wanted to be a warrior. He once asked his father to include him in a war party against the Shawnees, but Attakullakulla refused. Determined to go, the boy hid in a canoe, where the warriors found him. His father gave the boy permission to go but only if he could carry the canoe. The vessel was too heavy, but undaunted, the boy dragged the canoe. Cherokee warriors encouraged his efforts, and from that time, he was known as Dragging Canoe.

Dragging Canoe’s face was permanently scarred by smallpox, a disease brought by white settlers and against which Cherokee had no immunities. The onslaught of the disease beginning in 1738 resulted in the death of over half of the Cherokee people. Imagine the impact on a nation of people who "went to water" each morning in the cold rivers as a ritual cleansing when with a fever on them they took cold baths to rid them of illness when in fact the cold water only made their sickness worse. It is said that the Cherokee men who saw the death of so many threw away many of their special emblems of protection by the spirits, and some, after surviving the dread disease but finding themselves permanently scarred and pockmarked, killed themselves. Dragging Canoe survived but he bore the marks of the dread disease until his death in 1792.

Though pockmarked by smallpox, Dragging Canoe grew into tall man, stately in appearance, and became the primary leading force in the Cherokee's resistance to white settlement on Cherokee lands. As the head warrior of the Overhill town of Malaquo, Dragging Canoe fought a number of significant battles against white settlers. By the 1770s the increasing encroachment by settlers on Cherokee land concerned Dragging Canoe, and he worked to achieve their removal. . He resisted the sale of Cherokee lands to whites and spoke at treaty negotiations, vehemently objecting to the continued sale and leasing of Cherokee land. At the conclusion of the Treaty of Sycamore Shoals of 1775, Dragging Canoe spoke against the sale of Cherokee land by his father Attakullakulla, Oconostota, and the Raven, who later claimed that they were defrauded into thinking that they were leasing, rather than selling the land. Dragging canoe rose and said, "Whole Indian nations have melted away like snowballs in the sun before the white man's advance. They leave scarcely a name of our people except those wrongly recorded by their destroyers. Where are the Delawares? They have been reduced to a mere shadow of their former greatness. We had hoped that the white men would not be willing to travel beyond the mountains. Now that hope is gone. They have passed the mountains, and have settled upon Cherokee land. They wish to have that action sanctioned by treaty. When that is gained, the same encroaching spirit will lead them upon other land of the Cherokees. New cessions will be asked. Finally the whole country, which the Cherokees and their fathers have so long occupied, will be demanded, and the remnant of Ani-Yunwiya, THE REAL PEOPLE, once so great and formidable, will be compelled to seek refuge in some distant wilderness. There they will be permitted to stay only a short while, until they again behold the advancing banners of the same greedy host. Not being able to point out any further retreat for the miserable Cherokees, the extinction of the whole race will be proclaimed. Should we not therefore run all risks, and incur all consequences, rather than submit to further loss of our country? Such treaties may be alright for men who are too old to hunt or fight. As for me, I have my young warriors about me. We will have our lands. A-WANINSKI, I have spoken."

Dragging Canoe's powerful speech had such a strong influence on the chiefs that they closed the treaty council without more talk. Yet, the white men prepared another huge feast with rum and were able to persuade the Cherokee Chiefs to sit in another treaty council for further discussion of land sale. The land being sought was the primary hunting lands of the Cherokee. Attakullakulla, Dragging Canoe's father, spoke in favor of selling the land, as did Raven, who was jealous of Dragging Canoe's growing power among the young warriors. The deed was signed. Richard Henderson, being very bold, now that his plan was succeeding and they had bought such a huge portion of land, sought to secure a safe path to the new lands. Saying "he did not want to walk over the land of my brothers", he asked to "buy a road" through Cherokee lands. This last insult was more than Dragging Canoe could tolerate. He became very angry and rising from his seat and stomping the ground he spoke saying "We have given you this, why do you ask for more? You have bought a fair land. When you have this you have all. There is no more game left between the Watauga and the Cumberland. There is a cloud hanging over it. You will find its settlement DARK and BLOODY." For a year, Dragging Canoe wrestled with his growing feelings of rage and frustration - rage at the escalating intrusions of white settlers on to Cherokee lands and frustration with the accommodating behavior of his father and his fellow Cherokee elders. In April 1776, a deputation of fourteen Indians - Shawnees, Delaware, Mohawks, Nanticokes, and Ottawas - made a dramatic entrance into Dragging Canoe and Attakullakulla’s hometown of Chota painted black, carrying a Shawnee war belt that signified an invitation by the allied Northern Nations to the Cherokee to join the British against the rebellious colonists. “After this day,” wrote Oconostota’s friend Stuart, “every young Fellow’s face in the Overhill Town appeared Blackened and nothing was now talked of but War.”

“The arrival of the northern delegation at Chota sparked a Cherokee revolution. It galvanized the young soldiers who wanted to go to war against the white intruders, and, at the same time to mount a dramatic challenge, to the leadership of their father’s - Attakullakulla’s - generation. “Traditionally, young men were expected to be aggressive in certain circumstances and old men [and women] to be rational; Cherokee society accommodated and harmonized the resulting tension. However, in the Revolution, the tensions became incompatible. The older chiefs who had sold lands to Henderson and built networks of accommodation with colonial traders and were hesitant to act now that their white counterparts were divided among themselves.”

Even before the Shawnee delegate rose to deliver his oration to persuade the Cherokee to join the Northern Nations in an alliance with Britain against the rebellious colonists, Dragging Canoe knew which side in the conflict he would choose.

Quotes from Calloway, Colin G., the American Revolution in Indian Country; Crisis and Diversity in Native American Communities (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK., 1995), pp. 196-197. Dragging Canoe’s Decision

Even before the Shawnee delegate rose to deliver his oration to persuade the Cherokee to join the Northern Nations in an alliance with Britain against the rebellious colonists, Dragging Canoe knew which side in the conflict he would choose. The Shawnee speaker unrolled a huge belt of wampum. Roughly nine feet by six inches, the darkly beaded piece had been “strewed over with vermillion red trade paint.” No Indian observer - indeed in the eighteenth century, few white observers - would have mistaken the significance of this war belt, this symbolic “hatchet.” The call to arms was not lost on the Cherokees: they had seen it many times in recent years. The Shawnee supported his call with a series of arguments, specifically aimed at convincing the Cherokee that, though the two peoples were once bitter enemies, it was now time to unite to defeat a a common enemy. This was the theme of eighteenth-century pan-Indian resistance: Indian shared a history of trouble with Anglo-Americans; they should thus share in the struggle against them.

When the Shawnee finished speaking, Dragging Canoe accepted the northern war belt, symbolically accepting the idea of a Cherokee alliance with the northerners. Dragging Canoe decision surprised no one. For over a year, Richard Henderson’s private and illegal “purchase” of extensive Cherokee lands at Sycamore Shoals in May 1775 had rankled Dragging Canoe and fellow-minded militants, even though Dragging Canoe’s father was deeply involved in the transaction. His challenge to the Henderson Purchase meant a challenge to the authority of the important Cherokee signers of the deal, including his own father, Attakullakulla, and two great warriors, Oconostota and The Raven. His decision and those of his allies split the Cherokee nation.

Dragging Canoe thought the opening of the Revolutionary War provided the perfect opportunity to strike the isolated white settlements. In the summer of 1776, he led attacks against white settlers, but didn't get much help, especially not from the Cherokee Warrior Nancy Ward, Ghi-ga-u, or Beloved Woman of Chota. Having learned of a large scale plan to attack the Americans with the help of British troops, she informed traders William Falling and Isaac Thomas and provided them with the means of setting out on a hundred and twenty mile trip to warn the settlers on the Holston and Watauga. Consequently Dragging Canoe’s attack on these settlements was repulsed.

Things were not going well for the Cherokee resistance. Dragging Canoe was shot through both legs in one raid. The old chiefs desired peace but Dragging Canoe thought it would be far better to abandon the old towns, move south, and continue fighting. Dragging Canoe and his militants suffered from a lack of British aid, particular powder and shot, so there was no way to beat the settlers with their rifles in open warfare. Therefore, during the winter of 1776-77, Dragging Canoe and his followers built new settlements in the Chickamauga Creek area of north Georgia. The discontented from many tribes and even some renegade whites took refuge with him there. They became band of Cherokees and renegade whites became known as Chickamaugans. They called themselves Anit-Yunwiya, or “the Real People.” From their new settlements, the Chickamaugans could communicate quickly with militants among the Upper Creeks to the immediate south and with their British allies further below in Mobile and Pensacola. These connections permitted the persistence of Chickamauga militancy and overcame the problem of isolation from British supplies.

Rather than surrender with the older chiefs, the Chickamaugans waged war against the settlers for the next 17 years. Dragging Canoe's band of militant warriors - under the leadership of lieutenants, Benge, John Watts, Glass, Turtle at Home, Richard Justice, Doublehead, Black Fox, the half-breed Ooskiah - held out against the invaders and conducted guerrilla raids, from camps near present- day Chattanooga Tennessee and Mussel Shoals, Alabama. These towns were termed the "five lower towns" and were named Running Water, Nickajack, Long Island, Crow town and Lookout Mountain Town. They were comprised the western frontier of the Cherokee with the first three towns being located along the Tennessee River in present day Tennessee, the latter two were located in corners of present day Georgia (Lookout Mountain Town) and Alabama (Crow town).

Doublehead - Dragging Canoe’s steadfast ally - was the last Cherokee chief to exercise control over the upper Cumberland Plateau. He was born near the present town of Somerset, Kentucky, and had two known children by his wife of French-Indian mixed-blood. Chief Doublehead was named for his dual personality. Although he rose to prominence as an ambassador representing the Cherokee nation to President George Washington, the Chief also was a warrior. He killed and terrorized settlers, wreaking vengeance upon those unlucky enough to be within his reach. He did to whites what they had done to his people. According to some accounts, he was as viscously indiscriminate as Sevier, Hamilton, and white Indian fighters. For almost twenty years, Chickamaugans such as Doublehead, and Shawnee like Blackfish, did everything they could to convince white people that Kentucky and Tennessee were neither for sale nor settlement. In the spring of 1788, the brutal murder of eleven members of the Kirk family brought Indian fighters like Sevier and Hubbard to retaliate. In response to queries, Four Cherokee chiefs had gathered under a flag of truce raised by the vigilantes, purportedly to talk about the attack and gather information. They were summarily locked in a guarded room and tomahawked in cold blood by the eldest Kirk son, John Kirk Jr., in vengeance for the recent murder of his family. None of the Indians present had anything to do with the attack on the Kirk clan. Among them were two well respected peace chiefs, Old Tassel and Abram. The Chiefs simply bowed their head and received the blows.

Through all of this, Dragging Canoe, Doublehead, and the Chickamauga fought on but were forced to retreat slowly northward, until by 1790, they had joined forces with the Shawnee in Ohio against President Washington’s field commanders, General Harmer and St. Clair. After the initial Indian victories of Little Turtle's War (1790-94), most of the Ohio Chickamauga returned south and settled near the Tennessee River in northern Alabama. From here, they had the unofficial encouragement and a supply of weaponry provided by Spanish government agents in Florida and Louisiana. Feeling like their efforts were bearing fruit, they continued to attack nearby American settlements. Some of their victims were fortunate enough to be given a chance to make a decision. In January of 1791, Chickamauga Chief Glass captured 16 men building a blockhouse at Muscle Shoals, Alabama, and released them with a warning not to return. As he aged, Dragging Canoe moved from the position of warrior to that of diplomat. He worked to preserve Cherokee culture and establish an alliance with the Creeks and Shawnees. Dragging Canoe's focus in the early 1780's was to build alliances with anyone who would support his desire to drive the white settlers from the Cherokee hunting grounds on the Cumberland River, where he had warned the settlers would find the settlement to be "dark and bloody." The Chickasaws, Creeks, several northern tribes joined the Chickamauga and the Spanish, French, and English encouraged him at every opportunity against the settlers. But for some seemingly fortunate circumstances this alliance would have succeeded.

In 1791 a federation of Indian forces defeated General Arthur St. Clair, governor of the Northwest Territory. Shortly after a diplomatic mission to the Chickasaws, Dragging Canoe died on March 1, 1792, in the town of Running Water, one of the towns he had helped to found. Doublehead and his warriors, however, were still very active. Mutual hostilities continued, and a new round of violence exploded in central Tennessee and northern Alabama. Finally in 1794, the Chickamauga towns were destroyed and the resistance alliance broken for good. The white settlers with their overwhelming strength and superior fire power had beaten the resistance movement. Nevertheless, Cherokee militants would later join the Creek Red Stick resistance movement in the first decade of the nineteenth century, only to be defeated by a combined forces of Americans and Cherokees led by Andrew Jackson. NANCY WARD (Nanye-hi) Cherokee (1738 - 1822)

The Cherokee Beloved Woman; War Woman; Prophetess; Granny Ward, ... these are a few of the names and titles given to Nancy Ward, the most powerful and influential woman in the Cherokee Nation during recorded history. She ruled over the powerful Council of Women and had a voting seat in the Council of Chiefs. During her lifetime the Cherokee moved from a matriarchal, clan-type of government to that of a republic.

Nancy War was born in 1738 at Chota and given the name Nanye-hi which signified "One who goes about," a name taken from Nunne-hi, the legendary name of the Spirit People of Cherokee mythology. Her birth came near the outbreak of a smallpox epidemic that resulted in the deaths of approximately one-half of the Cherokees. The identity of her father is not known, but the Cherokees practiced a matrilineal tradition, and Nanye-hi's mother was Tame Doe, of the Wolf Clan, a sister of Attakullakulla, civil chief of the Cherokee nation. In her adult years, observers described Nanye- hi as queenly and commanding in appearance and manner and as a winsome and resourceful woman. By age 17, she had two children, Five Killer and Catherine. Her husband was killed in a raid on the Creeks during the 1755 Battle of Taliwa, where she fought by her husband's side, chewing the lead bullets for his rifle to make them more deadly. When he fell in battle, she sprang up from behind a log and rallied the Cherokee warriors to fight harder. Taking up a rifle, she led a charge that unnerved the Creeks and brought victory to the Cherokees.

Because of her valor, the clans chose her as Ghighau, "Beloved Woman" of the Cherokees. In this powerful position, her words carried great weight in the tribal government because the Cherokees believed that the Great Spirit frequently spoke through the Beloved Woman. As Beloved Woman, Nanye-hi headed the Women's Council and sat on the Council of Chiefs. She had complete power over prisoners. Sometimes in her role as Agi-ga-u-e or "War Woman," she prepared the warriors' Black Drink, a sacred ritual preparatory to war. Bryant Ward, an English trader who had fought in the French and Indian War, took up residence with the Cherokees and married Nancy in the late 1750s. Ward already had a wife, but since Cherokees did not consider marriage a lifelong institution, the arrangement apparently presented few problems. Ward and her English husband lived in Chota for a time and became the parents of a daughter, Elizabeth (Betsy). Eventually Bryant Ward moved back to South Carolina, where he lived the remainder of his life with his white wife and family. Nancy Ward and Betsy visited his home on many occasions, where they were welcomed and treated with respect.

Though a respected soldier herself, Nancy Ward, like most Cherokee women, were fearful of the effects of war upon their children and their gardens, which were among their primary responsibilities. They had seen their people suffer from, not only intertribal warfare, but also the devastation that British military brought to their nation in 1761 and 1762. They also resented and resisted the efforts of young soldier/hunters to diminish the power of women in the Cherokee Town councils. In April 1776, a deputation of fourteen Indians - Shawnees, Delaware, Mohawks, Nanticokes, and Ottawas - made a dramatic entrance into Nancy’s hometown of Chota painted black, carrying a Shawnee war belt that signified an invitation by the allied First Nations of the North for the Cherokee to join the British against the rebellious colonists. “After this day,” wrote Oconostota’s friend Stuart, “every young Fellow’s face in the Overhill Town appeared Blackened and nothing was now talked of but War.” “The arrival of the northern delegation at Chota sparked a Cherokee” Revolution.” It galvanized the young soldiers who wanted to go to war against the white intruders, and at the same time to mount a dramatic challenge to the leadership of his father’s - Attakullakulla’s - generation. “Traditionally, young men were expected to be aggressive in certain circumstances and old men [and women] to be rational; Cherokee society accommodated and harmonized the resulting tension. However, in the Revolution, the tensions became incompatible. The older chiefs who had sold lands to Henderson and built networks of accommodation with colonial traders and were hesitant to act now that their white counterparts were divided among themselves.”

Nancy Ward felt the heavy weight of this unresolved tension when she entered the Chota Town Council Hall. She took her place of authority and honor and slowly surveyed the blackened faces of the young militants. So many had chosen their path, the path to war. The Shawnee delegate rose and put forth his arguments in favor of the Cherokees’ allying themselves with Britain against the rebellious colonists. First, he reminded the Council of the aggression and intrusions of “the Virginians.” Second, he sadly recounted how they, like the Shawnees, had declined “from being a great nation, were [now] reduced to a handful” as result of European aggression. Third, he asserted that among the Virginians “it was plain there was an intention to rub them out, and he thought that it better to die like men than dwindle away by inches.” Nancy listened to the arguments. She eyed her cousin Dragging Canoe, the young militant, who was riveted to the Shawnee’s speech. Much of what the Shawnee orator spoke ran true ... but what would be the consequences of following this path? Now, Nancy had to choose. Which path would she take? Nancy Ward’s (Nan'yehi’s) Decision

When militant Cherokees, led by Dragging Canoe, prepared to attack illegal white communities on the Watauga River, Ward disapproved of intentionally taking civilian lives. Having learned of a large scale plan to attack the Americans with the help of British troops, she informed traders William Falling and Isaac Thomas and provided them with the means of setting out on a hundred and twenty mile trip to warn the settlers on the Holston and Watauga. On at least two other occasions during the Revolutionary War period she sent warnings to John Sevier at the Watauga settlements of planned Indian attacks, thus giving them time to prepare a defense and counteroffensive. As a consequence the attack was repulsed. Nancy Ward was loved and respected by the settlers as well as the Cherokees, even though she had to walk a very thin line between the militants and the neutralists among her people and was often regarded as a sellout by Cherokee militants. As Beloved Woman, warrior, and clan mother, Ward had absolute power over prisoners and on numerous occasions saved the lives of white people. One of the settlers captured by the Cherokee warriors was a woman named Mrs. Bean. The captive was sentenced to execution and was actually being tied to a stake when Ward exercised her condemned captives. Taking Granny Ward the injured Mrs. Bean into her own home to nurse her back to health, Ward learned two skills from her which would have far-reaching consequences for her people. Mrs. Bean, like most "settler women," wove her own cloth. At this time, the Cherokee were wearing a combination of traditional hide (animal skin) clothing and loomed cloth purchased from traders. Cherokee people had rough-woven hemp clothing, but it was not as comfortable as clothing made from linen, cotton, or wool. Mrs. Bean taught Ward how to set up a loom, spin thread or yarn, and weave cloth. This skill would make the Cherokee people less dependent on traders, but it also Europeanized the Cherokee in terms of gender roles. Women came to be expected to do the weaving and house chores; as men became farmers in the changing society, women became "housewives." Throughout her life, Nancy Ward and many other Cherokee women of her generation never accepted the passive or subservient roles that European American women were expected to assume by their societies.

Another aspect of Cherokee life that changed when Ward saved the life of Mrs. Bean was that of raising animals. The Cherokee had long raised horses and pigs. Cattle were rare among them. Mrs. Bean owned dairy cattle, which she took to Ward's house. Ward learned to prepare and use dairy foods, which provided some nourishment even when hunting was bad. However, because of Ward's introduction of dairy farming to the Cherokee, they would begin to amass large herds and farms, which required even more manual labor. This would soon lead the Cherokee into using slave labor. In fact, Ward herself had been "awarded" the black slave of a felled Creek warrior after her victory at the Battle of Taliwa and thus became the first Cherokee slave owner.

From these accommodations to European-based ways of life, one might get the idea that Nancy Ward was selling out the Cherokee people. But her political efforts proved the contrary. She did not seek war, but neither did she counsel peace when she felt compromise would hurt her nation. In 1781 Ward entered into peace talks with Tennessee politician and soldier John Sevier at the Little Pigeon River in present- day Tennessee, she had called for peace but warned Sevier to take the treaty back to "his women" for them to ratify. It did not occur to the Cherokee that women did not decide matters of war and peace in the white man's world as they did in many southeastern Indian Nations. Ward was also a negotiator for the Cherokee at the 1785 signing of the Treaty of Hopewell, the first treaty the Cherokee made with the "new" United States. By the turn of the nineteenth century, it was already becoming apparent to the Cherokee that the Americans intended to get as much Cherokee land as possible and that the day might come when the Natives would be forced off their homelands. Ward, by now called "Nancy" by the many non-Indians she had befriended, feared that each time the Cherokee voluntarily handed over land, they were encouraging the settlers' appetite for it. She feared that someday their hunger for land would destroy her people. In 1808, the Women's Council, with Ward at its head, made a statement to the Cherokee people urging them to sell no more land. Again, in 1817, when Ward took her seat in council, her desperation was ill concealed. She told the younger people to refuse any more requests for land or to take up arms against the "Americans" if necessary. When she became too aged to make the effort to attend further General Council meetings, Ward sent her walking stick in her place thereafter. Some contemporary sources say she "resigned" her position as Beloved Woman with this action, but the mere absence from council did not indicate the end of her term. Ward was well aware that Cherokee "removal" west of the Mississippi River was almost a foregone conclusion. Rather than face the sorrow of leaving her homeland, she decided to find a way to blend in to the white world. Nan'yehi had become Nancy Ward when she married the Irish (or Scots-Irish) trader Bryant Ward. By now, her three children were grown, so she was accorded the indulgence of "modern conveniences" because of her advanced age and the great integrity with which she had long discharged her duty to her people. Therefore, when she and Ward took to the inn keeping trade, there was no disrespect voiced toward the Beloved Woman. Their inn was situated near the Mother Town of Chota, on Womankiller Ford of the Ocowee River, in eastern Tennessee.

Ward returned to Chota, her birthplace, in 1824. She was cared for by her son, Fivekiller, who reported seeing a white light leave her body as she died. The light was said to have entered the most sacred mound in the Mother Town. Ward was spared the sight of her people's exile to Indian Territory in 1838, but because her spirit was present at Chota, they knew she had preserved that connection to their eastern home. She is buried on a hill nearby. In 1923 a monument was placed on her grave by a Chattanooga Chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Irony by any other name ...

The last woman to be given the title of Beloved Woman until the late 1980s, Ward remains a powerful symbol for Cherokee women. She is often referred to by feminist scholars as an inspiration and is revered by the Cherokee people of Oklahoma as well as the Eastern Band Cherokees of North Carolina. Oconostota (Cherokee) 1715 - 1783

Oconostota was born in the Overhill towns of the Cherokee in the Little Tennessee Valley sometime around 1715. He was the son of Moytoy, the great Chickmaugan "Emperor" or Supreme Chief of the Cherokee, who ruled from 1730 to 1760. While much isn’t known about his early life, Oconostota spent his youth as most Cherokee boys training to be a warrior and hunter. In this pursuit, Oconostota found his calling and, in the days of warrior-chiefs, would prove to be not only an able fighter, but a leader who would come to be remembered as one of the greatest in Cherokee history. He was a clever tactician and strategist and knew what it took to win on the battlefield. Whether it was fighting other tribes or European traders, he understood their weaknesses and strengths and knew how to stage a battle to win. His quick mind and wise decisions soon earned him recognition in the tribe as one of its greatest warriors. While he did not have the diplomatic and oratory skills of his colleague Attakullakulla, the warrior did have the natural skills of battlefield leadership and that was the catalyst that caused him to rise to prominence in the Cherokee Nation.

In 1730, Oconostota accompanied Attakullakulla to London where he talked and dined with King George. By 1750 a "red" or "wae' chief, Oconostota, became influential within the town councils of the Cherokee nation. It was during this time that another smallpox epidemic spread devastation in the Cherokee country and Oconostota charged that the disease had been brought by the English with their trade goods, When his own face became pockmarked by the disease, Oconostota became increasingly hostile to the English and sought to align the tribe with the French, who were seriously interested in wooing the Cherokee away from the British. Unlike his colleague and rival Attakullakulla, Oconostota did not consider himself a British subject and often tried to maintain a working relationship with the French as a way of keeping his eye on the Creeks – a pro-French tribe that had made themselves enemies of the Cherokee, who were often seen as pro- British by other Native Americans. In fact, Oconostota first shows up in European records when he visited the French at Fort Toulouse. All was not well with the Cherokee Nation, however, the French either couldn’t or wouldn’t maintain trade with the tribe and soon war erupted with the Creeks, which forced the Cherokee to turn to the British for help. During that time, the Lower Towns of the Cherokee Nation had to be evacuated and that gave Governor Glen of South Carolina the opportunity to recognize the supremacy of Chota and the Overhills towns as being the capitol territory of the Cherokee. In 1753, Oconostota had become a much respected man in South Carolina’s colonial government and, at the request of Governor Glen, aided also by the Chickasaw, led 400 warriors against the pro-French Choctaws, who had raided and killed white settlers and traders in the region. Within a year, the Cherokee warrior was being called by the British governor as the "sole preserver...of every white man’s life in the nation." It didn’t last long as once again Oconostota sided with Attakullakulla and the other chiefs in wanting to break the trade monopoly held by the British with the tribe.

The matter was settled without a new trade agreement with Virginia, however, and new deals were struck with South Carolina in 1755 because the French and Indian War was in full swing and was not going to well for the British. The defeat of British General Braddock by the French and pro-French tribes had scared the Crown into seeking Oconostota’s help in securing warriors for the front lines in the war. In exchange for the warriors’ service, Governor Glen would have Fort Loudoun built in the tribe’s territory in order to protect Cherokee women and children from their enemies while the men were off in the north fighting the French.

Despite Oconostota’s successful efforts to recruit Cherokee soldiers for the British and the Virginians, the alliance fell apart when Virginians killed thirteen Cherokee soldiers, returning from the war, who had stolen their horses, causing a number of undisciplined young men to retaliate by killing a number of Virginians. The Great Warrior of Chota found himself accused of trying to start a war with the British and they cut off ammunition to the tribe. When Oconostota and a delegation went to petition the colonial governor in Charleston, they were imprisoned. Attakullakulla secured his release, but the other Cherokee hostages were killed when Oconostota botched a raid to release them. By this time, a burning hatred was raging in Oconostota and he did what he had to do to be free of the British. Although the French were on their last leg in America, they managed to come up with enough ammunition and supplies to help launch the Cherokee into war with the British. After a botched hostage crisis, the Cherokee put Fort Loudoun under siege and killed almost all of the garrison. When Attakullakulla tried to warn them of a night attack, Oconostota threw him off of the council and exiled the Cherokee leader and his family to the woods.

As soon news of the Fort Loudoun massacre reached Charleston, the British and the colonists were enraged. The killing of white settlers in the back country, however, continued and caused problems for hopes of peace. A force of Virginians had been recruited and were heading towards Cherokee country. Oconostota worked out a truce and bought himself some time to make arrangements with the French. He ended up traveling to New Orleans where he was given a commission as a captain of the French Army, but otherwise returned empty-handed and had to face making peace with the British. He led an attack on British Col. James Grant, who had been dispatched to regain British honor by defeating the Cherokee, but Oconostota couldn’t match his previous victories. Grant and his soldiers torched more than fifteen Cherokee towns and reduced the Cherokees to starvation. When peace finally offered by the British, Oconostota accepted it. In his time as a warrior, however, he had restored the Cherokee as a great warrior nation among Native Americans and his voice became the voice of his people, stripping Standing Turkey and Attakullakulla of their authority, at least in British eyes. By the time of the Revolution, Oconostota was a great chief in his tribe, and according to Cherokee agent, Alexander Cameron, the formidable warrior commanded "not only a vast sway with his own people, but with other tribes." In late 1773, Oconostota was inducted into the St. Andrew’s Society – an elite fraternal organization of Scots in Charleston where Capt. John Stuart was President at the time. Oconostota lobbied to get the British to help him make peace with the western tribes, but the Revolution placed him in an impossible position. As the revolutionary crisis escalated, Oconostota struggled to avoid open warfare with the Americans. Younger chiefs of the tribe, however, were angered at continued pressure on their lands - particularly the Treaty of Sycamore Shoals. They urged warfare, and the American Revolution gave them an opportunity.

In April 1776, a diplomatic party of fourteen Indians - Shawnees, Delaware, Mohawks, Nanticokes, and Ottawas - made a dramatic entrance into Chota painted black, carrying a Shawnee war belt that signified an invitation by the allied First Nations of the North for the Cherokee to join the British against the rebellious colonists. “After this day,” wrote Oconostota’s friend Stuart, “every young Fellow’s face in the Overhill Town appeared Blackened and nothing was now talked of but War.” How would Oconostota respond to this invitation? Which side would he choose? Oconostota’s Decision 1776 - 1782

In April 1776, a deputation of fourteen Indians - Shawnees, Delaware, Mohawks, Nanticokes, and Ottawas - made a dramatic entrance into Chota painted black, carrying a Shawnee war belt that signified an invitation by the allied First Nations of the Northwest for the Cherokee to join the British against the rebellious colonists. “After this day,” wrote Oconostota’s friend Stuart, “every young Fellow’s face in the Overhill Town appeared Blackened and nothing was now talked of but War.” The young men’s chanting of the northern warrior’s war song in the Chota Council House and Dragging Canoe’s acceptance of the War Belt from the Shawnee constituted a vote of “no confidence” in the “Beloved Old Men of Chota” - Oconostota, Attakullakulla, and The Raven. The three then “sat down dejected and silent.” They did not openly oppose the war, but their silence spoke nevertheless. By their silence, they recognized their loss of authority. The Cherokee militants came rapidly to power but only amidst division and doubt. The war council at Chota forged a critical link in the emerging Indian alliance across the Eastern Woodlands, as Shawnees and the young Cherokees committed themselves to a united front against the American expansion, a united front that divided the Cherokee into two camps: one militant and insurgent led by Dragging Canoe, the other neutralist and under the leadership of Oconostota, Attakullakulla, and The Raven. The first blow to the Cherokee war effort came when the Creeks refused to join them. Nevertheless, the militants swept down on the settlements of the white trespassers. Many southern colonists seem to have been waiting for just such an opportunity. Charles Lee, the Continental commander in the south, welcomed the war: now, the Americans could make an example of the Cherokee, defeat them, and seize their lands. Thomas Jefferson declared, “I hope the Cherokees will now be driven beyond the Mississippi.” Seizures of Cherokee territory, illegal before the war, now became a patriotic act. Retaliatory raids from Georgia, Virginia, North and South Carolina stormed through Cherokee county in the summer and fall of 1776. In the course of a few months, the Americans defeated the Cherokee and destroyed their towns and cornfields. Chota was spared by Colonel William Christian of the Virginia Army, according to tradition, “out of respect” to Nancy Ward, the ghighau, or War Woman of the Cherokees. But this interpretation does not accord with the fact that the Virginian general was aware that, in the words of Cherokee chronicler Turtle- at-Home, “the greater part of the Nation ... had been inclined to remain neutral.” As the Virginian army approached Chota, the Raven sent a flag of truce, and Attakullakulla and Oconostota sued for peace. Christian demanded that Oconostota hand over Dragging Canoe and the British agent Alexander Cameron, but the peace faction could not compel their surrender. The massive retaliation visited on the Cherokees allowed the accommodationist chiefs to reassert a measure of authority among the majority of the Overhill people, while Dragging Canoe and younger warriors - in what came to be known as the Chickamauga Secession - moved farther south and west to the Chickamauga country to continue the war. Cut off from British support and supplies and reeling from the American retaliation, Oconostota had no choice but to make peace overtures to the Americans. After a meeting at Long Island on the Holston with Colonel Nathaniel Gist, who had a Cherokee wife, Oconostota, Attakullakulla, and a delegation of thirty Cherokee traveled to Williamsburg to talk peace, one of Attakullakulla’s last diplomatic acts. In May 1777, the Lower Cherokees came to terms with George and South Carolina at DeWitt’s Corner, surrendering all remaining land in South Carolina except a narrow strip in the western border. Two months later, the Overhill Cherokees met to make peace with Virginia and North Carolina at Long Island and ceded all lands east of Blue Ridge as well as a corridor through the Cumberland Gap. Together the two treaties stripped the Cherokees of more than five million acres. These cessions of land did not bring peace to the Cherokees. As Cornwallis swept north in 1780, British agents intensified their efforts to get Cherokee warriors to act in concert with British troops. By December, the Virginians were convinced that the British had been successful. Thomas Jefferson dispatched John Sevier and Arthur Campbell at the head an army to Chota in December 1780 and used it as a base to destroy all of the neighborhood Cherokee towns, then burned Chota itself. The Virginians destroyed seventeen towns, a thousand houses, fifty thousand bushels of corn, and most of the Cherokee archives, including Oconostota’s personel papers. The army continued burning and looting Cherokee country during the following year. By the spring of 1782, most of the Cherokee were starving. In 1782, the Virginia commander, William Christian described their plight:

"The miseries of those people [the Cherokee] from what I see and hear seem to exceed description; here are men women and children almost naked; I see very little to cover either sex but some old bear skins, and we are told that the bulk of the nation are in the same naked situation. But this is not the greatest of their evils; their crops this year have been worse than ever was known, so that their corn and potatoes, it is supposed will be all done before April; and many are already out, particularly widows and fatherless children, who have no men nearly connected with them."

[William Christian to ..., Dec. 1782. Draper MS 11S10.] The collapse of the Anglo-Indian war effort in 1781 unleashed a settler’s invasion of the upper Tennessee country. The Cherokees appealed to Governor Alexander Martin of North Carolina, who in turn ordered Sevier to warn off the intruders, but the squatter invasion continued unabated through out 1782. Chota was rebuilt but it never achieved the stature that it once had.

In July 1782, now almost blind and suffering from tuberculosis, Oconostota with the consent of the Cherokee Nation resigned his 44-year- old authority as Great Warrior to his son Tuckesee. The Cherokee, however, did not accept the new Great Warrior, who they saw as a man of little ability. Old and ill, Oconostota spent the winter of 1782-83 on Long Island of the Holston at the home of Joseph Martin, Virginia's Indian agent. Martin was married to a daughter of Nancy Ward, who also spent that winter in the Martin home on the Long Island of the Holston River. The two men were very close and, as death began creeping towards the old chief, he requested that Martin accompany him back to his beloved Chota. He and the Indian Agent traveled by canoe to the then-dying city. Oconostota told Martin he wished to be buried in the manner of the whites. The chief had been impressed with coffins he had seen whites buried in and, when finally laid to rest, he wanted to his head to face towards the "Long Knife" – his name for Virginia. When death was finally near, Martin fashioned the canoe into a makeshift coffin and, following a ceremony reserved for only the greatest of his tribe, Oconostota, the Great Warrior of Chota, was laid to rest in front of the city’s Council House where his voice had once carried the weight of the Cherokee Nation. It is hard for historians to put into words what Oconostota accomplished in his lifetime of service to the Cherokee. Hollywood and other fictitious portrayals of Native American leadership have always illustrated chiefs as being hereditary "kings" of their tribes. A Cherokee’s abilities in war, trade, and diplomacy, brought them influence and the right to serve as a consultant to the tribal council. The power of these political structures was found in an individual’s ability to influence others. Once such a position was attained, it had to be held and proven over and over. Oconostota in any European context would be likened to a famous general or diplomat. His ability to respond quickly to threats and his fearless courage of battle made him a natural leader among the Cherokee and other southeastern tribes. There were many contemporary descriptions of him in British and French writings of the day and even President George Washington wrote of him and the problems he could pose to American security. Backgrounder: The Delaware Nation, 1754 - 1776

On the eve of the French and Indian War, the Delaware nation was split between those Delawares living in close proximity and alliance with the Shawnees in the Ohio River Valley and those Shawnees who continued to live in their native homeland of Pennsylvania, particularly in the Susquehanna, Wyoming, and upper reaches of the Lehigh Valleys. Many of the Pennsylvania Delawares were Christian Moravians or Quakers and lived in various towns in Pennsylvania established by the Moravian and Quaker missionaries. The Ohio River Delaware united with the Shawnee, Mingoes, and the other tribes of the old French alliance under the leadership of the Ottawa Pontiac in what has been called Pontiac’s Rebellion against their new British overlords (1763).

Pontiac secretly organized a general uprising, which caught the British totally by surprise. After it began in May, the rebellion captured nine of the twelve British forts west of the Appalachians. The Delaware, Shawnee, and Mingo surrounded Fort Pitt cutting if off from the outside world and then attacked the Pennsylvania frontier killing 600 colonists. In an effort to break the siege at Fort Pitt, Amherst wrote its commander, suggesting that he deliberately infect the tribes outside the fort by giving them blankets and handkerchiefs infected with smallpox, and the resulting epidemic spread from the Delaware, Shawnee, and Mingo to the Cherokee in Tennessee and then the entire Southeast. The uprising collapsed after it failed to take Forts Pitt, Niagara, and Detroit. The French refused to help and even urged their old allies to stop. In November, the Delaware and Shawnee signed a peace with the British at Coshocton and released the 200 white prisoners they were holding. Adopted into Delaware and Shawnee families, many of these prisoners refused repatriation and had to be forcibly repatriated to their white families. In the meantime, the Pennsylvania Delaware’s were under tremendous pressures from white colonists and the Iroquois Confederation. Connecticut had never renounced its claim to the land ceded by the Iroquois With a terrible sense of timing, the Susquehanna Company brought the first Connecticut settlers to the Wyoming Valley (Wilkes-Barre) in the spring of 1763. In April, the newcomers decided to encourage the Delaware to leave the area by setting fire to the house of Teedyuskung, the Delaware sachem who had been the first to make peace with the British at Easton in 1756. Teedyuskung died asleep inside his burning house, his slumber aided by some rum provided to him free of charge by the whites. The Delaware village was also torched, and its residents forced to flee for their lives. When the Pontiac uprising began that May, the Ohio Delaware attacked settlements in the Juanita, Tuscarora, and Cumberland Valleys, and in the fall, they combined with the Seneca to raid the Wyoming Valley in retaliation for the murders and burnings in April. Pennsylvania once again offered a bounty for Delaware scalps, and Colonel John Armstrong attacked the Delaware village at Big Island. In October a Delaware war party killed 26 colonists during a raid near Allentown. Since the innocent were always easier to find, a mob of Lancaster colonists (The Paxton Boys) murdered 20 peaceful Christian Conestoga (Susquehannock) Indians in December. Threats of mob violence forced the Moravians and Quakers to evacuate the converts from their Pennsylvania missions. For more than a year, 140 Christian Delaware were confined in a Philadelphia warehouse under the constant danger of lynching. Before being sent to New York, 56 had died from smallpox. William Johnson added to the Delaware diaspora by convincing the Mohawk to punish the Delaware for joining Pontiac, and Iroquois warriers destroyed Kanhanghton and six other Delaware villages on the Susquehanna. With settlement taking their land in the Wyoming and Susquehanna Valleys, the last of the Pennsylvania Delaware left for Ohio in 1764. The Movarian missionaries made plans to follow them west. Shaken by Pontiac’s rebellion, the British government issued the Proclamation of 1763 closing the frontier west of the Appalachians to further settlement. In the east, the Proclamation angered the colonists and started them on the path to revolution. In the west, the frontiersmen simply ignored it and settled illegally in western Pennsylvania beginning with the Redstone - and, appropriately enough - Cheat Rivers. The British military simply could not stop them. By 1774, there were 50,000 whites west of the Appalachians.

1 The Ohio tribes, including the Delaware, would call these squatters the "Long Knives" (Mechanschican in Delaware). They were Pennsylvania and Virginia frontiersmen who by this time had been fighting Native Americans for several generations, and no government (French, British, or American after 1775) was going keep them from taking the Ohio Country from the "Savages." Unable to enforce the law, the British realized its very existence was pushing the colonies towards revolt, and in 1768 they met at Fort Stanwix with the Iroquois to negotiate a treaty to open Ohio and western Pennsylvania to settlement. Without consulting the Delaware, Shawnees, Mingo, Wyandot and other nations that lived there, the Iroquois ceded the Ohio Country. They also sold their remaining lands in the Susquehanna and Wyoming Valleys, which resulted in a civil war (The Pennamite War in which Connecticut and Pennsylvania militias fought and killed each other for control of the area). When news of Fort Stanwix agreement reached Ohio, the Shawnee sent overtures of alliance to all the Great Lakes and Ohio Valley tribes including the southern nations, such as the Cherokee and Chickasaw. In the initial steps towards the formation of the western alliance, meetings were held on the Scioto River in Ohio in 1770 and 1771, but the failure of the Pontiac Rebellion was still fresh in Indian memories, and William Johnson, the British Indian commissioner, was able to thwart the effort by threatening war with the Iroquois which left the Delaware, Shawnee, and Mingo to face the invasion by themselves. Having seen this before, the Delaware made preparations to move and in 1770 obtained permission from the Miami to settle in Indiana. The Movarian missionaries were the most peaceful element in the settlement of the Ohio Valley. Beginning in 1772, they followed 400 of their Delaware converts to Ohio and built three missions along the Tuscarawas and Muskingum Rivers. By 1775 the traditional Delaware had accepted the Moravian villages as equal members, and the influence of the Moravian Delaware at councils encouraged other Delaware to seek a peaceful accommodation with the Long Knives. Prominent Delaware leaders, especially White Eyes (head of the Turtle Clan), Captain Pipe (head of the Wolf Clan) and Killbuck (head of the Turkey Clan) worked mightily with, first, the British and, when the Americans declared their independence, with American Indian commissioner George Morgan to reach an accommodation with the whites and to pacify their Shawnee and Mingo neighbors and allies. Both Virginia and Pennsylvania claimed the area around Pittsburgh, but Virginia's claim included Kentucky. The Iroquois had ceded this area at Fort Stanwix, but Kentucky was also claimed by the Cherokee. Treaties signed at Watonga (1774) and Sycamore Shoals (1775) extinguished the Cherokee claims but totally ignored the Shawnee. When Virginia sent survey crews to Kentucky in 1774, there were clashes with Shawnee warriors who were prepared to defend their hunting territory south of the Ohio. As tensions rose in April, Michael Cresap organized a party of vigilantes near Wheeling, which killed several Shawnee. The Delaware chief Bald Eagle was ambushed, scalped, and his body placed upright in a sitting position in his canoe to float down the river to his tribesmen. The following month, other frontiersmen massacred the family of Logan, a Mingo war chief, at Yellow Creek (Stuebenville, Ohio). The Shawnee chief Cornstalk went to Fort Pitt to keep the peace by getting the whites to "cover the dead," an important ritual of reconciliation in the web of diplomatic understandings known as the Middle Ground. The Delaware also offered to mediate, but Logan went to the Shawnee-Mingo village at Wakatomica and recruited a war party, which in gruesome retaliation killed 13 whites. In retaliation but also with the goal of seizing land for himself, Virginia governor, Lord Dunmore invaded the Ohio coutry, settlers along the upper Ohio moved into the safety of their blockhouses, until the governor arrived with 2,500 militia. Dunmore and the Virginia militias destroyed Wakatomica as well as five other villages in the area. The Delaware stayed neutral, and the Detroit tribes refused the Shawnee war belt. This left Cornstalk's Shawnee and the Mingo alone to attack a portion of Dunmore's army near Point Pleasant (West Virginia) as it was preparing to invade Ohio. Forced to withdraw after a hard-fought battle and heavy casualties on both sides, the Shawnee signed a peace treaty in which they surrendered their lands south of the Ohio River. This opened Kentucky for white settlement. With the outbreak of the American Revolution in 1775, new towns sprang up at Boonesboro and Harrodsburg. The Battle of Point Pleasant has sometimes been called the "opening shot of the revolution," and in many ways, this is correct. The war in the east may have been about "no taxation without representation," but in the Ohio Valley, it was all about land … Indian land. The British urged the Ohio tribes to attack the settlements because the Americans were trying to take Ohio - a very obvious lie, since the Americans leaders and white settlers wanted everything, not just Ohio. Only the Detroit tribes, Seneca, Mingo, and some Shawnee, sided with the British at first, but their raids and indiscriminate American retaliation were enough to start a spiral towards total war. The Delaware remained neutral, and their head chief White Eyes (Koquethagachton) even addressed the Congress in Philadelphia during 1776, prompting Congress to advance a tentative offer to create a Delaware state in the Ohio Country, that would send representatives to Continental Congress. However, the new government had almost no control over the actions of the Long Knives west of the Appalachians.

2 The Delawares 1777 - 1829

Cornstalk kept his Shawnee neutral until taken hostage at Fort Randolph in 1777 and later murdered. The Shawnee retaliated with raids in Pennsylvania and Kentucky. In February, 1778 General Edward Hand left Fort Pitt with Pennsylvania militia for a punitive raid. He never found any hostile warriors but attacked two peaceful Delaware villages killing the brother, and wounding the mother of Captain Pipe (head of the Wolf Clan). Hand's infamous "Squaw Campaign" ended Pipe's neutrality, but for the moment, he was held in check by the other Delaware chiefs, White Eyes (Turtle Clan) and Killbuck (Turkey Clan). In September all three signed a treaty at Fort Pitt with the Americans - the first treaty between the United States and Native Americans.

Among other things, the Americans promised not to take any Delaware land; to protect them from the British; and if desired, they could have a representative in Congress. In return the Delaware became American allies and would permit the construction of a fort in their territory. Unlike Penn's 1682 treaty with the Delaware, this one was immediately broken. The commander at Fort Pitt, General Lachlan McIntosh, asked the Delaware to join him in an attack on Detroit. Since this would have involved fighting British-allies with whom they were at peace, the Delaware declined. However, to show his good will, White Eyes agreed to escort McIntosh to the proposed site of Fort Laurens (Bolivar, Ohio). He was murdered enroute, but the Delaware were told he died of "smallpox." Fort Laurens soon proved isolated and indefensible, but the Americans had killed their best friend on the Delaware council. Many Delaware did not accept the explanation, and the pro-British faction began to unite around Captain Pipe. Killbuck attempted to keep them neutral, but it did not help when frontiersmen tried in 1779 to kill a Delaware delegation enroute to Philadelphia for a meeting with Congress. As tensions built, many of the Munsee Delaware left Ohio for what they thought was the safety of the Seneca villages in New York. This placed them directly in the path of Colonel Daniel Brodhead's offensive up the Allegheny Valley in support of General John Sullivan's 1779 campaign against the Iroquois. The Munsee villages were also destroyed, and they retreated to southern Ontario. When the war ended, most stayed in Canada and did not return to the United States.

In the spring of 1780, the British launched an offensive to seize the Ohio valley as well as St. Louis and New Orleans. The result was a major escalation in the warfare in the west. That April, Captain Henry Bird left Detroit with 600 warriors to attack Kentucky. By the time he reached the Ohio River there were almost 1,200. Throughout the summer, the Americans took a terrible beating in Kentucky and Pennsylvania. By this time, most of the Delaware had joined Captain Pipe at Pluggy’s Town (Delaware, Ohio) against the Long Knives. Only Killbuck remained loyal to the Americans who ignored his requests for a fort to protect Coshocton. Threatened by Wyandot and Mingo warriors, he relocated to Fort Pitt, and the insurgents took over the Delaware capitol. In the spring of 1781, Killbuck guided Brodhead's militia to Coshocton. Before the attack, a chief trying to negotiate surrender was tomahawked by a soldier while he was speaking to Brodhead (Militia discipline was this bad!). Coshocton was burned. Orders to spare women and children were generally followed, but 15 male prisoners were executed by tomahawk. By the summer of 1781, the only neutral Delaware were the Moravians. After a council of war at Chillicothe, new raids hit the American settlements.

The Moravian villages lay on one of the main warpaths, and as a result they were harassed by both sides. In the fall the British ordered their arrest, and a Wyandot war party gathered the Moravians and escorted them to Captive's Town on the upper Sandusky. Food was scarce, and some of them returned to Gnadenhuetten that winter to salvage the corn from their abandoned fields. In March a Delaware war party returning from a raid in Pennsylvania passed through on its way back to northern Ohio. Close on their heels were 160 Pennsylvania volunteers from Washington County, Pennsylvania commanded by Colonel David Williamson. Finding the Moravians at Gnadenhuetten, Williamson 1. placed them under arrest. In the democratic style of frontier militia, a vote was taken whether to take the prisoners back to Fort Pitt or kill them. The decision was to execute them. The Moravians were given the night to prepare. In the morning, two slaughter houses were selected, and 90 Christian Delaware - 29 men, 27 women, and 34 children - were taken inside in small groups and beaten to death with wooden mallets. Among the victims was old Abraham, a Mahican and the first convert the Moravians had made in Pennsylvania. Afterwards, the troops burned Gnadenhuetten and the other Moravian missions. Then loaded down with plunder from their victims, they took it home with them to their wives and children in Pennsylvania.

Word of the massacre spread to the other Delaware, and in June they joined the Wyandot to defeat a large force of Pennsylvania militia (Battle of Sandusky) sent to attack the Sandusky villages. The Wyandot captured the commanding officer, Colonel William Crawford, and honoring a request from Captain Pipe, they turned him over to the Delaware. Crawford suffered a slow, terrible death (burned at stake) to atone for his role in the Gnadenhuetten Massacre. The war continued in 1782 with the Shawnee inflicting a major defeat on Kentucky militia at Blue Licks (Daniel Boone's son was killed in this battle), and the Mingo burning Hannastown in Pennsylvania. In November George Rogers Clark attacked the Shawnee villages on Scioto River. The Treaty of Paris ended the Revolutionary War in 1783, but the war between the Ohio tribes and Long Knives continued with few interruptions until 1795. The British in 1783 asked their allies to stop the attacks, but so much blood had been spilt few listened. For their part, most of the frontiersmen did not consider the peace with the British as extending to "Red Devils." George Rogers Clark asked Congress for permission to raise an army to conquer all of the Ohio tribes. Politely thanked for his past services, the request was denied. Meanwhile, Simon De Peyster, the British agent at Detroit, was encouraging the formation of an alliance to fight the Americans.

With a new war threatening, the Delaware decided their old villages in east-central Ohio were vulnerable and relocated most of them to northwestern Ohio and southern Indiana. The new locations were crowded, and the Delaware habit of hunting for profit created friction with neighboring tribes. Some of the Delaware and Shawnee peace factions separated from the militants in 1784 and moved to Ste. Genevieve, Missouri in Spanish Louisiana. The Spanish found them useful as a buffer against the Americans and protection against Osage horse thieves. In 1788 the Spanish governor sent emissaries to the Shawnee and Delaware in Ohio inviting others to immigrate, and in 1793 Baron de Carondelet, the Spanish governor of Louisiana, made a formal land grant (25 miles square) at Cape Girardeau to the Missouri Shawnee and Delaware. They remained here until 1807 when American settlement began in the area. By 1815 most of the Cape Girardeau Delaware and Shawnee (Absentee Delaware and Shawnee) had left for Texas where they were welcomed by Spanish government as a defense against Comanche raiders. The departure of these moderates left the Delaware and Shawnee war factions in control back in Ohio.

After joining Tecumseh in his unsuccessful resistance to American domination, the Ohio Delaware in Indiana regrouped. Two centuries of standing in front of the European advance across North America had cost the Delaware 90% of their original population and left them scattered from Texas to Canada. The 1,000 Delaware in Indiana had no doubt what the outcome would be of a confrontation with the State of Indiana and, at the St. Marys Treaty in October, 1818, ceded their Indiana lands and agreed to move west of the Mississippi. Between 1820 and 1822, the Delaware left Indiana and moved to the James Fork of the White River in southwest Missouri. Only 100 Delaware remained behind on their small reserve at Pipestown on the upper Sandusky in Ohio.

In August, 1829 the Ohio Delaware ceded their reserve and agreed to join the Delaware west of the Mississippi. The thought of another 100 mouths to feed made the Delaware on the James Fork agree to exchange their Missouri lands for a new reserve in northeast Kansas just north of the Shawnee. The new location proved satisfactory, and in December, 1829 the Delaware arrived in Kansas and settled on the Missouri River north of its junction with the Kansas (Kansas City). 2. 3. Buckongahelas (c. 1720 - May 1805) Delaware

Buckongahelas (c. 1720 - May 1805) was a regionally and nationally renowned Delaware chief, councilor and warrior. He lived during the days of the French and Indian War and when the young American republic began encroaching on Indian lands in the Ohio River Country. In the Lenape language, his name

translates as a "Giver of Presents." He was also known as "Pachgantschihilas" and "Petchnanalas" meaning a "fulfiller" or "one who succeeds in all he undertakes." An American government official, who knew Buckongahelas, characterized him as the "George Washington" of the Delaware people. He stood at a height of 5 feet, 10 inches and was strong with powerful muscles. He apparently had a physiognomy resembling Benjamin Franklin.

Buckongahelas is known to have lived some time in a Delaware village on the site of what is now the city of Buckhannon in Upshur County, West Virginia. He had a son named Mahonegon who was killed by Captain William White, a native of Frederick County, Virginia, in June 1773. Local legend states that Mahonegon is buried under the current Upshur County Courthouse. White, a prominent Indian-hater, was never known to show mercy to Native Americans. Legend also has it that Buckongahela trailed his son's killer for a period of nine years (1773–1782), but this legend has no basis in fact because Buckongahela no longer resided in West Virginia at that time. White was probably killed by other Delaware seeking revenge for the Gnadenhutten Massacre on March 8, 1782 when Pennsylvania militia executed ninety-six peaceful Christian Delaware while they prayed. Whatever feelings he took away from the murder of his son, Buckongahelas admitted that there were good white men, but, in his words, “they bear no proportion to the bad.” Indians, he continued, could place no faith in their words for they were “not like the Indians who are only enemies, while at war, and are friends in peace.” Buckongahelas had come to know the Long Knives in the same way Indian haters had come to know Indians. He knew they were not to be trusted.

The Revolution thus opened a new chapter in the old tug of war between Ohio Indians that advocated accommodation with the advance of European settlement and those who favored aggressive resistance. Initially, these tensions and divisions ran mostly beneath the surface. Leading spokesmen for the Ohio Indians adopted a conciliatory tone in their dealings with both the British and the rebellious colonies; they were concerned, above all, to maintain regular diplomatic relations and avoid open war with either side. Negotiation, not war, appeared to them to be the surest means of holding onto Indian lands.

The revolutionary Americans, even when pressed to keep Delaware and Shawnee war parties off their borders, would not ratify any treaty that implied Delaware title to their lands north of the Ohio River. To do so would offend the still largely neutral Iroquois Six Nations, on whose spurious claims to much of the trans-Appalachian west included many colonial purchases - including those of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson – that had been made with them. The Iroquois had already sold Shawnee lands to Kentucky to various speculators. American support for the Six Nation’s claims to the Ohio country against the more legitimate Shawnee and Delaware claims hindered attempts by Shawnee accommodationists - such as Cornstalk - and the Delaware accommodationist, such as White Eyes and Killbucks to increase their support among their followers for more peaceful policies.

Buckongahelas was not sure that seeking a peaceful accommodation with the rapacious American settlers was desirable and might not even be possible, given their Indian-hating ways. Several options were open to him and his like-minded Delaware who he led: He could follow the path of White Eyes and Killbucks and try to reach some agreement with the Americans that preserved Delaware lands in the Ohio Country. He and his people could migrate further west into the Illinois Country where the settlers edging north across the Ohio River from Kentucky might not bother them. Or, Buckongahelas and his followers could take up arms in alliance with the British against the Americans.

1

2 Buckongahelas’ Decision

During the American Revolutionary War, Buckongahelas led his followers against the United States of America and again in the Northwest Indian War. In the latter war, he helped win the most devastating military victory ever achieved by Native Americans in the United States. Early in the American Revolutionary War, Buckongahelas broke away from the neutral and pro-American Delawares led by White Eyes, and established a town near the war leader Blue Jacket of the Shawnee. The two men became close allies. Speaking on a war belt in council with the British in Detrtoit in December 1781, the Buckongahelas declared that his warriors had been “making blood fly” on the American frontier for the past five years. The next year, the last of the war, witnessed even bloodier conflict. Indians routed Aerican Forces at Blue Licks and Sandusky.

During the war, a number of Delawares who had converted to Christianity lived in dangerously exposed frontier villages run by Moravian missionaries. In April 1781, at the Ohio village of Gnadenhütten, Buckongahelas warned these Delawares that an American militia from Pennsylvania would come execute any Indians in their warpath. He urged these Christian Delawares to follow him and move further west to the Au Glaize settlement in present-day Indiana, well out of reaching of the encroaching Americans. Moving westward "from the rising sun," these people could live where the land was good and his warriors would protect them. A Moravian missionary, named John Heckewelder, accounts that Buckongahelas' oration to these Christian Indians was told "with ease and an eloquence not to be imitated." He continues that "Eleven months after this speech was delivered by this prophetic chief, ninety-six of these same Christian Indians, about sixty of them women and children, were murdered at the place where these very words had been spoken, by the same men he had alluded to, and in the same manner that he had described."

The United States compelled a number of Indian leaders to sign treaties after the Revolutionary War, claiming the Ohio Country by right of conquest. In the late 1780’s, Buckongahelas joined a Shawnee-led confederacy that won several battles against the Americans (the Northwest Indian War), before ultimately being defeated at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794. When the British failed to support the Indian confederacy after Fallen Timbers, Buckongahelas signed the Treaty of Greenville on Monday August 3, 1795. In this treaty, the Delawares gave up much land in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

On June 7, 1803, Buckogahela signed the Treaty of Fort Wayne in Indiana; new boundaries were set for the Delawares and other nations. Lastly, he signed the Treaty of Vincennes on August 18, 1804, in Vincennes, Indiana. The Delaware ceded lands between the Ohio and Wabash Rivers. This treaty helped open settlement to the Ohio and Indiana territories. Buckongahelas made "X" signatures on these three treaties.

Buckongahelas spent his final years living with his people on the White River near present-day Muncie, Indiana. In May 1805, he died at the age of 85 from smallpox or influenza. It was believed by many local Native Americans to have been the work of witchcraft; a witch-hunt followed, leading to the execution of several suspected Delaware witches, and the rise to prominence of the Shawnee prophet and witch hunter Tenskwatawa who was Techumseh’s brother and partner in the final great confederacy of the Northwest Indian nations.

George White Eyes (Delaware), ? - ca. 1777

Nothing is known about White Eyes's early life. He first enters the historical record near the end of the French and Indian War as a messenger during treaty negotiations. By 1766, he worked as a tavern keeper and trader in a Delaware town on the Beaver River, a tributary of the Ohio River in present-day western Pennsylvania. This occupation suggests he may have been well suited for the role of intermediary between Indians and whites. He may even have been able read or write in English and speak the language well enough to make an eloquent speech in English when he addressed the U.S. Congress in 1776.

After the French and Indian War, white colonists began settling near the Delaware villages around Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) in western Pennsylvania. In response, the Delawares removed to the Muskingum River Valley in present-day eastern Ohio. By this time, some Delawares had converted to Christianity and were living in villages run by Moravian missionaries. The missionary towns also moved to the Muskingum River in Ohio, so that the Delaware people, both Christian and non-Christian, could stay together. Not only were these converts kinsmen to the non-Christian Delaware, but the Moravian missionaries brought valuable skills to the Delawares with whom they worked, skills such as blacksmithing and livestock husbandry that helped the nation weather the scarcity of deer and other game in the early 1770’s. Though not a Christian himself, White Eyes made certain that the Christian Delawares remained accepted members of the Delaware nation even though they lived apart in the largely Christian Delaware towns of Gnattenhutten, Shoenbrunn on the Muskingum River and Friedstadt on the Beaver River.

White Eyes established his own town, White Eyes's Town, near the Delaware capital of Coshocton. In 1774, White Eyes was named principal chief of the nation by the Delaware Grand Council. White Eyes had two goals for his people. First, he strove to gain Britain’s, and later the U.S. Congress’, recognition of Delaware possession of their lands north of the Ohio. In addition to landed independence, he sought Anglo-American economic cooperation under the guidance of white teachers. White Eyes was convinced that a European-style education was necessary if Indian leaders were ever able to deal effectively with the colonists. As game declined and European trade goods became scarce due to the colonist’s Non-Importation Agreements against Britain, White Eyes began to emphasize the need for Delawares to engage in more intensive European agricultural practices, involving livestock husbandry and the cultivation of wheat with steel shod plows. This was a departure from the traditional Delaware economy that was marked by male -dominated hunting and by female-dominated cultivation of the “Three Sisters” (corn, beans, squash). Following the lead of the Moravian Delawares, Delaware Grand Council, with White Eyes’ fervent support, outlawed alcohol.

In the early 1770s, violence on the frontier between whites and Indians threatened to escalate into open warfare. White Eyes unsuccessfully attempted to prevent what would become Lord Dunmore's War in 1774, fought primarily between Shawnee Indians and Virginia. White Eyes served as a peace emissary between the two armies, helping to arrange the treaty that ended the war. When the American Revolutionary War erupted soon after Dunmore's War had ended, White Eyes was in the midst of negotiating a royal grant with Lord Dunmore that was intended to secure a Delaware territory in the Ohio Country. Dunmore was forced out of Virginia by American revolutionaries, and so White Eyes had to begin anew with the Americans to negotiate a recognized territory for a Delaware state. “The Revolution thus opened a new chapter in the old tug of war between Ohio Indians that advocated accommodation with the advance of European settlement and those who favored aggressive resistance. Initially, these tensions and divisions ran mostly beneath the surface. Leading spokesmen for the Ohio Indians adopted a conciliatory tone in their dealings with both the British and the rebellious colonies; they were concerned, above all, to maintain regular diplomatic relations and avoid open war with either side. Negotiation, not war, appeared to them to be the surest means of holding onto Indian lands.” White Eyes also hedged his bets by proclaiming his solidarity with both the British officials and the Continental Congress. Immediately following his negotiations with the agents of Virginia Royal Governor Lord Dunmore, who, by 1775, was corresponding with White Eyes from his residence-in-exile aboard a British man-of-war in Chesapeake Bay, White Eyes conferred with representatives of Virginia’s Revolutionary government and the Continental Congress.

The revolutionary Americans, even when pressed to keep Delaware and Shawnee war parties off their borders, would not ratify any treaty that implied Delaware title to their lands north of the Ohio River. To do so would offend the still largely neutral Iroquois Six Nations, on whose spurious claims to much of the trans-Appalachian west included many colonial purchases - including those of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson - had been made with them. The Iroquois had already sold Shawnee lands to Kentucky to various speculators. American support for the Six Nation’s claims to the Ohio country against the more legitimate Shawnee and Delaware claims hindered attempts by Shawnee accomodationists, such as Cornstalk, and the Delaware accomodationist White Eyes and Killbucks to increase their support among their followers for more peaceful policies. From 1776 through 1777, White Eyes struggled to keep the Delawares out of the war. In his efforts, he had a white ally and friend in the person of George Morgan, an ex-trader but now an Indian Commissioner at Fort Pitt (Pittsburgh) for the Continental Congress. Morgan himself was suspect among the frontier whites, who suspected him of Tory leanings. A skilled operator in the “Middle Ground,” Morgan struggled to maintain loyal chiefs who could hold the Delawares, Shawnees, Mingos, Munsees, and Wyandots neutral. Morgan knew how to support the chiefs and work incrementally and slowly with gifts and recognition of Delaware values and ritual. White Eyes and his friend John Killbuck called Morgan “the wisest, faithfullest and best Man I [we] ever had any thing to do with.”

Morgan’s goal of peace and Indian neutrality through the diplomacy of the Middle Ground was frustrated by George Roger Clark and the other American military men at Pittsburgh, who pushed a military solution, one that inevitably put pressure on the neutral Delawares, the Shawnees, and the Senecas to choose sides. The American generals soon won the support of both the Continental Congress and Virginia governor Patrick Henry, who believed “Savages must be managed by working on their Fears.” In November 1777, George Morgan wrote to John Hancock that he feared backcountry whites sought a war with the Delawares “on account of the fine lands these poor people possess.” Caught between the militant American generals and the murderous white settlers, the neutrality that George White Eyes sought was becoming a “world too narrow.” He too would soon have to choose. What would George White Eyes choose? Alliance with the American rebels? The British? Or, would he struggle to maintain neutrality? White Eye’s Decision

White Eyes and Killbuck remained opposed to war. They argued among their people that war against the white settlers could not be won. Unlike most northerners, they believed that even the combined forces of the northern Indians and the British could not overpower the prolific, expansionist, and armed Americans. Even in the face of American general Hand’s murder of six Delaware’s in February 1778, White Eyes continued to counsel against war. White Eyes had no intention of fighting beside the Americans, but he was willing to guide them, to allow them to establish posts within Delaware territory, and to negotiate for them with their Indian enemies, if possible. He was willing to carry messages over the dangerous terrain between the new American posts in Delaware country and Fort Pitt. White Eyes remained true to his conviction that he had to work with with the American rebels if he were to defend the best interests of his people at Coshocton. In April of 1776, White Eyes addressed the Continental Congress in Philadelphia on behalf of the Delawares, and eventually negotiated an alliance with the United States in 1778 at Fort Pitt. This treaty called for the establishment of a Delaware Indian state, with representation in the American Congress, provided that the Congress approved. The Delaware was the first independent nation requesting admission as a state in the Union - potentially, the fourteenth state of the United States. As it turned out, White Eyes would be dead before the matter proceeded further, and the possibility of a Delaware Indian state in the Union died with him. An article of the treaty called for Delawares to serve as guides for the Americans when they moved through the Ohio Country to strike at their British and Indian enemies to the north (in and around Detroit). Accordingly, in early November of 1778, White Eyes joined an American expedition as a guide and negotiator. Soon after, the Americans reported to the shocked Delawares of Coshocton that White Eyes had contracted smallpox and died during the expedition. After the death of White Eyes and especially after the Gnattenhutten massacre, the Delaware alliance with the Americans collapsed. Years later, George Morgan, Congressional agent and close associate of White Eyes, revealed in a letter to Congress that White Eyes had been "treacherously put to death" by American militiamen, and his murder had been covered up in order to prevent the Delawares from immediately abandoning the United States. No other details of what happened have survived; historians generally accept Morgan's claim that White Eyes had been murdered, though the reasons remain obscure. White Eyes had placed himself in harm's way during Dunmore's War to prevent bloodshed; a similar effort during the Revolution cost him his life. By the end of 1779, the murders had driven many, but not all, Choshocton Delawares and Shawnees into the arms of the militants, and the erstwhile neutral ground disintegrated in civil conflict. White Eyes rode horseback at the day of his murder, as was suggested by presence of a bridle, saddle and tack listed the “Inventory of Sundry Moveables” taken of his belongings after his death. This inventory of his belongings discloses a mixture of European and Delaware goods fit for a leader interested in Anglo-American ways. With his pair of scarlet “Breeches,” he carried a buckskin pair of pants, buckskin leggings, and two breech cloths. With his four jackets (one of them scarlet, silk, and laced with gold trimmings) were a fur cap and a beaver hat. He hunted and fought with a rifle, walked in European shoes (He carried three pair with him.), sported

1. buckles and a silver medal etched with the portrait of George II, warmed himself in one of his two green goats, painted his face, smoked from a pipe-tomahawk, treated with a built of wampum in his hand, and saw the world (or perhaps only for his close work) through the lenses of his spectacles. By frontier standards - both sides of the frontier - he had been traveling well clothed. His possessions indicate not only his material dependence on Western goods, but also the importance, economically, of his position as a broker with the Americans on behalf of his people. Despite his relative affluence, as a chief, he was obligated to get goods from the Americans and pass them on to his people as he doubtlessly had during his tenure as a Delaware leader. On March 8 and 9, 1782, a group of Pennsylvania militiamen under the command of Captain David Williamson attacked the Delaware Moravian Church mission founded by David Zeisberger at Gnadenhutten. The Americans struck the natives in retaliation for the deaths and kidnappings of several Pennsylvanians. Although the militiamen attacked the Christian Indians, these natives were not involved in the previous incident. The Christian Delawares had abandoned Gnadenhutten the year before, but had returned to harvest crops that were still in the fields. On March 8, the militiamen arrived at Gnadenhutten. Accusing the natives of the attack on the Pennsylvania settlement, the soldiers rounded them up and placed the men and women in separate buildings in the abandoned village overnight. The militiamen then voted to execute their captives the following morning. Informed of their impending deaths, the Christian Delawares spent the night praying and singing hymns. The next morning the soldiers took the Delawares in pairs to a cabin, forced the natives to kneel, and proceeded to crush their skulls with a heavy mallet. In all, Williamson's men murdered 28 men, 29 women, and 39 children. There were only two survivors, who alerted the missionaries and Christian Indians of what had occurred. A number of White Eye’s Christian relatives perished in this massacre. White Eyes was married. His wife was reportedly murdered by white men in 1788. Their son, George Morgan White Eyes (1770?–1798), was educated at the College of New Jersey (later Princeton University) at the expense of the American government. George contracted an illness and died before reaching the age of thirty.

2. THE IROQUOIS (The Haudenosaunee, The Great League, The Six Nations Confederacy)

The original homeland of the Iroquois was in upstate New York between the Adirondack Mountains and Niagara Falls. Through conquest and migration, they gained control of most of the northeastern United States and eastern Canada. By 1680, their empire included most of what was to become the Northeastern United States. Except for the Iroquois who had moved to the

Ohio River Valley and those on the St. Lawrence River Valley in Canada, most Iroquois lived in their upstate New York towns. During the hundred years before the American Revolution, the Iroquois lost much of their land and many of their people in wars with the French and the British as well as with other Indian nations.

The Iroquois Confederacy was, and still is, a politicalThe union Iroquois of separate Confederacy Indian nations, was, andwho speak the same language and who act together as a singlestill nation is, a in political making unionwar and of peace, separate and making Indian treaties and alliances with other nations. In the beginning,natio therens, who were speak five separate the same Iroquois language nations: and who the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga and Seneca. act In together 1722, theas a Tuscarorassingle nation came in making north fromwar and the Carolinas to join the Confederacy. When the Tuscaroraspeace, joined and them, making the Confederacy treaties and became alliances known with as the Six Indian Nations or Six Nations Confederacy. other The nations. people of the Six Nations call themselves Haudenosaunee, which means "people of the long house."

Each nation in the Iroquois Confederacy agreed to settle their differences and work together by turning over difficult problems and decisions for settlement and solution by the chiefs of the Iroquois nations meeting together the Iroquois Grand Council convened in the town of Onondaga. The Grand Council had the power to deal with foreign nations, such as the British and other Indian nations, and to settle disputes between and among the Five Nations. It worked something like a combination between the present-day U.S. President, Congress and the Supreme Court. The Grand Council of the Iroquois Confederacy could make laws, make treaties with other nations, and settle legal fights among the Iroquois. The members of the Grand Council were usually men who were called sachems. However, only the Iroquois women were allowed to select the men who became sachems in the Grand Council. The Iroquois Confederacy was a “matriarchy,” a society in which women owned the land, raised and harvested the crops, and choose the sachems who would make the important decisions for each Iroquois nation as well as for the entire Confederacy. The wealth, power, and independence of Iroquois women made Iroquois society very different than European and colonial white society. In white societies in Europe and colonial North America, men owned the wealth and the land, ruled over women and children, and made all the important decisions for them.

A hundred years before the American Revolution, the Iroquois were very strong, having just had asserted dominance over much of Northeastern North America. The British, who were beginning to settle the sea coast of New England and New York, knew that they must keep the peace with the Iroquois Confederacy or be wiped out by them. They also wanted to grow rich by trading with the Iroquois for the furs and hides that they got from other Indian nations. So in 1676, the British made a deal with the Iroquois that become to be known as “The Covenant Chain.” By the terms of the Covenant Chain, the colony of New York was charged with managing all Indian affairs, and the British recognized the Iroquois as the rulers of the Indian nations who lived within the boundaries of the British Colonies as well as the rulers but also as the rulers of the Indian nations in the Ohio River and the Cherokees who lived in what is now Georgia and Tennessee. These tribes then become “dependents,” or “younger brothers,” whose lands the Iroquois Great Conch, if they wished, could give away or sell to the whites. The weaker Indian nations hated the Covenant Chain. They didn’t like being bossed around by the Iroquois. They especially didn’t like the fact that the Iroquois could sell or give away their lands to the British settlers. Some Indian nations, such as the Delaware and Shawnee in the Ohio Valley, worked laboriously, even to the point of war, to break free of the Covenant Chain.

Until Britain kicked France out of North America in 1763, the Iroquois stayed neutral in the wars between France and England, not fighting for either side and “playing off” the British against the French. Most of the Confederation remained neutral during the French and Indian War (1754-1763), but the Mohawks under British Indian agent Sir William Johnson fought alongside the British in 1762 and some of the Senecas in the Ohio Valley, under leaders such as Guyasuta, fought alongside the French against the British. Following the French and Indian War, some Senecas joined Pontiac's campaign to drive English settlers out of the Ohio region, but Sir William Johnson was successful in keeping the Seneca Nation as a whole and the rest of the Iroquois from joining Pontiac's army.

With France gone, the Iroquois no longer had a great power to their north that they could “play off” against Britain. Furthermore, many colonial American settlers began settling illegally on Iroquois lands. Iroquois wanted to solve this problem by turning this stream of white settlers away from the Iroquois lands in New York and west towards the Indian lands in Kentucky and the Ohio Valley. To do this, the Iroquois used their powers as the “elder brothers” of the Covenant Chain, and sold Kentucky to the British in the Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1768), despite the fact that this territory belonged to the Shawnee, Delaware, and the Cherokee nations. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix angered the Cherokee, the Delaware, and the Shawnee, who soon declared their independence from their Iroquois “big brothers.”

After the American Revolution broke out in 1775, the official policy of the Iroquois was to wait and watch. The Iroquois Grand Council stated to both the Americans and the British that they would stay out of the fight if Britain and the Americans allowed them to trade with both sides, if both sides would allow the Iroquois to travel freely, and if neither side would trespass on Iroquois lands. A few hotheaded warriors began fighting alongside one side or the other - more frequently on the side of the British than on the side of the Americans. The Tuscaroras and the Oneidas favored the side of the American rebels, while the Mohawks favored the British. Religion also began to split the Iroquois Confederacy. In 1776, many Mohawks were members of the British Church of England, which made them pro-British. Many Oneidas and other Iroquois were members of the American Presbyterian and Congregational churches and, therefore, favored the American rebels. These religious differences split Iroquois communities and families right down the middle. Only the Grand Council could keep the Iroquois united and neutral.

But suddenly, a terrible thing happened. In 1777 a small pox epidemic in the Iroquois capital of Onondaga killed almost all of the sachems on the Grand Council. At this most important time in the history, the Iroquois Confederacy was deprived of their most important leaders, leaders who could hold the Confederacy together and decide on how to deal with this fight between the British and the Americans. Then, the British invited all of the Iroquois to a big meeting at Oswego on the shores of Lake Ontario and asked them to fight with them against the rebels. What would the Iroquois do? Join the British? Join the Americans? Or, stay neutral?

The Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) 1777 - Present

Their decision to side with the British during the Revolutionary War was a disaster for the Iroquois. In retaliation for the Iroquois breach of neutrality, American forces invaded confederacy lands in 1779, burning crops and villages and scattering the population.The American invasion of their homeland in 1779 drove many of the Iroquois into southern Ontario where they have remained. With large Iroquois communities already located along the upper St. Lawrence in Quebec at the time, roughly half of the Iroquois population has since lived in Canada. This includes most of the Mohawk along with representative groups from the other tribes. Although most Iroquois reserves are in southern Ontario and Quebec, one small group (Michel's band) settled in Alberta during the 1800s to work in the fur trade. In the United States, much of the Iroquois homeland was surrendered to New York land speculators in a series of treaties following the Revolutionary War. Despite this, most Seneca, Tuscarora, and Onondaga avoided removal during the 1830s and have remained in New York. There are also sizeable groups of Mohawk, Oneida, Cayuga, and Caughnawaga still in the state. Most of the Oneida, however, relocated in 1838 to a reservation near Green Bay, Wisconsin. The Cayuga sold their New York lands in 1807 and moved west to join the Mingo relatives (Seneca of Sandusky) in Ohio. In 1831 this combined group ceded their Ohio reserve to the United States and relocated to the Indian Territory. A few New York Seneca moved to Kansas at this time but, after the Civil War, joined the others in northeast Oklahoma to become the modern Seneca- Cayuga Tribe of Oklahoma In the nineteenth century the Iroquois Confederacy continued as both a political alliance and a cultural entity. In 1799 the Seneca prophet Handsome Lake began his mission to restore the traditional practices of the Haudenosaunee and to lay the foundation of the modern Iroquois traditional religion. He also restored the Confederacy Council Fire to Onondaga in central New York State. Shortly thereafter the nations on the Grand River, unable to travel the great distance to Onondaga to conduct their governance, kindled a confederacy fire at their home in Canada. Since that time the confederacy has conducted Grand Councils in both longhouses. Although the two councils unite and act as one whenever business must be conducted that affects them both, the Grand River Council is the primary political organization in negotiations with Canada and its political subdivisions, while the Grand Council at Onondaga is the primary negotiator with the United States and its subdivisions. Although there have been some changes, the chiefs of the confederacy continue to meet in council and to host gatherings at which the Great Law is recited, both at Grand River and at Onondaga. The political culture of the Haudenosaunee, now some five or more centuries old, continues to function to this day with a resilience that has enabled their continued existence as a distinct people.

1. Cornplanter (Kaiiontwa'kon,) Seneca Iroquois 1740 - 1836

Cornplanter (Kaiiontwa'kon, "By What One Plants") was a great Seneca general and statesman. He was born at Canawagus on the Genesee River in present-day New York State around 1740. His father was an Albany trader named John Abeel or O'Bail, and Cornplanter was known to the English as John O'Bail or Captain O'Bail. His half brother, Handsome Lake, was an Iroquois Confederacy chief, and future prophet and visionary who later was to found a new religion among the Iroquois. Cornplanter’s nephew was a leader known as Blacksnake, or Governor Blacksnake. This three Senecas would be instrument in the rebirth of the Seneca after the Revolutionary War.

Cornplanter, Blacksnake, and Handsome Lake were apprenticed to war. Cornplanter became a noted war captain, and Blacksnake became one of the official war-chiefs of the Seneca nation. Handsome Lake, who became a sachem and later a religious prophet, never gloried in the number of men he killed as his brother Cornplanter, somewhat guiltily did. “When I was in the use of arms,” Cornplanter recalled, “I killed seven persons and took three and saved their lives.” Later in his life, Blacksnake also would recount with relish his exploits as a warrior.

Cornplanter most likely participated in the French and Indian War (1754-1763) on the side of the French as did his kinsman Guyasuta. He also was alleged to have taken part in 1755 in the ambush of General Braddock’s army in which George Washington served as a colonel. He also probably participated in Pontiac's’ Rebellion after the French and Indian War. After Pontiac’s rebellion, individual Seneca warriors, possibly even Cornplanter, were sympathetic to the Ohio Indians. Chafing under the eyes of the British garrisons, the Senecas watched with sullen resentment as the rowdy whites of the frontier crowding in upon their own lands. Many of them, including Cornplanter, joined the Shawnee, Delaware, and Wyandot in the brief and bloody Lord Dunmore’s War - a war that soured the Ohio Indians to the British Empire and almost provoked the Six Nations to attack the colonial frontier. A thousand Indians - Shawnee, Delaware, Wyandot, Cayuga, Seneca, Ojibway, and others - clashed with Lord Dunmore’s Virginians in 1774 at Point Pleasant on the Ohio River. Outnumbered, but barely beaten, the Indian alliance was forced to retreat from the field. The Six Nations Confederation council at Onondaga, despite the fact that many of their warriors were in the field battling Dunmore’s Virginians, refused officially approve the war. The Onondaga Council used this occasion as a means of punishing the independent-minded Shawnees, who had objected to the Six Nations sale of their hunting grounds in Kentucky at the Treaty of Fort Stanwix and who also were attempting to organize a competing confederacy of their own. In fighting the British, Cornplanter put himself at odds with official Iroquois policy. After the American Revolution broke out in 1775, the official policy of the Iroquois - in response to both British and American requests for their neutrality - was to wait and watch. A few hotheaded warriors committed themselves to fighting alongside one side or the other - more frequently more frequently for the British than for the American rebels. The Stockbridges, the Tuscaroras and the Oneidas were tilting heavily toward the American cause while the Canghnawaga Mohawks in Canada gravitated toward the British. The Iroquois made their neutrality strictly contingent upon weter the warring British and American rebels refrained from interfering with their trade, their travel, and their land. The tribe, in essence, had began the classic play-off policy of playing one European power off against the other: American rebels against the British.

This neutrality was difficult to maintain. American General Philip Schuyler’s arrest, imprisonment, and then parole of Guy Johnson, the British Indian Commissioner, right in the heart of the Mohawk Valley, deeply offended the Iroquois who considered it an invasion of Mohawk territory and, therefore, a violation of their neutrality agreement. At the same time, disaster struck Onondaga in 1777 in the form of a plague that rendered the Onondagas unable to host confederacy meetings at a critical moment in the war. In the absence of confederacy advice or veto, significant numbers of Iroquois warriors joined the war effort in support of Britain. Cornplanter vigorously opposed Iroquois participation in the war on either side and had admonished his warriors against fighting, arguing, according to Governor Blacksnake, that "War is war. Death is the Death. A fight is a hard business."

Cornplanter, Handsome Lake, and Blacksnake were present when the Iroquois warriors and their families met in the early summer of 1777 with the British at Oswego, the fort and trading post on the south shore of Lake Ontario. They were invited by the British to hear British officials make a formal request that the Six Nations enter the war on their side. The Oneidas and Tuscaroras were not present because they either had remained neutral or had already thrown their lot in with the Americans. After plying the hundreds of Iroquois assembled their with food and presents of clothing and hardware, the British commissioner outlined the origin of the rebellion: The Americans were “disobedient children” who required a “Dressing and punishment” from their father, King George.

Now, it was up to the Iroquois warriors to decide which side they were on. This choice traditionally was not a matter of deliberation by the sachems of the confederation council, but by the warriors who would do the fighting. The warriors council met that afternoon but soon split into a war and a peace party. A powerful Mohawk leader rose first and spoke for allying with Britain and tarred the neutrality policy as a recipe for disaster: “if [we] shoul[d] lie down and sleep and we shoul[d] be liable to cut our throat by the Red coat man or by America.” Cornplanter and Red Jacket afterwards argued that the war was a family quarrel among the Europeans, that the Iroquois did not know what it was all about, and that interference in the conflict would be a big mistake. The Mohawk leader who opened the conference, then rose again and called Cornplanter and Red Jacket “cowards.” The meeting broke up in confusion, and the argument was soon taken up by all the Iroquois assembled at Oswego. The people, warriors, and women divided into two parties, and there was a heated discussion of the issues in private councils. The Seneca generally supported Cornplanter’s cautious view that it was not wise to take sides in a civil war among white people. Handsome Lake “spoke strongly against war - thought they had better remain neutral.” recalled Blacksnake; and so did Guyasuta and Red Jacket. The Mohawks, however, repeatedly accused them of being “cowards,” and the Seneca warriors, as Blacksnake later put it, “can not Beared to be called coward.” The British in continued to ply the Iroquois with rum and dry goods and waved a wampum belt that they purported to be the ancient covenant between the Six Nations and the British.

At that moment, Cornplanter was under enormous, but conflicting, pressures: the generosity of the British, the mixed feelings of the Senecas, as well as Cornplanter’s closest confidants, his recent memories of the disastrous consequences of previous Iroquois involvement in European wars, as well as the repeated Mohawk insults to their standing as warriors.

Which path would Cornplanter choose: continued neutrality or alliance with Britain? Cornplanter’s Decision

At first, Cornplanter had vigorously urge that the Iroquois adopt a neutral stance with regard to the British and American combatants in the Revolutionary War . He had admonished his warriors against fighting. Cornplanter told his warriors, according to his cousin Governor Blacksnake, "war is war Death is the Death a fight is a hard business." But, at the Iroquois meeting with the British at Oswego in 1777, the powerful orator and warrior, Joseph Brant, leveled his white-hot speech at Cornplanter, calling him and his Seneca relatives ‘cowards.” As Cornplanter’s cousin Governor Blacksnake later put it, Senecas and Cornplanter especially “can not Beared to be called coward.” Cornplanter reluctantly agreed to accept his nomination by the warriors (along with the respected Seneca war chief Old Smoke) to lead the Iroquois warriors in support of the British. Accordingly, Cornplanter led his soldiers against the American rebels throughout the course of the war.

Cornplanter was second in command of the Indian army at the Battle of Wyoming in June 1778. More than 300 Americans were killed in this action (and fewer than ten Indians and Loyalist rangers) and eight American rebel forts and a thousand dwellings were destroyed by Cornplanter’s army. On August 2, 1780, Cornplanter, Brant, Old Smoke, and the Cayuga war chief Fish Carrier led about four hundred Indians and American Loyalists (Americans colonists fighting on the side of Britain) on a scorched-earth campaign against the Canajoharie District in the Mohawk Valley. Cornplanter’s army captured fifty to sixty prisoners, and destroyed two forts and fifty-three houses. They also burned the house of John Abeel, who was captured and then recognized as Cornplanter's father. Cornplanter was very embarrassed and apologized to his father for burning his home. Cornplanter offered to take his father home to the Seneca country or, if he preferred, to send him back to his American family. Abeel thanked his son but said he would prefer e to return to his American family in the Mohawk Valley.

In October 1780, Cornplanter was among the leaders in a series of attacks on forts and settlements in the Schoharie Valley in what is now eastern New York State. This action was in response to the Clinton-Sullivan campaign of the previous year in which Generals Sullivan and Clinton’s armies had burned two hundred Iroquois houses and an estimated 150,000 bushels of grain in addition to killing forty Iroquois and capturing sixty. Cornplanter’s counterattack prompted New York Governor George Clinton to comment that New York's western frontier was now at Schenectady, startingly close to the American heartland of New York.

At the end of the Revolutionary War Cornplanter organized and led a delegation of Indians to Fort Stanwix, where in 1783 a treaty was negotiated between the United States and the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. The United States agreed to the treaty, but the treaty gave away so much Iroquois land, that the Iroquois Confederation Council rejected it. In a speech delivered to President Washington at Philadelphia, Cornplanter stated: "When our chiefs returned from the treaty at Fort Stanwix, and laid before our 1. council what had been done there, our nation was surprised to hear how great a country you had compelled them to give up to you, without your paying to us any thing for it.... We asked each other, what have we done to deserve such severe chastisement?" Cornplanter participated in a series of treaties in 1784, 1789, 1794, 1797, and 1802, all of which ceded large areas of Seneca territory to non-Indians. Because of these cessions, Cornplanter became extremely unpopular among his own people and at one point, Cornplanter stated that "[t]he great God, and not man, has preserved the Cornplanter from the hands of his own nation."

In 1790 Cornplanter and several other Seneca chiefs met with George Washington to protest the terms of the Fort Stanwix Treaty, stating, "you demand from us a great country, as the price of that peace which you had offered us; as if our want of strength had destroyed our rights.... Were the terms dictated to us by your commissioners reasonable and just?" The Senecas went on to say that there was no reason why further land cessions should be expected. Cornplanter probably persuaded George Washington to adopt treaty making as the preferred method of dealing with Indian tribes while urging fair and honest treatment of the Indians generally. Congress passed the 1790 Non-Intercourse Act with the intention of upholding President Washington's promises that the federal government would protect Indian lands against fraud and theft.

On November 4, 1791, the United States suffered what was probably its worst military defeat at the hands of Indians; Six hundred and thirty soldiers under General Arthur St. Clair were killed in a complete rout by the Shawnees and their allies on the Ohio-Indiana border. Subsequent attempts to arrange peace negotiations with these Indians were not successful, and George Washington now turned to the Six Nations Confederacy to act as peacemakers. The following year Cornplanter, at considerable risk to his own life, led a Six Nations delegation to a meeting on the Auglaize River with the victorious Shawnees in an effort to make peace on behalf of the United States. The Shawnees were not in a peacemaking mood. They treated Cornplanter and his delegation with contempt for what they saw as their subservience to the Americans. Although he was not successful in this peace initiative, Cornplanter received a grant of one square mile of land from the State of Pennsylvania for his efforts and for his assistance in dissuading the Iroquois Confederacy from joining the Shawnees in the fighting in Ohio.

Cornplanter was living on this "Cornplanter Grant" in June of 1799 when his half brother Handsome Lake, who was living in the same house, arose from an alcohol-induced coma and announced he had experienced a vision. From then on, Handsome Lake began to form a new religion. The two men continued to live there until 1803 when a dispute with Handsome Lake sent the latter to Coldspring on the Allegheny Reservation, where he embarked on his lifelong mission to revive the ancient ways and values while adapting to the new world of the reservation. Cornplanter continued to live on his Pennsylvania grant for the rest of his life. Cornplanter died on February 18, 1836, and was buried at the Cornplanter Grant. In 1964 the cemetery in which he was buried was moved to higher ground to make way for the reservoir that would be created by construction of the nearby Kinzua Dam.

2. 3. PETER AGWRONDOUGWAS “Good Peter” Oneida Iroquois (? - 1793)

Peter was and Oneida chief of the Eel Clan and a resident of Oquaga a town located on the banks of the upper Susquehanna near present-day Windsor in Broome Country, New York. Oquaga was described by the British Indian agent William Johnson as “cosmopolitan,” and one of the most important Iroquois villages on the eve of the Revolution. The town was a crossroads sitting astride major Indian roads, and a rendezvous for the traders from Albany and Schenectady. Oquaga was a multiethnic settlement, that attracted immigrants from throughout the the eastern woodlands. By the mid-1750’s, Tuscaroras, Nanitokes, Cayugas, Mahicans, Shawnees as well as Oneidas lived in the town, and Oquaga continued to attract refugees displaced by war and people escaping the pressure of European settlement. By the eve of the Revolution, Oquaga, like other towns in the upper Susquehanna Valley, was a very mixed refugee settlement, a shelter of the Iroquois’ Great Tree of Peace, that helped offset the stress and social disintegration that accompanied displacement of people from their original homelands, besides placing barriers to white settlement on the southern end of Iroquoia. The Treaty of Fort Stanwix in 1768 opened Iroquois lands for purchase by wealthy Euro-American landlords who were given large land grants by the British government and settled German and Scotch-Irish tenants on these holdings. The Stanwix land boundary line lay to the east of Oquaga, but the tenants built fences, farms, cut roads, operated ferries and thereby created an farming society that tied they and their Iroquois neighbors to the the Atlantic world economy. The town of Oquaga itself was a mixture of traditional Iroquois long houses and more contemporary log cabins with stone floors and glass windows. Each house in Oquaga had a garden in which the residents grew both traditional Iroquois as well as European and South American Indian crops: corn, beans watermelons, potatoes, cucumbers, cabbages and turnips. They maintained apple orchards and raised cows, pigs, chickens and horses - in somewhat the same manner as their European neighbors on the other side of the Stanwix Treaty line. Fundamental changes in the Iroquois world, however, made Peter and the other townspeople of Oqauaga vulnerable to other, more destructive European imports: alcohol and Christianity. From 1748 through 1777, Christian missionaries operated a Christian mission (and later, in 1761, a school) at Oquaga. They changed town life by converting large numbers of Oquagas. This had the effect of aggravating and exploiting existing political and social divisions within the community. For example, Christianity gave Christian Iroquois warriors religious support for mounting challenges of hereditary chiefs, who derived their power from appointment by the clan mothers on the basis of traditional Iroquois social and religious beliefs. Sometimes, the towns people got close to missionaries as a means of escaping traditional alliances or challenging traditional power relationships, but it was never a simple division between “Christian” and “pagan,” that is, traditional Iroquois beliefs. Rather, it was the controversy between the established Church of England (Anglicans) and the “new light” evangelical religion of New England Presbyterians and Congregationalists that split the Oquaga community.. The rivalry between the two Christian denominations fractured the Iroquois into three contenting religious camps: those who followed the traditional Iroquois religion, those who belonged to the Anglican church, and those that follwed the “New Light” Presbyterians and Congregationalists. In 1748, the missionary Elihu Spencer came to Oquaga and secured the conversion of Isaac Dekayenensere and Peter Agwrondougwas, who In 1748, the missionary Elihu Spencer came to Oquaga and secured the conversion of Isaac Dekayenensere and Peter Agwrondougwas, who henceforth became known as Good Peter. A significant number of young Oquaga men were sent south to attend Christian boarding schools in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, and soon the people at Oquaga, in the words of Jonathan Edwards, “made religion their main concern, rather than war, or any other worldly affairs.” During the French and Indian War (Seven Year’s War, 1754-1763), the people of Oquaga supported the British against the French, which prompted British Indian agent Sir William Johnson to build a fort, or blockhouse, in Oquaga. Good Peter vehemently objected to its construction, requesting that the fort “be pull’d down & kicked out of the way” because “these forts which are built among us disturb our Peace and are a great hurt to Religion, because some of our Warriors are foolish & some of our Brother Soldiers [British soldiers] don’t fear God.” After the war, the Presbyterian Minister Samuel Kirkland became a major force in the religious and political lives of the Iroquois. As a result, significant splits developed among Isaac Dekayenesere, who held to the beliefs of the Church of England (Anglican), and Good Peter, who held to the “New Light” Christianity of Kirklandas well as with a significant portion of the traditional Oquagas who, in the words of a contemporary, “had a school of their own, taught by an old sagacious chief where he educated their boys and young men in Indian learning [traditional religion], which I was told they kept secret from their minister, or at least he did not understand it.” By October of 1774, these religious differences polarized Oquaga. “Old Isaac,” as Dekayenensere came to be called, allied himself with British Indian Commissioner William Johnson and the Iroquois Brant families - both staunch Church of England followers (Anglicans), and Kirkland complained that Isaac and his followers were intent upon driving out the Presbyterians and introduce “the K___’s [King’s] religion (so called.” By the eve of the American Revolution, religion had become entangled with local Iroquois power struggles, and Oquaga was pulled between Kirkland’s Presbyterian mission at Kanawalohale and the Anglicanism of Johnson and the Brants. British Indian Commissioner William Johnson died suddenly in 1774 and his place was taken by his son-in-law Guy Johnson who, was ordered by British General Thomas Gage to use “all means to Rout them [Kirkland and the Presbyterian missionaries], as that is the only Method that can be fallen upon to keep them from Mischief.” The tug-of-war between Kirkland and the Johnsons and the Oquaga community, a split that was exacerbated by the outbreak of the war and the growing encroachment on Iroquois lands by white settlers. In June 1775, the Twelve Oneida sachems issued a declaration of neutrality in response to the fighting between British and colonists that had broken out in the Boston area. The next month, the Continental Congress hired Kirkland to seek the friendship of the Iroquois Confederation. Kirkland’s political mission seemed to have had some success. By June 1776, the Oneidas and the Tsucarora divisions of the Confederacy - though they still hoped “to be still and bear no part in your {British/colonist] dispute” - feared that it was no longer possible for them to remain neutral. Shortly thereafter, the Oneida Oquaga chiefs requested that the Continental Congress provide them powder, lead, and flints for their guns ... just in case. Over the previous five years, large number of the more pro-British Mohawks began moving to Oquaga to escape the political turmoil and disease that was raging in their valley. The Mohawks were becoming increasingly enraged by repeated trespassing and squatting of white settlers on Iroquois land and their numbers began to tip the balance of sentiment in Oquaga toward the British. This shift in Oquaga’s population alarmed the white settlers in northern New York who raised three companies of rangers to patrol the Fort Stanwix Treaty Line with orders to shoot any Indian they found wearing paint and feathers. Old Isaac asked the rangers for assurances of safe conduct when the Oquagas were out hunting. Good Peter informed the rangers that Iroquois men had always worn paint and feathers, and they were not about to stop now. In December 1776, a powerful Mohawk leader, with strong connections to the Johnson family as well as strong family connections in Oquaga, stopped at Oquaga and called the warriors to arms. He told them “to defend their Lands & Liberty against the Rebels, who in a great measure began this Rebellion to be sole Masters of this Continent.” Riven already by religious differences and uncertain how to resolve the dilemma of what to do about white incursions on their lands, the Oquagas were forced with a choice imposed upon them by pro-British Mohawks and the Oneidas in their community that were leaning toward supporting the colonists. Good Peter now had to choose sides. Or did he? Was neutrality still possible? Which path would he take? Good Peter’s Decision1

In December 1776, after his return from England, Joseph Brant, the great Mohawk leader who had strong connections to the Johnson family as well as strong family connections in Oquaga, stopped at Oquaga and urged the warriors to take up arms against the American rebels. He told them “to defend their Lands & Liberty against the Rebels, who in a great measure began this Rebellion to be sole Masters of this Continent.” Riven already by religious differences and uncertain how to resolve the dilemma of what to do about white incursions on their lands, the Oquagas were forced with a choice imposed upon them by pro-British Mohawks and the Oneidas in their community that were leaning toward supporting the colonists. When Brant returned to Oquaga, he raised the British flag, turning the village into a recruiting station for Indians and white Americans loyal to the British king. In time, about a hundred white Loyalists from an area between the Hudson and the east branch of the Susquehanna joined the Mohawk, calling themselves “Brant’s Volunteers.” From Oquaga, Brant’s warriors ranged the surrounding countryside, started to wage war against the American rebels in the Susquehanna Valley. In the eyes of the Anglo-American rebels, the village finally had shown its true British colors. Oquaga was now a military headquarters, a staging area for summer raids against the rebel white settlements. It is unlikely that all the Oquagas were behind Brant. Admittedly, the Anglican faction, the Mohawks, and others alarmed over the American encroachments on their land were certainly ready to follow Brant and believed his assurances that the British would redress their grievances after a successful war. Yet, the community was not yet unanimous in their support of Brant and the King. However, Good Peter and others of the Presbyterian faction were forced to flee to Oneida, the inhabitants of which were either neutralists or pro-American. In August 1777, a bloody Iroquois civil war exploded at the bloody Battle of Oriskany in which Oneida and other pro-rebel Iroquois fought alongside the Americans against the Mohawks and other pro-British Iroquois. Even then, a number of Oquagas sent peace feelers to the rebel New York Committee of Safety which treated the message as an insult and responded that, unless they chiefs reigned in their young men, they would be treated as enemies. “Tell the Indian,” retorted the American Governor of New York, “that, if their young Men are fond of fighting and choose to be in War, they can come & join us [the American rebels] who are their Brethren born in the same Country, against our common Enemies and we will pay them as we do our own young Men who go out & fight for us.” But, the New York Committee of Safety declared on September 3rd that the Oquaga Indians, most of whom by now probably were Mohawk, “be considered and treated as open Enemies” and that Oquaga was now a military target for the American rebel forces. In October 1777, General George Washington ordered Colonel Phillip Van Cortland and Lieutenant Colonel William Butler of the Fourth Pennsylvania Regiment to march against Oquaga. Their troops meet no resistance - “the Enemy, according to Butler, “having that day left the Town, in the greatest Confusion” - and they entered Oquaga at night. “It was the finest town I ever saw,” said Butler, “on both sides of the [Susquehanna] River there were about 40 good houses, Square logs, Shingles, and stone chimneys, good Floors, glass windows, &c, &c.” The Americans took away the Oquagas’ furniture and other belongings, burned the town the next morning and destroyed some two thousand bushels of corn, leaving only one house standing which belonged to a “friendly Oneida,” probably Good Peter. Years later, a veteran of the expedition related that “when they were mowing the corn, they found several small children hid there, and he boasted very much, what cruel deaths they put them to, by running through with bayonets and holding them up to see how they would twist and turn.” Good Peter was outraged by the sacking of his town and told American Indian commissioner Volkert P. Douw at a council in pro- rebel Oneida that many of the Indians from Oquaga had fled, some into the woods, others taking refuge at Oneida: Many of the Indians who lived at Ochguaga [Oquaga] are as true Friends to be thirteen united States as any of us. They were in the same Situation as many of your Friends who are now in New York and elsewhere, who could not 1 Most of this text is excerpted with modifications from Colin G. Calloway’s The American Revolution in Indian Country; Crisis and Diversity in Native American Communities. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1992), pp. 123 ff. 1. remove where the Enemy took possession [New York was occupied by the British at that time.]. Their houses and other property are now destroyed and many of those Friends are our Blood Relations. They will now come to us for Relief and protection. Peter admitted that many Oquagas might have been “misled by Want” and “false Insinuations” to act against the American rebels, but the Oneidas hoped to make them see the error of their ways and “make them hearty Friends to the united States.” Peter requested a guarantee of protection for them. Douw gave them a certificate of protection for those Oquagas who had remained friendly to the United States, but said that he must defer to Congress on the fate of those who had joined Brant. Seventeen Indian families from Oquaga took refuge with the Oneidas; the rest dispersed “for other parts of Indian Country.” More than 150 Oquagas retreated even farther from home and joined fellow Iroquois at the British Fort Niagara and served on campaigns with the British and Loyalists stationed there. Although some Oneida sachems remained pro-British, the warriors led by Presbyterian minister Kirkland’s friend and confidant, Shenandoah, supported the Americans. Driven from their homes into squalid refugee camps around Schenectady. There, Good Peter spent the remainder of the war. The destruction of Oquaga deprived Brant of his forward base, although he was back there from time to time, and some of the residents may have returned until the American General Sullivan’s invasion of Iroquoia in 1779. But, the destruction of Oquaga did not bring the security that white frontier communities desired. The Mohawks and their Seneca allies retaliated with a series of attacks, notably the infamous assault on whites in the Cherry Valley, which Red Jacket, Cornplanter, and Handsome Lake probably participated. British, Indian, and American forces continued to devastate the upper Susquehanna River Valley, destroying their enemies’ crops and supplies even while short of food themselves. A few people, such as Tuscarora Old Seth and his family, returned to Oquaga after the war, but many Oquagas retreated even farther from home after the war, joining new communities erected by Joseph Brant on the Grand River in Ontario. The Oneidas and Tuscaroras who joined and fought alongside the Americans petitioned the United States Congress to compensate them for losses that included frame houses, wagons, livestock, farm equipment, kitchen utensils, silverware, clothing, teacups and saucers, punch bowls,k rugs, looking glasses, jewelry, and other items large and small, that constituted the material culture of their flourishing communities. The U.S. Congress eventually provided financial compensation, but by that time most of the Oneidas’ lands together with those of their Oquaga relatives, friends, and enemies, had been swallowed up by private land speculators, the State of New York, and the United States. At the Treaty of Fort Herkimer in June 1785, despite vehement objections from Good Peter, Governor George Clinton secured the Indian’s acquiescence in the transfer to New York of lands east of the Chenango River, which included Oquaga. Indians who tried to return to the upper Susquehanna found new settlers living on their lands, growing corn in their gardens, sometimes living in their houses if they had not been destroyed, sometimes drinking from the pewter and crystal, eating from the plates with the silverware that the Oquagas had left behind in their confused flight from Butler’s American army. In 1791, two years before Good Peter’s death, there were three hundred New Englanders living near the site of Oquaga, in a town they called Windsor. Good Peter Agwrongdougwas died in 1793. By that year, most of the Oquagas, who had backed the British, the losers in the Revolution, found themselves driven from their lands to new homes in Canada; most of their Oneida neighbors, who had backed the American rebels, the winners, also found themselves pushed from their lands to new homes in Wisconsin and Ontario, despite repeated treaty guarantees that they would not be deprived of their lands. After the war, the Oneidas split into two communities: the warriors of the Christian party of Shenendoah and Kirkland at Kanowalohale and the chiefs, or pagan , party at Oriske. In time, they separated even further, the warriors moving to Wisconsin and the sachems to Ontario. Some other Oneidas continued to live in their New York homelands, but their lot was not easy. the cooperative relations, such as the fur trade and the proximity of white and Indian villages required, were impossible. White settlers now associated Indians with the brutality and destruction of the war, and race relations never recovered. Oquaga mirrored the Iroquois League Tree of Peace, as a haven and refuge for many people. Like the League, it could not survive the nationalist and tribal rivalries that the Revolution imposed upon it. 2. 3. GUYASUTA (GEYE-ah-SOO-tah) 1725 - 1794.

Guyasuta was an Iroquois Seneca leader and diplomat. He was born in New York, but his family moved across the mountains to the Ohio River when he was young to live with other Iroquois who were settling in that region. Guyasuta quickly became an important Iroquois Seneca chief and diplomat, known to Europeans and Indians alike as “able, prudent, and wise.” All throughout the 18th Century (1688 - 1763) the British and the French fought to control North America. Guyasuta’s Western Seneca countrymen in the Ohio Valley most often took the French side against the British. Both the French and the British claimed the Ohio River Valley as their own; but the Indians were really in control. The Indians allowed these Europeans to think they owned the Valley because the Indians needed to trade with the Europeans to get European-made goods, such as cloth, firearms, and products made of steel and iron that they couldn’t make themselves. By the 1750’s, the French were building a string of forts in the Ohio River Valley on land that the English in the American colonies thought was their own land. Even though he was pro-French, Guyasuta in 1753 went with the young Colonel George Washington, an Englishman from Virginia, to persuade the French to leave the Ohio River Valley. Washington failed in this mission and precipitating the great world war between France and England, a war that we now call the Seven Years War or the French and Indian War. During the Seven Years War, Guyasuta and his fellow Western Senecas fought alongside the French against the British. Guyasuta was among the army of French and Indians that defeated the English General Braddock and the Virginia Colonel George Washington in 1756 near Pittsburgh. However, after seven years of fighting, the British defeated the French and forced them to withdraw from North America. Numerous Indians were killed as result of this war. By virtue of their victory in the Seven Years War, the British asserted that what is now Canada and the Ohio River Valley belonged to them. Guyasuta and other Indian people knew that they had settled in these places long before the British. This was their country despite what the British said.

After n 1763, the British took control of the land the French claimed in the Ohio Valley. They put into place new trading rules that were so stingy and disrespectful of Indians that it became hard for Indian hunters to feed their families and keep their honor. An Ottawa chief named Pontiac decided that the American Indians should drive the stingy and disrespectful British away. They hoped the French would return and give them better trade deals and more respect. In this war, which was known as Pontiac’s War (1763-1765), many leaders, including Guyasuta, joined this fight, a war that soon forced the British to change their parsimonious and disrespectful trading policies. Because so many Iroquois were killed in this war, Guyasuta began to feel that going to war alongside the Europeans was stupid and would destroy the Iroquois no matter on whose side they fought. Therefore, even though he fought against the British, Guyasuta worked hard to make peace between the British and the Indians. Between the peace treaty between the Ohio Indians and the British and the beginning of the American Revolution, Guyasuta worked hard to keep peace in the Ohio Valley with the colonial elite, such as George Washington who were illegally purchasing Indian lands as well as with poorer whites who were settling on Indian lands without Indian permission. To help settle difference between Indians and whites, Guyasuta carried messages back and forth between the Indian nations of the Ohio Valley and the British colonists in New York and Virginia. He worked hard to prevent the more angry Ohio Indian nations, such as the Shawnees and the Mingoes, from going to war with the colonial American settlers. In addition, Guyasuta worked with the British to keep traders from selling alcohol to the Indians because he felt that drinking alcohol by white settlers and Indians would make them more willing to fight each other. Alcohol too often fueled the frontier wars of the eighteenth century.

When the American Revolution broke out in 1775, Guyasuta, the Senecas, and the other Iroquois decided to remain “neutral,” deciding not to fight either on the British or on the American side. The Iroquois felt the American Revolution was a “family feud” between Britain and their American colonial cousins, and they felt the best thing for the Indians was not to get involved in this family fight. Because he worked hard to keep all the Iroquois neutral, the American rebels made Guyasuta a colonel in their Continental Army. But, in 1777, Guyasuta and the other Iroquois were invited to a grand conference by the British, who extravagantly rained presents on the Iroquois and other Indians who gathered there. The British agents then asked all the Iroquois to join the British in their fight against the American rebels. The Iroquois soon split into a party that wanted to go to war on the side of the British and a peace party that wanted to stay neutral. Guyasuta and his cousin Cornplanter argued they didn’t want to go to war against either the British or the Americans. As a diplomat and a statesman, Guyasuta knew that he could deal fairly with both sides in the war between the British and the American rebels. However, a powerful Mohawk Iroquois arose during the conference with the British and called Guyasuta and Cornplanter “cowards” because they didn’t want to go to war. Guyasuta didn’t want to be called a coward. It dishonored him in the eyes of his fellow Iroquois. Moreover, the American rebels had honored Guyasuta by making him an officer in their army even though they didn’t make him fight on the American side. Could he fight against the Americans who had honored him? Furthermore, Guyasuta remembered the many Iroquois men, women, and children were killed in the Seven Years War and then later in Pontiac’s Rebellion. What side would Guyasuta chose? The American side? British side? Or would he remain Neutral? Guyasuta’s Decision

Guyasuta was present when the Iroquois warriors and their families met in the early summer of 1777 with the British at Oswego, the fort and trading post on the south shore of Lake Ontario. It was up to the Iroquois warriors to decide which side they were on. This choice traditionally was not a matter of deliberation by the sachems of the confederation council, but by the warriors, such as Guyasuta, who would do the fighting. The warriors council met that afternoon but soon split into a war and a peace party. Joseph Brant, the powerful pro-British Mohawk leader, rose first and spoke for allying with Britain and tarred the neutrality policy as a recipe for disaster: “if [we] shoul[d] lie down and sleep and we shoul[d] be liable to cut our throat by the Red coat man or by America.” Cornplanter and Red Jacket afterwards urged that the war was a family quarrel among the Europeans, that the Iroquois did not know what it was all about, and that interference in the conflict would be a big mistake. The Mohawk leader who opened the conference, then rose again and accused Cornplanter and Red Jacket and other cautious Senecas, such as Guyasuta, “cowards.” Blacksnake later reported that Brant’s charge stung Guyasuta as deeply as it did Cornplanter and Red Jacket. The Seneca warriors, as Blacksnake later put it, “can not Beared to be called coward.” But, Guyasuta probably decided to join the British cause against the rebels as much out of a sense of what was the best for his people. It was inevitable, however, that the Senecas would eventually enter the contest on the side of Britain. There were too many grievances against the Americans who were trespassing on Indian lands. Furthermore, although the war disrupted normal economic life, fighting against the American rebels promised generous rewards from the British.

With the decision of the Iroquois Confederacy of the Six Nations in the summer of 1777 to abandon neutrality, Guyasuta began to work actively for the British, and Indian, causes. Later in the summer, he was one of a large group of Indians who accompanied Barrimore Matthew St. Leger against the American rebels at Fort Stanwix (Rome, N.Y.). The siege of this fort at the western end of the Mohawk valley was in its initial phase when word came from Mary Brant [KoñwatsiÃtsiaiéñni] that 800 militiamen were marching to attack the besiegers. It was primarily the Indians, rather than the British troops, who were sent to meet them, and they defeated the American rebels in the bloody Battle of Oriskany nearby. Guyasuta soon was in the field again. In December 1777, Simon Girty reported that the Seneca chief or members of his war party had killed four people near Ligonier, Pa. When in 1779 a rebel army commanded by Daniel Brodhead marched from Fort Pitt up the Allegheny River Valley, burning Seneca villages, Guyasutaappeared at Niagara demanding 100 soldiers to aid against the invaders. The hard-pressed British commander refused, and Brodhead’s destructive expedition went largely unopposed.

Guyasuta was sent from Niagara in 1780 on a familiar diplomatic task. Anxious to keep the alliance of the western Indians from falling apart, Guy Johnson dispatched Guyasuta on a tour of the Ohio country to call a conference at Detroit. 1. Most of the chiefs of the region were absent because they were carrying the war into Kentucky with Henry Bird’s expedition. So Guyasuta left the messages with the Wyandots for delivery later in the summer. There is some evidence that Guyasutathen commanded a party of 30 Wyandots who raided near Fort McIntosh (Rochester, Pa) in July. In the spring of 1781 Guyasutawas again on the diplomatic trail, but illness detained him for some time at Cattaraugus (near the mouth of Cattaraugus Creek, N.Y.). The aging chief went to war once more, leading the party which on 13 July 1782 burned Hannastown, Pa, and then went on to attack Wheeling (W. Va).

For all intents and pruposes, the American Revolution was over, and the Senecas soon made their peace with the United States. There is one report that the Americans tried to use Guyasutaas a peacemaker in the Ohio region, but for the most part this role devolved on Cornplanter, probably a nephew of Guyasuta. The Ohio Indians, however, were intent on continuing their war with the Americans, a war which the diplomacy of Cornplanter and Guyasuta was powerless to stop. As events moved towards a climax, Guyasuta carried personal and public messages to the American commander, Anthony Wayne, at Pittsburgh in 1792, and accompanied Cornplanter to a meeting with Wayne in 1793. Wayne was organzing and training his force so that they could invade the Ohio country and subdue the Indian coalition under Blue Jacket. Wayne e defeated Blue Jacket and his confederation of Ohio Indians at the Battle of Fallen Timbers (near Waterville, Ohio) in August 1794.

After the war, Cornplanter’s diplomatic efforts on behalf of the Americans earned him a grant of land in Pennsylvania. Cornplanter and his Seneca followers, including Guyasuta, settled on this tract of land in the 1790’s. There Guyasutadied and was buried, probably in 1794.

2. Joseph Brant (Thayendanegea)1 Mohawk, Iroquois 1743 - 1807

Joseph Brant led the Mohawk and many of the others of the Iroquois Nation from the American Revolution until his death in 1807. The Mohawks are a division of the Iroquois Confederation, or “Six Nations.”

The parents of Joseph Brant were Mohawks whose home was at Canajoharie on the Mohawk River in New York. Brant, however, was born on the banks of the Ohio River in 1742 while his parents were on a hunting excursion to that region, and was given the Indian name of Thayendanega, meaning "he places two bets". His father was Nicklus (or "Nicholas") of the Wolfe family, who, although not a chief, was an Mohawk leader.

Brant’s sister, Molly Brant’s, became the wife of William Johnson (1715 - 1774), the British agent for the Mohawk gave Joseph his first opportunity for advancement, not only within the Mohawk Confederation, but also within the British Imperial world. After Johnson’s European wife Catherine died in 1759, he married his former Indian mistress, Molly Brant in an Indian ceremony later that year. It was due largely to Johnson’s relationship with Molly that Brant received the favor and protection of Sir William and through him the British government, which set Brant on the road to promotion. In the Eighteenth-Century world, one did not rise to power and affluence without a powerful and affluent patron. Johnson sent the young Brant to Reverend Wheelock’s school in Lebanon, Connecticut for an English-style education with an Anglican twist. Brant and a number of young Mohawks were selected by Johnson to attend Moor’s Charity School for Indians at Lebanon, Connecticut - the school which in future years was to become Dartmouth College. Here he learned to speak and write English and studied Western history and literature, Greek and Latin. He left school to serve under Sir William from 1755-1759 during the French and Indian War (1754-1763). Allied with the British, Brant joined pro-British Iroquois war parties against the French during the French and Indian War (1754-1763). Formerly, the Iroquois Confederation were able to extract concessions and favors from the British in New York by playing them off against the French in Canada. Once the French lost Canada in 1763, the Iroquois faced the British and their colonists alone. After tthe war, Brant became Sir William’s close companion and helped him run the Indian Department, administered by the British out of Quebec. He also became an interpreter for an Anglican missionary and helped translate the prayer book and Gospel of Mark into the Mohawk language. About 1768 he married Christine, the daughter of an Oneida chief, whom he had met in school. Together, they settled on a farm near Canajoharie which Joseph had inherited. While here, Brant assisted in revising the Mohawk prayer book and translating the Acts of the Apostles into the Mohawk language. He also joined the Anglican Church, was a regular communicant, and evinced a great desire to bring Christianity to his people. His wife died of tuberculosis about 1771, leaving him with a son and a daughter. In 1773, he married his wife’s sister, Susannah, who died a few months afterward, also of tuberculosis. In Wheelock’s school, Joseph learned to read, write, and speak English, probably some Latin and Greek, but he left the school after two years due to Wheelock’s stern and aversive discipline. Nevertheless, Brant remained at least a token member of the Church of England (Anglican) all his life Afterwards, William Johnson’s patronage and Brant’s friendship with Guy Johnson, William’s nephew, elevated Brant to the center of power in the Mohawk and British imperial world. Brant also joined the Freemasons, an organization that gave him links to prominent Anglo-Americans. Brant’s own eloquence and leadership abilities also secured for him a substantial following among his people. In 1774, Brant sailed to England where he was presented to King George III. His bearing, eloquence, and conviviality also won him the admiration of English society. While in England, Brant also observed first hand the burgeoning military and industrial strength of England, the size of its armies and navy, and the huge populations that crowded into its cities. Brant was well received in England, and was admitted to the best society. Brant’s own education and his close association with educated men and his naturally easy and graceful manner facilitated his reception, and as he was an "Indian King" he was too valuable a person to be neglected. The members of the British cabinet and the nobility fawned over him; gave him expensive presents; invited him to their great estates, and arranged to have his portrait painted by famous artists like Reynolds, Romney, and others. Among his particular friends was the English diarist Boswell. Also during this trip Brant received the Masonic degrees in either Falcon Lodge or Hiram’s Cliftonian Lodge in London in April 1776. He had the distinction of having his Masonic apron given to him from the hand of King George III. Brant returned home in 1775 to find the colonists in rebellion against the king. He also arrived to find that his friend and patron William Johnson had died, and had been replaced as the Crown’s representative to the Iroquois by William’s nephew, Guy Johnson. Johnson fled the Mohawk Valley when the war started and took Brant’s sister and her family to Canada to protect them from the revolutionary committees searching the New York backcountry for British sympathizers. Brant also found that the war was splitting the Iroquois into those who favored the Americans and those who favored Great Britain. Sometimes the split fell along religious lines with Presbyterian Iroquois siding with the rebels and the Anglicans siding with the British. Brant was a ferventy Anglican. In August, 1775, the Six Nations staged a big council fire near Albany, New York,, after news of Bunker Hill had made war seem imminent. There they met with the American commissioners who urged the Iroquois to remain neutral, because the Revolution was “a family quarrel” between them and England. After much debate, they decided , in the words of their spokeman Little Abraham, “the determination of the Six Nations [is] not to take any part; but as it is a family affair, to sit still and see you fight it out.” The Iroquois, however, set conditions on their neutrality, among which were that the fighting was to be confined to the coast, Iroquois land would not be invaded, and the Iroquois were to be granted free passage through their country was not to be impeded. These provisions did not satisfy Brant, and even Little Abraham expressed some doubts, but both knew knew, that in the event of war, Iroquoia would be a major battleground.. He feared that the Indians would lose their lands if the colonists achieved independence, but he was even more committed to preserving the unity of the Iroquois Confederation. Which way would Brant now turn?

Joseph Brant’s Decision

Joseph Brant’s decision was almost a foregone conclusion, given his privileged position within the British imperial system. His devout Anglican faith - the “King’s faith” - also disposed him to take up arms against the rebels, many of whom were Presbyterians and Congregationists. The Johnsons and Brant used all their influence to engage the Indians to fight for the British cause, and ultimately succeeded in bringing four of these tribes, the Mohawks, Onondagas, Cayugas, and Senecas into an alliance with England -- the Oneidas and Tuscaroras ultimately sided with the Colonists. By the time he gave his oration at the British/Iroquois council at Oriskany in 1777, he had already committed himself to the British alliance, and his oratory at that conference swung many Iroquois to the British side of the conflict. About the year 1776, Brant became the principal war chief of the confederacy of the Six Nations, due perhaps to the patronage of the Johnsons and the unusual circumstances in which he was placed. With this high office of leadership, he also received a captain’s commission in the British army in charge of the Indian forces loyal to the Crown. Immediately after receiving this appointment, Brant made his first voyage to England. By making this trip, he gained time, and was enabled to observe for himself the power and resources of the King and British government. He also went to protest the policy of Guy Carleton, commander of the British forces in Canada, who refused to invite the Six Nations to join the war against the Americans, except to use 40 to 50 men as scouts. Brant was well received in England, and was admitted to the best society. His own education and his close association with educated men and his naturally easy and graceful manner facilitated his reception, and as he was an "Indian King" he was too valuable a person to be neglected. The members of the British cabinet and the nobility fawned over him; gave him expensive presents; invited him to their great estates, and arranged to have his portrait painted by famous artists like Reynolds, Romney, and others. Among his particular friends was the English diarist Boswell. He received official assurances that the Indian Loyalists would be utilized to a greater extent in the American conflict than that indicated by Carleton. Also during this trip Brant received the Masonic degrees in either Falcon Lodge or Hiram’s Cliftonian Lodge in London in April 1776. He had the distinction of having his Masonic apron given to him from the hand of King George III. Brant returned from England in time to see some action in the Battle of Long Island in August 1776. He then departed for his homeland, traveling by night to elude the Americans guarding the Hudson highlands and the area around Albany. He told the young Iroquois braves of his trip to England and of the strength and friendship of the British. He denounced the Iroquois’ 1775 decision to remain neutral and called the Americans the enemy of all Indians. A tradition says that he promised each of his warriors an opportunity "to feast on a Bostonian and to drink his blood". The speech was received with wild enthusiasm and Brant departed on a tour of regional Iroquois villages to similarly stir up support for the British cause. On his return to the colonies, he saw action in the Battle of Long Island in August 1776. He led four of the six nations of the Iroquois League in attacks against colonial outposts on the New York frontier. The Iroquois League was a confederation of upper New York State Indian tribes formed between 1570 and 1600 who called themselves "the people of the long house." Initially it was composed of the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca. After the Tuscarora joined in 1722, the league became known to the English as the Six Nations and was recognized as such in Albany, New York, in 1722. They were better organized and more effective, especially in warfare, than other Indian confederacies in the region. As the longevity of this union would suggest, these Indians were more advanced socially than is often thought. Benjamin Franklin even cited their success in his argument for the unification of the colonies. They lived in comfortable homes, often better than those of the colonists, raised crops, and sent hunters to Ohio to supply meat for those living back in New York. These hunters were usually young braves or young married couples, as was the case with Joseph Brant's parents. Brant commanded the Indians in the Battle of Oriskany on August 6, 1777. In early 1778 he gathered a force of Indians from the villages of Unadilla and Oquaga on the Susquehanna River. On September 17, 1778 they destroyed German Flats near Herkimer, New York. The patriots retaliated under the leadership of Col. William Butler and destroyed Unadilla and Oquaga on October 8th and 10th. Brant's forces, along with loyalists under Capt. Walter N. Butler, then set out to destroy the town and fort at Cherry Valley. There were 200-300 men stationed at the fort but they were unprepared for the attack on August 11, 1778. The attackers killed some 30 men, women, and children, burned houses, and took 71 prisoners. They killed 16 soldiers at the fort but withdrew the following day when 200 patriot reinforcements arrived. The settlement was abandoned and the event came to be known as the "Cherry Valley Massacre." Brant won a formidable reputation after this raid and in cooperation with loyalists and British regulars, he brought fear and destruction to the entire Mohawk Valley, southern New York, and northern Pennsylvania. He thwarted the attempts of a rival chief, Red Jacket, to persuade the Iroquois to make peace with the revolutionaries. In 1779, U.S. Major General John Sullivan led a retaliatory expedition of 3700 men against the Iroquois, destroying fields, orchards, granaries, and their morale. The Iroquois were defeated near present-day Elmira, N.Y. In spite of this, Indian raids persisted until the end of the war and many homesteads had to abandoned. The Iroquois League came to an end after admitting defeat in the Second Treaty of Ft. Stanwix in 1784. Around 1782, Brant married his third wife, Catherine Croghan, daughter of an Irishman and a Mohawk. With the war over, and the British having surrendered lands to the colonists and not to the Indians, Brant was faced with finding a new home for himself and his people. He discouraged further Indian warfare and helped the U.S. commissioners to secure peace treaties with the Miamis and other tribes. He retained his commission in the British Army and was awarded a grant of land on the Grand River in Ontario by Governor Sir Frederick Haldimand of Canada in 1784. The tract of 675,000 acres encompassed the Grand River from its mouth to its source, six miles deep on either side. Brant led eighteen hundred Iroquois Loyalists from New York State to this site where they settled and established the Grand River Reservation for the Mohawk. The party included members of all six tribes, but primarily Mohawk and Cayugas, as well as a few Delaware, Nanticoke, Tutelo, Creek, and Cherokee, who had lived with the Iroquois before the war. They settled in small tribal villages along the river. Sir Haldimand had hurriedly pushed through the land agreement before his term of office expired and was unable to provide the Indians with legal title to the property. For this reason, Brant again traveled to England in 1785. He succeeded in obtaining compensation for Mohawk losses in the U.S. War for Independence and received funds for the first Episcopal Church in Upper Canada, but failed to obtain firm title to the Grand River reservation. The legality of the transfer remains under question today. Brant continued with his missionary work. He felt that his followers could learn much from observing the ways of the white man and made a number of land sales of reservation property to white settlers to this end, despite the unsettled ownership. He tried unsuccessfully to arrange a settlement between the Iroquois and the United States. He traveled in the American West promoting an all-Indian confederacy to resist land cessions. Late in his life, he continued the work he had begun as a young man of translating the Creed and important passages of the Old and New Testament into the Mohawk language. He was a man who studied and was able to internalize the better qualities of the white man while always remaining loyal and devoted to his people. Joseph Brant died at his last residence in what is now Burlington in 1807, Ontario and was buried there. Later his remains where transferred by an Indian relay, where various warriors would take turns to carry him for reburial (a distance of approx. 25 miles) at the church known as The Chapel of the Mohawks in what was once Brant's Mohawk Village (around 1790) and is now part of the city of Brantford.

Molly Brant (Konwatsi'tsiaiénni) Mohawk Iroquois 1736 - 1796

Molly was born in 1736, possibly in the Ohio Valley, her family having immigrated there from New York. Her parents seem to have been Margaret and Peter who were from Canajoharie, the upper Mohawk village. They were registered in the chapel at Fort Hunter, the lower village, as Protestant Christians. Peter died while the family was living on the Ohio River, so Margaret and her two children, Molly and Joseph , returned to Canajoharie. Margaret then married Nicklaus Brant, who may have been part Dutch. Both Molly and her brother Joseph, the future great leader of the Iroquois, took Brant’s name. Some scholars have suggested that the use of Nickus Brant's surname indicates some nonnative ancestry. If we consider traditional Iroquois society, however, the identity of the father is insignificant in comparison to that of the mother. Iroquois clans are matrilineal, meaning that kinship and descent is based on the maternal or female line. Nickus Brant, Molly's step father, owned a substantial frame house, lived and dressed in the European style, and, interestingly enough, included the Superintendent for Indian Affairs, Sir William Johnson, as a close personal friend. Although not much is known of Molly's life at Canajoharie during the 1740s and 1750s, spanning her infancy through her teenage years and into her early twenties, it is likely that she lived in Nickus Brant's house. She was well educated in the European ways of life, with her formal education likely taking place in an English mission school, as she learned to speak and write English well. It is also likely that she met William Johnson on more than one occasion through this period.

Molly Brant's political career began when she was 18 years old. In 1754-1755, she accompanied a delegation of Mohawk elders to Philadelphia to discuss fraudulent land transactions. This trip may have been part of her training in the Iroquois tradition, because she was to become a clan matron and among the “principal women” of the Mohawk. The Mohawk women not only chose the chief, they also held economic power, controlling the use of agricultural land; they therefore controlled the food supply, which provided them with the ability to veto decisions of the warriors. They were thus able to exercise considerable political power in Iroquois society. Iroquois women in their own society enjoyed more power and higher status than did European colonial women in their societies.

William Johnson was tremendously successful in carving out a wealthy and powerful place for himself in eighteenth century North America. He acquired vast amounts of land in the Mohawk Valley, was a successful colonial trader, and adapted well to Native ways. Johnson was eventually appointed Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the province of New York, and was knighted for his efforts during the French and Indian War (1755-1760). It was at the start of this war, under Johnson's orders, that Fort William Henry was constructed at the southern tip of Lake George, becoming the northernmost British outpost in the interior of Colonial America. The fort also became the scene of one of the most famous and brutal massacres in North American history, immortalized in James Fenimore Cooper's epic The Last of the Mohicans . It was at the end of this French and Indian War that Molly Brant and William Johnson began their official association. William Johnson had previously cohabited with a German woman named Catherine Weissenberg. Although he had hired her as a housekeeper at Fort Johnson, they had three children together. Johnson regarded Weissenberg, who had been an indentured servant, as beneath his social status, but she died in 1759, the same that Molly gave birth to her and Sir William's first child, the first of eight who survived. About the same time, William Johnson became the patron of Molly’s brother, Joseph, sending him to a proper English school in Connecticut.

Molly was obviously able to successfully transfer both power and status of her leading position in Mohawk society to her position in the half-European/half-Iroquoian society of the Mohawk valley, as she apparently dominated the Johnson household at Johnson Hall. There are numerous references to her purchasing orders, and to her general control over the estate. It has also been suggested that she took responsibility for the daily affairs of the Indian Department when Sir William was away. Although she was entirely capable, Molly did no housework, as that was the task of the indentured servants and black slaves who worked on the estate and surrounding farm. Her influence among the Mohawk people benefitted Sir William in his position as Superintendent of Indian Affairs, and it is certain that his position enabled her to maintain her power and influence in Mohawk society.

Molly Brant was also known as an expert herbalist, bringing her healing abilities to the household. The large herb garden at Johnson Hall is testimony to her interest in what was a lifelong pursuit. She was, however, unable to prevent one untimely death. Suddenly, in July 1774, at the age of 59, Sir William Johnson died. Neither the emotional nor the political turmoil in Molly Brant's life at this time can be gauged. It can be assumed that she took this in stride, moving her family of eight children, who ranged in age from infancy to 15 years, to Canajoharie. It is probable that a number of the servants and slaves from Johnson Hall went with Molly and her family, since Sir William provided generously for them all in his will: a lot in the Kingsland Patent, a black female slave, and £200, New York currency. Molly wasted no time in reestablishing her influence among the Mohawk, for she established a trading business immediately

The American Revolutionary War, or War of Independence, brought about fundamental changes in the lives of Molly Brant and her family. The outbreak of the Revolution unsettled Mohawk country. An organized revolutionary movement developed in the Mohawk Valley in May 1775 In the early summer, Guy Johnson and Daniel Claus, sons-in-law of Sir William, took their families and left the Mohawk Valley, along with many other friends who were loyal to Britain. Sir John Johnson, Sir William's heir, remained at Johnson Hall, firmly believing that the problem between Britain and its North American colonies would be settled peacefully. During the initial stages of the war, most of the Six Nations of the Iroquois remained neutral; some, however, took sides immediately. For a while, Molly Brant remained in Canajoharie, tending her various enterprises and participating as a leader of the Mohawks. Her brother, Joseph, held deep doubts about the wisdom of siding with the Americans. Nevertheless, choosing the British would mean leaving her beloved Mohawk Valley (and her many businesses) for Canada, just as the William Johnson’s family had done. As a Mohawk clan matron, she could not refuse to make a choice, whether that choice be for the rebels, the British, neutrality, or yet again emigrating from her beloved valley. Which path would Molly take? Molly Brant’s Decision

The American Revolutionary War brought about fundamental changes in the lives of Molly Brant and her family members. During the initial stages of the war, most of the Six Nations of the Iroquois remained neutral; some, however, took sides immediately. Molly’s brother, Joseph Brant, did his utmost to persuade the Six Nations - to break their treaty of neutrality with the Americans, which they finally did in 1777, except the Oneidas and the Tuscaroras, most of whom sided in the American rebels. . Apart from the British regulars, there were also loyalist American regiments, one of which was led by Sir John Johnson: The King's Royal Regiment of New York. Through the early part of the war, Molly sheltered and fed loyalists, and sent arms and ammunition to those who were fighting for the King. She is also said to have provided intelligence to the British military, which resulted in the successful defeat of American forces at Oriskany in 1777. Molly and her family were forced to take refuge in Cayuga after the Oneidas and the Americans pillaged her Canajoharie home. Such actions, along with the advancing patriots, ultimately left her no choice but to flee, as many other Iroquois had done before her. In the Fall of 1777, General John Butler, the British commander at Fort Niagara, persuaded her remove herself, her family, two male slaves and two female servants and place herself under his protection at Fort Niagara. Molly then sent her younger children to school in Montreal.

During the war Molly Brant made several trips back and forth between Niagara, Montreal, and Carleton Island, where the British had built a fort. The Mohawk from the upper village of Canajoharie took refuge at Fort Niagara, while those from the lower village traveled to Montreal. Now, more than ever, Molly was expected to use her influence over the Mohawk warriors. She was an intelligent woman, and she used the British administration to increase her own political power and to promote the interests of her people. The British government similarly used her as an instrument of political control. In describing a large Iroquois force that had gathered at Carleton Island, the commander of the fort indicated that "their uncommon good behavior [was] in great measure to be ascribed to Miss Molly Brant's influence over them, which [was] far superior to that of all their Chiefs put together."

Throughout the war, Molly continued to use her influence to steady the warriors, bolster their morale, and strengthen their loyalty to the King. In the course of the hostilities, native, loyalist, and patriot settlements were attacked and burned. Thousands of destitute Iroquois made their way to Fort Niagara, suffering from starvation and illness. Making the situation worse, the winter of 1779-1780 was one of the most severe on record Support for the American cause from France, Spain, and the Netherlands, and underestimation by the British of 1. the Americans' determination to gain independence, ultimately decided the outcome of the war. The surrender of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown in 1781 ended the war and forced England to recognize the independence of the Thirteen Colonies.

After the war, no provision was made for the Iroquois in the Treaty of Paris of 1783: they were left to conduct their own negotiations. It is known that Joseph Brant petitioned Governor Haldimand on behalf of the Iroquois; it has also been suggested that Molly used her influence on behalf of her people at this time. Eventually, the British granted land on the Bay of Quinte to the Iroquois;. Not all were satisfied, however, and Joseph Brant requested additional lands on the Grand River. The Mohawk who had traveled to Montreal during the war settled on the Bay of Quinte, where they were led by John Deserontyou, while those who had been refugees at Fort Niagara went with Joseph Brant to the Grand River. Molly Brant settled at neither place. It was decided in 1783 that the site of the old French fort at Cataraqui, originally selected for the Iroquois, would be a good place for the settlement of the other Loyalists. It was at this time that Molly decided to settle at Cataraqui . She received a substantial military pension for her service to the King during the war, an amount of £100.

Molly Brant was a strong individual who retained her native heritage throughout her life, often to the disdain of her European contemporaries. Molly is a controversial figure because she was both pro-British and pro-Iroquois. She insisted on speaking Mohawk, she dressed in Mohawk style throughout her life, and she encouraged her children to do the same. She argued on behalf of the Iroquois before, during, and after the American Revolution. She sheltered and fed her people. She complained when she thought the government was ignoring the Iroquois. Did Molly Brant disappear into a life of obscurity, no longer intervening on behalf of her people? After the war, the prominent female presence in the public sphere of Iroquois society had been greatly reduced. For Molly's daughters, this circumstance encouraged acculturation, but Molly could rely on her past performance and recognition to maintain respect from the Europeans among whom she now lived. At the age of 47, after a long and difficult war, it is possible to believe that she was exhausted; the few historical references to her life at Cataraqui, however, indicate that, at least to some extent, she maintained her quiet dominance.

In 1785, Molly traveled to Schenectady in the Mohawk Valley, apparently to sign legal documents. It is reported that the Americans wanted her and her family to return, and went so far as to offer financial compensation. The response, the one to be expected from Molly Brant, was that she rejected the offer "with the utmost contempt.”

On April 16, 1796, at the age of about 60, Molly Brant, a true Canadian Heroine, died. She was laid to rest in the burial ground of St. George's Church, located at what was to become the corner of Queen Street and Montreal Street, where St. Paul's Church now stands. Sadly, the exact location of her plot is unknown. 2. 3. SARAH HANCE AINSE Oneida Iroquois c. 1728 - c. 1823

Trader, diplomatic courier, and vocal champion of her own legal rights, a clearly exceptional person, Sarah Ainse was respected by native society and could function well in white society. She had powerful friends and powerful opponents. The new order brought on by the American Revolution neither loved nor cowed her.

Sarah Ainse was well known around Detroit and the Western District of Upper Canada in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Probably an Oneida, although she once claimed to be a Shawnee, she had been brought up on the Susquehanna River. Her exact name is not known but there is speculation that it may have been Hance (or Hands), a name common among the Iroquois. She sometimes used her nickname, Sally.

At 17, Sarah became the second wife of Andrew (Henry) Montour, an Indian agent and interpreter, and lived with him in what is now Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. He fell into debt, perhaps as a result of her extravagance, and in the early 1750s he nearly went to debtors prison. In 1755 or 1756 the family was split. Most of the children were placed with people in Philadelphia. Montour left Sarah and their son Nicholas - who was baptized in Albany, N.Y., on October 1756 - with her relatives, the Oneidas near the Mohawk River. Soon afterwards her Oneida relatives gave her land near Fort Stanwix (Rome, N.Y.). Here by 1759 she had become a trader. Within seven years, she had expanded her trading activities westward to the north shore of Lake Erie, and it seems she was trading to Michilimackinac (Mackinaw City, Mich.) by 1767. Because of the similarity of names, it has often been thought that she was married to Joseph-Louis Ainse, the Michilimackinac interpreter, but it appears that when she was there she lived, for a while at least, with trader William Maxwell.

Shortly before and during the American revolution Sarah moved to the Detroit area. Between 1775 and 1785 Sarah Ainse was an active trader in the Western District, with headquarters of operation in the British-occupied settlement and fort at Detroit. She had become a person of considerable property, owning two houses at Detroit, a considerable amount of flour, cattle, horses, and four slaves.

During the American Revolution, the British used Fort Detroit as a base to plan and launch Indian raids into the Ohio Country. Henry Hamilton, known for paying Indians for American rebel scalps, was the fort's governor during the Revolution Located far enough away from American controlled Fort Pitt and close to the majority of British-allied Indians, Fort Detroit became the center for the British military and Indian Department efforts in the Western Great Lakes, Southern Ohio, and Kentucky regions during the American Revolutionary War. As a result, Fort Detroit and the surrounding settlement became a spring board for British-allied Native American raids on American settlements in Kentucky and Western Virginia. In order to gain more information concerning the military and British Indian Department activities in the Detroit region, the Americans recruited inhabitants of the Detroit region as spies and sympathizers for the American cause. Shortly after the outbreak of the Revolution, the British military became aware of American spies and sympathizers in the Detroit region. The first group the British military suspected of treason, with good reason, were the French habitants of the Detroit region. Although the British assumed control of Detroit in 1760, the French habitants (residents) represented the vast majority of people living in the Detroit settlement. The majority of these French had an active role in the fur trade throughout the Western Great Lakes region as well as areas located to the west and south of that area. As a result of their mutual involvement in the fur trade, the French habitants and the Native Americans in that region developed strong, friendly relationships. Throughout the war, these relationships caused the British military and Indian Department to remain very suspicious of both groups. The British soon realized that the French habitants viewed the war as an Anglo-American civil war,that did not concern them. The French habitants’ apparent lack of loyalty to the British cause constantly worried Lieutenant Governor Henry Hamilton. In mid-1778, Hamilton wrote that he believed "there is but one in twenty (French habitants), whose oath of allegiance would have force enough to bend him to his duty." This would remain true throughout the war. The British soon realized that even some British subjects living in the Detroit region supported the American cause. Hamilton reported that he had came to suspect some British traders’ who "are rebels in their hearts". A year later, Hamilton wrote, "The disposition of the (British) people at this place requires something more than the shadow of authority to keep them in the Bounds of Duty." In the first years of the war, Hamilton arrested several French and British traders as well as a number local farmers on ground that they supported, or actually aided, the Americans It will never be known whether Sarah Ainse was among the American sympathizers or spies at Detroit. Regardless, she doubtless knew and consorted with those French and British traders that Hamilton charged with treason by virtue of their aiding and abetting the American rebels. Furthermore, Sarah was an Oneida, a division of the Iroquois that were tilting toward joining the Americans against the British. But, she also had to consider her business interests. Given that her far-flung trading enterprise covered the entire Western District which included both British- and American-occupied areas, Sarah could not afford to alienate either party to the dispute. This was a conflict in which both sides tolerated no neutrals. Which side in the conflict would she choose? Or, would she struggle to stay neutral? Sarah Ainse’s Decision1

It is said that, in the American Revolution, a third of the inhabitants of the American colonies sided with the American rebels, a third with the British, and a third remained neutral, going about their business between and around the conflict. Sarah Ainse, Iroquois businesswoman, was one such individual. They fact that she wheeled and dealed mostly out of British-held Detroit meant that she had to be careful about keeping good relations with both the Indians and the British, even when they were in conflict with each other.

Between 1775 and 1785 Sarah Ainse was an active trader in the Western District. In 1780, according to a list made by commandant Arent Schuyler DePeyster, two bateau (boat) loads of the merchandise, that were ordered by the merchants of Detroit, belonged to Sarah. She accumulated large debts with merchants William Macomb, John Askin*, and Montague Tremblay. In 1781 her account with Tremblay was for £2,620, in 1783 she did business with Askin to the extent of almost £3,000, and in 1787 her account with Angus Mackintosh was for £685. For the times, these were very large amounts of money. She had become a person of property, owning two houses at Detroit. In addition, the 1779 census records that she owned flour, cattle, horses, and four slaves. In May 1787, Sarah moved to the La Tranche (Thames) River in Canada and built a dwelling on the part of her property that later became Dover East Township. In 1788 she completed the purchase from local Indians of a 150-mile-square property, which ran from the mouth of the river up to the forks where the city of Chatham, Ontario now stands. During the 1780s she seems to have been the wife of John Willson, a trader. He took over responsibility in 1783 for her account with Askin.

In a petition of 1789 to Governor Lord Dorchester, Guy Carleton, Sarah Ainse tried to get title to a portion of the land she had bought from the Indians. She claimed a parcel 300 acres in front by 33⅓ acres in depth. This property lay within the area purchased from the Indians for the British government by deputy Indian agent Alexander McKee in 1790, but she repeatedly asserted, and her statements were confirmed by a number of Indian chiefs, including Egushwa, that her lands were exempt from this treaty. Supported by Jean-Baptiste-Pierre Testard Louvigny de Montigny, a member of the district land board present at the treaty negotiations, McKee denied that this exemption had been intended. McKee was himself a major landowner in the area, as were several members of the land board who denied Sarah her claim. Moreover, the land on the Thames was seen as the most valuable in the district. Were the members of the board simply too inflexible to accept a sale made by Indians, since the institutionalized system disapproved of such sales to individuals? Was it simply that an Indian woman stood in the way of the speculative ventures of the local European élite? Why was the word of as many as 20 1 Portions of this biography have been excerpted from the Henry Hamilton and the Sarah Ainse entries in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography On Line 1. chiefs be discounted? In June 1794, as a result of the influence and pressure of the Superintendent General of Indian affairs, Sir John Johnson, Mohawk chief Joseph Brant (Thayendanegea), and Lieutenant Governor John Graves Simcoe, an order was issued that Sarah receive 1,673 acres of the 150 square mile property that she had originally purchased on the Thames River. She now had clear title to 1.7 per cent of the amount for which she had originally petitioned, but the Executive Council nevertheless denied her claim in 1798! Sarah received neither the land nor any compensation .

While she was pursuing her land claim Sarah Ainse still carried on her trading. She successfully sued several people for small debts in 1792, and when the commanding officer at Detroit tried to prevent the sale of liquor to an Indian gathering at the Au Glaize (Defiance, Ohio) - the very epicenter of resistance to American expansion - he complained that “Sally [Sarah] Ainse availed herself of the general prohibition, and privately disposed of a sufficient quantity to keep an entire band drunk.” Sarah also acted as messenger and informant for Brant in the critical months after the defeat of the western Indians by Anthony Wayne’s forces at the battle of Fallen Timbers (near Waterville, Ohio) in August 1794. Brant wanted to maintain Indian unity against the Americans and through Sarah Ainse sent messages to Egushwa and other leaders of the western tribes. “I am much afraid that your wampum and Speeches will be to little effect with the Indians,” she advised Brant in February 1795, “as they are sneaking off to General Wayne every day.” Her observation was entirely correct: that very month, many of the Indians who fought against Wayne at Fallen Timbers signed a preliminary agreement with the Americans.

Records of Sarah Ainse’s activities after the turn of the century are scant. In September 1806, when she purchased a quart of whisky from John Askin, she was still resident on her Thames River farm. (“I don’t mean to ask payment,” Askin noted on her account.) A woman of remarkable persistence, in January 1809 she petitioned Lieutenant Governor Francis Gore about compensation for her land claim on the Thames. At that date she was living in Amherstburg, clinging to life as tenaciously as she had clung to her rights. Sarah survived until about 1823. Agents for the executors of Richard Pattinson, to whom she had owed money, applied on 11 Feb. 1824 for authority to administer her estate.

A clearly exceptional person, Sarah Ainse was respected by Indian societies and could function in white society. She had powerful friends and powerful opponents. The new order of white domination brought on by the American Revolution neither respected her , but nor did it intimidate her.

2. Shawnee Backgrounder, 1754 – 1776

By the 1720’s, the Shawnees had begun to return from the Carolinas to the Ohio Valley from whence they had been driven by the Iroquois during the Beaver Wars of the Seventeenth Century. In doing so, they came under the protection of the Iroquois, who now assumed the role, not of conquerors but of the Shawnee’s “older brothers,” that is, their self-appointed spokesmen and intermediaries with the British under an arrangement called the Covenant Chain. At the outbreak of the American Revolution, the Shawnees occupied a precarious position between the frontiers of Virginia and Kentucky and militant Mingo (independent Iroquois) bands closer to the British stronghold of Detroit. Tribes already allied with the British, such as the Iroquoian Mingos, threatened to attack the Shawnee if they made peace with the Virginians. Yet they, not the Mingoes and the Iroquois, occupied the front lines of the escalating conflict in the Ohio Country. They Shawnees not only could not trust the Virginians, but also their experience with the British from the French and Indian Wars in 1754 to the Revolution in 1775 did not instill in them an unwavering trust in the British King and his North American agents.

At the outbreak of the Seven Years War (The French and Indian War) in 1754, the Shawnee, Delaware and Mingo stood ready to join the British against the French, but this changed in the fall when it was learned the Iroquois had ceded Ohio to the British during the Albany Conference in May, without, of course, consulting the Delaware or the Shawnee. The Ohio tribes not only lost confidence in the Iroquois, but decided the British were also enemies who wanted to take their land. However, they stopped short of allying with the French and refused to help them supply or defend their forts, preferring to remain neutral. The French were finally forced to assemble a force of 300 French Canadians and 600 allies from the St. Lawrence and Great Lakes tribes to defend Fort Duquesne against the British, but this would include only four Shawnee and no Delaware. The Shawnee and Delaware were angry but neutral while the British assembled an army to take Fort Duquesne. Unfortunately, they did not appear this way to the British. In July 1755 General Edward Braddock met disaster when his 2,200-man army was ambushed just before reaching Fort Duquesne. Half the command was killed (including Braddock himself, but Colonel George Washington and wagoner Daniel Boone survived.). When the news reached the colonies, disbelief was followed by a violent anger towards all Native Americans. Although the Shawnee and Delaware had not participated in the battle, they chose a very poor moment to send a delegation to Philadelphia to protest the Iroquois cession of Ohio. The Pennsylvania colonial government hanged the delegates, and the Shawnee and Delaware went to war against the British, not for the French, but for themselves. In 1755 war parties struck the frontiers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Maryland, unleasing a wave of death and destruction that killed 2,500 colonists during the next two years. The Iroquois ordered the Shawnee and Delaware to stop but were ignored. In July, 1759 the Shawnee and Ohio Delaware made peace with the British and ended their attacks on the frontier. Quebec and Fort Niagara fell in the fall. With the surrender of Montreal in 1760, the war in North America was over. The Ohio tribes had taken over 650 white prisoners during the war. These were exchanged on Ohio's Muskingum River in 1761, but surprisingly, half refused repatriation and remained with the Indian communities, which had adopted them. With the war ended, prisoners exchanged, and their claims to Ohio extinguished, the Shawnee and their allies expected the British to leave. Instead the British built Fort Pitt at the site of Fort Duquesne and garrisoned it with 200 men. When the Shawnee and Delaware signed a final treaty at Lancaster in 1762, they felt betrayed.

No longer forced to compete with the French for the allegiances of the Indians, Lord Jeffrey Amherst, the British military commander in North America, decided to treat the native allies of the French as conquered peoples. He terminated the annual presents to alliance chiefs ended and restricted the supply of trade goods, particularly gunpowder and rum. Because the tribes had grown dependent on these items, there was a severe reaction. By 1761 the Seneca were circulating a war belt calling for a general uprising against the British. Only the Shawnee and Delaware responded, but the British Indian agent, Sir William Johnson, discovered the plot during a meeting at Detroit with members of the old French alliance and quieted the Iroquois. The unrest continued and by the spring of 1763 had collected around the leadership of Pontiac, the Ottawa chief at Detroit. The Pontiac Rebellion caught the British completely unaware with the sudden capture of six of nine forts west of the Appalachians. The Shawnee, Delaware, and Mingo besieged Fort Pitt and hit the Pennsylvania frontier with a series of raids, which killed 600 settlers. Only an informer saved the garrison at Detroit, but Forts Niagara and Pitt were surrounded and isolated. In desperation, Amherst wrote the commander at Fort Pitt, Captain Simeon Ecuyer, suggesting he deliberately attempt to infect the Shawnee, Delaware, and Mingo besieging his fort with gifts of smallpox-infected blankets and handkerchiefs. Ecuyer took this as an order and did exactly that. It proved particularly effective because the Ohio tribes had little immunity having missed the 1757-58 epidemic among the French allies contracted during the capture of Fort William Henry (New York). The Shawnee were fighting the Cherokee in Tennessee at the time, and they carried the disease to them, and then to the Shawnee living with the Creek Confederacy. From there, it spread to the Chickasaw and Choctaw, and finally the entire southeast. Before it had run its course, the epidemic had killed thousands, including British colonists. Struggling under the scourge of small pox, Pontiac's Rebellion collapsed after its failure to take Forts Pitt, Niagara, and Detroit, and the French refusal to help their former allies.

Unlike Pennsylvania, Virginia had never renounced its claim to Ohio. In 1749, it chartered the Ohio Company that asserted large land grant at the forks of the Ohio (Pittsburgh). Virginia's claims were far more extensive than Pennsylvania and included the entire Ohio Valley west to the Illinois River including Kentucky, West Virginia, and Lower Michigan. Many colonists (including George Washington) had invested in Ohio land speculation, and the British refusal to open this area for settlement started many of the more wealthy colonists on the path towards revolution. Poor frontiersmen had a simpler solution: They ignored the proclamation and settled on lands in western Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, white settlement was beginning to encroach on the Iroquois homeland. This was the setting in 1768 when the British and Iroquois met at Fort Stanwix and produced a treaty where the Iroquois (who could no longer controlled the Ohio tribes) ceded Ohio to the British (who could no longer control the Americans). By opening up the ceded lands in Kentucky, the Iroquois hoped to deflect the tide of white settlement from northern New York to the Ohio Country.

These agreements, which opened the Ohio Valley to settlement, were essentially private purchases by land speculators in violation of British law. After the treaty at Fort Stanwix, the British government had basically washed its hands of the whole affair. The British closed Fort Pitt and sat back "to watch the fur fly." By 1774 there were 50,000 frontiersmen west of the Appalachians lusting after Indian land and spoiling for a fight. Most had been fighting Indians for several generations, and they could be brutal and merciless. When they sold their rights to Kentucky, the Cherokee had tried to warn Daniel Boone that the Shawnee would fight if the Americans tried to settle there, but Boone already knew this. They had killed his oldest son James during a hunting expedition in 1773. Early in 1774 Virginia militia took over the abandoned Fort Pitt to use as a supply base for a possible war against the Shawnee.

The following month, another group of Long Knives (Virginians) massacred a peaceful band of Mingo at Yellow Creek (Stuebenville, Ohio). The victims included the Shawnee wife of Logan, a Mingo war chief. Several days later, Logan's brother and pregnant sister were also murdered. However, the Shawnee chief Cornstalk wanted to avoid a war and went to Fort Pitt to ask the Virginians to "cover the dead," a widespread Indian ritual whereby the murderer provides the family of the murder victim a large gift. Meanwhile, Logan went to the Shawnee-Mingo village of Wakatomica and recruited a war party. While Cornstalk was talking at Fort Pitt, Logan's gruesome revenge killed 13 settlers on the Muskingum River. Logan tried to tell colonial officials in July the killing had ended, but the Virginians had gathered into forts awaiting reinforcements from the east. Rather than resolve matters through negotiation, the governor of Virginia, John Murray (4th Earl of Dunmore), himself a speculator in Ohio lands, raised a large army of militia and brought them west to Ohio. Thus began In response, Lord Dunmore's (Cresap's) War (1774).

Weakened by the recent defections of their tribesmen to Missouri, the Shawnee sent a war belt to the Detroit tribes, but they refused to take it up. Most of the Delaware also chose to remain neutral, so the Shawnee and Mingo were badly outnumbered. Dunmore's militia destroyed Wakatomica and five other villages, and in October was gathering at Point Pleasant (West Virginia) on the Ohio for a second invasion, when Cornstalk and 300 warriors launched a sudden attack. The battle lasted most of the day with heavy casualties on both sides, but Cornstalk was finally forced to withdraw across the Ohio. A month later, he met with Virginia officials and signed the Treaty of Camp Charlotte, giving up Shawnee claims south of the Ohio and promising not to settle there. Immediately afterwards, the remaining Hathawekela Shawnee left Ohio and moved to live with the Creek in northern Alabama. Lord Dunmore's War opened Kentucky for settlement, and in March, 1775 James Harrod founded Harrodstown, the first permanent American settlement in Kentucky. By the time Daniel Boone led a second party through the Cumberland Gap and settled at Boonesborough a month later, the first shots of the American Revolution had been fired at Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts.

Nevertheless, the Shawnee were neither reconciled to the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, nor were they defeated in their own war for independence from the Iroquois Confederation, the same Iroquois who had signed away Shawnee rights to Kentucky.

The Shawnees, 1776 - 1783

True to his word, Cornstalk kept the peace with the Long Knives after 1774, but he could not speak for all Shawnee. With the beginning of the Revolution, the British ceased being an interested observer and began urging the Shawnee and others to attack American settlements. Some tribes chose neutrality, but by arguing the Americans were going to take their land, the British succeeded in persuading the Detroit tribes, St. Joseph Potawatomi, Mingo, and the Saginaw and Mackinac Ojibwe to join them against the American rebels. They also got an alliance between the war factions of the Shawnee and Cherokee (Chickamauga). In July, 1776 the Chickamauga attacked two frontier forts in the Carolinas which provoked an American retaliation against all of the Cherokee. Meanwhile, Chickamauga and Shawnee war parties roamed through Kentucky attacking Americans. Before the Iroquois themselves were drawn into the war in 1777, the League demanded the Shawnee stop their attacks, but by this time, they almost expected to be ignored. Besides encouragement, the British supplied arms and paid bounties for American scalps. The American state governments did the same. This inflamed an already vicious, private war - “The War of the Villages” - between the towns of the Ohio Indians and the Kentucky settlements, that was a separate civil conflict among neighbors, quite apart from the revolutionary conflict east of the Appalachians. Whites murdered Indians they knew, and Indians murdered whites with whom they were acquainted. In July, 1776 near Boonesborough, Daniel Boone's 14-year-old daughter and two of her friends were captured by a Shawnee-Cherokee war party. Boone rescued them after a three-day chase and pitched battle. The situation deteriorated so rapidly into personal hatreds and reprisals that Cornstalk was losing control of his warriors. Accompanied by his son in 1777, Cornstalk went to Fort Randolph (Point Pleasant) to warn the Americans the Shawnee were going over to the British. Rather than being grateful for this, the soldiers took Cornstalk hostage and later murdered him to avenge the killing of a white man. Cornstalk's successor was Blackfish, a bitter enemy of the Americans, who retaliated with raids throughout Kentucky and western Pennsylvania. By July Boonesborough, Harrodsburg and St. Asaph's (Logan's Fort) were the only settlements left in Kentucky. The other settlers had either moved into the forts or returned east. Even the forts were not safe. In September, Fort Henry (Wheeling) was attacked by 400 Shawnee, Mingo and Wyandot. Half of the 42-man garrison was killed before relief arrived, and before withdrawing, the war party burned the nearby settlement. In February, 1778 General Edward Hand left Fort Pitt with force of Pennsylvania militia on a raid into Ohio. Hand never caught any hostiles, but his "Squaw Campaign" destroyed two peaceful villages and almost brought the Delaware into the war. Hand resigned and was replaced by General Lachlan McIntosh. Meanwhile, a white scout and trader at Fort Pitt named Simon Girty became convinced the Americans would lose the war and deserted to the British. Known as the "Great Renegade," Girty would soon be leading Shawnee war parties and become one of Long Knives' most effective enemies. In May Blackfish and Half King led 300 Shawnee and Wyandot warriors in an attack on Fort Randolph to avenge Cornstalk. The fort's commander, however, refused to allow his men outside to fight, and frustrated after a week-long siege, the war party left and moved up the Kanawha River to attack settlements near Greenbrier. Daniel Boone had been captured by the Shawnee in February, but Blackfish refused to turn him over to the British and adopted him as his own son. Boone escaped in June to warn Boonesborough of an impending attack. This finally came in September, and while his warriors besieged Boonesborough for nine-days, Blackfish stood outside the walls and berated Boone's ingratitude and betrayal of his adopted father. Despite Hand's "Squaw Campaign," the Delaware went to Fort Pitt in September and signed a treaty of friendship and alliance with the Americans. They also agreed to the construction of an American fort on the west bank of the Tuscarawas in Ohio to "protect them from the British" but balked at joining an expedition to capture Detroit. This lack of cooperation made the Long Knives suspicious, and in November while escorting them to the site of the new fort, the Delaware head chief White Eyes was murdered by the Americans. The Americans won a major victory in 1778 when George Rogers Clark captured the British forts at Vincennes (Fort Sackville) and Kaskaskia in August and took control of the Illinois Country. With the help of the Detroit tribes, the British re-occupied Fort Sackville in December, but Clark

1. counterattacked and forced its surrender in February, 1779. British prisoners were spared, but Indians were executed by tomahawk. As if cursed by White Eyes' ghost, Fort Laurens on the Tuscarawas became a deathtrap for the Americans. In January, 1779 a detachment was attacked a Mingo war party led by Simon Girty. A month later, 18 soldiers were killed directly in front of the fort, and the Mingo and Wyandot kept it surrounded until relief arrived from Fort Pitt in March. By August it had been abandoned as indefensible. The Kentuckians retaliated for Shawnee raids in May when John Bowman and 300 mounted volunteers crossed the Ohio River and burned Old Chillicothe. Blackfish was killed, and the Shawnee moved their villages from the Scioto farther north to the Mad River. The Long Knives were in an ugly mood. They not only rejected a peace offer from the Wyandot and Shawnee but attacked a delegation of Delaware (American allies at the time) enroute to meet with the Congress at Philadelphia. Tired of the fighting, the last of the Kispoko Shawnee and Piqua Shawnee left for Spanish Louisiana leaving the Chillicothe and Mequachake as the last Shawnee in Ohio. The cycle of atrocity and revenge continued during 1781, In the spring Daniel Brodhead burned the Delaware capital at Coshocton. Women and children were taken prisoner, but the men were executed by tomahawk. In March, 1782 Pennsylvania militia massacred 90 peaceful Moravian Delaware at Gnadenhuetten (Ohio) giving the Delaware good reason for revenge. In June an American offensive against the Sandusky villages was defeated during a two-day battle in northern Ohio. The American commander, Colonel William Crawford was captured by the Wyandot and turned over to the Delaware. While Simon Girty watched and taunted him, the Delaware burned Crawford (a personal friend of George Washington) at the stake. In August Girty led another raid against Kentucky, this time at Bryan's Station. Pursued by militia, he ambushed them at Blue Licks on the Licking River. Sixty Americans were killed including Daniel Boone's son Israel. The Mingo burned Hannastown, Pennsylvania, and in October a 300-man war party attacked Fort Henry at Wheeling, West Virginia for a second time. The following month, Clark with 1,100 mounted riflemen defeated the Shawnee on the Miami River and burned six of their villages, including New Chillicothe. The Revolutionary War ended in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris, but the war between the Ohio tribes and Long Knives continued with few interruptions until 1795. Although the British asked their allies to stop their attacks on the Americans, there was a great deal of hypocrisy in this request. The British continued to perform the old French role of resolving intertribal disputes while at the same time encouraging an alliance to keep the Americans out of Ohio. While there was never a formal military alliance between them, the British provided aid and arms to the Ohio tribes from forts on American territory which they continued to occupy in violation of the peace treaty. Nevertheless, the British were more of an opportunist than instigator in this conflict. After seven years of brutal warfare, both sides still had scores to settle. Although the United States and Great Britain had made peace, the Long Knives did not feel this changed anything between themselves and the Shawnee. There was only a lull in the fighting, while each party sized up the intentions of the other. The Shawnees survived the repeated invasions. They pulled back when American armies invaded their country, watched as the troops torched villages and cornfields, then returned or rebuilt their homes in safer locations after the enemy departed. Cornfields and hunting territories beyond the reach of American strikes, as well as British supplies from Detroit, sustained their efforts. Were the war to continue for another year, the American generals on the Ohio predicted that the Shawnee and their allies would have swept Kentucky clear of white settlers. Suddenly, after the Treaty of Paris, British officers in Detroit began urging chiefs to restrain their warriors and tried to sell them the Peace of paris as offering a new era of peace with the Americans. During an exchange of prisoners at the Ohio falls in 1783, American major Wall gloated before the Shawnee delegates: “Your Fathers the English have Peace with us for themselves, but forgot you their Children, who Fought for them, and neglected you like Bastards.” This was the real disaster of the Revolution for the Shawnees. Between 1775 and 1790, some eighty thousand white settlers poured into Shawnee hunting territories, an invasion of settlers and land speculators that gathered pace dramatically after Independence. Any hopes the Shawnees had of recovering their Kentucky lands disappeared with the end of the Revolution. Having carried the fight south of the Ohio and lost, Shawnees henceforth fought to preserve their lands north of the river. They were left to face American aggression on their own, but remained committed to the defense of their lands.

2. 3. Black Hoof (Catahecasa, Quaskey) (Shawnee) ca. 1722 - 1831

Black Hoof was a leader and headman of the Shawnee Nation. His birth probably occurred in the northwestern part of modern-day Ohio. His Indian name was Catahecasa and Quaskey. Little is known about his early years. Some historians believe he was born in 1717, but this seems unlikely considering that he lived until 1831.

Black Hoof’s life reflected the essentially conservative values of Shawnee society. Like other First Nation peoples, the Shawnee borrowed selectively from European and Indian neighbors, but, they strongly held on to their own culture ... and independence. This desire to preserve their culture and independence prompted the Shawnee to choose migration, rather than accept the consequences of living aside aggressive Europeans. Black Hoof never converted to Christianity, though in his later life he developed a warm relationship with the Quakers. David McClure, who visited the Shawnee during Black Hoof’s time, commented that the Shawnees “have always shown great opposition to Christianity and have great hatred of the Long Knife, which is the name given by them to the Virginians.”

In a departure from Shawnee tradition, however, Black Hoof gained a singular reputation for his faithfulness to one woman. When he was a young warrior he wooed and finally won the daughter of a headman. He lived with her for forty years and raised a large family. Colonel McKenney, accustomed to chiefs with as many as five wives, was astounded when Black Hoof told him he had lived with one woman all his life.

Throughout his life, Black Hoof demonstrated an ability to balance negotiation with military action to assure Shawnee cultural integrity and independence. Allied with the French, Black Hoof was present at the defeat of Edward Braddock’s British forces during the French & Indian War. Black Hoof led the Shawnee attack on Fort Piqua in 1763 during the French War, and participated in all the Ohio wars against the British. Black Hoof also probably jointed Pontiac in his revolt against the British. Likewise, he most likely fought the Virginians at the Battle of Point Pleasant in 1774 during Lord Dunmore’s War. The Battle of Point Pleasant only confirmed his dislike for the Virginians. During the battle, a fellow Shawnee soldier, Pucksinwah, fell to a Virginian’s bullet. Afterwards, Black Hoof assumed guardianship of Pucksinwah’s son, the boy that would eventually grow to become the great Shawnee statesman and general: Tecumseh. Black Hoof, however, was not reconciled to the Treaty of Camp Charlotte that concluded Dunsmore’s War but also forced the Shawnee to cede their Kentucky hunting grounds to the Virginians and established the Ohio as the boundary between European and native settlements. Particularly, galling was the requirement of the treaty for the return of captives, many of whom were well assimilated into Shawnee society. Both Black Hoof and Cornstalk, for example balked at returning the offspring of black women and a Shawnee fathers as “we thought it very hard they shou’d be made Slaves of.” For many Shawnees, such as Black Hoof and Cornstalk, it was apparent that the American Revolution simply merged with the hostilities engendered by Lord Dunmore’s War and that the struggle against Virginian aggression would continue unchecked. Lord Dunmore’s War meant that Kentucky could be settled and the Virginia elite - the George Washingtons and Thomas Jeffersons - could become rich through speculation in Indian lands and African slaves. Dunmore had demonstrated how Indian hating and murder, occasioned by rum and back country settlers, could serve “the desires of these more discreet men to become wealthy”.

Using the fraudulent Treaty of Fort Stanwix in which the Shawnee’s “elder brothers,” the Six Nations Iroquois Confederation, ceded Shawnee lands to divert white settlers from Iroquoia, land speculators targeted Shawnee hunting territory. The encroachments of trespassing white settlers destroyed or drove away the game. Beginning in 1775 and continuing through 1790, some eighty thousand people poured into Shawnee hunting territories north and south of the Ohio, an invasion of settlers and land speculators that accelerated after Independence. In June 1775, Shawnees, for example, complained that the Virginians “were killing our deer and destroying our trees.” In July 1775, Cornstalk and other chiefs told the Virginians, “We are often inclined to believe there is no resting place for us and that your Intentions were [sic] to deprive us entirely of our whole Country.” Settlers continued to pour into the Ohio while the Maquachake, the diplomatic arm of the Shawnee nation, attempted to stem the Shawnee drift towards war. Despite the invasion of white settlers, the Shawnee were a divided people on the eve of the Revolution. In the spring and summer of 1776, Black Hoof’s division, the Maquachake, counseled peace among the other Shawnee towns along the Scioto and Miami Rivers and assured George Morgan, the U.S. Indian commissioner at Pittsburgh, that the Shawnee would remain neutral. But, the other Shawnee divisions - the Chillicothes, Piquas, and Kispokis - thought otherwise and, like Black Hoof, were unreconciled to the consequences of Lord Dunmore’s War and American trespassing upon their lands. In April 1776, a delegation of Shawnees traveled south through Kentucky to carry a nine-foot war belt to the Cherokee in an effort to precipitate a united resistance against the Virginians. As the Shawnee war party continued to gain strength over the peace party led by Cornstalk and Moluntha and Kishanosity, individual Shawnee soldiers and villages began to accept the war belt from British governor Henry Hamilton at Detroit and joined the Mingoes in raiding the American frontier.

Black Hoof was a man of the Maquachake division, the division of healing and medicine, a man who took seriously his responsibilities to reconcile and to heal as well as to lead his nation. His fellow Maquachake, Cornstalk, also was struggling down that path. Yet, the evidence of Virginian aggression was blatant. But to ally with the untrustworthy British was to risk the kind of destruction that the Shawnee experienced during the French and Indian War and Lord Dunmore’s Wars. Which path would Black Hoof choose?

Sources: Calloway, Colin G. The American Revolution in Indian Country; Crisis and diversity in Native American Communities. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995); White, Richard. The Middle Ground. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1991), p. 364. Black Hoof’s Decision

Despite the invasion of white settlers, the Shawnee were a divided people on the eve of the Revolution. In the spring and summer of 1776, Black Hoof’s division, the Maquachake, counseled peace among the other Shawnee towns along the Scioto and Miami Rivers and assured George Morgan, the U.S. Indian commissioner at Pittsburgh, that the Shawnee would remain neutral. The murder of peace-seeking Cornstalk, Red Hawk and all their fellows at Fort Randolph shocked Black Hoof and other Shawnees seeking some accommodation with the Americans. Denunciations of the Virginian treachery accompanied news of the act throughout the Indian villages of the North. The erstwhile Shawnee Neutralist, Nimwa, at once became an enemy of the United States. American officials struggled to maintain neutralist factions among the Shawnees and Delawares at Coshocton. A month after the murders, American general Edward Hand wrote to Patrick Henry that he knew “it would be vain for me to bring the perpetrators of this horrid act to justice,” but by May several Anglo-Americans stood trial for the crimes at the Rockbridge County Court. It is almost needless to say that all were acquitted; not white citizen would testify against them. This was the last straw for Black Hoof. He accepted the war belt and threw himself into the war against the Americans.

Black Hoof fought long and well against the Americans during the Revolutionary War. After the war, he continued his resistance by joining Little Turtle’s northern alliance against the escalating invasion of the Ohio country by white settlers. Although it is not confirmed, many historians believe that he took part in St. Clair and Harmar's Defeat during the 1790s. He did fight at the Battle of Fallen Timbers and represented the Shawnee at the signing of the Treaty of Greenville after the Battle of Fallen Timbers. Tecumseh, with his fine oratorical skills was unable to convince Black Hoof and his followers to join a revived Indian coalition against the Americans, even though Black Hoof had been an ardent opponent to white expansion prior to the Greenville Treaty. Reconciled to peace, he visited Fort McArthur in 1813 and was shot in the face by a white Indian-hater, causing a serious injury, from which he made a full recovery. Following the Treaty of Greenville, Black Hoof became convinced that the Indians had no hope against the Americans except to adopt their customs. Using his influence with the Shawnee, Black Hoof encouraged the Shawnee to adopt the Euro-American’s ways of living. By 1808, his followers established farms at Wapakoneta. A member of the Society of Friends (Quakers) visiting Wapakoneta reported that the Indians were farming over two hundred acres of land. There were several hundred head of cattle and hogs, and other improvements included the construction of a sawmill and a grist mill.

Black Hoof supported peace with the Americans and encouraged the Shawnee to do the same, despite the efforts of the resurgence of militant resistance championed by Tecumseh and his brother, the Prophet. Conflicts between the Shawnee and the Americans continued. Black Hoof proved to be a major problem for Tecumseh and the Prophet as they tried to unite the Indians against the white settlers during the early 1800s. But if Tecumseh and the militants failed to secure for the Indians their homelands, so too for the most part, did those, such as Black Hoof, who tried to accommodate the American expansionists. Black Hoof discovered that his studied neutrality during the War of 1812 did not win for his people the protection of their remaining lands. In their villages around Wapakoneta, they met with unyielding American pressure to cede their lands. In 1817, the Treaty of the Miami Rapids limited their holdings to a small reserve around Black Hoof’s village of Wapakoneta. Over the next two decades following the war, the Americans forced most Shawnees to yield their land and to seek refuge across the Mississippi. By the 1820’s and early 1830’s, against Black Hoof’s wishes, most Shawnees had begun the trip to the Kansas River Valley. In 1826, Black Hoof organized a Shawnee emigration camp at Wapakoneta from which he led several hundred Shawnee for the Kansas territory. The eighteen-month migration was a difficult journey and the people suffered many hardships. Some were lucky enough to survive the trip. After leading his people to Kansas, Black Hoof returned to Wapakoneta.

In 1831 a proposition was made by the government to purchase the land of the Shawnee about Wapakoneta. The Shawnees accordingly held a council, and prepared a petition to Congress, setting forth their grievances and asking additional compensation. The Shawnees formed a committee of four, including Black Hoof, to present the petition to the government. The deputation set forth on this mission in December, 1831. These negotiations resulted in the surrender of the Ohio lands held by the Shawnee nation. An anecdote is told of the celebrated chief, touching this sale of land. He was asked if he agreed to the sale, at which he replied: "No." "Why then did you sell?" "Why," he replied, "because the United States Government wanted to buy and possess our lands, and remove us out of the way. I consented because I could not help myself, for I never knew them to undertake anything without accomplishing it. I knew that I might as well give up first as last, for they were determined to have our lands."

Black Hoof died shortly after the ceding of the Shawnee’s last lands in Ohio at the advanced age of 109 years. There is a monument at the corner of Route 65 and US Route 33 in St. Johns, four miles east of Wapakoneta, Ohio. Shawnee country, bereft of Shawnees. Cornstalk (Keigh-tugh-qua, Hokolesqua) Shawnee. ca. 1720 - 1777

Cornstalk was a chief of the Shawnee Nation. He was born circa 1720. Little is known about his early years. In all likelihood, he was born in Pennsylvania, the home of the Shawnee in the 1720s, and then moved to Ohio around 1730 with the bulk of the Shawnee Nation. Cornstalk was one of the Maquachake Shawnees, whose community produced accommodationist leaders, such as Malunthy, as well as the more militant Black Fish and Black Hoof. The Maquachakes were but one of the five divisions of Shawnees, each with specific responsibilities. The Maquachakes were responsible for health and medicine and supplied healers and counselors, the Piquas were charged with matters of religion and ritual, the Kispokis for matters of training for war and preparing war leaders, the Chillicothe and Thawekila divisions took care of political concerns that affected the whole Shawnee nation and generally supplied political leaders. The Mequachakies also acted as counselors, intermediaries with “outsiders.” These Maquachake traditions prepared Cornstalk, Black Hoof, and Malunthy, to become leaders, but also brokers between Native peoples and the European colonists. During the French & Indian War, Cornstalk and the Shawnee sided with the French. They feared that English settlers would flood the Ohio Country if the Anglo-Americans were not stopped on the east slope of the Appalachian Mountains. Cornstalk led raiding parties into western Virginia, hoping to drive the English away from Shawnee territory. He also played an active part in Pontiac's Rebellion in 1763. Colonel Henry Bouquet defeated the Shawnee in 1764. To assure that the natives would sign a peace treaty ending the rebellion, Bouquet seized several hostages, including Cornstalk. The Shawnee agreed not to take up arms against the English again. During the next decade, fighting did occur between the English and the Ohio natives. Cornstalk tried to ease the tensions, but the influx of more white settlers placed him in the minority of how to deal with the whites. By the spring of 1774, violence was constant. On May 3, 1774, a group of English colonists, seeking vengeance, killed and mutilated eleven Mingo Indians, one of them the pregnant sister of Chief Logan, leader of the Mingoes at Yellow Creek. Upon hearing of the murders, many Mingoes and Shawnees demanded retribution. Some, like Cornstalk, urged conciliation. Cornstalk and most other Shawnee natives promised to protect English fur traders in the Ohio Country from retaliatory attacks since the traders were innocent in this attack. Logan, however, was not easily assuaged, and Shawnee and Mingo chiefs permitted him to attack the parties responsible for his family members' murders-British colonists living south of the Ohio River. Logan took approximately two dozen warriors to exact revenge on the colonists. He marched into western Pennsylvania. There, his followers killed thirteen settlers before returning back west of the Ohio River. Captain John Connolly, commander of Fort Pitt, immediately prepared to attack the Ohio Country natives. Lord John Murray Dunmore, the governor of Virginia, offered his colony's assistance. Dunmore hoped to prevent Pennsylvania's expansion into modern-day West Virginia and Kentucky. He believed the best way to do this was to place Virginia militiamen in these regions. He also hoped to benefit by opening these lands to white settlement. In essence, Dunmore hoped to engage in real estate speculation. In August 1774, Pennsylvania militia entered the Ohio Country and quickly destroyed seven Mingo villages, which the Indians had abandoned as the soldiers approached. At the same time, Lord Dunmore sent one thousand men to the Little Kanawha River in modern-day West Virginia to build a fort and to attack the Shawnees. Cornstalk, who had experienced a change of heart toward the white colonists as the soldiers invaded the Ohio Country, dispatched nearly one thousand Shawnee to drive Dunmore's force from the region. The forces met on October 10, 1774, at what became known as the Battle of Point Pleasant. After several hours of intense fighting, the English drove Cornstalk's followers north of the Ohio River. Dunmore quickly followed the Shawnees across the river into the Ohio Country. Upon nearing the Shawnee villages on the Pickaway Plains, Dunmore stopped and requested that the Shawnees discuss a peace treaty with him. The Shawnees agreed, but, while negotiations were under way, Colonel Andrew Lewis and a detachment of Virginia militia that Dunmore had left behind at Point Pleasant crossed the Ohio River and destroyed several Shawnee villages. Fearing that Dunmore intended to destroy them, the Shawnees immediately agreed to terms before more bloodshed could erupt. Under this treaty, the Shawnee had to agree the terms of the Treaty of Fort Stanwix (1768) to cede their lands east and south of the Ohio River and to no longer attack English colonists traveling down the Ohio River. Particularly, galling was the requirement of the treaty for the return of captives, many of whom were well assimilated into Shawnee society. Cornstalk balked at returning the offspring of black women and a Shawnee fathers as “we thought it very hard they shou’d be made Slaves of.” Nevertheless, Cornstalk struggled to abide with this treaty. In the spring and summer of 1776, Cornstalk continually assured American Indian agent George Morgan in Pittsburgh that his people intented to remain neutral in the War. He led a Maqachake peace delegation to the Shawnee towns along the Miami and Scioto rivers, but many Chillicothes, Piquas, and Kispokis were not buying his message of peace. A delegation of Shawnees traveled south to persuade the Cherokees to join them in a united front against the Virginians. Nevertheless, that autumn, Shawnee peace advocates, including Cornstalk, attended a multitribal treaty council at Pittsburgh with American Indian commissioner George Morgan. In a private conference with Morgan, Cornstalk, Nimwha, and other Maquachakes assured Morgan that the source of the troubles lay not with the British in Detroit but with the malcontent Shawnees and Mingoes in Pluggy’s Town and that the Maquachake peace party would keep the Americans informed of hostile Indian movements if they Americans would keep the Maquachake’s informed of hostile moves by the white settlers. Throughout 1777, Maquachake peace advocates kept the Americans informed about developments in Indian country and among their own people. Despite Cornstalk, Moluntha, and Kishanosity’s best efforts, the war party continued to gain strength as increasing numbers of Shawnee warriors accepted the war belt from Governor Henry Hamilton at Detroit and joined the Mingoes led by Pluggy in raids into Kentucky. That summer, Cornstalk’s sister, Nonhelema carried a warning to the American garrison at Fort Randolph on the Kanawha that many of her people had joined the British. On October 6th, Captain Matthew Arbuckle, commander at Fort Randolph detained two Shawnees - Red Hawk and Petalla - who had come to the fort at Cornstalk’s request to inform them that it was no longer possible to hold the militant young men of his tribe in check and that the agreement made with Lord Dunmore three years previously could no longer be maintained. A few days later, Cornstalk’s son, Elinipsico, came to the fort to see why Red Hawk and Patalla had been detained and was quickly imprisoned. At this point, Arbuckle resolved to apprehend “as many [Shawnee] as fall into my hands” and hold them as hostages for the Shawnee nation’s good behavior. Cornstalk agonized over what to do next. No matter how many Shawnees Arbuckle detained, their captivity would not restrain the drift toward the British and war against the Americans advocated by the Shawnee militants. And, he wondered if he had been wrong all along by insisting on peace. The achievements of the militant Shawnees in Kentucky were impressive so far. Only four Anglo-American stations, or forts, in Kentucky were left standing: McClelland’s, Logan’s, Boonesboro, and Harrodsburg. They rest had been abandoned as result of the Indian onslaught. Perhaps, had the Shawnee struck the intruders with full force immediately from the beginning, the whites would never have gotten their toe hold at all in Kentucky. It was not too late to throw his support to Black Snake and the others.

Cornstalk was a loving father and leader wanted so much to keep his son and his other detainees safe, and he resolved to do whatever he could to make it so. But he also knew that, by going to Fort Randolph to plead their case, he was endangering his own life. Few Americans were as trustworthy or humane as Commissioner George Morgan. Many, if not most, of the new European settlers were Indian haters. Their young men were reckless and viscous drunkards, Indian haters who thought nothing of killing every Indian they met, friend or foe. “Indian haters killed Indians who warned them of raids. They killed Indians who scouted for their military expeditions. They killed Indian women and children”” Captain Matthew Arbuckle himself might be an Indian hater. Might the Shawnee captives be dead already? With that in mind, should Cornstalk travel to Fort Randolph to negotiate with Arbuckle and the Virginians or could he cut his losses, join the party of war, and ally himself with the British at Detroit. What path should Cornstalk choose? Cornstalk’s Decision In a private conference with American Indian commissioner George Morgan in 1777, Cornstalk, Nimwha, and other Maquachakes assured Morgan that the source of the troubles lay not with the British in Detroit but with the malcontent Shawnees and Mingoes in Pluggy’s Town and that the Maquachake peace party would keep the Americans informed of hostile Indian movements if they Americans would keep the Maquachake’s informed of hostile moves by the white settlers. Then, Captain Arbuckle at Fort Randolph took a number of Shawnee’s hostage, including Cornstalk’s son. Cornstalk was torn, but he shook his head to clear away the thoughts, not giving in to the “what-if’s” of his peace policy. He, as leader of his people, had given his word, and a Shawnee’s word was not given lightly, nor his promise easily broken. He had to go to Fort Randolph to explain to the Americans that the situation was becoming unhinged, that many Shawnees were tilting towards the party of war, and that he himself had grave doubts about his own policies. Cornstalk set out for Fort Randolph, which was located on Point Pleasant on the south bank of the Ohio River, where he had fought the Virginians in Lord Dunmore’s War no so many years previously.

As Cornstalk forded the Ohio on horseback, his vigorous waving of the white flag kept the whites gathering on the shore from firing on him. He was immediately escorted by a squad of soldiers to the headquarters of the Fort Randolph commander, Captain Matthew Arbuckle, who regarded them with suspicion and ill-concealed fear.

“Why have you come here, Cornstalk?” he asked.

Cornstalk, by all accounts spoke English reasonably well, but he spoke slowly and distinctly to be sure the officer understood him well. “I come with grave news. At the camp of Charlotte [Treaty of Charlotte] three years ago, I gave my word as a principal chief of the Shawnees that our nation would keep the peace, would remain on our side of the Spaylaywitheepi [The Ohio River] and refrain from retaliation if grievances arose between my people and yours, but instead take those grievances to the white commanders and they would be smoothed. This was a talk- treaty and papers were to be marked later at the Fort of Pitt, where the Spaylaywitheepi (Ohio River) begins. But because of the troubles that have arisen, including the war between your own people [the Revolution], this did not come about. We have been injured in many ways, by the whites since then and though we have brought our grievances to the Fort of Pitt and discussed them at length, they have not been smoothed and have only become worse.”

... Cornstalk held Captain Arbuckle with a steady, steely gaze and continued. “Now I have come here to say to you that these grievances have become too great to be borne. I can no longer restrain my young men from joining the raiding parties encouraged by our friends, the British. I no longer wish to restrain them. We have suffered much at the hands of the Shemanese [whites] who have repeatedly broken the talk-treaty. Now there is a treaty no longer. It is a matter of honor that we honor that I have come here to tell you this.” Captain Arbuckle rose from behind his desk and, without replying to Cornstalk’s remarks, ordered the squad of soldiers to put them in confinement with the other Shawnee in a cabin which he designated, adding, “Apparently, we’re at war with the Shawnees again. We’ll hold these hostage.” Angered by such treatment but unable to do anything about it, Cornstalk allowed himself to be led to a single-room cabin in which there was a table and two chairs, a large fireplace, and a crude ladder leading up to a partial loft ... and Red Hawk and Cornstalk’s son, Elinipsico. The single door was bolted from the outside and there were only three narrow slits as windows.

“This was all a mistake,” Red Hawk said bleakly. He glanced up at the loft and then stooped and peered up the fireplace chimney. “I do not regret that I came,” Cornstalk said calmly. “I regret only that my son and my friend are here with me and that the whites acted so dishonorably.” Soon a disturbance was heard outside and through the slits they could see Captain Arbuckle arguing with a large unruly group of armed men, saying that the Indians were unarmed and official hostages and were not be be molested. Arbuckle, however, was shoved aside and the mob surged toward the cabin. Inside, Elinipsico began to scale the ladder to the tiny partial loft, but Cornstalk called him to come back down, which he did. Cornstalk placed his hands on his son’s shoulders. “My son,” he said gently, “God has seen fit that we should die together and has sent you to that end. It is Her will, and She will gather us up, so let us submit. Her ways are sometimes mysterious, but She knows what is best.” Not inclined to such meek submission, Red Hawk leaped to the fireplace and quickly scrambled up the chimney. He was not sooner out of sight than the bolt was thrown and the door yanked open. The gap was immediately filled with a motley mixture of soldiers and frontiersmen armed with rifles. Cornstalk, one arm on his son’s shoulders, faced them without expression. “By God,” exclaimed the leader, Captain John Hall, “it is Cornstalk!” He brought his rife to bear, as did Adam Barns, Hugh Gailbreath, Malcolm McCoun, and William Roane, along with several others and a barrage of shooting broke out. Even after Cornstalk and Elinipsico fell to the grown, others crowded to the door and shot into the bodies. “Where the hell’s the third one?” someone shouted and a search was begun, first up the loft and then the fireplace. The chimney had quickly narrowed, and Red Hawk was braced fearfully as high up as he could go. It was not high enough. He kicked at the hands that reached for him but they finally caught hold of his ankles, and they dragged him, blackened, onto the cabin’s hard-packed earthen floor where he was shot, tomahawked, and beaten with clubs and rifle butts until his form was hardly recognizable as human.

Such was the price of Shawnee honor.

The wrath of the Shawnees at the murder of their principal chief, his son, and his chief attendant, reverberated throughout the Shawnee nation. It was an act of war and if it was the war the Shemanese wanted, they would now get it.

Several months after the murders, on March 27, 1778, the Virginia Council issued a notice for the arrest of five of the identified perpetrators and offered a reward for their arrest on the charge of murder. There seems to be no record of any of these five every having been arrested or tried for their crime. Sixty-three years later in 1841, while excavations were being made at Point Pleasant for a street, the remains of three men were found, believed to be those of Cornstalk, Red Hawk, and Elinipsico. The account states that “the bones were much broken and jammed as if by blows, five or six rifle balls also were found among them.” These bones were buried in the yard of the Mason County Court House.

[Portions of this account is excerpted from Allan W. Eckert’s semi-fictional, but well-researched, book, A Sorrow in Our Heart: The Life of Tecumseh (Bantam Books, New York, 1992), pp. 152-154.- with some modifications.] Nonhelema Shawnee ca. 1740’s - ca. 1820

Nonhelema - known to the Europeans as the "Grenadier Woman" - was the chief of her own village on the Scioto River. An attractive woman, she stood six and a half feet tall and had a well formed body in good proportion to her height. She was the sister of Hokolequa ("Cornstalk") and, therefore, was a member of the Maquachake division of the Shawnee nation, a division whose responsibility it was to deal with outsiders, negotiate with them, and make treaties. She married Moluntha in 1760. This marriage produced Cheska and Captain Johnny. Moluntha later married two younger women - not an usual arrangement in Shawnee society. Although we have no record of how Nonhelema felt about sharing her husband with two other women, she remained fiercely loyal to Moluntha until he was murdered by the Americans in 1786.

Because of her great height, the white settlers called Nonhelema “the Grenadier Woman.” The Moravian missionaries who lived among the neighboring Delawares named her Katherine. She was often called Kate by the white settlers and traders. Nonhelema became acquainted with the early white settlers and developed an fondness for them. Without being a traitor to her own people she frequently gave the whites information that was very beneficial to them. However, she tolerated whites in her neighborhood as long as they were few and friendly.

American commissioners traveling through the Shawnee nation in 1775 to invite tribes to meet at Fort Pitt with George Morgan in the fall found the Shawnee’s “constantly counseling.” They acknowledged the Maquachakes as the treaty-making division of the Shawnees. The commissioners sought out Shawnee women, such as Nonhelema, because they knew what was going on, not just in their village, but throughout the entire Shawnee nation. Commissioner Butler wrote that he found “some Women wiser than some Men.” In talking to the women, the American Commissioners found “all seemed very uneasy in Expectation that there would be a War.” Women had much to fear from war. They had charge of planting, tending, and harvesting the extensive Shawnee fields of corn, pumpkins, and squash and tending to the orchards of fruit trees, and helping manage the cattle and pigs that the Shawnee had incorporated into their economy. The women knew that, when war came, American strategy, like the French and the British before them, aimed to carry the war into Indian country, destroying villages and carrying off Indian property, leveling orchards, carrying off livestock, and burning Indian crops late in the season when there was insufficient time for raising another crop before winter. In addition, women had the responsibility of bearing and raising children. Unlike the Ohio Indians, the Americans had no tradition of adopting and assimilating captives, especially young captives, into their communities. Because Indian prisoners brought no reward, American soldiers automatically killed men, women, and children for their scalps. Pennsylvania, for example, offered $1000 for every Indian scalp, regardless of its gender or age. Consequently, when Kentucky militia invaded Shawnee villages, the militiamen dug up Shawnee graves to scalp the corpses. Nonhelema harbored new illusions about the intentions of the Virginians, but she also harbored no illusions about the devastation of war. Not surprisingly, she, along with many other Shawnee women, sided with with her brother Cornstalk’s peace party. Nonhelema joined the Maquachake peace delegation to the Shawnee towns along the Miami and Scioto rivers, but many of the Shawnees - Chillicothes, Piquas, and Kispokis, in particular, were not buying their message of peace. Despite Cornstalk, Moluntha, and Kishanosity’s best efforts, the war party continued to gain strength as increasing numbers of Shawnee warriors accepted the war belt from Governor Henry Hamilton at Detroit and joined the Mingoes led by Pluggy on raids into Kentucky.

That summer, Nonhelema carried a warning to Captain Matthew Arbuckle, commander of the American garrison at Fort Randolph on the Kanawha, that many of her people had joined the British. On October 6th, Captain Matthew Arbuckle, commander at Fort Randolph detained two Shawnees - Red Hawk and Petalla - who had come to the fort at Cornstalk’s request to inform them that it was no longer possible to hold the militant young men of his tribe in check and, therefore, that the agreement made with Lord Dunmore three years previously could no longer be maintained. A few days later, Cornstalk’s son and Nonhelema’s nephew, Elinipsico, came to the fort to see why Red Hawk and Patalla had been detained and was quickly imprisoned. At this point, Arbuckle resolved to apprehend “as many [Shawnee] as fall into my hands” and hold them as hostages for the Shawnee nation’s good behavior.

The detention of members of Nonhelema’s family and political faction forced upon Nonhelema a critical decision. Had she and Cornstalk taken the right path? Accommodation with the Americans - the hated Long Knives, the authors of so many Shawnee tragedies - seemed a distant island in a stormy sea and neutrality “a world too narrow.” Nonhelema’s choices were narrowing. What path would she now choose? Nonhelema’s Decision

Cornstalk (Nonhelema’s brother) and his son, Elinipsico (her nephew), went to Fort Randolph the site of an American fort, to warn the whites of the breakdown of Shawnee neutrality. The Americans took the Shawnees hostage. Shortly thereafter, news reached Fort Randolph that, presumably, some Shawnee had ambushed and killed an American soldier. Seeking vengeance, the Virginians massacred Cornstalk, his son, and other Shawnees that they had earlier taken into custody. Surprisingly, Nonhelema abandoned her village and moved to Fort Randolph with the American commander’s permission. She brought nearly fifty head of cattle, some horses, and other property with her. This gesture indicated her good faith and the Virginians accepted her as one of them. We have no way of knowing why Nonhelema sought refuge among Virginians, many of whom knew about, possibly witnessed, perhaps even consented to her brother and her nephew’s murder. Nonhelema acted as an interpreter for the garrison throughout much of the war. In May, 1778, following the cruel murder of Cornstalk, a force of two hundred Shawnees banded together and came to Fort Randolph seeking revenge. They demanded that Captain William McKee surrender the fort. He asked them to give him until the next morning to consider their demand. All through the night the Americans were busily employed in bringing water from the river. The next morning Captain McKee sent his answer via Nonhelema that the fort would not surrender. The Indians immediately attacked the fort and besieged it for one week. Then they rounded up all the cattle and horses they could find and started up the Kanawha Valley. The Nonhelema learned of their purpose to go into the Greenbrier settlements. Captain McKee sent two scouts to follow the Indians, but they returned with the intelligence that the Indians had broken up into small groups. He then asked for volunteers "to risk their lives to save the people of Greenbrier." John Pryor and Phillip Hammond stepped forward and offered their services. Nonhelema dressed them like Indians and painted their faces. By traveling by day and night, these men were able to get to the Greenbrier settlements before the Indians arrived. The people in the settlements hurried to Donnally's Fort, which was located near the present site of Lewisburg. When the Indians arrived, they discovered that the fort was too well defended for them to capture it. They destroyed much property, and returned to their homes on the west side of the Ohio River.

Meanwhile, by late 1777 and early 1778, the more militant Shawnees evacuated the Scioto Valley and reestablished their villages in the Miami River Valley, where they would be less vulnerable to assault. Moluntha, Nonhelema’s husband, stayed on Scioto with a number of Maquachakes. Cornstalk’s faction of Maquachakes moved east to to the Delaware town of Cohocton, leaving Cornstalk’s town all but deserted. Nonhelema’s town also was probably abandoned by this time. The Shawnees about this time split into a peace faction led by the Maquachakes and Kispokis, an immigration faction who moved west of the Mississippi into Missouri, where they took up lands after the Revolution near Cape Girardeau under the auspices of the Spanish government, and a war faction led by the Chillicothe war chief, Black Fish. Black Fish raided into Kentucky in the winter of 1777-1778, capturing Daniel Boone and twenty-six companions at Blue Licks in a raging snowstorm. Black Fish later adopted Boone into the Chillicothe faction. After a period of time with Black Fish’s people, which he thoroughly enjoyed - even contemplating becoming a Shawnee - Boone escaped and made his way back to Kentucky, where he was accused of being a traitor and an “Indian lover.”

With all but the Maquachake Shawnees hostility apparently well established, American invasions of Shawnee country became almost an annual event. With the rest of their nation gravitating toward the British, the Maquachake civil chiefs once again endeavored to seek peace, but failed after Delaware, such as Killbuck, urged them to join the war on the side of the Americans. Faced with the prospect of war, despite their best prospects for peace, the Maquachakes who were living with the Delaware’s in Cohocton moved out and rejoined M oluntha on the Scioto River.

Nonhelema was at the center of the Maquachakes who, after the Treaty of Paris (1783) attempted to keep the peace. They returned their war belts to the British in 1784, signifying their intention to remain at peace. Nonhelema and Moluntha and three hundred very disgruntled Shawnees met with the American commissioners at Fort Finney in January 1786. The majority of the Shawnees were Maquachakes, fulfilling their traditional role as negotiators, but the talks were heated. The American commissioners threatened that the Shawnee refusal of the American terms would result in the destruction of their women and children. Moluntha (possible Nonhelema herself) stepped in to counsel moderation and accommodation, and the Shawnees ceded tribal lands east of the Great Miami. But they warned, “This is not the way to make a good or lasting Peace to take our Chiefs Prisoners and come with Soldiers at your Backs.” Moluntha with other older chiefs signed the treaties, but the Americans realized that the elder chiefs from whom they obtained the cession of land were losing authority to a new generation of warriors who came of age during long years of recurrent warfare and would keep the Shawnee on a permanent war footing for years to come. In the fall of 1786 General Benjamin Logan led a force of U.S. soldiers and mounted Kentucky militia against the Maquachake towns despite the fact that Richard Butler had received word that “there was one town of Shawnee called Mackachak, that has done all in their power to keep the Shawnees from going to War.” Logan and his 760 Kentucky militiamen destroyed the first Maquachake town they found, killed the few Indians they found. When they got to Moluntha’s town, which was about a mile away, Moluntha met them clutching a copy of the Fort Finney peace treaty, while his people hoisted an American flag up the flagpole. The Maquachake’s could not believe the Americans would attack them. To no avail. The Kentuckians destroyed the town and rounded up the Maquachakes. General Logan put the Shawnee chief and Nonhelema under the protection of guards. Daniel Boone and Simon Kenton struck up a friendly conversation with the couple. Someone lighted a pipe, and it began to circulate among Boone, Kenton, Moluntha, and Nonhelema. Suddenly, Colonel Hugh McGary broke through the guard and asked Moluntha if he had been at the Battle of Blue Licks with Black Fish. Moluntha, who didn’t understood the question, apparently nodded in the affirmative, smiling. In fact, Moluntha hadn’t been there; very few Shawnees had. McGary promptly tomahawked Moluntha in the forehead with an axe, killing him instantly. Moluntha fell to the ground with the American’s safe conduct pass still in his hand. Nonhelema shrieked with rage and launched herself at the McGary, but the guards leaped upon her and, with difficulty, brought her to the ground, subduing her. Kenton too was so enraged he came near to killing McGary and had to be restrained himself. But Moluntha’s murder was not the only atrocity on that day. In the evening, Tom Kennedy, an officer ridiculed for hacking to pieces a number Shawnee women, broke into attempted to vindicate his manhood by breaking into one of the cabins where the prisoners were being housed and tomahawking an unarmed man that Boone described as “a fine looking young warrior.” McGary and Kennedy “was not much censured,” said the outraged Boone. Logan’s report stated that he had destroyed seven Shawnee towns, killed ten chiefs, took thirty-two prisoners, burned some two hundred houses, and an estimated fifteen thousand bushels of corn, carried off hundreds of cattle and horses, and “took near one thousands pounds value of Indian furniture besides an unknown quantity burnt.” He made no mention of the men, women, and children his troops had slaughtered. It was a very lucrative expedition for the Kentuckians who profited greatly from their raids on the relatively affluent Shawnee. Josiah Harmar, the American commander on the Ohio, considered Logan’s attack “a breach of faith on our part.” Ebenezer Denny said, “Logan found none but old men, women, and children in the towns; they made no resistance; the men were literally murdered.” Logan did have McGary arrested, and a courts martial that investigated the murder suspended the colonel for a year. Kennedy escaped punishment entirely. In the winter of 1786, Daniel Boone facilitated an exchange of white for Indian prisoners, among whom was Nonhelema who was released into the custody of her son, Captain Johnny. When Nonhelema was released in December 1786, she was very thin and drawn, as she was kept in confinement and close guard the whole duration of her captivity. The whites were uncomfortably aware of the warrior-like fighting ability of this powerful woman. Inevitably, Nonhelema’s people disowned her and in old age and poverty, and she was forced to petition the United States for support on account of her past services at Fort Randolph. She requested a grant of 2,000 acres on the west bank of the Scioto River where she once lived and where her mother was buried. It seems that this petition, which was referred to Congress, was never acted upon. Congress did grant her a suit of clothes and a blanket each year, and daily rations for life, “which she may receive at any post in the western territory she shall chuse.” 'A Wall of Separation' (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin 1/10/11 8:03 AM

The Library of Congress > Information Bulletin > June 1998

'A Wall of Separation' FBI Helps Restore Jefferson's Obliterated Draft

By JAMES HUTSON

Following is an article by the curator of a major exhibition at the Library that opens this month and runs through Aug. 22. A key document on view in "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic" (see LC Information Bulletin, May 1998), is the letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, which contains the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state." With the help of the FBI, the draft of the letter, including Jefferson's obliterated words, are now known.

Thomas Jefferson's reply on Jan. 1, 1802, to an address from the Danbury (Conn.) Baptist Association, congratulating him upon his election as president, contains a phrase that is as familiar in today's political and judicial circles as the lyrics of a hit tune: "a wall of separation between church and state." This phrase has become well known because it is considered to explain (many would say, distort) the "religion clause" of the First Amendment to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ...," a clause whose meaning has been the subject of passionate dispute for the past 50 years.

During his lifetime, Jefferson could not have predicted that the language in his Danbury Baptist letter would have endured as long as some of his other arresting phrases. The letter was published in a Massachusetts newspaper a month after Jefferson wrote it and then was more or less forgotten for half a century. It was put back into circulation in an edition of Jefferson's writings, published in 1853, and reprinted in 1868 and 1871.

The Supreme Court turned the spotlight on the "wall of separation" phrase in 1878 by declaring in Reynolds v. United States "that it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [first] amendment."

The high court took the same position in widely publicized decisions in 1947 and 1948, asserting in the latter case, McCollum v. Board of Education, that, "in the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and state.'" Since McCollum forbade religious instruction in public schools, it appeared that the court had used Jefferson's "wall" metaphor as a sword to sever religion from public life, a result that was and still is intolerable to many Americans.

Some Supreme Court justices did not like what their colleagues had done. In 1962, Justice Potter Stewart complained that jurisprudence was not "aided by the uncritical invocation of metaphors like the 'wall of separation,' a phrase nowhere to be found in the Constitution." Addressing the issue in 1985, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist lamented that "unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years." Defenders of the metaphor responded immediately: "despite its detractors and despite its leaks, cracks and its archways, the wall ranks as one of the mightiest monuments of constitutional government in this nation."

Given the gravity of the issues involved in the debate over the wall metaphor, it is surprising that so little effort has been made to go behind the printed text of the Danbury Baptist letter to unlock its secrets. Jefferson's handwritten draft of the letter is held by the Library's Manuscript Division. Inspection reveals that nearly 30 percent of the draft -- seven of 25 lines -- was deleted by the president prior to publication. Jefferson indicated his deletions by circling several lines and noting in the left margin that they were to be excised. He inked out several words in the circled section and a few words elsewhere in the draft. He also inked out three entire lines following the circled section. Click here to see the text of the final letter.

Since the Library plans to display Jefferson's handwritten draft of the Danbury Baptist letter in its

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html Page 1 of 6 'A Wall of Separation' (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin 1/10/11 8:03 AM

forthcoming exhibition "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic," the question was raised whether modern computer technology could be used to uncover Jefferson's inked-out words, so that the unedited copy of the letter might be shown to viewers alongside Jefferson's corrected draft. The Library requested the assistance of FBI Director Louis Freeh, who generously permitted the FBI Laboratory to apply its state-of-the-art technology to the task of restoring Jefferson's obliterated words. The FBI was successful, with the result that the entire draft of the Danbury Baptist letter is now legible (below). This fully legible copy will be seen in the exhibition in the company of its handwritten, edited companion draft. Click here to see Jefferson's unedited text. By examining both documents, viewers will be able to discern Jefferson's true intentions in writing the celebrated Danbury Baptist letter.

The edited draft of the letter reveals that, far from being dashed off as a "short note of courtesy," as some have called it, Jefferson labored over its composition. For reasons unknown, the address of the Danbury Baptists, dated Oct. 7, 1801, did not reach Jefferson until Dec. 30, 1801. Jefferson drafted his response forthwith and submitted it to the two New England Republican politicians in his Cabinet, Postmaster General Gideon Granger of Connecticut and Attorney General Levi Lincoln of Massachusetts. Granger responded to Jefferson on Dec. 31.

The next day, New Year's Day, was a busy one for the president, who received and entertained various groups of well-wishers, but so eager was he to complete his answer to the Danbury Baptists that, amid the hubbub, he sent his draft to Lincoln with a cover note explaining his reasons for writing it. Lincoln responded immediately; just as quickly, Jefferson edited the draft to conform to Lincoln's suggestions, signed the letter and released it, all on New Year's Day, 1802.

That Jefferson consulted two New England politicians about his messages indicated that he regarded his reply to the Danbury Baptists as a political letter, not as a dispassionate theoretical pronouncement on the relations between government and religion. His letter, he told Lincoln in his New Year's Day note, was meant to gratify public opinion in Republican strongholds like Virginia, "being seasoned to the Southern taste only."

Expressing his views in a reply to a public address also indicated that Jefferson saw himself operating in a political mode, for by 1802 Americans had come to consider replies to addresses, first exploited as political pep talks by John Adams in 1798, as the prime vehicles for the dissemination of partisan views. A few weeks earlier, on Nov. 20, 1801, Jefferson had, in fact, used a reply to an address from the Vermont legislature to signal his intention to redeem a campaign promise by proposing a tax reduction at the beginning of the new session of Congress in December.

In his New Year's note to Lincoln, Jefferson revealed that he hoped to accomplish two things by replying to the Danbury Baptists. One was to issue a "condemnation of the alliance between church and state." This he accomplished in the first, printed, part of the draft. Jefferson's strictures on church-state entanglement were little more than rewarmed phrases and ideas from his Statute Establishing Religious Freedom (1786) and from other, similar statements. To needle his political opponents, Jefferson paraphrased a passage, that "the legitimate powers of government extend to ... acts only" and not to opinions, from the Notes on the State of Virginia, which the Federalists had shamelessly distorted in the election of 1800 in an effort to stigmatize him as an atheist. So politicized had church-state issues become by 1802 that Jefferson told Lincoln that he considered the articulation of his views on the subject, in messages like the Danbury Baptist letter, as ways to fix his supporters' "political tenets."

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html Page 2 of 6 'A Wall of Separation' (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin 1/10/11 8:03 AM

The page, before and after restoration.

Airing the Republican position on church-state relations was not, however, Jefferson's principal reason for writing the Danbury Baptist letter. He was looking, he told Lincoln, for an opportunity for "saying why I do not proclaim fastings & thanksgivings, as my predecessors did" and latched onto the Danbury address as the best way to broadcast his views on the subject. Although using the Danbury address was "awkward" -- it did not mention fasts and thanksgivings -- Jefferson pressed it into service to counter what he saw as an emerging Federalist plan to exploit the thanksgiving day issue to smear him, once again, as an infidel.

Jefferson's hand was forced by the arrival in the United States in the last week of November 1801 of what the nation's newspapers called the "momentous news" of the conclusion between Britain and France of the Treaty of Amiens, which relieved the young American republic of the danger that had threatened it for years of being drawn into a devastating European war. Washington had proclaimed a national thanksgiving in 1796 to commemorate a much more ambiguous foreign policy achievement, the ratification of Jay's Treaty that attempted to adjust outstanding differences with Great Britain. Would Jefferson, the Federalists archly asked, not imitate the example of his illustrious predecessor and bid the nation to thank God for its delivery from danger by the Treaty of Amiens? The voice of New England Federalism, the Boston Columbian Centinel, cynically challenged Jefferson to act. "It is highly probable," said the Centinel on Nov. 28, 1801, "that on the receipt of the news of Peace in Europe, the President will issue a Proclamation recommending a General Thanksgiving. The measure, it is hoped, will not be denounced by the democrats as unconstitutional, as previous Proclamations have been."

The Centinel and its Federalist readers knew that Jefferson would never issue a Thanksgiving proclamation, for to him and the Republican faithful in the middle and southern states, presidential thanksgivings and fasts were anathema, an egregious example of the Federalists' political exploitation of religion. Federalist preachers had routinely used fast and thanksgiving days to revile Jefferson and his followers, going so far in 1799 as to suggest that a Philadelphia yellow fever epidemic was a divine punishment for Republican godlessness.

During the Adams administration, Republicans organized street demonstrations against presidential fast days, ridiculed them in the newspapers and boycotted them. Since Federalists knew that Jefferson would never proclaim a national thanksgiving to praise God for the Treaty of Amiens, they calculated that they could use his dereliction as evidence of his continuing contempt for Christianity, which had spilled out again, in their view, in his invitation to "Citizen" Thomas Paine to return from France to the United States.

To offer the nation's hospitality to Paine, author of The Age of Reason, the "atheist's bible" to the faithful, was, the Washington Federalist charged on Dec. 8, 1801, an "open and daring insult offered to the Christian religion." Here, for the Federalists, was the same old Jefferson, the same old atheist. Political capital, they concluded, could still be made from sounding the alarm about presidential infidelity.

During the presidential campaign of 1800, Jefferson had suffered in silence the relentless and deeply offensive Federalist charges that he was an atheist. Now he decided to strike back, using the most http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html Page 3 of 6 'A Wall of Separation' (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin 1/10/11 8:03 AM

serviceable weapon at hand, the address of the Danbury Baptists.

Jefferson's counterattack is contained in the circled section of his draft and in the inked-out lines. He declared that he had "refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion," i.e., thanksgivings and fasts, because they were "religious exercises." This was conventional Republican doctrine that could be found in any number of party newspapers. On March 27, 1799, for example, an "old Ecclesiastic" declared in the Philadelphia Aurora that "Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer are religious acts belonging to the kingdom of Christ" over which the civil magistrate, in the American system, had no authority.

Jefferson took the gloves off when he asserted that the proclamations of thanksgivings and fasts were "practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church," i.e., by George III, King of England. By identifying the proclamation of thanksgivings and fasts as "British," Jefferson damned them, for in the Republican lexicon British was a dirty word, a synonym for "Anglomane," "Monocrat," "Tory," terms with which the Republicans had demonized the Federalists for a decade for their alleged plans to reverse the Revolution by reimposing a British-style monarchy on the United States. One of the most obnoxious features of the Federalists' American monarchy, as the Republicans depicted their putative project, was a church established by law, and Jefferson doubtless expected those who read his message to understand that, by supporting "British" fasts and thanksgivings, the Federalists were scheming, as always, to open a door to the introduction of an ecclesiastical tyranny.

In indicting the Federalists for their "Tory" taste for thanksgivings and fasts, Jefferson was playing rough. Thanksgivings and fasts had regularly been celebrated in parts of the country since the first settlements: to sully them with Anglophobic mudslinging, generated by the partisan warfare of his own time, as Jefferson did, was a low blow. But who was being more unfair: Jefferson or his Federalist inquisitors, who continued to calumniate him as an atheist?

The unedited draft of the Danbury Baptist letter makes it clear why Jefferson drafted it: He wanted his political partisans to know that he opposed proclaiming fasts and thanksgivings, not because he was irreligious, but because he refused to continue a British practice that was an offense to republicanism. To emphasize his resolve in this matter, Jefferson inserted two phrases with a clenched-teeth, defiant ring: "wall of eternal separation between church and state" and "the duties of my station, which are merely temporal." These last words -- "merely temporal" -- revealed Jefferson's preoccupation with British practice. Temporal, a strong word meaning secular, was a British appellation for the lay members of the House of Lords, the Lords Temporal, as opposed to the ecclesiastical members, the Lords Spiritual. "Eternal separation" and "merely temporal" -- here was language as plain as Jefferson could make it to assure the Republican faithful that their "religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine."

Jefferson knew and seemed to savor the fact that his letter, as originally drafted, would give "great offense" to the New England Federalists. Reviewing the draft on Dec. 31, Postmaster General Granger, the object of unremitting political harassment in Connecticut, cheered Jefferson on, apparently welcoming the "temporary spasms" that he predicted the letter would produce "among the Established Religionists" in his home state. When Levi Lincoln, a cooler head, saw the letter the next day, he immediately perceived that, as written, it could hurt Jefferson politically among the growing number of Republicans in New England. People there, Lincoln warned Jefferson, "have always been in the habit of observing fasts and thanksgivings in performance of proclamations from their respective Executives." To disparage this custom with an "implied censure" by representing it as a tainted, Tory ceremony could be politically disastrous, however well the slur might play south of the Hudson River.

Before and after: Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists contained the famous phrase "a wall of separation between church and state (in the sentence just before the area circled for deletion). The text as recovered by the FBI Laboratory shows that Jefferson first wrote "a wall of eternal separation." In the deleted section Jefferson explained why he refused to proclaim national days of fasting and thanksgiving, as his predecessors, Adams and Washington, had done. In the left margin, next to the deleted section, Jefferson noted that he excised the section to avoid offending "our republican friends in the eastern states" who cherished days of fasting and thanksgiving. Click here to see the unedited text of the letter.

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html Page 4 of 6 'A Wall of Separation' (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin 1/10/11 8:03 AM

Jefferson heeded Lincoln's advice, with the result that he deleted the entire section about thanksgivings and fasts in the Danbury draft, noting in the left margin that the "paragraph was omitted on the suggestion that it might give uneasiness to some of our republican friends in the eastern states where the proclamation of thanksgivings etc. by their Executives is an antient habit & is respected." Removed in the process of revision was the designation of the president's duties as "merely temporal"; "eternal" was dropped as a modifier of "wall." Jefferson apparently made these changes because he thought the original phrases would sound too antireligious to pious New England ears.

In gutting his draft was Jefferson playing the hypocrite, sacrificing his principles to political expediency, as his Federalist opponents never tired of charging? By no means, for the Danbury Baptist letter was never conceived by Jefferson to be a statement of fundamental principles; it was meant to be a political manifesto, nothing more.

Withholding from the public the rationale for his policy on thanksgivings and fasts did not solve Jefferson's problem, for his refusal to proclaim them would not escape the attention of the Federalists and would create a continuing vulnerability to accusations of irreligion. Jefferson found a solution to this problem even as he wrestled with the wording of the Danbury Baptist letter, a solution in the person of the famous Baptist preacher John Leland, who appeared at the White House on Jan. 1, 1802, to give the president a mammoth, 1,235-pound cheese, produced by Leland's parishioners in Cheshire, Mass.

One of the nation's best known advocates of religious liberty, Leland had accepted an invitation to preach in the House of Representatives on Sunday, Jan. 3, and Jefferson evidently concluded that, if Leland found nothing objectionable about officiating at worship on public property, he could not be criticized for attending a service at which his friend was preaching. Consequently, "contrary to all former practice," Jefferson appeared at church services in the House on Sunday, Jan. 3, two days after recommending in his reply to the Danbury Baptists "a wall of separation between church and state"; during the remainder of his two administrations he attended these services "constantly."

Jefferson's participation in House church services and his granting of permission to various denominations to worship in executive office buildings, where four-hour communion services were held, cannot be discussed here; these activities are fully illustrated in the forthcoming exhibition. What can be said is that going to church solved Jefferson's public relations problems, for he correctly anticipated that his participation in public worship would be reported in newspapers throughout the country. A Philadelphia newspaper, for example, informed its readers on Jan. 23, 1802, that "Mr. Jefferson has been seen at church, and has assisted in singing the hundredth psalm." In presenting Jefferson to the nation as a churchgoer, this publicity offset whatever negative impressions might be created by his refusal to proclaim thanksgiving and fasts and prevented the erosion of his political base in God-fearing areas like New England.

Jefferson's public support for religion appears, however, to have been more than a cynical political gesture. Scholars have recently argued that in the 1790s Jefferson developed a more favorable view of Christianity that led him to endorse the position of his fellow Founders that religion was necessary for the welfare of a republican government, that it was, as Washington proclaimed in his Farewell Address, indispensable for the happiness and prosperity of the people. Jefferson had, in fact, said as much in his First Inaugural Address. His attendance at church services in the House was, then, his way of offering symbolic support for religious faith and for its beneficent role in republican government.

It seems likely that in modifying the draft of the Danbury Baptist letter by eliminating words like "eternal" and "merely temporal," which sounded so uncompromisingly secular, Jefferson was motivated not merely by political considerations but by a realization that these words, written in haste to make a political statement, did not accurately reflect the conviction he had reached by the beginning of 1802 on the role of government in religion. Jefferson would never compromise his views that there were things government could not do in the religious sphere -- legally establish one creed as official truth and support it with its full financial and coercive powers. But by 1802, he seems to have come around to something close to the views of New England Baptist leaders such as Isaac Backus and Caleb Blood, who believed that, provided the state kept within its well-appointed limits, it could provide "friendly aids" to the churches, including putting at their disposal public property that even a stickler like John Leland was comfortable using.

Analyzed with the help of the latest technology, the Danbury Baptist letter has yielded significant new information. Using it to fix the intent of constitutional documents is limited, however, by well established rules of statutory construction: the meaning of a document cannot be determined by what a drafter deleted or by what he did concurrently with the drafting of a document. But it will be of considerable interest in http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html Page 5 of 6 'A Wall of Separation' (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin 1/10/11 8:03 AM

assessing the credibility of the Danbury Baptist letter as a tool of constitutional interpretation to know, as we now do, that it was written as a partisan counterpunch, aimed by Jefferson below the belt at enemies who were tormenting him more than a decade after the First Amendment was composed.

Mr. Hutson is chief of the Manuscript Division.

Back to June 1998 - Vol 57, No. 6

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danbury.html Page 6 of 6 American Academy of Religion

An American Pioneer in the Study of Religion: Hannah Adams (1755-1831) and Her "Dictionary of All Religions" Author(s): Thomas A. Tweed Source: Journal of the American Academy of Religion, Vol. 60, No. 3 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 437-464 Published by: Oxford University Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1465285 . Accessed: 09/01/2011 20:01

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at . http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup. .

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Oxford University Press and American Academy of Religion are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Academy of Religion.

http://www.jstor.org Journalof the AmericanAcademy of Religion.LX/3 An American Pioneer in the Study of Religion Hannah Adams (1755-1831) and her DictionaryofAll Religions Thomas A. Tweed

ALMOST A CENTURYbefore the rise of comparativereligion as a field, Hannah Adams resolved to write an impartialand comprehensive survey of the religions of the world. The significance of that book, A Dictionaryof All Religions,was not lost on her contemporaries. Adams was well known in New England during her lifetime. She was, as one historian has suggested, one of the most widely read authors in the region between 1787 and 1830 (Gilmore:65). Her works were shelved in family libraries as frequently as those of, for example, Jonathan Edwards. By certain measures, they were even more popular than the writings of John Bunyanor BenjaminFranklin. There is other evidence of her regionalpopularity: a reviewerof the fourthedition assumed that his readersknew the authorand her works. The ReverentSamuel Wil- lard (1775-1859) of Deerfield, Massachusetts,opened his very positive evaluationby reportingthat he would not offer much backgroundsince "the author of this work is in such full possession of publick regard, from the benefit conferredby her writings, and the merits of her several productionsare so generallyknown" (86).1 Her fame was less widespread elsewhere, but she had readers and

Thomas A. Tweed is Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL 33124. The authorgratefully acknowledges the supportof the National Endowmentfor the Humanitiesand the aid of the late ProfessorWilliam A. Clebsch, who introducedhim to the writing of Hannah Adams.

1In this opening paragraph,and throughoutthis essay, I refer to Adams's attempt to offer an "impartial"account of religions. Some scholars in the humanities and social sciences have ques- tioned whether researcherscan achieve "objectivity."I cannot address this importantand vexing issue here, but clearlycomplete impartialityis impossible. It is difficulteven to imagine what that might mean. At the same time, I presuppose that scholars should aim to treat sources fairly and criticallyand should attempt to be conscious of commitments, religious or otherwise, that might limit understanding. Whichever other principles might be involved in the academic study of reli-

437 438 Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Religion admirersscattered throughout the United States and GreatBritain. Her Dictionaryof all Relgions was first published in 1784 under a different title. By the time the fourth and final edition appeared in 1817, the popular book had changed its title twice and appearedin three Ameri- can editions and two Britishversions. An anonymous reviewer of her posthumously published Memoirs claimed that "her reputation had extended through her own land, and was well known abroad" ("Review":133). Adams's surviving correspondence offers some sup- port for this claim. MarthaRamsay of Charlestonwrote a letter praising the second edition of Adams's Dictionary: "I think your work far exceeds anythingof the kind yet attempted,and one which no person or inquiring mind, having once perused would willingly be without." Unfortunately,most "inquiring minds" of succeeding generations either never have perused her book or willingly have done without it. Most twentieth-centuryhistories of the field fail to cite her writings (Jas- trow; DeVries;Bolle; Sharpe). Her work had some influence on nine- teenth-centuryattempts to surveythe religious landscape. For example, it providedthe model for Vincent L. Milner'sReligious Denominations of the World,published in 1872. Milner'svolume reprintedmaterial from Adams'sbook, and it was remarkablysimilar in structureand approach. But the majorityof late-nineteenth-centuryAmerican interpreters of reli- gion overlookedor undervaluedher contributions. In one sense, this is not surprising. Her sources quickly became outdated because of the proliferationof new translationsand authoritativeaccounts during the nineteenth century. It also makes sense that the conservativeProtestant authorsof the many compendiathat appearedin the centuryignored her work: they did not share her commitment to impartiality. It is more difficult to explain, however, her loss of stature among New England liberals. Unitarianand Transcendentalistwriters in the Boston area- including Lydia MariaChild (1802-80), James Freeman Clarke (1810- 88), and SamuelJohnson (1822-82)-authored importantworks on the world religions startingin the 1850s. These works were the successors to the compendia of Adams's generation,and they anticipatedthe even more sophisticatedsurveys that began to appear in the last decades of the nineteenth centuryand the first of the twentieth. Yet Clarke,John- son, and Child failed to acknowledge publicly Adams's important contributions. In one of the most surprisingand inexplicable developments,Child,

gion, these two are fundamental. In this sense, Adams is laudable for aiming at "impartiality."In this sense, she is part of the lineage of the study of religion. Tweed:Hannah Adams 439 who met Adams and read her work, claimed originalityfor her own call for an impartialapproach to the study of religions. In the preface to the first volume of The Progressof ReligiousIdeas, Child complained about the "one-sidedness"of previous overviews. Her book, Child promised her readers, would be novel: "The facts it contains are very old; the novelty it claims is the point of view from which those facts are seen and presented"(1855:I,vii). Her approachwould be new, Child explained, because she had written "with complete impartiality."No one else had done that: "I am not awareof any one who trulyreverenced the spirit of Christianity,who has ever before tried the experimentof placing it pre- cisely on a level with other religions, so far as the manner of representa- tion is concerned"(1855:1:viii,ix,x). It is difficult to know what Child meant by this. Did she mean that Adams had not succeeded in her attempts at impartiality? Did she think that Adams had not even attemptedimpartiality? Or did she-this is difficultto imagine-simply forget Adams's book? In any case, like Child, many independent and academic scholars who followed Adams have failed to acknowledge Adams's precedent; and many of those who have rememberedher have dismissed her con- tributionsas insignificant. Perhaps taking the lead from Adams's own self-deprecatingcomments, the author of one entry in a biographical dictionaryconcluded that "her works contain nothing original"(DAB). In a collection of essays on New England religious history published in 1917, Dean William Wallace Fenn of HarvardDivinity School seemed to go out of his way to dismiss her, calling her "a literarylady of very local and temporaryrenown" (Planter:104). A more recent evaluation, which appeared in a highly respected reference work, suggested that, although she was admired by her contemporaries,"her writings are of no lasting consequence" (James). But some have remembered her and acknowledged her contribu- tions. Studentsof women's historyhave rememberedHannah Adams as the first woman to earn her living by writing in America (Cott 1977:7). The only two articlesdevoted exclusively to Adams both emphasize this (Gould;Gleason), and so do most of the entries in biographicaldiction- aries (NCAB; DAB; Levernierand Wilmes). She also is mentioned in many overviews of American women's history, usually at or near the startof a chapteron women authorsor professionals(Hanaford:175-76; Logan:793-94;Irwin:21-22). Some scholars have recognizedher role as an early historywriter (Brooks:125;Baym:1). Studentsof New England religious history recall her disputes with Jedidiah Morse and her acquaintances with major Unitarian ministers (Wright:77-85; Phil- 440 Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Religion lips:151-57). Severalchroniclers of the historyof the Americanencoun- ter with Asian religions have noted Adams's significance (Ahlstrom:21; Jackson:16-19; Tweed:xvii,4,93;Williams:61-66). A few scholars have recognizedher preeminentplace in the history of the study of religion. The authorof one of the earliesthistories of the field of "comparativereligion," Louis Henry Jordon, listed five Ameri- cans who wrote during the second half of the nineteenth centuryamong its "foundersand masters"- James FreemanClarke, Samuel Johnson, William FairfieldWarren, Crawford Howell Toy, and FrankField Ellin- wood. Adams, however, was the only Americanincluded-with Benja- min Constant, Christoph Meiners, FriedrichMax Miiller, and others- among the field's "prophetsand pioneers." In that 1905 volume Jordon acknowledged that Adams had failed to implement fully her plan for impartiality,but he arguedthat her work was a "reallynotable undertak- ing" consideringher period and limitations. It pointed towardthe new field of comparativereligion that would get under way during the 1870s (146-50). To suggest that Adams was a pioneer is not to say that she stood alone. Her Dictionarywas linked with two related European literary genres-philosophical "dictionaries" and religious compendia. If Adams's perspective was more conventionally Christian than that of either Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) or Voltaire (1694-1778), the format of her book owed much to these and other seventeenth- and eighteenth- centuryphilosophical dictionaries. The other, more important,tradition that Adams'sbook continuedwas that of compendia of religions. These beganto appearat leastas earlyas the seventeenthcentury. One of the first was Alexander Ross's Pansebia;Or, a Viewof All Religons in the World. But like most of the overviews that followed, Ross's book was hardly as comprehensiveas its title suggested,and its prominentChris- tian author,who served as the King'schaplain in his lateryears, showed little inclination to treat non-Christian traditions with any sympathy. Other notable British and Continentalworks in this traditionincluded Thomas Broughton'sHistorical Dictionary ofAll Religions,Bernard Picart's C?rimonieset coutumesreligieuses de tous les peuples du monde,Charles Franqois Dupuis's Ongine de tous les cultes, Christoph Meiners's Allgemeinekritische geschichte der religionen,and BenjaminConstant's De la religion,considirie dans sa source, ses formes, et ses diveloppements. Adams was not as theoreticallysophisticated as most of these authors, and she failed to include a general entry on "religion"or to speculate explicitly about its nature or origin. Yet her Dictionaryshould be listed Tweed-Hannah Adams 441 among these other pioneering works because of its approach and comprehensiveness. Adams also is importantbecause she was among the earliest Ameri- can studentsof world religions. Othersin America,from Cotton Mather to John Adams, had shown limited interest in non-Christianreligions and cultures. After 1784, some American traders,travelers, and diplo- mats had direct contact with Asian religions. Amaso Delano (1763- 1823), for example, published a Narrativeof Voyagesand Travels,which described the religions of China and India. During the first decades of the nineteenth century,American Protestantmissionaries who were fil- led with compassion for the lost souls in Asian and elsewhere sent back reports. William Bentley (1759-1819), the Unitarian minister of the East Church in Salem, learned Arabic and Persian and investigated Asian traditions from his second floor study. Bentley, who read Adams's books, also helped to spread and maintain interest in Asian, especially Chinese, traditionsthrough his work for the East India Marine Societyin Salem. But he failed to publish the results of his wide-ranging researchin any systematicform. As far as I can tell, then, Adams'sonly serious rival for the title of Americanpioneer is Joseph Priestley(1733- 1804), the Unitarianscientist and author who emigratedto the United States in 1794. In 1799, fifteen years after the first edition of Adams's volume appeared, Priestly published A Comparisonof the Institutionsof Moses with Thoseof the Hindoosand otherAncient Nations. This book, however, was less comprehensivethan Adams's: it focused on Hindu- ism and Judaism. It was much more explicitly polemical, too. Adams might not have been the only American "prophetand pio- neer" of the study of religion, as Jordon proclaimed; others played importantroles. Yet, at the same time, most of the negativejudgments of her significanceseem unfair. While she failed to live up to the stan- dardsshe set for herself, Adams managedto providea remarkablyinclu- sive and relativelyimpartial view of the religious landscape. I suggest that for what she attempted,as much as what she accomplished,Adams should be counted among the American pioneers of the study of religion. In the remainderof this essay I consider the origin, method, and content of her groundbreakingbook, The Dictionaryof All Religions, focusing on the final, and most comprehensive,edition.

SURMOUNTING OBSTACLES It was not easy for Adams to come to write her pioneering book. 442 Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Religion

Several obstacles stood in her way-sexism, shyness, and poverty as well as religious doubt, limited education, and "debilitating"reading. Driven by financial need and raging curiosity,Adams began writing the first edition of her survey in her house in Medfield, Massachusetts,in 1778. Medfield,where she had been raised, was an old New England town of Puritan heritage. She quickly discovered, however, that there was much beyond the established CongregationalChurch, which had been gathering in the town meeting house since 1653. The religious landscape included not only Baptists, the only "dissenting"group in Medfield during her lifetime (Tilden; MedfieldReflections), but also Swedenborgiansand Moravians,Zoroastrians and Buddhists. At least at first, Adams wanderedthat broad religious plain disorientedby its vast- ness, surprisedby its variability. And, as she acknowledged,the diver- gent beliefs of world religions and especially the competing claims of Christiangroups disquieted her. "As I read controversy,"she recalled, "I suffered extremely from mental indecision, while pursuing the vari- ous and contradictoryarguments adduced by men of piety and learning in defence of their respective religious systems. Sometimes my mind was so stronglyexcited, that extreme feeling obliged me for a time to lay aside my employment"(1832:14). She also was worried by "this great and painful truth"-that "heathens"and Muslims greatlyoutnumbered Christians(1817:375). Vast numbers remainedbeyond the boundaries of Christendom. Adams also was unsettled by the vast terrain,in part, because she felt unpreparedfor the task of mapping it. Sometimes she hinted that her handicaps arose from fixed factors such as disposition or gender. For example, she tracedthe "mentalindecision" she experiencedas she confrontedcompeting religious claims to inherited characteristics.Her mind, she explained, was "naturallywanting in firmness and decision" (1832:14). Most often she blamed her lack of formal education or her unwise readinghabits. "Stimulatedby an ardentcuriosity," she recalled years later, "I entered the vast field of religious controversy,for which my reading had ill prepared me" (1832:13). She had been too ill to attend school regularly,and, as one friend pointed out, the schools in rural communities in the 1760s and 1770s were not particularygood anyway. She had one important advantage: her bookish father encouragedher learning and guided her reading. Yet, like other women of the age, Adams complained that she had been hamperedby reading too much "women's literature,"which stimulated the sentiments, not the reason. She had been, to use her own words, "debilitatedby reading Romances and novels, which are addressedto the fancy and the imagi- Tweed:Hannah Adams 443

nation" (1832:14-15). If only she had read works of theology like the young men training for the ministry at Harvard,Adams believed, she might have been better preparedto adjudicatethe disputes she encoun- tered as she surveyedthe contradictoryclaims of Christiangroups and world religions. Of all the obstacles Adams faced as she set out to describe the reli- gious landscape, the internal and external effects of sexism might have been the greatest. With the publicationof the first edition of her survey, and the eight books and pamphlets that followed, Adams became the first woman in America to earn her living by writing. Even more than the next generationof liberal New Englandfemale authorssuch as Lydia Child and CatharineMaria Sedgwick (1789-1867), then, Adams had to struggle with the most basic issue: Is it proper, even possible, for women to earn a living by writing? Child and Sedgwick, at least, had the advantageof her example and that of others. Adams had to find her own way, and she felt the inhibiting pressures of sexism from within and without. On the one hand, she fought self-deprecatingimpulses all her life. Those impulses arose from her conviction that she had been poorly trainedfor her profession and from an awkwardnessbred by the seclusion of her sickly childhood. Yet they were, no doubt, also rooted in socially constructednotions of gender identity. Reflectingand inter- nalizing the ethos of her age, at times Adams called herself "a mere woman" (Gleason:81).2 But the inhibitingeffects of sexism, and her personal history,did not immobilize Adams: she could be alternatelybold and timid, self-satis- fied and self-denigrating. She displayed uncommon boldness at times, especially in the line of professional duty. For example, on Christmas day in 1817 Adams showed up unannounced and uninvited at a Swe- denborgian service held in a private residence in Boston. She came to conduct research, but her "informants"found her presence so dis- turbing that they cut the service short (Reed:121). She also felt free to ask prominentstrangers to help her with her research. For example, she wrote to the busy John Carroll(1735-1815), the first AmericanCatholic bishop, to request information on Catholics. After her first book she

2It is not especially useful to focus on the issue of whether Adams, or any other historical figure, was a feminist since that term is a twentieth-centuryinvention. But since the question still arises, I will address it briefly. Adams was not a feminist by most definitions of the term. Nancy Cott, for instance, has suggested feminism involves three core components- opposition to sex hierarchy, belief in the social constructionof gender roles, and the identificationof women as a social as well as a biological group (1987:4-5). With the possible exception of the third component, Adams did not endorse explicitlyin her published and unpublishedwritings any of these defining convictions. 444 Journalof the AmericanAcademy of Religion also allowed herself some self-congratulation. Adams began to sense that books could be more than a way to survive. They might be useful. She might be useful. "It was poverty,not ambition, or vanity, that first induced me to become an author . .. but now I formed the flattering idea, that I might not only help myself, but benefit the public" (1832:22). Encouragedand advisedby members of the Boston elite, she also musteredthe courageto squabblepublicly with the prominentCon- gregationalistminister, Jedidiah Morse (1761-1826), over the rights to the publication of a textbook on New England history (Adams 1814; Morse). On the other hand, it is important to remember that Adams might not have had the courageto publish if she had not been driven to it by the force of poverty. At least initially, she wrote because her father had failed miserablyin business, and she needed to supportherself and her sister. Further,she felt most at home alone with her books or in the companyof a small group of female friends. Most other times, observers agreed, she seemed unsure of herself. Adams, then, dipped her toes into the waters of the male public sphere cautiously and tentatively;once she took the plunge, she found that the currents ran both warm and cold. In some ways her gender, and the prevailingsexism, worked in her favor. Partlyout of respect for her erudition and sympathy for her poverty, yet perhaps also from a condescending chivalry, a number of prominent Boston professionals befriended her. On 20 March 1827 male trustees at the Boston Athe- naeum allowed her access to their forbidden halls. She was the first woman permitted entry to that important private library ("Trustees Records"). Earlier, the ReverendJoseph Stevens Buckminster(1784- 1812), the young but influentialUnitarian preacher, and PresidentJohn Adams, a distant relative,invited her to browse their personal libraries so that she no longer would have to squat in booksellers'shops copying informationfor hours (Adams 1832:28,38,74-75). Local professionals wrote letters on her behalf. They vigorouslydefended her in the public debate with Morse. They even arrangedto pay her an annual stipend so that she would not have to worry about money (Adams 1832:36-37). If being a woman was a main portion of her problem, it also helped attract aid-sincere and condescending-from the elite. In most ways, however, her gender was yet another handicap. Adams acknowledgedthis in her typicallycautious and self-deprecating way. In her Memoir,she quoted a passage from a biographyof the Brit- ish poet and novelist, Charlotte Smith (1749-1806), that complained that the "penaltiesand discouragementsattending authors in generalfall upon woman with double weight" (34). Adams then added a qualified Tweed-Hannah Adams 445 endorsementof this assessment: "ThoughI have been too insignificant, and treatedwith too much candor, fully to realize the above remarks,yet I have been in a situation deeply to feel the trials which attend literary pursuits"(35). Lydia Child was less hesitant to point out the negative effects of sexism for Adams and other female authors of the previous generation. Child wrote of Adams sixty years after the first edition of her Dictionaryof Religionshad appearedthat "the prejudiceagainst liter- ary women was then much stronger than now." To illustrate, Child relayed a story, one of many that circulatedabout the learned but idio- syncraticAdams: "Some one happened to remarkthat they wondered why Hannah Adams had never been married,for she was really a very sensible and pleasant woman. 'MarryHannah Adams!,' exclaimed a gentleman who was present; 'why I should as soon think of marrying my Greek Grammar'" (1852:133-34). Aware of the presuppositionsof her contemporariesand those of earlier generations, Child felt com- pelled to reassurereaders that Adams had not been a textbook.3 A few men seemed able to acknowledgeher intellectualaccomplish- ments without referenceto gender, but not many (Bentley 3:215). Ezra Stiles (1727-95), the erudite president of Yale, recorded this generous assessment in his diary for 25 September 1793: "Visited Miss Hannah Adams at 36 at Medfield and detained with her one day by NE Storm. She is an Authoress, & has read more than most persons of her age" (Dexter:507). Note that Stiles's qualificationconcerned age, not gender. He did not say that she had read ratherwidely for a woman. But most of those who admiredher accomplishmentscould not see beyond the bar- rier of gender. Adams had dedicatedthe second edition of her compen- dium of religions to PresidentJohn Adams. In return,he later praised her in one letter by saying that her writing had "done honor to your sex." As in this informal assessment, there often was a note of surprise, and a touch of condescension, in the adulation that Adams received.

ADAMS'S METHOD: "TO AVOID GIVING PREFERENCE" Even if many of Adams's early readersemphasized her singularityas a female writer-always the qualification-she herself was able to look beyond gender to the issues that confrontedall those who had tried to map the religious world. She did not claim originalityin that task. In

3Adams's friend, Hannah FarnhamSawyer Lee, who wrote the "AdditionalNotices" affixed to Adams'sposthumously published autobiography,also acknowledgedthat some contemporarieshad thought of Adams as "a walking dictionary"(Adams 1832:49). 446 Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Religion fact, Adams described herself-here again the self-deprecating impulse-as a "compiler" rather than an author (1832:22). Yet she boasted that her approachto the task was novel. She outlined her self- imposed guidelines in the "Advertisement"printed at the front of each edition. Adams vowed to be faithful to the self-understandingof those she described,using their own words whereverpossible. She promised to offer a comprehensive and balanced view of the group's history, worldview, and practicesand not focus on isolated or unflatteringinci- dents. Adams wanted to be fair to secondarysources-even when she felt compelled to alter their accounts because the authors had violated her most important methodological principle, scholarly disinterested- ness. She aimed, most of all, "to avoid giving the least preferenceof one denominationabove another." Placing herself among the earliestWest- ern students of religion to hold herself to such standards,Adams strove to avoid denigratinglabels and withhold dismissivejudgments. In fact, she claimed that she had been drivento write her first book, in part, by outrageat other biased accounts. To earn money, her father took in young male boarders. One of them taughther Latin and Greek. He also brought into the house the survey of religions authored by Thomas Broughton(1704-1774), the Britishclergyman of the Churchof England. That book, An HistoricalDictionary ofAll Religionsfrom the Cre- ationof the Worldto the Present,changed her life. She was so annoyed by its hostile treatmentof dissenting Christiansects and variousnon-Chris- tian religions that she began to read everythingshe could find on reli- gious history. Adams discovered that other writers were not much better, and so she resolved to write a more tolerant and accurate account: "I soon became disgusted with the want of candor in the authors I consulted, in giving the most unfavorabledescriptions of the denominationsthey disliked, and applying to them the names of here- tics, fanatics,enthusiasts, & I thereforemade a plan for myself, made a blank book, and wrote rules for transcribing,and adding to my compila- tion" (1832:11).

ADAMS'S VIEW OF THE RELIGIOUS WORLD For Adams, the problem with Broughton'sbook, and others like it, began with the scheme for classifying religions. It was bivalent. Reli- gions could be divided into two groups-true and false. AlthoughJuda- ism was a bit closer to the true religion than the others since it was of divine origin, all other non-Christian traditions were dismissed as wholly and unambiguouslyfalse. The diversitythat any student of reli- Tweed-Hannah Adams 447 gion encounters, even using eighteenth-centurysources, was, finally, dissolved. "The first general division of Religion is into True and False," Broughtonwrote. "That infinite variety, therefore,in the doc- trines and modes of worship, which have prevailed in the world (one only scheme excepted) are but so many deviations from the truth, so many False Religions"(1). Broughtondid distinguish "fourgrand reli- gions of the world"-"Pagan, Jewish, Christian, and Mohammedan." He also sometimes distinguishedreligions chronologicallyinto "antient" and "modem." But these distinctions remained unimportant for Broughton. To him, the religious landscape appearedrather limited in scope-and not especially forbiddingor unsettling. If Adams had been able to accept Broughton'sclassification, her ini- tial disorientationat the vastness of the religious field might have been reduced or eliminated. What diversity? Which competing claims? But she could not accept that bivalent scheme. Even though Adams clearly favoredChristianity, she did not merely separatereligions and sects into the true and the false. For the most part, as promised, she also avoided negative labels. But, as a person of her era who was restrictedby her sources, Adams also did not alter significantlythe basic map of the reli- gious world that she had inherited. In fact, the most basic contours of that map had changedlittle since the voyagesof discovery. New peoples and religionswere added here. New boundarieswere drawn there. But until approximatelythe second quarterof the nineteenth century the religious world still was populated by Christians,Jews, Muslims, and "Pagans" or "Heathens." Christians, as those following the revealed religion, stood in the highest position. Jews were second best. Muslims, because they shared a monotheistic faith and some common heritage, stood next in the hierarchy. For Adams and most of her contemporar- ies, the final category,"Heathens" or "Pagans,"included an extremely wide range of groups and peoples. In the entry under "Pagans"in her Dictionary,for instance, Adams listed four subgroupsof those who stand outside the traditionsof the monotheistic West. The first two included the religions of various ancient peoples (Greeks and Romans as well as "Chaldeans,Phenicians, and Sabians, etc. . . ."). Next came the major Asian religions ("the Chinese, Hindoos, Japanese,&"). Finally, Adams listed the religions of non-literate peoples (the "barbarians"of the Americas, the South Seas, and Africa).4

4For example, the classificationscheme used by Thomas Jefferson,the Deist (Pancake:326,334); Joseph Tuckerman,the Unitarian (183); Ezra Stiles, the TrinitarianCongregationalist (132); and David Benedict, the Baptist (1-51), was basically the same. 448 Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Religion

Adams's map of the religiousworld might seem distortedand crude by contemporarystandards, yet it was an advance over Broughton's sketch, and that of many others. She not only avoided a bivalent classi- fication that undercut all subsequent distinctions and overvaluedone tradition, but her coverage of "heathen" religions was more judicious and comprehensive. The dictionary format itself-instead of Broughton'sthematic organization-also added to the reader'ssense of the vastness and variabilityof the terrain.

Christianity, Judaism, and Islam Adams covered most of the religious world in one way or another, but Christianityreceived disproportionateattention. In fact, more than eighty-five percent of the more than seven hundred entries deal with "orthodox"or "heterodox"Christian groups or ideas. This is not sur- prising since Adams was a committed Christian of Congregationalist heritageand Unitarianinclinations who wrote decades before the formal rise of the field of comparativereligion. But, to a large extent, she man- aged to set aside her heritage and inclinations as she composed her accounts of Christiansects.5 Adams wrote those accounts by sifting through primaryand secon- dary sources for relevant informationand then modifying the received interpretationsaccording to her particularpurposes and methodological principles. With few exceptions, the secondarysources that she found most helpful were travel accounts, sermons, histories, or encyclopedia entries written by Christianswho were not afraidto reveal their evalua- tions of the groups they described. Two of her most often cited sources, for instance, were Broughton'sDictionary (the book that had annoyed her so much) and Johann Lorenzvon Mosheim's (1694-1755) An Eccle- siasticalHistory, Antient and Modem,from the Birthof Christto the Present

5Adams'sworks on Christianityoffer a glimpse of her religiousviews (1804; 1824). She explicitly sided with the Unitariansin her Memoirs(43). Besides being friendswith importantearly Unitarian ministers such as James Freeman and Joseph Buckminstershe also apparentlywent to hear the most famous and importantUnitarian preacher of her day, William ElleryChanning (1780-1842). The membership records of Channing's church in Boston, Federal StreetChurch, do not include her name (Unitarian-UniversalistArchives, Special Collections, Andover-HarvardLibrary, Harvard Divinity School, Cambridge). Yet other evidence suggests that Adams regularlyheard Channing preach. "She attended Dr. Channing's church," Lydia Child recalled, "and had great personal respect for him" (1852:132). There are differentways to date the opening of the field of the "sci- ence of religions"or "comparativereligions." I follow William Clebsch, who arguedthat the field formallyarose in 1870, when FriedrichMax Miller in London and Emile Louis Burnoufin Paris independentlyand simultaneouslycalled for a "scientific"study of religions (6). Tweed: HannahAdams 449

Century.The latter,a multi-volumework writtenby the influentialGer- man Lutheran church historian, was no more gentle with opposing views than Broughton'ssurvey. In dealingwith these secondarysources, Adams usually did what she promised: she omitted deprecatorylabels and adjectives as she recorded information. Her treatment of the Anabaptists,that group of Protestantswho often sufferedpersecution in Europebecause of their unconventionalbeliefs, is typical. Mosheimhad not minced words as he described "the frenzyof their disorderedbrains and the madness of their pretensions and projects." He called them "fanatical" and "outrageous" (3:363, 4:129-64). Only a hint of Mosheim's condemnation survives in Adam's account, however. In a much abbreviateddescription, she portrayed them as "a sect which arose in the time of Luther'sReformation in Germany,and excited vari- ous insurrections,under pretence of erecting the kingdom of Christ on earth." That word "pretence" is a bit loaded. By using it Adams implied that their claims were false. Yet overall, as with most accounts of Christiangroups, the entry on Anabaptistsin Adams'sDictionary was much less dismissive than that found in her sources. Of the many Christiangroups that Adams described, most of them were as controversialas the Anabaptists. Many of them, in fact, were more controversial. She paid a great deal of attention to groups and ideas that lost in the battle for Christianorthodoxy. Of course, most of the traditionalChristian groups and positions are represented in her book. There are, for example, the expected depictions of "Protestants," "Roman Catholics," "Lutherans,"and "Calvinists." Yet most of the entries on Christian topics concern dissenting viewpoints. Various Gnostic groups and positions-including Manichaeism, which was viewed as a Christianheresy-receive a surprisingamount of coverage. Arians,Pelegians, and many other interpretersof doctrinewho had been stamped as "heretical"by some official church body found their way into her overview too. Adams provideda glimpse of other dissentinggroups and new sects in America. For example, she offered an extremely long account (ten and a half pages) of the Universalists,the denominationthat emergedin the late eighteenthcentury. She sneered at Deism, the view that empha- sized natural and not supernaturalsources of religious knowledge and that was embracedby a small but influential collection of intellectuals. She describedMoravians, Swedenborgians, and members of the Church of Brethren. Adams also sketched especially interestingportraits of the Shakers and the Universal Friends, two new communitariansects that emerged from the revival, or "New Light Stir," that swept across rural 450 Journalof the AmericanAcademy of Religion

New England in the late eighteenth century (Marini). Adding to the significance of these new groups for readers then and now, both sects were founded by women. The Shakers,or The United Societyof Believ- ers in Christ'sSecond Coming, were brought to America from England in 1774 when Ann Lee Stanley (1736-84) emigratedwith eight follow- ers. The Universal Friends,which was established by Jemima Wilkin- son (1752-1819), flourished in Rhode Island and Connecticut from 1776 to 1789. Adherentsof both communitiesheld a number of uncon- ventional views; but they, like the other dissenters that Adams described, claimed to be orthodox Christians.6 The cumulative effect of Adams's treatment of Christianity, in America and elsewhere, was to highlight conflict and variety. Adams, perhaps only aftershe finished the first draft,realized this. A good deal of the anxiety that she experienced no doubt arose as she read and recorded competing accounts of the nature of Christianity. In the appendix of her book she tried to deal with the psychologicaldiscomfort and theological problems such a treatment might create. There she, first, bluntly acknowledged that "the diversity of sentiment among Christianshas been exhibited in the preceding pages." She went on, however, to reassureher readersthat this need not challenge their faith. "The candid mind," Adams continued, "will not consider those various opinions as an argument against divine revelation. The truth of the sacredwritings is attestedby the strongestevidence . . ." (371-72). She then listed the evidence. Miracles and prophecies safeguarded the authorityof revealedreligion. So did the coherence of the scriptures,the rapid spread of the gospel, the purity of Christian precepts, and the "benevolent"impulse of Christian social ethics. Further,the diversity need not be so disorienting,she implied, since Christians-true Chris- tians-have agreedon severalfundamental doctrinal matters. Modifying slightly the famous summary of Edward Herbert of Cherbury(1583- 1648), Adams claimed that all agree that (1) there is a supreme being; (2) this being is worthy of worship; (3) that Jesus is the appointedrep- resentativeof this being; (4) that there will be some sort of resurrection of the dead; and (5) that virtuewill be rewardedand vice punished in a future life. Whether or not she and her readersfound the defense of Christian- ity affixed to her dictionary reassuring, there were other theological

6Although I cannot explore this here, Adams's Dictionaryprovides an excellent angle of vision from which to view the increasing diversityand shifting contours of American religion from the Revolutionthrough the Second Great Awakening (see Adams 1992:xvii-xviii). Tweed: HannahAdams 451 problems on the horizon. What do we make of the Jews? Scriptures prophesied, Adams believed, that the Jews would turn to Christianity before the end of the world and Christ's reappearance. Yet they remainedunconverted. What, she asked herself, is the Christian'sobli- gation in this context? She had an answer: it is to help bring Jews to the true faith and so fulfill Biblical prophecy and culminate sacred his- tory. The entry on Adams in the EncyclopaediaJudaica claims that her Dictionaryis "significantfor the sympathetictone of the article on the Jews"; and there is much truthin this assessment (Roth). For example, she seemed genuinely disturbedby their historyof persecution. She also received informationon Judaism from sympatheticcorrespondents like Henri Baptiste Gregoire (1750-1831), the famous French bishop who pleaded for tolerancetoward Jews. And, in fact, the accountof Judaism in Adams's surveyis free of derisive comments or demeaning labels. In general, she provided a fair portrait. Yet, in her treatment of Judaism, she also added a substantial descriptionof "The London Society for PromotingChristianity amongst the Jews." This might seem odd, even condescending or annoying, to some modern readers,but this "benevolent"cause was dear to Adams's heart. Like the members of this British organization, Adams was "devoutlywaiting for the redemption of Israel" (1816:3). This hope, togetherwith her admirationfor Jewish persistence and her sorrow at Jewish suffering, helped animate her long labors on her two-volume study of the history of that religion. The Historyof the Jewsfrom the Destructionof Jerusalemto the Present Time, published in the United States in 1812 and later in British and German editions, was well received. In particular,the members of the London group praised her work. Adams correspondedwith its membersand leaders, and she even established an Americanbranch. On 5 June 1816, the year before the last edition of her Dictionaryappeared, Adams founded "The Female Society of Boston and the Vicinity for PromotingChristianity amongst the Jews" (Societies). She acted as its corresponding secretary. Her commitment to this cause did not disable her as a scholar. As I have indicated, and others have noted, Adams's depiction of Judaism in her Dictionarycertainly was not hostile. Yet, to the attentivereader, her pas- sionate concern to bring the Jews to Christianitywas not entirelyhidden either. For Adams, Islam did not fit into the divine plan in quite the way that the Jews did. Her coverage reflected that belief. Yet Adams did include seven entries on Islam. She acknowledged the two main branches of Islam in one-line descriptions under "Schaites"(Shi'ites) 452 Journalof the AmericanAcademy of Religion and "Somnites"(Sunni). Two importantIslamic movements are men- tioned as well. Adams offered a fifty-five line account of Sufism, the Islamic mystical tradition. Incorporatingmore recent developments, Adams also recountedthe historyand beliefs of the Wahhabi movement ("Wahabees"). Wahhabism, which rejected Sufism, was an Islamic reform movement founded by Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (1703-92). As Adams noted, Wahhab emphasized, among other things, the unity of God and condemned the growing polytheism found in the popularven- eration of Muslim saints. But the most important,and comprehensive, depiction of Islam was found in the four-and-one-halfpage entry under the term "Mahometans." In general, Adams representedthe tradition fairly. She recounted the familiar details of Muhammad'slife, even offering some praise: "He was endowed with a subtle genius, and pos- sessed of great enterpriseand ambition." She also provided a relatively sound overviewof common Muslimbeliefs. As promised,she let adher- ents speak for themselves by quoting from one original source. Her portraitof Islam was less hostile than that drawnby many other Westernersof her day, but her commitmentsand concerns found their way into the account in small ways too. For instance, she spoke of Muhammad's"pretensions" to a divine mission. She also anticipateda concern of her Christianreaders: Islam had spread widely and rapidly, and some Muslimshad cited this as evidence of its veracity-as Adams and others had pointed to Christianity'ssuccess to support Christian claims to divine origin. In her main entry on Islam, Adams offered a response: Muhammad'ssuccess was tainted. He "contrivedby permis- sion of polygamy and concubinage to make his creed palatable to the most depravedof mankind." Perpetuatinganother Western stereotype, she claimed that the founder also propagatedhis message by the sword. In other words, Christiansneed not be disturbedby the success of Islam since it attracted the most undesirable persons by the most violent means.

"Heathenism" Beyond the boundaries of the three Western monotheistic religions lay that vast and mostly unchartedterritory that Adams and her contem- poraries called "heathenism." The more than thirty-five entries on "heathen"or "pagan"traditions in Adams'sDictionary refer to the reli- gions of Asian countries or ancient peoples, literate and non-literate. Among the several "ancientnations" of the Middle East and Europe that Adams depicted was Egypt, the most "renowned"and "refined." Tweed: HannahAdams 453

In separate entries she also noted the religions of the Babylonians, Greeks,Canaanites, and Celts. The Celts, for instance, were "one of the primitive nations by which most parts of Europe were peopled." She referredto the Druids, the priestly class that presided over the ritual sacrifices of the Celts, in this main article and in a separate entry. Severalentries also dealt with the religionsof non-literatepeoples in Africa, the Americas,and the Pacific. Mostlybecause of recent interest shown by Christian missionaries, Adams's account of the "South Sea Islanders"was relativelysubstantial. A passing referenceto the signifi- cance of thunder for natives in Brazilis found elsewhere in the volume ("Brazilians"),but the primaryaccount of the natives of the Americasis found in the entry on "Indians." That five-page entry surveysthe tradi- tions of North, Central, and South America. As expected, Adams dis- torted the beliefs and practices of this great variety of peoples in some ways, but her accountwas remarkablyfree of open hostility. This might be even more surprising since she would have been educated in the local lore of her home town, and that lore included the story of an Indian raid that wiped out most of Medfield. We cannot know to what extent Adams saw native peoples as violent barbarians;but, with few exceptions, she managed to avoid dismissive labels and derogatory asides. (She did mention, however, "the savage tribes of Guiana.") Even where her account might seem to lead towardnegative judgments, Adams sometimes invited the reader to pause just short of unqualified condemnation. For example, she anticipatedand softened the implied criticism of the Amazonian tribes' use of religion to sanction war by comparingthem to nominal Christiansin the "civilized"West: "Upon their going out to war they hoist at the prow of their canoes that idol, under whose auspices they look for victory;but like too manyChristians, they never pray to their gods, except in cases of difficulty,when they feel their need of divine assistanceor support"(1817:142, emphasis added). Adams devoted three pages to the devotions of other native peo- ples-those of Africa ("Negroes"). She failed to cite Charles de Brosses's book, Du culte des dieuxfitiches, but she relied heavily on a term that de Brosseshad introduced("fetishism") to interpretthe beliefs and practicesof these tribes. She hinted that Africansapproximate the beliefs of Westernersin their common affirmationof "a supremeBeing" and "a future state." The implication, which few of her readerswould have missed, was that there is some hope for these non-Christianssince a residue of an original monotheism and the distortedoutlines of right belief could be found among them. Yet Adams allowed the condescend- ing and Christian-centeredperspective of her sources to seep into her 454 Journalof the AmericanAcademy of Religion account. In its most benign form, this perspectiveyielded a portraitof exotic tribes who worship the divine through the forms of nature- mountains, trees, and birds. In its most hostile form, some West Afri- cans (the inhabitants of Benin) were portrayedas devil-worshippers. These pagans, Adams and her sources reportedincredulously, even add to their offense by portrayingthis demonic figureas-the word was itali- cized for emphasis-white. Some residue of incredulity,condescension, even hostility, can be found in Adams's accounts of Asian peoples and religions too. Yet, in general,Adams fairlytransmitted the receivedknowledge about Asia. In her descriptions of Asian traditions, as throughout the volume, she always was more generous and judicious than the authorsshe consulted. For Adams, and the authors she read, Asian religions included Hindu- ism, Buddhism,Confucianism, Daoism, and Shinto. Actually,the West- em intellectuals who read about Asian religions-and the traders, missionaries,and diplomatswho encounteredthem directly-often had difficulty distinguishing among them. Until the middle of the nine- teenth century or so, "The Orient" remained a single mass of "other- ness"-even for many of the most sophisticated writers. The commonalties, most Western interpretersagreed, seemed much more importantthan the differencesamong them. The Asian religions were not-Christian. Asians themselves were, well, not-us. For those inter- ested in making more precise distinctions,the sources were limited and contradictory. Confusions persisted. As late as 1845, for example, Ralph Waldo Emerson, one of the most sympathetic and influential Americanstudents of Asian religions,mistakenly identified the Bhagavad Gita as that "much renowned book of Buddhism"(Rusk 3:179). Among late-eighteenthand early-nineteenth-centuryAmericans who could draw distinctions,Confucianism and Hinduismwere most widely known and appreciated. Systematictrade with China opened in 1784, and so Americans, especially on the major sea ports of the east coast, began their ratherunsystematic introduction to its culture. Americans influenced by the Enlightenmentwere less enamored of Confucianism than many of their most prominentEuropean counterparts, but still they followed the Britishand Continentalpattern by celebratingthe discovery of a tolerantand rational "naturalreligion" in Confucianism. The year 1784 also was important for the Western awareness of Hinduism. It was then that Sir William Jones and a small group of Britishgentlemen founded the AsiatikSociety of Bengal (RoyalAsiatic Society). That soci- ety's journal would help to introduce Americans to Asian religions in general and Hinduismin particular. (At EzraStiles's suggestion,Adams Tweed-Hannah Adams 455 consulted that journal as she wrote the last two editions of her book [Stiles 1794].) Buddhism,on the other hand, was only beginning to be understood. The first Pali grammarin a European language did not appearuntil 1826 (Burnoufand Lassen), and Eugene Burnoufwould not publish his pathfinding survey of Indian Buddhism until more than a decade after Adams died. Buddhism'sorigins remained obscured;and, as the passage from Emerson's letter indicates, interpretersoften con- fused it with Hinduism. Daoism and Shinto, the other Asian religions known to Adams, were noted in passing in surveysof the time; but those traditionsremained relativelyunknown until the end of the nineteenth century. In the first edition of her survey, Adams conflated and confined Asian religions in a long appendix, but by the fourth edition the treat- ment had been expanded and, in some cases, refined. Perhaps more important,Adams followed the lead of a Britisheditor of her book and inserted separateentries for Asian religions among the existing accounts of Western and non-literate traditions. The arrangementhad become alphabetical,not theological. The religions of Asia, while still remote, finally had found a place on the map, and the fourth edition was Adams's most textured delineation of the religious world. In that edi- tion, Adams covered Asia in thirteen entries. Those entries remind us that her world is not ours. Her Asia is not ours. She ignored completely some traditionsthat originatedin Asia. For instance, in the main entry on India ("Hindoos") she overlooked two traditions that originated there, Jainism and Sikhism. Adams included a separateentry for Shinto ("Sintoos") but not Daoism or Confucianism("Chinese"). "Hindoos,"however, did receive substantialattention in a five-page entry. Relyingon the reportsof Baptistmissionaries and the investiga- tions published in AsiatikResearches, and especially the pioneeringwork of Sir William Jones, Adams put togetheran account that included most of the beliefs and practices that had fascinated-and repulsed-early Western observers. She claimed, or implied, Western parallels: In their belief in Brahma, the creator, Vishnu, the sustainer, and Shiva, the destroyer, Hindus affirm a "three-fold divinity." Using Western lan- guage to recordHindu beliefs, she noted that adherentsacknowledged a number of Vishnu's "incarnations."Hindu ritual sacrifices seemed to resemble those of the Jews. Distortingthe Indian tradition,Adams also followed one source in reportingthat "the necessity of some atonement for sin is one of the prevailingideas among the Hindoos." As with the continuities she found in non-literatereligions, these parallels between Hinduism and the Judeo-Christiantradition would have reassuredher 456 Journalof the AmericanAcademy of Religion readersthat there were bits of religious truth buried beneath the layers of superstition. But some beliefs and practicesseemed so discontinuous, and so barbaric, that interpreters could not hide their horror. For instance, Adams, and other Westerners,focused on the practice of sati: "There subsists to this day among the Hindoos a voluntarysacrifice of too singular and shocking a nature to pass unnoticed;which is that of wives burning themselves with the bodies of their deceased husbands" (1817:110). Adams's Western, even explicitly Christian, outlook shaped her descriptionof Hinduism in other ways too. She included a description of Protestantmissionary activity in India, for instance. Even one of Hin- duism's acknowledgedvirtues, tolerance, was turned against the tradi- tion. Adams recorded Sir William Jones's observation-and there is much truth in it-that the lack of missionarysuccess in India could be tracedto Hindus' tendency to embraceJesus as one more incarnationof Vishnu. That might be one possible strategyfor incorporatingChristian and Hindu beliefs, but Adams and most of her contemporarieswere not interested in synthesis. They preferred conversions. Even Hindu inclusivism, then, came to be seen as an annoying trait. Adams's assessment of Buddhism was scatteredin five entries. It was scatteredbecause Adams failed to see fully the connections among the various forms of Asian Buddhism. There was no single overview article. Instead descriptions appeared, often using differentkey terms, in portraitsof religion in Burma("Birmins"), Japan ("Budso"and "Jap- anese"), China ("Chinese"), and Tibet ("Thibetians"). There was no discussion of Buddhismin India because, like other Western interpret- ers before the mid-nineteenth century, Adams did not realize that the origins of that same traditionthat had spreadthroughout Asia were to be found in India. She saw that Chinese and BurmeseBuddhism had been transplantedfrom India. In the entry on BurmeseBuddhism she noted that it "originatedfrom the same source as the Hindoo but differs in some of its tenets." Viewing BurmeseBuddhism from the perspectiveof Indian Hinduism, she reported that adherents worship "Boodh," the ninth incarnationof Vishnu. Adams also noted the Indian roots of "the sect of Foe" (Buddhism)in China (see "Chinese"). But Westemers in general, and Adams in particular,did not yet have the textual sources or linguistic skills to fully understandBuddhism's Indian beginnings or to find the link between the teachings of China's "Foe" and Burma's "Boodh." Yet her evaluationof Buddhismwas more nuanced than that of Hin- duism. It was less consistently and explicitly negative. Tibetan Bud- Tweed- HannahAdams 457 dhism, for instance, seemed only slightly worse off than Roman Catholicism.Like Westerninterpreters for centuries,Adams stressed the parallels.Tibetans, of course,did not know of divinerevelation in Jesus, but they did have monks, beads, incense, icons, and even a "pope"(the DalaiLama). Drawingon an interpretivetradition estab- lished by the narrativesof Jean BaptiseDuHalde (1674-1743) and Per Osbeck(1723-1805), Adams distinguished between popular ("extemal doctrine")and elite ("intemaldoctrine") forms of ChineseBuddhism. Adams,and the writersshe consulted,liked the popularform much bet- ter. The "priests"of that popularBuddhism-presumably she meant PureLand-extorted money from the followers;yet, in general,that sect seemedbenign, even positive. They seemedto believein rewardand punishmentin a futurelife. Their ethics also seemed praiseworthy: "Theyenjoin all worksof mercyand charity;and forbid cheating, impu- rity,wine, lying,and murder;and even the takingof life fromany crea- ture." On the otherhand, Adamsclosely followedher directsource, Osbeck,in describingthe elitetradition of ChineseBuddhism as a nega- tion of all thatthe West held dear. "Theinternal doctrine of this sect, which is kept secret from the common people," Adams reported, "teachesa philosophicalatheism, which admitsneither rewards nor punishmentsafter death; and believes not in a providence,or the immortalityof the soul; acknowledgesno othergod than the void,or nothing;and makesthe supremehappiness of mankindto consistin a totalinaction, an entireinsensibility, and a perfectquietude."

CONCLUSION In the abovepassage, and a few others,Adams seemed to violateher methodologicalprinciples by recording,almost word for word, mislead- ing or negativedescriptions. She sometimesseemed blind to the ways in whicha borrowedterm or phraseviolated her commitmentto impar- tiality. Yet,to her credit,she nevertreated a sect or religionmore hos- tilelythan her sourceshad. Evenif she failedto complyfully with her announcedguidelines, her Dictionary advanced the studyof religion. It did so becauseshe so consistentlyapproximated the impartialityshe had soughtand, even more, simply because she had articulatedsuch goals in the firstplace. Hercommitment to scholarlydisinterestedness, together with her carefulscrutiny and criticaltreatment of availablesources, placedher at the forefrontof earlyWestern efforts to understandthe religiousworld. 458 Journalof theAmerican Academy of Religion

REFERENCES

Adams, Hannah AlphabeticalCompendium of the VariousSects WhichHave 1784 Appearedfrom the Beginningof the ChristianEra to the PresentDay. Boston: B. Edes and Sons. 1791 A Viewof Religions,in TwoParts. Boston: J.W. Folsom. 1799 A SummaryHistory of New England,From the FirstSettle- mentat Plymouth,to theAcceptance of the FederalConsti- tution. Dedham: H. Mann and J.H. Adams. 1801 A Viewof Religions,in TwoParts. Boston: Manningand Loring. 1804 The Truthand Excellenceof the ChristianReligion. Bos- ton: John West. 1805a An Abridgmentof the Historyof New England,for the Use of YoungPersons. 1801. Boston: B. and J. Homans, and John West, printer. 1805b A ViewofReligions ... A New Edition,with Corrections and Additions.To Whichis Prefixedan Essayon Truthby An- drewFuller. London: W. Button and Son. 1812 TheHistory of theJews from the Destructionof the Temple to the NineteenthCentury. 2 vols. Boston: John Eliot. 1814 Narrativeof the Controversybetween the Rev. Jedidiah Morse,D.D. and theAuthor. Boston: John Eliot Printer; Sold by Cummings and Hilliard and Read, Cornhill and Isaiah Thomas, Jr. 1815 A Dictionaryof All Religionsand ReligiousDenominations, ... Includingthe Substanceof Mrs. [sic] H. Adams'sView of ReligionsReduced to One Alphabet . . . Revisedby ThomasWilliams. London: Printedby T. Smith for But- ton and Son. 1816 A ConciseAccount of the LondonSociety for Promoting Christianityamongst the Jews. Boston: John Eliot. 1817 A Dictionaryof All Religionsand ReligiousDenominations, Jewish,Heathen, Mahometan, and Christian,Ancient and Modem. Boston: Cummings and Hilliard. 1824 Letterson the Gospels. Cambridge: Hilliard and Met- calf. 1832 A Memoirof MissHannah Adams, Writtenby Herselfwith AdditionalNotices by a Friend. Boston: Gray Bowen. 1992 [1817] A Dictionaryof All Religionsand ReligiousDenominations. Reprint. Introductionby Thomas A. Tweed. Classics in Religious Studies Series. Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Adams, John Letter to Hannah Adams. 27 August. Adams Family 1800 Papers. MassachusettsHistorical Society, Boston. Tweed-Hannah Adams 459

Ahlstrom, Sydney E. TheAmerican Protestant Encounter with WorldReligions. 1962 The BrewerLectures on ComparativeReligion. Beloit, Wisconsin: Beloit College.

Bayle, Pierre Dictionnairehistorique et critiquede PierreBayle. 16 vols. 1820 [1697] Paris: Desoer, Libraire.

Baym, Nina "Women and the Republic: Emma Willard's Rhetoric 1991 of History." AmericanQuarterly 43:1-23.

Benedict, David History of All Religions, As Divided into Paganism, 1824 Mahometism,Judaism, and Christianity. Providence: John Miller.

Bentley, William The Diary of WilliamBentley, D. D., Pastor of the East 1962 [1905] Church, Salem, Massachusetts. 4 vols. Reprint. Glouster, Mass.: Peter Smith.

Brooks, Van Wyck TheFlowering of New England New York: E.P. Dutton. 1957 [1936]

Broughton,Thomas An HistoricalDictionary of All Religionsfrom the Creation 1742 of the Worldto ThisPerfect Time. London: Printed for C. Davis and T. Harris.

Burnouf,Eugene L'Introductiond l'histoiredu buddhismeindien. Paris: 1844 Imprimerieroyale.

Burnouf,Eugene Essai sur le pali. Paris: Dondey-Dupr&. and Christian Lassen 1826

Carroll,John Letterto Hannah Adams. n.d. Hannah Adams Papers. [c.1791] New England Historic GenealogicalSociety, Boston.

Child, Lydia Maria Lettersfrom New York. Second Series. 11th ed. New 1852 York: C.S. Francis;Boston: J.H. Francis. 1855 TheProgress of ReligiousIdeas ThroughSuccessive Ages. 3 vols. New York: Francis;London: S. Low.

Clarke,James Ten GreatReligions. Boston: James R. Osgood. Freeman 1871 460 Journalof the AmericanAcademy of Religion

Clebsch, William A. "Apples, Oranges, and Manna: ComparativeReligion 1981 Revisited."Journal of the AmericanAcademy of Religion 49:3-22.

Constant, Benjamin De la religion,considirie dans sa source,sesformes, et ses 1824-31 diveloppments.5 vols. Paris: Bosange.

Cott, Nancy F. The Bonds of Womanhood "'Women'sSphere" in New 1977 England, 1780-1835. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1987 The Groundingof ModemFeminism. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.

DAB Dictionaryof AmericanBiography. 22 vols. New York: 1928-58 Charles Scribner'sSons.

de Brosses, Charles Du culte des dieuxJftiches. Paris. 1760

Delano, Amasa Narrativeof Voyagesand Travelsin the Northernand 1817 SouthernHemispheres: Comprising Three Voyages Round the World;Together with a Voyageof Surveyand Discovery, in the PacificOcean and OrientalIslands. Boston: E.G. House.

de Vries, Jan Perspectivesin the Historyof Religions.Trans. by Kees W. 1967 [1961] Bolle, Berkeley: Universityof CaliforniaPress.

Dexter, Franklin Extractsfrom the Itinerariesand OtherMiscellanies of Ezra Bowditch, ed. Stiles,D.D., LL.D.,1755-1794. New Haven: Yale Uni- 1916 versity Press.

Du Halde, P. [Jean TheGeneral History of China. 4 vols. Trans. R. Brookes. Baptiste] London: John Watts. 1736

Dupuis, Charles Orgine de tous les cultes, or religionuniverselle. 7 vols. Frangois Paris: H. Agasse. 1795

Gilmore, William J. ReadingBecomes a Necessityof Life. Materialand Cultural 1989 Life in RuralNew England,1780-1835 Knoxville: Uni- versity of Tennessee Press. Tweed:Hannah Adams 461

Gleason, Gene "A MereWoman." AmericanHeritage 24 (Dec.): 80-84. 1972

Gould, Elizabeth "Hannah Adams: The Pioneer Woman in American Porter Literature."New EnglandMagazine 10 (May): 363-69. 1894

Hanaford,Phebe A. Womenof the Century.Boston: B.B. Russell. 1877

Irwin, Inez Haynes Angelsand Amazons:A HundredYears of AmericanWo- 1934 men. Garden City: Doubleday, Doran, and Co.

Jackson, Carl T. The OrientalReligions and AmericanThought. Westport, 1981 Conn.: Greenwood.

James, EdwardT., Notable American Women, 1607-1950. A Biographical ed. Dictionary.Cambridge: BelknapPress of HarvardUni- 1971 versity Press.

Jastrow, MorrisJr. The Study of Religion. Reprint. Classics in Religious 1981 [1901] Studies Series. Chico: Scholars Press.

Johnson, Samuel OrientalReligions and TheirRelation to UniversalReligion. 1872-85 3 vols. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Jones, William "On the Gods of Greece, Italy, and India." Asiatik 1788 Researches1:221-75.

Jordon, Louis Henry ComparativeReligion.: Its Genesisand Growth. Reprint. 1986 [1905] Atlanta: Scholars Press.

Levernier,James A. AmericanWriters Before 1800: A Biographicaland Critical and Douglas R. Dictionary.Westport, Conn.: Greenwood. Wilmes 1983

Logan, Mrs. John A. The Part Takenby Womenin AmericanHistory. Wil- 1912 mington: Perry-Nalle.

Marini, Stephen A. RadicalSects of RevolutionaryNew England. Cambridge: 1982 HarvardUniversity Press. 462 Journalof the AmericanAcademy of Religion

MedfieldReflections. Medfield: The 325th Anniversaryand Special Bicen- 1976 tennial Committee for the Town of Medfield, Massa- chusetts.

Meiners, Christoph Allgemeinekritische Geschichte der Religionen. 2 vols. 1806-07 Hannover: Helwing.

Milner, Vincent. L ReligiousDenominations of the World:Comprising a Gen- 1872 eral Viewof the Origin,History, and Conditionof the Vari- ous Sectsof Christians,the Jews, and Mahometans,as Well as the PaganForms of Religion. Philadelphia: Bradley, Garretson,and Co.

Morse,Jedidiah Letter to Hannah Adams. 26 September. Massachu- 1804 setts HistoricalSociety, Boston.

Mosheim, John An EcclesiasticalHistory, Antient and Modem, From the Laurence Birthof Christto the PresentCentury. Trans. by Archi- 1758 bald MacLaine. 5 vols. 2nd ed. London: Printed for A. Millar and sold by T. Cadell.

NCAB National of AmericanBiography. New York: 1893-1919 James T.Cyclopaedia White.

Osbeck, Peter A Voyageto Chinaand the East Indies. 2 vols. Trans.by 1771 John Reinhold Forster. London: BenjaminWhite.

Pancake, John S., ThomasJefferson: Revolutionary Philosopher A Selection ed. of Writings.Woodbury, N.J.: Barron's. 1976

Phillips, Joseph W. JedidiahMorse and New EnglandCongregationalism. New 1983 Brunswick,N.J.: RutgersUniversity Press.

Picart, Bernard Ciremonieset coutumesreligieuses de tous les peuplesdu 1723-43 monde. Amsterdam: J. F. Bernard.

Priestley,Joseph A Comparisonof the Institutionsof Moseswith Thoseof the 1799 Hindoosand Other Nations. Northumberland,Pa.: A. Kennedy.

Ramsay,Martha Letterto Hannah Adams. 28 March. Hannah Adams 1804 Papers. New England Historic Genealogical Society, Boston. Tweed-Hannah Adams 463

Reed, Sampson "An Address Delivered before the Boston Society of 1837 New Jerusalem." New Jerusalem Magazine 11 (Dec.):118-27.

Review of A Memoir ChristianExaminer 13 (Sept.): 129-36. of Miss Hannah Adams, by Hannah Adams. 1832

Ross, Alexander Pansebia; Or, a View of All Religions in the World. 1653 London: Printed by James Young for John Saywell.

Roth, Cecil, ed. EncyclopaediaJudaica. Jerusalem: Keter. 1973

Royal Asiatic One HundredthJubilee of the RoyalAsiatic Society of Ben- Society of Bengal gal (1784-1934) and the Bicentenaryof Sir WilliamJones [1946?] (1746-1946). Calcutta: Printedby G. E. Bingham,Bap- tist Mission Press.

Rusk, Ralph L., ed. TheLetters of RalphWaldo Emerson. 6 vols. New York: 1939 Columbia UniversityPress.

Sharpe, Eric J. ComparativeReligion: A History. New York: Charles 1975 Scribner'sSons.

Societies "Societiesfor PromotingChristianity among the Jews." 1816 ChristianDisciple 4 (Nov.):249-55.

Stiles, Ezra The UnitedStates Elevated to Gloryand Honour. 2nd ed. 1785 [1783] Worcester, Mass.: Isaiah Thomas. 1794 Letterto Hannah Adams. 12 June. The Hannah Ad- ams Papers. New EnglandHistoric Genealogical Socie- ty, Boston.

Tilden, William S. History of the Town of Medfield,Massachusetts, 1650- 1887 1886. Boston: George H. Ellis.

"Trustees'Records" "Trustees' Records." 20 March. Boston Athenaeum, 1827 Boston.

[Tuckerman,Joseph] "On the Causes by which UnitariansHave Been With- 1824 held from Exertionsin the Cause of Foreign Missions." ChristianExaminer 1 (May-June):182-96. 464 Journalof the AmericanAcademy of Religion

Tweed, Thomas A. TheAmerican Encounter with Buddhism, 1844-1912:Victo- 1992 rian Cultureand the Limitsof Dissent. Religion in North America Series. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Voltaire, Frangois- Dictionnairephilosophique. Paris: T. Desoer. MarieArouett, de 1817 [1764]

[Willard,Samuel] Reviewof DictionaryofAll Religionsand ReligiousDenom- 1818 inations,4th ed., by Hannah Adams. NorthAmerican Review7 (May): 86-92.

Williams, George "The Attitudeof Liberalsin New Englandtoward Non- Hunston Christian Religions, 1784-1885." Crane Review 9 1967 (Winter): 61-66.

Wright, Conrad "The ControversialCareer of JedidiahMorse." Harvard 1983 LibraryBulletin 31 (Winter): 64-87.

James Madison on Separation of Church and State

All quotation taken from Robert S. Alley, ed., James Madision on Religious Liberty, pp. 37-94.

James Madison (1751-1836) is popularly known as the "Father of the Constitution." More than any other framer he is responsible for the content and form of the First Amendment. His understanding of federalism is the theoretical basis of our Constitution. He served as President of the United States between 1809-1817.

Madison's most famous statement on behalf of religious liberty was his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, which he wrote to oppose a bill that would have authorized tax support for Christian ministers in the state of Virginia.

Other sources for Madison's beliefs are his letter to Jasper Adams, where he argues on behalf of letting religion survive on its own merits, and a 1792 article in which he suggests that there is no specific religious sanction for American government.

Finally, a good deal of Madision's Detached Memoranda concerns the issue of religious liberty. This material is particularly important in that it gives Madision's views of a number of events that are sometimes disputed by accomodationists (eg., congressional chaplains, days of prayer, etc.).

Direct references to separation:

• The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819). • Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820). • Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

• To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow- citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my

1 duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

Madison's summary of the First Amendment:

Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

Against establishment of religion

• The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821). • Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and Religion neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. And in a Government of opinion like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law was right and necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was, which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects dissenting from the established sect was safe, and even useful. The example of the colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all sects might be safely and even advantageously put on a footing of equal and entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the Declaration of Independence has shown that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent country. if a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States which had abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia, where it is impossible to deny that religion prevails with more zeal and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronized by public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822). • If the Church of England had been the established and general religion and all the northern colonies as it has been among us here and uninterrupted tranquility had prevailed throughout the continent, it is clear to me that slavery and subjection might and would have been gradually insulated among us. Union of religious sentiments begets a surprising confidence and ecclesiastical establishments tend to grate ignorance and corruption all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects (Letter to William Bradford, Jan. 24, 1774). • [T]he prevailing opinion in Europe, England not excepted, has been that religion could not be preserved without the support of government nor government be supported without an established religion that there must be at least an alliance of some sort between them. It remained for North America to bring the great and interesting subject to a fair, and finally a decisive test.

2 It is true that the New England states have not discontinued establishments of religions formed under very peculiar circumstances; but they have by successive relaxations advanced toward the prevailing example; and without any evidence of disadvantage either to religion or good government.

But the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of religion was withdrawn sufficiently proved that it does not need the support of government and it will scarcely be contended that government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid. (Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

• The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorships in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or over-heated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance, and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with a toleration, is no security for and animosity; and, finally, that these opinions are supported by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between law and religion, from the partial example of Holland to the consummation in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, &c., has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of Independence it was left, with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change, and particularly in the sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than that the law is not necessary to the support of religion (Letter to Edward Everett, Montpellier, March 18, 1823).

On Congressional chaplains and proclaimations of days of prayer:

• Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In the strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the veil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a right to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why

3 should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov. (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

• I observe with particular pleasure the view you have taken of the immunity of Religion from civil jurisdiction, in every case where it does not trespass on the private rights or the public peace. This has always been a favorite principle with me; and it was not with my approbation that the deviation from it took place in Congress, when they appointed chaplains, to be paid from the National Treasury. It would have been a much better proof to their constituents of their pious feeling if the members had contributed for the purpose a pittance from their own pockets. As the precedent is not likely to be rescinded, the best that can now be done may be to apply to the Constitution the maxim of the law, de minimis non curat [i.e., the law does not care about such trifles].

There has been another deviation from the strict principle in the Executive proclamations of fasts and festivals, so far, at least, as they have spoken the language of INJUNCTION, or have lost sight of the equality of ALL religious sects in the eye of the Constitution. Whilst I was honored with the executive trust, I found it necessary on more than one occasion to follow the example of predecessors. But I was always careful to make the Proclamations absolutely indiscriminate, and merely recommendatory; or rather mere DESIGNATIONS of a day on which all who thought proper might UNITE in consecrating it to religious purposes, according to their own faith and forms. In this sense, I presume, you reserve to the Government a right to APPOINT particular days for religious worship. I know not what may be the way of thinking on this subject in Louisiana. I should suppose the Catholic portion of the people, at least, as a small and even unpopular sect in the U. States would rally as they did in Virginia when religious liberty was a Legislative topic to its broadest principle (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

Did Madison want the Bill of Rights to apply to the states?

• No state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech, or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases [Proposed amendment to make certain parts of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states].

The Congressional Record of August 17, 1789 made the following comment on Madison's proposal:

• MR. MADISON Conceived this to be the most valuable amendment on the whole list; if there was any reason to restrain the government of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the state governments; he thought that if they provided against the one, it was an necessary to provide against the other, and was satisfied that it would be equally grateful to the people (from Alley, James Madison on Religious Liberty, pp. 75-76).

Madision's definition of "establishment":

One can get some idea of Madison's defintion of establishment by looking at his veto messages for certain legislation presented to him by Congress during his presidency. Generally, Madision's definition was expansive; he vetoed legislation incorporating an Episcopal church in the District of Columbia, and reserving a parcel of land for a Baptist church. Read in context, these veto messages demolish the claim that Madison would have turned a blind eye to minor religious establishments.

• Veto Message, Feb 21, 1811 By James Madison, to the House of Representatives of the United States: Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act incorporating the Protestant Episcopal Church in the town of Alexander, in the District of Columbia," I now return the bill to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objections:

4 Because the bill exceeds the rightful authority to which governments are limited by the essential distinction between civil and religious functions, and violates in particular the article of the Constitution of the United States which declares 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment.' [Note: Madison quotes the Establishment Clause incorrectly; Constitutional scholar Leonard Levy comments on this misquoting as follows: "His [Madison's] use of "religious establishment" enstead of "establishment of religion" shows that he thought of the clause in the Frist Amendment as prohibiting Congress from making any law touching or "respecting" religious institutions or religions; The Establishment Clause, p. 119].

The bill enacts into and establishes by law sundry rules and proceedings relative purely to the organization and policy of the church incorporated, and comprehending even the election and removal of the minister of the same, so that no change could be made therein by the particular society or by the general church of which it is a member, and whose authority it recognizes. This particular church, therefore, would so far be a religious establishment by law, a legal force and sanction being given to certain articles in its constitution and administration. Nor can it be considered that the articles thus established are to be taken as the descriptive criteria only of the corporate identity of the society, inasmuch as this identity must depend on other characteristics, as the regulations established are in general unessential and alterable according to the principles and canons by which churches of the denomination govern themselves, and as the injunctions and prohibitions contained in the regulations would be enforced by the penal consequences applicable to the violation of them according to the local law.

Because the bill vests in the said incorporated church an authority to provide for the support of the poor and the education of poor children of the same, an authority which, being altogether superfluous if the provision is to be the result of pious charity, would be a precedent for giving to religious societies as such a legal agency in carrying into effect a public and civil duty [Note: both of the last paragraphs suggest that Madision did not think it was the role of government to aid even the charitable and educational aspects of religion, even non-preferentially].

• Veto message, Feb 28, 1811, by James Madison. To the House of Representatives of the United States: Having examined and considered the bill entitled "An Act for the relief of Richard Trevin, William Coleman, Edwin Lewis, Samuel Mims, Joseph Wilson, and the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, in the Mississippi Territory," I now return the same to the House of Representatives, in which it originated, with the following objection:

Because the bill in reserving a certain parcel of land of the United States for the use of said Baptist Church comprises a principle and precedent for the appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares the 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment (note: Madison again misquotes the establishment clause).

Madison and religion at public universities:

• I am not surprised at the dilemma produced at your University by making theological professorships an integral part of the system. The anticipation of such a one led to the omission in ours; the visitors being merely authorized to open a public hall for religious occasions, under impartial regulations; with the opportunity to the different sects to establish theological schools so near that the students of the University may respectively attend the religious exercises in them. The village of Charlottesville, also, where different religious worships will be held, is also so near, that resort may conveniently be had to them.

A University with sectarian professorships becomes, of course, a sectarian monopoly: with professorships of rival sects, it would be an arena of Theological Gladiators. Without any such

5 professorships, it may incur, for a time at least, the imputation of irreligious tendencies, if not designs. The last difficulty was thought more manageable than either of the others.

On this view of the subject, there seems to be no alternative but between a public University without a theological professorship, and sectarian seminaries without a University.

...With such a public opinion, it may be expected that a University, with the feature peculiar to ours, will succeed here if any where. Some of the clergy did not fail to arraign the peculiarity; but it is not improbable that they had an eye to the chance of introducing their own creed into the professor's chair. A late resolution for establishing an Episcopal school within the College of William and Mary, though in a very guarded manner, drew immediate animadversions from the press, which, if they have not put an end to the project, are a proof of what would follow such an experiment in the University of the State, endowed and supported, as this will be altogether by the public authority and at the common expense (Letter to Edward Everett, Montpellier, March 18, 1823).

6 Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments

James Madison

[1785]

To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia

A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments

We the subscribers , citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled

"A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,

1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or

the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can

be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The

Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of

every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate.

This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the

opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own

minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because

what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty

of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he

1 believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time

and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can

be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a

subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do

it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain

therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the

institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its

cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which

may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the

majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the

minority.

2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still

less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the

creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative

and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more

necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a

free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which

separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more

especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which

defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an

encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority,

and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made

neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

2 3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We

hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the

noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not

wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the

question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and

they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this

lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority

which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may

establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of

all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute

three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment,

may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

4. Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every

law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or

expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by

nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as

entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and

therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all

are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of

Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for

ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion

which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to

those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced

3 us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man:

To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill

violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the

same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers

and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their

Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted

with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above

all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed

from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these

demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their

fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common

opposition to the measure.

5. Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge

of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil

policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory

opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an

unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

6. Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the

support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the

Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the

powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this

Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human

laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the

4 period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence

and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a

Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been

supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to

weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate

excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still

reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it

to its own merits.

7. Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of

maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation.

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity

been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and

indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both,

superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity

for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect,

point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a

restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the

voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which

Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against

their interest?

8. Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of

Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil

Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not

5 necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If

Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal

establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have

ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they

have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority;

in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political

tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of

the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found

an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to

secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best

supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the

same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither

invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those

of another.

9. Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous

policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every

Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the

number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden

degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a

signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those

whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority.

Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it

only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of

6 intolerance. The maganimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign

Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek

some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may

offer a more certain respose from his Troubles.

10. Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements

presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To

superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now

enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and

depopulated flourishing kingdoms

11. Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance

of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several

sects. Torrents of blood have been split in the old world, by vain attempts of

the secular arm, to extinguish Religious disscord, by proscribing all difference

in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every

relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been

found to assauge the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs

that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently

destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If

with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to

contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too

severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of

the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed

"that Christian forbearance, love and chairty," which of late mutually

7 prevailed, into animosities and jeolousies, which may not soon be appeased.

What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be

armed with the force of a law?

12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of

Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be

that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of

those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the

dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of

the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who

are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and

countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting

out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible,

every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and

unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the

encroachments of error.

13. Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to go great a

proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken

the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally

deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed

invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example

of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?

14. Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be

imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of

8 citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the

majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. The people

of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion

respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly." But the

representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that

neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous

principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full

confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against

our liberties.

15. Because finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his

Religion according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same tenure

with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if

we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the

"Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Vriginia, as

the basis and foundation of Government," it is enumerated with equal

solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either the, we must say, that the Will of

the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude

of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that

they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we

must say, that they may controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the

Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the

State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect

9 themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into the law the Bill under consideration.

We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their

Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his [blessing, may re]dound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth.

10 NARA | The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription 1/10/11 8:40 AM

www.archives.gov January 10, 2011

The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.html?page=…0%7C%20The%20Declaration%20of%20Independence%3A%20A%20Transcription Page 1 of 4 NARA | The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription 1/10/11 8:40 AM

unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated: Column 1 Georgia: Button Gwinnett Lyman Hall George Walton Column 2 North Carolina: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.html?page=…0%7C%20The%20Declaration%20of%20Independence%3A%20A%20Transcription Page 2 of 4 NARA | The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription 1/10/11 8:40 AM

William Hooper Joseph Hewes John Penn South Carolina: Edward Rutledge Thomas Heyward, Jr. Thomas Lynch, Jr. Arthur Middleton Column 3 Massachusetts: John Hancock Maryland: Samuel Chase William Paca Thomas Stone Charles Carroll of Carrollton Virginia: George Wythe Richard Henry Lee Thomas Jefferson Benjamin Harrison Thomas Nelson, Jr. Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton Column 4 Pennsylvania: Robert Morris Benjamin Rush Benjamin Franklin John Morton George Clymer James Smith George Taylor James Wilson George Ross Delaware: Caesar Rodney George Read Thomas McKean Column 5 New York: William Floyd Philip Livingston Francis Lewis Lewis Morris New Jersey: Richard Stockton John Witherspoon Francis Hopkinson John Hart Abraham Clark Column 6 New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett William Whipple Massachusetts: Samuel Adams

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.html?page=…0%7C%20The%20Declaration%20of%20Independence%3A%20A%20Transcription Page 3 of 4 NARA | The Declaration of Independence: A Transcription 1/10/11 8:40 AM

John Adams Robert Treat Paine Elbridge Gerry Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins William Ellery Connecticut: Roger Sherman Samuel Huntington William Williams Oliver Wolcott New Hampshire: Matthew Thornton

Page URL: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html U.S. National Archives & Records Administration 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, MD, 20740-6001, • 1-86-NARA-NARA • 1-866-272-6272

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/print_friendly.html?page=…0%7C%20The%20Declaration%20of%20Independence%3A%20A%20Transcription Page 4 of 4 The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom

Thomas Jefferson, 1786

Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no powers equal to our own and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

Comment: Thomas Jefferson drafted The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom in 1779 three years after he wrote the Declaration of Independence. The act was not passed by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia until 1786. Jefferson was by then in Paris as the U.S. Ambassador to France. The Act was resisted by a group headed by Patrick Henry who sought to pass a bill that would have assessed all the citizens of Virginia to support a plural establishment. James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments was, and remains, a powerful argument against state supported religion. It was written in 1785, just a few months before the General Assembly passed Jeff Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments are availalbe on this site.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin 1/10/11 8:05 AM

The Library of Congress > Information Bulletin > June 1998

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists The Draft and Recently Discovered Text

To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,

[Jefferson first wrote: "confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that." These lines he crossed out and then wrote: "concurring with"; having crossed out these two words, he wrote: "Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience"; next he crossed out these words and wrote: "Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties."]

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802.

Back to June 1998 - Vol 57, No. 6

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html Page 1 of 1 Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin 1/10/11 8:04 AM

The Library of Congress > Information Bulletin > June 1998

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists The Final Letter, as Sent

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802.

Back to June 1998 - Vol 57, No. 6

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html Page 1 of 1 2/10/11

'The pride of womanhood all up in arms': Creating the Republican Wife & Mother

Republican virtue Reject British vice, corruption, extravagance Embrace simplicity, honest frugality Public spirit Moral as well as political transformation Masculine/feminine divide

Copley family, 1776

1 2/10/11

“Colonel Manly”

the ideal republican husband

Late 18th C women’s dress

Beware of flatterers, fops, & coquettes

2 2/10/11

Courtship: seduction as a virtue

Mercy Otis Warren & Judith Sargent Murray Portraits by John Singleton Copley

The Republican Mother: educate children for the republic

3 2/10/11

grammar schools & “dame” schools

“a pig learning his letters”

Female seminary or academy

Curriculum?

Benjamin Rush What did women need to learn?

4 2/10/11

“Bluestockings”

“The Nine Living Muses of Great Britain” by Richard Samuel, 1778

“Give her of the fruit of her hands and let her own work praise her in the gates”

5 2/10/11

“New England Factory Life—Bell Time” by Winslow Homer

6 A few Books on Mercy Otis Warren and Judith Sargent Murray

Also, Warren’s History of the Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution is available on Google Books, as are some snippet views of Murray’s letters

***********

A Woman's Dilemma: Mercy Otis Warren and the American Revolution by Rosemarie Zagarri (Harlan Davidson, 1995

The Muse of the Revolution: The Secret Pen of Mercy Otis Warren and the Foundingof a Nation by Nancy Rubin Stuart (Beacon Press, 2008)

Mercy Otis Warren: Selected Letters by Mercy Otis Warren, Jeffrey H. Richards, and Sharon M. Harris (University of Georgia Press, 2009)

Judith Sargent Murray: A Brief Biography with Documents (The Bedford Series in History and Culture) by Sheila L. Skemp, (Bedford St. Martin’s 1998)

First Lady of Letters: Judith Sargent Murray and the Struggle for Female Independence (Early American Studies) by Sheila L. Skemp (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009) 2/10/11

FINISHED FILES ARE THE RE- SULTS OF YEARS OF SCIENTIF- IC STUDY COMBINED WITH THE EXPERIENCE OF MANY YEARS.

Syncretism

Religious syncretism exhibits blending of two or more religious belief systems into a new system, or the incorporation into a religious tradition of beliefs from unrelated traditions. This can occur for many reasons, and the latter scenario happens quite commonly in areas where multiple religious traditions exist in proximity and function actively in the culture, or when a culture is conquered, and the conquerors bring their religious beliefs with them, but do not succeed in entirely eradicating the old beliefs or, especially, practices.

1 2/10/11

Religious syncretism is simply not compatible with true Christianity. In fact, any modification to biblical law and principle for the sake of a “better” religion is heresy (Revelation 22:18-19).

Native American Culture Areas

Indian Religious Beliefs

 Life after death.

 Ghosts, gods, and anthropomorphic spiritual personalities with intelligence, emotions, and freedom of will to intervene in human affairs.

 All Indians further believed in a supernatural power, shared by spiritual personalities, human beings, and the entities of the natural world.

 Their religiousness was an attempt to understand, enter into relations with, appease, revere, and, if possible, manipulate these sources of existence in order to promote their own lives and the lives of their relatives.

2 2/10/11

Cosmology

 “Study of the Universe”

 Religion:

The symbolic transformation of a human being’s perception of the universe, thus giving a conviction of order and purpose for society and individuals alike.

Categories of Religion

 Animism

 Polytheism

 Dualism

 Monotheism

Animism

Animism – [Latin – anima, “soul,” “spirit] is the belief in spirit beings. They are known by many names; plant and animal spirits, souls, ghosts, goblins, genies, elves, leprechauns, fairies, witches, demons, devils, angels and gods. They are beings without real flesh and blood – nonmaterial, but real enough for those who believe in them.

3 2/10/11

Mana

A concept associated with Animism.

[Native Polynesian] Mana is a force, but not a vitalistic force. It exists as a supernatural attribute of persons and things. Above all, it is the exceptional power to do unusual things. Mana, though it is an impersonal force, can be manifest in and through persons, as well as inanimate objects.

Polytheism

Belief in many gods. See Greek mythology or Hinduism.

Dualism

 The term has been used to denote the religious or theological system which would explain the universe as the outcome of two eternally opposed and coexisting principles, conceived as good and evil, light and darkness, or some other form of conflicting powers, BUT …

 Good/evil; male/female

4 2/10/11

Monotheism

Literally, one god. The belief in one, supreme god.

Native American Prophet Movements

Contact with Christians proved traumatic for Native American religions, as both civil and religious authorities attempted to repress native spirituality and force conversion. Over the past three centuries, this attempt has provoked the rise of various native religious movements.

The Longhouse Religion, also known as the Handsome Lake cult, or Gai'wiio (Good Message in Seneca) is a religious movement started by the Seneca Chief Handsome Lake (Ganioda'yo). Founded in 1799, it is the oldest active prophet movement in North America.

The Haudenosaunee (pronounced HO-dee-no-SHOW-nee)

Current Haudenosaunee territories can be found in New York State, Oklahoma, (Seneca & Cayuga) Wisconsin, (Oneida) and Canada. (Mohawk & Oneida)

Haudenosaunee

5 2/10/11

In the beginning …  Long before the Europeans came, the prophet named Peacemaker came among the Haudenosaunee.  Great Law of Peace was the law that called for the conception of democracy and the principles of constitutional government.

The Peacemaker created…  A four-tiered nomination system:

 A person is FIRST selected by the female spokesperson, the clanmother, of the clan

 2ND, the Clanmother guarantees that the candidate is free of greed, lust for power, envy and malice

 3rd, Leader must be able to see and think beyond his time, seven generations out

 4th, Council Members (Chiefs) must have stable family life, great patience and accept criticism

Peacemaker created (Con.t) …  Once chosen by the Clanmother, person is brought before the Clan  Everyone can speak, and the person nominated can be accepted or rejected at this point  Once clan consensus is reached, the person than goes before the nation’s council of chiefs for approval or denial  If not accepted, then the person must be withdrawn, and process starts again

6 2/10/11

Peacemaker created (con.t)…  Once passed the Nation’s Council of Chiefs and Clanmothers, then the Grand Council of the Haudenosaunee is convened, and the person has to be accepted or denied.

 If approved, the position is for life, or until illness prevents the individual from carrying out his duties

Some of the reasons a Chief can be removed: …  Corruption  Adopting another religion’s faith  Encouraging violence  Lying  Shedding blood  Committing immoral acts  Breaching the Great Law of Peace  It is the Clanmother who is empowered to remove him

Before the Peacemaker and the adoption of the Great Law…  Manslaughter, Rape and Assault were punishable by death or torture  Before the Peacemaker, everyone had to participate and share in the pain of the individual, underscoring the negative of the act against the community not only the individual.  Fire was the usual punishment for antisocial behavior

7 2/10/11

The Peacemaker reasoned…  All dictators and warlords rule through fear and profit by creating artificial social divisions

 By eliminating the root cause of terror and vengeance, true healing could take place

 When reason flourished, no dictator could remain in power

Justice rooted in compassion…  If a person was killed, the offended Family and Clan decides the punishment

 Death, banishment, compensation or adoption were considered reasonable penalties

In instances of rape (which were rare), for example, the offender was branded with a facial mark and expelled from the community

The Haudenosaunee government…  A Chief could be impeached; if he was, he was disgraced and banned forever from political office  The true power of the Confederacy lay in the clans and people. Even if a law were passed by the Grand Council, it could be overturned by the people  The clans controlled immigration, residency, names and marriages.

8 2/10/11

Haudenosaunee gov.t (con.t)  The Dutch secured the trading post-Fort Orange, later named Albany via treaty  This negotiation is represented by the Guswenta (Two- Row Wampum belt)  The three rows of white beads between the purple rivers (rows) stand for Peace, Friendship and Forever

The Peacemaker again…  Showed the vulnerability of one nation by snapping one arrow in half  Showed the strength of many nations by the inability to break five bound arrows

Upper House  The Onondaga Nation is known as the upper house with 14 chiefs

9 2/10/11

Peacemaker con.t…  If the Onondaga agree a Grand Council session should be held, they would dispatch envoys (“runners”) with wampum  The Oneida and Mohawks have nine chiefs  The Seneca - Eight  The Cayuga - Ten  The Tuscarora interests were cared for by the Oneida and Cayuga

Grand Council…  The Grand Council is called to session by the Onondaga selecting a chief to recite the Opening Address (Thanksgiving Address)  The Chairperson’s title in the Grand Council is “Tadodaho”  Tadodaho sets the agenda and ensures proper procedure is followed

Tadodaho Sid Hill

Thanksgiving Address

Greetings to the Natural World The People Today we have gathered and we see that the cycles of life continue. We have been given the duty to live in balance and harmony with each other and all living things. So now, we bring our minds together as one as we give greetings and thanks to each other as People. Now our minds are one. The Earth Mother We are all thankful to our Mother, the Earth, for she gives us all that we need for life. She supports our feet as we walk about upon her. It gives us joy that she continues to care for us as she has from the beginning of time. To our Mother, we send greetings and thanks. Now our minds are one.

10 2/10/11

People of the Longhouse

 Mohawk and Seneca sit on North side of longhouse  Oneida, Cayuga and Tuscarora on South side of longhouse  Onondagas at the East end  The public at the west end

Issues and agenda are passed back and forth over the “Fire” for discussion and consensus. Once approved, the legislation is then referred to the Onondaga for approval or rejection.

Heroes among the Haudenosaunee  Garakontie, Onondaga 1650-1678  Ourhouasse, Cayuga returned 1689  Onkiswathetami, Oneida, first decade of 1700s  Teoniahigarawe (Hendrick) Mohawk, visited Queen Anne 1710  Killed at 73, in 1755 at the battle of Lake George

Tee-Yee-Neen-Ho-Ga-Row/ Emperor of the Six Nations – 1710

Anti-Heroes among Haudenosaunee  Tyendinaga; Joseph Brant - Mohawk  Formally educated, well spoken  Sought power  Believed in other (Anglican) Religions  He was a controversial figure in both Mohawk and American History

11 2/10/11

Handsome Lake (1735?-10 Aug. 1815)  During times of crisis and alteration change must happen, but the pace at which change happens is key.  In Handsome Lake’s era, change was happening too quickly for normal evolution and adaptation to change  Unlike the Peacemaker (born of virgin birth) Handsome Lake was a drunkard

Handsome Lake (Con.’t)  Born of the Turtle clan, of the Seneca  He was born approximately 1735  Was a veteran of the Revolutionary War  So why were the Haudenosaunee in such bad shape at this point?  Revolutionary war  Alcohol  Poverty  Land issues

Gawaiio - the "Good Word"  When Handsome Lake was in a coma, four sacred beings visit him and instruct him in a message that may save the Haudenosaunee  Key was embracing ancestral rituals such as Thanksgiving Address  Another Key was avoidance of substances that altered the Good Mind

12 2/10/11

Gawaiio (Con.’t)  Stressed the need and importance of family  Permanence of marriage, need to refrain of sexual promiscuity  Concern for the Elders and their welfare  Dissuaded gossip or idle talk, opposed land sales  Gave a set of prophecies about the future of the planet

Handsome Lake’s Message  “I have a message to deliver to you who are gathered. I have been told by the servants of the Creator that I should live upon the earth to teach the onkwehonwe (Haudenosaunee) the things that will please the Creator again. The Creator has seen that you have transgressed from the things that he taught you. He made you so that you could have good lives and not do harm to others. He sees that you have accepted the sins brought to you by Sawiskela’s Islanders. The worst thing that you have done is to take the fire water which you know to be the mind changer. The Creator says you have to stop this.”

 He continued, “All this came about because your ancestors took it from the White man. You have suffered ever since because of it. Those that did this have never gotten to the Creator’s world in the sky. This was not made for you. It was made for the White man as a medicine on his island. By drinking to excess, they too have violated the will of the Creator who blew life into all of you. The Creator says that to be drunk is forbidden, and he wants you to stop. In fact, he forbids you to continue this evil habit. If you leave it behind, much of your suffering will end, and your children will be happy once again. The Creator is sad that, because of it, there is so much crime and wickedness on the earth. There are some things that were never intended for his Red children.” (Source: Brian Rice, PhD from Wampum Chronicles Website)

13 2/10/11

Christian Influence  From Quaker contacts

 included a personal creator- ruler, a devil, heaven, hell, and judgment; Jesus was identified with a local mythological figure. Seneca divinities were retained as ruling angels, rituals were reduced to four transformed dance feasts, and the longhouse was modified into a “church.”

 A puritan and modernizing ethic attacked alcohol and witchcraft, banned further land sales, encouraged the men to practice plow agriculture and animal husbandry, and stressed stability of the nuclear family.

Handsome Lake cult. (2011). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/ topic/254252/Handsome-Lake-cult

14